Baking, Bourbon, and Black Drink: Foodways Archaeology in the American Southeast

BAKING, BOURBON, AND BLACK DRINK

ARCHAEOLOGY OF FOOD

SERIES EDITORS

Mary C. Beaudry

Karen Bescherer Metheny

EDITORIAL BOARD

Umberto Albarella

Tamara Bray

Yannis Hamilakis

Christine Hastorf

Frances M. Hayashida

Katheryn Twiss

Amber VanDerwarker

Marike van der Veen

Joanita Vroom

Richard Wilk

Anne Yentsch

BAKING, BOURBON, AND BLACK DRINK

Foodways Archaeology in the American Southeast

Edited by Tanya M. Peres and Aaron Deter-Wolf

THE UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA PRESS

Tuscaloosa

The University of Alabama Press

Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35487-0380

uapress.ua.edu

Copyright © 2018 by the University of Alabama Press

All rights reserved.

A Dan Josselyn Memorial Publication

Inquiries about reproducing material from this work should be addressed to the University of Alabama Press.

Typeface: Caslon

Cover design and illustration: David Nees

Cataloging-in-Publication data is available from the Library of Congress.

ISBN: 978-0-8173-1992-2

E-ISBN: 978-0-8173-9195-9

Contents

List of Illustrations

Introduction: Foodways Archaeology in the Southeast

Tanya M. Peres and Aaron Deter-Wolf

1. Social Subsistence: Integrating Analyses of Ceramic, Plant, and Animal Remains from Feltus

Megan C. Kassabaum

2. Splitting the Bones: Marrow Extraction and Mississippian Period Foodways

Tanya M. Peres

3. Turkey Foodways: The Intersection of Cultural, Social, and Economic Practices in the Mississippian Period Southeast

Kelly L. Ledford and Tanya M. Peres

4. The Prehistory and History of Black Drink

Thomas E. Emerson

5. Archaeology of the Whiskey Foodway in Kentucky

Nicolas Laracuente

6. Prehistoric Foodways from the Dust Cave Site

Stephen B. Carmody, Kandace D. Hollenbach, and Elic M. Weitzel

7. Cooking Connects Them: Earth Ovens as Persistent Places during the Woodland Period

Lauren A. Walls and Scot Keith

8. Culinary and Social Requirements of Middle and Late Woodland Swift Creek Pottery

Neill J. Wallis and Thomas J. Pluckhahn

9. Detangling Histories of Hominy: A Historical Anthropological Approach

Rachel V. Briggs

Works Cited

Contributors

Index

Illustrations

FIGURES

Figure 1.1. Topographic map of Feltus

Figure 1.2. Plot of all 15 radiocarbon dates from Feltus

Figure 1.3. Diversity plot of the four midden contexts at Feltus

Figure 1.4. Correspondence analysis of the four Feltus midden contexts

Figure 1.5. Diversity plot of the three analyzed Feltus midden contexts

Figure 2.1. Map of the Middle Cumberland Culture area with locations of sites discussed in the text

Figure 2.2. Percentage biomass of identifiable taxa from the Fewkes and Castalian Springs sites

Figure 2.3. Percentage survivorship vs. volume density for white-tailed deer from the Fewkes site

Figure 2.4. Percentage survivorship vs. volume density for white-tailed deer from the Castalian Springs site

Figure 2.5. Evidence for marrow extraction, percentage bone weight, Fewkes and Castalian Springs sites

Figure 2.6. Zooarchaeological correlates of bone grease rendering

Figure 3.1. Modified turkey radii and tarsometatarsi

Figure 3.2. Marine shell gorget with turkey cock motif

Figure 4.1. Map of eastern United States showing range distribution of Ilex vomitoria

Figure 4.2. Timucua ceremony involving Black Drink

Figure 4.3. Possible vessels used in Black Drink ceremonies at Cahokia

Figure 4.4. Cahokia-style figurines that may reflect Black Drink ceremonialism

Figure 5.1. Lithograph of O.F.C. Distillery situated next to Riverside

Figure 5.2. Lithograph of O.F.C. Distillery and workers cleaning the fermenting room floor

Figure 5.3. Sanborn Fire Insurance Map of the O.F.C. Distillery, 1896

Figure 6.1. Map of excavations at Dust Cave and profile drawing of entrance chamber

Figure 6.2. Plant density from column and feature samples at Dust Cave

Figure 6.3. Lithic density from column and feature samples at Dust Cave

Figure 6.4. Changing use of animal resources over time at Dust Cave

Figure 7.1. Location of sites discussed in the text

Figure 7.2. View of double earth ovens (Features 59 and 66) from Structure II at the Banks III site

Figure 7.3. Profile drawing and plan view photograph of Feature 1 at the Woapalonne Scout Camp (40MT757)

Figure 7.4. Plan view and west profile drawings of Feature 2 at the Hardin Bridge site (9BR34)

Figure 7.5. Plan view and north profile drawings of Feature 147 at the Hardin Bridge site (9BR34)

Figure 7.6. Plan view of excavations and east profile of Feature 1821 at the Leake site (9BR2)

Figure 7.7. Plan view of excavations and west profile of Feature 56 at the Leake site (9BR2)

Figure 8.1. Locations of sites with vessel form data for Swift Creek Complicated Stamped pottery

Figure 8.2. Selection of vessel forms identified in Swift Creek Complicated Stamped pottery

Figure 8.3. Cumulative percentage of orifice diameters for Swift Creek vessel forms

Figure 8.4. Cumulative percentage of vessel wall thicknesses for Swift Creek vessel forms

Figure 8.5. Orifice diameter and vessel wall thickness plotted for diagnostic rims of Early Swift Creek and Late Swift Creek vessels

Figure 9.1. Examples of some of the tools and practices of the historic Native American hominy foodway

TABLES

Table 1.1. Counts and Percentages of Vessel Forms in the Four Midden Assemblages at Feltus

Table 1.2. Standardized Counts and Percentages of Plant Remains in the Four Midden Assemblages at Feltus

Table 1.3. Identified Specimens (NISP) and Bone Weight for Animal Remains from Feltus

Table 2.1. Survivorship Values for White-Tailed Deer from the Fewkes Site

Table 2.2. Survivorship Values for White-Tailed Deer from the Castalian Springs Site

Table 6.1. Plant Resources Recovered from Dust Cave and Rank

Introduction

FOODWAYS ARCHAEOLOGY IN THE SOUTHEAST

Tanya M. Peres and Aaron Deter-Wolf

Food in its most basic form is simply the plants or animals that are biologically sustaining for humans and, as such, lies at the foundation of all archaeological studies. For most of human history, regardless of the geographic setting, time period, or cultural affiliation, much of our ancestors’ daily lives were spent fulfilling the most basic of human needs by foraging, hunting, fishing, tending plants, and raising animals. The centrality of food to our very existence has caused individuals and groups to assign multiple levels of significance and value to foods, which are context and time dependent (Holtzman 2006). These meanings are intertwined with food processing and consumption and all of the rules surrounding these activities. As we study the past, we find that the basic need to eat is the foundation for cultural developments, social changes, organizational structures, and symbolic activities.

Archaeologists can identify food remains by means of zooarchaeological and paleoethnobotanical examinations and analysis of the contextual relationships between food remains and other residues of ancient life (e.g., structures, hearths). At their most basic level, these data reveal which plants and animals were consumed and discarded at a site. However, archaeologists also need to look beyond the data tables and pursue the larger picture of food and its role in human cultures—that is, the foodways of past societies.

Anthropological studies seek to integrate food data with the various activities, rules, contexts, and meanings that surround production, harvesting, processing, cooking, serving, and consumption of those foods. Exploration of a specific food within a region or culturally circumscribed setting allows for a more holistic understanding of that particular food’s role within a set of beliefs and behaviors. For example, the hominy foodway of the Early Mississippian period (ca. AD 1000) in the Eastern Woodlands of North America denotes a specific food that has as its core a specific preparation method, but it is also part of the larger maize-based foodways (see Briggs, this volume). Foodways as a concept encompasses, but is not interchangeable with, common terms such as diet, subsistence, or cuisine.

The diet of an individual or a group encompasses all of the food consumed on a regular basis, without differentiating between daily and special meal occasions (these fall into the category of dishes and possibly cuisine). Thus, food remains recovered from quotidian contexts can inform us about diets at the family or community level (e.g., Crader 1990; Hogue 2007; Messer 1984). Diets can be compared temporally and spatially, and between cultural groups, social and economic classes, and ethnicities; they may even be examined on the individual level with stable isotope analysis of human skeletal remains (e.g., Ambrose et al. 2003; Hard and Katzenberg 2011; Quinn et al. 2008).

Subsistence, sometimes referenced as subsistence strategy or subsistence economy, is the dominant mode in which a person or group acquires food and might include practices such as foraging, agriculture, or fishing. Archaeologists interpret subsistence strategies based on the composition of food remains, required harvesting and processing technologies, environmental context, and the analysis of human skeletal remains (e.g., Ambrose 1987; Bogan 1982; Hedman 2006; Hutchinson et al. 2016; Lapham 2011; Reitz 2004; Reitz et al. 2009; Tykot et al. 2005; VanDerwarker and Detweiler 2000; Walker 2000; Walker et al. 2001; Yerkes 2005).

By contrast, cuisines may reflect a combination of ingredients, beliefs, and preparation practices and are often associated with a specific geographic region (Benson et al. 2009; VanDerwarker and Wilson 2016). Archaeologists may interpret socially constructed cuisine preferences based on data including distribution patterns across space and contextual analyses of the archaeological food remains, related artifacts, evidence of cooking methods, and even chemical components of dishes or meals as absorbed residues in ceramics and cooking equipment.

FOODWAYS ARCHAEOLOGY IN THE SOUTHEASTERN UNITED STATES

The American Southeast is a culture area that generally includes the portion of the continental United States bounded geographically to the east by the Atlantic Ocean, the south by the Gulf of Mexico, and to the north by the Ohio River Valley, while the western edge crosses the Mississippi River into Arkansas and Louisiana (Peres 2014). In the past decade, the cuisine of this region has enjoyed a surge in interest extending well beyond its original geographic boundaries. As a result, both scholars and chefs have explored the roots of historic southeastern cuisine in their kitchens, libraries, and classrooms.

Modern and historic foodways can be accessed through cookbooks (Spencer 1982; Tipton-Martin 2015); diaries, letters, and memoirs (Covey and Eisnach 2009; Howard 2016; Twitty 2017; Walonen and Hackler 2012); ethnographies and oral histories (Edge et al. 2013; Lundy 2016; van Willigen and van Willigen 2006); and a combination of these and other historic sources (Coe 1994; Foster and Cordell 1992; Ness 2017; Shields 2015; Staller and Carrasco 2010). Scholars use these sources to document the origins, memories, and oral histories generated by cooking, serving, and eating certain foods (e.g., Moss 2011) and explore events associated with the preparation and distribution of specific foods as a narrative through which to examine societal issues (see the Cornbread Nation series from the Southern Foodways Alliance; Bradley 2014; Twitty 2011, 2012). The South (prehistoric/historic, old/new), with its iconic food, people, religions, social movements, and political organizations, is a setting ripe for intensive research and cross-examination, and it does not disappoint (Edge 2017; Lundy 2016; Twitty 2017).

Foodways lend themselves to archaeological study because they are a patterned set of culturally constructed behaviors. This allows us to extend our grasp of foodways in the Southeast well beyond the confines of the historic record and, when combined with other lines of evidence, can help us better understand the rituals, processes, cultural meanings, and motivations of both foodstuffs and foodways extending some 14,000 years into the past. Archaeologists working in the region have devoted a great amount of time and energy toward identifying, analyzing, and understanding various components of past foodways. Archaeological investigations of Archaic period coastal shell middens and interior riverine mounds (Marrinan 1975; Marquardt and Watson 2005) and late Pleistocene and early Holocene deposits at Dust Cave in northern Alabama (Walker and Driskell 2007; Walker et al. 2010), and the long-term study of sixteenth-century Spanish Florida (Scarry and Reitz 1990), gave primacy to subsistence data and laid the groundwork for archaeological southeastern foodways research.

Building on this foundation, the past decade in southeastern archaeology has witnessed a rapidly increasing interest and expanding set of methods for understanding past foodways of the region. The studies included in this volume go beyond identifying foods consumed in the past to discuss the rituals and cultural significance of specific foods, dishes, and meals prepared and consumed in the southeastern United States. Peres (2017) recently reviewed the foodways archaeology literature and identified a number of recurring themes in studies from the American Southeast, including feasting, gender, social and political status, and food security. The contributors to this volume incorporate these themes in their research, while also applying new methods or focus on subjects not widely discussed in foodways archaeology in the Southeast to date. Chapters in this volume are arranged thematically as follows: feasting, social and political status, food security and persistent places, and foodways histories.

Feasting

Foodways archaeology in the Southeast has been dominated by a search for extraordinary events to make grand statements about the construction and maintenance of political and social power. Feasting, the sharing of special food (in quality, preparation, or quantity) by two or more people for a special (not everyday) event (Hayden and Villeneuve 2011:434), has been the focus of anthropological ethnographies and archaeological investigations for more than a century (e.g., Boas 1888; Hayden and Villeneuve 2011). Hayden (2014:1) states that in the past there may have been no more powerful engine of cultural change than feasts. Indeed, feasting is cited globally for its role in innovations such as plant and animal domestication (Hayden 2001, 2009b, 2014), pottery manufacture (Clark and Gosser 1995; Sassaman 1993), elaborate mortuary rituals (Claassen 2010), and creation and maintenance of social status (Blitz 1993; Dietler and Herbich 2001; Hayden 2009a, 2009b, 2014; Perodie 2001). Over time the focus of feasting studies has shifted from merely documenting large communal eating events to determining why feasts are important cultural activities. These studies explore how feasting affects social, political, and economic structures. The methods used to interrogate the residues of these events have become more sophisticated and involve the integration of multiple lines of data.

The majority of feasting research in the Southeast has focused on the socially and politically stratified chiefdoms of the Mississippian period (ca. AD 1000–1500), though some attention has been given to this topic for Middle and Late Archaic period sites (ca. 6000–3000 and 3000–1000 BC, respectively) (see Claassen 2010). Instances of feasting events identified in the archaeological record of the region tend to be those of the large event variety with numerous people in attendance, resulting in the consumption of large quantities of food that leave a noticeable signature. Foods that can be amassed in great quantities, are abundant, and can be easily replenished or stored are accordingly considered one criterion for archaeological identifications of feasting (Claassen 2010; Hayden 2014; VanDerwarker 1999). Evidence for group feasting appears different at an Archaic period riverine site where shellfish was the surplus resource (Claassen 2010) from a later Mississippian period context where the assembled foodstuffs might include large quantities of staples such as maize, deer, turkey, or fish (Jackson and Scott 1995a, 1995b; VanDerwarker 1999; VanDerwarker et al. 2007).

Twiss (2012) notes that in the ethnographic record a wide array of dishes are commonly served at feasts, when compared with what is served for daily meals. It is difficult to parse dishes from food remains, as the same ingredients may be used in a variety of recipes (e.g., hickory meat vs. hickory oil; Jackson et al. 2016); thus, the material signatures of this feasting aspect are the types of serving and cooking vessels and equipment. In the Mississippian period Southeast, ceramic vessel correlates of feasting include large cooking and serving vessels in nondomestic contexts (e.g., mound-related areas) (Boudreaux 2010).

Mississippian period feasting assemblages are also evidenced by a low taxonomic diversity (i.e., one or a few species), and the presence of large-bodied animals, culturally charged taxa (Jackson and Scott 1995a; Russo 2004:46; VanDerwarker 1999), and/or special cuts of meat in mound or elite-associated contexts (Jackson and Scott 1995a). The plant assemblage typically does not include exotic or special taxa but instead includes daily staples, seasonally abundant fruits, vegetables, and nuts, or surplus edibles consumed from the community stores (VanDerwarker et al. 2007).

In Chapter 1 of this volume, Kassabaum brings together multiple data sets from the Feltus site, a Woodland period (ca. AD 750–1200) ceremonial mound center in Mississippi. This analysis integrates plant and animal data; ceramic vessel shape, size, and function; and contextual associations to identify several communal eating events associated with nondomestic group activities. A review of the literature and Kassabaum’s current study at Feltus shows that the integration of various data sets results in a more nuanced view of foodways in the past. This is especially important when dealing with the intersection of foodways and gender studies.

Social and Political Status and Southeastern Foodways

Gastropolitics is the creation and maintenance of social and political relationships through the making and eating of meals (Crowther 2013). For example, we assume that Mississippian period elites did not produce their own food, but that because of their elevated social status, they enjoyed differential access to food resources. These patterns can be detected in the archaeological record from elite-associated contexts in the form of food remains, the presence of special taxa, and other indicators, such as appearance in anthropomorphized artwork (Jackson 2014; Jackson and Scott 1995a, 1995b, 2003; Kelly 2000, 2001; Knight 2004; VanDerwarker 1999). While it is certain that gastropolitics was important in the earliest occupations of the southeastern United States, most research on this topic is from the late prehistoric and historic periods. Thus, we focus on these periods to contextualize the studies presented in this volume.

Long-term research carried out at the Mississippian period political and ceremonial center of Moundville in Alabama focused on illuminating elite differential preference for and access to resources (Jackson and Scott 2003; Jackson et al. 2016; Knight 2004; Scarry 2003; Scarry and Steponaitis 1997; Steponaitis and Scarry 2016; Welch and Scarry 1995). The differences between elite and nonelite household foodways at Moundville are identified through a combination of species diversity, special combinations of foodstuffs, presence of rare or iconographically charged species, cuts of meat from large mammals, and evidence of cooking/preparation (Jackson and Scott 2003). The expected pattern of animal use by Mississippian elite groups includes attributes such as higher percentages of meat-bearing anatomical elements, conspicuous consumption, cooking techniques such as roasting, a greater number of bird taxa, and a broader range of uncommon taxa (Jackson and Scott 2003).

White-tailed deer, a ubiquitous game animal in the Southeast, were commonly recovered from elite areas at Mound Q of Moundville. The identified elements suggest that these animals were killed and butchered elsewhere, and only select cuts of meat were brought to the mound as tribute payment (Jackson and Scott 1995a, 2003; Knight 2004). However, these same patterns of deer processing and delivery were not identical throughout the Mississippian world. In Chapter 2 of this volume, Peres examines assemblages from two Mississippian period sites in Tennessee and identifies white-tailed deer as the most important animal in terms of quantity. Her analysis of bone marrow extraction shows that deer were regularly processed for this resource at elite-associated areas of the Castalian Springs site. Conversely, the nonelite residential areas of the Fewkes site in Tennessee had higher levels of deer processing for bone marrow than did the elite-associated areas at Castalian Springs.

Turkey is another common game animal identified from Mississippian period sites in the Southeast. Because turkey is ubiquitous on these sites, it is not always seen as a status marker. However, Jackson and Scott (2003: 566) suggest that the higher occurrence of male gobblers at Moundville may indicate an elite preference. In Chapter 3 of this volume, Ledford and Peres review the cultural and archaeological evidence of the interactions between humans and turkeys during the Mississippian period in the Southeast. They suggest that the preference for male gobblers is widespread and may be a result of Indigenous peoples managing turkey flocks in and around their communities.

More than 30 years of research at the Mississippian site of Cahokia, the largest pre-Columbian Native American city in North America, have resulted in a sizable foodways data set (Fritz and Lopinot 2007; Kelly 2000; Pauketat et al. 2002; Pauketat et al. 2010; Simon and Parker 2006). Kelly (2000) uses body part representation and species diversity to investigate differential access to resources of the elite and nonelite segments of the population. Her findings show that the population at Cahokia generally procured deer at a distance from the site, though it is not certain whether elites were provisioned with the meatiest cuts as a form of payment or tribute from populations living outside of Cahokia, whether elites controlled hunting territories, or whether the growth of Cahokia caused people to travel farther to hunt (Kelly 2000:79).

The faunal remains from Cahokia suggest that both elites and nonelites were involved in a public ritual and feasting activity (Kelly 2001:350–351). One aspect of these public events was the ritual consumption of beverages such as Black Drink, made from the leaves of the yaupon holly (Ilex vomitoria). New studies of the composition, distribution, and ceramic vessel types associated with Black Drink consumption have employed chemical analysis of absorbed residues in ceramics from Cahokia (Crown et al. 2012; Miller 2015). In Chapter 4 of this volume, Emerson examines the ethnohistorical and archaeological record to offer a contextual analysis of the production, processing, serving, and consumption of Black Drink during the late prehistoric and early contact period.

Historical archaeologists have a tradition of using foodways to study consumer choice (Perkins 1991), temporal and socioeconomic variations in diet (Lyman 1987; Reitz 1987; Reitz et al. 2006), farmstead economies (Peres 2008), ethnicity and social identity (Baumann 2009; Franklin 2001; Opie 2008; Pavao-Zuckerman 2007; Pavao-Zuckerman and DiPaolo 2012; Yentsch 2007), slavery (Bowes 2011; Lev-Tov 2004; Mrozowksi et al. 2008; Young 1993, 1995a, 1995b, 1997), and regional foodways (Groover 2003, 2005; Hillard 1988; McKelway 2000; Peres 2008). Consumer choice and socioeconomic status are intertwined in that an individual’s wealth often determines an ability to purchase or barter for items; however, economic status is not always directly proportional to social status within a community.

Scholars recognize a regional foodway as part of the antebellum Upland South Cultural Tradition based on the production of staples including tobacco, hemp, flax, barley, rye, wheat, corn, pig, and cattle (Lev-Tov 2004; Mitchell 1972; Orser 1987; Young 1997). Corn, barley, and rye were essential Upland South crops for feeding people and livestock but reached a new level of economic importance through the process of whiskey distillation. In Chapter 5 of this volume, Laracuente explores the bourbon industry in Kentucky from the antebellum through the prohibition periods. Recent archaeological excavations at distilling sites paired with historical research result in a significant reconsideration of cultural forces underlying production, distribution, and consumption of corn whiskey. Within the context of the historic whiskey foodway, these factors are tied to the economic and social status of producers and consumers, as well as historically overlooked and disenfranchised groups.

Food Security and Persistent Places

A study of foods consumed by different socioeconomic classes in nineteenth-century Kentucky shows that many people living on antebellum farmsteads struggled with food security and that the idealized version of a shared Upland South foodway was restricted to the wealthy planter class that had ready access to the market economy (Peres 2008). Certainly the issue of food security was not limited to the historic period, and people throughout the precontact Southeast also struggled at various times and places. Previous studies have explored how resource availability, and the presence or absence of specific staple foods, shaped cultural development along interior waterways in the Archaic (Claassen 2010;