Exploring Mississippian Polity Interaction and

Craft Specialization with Ozark Chipped-Stone

Resources

Brad Koldehoff and Tamira Brennan

C hipped-stone artifacts, especially debitage, are commonly recovered from

Mississippian-period sites, often in great numbers. However, these durable
residues of daily life tend to be ignored by most Mississippian researchers. In the
early days, despite Robert Bell’s (1943:58) plea that “the lowly chert chip should be
worthy of a more respected consideration,” debitage was not even collected, or if it
was, it was often later discarded (Bell 1943:30; Orr 1951:300). Today, debitage is
routinely collected, but it is still not routinely analyzed nor are lithic raw materials
routinely identiied (e.g., Chapman 1977; Gilliland and O’Brien 2001; Pollack and
Rainey 1987; Price and Grifin 1979; Welch 2006). In fact, besides some formal tools
like arrow points, hoes, and microliths, chipped-stone tools and debris represent
a largely untapped source of baseline information about household and larger
economies (Cobb 1989, 2000; Koldehoff 1987, 1990; Koldehoff and Carr 2001).
Studies of exchange networks, for instance, tend to focus more on prestige goods
fashioned from exotic materials like copper and marine shell than on utilitarian
objects fashioned from chipped stone. Chert hoe blades have received considerable
attention (e.g., Brown et al. 1990; Cobb 1989, 2000; Muller 1987) owing in large
part to the pioneering research of Howard Winters (1981). Yet, little attention has
been focused on entire chipped-stone assemblages, particularly with the goal of
delineating regional patterns of raw material procurement.
The rich and varied chipped-stone resources of the Ozarks (Ray 2007) provide an
excellent backdrop for investigating patterns of lithic procurement along the Central
Mississippi Valley (Table 1). In this article, we delineate patterns of procurement
at three sites: Cahokia Mounds in Illinois, South Cape (or Hunze-Evans) in Mis-
souri, and Wickliffe Mounds in Kentucky (Figure 1). We then use this information
to make inferences about polity interactions and craft specialization. Our overall
goal is to highlight the research potential of the lowly chert lake and assemblage-
based lithic procurement studies.

Methods and Datasets

We use data generated by a limited number of analysts using a common ap-

proach to reduce potential errors and differences between analysts. The Cahokia

3 Brad Koldehoff, Institute for Natural Resource Sustainability, University of Illinois Urbana-
Champaign (koldehof@illinois.edu); 3 Tamira Brennan, Department of Anthropology, Southern
Illinois University, Carbondale, and Department of Foreign Languages and Anthropology,
Southeast Missouri State University (tbrennan@siu.edu)
132 the missouri archaeologist volume 71

Table 1. Central Mississippi Valley Chipped-Stone Raw Material Types.

Type Name Geologic System Geologic Formation Source References
St. Francois Rhyolite Precambrian (various) MO Ray 2007
Roubidoux Chert Ordovician Roubidoux MO Ray 2007
Roubidoux Quartzite Ordovician Roubidoux MO Ray 2007
Jefferson City Chert Ordovician Jefferson City MO Ray 2007
Jefferson City Ordovician Jefferson City MO Ray 2007
Quartzite
Bailey Chert Devonian Bailey MO/IL Koldehoff 2002;
May 1984; Ray 2007
Clear Creek Chert Devonian Clear Creek MO/IL Koldehoff 2002;
May 1984; Ray 2007
Dover/Elco/Fort Payne Mississippian Ft. Payne IL/KY/TN Koldehoff 2002;
Chert May 1984; Ray 2007
Chouteau Chert Mississippian Chouteau MO/IL Koldehoff 2006; Ray 2007
Fern Glen Chert Mississippian Fern Glen MO/IL Koldehoff 2006; Ray 2007
Burlington Chert Mississippian Burlington-Keokuk MO/IL Koldehoff 2006; Ray 2007
Salem Chert Mississippian Salem MO/IL Koldehoff 2006; Ray 2007
St. Louis Chert Mississippian St. Louis MO/IL Koldehoff 2006; Ray 2007
Ste. Genevieve Chert Mississippian Ste. Genevieve MO/IL Koldehoff 2006; Ray 2007
Cobden/Dongola Mississippian St. Louis IL Koldehoff 2002;
Chert May 1984; Ray 2007
Kaolin Chert Mississippian (unknown) IL Koldehoff 2002;
May 1984; Ray 2007
Mill Creek Chert Mississippian Salem & Ullin IL Koldehoff 2002;
May 1984; Ray 2007
Yankeetown Mississippian Yankeetown MO/IL Koldehoff 2006;
Quartzite Ray 2007
Kinkaid Fossiliferous Mississippian Kinkaid IL Koldehoff 2002; May 1984
Chert
Kinkaid Nonfossilifer- Mississippian Kinkaid IL Koldehoff 2002;
ous Chert May 1984
Blair/St. David Pennsylvanian Carbondale IL Koldehoff 2006; Ray 2007
Kornthal/McNairy Cretaceous McNairy MO/IL Koldehoff 2002; Ray 2007
Chert
Kornthal/McNairy Cretaceous McNairy MO/IL Koldehoff 2002;
Quartzite Ray 2007
Mounds/Lafayette Pliocene Mounds & MO/IL/KY Koldehoff 2002;
Chert Lafayette May 1984; Ray 2007
Mounds/Lafayette Pliocene Mounds & MO/IL/KY Koldehoff 2002;
Quartzite Lafayette May 1984; Ray 2007
Glacial Till Chert Pleistocene (various) MO/IL Koldehoff 2006; Ray 2007
Mississippi River Gravel (various) (various) MO/IL/KY Koldehoff 2002
exploring mississippian polity interaction and craft specialization 133

Figure 1. Major sites and chert quarries discussed in text.

data were generated by a single analyst (Koldehoff 1995a, 1997), whereas the
Wickliffe (Carr and Koldehoff 1994; Koldehoff and Carr 2001) and South Cape
(Brennan 2007; Brennan 2010; Koldehoff and Brennan 2008) data were each
generated by a pair of analysts. The analytical procedures are simple, which
allowed large samples of artifacts, both tools and debitage (unused lakes and
shatter), to be systemically examined. Because our focus is on raw material
procurement, technological methods and data are only briely discussed.
Materials were sorted into tool and debris types based on morphological at-
tributes and the presence of use damage and polish. This sorting was completed
134 the missouri archaeologist volume 71

Table 2. Mississippian Chipped-Stone Industries.

Industry Production Refuse Consumption Refuse
Large Biface Large, thin decortication flakes Large bifaces with use wear
Large, biface-reduction flakes Resharpening flakes (hoe and adze
flakes)
Unfinished large bifaces (failures Small tools and cores made from used
and rejects) large bifaces
Small Biface Very small biface-reduction flakes Finished small biface (intact, broken,
(tiny pressure flakes) reworked)
Unfinished small bifaces (failures
and rejects)
Flake Tool Freehand and bipolar cores Utilized and retouched core-reduction
flakes
Core-reduction flakes
Microlith Microblade cores Used microdrills and microblades
Microblades

with the aid of a 10X hand lens, and tool and debitage types were grouped into
four industries previously identiied in Mississippian lithic assemblages (Table
2).1 Artifacts were sorted into a series of established raw material types based
on macroscopic characteristics: color, texture, cortex, and inclusions (e.g., fossils
and minerals). Artifacts too small or too burned to be accurately identiied were
classiied as indeterminate. A hand lens was used in the identiication process
along with an extensive comparative collection of geologic samples that included
heat-treated and burned specimens. Artifacts were counted and weighed to
the nearest tenth of a gram. Drawing upon decades of lithic resource studies
in Illinois, Missouri, and Kentucky, raw material types are linked to mapped
geologic formations with known outcrop zones along the margins of the Missis-
sippi Valley and adjacent uplands (Table 1). Koldehoff (2002, 2006), May (1984),
and Ray (2007) provide descriptions of raw material types and their availability.
The numerous chert resources available in and near the Central Mississippi
Valley provide an ideal setting for examining procurement patterns. Raw materials
were often selected for speciic tool types because of their physical properties, such
as texture and nodule size/shape. As noted by Crabtree (1972:5), “Stone age man
was very selective about his raw material, for his very survival depended on his
knowledge of suitable stone for implements of speciic function.” For example, Mill
Creek chert is rather coarse grained and occurs in large, tabular nodules that are
ideally suited for being chipped into hoe and adze blades that hold sharp, tough
working edges and are less prone to step-and-snap (bending) fractures than tools
made from iner-grained cherts, like Cobden (Figure 2). Raw materials, however,
were not always selected merely for technological reasons. Social, political, and
ritual interests also shaped lithic procurement strategies (Gould and Saggers
1985; Hampton 1999; Morrow 1987; Topping and Lynott 2005).
exploring mississippian polity interaction and craft specialization 135

Debitage analysis is critical because it provides a more complete picture of

activities and interactions. For instance, debitage is typically the most common
lithic artifact recovered from archaeological sites. Moreover, tool production
and tool consumption (maintenance and recycling) generate different debitage
signatures and are often executed at different places on the landscape (e.g.,
quarry/workshops vs. habitation sites). In the Central Mississippi Valley, the
differential distribution of production and consumption debris has been used
to argue for specialized production, particularly for hoe and adze blades (Cobb
2000; Koldehoff 1990; Koldehoff and Carr 2001). The importance of debitage
analysis was noted decades ago by Binford and Quimby (1963:278):
Understanding of the manner in which manufacturing sequences were broken up
and executed by different social units at different places is of prime importance
if we are to understand the operation of extinct cultural systems. For these
reasons it is argued that as much analytical attention should be given to the
artifacts that are the byproducts of tool production as to the tools themselves.
As for most chipped-stone assemblages, debitage accounts for the majority
of each of our site samples. By count, debitage represents 84% of the Cahokia
sample, 94% of the South Cape sample, and 95% of the Wickliffe sample. The
Cahokia sample includes chipped-stone materials from two different components
in two different parts of the site. The Fingerhut Tract sample was excavated
from a Moorehead phase (A.D. 1200–1275) household cluster with 79% debitage
(Koldehoff 1997), and the Merrell Tract sample was excavated from a Sand
Prairie phase (A.D. 1275–1350) household cluster with 91% debitage (Koldehoff
1995a).2 The lesser amount of debitage in the Fingerhut sample can be attrib-
uted in part to two factors. First, unlike the other samples, the feature ills
were not screened during excavation, and second, the feature ills are unusual
in that they yielded craft-related tools and byproducts, including hundreds of
tiny Cahokia-style microliths.3 Because hundreds of microliths were recovered
during excavation, it is unlikely that much debitage was missed. Thus, the
Fingerhut household cluster differs from the other site samples in that it was a
locus of intensive craft production. This difference in household activities does
not represent a signiicant bias in terms of procurement because Burlington
chert from the Crescent Quarry area was the preferred raw material not only
at the Fingerhut Tract, but also at the Merrell Tract and at other parts of the
Cahokia site.
What does represent a bias is the number of artifacts that cannot be coni-
dently assigned to a known chert type. Indeterminate raw material assignments
are considerable higher in the South Cape (73% by count, 31% by weight) and
Wickliffe (43% by count, 23% by weight) samples than they are in the Fingerhut
(4% by count, 1% by weight) and Merrell (2% by count, 3% by weight) samples
(Table 3). These differences can be explained in part by the character of the
site samples. The Fingerhut and Merrell samples are predominately composed
of Burlington chert, which is light colored and can be frequently identiied
136 the missouri archaeologist volume 71

Figure 2. (a) Mill Creek chert nodule and (b) inished hoe blade with use wear.

even if artifacts are small or partially burned/charred (Table 4). Whereas, the
South Cape and Wickliffe samples are made up of several darker colored and
more variable raw materials (Mill Creek, Dover, Mounds, and Devonian cherts)
that are often dificult to distinguish when artifacts are small and/or charred.
However, when artifacts are larger in size and not charred, the chert types are
visually distinctive and can be easily identiied (Ray 2007).
Our focus is on the known chert types. By count, our samples of known chert
types from South Cape (N=1,408) and Wickliffe (N=4,832) are smaller than those
from Fingerhut (N=6,625) and Merrell (N=5,706). By weight, however, known
chert types from Fingerhut (22,289.7 g) and Wickliffe (12,400.3 g) are more
than twice the size of those from South Cape (5,303.5 g) and Merrell (5,292.3
g). In terms of mean weight, the Fingerhut sample (3.3 g) is markedly higher
than the other samples: Wickliffe—1.9 g, South Cape—1.5 g, and Merrell—.9
g (Table 4). This difference is derived from the greater number of large tools
and cores in the Fingerhut sample than in the other samples. The many large
tools and cores, like the many tiny microliths, indicate the special character of
the Fingerhut household. Despite these differences, our site samples are more
than adequate for investigating patterns of procurement.
Chronology is another potential source of variability. Nevertheless, this
factor is of little consequence because our site samples were recovered from
exploring mississippian polity interaction and craft specialization 137

Table 3. Site Samples.

ct. % ct. % wt. % wt. %
Site ct. wt. (g) known indet. known indet.
Cahokia: 6,908 22,567.2 96 4 99 1
Fingerhut Tract
Cahokia: 5,859 5,433 98 2 97 3
Merrell Tract
South Cape 5,308 7,731.7 27 73 69 31
Wickliffe 8,550 16,029.7 57 43 77 23
Total 26,625 51,761.6 70 30 88 12

roughly contemporaneous Late Mississippian (A.D. 1200–1400) wall-trench

structures and associated features. The Wickliffe sample does include materi-
als from deposits predating A.D. 1200. These earlier materials, however, do not
signiicantly differ from later materials at Wickliffe.
In sum, we identiied a series of chert types at each of the sites by employ-
ing simple techniques. Our interpretations of these chert-use patterns are
presented in subsequent sections and are based on the assumption that all
three site samples are generally contemporaneous. Potential sources of bias
were identiied, but these sources appear to be of little bearing on our results.
However, the importance of identifying and controlling for sources of bias, when
conducting intersite comparisons, should not be underestimated. There are more
technically advanced methods for identifying chert types (see Luedtke 1992),
but these methods are often destructive and cost prohibitive, which greatly
reduces sample size. These techniques can be useful in verifying macroscopic
identiications. Key measures in standardizing macroscopic observations include
the use of geologic type collections gathered from across the region (or regions)
under investigation, quantifying chert types both by count and weight, limiting
the number of individual analysts, and instructing analysts to sort small and
charred artifacts into an indeterminate category. By identifying and controlling
sources of error, large samples of artifacts can be accurately sorted into estab-
lished chert types linked to mapped geologic formations, which in turn allows
strong inferences about patterns of procurement.

Cahokia

The Cahokia site (11MS2/S34) sample consists of chipped-stone tools and deb-
itage from two different components in two different parts of the site. But these two
components display very similar patterns of raw material procurement and use.
The Fingerhut Tract (11S34/7) is located along the western edge of the
site south of the famous Powell Mound that was leveled in the 1930s (Fowler
1997). Investigations conducted in the early 1990s for the Illinois Department
138 the missouri archaeologist volume 71

of Transportation along Illinois Route 111 resulted in the excavation of a

single Moorehead phase wall-trench structure that had been repeatedly
rebuilt/remodeled; this produced a wide variety of tool and debris types
(Kelly 1997).4
In total, 6,908 chipped-stone artifacts weighing 22,567.2 g were recov-
ered and analyzed (Koldehoff 1997). In addition to typical household items
such as arrow points, lake tools, and hoe lakes, 392 elements of the Cahokia
microlith industry were identiied: 150 blades, 114 drills, 103 cores, and 25
core rejuvenation lakes. The microliths, lake tools, and associated cores
and debitage are primarily made from Burlington chert characteristic of
the Crescent Quarry area located 45 km west of the site (Figure 3).5 Burl-
ington accounts for about 90% of the entire assemblage both by count and
by weight (Table 4). Mill Creek chert from southern Illinois is the next most
common raw material, but it accounts for only 3% of the assemblage by count
and 3.6% by weight. Kaolin chert, also from southern Illinois, accounts for
2.7% by count and 3.9% by weight. Minor amounts of other raw materials
are present. Notable are ive pieces of Bailey, a Devonian-age chert from
southwestern Illinois and southeast Missouri, and ive pieces of chert gravel
that are comparable to Mounds (or Lafayette) gravel, which has numerous
exposures in the conluence region of the Ohio and Mississippi rivers.6 Two
pieces of what appears to be Dover chert were identiied.7 Eleven pieces of
miscellaneous cherts were also identiied (Fern Glen and Ste. Genevieve).
The Merrell Tract (11MS2/3) is located in the heart of the Cahokia site
about 1,000 m west of Monks Mound and 2,500 m east of the Fingerhut tract
(Fowler 1997). Field school excavations conducted by Beloit College between
1969 and 1971 uncovered a series of pre-Mississippian habitation features
that in one area were superimposed by a late Mississippian (Sand Prairie
phase) wall-trench structure that had been repeatedly rebuilt/remodeled
(Kelly 1980, 1995). Several nearby pit features were also associated with
the Sand Prairie-phase occupation. Typical domestic tools and debris were
recovered from these features, as well as a great number of arrow points
representing both inished points (N=53) and production failures/rejects
(N=38) (Koldehoff 1995a). Most Mississippian household deposits in the
American Bottom region rarely contain more then two arrow points. This
household cluster appears to hold the residue of specialized activities related
to the production and use of arrow points.8
In total, 5,308 chipped-stone artifacts weighting 7,731.7 g were recovered
and analyzed. Burlington chert, primarily from Crescent Quarry (henceforth
referred to as Crescent Burlington), dominates both by count (89.3%) and
weight (88.1%), with Mill Creek a distant second (5.9% by count, 5.3% by
weight). Kaolin, both by count and weight, accounts for less than 1% of the
assemblage. No Dover or Bailey chert items were identiied, but several
items are made from Mounds chert. Miscellaneous chert types include
exploring mississippian polity interaction and craft specialization 139

minor amounts of Cobden, Ste. Genevieve, Fern Glen, Salem, and Chouteau.
All or most of these materials were likely redeposited from earlier occupations.
Crescent Burlington is the dominant raw material in our Cahokia sample, a
pattern that holds true for the entire Mississippian period (and earlier periods)
at Cahokia and across the region (De Mott et al. 1993; Kelly 1984; Koldehoff
1987, 1996; Pauketat 1994, 2004a; Ray 2007). Almost a century ago, Gerard
Fowke (1928:535) noticed this regional focus on Crescent Burlington:
Nearly all chipped implements found within 50 miles of St. Louis in any direction
are made of stone from this deposit; at least, it looks exactly like it, and no other
deposit is now known from which it could have been derived. This observation,
of course, does not apply to the hoes and spades made from the Union County,
Illinois, chert [Mill Creek].
Today we know that Crescent chert is derived from the Burlington-Keokuk
Formation, which has chert-rich exposures along the middle Mississippi Valley
and adjoining sections of the lower Missouri and lower Illinois valleys (Figure
3). These cherty outcrops create prominent ridge and bluff lines that form the
backbone of the Burlington Escarpment, which demarcates the northeast mar-
gin of the Ozarks. While Burlington chert from these other exposures may have
been used by Cahokia’s residents, most Burlington chert artifacts from Cahokia
are visually indistinguishable from geological samples collected from Crescent
Quarry. Crescent Burlington tends to be more colorful and of higher laking
quality than chert from other Burlington source areas, like Valmeyer (Koldehoff
2006; Ray 2007).
Block cores of Crescent Burlington chert, weighing from 500 to 1,000 g, were
acquired by households and worked into lake tools, arrow points, and occasionally
microliths in the Cahokia region during the Mississippian period (Figure 4). The
cores were essentially lexible toolkits (Koldehoff 1987, 1990). Burlington chert
was less frequently worked into large bifaces (Ramey knives and hoe and adze
blades). There is evidence of large bifaces of Burlington chert being consumed
(resharpened and recycled) by most households in the region, but there is little
to no evidence of them being manufactured by households. Large-biface produc-
tion was conducted at or near Crescent Quarry, as it was at the Mill Creek (Cobb
2000) and Dover (Gramly 1992) quarries. Burlington large-biface reduction lakes
(without use polish) are present in limited numbers in the Fingerhut (N=17) and
Merrell (N=1) samples. Most were used as cutting and/or scraping tools and are
not evidence of on-site production. Rather, the large lakes are tool blanks that
were probably acquired along with block cores and inished large bifaces.
The consumption of Burlington hoe and adze blades is represented in our
sample by modest numbers of resharpening lakes, some of which were converted
into tools: Fingerhut—8 hoe lakes and 34 adze lakes; and Merrell—2 hoe lakes
and 15 adze lakes. It is noteworthy that adze lakes outnumber hoe lakes in
both assemblages, as well as in other assemblages in the region (e.g., De Mott et
al. 1993; Koldehoff 1995b).
140 the missouri archaeologist volume 71

Distribution of
Burlington Chert
Exposures

Figure 3. Major sites and chert quarries in relation to the distribution of Burlington
chert.

Except for one large biface-reduction lake that was used as a scraper, all of
the Mill Creek artifacts in the Fingerhut and Merrell assemblages are typical
of large-biface consumption, particularly hoe blades. In the American Bottom
region and across the Central Mississippi Valley, hoe lakes and fragments
 exploring mississippian polity interaction and craft specialization
Table 4. Raw Material Types by Site.
Cahokia: Fingerhut Tract Cahokia: Merrell Tract South Cape Wickliffe

Chert Type ct wt (g) x wt % ct % wt ct wt (g) x wt % ct % wt ct wt (g) x wt % ct % wt. ct wt (g) x wt % ct % wt

Devoniana 5 4.1 .8 .1 b
- - - - - 1,128 3,892.7 3.5 21.3 50.3 4 .7 .2 .1 b

Mill Creek 207 823.1 4 3 3.6 343 289.4 .8 5.9 5.3 78 361.3 4.6 1.5 4.7 1,750 2,321.1 1.3 20.5 14.5

Kaolin 186 880 4.7 2.7 3.9 18 21.6 1.2 .3 .4 35 46 1.3 .7 .6 428 651.5 1.5 5 4.1

Mounds 5 241.4 48.3 .1 1.1 4 84.8 21.2 .1 1.6 85 712.6 8.4 1.6 9.2 2,066 8,031 3.9 24.2 50.1

Dover 2 14.6 7.3 b

.1 - - - - - 37 111.8 3 .7 1.4 385 946.3 2.5 4.5 5.9

Burlington 6,209 20,269.6 3.3 89.9 89.8 5,232 4,787.2 .9 89.3 88.1 14 90.7 6.5 .3 1.2 181 422 2.3 2.1 2.6

Misc. 11 56.9 5.2 .2 .3 109 109.3 1 1.9 2 31 88.4 2.9 .6 1.1 18 27.7 1.5 .2 .2

Indet. 283 277.5 1 4.1 1.2 153 140.7 .9 2.6 2.6 3,900 2,428.2 .6 73.5 31.4 3,718 3,629.4 1 43.5 22.6

Total 6,908 22,567.2 3.3 100.1 100 5,859 5,433 .9 100 100.1 5,308 7,731.7 1.5 100.2 99.9 8,550 16,029.7 1.9 100 100
a
Bailey and Clear Creek cherts.
b
Less than .1%.

141
142 the missouri archaeologist volume 71

Figure 4. Burlington chert production trajectory.

were often converted into small tools (Figure 5). In our Cahokia sample, hoe
lakes of Mill Creek outnumber adze lakes: Fingerhut—74 hoe lakes and 2 adze
lakes; and Merrell—76 hoe lakes and 31 adze lakes. As noted by Fowke (1928)
and others (e.g., Titterington 1937; Winters 1981), hoe blades in the Cahokia
region are typically made from Mill Creek chert. It is interesting that, while
most hoes in the region are made from Mill Creek chert, most (or at least half)
of the adze blades are made from Burlington chert.
exploring mississippian polity interaction and craft specialization 143

Figure 5. Mill Creek chert large-biface maintenance and recycling trajectory.

Kaolin chert represents a minor resource in both the Fingerhut and Mer-
rell assemblages. However, many more Kaolin items are in the Fingerhut as-
semblage (N=186) than in the Merrell assemblage (N=18). Unlike Mill Creek,
which is largely represented by the byproducts of large-biface consumption,
Kaolin is represented by a variety of tool and debris types that have little to
do with large bifaces. For instance, the Fingerhut assemblage includes only 3
144 the missouri archaeologist volume 71

adze lakes, no hoe lakes, and 1 Ramey knife fragment, in addition to 22 lake
tools, 1 block core, 3 microliths, and 156 pieces of debitage. Three of the lake
tools are large biface-reductions.
Devonian, Mounds, and Dover cherts are present in trace amounts (Table 4).
These chert types are noteworthy because they represent substantial portions of
the South Cape and/or Wickliffe samples. In the Fingerhut and Merrell assem-
blages, these cherts are typically represented by lake tools, cores, and debitage.

South Cape

The South Cape site (23CG8) is a large (2.6 ha) fortiied village located
on a high terrace about 1 km west of the Mississippi River on the south side
of Cape Girardeau. Traces of Archaic and Woodland occupations have been
identiied, but the site is well-known for its Late Mississippian discoveries.
Although the site has received considerable attention from both amateurs
and professionals, little has been published about the site (Brennan 2010;
Chapman 1980:240–247). The 2007 Southeast Missouri State University ield
school excavations generated the bulk of the materials used in this study.
These sample materials were recovered primarily from a Mississippian (A.D.
1350) wall-trench structure and associated features (Brennan 2007; Bren-
nan 2010). This sample was supplemented with a small number of tools from
plowzone contexts.
In total, 5,308 chipped-stone items weighting 7,731.7 g were analyzed.
Cherts from the Devonian-age Bailey and Clear Creek Formations are domi-
nant. Taken together, they account for 21.3% of the sample by count and 50.3%
by weight. These cherts are available in the rugged uplands and bluffs 10–15
km north and east of the site on both sides of the Mississippi. Additionally,
these cherts are likely present in the gravel deposits of Cape La Croix Creek,
which drains the uplands north of the site and lows into the Mississippi Val-
ley along the south side of the site. Although these cherts commonly occur as
small nodules and bedded blocks often riddled with internal fracture planes,
they were routinely used in the production of small and expedient tools, such
as lake tools and arrow points. The next most popular material types are
Mounds (1.6% by count, 9.2% by weight) and Mill Creek (1.5% by count, 4.7
by weight). Mounds is represented primarily by lake tools and associated
debris and Mill Creek is entirely represented by the byproducts of hoe and
adze blade consumption, with the exception of a single large biface-reduction
lake used as a cutting tool.
Kaolin, Dover, and Burlington are present in minor amounts. Dover is
primarily represented by lakes and fragments of woodworking tools. Bur-
lington is represented by arrow points, lake tools, and debitage. Kaolin is
represented by lake tools and debitage. Trace amounts of other materials are
also represented (Cobden chert, Jefferson City chert, and Kornthal quartzite).
exploring mississippian polity interaction and craft specialization 145

Wickliffe

The Wickliffe site (15BA4) is a mound-and-town complex situated at the

conluence of the Ohio and Mississippi rivers. Extensive digging in the 1930s
preceded the scientiic research program undertaken by Murray State Univer-
sity during the 1980s and 1990s (Wesler 2001). A sample of 8,550 lithic arti-
facts (16,029.7 g) was selected from habitation, midden, and mound contexts
(Koldehoff and Carr 2001) excavated by Murray State University and securely
dated to one of three Wickliffe components delineated by Wesler (2001:87)—
Early Wickliffe (A.D. 1100–1200), Middle Wickliffe (A.D. 1200–1250), and Late
Wickliffe (A.D. 1250–1350). While there is some variation between components,
four chert types were routinely utilized to similar degrees—Mounds, Mill Creek,
Kaolin, and Dover (Table 5).
Mounds is the most common raw material, accounting for 24.2% of the overall
sample by count and 50.1% by weight (Table 4). The popularity of Mounds is
explained in large part by its local availability. Cobbles of workable material are
exposed in nearby ravines. These ist-sized cobbles were primarily worked into
lake tools, arrow points, drills (Figure 6), and on rare occasions small adzes. The
next most common material is Mill Creek, accounting for 20.5% of the sample
by count and 14.5% by weight. Flakes and fragments of hoe and adze blades
are well represented; they were often worked into lake tools and arrow points.
Nine large biface-reduction lakes were identiied, with most of them exhibiting
signs of knife and scraper use (e.g., Figure 7a–b). Kaolin and Dover each account
for about 5% of the sample by count and weight. Both are represented by lakes
and fragments of hoe and adze blades, as well as lake tools and debitage de-
rived from block cores. Limited numbers of Dover (N=2) and Kaolin (N=1) large
biface-reductions lakes were recovered. The Kaolin example was worked into
a Cahokia-style microlith core (Figure 7d), and three related microdrills were
also made from Kaolin chert. Burlington accounts for about 2% of the sample,
by both count and weight, and is represented by arrow points, lake tools, block
cores, and debitage. Devonian (Bailey) chert is represented by a few lakes, as
are two miscellaneous cherts (Cobden and Fern Glen).

Patterns of Procurement and Polity Interaction

Although a wide variety of raw materials were potentially available to late

prehistoric populations living in the Central Mississippi Valley (Table 1), just
six chert types were intensively used at one or more of the sites in our sample
(Table 4). These consisted of Burlington, Mill Creek, Mounds, Devonian (Bailey
and Clear Creek), Kaolin, and Dover.
Burlington chert is the primary raw material at Cahokia. While it may
have been directly procured from the Crescent Quarry by some households, it
is more likely that it was acquired through a high-volume regional distribution
 146
Table 5. Wickliffe Site Raw Material Types by Component.
Chert Early Wickliffe Middle Wickliffe Late Wickliffe Total
Type ct. % wt. % ct. % wt. % ct. % wt. % ct. % wt. %
Mounds 793 45 3,143.1 69.8 518 42.5 1,479.9 58.7 755 40.8 3,408 63.4 2,066 42.8 8,031 64.8
Mill 534 30.3 635.4 14.1 439 36 514.3 20.4 777 42 1,171.4 21.8 1,750 36.2 2,321.1 18.7
Creek
Kaolin 189 10.7 277.5 6.2 106 8.7 138.8 5.5 133 7.2 235.2 4.3 428 8.9 651.5 5.3

Dover 168 9.5 304 6.8 89 7.3 232.7 9.2 128 6.9 409.6 7.6 385 8 946.3 7.6
Burling- 69 3.9 138.1 3.1 60 4.9 154.4 6.1 52 2.8 129.5 2.4 181 3.7 422 3.4
ton

the missouri archaeologist volume

Cobden 8 .5 1.6 a
5 .4 1.1 a
4 .2 24.8 .5 17 .3 27.5 .2
Bailey 2 .1 .4 a
2 .2 .3 a
- - - - 4 .1 .7 a

Fern - - - - 1 a
.2 a
- - - - 1 a
.2 a

Glen
Total 1,763 100 4,500.1 100 1,220 100 2,521.7 99.9 1,849 99.9 5,378.5 100 4,832 100 12,400.3 100
a
Less than .1%.

71
exploring mississippian polity interaction and craft specialization 147

Figure 6. (a–c) Mounds chert cobbles; (d–e) cores; (f) lake tool; (g) arrow point; and (h–i)
drills from Wickliffe Mounds.

network that also moved other lithic materials, like large bifaces made from
Mill Creek chert and groundstone celts made from St. Francois Mountains
basalt (Pauketat 1994; Pauketat and Alt 2004). Before the Lohmann-phase
“Big Bang” at Cahokia (Pauketat 1994), chert procurement was more di-
verse—groups at Cahokia and across the region relied on several local raw
materials, such as Ste. Genevieve and Salem cherts, in addition to Crescent
Burlington and limited numbers of Mill Creek hoes (Kelly 1984; Koldehoff
1987, 1996; Pauketat 1994).
Only minor amounts of Burlington chert are present at South Cape
and Wickliffe. It is interesting that more Burlington is present at Wickliffe
than at South Cape, given that South Cape is closer to Cahokia and to the
southern terminus of the Burlington Escarpment (Figure 3). But, why is
Burlington even present at Wickliffe or South Cape? These two sites are
not situated in chert-poor areas, which would have compelled residents to
148 the missouri archaeologist volume 71

Figure 7. (a–b) Mill Creek chert lake tools; (c) Dover chert lake tool; and (d) Kaolin
chert microlith core. All are large biface-reduction lakes.

import chert. It is the opposite. Both have local chert resources. Wickliffe has
Mounds and South Cape has Devonian, and both are located across the Missis-
sippi River from the massive and renowned chert deposits along Mill Creek and
Clear Creek (i.e., the Kaolin and Cobden chert sources). Moreover, Burlington
was not obtained for technological reasons, as is evident by its occurrence at
both sites as ordinary arrow points, lake tools, cores, and debitage. As argued
elsewhere, the best explanation is that Burlington was acquired through inter-
regional networks of exchange and interaction (Koldehoff 1987; Koldehoff and
Carr 2001; Pauketat 2004a, 2004b).
This interpretation explains why there is more Burlington at Wickliffe than at
South Cape: Wickliffe is a mound center and South Cape is not. Polity interactions
were likely conducted or controlled by elite households, and the most inluential
households likely resided at mound centers. Therefore, elites at Wickliffe may
have had closer connections to elites at Cahokia, either directly or indirectly. In
the Wickliffe sample, Burlington is most common in the middle period, which
closely coincides with the Moorehead phase at Cahokia (Wesler 2001).
Mill Creek chert is present at all three sites but in modest amounts. It is
most common at Wickliffe, where it accounts for 21% the sample by count and
exploring mississippian polity interaction and craft specialization 149

15% by weight. This amount is three to four times greater than in the Cahokia
and South Cape samples, which is surprising in that South Cape is about 20 km
closer to the Mill Creek Quarry than is Wickliffe and far closer than Cahokia.
The Cahokia sample, on average, has more Mill Creek than South Cape. This
pattern supports the notion that elites at mound centers had greater access
to nonlocal materials and may have controlled or inluenced their circulation.
At all three sites, Mill Creek primarily occurs as the byproduct of large-
biface consumption. Large-biface production occurred at or near the Mill Creek
Quarry. For example, at the Linn site, a mound center in the Mississippi Valley
only 10 km inland to Mill Creek Quarry, Mill Creek chert is the primary raw
material and it is represented both by inished tools and massive quantities of
production debris (Cobb 1991, 2000). As argued by Cobb and others, the Linn
site appears to be the node where Mill Creek large bifaces entered exchange
networks that moved them across the Midcontinent (Brown et al. 1990; Fowler
and Hall 1978; Winters 1981). Because more hoe blades have been discovered
in and around Cahokia than anywhere in North America, Winters (1981) and
others (Brown et al. 1990; Fowler and Hall 1978) have speculated that Cahokia
may have controlled their distribution or possibly the quarry itself. Research by
Cobb and his colleagues (Butler and Cobb 2001; Cobb 1989, 1991, 2000; Darke
et al. 2005) has uncovered little evidence to support such a scenario. But much
is still unknown about the Mill Creek area, and it is clear that Cahokia was by
far the top importer and consumer of Mill Creek large bifaces, in part owing to
its large size compared to all other Mississippian centers. The common occur-
rence of cached Mill Creek chert hoes, often in an unused state at mound centers
in the American Bottom (Cobb 2000:68–70), lends support to the notion of elite
control over the movement of everyday tools and raw materials, especially when
the materials were imported.
Mounds chert is the primary raw material at Wickliffe. Modest amounts
are present at South Cape, with only trace amounts at Cahokia. At all three
sites, it is primarily represented by lake tools and associated cores and lakes,
with additional tool types present at Wickliffe, namely arrow points and drills.
This pattern is not unexpected because Mounds is available at Wickliffe and all
along the conluence area and lower Ohio Valley. For this reason, it is dificult
to pinpoint where the Mounds chert at Cahokia came from. But, one must ask:
Why were cobbles of Mounds chert acquired by households at Cahokia, merely to
be worked into lake tools? We suspect that this happened for the same reasons
that blocks of Burlington chert were acquired and worked into lake tools by
households at Wickliffe and South Cape. It was not for pure economic reasons,
but for political reasons.
Freehand and bipolar core-reduction techniques require little skill (train-
ing and practice) and were commonly used by households to simply and rapidly
convert cobbles and blocks into expedient tools (Koldehoff 1987, 1990; Teltser
1991). These tools were the centerpiece of Mississippian household toolkits.
150 the missouri archaeologist volume 71

They were sharp and effective, but they were designed to be disposable. Thus,
like food, fuel, and ceramic vessels, lake tools were part of everyday life and
needed to be regularly replenished. Thus, blocks and cobbles of nonlocal cherts
may have been exchanged and distributed by elite households as symbolic gifts
to help reinforce both local and long-distance relationships. Given that both
large and small bifaces were probably manufactured by men and lake tools
were probably made by both men and women (Gero 1991; Sassaman 1992), it
is possible that women in elite households exchanged gifts of chert cobbles and
blocks. Although speculative, this idea warrants consideration.
Devonian cherts are the primary raw material at South Cape, but only a
handful of Devonian lakes are present at Cahokia (N=5) and Wickliffe (N=4).
This pattern coincides with the reduced amounts of Burlington and Mill Creek
at South Cape. Together, they strengthen the idea that households away from
mound centers had less access to nonlocal materials than did households at
mound centers. The near absence of Devonian cherts at the Linn site (Cobb 1991)
is interesting because the nearby (1 km) Mississippi River bluffs are illed with
Devonian cherts. This observation underscores the fact that close proximity to
a chert source does not ensure that it will be heavily utilized. The residents of
the Linn site were focused on Mill Creek chert about 10 km distant, and to a
lesser degree Kaolin chert about 20 km distant.
Kaolin, while present in rather modest amounts, is the third most common
chert type in the Cahokia and Wickliffe samples. In both, it is represented by a
variety of tool and debris types. Kaolin was exchanged as inished large bifaces
and as block cores and large lakes. The minor amounts of Kaolin at South Cape
reinforce the notion of reduced access to nonlocal resources by households located
away from mound centers. Kaolin is signiicantly less common at Cahokia in
the Sand Prairie phase (Merrell Tract) assemblage than it is in the Moorehead
phase (Fingerhut Tract) assemblage. This pattern, coupled with the absence of
Devonian and Dover cherts in the Sand Prairie phase assemblage, may relect
the waning inluence and connectedness of Cahokia during its terminal phase.
According to Cobb (1991:69), Kaolin is the dominant raw material at the Ware
site, a mound center in the Mississippi Valley located 15 km north of the Linn
site. Given this fact and its close proximity to the main Kaolin source (12 km),
Cobb argues that Ware was likely the seat of a polity that extracted and ex-
changed Kaolin chert (including large bifaces), despite its close proximity to
the Linn site.
Dover chert is most common at Wickliffe, where it is essentially tied for
third place with Kaolin. It is the fourth most common chert type at South Cape,
and at Cahokia it is represented by two lakes in the Fingerhut assemblage.
The popularity of Dover at Wickliffe is understandable because it is closer to
the Dover source than are South Cape and Cahokia. Dover chert was widely
used by groups in the Tennessee River and Cumberland River valleys (Gramly
1992; Smith and Moore 1999; Winters 1981), as well as in the lower Ohio Valley,
exploring mississippian polity interaction and craft specialization 151

especially at the Kincaid mound center (Bell 1943; Butler 2002; but see Muller
1997:337). Dover chert hoes, adzes, and celts were widely used and traded across
the Middle South, but few of these items made their way to Cahokia. Butler
(2002) argues that elites at Kincaid likely controlled the distribution of Dover
chert in the Lower Ohio. Interaction between Cahokia and Kincaid is minimally
represented by Bell’s (1943) identiication of minor amounts of Crescent Burl-
ington at Kincaid, and conversely, by minor amounts of Dover chert at Cahokia.
In sum, each of the six major chert types appear to be associated with a near-
by site, usually a mound center that likely controlled the distribution of inished
tools and/or raw materials: Crescent Burlington—Cahokia, Mill Creek—Linn,
Kaolin—Ware, Devonian—South Cape, Mounds—Wickliffe, Dover—Kincaid.
Dover chert, however, is not a local resource—the Kincaid site is located near
the mouth of the Tennessee and Cumberland Rivers about 75 km downstream
from the Dover Quarry. Thus, river transport apparently igured into Kincaid’s
monopoly on Dover in the lower Ohio Valley (Butler 2002).
The widespread availability of Mounds and Devonian cherts in the conlu-
ence region makes it unlikely that these resources were controlled by any one
polity. However, groups that routinely relied upon these local resources could
have become identiied with these raw materials—that is, distinctive cherts or
other lithic raw materials could have been used to signal group identities and
political connections (see Morrow 1987; Pauketat 2004b; Pauketat and Alt 2004).
For example, drawing from Bradley’s (2000) notion of “pieces of place,” Pauketat
argues that Crescent Burlington and St. Francois basalt attained special mean-
ing because of their strong afiliation with Cahokia and the Ozarks (Pauketat
2004b; Pauketat and Alt 2004; see also Emerson and Hughes 2000). Crescent
Burlington was not only a key resource used by populations at Cahokia and
surrounding settlements but also a raw material periodically used by distant
populations linked to Cahokia through exchange and/or migration (Koldehoff
1987; Morse and Morse 1983; Pauketat 2004a, 2004b). Crescent Burlington
and related Cahokia-style core technologies have been identiied at the Carson
site in northwest Mississippi (Johnson 1987), some 600 km downstream from
Cahokia, and at the Fisher site in western Wisconsin, some 600 km upstream
from Cahokia (Benden 2004).
Both logistical and political constraints likely prohibited households or
task groups from traveling long distances (50 km or more) to directly procure
nonlocal cherts. Why expend the effort if you have local chert sources? Given the
agricultural and sedentary nature of Mississippian societies, the acquisition of
nonlocal lithics was not embedded in seasonal movements, but it was embedded
in the fabric of the political landscape. Cherts, along with other objects and raw
materials, were exchanged by elites not strictly for economic (utilitarian) reasons,
but more for political reasons to help forge and maintain alliances. However, the
level of elite control over exchange networks is still under debate because it is
linked to the broader issue of the complexity of Mississippian polities (Brown et
152 the missouri archaeologist volume 71

al. 1990; Cobb 2000, 2003; Emerson 1997; Milner 1998; Muller 1997; Pauketat
2004a, 2007). Symbolic chert exchanges for political reasons make sense because
there is no technological reason for most nonlocal cherts to have been procured.
As noted, they were worked into lake tools, just as local cherts were.
The exception to this rule is the importation of inished large bifaces, which
were designed for speciic tasks and required considerable skill to produce, but
little skill to consume (resharpen and recycle). Fragments of these large tools
were commonly converted into lake tools via freehand and bipolar reduction,
not unlike blocks and cobbles of local cherts. Thus, large bifaces had two ‘layers’
of utility: primarily as specialized, curated tools and secondarily as cores for
generating simple, expedient tools. This extended utility helps to explain the
widespread demand for large bifaces by households across the middle Missis-
sippi and lower Ohio valleys. They were digging and woodworking tools that
also functioned as bifacial cores, especially when broken. In the chert-poor till
plains of Illinois, lakes and fragments of Mill Creek hoe blades were intensively
reworked into a variety of small tools, as shown in Figure 5 (see also Koldehoff
1986).
Importantly, large-biface production was not conducted by most households
because it required access to suitable raw materials and advanced stonework-
ing skills. Thus, there were centers of large-biface production that were linked
through exchange networks to vast regions of consumers. This pattern of dif-
ferential production and consumption supports the notion of craft specialization
and elite control.
Most Mississippian societies were probably more complex than the Maori
of New Zealand, but we believe the following statements by Elsdon Best (1912)
about their acquisition and production of stone axes, adzes, and hoes are apt
for most sedentary agriculturalists, particularly the case at hand.
In obtaining material for his stone implements, the Maori was often much ham-
pered by the restrictions of his social system—the division of the people into
tribes, independent of each other, and often at war, certainly always suspicious
of each other. Hence he could not range at will over distant lands in search of
desirable material for his implements. Thus it often occurred that stone … was
an article of barter between tribes… [Best 1912:30].

The material of which stone implements were made differed to some extent
among the various tribes, simply because the geology of such districts differed.
The kind of material used by a tribe naturally depended on what suitable kinds
of stone were available [Best 1912:32].

It is worthy of special note … that Maori life occupations were to some extent
specialized, and the knowledge descended from father to son. So that in a tribe
… there might be a family whose hereditary skill and knowledge constituted
them makers of axes and implements to the clan [Best 1912:21].
exploring mississippian polity interaction and craft specialization 153

Large-Biface Production and Craft Specialization

The differential distribution of large-biface production refuse and consumption
refuse across the Midcontinent denotes specialized production. In other words,
if specialized production occurred within a lithic industry, there should be a dif-
ferential distribution of production refuse and consumption refuse; there should
be evidence of producers and consumers (Clark 1987; Dockall and Shafer 1993;
Koldehoff 1990; Koldehoff and Carr 2001; McAnany 1988, 1989, 1991; Schafer
1983). While we do not have the space here to discuss the various interpretations
and implications of the term craft specialization, we deine what we mean by spe-
cialized production: it is production for exchange that is undertaken by a limited
number of individuals or households within a community or region. There are
various reasons for, or circumstances under which, certain crafts or productive
enterprises become specialized, that is, restricted to a subset of the population
beyond the fundamental divisions of age and gender.
Large-biface production compared to other lithic industries has both high raw
material and technological demands (Koldehoff 1990; Koldehoff and Carr 2001).
This means that apprentice knappers needed access to large quantities of suitable
raw material for honing and maintaining production skills, as well as for actual
biface production. Other lithic industries, such as the microlith industry or the
small-biface (arrow point) industry, also may have involved specialized produc-
tion (see Kelly 2006; Pauketat 1997; Yerkes 1989), but these industries had low
raw material demands—that is, they required only small pieces of raw material.
Therefore, our focus here is on the large-biface industry.
The technological and raw material demands of biface production have been
effectively modeled through replication studies (Callahan 1979; Johnson 1976;
Shelley 1990; Whittaker 1994). Foremost is the fact that this technology, like all
other technologies, must be learned. Therefore, those lithic industries with the
greatest technological and raw material demands (e.g., large-biface industry)
are more likely to become restricted to a subset of the regional population than
are industries with lesser demands (e.g., lake-tool industry). The raw material
requirements of large-biface production eliminated most chert sources as pro-
duction centers. Only those sources with vast quantities of big pieces of at least
moderate-quality chert could become production centers, such as the Mill Creek,
Dover, Kaolin, and Crescent quarries. In turn, only those households or individu-
als who had easy access to these sources could master and maintain large-biface
production skills. It would have been extremely dificult for nonresident popula-
tions to learn and maintain biface-production skills without living at or near one
of these chert sources for a portion of the year. Another factor that favors resident
specialists is the fact that successful biface production is contingent upon the
knapper’s familiarity with the raw material being worked, its fracture mechanics,
and its inherent laws. Such information is necessary for predicable results and is
well known among seasoned knappers (e.g., Gramly 1992:81; Muller 1997:250).
154 the missouri archaeologist volume 71

Accordingly, as with the Maori (Best 1912) and other groups (Clark 1987;
McAnany 1991), it is likely that such insights, along with requisite skills,
knowledge, and rituals, were held by speciic families (or clans) and were passed
on to their offspring (Costin 1991). Under such conditions it is likely that lo-
cal knappers became resident specialists and that communities of knappers
(production specialists) developed around major lithic sources. Unfortunately,
investigations at the major chert quarries have been infrequent and limited in
scope (see Cobb 2000; Gramly 1992).
Looking at patterns of consumption, it appears stoneworkers at Mill Creek
Quarry turned out more hoe blades than the other major quarries, probably
because Mill Creek nodules were ready-made preforms for large, lat bifaces
like hoe blades (Figure 2). Although the other major quarries were production
centers for hoe blades, they tended to produce more woodworking tools (adzes
and celts) than hoe blades because woodworking tools were smaller in size and
thus simpler to make from rounder, thicker nodules and blocks. This helps to
explain why more adzes were made from Burlington chert than were hoe blades
(see also Butler 2002). Texture was also a key factor. A grainy texture imparted
chert digging and woodworking tools with durable working edges and reduced
susceptibility to fractures. Finer grained materials like Cobden chert were basi-
cally ignored by Mississippian people, except for the production of arrow points.
Mill Creek, Kaolin, Burlington, and Dover cherts are typically more coarsely
grained (less brittle) than Cobden, and were commonly selected for hoe blade
and adze production. With heat treatment, however, these cherts become more
brittle and thus more easily pressure laked into arrow points (see Dunnell et
al. 1994; Koldehoff 1986, 1990).
Cahokia, South Cape, Wickliffe, and other habitation sites, both large and
small, were consumers but not producers of hoes and adzes. The parameters of
large-biface production, as noted, support the notion of quarry-based production
specialists. Whether these stoneworkers can be characterized as part-time or
full-time specialists is a point of contention that, in large part, has centered on
efforts to estimate annual rates of biface production (Butler and Cobb 2001; Cobb
1989, 2000; Gramly 1992; Muller 1987, 1997). However, the calculation of such
estimates is fraught with problems (e.g., Muller 1997:337–340). Moreover, the
concepts of part-time and full-time specialization are problematic when applied
to non-capitalistic, pre-industrial economies (Halperin 1994). Clark (1987:272)
cogently argues that, regarding Mesoamerican blade production, low levels of
output do not necessarily mean low levels of specialization because complex
technologies, like making blades (or bifaces), require a sustained investment of
time and material to maintain proiciency. Therefore, we argue that Mississip-
pian large-biface production was a specialized craft. Focusing on raw material
and technological demands, rather than on rates of output (time), may yield
greater insights into the structure of Mississippian economic and social systems
and thus should be the focus of future studies.
exploring mississippian polity interaction and craft specialization 155

Jon Muller (1987, 1997) and George Milner (1998) see little evidence of
specialization or elite-controlled exchange in Mississippian societies. Muller
for instance states that, “It is, for example, equally possible that acquisition of
the chert was done by work parties coming directly from other locations with
subsequent exchange with even more distant groups” (1987:16), and “…present
evidence for production at these sites [chert quarries and salt licks] is consistent
with non-specialist production or even exploitation by visitors on a seasonal or
on-need basis” (1987:20). Mississippians were not mobile foragers occupying a
largely vacant landscape. They were sedentary farmers whose daily actions,
such as procuring and using stone tools, were also social and ritual actions
through which they negotiated their identity and status within a broader politi-
cal landscape (see Cobb 2000; Pauketat 2004a, 2004b; Pauketat and Alt 2004).
While it is dificult to determine precisely how large bifaces moved between
polities and individuals, the results of Cobb’s excavations at the Dillow’s Ridge
site at Mill Creek Quarry clearly show that there were resident production spe-
cialists, who also farmed and hunted (2000). Dillow’s Ridge is just one site and
much is still unknown about the Mill Creek area, especially in Early Mississip-
pian times. Yet there does appear to be a growing consensus that large bifaces
were manufactured for exchange by local “part-time” specialists, with little to no
evidence of direct interaction with Cahokia (Butler and Cobb 2001; Cobb 2000;
Muller 1997). Thus, current evidence suggests that the Mill Creek area was not
controlled by Cahokia, nor did nonresident populations routinely exploit its lithic
resources by traveling to the quarries, but Cahokians consumed many hoe blades,
so they must have had strong links to producers in the Mill Creek area.

Summary

In the preceding sections, we explored the topics of polity interaction and

craft specialization from the perspective of chert procurement with data from
three sites in the Central Mississippi Valley. We established that at each site
a single, local resource was utilized most heavily: Crescent Burlington at Ca-
hokia, Devonian at South Cape, and Mounds at Wickliffe. These local cherts
were primarily worked by residents into simple tools like lake tools and arrow
points. Nonlocal cherts were utilized to a lesser extent, and they arrived in two
different forms—inished large bifaces and minimally modiied cobbles, cores,
and large lakes. Researchers have focused considerable attention on the move-
ment of large bifaces, particularly hoes, but little attention has been focused
on the movement of the cobbles, cores, and large lakes. As illustrated here,
these latter items provide important clues to polity interactions. For instance,
they were commonly converted into lake tools as were local cherts, indicating
that they were not acquired for technological reasons, but rather were acquired
within the context of social and/or political interactions. We speculate that
these blocks and cobbles of chert were exchanged by women in elite households.
156 the missouri archaeologist volume 71

Hence, these items may have moved through spheres of interaction separate
from those of large bifaces.
Finished large bifaces may have been exchanged for social and/or political
reasons as well. But, unlike lake tools and arrow points, they were tools that
could not be made by most households because their manufacture involved high
raw material and technological demands. Consequently, we argue, as have oth-
ers, that large bifaces were produced by communities of quarry-based specialists.
That Mill Creek and Kaolin nodules were regularly hauled from nearby upland
quarries to the Linn and Ware sites in the Mississippi loodplain for large-biface
production and subsequent distribution supports the notion of elite-controlled
exchange networks. Further support for this notion is drawn from the lower
frequency of nonlocal cherts at settlements without mounds, for example, the
South Cape site. Additional chert use data from this site is needed to conirm
this pattern. Likewise, data derived from chipped-stone assemblages from other
mound and non-mound sites in the Middle Mississippi and Lower Ohio valleys
are needed to further explore the patterns and interpretations presented here.

Acknowledgments

The research presented here is built upon decades of lithic resources studies
in the Midcontinent by a number of researchers. The culmination of much of
this research is presented in Jack Ray’s (2007) guide to chipped-stone resources
of the Ozarks. This article is a much expanded version of a paper presented at
the 2008 Ozarks Lithic Symposium sponsored by the Missouri Archaeological
Society and organized by Jack Ray and Neal Lopinot. We thank Jack and Neal
for inviting us to be part of that symposium and this subsequent volume. The
Cahokia and Wickliffe data used in this study are drawn from previous studies
conducted by the lead author. The South Cape lithic data were gathered for
this study largely from materials recently excavated from the site by Southeast
Missouri State University ield schools directed by Tamira Brennan. Tamira
thanks the University and the Hunze family for their support. The igures
were originally created with the expert assistance of Mera Hertel and Valerie
Waldorf; they are used here (some with modiications) courtesy of the Illinois
State Archaeological Survey and Murray State University. We appreciate Brian
Butler’s permission to cite his 2002 Southeastern Archaeology Conference paper.
Comments on an earlier draft of this article were provided by Brian Butler, Tim
Pauketat, and Greg Wilson.

Notes
1. For more information about tool and debitage types and methods of technological analysis,
the reader is referred to Koldehoff (1990, 1995b) and Koldehoff and Carr (2001).
2. The radiocarbon dates presented here are based on previously published calibrated assays
(see Brennan 2010; Fortier et al. 2006; Wesler 2001).
exploring mississippian polity interaction and craft specialization 157

3. For the Fingerhut sample, unused microlith blades and core-rejuvenation lakes were not
tabulated as debitage; if they are counted as debitage, the frequency of debitage is increased from
79% to 82% of the assemblage.
4. An incomplete draft of the Fingerhut site report (Kelly 1997), including my lithic analysis
chapter (Koldehoff 1997), is on ile at the Illinois State Archaeological Survey at the University of
Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.
5. All given distances are straight-line measurements or minimal distances.
6. It is possible, but unlikely that some of the artifacts identiied as Mounds chert could actu-
ally be made from a related gravel chert (Grover Gravel) with exposures in the American Bottom
region (see Koldehoff 2006; Ray 2007).
7. Dover chert is similar to Elco chert from southern Illinois and other related Fort Payne
Formation cherts in Tennessee and Kentucky, but the artifacts identiied in this study as Dover
appear to be derived from the Dover Quarries and not from these other sources.
8. A Moorehead-phase household cluster at the Julien site south of Cahokia produced 80 arrow
points and was interpreted by Milner (1984) as a possible men’s house. While such an interpreta-
tion of the Merrell Tract household is intriguing, it does not warrant further discussion here (see
Koldehoff 1995a).

References Cited

Bell, Robert E.
1943 Lithic Analysis as a Method in Archaeology. Unpublished Master’s
thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Chicago, Illinois.
Benden, Danielle
2004 The Fisher Mounds Site Complex: Early Mississippian Exploration in
the Upper Mississippi Valley. The Minnesota Archaeologist 63:7–24.
Best, Elsdon
1912 The Stone Implements of the Maori. A. R. Shearer, Wellington, New
Zealand.
Binford, Lewis R., and George I. Quimby
1963 Indian Sites and Chipped Stone Materials in the Northern Lake
Michigan Area. Fieldiana-Anthropology 36:277–307.
Bradley, Richard
2000 An Archaeology of Natural Places. Routledge, London.
Brennan, Tamira
2007 The 2007 Field Season and Preliminary Report, Site 23CG8. Manu-
script on ile at the Department of Foreign Languages and Anthropol-
ogy, Southeast Missouri State University, Cape Girardeau.
2010 The South Cape Site: A Fortiied Mississippian Village in Southeast
Missouri. Missouri Archaeological Society Quarterly 27(2):12–19.
Brown, James A., Richard A. Kerber, and Howard D. Winters
1990 Trade and the Evolution of Exchange Relations at the Beginning of the
Mississippian Period. In The Mississippian Emergence, edited by Bruce
D. Smith, pp. 251–280. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.
Butler, Brian M.
2002 Mississippian Trade in Large Chert Bifaces in the Lower Ohio. Paper
presented at the 59th Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Biloxi,
Mississippi.
158 the missouri archaeologist volume 71

Butler, Brian M., and Charles R. Cobb

2001 The Dillow’s Ridge Site and the Production of Mill Creek Chert Tools.
Illinois Archaeology 13:57–87.
Callahan, Errett
1979 The Basics of Biface Knapping in the Eastern Fluted Point Tradition:
A Manual for Flint-Knappers and Lithic Analysts. Archaeology of
Eastern North America 7(1):1–180.
Carr, Philip J., and Brad Koldehoff
1994 A Preliminary Analysis of Mississippian Lithic Technology at Wickliffe
Mounds (15BA4), Ballard County, Kentucky. Tennessee Anthropologist
19:46–65.
Chapman, Carl H.
1980 The Archaeology of Missouri, II. University of Missouri Press, Columbia.
Chapman, Carl H. (editor)
1977 Investigation and Comparison of Two Fortiied Mississippi Tradition
Archaeological Sites in Southeastern Missouri: A Preliminary Com-
pilation. The Missouri Archaeologist 38 (whole volume).
Clark, John E.
1987 Politics, Prismatic Blades, and Mesoamerican Civilization. In The
Organization of Core Technology, edited by Jay K. Johnson and Carol
A. Morrow, pp. 259–284. Westview Press, Boulder.
Cobb, Charles R.
1989 An Appraisal of the Role of Mill Creek Chert Hoes in Mississippian
Exchange Systems. Southeastern Archaeology 8(2):79–92.
1991 One Hundred Years of Investigations at the Linn Site in Southern
Illinois. Illinois Archaeology 3(1):56–76.
2000 From Quarry to Cornield: The Political Economy of Mississippian Hoe
Production. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
2003 Mississippian Chiefdoms: How Complex? Annual Review in Anthro-
pology 32:63–84.
Costin, Cathy L.
1991 Craft Specialization: Issues in Deining, Documenting, and Explaining
the Organization of Production. In Archaeological Method and Theory,
Vol. 3, edited by Michael B. Schiffer, pp. 1–56. University of Arizona
Press, Tucson.
Crabtree, Donald E.
1972 An Introduction to Flintworking. Occasional Papers No. 28. The Idaho
State Museum, Pocatello, Idaho.
De Mott, Rodney C., Derrick J. Marcucci, and Joyce A. Williams
1993 Part II: Chipped Lithic Materials. In The Archaeology of the Cahokia
Mounds ICT-II: Testing and Lithics, pp. 41–135. Illinois Cultural Re-
sources Study No. 9. Illinois Historic Preservation Agency, Springield.
Dockall, John E., and Harry J. Shafer
1993 Testing the Producer-Consumer Model for Santa Rita Corozal, Belize.
Latin American Antiquity 4(2):158–179.
exploring mississippian polity interaction and craft specialization 159

Drake, Eric, Charles R. Cobb, and Brian M. Butler

2005 Diversity Indices and Intrasite Variability at a Mississippian Hoe
Workshop. In The Cultural Landscape of Prehistoric Mines, edited
by Peter M. Topping and Mark J. Lynott, pp. 155–170. Oxbow Books,
Oxford, United Kingdom.
Dunnell, Robert C., Patrick T. McCutcheon, Motoji Ikeya, and Shin Toyoda
1994 Heat Treatment of Mill Creek and Dover Cherts on the Malden Plain,
Southeast Missouri. Journal of Archaeological Science 21(1):79–89.
Emerson, Thomas E.
1997 Cahokia and the Archaeology of Power. University of Alabama Press,
Tuscaloosa.
Emerson, Thomas E., and Randall E. Hughes
2000 Figurines, Flint Clay Sourcing, the Ozark Highlands, and Cahokia
Acquisition. American Antiquity 65(1):79–101.
Fowke, Gerard
1928 Archaeological Investigations, Part II. In Forty-Fourth Annual Report
of the Bureau of American Ethnology 1926–1927, pp. 399–540. Smith-
sonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Fowler, Melvin L.
1997 The Cahokia Atlas: A Historical Atlas of Cahokia Archaeology. Illinois
Transportation Archaeological Research Program, University of Il-
linois, Urbana-Champaign.
Fowler, Melvin L., and Robert L. Hall
1978 Late Prehistory of the Illinois Area. In Handbook of North American
Indians: Northeast, Vol. 15, edited by Bruce G. Trigger, pp. 560–568.
Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Fortier, Andrew C., Thomas E. Emerson, and Dale L. McElrath
2006 Calibrating and Reassessing American Bottom Culture History.
Southeastern Archaeology 25(2):170–211.
Gero, Joan, M.
1991 Genderlithics: Women’s Roles in Stone Tool Production. In Engen-
dering Archaeology: Women and Prehistory, edited by Joan M. Gero
and Margaret W. Conkey, pp. 163–193. Blackwell, Oxford, United
Kingdom.
Gilliland, J. Eric, and Michael J. O’Brien
2001 Stone Artifacts from Turner and Snodgrass. In Mississippian Com-
munity Organization: The Powers Phase in Southeast Missouri, edited
by Michael J. O’Brien, pp. 231–264. Plenum Press, New York.
Gould, Richard A., and Sherry Saggers
1985 Lithic Procurement in Central Australia: A Closer Look at Binford’s
Idea of Embeddedness in Archaeology. American Antiquity 50(1):117–
136.
Gramly, Richard M.
1992 Prehistoric Lithic Industry at Dover, Tennessee. Persimmon Press,
Buffalo, New York.
160 the missouri archaeologist volume 71

Halperin, Rhoda, H.
1994 Cultural Economies: Past and Present. University of Texas Press,
Austin.
Hampton, O. W. Bud
1999 Culture of Stone: Sacred and Profane Uses of Stone among the Dani.
Texas A&M University, College Station.
Johnson, Jay K.
1987 Cahokia Core Technology in Mississippi: The View from the South. In
The Organization of Core Technology, edited by Jay K. Johnson and
Carol A. Morrow, pp. 187–205. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado.
Johnson, Roy D.
1976 Time and Flint Needed to Acquire Secondary Thinning Bifacial Reduc-
tion Skills. Newsletter of Lithic Technology 5(3):26–27.
Kelly, John E.
1980 Formative Developments at Cahokia and the Adjacent American Bot-
tom: A Merrell Tract Perspective. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
Department of Anthropology, University of Wisconsin, Madison.
1984 Late Bluff Chert Utilization on the Merrell Tract, Cahokia. In Pre-
historic Chert Exploitation: Studies from the Midcontinent, edited by
Brian M. Butler and Ernest E. May, pp. 23–44. Occasional Paper No. 2.
Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University
Press, Carbondale.
1995 The Sand Prairie Phase Occupation of the Merrell Tract. Draft report
on ile at the Illinois State Museum, Springield.
1997 From the Ditch: The Anatomy of a Moorehead Phase House Complex
along Kingshighway, St. Clair County, Illinois. Draft report on ile at
Illinois State Archaeological Survey, University of Illinois, Urbana-
Champaign.
2006 The Ritualization of Cahokia: The Structure and Organization of Early
Cahokia Crafts. In Leadership and Polity in Mississippian Society,
edited by Brian M. Butler and Paul D. Welch, pp. 236–263. Occasional
Paper No. 33. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Il-
linois University Press, Carbondale.
Koldehoff, Brad
1986 Lithic Analysis. In The Bonnie Creek Site, edited by Mark J. Wagner,
pp. 145–198. Preservation Series No. 3. American Resources Group,
Carbondale.
1987 The Cahokia Flake Tool Industry: Socioeconomic Implications for Late
Prehistory in the Central Mississippi Valley. In The Organization of
Core Technology, edited by Jay K. Johnson and Carol A. Morrow, pp.
187–206. Westview Press, Boulder.
1990 Household Specialization: The Organization of Mississippian Chipped-
Stone-Tool Production. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of
Anthropology, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.
1995a Lithic Analysis. In The Sand Prairie Phase Occupation of the Merrell
exploring mississippian polity interaction and craft specialization 161

Tract, edited by John E. Kelly, pp. 40–73. Report on ile at the Illinois
State Museum, Springield.
1995b Lithics. In The Fingers and Curtiss Steinberg Road Sites: Two Stirling
Phase Mississippian Farmsteads in the Goose Lake Locality, edited
by John E. Kelly, Brad Koldehoff, and Kathryn E. Parker, pp. 41–53,
80–89. Transportation Archaeological Research Report No. 1. Depart-
ment of Anthropology, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.
1996 AG Church Site Lithics: Technology, Economy, and the Mississippian
Emergence. Illinois Archaeology 8(1–2):117–142.
1997 Lithic Analysis. In From the Ditch: The Anatomy of a Moorehead
Phase House Complex along Kingshighway, St. Clair County, Illinois,
by John E. Kelly. Report on ile at the Illinois State Archaeological
Survey, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.
2002 Appendix A: Chipped-Stone Resources of Alexander and Union Coun-
ties. In The Archaeology and History of Horseshoe Lake, Alexander
County, Illinois, edited by Brad Koldehoff and Mark J. Wagner.
Research Paper No. 60. Center for Archaeological Investigations,
Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.
2006 Appendix A: Chipped-Stone Resources of Monroe County. In Late
Woodland Frontiers: Patrick Phase Settlement along the Kaskaskia
Trail, Monroe County, Illinois, edited by Brad Koldehoff and Joseph
M. Galloy, pp. 367-376. Research Reports No. 23. Illinois Transporta-
tion Archaeological Research Program, Illinois of University, Urbana-
Champaign.
Koldehoff, Brad, and Tamira Brennan
2008 The Exploitation of Ozark Lithic Resources by Mississippians at the
Cahokia, South Cape, and Wickliffe Sites. Paper Presented at the 11th
Annual Missouri Archaeological Society Fall Symposium, Meramec
State Park, Sullivan, Missouri.
Koldehoff, Brad, and Philip J. Carr
2001 Chipped-Stone Technology: Patterns of Procurement, Production, and
Consumption. In Excavations at Wickliffe Mounds, by Kit Wesler.
Chapter 10 (CD ROM). University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Luedtke, Barbara E.
1992 An Archaeologist’s Guide to Chert and Flint. Archaeological Research
Tools No. 7. Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los
Angeles.
May, Ernest E.
1984 Prehistoric Chert Exploitation in the Shawnee Hills. In Cultural Fron-
tiers in the Upper Cache Valley, Illinois, by Veletta Canouts, Ernest E.
May, Neal H. Lopinot, and Jon D. Muller, pp. 68–90. Research Paper
No. 16. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois
University, Carbondale.
McAnany, Patricia A.
1988 The Effects of Lithic Procurement Strategies on Tool Curation and
162 the missouri archaeologist volume 71

Recycling. Lithic Technology 17(1):3–11.

1989 Stone-Tool Production and Exchange in the Eastern Maya Lowlands:
The Consumer Perspective from Pulltrouser Swamp, Belize. American
Antiquity 54(2):332–346.
1991 Structure and Dynamics of Intercommunity Exchange. In Maya
Stone Tools: Selected Papers of the Second Maya Lithic Conference,
edited by Thomas R. Hester and Harry J. Shafer, pp. 271–293.
Monographs in World Archaeology No. 1. Prehistory Press, Madison,
Wisconsin.
Milner, George R.
1984 The Julien Site (11-S-63). American Bottom Archaeology FAI-270 Site
Reports Vol. 7. University of Illinois Press, Urbana-Champaign.
1998 The Cahokia Chiefdom: The Archaeology of a Mississippian Society.
Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D. C.
Morse, Dan F., and Phyllis A. Morse
1983 Archaeology of the Central Mississippi Valley. Academic Press, New
York.
Morrow, Carol A.
1987 Blades and Cobden Chert: A Technological Argument for Their Role as
Markers of Regional Identity during the Hopewell Period in Illinois.
In The Organization of Core Technology, edited by Jay K. Johnson
and Carol A. Morrow, pp. 119–150. Westview Press, Boulder.
Muller, Jon
1987 Salt, Chert, and Shell: Mississippian Exchange and Economy. In
Specialization, Exchange, and Complex Societies, edited by Elizabeth
Brumiel and Timothy Earle, pp. 10–21. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, United Kingdom.
1997 Mississippian Political Economy. Plenum Press, New York.
Orr, Kenneth G.
1951 Appendix 2: Change at Kincaid: A Study of Cultural Dynamics. In
Kincaid: A Prehistoric Illinois Metropolis, by Fay-Cooper Cole, pp.
293–359. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Pauketat, Timothy R.
1994 The Ascent of Chiefs: Cahokia and Mississippian Politics in Native
North America. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
1997 Specialization, Political Symbols, and the Crafty Elite of Cahokia.
Southeastern Archaeology 16(1):1–15.
2004a Ancient Cahokia and the Mississippians. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, United Kingdom.
2004b The Economy of the Moment: Cultural Practices and Mississippian
Chiefdoms. In The Economy of Chiefdoms and States, edited by Gary
M. Feinman and Linda M. Nichols, pp. 25–39. University of Utah
Press, Salt Lake City.
2007 Chiefdoms and other Archaeological Delusions. Altamira Press, New
York.
exploring mississippian polity interaction and craft specialization 163

Pauketat, Timothy R., and Susan M. Alt

2004 The Making and Meaning of a Mississippian Axe-Head Cache. Antiquity
78(302):779–796.
Pollack, David, and Jimmy A. Railey
1987 Chamber 15ML109: An Upland Mississippian Village Western Kentucky.
Kentucky Heritage Council, Lexington, Kentucky.
Price, James E., and James B. Grifin
1979 The Snodgrass Site of the Powers Phase of Southeast Missouri. An-
thropological Papers No. 66. Museum of Anthropology, University of
Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Ray, Jack H.
2007 Ozarks Chipped-Stone Resources: A Guide to the Identiication, Distribu-
tion, and Prehistoric Use of Cherts and Other Siliceous Raw Materials.
Special Publications No. 8. Missouri Archaeological Society, Springield.
Sassaman, Kenneth E.
1992 Lithic Technology and Hunter-Gatherer Sexual Division of Labor. North
American Archaeologist 13(3):249–262.
Shafer, Harry J.
1983 The Lithic Artifacts of the Pulltrouser Area: Settlements and Fields. In
Pulltrouser Swamp: Ancient Maya Habitat, Agriculture, and Settlement
in Northern Belize, edited by B. L. Turner II and Peter D. Harrison, pp.
212–245. University of Texas Press, Austin.
Shelley, Phillip H.
1990 Variation in Lithic Assemblages: An Experiment. Journal of Field
Archaeology 17(2):187–191.
Smith, Kevin E., and Michael C. Moore
1999 “Through Many Hands:” Late Prehistoric Exchange in the Middle
Cumberland Valley. In Raw Materials and Exchange in the Mid-South:
Proceedings of the 16th Mid-South Archaeological Conference, edited by
Evan Peacock and Samuel O. Brookes pp. 95–115. Archaeological Report
No. 29. Mississippi Department of Archives and History, Jackson.
Teltser, Patrice A.
1991 Generalized Core Technology and Tool Use: A Mississippian Example.
Journal of Field Archaeology 18(3):363–375.
Titterington, Paul F.
1937 Flint Quarries. The Missouri Archaeologist 3(1):3–6.
Topping, Peter O., and Mark J. Lynott
2005 The Cultural Landscapes of Prehistoric Mines. Oxbow Books, Oxford,
United Kingdom.
Welch, Paul D.
2006 Archaeology at Shiloh Indian Mounds, 1899–1999. University of Ala-
bama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Wesler, Kit W.
2001 Excavations at Wickliffe Mounds. University of Alabama Press, Tus-
caloosa.
164 the missouri archaeologist volume 71

Whittaker, John C.
1994 Flintknapping: Making and Understanding Stone Tools. University
of Texas Press, Austin.
Winters, Howard D.
1981 Excavating in Museums: Notes on Mississippian Hoes and Middle
Woodland Copper Gouges and Celts. In The Research Potential of
Anthropological Museum Collections, edited by Anne-Marie Cantwell,
James B. Grifin, and Nan A. Rothschild, pp. 17–34. Annals of the New
York Academy of Sciences Vol. 376. New York.
Yerkes, Richard W.
1989 Mississippian Craft Specialization on the American Bottom. South-
eastern Archaeology 8(2):93–106.