Evidence of Late Prehistoric Ceramic Exchange in

Southwestern Virginia

Maureen MeyersUniversity of Mississippi

Paper presented at the “Ceramic Diversity in the Uplands ofSouthern Appalachia: Issues of Stratigraphy, Chronology, and

Associations” Symposium 70th Annual SoutheasternArchaeological Conference

1

2

Introduction

[SLIDE] In 1970, C.G. Holland described the

southwestern Virginia region as a ‘cultural crossroads’

based on his analysis of remains from a twenty-county

archaeological survey he did in the region. Much of his

evidence for a cultural crossroads was based in ceramics.

Thirteen years ago, at a SEAC in Macon, Steven Pullins and I

reexamined the evidence for a cultural crossroads in the

region, and some of today’s participants were in that

session as well. As I recall, we mostly concluded that data

collected in the forty years since Holland’s survey

supported his idea of a cultural crossroads, but that more

specific analyses were needed to better define what

constituted this crossroads. Today I will present the

results of analyses of two datasets, one of which was

Holland’s, to better define the type of cultural crossroads

present in this part of the Uplands of Southern Appalachia,

and discuss how ceramics can be used to understand

settlement and exchange during the Mississippian period in

southwestern Virginia.

3

Ceramic Identity and Exchange

Social identity, the way in which a collection of

people identify themselves as a group, and how that self-

identity is in part defined by this group identity, if often

but not exclusively manifest in material goods. Hegmon

(1992:517-518) defined style as “a way of doing something”

that also involves choice and Wobst (1977) suggested the

primary role of style was to convey information. This is

done most effectively over long distances, when exchanged

with a large number of people, and when styles are visually

simplistic which allows them to be more readily understood.

Ceramics are of course one class of material goods that act

as a useful marker of social identity, because the three

components of (SLIDE) composition, [SLIDE] form and [SLIDE]

decoration can all be used to denote social identity. Shared

cultural or social ideas are expressed in similar ways, so

that similarities in pottery styles reflect those shared

expressions.

Ceramics in Southwestern Virginia

4

The local ceramic style during the Late Woodland (A.D.

900-1600) period in southwestern Virginia is the Radford

type, [SLIDE]- a limestone-tempered and predominately

cordmarked type. Evans (1955:64-68) identified five types of

Radford based on surface decoration, and these were later

refined by Holland (1970) and Egloff (1987). The latter work

most definitively identified Radford type as limestone-

tempered, with net-impressed and cordmarked surface

treatments with constricted neck and strap handle vessel

forms. Radford ware is found along the New [SLIDE] and

Tennessee River [SLIDE] drainages. In the eastern portion of

this region [SLIDE] , net-impressed limestone-tempered

sherds are more common, as well as sand-tempered sherds,

reflecting their proximity to the Dan River region. Toward

the west, [SLIDE] along the Tennessee River drainages, net-

impressed limestone-tempered wares are less common, and

corncob-impressed wares are present during the latter part

of occupation (A.D. 1500-1700).

Shell-tempered wares are also present in the region.

[SLIDE] Egloff (1987) differentiated between gastropod and

5

mussel-shell tempered wares and suggested that gastropod

ware was used earlier, and is found occasionally mixed with

limestone temper. Egloff (1987:15) also identified Dallas

and mussel shell-tempered ware that morphologically included

strap handles, lugs, incising and notched fillets, and post-

dates A.D. 1300. Egloff distinguished Dallas from mussel

shell tempered ware, but it is not clear what the basis for

this distinction is—as both are tempered with shell—as is

gastropod ware. He suggests the gastropod is a variant of

Dallas and may have been a local adaptation of Dallas wares,

which he notes are mussel shell tempered.

Differentiating shell temper based on gastropod or

mussel, as Egloff did, was not used for this analysis for

multiple reasons [SLIDE]. First, mussel and gastropod shells

were both found prehistorically in the southwestern Virginia

region. The genus Io, or the gastropod shell found in this

region, is found along the Tennessee River and drainages,

including the Powell and Clinch Rivers, and Adams (1915)

found it limited only east of Saltville. Mussel shell was

also present prehistorically in Lee County (Ortman 1918;

6

Dennis 1981; Wolcott and Neves 1994). Second, although in

some sherds the shell temper is not finely ground, and the

morphological differences between the two shell types can be

identified, this is not the case when the shell temper is

finely ground. Further, limestone temper was found in

association with both mussel and gastropod shells in these

two studies. Third, cordmarked, netmarked, corncob impressed

and plain sherds are present on gastropod, mussel, and

limestone tempered sherds, and on sherds with a combination

of these tempers. Finally, Holland (1970:61)’s ceramic

analysis described the New River series as tempered with

crushed shell, but he did not identify whether gastropod or

mussel shell were used. And, archaeologists working in

nearby Tennessee did not make this distinction between shell

types (Griffin 1938) in the Norris Basin. Therefore, using

the distinction as a cultural marker of locally produced

(i.e., gastropod) vs. non-locally produced (i.e. mussel)

ceramics is not valid.

Project Background

7

This study was done in two phases with two separate

datasets. The first phase and dataset included [SLIDE]

approximately 6,000 ceramics collected from the southwestern

Virginia region in 1960 (Holland 1970), now stored at the

Smithsonian Institution and analyzed in 2005. The second

phase and dataset [SLIDE] included the analysis of

approximately 9,000 sherds from two seasons of fieldwork

(2007-2008) at the fourteenth-century Mississippian Carter

Robinson site (Meyers 2011). Because a primary research

question for both datasets was aimed in part at determining

the extent of outside Mississippian influence and settlement

in southwestern Virginia, with a particular focus on the

identity of the Carter Robinson site and its interactions

with surrounding groups, the use of existing typologies to

identify the ceramic assemblages would limit the ability to

answer these questions. Instead, an attribute analysis of

both datasets was undertaken. This analysis recorded

selected attributes of texture, surface

treatment/decoration, and vessel morphology and then

analyzed this information across time and space. For all

8

sherds, the following information was recorded: temper, type

of sherd (rim, body, base, etc.) and surface decoration. For

rim sherds, additional attributes were recorded because they

contain information about vessel morphology which body

sherds lack. Additional attributes for rims included

hardness, color, core type, rim form, rim decoration, wall

thickness, rim thickness, and if available, orifice

diameter, throat diameter, rim angle, and shoulder angle. In

addition, certain body sherds were selected for additional

analysis, based on their surface decorations. In this

region, incised and stamped sherds act as typological

markers; when present, these sherds provided information

about temporal occupation, and the use of differential

contexts at the Carter Robinson site.

Results-First Dataset

First, the results of the Carter Robinson site ceramic

analysis are presented, and then this site is placed within

the context of the larger region through the analysis of the

sherds from Holland’s survey. Approximately 9300 sherds

were analyzed from Carter Robinson (Meyers 2011: 296). This

9

analysis was conducted to answer two: 1)what is the pottery

tradition at the site? 2)do the ceramic data indicate a

frontier occupation; and if so, what was the nature of this

frontier?

Shell, grit and limestone were the three main tempers

used at Carter Robinson; [SLIDE] of these, shell accounts

for 81%, [SLIDE] followed by grit (11%) and limestone (6%)

[SLIDE], suggesting shell is the overwhelming temper of

choice here (Table 1). Because the site is located on a

Mississippian edge region, a mixture of tempers is expected.

Mixing temper types may have been functional, as certain

materials may not have been available at the frontier.

Mixture of tempers may have been used as an identity marker,

differentiating those at the frontier from those at the

core. It also may have been an adaptation to living near

other cultures, as a way to smooth over differences between

groups—a material marker of the interaction of cultures.

Approximately 1/3 of the total sherds contained two tempers;

for all of these, shell was the predominant temper, and

shell and grog were most common (87%), followed by shell and

10

limestone (8%) and shell and sand (3%). The presence of

multiple tempers indicates interaction occurred between

groups at the level of pottery manufacture. Surface

treatment is also associated with certain ceramic

traditions, as described above [SLIDE] (Table 2). Cordmarked

and plain [SLIDE] were the predominant surface decorations

used, and are common Mississippian types (and in the case of

cordmarked, a common Radford type). Combined with the temper

data, 71% of plain sherds are shell-tempered; of the

cordmarked sherds, 86% are shell-tempered, indicating a

Mississippian ceramic tradition was used.

Results-Second Dataset

[SLIDE] The ceramic analysis of Carter Robinson,

combined with architectural analysis of four households

there, as well as shovel test and geophysical data of the

site, together indicate it is a Mississippian frontier of

the Norris Basin region (Meyers 2011; Watterston et al.

2013). Often a reason for one group to move into a frontier

area is the desire to acquire natural resources for trade

(Parker 2006). If the incoming group is acquiring natural

11

resources and taking them out of the region, some other item

or items needs to be traded for these resources.

Mississippian ceramic vessels, because they were shell-

tempered, were sturdier than Radford pottery. In addition,

Mississippian vessels had a greater variety of vessel form

and surface decorations, as compared to Radford pottery.

Because of this, they may have been ideal trade goods for

exchange of natural resources with local groups.

If ceramics were used for trade purposes, then

Mississippian pottery should be present at contemporaneous

sites in the greater southwestern Virginia region. The

Holland ceramic dataset was used to identify the presence of

Mississippian pottery at other southwestern Virginia sites.

Although Holland examined a total of twenty counties, three

of those (Lee, Russell and Scott) [SLIDE] [SLIDE] [SLIDE]

were used for this study. A total of twelve sites were used,

included two from Lee, eight from Russell and two from

Scott. All sites are located east of Carter Robinson.

This table (SLIDE) shows the frequency of the different

types of diagnostic ceramic attributes found at these sites

12

(see Figure 1). The two sites in Lee County contain the

largest amount of Mississippian pottery [SLIDE] as defined

by the presence of shell-tempered cordmarked and plain

sherds. Both of these sites are located close (less than 10

km) from Carter Robinson, and one site (LE17) may have a

small mound present. Compared to Carter Robinson, these

sites contain 65-70% of Mississippian wares. In Russell and

Scott counties, there is a decrease in the amount of

Mississippian wares found. [SLIDE] Sites 44RU1 and 44RU7

contain between 51-63% Mississippian wares. Site 44RU9

(SLIDE] contains 31%, while Sites 44RU3, 44RU13 and 44SC9

[SLIDE] contain between 10-15% of wares. This is

approximately the inverse of the amount of Radford ceramic

types found at Carter Robinson, which suggests these sites

were engaged in a trade relationship. Finally, Sites 44RU2,

44RU4, and 44SC5 [SLIDE] contain little or no Mississippian

pottery, suggesting they were not engaged in any or little

trade with Mississippian groups. This slide is a visual

representation of the tables (SLIDE].

13

Three sites (44RU1, 44RU3, and 44RU13) [SLIDE] are

located north of Saltville, and Site 44RU7 is located west

of Saltville, while 44SC9 [SLIDE] is found approximately

halfway between Carter Robinson and Saltville. Saltville is

the largest interior deposit of salt in the Southern

Appalachian region. Barber and Barfield (2000) suggest trade

in salt was used as an avenue of power for chiefs during the

late prehistoric period at Saltville. Beck (1997) found

ethnohistoric documentation of a trade in salt in this area.

The ceramic evidence presented here further supports the

idea that a trade in salt and ceramics was occurring in the

region during the fourteenth century.

There may be evidence of another level of exchange

occurring here. [SLIDE] Women were likely the primary

potters in the society (Murdock and Provost 1973; Swanton

1946:549-555; 710; Holmes 1903:plate 28; Thomas 2001).

Intermarriage between Mississippian and Radford groups may

be reflected in the mixture of local and nonlocal tempers

and surface decorations present, as women bring their

ceramic traditions to a new region (Latta 1991). The data

14

presented above shows that a mixture of tempers occurred at

Carter Robinson in approximately 15% of the ceramic goods

recovered. Specifically, shell-tempered pottery with knot-

roughened and net-imprressed or net-impressed surface

decorations—a Radford ceramic attribute; limestone-tempered

pottery with the following surface decorations: cordmarking,

cross-cordmarking, incising, plain, or stamped; and a

combination of limestone with shell, grit, and/or grog

tempers and the following surface designs: cordmarking;

cross-cordmarking; plain, stamped, and incising). These all

indicate a mixture of ceramic traditions, rather than just

an exchange of ceramic goods.

This exchange of ceramic traditions could have occurred

through marriage between groups, an act that would have

solidified relationships between Mississippian and Radford

cultures and likely facilitated trade relationships. Another

possibility is that women acted as traders. Engelbrecht

(1974) suggested that the increasing heterogeneity in

pottery designs among the Iroquois was a result of women

acting as traders who were exposed to different pottery

15

designs and incorporated these into their own techniques.

Ethnohistoric documents of women traders among the Iroquois

further support this claim. In either scenario—and a

combination of both scenarios is also possible—it is likely

a mixture of pottery styles would emerge, where limestone-

tempered pottery was decorated with Mississippian designs,

and shell-tempered pottery decorated with Radford designs,

or that tempers were mixed. As shown here, all of these

pottery types are found.

[SLIDE] At Carter Robinson, 95% of the limestone-

tempered sherds have Mississippian designs. At the two other

Lee County sites, 99% of the limestone tempered sherds

exhibit Mississippian surface decorations. Such ceramics are

present in smaller numbers at sites in Russell County and

Scott County. This is not the case in the Norris Basin sites

analyzed by Griffin (1938) where mixture of tempers and

surface decorations does not occur.

Ceramic styles in the region certainly reflect an

exchange of ideas about pottery manufacture, but the

percentages in which those mixed styles occur suggests the

16

possibility that more than ideas were exchanged. Ceramics

and their styles, like other material markers, reflect the

way a group identifies itself and its relationships with

those around them. These relationships at frontier regions

in particular may reflect both trade and kinship.

Discussion and Conclusion

[SLIDE] The two ceramic datasets used in this research

were analyzed to identify the type of settlement located in

one part of southwestern Virginia during the fourteenth

century and to understand the type of interactions occurring

between that settlement and the surrounding region. At the

Carter Robinson site, the ceramic evidence clearly shows

that a nonlocal group moved into the region likely from the

Norris Basin region. They were a Mississippian cultural

group moving into a non-Mississippian culture area. Their

ceramics reflected their group identity as Mississippian, as

the ceramic temper and surface decoration was overwhelmingly

Mississippian (shell-tempered and plain or cordmarked

design).

17

This type of settlement, where one group settles a new

region as an extension of an existing group, is an example

of fissioning. In another paper (Meyers, forthcoming) I

discuss the issue of frontier settlement as a result of

either lineage or non-lineage supported fissioning. Lineage-

supported fissioning occurs as a result of normal polity

growth. Knight (1990b: 19) suggests a probable scenario for

such segmentation, where siblings of a chief, likely seen as

rivals to claims of chiefly office “were commonly awarded

village chiefships away from the administrative center of

the polity.” Here they could achieve some independence from

the main chiefdom while still holding power in an area that

might be useful to the original chiefdom. When such lineage-

supported settlement occurs, it is likely its relationship

with the originating chiefdom was strong, and that contact

between the two areas occurred on a frequent basis. The

Carter Robinson site appears to be the result of a lineage-

supported fissioning. Both ceramic evidence, presented here,

and architectural evidence, discussed elsewhere (Meyers

2011; forthcoming) provide evidence that the inhabitants of

18

Carter Robinson both came from elsewhere and maintained

their ties with that other place, likely chiefdoms in the

Norris Basin.

What may be different about Carter Robinson as opposed

to other segmented settlements in the interior Mississippian

world, is that it was located at the edge of Mississippian

culture. This may have been a result of geographical

circumstances but also may have been intentional. Parker

(2006:88) notes that frontier areas are often settled to

control the procurement of desired resources, and are often

settled with lineage support. Controlling the movement of

resources at a border is an economic path to power because

here one can control the movement of goods, and the act of

moving goods can transform their value. Items of value at

this particular Mississippian edge included cannel coal

(made into pendants; see Meyers 2011); shell (see Meyers et

al. manuscript in progress) and salt. In order to attain

these goods, something had to be traded for them. The second

dataset, the ceramics from the larger Holland survey,

provide evidence that Mississippian vessels were exchanged

19

in the area, likely for these goods. Although not discussed

here because of length restriction, both cannel coal waste

and goods, and shell beads and waste, are present at Carter

Robinson. Ceramic evidence presented here shows that

Mississippian goods were traded as far as Saltville.

Moreover, over time, Mississippian tempers and surface

decorations were mixed with local tempers and surface

decorations in small numbers. This secondary exchange is

interpreted here as material markers of the exchange of

persons and ideas at this time. That is, women may have

acted as traders or may have married between groups as a way

to solidify relationships between groups, and the pottery is

an expression of these changing relationships.

This study builds on Holland’s original thesis of the

region as a ‘cultural crossroads’ by more explicitly

defining the type of cultural interactions that occurred in

some parts of the region. The ceramic datasets were used to

show that first, lineage-supported fissioning or segmented

settlement occurred at the Carter Robinson site. Second,

exchange of Mississippian ceramics with local groups was

20

done between Carter Robinson and Saltville. Further, over

time ,that exchange may have also included the use of women

as traders and/or the formation of kinship ties between

groups, as evidenced by the mixture of Mississippian and

local tempers and surface decorations. Although this study

shows evidence of interaction at this one time, the

fourteenth century, and place, Southern Appalachian region,

specifically, southwestern Virginia, the results suggest

that ceramic attribute analyses are useful for understanding

more specifically the segmentation of Mississippian polities

and the exchange of such segmented polities with non-

Mississippian groups. As such, it can add to our

understanding of polity formation and frontier exchange.

21

Table 1. Primary Temper Type Count andPercentage of Ceramics at Carter

RobinsonPrimary Temper Type Count Percenta

geGrit 1027 11%Grog 60 .06%

Limestone 602 6%Mica 3 ----Quartz 15 ----Sand 62 .06%Shell 7559 81%

Residual (UID) 41 -----Total 9369

(Meyers 2011:299 Figure 6.4)

22

Table 2. Count and Percent ofSurface Decoration TypesPresent at Carter Robinson

Site.

DecorationTotal

Percent

black filmed 2 ---blackslip 2 ---brushed 1 ---burnished 11 ---checkstamped 36 1%complicated stamped 6 ---

cordmarked1535

37%

Cordmarked & incised 2

---

Cordmarked & smoothed 1

---

corncob impressed 7 ---cross cordmarked 202 5%cross cordmarked & brushed 1

---

cross-incised 4 ---fabric impressed 2 ---Incised 88 2%knot tempered & netimpressed 1

---

net impressed 285 7%net impressed & incised 2

---

Pisgah 8 ---

plain1832

44%

possible slip 3 ---punctated 4 ---red-filmed 1 ---scraped 2 ---simple stamped 6 ---smoothed 1 ---

23

stamped 142 3%

Grand Total4186

(Meyers 2011:304 Figure 6.8)

Table 3. Frequency of Diagnostic Temper and Surface Decoration at Sitesin

Lee, Russell and Scott Counties.Temper Surface

DecorationLE14

LE17

RU1

RU11

RU13

RU2

RU3

RU4

RU7

RU9

SC5

SC9

GrandTotal

Shell Plain 5 62 6 50 4 3 14 0 3 28 0 0 175Cordmarked 9 16 3 0 3 1 20 0 15 1 0 0 68Incised 1 15 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 18Punctuated 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4Corncob impressed

9 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21

Pisgah 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2Crossed-over cordmarked

0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 3

fabric impressed

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5

knot roughened and net-impressed

0 0 4 0 3 0 1 0 3 2 0 0 13

Shell Total 24 110

13 50 11 5 38 0 21 32 0 5 309

Limestone Cordmarked 4 6 7 0 8 24 39 0 4 2 0 5 99Corncob impressed

0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

Incised 1 2 1 0 0 5 5 0 0 1 0 0 15Net-impressed 1 4 0 0 16 85 63 0 1 1 0 4 175

24

knot roughened & net impressed

0 0 38 0 18 125

81 0 3 0 0 0 265

Pisgah 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 12Plain 1 27 15 0 11 25

456 0 4 66 2 18 454

simple stamped 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 10Smoothed-over cordmarked

0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

Limestone total 7 44 61 0 53 493

244

0 12 70 2 46 1032

Grit Pisgah 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1Plain 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2

Grit Total 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 3Grog Pisgah 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

Plain 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 7Smoothed-over cordmarked

0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

Grog Total 4 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 10Grand Total 37 15

974 50 64 49

8282

0 33 104

2 51 1354

(Meyers 2011: 308 Figure 6.9)

25

References Cited

Adams, C.C. 1915 The Variations and Ecological Distributions of the Snail of the Genus

Io. Memoirs of the National Academy of Science 12: 2.

Barber, Michael and Eugene Barfield 2000 The Late Woodland Period in the Environs of Saltville: A Case for Petty Chiefdom Development. Journal of Middle Atlantic Archaeology 16:117-132.

Beck, Robin A. 1997 From Joara to Chiaha: Spanish Exploration of the

Appalachian Summit Area, 1540-1568. Southeastern Archaeology 16(2): 162-169.

Dennis, S.D. 1981 Mussel Fauna of the Powell River, Tennessee and Virginia. Sterkiana 71:1-7.

Egloff, Keith 1987 Ceramic Study of Woodland Occupation along the Clinch and Powell

Rivers in Southwest Virginia. Research Report Series No. 3. Richmond: Department of Historic Resources.

Engelbrecht 1974 The Iroquois: Archaeological Patterning on the Tribal Land. World Archaeology 6(1): 52-65.

Evans, C. Clifford 1955 A Ceramic Study of Virginia Archaeology. Bureau of American

Ethnology Bulletin 160.

Griffin, James B. 1938 The Ceramic Remains from Norris Basin, Tennessee. In An Archaeological Survey of the Norris Basin in Eastern Tennessee by William S. Webb, pp. 253-358. Smithsonian Institution Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 118.

26

Holland, C.G.1970 An Archaeological Survey of Southwest Virginia. Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology Number 12, Washington, D.C.

Hegmon, Michelle 1992 Archaeological Research on Style. Annual Review of

Anthropology 21:517-536.

Holmes, William H. 1903 Aboriginal Pottery of the Eastern United States. Bureau of

American Ethnology Annual Report for 1898-1899 20:1-237.

Knight, Vernon J. 1990b Social Organization and the Evolution of Hierarchy in Southeastern Chiefdoms. Journal of Anthropological Research 46(1): 1-23.

Latta, Martha A. 1991 The Captive Bride Syndrome: Iroquoian Behavior or Archaeological Myth? In The Archaeology of Gender: Proceedings of the Twenty-Second Annual Conference of the Archaeological Association of the University of Calgary, edited by Dale Walde and Noreen D. Willows, pp. 17-23. Archaeological Association, The University of Calgary, Calgary.

Meyers, Maureen S. 2011 Political Economy of Exotic Trade on the Mississippian Frontier: A

Case Study of a Fourteenth-Century Chiefdom in Southwestern Virginia. Dissertation presented to the University of Kentucky Department of Anthropology, Lexington, Kentucky.

In press The Role of the Southern Appalachian Mississippian Frontier in the Creation and Maintenance of Chiefly Power. In Multiscalar Archaeological Perspectives of the Southern Appalachians, edited by Ramie Gougeon and Maureen S. Meyers. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.

Meyers, Maureen, Heather Lapham and Renee Bonzani

27

In progress Displaying the Power of the Lord: Archaeological Evidence of Trade Houses in Southern Appalachia. Manuscript submitted to Southeastern Archaeology.

Murdock, George P. and Caterina Provost 1973 Factors in the Division of Labor by Sex: A Cross-Cultural Analysis. Ethnology 12(2): 203-225.

Ortman, A.E. 1918 The nayades (freshwater mussels) of the Upper Tennessee drainage

with Notes on Synonymy and Distribution. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 57:521-526.

Parker, Bradley J. 2006 Toward an Understanding of Borderland Processes.

American Antiquity 71(1): 77-100.

Swanton, John R. 1946 The Indian Tribes of North America. Bureau of American

Ethnology 145. Washington, D.C.

Thomas, Larissa 2001 The Gender Division of Labor in Mississippian

Households: Household Role in Shaping Production for Exchange. In Archaeological Studies of Gender in the Southeastern United States, edited by Jane M. Eastman and Christopher B. Rodning, pp. 27-56. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Watterston, Hannah, Joel Lennen, Maureen Meyers and Cameron Wesson 2013 Mound and Village, Landscape and Identity at a Mississippian

Frontier. Poster presented at the symposium “New Heights and Perspectives on the Archaeology of Earthen Monuments” 70th Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Tampa.

28

Wobst, H. Martin 1977 Stylistic Behavior and Information Exchange. In For

the Director: Research Essays in Honor of James B. Griffin, edited by Charles Cleland, pp. 317-342. Anthropology Papers 61, University of Michigan, Museum of Anthropology, Ann Arbor.

Wolcott, Lisa T. and Richard J. Neves 1994 Survey of the Freshwater Mussel Fauna of the Powell

River, Virginia. Banisteria 3: 3-14.

29