Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttps://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ysea20

Southeastern Archaeology

ISSN: 0734-578X (Print) 2168-4723 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ysea20

Standing Posts and Special Substances: Gatheringand Ritual Deposition at Feltus (22Je500), JeffersonCounty, Mississippi

Megan C. Kassabaum & Erin stevens Nelson

To cite this article: Megan C. Kassabaum & Erin stevens Nelson (2016) Standing Posts andSpecial Substances: Gathering and Ritual Deposition at Feltus (22Je500), Jefferson County,Mississippi, Southeastern Archaeology, 35:2, 134-154, DOI: 10.1080/0734578X.2015.1121453

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/0734578X.2015.1121453

Published online: 09 Feb 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 328

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 4 View citing articles

STANDING POSTS AND SPECIAL SUBSTANCES: GATHERINGAND RITUAL DEPOSITION AT FELTUS (JE), JEFFERSON

COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI

MEGAN C. KASSABAUM AND ERIN STEVENS NELSON

Department of Anthropology and Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, University ofPennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA

Department of Anthropology and Research Laboratories of Archaeology, University of NorthCarolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA

Because it immediately precedes the Mississippi period, Coles Creek (A.D. –) culture is often viewedthrough the lens of Mississippian social organization. In particular, early platform mound-and-plaza complexeshave long been understood as elite compounds due to their physical similarities with later sites. However, evidenceregarding the construction and use of the monumental landscape at the Feltus site (JE) in Jefferson County,MS, suggests that platform mound construction was but one aspect of a broader ritual sequence aimed at gatheringthe dispersed Coles Creek community. In addition to mound building, this sequence included the setting andremoval of freestanding posts, ritual feasting, and burial of the dead and focused on explicit deposition of mean-ingful objects and substances. Archaeological, ethnohistoric, and ethnographic analyses of the objects and sub-stances included in the ritual deposits at Feltus suggest that they helped forge relationships between an extendedkin network, including non-human fictive kin and non-living human kin. In this context, we find a metaphor ofgathering to be useful in understanding the archaeological remains of a ritual sequence focused on bringing togethersocial, cosmological, and temporal domains. This provides a distinctly different take on the meaning and use of plat-form mounds based on a review of Native beliefs and practices that looks beyond the traditionally relied uponsources.

KEYWORDS: Lower Mississippi Valley, Coles Creek, Ritual deposition, Post ceremonialism, Cosmology

The Late Woodland-period Coles Creek cultureflourished in the Lower Mississippi Valley fromA.D. to and is often thought tocontain the incipient stages of Mississippiansocial organization. Despite a lack of corroborat-ing evidence, the ubiquity of platformmound-and-plaza complexes has been used tosupport an argument for sociopolitical hierarchy.We propose an alternative view that emphasizesbuilding platform mounds as one aspect of abroader ritual sequence. Using our work at theFeltus site (JE) in Jefferson County, MS,we identify a repeated sequence of feasting, post-setting, mound building, and burial of the deadthat we believe was aimed at gathering the dis-persed Coles Creek community. Our focus is onthe process of deposition, as well as the patternedcontents of deposits associated with the ritualcycle, particularly the setting and removal of free-standing posts. By focusing on these assemblages,we emphasize that individuals build relationships

not only through their engagement with people,but also through their interactions with materialculture, namely structures, sediments, artifacts,and animals (Mills and Walker :; Pauketatand Alt ; Skousen ). Using ethnohistoricand ethnographic sources to explore the connec-tions that objects and substances included in theritual deposits at Feltus might have forged, weargue that standing posts, objects with fire andwater associations, and bear and human remainsrelate to Coles Creek peoples’ beliefs aboutkinship, the geography of the cosmos, and thenature of connections between people, places,and things.

DEBATING THE FUNCTION OF COLES CREEK

PLATFORM MOUNDS

Archaeologists are accustomed to relying onincomplete or fragmentary data. In the absenceof systematic survey or excavation, our

© Southeastern Archaeological Conference DOI: ./X.. Southeastern Archaeology , Vol. No. , –

interpretations of the past often draw heavily upontwo lines of evidence: () the presence and form ofmonumental architecture; and () analogy withbetter-known archaeological or ethnohistoriccases. Following these trends, archaeologists’understandings of Coles Creek societies in theLower Mississippi Valley have historically reliedon interpretations of platform mounds, and morespecifically on site plans consisting of moundsarranged symmetrically around open plazas. Intheir final form, these sites closely resembleMississippi-period mound centers and are fre-quently assumed to function in similar ways.That is, the appearance of large platformmounds at Coles Creek sites is commonlythought to mark a shift from egalitarian to hier-archical social structure dominated by chieflylineages (e.g., Hudson ; Kidder ; Stepo-naitis ). This status-focused interpretation isbased on archaeological understandings of Missis-sippian society and sixteenth- and eighteenth-century European accounts that describe powerfulleaders presiding over their subjects from mound-top residences and temples (Clayton et al. ;Swanton ).Although these interpretations have led to the

belief that Coles Creek sites contain the incipientstages of chiefdom-type social organization,recent work shows that they lack other character-istics commonly used to support arguments forinstitutionalized hierarchy, such as elaborateburials, long-distance trade, status goods, andlarge-scale agriculture (Kassabaum ; Kidderand Fritz ). Moreover, evidence for moundsummit use is variable, with some Coles Creekmound summits showing evidence of formal build-ings (e.g., Mound A at Greenhouse [Ford ]),others showing evidence of periodic use with tem-porary structures (e.g., Mound B at Raffman [Roe]), and others showing no evidence of build-ings at all (e.g., Mound A at Feltus [Kassabaum; Steponaitis et al. , ]). In addition,Coles Creek mound centers did not develop out ofvillages like many Mississippian centers, but wereconceived and built as central gathering places.Many never had resident populations, even inthe off-mound areas. Although we are stillworking to understand the distribution of ColesCreek people across the landscape, we infer thatthe settlement pattern at this time was dispersedwith people living in scattered farmsteads sur-rounding mound centers (Kidder b; Steponai-tis et al. ). Because these characteristics aredecidedly un-Mississippian, archaeologists

recognize the need for research programs focusingon the function of Coles Creek platform mounds.Steponaitis and O’Hear have addressed thisproblem recently at Feltus (Kassabaum ; Kas-sabaum et al. ; O’Hear et al. ; Steponai-tis et al. , ). Others have asked similarquestions at sites such as Bayou Grande Cheniere,Graveline, Mott, Osceola, Raffman, and RenoBrake (Downs and Blitz ; Kidder ;Kidder and Fritz ; Roe ; Schilling ).These projects, along with those conducted on

mound sites dating to other time periods, demon-strate the variety of circumstances under whichmounds were constructed, used, and experienced.Mound function and meaning shifted over thelongue durée, as evidenced by changes in theirform and use as well as the religious, economic,and political systems in which they wereenmeshed. Mound function and meaning waslikely also variable within any given period orculture (e.g., Carr and McCord :–).For instance, Coles Creek people built visuallysimilar but functionally distinct mounds at thesame site (Steponaitis et al. , ). More-over, function and meaning likely shifted through-out the use-life of any single monument in at leasttwo ways. First, during their construction, largenumbers of people would have played a part inthe creation and interpretation of monuments,leading some archaeologists to characterize theprocess of mound building as communal innature (Ashmore ; Bradley ; Pauketat; Pauketat and Alt ; Phear ). Insome cases, this clearly differs from the socialrelationships fostered by the exclusive use ofmound summits by a more selective group of indi-viduals (e.g., Knight ). Second, many moundswere built in multiple stages, with building epi-sodes potentially separated by a generation ormore. Consequently, each episode of moundbuilding can be seen as a new and differentprocess of negotiation, involving different sets ofpeople and dependent upon the unique social cir-cumstances surrounding the decision to build(see Pauketat and Alt [] for an applicationof this idea to post-setting). Finally, function andmeaning of a single monument would vary inany given moment based on the social positionof the individual interacting with it (Bradley; Brück ; Pauketat and Alt ).Because it is clear that a single earthen moundcould be interpreted in a variety of ways, our dis-cussion is not meant to suggest that the moundsat Feltus were static in their use; rather, it is

STANDING POSTS AND SPECIAL SUBSTANCES

Southeastern Archaeology , Vol. No. , –

meant to draw attention to some of the likelymeanings and functions that are not emphasizedin the current literature.Although recent research has broadened our

understanding of early platform mounds, ourresearch at Feltus initially led us away from ouroriginal focus on mounds. Excavations from to have shown that most activity atthe site, including large-scale feasting events,took place before the mounds were built.Additionally, a series of freestanding post featuresin the southern plaza has come to figure promi-nently in our interpretations of Coles Creekritual life, as discussed elsewhere (Nelson and Kas-sabaum ). In this article, we expand ourearlier discussion, connecting their function anduse to a broader ritual sequence that ultimatelysuggests an alternative interpretation of theFeltus platform mounds. We find that interpretingnon-mound features tells us as much or moreabout the meaning of mounds than the moundexcavations themselves, a finding perhaps foresha-dowed by Kidder’s (a) work on plaza archi-tecture and Pauketat and Alt’s () work onposts.In this article, we focus on the nature of deposits

associated with freestanding posts located in thesouth plaza and elsewhere at Feltus. We refer tothese deposits throughout the paper as ritual innature because we consider the actions that pro-duced them to exhibit many attributes consideredby anthropologists to indicate ritual activity.Specifically, the deposits and the actions thatcreated them are “symbolic, non-technical,formal, prescribed, structured, and repetitive”(Brück :; see also Bell ). Although acomplete review of the literature on ritual andstructured deposits is beyond our scope (seeGarrow [] and comments for a recentsummary), we consider the Feltus post depositsto more closely resemble odd deposits thanmaterial culture patterning (sensu Garrow ).As they appear to be “consciously made ‘differ-ent’” (Garrow :) through human action,we view them as the result of meaningful, ritua-lized practice (Bell ).Using this general set of defining characteristics,

we identify a variety of materials in the Feltus postdeposits that can be interpreted as evidence forritual. In addition to the posts themselves, wefound that the post deposits consist of zones ofspecially procured sediments such as ash andclay (see also Kimball et al. :). Withinthese sediments, Coles Creek people interred an

array of meaningful materials including bear andhuman remains, pipe fragments, and feastingdebris. In order to interpret these unusualinclusions and begin to think about the nature ofthe rituals with which they were associated, wedraw on deep-seated Native American beliefsabout the world and the nature of things in it aswell as ideas from the archaeological literatureon ritual deposition. Specifically, we find thatrecent theoretical contributions focusing on thesymmetrical and relational aspects of human/non-human interactions (e.g., Bennett ; Fowler; Latour ; Pauketat ; Pauketat andAlt ; Skousen ; Watts ) resonatewith Native American understandings of theways that humans and non-humans coexist inthe world. This is especially true of approachesthat consider the meaningful nature of assem-blages deposited together, as opposed to individ-ual objects or object classes (e.g., Bennett ;Chapman ; Fowler ; Harris ,; Mills ; Pauketat ; Pollard ).At its most basic, an assemblage is a grouping of

materials found together in a given location.Recent work recognizes that as material group-ings, assemblages are important “in that theirability to make something happen… is distinctfrom the sum of the vital force of each materialityconsidered alone” (Bennett :). Althoughmany archaeological assemblages consist of adhoc groupings of discarded objects, we followothers in using the term to refer specifically toobjects and substances intentionally depositedtogether. In essence, we recognize that an assem-blage can be created in order to achieve a formof agency that exceeds that of its constituentparts. This phenomenon has been discussed inthe archaeological literature of North America asbundling (Brown ; Pauketat ). In thenarrowest sense, bundles have been defined as“two or more items intentionally held togetherby wrapping so that they may influence oneanother and act in concert as needed in ritualactivities” (Zedeño :; see also Wissler[:] and examples cited in Pauketat[:–]). However, some archaeologicalfeatures may serve the same function as traditionalbundles by drawing powerful objects together andconcentrating their power in a specific location orcontainer (e.g., a cache, mound, or pit; see Pauke-tat ). We suggest that the Feltus post depositsprovide a compelling example of this practice. Inwhat follows, we evaluate the properties of theindividual objects and materials included in the

KASSABAUM AND NELSON

Southeastern Archaeology , Vol. No. , –

post deposits as well as the properties that emergewhen they are placed in combination.In their volume investigating memory and

depositional practice, Mills and Walker (:)write, “[f]or those who use them, the value ofobjects may be derived from their intrinsic qual-ities, such as their color or brilliance,… theirplace of origin,… and/or the networks they havepassed through” (see also Pauketat :–).We have found much of this statement to applyto the contents of the post deposits at Feltus.However, we also found that many of the objectsand materials associated with post ritual haveproperties that are not necessarily intrinsic, butculturally situated. Drawing upon the ethnohisto-ric literature on a variety of American Indiangroups and contemporary oral traditions ofNative practitioners, we argue that many materialsused in post ritual are associated with broadlyshared ideas regarding kinship, the geography ofthe cosmos, and the nature of connectionsbetween people, places, and things.Moreover, we argue that many of the inclusions

in the Feltus ritual deposits likely had a certainagency, albeit a non-human kind. Within manyNative American belief systems, certain objectsand substances have the ability to do things thatmost humans cannot, allowing for social actionthat differs from that of humans but is nonethelesspart of human sociality. For example, archaeolo-gists working with Indian groups in NorthAmerica will be familiar with the idea thatsmoke is often considered sentient, having theability to “bear witness” or communicatebetween the human and spirit worlds (e.g.,Brown ; Carr a:, b:, and references therein; Jackson ; Paper, ; Pauketat ; Zedeño ).These powers of connection and communicationare of such importance to ritual life at Feltus thatmany materials included in post deposits sharethese attributes. Moreover, we believe that theirconnective function may have been the primaryreason for their inclusion.

ANALOGY AND ARCHAEOLOGY

Because archaeologists have employed analogy inmany ways, and particularly because we believeit is so commonly misapplied in explanations ofColes Creek platform mounds (Kassabaum et al.), an explanation of our own use is inorder. Ethnographic analogy suffers from avariety of pitfalls, including but not limited to

bias introduced by the ethnographer, bias intro-duced by the choice of analogy, corruption ofinformation over time, and assumptions about cul-tural continuity (e.g., Gould and Watson ;Wylie , ). For that reason, we applyboth source-side and subject-side (sensu Stahl) criteria to evaluate and justify our choiceof analogies. First, we remain open to instancesof negative correspondence in our analogies(Wylie :) and have, in fact, reliedheavily upon them in the interpretation presentedhere. By critically interrogating the various appli-cations of both archaeological and ethnohistoricalanalogy to questions of Coles Creek social life (seeKassabaum et al. ), we find analogies regard-ing worldview to be much more compelling thanthose regarding mound function. Second, thoughnot explicitly discussing every instance of negativecorrespondence, in making our decisions aboutwhat to include we rely heavily on the criterionof ubiquity, or the idea that “the widespread distri-bution of a practice attests its antiquity… [and]evidential value for analogical insight” (Stahl:). The primary critique of this criterionis that shared recent history as well as shareddeep history may cause this ubiquity (Stahl). Given the range of cultures from whichthe descriptions of the general belief systems weare discussing are pulled, we do not believe thatthis critique applies here. Finally, we rely on theconvergence of multiple lines of evidence (Carrand McCord :; Wylie :–) inour overall interpretation of the Feltus events.Independent investigations into the meaning ofitems such as posts, ash, bear, etc. led us indepen-dently to similar conclusions.Our ethnographic sources range from written

accounts of the earliest European contact withIndian groups (see Mooney ; Swanton, for syntheses), to contemporary eth-nographic descriptions of Native belief systems(e.g., Jackson ; Riggs ). Althoughdetails vary among Indian groups and much haschanged since the early contact period, we followothers in noting strong continuities in generalizedbeliefs among Native peoples of the southeasternand midwestern United States regarding the struc-ture of the cosmos and the place of humans, non-humans, and material objects within it (e.g., Carrand McCord ; Pauketat ; Townsend). Some of these general beliefs are alsobroadly shared among indigenous people of theAmericas and Eurasia, regardless of sociopolitical,economic, or subsistence systems (Bradley ;

STANDING POSTS AND SPECIAL SUBSTANCES

Southeastern Archaeology , Vol. No. , –

Eliade ; Lankford ; Schele and Freidel). As mentioned above, the geographicextent of these common understandings impliesgreat time depth (Hudson ; Lankford ;Townsend and Sharp ) and allows us toapply such analogies carefully to archaeologicalremains at prehistoric American Indian sites(Berres et al. ; Kelly ; Townsend:–).While we draw on the same corpus of literature

available to others, our arguments about thenature of Coles Creek society result in a differentemphasis than interpretations that view itthrough a Mississippian lens (e.g., Kidder ,b; Knight , ; Steponaitis ).As outlined above, researchers have tended toask: how does Coles Creek society encapsulatethe beginnings of Mississippian cultural patterns?Mississippian patterns, however, are also under-stood through later groups. In a previous article,we argued that this ethnographically derivedmodel of platform mound use becomes inap-propriate when it is relied upon without evalu-ation of its applicability to the given case(Kassabaum et al. ). We believe thesemodels have had an overwhelming and sometimesmisleading effect on our understanding of prehis-toric mound building because archaeologistshave focused too heavily on the more recent, bestpreserved, and most highly resolved exemplars ofmound building, a phenomenon referred to byBailey () as time perspectivism.Our strategy here is not to avoid analogy

altogether, but to employ ethnographic analogyto a Coles Creek case without resorting to anarchaeological analogy with later Mississippiangroups. We do, however, recognize the influenceof Mississippian societies on the early historicrecords and employ Mississippian iconographicexamples to illustrate how ethnographic ideasmight manifest archaeologically. This approachresonates with Walker’s () views regardingthe usefulness of oral tradition in archaeologicalinterpretations. Walker claims we can think oforal tradition as a process occurring in the pastthat “contributes to the making of history” ratherthan something that simply records it, or worse,“fails to reveal it” (Walker :). In avoidinginappropriate analogies based on archaeologicalcases, our strategy has two prongs. First, webegin with archaeological deposits (in our case,post deposits containing intriguing materialinclusions), and then seek ethnographic evidenceto inform our interpretations of these deposits

(see also Pauketat ). This inductive approachdiffers from strategies that seek archaeological evi-dence to back up prior assumptions based onanalogy. Second, we focus on the act and processof creating meaningful deposits rather than onthe final forms they take.Based on similar employments of analogy,

Charles et al. (), Lankford (), and Pauke-tat () have suggested that there are estheticqualities associated with various types of sedi-ments, materials, and objects that Indian peopleused (and continue to use) that reference particularplaces, supernatural beings, and cosmologicalrealms. Increasingly, it is clear that past people reg-ularly inscribed this worldview onto landscapes aswell as artifacts (Carr a:–, ; Carrand McCord ; Charles et al. ; Lankfordet al. ; Pauketat , ; Pauketat andEmerson ; Sugiyama ; Townsend). We suggest here that the gathering togetherof meaningful objects and materials in featuressuch as postholes and pits at Feltus is analogousto the native concept of bundling in the sensethat the combination of inclusions is more power-ful when contained or concentrated in a singlelocation.In the rest of this article, we focus on the setting,

removal, and capping of freestanding posts. Thiscomplex depositional sequence ultimately informsour interpretations of a repeated ritual cycle thatalso involves feasting, mound building, and burialof the dead. By considering ritual deposition inthis way, our interpretation of Coles Creek socialgroups avoids an unnecessary dependence onassumptions based onMississippian social organiz-ation and recognizes important differences betweenColes Creek and later Mississippian platformmounds. Moreover, by focusing on features thatare too often relegated “to the background ofinterpretations” (Pauketat and Alt :), wepresent a less mound-centric view of this particularculture. Ultimately, we argue that Coles Creekritual at Feltus can be understood through a meta-phor of “gathering.” Disparate elements with par-ticular cultural associations were gathered anddeposited together as assemblages or bundles inan effort to gather the full range of social actorsin Coles Creek society. We argue that this rangewould have included living, non-living, and non-human kin, as well as objects and beings fromother cosmological and temporal domains (seealso Harris ; Pauketat ; Skousen ).This gathering of disparate elements of the ColesCreek social whole at a specific place and time

KASSABAUM AND NELSON

Southeastern Archaeology , Vol. No. , –

perhaps resulted in the increased potency of theritual events at Feltus. In other words, much likebundles, the gathering together of the dispersedColes Creek population as well as non-living andnon-human social actors resulted in an increasedeffectiveness in accomplishing the ritual goals ofColes Creek people.

ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE FELTUS MOUNDS

Situated on the edge of high loess bluffs overlook-ing the Mississippi Alluvial Valley, Feltus consistsof four mounds symmetrically arranged around aplaza (Figure ). Three mounds (A, B, and C)stand today while the smallest (D) was destroyedbetween and . Using the currentlocations of Mounds A, B, and C and compassbearings recorded by Wailes (), Steponaitis() has reconstructed the missing earthwork’slocation.The bluffs on which the earthworks were built

formed during the Pleistocene, as strong winds

deposited fine silt sediments in thick layers alongthe eastern edge of the Mississippi River. Natu-rally fertile, this loess provided prehistoric peoplewith a wealth of animal and plant resources.However, their wind-blown nature means thesesediments are devoid of stone, sand, and claydeposits. As the bluffs near Feltus are over mhigh, procurement and transport of these materialsfrom the river valley would have required substan-tial effort.As part of the Feltus Archaeological Project run

through the University of the North Carolina,Chapel Hill, we have excavated in each extantmound and in the southern end of the plaza,near the former location of Mound D (Figure ).Radiocarbon dates from these excavations formthree distinct clusters, which align closely withColes Creek phase designations (Figure ). Initialuse of the site was during the Sundown phase (A.D. –) and is represented archaeologicallyby post and pit features located in the southplaza. Mound construction followed during the

FIGURE . Map of Feltus showing the locations of the four original mounds and the site’s position on the edge of the steep Mis-sissippi River bluffs (indicated by stippling). Drawing by Doug Kassabaum.

STANDING POSTS AND SPECIAL SUBSTANCES

Southeastern Archaeology , Vol. No. , –

Ballina phase (A.D. –), and additionaloccupation occurred in the Balmoral phase, priorto the site’s abandonment around A.D. (Ste-ponaitis et al. ). Though Coles Creek people

utilized the Feltus site for some years, theoccupation was episodic and like most otherColes Creek mound sites, no evidence for perma-nent habitation exists. Instead, the Coles Creekpopulation was dispersed throughout much ofthe year. Because our excavations determinedthat the majority of activity at the site took placebefore the mounds were constructed, Feltus pro-vides an opportunity to take a less mound-centricview of the activities occurring there.

SOUTH PLAZA POSTS

Our starting point for this analysis is an unusualfeature (Feature ) located in the south plaza,just north of Mound D’s former location(Figure ). Consisting of three zones—a postmold surrounded by an ashy zone with a dark,clayey deposit underneath—this feature follows aclear depositional trajectory (Figure ). First,Coles Creek people dug a large hole and linedthe bottom with clay-rich sediment. Because ofthe eolian nature of the bluffs, this sedimentmust have been procured from elsewhere,perhaps excavated from deep within the loessdeposits or transported from the river bottom.With this clay-rich lining, they deposited cranialand post-cranial bones belonging to four or fivechildren under the age of five. After depositingthese remains, they lined the pit with ash andinserted a large post, nearly cm in diameter.As the ash deposit completely surrounds the postmold, we assume the ash and the post were

FIGURE . Topographic map of Feltus showing the locationof excavations at Mounds A, B, C and D (from Kassabaum:Figure .).

FIGURE . Feltus chronology showing radiocarbon dates in three distinct clusters (fromNelson and Kassabaum :Figure ).

KASSABAUM AND NELSON

Southeastern Archaeology , Vol. No. , –

deposited as part of a single step. The ash presum-ably represents the remains of one or more eatingevents, as it contains fragmentary ceramic vessels,faunal remains including deer, turkey, squirrel,rabbit, opossum, and at least eight species offish, and a typical Late Woodland assemblage ofstarchy and oily seeds. Additionally, the ashylining contains an intact bear femur and metacar-pal and additional human bone. After the post wasset some form of post ritual presumably tookplace. Though we have no way of knowing theexact nature of this ritual, we suggest an under-lying purpose in a later section of this article.Upon removal of the post, Coles Creek peoplepromptly filled the void with a deposit of clean,clayey soil such that no weathering of the ashlining occurred and a crisp line is visible betweenthe two fill zones.Additional excavations in the south plaza

revealed additional post features, both infront of and underneath Mound D (see Figure ).Although none approach Feature in size, theyare similar in structure, depositional sequence,

and inclusions, suggesting that their constructionwas based on a similar template. Assuming thatsuch a number of posts were part of a large struc-ture, we tried chasing the pattern out, but wereunsuccessful. The lack of a structural pattern, sig-nificant differential in size and depth, and the factthat only some posts were repeatedly reset suggestthat they were freestanding. Eight of these post-holes are less than cm deep and likely origi-nated from a platform described by Wailes() as a distinct rise surrounding MoundD. As plowing has largely destroyed theseshallow postholes, they are not included in ourcomparison. The remaining postholes rangefrom to cm in depth and from to cmin diameter. Three of the posts are exceptionallylarge.The basic depositional process followed in

Feature was repeated in nearly all of the southplaza posts (Table ), suggesting that the practicesinvolved in post-setting were culturally determinedand important (see also Pauketat and Alt ).Of the analyzed postholes, were filled in orplugged with clean fill; the two that were notplugged were reset with new posts. In total,seven (possibly eight) of the posts were reset.Seven postholes are lined with ash and as manyas seven are lined with clay-rich soil. Ten postsare surrounded by a dark mottled zone and inone instance a large lump of clay was included inthis surrounding fill. This totals six postholeswhere both ash and clay were intentionallyincluded. Fourteen postholes contained ceramics

FIGURE . Map of Feltus south plaza excavations showingpost field, feasting pit, former location of Mound D, andborrow pit (adapted from Steponaitis et al. ). Posts areshaded white and outlined in black while other features areshaded gray. Light gray represents excavated portions of fea-tures while dark gray represents the limits of features as ident-ified in magnetic gradiometer survey (Haley and Johnson).

FIGURE . Line drawing of Feature profile, south plaza,near the former location of Mound D (adapted from Nelsonand Kassabaum :Figure ).

STANDING POSTS AND SPECIAL SUBSTANCES

Southeastern Archaeology , Vol. No. , –

and at least seven contained faunal remains. Inaddition to Feature , which contained bear andhuman remains, a small number of postholes con-tained unusual artifacts, including pipe fragments,an egg-shaped concretion, and fragment of a con-tainer holding a distinct, clean fill.Radiocarbon dates indicate that some of these

posts were contemporaneous with a nearby pitfull of animal bone and ceramic refuse dating tothe late eighth century A.D., the earliestoccupation period at Feltus. This midden pit(Feature ) was m in diameter, . m deep, andcovered with a similarly rich sheet midden. Thecharacter of the refuse suggests rapid dumping,with large, uninterrupted fill episodes, potbreaks, and articulated deer bones. The large sizeof ceramic vessels and greater frequency ofserving vessels to cooking or storage vesselsimplies a scale beyond domestic consumption,especially when combined with the exceptionalsize of certain faunal specimens.Vessel forms from the Feature deposit include

bowls, jars, beakers, plates, and pipes—allcommon forms on Coles Creek sites. Vessel formcould be identified for vessels from theFeature collections; of these, ( percent)were bowls and plates. Rim diameter measure-ments of vessels within the deposit show that of measurable vessels range from to cm,which fits well with the distributions at ColesCreek domestic and single mound sites (Ryan:–). However, the midden also has asubstantial number (n = ) of sherds representinglarge vessels with diameters between and cm. These vessels fall outside the typical rangefor a domestic site and likely indicate communaleating. When we combine vessel form and vesselsize data, we see that all examples of vessels

with rim diameters larger than cm are bowls.While jars and beakers are cooking or storagevessels, bowls and plates are primarily servingvessels. Their abundance and large size indicatesan emphasis on communal food consumptionrather than on food production or storage(Braun ).As for the food prepared and served in these

pots, flotation recovered an abundance of plantremains. When compared to other Coles Creeksites, the Feltus assemblage is similarly rich inacorns, thick-shelled hickory, and starchy andoily seeds, while fruits are underrepresented(Roberts ; Williams ). Perhaps the sea-sonality or storability of nuts and seeds madethem particularly appropriate foods to bring tofeasting events at Feltus (Kassabaum :).Though the seeds look morphologically like wildvarieties, scanning electron microscopy of cheno-podium revealed seed-coat thicknesses consistentwith domesticated varieties (Kassabaum:–). There is no evidence of maize,but the degree to which the Feltus assemblage ismade up of wild versus cultivated plants remainsunclear.Though sizable, the faunal assemblage is con-

siderably less diverse than most Lower MississippiValley sites (Funkhouser ). Moreover, theminimum number of individual specimens formedium-sized mammals is remarkably low, whilethe identified number of large mammals, primarilybear and deer, is quite high (Kassabaum:). Outside of these large mammals, verylarge fish dominate the assemblage, including onegar over m long. This overrepresentation oflarge animals and low diversity of other classesagain suggests communal feasting (Knight:, :). This interpretation is

TABLE . MATERIAL INCLUSIONS IN SOUTH PLAZA POSTS AT FELTUS. SPECIAL INCLUSIONS INCLUDED HUMAN AND BEAR REMAINS

(F), PIPE FRAGMENTS (F AND F), AN EGG-SHAPED CONCRETION (F), A FRAGMENT OF A CONTAINER FILLED WITH SOIL

(F), AND A LUMP OF CLAY (F).

Post attribute

Plugged with clean fill X X X X X X X X X X X X X XReset with another post X X X X X X X ?Ash-lined X X X X X X X XClay-lined X X X ? ? X X ?Mottled zone X X X X X X X X X X XCeramics X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XFaunal X X X X X XSpecial X X X X X

KASSABAUM AND NELSON

Southeastern Archaeology , Vol. No. , –

supported by low overall utilization of deerresources, meaning that meat extraction was theprimary goal, not marrow or grease extractionor bone tool production. Element distributionratios suggest that larger cuts of meat werefavored (Funkhouser ; Kassabaum:).These data support the interpretation of Feature

as communal feasting debris. The rapid natureof its deposition further suggests that it representsthe remains of a small number of events—perhapsonly one or two. In addition to overlapping radio-carbon dates, striking similarities in materialinclusions such as bear bone and pipe fragmentsfurther connect the Feature deposits to the post-holes just to their west. We thus believe that thepost pits and nearby refuse deposits are linkedthrough ceremonies that involved placing andremoving posts and attendant feasting.

THE CONTINUATION OF POST RITUAL

The connection between post-setting and feastingis strengthened by evidence for both activitiesunder Mound A during the second period ofFeltus’s occupation in the mid-tenth century A.D.(see Figures and ). Mound A sits upon adense midden deposit similar in character toFeature . Microstratigraphic analyses of thedeposit indicate no breaks during its formationand potsherds from the top and bottom of themidden refit, indicating rapid deposition thatlikely resulted from a large-scale feasting event(Kassabaum :).While removing the mound fill from atop this

midden, we uncovered a circular void, indicatinga post pulled immediately before mound construc-tion began (Figure ). This posthole (Feature )was lined with ash in a manner similar toFeature and several other postholes located inthe south plaza and described above. Analysis ofFeature ’s contents revealed that pipe fragmentsfrom the posthole and the surrounding middenrefit, confirming that they were likely part of asingle event. In addition to these pipe fragments,the ash zone included unusual materials such asa crawfish claw, clam shells, and river-wornpebbles. After its erection, debris accumulatedrapidly around the post as a result of the largefeasting event. Before this debris had weathered,the post was pulled and the first . m of MoundA were immediately constructed on top of theremaining void. Unlike those in the south plaza,this posthole was not plugged. However, we

argue that the act of constructing a mound atopthe void is an instance of plugging writ-large.Here, post-setting and feasting are tied to a thirdtype of ritual activity: mound building.The third and final reuse of the Feltus landscape

in the late eleventh century A.D. includedadditional post-setting in the south plaza. Radio-carbon dates tie this activity to another episodeof large-scale earth moving. Feature , an ash-lined posthole including pipe fragments and anunusual, egg-shaped concretion, was dug atapproximately the same time as a large borrowpit. This borrow pit is m deep, m long, and mwide, and is likely connected to the construc-tion of Mound D (see Figure ). In addition to thesimilarity in date, the shallow remains of the posts inserted into the platform surroundingMound D supports the conclusion that post-setting and mound building were closely tied. Inthis case, excavations by Moorehead (:–) reveal that this mound contained theremains of seven or eight individuals, addingburial of the dead to the established complex offeasting, post-setting, and mound building.We suggest that the activities that took place in

all three periods at Feltus were linked throughtheir role in a ritual sequence that involved thesetting and pulling of posts, communal feasting,mound building, and burial of the dead. In the pre-ceding section, we focused on the repeated nature

FIGURE . Feature , an ash-lined posthole capped by con-struction of Mound A (from Kassabaum :Figure .).

STANDING POSTS AND SPECIAL SUBSTANCES

Southeastern Archaeology , Vol. No. , –

of this sequence, drawing attention to the simi-larities among episodes of ritual activity as wellas to innovations. In doing so, we purposefullyshifted our focus from the end products of deposi-tional activities (such as standing posts or earthenmounds) to the depositional process itself (seeGarrow :–; Pauketat :; Pauke-tat and Alt ). Now we turn our attentionmore fully to the objects and materials depositedtogether as part of this process, with a particularemphasis on the social roles that materialinclusions performed.

INTERPRETING MATERIAL INCLUSIONS

In this section, we argue that inclusions in theFeltus ritual deposits made present thosemembers of the social group who were physicallyabsent. The presence of bear and human remainsintegrated an extended kin network, includingnon-human “fictive” kin and non-living humankin. Moreover, many inclusions had associationswith particular cosmological domains, therebyreferencing those places and the spirits and ances-tors who inhabit them. Finally, the posts them-selves, as well as bears and material correlates offire, had connective properties that promoted thegathering of large groups of people, living andnon-living, human and non-human.The repeated association of these same elements

(bears, humans, posts, fire) in traditional storiessuggests that their combination in depositionalcontexts at Feltus is not accidental. For example,broadly held Native beliefs about bear huntingshow that bears were treated differently thanother game after their death. Smoking tobaccoover the carcass (Berres et al. :–; Hallo-well :–; Rockwell :–; Skinner) and disposing of bear remains in rituallyprescribed ways such as lighting fires to burn offthe blood or scorch the paws and head (Rockwell:–), or hanging the head, skin, orpaws high on a post (Hallowell :–, –, , –; Rockwell :; Skinner:) were common practices. Moreover,Swanton (:) reports for the Alabamatribe that bears were the original owners of fire,and it was through them that humans firstaccessed this indispensable tool.We believe that the gathering or bundling of

these and other substances is what made them par-ticularly powerful. In some instances the similarmeanings of objects and substances reinforce oneanother. In others, individual meanings, when

combined, reference a whole that no singleinclusion can signify. In both of these ways, com-bining depositional elements resulted in increasedritual potency. It is through this recognition thatwe acknowledge the importance of shifting ourdiscussion about ritual deposition from studies ofindividual objects to studies of assemblages(Bennett ; Chapman ; Fowler ;Harris ; Mills ; Pauketat ; Pollard).

GATHERING THE WORLDS

A posthole is material both in its present phy-sicality, as a pattern of soils of differentcolors and textures, and as a referencepoint for inferring past presences: a piece ofwood, selected, shaped, and put in place,perhaps replaced, perhaps left to decay orremoved to another place…What concernsus then are not merely presences, butmaterial that we interpret as signs of action(Joyce :).

Freestanding posts, though seldom recoveredarchaeologically, were common features onWoodland-period sites and have been ascribedvarious ritual functions (e.g., Skousen :Table ). For example, at McKeithen and ColdSprings, large posts were likely used duringcomplex mortuary rituals (Jeffries ; Milanichet al. ). At Greenhouse, Walling, and Kolo-moki, nonstructural posts are associated withmound summits and interpreted as evidence ofscaffolding and feasting behavior (Knight ,; Warshauer ). At Biltmore andGarden Creek, the presence of ritual accessoriesmade from especially meaningful parts ofanimals as well as mica, copper, crystals, andother ritual paraphernalia suggests that largeposts played a role in shamanic ceremonies(Kimball et al. ). At Range, central posts arefound in the courtyards of village areas, signalinga shared community space and marking itscenter as symbolically meaningful (Kelly ).Skousen () further suggests that standingposts in the American Bottom were key com-ponents in human social networks, acting associal persons in certain contexts (see also Pauke-tat and Alt :–). The variable interpret-ations of such features are largely based onethnohistoric accounts of the use and meaning ofstanding posts by southeastern American Indiangroups (Hall ; Kelly ; Skousen ).

KASSABAUM AND NELSON

Southeastern Archaeology , Vol. No. , –

We now turn to historic period and contemporaryNative beliefs regarding the structure of the worldto develop an interpretation of post ritual atFeltus.Multiple sources suggest that beliefs about the

geography of the cosmos are broadly sharedamong the indigenous people of the Americasand Eurasia (Eliade ; Hall ; Hudson; Lankford ; Reilly ). Thoughvarying in detail, commonalities include the div-ision of the world into multiple layers that are con-nected to one another by a central axis. Forexample, Mississippian iconography typically rep-resents the cosmos as having three realms (Lank-ford ; Pauketat and Emerson ). TheAbove and Beneath Worlds are opposed to oneanother and each has particular associationswith materials, motifs, ideas, and supernaturalbeings (Hudson :; see also Jackson). In between the sky and the watery under-world, this world—or the Middle World—ishome to humans, non-human animals, plants,and fire, the earthly representation of the sun.Carr (a:, –, notes , ) suggests aslightly different Native understanding of thecosmos inhabited by Woodland-period groups inthe eastern United States, one that is layered inpart, but is multidimensional and relational, con-sisting of numerous realms whose inhabitants reg-ularly interacted both vertically and horizontally.Rather than having an absolute Middle Worldstratum, the Woodland cosmos has multiple“centers” defined relative to the position of individ-uals or groups (Carr a:). For our purposes,the number of worlds is less important than theirdeeper structural commonalities.In all of these conceptions, the worlds are con-

nected at their centers by axes mundi and“portals” through which certain people, animals,and supernaturals can travel (Carr a:;Hall :–; Skousen :–).Throughout the area where this understanding ofthe cosmos is prevalent, and most familiarly insoutheastern Indian iconography of the Mississip-pian period, the axis mundi is often representedvisually as a pole or a tree (Bradley ; Kelly; Lankford ; Reilly ; Schele andFreidel ; Waring and Holder ).Skousen (:) argues that as nodes in thehuman social network, upright poles “linkedpeople, communities, places, ancestors, and super-natural powers” (see also Nelson and Kassabaum). In addition to the poles themselves indicat-ing a connection with other worlds, specific

iconographic motifs utilized in the human world,as well as materials and substances associatedwith fire and water, symbolically represent theAbove and Beneath Worlds (Charles et al. ;Lankford ; Pauketat ). The presence offire- and water-focused materials and substancesin post deposits at Feltus suggests that an interpret-ation of post rituals centered on communicationbetween the worlds may be particularly apt.The axis mundi is also sometimes described as a

column of light or smoke, and is represented ico-nographically by superimposed fire and sunsymbols (Lankford :; Reilly ).Smoke, the product of fire, creates a direct visibleconnection between the Above World(s) and thefire of this plane and communicates with thespirits about earthly happenings (Hall :;Jackson :; Lankford :). It iscommon in American Indian ritual to use pipesmoking as a means of making this connection(Brown :; Paper :–). Althoughwe cannot observe fire or smoke archaeologically,material correlates of fire include ash,cooked food, charcoal, and smoking pipes(Nelson )—all found in abundance in theFeltus ritual deposits. We suggest that these sub-stances, particularly the ash surrounding theposts and the smoke implied by the presence ofpipes, shared world-linking attributes with theposts themselves and created a strong and repeatedconnection to the Above World(s).Connections also exist to the Beneath World(s),

often in the form of whirlpools or rough water(Reilly ; Riggs ). In Mississippian- andsoutheastern-historic period iconography, portalsto the Beneath World(s) are symbolized by clock-wise spiral motifs (Lankford ). Like fire,water is archaeologically invisible, but may be rep-resented by materials found only in water such asriver clay, water-worn pebbles, and the remains ofaquatic species. Clay from the river bottom occursin both posts and mounds at Feltus (Sherwood). The association of sediments from wateryenvironments with Woodland-period burials isrecognized throughout the Upper Midwest (Hall:–) and Feature at Feltus may rep-resent a similar use of this particular class ofmaterials. Moreover, clay “gumbo balls” placedinto Mounds A, B, and C while still wet havebeen interpreted as evidence of the ritual inclusionof clay in the mound building process (Cummings; see also Hall , :–). Webelieve this interpretation has some merit due tothe time and energy involved in collecting and

STANDING POSTS AND SPECIAL SUBSTANCES

Southeastern Archaeology , Vol. No. , –

transporting wet clay from the river to the bluff.Finally, a crawfish claw, clam shells, and river-worn pebbles all occur in Feature and are com-pletely absent from non-post deposits, suggesting alimited but still present connection with a wateryBeneath World.Though the strength of the connection to the

Beneath World(s) at Feltus does not appear to beas strong as that with the Above World(s), thesite’s bluff top location implies that waterymaterials were intentionally procured from theriver and included in the deposits with objectsand substances that reference other parts of thecosmos. Iconographic interpretations of South-eastern cosmology show that certain prehistoricsites focused more on connections with theAbove World(s) and others more on connectionswith the Beneath World(s) (Carr ; Carr andMcCord ; Lankford et al. ; Pauketatand Emerson ; Steponaitis and Knight). This variable focus was also true acrossthe cosmologies of different historic Woodlandand Plains Native American tribes (Carra:, note ). At Feltus, objects with waterassociations (like those included in Feature )created an important connection to a BeneathWorld at a site that otherwise focused on AboveWorld connections. Perhaps the anomalousnature of this connection explains why thisfeature was “plugged” in a distinctive way.

GATHERING THE KIN NETWORK

Human remains are also included in ritual depositsat Feltus, and we argue that different types ofhuman actors performed different social roles atgatherings there. As inhabitants of this world,living humans traveled significant geographicaldistances to meet at agreed-upon times. The dis-persed nature of Coles Creek settlement patternssuggests that these gatherings would have beenthe exception rather than the rule for ColesCreek social life. People likely traveled to Feltusfor many reasons, some having to do withformal responsibilities towards others (e.g., com-munication and exchange, finding marriage part-ners, etc.). The archaeological remains at Feltussuggests that living Coles Creek people wouldalso have been responsible for gathering food forthe feasts and for gathering and depositing othermaterials needed to build and maintain importantconnections.The inclusion of human remains in the Feltus

deposits draws in non-living people. Coles Creek

burial practices are characterized by mass inter-ments with no grave goods. Until recently, thispattern has been described as disorderly, hapha-zard, and random (e.g., Ford :–; Wil-liams and Brain :). However, recentresearch on mortuary practices at the threelargest excavated Coles Creek cemeteries showsthat burials were made with care and consider-ation (Kassabaum ). Significantly, theremains of adults and children were treated differ-ently. At Feltus, adults are buried in Mounds Cand D in the later periods, explicitly drawingpast participants or ancestors into the currentsocial network through their deposition in mean-ingful contexts. The remains of young children,meanwhile, were in at least one instance placedin the outer rings of standing posts. Though wedo not know if any children were included in themound burials, this distinctive burial context forchildren may reflect their different social role inthese gatherings—a role perhaps related to includ-ing those who had not reached the full status ofcommunity members (Van Gennep ). Bothforms of burial deposition drew in those withkinship ties, in this case, non-living peoplethought to reside in other cosmological realm(s).One of the most unusual material inclusions at

Feltus is bear remains, the quantity of which faroutstrips the amount found at any other prehisto-ric site in the American South (Kassabaum:, ). Given the prevalence of bearremains, as well as their depositional context infeasting middens and alongside human remainsin Feature , we believe that bears played a signifi-cant social role in the Feltus gatherings. Thoughhardly unique in this respect, bears have beenand are potent ritual symbols for peoples acrossEurasia and North America (Bieder ; Black; Hallowell ; Rockwell ; Shepardand Sanders ). Their significance is recordedin traditional stories that range in origin fromFinland to Siberia and from Alaska to Florida.Details of these stories change based on context,but there are several common themes relevant toour discussion.First, bears are often viewed as kin to humans in

a different way than other animals. A broad rangeof cultures has viewed the bear as a person, “albeita different-from-human person who possessedimmense spiritual power” (Bieder :). Inaddition to striking skeletal and muscular simi-larities recognized in both traditional and contem-porary scientific accounts, bears have manyhuman-like behavioral characteristics. Bears walk

KASSABAUM AND NELSON

Southeastern Archaeology , Vol. No. , –

on two feet, construct dwellings, eat the samefoods in roughly the same proportions ashumans, and have a voracious sweet tooth(Berres et al. :; Black :; Hallowell:–). Traditional accounts furthersuggest that bears react emotionally in human-likeways—they cry tears, spank their children, andmoan and sigh when worried or upset (Hallowell:–; Shepard and Sanders :xi).For these reasons, ethnohistoric accounts andoral tradition repeatedly portray bears as kin orancestors (Bieder :; Black :;Rockwell :, ; Swanton :).As kin, bears play specific roles in human affairs

of this world. Native stories frequently character-ize bears as food providers. In stories ranging inorigin from the Northwest Territories (Rockwell:; Skinner ) to the Alabama and Cher-okee of the American South (Lankford :;Mooney :–), bears are seen as givingthemselves willingly to hunters (Black :).Furthermore, some Native groups see bears ascontrolling all game animals and thus the successof subsequent hunts (Beider :; Berreset al. :, ; Owen :). Due to theirsimilar diet, it is likely that bears also guidedhumans in the collection of edible plants(Shepard and Sanders :–). Finally,stories often depict bears producing nuts andberries from their bodies by rubbing theirstomachs or extracting grease from their fatwithout being harmed (Dorsey :–;Mooney :–, –; Rockwell:–). Thus, in Native tradition, bears con-tribute both materially and figuratively to foodproduction. Due to their overrepresentation inthe feasting events at Feltus, it is likely that theyshared with humans the social role of food provi-sioning, which focuses on connecting people toone another through food sharing.Bears also have the ability to communicate and

navigate between the human and spirit worlds(Black :–; Rockwell :–).For example, bears are seen as having powersfrom the sun or inhabiting both this world andthe sky (Beider :; Dorsey :–,–), their hibernation patterns are believedto show an ability to travel back and forthbetween the realm of the living and the dead(Mooney :–), and shamans are oftenthought to either be bears or able to turn intobears (Berres et al. :–; Rockwell:, –; Shepard and Sanders :–). Moreover, killing a bear is widely considered

“an offering by which humans communicate withthe non-human, spiritual domain” (Black:; see also Berres et al. :, ). Inshort, bears share many human attributes, butalso have characteristics and abilities thathumans do not have. Including bears in gatheringsat Feltus would have allowed Coles Creek peopleto expand their social network via connectionand communication with people and cosmologicalrealms that most humans cannot access (Nelsonand Kassabaum ).

MOUND FUNCTION WITHIN THE FELTUS RITUAL

CYCLE

The mounds at Feltus played a particularly impor-tant role in the ritual cycle enacted there. Thebetween-world connections called upon duringthis cycle were powerful and potentially dangerous(Riggs ). The specific depositional processdescribed above can be interpreted as the ritualopening and prescribed closing or sealing of suchpowerful portals. In most instances, this closurewas brought about through plugging the openposthole with clayey soil. However, in the onlyexample containing Beneath World references,the posthole was not plugged; rather, the firststage of Mound A was constructed atop the voidimmediately after the post was pulled, effectivelysealing its contents, and thus controlling and con-taining its connective powers. This distinctive wayof capping Feature may have had to do with theparticular powers associated with Beneath Worldportals.We suggest, therefore, that the meaning of the

mounds at Feltus was at least partially derivedfrom their role in terminating and memorializinga ritual sequence focused on gathering social, cos-mological, and temporal domains through thedeposition of meaningful substances (see alsoNelson and Kassabaum ; Pauketat:). This does not preclude post-construction uses of the mounds; in fact, weknow that the mounds at Feltus were used sub-sequently as containers for the dead, as platformsfor activities, and as foundations for additionalmound building. Innovations such as these, aswell as variable practices relating to post ritual(e.g., references to the Beneath World(s) inFeature , differences in post size and inclusions,etc.) indicate that these traditions were not static,but were the very stuff of social creativity, consist-ently working within moments of contestation,negotiation, and other processes of community

STANDING POSTS AND SPECIAL SUBSTANCES

Southeastern Archaeology , Vol. No. , –

building. However, we draw attention here to acategory of mound usage that is not currently afocus within the broader literature. Additionalresearch at Woodland-period mound sites, andparticularly excavation strategies that target pre-mound uses of the landscape, will be necessaryto determine if this pattern holds true morebroadly.It should not surprise us that mounded land-

scapes had different functions during differenttime periods, even if their final forms are nearlyidentical. If we focus on the process of mound con-struction, as we have suggested in this article, thenMississippian and Coles Creek platform moundsare not as similar as often assumed. Buildingswere consistently constructed on the summits ofMississippian mounds whereas Coles Creeksummit use was much more variable (cf., Knight). Moreover, Coles Creek constructionswere typically built with each episode increasingthe height of the mound without increasing itsfootprint, whereas Mississippian mounds arecharacterized by additional mantles that increasedboth the footprint and height of the mound (Jef-fries ; Kassabaum et al. ). Since theprocess of construction differs, it follows that thefunctions and meanings of the mounds also differ.Though too few Coles Creek mound sites have

been satisfactorily excavated to say whether ourinterpretation represents a broader Coles Creekpattern, our research at Feltus emphasizes theimportance of looking beyond traditionalinterpretations of Mississippian platform moundswhen trying to understand their earlier counter-parts. Because the mounds at Feltus were part ofa larger ritual event focused on drawing the com-munity together, we must consider this contextin our interpretations of mound use andmeaning. Our analysis therefore suggests that atleast some Coles Creek mounds have an integra-tive function not commonly emphasized in thearchaeological literature—an interpretation thatfits well with our understandings of Coles Creekmortuary programs (Kassabaum ).Monumental constructions such as the mound

and plaza complexes associated with Coles Creekand Mississippian sites have two principaldefining features—their scale and elaborationexceed the requirements of mere utilitarian func-tion, and their construction necessitates someorganization of labor and resources beyond thatof the household unit (Bradley :; Trigger:). Although these qualities are usuallyused to support arguments for the necessity of a

coercive elite, a focus on the building processreminds us that a large number of people (andwe argue, animals, objects, and substances) areinvolved in the shaping of a landscape’s meaningand power. Importantly, this communal pro-duction of meaning expands our interpretationsof monuments beyond the inscription of politicalpower relationships and into the communal pro-duction of group identity, particularly amongColes Creek people, for whom there is little evi-dence for sociopolitical hierarchy (see alsoBrown , , ).Recent research on other Woodland platform

mound building traditions such as Marksville,Troyville, Swift Creek, Plum Bayou, and WeedenIsland also favor interpretations focusing on theintegrative functions of platform mound sites (e.g., Boudreaux ; Downs and Blitz ; Jef-fries ; Knight ; Thompson and Pluc-khahn ). Communal interpretations aremore readily accepted in these cases, perhapsbecause many of these traditions do not immedi-ately precede a Mississippian mound buildingculture and their interpretation has not relied asheavily on a Mississippian analogy. These tra-ditions have striking similarities with the ColesCreek tradition, including subsistence, settlement,and burial practices. In addition, ritual at Feltusand other Woodland sites involved a similarsuite of activities (e.g., post-setting and feastingon mound summits at Walling [Knight ] orpost-setting and mortuary activities at McKeithen[Milanich et al. ]). Although such sites mayprovide more appropriate comparisons, we recog-nize important differences between the way theseauthors discuss the role of mound building inritual activity and the development of the ritualsequence at Feltus. Given their late addition tothe sequence and their role in its termination, itis worth considering that mound building maynot have been the primary goal of the ritualstaking place at Feltus. Rather, it was one of asuite of activities within a broader ritual cycleaimed at gathering the social whole.

DISCUSSION: A METAPHOR OF GATHERING

Southeastern archaeologists are accustomed to theidea that the ritual cycles of southern Indiangroups are closely tied to maize agriculture.Given that Feltus is a pre-maize site, we arguethat the complex components that result in thedeposition of bear, posts, ash, and other specialthings at Feltus can be better understood through

KASSABAUM AND NELSON

Southeastern Archaeology , Vol. No. , –

a metaphor of gathering (sensu Carr :–). We further suggest that such a conceptionmight be usefully applied to many ritual phenom-ena involving the bundling of multiple materials,the purposeful creation of assemblages, or thecoming together of dispersed populations. Feltusis a place where Coles Creek people gathered atparticular times to reinforce and renegotiatesocial relationships by eating together, settingritual posts, building mounds, and burying theirdead. Such gatherings would have allowed anotherwise dispersed population to come togetherto perform important social activities. Bears,who gather their food as humans do, are impor-tant to these rituals. For many historic WoodlandIndian and circumpolar groups, they are food pro-viders and have the ability to connect the humanand spirit worlds. Additionally, within these con-texts, bears are considered kin to humans—rein-forcing the idea of a gathering of extended kinnetworks, including both non-living and non-human kin. The combination of substances inposts also represents a gathering together ofworlds. The act of gathering these worlds togetherwould have required the opening of especiallypowerful ritual portals. The end of the ritualcycle is marked by the closure of these portalsthrough plugging or capping the void left by thepulled posts. In many cases, this closure wasachieved by plugging the hole with clean fill. Sig-nificantly, it could also be achieved with anepisode of mound construction. This suggestsboth an alternative function for mound building,and importantly, demonstrates that mound build-ing was added to a pre-existing suite of ritualactivities that involved the use of freestandingposts to gather community members in thecontext of communal feasting.Others have offered alternative interpretations

of platform mounds, notably Knight (), whohas interpreted Mississippian mounds as earthsymbols and mound building as related to commu-nal rituals focused on agriculture and worldrenewal. He has also interpreted Woodland plat-form mounds as locations for feasting and otheractivities focused on world renewal and commu-nity integration (Knight ). Our argumentdemonstrates the need to further broaden ourthinking about the use of ethnographic analogy,and more particularly, to let archaeological depos-its lead the way in deciding which analogies areappropriate. This is especially true with regard tothe Coles Creek culture where, until recently, ourassumptions have relied heavily on the

mound-and-plaza arrangement that superficiallylooks so Mississippian. Like that proposed byKnight, our interpretation does not preclude thenotion that Coles Creek platform moundsbecame entangled with ideas about politics, privi-lege, and inequality. In fact, the addition of moundbuilding to the ritual cycle in the first place indi-cates that innovations and the social negotiationsthat precede them were an important part of com-munity building. However, by emphasizingmound building as part of a ritual cycle focusedon bringing people together, we draw specificattention to the integrative functions of mounds.Moreover, by examining numerous iterations ofthe Feltus ritual cycle, we decentralize mounds inour discussion of Woodland ritual, opening thedoor for interpretations that are more equallybased on mound building, burial of the dead,feasting, and post-setting.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

An earlier version of this paper was presented at the thannual meeting of the Southeastern Archaeological Confer-ence in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, USA. We would like tothank Corin Pursell and Bretton Giles for inviting us to par-ticipate in a thought-provoking symposium on ritual depo-sition. Additionally, we would like to thank Kathrin Felderand Sarah Evans, editors of a special issue in the Archaeologi-cal Review from Cambridge, in which we began working outsome of the ideas presented here. We also thank all of our col-leagues who have commented on the paper, especially ChrisCarr, T.R. Kidder, and two anonymous reviewers, whoseexcellent feedback improved the content and organizationof the paper. The research was supported by the Departmentof Anthropology, Research Laboratories of Archaeology,Burch Field Research Seminar Program, TimothyP. Mooney Fellowship, and Center for the Study of the Amer-ican South at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.Most importantly, this research would not have been possiblewithout the generosity of Vincas P. Steponaitis and JohnW. O’Hear, co-directors of the Feltus Archeological Project,under which all of the fieldwork for this research was con-ducted, and the dedicated field crews that helped us to exca-vate the site.

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

The materials excavated from Feltus, original fieldrecords, and digital data are curated by theResearch Laboratories of Archaeology at the Uni-versity of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

NOTES

Although it is not possible to tell whether these remains rep-resent a formal burial, both formal burials and fragmented

STANDING POSTS AND SPECIAL SUBSTANCES

Southeastern Archaeology , Vol. No. , –

human remains have been found in post pits on Mississip-pian sites in the American Bottom (Skousen :Table ).

Clusters of posts associated with large refuse pits arecommon features in ethnohistoric accounts of feasting, par-ticularly the Feasts of the Dead celebrated by Huron andAlgonquian groups (Hall :–; Kidd ). Inthese cases human remains are important inclusions inthe pits. Although no human remains were recoveredfrom Feature at Feltus, there are human remains in oneof the early post pits and, during later periods of the site’suse, in at least one of the mounds.

REFERENCES CITED

Ashmore, Wendy Social Archaeologies of Landscape. In A Companionto Social Archaeology, edited by Lynn Meskell and RobertW. Preucel, pp. –. Blackwell, Oxford.

Bailey, Geoff Time Perspectives, Palimpsests, and the Archaeologyof Time. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology : –.

Bell, Catherine M Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice. Oxford UniversityPress, Oxford.

Bennett, Jane Vibrant Matter: A Political Ecology of Things. DukeUniversity Press, Durham.

Berres, Thomas E., David M. Stothers, and David Mather Bear Imagery and Ritual in Northeast NorthAmerica: An Update and Assessment of A. Irving Hallo-well’s Work. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology ():–.

Bieder, Robert E. The Imagined Bear. Current Writing ():–.

Black, Lydia T. Bear in Human Imagination and in Ritual. Ursus:–.

Boudreaux, Edmond The Creation of Ritual Space at the Jackson LandingSite in Coastal Mississippi. In Early and Middle WoodlandLandscapes of the Southeast, edited by Alice P. Wright andEdward R. Henry, pp. –. University Press ofFlorida, Gainesville.

Bradley, Richard Consumption, Change and the ArchaeologicalRecord: The Archaeology ofMonuments and the Archaeol-ogy of Deliberate Deposits. Department of ArchaeologyOccasional Paper, No. . University of Edinburgh, Edin-burgh, Scotland. Ritual, Time and History. World Archaeology ():–. The Significance of Monuments: On the Shaping ofHuman Experience in the Neolithic and Bronze Age. Rou-tledge, London. An Archaeology of Natural Places. Routledge,London.

Braun, David P. Experimental Interpretation of Ceramic Vessel Use onthe Basis of Rim and Neck Formal Attributes. In The

Navajo Project, edited by Donald C. Fiero, Robert W.Munson, Martha T. McClain, Suzanne M. Wilson, andAnne H. Zier, pp. –. Research Paper . Museumof Northern Arizona, Flagstaff.

Brown, James A. The Cahokia Mound -Sub Burials as CollectiveRepresentation. The Wisconsin Archeologist ( and):–. Where’s the Power in Mound Building? An EasternWoodlands Perspective. In Leadership and Polity in Missis-sippian Society, edited by Brian M. Butler and Paul D.Welch, pp. –. Center for Archaeological Investi-gations Occasional Paper , Southern Illinois University,Carbondale. Cosmological Layouts of Secondary Burials as Politi-cal Instruments. In Mississippian Mortuary Practices:Beyond Hierarchy and the Representationist Perspective,edited by Lynne P. Sullivan and Robert C. Mainfort, Jr.,pp. –. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Brown, Joseph Epes (editor) The Sacred Pipe: Black Elk’s Account of the SevenRites of the Oglala Sioux. University of Oklahoma Press,Norman.

Brück, Joanna Ritual and Rationality: Some Problems of Interpret-ation in European Archaeology. European Journal ofArchaeology ():–. Monuments, Power and Personhood in the BritishNeolithic. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute():–.

Carr, Christopher Scioto Hopewell Ritual Gatherings: A Review andDiscussion of Previous Interpretations and Data. InGather-ing Hopewell: Society, Ritual, and Ritual Interaction,edited by Christopher Carr and D. Troy Case, pp. –. Kluwer Academic/Plenum, New York.a Environmental Setting, Natural Symbols, and Sub-sistence. In The Scioto Hopewell and Their Neighbors,edited by D. Troy Case and Christopher Carr, pp. –. Springer, New York.b Social and Ritual Organization. In The Scioto Hope-well and Their Neighbors, edited by D. Troy Case andChristopher Carr, pp. –. Springer, New York. Regional Differences in the Eschatology andCosmology of Ohio Hopewell Peoples. Paper presented atthe th Annual Meeting of the Society for AmericanArchaeology, Memphis.

Carr, Christopher, and Robert McCord Ohio Hopewell Depictions of Composite Creatures.Part I—Biological Identification and EthnohistoricalInsights. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology ():–.

Chapman, JohnObject Fragmentation and Past Landscapes. InHand-book of Landscape Archaeology, edited by Bruno Davidand Julian Thomas, pp. –. Left Coast Press,Walnut Creek, CA.

Charles, Douglas. K., Julieann Van Nest, and Jane E.Biukstra.

From the Earth: Minerals and Meaning in the Hope-wellian World. In Soils, Stones and Symbols: Cultural

KASSABAUM AND NELSON

Southeastern Archaeology , Vol. No. , –

Perceptions of the Mineral World, edited by Nicole Boivinand Mary A. Owoc, pp. –. Cavendish, Portland,Oregon.

Clayton, Lawrence A., Vernon James Knight, Jr., and EdwardC. Moore (editors)

The De Soto Chronicles, The Expedition of Her-nando de Soto to North America in –. Universityof Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Cummings, Garrett Gumbo Balls and Earth Divers: Contagious Magic inMound Construction at a Coles Creek Site. Paper presentedat the th Annual Meeting of the Southeastern Archaeolo-gical Conference, Charlotte.

Dorsey, George Amos Traditions of the Skidi Pawnee. Houghton Mifflin,Boston.

Downs, Lauren, and John Blitz The Graveline Site: An Early Late Woodland Plat-form Mound in Coastal Mississippi. Paper presented atthe Annual Meeting of the Mississippi ArchaeologicalAssociation, Greenville, MS.

Eliade, Mircea The Symbolism of the Centre. In Images and Symbols:Studies in Religious Symbolism, translated by PhilipMairet. Harvill Press, London.

Ford, James A. Greenhouse: A Troyville-Coles Creek Period Site inAvoyelles Parish, Louisiana. Anthropological Papers Vol., Pt. . American Museum of Natural History,New York.

Fowler, Chris The Emergent Past: A Relational Realist Archaeologyof Early Bronze AgeMortuary Practices. Oxford UniversityPress, Oxford.

Funkhouser, Lynn Feltus Faunal Report. Manuscript on file, ResearchLaboratories of Archaeology, University of North Caro-lina, Chapel Hill.

Garrow, Duncan Odd Deposits and Average Practice. A CriticalHistory of the Concept of Structured Deposition. Archaeo-logical Dialogues ():–.

Gould, Richard A., and Patty Jo Watson A Dialogue on the Meaning and Use of Analogy inEthnoarchaeological Reasoning. Journal of Anthropologi-cal Archaeology ():–.

Haley, Brian S., and Jay K. Johnson Geoarchaeology and Geophysics at Feltus, Part B.Paper presented at the th Annual Meeting of the South-eastern Archaeological Conference, Charlotte.

Hall, Robert L. In Search of the Ideology of the Adena-HopewellClimax. InHopewell Archaeology: The Chillicothe Confer-ence, edited by David S. Brose and N’omi Greber, pp. –. The Kent State University Press, Kent. An Archaeology of the Soul. University of IllinoisPress, Urbana.

Hallowell, Irving Bear Ceremonialism in the Northern Hemisphere.American Anthropologist ():–.

Harris, Oliver J. T. Relational Communities in Prehistoric Britain. InRelational Archaeologies: Humans, Animals, Things,edited by Christopher Watts, pp. –. Routledge,London. (Re)assembling Communities. Journal of Archaeolo-gical Method and Theory :–.

Hudson, Charles M. The Southeastern Indians. University of TennesseePress, Knoxville.

Jackson, Jason Baird Yuchi Ceremonial Life: Performance, Meaning, andTradition in a Contemporary American Indian Commu-nity. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.

Jeffries, Richard W. The Swift Creek Site and Woodland PlatformMounds in the Southeastern United States. In OcmulgeeArchaeology –, edited by David J. Hally, pp.–. University of Georgia Press, Athens.

Joyce, Rosemary A. Practice in and as Deposition. In Memory Work:Archaeologies of Material Practice, edited by Barbara J.Mills and William H. Walker, pp. –. School forAdvanced Research Press, Santa Fe.

Kassabaum, Megan C. Looking Beyond the Obvious: Identifying Patterns inColes Creek Mortuary Data. Southeastern Archaeology ():–. Feasting and Communal Ritual in the Lower Missis-sippi Valley, A.D. –. Unpublished Ph.D. disser-tation, Department of Anthropology, University of NorthCarolina, Chapel Hill.

Kassabaum, Megan C., David J. Cranford, and Erin StevensNelson

Multiple Modes of Monumentality: Case Studiesfrom the American South. SAA Archaeological Record ():–.

Kassabaum, Megan C., Edward R. Henry, Vincas P.Steponaitis, and John W. O’Hear

Between Surface and Summit: The Process of MoundConstruction at Feltus. Archaeological Prospection ():–.

Kelly, John E. Range Site Community Patterns and the Mississip-pian Emergence. In The Mississippian Emergence, editedby Bruce D. Smith, pp. –. Smithsonian InstitutionPress, Washington, D.C. The Context of the Post Pit and the Meaning of theSacred Pole at the East St. Louis Mound Group. WisconsinArchaeologist ( and ):–.

Kidd, Kenneth E. The Excavation and Historical Identification of aHuron Ossuary. American Antiquity ():–.

Kidder, Tristram R. Coles Creek Period Social Organization andEvolution in Northeast Louisiana. In Lords of the Southeast:Social Inequality and the Native Elites of SoutheasternNorthAmerica, edited byAlex Barker andTimothy Pauketat,pp. –. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthro-pological Association, No. , Washington, D.C.

STANDING POSTS AND SPECIAL SUBSTANCES

Southeastern Archaeology , Vol. No. , –

Archaeological Test Excavations in TensasParish, Louisiana. Archaeological Report . Center forArchaeology, Tulane University, New Orleans. Woodland Period Archaeology of the Lower Missis-sippi Valley. In The Woodland Southeast, edited byDavid G. Anderson and Robert C. J. Mainfort, pp. –. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.a Plazas as Architecture: An Example from theRaffman Site, Northeast Louisiana. American Antiquity():–.b Prehistory of the Lower Mississippi Valley after B.C. InHandbook of North American Indians. Volume .Southeast, edited by Raymond Fogelson and William C.Sturtevant, pp. –. Smithsonian Institution,Washington, D.C.

Kidder, Tristram R., and Gayle J. Fritz Subsistence and Social Change in the Lower Missis-sippi Valley: The Reno Brake and Osceola Sites, Louisiana.Journal of Field Archaeology ():–.

Kimball, Larry R., Thomas R. Whyte, and Gary D. Crites The Biltmore and Hopewellian Mound Use in theSouthern Appalachians. Southeastern Archaeology ():–.

Knight, Vernon James, Jr. The Institutional Organization of Mississippi Reli-gion. American Antiquity ():–. Symbolism of Mississippian Mounds. In Powhatan’sMantle: Indians in the Colonial Southeast, edited by PeterH. Wood, Gregory A. Waselkov, and M. Thomas Hatley,pp. –. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln. Excavation of the Truncated Mound at the WallingSite: Middle Woodland Culture and Copena in the Tennes-see Valley. Report of Investigations . Alabama Museumof Natural History, Division of Archaeology, University ofAlabama, Tuscaloosa. Feasting and the Emergence of Platform Mound Cere-monialism in Eastern North America. In Feasts: Archaeolo-gical and Ethnographic Perspectives on Food, Politics, andPower, edited by Michael Dietler and Brian Hayden, pp.–. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

Lankford, George E. World on a String: Some Cosmological Componentsof the Southeastern Ceremonial Complex. In Hero, Hawk,and Open Hand: American Indian Art of the Midwest andSouth, edited by Richard F. Townsend and Robert V.Sharp, pp. –. Art Institute of Chicago in Associationwith Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.

Lankford, George E. Some Cosmological Motifs in the Southeastern Cere-monial Complex. In Ancient Objects and Sacred Realms:Interpretations of Mississippian Iconography, edited by F.Kent Riley, III and James Garber, pp. –. University ofTexas Press, Austin. Native American Legends of the Southeast: Talesfrom the Natchez, Caddo, Biloxi, Chickasaw, and OtherNations. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Lankford, George E., F. Kent Reilly, III, and James F. Garber(editors)

Visualizing the Sacred: Cosmic Visions, Regionalism,and the Art of the MississippianWorld. University of TexasPress, Austin.

Latour, Bruno Reassembling the Social-An Introduction toActor-Network-Theory. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Milanich, Jerald T., Ann S. Cordell, Vernon James Knight, Jr.,Timothy K. Kohler, and Brenda J. Sigler-Lavelle

McKeithen Weeden Island: The Culture of NorthernFlorida, A.D. –. Academic Press, Orlando.

Mills, Barbara J. Remembering While Forgetting: Depositional Prac-tices and Social Memory at Chaco. In Memory Work:Archaeologies of Material Practice, edited by Barbara J.Mills and William H. Walker, pp. –. School forAdvanced Research Press, Santa Fe.

Mills, Barbara J., and William H. Walker Introduction: Memory, Materiality, and DepositionalPractice. In Memory Work: Archaeologies of MaterialPractice, edited by Barbara J. Mills and William H.Walker, pp. –. School for Advanced Research Press,Santa Fe.

Mooney, JamesMyths of the Cherokee. th Annual Reports, Bureauof American Ethnology.

Moorehead, Warren K. Exploration of the Etowah Site in Georgia: TheEtowah Papers. Phillips Academy, Department of Archae-ology. Yale University Press, New Haven.

Nelson, Erin Stevens Sacred Substances: Linking Community and Cosmos.Paper presented at th Annual Meeting of the Society forAmerican Archaeology, Memphis.

Nelson, Erin Stevens, and Megan C. Kassabaum Expanding Social Networks through Ritual Depo-sition. Archaeological Review from Cambridge ():–.

O’Hear, John W., Vincas P. Steponaitis, Megan C.Kassabaum, Erin S. Nelson, and David J. Cranford

An Overview of the Field Season at the FeltusMounds. Paper presented at the th Annual Meetingof the Southeastern Archaeological Conference, BatonRouge.

Owen, Mary Alicia Folk-Lore of the Musquakie Indians of NorthAmerica and Catalogue of Musquakie Beadwork andOther Objects in the Collection of the Folk-Lore Society.The Folk-Lore Society, London.

Paper, Jordan Cosmological Implications of Pan-Indian Sacred PipeRitual. The Canadian Journal of Native Studies ():–. Offering Smoke: The Sacred Pipe and Native Ameri-can Religion. University of Idaho Press, Moscow.

Pauketat, Timothy R. Chiefdoms and Other Archaeological Delusions.AltaMira Press, Lanham, MD. Founders’ Cults and the Archaeology of Wa-kan-da.In Memory Work: Archaeologies of MaterialPractice, edited by Barbara J. Mills and William H.Walker, pp. –. School for Advanced Research Press,Santa Fe. An Archaeology of the Cosmos: Rethinking Agencyand Religion in Ancient America. Routledge, New York.

KASSABAUM AND NELSON

Southeastern Archaeology , Vol. No. , –

Pauketat, Timothy R., and Susan M. Alt Mounds, Memory, and Contested MississippianHistory. In Archaeologies of Memory, edited by Ruth M.Van Dyke and Susan E. Alcock, pp. –. BlackwellPress, Oxford. Agency in a Postmold: Physicality and the Archaeol-ogy of Culture-Making. Journal of ArchaeologicalMethod and Theory ():–.

Pauketat, Timothy R., and Thomas E. Emerson The Ideology of Authority and the Power of the Pot.American Anthropologist ():–.

Phear, Sarah The Monumental Earthworks of Palau, Micronesia:A Landscape Perspective. British Archaeolgoical Reports,International Series , Oxford.

Pollard, Joshua Deposition and Material Agency in the Early Neo-lithic of Great Britain. In Memory Work: Archaeologiesof Material Practice, edited by Barbara J. Mills andWilliam H. Walker, pp. –. School for AdvancedResearch Press, Santa Fe.

Reilly, F. Kent, III People of Earth, People of Sky: Visualizing the Sacredin Native American Art of the Mississippian Period. InHero, Hawk, and Open Hand: American Indian Art ofthe Ancient Midwest and South, edited by Richard F.Townsend and Robert V. Sharp, pp. –. Art Instituteof Chicago in Association with Yale University Press, NewHaven.

Riggs, Brett Uk’tena Lives Here. Paper presented at the thAnnual Meeting of the Southeastern Archaeological Con-ference, Baton Rouge.

Roberts, Katherine M. Seasonality, Optimal Foraging, and Prehistoric PlantFood Production in the Lower Mississippi in the TensasBasin, Northeast Louisiana. Unpublished Ph.D. disser-tation, Department of Anthropology, Washington Univer-sity, St. Louis, Missouri.

Rockwell, David Giving Voice to Bear: North American IndianRituals, Myths, and Images of the Bear. Roberts Rhinehart,Niwot, Colorado.

Roe, Lori Social Complexity and Mound Ceremony in theColes Creek Culture: Research at the Raffman MoundCenter in Madison Parish, Louisiana. Unpublished Ph.D.dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Tulane Univer-sity, New Orleans.

Ryan, Joanne (editor) Data Recovery Excavations at the Hedgeland Site(CT), Catahoula Parish, Louisiana. Coastal Environ-ments, Baton Rouge.

Schilling, Timothy Excavations at the Bayou Grande CheniereMounds (Pl): A Coles Creek Period MoundComplex. Unpublished Masters thesis, Department ofGeography and Anthropology, Louisiana State University,Baton Rouge.

Schele, Linda, and David Freidel A Forest of Kings: The Untold Story of the AncientMaya. William Morrow, New York.

Shepard, Paul, and Barry Sanders The Sacred Paw: The Bear in Nature, Myth, and Lit-erature. Viking Penguin, New York.

Sherwood, Sarah Geoarchaeology and Geophysics at Feltus, Part A.Paper presented at the th Annual Meeting of the South-eastern Archaeological Conference, Charlotte.

Skinner, Alanson Bear Customs of the Cree and Other AlgonkinIndians of Northern Ontario. Papers and Records of theOntario Historical Society :–.

Skousen, Jacob Posts, Places, Ancestors, and Worlds: Dividual Per-sonhood in the American Bottom Region. SoutheasternArchaeology :–.

Stahl, Ann Brower Concepts of Time and Approaches to AnalogicalReasoning in Historical Perspective. American Antiquity():–.

Steponaitis, Vincas P. Prehistoric Archaeology in the Southeastern UnitedStates, –. Annual Review of Anthropology:–. Notes on B. L. C. Wailes’s Survey of the FeltusMounds in . Manuscript on file, Research Laboratoriesof Archaeology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

Steponaitis, Vincas P., Megan C. Kassabaum, and John W.O’Hear

Coles Creek Earthworks and Ritual at the FeltusMounds in Southwest Mississippi, A.D. –. Posterpresented at the th Annual Meeting of the Society forAmerican Archaeology Conference, Memphis. Coles Creek Antecedents. In The MedievalMississippians, edited by Timothy R. Pauketat and SusanM. Alt, pp. –. School for Advanced Research Press,Santa Fe.

Steponaitis, Vincas P., and Vernon James Knight, Jr. Moundville Art in Historical and Social Context. InHero, Hawk, and Open Hand: American Indian Art ofthe Ancient Midwest and South, edited by Richard F.Townsend and Robert V. Sharp, pp. –. Art Instituteof Chicago in Association with Yale University Press, NewHaven, CT.

Sugiyama, Saburo Worldview Materialized in Teotihuacan, Mexico.Latin American Antiquity ():–.

Swanton, John R. Indian Tribes of the Lower Mississippi Valley andAdjacent Coast of the Gulf of Mexico. Government Print-ing Office, Washington, D.C. Myths and Tales of the Southeastern Indians. Bureauof American Ethnology, Bulletin .

Thompson, Victor D., and Thomas J. Pluckhahn Monumentalization and Ritual Landscapes at FortCenters in the Lake Okeechobee Basin of South Florida.Journal of Anthropological Archaeology :–.

STANDING POSTS AND SPECIAL SUBSTANCES

Southeastern Archaeology , Vol. No. , –

Townsend, Robert F. American Landscapes, Seen and Unseen. InHero, Hawk, and Open Hand: American Indian Art of theAncient Midwest and South, edited by Robert F. Townsendand Robert V. Sharp, pp. –. Art Institute of Chicago inAssociation with Yale University Press, New Haven.

Townsend, Robert F., and Robert V. Sharp (editors) Hero, Hawk, and Open Hand: American Indian Artof the Ancient Midwest and South. Art Institute of Chicagoin Association with Yale University Press, New Haven.

Trigger, Bruce G.Monumental Architecture: A Thermodynamic Expla-nation of Symbolic Behaviour. World Archaeology ():–.

Van Gennep, Arnold The Rites of Passage. Translated by M. B. Visedomand G. L. Caffee. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Walker, William H. Practice and Non-Human Social Actors: The Afterlifeof Witches and Dogs in the American Southwest.” InMemory Work: Archaeologies of Material Practice, editedby Barbara J. Mills and William H. Walker, pp. –. School for Advanced Research Press, Santa Fe.

Wailes, B. L. C. Notes in the Field, March –April , . Manu-script on file, Mississippi Department of Archives andHistory, Jackson.

Waring, Antonio J., and Preston Holder A Prehistoric Ceremonial Complex in the Southeast-ern United States. American Anthropologist ():–.

Warshauer, Isaac M. Seeking Clarity in Postholes: An Examination ofColes Creek Earthfast Architecture. Senior honors thesis,

Curriculum in Archaeology, University of North Carolina,Chapel Hill.

Watts, Christopher (editor) Relational Archaeologies: Humans, Animals, Things.Routledge, London.

Williams, Leah The Paleoethnobotany of the Feltus Mounds Site.Senior honors thesis, Department of Anthropology, Univer-sity of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

Williams, Stephen, and Jeffrey P. Brain Excavations at the Lake George Site, Yazoo County,Mississippi. –. Papers of the Peabody Museum ofArchaeology and Ethnology, Vol. . Harvard University,Cambridge.

Wissler, Clark Ceremonial Bundles of the Blackfoot Indians.Anthropological Papers Vol. , Pt. . American Museumof Natural History, New York.

Wylie, Alison An Analogy by Any Other Name is Just as Analogical:A Commentary on the Gould-Watson Dialogue. Journal ofAnthropological Archaeology ():–. TheReactionAgainst Analogy. InAdvances inArchae-ological Method and Theory, Vol. , edited by Michael B.Schiffer, pp. –. Academic Press, New York.

Zedeño, María Nieves Methodological and Analytical Challenges in Rela-tional Archaeologies: A View from the Hunting Ground.In Relational Archaeologies: Humans, Animals, Things,edited by Christopher Watts, pp. –. Routledge,London.

NOTE ON CONTRIBUTORS

Megan C. Kassabaum completed her B.A. at Beloit College in and her Ph.D. at the University of North Carolina, ChapelHill in . She is currently Assistant Professor of Anthropology at the University of Pennsylvania where she also serves as theWeingarten Assistant Curator in the American Section at the Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology.

Erin Stevens Nelson completed her B.A. at the University of Missouri in and her M.A. at the University of Mississippi in. She is currently a Ph.D. candidate at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Correspondence to: Megan C. Kassabaum, Department of Anthropology and Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology,University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA , USA. E-mail: mkass@sas.upenn.edu.

KASSABAUM AND NELSON

Southeastern Archaeology , Vol. No. , –