The Woodland Mississippian Interface in Alabama, ca. A.D. 1075-1200: An Adaptive Radiation?

THE WOODLAND-MISSISSIPPIAN INTERFACE IN ALABAMA,

CA. A.D. 1075–1200: AN ADAPTIVE RADIATION?

Ned J. Jenkins and Richard A. Krause

Was shell-tempered pottery in Alabama introduced byMississippian migrants, who also brought with themadvanced horticulture, pyramidal mound building, and othertrappings of social complexity? Or did it represent a gradualtechnological change on the part of resident hunting andharvesting inhabitants? We present the available datapertinent to this issue and argue that the discerniblepatterning justifies a model that posits an adaptive radiationon the part of newly arrived Mississippian food producerswhose tenure overlapped with that of indigenous hunters andharvesters. We further argue that in the process some huntersand harvesters were transformed into food producers, thusadding to the population growth of a social formation whoseadministrative structure promoted the ‘‘budding off’’ ofdaughter units that removed themselves from their parent’sadministrative reach and furthered the colonization of areasoccupied by indigenous hunters and harvesters.

In the late 1950s Joseph Caldwell (1958:64–70)interpreted the remains of Mississippian communitiesin the Southeast as site unit intrusions. He consideredthe Mississippian communities in this region part of a‘‘Mississippian Radiation,’’ by which he meant ‘‘thespread of peoples in exactly the same sense that thebiologist might refer to the dispersion of a species ofplants or animals over a domain not previouslyoccupied’’ (Caldwell 1958:64). He viewed Mississippi-an food producers as immigrants who ‘‘bag andbaggage’’ settled the most farmable Southeastern riverbottoms, where they were surrounded by and coexist-ed with resident Woodland hunters and harvesters.The latter he claimed had achieved a productive andharmonious relationship with their environment, arelationship he termed ‘‘primary forest efficiency.’’ Itwas this relationship that predisposed the residentwoodland folk to initially resist acculturation and whenincorporated into a Mississippian lifestyle to give it adistinct regional expression.

By the mid-1970s, however, Southeastern archaeolo-gists had achieved a virtual consensus on the origin ofMississippian communities, a consensus that stressedthe evolution of Mississippian peoples from the diverseand widespread hunting and harvesting inhabitantsthat preceded them (Knight and Steponaitis 1998:10–12;Peebles 1987:1–61; Smith 1990; Steponaitis 1983,

1991:193–228; Welch 1990, 1994, 1998). This consensuswas not based on the developmental patterningattributable to chronologically sequent Woodlanddeposits but on a neo-evolutionist bias that stressedecologically generated changes. This bias permeatedthe processualist literature of the day and led thosewho espoused it to ignore the fact that ‘‘relationsamong coexisting societies [are] as strong an evolu-tionary force and as legitimate an object of anthropo-logical understanding as ecologically generated chang-es’’ (Trigger 1989:336).

The prevailing bias against coexisting Mississippianand Woodland societies was strengthened by thepractice of organizing the archaeological record intoperiods. Periods are strict serial orders. In abstractterms period A must always precede period B, hencethe two cannot co-occur as period AB. In other wordsthe use of temporal periods predisposes the analyst tothink in terms of sequent developments. Positing thecoexistence of Woodland and Mississippian materialremains would require the untenable AB solution, thatis, the identification of materially different social andsubsistence regimens within the same area and timeperiod. Thus it was and still is the uncritical use of theperiod concept that, albeit subtly, predisposes us tothink in unilineal terms. We will avoid the currentlypopular use of periods because they are strict serialorders that are logically incompatible with the coexis-tence of materially and economically contrastivecommunities. We will, however, need an organizingframework to proceed with our discussion, andtherefore we will interpret previously introducedWilley and Phillips phases as multicommunity nodesin material, information, and energy exchange net-works (Jenkins and Krause 1986:15; Willey and Phillips1958). Further, we will identify the exchange networks,themselves, as variants. Variants are thus composed ofmultiple phases with similar temporal dimensions andmaterial content spread over a broad area. For example,the Mississippian Moundville variant consisted of afounding community or phase at Shiloh, Tennessee,that spawned and coexisted with a variable number ofits geographically distant phases related by verysimilar material content. It is the variant, we suppose,that is the node of a yet broader material, information,and energy exchange network, the archeologicallyvisible product of a Mississippian adaptive radiation.

In the 1960s David Clark (1968:13) clearly andconcisely identified the primary database for ourdiscipline by describing it as ‘‘the science of artifacts.’’

Southeastern Archaeology sarc-28-02-05.3d 6/1/10 09:10:26 202

202

For the study of artifacts themselves our colleagueshave devised the attribute, mode, feature, and type.They have introduced, among other concepts, compo-nent, focus, aspect, stage, phase, variant, tradition, andhorizon for the study of the distribution of artifactsthrough time and across space. Delineating the spatialdistribution of artifacts has become increasingly refinedas a consequence of advancements in samplingtechniques, the use of GPS technology, and theincreasing use of Geographic Information Systems. Insome ways the sequencing of artifacts in time hasposed more difficulties. In the early years of thetwentieth century, superposition was the primaryframework for the temporal macro-sequencing ofarchaeological materials. When applied to this macro-order the technique of artifact frequency seriationbecame a more refined and widely used tool forsequencing archaeological deposits. With the midcen-tury advent of C14 dating these sequences could befurther refined and calendrical point estimates made.Yet throughout, it was the deposits that were se-quenced not the artifacts themselves. Hence mixeddeposits still posed a problem. In the SoutheasternUnited States the issue of mixed deposits becamecentered on the co-occurrence of shell-, grog-, andlimestone-tempered pottery in minimally or poorlysampled and/or stratigraphically questionable depos-its.

Although shell-tempered ceramics have long beenconsidered diagnostic of Mississippian occupationsand sand-, limestone- and grog-tempered ceramicsdiagnostic of Woodland deposits, shell-temperedwares co-occur with sand-, limestone-, and grog-tempered wares in all the Alabama region’s majordrainages during the A.D. 1075–1200 time frame.Limestone-, grog-, and shell-tempered wares co-occurin Late Woodland deposits in the Tennessee and CoosaRiver valleys (Little 1999), and sand-tempered ceramicsco-occur with shell-tempered wares in Late Woodlanddeposits in and around the junction of the Coosa andTallapoosa rivers (Sheldon et al. 2002). Shell-, sand-,and grog-tempered wares occur in direct association inthe Mobile Bay area (Fuller 2003: 27–62; Jenkins1983:153–154). This paper will examine the co-occur-rence of shell- and grog-tempered wares within theTennessee, Warrior, and Tombigbee river valleys.

These co-occurrences are difficult to comprehend,given an evolutionary model that posits the in situemergence of Mississippian culture from a LateWoodland folk because each of the far-flung Woodlandcommunities had its own developmental trajectory andnone of them individually or collectively prefigured aMississippian lifestyle. It is for this reason that we rejectan essentialist interpretation and agree with ourcolleagues working in the American Bottom of Illinoiswhen they note that ‘‘by ‘stacking’ one phase after

another in order to construct the chronologicalsequence, we created the sometimes false illusion thatone phase necessarily grew (some would say ‘evolved’)out of the preexisting one.’’ They continue, ‘‘Weattribute this phenomenon partly to the neoevolution-ary framework in which North American archaeologyis invariably taught in schools and presented intextbooks’’ (Fortier et al. 2006:198).

To summarize the mixed deposits issue: Was shell-tempered pottery in Alabama introduced by Mississip-pian migrants, who also brought with them advancedhorticulture, pyramidal mound building, and othertrappings of social complexity, or did it represent agradual technological change on the part of residenthunting and harvesting inhabitants (Blitz and Lorenz2002, 2006; Fuller 2003; Jenkins 1978, 2003; Jenkins andKrause 1986; Mistovitch 1987; Schnell et al. 1981:224–245)? Those who hold the former position attribute theco-occurrence of shell-, sand-, grog-, and limestone-tempered wares to the growth and spread of immigrantMississippian populations into areas populated byresident hunting and harvesting groups with whomthey coexisted for a century or more. Those who holdthe latter position posit the rapid transformation ofgeographically widespread and materially diverseresident Woodland hunters and harvesters into Mis-sissippian cultivators and view the co-occurrence ofshell- and grog-tempered wares as a mixture of laterMississippian with earlier Woodland deposits (Knightand Steponaitis 1998:10–12; Peebles 1987:1–61; Scarry1995; Smith 1990; Steponaitis 1991:193–228; Welch 1990,1994, 1998).

Applicable Woodland and Mississippian Variants

In our explication we will heed the advice given byFortier et al. (2006:198), namely, that ‘‘essentialistclassifications are best combated by data, that is, byworking with very large assemblages from securecontexts with the goal of creating strong culturalhistories.’’ To further this end we will have recourseto the variant: a taxon introduced to Great Plainsarchaeology by Don Lehmer (1971) and first used in theSoutheast by Jenkins and Krause (1986). As a taxon thevariant is composed of phases related by very similarcontent and having a discernible developmental trajec-tory (Jenkins and Krause 1986:16–17). As notedpreviously, we shall interpret the variant as a matter,energy, and information exchange network manifestedby similarities in settlement pattern, domestic architec-ture, mortuary ritualism, ceramic and stone toolmanufacture, and for Mississippian folk similarities inmonumental public works. Moundville and Baytownare the applicable Mississippian and Woodland vari-ants, respectively. (Figure 1).


WOODLAND-MISSISSIPPIAN INTERFACE

203

The Moundville Variant

From the view of ceramics, the early Moundvillevariant is best characterized by the consistent occur-rence of the type Moundville Incised, comprisingbetween 1 and 6 percent of the assemblage. This type,made of a coarse shell-tempered paste, is identified byarches incised end to end around the shoulders ofstandard and neckless jars (Figure 2a, b, and d), withdistinctly angled and folded-flattened rims (Figure 2eand f), handles (two to four to a pot) (Figure 2c), andoften bearing bifurcated nodes at the apex of the handlecurve (Figures 3, 4, and 5). Moundville Incised var.Oliver (Figure 2g) occurs in only trace amounts. Theearliest variety (var. Moundville) is identified bynumerous incisions which radiate upward from thearch, occasionally to the lip (Figure 2b). Jars of var.Moundville occasionally have a distinctive lobed body.The plain arch (var. Carrollton) first occurs during earlyMississippian times (Figure 2d) but does not attaindominance until slightly later (Blitz and Lorenz 2006;Jenkins 1981:75–78; Scarry 1995:19–24; Steponaitis1983:57–58; Welch 2006:45).

Mississippian phases were spatially contiguous orthey could be separated by as much as 50 to 100 miles.The Moundville variant first appeared across a broadgeographical area between A.D. 1075 and 1200 (Fig-ure 6). Calendrical dates indicate it appeared earliest inthe Tennessee Valley Shiloh phase (Feathers 2008;Welch 2006) and latest in the Mobile area AndrewsPlace phase, where it became parent to the locallydistinct Pensacola variant. The Andrews Place complexis the product of a site unit intrusion from the BlackWarrior Valley Moundville I chiefdom, ca. A.D. 1150

(Brown 2003:233; Fuller 2003:62). Once in the Mobiledelta and coastal area the intrusive Moundville groupsustained continued interaction with Natchez BluffPlaquemine groups, resulting in the emergence of a


Figure 1. Late Woodland/Early Mississippian chronology.

Figure 2. Moundville variant ceramics, Moundville I phase:(a, b, c, f) Moundville Incised var. Moundville, (d) MoundvilleIncised var. Carrollton, (g) Moundville Incised var. Oliver.

SOUTHEASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 28(2) WINTER 2009

204

distinct Bottle Creek I complex (Fuller 2003:62; Jenkins1983:156). To the east, bearers of the early Moundvillevariant entered the lower Chattahoochee River valley,where they are identified taxonomically as the Rood Iphase ca. A.D. 1100, and developed into the regionally

distinct Rood variant by A.D. 1200. Rood I ceramicswere a virtual duplicate of the Shiloh ceramic complex,but by the Rood II phase these ceramics were, likeearlier Woodland specimens, sand tempered. Rood Irepresented the only Moundville variant group to settlein a virtually unoccupied area. This area was borderedby Woodland representatives of the Averett phase tothe north and Late Weeden Island people to the south(Blitz and Lorenz 2006).

Across the state to the west, the Moundville variantappeared within the lower Black Warrior River valleyand the middle Tombigbee valley as the Moundville Iand Summerville I phases. Over the next 500 years theMoundville and Summerville sequences developed inparallel (Figure 6). Other closely related early Mound-ville variant complexes include the Hobbs Island,Brannon, Haysop Creek, Bessemer, and Cedar Creekphases (Figure 6). Early Moundville phases werecharacterized not only by widespread similarity inceramics but also by rectangular basin floor and walltrench domestic architecture, pyramidal mound build-ing, marked status differences, and maize horticulture.


Figure 3. Moundville variant ceramics, Summerville I phase(from Jenkins 1981).

Figure 4. Moundville variant ceramics, Shiloh phase.

Figure 5. Rood I phase Moundville Incised.


205

(See Blitz [1993]; Blitz and Lorenz [2002; 2006]; Brown[2003]; Curren et al. [2001]; Jenkins and Myers [1998];Knight and Steponaitis [1998]; and Welch [1994 and2006] for phase definitions.) In sum, the early Mound-ville variant seems to mark the introduction of fullydeveloped Mississippian culture over a broad areaduring a very brief temporal span. Nevertheless, earlyMoundville variant phases coexisted with Late Wood-land complexes that were morphologically distinct notonly from the early Moundville materials but also fromeach other (Jenkins 2003).

The Baytown Variant

Woodland phases with similar content were usuallyspatially contiguous. The Baytown variant, character-ized by varying percentages of Baytown Plain, Mul-berry Creek Cord-marked, Wheeler Check-stamped,Withers Fabric Impressed, Evansville Punctated, andAlligator Incised pottery (Figures 7 and 8) extended

from the Mississippi valley in the west, eastward to theCoosa River valley, and north to the Tennessee Rivervalley. It included the Deasonville, Miller III, Carthage,West Jefferson, Ellis, and McKelvey phases (Figure 9)with a temporal duration of approximately A.D. 700 to1200/1250 (Jenkins 2003). (See Jenkins [1981, 1982];Jenkins and Nielsen [1974]; Jenkins and Krause [1986];Knight and Steponaitis [1998]; Little [1999]; Walthall[1980]; and Welch [1990] for phase definitions.)

An intensive Woodland occupation of the BlackWarrior River valley did not begin until the Late MillerII subphase, ca A.D. 600. Late Miller II componentshave been identified by Bozeman (1982), Ensor (1993),and Smith and Bredeson (2000). Following the Miller IIoccupations in both the Black Warrior valley and theTombigbee valley, the relative percentage of grog-tempered ceramics increased through time as sandtempering declined. Within the Tombigbee River valleythe increase in grog tempering was accompanied by agradual increase in cord-marked ceramics during theMiller III phase. This increase in cord-marked ceramics


Figure 6. Selected early Mississippian manifestations, ca.A.D. 1075–1250.

Figure 7. Baytown variant ceramics, Miller III phase (fromJenkins 1981).


206

did not occur within the adjacent Black Warrior Rivervalley, where the Late Woodland ceramic sequence isdominated by Baytown Plain ware. In the BlackWarrior valley, the earlier part of the Late Woodlandsequence, ca. A.D. 700–1100, has been referred to as theCarthage phase. Cord-marked pottery was a minorityin most Carthage phase components. The later segment(A.D. 1100–1200) is known as the West Jefferson phase(Jenkins 2003).

Ceramics of the West Jefferson phase begin with theaddition of Mississippian attributes to the plain grog-tempered ceramics of the Carthage phase assemblage;the product of interaction with a Mississippian popu-lation. The globular jar vessel form with loop and straphandles was added to the Carthage complex to formthe West Jefferson assemblage ca. A.D. 1100. Missis-sippi Plain and Bell Plain are constant minorities,whereas Moundville incised var. Moundville and var.Carrollton ceramics occur infrequently in West Jeffersoncontexts. Moundville incised ceramics comprise lessthan three percent of the Early Moundville I phaseassemblage and are rare in West Jefferson contexts.West Jefferson pottery is 99 percent grog-temperedplain with small minorities of Mulberry Creek Cord-marked, Alligator Incised, Evansville Punctated, With-ers Fabric-marked, and Wheeler Check-stamped ce-ramics. Components that yield a pre–A.D. 1100 dateand lack Mississippian attributes are components of theCarthage phase. The two earliest dated features at theWest Jefferson type sites 1Je31, Feature 12, and 1Je32,Feature 30, produced calibrated dates of A.D. 892–1021and A.D. 897–1028 (Table 2). Both features lack shell-tempered ceramics and thus may date to the very end


Figure 8. Baytown variant ceramics, West Jefferson phase: a–d, West Jefferson Plain (from Jenkins and Nielsen 1974).

Figure 9. Selected Late Woodland manifestations, ca.A.D. 1075–1200/1300.


207

of the Carthage phase. The mean radiocarbon date ofthe seven features containing grog- and shell-temperedpottery is A.D. 1065 A 42. However, a West Jeffersoncomponent at 1Wa140 lacking shell-tempered ceramicsyielded dates of A.D. 1240 and A.D. 1130 (Jackson2004:12–13) while a feature at 1Tu346 containing bothshell- and grog-tempered pottery produced a date ofA.D. 1250 (Welch1998:154–155).

Contemporaneous Late Woodland complexes unre-lated to the Baytown variant which also indicateMississippian interaction include Cane Creek, CokerFord, Averett, Autauga, Union Springs, McLeod, LateWeeden Island, and Tensaw Lake (Chase 1959, 1963,1968, 1969, 1998; Dickens 1971; Dumas 1999; Fuller1998; Little 1999) (Figure 4).

Resolving the co-occurrence versus mixed depositsargument, however, still depends on our ability tosequence the artifacts in such deposits. It is to theresolution of this problem that Jim Feathers’s thermo-luminiscent (TL) dating technique, insofar as it dove-tails with other lines of evidence, may speak withauthority. Feathers (2009) obtained ceramic samplesfrom sites in northeastern Arkansas, the TennesseeRiver valley and the Black Warrior River valley andderived a series of luminescence dates from them. Byapplying this technique, which dates the artifactsthemselves, he refined the temporal relationship ofshell-tempered to late grog- and limestone-temperedwares while elucidating the regional development ofearly shell-tempered ceramics. Since the majority of theluminescence dated sherds also had radiocarbon datesfrom the deposits in which they were found it is nowpossible to date both artifact and deposit. Of specialinterest here is the evidence that grog- and shell-tempered sherds from the Tennessee and Black Warriorriver valleys were manufactured during the same timespan.

Chronological Evidence

If cautiously applied, TL dating should pinpoint thelast step in ceramic manufacture, namely, firing.Feathers (2009) was admirably cautious. He introducedseven reliability criteria that allowed him to divide hisresults into three categories, which he labeled Athrough C, with A the most and C the least reliable.Group A dates, he noted, were analytically mostreliable since they met all seven criteria. Group B dateswere probably reliable but should be evaluated interms of which criteria were not fulfilled, and group Cdates should be used with caution since they met fewerof his criteria than members of the other two groups.The results of Feathers’s work on specimens belongingto the Baytown and Moundville complexes in the BlackWarrior River valley are displayed in Table 1.

Baytown and West Jefferson Dates

Of special interest are 25 dated sherds from the threeoriginal West Jefferson phase type sites, 1Je31, 1Je32,and 1Je33 (Jenkins and Nielsen 1974). Sixteen of thesewere grog tempered and nine were shell tempered. Allof them were recovered from subterranean pits, 18 withassociated radiocarbon dates (Table 1). The radiocar-bon dates from the pits in question have a calibratedrange of A.D. 930 to A.D. 1230. Three TL-dated sherdsfrom Group A have a weighted average of A.D. 1015 A61 and thus are in general agreement with radiocarbonsamples from the same deposits (Table 2). Two of fourdated sherds from Feature 8, site 1Je33, yieldedquestionable TL dates. One sherd from Feature 8belonging to Feather’s Group A yielded a TL date ofA.D. 563 A 112 (UW1099). An additional sherd fromGroup C, Feature 8, which yielded a TL date of 196 B.C.also seems to be in error since there are no otherceramics from the site that would have been made thisearly. Two additional sherds also from Feature 8yielded TL dates of A.D. 1279 A 110 and A.D. 1353 A85 (Table 1), which more closely agrees with the A.D.1030 radiocarbon determination for that feature (Ta-ble 1). Seven dates belonging to Feather’s Group Bindicate both shell- and grog-tempered wares weremanufactured in the twelfth century. These specimensyielded a weighted average of A.D. 1130 A 32, a resultthat agrees well with previous radiocarbon determina-tions. One sherd (UW1103) from Feature 36, radiocar-bon dated to A.D. 1022–1160 (Table 1), yielded a veryquestionable TL date of A.D. 268 A 109. Of the 17samples assigned to Group C, eight fall in the ninth totwelfth century range and seven were younger,probably because of insufficient correction for fading(Table 1) (Feathers 2009). There are two TL dates fromGroup B (Features 3 and 36), run on shell-temperedsherds radiocarbon dated within a traditionally accept-ed range that are earlier than expected (Table 1 and 2).

In sum, the majority of the samples from Groups Aand B and half of those from Group C agree withpreviously rendered radiocarbon determinations indi-cating that grog-tempered West Jefferson phase sherdsand shell-tempered Moundville I phase sherds from1Je31, 1Je32, and 1Je33 were virtually contemporaneous.Figures 8 and 9 (Feathers 2009) reveal the tightest datecluster of dates at ca. A.D. 1100–1200. We conclude theWest Jefferson phase to have probably been in existencebetween A.D. 1100–1200. This temporal assessment issupported by the dated West Jefferson and earlyMoundville I sherds the PA Tract at Moundville.

Moundville Dates

Five sherds were analyzed from the Moundville PATract. This Moundville site locality has yielded the



208

earliest excavated Mississippian artifacts from Mound-ville. Here West Jefferson ceramics have been found asa minority (20%) in association with Early Moundville Iphase features and house floors (Scarry 1995:Table 9).Radiocarbon dates from the PA Tract gave a calibrated

range of A.D. 1002 to 1155 (Scarry 1995:93). Five sherdsfrom the PA Tract were TL dated; three of them weregrog tempered and two were shell tempered. All fellwithin the B (2 sherds) and C (3 sherds) groups(Table 1). The weighted average of the three grog-


Table 1. Luminescence dates from Moundville PA Tract and West Jefferson sites.

Sample Provenience Temper Age (ka) % Error Calendar Date Basis for Age*

Moundville

UW1083, Tract PA Grog 0.842 A 0.125 14.9 A.D. 1162 A 125 OSLUW1084 Tract PA Grog 0.847 A 0.072 8.5 A.D. 1157 A 72 OSL-TLUW1085 Tract PA Shell* 0.898 A 0.115 12.8 A.D. 1106 A 115 OSLUW1086 Tract PA Shell* 0.894 A 0.092 10.3 A.D. 1110 A 92 OSL-TLUW1087 Tract PA Grog 0.905 A 0.072 7.9 A.D. 1099 A 72 OSL-TL

1Je31

UW1088 Feature 4 Shell* 0.803 A 0.089 11.1 A.D. 1201 A 89 OSL-TLUW1089 Feature 4 Grog 1.026 A 0.172 16.7 A.D. 978 A 172 TLUW1090 Feature 4 Grog 1.149 A 0.076 6.6 A.D. 855 A 76 OSL-TLUW1091 Feature 10 Shell* 0.731 A 0.079 10.7 A.D. 1273 A 79 OSL-TLUW1092 Feature 10 Shell* 0.854 A 0.120 14.1 A.D. 1150 A 120 OSLUW1093 Feature 10 Grog 0.886 A 0.084 9.5 A.D. 1119 A 84 OSL-TLUW1094 Feature 10 Grog 0.891 A 0.094 10.5 A.D. 1113 A 94 TL

1Je32

UW1095 Feature 22 Shell* 1.247 A 0.098 7.9 A.D. 757 A 98 TLUW1096 Feature 22 Grog 0.696 A 0.104 15.0 A.D. 1308 A 104 OSL-TLUW1097 Feature 22 Grog 0.834 A 0.080 9.6 A.D. 1170 A 80 OSL-TLUW1098 Feature 8 Shell* 0.651 A 0.085 13.1 A.D. 1353 A 85 TLUW1099 Feature 8 Shell* 1.441 A 0.112 7.8 A.D. 563 A 112 OSL-TLUW1100 Feature 8 Grog 2.200 A 0.229 10.4 196 A 229 B.C. TLUW1101 Feature 8 Grog 0.725 A 0.110 15.2 A.D. 1279 A 110 TLUW1102 Feature 20 Grog 0.711 A 0.116 16.3 A.D. 1293 A 116 Corrected TL

1Je33

UW1104 Feature 3 Shell* 1.026 A 0.128 12.5 A.D. 979 A 128 OSL-TLUW1105 Feature 3 Shell* 1.555 A 0.168 10.8 A.D. 450 A 168 OSL-TLUW1106 Feature 3 Grog 0.767 A 0.112 14.6 A.D.1237 A 112 TLUW1107 Feature 3 Grog 0.858 A 0.220 25.7 A.D.1146 A 220 Corrected TLUW1108 Feature 36 Grog 1.098 A 0.113 10.3 A.D.907 A 113 OSL-TLUW1109 Feature 36 Grog 0.990 A 0.090 9.1 A.D.1014 A 90 OSL-TLUW1110 Feature 36 Grog 0.907 A 0.088 9.7 A.D.1097 A 88 OSL-TLUW1103 Feature 36 Shell* 1.736 A 0.109 6.3 A.D.268 A 109 OSL-TLUW1111 Feature 9A Grog 0.629 A 0.193 30.7 A.D.1375 A 193 TLUW1112 Feature 9A Grog 0.872 A 0.123 14.1 A.D.1132 A 123 OSL-TL

* Shell leached or partially leached.

Source: From Feathers 2009.

Table 2. Baytown variant radiocarbon dates from west and central Alabama.

Phase or Subphase Site Context*Uncalibrated 14C

Age B.P. Date Calibrated Age Range, 1 Sigma

Cofferdam subphase 1Gr1x1 Feature 5 770 A 40 A.D. 1180 A 40 A.D. 1224–1282Cofferdam subphase 1Gr1x1 Feature 12 790 A 45 A.D. 1160 A 45 A.D. 1220–1277Cofferdam subphase 1Gr2 Feature 90 820 A 45 A.D. 1130 A 45 A.D. 1189–1268Cofferdam subphase 1Gr2 Feature 66 970 A 40 A.D. 980 A 4 A.D. 1018–1156Cofferdam subphase 1Gr2 Feature 75 980 A 40 A.D. 970 A 40 A.D. 1016–1156Cofferdam subphase 1Gr2 Feature 70 1070 A 50 A.D. 880 A 50 A.D. 898–1019Gainesville subphase 1Pi61 Structure 1* 710 A 80 A.D. 1240 A 80 A.D. 1241–1389Gainesville subphase 1Pi61 Structure 4* 920 A 55 A.D. 1030 A 55 A.D. 1035–1162Gainesville subphase 1Pi33 Feature 51, Zone B* 920 A 55 A.D. 1030 A 55 A.D. 1035–1162Gainesville subphase 1Pi33 Feature 51, Zone D* 920 A 55 A.D. 1030 A 55 A.D. 1035–1162Late Vienna subphase 1Pi61 Feature 25 1040 A 50 A.D. 910 A 50 A.D. 901–1030Late Vienna subphase 1Gr2 Feature 97 1040 A 55 A.D. 910 A 55 A.D. 898–1035West Jefferson phase 1Je31 Feature 4* 890 A 75 A.D. 1060 A 75 A.D. 1040–1216West Jefferson phase 1Je32 Feature 20* 890 A 60 A.D. 1060 A60 A.D. 1041–1214West Jefferson phase 1Je33 Feature 5* 945 A 70 A.D. 1005 A 70 A.D. 1022–1160West Jefferson phase 1Je33 Feature 36* 945 A70 A.D. 1005 A 70 A.D. 1022–1160West Jefferson phase 1Je32 Feature 8* 985 A 65 A.D. 965 A 65 A.D. 995–1185West Jefferson phase 1Je33 Feature 9A* 995 A 65 A.D. 955 A 65 A.D. 983–1157West Jefferson phase 1Je33 Feature 3* 1005 A 60 A.D. 945 A 60 A.D. 979–1156West Jefferson phase 1Je32 Feature 30 1050 A 60 A.D. 900 A 60 A.D. 897–1028West Jefferson phase 1Je31 Feature 12 1075 A 70 A.D. 875 A 70 A.D. 892–1021

* Features yielding shell-tempered pottery (from Jenkins 2003).


209

tempered sherds yielded a date of A.D. 1139 A 90,while an average of the shell-tempered sherds provid-ed a date of A.D. 1108 A 104. These TL determinationsare important because they reinforce earlier radiocar-bon dates indicating a temporal overlap between grog-tempered West Jefferson and shell-tempered Mound-ville I ceramics. From these dates it seems evident thatthe Early Moundville I phase appeared at approxi-mately A.D. 1100.

Shiloh Dates

TL-dated ceramics from the Shiloh mounds site alsoindicate contemporaneity for the manufacture of shell-and grog-tempered wares. A sample of nine grog-tempered and eight shell-tempered sherds from ShilohMound A were TL analyzed (Feathers 2009). The grog-tempered ceramics represent a McKelvey phase com-ponent, the shell-tempered sherds a component of theShiloh phase. Nine sherds fell into the A group, whileeight fell into the B group. Most of the samples camefrom the mound base fill, but two grog-temperedsherds came from a ‘‘gray platform’’ near the top of themound. Radiocarbon dating suggests mound construc-tion started about A.D. 1020–1160 (Welch 2006). Theweighted average for all shell-tempered sherds withouttechnical problems was A.D. 986 A 33. The weightedaverage for grog-tempered specimens was A.D. 977 A26 (Feathers 2009). Again, TL and radiocarbon deter-minations indicate contemporaneity between shell- andgrog-tempered wares. Based on these dates the Shilohphase had probably developed as early as A.D. 1075.

Developmental Patterning

On the basis of the co-occurrence of shell-, grog-,and/or sand-tempered pottery in far-flung Late Wood-land sites and evidence that these wares weremanufactured at roughly the same time, we concludethat Alabama’s Late Woodland residents hosted, orwere at least in contact with, Mississippian intrudersfor a century or more. To justify this interpretation wewill address (1) the Woodland and Mississippiandevelopmental patterning now discernible in thearchaeological record, and (2) the evidence for Wood-land/Mississippian interaction. While recent interpre-tations emphasize the lack of cultural continuity amongLate Woodland populations in the American Bottom,stressing instead an episode of abandonment withsubsequent and intrusive reoccupation, those commu-nities now classified as terminal Woodland seem tohave provided the human, social and economic capitalfor Mississippianization. (An overview of these devel-opments is provided in a series of articles in the 2006

winter issue of Southeastern Archaeology). Thus Kelly’searlier summary of in situ Mississippianization in theAmerican Bottom still seems relevant and we will usehis five elements of culture change to evaluate theWoodland and Mississippian developmental pattern-ing in our region (Kelly 1990a:117). These elements are(1) A dramatic in situ change in technology andmaterial culture, (2) an increase in the size andorganization of political units, (3) the emergence ofranked social units, (4) an intensification of interre-gional trade, and (5) the addition of maize as a majorcontributor to a starchy grain cropping system. TheAmerican Bottom increase in maize dependency seemsespecially important. Maize increased there from 42percent of the floral assemblage at A.D. 850 to 79percent after A.D. 850, the majority derived from cobswith 10 or more rows (Simon 2000:54).

Kelly’s first element is a dramatic change in materialculture. In Alabama the documented changes intechnology and material culture are too abrupt to bereasonably interpreted as a segment of in situ develop-ment. They include abrupt changes in ceramics,architecture, burial programs, site types, and socialorganization (Caldwell 1958:64–5; Jenkins 1978; Jenkinsand Krause 1986:120–21). Kelly’s second and thirdelements of in situ Mississippian emergence, that is, anincrease in the size and organization of political units,and the emergence of ranked social units, can beconflated and described as the emergence of largerpopulations with social ranking based, at least in part,on heredity. While an early to late increase inSoutheastern Woodland populations seems evident,an accompanying transformation in social complexityis nowhere in evidence in Alabama. Near totalexcavation of several large West Jefferson phase sitesat 1Je31, 1Je32, and 1Je33 (Jenkins and Nielsen 1974)made it clear that these villages were at best organizedby achievement-based social distinctions. Total exca-vation of 1Pi61, 1Gr2, and a large segments of 1Pi33and 1Gr1x1 (Jenkins and Ensor 1981) revealed asuccession of Miller III phase components with noevidence of increasing social complexity. Then, too,large numbers of Late Woodland Miller III phaseburials revealed no marked status hierarchy, nor anysuggestion of status ascription, hereditary or otherwise(Cole et al. 1982; Welch 1990). We do not have solidevidence for hereditary status ascription until thetwelfth century, and then it is restricted to theMoundville variant Shiloh, Moundville, and Bessemersites.

Knight and Steponaitis (1998:12–13) argue that‘‘mound sites must have served as central nodes ofauthority for leaders who employed the ritual ofmound building and the accumulation and distributionof exotic goods as key elements of their efforts toexpand and consolidate authority in a competitive



210

setting.’’ There are eight large mounds at the Shilohsite, and between 44 km upriver and 24 km downriverfrom Shiloh there are at least five and possibly as manyas nine other early Mississippian mound sites. Five ofthese sites, including the Savannah site, have potterystyles duplicated at Shiloh (Welch 2006:Table 8.1). TheSavannah site had 17 mounds and two bastionedpalisade lines. If all five sites are included in the Shilohphase, then this complex has as many as 45 mounds,making it considerably larger than the Moundville Iphase at Moundville.

The basic plan for the Moundville center wasestablished by the end of the late Moundville I phase,ca. A.D. 1200. The plan included a central plazasurrounded by centrally located and peripheral pyra-midal mounds which in turn were enclosed with apalisade having projecting salients and guarded entry-ways. At this time, too, a dramatically increasedresidential community became highly structured withcentral plaza focused mound-top public architecturesurrounded by dense clusters of domestic dwellings(Knight and Steponaitis 1998:14–17). In sum, by theearly thirteenth century Moundville had become afortified town drawing residents from surroundingterritories, some of them perhaps from its WestJefferson populated hinterland. It may be no accidentthat a dramatic growth in Moundville’s populationcorrelates well with the disappearance of the WestJefferson folk. The acculturation of a West Jeffersonpopulace to Mississippian norms is also suggested bythe ceramic morphology from the Bessemer site.

As early as the 1940s DeJarnette and Wimberly (1941)described grog-tempered ceramics from the Bessemersite that, as a consequence of extensive later excava-tions at West Jefferson sites, would be assigned a WestJefferson authorship by Jenkins and Nielsen (1974). AtBessemer, grog-tempered West Jefferson and shell-tempered Mississippian ceramics had overlappingvessel shapes and handle morphologies. However,Moundville Incised decorations never occurred ongrog-tempered vessels, nor did Bell Plain vessel shapesoccur with grog tempering (Welch 1994:17–24). TheWest Jefferson and Moundville I complexes co-occurred with early Mississippian house types andpyramidal mounds, leading Seckinger and Jenkins(2000) to suggest a mixed population. Jenkins (2003)interprets both Moundville and Bessemer as Mississip-pian sites with resident West Jefferson populations,and nearby sites dominated by West Jefferson ceramicsand a minority of shell-tempered wares as WestJefferson communities interacting with Mississippiancenters. In sum, the evidence now available indicates asubstantial Late Woodland population increase, but,importantly, prior to the advent of Mississippianpeoples ca. A.D. 1100. Then, too, there is no evidence

of an increase in the complexity of communityorganization prior to Mississippian occupations.

With respect to Kelly’s fourth developmental ele-ment, that is, an intensified or well-developed patternof interregional trade, most Baytown variant compo-nents lack any evidence for either. It is not until A.D.1100 that nonlocal items, although rare, appear inGainesville subphase burials (Cole et al. 1982; Welch1990). There is, however, good evidence for interre-gional trade or exchange at the Moundville variantShiloh, Bessemer, and Moundville sites (Scarry 1995;Welch 2006). The 1933–34 excavations at Shiloh, forexample, produced two Stirling phase limestone-tempered Ramey Incised rims and two limestone-tempered Powell Plain sherds similar to those commonto Cahokia in the eleventh and twelfth centuries (Welch2006:47–49, and Fig. 3.2). A human effigy pipe found ina log tomb at the base of Mound C (Cadle 1902:220) isdescribed by Welch (2006:14) as ‘‘carved from distinc-tive red flint clay with white spots.’’ Human figurinesof similar size, style, and material, attributed to theStirling phase, have been found in Mississippiandeposits in and around the American Bottom in Illinois(Emerson and Hughes 2000). The raw material for thesepipes came from east-central Missouri, only 40 kmaway. According to Emerson et al. (2003:287–313)Missouri flint clay figurines of Cahokian manufacturewere widely exchanged during the twelfth andthirteenth centuries. The chipped stone industry atShiloh also yielded specimens made of Dover chertfrom quarries in western Tennessee and Mill Creekchert from southern Illinois. The Mill Creek chert, redflint clay pipe, Powell Plain and Ramey Incised pottery,together with a basin type house found at Shiloh(Welch 2006:206, 261–267), indicate substantial connec-tions between her residents and those in the middleMississippi Valley. Although a small number ofCahokia-connected Powell Plain ceramics are presentat Shiloh, the majority of the ceramics manufactured byShiloh’s potters most closely resembled those manu-factured by early Mississippian potters to the south andeast.

According to Welch (2006:47), Shiloh’s shell-tem-pered pottery is distinctively similar to wares from theearly Moundville I (Steponaitis 1983:99–106), Summer-ville I (Jenkins and Krause 1986:93–94), and Bessemerphases (Walthall 1980:207–211; Welch 1994). Theseceramics are also distinctively similar to specimens inthe middle Tennessee Valley Hobbs Island phase, thecentral Alabama Brannon phase, the middle AlabamaRiver valley Cedar Creek phase (Curren et al. 2001 ),the Mobile delta Andrews Place phase (Fuller 1998,2003) and the lower Chattahoochee Valley Rood I phase(Blitz and Lorenz 2002, 2006). Jenkins (2003) placesthese phases in the early portion of the Moundville



211

variant. The primary difference between Shiloh andearly Moundville I phase ceramics is the absence ofCarthage Incised in Shiloh contexts. This type is anextreme minority in early Moundville I contexts atMoundville but increases in frequency though time(Scarry 1995; Welch 2006:42–75).

The best known Moundville variant manifestation iscentered on the 185 acre Moundville site. Knight andSteponaitis (1998:12) refer to the twelfth-centuryMoundville I deposits as a period of ‘‘Initial Central-ization’’ during which Mississippian dwellings wereconcentrated on the high terraces overlooking the BlackWarrior River and along Carthage Branch and itstributaries. The site at this time was spread out andunstructured (Scarry 1986, 1995; Steponaitis 1991).Evidence for trade–in the form of nonlocal chert,galena, copper, abundant mica and greenstone, duringthe early Moundville I phase–occurs in the PA Tractand excavations north of Mound R (Scarry 1986:156,1995:88; Steponaitis 1983, 1992). In addition to theceramic evidence for contact and interaction with theinhabitants of Shiloh, evidence in the form of nonlocalstones and minerals appears in the Asphalt PlantMound (1Tu50) and in Mound X (Knight and Stepo-naitis 1998:12–13; Steponaitis 1992). A pipe fromMoundville also made of Missouri red flint clay depictsa squatting man with no clothing (Walthall 1980:224).Like the Shiloh pipe this specimen was presumablymanufactured at a Cahokian workshop during theStirling phase. In brief, our best evidence for interre-gional exchange accompanies the advent of Mississip-pian communities rather than preceding them, makingit difficult to see this element as an integral componentof in situ development.

Kelly’s fifth element, a dramatic increase in maizedependency, would seem to be of particular import toour argument. Sites belonging to the Baytown variantdocument a half-millennium of occupation by Wood-land hunters and harvesters who focused on nut foodswith very little reliance on starchy grains. MargaretScarry’s (1986) analysis of soil samples from WestJefferson phase pits in the Black Warrior Valleyindicate that the botanical remains were dominatedby nut foods. Scarry found that hickory nutshellsconstituted between 56 and 63 percent of all botanicalsby weight. Acorn remains comprised from 15 to 22percent by weight. Maize constituted 2 percent byweight in early deposits and 6 percent in later deposits.In the Tombigbee Valley late Baytown variant sites ofthe Miller III phase yielded less than 2 percent maize byweight (Caddell 1981, 1983). After A.D.1150, however,one West Jefferson site in the Black Warrior Rivervalley near Moundville yielded as much as 34 percentmaize by weight and a radiocarbon determination ofca. A.D. 1250 (Welch 1991:213). While this 18 percentincrease in terminal Black Warrior Baytown deposits is

intriguing it does not compare favorably with the 53percent increase from the pre– to post–A.D. 850 maizecontent of emergent Mississippian components in theAmerican Bottom (Simon 2000:54). In sum, smallamounts of maize have been found in late Baytowndeposits together with small amounts of shell-tem-pered pottery.

The most telling element now discernable in the LateWoodland developmental patterning is the increasinglydefinitive evidence for the interaction among LateWoodland hunters and harvesters and Mississippianfood producers. The ceramic evidence for a Woodland/Mississippian interaction has been previously cited,namely, the co-occurrence of grog-tempered with shell-tempered pottery in late Baytown variant components inthe Tombigbee, Tennessee, and Black Warrior valleys. Inaddition distinct grog-, sand-, and limestone-temperedcomplexes are contemporaneous with a minority ofshell-tempered ceramics in the middle and upper CoosaRiver valley (Morrell 1993; Little 1999). Farther south,near the junction of the Coosa and Tallapoosa rivers,where sand-tempered Woodland wares have a longdevelopmental history, sand- and shell-tempered ce-ramics co-occur in Late Woodland components (Chase1998; Jenkins and Sheldon 2007; Sheldon et al. 2002).Jenkins (2003; Seckinger and Jenkins 2000) argues thatthe presence of grog-tempered wares in the earlyMoundville variant components at Moundville andBessemer can be interpreted as evidence for a compositepopulace at each.

There is, however, additional and compelling evi-dence for Woodland/Mississippian interaction in theform of domestic architecture (Table 3). In the middleTombigbee River valley, four Mississippian-style rect-angular basin houses, three of them small post and onewith both wall trench and small-post construction,were found in the late Miller III Gainesville subphasecomponent at 1Pi61 (Jenkins and Ensor 1981:131–141).1

Gainesville subphase communities were unequivocalWoodland manifestations. Gainesville peoples manu-factured grog-tempered pottery, hunted a broadspectrum of mammals and fish, shellfish, and birds(Woodrick 1981: Table 37) and harvested fall nut foods.Maize, constituted no more than 2 percent of thebotanical remains (Caddell 1981:Tables 9, 13, 20; 1983).Gainesville peoples did not construct pyramidalmounds and their cemeteries provided no evidencefor burial programs with status differences among thedead (Cole et al. 1982: Tables 1, 6, and 8; Welch1990:206). Mississippian-style rectangular basin houseshave also been found in terminal Woodland contexts inthe Black Warrior River valley (Ensor 1993).

The terminal Woodland rectangular basin structureswith wall trenches and small posts are identical to ahouse from the Early Moundville I phase at Mound-ville. Excavations at the PA Tract revealed a rectangu-



212

lar basin-style house, Structure 3, with wall trenchesparalleling the long axis and individual posts parallel-ing the short axis. Two charcoal samples from thisstructure yielded an average calibrated date of A.D.1030–1146 (Scarry 1998:69–73). The house from theMoundville PA Tract and the identical house from1Pi61 had been rebuilt within a previously existingbasin house supported exclusively by small posts. Anadditional rectangular basin-style wall trench housewas uncovered at the base of excavations north ofMound R and dated to A.D. 1050–1100 (Scarry1986:142–151; 1995:93, 113). Four square basin-stylehouses with wall trenches paralleling each wall werediscovered in a Late Woodland context in centralAlabama near the junction of the Coosa and Tallapoosarivers. The primary ceramic assemblage was lateAutauga with a minority of shell-tempered Brannonphase ceramics. These structures dated to A.D. 1100–1300 (Sheldon et al. 2002). There is a clear temporaltrend within the total sample of basin structures for achange in shape from rectangular to square along withan increase in floor area.2

Equally compelling evidence for Woodland/Missis-sippian interaction can be gleaned from lithic andground stone artifacts assigned to the West Jeffersonphase of the Baytown variant in the Warrior Rivervalley and the late Miller III phase component at theLubbub Creek site in the Tombigbee valley. In the late1980s, Pope (1986, 1989) described a Black Warriormicrolith assemblage associated with both the Baytownand Moundville variants. Her study determined that 60percent of the microliths were used to drill and engraveshell, a craft specialization important to Mississippianeconomic and iconographic interests. She furthersuggested that this blade-core industry, while executedin local stones, was closely related to similar finds atthe Lubbub Creek site in the Tombigbee Valley. Ensor(1991:36) interpreted the Lubbub Creek assemblage as aproduct of Gainesville subphase craft specialists par-ticipating in contemporaneous early Mississippianeconomic ventures. He also noted the morphologicalsimilarities of the Lubbub Creek assemblage to Cahokiamicrolith industries. The majority of the Lubbub Creek

assemblage was recovered from Feature 50 at 1Pi33; alarge Gainesville subphase feature containing a minor-ity of shell-tempered ceramics and radiocarbon datedat A.D. 1105.3

It is unusual to find ground stone discoidals inAlabama’s Late Woodland sites, yet numerousroughed-out examples made of local materials (themajority of sandstone with a few of shale) have beenfound in West Jefferson components (Jenkins andNielsen 1974:30, 77, 131). Seckinger and Jenkins (2000)suggest that these were manufactured for exchangewith contemporaneous Mississippians.4 Then, too, site1Ta274, a component of the late Baytown variant Ellisphase (Figure 9) yielded numerous greenstone celtpreforms (Knight 1985:63). Ellis phase peoples occu-pied a portion of the Coosa Valley, which containeddeposits of greenstone identified by trace elementanalysis (Gall and Steponaitis 2001) as the source forcraft items that Moundville’s chiefly leaders used tobuttress their efforts to consolidate and expand theirsphere of authority. Since greenstone celts arrived atMoundville as finished products (Wilson 2001), itseems probable that Ellis phase groups controlled thegreenstone source and provided finished celts to theMoundville chiefdom. Ellis phase components containa minority of shell-tempered ceramics dating ca. A.D.1050–1200 (Morrell 1993; Little 1999). Here again wehave tantalizing evidence that Woodland peoples weremodifying the products of their labor to accommodateMississippian demands, a situation Jenkins (2003)argued began to acculturate them to Mississippiannorms.

The West Jefferson population is viewed by theseauthors as a Woodland population in the process ofacculturation. The acculturation of such a group mayhave been advantageous to the newly arrived Missis-sippian migrants since West Jefferson communitieswould have been important in fueling the Mississippi-an economy. As stated by Service (1971:142), ‘‘It is, infact, clear from the record in some cases and probablein many others that small neighboring societies, orparts of them, often join an adjacent chiefdom quitevoluntarily because of the benefits of participation in


Table 3. Basin House floor area, Black Warrior, Coosa, and Tallapoosa drainages.

Site Structure No. House Type Square Meters House Shape

1Pi61 Structure 1 Basin, single post 16.4 Rectangular1Pi61 Structure 2 Basin, wall trench 7.00 Rectangular1Pi61 Structure 3 Basin, single post 12 Rectangular1Pi61 Structure 4 Basin, single post 6.9 Rectangular1Tu552 Structure 1 Basin, wall trench 18.7 Rectangular1Tu552 Structure 2 Basin, single post 6.9 RectangularMoundville PA Tract Structure 4 Basin, wall trench 18 Rectangular1Ee191 Structure 1 Basin wall trench 27.3 Square1Ee191 Structure 2 Basin wall trench 54 Square1Ee191 Structure 3 Basin wall trench 15.2 Square1Ee191 Structure 4 Basin wall trench 50 Square

Source: Jenkins and Ensor 1981; Ensor 1993; Scarry 1995; Sheldon et al. 2002.


213

the total network.’’ Acculturation then occurred asterminal Woodland people participated in the overallMississippian economy, through the production ofprestige goods blanks and fully crafted prestige goods.

Mississippian Budding and Dispersion

In summary, it seems that our understanding of theappearance of Mississippians in the Southeast hasrelied too heavily on an in-place evolutionary modelthat depends upon a virtually simultaneous and in situtransformation of Woodland into Mississippian popu-lations across much of the area (cf. Smith 1990). In thispaper we have argued that the best evidence for suchan evolutionary scenario is to be found in the middleMississippi Valley and the American Bottom (Emerson1991; Fortier et al. 2006; Kelly 1990a, 2000; Pauketat2004, 2007). In the mid- South the patterning nowdiscernable is far different. It can be described as aseries of related site unit intrusions and interpreted, asCaldwell did in the 1950s, as part of a Mississippianradiation with growing and spreading Mississippianpopulations hopscotching their way across the South-east; at first coexisting with, and later displacing orincorporating, a resident Woodland folk (Caldwell1958:64–68).

While each portion of the Mississippi drainage mustbe interpreted in the light of the specifics of its availableevidence, it is interesting to note that our view of thegrowth and spread of food producing populations inAlabama is consonant with recent interpretations of thegrowth and spread of food producers in areas to thenorth (Emerson 1991:226–276; Pauketat 2004:124–131),west (Roper 2007:62 ), and northwest (Ahler 2007:28–30; Johnson 2007:52 ; Tiffany 2007:13–14 ) of a middleMississippian hearth land. In the central and northernPlains the pattern is one of the transformative effects ofintense horticulture on resident groups whose huntingand harvesting neighbors either resisted or wereacculturated to the social norms that accompany foodproduction (Roper 2007:62). In sum, in both the centraland northern Plains there is reasonable evidence for atleast a century, perhaps two, of interaction betweenhunter and harvester and intensive horticulturalpopulations. Farther east a similar pattern of coexis-tence was found in the central Illinois River valley andupper Mississippi River valley (Emerson 1991:226). Inthe upper reaches of Turkey Creek of southern Illinois,fairly solid evidence indicates a group making grog-tempered ceramics to have been contemporaneouswith a Mississippian group which utilized shell-tempered ceramics and wall trench houses on an A.D.1200–1300 time level (Oetelaar 1993:662–687).

Some have argued that these events may have beenstimulated by environmental conditions (Bryson et al.

1970). Although the effects of climatic change have yetto be carefully measured in many Mississippi Riverdrainage contexts, the appearance, growth, and spreadof food-producing societies in the central and northernPlains and the spread of chiefdoms into and throughthe mid-South correlate well with the posited A.D. 1050to 1350 duration of the Medieval Warming period, anepisode of wetter, warmer weather in the NorthernHemisphere (Lamb 1997). South and east of theMississippian hearth land, an examination by Ander-son et al. (1995), and Anderson (1996:176–180) of baldcypress growth patterns in the Savannah River valleyof South Carolina and Georgia revealed favorable rainamounts from A.D. 1152 to 1200 and from A.D. 1251 to1358. These periods of abundant rainfall apparentlyhad few shortfalls and may well have producedfavorable conditions for the production of cornsurpluses and population growth. Least we be misun-derstood, however, we should note that by positingpopulation growth and dispersal we are not claiming alarge-scale or long-distance migration. Instead we viewthe advent of Mississippians in the mid-South as anongenetically coded adaptive radiation on the part ofnewly emergent food producers. We assume that overthe span of several centuries food production allowedits practitioners to keep larger and more concentratedkin-based populations alive for shorter periods of timethus stimulating the emergence of new forms of humanand natural resource management, dispute mediationand conflict resolution. In other words we see the socialconsequences of food production as a motivating forcebehind those elements of the archaeological recordtypically identified as Mississippian. At any rate, theintrusion of small groups of Mississippian peoplesresulted in a marked transformation of indigenous lifestyles typified by new forms of subsistence andsettlement, domestic and public architecture, ceramics,lithic technology, and social organization.

In a 1986 publication we tendered a hypotheticalmodel of the social dynamics we thought responsiblefor the spread of Mississippians into and through theSoutheast. In it we posited a limit to kin-basedauthority and prestige distribution systems that werefocused upon monumental public works. We used ourmodel to explicate three aspects of the archaeologicalrecord: (1) the spread of Mississippian communities tofar-flung portions of the farmable Southeastern land-scape, (2) the localized emergence of a hierarchicallyorganized three-tiered settlement pattern, and (3) theoccurrence of multimound communities (Jenkins andKrause 1986:125–128). Our model was based on thelimits inhering in a kin-based authority and prestigedistribution system focused upon monumental publicworks and accompanied by rapid population growth.We argued that high-status competitors drew upon anetwork of near and distant kinsmen for support in



214

forwarding succession claims. Losers by virtue of thecompetition identified themselves as potential leaders,and should the competition have been rancorous, theycould further their aims by removing themselves andtheir supporters from the parent community. Henceemergent leaders who were losers might still legitimizetheir claims to power and authority by gathering theirfollowers and founding a new community beyond theadministrative reach of the parent. Should the compe-tition have been less rancorous, the following smallerand/or less committed, and with suitable territoryavailable in the parent’s hinterland, a loser may havefounded a satellite settlement near the parent. We alsoargued that multimound communities were the resultsof a broadened local authority and prestige base thatemerged in mature communities whose competitorslegitimized their claims by in situ mound building.

Anderson (1994:84–93) identified the proximatesource of competition among claimants to chieflyoffice by noting that transgenerational populationgrowth increased the number of lineal claimants tothe office thus potentially promoting conflicts andfissions that created a localized pattern of chieflycycling. Strict adherence to a rule of primogeniturewould have eliminated the posited growth in the poolof lineal claimants but would have been a bit unusualgiven the widespread Native American practice ofbalancing a rule of primogeniture against locallydeveloped and applied performance standards, thusperhaps even broadening the pool of claimantsAnderson posited (e.g., see Dorsey and Murie1940:112). At this point it should be noted that thetransgenerational growth in the number of linealswould have been dwarfed by the more dramaticgrowth in collateral relatives upon which disputantscould have drawn for support. Blitz and Lorenzincluded both in identifying mound-focused politicalunits as important wefts in the fabric of Mississippianlife: ‘‘The polity fission-fusion model proposed thatMississippian mound centers formed … by the comingtogether and pulling apart of basic political unitscomposed of a chief and a body of followers, whichcan be identified archaeologically with platformmounds’’ (2006: 19). Further, these mound politicalunits, they argued, were responsible for a pattern offission and fusion that dispersed Mississippian settle-ments over the Southeastern landscape and createdmultimound centers and satellite communities (Blitzand Lorenz 2006:18–19). We agree with both Andersonand Blitz that the fission-fusion model may account forevents in Mississippian chiefdoms but wish here tofocus upon the early stages of the fission-fusionprocess, upon the fissions that promoted the separa-tion of a mound-focused political unit from its parentand its removal to a portion of the landscape beyondthe parent’s reach. To separate these episodes of

fission from other portions of the fission-fusion model,Jenkins (2009) has described them as budding and hasidentified them as the primary mechanism in creatingthe site unit intrusions that typify a SoutheasternMississippian radiation.

Jenkins (2009) further contends that understandinghow and why budding occurred and worked is centralto explaining early Mississippian population move-ments elsewhere. It certainly could explain the nearsimultaneous appearance of early Mississippian com-munities over a broad area. Thus in this model buddingoccurred relatively early in the development of theShiloh phase, resulting in the spread of several groupswith very similar artifact inventories that have beenidentified as comprising the early Moundville variant.In sum, budding from the Shiloh area created a belt ofethnically related chiefdoms that in turn budded kingroups that moved to the south and west, where theydeveloped into ethnically related groups identifiedtaxonomically as the Moundville, Pensacola, and Roodvariants (Jenkins, 2009). Budding to the south and westmay also be related to the procurement of localizednatural resources or the raw material for the produc-tion of prestige goods. Budded communities may wellhave removed themselves beyond the administrativereach of their parents yet retained commercial ties withthem. The Bottle Creek I phase of the Pensacola variant(Fuller 2003) is an example deserving closer scrutinythan it has yet received. The Bottle Creek areacontained salt, exotic lithics, and marine shell, allproducts very much in demand farther north. Hence itmay be no accident that the importation of marine shellpeaked at Moundville during the Moundville I–IItransition shortly after the establishment of the BottleCreek mound center (Welch 1991: Figure 6.4; 1996:86–87).

Conclusion

This paper has focused on the budding episodes ofthe Moundville variant. In so doing we have outlinedhow early Moundville related food producers quicklypopulated the mid-South while incorporating residentWoodland peoples. But there are other Early Missis-sippian manifestations which require attention, such asJonathan Creek, Obion, Hiwassee Island, Etowah, andFort Walton. To obtain a fuller understanding of theMississippianization of these communities and of themid-South as a whole it will ultimately be necessary toplot their relationships to the Mississippian hearthland. Such an endeavor will necessitate an understand-ing of the initial fluorescence and near-simultaneousbudding of early Mississippians from their center ofdispersal in the American Bottom.



215

Notes

Acknowledgments. The authors would like to thank Jim Knightfor preparing Figure 2. We thank Paul Welch and theUniversity of Alabama Press for permission to use Figure 4.We thank John Blitz and the University of Alabama Press forpermission to use Figure 5. We thank Keith Little and JackBergstresser for assistance in the preparation of Figures 3, 6,7, 8, and 9. In addition we are grateful to John Blitz, IanBrown, Jim Knight, and Keith Little for reading various draftsof this manuscript. Thanks goes to Tom Emerson and severalother SEAC readers for reviewing and making meaningfulcomments on earlier drafts, as well as SEAC editors GayleFritz and Charlie Cobb for guiding this study to publication.Finally, we thank Jim Feathers for conducting Thermolumi-nescence dates on those sherds submitted to him by thesenior author and Jason Mann from sites 1Je31, 1Je32, 1Je33and the Moundville PA Tract.

1 The basin house style with small posts was most numerousin the middle Mississippi Valley, where it occurred earliest.The earliest form of basin house dates to the early LateWoodland Rosewood/Mund phase. Similar houses occur inthe following Patrick phase (McElrath and Fortier 2000:106).Rectangular basin houses with wall trenches was the dominanthouse form during the subsequent Lohmann phase (Pauketat2004:80–81).2 In the Alabama region the rectangular basin house formappeared briefly with the earliest Mississippian immigrants,ca. A.D. 1100. The rectangular basin form in Alabama wasusually constructed with small individual posts. However,less frequently the basin house was constructed with walltrenches along the long axis of the house. Two knownexamples were originally single-post basin houses whichwere rebuilt with wall trenches along the long axis (Scarry1995: 113; Jenkins and Ensor 1981:Figure 106). This particularform with both small posts and wall trenches is referred to asa ‘‘hybrid’’ form (Pauketat personal communication June2008). In Alabama, basin houses usually occur in pairs(Jenkins and Ensor 1981:Figure 74) of large and small houses(Table 3). The basin form was replaced by a rectangular walltrench form built on the ground surface, only to be quicklysuperseded by the square wall trench house type (Scarry1995:97–113; 1998:69–73). Generally, after ca. A.D. 1200 thebasin house was no longer built in the Alabama region.However, in central Alabama, four square basin houses withwall trenches have been found dating to ca. A.D. 1100–1300which are larger than the rectangular basin form, indicatingan increase through time in floor area (Table 3) (Sheldon et al.2002). The American Bottom Stirling phase saw a paralleldevelopment toward the larger square house shape, with areduction in the popularity of the rectangular form (Kel-ly1990b:77).

The rectangular basin small-post house and the basin walltrench house of the Alabama region occur at approximatelythe same time as those at Cahokia. In the American Bottom,wall trench construction became frequent in rectangular basinhouses ca. A.D. 1050 with the beginning of the Lohmannphase, a period of massive community reorganization,planning, and public works referred to as the Big Bang(Pauketat 2004:76–80). Rectangular houses with small postscontinue to be built in the Richland complex ca. A.D. 1100,located in the uplands overlooking Cahokia (Alt 2006:289–308; Pauketat 2003:39–66). In the Richland complex ‘‘hybrid’’houses like the one described at 1Pi61 and the PA Tract atMoundville occurred for a very brief period ca. A.D. 1100 (Alt

2006:301) and appear to be the earliest houses at Moundville.House basins continued through the sequence at Cahokia aslate as A.D. 1300–A.D.1350; early on (late eleventh centuryand earlier), floors were up to a meter deep, and they becameshallower through time (Tim Pauketat written communica-tion February 2009). In both Cahokia and Alabama the floorspace of basin wall trench houses increased through time(Table 3) (Pauketat 2004: Table 4.7).3 The majority of the Lubbub microlith complex, whichconforms closely to the Cahokia Microlith Industry, wasrecovered from Feature 51 at site 1Pi33 (Ensor 1991:131–139).This was a large, bell-shaped pit dated by a radiometric datefrom Zone B just below the pit orifice and a date from Zone Dnear the pit base, both cal. A.D. 1035–1162. Both Feature 51and the basin-style Structure 4 at nearby 1Pi61 date theGainesville subphase ceramic assemblage (Jenkins 1982:102;Jenkins 2003:8–9).4 The earliest certain modeled-clay and carved-stone chunkystones, or discoidals, are dated A.D. 600 and are found at sitesin southwestern Illinois and in parts of eastern Missouri, nearthe American Bottom (Pauketat 2004:63;DeBoer 1993:83–92).

References Cited

Ahler, Stanley A.2007 Origins of the Northern Expression of the Middle

Missouri Tradition. In Plains Village Archaeology: Bison-hunting Farmers in the Central and Northern Plains, editedby Stanley A. Ahler and Marvin Kay, pp. 15–31.University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Alt, Susan2006 The Power of Diversity: The Roles of Migration and

Hybridity in Culture Change. In Leadership and Polity inMississippian Society, edited by Brian M. Butler and PaulD. Welch. Center for Archaeological Investigations,Occasional Paper No. 33. Board of Trustees, SouthernIllinois University.

Anderson, David G.1994 The Savannah River Chiefdoms. University of Alabama

Press, Tuscaloosa.

1996 Chiefly Cycling and Large-Scale Abandonments asViewed from the Savannah River Basin. In PoliticalStructure and Change in the Prehistoric Southeastern UnitedStates, edited by John F. Scarry, pp. 150–191. Ripley P.Bullen Series, Florida Museum of Natural History.

Anderson, David G., David W. Stahle, and Malcolm K.Cleveland

1995 Paleoclimate and the Potential Food Reserves ofMississippian Societies: A Case Study from the SavannahRiver Valley. American Antiquity 60:258–286.

Blitz, John H.1993 Ancient Chiefdoms of the Tombigbee. University of

Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Blitz, John H., and Karl G. Lorenz2002 The Early Mississippian Frontier in the Lower Chatta-

hoochee–Apalachicola Valley. Southeastern Archaeology21(2):117–135.

2006 The Chattahoochee Chiefdoms. University of AlabamaPress, Tuscaloosa.

Bozeman, Tandy K.1982 Moundville Phase Communities in the Black Warrior



216

River Valley, Alabama. Ph.D. dissertation, Department ofAnthropology, University of California, Santa Barbara.

Brown, Ian W. (editor)2003 Bottle Creek: A Pensacola Culture Site in South Alabama.

University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.Bryson, Reid A., David A. Barreis, and Wayne M. Wendland1970 The Character of Late-Glacial and Post-Glacial Climat-

ic Changes. In Pleistocene and Recent Environments of theCentral Great Plains, edited by Wakefield Dort, Jr. and J. K.Jones, Jr., pp. 53–74. University Press of Kansas, Law-rence.

Cadle, Cornelius1902 A Remarkable Prehistoric Pipe. Records of the Past 1:

218–220.Caddell, Gloria M.1981 Plant Resources, Archaeological Plant Remains, and

Prehistoric Plant Use Patterns in the Central TombigbeeRiver Valley. In Biocultural Studies in the Gainesville LakeArea, vol. 4. Pages 1–86. University of Alabama Office ofArchaeological Research, Report of Investigations 14.University.

1983 Floral Remains from the Lubbub Creek ArchaeologicalLocality. In Studies of Material Remains from the LubbubCreek Archaeological Locality, edited by Christopher S.Peebles, pp. 194–271. Final report submitted to the Mobiledistrict office of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,Mobile, AL.

Caldwell, Joseph R.1958 Trend and Tradition in the Prehistory of the Eastern United

States. American Anthropological Association, Memoir88. Springfield.

Chase, David W.1959 The Averett Culture. Coweta Memorial Association

Papers, Columbus.1963 A Reappraisal of the Averett Culture. Journal of

Alabama Archaeology 9:49–61.1968 Pottery Typology Committee for Central Alabama. In

Proceedings of the Twenty-fourth Southeastern ArchaeologicalConference, edited by Bettye J. Broyles, pp. 11–22. South-eastern Archaeological Conference Bulletin 8. Morgan-town, WV.

1969 New Pottery Types from Alabama. In SoutheasternArchaeological Conference 10:17–25. Morgantown, WV.

1998 Prehistoric Pottery of Central Alabama. Journal ofAlabama Archaeology 44(1–2):52–98.

Clark, David L.1968 Analytical Archaeology. Methuen, London.Cole, Gloria, Mary C. Hill, and H. Blaine Ensor1982 Bioarchaeological Comparisons of the Late Miller III

and Summerville I Phases in the Gainesville Lake Area. InArchaeology of the Gainesville Lake Area: Synthesis, edited byNed J. Jenkins, pp. 187–258. Archaeological Investigationsin the Gainesville Lake Area of the Tennessee-TombigbeeWaterway, Vol. 5. Report of Investigations 23. Office ofArchaeological Research, University of Alabama.

Curren, Caleb, Steven Newby, and Erick Mosley2001 Archaeological Excavations at an Early Mississippian

Mound (1Ds172) in Central Alabama. Archeology, Inc,Online Research Journal. http://intarch.ac.uk.

DeBoer, Warren R.1993 Like a Rolling Stone: The Chunkey Game and Political

Organization in Eastern North America. SoutheasternArchaeology 12:83–92.

DeJarnette, David. L., and Stephen. B. Wimberly1941 The Bessemer Site: Excavations of Three Mounds and

Surrounding Village Areas Near Bessemer, Alabama. Geolog-ical Survey of Alabama, Museum Paper 17. Tuscaloosa.

Dickens, Roy S.1971 Archaeology of the Jones Bluff Reservoir of Central

Alabama. Journal of Alabama Archaeology 17:1–107.Dorsey, George A., and James R. Murie1940 Notes on Skidi Pawnee Society. Anthropological Series,

Field Museum of Natural History, Vol. 27. Pages 69–119.Chicago.

Dumas, Ashley A.1999 A Definition of the Late Woodland and McLeod Phase

Ceramic Series in Southwest Alabama. Journal of AlabamaArchaeology 45:111–127.

Emerson, Thomas E.1991 Some Perspectives on Cahokia and the North Missis-

sippian Expansion. In Cahokia and the Hinterlands: MiddleMississippian Cultures of the Midwest, edited by ThomasEmerson and R. Berry Lewis, pp. 221–238. University ofIllinois Press, Urbana-Champaign.

Emerson, Thomas E., and Randall E. Hughes2000 Figurines, Flint Clay Sourcing, the Ozark Highlands,

and Cahokian Acquisition. American Antiquity 65:79–101.Emerson, Thomas E., Randall E. Hughes, Mary E. Hynes, and

Sarah U. Wisseman2003 Sourcing and Interpretation of Cahokia-Style Figurines

in the Trans-Mississippi South and Southeast. AmericanAntiquity 68:287–313.

Ensor, H. Blaine1991 The Lubbub Creek Microlith Industry. Southeastern

Archaeology 10:18–39.1993 Big Sandy Farms: A Prehistoric Agricultural Commu-

nity near Moundville, Black Warrior River Floodplain,Tuscaloosa County, Alabama. Report submitted to BasinPipeline Birmingham, by the Division of Archaeology,Alabama Museum of Natural History, University ofAlabama, Tuscaloosa. Report of Investigations 68. Divi-sion of Archaeology, Alabama Museum of NaturalHistory, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa.

Feathers, James K.2009 Problems of Ceramic Chronology in the Southeast:

Does Shell-Tempered Pottery Appear Earlier than WeThink? American Antiquity 74(4):113142.

Fortier, Andrew C., Thomas E. Emerson, and Dale L.McElrath

2006 Celebrating and Reassessing American Bottom CultureHistory. Southeastern Archaeology 25:170–211.

Fuller, Richard S.1998 Indian Pottery and Cultural Chronology of the Mobile-

Tensaw Basin and Alabama Coast. Journal of AlabamaArchaeology 44:1–51.

2003 Out of the Moundville Shadow: The Origin andEvolution of Pensacola Culture. In Bottle Creek: A PensacolaCulture Site in South Alabama, edited by Ian W. Brown,pp. 27–62. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Gall, Daniel G., and Vincas P. Steponaitis2001 Composition and Provenance of Greenstone Artifacts

from Moundville. Southeastern Archaeology 20:99–117.



217

Jackson, Paul D.2004 Co-existence of the West Jefferson and Moundville I

Phases. Journal of Alabama Archaeology 50(1):1–17.Jenkins, Ned J.1978 Terminal Woodland-Mississippian Interaction in Northern

Alabama: The West Jefferson Phase, edited by DrexelPeterson, Jr. Southeastern Archaeological ConferenceSpecial Publication 5:21–27. Memphis State University.

1981 Gainesville Lake Area Ceramic Description and Chronology.Archaeological Investigations in the Gainesville LakeArea of the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway, Vol. 2.Report of Investigations 12. Office of ArchaeologicalResearch, University of Alabama.

1982 Archaeology of the Gainesville Lake Area: Synthesis.Archaeological Investigations in the Gainesville LakeArea of the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway, Vol. 5.Report of Investigations 23. University of Alabama, Officeof Archaeological Research, Tuscaloosa.

1983 Ceramic Summary Descriptions and Chronology in CulturalResources Reconnaissance Study of the Black Warrior-Tom-bigbee System Corridor, Alabama, Volume I Archaeology,edited by David S. Brose, Ned J. Jenkins, and Russell S.Weisman, pp. 73–156. University of South Alabama,Department of Geology and Geography, Mobile.

2003 The Terminal Woodland/Mississippian Transition inWest and Central Alabama. Journal of Alabama Archaeology(49):1–62.

2009 Tracing the Early Origins of the Creeks: 1050–1700. InMapping the Shatter Zone, edited by Robbie Ethridge andSheri Shuck-Hall. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.

Jenkins, Ned J., and Jerry Nielsen1974 Archaeological Salvage Investigations at the West

Jefferson Steam Plant Site, Jefferson County, Alabama.Report Submitted to Alabama Power, Birmingham, by theUniversity of Alabama, University.

Jenkins, Ned J., and H. Blaine Ensor1981 The Gainesville Lake Excavations. Archaeological Inves-

tigations in the Gainesville Lake Area of the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway, Vol. 1. Report of Investigations 11.Office of Archaeological Research, University of Ala-bama.

Jenkins, Ned. J., and Richard. A. Krause1986 The Tombigbee Watershed in Southeastern Prehistory.

University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.Jenkins, Ned J., and Catherine C. Myer1998 Ceramics of the Tombigbee–Black Warrior River

Valleys. Journal of Alabama Archaeology 44:131–187.Jenkins, Ned J., and Craig T. Sheldon2007 Woodland Ceramic Chronology and Ethnic Boundar-

ies in Central Alabama: A.D. 200–A.D.1300. Paperpresented at the 64th Southeastern Archaeological Con-ference, Knoxville, TN.

Johnson, Craig M.2007 Jones Village: An Initial Middle Missouri Frontier

Settlement. In Plains Village Archaeology: Bison-huntingFarmers in the Central and Northern Plains, edited byStanley A. Ahler and Marvin Kay, pp. 41–52. Universityof Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Kelly, John E.1990a The Emergence of Mississippian Culture in the

American Bottom Region. In The Mississippian Emergence,

edited by Bruce D. Smith, pp. 113–146. SmithsonianInstitution Press, Washington, DC.

1990b Range Site Community Patterns and the Mississippi-an Emergence. In The Mississippian Emergence, edited byBruce D. Smith, pp. 67–112. Smithsonian Institution Press,Washington, DC.

2000 Nature and Context of Emergent Mississippian Cul-tural Dynamics in the American Bottom. In Late WoodlandSocieties: Tradition and Transformation across the Midconti-nent, edited by Thomas E. Emerson, Dale L. McElrath,and Andrew F. C. Fortier, pp. 163–178. University ofNebraska Press, Lincoln.

Knight, James V., Jr., and Vincas. P. Steponaitis1998 A New History of Moundville. In Archaeology of the

Moundville Chiefdom, edited by Vernon J. Knight, Jr. andVincas. P. Steponaitis, pp. 1–25. Smithsonian InstitutionPress, Washington, DC.

Lamb, H. H.1997 Climate, History, and the Modern World. 2nd ed.

Routledge, New York.Lehmer, Donald J.1971 Introduction to Middle Missouri Archaeology. Anthropo-

logical Papers 1. National Park Service, Washington, DC.Little, Keith J.1999 The Role of Late Woodland Interactions in the

Emergence of Etowah. Southeastern Archaeology 18:45–56.McElrath, Dale L., and Andrew C. Fortier2000 The Early Late Woodland Occupation of the American

Bottom. In Late Woodland Societies: Tradition and Transfor-mation across the Midcontinent. Pages 97–122, edited byThomas E. Emerson, Dale L. McElrath, and Andrew C.Fortier. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.

Mistovitch, Tim S.1987 The Mill Creek Site, 1Tu265, Black Warrior River,

Alabama. Report of Investigations 54. Office of Archaeo-logical Research, University of Alabama.

Morrell, L. Ross1993 Archaeological Research in the Logan Martin Basin:

Final Report of Investigations. In Archaeological Survey andExcavations in the Coosa River Valley, Alabama, edited byVernon J. Knight, Jr., pp. 7–32. Bulletin 15. AlabamaMuseum of Natural History. University of Alabama,Tuscaloosa.

Oetelaar, Gerald A.1993 Identifying Site Structure in the Archaeological Re-

cord: An Illinois Mississippian Example. American Antiq-uity 58(4):662–687.

Pauketat, Timothy R.2002 A Fourth-Generation Synthesis of Cahokia and Mis-

sissippianization. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 27:149–170.

2003 Resettled Farmers and the Making of a MississippianPolity. American Antiquity 68(1):39–66.

2004 Ancient Cahokia and the Mississippians. CambridgeUniversity Press, New York.

2007 Chiefdoms and Other Archaeological Delusions. Alta MiraPress, Lanham, MD.

Peebles, Christopher S.1987 The Rise and Fall of the Mississippian in Western

Alabama: The Moundville and Summerville Phases, A.D.1000 to A.D. 1600. Mississippi Archaeology 22(1):1–31.



218

Phillips, Phillip1970 Archaeological Survey in the Lower Yazoo Basin, Mis-

sissippi, 1949–1955. Peabody Museum of American Ar-chaeology and Ethnology, Papers 60. Cambridge.

Pope, Melody1986 Microdrills from the Moundville Region: Technology,

Function, and Context. Paper presented at the 43rdSoutheastern Archaeological Conference, Nashville.

1989 Microdrills from the Black Warrior Valley: Technology,Use and Context. Master’s thesis, Department of Anthro-pology, State University of New York, Binghamton.

Roper, Donna C.2007 The Origins and Expansion of the Central Plains

Tradition. In Plains Village Archaeology: Bison-huntingFarmers in the Central and Northern Plains, edited byStanley A. Ahler and Marvin Kay, pp. 53–63. Universityof Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Scarry, C. Margaret1986 Change in Plant Procurement and Production during the

Emergence of the Moundville Chiefdom. Ph.D. dissertation,Department of Anthropology, University of Michigan.University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.

1995 Excavations on the Northwest Riverbank at Moundville:Investigations of a Moundville I Residential Area. Report ofInvestigations 72. Office of Archaeological Research,University of Alabama.

1998 Domestic Life on the Northwest Riverbank at Mound-ville. In Archaeology of the Moundville Chiefdom, edited byVernon James Knight, Jr. and Vincas P. Steponaitis.Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.

Schnell, Frank T., Vernon J. Knight, Jr., and Gail S. Schnell1981 Cemochechobee: Archaeology of a Mississippian Ceremonial

Center on the Chattahoochee River. Ripley P. BullenMonographs in Anthropology and History 3. UniversityPress of Florida, Gainesville.

Seckinger, Ernest W., and Ned J. Jenkins2000 Plural Society in Prehistoric Alabama. Journal of

Alabama Archaeology 46(1):43–57.Service, Elman R.1971 Primitive Social Organization: An Evolutionary Perspec-

tive. Random House, New York.Sheldon, Craig T., Jason A. Mann, and John W. Cottier2002 A Late Woodland-Mississippian Culture Contact in

Central Alabama. Paper presented at the 60th Southeast-ern Archaeological Conference, Charlotte, NC.

Simon, Mary L.2000 Regional Plant Use Strategies in the Late Woodland. In

Late Woodland Societies: Tradition and Transformation acrossthe Midcontinent, edited by Thomas E. Emerson, Dale L.McElrath, and Andrew C. Fortier, pp. 37–76. Universityof Nebraska Press, Lincoln.

Smith, Bruce D.1990 Introduction. In The Mississippian Emergence, edited by

Bruce D. Smith, pp. 1–8. Smithsonian Institution Press,Washington, DC.

Smith, Patrick, and Loren D. Bredeson2000 Archaeological Phase II Testing of 1Tu845, Tuscaloosa

County, Alabama. Report submitted to compliance,Jasper by Panamerican Consultants, Tuscaloosa, AL.

Steponaitis, Vincas P.1983 Ceramics, Chronology, and Community Patterns: An Ar-

chaeological Study at Moundville. Academic Press, New York.

1990 Excavations at 1Tu50, an Early Mississippian Centernear Moundville. Southeastern Archaeology 11:1–13.

1991 Contrasting Patterns of Mississippian Development. InChiefdoms: Power, Economy, and Ideology, edited byTimothy Earle, pp. 193–228. Cambridge University Press,New York.

Tiffany, Joseph A.2007 Examining the Origins of the Middle Missouri Tradi-

tion. In Plains Village Archaeology: Bison-hunting Farmers inthe Central and Northern Plains, edited by Stanley A. Ahlerand Marvin Kay, pp. 3–31. University of Utah Press, SaltLake City.

Trigger, Bruce G.1989 A History of Archaeological Thought. Cambridge Univer-

sity Press, Cambridge.

Walthall, John A.1980 Prehistoric Indians of the Southeast: Archaeology of

Alabama and the Middle South. University of AlabamaPress, Tuscaloosa.

Welch, Paul D.1990 Mississippian Emergence in West Central Alabama. In

The Mississippian Emergence, edited by Bruce D. Smith,pp. 197–225. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington,DC.

1991 Moundville’s Economy. University of Alabama Press,Tuscaloosa.

1994 The Occupational History of the Bessemer Site.Southeastern Archaeology 13:1–26.

1996 Control over Goods and the Political Stability of theMoundville Chiefdom. In Political Structure and Change inthe Prehistoric Southeastern United States, edited by John F.Scarry. Ripley P. Bullen Series, Florida Museum ofNatural History.

1998 Outlying Sites within the Moundville Chiefdom. InArchaeology of the Moundville Chiefdom, edited by Vernon J.Knight, Jr. and Vincas P. Steponaitis, pp. 133–166.Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.

2006 Archaeology at Shiloh Indian Mounds. University ofAlabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Willey, Gordon R., and Phillip Phillips1958 Method and Theory in American Archaeology. University

of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Wilson, Gregory D.2001 Crafting Control and the Control of Crafts: Rethinking

the Moundville Greenstone Industry. Southeastern Archae-ology 20:118–128.

Woodrick, Anne1981 Analysis of the Faunal Remains from the Gainesville

Lake Area. In Biocultural Studies in the Gainesville LakeArea, edited by Gloria M. Caddell, Anne Woodrick,and Mary C. Hill, pp. 91–168. Archaeological Investi-gations in the Gainesville Lake Area of the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway, Vol. 4. Report of Investigations14. Office of Archaeological Research, University ofAlabama.



219

The Woodland Mississippian Interface in Alabama, ca. A.D. 1075-1200: An Adaptive Radiation?

Documents

Transcript of The Woodland Mississippian Interface in Alabama, ca. A.D. 1075-1200: An Adaptive Radiation?