Origenes Marcoux 2007 Chiefdoms (Southeastern Arch)

ON RECONSIDERING DISPLAY GOODS PRODUCTION AND CIRCULATIONIN THE MOUNDVILLE CHIEEDOM

Jon Bernard Marcoux

The "Prestige Goods Economy" model zoas created to explainthe rise of political complexity as the result of elite strategiesto control access to exotic, finely crafted display goods. Thisconcept is so ingrained in our current understandings ofsocial, economic, and political life in Mississippian chiefdomsthat it has become part of the very definition of "Mississip-pian." The political economy of the Moundville chiefdom, inparticular, has long been associated with the prestige goodsconcept and a highly centralized system of crafting and long-distance exchange. Jn this paper, J bring together extant datafrom past excavations at Moundville and surrounding sitesin order to test the current model of display goods productionand circulation during the peak of the chiefdom's power (ca.A.D. 1300-1450). I find that while the production andcirculation of display goods is ovenvhelmingly associatedwith elites at the Moundville center, the scale of local displaygoods production and the quantity of nonlocal display goodsrelative to locally made display goods at the site does notmatch the expectations generated by the current model ofMoundville's political economy.

Within the last quarter century, researchers have castthe prehistoric development of political complexity asthe result of a limited set of strategies employed byindividuals and groups seeking political advantage(e.g., Blanton et al. 1996; D'Altroy and Earle 1985; Earle1987, 1994, 1997; Frankenstein and Rowlands 1978).Central to this political-economy approach is theconcept of a "prestige goods economy" in which theproduction and circulation of display goods togetherform a crucial leverage point that was manipulated byindividuals Ln order to establish and maintain political,sociaL and economic power. Among studies ofMississippian chiefdoms in the Southeast, one oftenencounters the prestige goods economy concept,whether it is explicitly evoked as an explanatory modelor implied within a broader theoretical framework(e.g., Anderson 1994; King 2003; Steponaitis 1991;Trubitt 2000; Welch 1991, 1996). In this paper, i revisitthe original context and intent of the prestige goodseconomy model, show how this model was modified tofit data from the Moundville chiefdom, and test howwell the modified prestige goods concept fits currentevidence of display goods production and circulationin the Moundville chiefdom during the height of its

paramountcy ca. A.D. 1300-1450 (Knight and Stepo-naitis 1998). I find that the concept of a "prestige goodseconomy" does not fit the patterns of production andcirculation evidence in the Moundville case. While notdiscounting the importance of display goods in thepolitical economy of Moundville, I suggest that weneed to rethink how display goods related to the social,political, and economic structures of this Mississippiansociety.

The Prestige Goods Model

In the 1970s as theoretical favor began to shift awayfrom the view of chiefdoms as redistributive societies,archaeologists began to posit that chiefdoms weremarked by inequality and control of social, political,and economic power (e.g., Earle 1978, 1991, 1997;Johnson and Earle 1987; Peebles and Kus 1977; Welch1996; Wright 1984). Taking a lead from earlierethnographical research by Malinowski (1922) andMauss (2000), these archaeologists began focusing onthe interplay between economy, politics, and ideologyin chiefly societies. One of the most enduring productsof this change in perspective was the "prestige goodseconomy" model. The model was originally conceivedby Friedman (1975) and Rowlands (Friedman andRowlands 1977) and applied to data from EuropeanIron Age chiefdoms by Frankenstein and Rowlands(1978).

The "prestige-goods economy" model described avery particular exchange system in w^hich politicalpower was held by those who could control access toexotic wealth items through extemai exchange rela-tions (Frankenstein and Rowlands 1978:76). The foun-dation of the model depended on a set of ethnographicanalogies to groups that placed a high priority onexotic wealth items in determining status (Ekholm1972). The value of prestige goods was derived fromtheir use as payments in a system of social transactionscharacterized by pervasive competition for statusbetween descent groups (Frankenstein and Rowlands1978:76). Prestige goods were items that were used inthis ceaseless cycle of status competition (e.g., marriagewealth, feasting) to pay social debts and to place socialdebt upon others.

For Frankenstein and Rowlands (1978:76-78), statuscompetitions, which were evident even in fairlyegalitarian societies, naturally led to hierarchicaleconomic, social, and political structures as nascent

232

DISPLAY GOODS PRODUCTION IN THE MOUNDVILLE CHIEFDOM

elite descent groups invested food surpluses in wealthobjects that were used to acquire more wives anddependents for the group. According to the authors,increasing the denrographic strength of the local groupwas a crucial strategy for gaining status in this system.Once the competitive cycle began to breed asymmet-rical social relations, they argued that elites began touse sumptuary laws to assert control by determiningwhat items could be used as prestige goods. Bydetermining the form and value of these socialcommodities, elites, in effect, entrenched themselvesat the top of the political and social hierarchy through apolicy of social loan sharking.

Life at the top, however, was never a stableenvironment. Frankenstein and Rowlands (1978:78-79) noted that elites constantly struggled to control thesupply of prestige goods in order to keep "inflation"from devaluing the objects. Thus trade with externalpolities, manufacturing techniques related to prestigegoods production, and any sources of nonlocal rawmaterials had to be tightly controlled. In order tosupport the acquisition of exotic prestige goods, localproduction of items for the external trade needed to be"constant feature" of this type of economy. Also, thepolitical aspirations of a host of underlings had to bedealt with through the dispersal of nonlocal goods tolocal subchiefs. tn sum, expansion of one's politicalpower in this model was a function of the supply ofprestige goods at one's disposal. When the supply ofprestige goods was steady and tightly controlled, thepolitical and social dominance of a particular elitegroup was maintained. When there was a disruption inthe supply of prestige goods or loss of control overproduction, those elites lost dominance because theycould no longer meet their ritual and social obligations.

The prestige goods model has undergone someadjustments and appeared in various incarnations inrecent years. Among these incarnations are Earle's(1997) and D'Altroy's (D'Altroy and Earle 1985)concept of "wealth finance" and Blanton et al.'s(1996) "networking strategies." These latter construc-tions provided a more elaborate discussion regardingthe ideological dimension of the prestige goodseconomy. The authors used cross-cultural ethnographicdata to suggest that foreign or exotic items, obtainedfrom long-distance exchange, held power in prehistoricgroups because of a shared worldview that equatedgeographical distance with cosmological distance andfar-off places with great sources of esoteric knowledge(Blanton et al. 1996:5; DeMarrais et al. 1996:15; Earle1987:299; see also Helms 1979, 1993). While thesemodels engaged more with what these goods mighthave meant to prehistoric groups, they shared theoriginal prestige goods model's emphases on statuscompetition and wealth accumulation through controlover local production and regional exchange. Timothy

Earle (1997:73) best expressed this view in writing thatdisplay goods were in essence "political currencies[that compensated] people within ruling institutions."

The original case study of the Iron Age chiefdomsassociated with the Hallstatt culture (ca. 650-300 B.C.)provides a good archaeological example of how aprestige goods economy operated (Frankenstein andRowlands 1978; Gosden 1985). Prestige goods in centralEuropean Hallstatt chiefdoms consisted of items thatwere obtained from trade with distant Greek andEtruscan sources as well as ornate items made locallyfrom imported raw materials. On the local side of thisburgeoning long-distance trade system, items neededfor export or for dispersal among local politicos (e.g.,objects of iron, bronze, cloth, and glass) were manu-factured in large numbers at specialized workshops.Archaeological evidence related to the scale of produc-tion at these workshops included the remains ofspecialized facilities like large furnaces, molds forcasting metals, specialized tool kits, abundant produc-tion debris, and numerous production failures. Thelocations of these large workshops at chiefly centers,the level of standardization exhibited by many of themanufactured items, and the specialized knowledgeneeded to produce local prestige goods all suggest thatthis production was sponsored and controlled by elites(Frankenstein and Rowlands 1978:88-89).

The circulation of prestige goods reflected theexistence of an inclusive and pervasive system ofprestige competitions that crosscut status groups.While participation in this system was open and likelycompulsory, it was at the same time dominated by avery small number of individuals. This system wascharacterized in Hallstatt chiefdoms by a widespreadyet highly concentrated distribution of prestige goods.In the Hallstatt cemeter}' at Heuneberg, for example,locally made "prestige goods" (some of which madefrom imported raw materials) were present in lownumbers with many individuals; however, all of theforeign-made objects and the majority of locally madeprestige goods were found with only a few (presum-ably elite) individuals (Frankenstein and Rowlands1978:87). The importance of nonlocal prestige goodswas exemplified by the finding that imported prestigegoods comprised 10 of the 14 types of artifacts in thefunerary assemblages at Heuneberg. The accumulationand conspicuous consumption of nonlocal prestigegoods by Hallstatt elites was also expressed in themany large "ritual hoards" found across centralEurope, each of which contained dozens of ornateGreek and Etruscan items and locally made weapons(Bradley 1988). Finally, extemai demand for locallymade prestige goods was manifested through thedistribution of significant quantities of Heuneberg-made iron objects in neighboring regions (Frankensteinand Rowlands 1978:90). One can see through this

233

SOUTHEASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 26(2) WINTER 2007

example that the prestige goods economy modeldescribes a cycle of supply and demand for displaygoods that was significant in its scope and scale.

The Prestige Goods Model and theMoundville Chiefdom

Current scholarly discussions of Mississippian chief-doms from Etowah in northern Georgia to Cahokia inthe American Bottom have involved the concept of"prestige goods economy" both advocating and cri-tiquing its use (e.g.. Brown et al. 1990; Cobb 1996; King2003; Muller 1997; Pauketat 1994, 1997; Trubitt 2000).Of all Mississippian chiefdonns, the Moundville chief-dom has had perhaps the longest and closest associa-tion with this concept. Over 30 years ago Peebles andKus (1977; Peebles 1978:17) argued for elite sponsoredproduction of display goods at the Moundville sitebased on the identification of manufacturing loci forgreenstone celts, mica artifacts, and shell beads. Thisresearch established Moundville quite literally as atextbook example of elite control over display goodsproduction in prehistoric chiefdoms (Peebles and Kus1977; see also Price and Feinman 2001).

Paul Welch (1986, 1991, 1996) continued this legacyby accomplishing much to clarify the dynamics ofMoundville's political economy. For his dissertation,Welch (1986, 1991) tested the utility of four cross-cultural models of political economy, including Servic-e's (1962) "redistribution model/' the "mobilizationmodel" developed by Peebles and Kus (Peebles andKus 1977) and Earle (1977), Wright's (1977) "tributarymodel," and Frankenstein and Rowland's (1978)"prestige goods model." After reviewing subsistenceand artifact data pertaining to Mississippian deposits atthe Moundville paramount center, surrounding singlemound centers, and smaller nonmound sites, Welch(1991:179) found that no one theoretical construct couldaccurately predict the archaeological data patternspertaining to the economic articulation of the Mound-ville center and outlying sites.

In Welch's (1991:181) study, comparisons of produc-tion evidence and the quantity and variety of finisheddisplay goods between Moundville and surroundingsites did not demonstrate a strict prestige goodseconomy in the sense of Frankenstein and Rowlands(1978), but the evidence did indicate vast, presumablystatus based, differences in access to display goods.Welch (1991:170) found that evidence of display goodsproduction occurred only at the paramount center ofMoundville and not in any of the surrounding sites.Furthermore, Welch (1991:177) found that most displaygoods were either imported as finished items or weremade from nonlocal raw materials. Welch also noted alarge disparity in the types and frequencies of local and

nonlocal display goods between the Moundville centerand single mound centers and a complete absence offinished display goods at the small hamlet or farmsteadsites where commoners presumably would have livedWelch (1996:84). |

Given these findings, Welch formulated a new modelthat better fit the production and distribution data relatedto display goods. While this model differed from theparhcular form of the prestige goods model laid out byFrankenstein and Rowlands (1978), it retained the notionthat the power wielded by Moundville's elite dependedheavily on control over display goods (Welch 1996:90).Welch (1996:89-91) aiso kept the idea that display goodswere utilized in social competitions; however, he alteredthe model to reflect a very different type of competition.Rather than the frequent and theorehcally open (in regardto status) exchange system outlined in the originalprestige goods model, the new model featured a closedelite-centered system of long-distance exchange thatprecluded participation by Moundville's commoners.The value of display goods in the new model rested onthe idea that "locally valuable but nonlocally acquired"items were "visible, tangible emblems of the chief'ssupernatural efficacy" (Welch 1996:90-91; see also Blan-ton et al. 1996:5; DeMarrais et. al 1996:15; Earle 1987:299).Indeed, Welch (1996:89) argued that an elite monopolyover display goods would have given a hypothetical"chief" a distinct advantage in intrapoUty factionalcompetition, which aided Moundville in remaining astable polity for centuries.

With good reason, this perspective on Moundville'spolitical economy transcended the original analysisand became a foundational aspect of our collectivedefinition of Mississippian. Researchers rendered thisconceptualization on a broader geographic scale bytreating the presence and relative abundance ofnonlocal display goods as proxies to measure degreeof regional influence exerted by Mississippian polities(e.g., Anderson 1994; Blitz 1993; Welch 1996). Stepo-naitis (1991) used this conceptual framework tocompare the developmental trajectories of the Mound-ville chiefdom to another chiefdom in the Pocahontasregion of Mississippi. Through a diachronic study ofdisplay goods in burial contexts at both polities,Steponaitis (1991:Figure 9.4) found that frequencies ofnonlocal display goods in the Pocahontas regiondeclined around the same time that dramatic politicalcentralization was occurring at Moundville and otherpolities in the vicinity (ca. A.D. 1200). Based on thispattem, Steponaitis (1991:226-227) argued that thechiefdon:! in the Pocahontas region most likely neverdeveloped to the degree of Moundville because localelites lost access to exotic display goods-perhaps to thebenefit of Moundville's corps of elites.

Pauketat (1997) has critiqued the popular use of theprestige goods concept for interpreting data regarding

234


the production and circulation of display goods acrossthe Mississippian southeast. His critique was largelyaimed at the way recent studies overemphasizedMississippian elite dependence on noniocally n:iadedisplay goods and long-distance exchange. AlthoughPauketat acknowledged the significance of nonlocaldisplay goods as status symbols in Mississippiansocieties, he was doubtful that they were part of thekind of competitive "gifting" system modeled in thetraditional prestige goods economy (Pauketat 1997:9-10). For the Cahokia polity, Pauketat (1997:10) arguedinstead for a model that emphasized elite strategies tocontrol the local production of display goods for localdistribution-stressing the intra- rather than inter-regional character of elite strategies.

In support of this interpretation, Pauketat marshaledevidence related to the production and circulation ofigneous-rock axeheads and mollusc-shell ornaments,items made from imported raw materials, throughoutthe American Bottom. Pauketat (1997:5-8) pointed tosignificant quantitative asymmetries in productionevidence between the "central political-administrativecomplex" of Cahokia and surrounding sites within thepolity. Density measures of microlith tools used forshell bead production, for example, were 950 timesgreater in parts of Cahokia than in rural homesteads.Similar differences, although on a much smaller scale,were noted for the production of igneous-rock axe-heads. Pauketat (1997:10) concluded that production ofdisplay goods was highly centralized, yet the bulk ofthis production was not intended for use in long-distance exchange. Instead, he argued that the majorityof locally made display goods crafted from nonlocalraw materials were circulated within the polity as partof elite strategies to promote political interests bycontrolling and disseminating cultural meanings. Inthis case, locally made display goods held value withinthe Cahokia polity as symbols of the transformationfrom "the distant unknown (exotic) ... to the locallyknown"-a transformation materialized through theelite sponsored act of production (Pauketat 1997:11).Thus Pauketat's more inward-looking model raisesimportant questions about the widely promoted viewof the Mississippian world as a "World System"-likenetwork of polities bound together by a mutual elitedependence on nonlocal display goods (sensu Franken-stein and Rowlands 1978:80-81).

Testing the Prestige Goods Concept at Moundville

Given the popularity of the prestige goods concept aswell as Pauketat's recent critique, I propose, as didWelch (1986, 1991) before me, that current interpreta-tions be periodically tested for goodness of fit withextant data. In recent years, excavations at the Mound-

ville center and outlying sites have provided additionaldata that should be applied to our interpretations ofdisplay goods production and circulation during theheight of political consolidation in the chiefdom (ca.A.D. 1300-1450).

In this paper, I focus on what I believe to be threerelatively simple and archaeologically testable premis-es undergirding the current interpretation that elites atMoundville garnered power by monopolizing a keysocial, political, and economic leverage point throughthe acquisition of nonlocal display goods. First is thenotion that underlies all of the various forms of prestigegoods economy, that nonlocal display goods formed aprimary fund of power drawn upon by elites for statuscompetitions. The prestige goods concept favorsimported display goods over locally made displaygoods on the secular level as more desirable "politicalcurrencies" (Earl 1997) and on the ideological level assymbols of a leader's diplomatic and supernaturalefficacy (Welch 1996). As in the case of the Hallstattchiefdoms, the current model of Moundville's politicaleconomy predicts that elites were compelled not onlyto control the flow of nonlocal goods but also tomaintain local production and long-distance exchangeat certain "levels" in order to satisfy the demand oflesser elites and reduce the risk political of unrest(Welch 1991:191), In testing the supposed primacy ofnonlocal goods in Moundville's political economy, Iexpect (1) that nonlocal display goods will be concen-trated among elite contexts at Moundville dating to theheight of its political ascendancy (ca. A.D. 1300-1450)and (2) that nonlocal display goods will be moreabundant in these elite contexts than locally madedisplay goods.

The second and third premises follow from the firstpremise and are related to the idea that the acquisitionof nonlocal display goods by elites was tied to a robustsystem of long-distance exchange. In the Hallstattexample, this exchange system was indicated byevidence of the specialized and centralized productionof local display goods at large-scale workshops as wellas the significant presence of these locally produceddisplay goods outside of the Hallstatt region. If thistype of requisite exchange system was in operation atMoundville, then I expect there to be evidence for localelite controlled display goods production on a largescale. I also expect significant quantities of locallyproduced Motindville display goods in foreign polities.

Study Methods

In order to test these three premises, I compareartifacts representing evidence of display goods pro-duction and finished display goods from tate Mound-ville II to early Moundville III phase contexts (ca. A.D.

235


/• \

1 Snow's Bend >

tK9

V t\ * ^ » White

Mill Creek

L ^ * Hog Pen

3

» Hemphi

B Moundville

•Powers

0

Pride Place

Bend Locality

«-• " V

5

kllomelers

Figure I. A map of the Moundville chiefdom featuring sitesdiscussed in the text.

1300-1450) at Moundville, contemporaneously occu-pied subsidiary center sites, farmsteads, and cemeterieslocated within the presumed boundaries Moundvillechiefdom (Figure 1). The Moundville center sampleincludes data from published reports and originalexcavation records from the 1869 to 1941 excavations(Moore 1996a, 1996b; Peebles 1979; Steponaitis 1983b).For this study, I inspected all accessible specimens fromthese excavations in the special collections room at theOffice of Archaeological Services in Moundville,Alabama. I did not have the opportunity to personallyinspect the materials recovered from C. B. Moore'sexcavations at Moundville, but instead relied uponpublished photographs. I also include in my studyspecimens recovered during recent University ofAlabama excavations at Mounds Q, E, and F underthe direction of Vernon James Knight Jr.

Data for the sample of sites surrounding Moundvilleis derived from published works and personal com-munications with those who participated in theexcavations. Farmstead sites in the sample include theMill Creek site (lTu265) (Mistovich 1988; Welch 1998),Pride Place (lTul) (Johnson 1999), and the Powers site(lHall) (Welch 1998). Only one single-mound center.Snow's Bend (lTu3), provides sufficient chronologicaland artifact data to be included in the study (Dejarnetteand Peebles 1970; Welch 1998).

Aside from obvious problems of preservation, thereare three caveats that must be mentioned beforediscussing the results of the study. First, as otherresearchers have noted, any differences in the presenceand number of display goods between Moundville andoutlying sites should be viewed cautiously as thepotential product of sample bias due to large differ-ences in the scale of excavations between the Mound-ville center and outlying sites (Muller 1997:350; Welch1991:181, 183). Indeed, our ideas will likely change asmore outlying homesteads and mound centers areexcavated.

Second, while evidence for the concentration ofdisplay goods at Moundville is compelling, virtuallyall of the items have been recovered from burialcontexts. Steponaitis (1991) has shown that while theresident population at the Moundville center drastical-ly declined during the height of the paramountcy (A.D.1300-1450) the burial population at the site continuedto increase. This suggests that most of the individualsinterred at Moundville during this period did not liveat the paramount center (Steponaitis 1998). WhileMoundville may represent the ultimate "consumption"location of these goods, there is a good possibility thatthe use histories of these objects took place at sitesoutside of the center.

Third, this study is largely an artifact study and notan in depth study of the archaeological contextsdetailing display goods production and circulation(e.g.. Knight 2004; Markin 1997; Wilson 2001). As such,the evidence for production is confined mostly tospecimens that were discarded during manufacture.There are obvious drawbacks to studying only artifacts,and it is hoped that the results reported here caninform more detailed contextual studies that willdoubtless follow.

Display Goods Production at Moundville

I begin by addressing display goods production atthe paramount center, hi this analysis, I recognize bothdirect and indirect evidence of display goods produc-tion. Direct evidence of production includes specimensthat exhibit signs of partial manufacture. Thesespecimens were either discarded or lost before beingcrafted into their final form. Indirect evidence ofdisplay goods production takes niultiple forms, includ-ing (1) concentrations of component raw materials usedto produce display goods (e.g., copper scrap, marineshell, tabular sandstone), (2) concentrations of toolslikely used to craft display goods (e.g., small-bit flaketools and sandstone saws), and (3) certain styles offinished goods thought to be locally made based on theregional concentration of these items in the Moundvillechiefdom.


Figure 2. Quartz crystal bead discarded during production.Note the evidence of partial drilling on the end of the bead.

I begin my study by reassessing the manufacturingloci of shell beads, mica artifacts, and greenstone celtsidentified by Welch (1991:Figure 5.1) and Peebles(1978) because these comprise a large part of thecurrent model of display goods production at Mound-ville. After a thorough review of the excavation recordsfrom 1905 through 1951 (Peebles 1979), I cannot findany evidence for the reported manufacturing locus ofshell beads east of Mound E. The only shell artifactsreported to come from nonmortuary contexts in thatarea are finished items including one shell bead, oneshell pendant, and one shell ear plug (Peebles1979:279). The high concentration of unworked micafound near the conference building at the northwesternfringes of the Moundville site does provide goodevidence for display goods production; however, it isassociated with a late Moundville I phase occupationthat predates the timeframe of this study (Scarry 1998).

Lastly, Wilson's (2001) recent analyses of greenstoneartifacts casts doubt on the existence of a celtmanufacturing locus north of Mound R. Welch(1991:165) had originally contended that 50 percent ofgreenstone fragments recovered from Scarry's (1986)excavations north of Mound R were unworked andthus provided evidence of celt production. Based on hisanalysis of material from Dejamette's 1931 and 1972-75excavations north of Mound R, Wilson (2001), however,concludes tl-iat the majority of greenstone fragmentsexhibit polished surfaces indicative of tool usage ratherthan tool production (see also Moore 1996a:119).

A review of artifacts from Knight's 1990s Universityof Alabama excavations of Mounds Q, F, and E, as wellas the artifact collections from previous excavations atMoundville, could only identify six instances of directevidence for display goods production at the para-mount center. These six specimens are related to theproduction of two artifact types. One specimen is a

Figure 3. Tabular stone pendants discarded during produc-tion. Note the evidence for partial drilling on Uie upperportion of the middle specimen.

quartz crystal bead exhibiting evidence of polishingand partial drilling at both ends (Figure 2). This artifactwas recovered from the summit of Mound E. Theremaining instances of direct evidence consist of fivepartially manufactured tabular stone pendants. Theknown corpus of both unfinished and finished tabularstone pendants, which numbers less than a dozen,includes specimens made of limonite or hematite inthree recognized forms: oblong with engraved five-and six-pointed star, swastika, and eye-in-hand motifs,mace head effigy, and human head effigy. Steponaitis(1983b:Figure lOg) previously identified one oblongpendant fragment recovered during a nineteenth-century Smithsonian investigation at Moundville as aproduction failure because it exhibited six drilled holes,but lacked any of the usual engraved decoration. Tothis specimen, this study adds three undecoratedoblong stone pendant "blanks" in intermediate stagesof production. Two of the blanks were recovered fromthe area North of Mound R and the other from the areaNorth of Mound E. This last specimen also exhibitsevidence of partial drilling on both sides of its upperportion (Figure 3). A mace head shaped pendant blankfound on the summit of Mound E rounds out thegroup. This specimen exhibits rough unground edgesthat appear as if they were freshly sawn and snappedfrom a larger tablet of limonite.

The strongest indirect evidence for display goodsproduction at Moundville during this period can befound in works by Wilson (2001), Knight (2004), andMarkin (1997). These authors present detailed analysesof the area North of Mound E and midden contexts

237


Figure 4. Formal notched and engraved Pottsvillesandstone palettes.

located in the flanks of Mound Q and Mound G atMoundville. Wilson's (2001) analysis of deposits fromthe 1932 excavations North of Mound E and laterexcavations on the summit of Mound E (Vernon J.Knight Jr., personal communication 2000) yield indirectevidence for the production of greenstone displaygoods. This evidence occurs as concentrations of toolssuch as sandstone saws, hammerstones, and abraders,as well as thin greenstone slabs exhibiting evidence ofsawing. Also present in these deposits are sawn andsnapped pieces of tabular sandstone debitage of thesame distinct composition and thickness as the formalnotched and engraved micaceous Pottsville sandstonepalettes that are typically associated with Moundville(Figure 4) (Vernon J. Knight Jr., personal communica-tion 2000; Whitney et al. 2002). Mound Q middendeposits dating to the Moundville II and Moundville IIIphases also contain quantities of items likely related todisplay goods manufacture. These include raw mate-rials like copper scrap, galena, and mica; tools such assandstone saws, small-bit flaked stone tools, andgreenstone chisels; and mineral pigments (Knight2004; Markin 1997).

Indirect evidence for the local manufacture of othertypes of display goods at Moundville is admittedlymore tenuous. Certain copper artifacts were likelyfashioned at Moundville based on the presence ofcopper scrap in Moundville refuse deposits and theapparent local style exhibited in their decoration. Thisis the case with round and oblong-shaped sheet coppergorgets and side-notched sheet copper "symbol badg-es." The gorgets are embossed with five- and six-pointed star and swastika motifs that closely resemblethe engraved motifs on local pottery vessels and locallyproduced tabular stone pendants. The overall form ofthe side-notched symbol badges differs from the so-called Cemochechobee-style badges that often feature

an embossed eye motif and exhibit a much widerregional distribution (Brain and Phillips 1996:373).Aside from the presence of two copper "swastika"gorgets recovered from mortuary assemblages atEtowah (Brain and Phillips 1996:374), the distributionof these styles of copper display goods appearsconfined to the burials at the Moundville center.

Indirect evidence of this same sort exists for the localproduction of certain eccentric rimmed and engravedpottery vessels. The classification of these types ofpottery vessels as display goods is admittedly arbi-trary, being based on the ornate nature of theirconstruction and decoration and their use as servingware. Eccentric rimmed vessels are characterized by arectanguloid shape and terraced lips (e.g., Steponaitis1983a:Figure 63d). The other type of fine ware vesselsinclude partially mold-made globular bottles andbowls that bear engraved representational art (Mound-ville Engraved, var. Hemphill in the parlance of thetype-variety system) (Steponaitis 1983a:314-323).

Elaborate stone bifaces, worked from exotic chert,may also have been produced at the paramount center.I identify these bifaces, whose shape is reminiscent ofthe "batons" featured in iconographic representationsof the Southeastern Ceremonial Complex, as displaygoods because they are made of high-quality nonlocalchert, their distribution is confined to burials, and theydo not exhibit any macroscopic evidence of use-wear.

Displai/ Goods Production at Outlying Sites

Substantial evidence for the production of displaygoods, either direct or indirect, is practically nonexis-tent in the deposits at the peripheral sites included inthis study. Currently, only a single instance of evidencefor display goods production outside of Moundville isknown to exist. Welch (1996:83) reports that the 1992excavations at the Hog Pen mound site, a lateMoundville I to early Moundville II phase construction,found what might be a formal Pottsville sandstonepalette fragment broken during production. Accordingto Welch, the undecorated triangular fragment exhibitsunground faces and a rounded saw grove that mightrepresent an attempt to create a circular shape (Paul D.Welch, personal communication 2000).

This concentrated distributional pattern is even moretelling when one considers the lack of productionevidence recovered from Pride Place (lTul), a habita-tion site located literally a stone's throw from outcropsof the micaceous Pottsville sandstone used to make theformal palettes found at Moundville (Johnson 1999).The excavation of a Moundville III midden (ca. A.D.1400-1550) at the site recorded a startling lack ofartifacts related to the production of these palettes.Indeed, only a single sandstone saw was recovered in

238


Table 1. Display Goods Included in the Study Sample.

Copper objectsCopper-clad wooden eardtsksOblong copper gorgetsCopper headdress elementsCemochechobee-style copper sj-mbol badgesSido-notched copper symbol badgesCopper-clad wooden beadsUniclentified copper ornamentsCopper-clad shell beads

Marine shell objectsMarine-shell braceletEngraved marine-shell gorgets/fragmentsMarine-shell "axe" pendants

Stone objectsOblong tabular stone pendantsMace head eftigy tabular stone pendantsHuman head effigy tabular stone pendantsGreenstone gorgetsMonolithic axe stone pendantsMica ear ornaments"Amethyst" pendantsGalena beadsQuartz crystal beads

Objects of miscellaneous materialShark ttwth pendantsPearls (occurrfnct?s)"Resin" beads

Display objectsCopper objects

Copper-clad atesPlain copper platesCopper fishhooksCopper-clad wooden effigy rattlesUnidentified copper objectsCopper"dagger"

Marine shell objectsEngraved marine-shell cups / fragmentsUndecorated marine-shell cups/fragments

Stone objectsChipped stone bifacesNon-utilitarian greenstone axes/fragmentsMonolithic axesFormal Potts\'ille sandstone palettes/fragmentsStone effigy pipes/fragments

Pottery vesselsEngraved fineware pottery vessels/fragmentsEccentric-rimmed pottery vessels/fragments

Objects of miscellaneous materialWoixlen dub

Count

9932

6197

7228

1

114

1

6211231

311

!12

• 1

l i2

11241

37

7102

6311

1388

1

Location ofProduction

UnknownProbable localProbable nonlocalProbable nonlocalProbable localUnknownUnknownUnknown

Probable localProbable nonlocalProbable local

Probable localProbable kxialProbable localProbable localProbable localUnknownUnknownProbable localProbable local

UnknownProbable nonlocalUnknown

Probable nonlocalProbable nonlocalProbable localProbable nonlocalUnknownUnknown

Probable nonlocalProbable nonlocal

Probable localProbable localProbable localProbable localProbable nonlocal

Probable localProbabie local

Probable local

the midden at Pride Place in contrast to 21 sawsrecorded by Knight (2004:318) in Mound Q contexts atMoundville.

The Circulation of Finished Display Goods within theMoundville Chiefdom

From my review of excavation reports, records, andartifact collections, I identify a total sample of 623finished display goods (Table 1). Nearly all of theseitems were recovered from burial contexts; the remain-der of the items represents finds from surface collec-tions and general excavations. For each category of

Brushed display good in the table, I record whether theitems were produced locally or nonlocally based onproduction evidence at Moundville, known distribu-tions of decorative styles, and prior research (Brain andPhillips 1996; Vernon J. Knight Jr., personal communi-cation 2000). Given these criteria, I find that locallyproduced display goods comprise 52 percent of thesample (n — 325) and nonlocal display goods comprise14 percent of the sample (n = 87). I cannot with anycertainty classify the production origin of the remain-ing 34 percent of the sample (n = 211).

The distributions of probable nonlocal display goodsand raw materials among the study sites are restrictedsolely to the Moundville site (Table 2). The completeabsence of nonlocal display goods and exotic rawmaterials among sites outside of Moundville is signif-icant; however, as mentioned earlier, 1 believe thispattern is tempered by the fact that virtually all of thefinished display goods were used as grave furnishings,and only one small cemetery utilized during lateMoundville 11 and early Moundville III phases (SnowsBend) is included in the sample.

Although not exclusive, the distribution of locallyproduced display goods is also heavily concentrated atMoundville (Table 3). The set of items found in outlyingsites includes a single monolithic axe fragment, a singleoblong tabular stone pendant, three instances of formalnotched and engraved Pottsville sandstone palettes, andnumerous engraved fine ware ceramic vessels. The axefragment was found by a collector in a garden plot nearRomulus, Alabama, in an uncharacteristic uplandsetting far from the floodplain of the Black WarriorRiver (Knight 2000; Miller 1956). The fragment of anengraved oblong stone pendant was found at thePowers site southwest of the paramount center. At thePride Place site, excavators recorded one completePottsville sandstone palette in a burial and one palettefragment in a midden deposit (Johnson 1999). The otherPottsville sandstone palette fragment was identified in aprivate collection from a site located in Hemphill Bendacross the Black Warrior River from Moundville(Jennifer Meyer and Scott Hammerstedt, personalcommunication 2000). The presence of palettes at thesesites is easily explained by their location. Pride Place islocated within sight of a Pottsville sandstone outcrop,and the location of the other find is just outside of the sitelimits of Moundville.

The distribution of fine ware pottery vessels featur-ing engraved representational art is far more wide-spread. This particular variety of pottery includesbowls and bottles bearing engraved SoutheasternCeremonial Complex iconography such as the wingedserpent and crested bird. Unlike the other locallyproduced display goods, vessels, and sherds of thistype are present at many sites throughout the Mound-ville chiefdom (Knight 1986).

239


Table 2. Distribution of Nonlocal Display Goods among Sites in the Study.

NonliKal Display Goods

Copper objectsCopper headdress elementsCemochechobee-style copper symbol badgesCopper-clad axesPlain copper platesCopper-clad wooden effigy rattles

Stone objectsStone effigy pipes/fragments

Vlarine-shell objectsEngraved marine-shell gorgets / fragmentsEngraved marine-shell cups/fragments

Mis<:eUaneous objectsPearls (occurrences)

Exotic raw matt-rialsCopper scrapMarine shellMicaGalena

Moundville

6191122

11

143

12

PresentPresentPresentPresent

Powers

Uflflflfl

0

0fl

0

AbsentAbsentAbsentAbsent

Pride Place

0fl

00

0

00

0


Snow's Bend

0

0.00

0

00

a


Mill Creek

0e<J00

.0

0

0


The Circulafion of Finished Display Goods Beyond theMoundville Chiefdom

The distribution of locally produced display goodsbeyond the MoundviUe chiefdom can be assessed byfocusing on the interregional distributions of tabularstone pendants and Pottsville sandstone palettes. I focuson these two artifact types because they are the mostabundant artifact types in the sample that offerindisputable evidence for being produced at Mound-ville. Tabular stone pendants occur outside of Mound-ville in two instances. TVA excavations at the Seven MileIsland site in the Tennessee River Valley of northwestAlabama yielded a fragment of an engraved oblongtabular stone pendant that is identical in style andcomposition to specimens from Moundville (Webb andDejarnette 1942:Plate 58.2). The second instance is afragment of an engraved oblong stone pendant recov-ered from excavations at the Halbert Camp site in theTombigbee River Valley (Rucker 1974:86-92, Plate 4).

The known d istribution of formal notched andengraved Pottsville sandstone palettes is considerably

more far-reaching and consists of seven occurrences.Within 100 kilometers of Moundville, the distributionincludes two palette fragments from the Lubbub villagein the central Tombigbee River Valley of easternMississippi and a single palette fragment from the FidorMound site in Pickens County, Alabama (Blitz 1993;Jenkins and Ensor 1981). The renraining four instancesare found in the lower Mississippi River Valley over250 kilometers from Moundville. This set consists of awhole palette from the Glass site, two palette fragmentsfrom the Lake George site, and a palette fragment fromthe Anna site (Vincas Steponaitis, personal communica-tion 2000; Williams and Brain 1983:265).

Discussion

The results of this study generally do not support thethree premises underlying the current model of displaygoods production and circulation in the MoundviUechiefdom. The first premise, that norUocal display

Table 3. Distribution of Locally Made Display Goods among Sites in the Study.

^otal Display Goods

Copper objectsSide-notched copper symbol badgesOblong copper gorgetaCopper f is hooksStone objectsT.ibular stone pendants/fragmentsGreenstone gorgetsvionolithic axe stone pendantsChipped stone hifacesjreenstone axes/fragmentsVloiiotithic axes^ottsville sandstone palettes/fragments

'ottery vesselsiccentric-rimmed vessels/fragmentsEngraved fineware vessels/fragments

Moundville

73211

7127

101

57

7Present

Powers

fl00

1fl00000

flAbsent

Prideriace

fl0

a0flfl00fl2

flPresent

Snow'sBend

000

0fl00flflfl

llPresent

MiU Creek

000

0000000

11Present

HemphiliLocality

000

000000i

0Unknown

RomulusLocality

00fl

0000010

0Jn known

240


goods comprised a primary fund of power forMoundville elites, is not completely borne out by thedata. On one hand, the distribution of nonlocal displaygoods is entirety concentrated among elite contexts atthe Moundville site during the height of its politicalascendancy (ca. A.D. 1300-1450). This suggests thataccess to nonlocal display goods was extremelycentralized. The distribution of locally made displaygoods further indicates that access to these items waslimited almost entirely to Moundville's elite. On theother hand, the overall paucity of nonlocal displaygoods relative to local display goods does not fit withthe expectation regarding the importance of nonlocaldisplay goods (Welch 1996). Indeed, the amount ofdisplay goods in the Moundville chiefdom I believe tobe locally made (n = 325, 52%) far outnumbersimported display goods (n = 87, 14%). Even if all ofthe items of "unknown" production origin are com-bined with imported items, this total is still less thanthe total number of locally produced display goods inMoundville contexts. This pattern is similar to thatfound by Pauketat's (1997) for Cahokia except that themost numerous locally made display goods at Mound-ville (formal sandstone palettes, tabular stone pen-dants, and fine ware pottery vessels) are producedfrom local rather than imported raw materials.

In order to put these results into a broader context,we can compare the Moundville data to otherarchaeological examples. How does the relative abun-dance of nonlocal display goods in the Moundvillechiefdom compare to the classic Hallstatt chiefdomexample? Unfortunately, direct frequency con^parisonsare not possible because of a lack of quantitative data inthe original case study by Frankenstein and Rowlands(1978). The relative number of local versus nonlocalartifact categories, however, can be utilized in a veryrough comparison. Whereas 10 of the 14 artifact types(71%) in the Heuneberg mortuary assemblages areimported, only 10 out of 39 artifact types (26%) in theMoundville study sample are nonlocal. Also, unlike theHallstatt chiefdoms and Cahokia, investigations atMoundville have produced no evidence for the cachingor hoarding of nonlocal or even local display goods(e.g., Bradley 1988; Pauketat 1997).

A more direct comparison can be made to thePocahontas polity and the Lubbub polity, two neigh-boring Mississippian chiefdoms of much less renown(Blitz 1993; Steponaitis 1991). Traditional indicators ofpolitical complexity (e.g., settlement pattem anddistributions of display goods) suggest that the social,political, and economic structures of the Pocahontasand Lubbub polities were more akin to simplechiefdoms or so-called Big Man societies than to theintensely hierarchical centralized Moundville polity.Steponaitis (1991:210-211, 223) and Blitz (1993:169-170)each offer quantitative comparisons between these

Table 4. Comparison of Nonlocal Display Goods amongThree Mississippian Polities.

Moundville Lubbub Pocahontas

Total nonlocal display goodsTotal burials

display gLX>ds per burial

371

0.30

32115

22124

()-28 0.18

polities and Moundville in the form of ratios measuringthe number of nonlocal display goods per burial.Limiting the sample to roughly contemporaneousburials dating approximately to the time period of thisstudy (ca. A.D. 1300-1450), the results of the compar-ison are telling (Table 4). First, the ratios of all threecases reflect a general paucity of nonlocal displaygoods. Second, while the number of nonlocal displaygoods per burial in the Moundville chiefdom is almosttwice that of the Pocahontas chiefdom, the same valueis practically identical to that calculated for the Lubbubchiefdom.

To interpret these comparisons, one must rememberthat the "engine" driving the current political economymodel of Moundville and the original prestige goodsmodel is status competition among elites that proceed-ed through the conduits of interregional exchange. Asmany researchers in the southeast have argued, therelative power of regional polities in this model isinextricably linked to the abilities of resident elites toacquire nonlocal display goods (Blitz 1993:182; Stepo-naitis 1991:227; Welch 1996:90). With this in mind, thedisparity between Moundville and Pocahontas isexpected (Steponaitis 1991); however, for the san:\ereason, the similarity between the Moundville andLubbub polities is provocative. If the current model iscorrect and display goods distribution is driven by elitecompetition, then the ubiquity of nonlocal displaygoods in a "weakly centralized" polity like Lubbubshould be much lower than a paramount chiefdom likeMoundville (Welch 1996:91). Taken together, theevidence leads to two conclusions regarding the firstpremise: (1) Nonlocal display goods were uniquelyelite phenomena, but they do not appear to comprise aprimary fund of power, instead, locally made displaygoods appear to have played a larger role withinMoundville's political economy; and (2) the regionalcomparison to the Lubbub polity does not support thecontention that nonlocal display goods were primarilyused as "currencies" in an interregional competitivesystem of exchange.

In regard to the second premise, two conclusions arereached regarding the nature of display goods produc-tion within the Moundville chiefdom during the heightof its political ascendancy (ca. A.D. 1300-1450): (1)essentially all display goods production took place atthe Moundville site just as Welch (1991, 1996) hasargued, and (2) while I cannot objectively quantify the

243


Craft Production Areas1 Mica 2 Oblong Stone Pendants 3 Stone Palettes4 Oblong Stone Pendants, Greenstone Ornaments,Stone Palettes,Quartz Beads. Mace-head Stone Pendant

250 meters

Figure 5. Locations of production areas identified inthis study.

scale production of display goods at Moundville, all ofthe evidence I have reviewed in this study points to arelatively small-scale practice that occurred not in largespecial use areas around the Moundville site but withinelite household contexts (Figure 5). Again, this pattemof centralization is similar to that argued for Cahokia,although on a much smaller scale (Pauketat 1997;Wilson et al. 2006). Certainly, the evidence presentedhere is at odds with the degree of specialization,standardization, and scale of production that occurredin the Hallstatt example, where hundreds of locallyniade display goods are found at a single site (Gosden1985:479). Likewise, excavations at Moundville haveyet to produce evidence of display goods productionanywhere near the scale of that found by researchers atCahokia (e.g., Pauketat 1993, 1997; Yerkes 1991).

The known regional distribution of two types oflocally produced Moundville display goods bears onthe third premise. The distribution of tabular stonependants and forn:\al Pottsville sandstone palettesindicates that these items are heavily concentrated atthe Moundville site except for a few occurrences in theneighboring Tombighee and lower Mississippi RiverValleys. Given that these two artifact types currentlyrepresent the best candidates for use in a Mississippian

long-distance exchange system, these numbers arequite low. The presence of these items suggests apotentially important connection to those politieslocated to the west as opposed to polities in otherareas; however, the apparent scale of this exchange doesnot support the existence of a World System-likenetwork of interdependent polities engaged in com-petitive gift exchange (Frankenstein and Rowlands1978:80-81). Indeed, interregional exchange at similarlevels is indicated by evidence from Archaic andWoodland period "polities" across the southeast, yetrarely are these exchange systems considered in samelight as that of the Mississippian period (e.g., Gibson2001; DeBoer 2004).

Conclusion

What then are we to make of the role played bydisplay goods in the political economy of the Mound-ville chiefdom? There is a good deal of detailed workleft to do with regard to specific display goods like thestone pendants and sandstone palettes, but somegeneral conclusions can be drawn from this study.Obviously, the exclusive association of productionevidence and finished local and nonlocal display goodswith elite contexts is sigruficant. As Welch (1991:179)has shown, this complete lack of display goods in so-called commoner contexts also makes the Moundvillecase incongruous with a classic prestige goods econo-my. Pushing this lack of fit further is the doublerealization that (1) display goods were primarily madeand distributed locally within the Moundville chief-dom and (2) the empirically observed levels ofproduction and exchange of these display goods donot indicate the existence of a pervasive interregionalsystem of competitive gift exchange. This should not beinterpreted as a minimalist argument {sensu Muller1997), for I do not believe that these findings downplaythe importance of these objects in Moundville'spolitical economy. Instead, I think that the items I call"display goods," for want of a better term, playedimportant roles in the lives of the folk who crafted andinteracted with them, as well as all of those whoparticipated in the private and community rituals forwhich they were created. In light of the pattemsidentified in this study, however, 1 do believe that weneed to follow Pauketat (1997) in thinking of alternativeways to conceptualize the intraregional role played bydisplay goods in Moundville's political economy.

John Kelly (2006), for example, makes a solidargun:\ent for including in narratives of craft produc-tion examinations of the rituals likely involved with theact of creation itself. By applying ethnographic datafrom historic Osage groups to Mississippian groups inthe American Bottom, Kelly offers a socially inclusive

242


and nuanced interpretation of craft production evi-dence. Kelly's model highlights the corporate nature ofcrafting, demonstrating how different steps in theproduction of particular display goods were likelycarried out by different kin-based groups. Throughtheir ritual participation in creating and manipulatingdisplay goods, these groups actively reproduced theirrelationships to the community and to each other (Kelly2006:255).

While I do not believe that Kelly's model would fitthe data associated with Moundville display goodsproduction, I do agree that we must give more thoughtto the act of production (Wilson et al. 2006:63-64). Here,I am thinking about the household-level scale ofdisplay goods production at Moundville and thelikelihood that this act, as well as the ritual manipu-lation of finished display goods, were highly person-alized practices associated with certain groups of eliteindividuals (see Helms 1993:76). The patterns I see inthe data lead me to believe that the crafting and use ofdisplay goods were likely related practices that were asmuch a part of the identity of some elite individuals asliving on top of mounds and eating provisioned deerwas for other elites (e.g.. Knight 2004).

In closing, 1 believe that as we begin to move awayfrom the notion that nonlocal display goods formed theprimary fund of power for Moundville's elite, weshould avoid using the term "prestige goods" indiscussions regarding the political economy of Mound-ville. Some may argue that this is trivial semantics, but Iwould argue that the MoundviUe case demonstratesthat the terms we use are laden with notions that shapelhe way we sti.idy, think, and write about the past.

Notes

Acknowledgments. A debt of gratitude is owed to EugeneFutato and the staff at the Office of Archaeological Researchfor granting me access to Moundvilie's artifact collections.This paper stems from M.A. research completed at theUniversity of Alabama. During and since that period, VernonJames Knight Jr. has offered much appreciated guidance,wisdom, and encouragement. As a graduate student at theUniversity of Alabama and the University of North Carolina,1 was fortunate to have a great cast of mentors and cadre ofgraduate students to ponder display goods with. I amespecially grateful to Greg Wilson, Amber VanDerwarker,Tom Lewis, Virgil Beasley, Hunter Johnson, Vin Steponaitis,Brian Billman, Tony Boudreaux, Chris Rodning, MargieScarry, John Scarry, and Scott Hammerstedt for sharing theircomments, thoughts, research, and sympathetic ears. Aspecial thanks to Paul Welch for serving on my thesiscommittee. His comments provided the kind of insight thatcould only come from a person who has spent years thinkingabout the ins and outs of Moundville's political economy.Also a note of gratitude to Christopher Peebles, whosepioneering research at Moundville made my project possible.The comments offered by Claudlne Payne, Greg Wilson, and

an anonymous reviewer strengthened this paper consider-ably. Any and all errors of fact or interpretation are minealone.

' In this paper, I use the term "display goods" (Muller1997:17) (alternatively known as "prestige goods" (Franken-stein and Rowlands 1978] or "skillfully crafted goods"[Helms 1993]) to refer to artifacts that are rare, non-utilitarian,and ornately crafted. The category often includes itemsproduced from exotic raw materials that were either modifiedlocally or obtained from nonlocal sources in a finished form.

References Cited

Anderson, David G1994 The Savannah River Chiefdoms: Political Structure and

Change in the Late Prehistoric Southeast. University ofAlabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Blanton, Richard E., Gary M. Feinman, Stephen A. Kowa-lewski, and Peter N. Peregrine

1996 Agency, Ideology, and Power in ArchaeologicalTheory: A Dual-Processual Theory for the Evolution ofMesoamerican Civilization. Current Anthropology 37:1-14.

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

Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. 'Bradley, Richard1988 Hoarding, Recycling, and the Consumption of Prehis-

toric Metal work: Technological Change in WesternEurope. World Arclmeology 20:249-260.

Brain, Jeffrey P., and Philip Phillips1996 Shell Gorgets: Styles of the Late Prehistoric and Protohis-

toric Southeast. Peabody Museum Press, Cambridge.Brown, James A., Robert A. Kerber, and Henry D. Winters1990 Trade and the Evolution of Exchange Relations at the

Beginning of the Mississippian Period. In The Mississip-pian Emergence, edited by Bruce D. Smith, pp. 251-280.Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

Cobb, Charles R.1996 Specialization, Exchange, and Power in Small-Scale

Societies and Chiefdoms. Research in Economic Anthropol-ogy 17:251-294.

D'Altroy, Terrence N., and Timothy K. Earle1985 Staple Finance, Wealth Finance, and Storage in the

Inka Political Economy. Current Anthropology 26:187-206.DeBoer, Warren R.2004 Little Bighorn on the Scioto: The Rocky Mountain

Connection to Ohio Hopewell. American Antiquity 69:85-108.

Dejarnette, David L., and Christopher S. Peebles1970 The Development of Alabama Archaeology: The

Snow's Bend Site. lournal of Alabama Archaeology 16:77-119.

DeMarrais, Elizabeth, Luis Jaime Castillo, and Timothy K.Earle

1996 Ideology, Materialization, and Power Strategies. Cur-rent Anthropology 37:15-86.

Earle, Timothy K.1977 A Reappraisal of Redistribution: Complex Hawaiian

Chiefdoms. In Exchange Systems in Prehistory, edited by

243


Timothy K. Earle and Jonathan E. Ericson, pp. 213-229.Academic Press, New York.

1978 Economic and Social Organization of a Complex Chiefdom:The Halelea District, Kaua'i, Hawaii. Museum of Anthro-pology, Anthropological Papers 63. University of Michi-gan, Ann Arbor.

1987 Chiefdoms in Archaeological and EthnohistoricalPerspective. Annual Reviezv of Anthropology 16:279-308.

1991 The Evolution of Chiefdoms. In Chiefdoms: Poiver,Economy, and Ideology, edited by Timothy K. Earle,pp. 1-15. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

1994 Political Domination and Social Evolution. In Compan-ion Encyclopedia of Anthropology, edited by TimothyIngold, pp. 940-961. Rutledge, London.

1997 How Chiefs Come to Poioer: The Political Economy inPrehistory. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA.

Ekholm, Kajsa1972 Power and Prestige: The tUse and Fall of the Kongo

Kingdom. Skriv Service, Uppsala.Frankenstein, Susan, and Michael J. Rowlands1978 The Internal Structure and Regional Context of Early

Iron Age Society in Southwest Germany. University ofLondon Institute of Archaeology Bulletin 15:73-112.

Friedman, Jonathan1975 Tribes, States, and Transformations. In Marxist Analy-

ses and Social Anthropology, edited by Maurice Bloch,pp. 161-202. Tavistock, New York.

Friedman, Jonathan, and Michael J. Rowlands1977 Notes Toward an Epigenetic Model of Civilization. In

The Evolution of Social Systems, edited by Jonathan Fried-man and Michael J. Rowlands, pp. 201-276. Duckworth,London.

Gibson, Jon L.2001 The Ancient Mounds of Poverty Point. University Press of

Florida, Gainesville.Gosden, Chris1985 Gifts and Kin in Early Iron Age Europe. Man 2:

475^93.Helms, Mary W.1979 Ancient Panama: Chiefs in Search of Power. University of

Texas Press, Austin.1993 Craft and the Kingly Ideal. University of Texas Press,

Austin.Jenkins, Ned J., and H. Blaine Ensor1981 The Gainesville Lake Area Excavations. In Archaeolog-

ical Investigations in the Gainesville Lake Area of theTennessee-Tombigbee-Waterway, vol. 1. University of Ala-bama Office of Archaeological Research Report ofInvestigations No. 11, Tuscaloosa.

Johnson, Allen W., and Timothy K. Earle1987 The Evolution of Human Societies. Stanford University

Press, Stanford, CA.Jolinson, Hunter B.1999 Archaeological Excavations at Pride Place (ITul) and

Its Role in the Moundville Economy. Paper Presented atthe 56th Annual Meeting of the Southeastem Archaeo-logical Conference, Pensacola.

Kelly, John E.2006 The Ritualization of Cahokia: The Structure and

Organization of Early Cahokia Crafts. In Leadership andPolity in Mississippian Society, edited by Brian M. Butler

and Paul D. Welch, pp. 236-263. Center for Archaeolog-ical Investigations Occasional Paper 33, Southern IllinoisUniversity, Carbondale.

King, Adam2003 Etowah: The Political History of a Chiefdom Capital.

University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.Knight, Vernon James, Jr.1986 The Ir\stitutional Organization of Mississippian Reli-

gion. American Antiquity 51:675-687.2004 Characterizing Elite Midden Deposits at MoundviUe.

American Antiquity 69:304-321.Knight, Vernon James, Jr., and Vincas P. Steponaitis1998 A New History of Moundville. In Archaeology of the

Moundville Chiefdom, edited by Vemon J. Knight, Jr. andVincas P. Steponaitis, pp. 1-25. Smithsonian InstitutionPress, Washington, D.C.

Malinowski, Bronoslaw1922 Argonauts of the Western Pacific. E. P. Dutton, New

York.Markin, lulie G.1997 Elite Stoneworking and the Function of Mounds at

Moimdville. Mississippi Archaeology 32:118-135.Mauss, Marcel2000 The Gift: The Form and Reason for Exchange in Archaic

Societies. W. W. Norton, New York.MiUer, Carl F.1956 A Monolithic Ax from Alabama. American Antiquity 24:

182-183.Mistovich, Tim S. '1988 Early Mississippian in the Black Warrior Valley: The

Pace of Transition. Southeastern Archaeology 7:21-38.Moore, Clarence B.1996a Certain Aboriginal Remains of the Black Warrior

River. In The Moundville Expeditions of Clarence B. Moore,edited by Vernon J. Knight, Jr., pp. 23-142. University ofAlabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

1996b Moundville Revisited. In The Moundville Expeditions ofClarence B. Moore, edited by Vernon J. Knight, Jr.,pp. 143-214. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Muller, Jon1997 Mississippian Political Economy. Plenum Press, New

York.Pauketat, Timothy R.1993 Temples for Cahokia Lords: Preston Holder's 1955-1956

Excavations of Kunnemann Mound. Museum of Anthropol-ogy, Memoir 26. University of Michigan Press, AnnArbor.

1994 The Ascent of Chiefs. University of Alabama Press,Tuscaloosa.

1997 Specialization, Political Symbols, and the Crafty Eliteof Cahokia. Southeastern Archaeology 16:1-15.

Peebles, Christopher S.1978 Determinants of Settlement Size and Location in the

Moundville Phase. In Mississippian Settlement Patterns,edited by Bruce D. Smith, pp. 396-416. Academic Pre^,New York.

1979 Excavations at MoundviUe, 1905-1951. Microfiche. Uni-versity of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.

Peebles, Christopher S., and Susan M. Kus1977 Some Archaeological Correlates of Ranked Societies.

American Antiquity 42:421-448. ,

244


Price, T. Douglass, and Gary M. Feinman2001 Images of the Past. 3rd ed. Mayfield, Mountain View, CA.Rucker, Marc D.1974 Archaeological Survey and Test Excavations in the Upper

Central Tombighee River Valley: Alicezullc-Columbtis Lock andDam Impoundment Areas, Alabama and Mississippi. Mis-sissippi State University, Starkville.

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

the Emergence of the Moundville Chiefdom., Unpub-lished Ph.D. diss.. Department of Anthropology, Univer-sity of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

1998 Domestic Life on the Northwest Riverbank at Mound-ville. In Archaeolog}/ of the Moundinlle Chiefdom, edited byVemon J. Knight, Jr. and Vincas P. Steponaitis, pp. 63-101.Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

Service, Elman1962 Primitix'e Social Organization: An Evotutionanj Perspec-

tive. Random House, New York.Steponaitis, Vincas P.1983a Ceramics, Chronology, and Community Patterns: An

Archaeological Study at MoundviUe. Academic Press, NewYork.

1983b The Smithsonian Institution's Investigations atMoundville in 1869 and 1882. Mid-Continental lournal ofArchaeology 8:127-160.

1991 Contrasting Patterns of Mississippian Development. InChiefdoms: Power, Economy, and Ideology, edited byTimothy K. Earle, pp. 193-228. Cambridge UniversityPress, Cambridge.

1998 Population Trends at Moundville. In Archaeology of theMoundville Chiefdom, edited by Vemon J. Knight, Jr. andVincas P. Steponaitis, pp. 26-43. Smithsonian InstitutionPress, Washington, D.C.

Trubitt, Mary Beth B.2000 Mound Building and Prestige Goods Exchange:

Changing Strategies in the Cahokia Chiefdom. AmericanAntiquity 65:669-690.

Webb, William S., and David L. Dejamette1942 An Archaeological Survey of the Pickwick Basin in the

Adjacent Portions of the States of Alabama, Mississippi, andTennessee. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 129.Washington, D.C.

Welch, Paul D.1986 Models of Chiefdom Economy: Prehistoric Moundville

as a Case Study. Unpublished Ph.D. diss.. Department ofAnthropology, University of Michigan, Arui Arbor.

1990 Mississippian Emergence in West-Central Alabama. InThe Mississippian Emergence, edited by Bruce D. Smith,pp. 197-225. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington,D.C.

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

1996 Control over Goods and the Political Stability of theMoundville Chiefdom. Tn Political Structure and Change inthe Prehistoric Southeastern United States, edited by John F.Scarry, pp. 69-91. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

1998 Outlying Sites within the Moundville Chiefdom. InArchaeology of the MoundviUe Chiefdom, edited by V. J.Knight, Jr. and Vincas P. Steponaitis, pp. 133-166.Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

Whitney, Cynthia, Vincas P. Steponaitis, and John J. W.Rogers

2002 A Petrographic Study of Moundville Palettes. South-eastern Arclmeology 21:227-234.

Williams, Stephen, and Jeffrey P. Brain1983 Excavations at Like George, Yazoo County, Mississippi,

1958-1960. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeol-ogy and Ethnology 74. Harvard University, Cambridge.

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

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

Wilson, Gregory D., Jon Bemard Marcoux, and Brad Koldeh-off

2006 Square Pegs in Round Holes: Organizational Diversitybetween Early Motmdville and Cahokia. In Leadership andPolity in Mississippian Society, edited by Brian M. Butlerand Paul D. Welch, pp. 43-72. Center for ArchaeologicalInvestigations Occasional Paper 33, Southern IllinoisUniversity, Carbondale.

Wright, Henry T.1977 Recent Research on the Origin of the State. Annual

Rmnexv of Anthropology 6:79-97.1984 Prestate Political Formations. In On the Evolution of

Complex Societies: Essays in Honor of Harry Hoijer 1982,edited by Timothy K. Earle, pp. 41-77. Undena Publica-tions, Malibu.

Yerkes, Richard W.1991 Specialization in SheU Artifact Production at Cahokia.

In New Perspectives on Cahokia: Views from the Periphery,edited by James B. Stoltman, pp. 4 9 - ^ . Prehistory Press,Madison.

245

Documents

Origenes Marcoux 2007 Chiefdoms (Southeastern Arch)