125100 st.pdf

7/27/2019 125100 st.pdf

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/125100-stpdf 1/21

Chiefly Power and Food Storage in Southeastern North AmericaAuthor(s): Cameron B. WessonSource: World Archaeology, Vol. 31, No. 1, Food Technology in Its Social Context: Production,Processing and Storage (Jun., 1999), pp. 145-164Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/125100 .

Accessed: 07/05/2011 01:44

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=taylorfrancis. .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to World

Archaeology.

http://www.jstor.org

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

http://www.jstor.org/stable/125100?origin=JSTOR-pdf

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



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

http://www.jstor.org/stable/125100?origin=JSTOR-pdf


7/27/2019 125100 st.pdf


C h i e f l y p o w e r a n d f o o d s t o r a g e insoutheastern N o r t h A m e r i c a

Cameron B. Wesson

Abstract

Recent researchon lateprehistoric ndearlyhistoricNativeAmericansitesin southeasternNorthAmericareveals a series of changes n the natureof food storageactivities.These alterationsarerelatedto changes n sociopolitical omplexityand householdorganization, ndshedlighton the

importance f storage n the emergenceandcollapseof complex,hierarchically-rankedocieties nthisregion.It is argued hat theabilityof elitesto controlsurplusoodsandcommunal torage acil-itiesplayedamajorrole in the emergenceof chiefdoms n southeasternNorthAmerica c.AD1000),and thatthe returnof primaryood storageto individualhouseholdsduring he Protohistoric ndHistoricperiods(AD1550-1750)playedanimportantpart n theircollapse.

Keywords

Alabama;Creek;politics;households; torage

Introduction

Attempts to explain the development of social complexity in chiefdom level societies have

long stressed the role of material advantage in the emergence of hierarchical social

formations. Elite social power is seen arising out of the role of chiefs as central redistrib-

utive officials (Fried 1967:116-18; Sahlins 1958;Service 1962, 1975). These interpretationspropose that chiefs overseeing communal stores of surplus goods (particularly food

surpluses) gradually pressed these resources into service to finance not only publicventures but also their own personal aggrandizement. Although the cross-cultural import-ance of chiefly redistribution has been questioned (Earle 1987), there is ample evidence

to support the idea that in many societies, chiefs were responsible for the storage and

redistribution of surplus foods (Blitz 1993;Ingold 1983;Testart 1982). Serving in this vital

capacity grants chiefs not only control over existing food storage but also gives them the

right to call for additional periodic contributions to these stores. Earle (1977: 216) sees

these demands transcending mere redistribution, serving instead as the mobilization of

resources for chiefly use and social aggrandizement. These arguments suggest that the

WorldArchaeology Vol. 31(1): 145-164 Food Technology in its Social Context

? Routledge 1999 0043-8243

7/27/2019 125100 st.pdf


146 Cameron B. Wesson

control of surplus foods and other economic resources is an essential mechanism in the

development of social ranking in many societies.

Recent research explores alternative pathways to power for aspiring chiefs (e.g.

Carniero 1981; Earle 1987, 1991, 1997; Feinman and Neitzel 1984; Flanagan 1989; Flan-

nery 1972;Hayden 1995;Helms 1979, 1993;Johnson and Earle 1987;Sanders and Webster

1978; Upham 1990). These studies have shifted the discussion of chiefly emergence from

issues of redistribution to ideology, esoteric knowledge, prestige goods, and warfare.

Although these efforts have advanced our understanding of complex societies, the politi-cal economy is still discussed as the most stable form of power for ascendant elites (Costinand Earle 1989:691; Earle 1997:6-7, 203-5). From this materialist perspective, only after

elites install themselves in positions critical to the economic life of their communities can

they turn their attention to other means of social control (Earle 1997:203; Hayden 1995).As Earle (1997:211) states, these other 'sources of power are effectively co-opted by usingthe surplus generated from intensive agriculture to finance control over warriors and

police, craft specialists and managers, priests and ceremonies'. It is important to remem-

ber, however, that economics cannot be disembedded from social relations of authority

and the larger political economy.

Attempts by the elites to gain social power through the manipulation of the economy,

ideology, or any other means would not have gone unchallenged. Non-elites and other

aspiring elites most certainly would have played a significant role in the sociopolitical

development of these societies. None the less, most attempts to explain the emergence of

chiefdoms proceed from the assumption that the roots of social complexity are to be found

in the efforts of highly motivated, aggressive,individual

entrepreneurs,or

'aggrandizers'(see Clark and Blake 1994;Hayden 1995). These studies do not directly address non-elite

actions in response to emergent inequalities, the implication being that non-elites are

either unaware that the fruits of their labor are being siphoned off to support elite aspir-

ations (they are complicitors in the process of social differentiation), or they are power-

less to stop the growing social distance between themselves and elites. Morton Fried's

(1967: 183) contention that non-elites played a minimal role in the development of social

ranking, and that the events leading to hierarchical society 'passed without notice until

they were fully accomplished' best represents such views.

The rise of social complexity in southeastern North America, as in other world areas, is

thought to coincide with the intensification of agriculturalproduction, in particularthe culti-vation of maize (Smith 1989). Several scholarspropose that the intensification of maize agri-

culture was the causal factor in the development of southeastern chiefdoms (Caldwell 1958;

Griffin1952); a view consistent with the idea that social rankingis dependent on the ability

to produce food surpluses (Fried 1967: 111-12). Agricultural intensification would have

radicallyaltered existing relations of production in non-hierarchicalsoutheastern societies,

making it highly unlikely that the producers of this surplus (primarily non-elites) would

have been unaware of its existence, or its use by elites to augment their own social positions.

The production of agriculturalsurpluses and the expansion of elite sociopolitical power

would have been visible processes; they would have necessitated changes in the storage and

distribution of surplus foods that would have been apparent to even the most non-astutesocial actors. Attempts to model the development of complex society must take into

accountnot only the actions of those desirous of increasingtheir social power, but also those

7/27/2019 125100 st.pdf


Chieflypower and food storage in southeastern North America 147

lacking such aspirations.We must resist the urge to reserve culturalcausality for elites, and

instead see the development of sociopolitical complexity as the result of a multi-causal

process of negotiation that included all members of society.

Symbolic capital and prestige goods economies

Wealth, the ultimate basis of power, can exert power, and exert it durably, only in the

form of symbolic capital, the unrecognizable, and hence socially recognizable, form of

the other kinds of capital. Their chief is indeed, in Malinowski's phrase, a 'tribal

banker', amassing food only to lavish it on others, in order to build up a capital of obli-

gations and debts which will be repaid in the form of homage, respect, loyalty, and when

the opportunity arises, work and services, which may be the bases of a new accumu-

lation of material goods.

(Bourdieu 1977: 195)

Our understandingof sociopolitical developments in hierarchicallyranked societies can

be advanced throughBourdieu's (1977) concept of symbolic capital. Symbolic capital is the

cultural value that derives from the ability to manipulate resources and social relations for

the advancement of one's honor and prestige. Bourdieu (1977: 179-80) views the ability to

convert material goods into symbolic capital as more socially valuable than the simple

ownership of these items. Thus, building one's symbolic capital demands not the hoardingof resources, but their dispersal, symbolic destruction, or consumption. However, as

Hayden (1995: 69) points out, 'the mere act of giving wealth away by itself does not resultin increased power for the giver.To be effective, wealth must be given away in contexts that

generate recognized andbinding obligations or other expected practicalbenefits.'Archaeo-

logical evidence and ethnohistorical documents from southeastern North America indicate

that social strategieswere in place that favored gift giving and competitive feasting in order

to solidify social alliances and generate symbolic capital. Such practices set the stage for the

development of social rankingin southeastern North America.

Recent explorations of the development of sociopolitical complexity in the southeast

have focused on the role of elites in the control of prestige goods economies (Anderson1990, 1994; Barker 1992; Brown et al. 1990; Muller 1997; Nassaney 1992; Pauketat 1992,

1994;Peregrine 1992;Rogers 1996;Scarry1990,1996; Smith 1990;Steponaitis 1991;Welch1991, 1996). Prestige goods economies are systems in which elite political power is

advanced through the control of resources that are available only through external trade

(Frankenstein and Rowlands 1978: 76). Prestige goods are considered valuable because

they symbolize other-worldly authority, making them powerful representations of social

power (sacra) and non-local contacts (Helms 1979, 1988, 1992, 1993; Knight 1986, 1990;Pauketat 1994; Peregrine 1992). Through their manipulation by elites, prestige goodsbecome essential components of ideologies that support elite social aggrandizement

(Knight 1985;Steponaitis 1986;Waselkov 1993). These items usually are not hoarded (i.e.

commodified), but are used by elites to establish and strengthen social alliances through

gift giving and trade. Thus, prestige goods systems produce symbolic capital through theconversion of material goods into social networks. The greater the investment of material

resources in a social exchange, the greater the potential for increased symbolic capital for

7/27/2019 125100 st.pdf



those offering these goods. What is ultimately accumulated is not the material, but 'a

capital of honour and prestige' (Bourdieu 1977: 179). Those who play the game well are

rewarded with increased social prestige and a clientele who are often both literally and

figuratively in their debt.

When individuals and/or lineages can successfully control access to prestige goods and

convert them into symbolic capital, their social power expands (Helms 1988, 1993;Kleppe

1989). In most cases, however, they are not the game's only players. Other individuals or

social groups are engaged in similar activities, attempting to improve their stock of

symbolic capital as well. Frankenstein and Rowlands (1978: 76) state that

[social] groups are linked to each other through the competitive exchange of wealth

objects as gifts in feasting in continuous cycles of status rivalry.Descent groups repro-

duce themselves in opposition to each other as their leaders compete for dominance

through differential access to resources and power.

Due to a critical lack of sufficient economic resources and/or previously developed

symbolic capital, the assets necessary to engage in such interactions are often well beyond

the capacity of most members of society. Since symbolic capital distributes power

unequally, those who have already amassed considerable wealth and prestige can afford

to engage in the competitive cultivation of symbolic capital to a greater degree than their

social rivals (Bourdieu 1977: 52, 67-8).

But where do the resources necessary to compete in these lineage-based struggles for

symbolic capital originate? In southeastern North America, the control of surplus food-

stuffs appears to have provided much of the ammunition (symbolic capital) necessary forthese 'status wars'. Thispaper examines the relationship between sociopolitical power and

food storage in the late prehistoric and early historic Native American cultures of south-

eastern North America, using archaeological data from Muskogee Creek households in

the present-day state of Alabama. Although the control of food storage has been argued

by Hayden (1995: 73-4) to play a minor role in the evolution of social ranking, stored

foods would have provided an unparalleled opportunity for the political manipulation of

surplus for the advancement of elite hegemony. Through the analysis of archaeological

data and ethnohistorical documents, we can examine long-term developments in food

storage practices and their relationship to the expansion and contraction of chiefly power

in the southeast. Due to the abundant documentation for the historical cultures of thesoutheast, these well-known groups provide rich analogies for groups from the previous

Mississippian era (Blitz 1993:10;Howard 1968;Hudson 1976;Swanton 1946). An examin-

ation of the political economy makes it possible to reveal strategies for social aggran-

dizement that may have originally brought southeastern elites to prominence during the

Mississippian Period. In addition, if the archaeological correlates of these actions can be

identified, our understanding of sociopolitical activity can be dramatically improved.

Food storage in southeastern North America

The best evidence for sociopolitical complexity in the southeast is found at sites dating to

the Mississippian Period (c. AD 900-1550). During this time, much of the region came

7/27/2019 125100 st.pdf



under the rule of paramount elites who controlled vast territories and large populations,

uniting them into potent, complex chiefdoms. The most powerful of these elites is believed

to have governed a polity extending over 200 miles in length along major southeastern

river systems (DePratter et al. 1983; Hally et al. 1990; Hudson et al. 1985, 1987). It was

these societies that the earliest European explorers encountered in the interior southeast,and written accounts of these meetings demonstrate the importance of chiefs (Biedema

1968; Elvas 1968; Ranjel 1904). The power of these elites included the ability to control

external trade, raise armies and conduct warfare, oversee the construction of monumental

earthen architecture, demand tribute, and control food surpluses (Smith and Hally 1992;Swanton 1946).

Documentary evidence from the earliest Spanish contacts with southeastern peoplesindicates that food storage was a public activity, with chiefs controlling the use and distri-

bution of stored foods. Chronicles of the Hernando de Sotoexpedition (AD 1539-43),

the

earliest to penetrate the interior southeast, indicate that food was stored in large granaries

(called barbacoas by the Spanish), under the direct control of chiefs (Swanton 1946:

372-9). As Robertson (1993: 75) states,

They have barbacoas in which they keep their maize. This is a house raised up on four

posts, timbered like a loft and the floor of cane ... [Around] the houses of the lords or

principal men ... [are] many large barbacoas in which they gather together the tribute

paid them by their Indians.

Food from these stores was used to provision de Soto and his party (Elvas 1968; Ranjel

1904;Swanton 1922), suggesting that comestibles were used to establish alliances not onlywithin Native American communities, but in their dealings with the Spanish as well (Rees1997;Smith and Hally 1992:102;Swanton 1922:371). Muller (1997: 92) calculates that one

of the smaller towns visited by the de Soto expedition was able to provision the Spanish

with two to three metric tons of maize, indicating that even small villages were capable of

producing and storing large food surpluses. Ward (1985: 98) suggests that these storage

facilities functioned much like the Trobriandyam houses described by Malinowski (1961),with the conspicuous display of surplus foods demonstrating the wealth and social status

of those controlling these facilities.

Archaeological evidence also supports the idea that food storage was a communal

activity. Mississippian societies usually lack household food storage facilities, indicating apreference for large, community-based facilities. This is particularly true in the largest

Mississippiancenters such as Cahokia (DeBoer 1988;Emerson 1997), Angel (Black 1967),

Kincaid (Cole et al. 1951;Muller 1978), and Moundville (Welch cited in DeBoer 1988: 9),where household-based subterranean food storage is virtually unknown. However, priorto the Mississippian Period, there is little evidence for the communal storage of surplusfoods. In fact, archaeological data from occupations immediately prior to the Mississip-

pian emergence (c. AD 900) indicate that the majority of food storage was accommodated

within individual households (DeBoer 1988; Dickens 1985; Ward 1985). Large, subter-

ranean storage facilities are common in domestic structures from these pre-Mississippian,

Late Woodland Period sites, some of which demonstrate extremely large capacities(exceeding 1.5 m3) (DeBoer 1988;Ward 1985).

During the Protohistoric and Historic periods, archaeological and documentary evidence

7/27/2019 125100 st.pdf



indicates that food storage continued to alternate, with communal storage giving way to

household-based storage. These changes in storage practices, like those occurring duringthe

MississippianPeriod, have

implicationsfor the nature of

chiefly power,and the role of

individuals, households, and other small-scale social groups in the production of politicalculture. The Muskogee Creek provide a specific example of continued changes in storage

practices that both resulted from, and played a role in, the erosion of traditional chiefly

power.

Food storage among the Creek

The Creek were a sedentary agricultural society occupying central portions of the present-

day states of Alabama and Georgia (Fig. 1). Composed of a confederacy of powerful

Muskogean chiefdoms and several other ethnic groups, including portions of theShawnee, Yuchi, Alabama, and Natchez, the Creek were one of the most powerful south-

eastern Native American groups (Corkran 1967: 4; Hawkins 1848: 14; Martin 1991;Swanton 1922;Wright 1986). Archaeological research indicates a strong link between the

Figure1 Area of Creekoccupationn southeasternNorth America.

7/27/2019 125100 st.pdf


Chiefly power and food storage in southeasternNorth America 151

historic Creek and prehistoric Mississippian groups in the region (Fairbanks 1952, 1958;

Hally 1994; Kelly 1938; Knight 1985, 1994a, 1994b; Mason 1963; Moore 1994; H. Smith

1973;Williams and Shapiro 1990), and linguistic evidence suggests that several of the para-mount chiefdoms encountered by the de Soto expedition were themselves MuskogeeCreek (Hudson 1976; Moore 1994; Swanton 1928, 1946). The Muskogee are traditional

sources of analogies for Mississippian societies, and have helped establish widely acceptednotions of Mississippian culture (Howard 1968; Knight 1981, 1986, 1990; Moore 1994;Swanton 1922, 1928;Waring 1968;Waringand Holder 1945).

Recent archaeological research at the Creek site of Fusihatchee on the TallapoosaRiver in Central Alabama (Fig. 1) has yielded the most complete information to date on

Creek village life. Fusihatchee is important because it provides the first comprehensivedata on Creek domestic structures, burials, and community structure, and because occu-

pationlasted

throughoutthe Protohistoric and Historic

periods, yieldingexcellent

diachronic data on household organization and food storage practices. The earliest

evidence of a Creek presence at Fusihatchee is from the Protohistoric Atasi phase (AD

1550-1715), with continuous occupation until the middle of the Historic Tallapoosa phase

(AD 1715-1832). Historical records indicate that Fusihatchee was abandoned after being

destroyed by Andrew Jackson's forces during the First Creek War of 1813-14 (Swanton

1928).

Analysis of Atasi phase domestic structures from Fusihatchee indicates limited house-

hold-based food storage facilities, with the majority of domestic structures lackingevidence of food storage (Fig. 2). These structures show little evidence of sub-surface

storage features, suggesting that foods were most probably stored in above ground cribs(i.e. the barbacoas described by the Spanish). The few Atasi phase storage features

encountered at Fusihatchee are very small in size (Fig. 3), with these shallow, dish-

shaped basins averaging only 0.17 m3 in volume (Fig. 4). The earliest accounts of Creek

villages indicate that cribs for food storage were common, but most descriptions placethem near elite residential compounds (Bartram 1958: 122-3; Bourne 1904: I: 53;

Robertson 1993: 75). The limited number and size of subterranean storage features in

Atasi phase domestic structures suggests that, as early accounts indicate, protohistoric

Creek chiefs continued to control communal food storage facilities much as their Missis-

sippian predecessors had.

Food storage facilities in the subsequent Tallapoosa phase domestic structures atFusihatchee reveal a very different pattern. Analysis of these structuresindicates an abun-

dance of household food storage features (Fig. 5). Unlike their small Atasi phase coun-

terparts, Tallapoosa phase storage pits are usually large bell-shaped pits (Fig. 3), averaging0.59 m3 in size, with some exceeding 1.70 m3 (Fig. 4). Both the increased number, and

larger sizes of food storage features represent a dramatic change in the nature of food

storage activities from the Atasi phase to the Tallapoosa phase. Such changes indicate the

increasing importance of subterranean household-based food storage facilities, and

suggest a possible transition from communal to individual household storage during the

Protohistoric and Historic periods.

Differences in household storage patterns between the Atasi and Tallapoosa phasescoincide with changes in the architectural form and size of domestic structures (Wesson

1997), and with a dispersal of households across the landscape, away from nucleated

7/27/2019 125100 st.pdf



Figure 2 Examples of

r. . -/ r-~- Atasi Phase domestic

XcO^i,?~~~O XI.J.j/^* structures romFusihat-

:cT.0'~o7 fchee.".C

l.~~0\. 0 meters 10

Y :y 'Posts ?

Features (

Structure Limit

villages (Ashley 1988). This pattern of change indicates a reduction in the size of domes-

tic structures and, presumably, a decline in the number of individuals living under the

same roof. These changes would have necessitated reorganization of household activities,

and a shift in the household's importance for the Creek. These changes are best under-stood when viewed in concert with similar changes that occurred during the Mississippian

emergence.The spatial structure of communities changes duringthe MississippianPeriod, with data

indicating that villages became increasingly nucleated (Bareis and Porter 1984: 156;Pauketat and Lopinot 1997). This evidence suggests not only increased population densi-

ties, but also the development of new modes of food storage for Mississippian peoples.Without storage pits, primaryfood storage for Mississippian peoples shifted to the above-

ground granariesmentioned in early historical accounts. The shift from subterranean food

storage facilities to public granaries has important implications for the organization of

surplus, household production, and the nature of social and political relations.Attempts by dominant groups to gain (or maintain) power or control over others, are

often countered by alternative ideologies that promote both active and symbolic resistance

7/27/2019 125100 st.pdf



/B

APlan

Figure 3 Examples of Atasiand Tallapoosa phase food

storage eatures.

Profile

Atasi Phase

B

A

N,

A

Plan

B

Profile

TallapoosaPhase

to this domination (Bourdieu 1977;Beaudry et al. 1991;Giddens 1995:50; McGuire 1992;McGuire and Paynter 1991). Such actions are often reflected in household remains, and

recent research in southeastern North America indicates the significanceof households to

the understanding of sociopolitical processes (Mehrer and Collins 1995; Pauketat 1994;

Rogers 1995;Scarry 1995;Smith 1995; Sullivan 1995;Wesson 1997;Williams 1995). Clan-

destine subterranean storage is an effective means of removing surplus foods from public

display, reserving these surpluses for household use (DeBoer 1988). Visible surpluses

cannot be effectively hidden from the knowledge of others, and such stores would be trou-blesome to households if they promoted excessive 'freeloading' by non-household

members (Hayden 1995: 28-9). However, the successful manipulation of food surpluseswould lead to the creation of new modes of economic exchange, and new possibilities for

the cultivation of symbolic capital and political advantage.Previous research (summarizedin DeBoer 1988:9-10) indicates that, as elites begin their

rise to power in the American Bottom region, two patterns of food storage emerge: sites in

close proximity to Cahokia show decreased subterranean household storage, while those

at some distance from the center show dramatic increases in both the number and size of

subterranean food storage facilities. This led DeBoer (1988: 10) to conclude that these

actions represent the conscription of surplus foods by the elites of Cahokia, with distantvillages and farmsteads 'resist[ing] the expropriation of their goods and labor' by these

elites. Food surpluses at sites closer to Cahokia were stored in large, communal granaries,

A -B...i .. . . . .

:-:-i(i-i

iid L

i:,l- i: E::

* TE

ED: ":

tEEE

. :::

iS

:,.

E E

:-.!EE

* .E .

\

::i

) E E *E d , E E i

*:-i

Xi

5E

E i i* EE . . E S i

7/27/2019 125100 st.pdf



Figure 4 Examples of Talla-

./?9 ,o Q/ poosa Phase domestic struc-

:0--^- B~e,, M/ .--tures from Fusihatchee.

0 meters 10 N

Posts

?.o KY~Bb "Features

Storage Pits

StructureLimit

under the direct supervision of chiefs, conforming to the description of chiefs as redistrib-

utors (Fried 1967;Malinowski 1935;Service 1962). Under such circumstances, namely the

institutionalization of social ranking, DeBoer (1988: 8-9) contends that, 'There is nomystery to the absences of subterranean storage in such circumstances.It is expected.'

Attempts to account for these divergent storage practices have focused on the increased

productivity made possible by intensive maize cultivation and the transition to year-roundsedentism (see DeBoer 1988; Ward 1985). These surpluses resulted from the intensifica-

tion of agricultural production that occurred in the southeast at around AD 1000. Although

archaeologists have usually discussed the production of surplus in terms of maize alone,

Lopinot (1997) suggests that this intensification included starchy seed plants and other

domesticated plant species. DeBoer (1988:2) suggests that household-based subterranean

storage is most effective when people are seasonally mobile or when they desire to conceal

resources from invaders or members of their own community. Thus, the transition fromindividual household-based subterranean storage to above-ground communal storage

suggests either a new commitment to year-round sedentism, the introduction of new

7/27/2019 125100 st.pdf



u./

0.6-

0.5 ----

0.4 .-------------------------

E 0.3-

0.2-

Figure5 Comparison f Atasiand Tallapoosa phase food

storage features. The upper

figure is a chart illustratingaverage sizes of storagefeatures for eachphase,whilethe lower figureis a box-plotrepresenting he variability n

storage eature sizeby phase.

0.1-

0

Atasi Tallapoosa

ARCHAEOLOGICALHASES

IAtasiPhase| I

ITallapoosa hasel I * *

0.0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0

subsistence practices, the emergence of a new social order, or a combination of these

actions (DeBoer 1988: 9; Ward 1985: 99-100). Recent evidence indicates that sedentism

and intensive agriculture pre-date the Mississippian emergence (Johannessen 1993;Scarry

1993;Smith 1992), suggesting that these may not have been the most important factors inthe transition from household to communal food storage. Therefore, the possibility that

storage played a significantrole in, or is a reflection of, the development of new social and

political practices must be examined.

Chiefly power, symbolic capital, and food storage

Ward (1985), Dickens (1985), and DeBoer (1988) demonstrate that pre-Mississippian,Late Woodland Period storage practices were reliant on household-based subterranean

food storage features. During the Early Mississippian period these features decrease infrequency, until they disappear from most large Mississippian sites. During the Protohis-

toric and Historic periods, these subterranean domestic storage features reappear, with

7/27/2019 125100 st.pdf



increases in both the number and size of subterranean food storage facilities throughout

these periods.

But what forces encouraged individual households to abandon subterranean storage

and surrender control of their food surpluses to chiefs? I believe the answer is to be found

in the emergence of prestige goods economies and the asymmetrical cultivation of

symbolic capital. The earliest granaries would not have been communal facilities under

the control of paramount chiefs, but would have been used for the organization of food

surpluses within extended family groups. These resources would have been used to meet

not only the subsistence needs of these groups, but would have provided surpluses which

could then be used for trade, gift giving and feasting; these activities were specifically

designed to expand the group's symbolic capital. As Hayden (1995: 59) suggests, the use

of such surpluses for the cultivation of social position by extended families would have

giventhese

groupsan

advantageover those

attemptingto control their resources inde-

pendently. Once a group firmly established its superiority in such alliance building, it

could then afford to invest more of its resources into cultivating additional relationships

(Bourdieu 1977: 52; Sahlins 1963: 300). As Bourdieu (1977: 52) states,

It is logical that the higher a group is placed in the social hierarchy and hence the richer

it is in official relationships, the greater the proportion of its work or reproduction that

is devoted to reproducing social relationships, whereas poor relations who have little

to spend on solemnities, can make do with the ordinary marriages that practical kinship

ensures them.

It is from such successful groups that social leaders are believed to have emerged. Theseemerging inequalities ultimately sparked the development of social ranking and the insti-

tutionalization of political office.

Along with the symbolic capital accumulated through trade, competitive feasting, and

gift giving, prestige goods were another means of cultivating symbolic capital. Elite

control, display, and exchange of these goods reinforced existing social and political hier-

archies and established new social relationships (Pauketat 1994; Peregrine 1992; Sahlins

1963). Such interactions enabled southeastern elites to amass considerable power, and

gave rise to social ideologies promoting elite hegemony as central to cultural continuity.

As Peregrine (1992: 7) states, these developments were made possible because 'indi-

viduals ... intensified production to support their elites in competitive exchanges withothers so that they would have had access to prestige goods, and hence a better oppor-

tunity to socially reproduce themselves at acceptable levels'. Although there is status and

increased rank to be won through expanding one's social networks, the quest for prestige

goods and symbolic capital is not free of pitfalls. In every exchange the players run the

risk of losing material goods as well as a portion of their existing symbolic capital. Such

risk causes symbolic capital to fluctuate between social groups and individuals, with

fortunes rising and falling with each exchange (Bourdieu 1977: 56-8, 67-8).

Challenges to elite control of socially desirable goods would have been an ever-present

threat from both internal and external sources. Certain members of society, secondary

elites in particular, would have been tempted to circumvent elite control of trade in

attempts to build both economic and social capital for themselves and their kin. Such

actions would arguably have been present from the initial moments of social ranking. To

7/27/2019 125100 st.pdf



present reconstructions of past cultural actors without such abilities would be, as Archer

(1996: 9) states, to deny 'the readiness of opportunistic gurus, ambitious younger sons or

disgruntled minorities to capitalize on cultural ambiguities and discontinuities which

would advance their ambitions'. Gellner (1974: 143-4) argues that the failure to consider

factional competition in social exchanges presents culture as if 'there can be no

syncretism, no doctrinal pluralism, no deep treason, no dramatic conversion or doctrinal

oscillation, no holding of alternative belief systems up one's sleeve, ready for the oppor-tune moment of betrayal'. These threats would have presented considerable challengesto elite aspirations, and may account for other means of displaying and maintaining elite

hegemony such as monumental earthen architecture, elaborate funerary offerings, and

military fortifications.

Anderson (1990, 1994, 1996a, 1996b) has demonstrated that southeastern chiefdoms

were inherently unstable social formations, experiencing constant fluctuations in social

complexity, and oscillating between periods of expansion, collapse, and reconstitution.

Much of the cycling identified by Anderson and others (Blitz 1993;Hally 1996;Williams

and Shapiro 1996) can be tied to fluctuations in elite control of prestige goods and stocks

of symbolic capital. With political fortunes rising and falling, southeastern chiefdoms

would have been far from stable, with factional competition and chiefly cycling being

integral components of the developmental history of all southeastern chiefdoms. If chiefly

power were financed largely through the control of food surpluses, then efforts to hide

foods from the knowledge of chiefs within subterranean storage facilities would have

represented significant challenges to continued elite hegemony. As DeBoer (1988: 14)

argues, 'subterranean storage is ... a powerful signal of resistance to a new social orderin which such inequality might be imposed by human elites, superhuman gods, or some

holy coalition between the two'.

Viewed from the perspective of prestige goods and symbolic capital, the relationshipbetween food storage and chiefly power can be understood as a competitive process where

surpluses were mobilized to advance elite interests. The decrease in the number and size

of subterranean storage facilities in Mississippian centers during the height of elite poweris a strong indication of elite control over food surpluses, while contemporary increases

in these features in hinterland villages denotes resistance to tribute payments and/or elite

confiscation. During the Protohistoric and Historic periods, the re-emergence of subter-

ranean storage features implies opposition to the chiefly role as redistributor. Forexample, Bartram (1958: 122-3) indicates that contributions to communal granaries were

no longer compulsory, but 'recommended'. Such changes in traditional sources of chiefly

prerogative threatened the role of chiefs as central redistributive officials and the nature

of social power in southeastern society. Increased household-based storage of foods

together with decreased contributions to communal stores became powerful forms of

resistance to the power of social elites. Reliance on household food reserves placed a

premium on domestic relations in subsistence activities, as individuals chose to forgo long-

standing mechanisms of elite controlled centralized redistribution. Such actions rein-

forced the importance of the domestic economy, and became the basis for the

advancement of the household's status.Archaeological data from the Creek site of Fusihatchee provides evidence of the

relationship between food storage, prestige goods, symbolic capital, and the collapse of

7/27/2019 125100 st.pdf



traditional avenues of chiefly power in southeastern North America. One of the inherent

problems of prestige goods economies concerns the control of the number of these goods

circulatingin a society at any one time (Helms 1979, 1988, 1992, 1993;Kleppe 1989;Pauke-

tat 1994; Peregrine 1992). Increases in the number of these goods circulating in societythreatens elite power since more of these goods are available to social competitors

(Anderson 1994;Friedman 1982;Kleppe 1989). Alliances with those who control prestige

goods are not required if all individuals have unrestricted access to them (Peregrine 1992:

31). Evidence from Fusihatchee indicates that during the Historic Period, along with an

increase in subterranean food storage, individual Creek households had greater access to

prestige goods through direct trade with Euroamericans instead of their chiefs (Wesson

1997). Ultimately, social power became tied to the control of large numbers of Euro-

american prestige goods rather than through traditional means of accumulating social

power (Knight1985:

175-9).This transition suggests that

duringthe Historic Period social

positions were negotiated through consensus rather than coercion (Beaudry et al. 1991:

165).

Food storage practiceshave the potential to yield important informationnot only on diet,subsistence strategies, and environment, but also hold the potential to improve our under-

standing of largersocial and culturalprocesses. Farfrom being an isolated culturalactivity,food storage is embedded in largernetworks of social meaning. In complex societies, indi-

viduals and social groups vie for control of food surpluses and compete for symbolic capitalin an effort to advance their own social interests. Through the analysis of archaeologicaland ethnohistorical data from southeastern North America, food storage is demonstrated

to have played an active role in the negotiation of social ranking and political power.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Mark Rees and Ross Hassig for their helpful suggestions during the

preparation of this manuscript. I would particularlylike to acknowledge the many insight-ful comments of Marla Aviles and Jose Oliver. Maria and Jose have not only improvedthe present manuscript, their reviews have raised important theoretical considerations

that will influence my future efforts as well. The assistance of John Cottier, CraigSheldon,

Greg Waselkov, and R. Barry Lewis is also gratefully acknowledged. Any errors in factor interpretation are solely those of the author.

Department of Anthropology

Universityof Oklahoma

References

Anderson,D. G. 1990.Stabilityandchange n chiefdom-level ocieties:an examinationof Missis-sippian political evolution on the South Atlantic slope. In LamarArchaeology:MississippianChiefdomsn theDeepSouth(edsM. Williamsand G.Shapiro).Tuscaloosa:Universityof Alabama

Press,pp. 187-213.

7/27/2019 125100 st.pdf


Chiefly power and food storage in southeastern North America 159

Anderson, D. G. 1994. Factional competition and the political evolution of Mississippian chiefdomsin the Southeastern United States. In Factional Competition and Political Development in the New

World (eds E. M. Brumfield and J. W. Fox). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 61-76.

Anderson, D. G. 1996a. Chiefly cycling and large scale abandonments as viewed from the SavannahRiver Basin. In Political Structure and Change in the Southeastern United States (ed. J. F. Scarry).Gainesville: University Press of Florida, pp. 150-91.

Anderson, D. G. 1996b. Fluctuations between simple and complex chiefdoms: cycling in the late

prehistoric southeast. In Political Structureand Change in the PrehistoricSoutheastern United States

(ed. J. F. Scarry). Gainesville: University Press of Florida, pp. 231-52.

Archer, M. S. 1996. Culture and Agency: The Place of Culture in Social Theory. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Ashley, K. H. 1988. Effects of European and American colonization of the southeast on UpperCreek settlement patterns: 1700-1800. MA thesis, Department of Anthropology, Florida State

University.

Bareis, C. J. and Porter, J. W. 1984. American Bottom Archaeology. Urbana: University of Illinois

Press.

Barker, A. W. 1992. Powhatan's pursestrings:on the meaning of surplus in a seventeenth-century

Algonkian chiefdom. In Lords of the Southeast: Social Inequality and the Native Elites of South-

eastern North America (eds A. W. Barker and T. R. Pauketat). Washington, DC: American

Anthropological Association, pp. 61-80.

Bartram, W. 1958. The Travelsof William Bartram (ed. F. Harper). New Haven: Yale UniversityPress.

Beaudry, M. C., Cooke, L. J. and Mrozowski, S. A. 1991.Artifacts and active voices: material culture

as social discourse. In The Archaeology of Inequality (eds R. H. McGuire and R. Paynter).Cambridge:Basil Blackwell, pp. 150-91.

Biedema, L. H. 1968. Relation of Biedema. In Narratives of De Soto (ed. B. Smith). Gainesville:

Palmetto Books, pp. 229-61.

Black, G. A. 1967. Angel Site: An Archaeological, Historical, and Ethnological Analysis. Indi-

anapolis: Indiana Historical Society.

Blitz, J. H. 1993. Ancient Chiefdoms of the Tombigbee.Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.

Bourdieu, P. 1977. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Bourne, E. G. 1904. Narrativesof the Careerof Hernando de Soto. 2 vols. New York: Allerton.

Brown, J.A., Kerbert, R. A. and Winters, H. D. 1990. Tradeand the evolution of exchange relationsat the beginning of the Mississippian Period. In The Mississippian Emergence (ed. B. D. Smith).

Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press, pp. 251-80.

Caldwell, J. R. 1958. Trend and Traditionin the Prehistory of the Eastern United States. American

Anthropological Association Memoir, 88. Washington, DC: American Anthropological Associ-

ation.

Carneiro, R. L. 1981. The chiefdom: precursor to the state. In Transitionsto Statehood in the NewWorld (eds G. Jones and R. Kantz). Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, pp. 37-79.

Clark,J. E. and Blake, M. 1994. The power of prestige: competitive generosity and the emergenceof rank societies in lowland Mesoamerica. In Factional Competition and Political Development in

the New World (eds E. M. Brumfiel and J. W. Fox). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.17-30.

Cole, F. C., Bell, R., Bennett, J., Caldwell, J.,Emerson, N., McNeish, R., Orr, K. and Willis, R. 1951.Kincaid:A Prehistoric Illinois Metropolis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

7/27/2019 125100 st.pdf



Corkran, D. H. 1967. The CreekFrontier,1540-1783. Norman:University of Oklahoma Press.

Costin, C. L. and Earle, T. K. 1989. Status distinction and legitimization as reflected in changing

patterns of consumption in late prehistoric Peru. American Antiquity, 54: 691-714.

DeBoer, W. R. 1988. Subterranean storage and the organization of surplus:the view from Eastern

North America. SoutheasternArchaeology, 7: 1-20.

DePratter, C., Hudson, C. M. and Smith, M. T. 1983. The route of Juan Pardo'sexplorations in the

interior southeast, 1566-1568. FloridaHistorical Quarterly,62: 125-58.

Dickens, R. S. 1985. The form, function, and formation of garbage-filledpits on southeastern abor-

iginal sites: an archaeobotanical analysis. In Structureand Process in SoutheasternArchaeology (edsR. S. Dickens and H. T. Ward). Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, pp. 34-59.

Earle, T. K. 1977. A reappraisal of redistribution: complex Hawaiian chiefdoms. In Exchange

Systems in Prehistory (eds T. K. Earle and J. E. Ericson). New York: Academic Press, pp. 213-29.

Earle, T. K. 1987. Specialization and the production of wealth: Hawaiian chiefdoms and the Inka.

In Specialization, Exchange, and Complex Societies (eds E. Brumfiel and T. Earle). Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, pp. 64-75.

Earle, T. K. 1991. The evolution of chiefdoms. In Chiefdoms:Power, Economy, and Ideology (ed.T. K. Earle). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 3-41.

Earle, T. K. 1997. How Chiefs Come to Power: The Political Economy in Prehistory. Stanford:

Stanford University Press.

Elvas, G. 1968. Relation of the Gentleman of Elvas. In Narratives of De Soto (ed. B. Smith).Gainesville: Palmetto Books, pp. 5-203.

Emerson, T. E. 1997. Cahokia and theArchaeology of Power. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama

Press.

Fairbanks, C. H. 1952. Creek and pre-Creek. In Archaeology of Eastern United States (ed. J. B.

Griffin). Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 285-300.

Fairbanks, C. H. 1958. Some problems of the origins of Creek pottery. Florida Anthropologist, 11:

53-64.

Feinman, G. M. and Neitzel, J. 1984. Too many types: an overview of sedentary prestate societies

in the Americas. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 7 (ed. M. B. Schiffer).New York: Academic Press, pp. 39-102.

Flanagan, J. 1989. Hierarchy in simple 'egalitarian' societies. Annual Review of Anthropology, 18:

245-66.

Flannery, K. V. 1972. The cultural evolution of civilization. Annual Reviewof Ecology and System-

atics, 3: 339-426.

Frankenstein, S. and Rowlands, M. 1978. The internal structure and regional context of early Iron

Age society in South-Western Germany. Bulletin of the Institute of Archaeology of London, 15:

73-112.

Fried, M. H. 1967. The Evolution of Political Society. New York: Random House.

Friedman, J. A. 1982. Catastrophe and continuity in social evolution. In Theory and Explanation in

Archaeology: The Southampton Conference (eds C. Renfew, M. J. Rowlands and B. A. Seagraves).New York: Academic Press, pp. 175-96.

Gellner, E. 1974. Legitimation of Belief. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Giddens, A. 1995. A Contemporary Critique of Historical Materialism. Stanford: Stanford

University Press.

7/27/2019 125100 st.pdf



Griffin,J. B. 1952. Cultureperiods in Eastern United States archaeology. In Archaeology of EasternUnited States (ed. J. B. Griffin). Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 352-64.

Hally, D. J. 1994. An overview of Lamar culture. In Ocmulgee Archaeology, 1936-1986 (ed. D. J.Hally). Athens: University of Georgia Press, pp. 144-74.

Hally, D. J. 1996. Platform-mound construction and the instability of Mississippian chiefdoms. In

Political Structure and Change in the Prehistoric United States (ed. J. F. Scarry). Gainesville:

University of Florida Press, pp. 92-127.

Hally, D. J., Smith, M. T. and Langford, J. 1990. The archaeological reality of De Soto's Coosa. In

Columbian Consequences Volume II, Archaeological and Historical Perspectives on the SpanishBorderlands East (ed. D. H. Thomas). Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 121-38.

Hawkins, B. 1848. A Sketch of the Creek Country in the Years1798 and 1799. New York: Krauss

Reprints [1971].

Hayden, B. 1995. Pathways to power: principles for creating socioeconomic inequalities. In Foun-dations of Social Inequality (eds T. D. Price and G. M. Feinman). New York: Plenum Press, pp.15-86.

Helms, M. W. 1979. Ancient Panama: Chiefs in Search of Power. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Helms, M. W. 1988. Ulysses' Sail. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Helms, M. W. 1992. Long-distance contacts, elite aspirations, and the age of discovery in cosmo-

logical context. In Resources, Power, and InterregionalInteraction (eds E. M. Schortrnan and P. A.

Urban). New York: Plenum Press, pp. 157-74.

Helms, M. W. 1993. Craftand the Kingly Ideal. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Howard, J. H. 1968. The Southeastern Ceremonial Complex and its Interpretation. Columbia:

Missouri Archaeological Society.

Hudson, C. 1976. The Southeastern Indians. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press.

Hudson, C. M., Smith, M. T., Hally, D. J.,Polhemus, R. and DePratter, C. B. 1985. Coosa: a chiefdom

in the sixteenth-century Southeastern United States. American Antiquity, 50: 723-37.

Hudson, C. M., Smith, M. T., Hally, D. J., Polhemus, R. and DePratter, C. B. 1987. In search of

Coosa: reply to Schroedl and Boyd. American Antiquity, 52: 840-57.

Ingold, T. 1983. The significance of storage in hunting societies. Man, 18:553-71.

Johannessen, S. 1993. Farmers of the late Woodland. In Foraging and Farming in the Eastern

Woodlands (ed. C. M. Scarry). Gainesville: University Press of Florida, pp. 57-77.

Johnson, A. W. and Earle, T. K. 1987. The Evolution of Human Societies:From Foraging Group toAgrarian State. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Kelly, A. R. 1938. A Preliminary Report on Archaeological Excavations at Macon, Georgia.

Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution.

Kleppe, E. J. 1989. Divine kingship in Northern Africa:material manifestations of social institutions.

In The Meaning of Things:Material Culture and Symbolic Expression (ed. I. Hodder). Winchester,MA: Unwin-Hyman.

Knight, V. J. 1981.MississippianRitual. PhD dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Universityof Florida.

Knight, V. J. 1985. Tukabatchee:Archaeological Investigations at an Historic Creek Town, Elmore

County,Alabama, 1984. Tuscaloosa: Alabama State Museum of Natural History.Knight, V. J. 1986. The institutional organization of Mississippian religion. American Antiquity, 51:

675-87.

7/27/2019 125100 st.pdf



Knight, V. J. 1990. Social organization and the evolution of hierarchy in southeastern chiefdoms.

Journal of Anthropological Research, 46: 1-23.

Knight, V. J. 1994a. The formation of the Creeks. In The Forgotten Centuries (eds C. Hudson and

C. C. Tesser). Athens: University of Georgia Press, pp. 373-92.Knight, V. J. 1994b. Ocmulgee Fields culture and the historical development of Creek ceramics. In

OcmulgeeArchaeology, 1936-1986 (ed. D. J.Hally). Athens: University of Georgia Press, pp. 181-9.

Lopinot, N. H. 1997. Cahokia food production reconsidered. In Cahokia:Domination and Ideologyin theMississippian World(eds T. R. Pauketat and T. E. Emerson). Lincoln: University of Nebraska

Press, pp. 52-68.

McGuire, R. H. 1992.A MarxistArchaeology. New York: Academic Press.

McGuire, R. H. and Paynter, R. (eds). 1991. The Archaeology of Inequality. Cambridge: Basil

Blackwell.

Malinowski, B. 1935. Coral Gardens and TheirMagic. London: Allen & Unwin.

Malinowski, B. 1961. Argonauts of the WesternPacific. New York:E. P. Dutton.

Martin,J.W. 1991. Sacred Revolt:The Muskogee's Strugglefor a New World. Boston: Beacon Press.

Mason, C. I. 1963. Eighteenth century culture change among the Lower Creeks. Florida Anthro-

pologist, 16:65-80.

Mehrer, M. W. and Collins, J. M. 1995. Household archaeology at Cahokia and in its hinterlands.

In Mississippian Communities and Households (eds J. D. Rogers and B. D. Smith). Tuscaloosa:

University of Alabama Press, pp. 32-57.

Moore, J. H. 1994. Ethnoarchaeology of the Lamar peoples. In Perspectives on the Southeast:

Linguistics, Archaeology, and Ethnohistory (ed. P. B. Kwachka). Athens: University of Georgia

Press, pp. 126-41.Muller, J. 1978. The Kincaid system: Mississippian settlement in the environs of a large site. In

Mississippian Settlement Patterns (ed. B. Smith). New York: Academic Press, pp. 269-92.

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

Nassaney, M. S. 1992. Communal societies and the emergence of elites in the prehistoric American

Southeast. In Lords of the Southeast: Social Inequality and the Native Elites of Southeastern North

America (eds A. W. Barker and T. R. Pauketat). Washington, DC: American Anthropological

Association, pp. 111-43.

Pauketat, T. R. 1992. The reign and ruin of the lords of Cahokia: a dialectic of dominance. In Lords

of the Southeast: Social Inequality and the Native Elites of SoutheasternNorth America (eds A. W.

Barker and T. R. Pauketat). Washington, DC: American Anthropological Association, pp. 31-51.Pauketat, T. R. 1994. The Ascent of Chiefs: Cahokia and Mississippian Politics in Native North

America. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.

Pauketat, T. R. and Lopinot, N. 1997. Cahokian population dynamics. In Cahokia: Domination and

Ideology in the Mississippian World (eds T. R. Pauketat and T. E. Emerson). Lincoln: University of

Nebraska Press, pp.103-22.

Peregrine, P. N. 1992. Mississippian Evolution: A World-Systems Perspective. Madison: PrehistoryPress.

Ranjel, R. 1904. Relation. In Narratives of the Career of Hernando De Soto, Vol. II (ed. E. G.

Bourne). New York: A. S. Barnes.

Rees, M. A. 1997. A gift of many fishes: subsistence economy and political culture in the Protohis-toric Central Mississippi Valley. Paper presented at the Southeastern Archaeological Conference,Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

7/27/2019 125100 st.pdf



Robertson, J. A. (translator). 1993.True relation of the hardships suffered Governor Hernando De

Soto and certain Portuguese gentlemen during the discovery of the province of Florida. In The De

Soto Chronicles: The Expedition of Hernando De Soto to North America in 1539-1543 (eds L. A.

Clayton, V. J. Knight and E. C. Moore). Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, pp. 19-219.Rogers, J. D. 1995. The archaeological analysis of domestic organization. In MississippianCommunities and Households (eds J. D. Rogers and B. D. Smith). Tuscaloosa: University of

Alabama Press, pp. 7-31.

Rogers, J. D. 1996. Markers of social integration: the development of centralized authority in the

Spiro region. In Political Structureand Change in the Prehistoric Southeastern United States (ed. J.

F. Scarry). Gainesville: University Press of Florida, pp. 53-68.

Sahlins, M. 1958. Social Stratificationin Polynesia. Seattle: University of Washington Press.

Sahlins, M. 1963. Poor man, rich man, big-man, chief: political types in Melanesia and Polynesia.

ComparativeStudies in Society and History, 5: 285-303.

Sanders, W. T. and Webster, D. 1978. Unilinealism, multilinealism, and the evolution of complexsocieties. In Social Archaeology: Beyond Subsistence and Dating (ed. C. Redmond). New York:

Academic Press, pp. 249-302.

Scarry, C. M. 1993. Introduction. In Foraging and Farming in the Eastern Woodlands (ed. C. M.

Scarry). Gainesville: University Press of Florida, pp. 3-11.

Scarry,J. F. 1989. The rise, transformation, and fall of Apalachee: a case study of political changein a chiefly society. In Lamar Archaeology: Mississippian Chiefdoms in the Deep South (eds M.

Williams and G. Shapiro). Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, pp. 175-86.

Scarry,J. F. 1990.The rise, transformation and fall of Apalachee: a case study of political change in

a chiefly society. In Lamar Archaeology: Mississippian Chiefdoms in the Deep South (eds M.

Williams and G. Shapiro). Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, pp. 175-86.

Scarry,J. F. 1995. Apalachee homesteads: the basal social and economic units of a Mississippianchiefdom. In Mississippian Communities and Households (eds J. D. Rogers and B. D. Smith).Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, pp. 201-23.

Scarry, J. F. 1996. Looking for and at Mississippian political change. In Political Structure and

Change in the Prehistoric Southeastern Unites States (ed. J. F. Scarry). Gainesville: University Press

of Florida, pp. 3-11.

Service, E. R. 1962. Primitive Social Organization. New York: Random House.

Service, E. R. 1975. The Origin of the State and Civilization. New York: W. W. Norton.

Smith, B. D. 1989. Origins of agriculture in Eastern North America. Science, 246: 1566-71.

Smith, B. D. (ed.). 1990. The Mississippian Emergence. Washington, DC: Smithsonian InstitutionPress.

Smith, B. D. 1992. Hopewellian farmers of Eastern North America. In Rivers of Change:Essays on

Early Agriculture in EasternNorth America (ed. B. D. Smith). Washington, DC: Smithsonian Insti-

tution Press, pp. 201-48.

Smith, B. D. 1995. The analysis of single-household Mississippian settlements. In MississippianCommunities and Households (eds J. D. Rogers and B. D. Smith). Tuscaloosa: University of

Alabama Press, pp. 224-49.

Smith, H. G. 1973. Analysis of the Lamar Site (9Bi7) materials at the Southeastern ArchaeologicalCenter. Report on file, Department of Anthropology, Florida State University.

Smith,M. T. and

Hally,D. J. 1992.

Chieflybehavior: evidence

from sixteenth century Spanishaccounts. In Lords of the Southeast: Social Inequality and the Native Elites of Southeastern North

America (eds A. W. Barker and T. R. Pauketat). Washington, DC: American AnthropologicalAssociation, pp. 99-109.

7/27/2019 125100 st.pdf



Steponaitis, V. P. 1986. Prehistoric archaeology in the Southeastern United States, 1970-1985.

Annual Review of Anthropology, 15:363-404.

Steponaitis, V. P. 1991. Contrasting patterns of Mississippian development. In Chiefdoms: Power,

Economy, and Ideology (ed. T. K. Earle). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 193-228.

Sullivan, L. P. 1995. Mississippian households and community organization in Eastern Tennessee.

In Mississippian Communities and Households (eds J. D. Rogers and B. D. Smith). Tuscaloosa:

University of Alabama Press, pp. 99-123.

Swanton, J. R. 1922. Early History of the Creek Indians and their Neighbors. Washington, DC:

Bureau of American Ethnology.

Swanton, J. R. 1928. Social organization and social usages of the indians of the Creek Confederacy.In 42nd Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology. Washington, DC: Bureau of

American Ethnology, pp. 31-726.

Swanton, J. R. 1946. The indians of the Southeastern United States. Bureauof American Ethnology

Bulletin 137. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution.

Testart,A. 1982.The significanceof food storage among hunter-gatherers:residence patterns, popu-lation densities, and social inequalities. CurrentAnthropology, 23: 523-37.

Upham, S. 1990. TheEvolution of Political Systems: Sociopolitics in Small-Scale SedentarySocieties.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ward, H. T. 1985. Social implications of storage and disposal patterns. In Structure and Process in

SoutheasternArchaeology (eds R. S. Dickens and H. T. Ward). Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama

Press, pp. 82-101.

Waring,A. J. 1968.The southern cult and Muskogean ceremonial. In Peabody Museum Papers,Vol.

58 (ed. S. Williams). Cambridge: Peabody Museum, pp. 30-77.

Waring, A. J. and Holder, P. 1945. A prehistoric ceremonial complex in the Southeastern United

States. American Anthropologist, 47: 1-34.

Waselkov, G. A. 1993. Historic Creek indian responses to European trade and the rise of politicalfactions. In Ethnohistory and Archaeology: Approaches to Postcontact Change in the Americas (edsJ. D. Rogers and S. M. Wilson). New York: Plenum, pp. 123-31.

Welch, P. D. 1991. Moundville's Economy. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.

Welch, P. D. 1996. Control over goods and the political stability of the Moundville chiefdom. In

Political Structure and Change in the Prehistoric Southeastern United States (ed. J. F. Scarry).Gainesville: University Press of Florida, pp. 69-91.

Wesson, C. B. 1997. Households and hegemony: an analysis of historic Creek culture change. PhD

dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Williams, M. 1995. Chiefly compounds. In Mississippian Communities and Households (eds J. D.

Rogers and B. D. Smith). Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, pp. 124-34.

Williams, M. and Shapiro, G. (eds). 1990. LamarArchaeology: Mississippian Chiefdoms in the DeepSouth. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.

Williams, M. and Shapiro, G. 1996. Mississippian political dynamics in the Oconee Valley, Georgia.In Political Structures and Change in the Prehistoric United States (ed. J. F. Scarry). Gainesville:

University of Florida Press, pp. 128-49.

Wright, J. L. 1986. Creeks and Seminoles: The Destruction and Regeneration of the Muscogulge

People. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

125100 st.pdf

Documents