Society for American Archaeology - Arts & Sciences Pages€¦ · plants, animal bones, fossil insects, broken pots, craft objects, icons, various sorts of detritus, and parts of human

Society for American Archaeology

The Residues of Feasting and Public Ritual at Early CahokiaAuthor(s): Timothy R. Pauketat, Lucretia S. Kelly, Gayle J. Fritz, Neal H. Lopinot, Scott Eliasand Eve HargraveReviewed work(s):Source: American Antiquity, Vol. 67, No. 2 (Apr., 2002), pp. 257-279Published by: Society for American ArchaeologyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2694566 .Accessed: 17/10/2012 17:32

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Society for American Archaeology is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toAmerican Antiquity.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sam

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2694566?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

THE RESIDUES OF FEASTING AND PUBLIC RITUAL AT EARLY CAHOKIA

Timothy R. Pauketat, Lucretia S. Kelly, Gayle J. Fritz, Neal H. Lopinot, Scott Elias, and Eve Hargrave

Archaeological remains excavatedfrom the stratified layers of a pre-Columbian borrow pit in the middle of the Cahokia site inform our understanding of how ritual events were related to the social and political foundations of that enormous center Ordinary and extraordinary refuse, ranging from foods and cooking pots to craft-production debris and sumptuary goods, are associated with a series of large-scale, single-event dumping episodes related to activities that occurred in the principal plaza. Taken as a set, the layers of ceramic, lithic, zooarchaeological, archaeobotanical, osteological, paleoentomological, and sed- imentological materials reveal that the construction of Cahokia's Mississippian order was an active, participatory process.

Restos arqueologicos recuperados de la excavacio'n de las capas estratigrdficas de un "pozo de prstamo de tierra" precolom- bino en la parte central del sitio de Cahokia amplfan nuestro entendimiento de como los sucesos rituales se relacionaban con la base social y politica del enorme centro. La basura cotidiana y extraordinaria comprende desde comida y ollas de cocina hasta los desechos de la produccio'n artesanal y bienes suntuarios y se asocian a una serie de episodios singulares de gran escala, lle- vados a cabo en la plaza principal, en los cuales se depositaba la basura. Tomadas como un conjunto, las capas de materiales cerdmicos, Ifticos, zooarqueol6gicos, arqueobotdnicos, osteolo'gicos, paleoentomol6gicos y sedimentol6gicos revelan los mecan- ismos mediante los cuales la comunidad y la entidad polftica fiueron fusionadas para crear el orden Mississippian de Cahokia.

In recent years, explanations of social complexity have prominently featured commensal politics (see Deitler 1996; Deitler and Hayden 200 1;

Hayden 1996; Hendon 1996; Potter 2000). In eastern North America, public rites involving feasting have been recognized to lie at the intersection of people and polity during the Mississippian period (Muller 1997; Pauketat and Emerson 1991; Rees 1997; Welch and Scarry 1995). Such feasts may have comprised intergroup negotiations that led to long- term and large-scale social changes.

With specific regard to the largest of Mississippian polities, Pauketat (1994,1997a, 1998b) has argued that

an abrupt and large-scale political consolidation at Cahokia (ca. A.D. 1050) would necessarily have been attended by equally large-scale negotiations between people with diverse or conflicting "traditional" views, beliefs, interests, and dispositions. The construction and use of earthen pyramids and plazas may have embodied these negotiations (Pauketat 2000b). For instance, Cahokia's central 19-ha "Grand Plaza" was a massive labor project dating to the eleventh century A.D. that would have necessitated and then enabled collective gatherings on a scale not seen in the region prior to A.D. 1050 (Dalan 1997; Holley et al. 1993; Pauketat 1994, 2000a).

Timothy R. Pauketat * Department of Anthropology, 109 Davenport Hall, 607 S. Mathews Avenue, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801 Lucretia S. Kelly * Department of Anthropology, One Brookings Drive, Campus Box 1114, Washington University, St. Louis, MO 63130 Gayle J. Fritz * Department of Anthropology, One Brookings Drive, Campus Box 1114, Washington University, St. Louis, MO 63130 Neal H. Lopinot * Center for Archaeological Research, 901 South National, Southwest Missouri State University, Springfield, MO 65804 Scott Elias * Geography Department, Royal Holloway, University of London, Egham, Surrey, TW20 OEX, United Kingdom Eve Hargrave * Illinois Transportation Archaeological Research Program, 209 Nuclear Physics Lab, 23 East Stadium Drive, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61820

American Antiquity, 67(2), 2002, pp. 257-279 CopyrightO 2002 by the Society for American Archaeology

257

258 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 67, No. 2, 2002

Such public gatherings were not univariate behav- ioral phenomena but were a multiplicity of practices coordinated as discrete events (Bell 1997; Kelly and Kaplan 1990; Kertzer 1988). Accordingly, individual events may have been quite unlike other events. The mix of hosts and attendees and the provisions and labor mobilized for the events would have dif- fered through time and, certainly, from region to region. Quite possibly, the mode of provisioning and the quantity of provisions may have been unique at Cahokia's inception. Thus, understanding the process of negotiation-if not pan-eastern Mississippian social history-requires fine-grained evidence of what people and how people came together and forged community and polity.

Microchronological information on this negotiation process is precisely what seems to exist within the sub-Mound 51 borrow pit at Cahokia. Multiple lines of ceramic, lithic, zooarchaeological, archaeobotanical, osteological, paleoentomological, and sed- imentological evidence are contained in the stratified layers of this remarkable subsuiface feature. We conclude that multiple lines of evidence indicate that the submound refuse was derived from discrete public gatherings in the heart of Cahokia that had, as a central feature, the consumption of foods. In this paper, we highlight these lines of evidence to delineate the character of early Cahokia's commensal politics.

The Sub-Mound 51 Borrow Pit

The central precinct of the Cahokia site is comprised of large earthen platforms, including the largest such platform in North America, surrounding the Grand Plaza (Figure 1). While the mounds in and around this central plaza probably have different construction histories, the Grand Plaza itself seems to have been the result of a large construction effort (Dalan 1997; Holley et al. 1993; Pauketat 2000a; Pauketat and Rees 1996). As Dalan and associates have defined it, the construction of the plaza, if not also the initial stages of the adjacent platforms, involved cutting and filling the formerly undulating natural surface. Fill for this earth-moving project was mined from ridges that were being leveled or was "bor- rowed" from a series of large pits. Many borrow pits still dot the peripheral portions of the central precinct (Fowler 1997).

Given the continuous and intensive construction activity in Cahokia's central precinct, it is not surprising that some areas were reclaimed; borrow pits

were refilled and now lie buried beneath or alongside the Grand Plaza (Dalan 1997). One such early Cahokian borrow pit was encountered by chance in 1966 under Mound 51, a rectangular, flat-topped earthen platform approximately 150 m southeast of the large central pyramid, Monks Mound (Figure 1). In 1961, Mound 51 itself was being bolTowed by local residents of a subdivision for fill dirt, prompt- ing Charles J. Bareis, of the University of Illinois, and James W. Porter, of Southern Illinois University, to conduct limited salvage excavations in the upper fills of that earthen platform. In 1966, as Porter removed a portion of the remaining privately owned mound with a backhoe, stratified cultural deposits were discovered beneath the base of Mound 51. Bareis cleaned up and profiled Porter's trench and retumed the following summer to conduct additional controlled excavations into what he recognized as a significant anomaly. '

Bareis recognized the anomaly to be a refilled borrow pit. This pit was up to 3-m deep and more than 56-m long (north-south) and 19-m wide (east-west); the actual north-south dimensions may extend up to an additional 50 m to the south given the depth and dip of the strata visible in Bareis's southernmost excavation units. Bareis excavated 10 3-x-3-m units into the sub-Mound 51 pit in 1966, 1967, 1968, 1970, and 1971 (Bareis 1975; Chmurny 1973). Five such units were excavated beneath Mound 51, while another five were excavated 50 m to the north (at the northern end of the buried borrow pit in an area archaeologists call the "Ramey Field"). Visible in all 10 units at both ends of the pit were seven clearly defined strata, some with their own distinct subzones. All strata date to the late-eleventh-century "Lohmann" phase (A.D. 1050-1100), based on 12 radiocarbon assays and large quantities of diagnostic pottery sherds (see Pauketat and Emerson 1997). The pit's proximity to the Grand Plaza may mean that the aboriginal excavators dug here for fill to level portions of the Grand Plaza or to construct the early stages of the central pyramids. Likewise, the sub- Mound 51 pit's proximity to the plaza may help explain its apparent rapid in-filling (see below).

Until now, the sub-Mound 51 borrow pit's contents have been subject to limited study. William Chmumy (1973) analyzed some of the remains from the 1966 and 1967 seasons for a doctoral dissertation. Unfortunately, the 1966 excavations were exploratory and artifacts were not collected by stra-

Pauketat et al.] RESIDUES OF FEASTING AND PUBLIC RITUAL AT EARLY CAHOKIA 259

0

Figure 1. The Central Precinct of the Cahokia Site and the location of the sub-Mound 51 borrow pit

tum. Furthermore, Chmurny (1973) did not report the 1967 data in sufficient quantitative detail to allow for comparisons with other regional data sets (e.g., Collins 1990; Emerson 1997; Holley 1989; Kelly 1991, 1997; Lopinot 1991, 1994; Milner et al. 1984; Pauketat 1993, 1998b). Thus, we undertook an analysis of the four 3-x-3-m units excavated during 1967 and 1968, when materials were collected by cultural stratum (a reanalysis of some 1966 samples did occur). Given the high density of materials from those units, and given some collection irregularities and a lack of flotation samples, Kelly, Fritz, Lopinot,

and Elias necessarily focused on specific zones or specific "bulk" samples, the latter being entire unprocessed chunks of matrix-several hundred to several thousand cm3 each-extracted en masse (see below). The 1970s excavations have yet to be analyzed, although preliminary observations of those collections by Pauketat suggest artifact assemblages similar to those from the 1967-1968 excavations. In fact, most of the pit still lies intact and unexcavated under the former location of Mound 51 at Cahokia.

The four 3-x-3-m units analyzed here represent about 5 percent (32 m3) of the pit's estimated vol-


Figure 2. Sub-Mound 51 pit proFre at S50-53, E388.

ume of 3,000 m3. This is a sizable excavated volume, nearly a quarter to one-half the total volume excavated at each of two residential tracts of the Cahokia site.2 Moreover, the analyzed 1967-1968 sample of the submound refuse is consistent between excavated units within zones. These zones include the highest densities of carbonized and uncarbonized plants, animal bones, fossil insects, broken pots, craft objects, icons, various sorts of detritus, and parts of human skeletons known in trash deposits from the Greater Cahokia region. The minimum numbers of analyzed artifacts and organic remains are comparable in some ways to those from whole residential tracts at Cahokia.3 In addition, not only are uncarbonized archaeobotanical remains uncommon for an open-air site in the eastern United States, but the location of the pit on the northeastern fringe of Cahokia's Grand Plaza is potentially unique relative to other known domestic and mortuary contexts.

Depositional History

The seven principal fill zones within the sub-Mound 51 pit are designated D, D1, D2, E, F, G, and H (Fig- ure 2). Three other upper zones (A, B, and C) are

waterlaid layers of silt and fine sand that washed over the filled pit sometime just before or during the twelfth century. These are similar to mound-wash zones documented nearby at the base of Cahokia's Mound 49 and were probably derived from precip- itation events that eroded the adjacent plaza surface or the early stages of Mound 51 itself (Pauketat and Rees 1996; see also Holley et al. 1993).

Four zones (D2, E, F, and G) are consistently homogeneous from top to bottom, varying in thick- ness from a few centimeters to .5 m depending on the location at the edge or center of the borrow pit (Figure 3).4 Three zones (D, DI, and H) are consistently less homogeneous but are nonetheless comprised of fine sandy loams, silts, and silty clays that are easily distinguished one from another. All of the principal zones are found throughout all portions of the more-than-56-m x 19-m borrow pit, as visible in Bareis's excavation units, some of which are more than 50 m apart. It is therefore likely that even the more-heterogeneous zones were still relatively discrete filling events. There is little evidence that the pit was filled with tertiary deposits (i.e., borrow from elsewhere) except for part of zone D (in which some


Sub-Mound 51 Pit Composite Profile @ S49

wall trench of Mississippian building that post-dates excavated surface beneath Mound 51 the sub-mound pit and pre-dates Mound 51

E396 \E393 E392 / E389 E388 E385

''-''' ..................... ......--_ .e .. . .

... .......................,,,.,,.............-.--...... ...

. : ',',. ................ ......................,--':::............... ,l

;; projected imits of fill zones ..........

unexcavated ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,................S...I

. . .. . .. .. . .. . .. . .. . . .. . . .

projected base of borrow pit

Figure 3. A profile of the central east-west units of the submound excavations.

"basket-loading" is evident), zone E (an earthen mantle over zone F), and possibly certain subzones of zone H. Thus, incidental artifactual admixture from earlier occupations at Cahokia is minimal. Instead, and ignoring the organic decomposition and postdepositional compression of the fills, the estimates of zone volume for the whole pit indicate that exceedingly large amounts of debris were dumped directly into the pit over a short period of time (Table 1). Therefore, the best explanation for the deposition of most zones is that materials were collected from large, relatively discrete events and swept into the pit at one time or over a short period. For this reason alone it seems unlikely that the pit contains mere accumulations of Cahokian household debris, as implicit in Chmumy's (1973) earlier study.

The depositional history may be reconstructed as follows. After the Cahokians excavated the borrow pit, it sat open for an uncertain amount of time with some refuse disposal occurring into the pit bottom. That this huge gaping hole sat open for over a year is demonstrated by a thick, odorous, preserved layer of uncarbonized marsh grass in the pit at this lowest level. Its preservation also means that much of the subsequent fill, zone H, was a single massive filling event, burying alive the marsh grass. However, the extent to which the five or so subzones reflect diverse fill sources hauled in to cover the grass is unclear. What is certain is that zone H marks the beginning of a consecutive series of massive fill episodes, each burying entirely the previous layer.

Without obvious signs of weathering (i.e., lami-

nated waterlaid silts or sands), another 20-30-cm- thick layer of refuse-laden fill, zone G (with two subzones), was deposited atop zone H. Then, and again without signs of prolonged weathering, a thick layer of plant material, mostly grass stems (probably roof thatch), was laid into the pit, appearing to cover or fill it in its entirety. This zone F thatch then appears either to have been burned in place, and immediately covered with zone E earth, or, more likely, covered with a layer of nearly sterile earth first (that contained a high density of ants). In the second scenario, the thatch below seems to have sponta- neously combusted, burning much of the zone F thatch and the overlying zone E loamy silt; some lower levels of thatch remained uncarbonized (again, arguing for the spontaneous combustion scenario). The quantity of thatch was such that, after burning and later compression, zone F still measured up to 30-cm thick. The frequent irregular vitrified globules of plant silica mark the intensity of the zone F incineration.

Next came zone D2, atop zone E. Zone D2 is a consistent zone comprised of three subzones-a lower, thin layer of sand, a lens of ash, and an organ- ically rich, artifact-heavy fill on top. Owing to its con- sistency across the 50-m length and 19-m breadth of the submound pit, zone D2 appears to have been a tightly spaced depositional sequence also involving incineration. Atop this was zone Dl, again lacking obvious signs of prolonged surface erosion in the various profiles and again containing pockets of ash in its loamy silt to silty clay fill. The final zone, D, was


Table 1. Fill Characteristics and Volume Estimates Based on the 1967-1968 Sub-Mound 51 Excavations.

Excavated Volume Minimum Estimated Volume of N of Zones/ Zone Cubic meters Entire Pit (cubic meters)a Subzones Fill Description D 13.62 1292 ?5 loamy silts and clays Dl 3.66 347 3 loamy silts, pockets of ash, silty clays D2 3.64 345 3 loam, ash, silty clay E .48 46 1 loamy silt F .72 68 1 charred grass and sandy silt loam G 2.66 252 <2 loamy silts and clays H 6.85 650 ?5 loamy silts and sandy silt loams

Total 31.63 3000 aGiven additional information from Bareis 1975:figure 18 and estimated average dimensions of 60 x 19 x 2.65 m.

clearly deposited as several fill events, including some intentional loads of silty and clayey earth. Sub- sequent to being completely filled, and after the deposits settled, at least two large Mississippian buildings were constructed atop the redeposited sediments. Then, sands and silts washed over the floors of these buildings leaving behind the laminated and iron-mottled zones A, B, and C. Not long after this, the construction or enlargement of Mound 51 itself covered over the area of the southern excavation units.

Obviously, the timing of the disposal events represented in the sub-Mound 51 pit is key to understanding what each layer of fill represents. The paleoentomological analysis of insect remains, by Elias, establishes some parameters surrounding the deposition of refuse in the borrow pit. A minimum of 146 insects was extracted from 6 previously unprocessed bulk samples (totaling 6250 cm3) of 6 principal zones using a kerosene flotation procedure (Table 2; see Elias 1994).5 In terms of number of insects per cm3, ants (Hymenoptera) are most common to zone E and, to lesser extent, zone H. The rem- nant exuvial casings of fly pupae (Diptera) are most common to zones D, G, and H, and less common in

zone D2. This is matched by a high density of beetles (Coleoptera) of all sorts in zones G and H (car- rion eaters, plant eaters, and predators) and an absence of plant-eating beetles in zone E. Rich plant and animal wastes were apparently discarded in zones D, G, and H and were exposed to the elements for sufficient time, several days to several weeks, to allow insect colonization. The zone D2 detritus may have been buried relatively quickly following deposition and thus attracted fewer flies. Zone E was unlike the other pit strata in its few insects, low nitro- gen levels, few artifacts, and numerous ants (probably exterminated when the zone-F thatch burned from below).

Thus, with the possible exception of zone E, all of the submound pit zones contained sizable quantities of insects active during the warm months between April and October. Some zones could have remained open for a full year, although the absence of weathering makes it unlikely that any zones were exposed to the elements for much more than that. In short, the sub-Mound 51 pit was dug, sat open for at least a year, and was then in-filled rapidly, probably over no more than a few years without significant depositional hiatuses. The heterogeneous textures

Table 2. Insect Remains from Sub-Mound 51, 1967-1968.

Number of Individual Specimens Density (NIS/cubic meter)

Zone Sample Size (ccm) Coleoptera Hymenoptera Diptera Coleoptera Hymenoptera Diptera D 1,200 12 4 18 100 33 150 Dl not analyzed - - - - - - D2 825 5 1 - 61 12 -

E 475 2 12 3 42 253 63 F 3,275 18 1 10 55 3 31 G 175 32 - 2 1,829 - 114 H 300 16 5 5 533 167 167

Total 6,250 85 23 38 2,620 468 525


Table 3. Summary of Faunal Materials Identified from the Sub-Mound 51 Pit.

Zones D2 E F G H Totals %Total Kelly Assemblage Mammals NISP 1,553 35 295 583 215 2,681 57.9

#Taxa 3 1 1 3 2 Deer MNIa 14 1 4 8 2 - -

Birds NISP 206 2 2 25 30 265 5.7 #Taxa 5 2 1 4 7

Fish NISP 873 - 2 261 27 1,163 25.1 #Taxa 9 - 1 7 4

Not Identified NISP 274 - 25 175 44 518 11.2 Total NISP 2,906 37 324 1,044 316 4,627 -

Chinurn1y Assemblage Mammals NISP 2,847 159 392 647 250 4,295 40.4

#Taxa 6 1 4 5 2 DeerMNIb 23 5 9 8 5 - -

Birds NISP 1,363 36 327 363 109 2,198 20.7 #Taxa 21 4 11 15 12 - -

Fish NISP 1,549 27 1,040 1,359 155 4,130 38.9 #Taxa 11 1 11 9 6

Reptiles NISP 1 - - 2 - 3 #Taxa 1 - - 1

Not Identified NISP - -

Total NISP 5,760 222 1,759 2,371 514 10,626 aKelly %NISP Deer 99.8 100.0 100.0 99.5 98.6 -

bChmurny %NISP Deer 99.2 100.0 99.0 98.6 99.6

and subzones within the final zone, D, probably represent several filling episodes, the additional fill being packed into or piled atop the pit as it settled. As evidenced by the zone contents, the former borrow pit was excavated and completely filled within the 50-year span called the Lohmann phase that saw the planned construction of Cahokia's central monumental landscape.

Zooarchaeological Remains

Faunal remains were recovered in varying amounts from all zones of the submound pit. Some materials from the 1967 field season were examined, but the majority studied was from the 1968 season. Faunal remains were recovered through hand excavation and from the mechanized screening of sediment through a quarter-inch mesh (Chmumy 1973). Bulk samples of sediment and thatch were subsampled and dry fine-screened in the Washington University pale- oethnobotany lab and examined for small bones. A few fish bones and scales were observed but most bones present were unidentifiable fragments. Thus, it was determined that the quantity of identifiable bone in these samples was insignificant. Nonethe-

less, it is possible that the sub-Mound 51 faunal sample may be biased toward larger animals, but the degree of the bias is uncertain at this time. Fish remains may be most affected by the recovery techniques employed. However, because of the high level of care and thoroughness of Bareis's excavation (see Chmumy 1973), the amount of bias is assumed to be mitigated to a large degree.

Only faunal remains that could be definitely assigned to a specific zone were analyzed; therefore, large amounts of material, particularly from zones D and D 1, were not included because in many instances zones had been mixed. Here, we focus on the two zones, D2 and G, from the 1968 excavations analyzed by Kelly that yielded the largest amounts of faunal debris. Zone E did not have enough faunal material to make relevant observations (NISP = 37), while zones F and H yielded small assemblages comprised of few taxa (Table 3). Mammalian remains accounted for all 299 bones in zone F except for two bird bones and two fish bones. White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) was the only mammalian taxon identified. All other mammalian bones were put into the large mammal category and are more than


90o

70. I: - 140

I: 10

0 OW Utility Mid Utety High Utility Food ut kbix

Figure 4. Contrasting proportions of white-tailed deer elements.

likely deer. Of those in zone F, 53 percent of the mammalian bones were burned to some degree, indicat- ing perhaps the more fragile bird and fish remains were destroyed by burning. The zone H assemblage yielded more taxa than F, but 86 percent of the total number of individual specimens (NISP) was mammals. Only 9 percent of the bone from zone H exhib- ited burning and few bones (NISP = 2) were weathered.

The animal bones from zones D2 and G are very different from assemblages elsewhere in the Greater Cahokia region, including other areas of the Cahokia site itself. Only three reptile bones, one being a drilled alligator tooth found in 1967 in zone D2, and no amphibian remains were recovered from the submound pit. In both zone D2 and G, however, there is a large amount of white-tailed deer (NISP = 1653; MNI = 22). Outside Cahokia proper, deer remains are not abundant at contemporary American Bottom sites (Kelly 2000). Axial bones, including ribs, vertebrae, scapulae, and innominates are most common in the submound pit, although upper fore and hind limbs are also more numerous than expected (Fig- ure 4). A number of deer bones from zone D2 appear to articulate, particularly sections of thoracic and lumbar vertebrae. Elements with low structural densities-vertebrae, innominates, and scapulae usually quite fragmentary or nonexistent in many assemblages-are relatively coplete in zones D2 and G. About 72 percent of low-density elements recovered from zone D2 and 86 percent of these from zone G are at least half complete. This is an indication of the exceptional preservation in this pit. The high level

of preservation is borne out by a Spearman's rho correlation run on bulk bone density that showed MAU (minimum animal units) and bone density were not significantly correlated (p = .2312 for zone D2; p = .4457 for zone G). Food utility and MAU, however, were significantly correlated for both zones (p < .0001, see Kelly 2000). As can be seen in Fig- ure 4, both high- and mid-utility deer parts are much higher than expected if a complete deer were returned to the site (see Kelly 2000 for more complete discussion of food utility). When food utility is compared to the ICT-Il residential area of Cahokia, the sub-Mound 51 deer are represented by a higher percentage of mid-utility and a lower percentage of high-utility parts. This may indicate the portions of deer in the submound assemblage were chosen more for the meat utility than for the combined utility of meat, bone grease, and bone marrow that these utility indices measure (Binford 1978; Metcalfe and Jones 1988; Purdue et al. 1989). Bone marrow and grease may have been more desired in the domestic context resulting in a higher proportion of high-utility deer parts being present. The near completeness of many forelimb bones and the presence of few long bone fragments in the submound assemblage also indicate that deer bones were not processed for bone grease or heavily for bone marrow. Bones from zone G exhibit some weathering and carnivore gnawing, but neither exposure to the elements nor the depth of the zone G deposit appears to have negatively affected the assemblage.

Only zone D2 yielded appreciable bird and fish remains from the 1968 excavations, and fewer than the average number of species were identified (Table 3). It should be noted that the assemblages Chmurny (1973) reported from the 1966 and 1967 excavations contained more fish and bird taxa. The species he identified most often, however, were the same as those identified from the 1968 excavations (Kelly 2000). Only five bird taxa were identified in zone D2; usually twice as many are identified in domestic contexts (L. Kelly 1997). Identified in order of descending frequency were swans (Olor sp. or Olor buccinator), prairie chickens (Tympanuchus cupido), Canada geese (Branta canadensis), common mer- gansers (Mergus merganser), and mallard (Anas platyrhynchos).

Over half the birds represented in zone D2 are swans; another 28 percent of the zone D2 bird remains are prairie chickens. Swan bones from con-


temporary sites in the region are rare occurrences. They are limited to modified wing bones primarily at subsidiary centers (see Kelly 2000 for an in-depth discussion). Remains of prairie chickens from Mis- sissippian features elsewhere at Cahokia are only from elite contexts (L. Kelly 1997). The limited Mis- sissippian distribution of these two bird species at Cahokia and in the region highlights the unique qual- ities of the submound refuse. In the submound pit there are no swan wing elements present and no swan bones exhibit butchery marks or other forms of human modification. Perhaps the submound swans were processed for their wings and feathers, rather than for food. Swan feathers were commonly used in rituals during the historic period (see Kelly 2000, 2001).

Like avian species, fish are represented in zone D2 by few taxa. Ordinarily, domestic sites produce large assemblages of as many as two dozen or more taxa. While the lack of fine-mesh screened samples in the 1968 collection may underrepresent fish, especially small ones, remains from large river fish such as buffalo-sucker (Ictiobus sp.), gar (Lepisosteus sp.), and freshwater drum (Aplodinotus grunniens) are more abundant in zone D2 than backwater species commonly recovered from ordinary domestic middens (L. Kelly 1997).

Archaeobotanical Remains

Differences between the submound faunal remains and those of other Lohmann-phase domestic assemblages are readily observable. The same may be said of some, but not all, archaeobotanical remains. The sub-Mound 51 plant remains stand apart from typical domestic middens not only by the uncarbonized condition of many of them, but also by their sheer quantity, outnumbering all other classes of artifacts and bones combined. Unfortunately, as Bareis's excavations predate the standardization of flotation recovery techniques in the Cahokia area, many hand- collected or water-screened submound archaeobotanical samples are less amenable to quantitative analysis. The many hand-collected samples are valu- able, but not comparable to flotation assemblages. Thus, attention was given to a series of 20 previously unprocessed bulk samples like those noted earlier, and a single sample labeled "Floated Ash." These samples, phenomenally rich in seeds and other plant remains, were analyzed by Fritz and students, resulting in the identification of 50 taxa, at least 30 of which

are definite or probable foods. In addition, about 22,000 nonfood specimens from 40 samples collected by Bareis, using quarter-inch mesh screens, were sorted by Lopinot into carbonized and uncarbonized categories that were then further sampled for analysis.

More than 30 different types of edible plants are represented in zones D through H, the latter contam- inated by natural marsh vegetation (Tables 4 and 5). Domesticated or cultivated plants include corn (Zea mays), bottle gourd (Lagenaria siceraria), two species of squash (Cucurbita pepo and Cucurbita argyrosperma, see Fritz 1994), sunflower (Helianthus annuus var. macrocarpus), sumpweed (Iva annua var. macrocarpa), chenopod (Chenopodium berlandieri ssp. jonesianum), maygrass (Phalaris caroliniana), and erect knotweed (Polygonum erec- tum). Four genera of nuts (Carya spp., Juglans nigra, Quercus sp., and Corylus americana) are represented along with nine kinds of sweet or sour fruits: grape (Vitis sp.), persimmon (Diospyros virginiana), strawberry (Fragaria virginiana), plum (Prunus sp.), bramble (Rubus sp.), elderberry (Sambucus canadensis), black haw (Viburnum sp.), mulberry (Morus sp.), and nightshade (Solanum cf. ptycanthum). Seeds from native plants that might have been gathered for greens or harvested as small grains include amaranth (Ama- ranthus sp.), purslane (Portulaca oleracea), panicoid grasses (Digitaria sp., Leptoloma sp., and/or Pan- icum sp.), carpetweed (Mollugo verticillata), and spurges (Acalypha sp., Euphorbia cf. corollata, and Euphorbia cf. maculata).

The richness of the plant assemblage is increased by the presence of uncarbonized specimens, but many taxa include charred as well as uncharred seeds (Table 4). The analyzed submound assemblage, including samples reported by Chmurny, yielded more than 3,000 squash seeds, all but a few fragments being uncarbonized. Hundreds were associated with the samples from each submound zone except Dl and E. Sometimes squash seeds from bulk samples were stuck together and covered with material resembling dried pulp, as if the contents of fruits that had been scooped out and discarded or, alternatively, left to decay along with pieces of rinds or entire fruits.

Given the density of other uncarbonized plant remains, it is perhaps surprising that only one uncharred corn specimen-a cupule fragment-was found in the analyzed assemblage. Chmurny's (1973) study of the corn from the 1967 excavations revealed


Table 4. Fruits and Economic Seed Types from Sub-Mound 51.

Total

Zone D Zone D2 Zone G Zone H Zone Unknown Charred Uncharred Fruits

Persimmon 4 9 3 3 2 5 16 Strawberry - 26 212 98 - - 336 Plum - - - 1 - - 1 Bramble (Rubus sp.) - 2 29 17 1 - 49 Elderberry - 1 7 3 - - 11 Nightshade 6 66 139 526 6 3 740 Blackhaw - - - 1 - - 1 Grape 5 30 41 45 423 7 537 Mulberry - 5 22 1 - - 28

Native Seed Crops Sunflower 1 25 4 11 4 3 42 Sumpweed - 2 5 3 3 3 10 Chenopod: - - - - - - -

charreda 12 67 29 18 145 271 -

uncharred thin-testa 2 55 126 50 4 - 237 uncharred thick-testa 51 301 316 294 60 - 1,022

Maygrass 364 1,442 389 58 4,299 6,552 -

Erect Knotweed 134 244 66 36 469 882 67 Barley - - - - 2 2 -

Other Economic Seed Types Panicoid Grasses 22 208 987 170 23 16 1,394 Amaranthb 8 283 147 233 32 703 Purslaneb 150 1,361 928 2,151 1,352 5,942 Carpetweed 15 31 48 10 40 - 144 Spurge (Euphorbia spp.) 10 128 133 90 1 11 341

aMost charTed chenopod seeds appear to be thin-testa. bMost amaranth and purslane seeds were uncharred, but they were not sorted into charred vs. uncharred.

238 cob fragments in zone F (out of a total of 263 in his sample, all charred). Zone D1, by contrast, yielded no cob fragments; zone D2 yielded four; zone G had 14; and zone H had seven. Charred kernels were similarly distributed, with one from zone D 1, 29 from zone D2, 23 from zone E, 687 from zone F, 19 from zone G, and seven from zone H. Some of these cob fragments and whole kernels could have been previously removed by Chmurny from bulk samples analyzed recently at Washington University in St. Louis, but Chmurny's low counts of corn from all zones except zone F match the relatively low numbers of fragments remaining (see Table 5). Sim- ilarly low densities occurred in newly soited samples from the 1968 excavations, which were not analyzed by Chmurny and appeared to have had nothing separated from them. The low visibility of corn-charred or uncharred-in the samples from sub-Mound 51 indicates that relatively little corn was deposited in the first place.

Other than the prominence of uncarbonized

squash seeds and paucity of corn, and unlike the low species diversity of the zooarchaeological assemblage, the submound plant food assemblage is as diverse as an ordinary domestic assemblage. In order of abundance, maygrass ranks at the top of the starchy seed remains, with more than 6,500 seeds sorted from the bulk samples. A total of 1,530 chenopod seeds include both thick-testa and thin-testa forms, the latter being domesticated, dark-coated Chenopodium berlandieri ssp. jonesianum. Erect knotweed, the next most abundant starchy seed type (n = 949, was almost certainly a food crop as well. Most knotweed specimens from the pit are naked kernels, and most of the pericarps are smooth rather than striate-papillose. Little barley (Hordeum pusillum), however, is strangely absent, with the only two barley specimens resembling H. jubatum.

Except for barley grass, native starchy seed crops from the pit are represented in the same order of abundance as those recovered by flotation from Cahokia's Interpretive Center Tract-Il (ICT-1I).


cn 0

V t

00 cq \I kr

v OC 3 : '? v c~~~~~~~~OC

g~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~c cq k Nt ) u | k|3c> r):0001Xc

r: | s : = 0< k) OC t s 4 | s M:_

4-c OC C c

(01 C C ) cq > )rO9

5 | > _ > s - ff f X t A > 2 2 4 X s C1It rn 7


Lopinot (1991) found maygrass seeds to be the most abundant (n = 269) in those domestic contexts, followed by barley (n = 234), chenopod (n = 161), and erect knotweed (n = 47). The ICT-I1 seeds were sorted from 189 liters of floated feature fill taken from 15 external pits, one internal pit, and four structures, a comparison that highlights the abundance of small seeds in the unfloated bulk samples from sub-Mound 51. Native crop seeds outnumber corn in Lohmann phase deposits at ICT-I1 as they do in the sub-Mound 51 pit, but not by as great a margin. Lopinot reports 259 cupules or glumes and 174 kernel fragments from the ICT-I1, giving a corn to starchy seed ratio of .541 compared to .023 for the newly sorted samples from sub-Mound 51 (excluding uncarbonized seeds). This is due in large part to the thousands of charred maygrass seeds in the pit, many of which occur in clumps. These ratios need to be carefully considered by archaeologists who assume that corn dominated both diet and ritual symbolism for early Cahokians.

All 700 amaranth seeds from sub-Mound 51 are flattish, black-coated types that, like the thick-testa chenopod, may either represent food or incidental weedy inclusions. Purslane is extremely common, with 5,920 seeds actually counted and tens of thousands more in the unsorted residue of other samples.

Grapes and persimmons were very common in the pit. One sample from an uncertain provenience (excavated in 1966, probably from zone D2 or G) consisted of 400 uncarbonized grape seeds, with dried skins of the fruits still adhering, resembling the summer grape (Vitis aestivalis). Zone G was especially rich in grapes and other fruits, with 41 grape seeds coming from one sample, along with 212 strawberry seeds, 28 bramble (blackberry/raspbenry, etc.) seeds, and 139 American nightshade seeds, whose fruits are not toxic when fully ripe (Heiser 1969).

Of the nonfood plants, tobacco seeds were found in large numbers in zones D and D2 and in smaller numbers in the other zones. The total count of tobacco seeds from sorted subsamples is 917, but unsorted residues of the bulk samples contain thousands more. The highest concentration of carbonized and uncarbonized tobacco seeds is in zone D, at the top of the pit. Most of these seeds do not conform morphologically to the familiar Nicotiana rustica, but resemble more closely Nicotiana quadrivalvis or N. multivalvis.

Lopinot randomly selected subsamples of 50 carbonized and 50 uncarbonized wood specimens from each of the 40 sorted wood samples collected by Bareis. Judging from these subsamples, carbonized wood is more abundant in zones D, D 1, D2, and E, while uncarbonized wood is more abundant in zones F, G, and H, a function not of differential preservation but of incomplete burning in these latter three zones. Uncarbonized bark is particularly abundant in most of the samples, comprising over one-half of the woody materials from six of the seven zones. It is noticeably infrequent in the samples from zone D2, estimated at about 10 percent of over 1,400 specimens. Then again, small, ter- minal branchlets of eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana) trees are prominent in zone D2. A total of 44 branchlets, all uncarbonized, were found in the zone-D2 bulk samples.

One of the most striking aspects of the uncarbonized wood data for the pit is the relatively great abundance of uncarbonized coniferous wood, including red cedar, bald cypress (Taxodium distichum), and pine (Pinus spp.). All three woods are present in the domestic middens of Cahokia's ICT-I1, several hundred meters south of Mound 51 (Figure 1; see Lopinot 1991). However, they are seldom if ever associated with domestic refuse outside of Cahokia.6 Many of the uncarbonized cypress wood fragments and a few of the red cedar and pine specimens con- sist of thin split pieces with roughly parallel sides. Some of these thin pieces could have been derived from discarded fragments of basketry or matting, but most are probably woodworking by-products. Thin, but irregular-sided chips and splintered fragments, sometimes with cut marks, occur in many of the samples. Few pieces of carbonized wood, most often white oaks and hickories from upland forests over three-km away, appear to have been shaped. These hardwoods, unlike the conifers, would have comprised the principal fuel for fires.

Pots, Craft Debris, and Magicoritual Items

The remaining material culture, analyzed by Pauke- tat, reveals the submound pit to be in some ways ordinary and in other ways extraordinary. The qualitative attributes of most individual pottery vessels in the submound pit are not unique. Most pottery vessels, especially cooking jars, are typical Cahokian vari- eties; they stand out against a regional ceramic background but not against a purely Cahokian one (Table


Table 6. Pottery Vessels by Zone, 1967-1968 Sub-Mound 51 Excavations.

Seed Bowls/ Funnels/ Hooded Zone Jars Jars Beakers Stumpware Bottles Total D 158 24 33 6 - 221 DI 33 10 15 - - 58 D2 53 7 22 1 - 83 E 1 - 4 - - 5 F 8 6 11 1 - 26 G 113 43 37 3 1 197 H 73 31 27 1 1 133

Total 439 121 149 12 2 723

Table 7. Ceramic Cooking Jar Orifice Diameters, 1967-1968 Sub-Mound 51 Excavations.

Number of Vessels by Orifice Diameter Range (cm) Zone 6-9 10-13 14-17 18-21 22-25 26-29 30-33 34-37 38-41 42-45 46-49 50-53 total D 3 12 15 25 25 15 22 8 7 7 1 5 145 Dl - 2 5 13 2 3 1 - - - - - 26 D2 - 3 9 11 7 3 4 1 1 - 1 - 40 E - - - - 1 - - - - - - - 1 F 1 1 1 - 1 2 1 - 1 - - - 8 G 3 7 12 15 17 14 14 6 4 1 1 1 95 H 5 7 12 8 13 5 3 1 3 2 3 1 63

Total 12 32 54 72 66 42 45 16 16 10 6 7 378 Note: Orifice diameters could not be measured on jars represented by small rimsherds.

6).7 Cooking-jar sizes and sooting patterns match the standard profile of domestic assemblages (e.g., Table 7). That is, the cooking activities represented by submound pots parallel a domestic pattern. Then again, the large size of individual vessel fragments, the densities of broken vessels and, to lesser extent, the proportions of vessel forms are unlike ordinary domestic assemblages (e.g., Figure 5; see Pauketat 1998a). Seed jars comprise a disproportionately large number-over a quarter-of the total number of ceramic vessels from lower zones F, G, and H (Table 6), while a distinctive variety of brown fineware beaker or bowl-ordinarily two percent of contemporary residential ceramic refuse (see Holley 1989; Pauketat 1998a)-is missing entirely in the submound pit.

Other artifacts help us understand this mix of ordinary and extraordinary pottery evidence (Table 8). There is scant evidence of bead manufacture, save three broken marine-shell disk beads, one broken marine-shell columellabead, and 21 fractured pieces of marine shell in the analyzed layers of the pit (cf. Pauketat 1993). Although not representing evidence for manufacturing activities, there are also fiveAncu- losa snail-shell beads, one Marginella bead, and one entire bead necklace made up of 345 marine-shell

disk beads. Such necklaces have previously been found only in special central mortuaries around Cahokia.

Also in one of these mortuaries, and in domestic refuse on Cahokia's Tract 15A, are numerous Cahokia-style projectile points (see Fowler 1991; Fowler et al. 2000; Pauketat 1998a). These are represented in the analyzed samples from the submound

Poibry Vessl Assemblages

60 i

50 .F1IT1A

ap20 llL -r 10.

Jr Bowl Sed Jr Fuwel Bote VeYd Type

Figure 5. Comparison of pottery vessel type proportions between a Lohmann phase Cahokian domestic assemblage (Tract 15A) and the sub-Mound 51 Pit.


6000 -

4600 - U Sandstone

4000 - Basalt

o3 Burlington Che. 35 3 - ,

15000

~2000-

cp1500 1000

500

0 -

Tract 15A SubMd Zone D2 SubMd Zone G Asembla

90

80 *Quartz Xstl_

* 70- _ Exotic Chert 2 _OP - ...ats

~40- ~30

- 20 - 0

0 -

Tract 15A SubMd Zone SubMd Zone G D2

Assmblage

Figure 6. Comparison of Lohmann phase artifact densities between Cahokia's tract 15A and the sub-Mound 51 Pit, by weight (top) and count (bottom).

pit by eight chipped stone specimens and a barbed bone tip. Unlike the Lohmann phase points from Tract 1SA, however, the chipped stone points were made mostly from exotic cherts (not thermally altered Burlington chert). One of the chipped stone projectile points was made from quartz crystal, flakes of which were found in densities 10 times higher than that of Tract 1SA refuse (Figure 6). In fact, one soil sample (probably from zone D2) produced the microdebitage from quartz crystal knapping, perhaps originating from the production of quartz crystal projectile points.

There is evidence of pigments-rubbed galena, hematite, and kaolinite (the latter being exceedingly rare at Cahokia)-in the sub-Mound 51 pit. In the case of pigments, however, the most telling evidence is not that of mineral density but of the residues of pigment usage. Like the possible evidence of the

manufacture, use, and disposal of shell beads and arrowheads, the pattern of pigment usage points to an active and likely ritualized manipulation of material culture as part of the refuse-producing activities. There are at least four instances of pottery vessels or portions of pottery vessels that had been used to mix or dispense red and black paint, as revealed by smears, encrustations, and smudges of the residues themselves. In addition, the kaolinite seems to have been the basal component of a white paint applied to a suite of vessels that were then lightly refired. There are a total of 28 painted pots in the excavated sample from the submound pit, about twice the total number of such pots from the rest of Cahokia and related Lohmann phase sites combined. Half of the painted submound vessels are bowls, followed by seedjars,jars, and ahoodedbottle. The paints include a white film, applied as thick lines or as a slip to entire vessels, and a thin black carbonaceous paint applied as narrow lines. Just over half of the 28 vessels have white film or painted designs over a red slip. Another quarter of the painted vessels have black paint over red slips, and the remainder have either plain white or black-on-white films. With only one possible exception, the black and white paints seem to have been applied to an already-fired vessel. The red- slipped vessels that were painted black and white were otherwise common Lohmann phase bowls, seed jars, and jars. Thus, it is likely that the extra paints or films were applied in anticipation of or as part of the sorts of events represented in the submound pit.

Among the remaining artifactual odds and ends in the 1967-1968 units are a bone ear spool, a broken chunkey stone, a broken limestone smoking pipe, and plagioclase and calcite crystals that can be associated with public events in other archaeological contexts in the Greater Cahokia region and beyond. Like these objects, and the beads, arrowheads, pigment residues, and painted pots, the presence of five expe- diently engraved or sketched icons on pots indicate a ritual manipulation of material culture. From zones D, DI, D2, and H are two eyes, one cross-hatched design, a possible wing motif, and a charcoal sketch of a possible human figure on the face of a large pot- sherd. There is also a terra cotta figurine of a seated person from zone G. This terra cotta figurine, the engraved sherds, and the sketch could be called "magico-ritual" items, as they were probably used in special contexts (Emerson 1989; Wilson 1996). These depictions and the unusual characteristics of


the material culture assemblage may be indicative of contexts of manufacture, use, and disposal similar in the nondomestic applications to tobacco, medicinal plants, and special woods. If so, then they were all potentially used in divinations or at public ceremonies and important socioreligious functions.

Human Remains

The human bones, studied by Hargrave, may be comparable to the magicoritual items above. In the analyzed 1967-1968 collection, they include isolated and unburned cranial and postcranial bones from one child (7-9 years), one adolescent (12-18 years), and three adults (one of unknown sex, one young adult male, and one mid-old adult female). The isolated bones of the adults and the child were found in zones D, D 1, D2, or G, while the adolescent individual was represented by bone in zone H. None of the five individuals appeared to be intentional bulials.8

Cut marks, fractures, carnivore-gnawing marks, and polish were observed on the human bone and may help explain its relationship to the submound pit. Cut marks were observed on a left fibula (both anterior and postelior to the midshaft) and on a right radius (inferior to the tuberosity on the proximal radius) suggestive of postmortem processing. A greenstick fracture is present on the fibula immediately superior to the cutmarks. Carnivore gnawing in the form of tooth-groove furrows and tooth punctures was present on the proximal end of a left femur, the proximal end of a light ulna, and a right radius. Finally, evidence of polishing is present on several elements, attributable in most cases to general taphonomic processes such as abrasion with sand. However, the polish on a right femur was probably not a natural, postdepositional effect of sand abrasion, and the femur fragment may have been used as a tool. This fact, along with the cut marks and the evidence for the carnivore gnawing, indicates that these particular elements had been retained, used, and exposed for an indeterminate period of time, perhaps in a mortuary facility such as a charnel house or temple (see DePrat- ter 1991). The absence of weathering or sun bleach- ing on this and other elements suggests that, if they were exposed in the pit, exposure was for a brief period. The human remains indicate the importance of the act of processing or manipulating the materials subsequently deposited in the submound pit like the various ornaments, woods, medicinal plants, beads, magicoritual objects, pigments, and pots.

Interpretations

The sub-Mound 51 strata provide evidence that the production and manipulation of craft goods was in all likelihood a component of the same garbage-producing events in which paints, pots, crystals, beads, and bones were used. Besides the quartz-crystal debitage and, perhaps, the coniferous-wood chippage, this production is indicated by large biface-reduction chert flakes, exotic chert debitage, and basalt axhead- making debitage (Table 8). Specifically, the Burling- ton-chert biface reduction flakes were associated with zone D2 and seem to be derived from the manufacture of one or more large "Ramey" knives or adze blades via soft percussion. This sort of primary reduction is not an ordinary component of domestic activities at Cahokia, where most domestic debitage originated from expedient tool making. The exotic chert debitage is less diagnostic of tool type, but may have originated from the manufacture of arrow points and unifacial tools. The submound exotic debitage was largely limited to Cobden chert (one of the alnow points was made from Cobden chert) and Hixton silicified sediment. Oddly, another common Lohmann phase exotic chert, Fort Payne, was completely absent in the submound pit. The axhead making debitage is comparable to that found on Tract 15A at Cahokia and few other Lohmann phase contexts (Pauketat 1997b, 1998a). The waste, which includes broken fragments of unfinished celts, consists entirely of igneous rock from dikes in the St. Francois Mountains 100 km south of Cahokia. The high densities of this rock (calculated as grams per m3 of excavated fill) in the submound pit indicate that the manufacture of axheads from exotic rock, along with chipped stone bifaces, may have been an activity that accompanied the use of other magicoritual and sumptuary items in whatever social events produced the submound refuse.

Clearly, in terms of type, density, and preservation, the sub-Mound 51 pit refuse is unlike typical Lohmann phase domestic middens either at Cahokia or at outlying settlements. As a point of comparison, we may look to the Lohmann phase domestic remains of Cahokia's Tract 15A and outlying sites, remains that themselves point to Cahokia's apical position in a regional economy (Pauketat 1998b:Fig- ure 6). That is, compared to rural sites, higher densities (grams/m3 or number/ mi3) of all craft or exotic materials (except for residues of Mill Creek chert hoe


Table 8. Other Artifacts from the 1967-1968 Sub-Mound 51 Excavations.

Burlington Mill Creek Exotic Quartz Unmodified Unmodified Axhead-making Chert Chert Chert Crystal Limestone Sandstone Debitage Abraders

Zone Wt (g) Wt (g) Wt (g) Wt (g) Wt (g) Wt (g) Wt (g) N D 5,170.7 62.8 27.3 2.2 23,092.0 6,613.0 447.0 7 DI 1,282.7 .6 7.1 23.7 10,106.5 319.0 54.1 -

D2 3,711.7 3.2 73.7 62.6 80,498.1 1,898.0 1,821.4 1 E 132.5 - - - 219.9 - 7.4 3 F 572.1 1.3 .8 3.6 3301.0 323.2 120.6 1 G 3,052.2 6.0 31.8 - 49,236.8 3,146.7 5,965.9 5 H 2,789.1 1.2 1.8 - 12,075.0 3,682.0 245.5 2

Total 1,6711.0 75.1 142.5 92.1 178,529.3 15,981.9 8,661.9 19

Fresh-water Marine-shell Gastropod Marine-disk Hammer- Pigment- Pottery Arrow- Copper Shell Frags. Fragments Beads Beads stones stones Icons heads

Zone N N N N N N N N N D - 46 2 3 345 1 1 2 2 DI 1 115 - 1 2 - 1 1 1 D2 1 151 10 2 1 2 - 1 2 E - 1 F - 3 1 - - - 1 - 1 G - 140 1 - 1 2 - -

H - 234 7 - - - 1 1 2 Total 2 690 21 6 349 3 6 5 8

blades) characterize Tract 15A's domestic refuse while densities drop off with distance from Cahokia.9 Yet the densities of certain craft or exotic materials in the submound pit zones D2 and G are higher than the Tract 15A peak values (Figure 6).

As argued earlier, the continuous and discrete zones of consistent if not homogeneous fills include extraordinarily high densities of material objects in the submound pit that are matched by the high density of organic detritus. In zone F and some subzones, there is almost no associated earthen matrix; it is purely carbonized and uncarbonized organic materials and associated artifacts. In other zones, notably D2 and G, the fill matrix includes less earth compared to ordinary secondary refuse in the region (precise quantitative measures of soil samples are unavailable). Like zones A-C, the silts and sands in these zones may derive in part or all from the Grand Plaza's earthen mantle via erosion or intentional sweeping. Combined with artifact density, the organic-rich matrices appear to indicate that most of the submound zones were derived from a tightly spaced series of large-scale depositional episodes. In the case of the live burial of marsh grass by zone H or the combusted zones or subzones of D1, D2, E, and F, the massive single-deposit or rapid-sequence- deposit hypothesis is well supported. Rapid disposal events seem likely for zones D2 and G also because

of the whole or nearly complete artifacts, large sections of pots, articulating animal bones, clumps of squash seeds and pulp, absence of obviously weathered fills and artifacts, and the underrepresented ver- sus overrepresented remains of other artifact types (i.e., Fort Payne and Mill Creek chert, brown finewares, little barley, maize, various animal taxa vs. quartz crystal, painted pots, seed jars, funnels, tobacco seeds, fruits, maygrass, wood chippage, and deer, swan, and prairie chicken parts).

Given a single-event origin for submound zones, the density figures derived from the excavated 1967-1968 samples of artifacts and detritus can be multiplied by the minimum estimates of volume for the entire zone in the submound pit to give us a rough sense of the overall quantities of pots, foods, magicoritual objects, insects, etc. that comprised the disposal events. Assuming a relatively uniform artifact density across the pit, the resulting quantities point to huge events (Table 9). Even if the estimation procedure overinflates the totals involved,10 individual gatherings at Cahokia in the eleventh century A.D. seem to have involved the use and breakage of hundreds if not thousands of pots, the consumption of hundreds of individual white-tailed deer, and the use of sufficient tobacco to leave behind hundreds of thousands of seeds!

The richness and diversity of plant remains in the


Table 9. Projected Total Numbers of Select Materials in the Sub-Mound 51 Pit.a

Ceramic MNI Tobacco Fossil Zone Vessels Deer Arrowheads Seeds Coleoptera D 20,961 - 190 624,0911 129,181 DI 5,501 - 95 -

D2 7,872 2,031 190 1,398,988 21,060 E 474 1,518 - - 1,912 F 2,466 3,897 95 - 3,756 G 18,685 5,440 - 663,927 446,809 H 12,615 352 190 9,485 346,290

Total 68,574 13,238 760 8,313,311 949,008 aExcavated material density (N per cubic meter) from 1967-68 excavations multiplied by minimum estimated volume of entire pit, divided by excavated volume; deer numbers derived from 1968 sample only.

sub-Mound 51 pit indicate that the processing and eating of plant foods was in some ways similar to most domestic contexts in the Greater Cahokia region. Particularly evident is the low density of maize and the high density of some starchy seeds such as maygrass (see Lopinot 1991, 1994). Pro- portions of other plant foods vary, in part owing to the unique depositional factors surrounding the in- filling of the pit. The near absence of little barley, for instance, is unusual but could be due either to the short-term accumulation of refuse or to the consumption of meals that excluded little barley. In addition, the frequency of fruits, not unlike one other Cahokian domestic context (ICT-1I) but different from non-Cahokian domestic refuse, may indicate something of the added flavor of Cahokian recipes, possibly for public gatherings (see below).

Certainly, the frequent tobacco seeds, red cedar branchlets, and cypress wood chippage is suggestive of the incorporation of meaning-laden "ritual" plants and woods alongside the traditional starchy foods of the region. Certainly there are ethnographic accounts of the use of swan wings and deer in conjunction with red cedar in ritual feasts (Douglas 1976; Radin 1990). Red cedar was a wood with many mythical, reli- gious, and medicinal uses among its more practical applications: red cedar brooms swept away dust and evil spirits; cedar and cedar posts were associated with sacred spaces, directions, creation stories, and mythical figures; twigs, leaves, and bark were used in purification rituals; cedar wood was used to construct non-domestic buildings (e.g., Lopinot 1991:51-53; Moerman 1986:241-249). In and around Cahokia, red cedar was used in the construction of special buildings, as the posts of the monumental "woodhenge," and as the poles of burial litters in Mound 72 (Fortier 1992; Fowler 1991;

Lopinot 1991; Pauketat 1998a). Cypress was also featured in important community marker posts and possibly canoes (e.g., Porter 1977:Figure 60), and the many cypress wood chips and prodigious amounts of bark seem to indicate woodworking as a significant part of the activities represented in the submound pit.

Chmumy (1973:150), having culled wood from the 1967 excavation, noted what could have been portions of "wall support posts" and "one very large hickory post, 8 inches in diameter." Besides these posts, the wood chips, and the bark, the abundant zone F thatch and a few pieces of worked wood are also suggestive of architectural construction and reconstruction. Cahokian buildings presumably pos- sessed thatched roofs that were periodically replaced; at least one known high-status Cahokian building was associated with shaped wooden elements (Dunavan 1993; Pauketat 1995). It is potentially important then to note that rebuilding and rethatching of temples and certain houses at Cahokia may have been tied to annual ceremonial events (Pauke- tat 1993).

Based on an extensively analyzed body of con- textually controlled ceramic, archaeobotanical, and mound-construction evidence, Cahokia researchers have previously inferred that central public rites were annual, integrative features of social life (e.g., Emer- son 1989, 1997; Pauketat 1993; Pauketat and Emer- son 1991; Porter 1974). Such early Cahokian ceremonies presumably would have involved the manipulation of the contents of mound-top buildings (following Knight 1986). Temples in later Missis- sippian centers in the Southeast housed ancestral bones and sumptuary objects and were the focal points of annual fertility and renewal rites (DePrat- ter 1991; Hall 1989; Knight 1986, 1989). The array


of the submound pit's magicoritual materials and sumptuary goods beads, quartz crystals, pigments, icons, fancy pots, tobacco seeds, cedar branchlets, and a smoking pipe are consistent with these analogs. At such annual gatherings, people ate and drank foods in groups forged along kinship, friend- ship, and gender lines (see Bell 1990; Howard 1968; Waring 1968; Witthoft 1949).

Besides suggestive fruit remains and the high density of broken cooking jars, the submound pit provides strong evidence of select faunal provisions-swans, prairie chickens, large fish, and deer-not found in such quantities or proportions in domestic contexts. The articulations and completeness of many deer bones may reflect the manner in which meat was brought to Cahokia for whatever specific events are represented in the submound pit. Butchering debris, such as skull fragments and lower limbs metapodials, phalanges, and carpals are almost nonexistent in the analyzed assemblages. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that meat, especially deer, arrived on site in the form of bulk cuts, possibly prescribed by tradition and expected by the hosts of public events. At least some of the bones were seemingly deposited in the pit in a semi-articulated state and with raw, soft tissue still adhering to some as evidenced by the fly exuviae. This indicates that the meat was probably cut from the bones prior to cooking and the bone waste tossed into the submound pit. I I

The submound faunal pattern, therefore, differs significantly from domestic contexts elsewhere at Cahokia and across the Greater Cahokia region. The pattern, however, is generally consistent with models of "ritual feasting" elsewhere (Hayden 1996; Jackson and Scott 1995). The characteristics that the sub-Mound 51 faunal assemblage share with these feasting models include low taxonomic diversity, high meat-yielding species in all faunal classes present, relatively complete and in some cases articulated bones, large quantities of bones present in a single deposit, rare species (swans and prairie chickens), and consistent body-part representation (sug- gesting possibly prescribed deer portions or bulk cuts of meat). All of these characteristics suggest feasting on meat that was in some way selected because of the symbolic meaning with which the animals were imbued and presumably provisioned to the great collective gatherings in Cahokia's central plaza.

Moreover, it should be noted that the presence of such game animals makes sense as part of some peri- odic calendrically based mobilization of meat. That is, terrestrial game animals, unlike domestic stock or special herds, may not have proved very reliable provisions if regularity of availability was a concern. Then again, meats can be dried and stockpiled and, as documented in complex societies around the world, special sumptuary rules and game reserves could have provided the means to regulate meat availability (see Rees 1997; Zeder 1996). In any case, the sort of large-scale provisioning seen in the submound pit would have required some substantive measure of coordination suited to a ritual calendar.

All of the lines of submound evidence point in the direction of a series of short-term and large-scale events involving feasts, the use of magicolitual and sumptuary goods, the shaping of craft goods and wood, and possibly the rethatching or reconstruction of architecture. The abundant insect remains clearly indicate that these events occurred during warm weather months. Fruits in the pit indicate both early summer (strawberries and mulberries), later summer (blackberries, elderberries, and grapes), and fall (persimmon) harvests, although all could have been eaten from dried stores. The deer and waterfowl may have been most easily captured in the early autumn (see Bent 1962) and certainly abundant starchy-seed crops would have been harvested by that time. Thus, a mid-summer to early autumn origin, at least for zones D2 and G, is most likely.

The contextual evidence for the use or consumnp- tion of certain objects or traditional foods and the absence of others is as interesting as the general patterns and seasonal indicators. Viewing the submound strata as a time series, we may see some clear and other suggestive trends in artifact density. The most obvious pattern is the extraordinarily dense deposits of fruits, prime meats, unique magicoritual materials, and sumptuary objects in zones D2 and G. Zones E and H have lower densities of many things. The alrtifact density of zone F is difficult to assess owing to its thatch matrix. The zone appears to contain fairly high densities of the same sorts of debris found in zones D2 and G. Lastly, zones D and DI have reduced densities of material, perhaps owing to accumulations that spanned more time than the other layers or to the intentional filling of the pit with sediments hauled from elsewhere on site.

We could posit, based on the paleoentomologi-


cal, zooarchaeological, archaeobotanical, and sedi- mentological evidence, that zones D2 and G were comparable deposits perhaps resulting from the same annual event-possibly a harvest feast or a renewal ceremony in two consecutive years. In any case, the two zones are quite alike, although the abundance of cedar branchlets but reduced quantities of bark in zone D2 contrasts with zone G. In addition, there is no quartz crystal in zone G (or in zone H beneath it) at the same time that there are high densities of exotic chert and exotic igneous rock debitage from the manufacture of axheads. Compared to this, zone D2 has lower densities of the axhead debitage, negligible quantities of exotic chert, but a very high density of quartz crystal.

The between-zone variance is also attested by the different proportions of animal and plant foods, the presence of large-biface reduction flakes, the greater- than-usual numbers of seed jars in lower zones, and the virtual absence of such things as Fort Payne chert, shell-bead-making tools, funnels, and local brown pottery fineware. This variance may have been an outcome of situational or formal social variation in the activities that produced the dense submound deposits.

Conclusions Viewed together, the multiple lines of evidence analyzed from the 1967-1968 excavation of sub-Mound 51 indicate that the stratified layers of refuse astride Cahokia's Grand Plaza probably derived from large- scale collective gatherings, perhaps held in the Grand Plaza and articulated with annual temple renewals or other mound-top ceremonies. Given its Lohmann phase date, the submound pit's remains take on added significance in understanding Cahokia itself. The pit may have been dug to level the plaza or to raise the earliest stages of the central platforms. The open pit, then, may have been refilled rather quickly as part of the continued constructions and plaza rituals of early Cahokia. The extraordinary densities of magicoritual materials, sumptuary goods, human remains, food residues, broken pots, woodworking debris, craft production waste, architectural elements, and perhaps even firewood from discrete and seemingly large-scale depositional episodes warrant the interpretation that the sub-Mound 51 pit contains the remains of public rites focused around feasts. If this interpretation is correct, then the submound data point to commensal politics on a grand scale.

There is much in the pit that could be interpreted as ordinary domestic refuse if viewed in isolation. Among these things are cooking pots and the plant foods cooked in them. However, the seeming ordinary profile of some submound materials is quite probably what we should expect to see given that most participants in large-scale gatherings would have been of ordinary status. On the other hand, the combined qualitative and quantitative aspects of the animal bones, fruits, special woods, quartz crystals, shell bead necklace, painted pots, projectile points, tobacco, and human bones do not match the well- established domestic profile for the region. This does not mean that the submound pit's contents are high- status refuse. Instead, the exotic and magico-ritual materials, craft goods, and nonfood plant remains appear more as the paraphernalia actually used and discarded by participants of special events.

This is an important observation, as the pit need not be interpreted as the "materialization" of some already established Mississippian ideology (in the sense of DeMarris et al. 1996). Rather, the sub- Mound 51 pit dates to the earliest phase of the youngest and largest Mississippian polity in North America and may encapsulate the process whereby people accepted or accommodated (or even resisted) a Cahokian organization, identity, or way of life. That process seems to have involved a dramatically enlarged and centralized sense of community, polity, and economy. At the same time, material remains seem to indicate that Cahokia was continuously being created and re-created via the centralized manufacture and dispersal of pots and craft goods and via the continuous construction of architecture, earthen pyramids, and various other monuments (Pauketat 1997a, 1997b, 2000b; Pauketat and Emerson 1991, 1999). The cooking of provisions to feed the gathered throngs certainly would have been an integral part of such a process. The use of human bones and temple sumptuary objects, the manufacture of craft goods, and the disposal of roof thatch all could have been an integral palrt of this same cultural-construction process. That coordinated practices may have been components of a collective cultural process may be central to explaining how people accommodated the social and demographic shifts thought to have attended the Lohmann phase regime in the Greater Cahokia region (see Pauketat 1998b).

It is worthy of mention that prominent individuals, such as those buried in Cahokia's Lohmann phase


Mound 72 (Fowler 1991, 1997; Fowler et al. 2000), may have played key roles in Cahokia's commensal politics. However, most people taking part in such events would not have been of high rank or of esteemed reputation. So, regardless of who hosted or coordinated the presumed Grand Plaza rites, the events themselves would have been collective exper- iences that defy pigeonholing into status categories. Such events would have been simultaneously low status and high status or communal and political (see Pauketat 2000; Pauketat and Emerson 1999).

Early Cahokia may have been a blend of the ordi- naly and the extraordinary, a recipe cooked up along with the feast foods during collective gatherings of a grand scale. In the end, this may be the only way to understand why people of the eleventh century A.D.might have participated in what constituted, at least in scalar terms, a radical departure from pre- Mississippian traditions (Alt 2001; Pauketat 1998b).

Acknowledgments. We are most fortunate to have been given access to the sub-Mound 51 materials and notes by the late Charles J. Bareis and the University of Illinois Department of Anthropology. The quality of our results is directly due to his excavation skills and the effort of University of Illinois field school students in 1966, 1967, and 1968. The Department's Lab of Anthropology Curator, Angela Neller, patiently assisted our work with this large collection between 1994 and 1999. The National Science Foundation provided primary support for our analyses (BNS-9305404), part of the "Early Cahokia Project" (1993-1997). Additional assistance was given by the Illinois Transportation Archaeological Research Program, the University of Oklahoma, Washington University, Southwest Missouri State University, and the Cahokia Mounds Museum Society. Assistants compiled much of the data reported here, most notably Greg Wilson, Stephanie Pauketat, and Katherine Roberts, with additional work by Ksenija Borojevic, Paul Blonsky, Steve Casper, Karla Hansen, Elisabeth Hildebrant, Kimberly Schaefer, and Kristi Taft. Additional thanks are owed Leonard Blake, William Chmurny, Hugh Cutler, and James Schoenwetter for their recollections and original 1970s analyses, and to Melvin Fowler, for graciously allowing his Cahokia map to be adapted for Figure 1. Thanks are owed to Helaine Silverman for the Spanish abstract translation, and to the anonymous reviewers for their helpful suggestions. Shortcomings in presentation are entirely our own.

References Cited Alt, S. M.

2001 Cahokian Change and the Authority of Tradition. In The Archaeology of Traditions: Agency and Histoty Before and After Columbus, edited by T. R. Pauketat, pp. 141-156. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Bareis, C. J. 1975 Report of 1971 University of Illinois-Urbana Excava- tions at the Cahokia site. In Cahokia Archaeology: Field Reports, edited by M. L. Fowler, pp. 9-11. Illinois State

Museum Research Series, Papers in Anthropology No. 3, Springfield.

Bell, A. R. 1990 Separate People: Speaking of Creek Men and Women. American Anthropologist 92:332-345.

Bell, C. 1997 Ritual: Perspectives a)td Dimensions. Oxford Univer- sity Press, Oxford.

Bent, A. 1962 Life Histories of North Amzericanz Wild Fowl, Part II. Dover Publications, New York.

Binford, L. R. 1978 Nutnamiut Ethnoarchaeology. Academic Press, New York.

Chmurny, W. W. 1973 The Ecology of the Middle Mississippian Occupation of the American Bottom. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Collins, J. M. 1990 The Archaeology of the Caahokia Mounds ICT-II: Site Strulctutre. Illinois Cultural Resources Study No. 10. Illinois Historic Preservation Agency, Springfield.

Dalan, R. A. 1997 The Construction of Mississippian Cahokia. In Cahokia: Domination and Ideology in the Mississippian World, edited by T. R. Pauketat and T. E. Emerson, pp. 89-102. Univer- sity of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.

DeManiis, E., L. J. Castillo, and T. Earle 1996 Ideology, Materialization, and Power Strategies. Cur- rentAnthropology 17:15-31.

De Mott, R. C., D. J. Marcucci, and J. A. Williams 1993 Chipped Lithic Materials. In The Archaeology of the

Cahokia Mounds ICT-II: Testing and Lithics, by W. I. Woods, R. C. De Mott, D. J. Marcucci, J. A. Williams, and B. L. Gums, Part II, pp. 1-135. Illinois Cultural Resources Study 13. Illinois Historic Preservation Agency, Springfield.

DePratter, C. B. 1991 Late Prehistoric and Early Historic Chiefdoms in the Southeastern United States. Garland Press, New York.

Dietler, M. 1996 Feasts and Commensal Politics in the Political Econ- omy: Food, Power, and Status in Prehistoric Europe. In Food and the Status Quest: An Interdisciplinaty Perspective, edited by P. Wiessner and W. Schiefenhovel, pp. 87-126. Berghahn Books, Oxford.

Dietler, M., and B. Hayden (editors) 2001 Feasts: Archaeological and Ethnographic Perspectives

on Food, Politics, and Power. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

Douglas, J. G. 1976 Collins: A Late Woodland Ceremonial Complex in the Woodfordian Northeast. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Dunavan, S. L. 1993 Plant Remains. In Temples for Cahokia Lords. Prestoni Holder's 1955-1 956 Excavations of Kunzeenannz Mound, by T. R. Pauketat, pp. 125-133. University of Michigan, Mem- oirs of the Museum of Anthropology, No. 26. Ann Arbor.

Elias, S. A. 1994 Quaternaty Insects and Their Environments. Smith- sonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

Emerson, T. E. 1989 Water, Serpents, and the Underworld: An Exploration into Cahokia Symbolism. In The Souttheastern Ceremonial Complex: Artifacts andAnalysis, edited by P. Galloway, pp.


45-92. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln. 1997 Cahokia and the Archaeology of Power. University of

Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Fortier, A. C.

1992 Stone Figurines. In The Sponemann Site 2: The Mis- sissippian and Oneota Occupations, by D. K. Jackson, A. C. Fortier, and J. A. Williams, pp. 277-303. American Bot- tom Archaeology, FAI-270 Reports 24. University of Illinois Press, Urbana.

Fowler, M. L. 1991 Mound 72 and Early Mississippian at Cahokia. In New Perspectives on Cahokia: Views from the Periphey, edited by J.B. Stoltman, pp. 1-28. Prehistory Press, Madison, Wis- consin.

1997 The Cahokia Atlas: A Historical Atlas of Cahokia Archaeology. Illinois Transportation Archaeological Research Program, Studies in Archaeology, No. 2. Univer- sity of Illinois, Urbana.

Fowler, M. L., J. Rose, B. Vander Leest, and S. R. Ahler 2000 The Mound 72 Area: Dedicated and Sacred Space in

Early Cahokia. Illinois State Museum, Reports of Investi- gations, No. 54. Springfield.

Fritz, G. J. 1994 Precolumbian Cucurbita argyrospermna ssp. argyros- penna (Cucurbitaceaae) in the Eastern Woodlands of North America. Economic Botany 48:280-292.

Gums, B. L. 1993 Groundstone Tools, Modified Rock, and Exotic Mate- rials. In The Archaeology of the Cahokia Mounds ICT-JI: Testing and Lithics, by W. I. Woods, R. C. De Mott, D. J. Marcucci, J. A. Williams, and B. L. Gums, Part III, pp. 1-121. Illinois Cultural Resources Study No. 13. Illinois Historic Preservation Agency, Springfield.

Hall, R. L. 1989 The Cultural Background of Mississippian Symbolism. In The Southeastern Ceremonial Complex, edited by P. Gal- loway, pp. 239-278. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.

Hayden, B. 1996 Feasting in Prehistoric and Traditional Societies. In Food and the Status Quest: An Interdisciplinary Perspective, edited by P. Wiessner and W. Schiefenhovel, pp. 127-148. Berghahn Books, Oxford.

Hendon, J. A. 1996 Archaeological Approaches to the Organization of Domestic Labor: Household Practice and Domestic Rela- tions. Annual Review ofAnthropology 25:45-61.

Heiser, C. B. 1969 Some Considerations of Early Plant Domestication. BioScience 19:228- 231.

Holley, G. R. 1989 TheArchaeology ofthe CahokiaMoundsICT-II: Ceram-

ics. Illinois Cultural Resources Study No. 11. Illinois His- toric Preservation Agency, Springfield.

Holley, G. R., R. A. Dalan, and P. A. Smith 1993 Investigations in the Cahokia Site Grand Plaza. Amer-

ican Antiqutity 58:306-319. Howard, J. H.

1968 The Southern Cremonial Complex and Its Interpreta- tions. Missouri Archaeological Society Memoir No. 6. Columbia.

Jackson, H. E., and S. L. Scott 1995 The Faunal Record of the Southeastern Elite: The Impli- cations of Economy, Social Relations, and Ideology. South- eastern Archaeology 14:103-119.

Kelly, J. D., and M. Kaplan 1990 Histoiy, Structure, and Ritual. Annual Review ofAnthro- pology 19:119- 150.

Kelly, J. E. 1997 Stirling-Phase Sociopolitical Activity at East St. Louis and Cahokia. In Cahokia: Domination and Ideology in the Mississippian World, edited by T. R. Pauketat and T. E. Emer- son, pp. 141-166. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.

Kelly, L. S. 1991 Zooarchaeological Remains. In TheArchaeology of the

Cahokia Mounds ICT-II: Biological Remains, by N. H. Lopinot, L. S. Kelly, G. R. Milner and R. Paine, pp. 1-78. Illinois Cultural Resources Study No. 13. Illinois Historic Preservation Agency, Springfield.

1997 Patterns of Faunal Exploitation at Cahokia. In Cahokia: Domination and Ideology in the Mississippian World, edited by T. R. Pauketat and T. E. Emerson, pp. 69-88. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.

2000 Social Implications of Faunal Provisioning for the Cahokia Site: Initial Mississippian, Lohmann Phase. Unpub- lished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri.

2001 A Case of Ritual Feasting at the Cahokia Site. In Feasts: Archaeological and Ethnographic Perspectives on Food, Politics, and Power, edited by M. Dietler and B. Hayden, pp. 334-367. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

Kertzer, D. 1988 Ritual, Politics, and Power. Yale University Press, New Haven.

Knight, V. J., Jr. 1986 The Institutional Organization of Mississippian Reli- gion. American Antiquity 51:675-687.

1989 Symbolism of Mississippian mounds. In Powhatan's Mantle: Indians in the Colonial Southeast, edited by P. H. Wood, G. A. Waselkov, and M. T. Hatley, pp. 279-291. Uni- versity of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.

Lopinot, N. H. 1991 Archaeobotanical Remains. In The Archaeology of the

Cahokia Mounds ICT-II: Biological Remains, Part 1. Illinois Cultural Resources Study No. 13. Illinois Historic Preser- vation Agency, Springfield.

1994 A New Crop of Data on the Cahokian Polity. In Agri- cultural Origins and Development in the Midcontinent, edited by W. Green, pp. 127- 153. Office of the StateArchae- ologist, Report No. 19. Iowa City, Iowa.

Metcalfe, D., and K. T. Jones 1988 A Reconsideration of Animal Body Part Indices. Amer-

ican Antiquity 53:486-504. Milner, G. R., T. E. Emerson, M. W. Mehrer, J. A. Williams, and

D. Esarey 1984 Mississippian and Oneota Period. In American Bottom Archaeology, edited by C. J. Bareis and J. W. Porter, pp. 158-186. University of Illinois Press, Urbana.

Moerman, D. E. 1986 Medicinal Plants of Native America. University of Michigan, Museum of Anthropology, Technical Reports, No. 19. Ann Arbor.

Muller, J. 1997 Mississippian Political Economy. Plenum, New York.

Pauketat, T. R. 1993 Temples for Cahokia Lords: Preston Holder's

1955-1956 Excavation of Kunnemann Mound. University of Michigan, Memoirs of the Museum of Anthropology, Number 26. Ann Arbor.

1994 The Ascent of Chiefs: Cahokia and Mississippian Pol- itics in Native NorthAmerica. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

1995 Additional Notes on the Burned Building Beneath Cahokia's Kunnemann Mound. Illinois Archaeology


7:102-108. 1997a Cahokian Political Economy. In Cahokia. Domination and Ideology in the Mississippian World, edited by T. R. Pauketat and T. E. Emerson, pp. 30-51. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.

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

1998a TheArchaeology of Downtown Cahokia: The Tract 15A and Dunham Tract Excavations. Illinois Transportation Archaeological Research Program, Studies in Archaeology No. 1. University of Illinois, Urbana.

1998b Refiguring theArchaeology of GreaterCahokia. Jour- nal ofArchaeological Research 6:45-89.

2000a A Waterline Through Cahokia's Grand Plaza. Cahokian (Spring): 10-12.

2000b The Tragedy of the Commoners. InAgency inArchae- ology, edited by M.-A. Dobres and J. Robb, pp. 113-139. Routledge, London.

Pauketat, T. R., and T. E. Emerson 1991 The Ideology of Authority and the Power of the Pot. American Anthropologist 93:919-941.

1997 Introduction: Domination and Ideology in the Missis- sippian World. In Cahokia: Dominiation anid Ideology in the Mississippian World, edited by T. R. Pauketat and T. E. Emer- son, pp. 1-29. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.

1999 The Representation of Hegemony as Community at Cahokia. InMaterial Symbols: Culture and Economy in Pre- history, edited by J. E. Robb, pp.302-317. Occasional Paper No. 26, Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.

Pauketat, T. R., and M. A. Rees 1996 Early Cahokia Project 1994 Excavations at Mound 49,

Cahokia (11-S- 34-2). Unpublished report submitted to the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency, Springfield.

Porter, J. W. 1974 CahokiaArchaeology as Viewedfrom the Mitchell Site: A Satellite Community atAD 1150-1200. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Wisconsin, Madison. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.

1977 The Mitchell Site and Prehistoric Exchange Systems at Cahokia: AD 1000 ? 300. In Explorations into Cahokia Archaeology (2nd edition), edited by M. L. Fowler, pp. 137-164. IllinoisArchaeological Survey Bulletin 7. Urbana.

Potter, J. M. 2000 Pots, Parties, and Politics: Communal Feasting in the

American Southwest. American Antiquity 65:471-492. Purdue, J. R., B. W. Styles, and M. C. Masulis

1989 FaunalRemains and White-Tail Deer Exploitation from a Late Woodland Upland Encampment: The Boschert Site (23SC609), St. Charles County, Missouri. Midcontinental Journal ofArchaeology 14:146-163.

Radin, P. 1990 The Winnebago Tribe. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.

Rees, M. A. 1997 Coercion, Tribute and Chiefly Authority: The Regional Development of Mississippian Political Culture. Southeast- em Archaeology 16:113-133.

Waring, A. J., Jr. 1968 The Southern Cult and Muskhogean Ceremonial. In

The Waring Papers: The Collected Works ofAntonio J. War- ing, Jr., edited by S. Williams, pp. 30-69. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology 58. Har- vard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Welch, P. D., and C. M. Scarry 1995 Status-RelatedVariationinFoodways in the Moundville

Chiefdom. American Antiquity 60:397-419.

Wilson, G. D. 1996 Insight Through Icons. Illinois Archaeology 8:23-37.

Witthoft, J. 1949 Green Corn Ceremonialism in the Eastern Woodlands. University of Michigan, Museum of Anthropology, Occa- sional Contributions No. 13. Ann Arbor.

Zeder, M. 1996 Zooarchaeological Approaches to Complexity: A View from the Old World. Paper presented at the 53rd Annual Meeting of the Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Birmingham, Alabama.

Notes 1. There are modest "Green Corn" or "renewal" pits con-

taining suggestive single-event refuse at outlying settlements (Emerson 1997:94, 132), but large-scale excavations at Cahokia and outlying centers have produced only a few comparable large shallow fill areas containing possible feasting or collective-ritual refuse (see Fowler et al. 2000; Holley et al. 1993; J. Kelly 1997). This is the case despite the large residential "tract" excavations at Cahokia and the large-scale settlement archaeology of the surrounding region that have, collectively, excavated hundreds of domestic buildings and thousands of refuse pits, fill areas, post molds, etc. (e.g., Collins 1990; Emerson 1997; Milner et al. 1984; Pauketat 1998a, 1998b).

2. From the Lohmann phase occupations at Tract 15A- Dunham and the ICT-II, a total of 64 and 135 m3 of fill was excavated, respectively (Pauketat 1998a:88; Collins 1990:Tables 5.7-5.33).

3. For example, the submound, Tract 15A/Dunham, and ICT-II excavations produced 723, 506, and 913 Lohmann phase pottery vessels, respectively, and 17, 34, and 97 kg of chipped chert debitage, respectively (see Collins 1990; De Mott et al. 1993; Gums 1993; Holley 1989; Kelly 1991; Lopinot 1991; Pauketat 1998a).

4. This figure illustrates three of the four unit profiles and provides the only composite cross-section of the pit available. The fourth analyzed unit is offset from these three and is not illustrated here. The westernmost unit (E393-396) was not excavated to the bottom of the pit in 1968 and a complete profile is not available.

5. Additional insect remains were observed and counted by Katherine Roberts during sorting of some archaeobotanical samples at Washington University. These hand-picked samples typically overrepresent Diptera pupae, which are more easily recognizable under the microscope. Diptera pupae were recognized from zones D2, G, and H.

6. If these woods were used at domestic sites, but not carbonized, they may have rotted away, leaving no archaeologi- cally recoverable signatures.

7. That is, Cahokian ceramic assemblages include higher proportions of well-made vessels as opposed to contemporary outlying villages (see Alt 2001).

8. In the yet-to-be-analyzed units from the Ramey Field portion of the submound pit, Bareis (1975:11) noted that zone G contained a concentration of human remains that he thought represented "individuals with little or no status in Cahokia society" who were "dismembered" and "placed in the pit." He then interpreted the zone F thatch to constitute a ritual sealing of the lower zone G event.


9. Rock waste and chipped-stone debitage densities are calculated as grams/m3 of excavated fill, while formal artifacts and pots are calculated as number/mr3 of excavated fill.

10. The reasons, beyond the present paper's scope, include the methods by which Minimum Number of Individuals or Minimum Number of Vessels, etc., are calculated and the potential for sampling error, especially using the bulk archaeobotanical samples.

11. Cut marks, however, are not abundant on the deer remains. Only 32 deer bones (1.9 percent) from zones D2 and

G possess cut marks, 18 of which are interpreted as filleting marks. If meat was being cooked on the bone, however, more fragmentation of the bones would be expected so they would fit into the cooking pots. If deer meat was roasted more burned bones or bones singed at their ends would be expected.

Received May 15, 2001; Revised October 15, 2001; Accepted October 15, 2001.

Documents

Society for American Archaeology - Arts & Sciences Pages€¦ · plants, animal bones, fossil insects, broken pots, craft objects, icons, various sorts of detritus, and parts of human