paper

8 Mounds, Memory, and Contested

Mississippian History

Timothy R. Pauketat and Susan M. Alt

The National Science Foundation (SBR 99-96169), the National Geographic Society (6319- 98), the Cahokia Mounds Museum Society, and the University of Illinois at Urbana- Champaign supported the upland Mississippian research cited in this paper. We would like to thank Ruth Van Dyke and Susan Alcock for inviting us to contribute to this volume even though we were not participants in the original symposia.Their critical comments on an earlier draft of this paper were greatly appreciated. All problems of thought or fact are our own.

The Indian tradition[s] give an acc[oun]t of those works they say . . . [were] the works of their forefathers . . . formerly as numerous as the Trees in the woods . . . on the Mississippi . . . (George Rogers Clark 1928 [1778])

Overgrown earthen mounds in the wooded valleys and hilltops of eastern North America urge us to remember the past. In the shadows of these tumuli we see the myths, beliefs, and rituals of native people.We recognize mound-building “traditions” in the upper Midwest, the Midsouth, and the Gulf Coast (Bense 1994; Squier and Davis 1998; Thomas 1985[1894]). We sense deep roots to these ancient traditions, perpetuated in the precolumbian era by the building of mounds themselves. And we ask ourselves, what did these mounds mean? For what purposes were they used?

Typically, they are said to have signified fundamental Native American beliefs concerning sacred and secular, past and present, and earth and sky (see Buikstra et al. 1998; Hall 1997; Knight 1989). They are thought to have embodied the fundamen- tal cultural “structures,” or traditions, of entire ethnic groups, if not all native North Americans (in the sense of Levi-Strauss 1967[1958]). Archaeologists often suspect that these traditions arose owing to the social, economic, or political pressures of specific time periods. Mounds are said to have marked territory, reinforced ideologies, and elevated native aristocrats above commoners (see Dillehay 1990; Knight 1989; Lindauer and Blitz 1997; Smith 1978).

However, there are severe theoretical drawbacks to these structuralist and func- tionalist explanations. Those drawbacks stem from the weak conceptual devices that

152 Timothy R. Pauketat and Susan M. Alt

underlie the business of interpreting meanings and inferring functions. On the one hand, merely identifying a “cultural structure” or tradition does not address the ques- tion of how such standardized and shared knowledge would have been transmitted uniformly across space and through time. Appeals to this kind of reasoning simply assume that structures, traditions, or cultures are widely shared and change at a glacial pace. On the other hand, ascribing functions to mounds relies on even weaker con- ceptual devices. Functionalist explanations assume that society was an organic whole such that knowing the constituent elements allows us to analyze the system without worrying much about the history of people. Archaeologists who analyze functions in this manner believe that mounds were constructed with an intent revealed in the mound’s form. From this point of view, it may seem that the need to delineate the potential complexities of mound-construction history is obviated. But was it the mound that was the goal of the builders, or the act of construction itself? Following Knight (1986, 1989), Pauketat (1993, 2000b) has argued that annual mound building would have regularly integrated those who took part in the construction. If so, then what about those social situations where the interests or beliefs of laborers who built a mound were at odds with those of a ritual overseer? Would not the laborers’ interests or beliefs get “built-into” the tumulus somehow, perhaps even affecting its size, shape, use-life, or construction history?

In this chapter, we argue that appeals to cultural structures or mound functions obscure the processes whereby Native Americans constructed both mounds and traditions. We suggest that the patterns of mound building in the Mississippi valley and beyond necessitate a more nuanced view of how people “lived culture” at local sites through the active and contested recollection of the past (Van Dyke and Alcock, this volume). Those same processes of living culture or, better, “culture making” or “tradition building” are yet ongoing today (consider Appadurai 1996;Wolf 1982:387). Here, we juxtapose the evidence of “microscale” cultural practices (see Shennan 1993) from the Greater Cahokia region and the “macroscale” patterns of spatial and temporal disjunctures across the Mississippi valley. We pay particular attention to the Coles Creek, Plum Bayou, and American Bottom (a.k.a. Greater Cahokia) cultural regions along the Arkansas and Mississippi Rivers (map 8.1; see Phillips et al. 1951; Rolingson 1982, 1998). The point, of course, is to understand how cultural regions, as macroscale phenomena, were continuously constructed by people through their microscale practices (see Pauketat in press).

Our purpose is to promote an appreciation of memory in the cultural interstices between supposed macroscale traditions and the everyday practices involved in localized negotiations of identity, power, and meaning. Our focus is on a series of flat-topped pyramidal mounds built over a several century span (ca. 700–1500 ad) in the Midwest and Midsouth, rather than on the sepulcher or animal effigy mounds of other parts of the Eastern Woodlands. We begin by outlining a commonly ac- cepted Mississippi-valley culture history. Following this, we explore the implications of this culture history in terms of the construction of social memory. We then turn to consider the evidence for mound construction at Cahokia, ca. 1050 ad, and how that may have involved contestation over meanings and memories by a diverse group of actors. Finally, we reassess the potential importance of disjunctures in

Mounds, Memory, and Contested Mississippian History 153

La ke

M ic

hi ga

n

N

0 200

miles

Cahokia

Trempealeau

Ogden-Fettie

Toltec

Kings Crossing

C O

L E

S

C

R E

E K

Sites and CULTURAL REGIONS

PLUM BAYOU

AMERICAN BOTTOM

Poverty Point

Watson Brake

Marksville

Aztalan

Pinson

Map 8.1 Map of selected sites and cultural complexes in the precolumbian Mississippi Valley

154 Timothy R. Pauketat and Susan M. Alt

patterns of Mississippi valley mound-construction with respect to an archaeology of memory.

Mississippi Valley Culture History

The earliest known earthen mounds in the New World are found in Louisiana at the Watson Brake site (Saunders et al. 1997). Dated to the fourth millennium bc, this oval arrangement of flat-topped mounds already suggests a degree of social complexity that appears and disappears through time in a spatially discontinuous fashion across the east until Indian depopulation and removal (Sassaman and Heckenberger 2001). Other complex mound sites follow; the well-known Poverty Point site and nearby late Archaic period sites in Louisiana date to the three centuries after 1600 bc (Gibson 2000). Subsequent Woodland-period mounds dot the eastern United States. These include, by the first century or two bc, conical burial mounds, earthen embankments, and four-sided, flat-topped earthen pyramids. Middle Woodland period platform mounds are less well known than the other mound types, given the early antiquar- ian attentions paid to enigmatic geometric enclosures and the tombs beneath conical mounds. However, large platform mounds were built between ca. 200 bc–300 ad (e.g., Mainfort 1988; Rafferty 1990). Some, as at the Pinson site in Tennessee, were quite large, reaching heights of up to 18m. These appear to have been platforms for ritual performances and were not surmounted by “temples” or other buildings.

In the lower Mississippi River valley, mounded “Middle Woodland” Marksville-culture centers appear to give rise to later Woodland “Baytown” (Troyville) and then “Coles Creek” centers (or similar cultural cognates, e.g., Ford 1951; Kidder 1992, 1998; Phillips et al. 1951; Williams and Brain 1983). The latter are modest arrangements of one to ten rectangular platforms around rectangular plazas (figure 8.1). We will return to the issue of plazas later. For now, suffice it to say that, like their Middle Woodland precursors, the Coles Creek mounds do not seem to have been substructural platforms for buildings (until 900 ad or later, see Kidder 1998). Few if any of the Coles Creek centers are thought to have supported large popula- tions, although the largest such complexes cover areas around 30ha.The people living at or near any given center appear to have had minimal interests in trade with out- siders, given the “parochial” character of the material assemblages (Kidder 1992, 1998). Then again, by 1100 ad if not earlier, various Coles Creek residents do seem to have met and exchanged with Cahokians far to the north.

The mound-plaza arrangements of the Coles Creek sites conjured up images of Mesoamerica for mid-twentieth-century analysts (see Smith 1984). The lower Mississippi valley centers, it was thought, might have served as a kind of cultural conduit of Mesoamerican knowledge up the Mississippi to places like Cahokia. Others looked to the “Caddoan” culture area of Texas and Oklahoma as a conduit to the north (see Phillips and Brown 1978:170–4). Although the Mesoamerican conduit argument has fallen from favor, there are gross similarities of the Coles Creek centers to a series of later (post 1050 ad) Mississippian sites to the north, especially Cahokia. Likewise, the apparent similarities between certain Mississippian complexes in the

Mounds, Memory, and Contested Mississippian History 155

trans-Mississippi south and Huastecan sites in northeastern Mexico have also been noted (Hall 1991; Phillips and Brown 1978).

The relevance of such macroscale parallels lies in what they tell us about the spatial and temporal discontinuities of mound building. These can be illustrated using the known cultural–historical details from the central Arkansas River and central Mississippi River valleys. In the former, the largest Coles-Creek-like regional complex, the Plum Bayou culture, featured a large central ceremonial center named “Toltec” (Nassaney 1991, 1992, 1994, 2001; Rolingson 1982, 1998). There are 18 rectangular or oval platform mounds at Toltec reaching heights of 15m, all arranged around two probable rectangular plazas, located near a bayou and ringed by an earthen embank- ment enclosing some 42ha (plate 8.1). The mounds themselves appear to have been built over the period 750–1000 ad during a series of relatively large-scale construc- tion events (e.g., Rolingson 1998).Their summits do not seem to have been used for buildings. Unusual refuse suggestive of public feasting involving sacred or valuable

rampart

Mound A

Mound C

Mound B

plaza

0 50 meters

N

C h i c k a s a w B

a y o u

Figure 8.1 The Kings Crossing Site near Vicksburg, Mississippi (redrawn from Phillips 1970: Figure 181)

156 Timothy R. Pauketat and Susan M. Alt

material symbols (including crystals and novaculite) is found scattered in the con- struction fills and possible feasting refuse associated with these mounds. Nassaney (1992, 1994, 2001) interprets the political economy of Toltec and its hinterland as one filled with contradiction, as emerging regional inequality was balanced by repeated acts that memorialized community and, presumably, equality.

That balance was not maintained. The Toltec site, along with much of the central Arkansas River valley, appears to have been abandoned sometime before 1100 ad. The few small settlements known in the twelfth century Arkansas valley, and in adjacent portions of the Mississippi valley, have produced broken earthenware vessels and microlithic or expedient-core technologies that betray Cahokian origins or inspi- ration (Buchner 1998; House 1996; Johnson 1987; David Kelley, personal communi- cation, 2001; Koldehoff and Carr 2001; Mainfort 1996).The Cahokian connection is noteworthy, as a dramatic social and demographic centralizing process was well under- way in that northern location at the same time as the abandonment of the Arkansas valley.

The history of mound construction in the central Mississippi River valley is quite different than the Arkansas or lower Mississippi regions. Emerson and McElrath (2001:204) have characterized the 140-km stretch of Mississippi River floodplain, also called the “American Bottom,” as a border zone prior to 1000 ad.To the north along the Illinois River, Middle Woodland people built burial mounds near large horticul- tural villages like those of the well-known Hopewell peoples of Ohio or the

Plate 8.1 Mound A at the Toltec Site, Arkansas

Mounds, Memory, and Contested Mississippian History 157

Marksville people of the lower Mississippi drainage. At the Ogden-Fettie site, one Middle Woodland mound may have been a rectangular platform like those at Pinson and points south; there may have been a couple of others at nearby sites (D. Esarey, personal communication, 2002). But in the American Bottom, only a handful of modest Middle Woodland mounds are known, and those are in the northern expanse of floodplain bordering the Illinois River (see Fortier 1998; McElrath and Fortier 2000). As far as we know, none of them were platform mounds.

Moreover, few to no mounds are known in the region during the subsequent Late Woodland period (300–1050 ad). Certainly, there are no Toltec-sized centers. Most Late Woodland sites up to ca. 900 ad were relatively modest-sized hamlets, or villages of at most a few dozen people. Between 900 and 1050 ad some villages (formerly called “Emergent Mississippian”) in the American Bottom proper did become enlarged (see Fortier and McElrath 2000).There may have been two or three of these large villages (of which Cahokia was one) with only a few modest earthen platforms. However, the evidence for mound construction at this time (at the Lunsford-Pulcher and perhaps Morrison sites) is equivocal at best (Kelly 1990; Lopinot et al. 1998; Milner 1998; Pauketat 1994, 1998).The case for Cahokia is even less secure, based as it is on a single radiocarbon date from a core sample of the lower levels of Cahokia’s Monks Mound (Reed et al. 1968). It is certain that the Late Woodland people living in the hilly uplands on either side of the linear floodplain of the American Bottom did not construct platform mounds.

One could argue that the existing Middle Woodland mounds, or remembered places in the region, such as cemeteries, remained meaningful features of the land- scape (see Chesson 2001; Joyce 2001:13). For instance, one Mississippian mound at the Horseshoe Lake site was built at least partially over a Middle Woodland burial ground (Pauketat et al. 1998; notes on file, University of Illinois). Another possible Woodland conical mound atop the bluffcrest overlooking the American Bottom, locally called “Sugarloaf Mound” and measuring about 7m in height, was probably visible from Cahokia (certainly it was from atop Monks Mound). It was located along a historic Indian trail that led from an outlying Mississippian town site to Cahokia (Koldehoff et al. 1993).

Such instances doubtless indicate the lasting power of landscapes as inscribed social memories. Perhaps the landscape was a constant reminder of the “works of their forefathers” during the several centuries when few to no people engaged in the phys- ical construction of earthen mounds in the American Bottom and adjacent uplands. Nonetheless, the recognition of a mound-building past by a people would not in itself constitute the continuity of a mound-building tradition (compare Meskell, this volume). A long-term social memory of mound building may have existed through the Late Woodland construction hiatus, but the social memories constructed by the viewing of ancient tumuli would have been much different from those constructed as part of the physical inscription of the landscape. If nothing else, the soil engineer- ing knowledge evidenced in the profiles of mound excavations – never mind cultural meanings – might have been more than a little difficult to retain during the interim. “We can infer that a group, perhaps a class, of individuals with a specialized

158 Timothy R. Pauketat and Susan M. Alt

knowledge of soils (soils or mound engineers) were responsible for directing con- struction of the mound” (Bareis 1975:13). What would happen to this “specialized knowledge” if mounds were not built for a period of decades, if not centuries?

Given the obvious hiatus and its potential implications, the amplitude of pyrami- dal mound construction beginning around 1050 ad in the Greater Cahokia region can be startling to the contemporary archaeologist (for a chronological overview, see Pauketat 1998; Pauketat and Emerson 1997). At that time, construction began on scores of platform mounds, including the largest ever built in North America. Monks Mound at Cahokia reached a height of 30m and was surrounded in a 30 sqkm area by the ongoing construction of about 200 other earthen tumuli, most of which were substructure platforms topped with one or more oversized houses, temples, or council buildings (Pauketat 1997). Platform mound construction was initiated more or less simultaneously at a minimum of five and perhaps as many as a dozen other town sites in the region.Thus, to a great extent, the scale of mound construction at Cahokia, if not also the very fact of mound construction there, was unprecedented in the middle of the eleventh century.

Because of this, Cahokia’s historical effects on the other native peoples living in the Midsouth, upper Midwest, and eastern Plains may have been profound. While mercantile explanations are not supported by archaeological evidence (Emerson and Hughes 2000; Milner 1998; Pauketat 1998), there are artifactual, iconographic, and architectural reasons to suspect that Cahokians may have traveled to obtain exotic raw materials or that distant people may have visited and then “emulated” Cahokia (Hall 1991, 1997). For instance, ceramic wares and nonlocal arrowheads from the Plum Bayou and Coles Creek cultural regions are found at tenth and eleventh century sites in the Greater Cahokia region. In another instance, an early Mississippian mounded site at Trempealeau, Wisconsin, seems strategically located near an unusual lithic resource, Hixton Silicified Sediment (Green and Rodell 1994).The distinctive Hixton material was used by Cahokians to make projectile points, among other things, includ- ing some made to look like southern Lower Mississippi Valley styles (Ahler 2000). These and other exotic arrowhead styles (with many made from available local cherts) are featured in the famous eleventh-century caches from Mound 72 (Fowler et al. 2000).

Sites as far north as southern Minnesota and South Dakota have produced Cahokian or Cahokia-like objects, styles, and architectural forms. A number of these sites evince clear “founding” phases where the objects, styles, and forms appear “intrusive” to the localities in question, almost as if they fell out of the sky (see Emerson 1991; Stoltman 1991). Because of this settlement and artifact-assemblage evidence, researchers have suggested that factions of Cahokians may have moved northward, perhaps to escape conditions deemed unpleasant in the American Bottom or perhaps to set up “colonies” or short-term extractive outposts of sorts (Emerson 1991; Stoltman 1991, 2000). In a few locations, platform mounds were constructed as part of these northern “site unit intrusions.” Multi-terraced platform mounds – thought possible copies of Cahokia’s largest pyramid – were built late in the eleventh or early twelfth century at the Aztalan and Trempealeau sites in Wisconsin (plates 8a and b; Green and Rodell 1994:352; see also Overstreet 2000).

Mounds, Memory, and Contested Mississippian History 159

In any event, nearly as abruptly as it began, mound construction ceased in the American Bottom at ca. 1250–1300 ad. The Greater Cahokia region was largely abandoned by 1350 ad, although mound construction continued to the south of the American Bottom in the central and lower Mississippi valleys. There, other newly founded Mississippian centers, with their own four-sided and flat-topped substructure mounds, arose to become seats of government for numerous southeastern chiefdoms.

Plate 8.2a and b Platform mounds compared: (a) Aztalan, and (b) Cahokia (Aztalan photo courtesy William C. Millhouse, Galena, Illinois)

(a)

(b)

160 Timothy R. Pauketat and Susan M. Alt

There, earthen mounds are arranged around open, rectangular plazas, in patterns that suggest nearly immutable “sacred landscapes” to some (Lewis and Stout 1993). These spaces have been associated with “cult institutions” (i.e., cultural structures) and are thought to be imbued with cosmological and cosmographic symbolism said to have been common to Mississippian peoples everywhere (Knight 1986). Mississippian symbolism and the use of mounds as platforms were apparent to the first Europeans traveling through the Southeast. Such symbolism, and the creation of meaning annually at ritual grounds, continues today (e.g., Howard 1968; Moore 1994). Today, the rate and amplitude of mound and plaza construction is clearly unlike the Missis- sippian past.Then again, if we look deeper into the ancient Mississippian mounds, we can see a lack of uniformity in mode, scale, and rate of mound construction there too (cf. Anderson 1994; Knight 1989; Pauketat 1993).

The Implications of Mounds and Plazas

Woodland and Mississippian traditions could be said to “survive” in vestigial form to this day in the practices of various southeastern people, altered to a degree through contact with Europeans and their diseases (e.g., Hudson 1976). Perhaps as a result of this perceived continuity, archaeologists tend to envision change as exogenous to the identities or cultures of Eastern Woodlands peoples. Hence, long-term changes in the Woodlands are still attributed in many archaeological accounts to population growth, political–economic cycles, social–organizational dynamics, environmental fluctuations, and migrations (e.g., Anderson 1994; Blitz 1999; Nassaney 1992; M. Williams 1994; S. Williams 1990). Except perhaps for migrations, these explanations leave aside the question of how mound-construction knowledge was transmitted across generational divides, regions, and linguistic boundaries (but see Drechsel 1994).

Why worry about explaining how mound knowledge was conveyed? For some, the fact that mound-construction knowledge was transmitted is by itself sufficient. This position assumes that cultural “structures” or traditions were conveyed in a relatively uniform manner, as if these were pieces of information that could be communicated without significant disruption.The standard mound forms found across the Woodlands, as noted above, seemingly affirm the uniform-transmission assump- tion.A pyramidal mound is a pyramidal mound, or so the logic goes that holds mean- ings and functions constant across space and through time. But just this kind of logic has clearly misled archaeologists in the past.

In southeastern North America, four-sided rectangular mounds were thought to correlate with a maize-based agricultural system managed by hereditary chiefs. Until recently, archaeologists had a difficult time accepting that many platform mounds dated to the Middle Woodland period, since maize and hereditary chiefship were not thought to characterize this period (but see, for example, Knight 1990; Mainfort 1988; Rafferty 1990). Likewise, Coles Creek peoples were thought to be the earliest hierarchical chiefdoms based in maize agriculture, despite a lack of evidence to support such a position (Steponaitis 1986; but see Fritz and Kidder 1993; Kidder 1992; Kidder and Fritz 1993; Nassaney 2001)!

Mounds, Memory, and Contested Mississippian History 161

Without a doubt, the archaeology of the last 30 years points to fundamental problems inherent with ahistorical (structuralist or functionalist) explanations. In part owing to the growing discordance within these older paradigms, various “historical- processual” perspectives (i.e., practice-theoretical, agent-centered, feminist, phenome- nological, and even neo-Darwinian schools of thought) are promulgating a sense of “traditions” as dynamic phenomena (Pauketat 2001a, following Wolf 1982:387–91; see also Van Dyke and Alcock, this volume). Traditions for such theorists are not normative, static, and epiphenomenal. They are “practiced,” put into action, and made and remade continuously by people through time.They can even be “invented” (Hobsbawm and Ranger 1983). In effect, traditions are the media of change, co-opted and promoted in ways that selectively draw from the past (Trouillot 1995). Whole community, ethnic, and national identities are “imagined” through such selective recol- lections of traditions (Anderson 1983).

Given this selective, dynamic quality, it follows that traditional knowledge is not a fixed quantity accessible to all or to be recollected in the same way from the past by all.“Memory is historically conditioned, changing . . . according to the emergencies of the moment; . . . it is progressively altered from generation to generation . . . [and] is inherently revisionist and never more chameleon than when it appears to stay the same” (Samuel 1994:10). It does not stay the same; it cannot be transmitted as a structure or as information without incurring change.Trouillot (1995:14–16) is critical of viewing traditions as fixed collective memories that can be retrieved uniformly by living people. Consider an individual’s memory: it “is not always a process of summoning represen- tations of what happened” in one’s lifetime (Trouillot 1995:14). For instance, know- ledge of one’s own childhood may derive from what one was told later, such that these later informants actually contribute to the creation of an individual’s history based on their own imperfect (and etic) recollection. Few people can remember details of various earlier life experiences, leaving certain recollections weighted in ways more propor- tionate to the context of recollection than to the importance of the experience at the time (see also Connerton 1989; Meskell, this volume).

Given that the individual’s history tends to be constructed in these ways, surely the prob- lems of determining what belongs to the past multiply tenfold when that past is said to be collective. . . . We may want to assume for purposes of description that the life history of an individual starts with birth. But when does the life of a collectivity start? At what point do we set the beginning of the past to be retrieved? How do we decide – and how does the collectivity decide – which events to include and which to exclude? (Trouillot 1995:16)

Memories may be fixed to a degree if incorporated in mnemonic devices – litur- gical recitations, ritual processions, music, song, prayer, etc. – and through the inscrip- tion of them in material culture, the human body, and space (Van Dyke and Alcock, this volume; see also Abercrombie 1998; Connerton 1989; Hagedorn 2001:77; Joyce 2000, this volume; Joyce and Hendon 2000; Kus 1997; Meskell, this volume; Rouget 1985:121; Rowlands 1993).Written history clearly constitutes such a case of inscrip- tion (see Papalexandrou, this volume). However, mounds are also a kind of inscrip- tion of social memory in space. Each instance of mound construction is an inscriptive

162 Timothy R. Pauketat and Susan M. Alt

act of “memorialization” (Meskell, this volume). Such inscriptive practices in space are said, of course, to create places (Van Dyke and Alcock, this volume). People “being in the world” unavoidably transform spaces into places, linking personal histories to cultural identities (Thomas 1996:83, citing Heidegger 1962). Certain “places are deliberate creations of past actors” (Joyce and Hendon 2000), especially apparent when places are named and so imbued with cultural meanings (Tilley 1994:18). “All locales and landscapes are therefore embedded in the social and individual times of memory . . . personal biographies, social identities and a biography of place” (Tilley 1994:27). The meanings of these places change as their biographies were actively created (e.g., Gosden and Marshall 1999; Holtorf 1998; Joyce 2000, this volume; Sinopoli, this volume; H. Williams 1998).

This is not to say that meanings associated with places necessarily change gradu- ally. No, there appear to be any number of cases where mounds in the Eastern Wood- lands did not develop gradually within particular regions but were built at specific historical moments. That these were “deliberate creations of past actors” has already been implied by the uneven pan-Mississippi-valley pattern of mound construction, noted earlier. It is further evident in comparisons of regional Mississippian histories that point to abrupt flashpoints when polities were “consolidated” (King 2000; Knight 1997; Pauketat 2000a). It may also be palpable in the “intrusive” appearance of various northern Mississippian refugees, colonies, or outposts. Certainly the construction of copies of Cahokia’s Monks Mound far to the north in Wisconsin, if indeed that is what the Trempealeau and Aztalan mounds represent, would have constituted land- mark historical changes for those localities.

That mounds mark the deliberate creations of past actors is also illustrated by a series of earth-moving events related to the founding of a number of mounded centers.This is easiest to argue on the basis of the plazas at these centers. Dalan (1997) and associates (Holley et al. 1993) were the first to realize the significance of the dis- covery that Mississippian plazas were not just empty spaces but had been physically constructed. Based on her geophysical surveys and the archaeological excavations of the “Grand Plaza” at Cahokia by others, including the authors, it is now well estab- lished that this 19ha rectangular space was built over a short span of time (around 1050 ad) by cutting and filling an enormous naturally undulating surface (see also Alt and Pauketat, report in preparation; Holley et al. 1993; Pauketat and Rees 1996; Pauketat 2001b; Pauketat et al. 2002). The plaza is flat, with a slight dip from north to south and a sandy construction fill that may have improved drainage.

Since Dalan’s initial work, evidence of additional land reclamation has been found at Cahokia and at the related East St. Louis site (Kelly 1997; Koldehoff et al. 2000; Pauketat, report in preparation). Low areas were occasionally filled to create flat sur- faces. Similar land leveling practices were employed elsewhere, the plaza at the Etowah site in Georgia being a prominent example (Dalan 1997:101, citing Larson 1989:136). Recently, Kidder (2002) has made similar observations at the Coles Creek site of Raffman, in Louisiana, and has implied that central plazas dating as far back as the Late Archaic sites of Poverty Point and Watson Brake may also have been so con- structed. Such plazas, he further suggests, cannot be dissociated from the earthen pyr- amids that surround them.The fact of plaza construction, that is, necessitates that site

Mounds, Memory, and Contested Mississippian History 163

plans were inscribed on landscapes at specific points in time. This, in turn, necessi- tates considerable labor coordination at the very inception of construction and a per- vasive alteration of landscape (and, presumably, social memories).

The scale of the mound-center constructions and the evidence of northern intru- sions suggests that the “adoption,” founding, or penetration of new ideas in various localities is not a trait-unit-diffusionary process, but a package deal. At Cahokia and in the northern Midwest, everything from art to architecture took on putative Mississippian characteristics after 1050 ad or so. How did this happen? Hall (1991, 1997) has suggested that the historically known practice of ritual adoption, poten- tially homologous to the Calumet or “peace pipe” ceremonies, explains how fictive kin ties were created and, thus, how the northern Midwest and eastern Plains regions were “Mississippianized” (see also Green 2001). Rock art in Missouri and Wisconsin dating to the middle eleventh century ad does appear to depict the “intrusion” of mythical superhuman figures associated in later centuries with ritual adoption (Diaz-Granados and Duncan 2000; Diaz-Granados et al. 2001; Salzer and Rajnovich 2000). In such an adoption ceremony, art forms, technological styles, and monuments presumably would have embedded an integrated suite of myths, meanings, and prac- tices in landscapes. The result would have been a syncretic field of local knowledge and cultural practices superimposed by adopted myths, symbols, and practices that archaeologists call Mississippian after the fact.

However, the creation of place is not merely a one-time fixing of meanings or mythological associations in time and space (Joyce, this volume; Meskell, this volume; Sinopoli, this volume). Meanings and associations change constantly (but not neces- sarily gradually).The “life histories of things and the biographies of people intersect” in space to create “multivocal” places (Joyce and Hendon 2000, following Rodman 1992). It is this multivocality of place that permits the continuing transformation of meaning and function.Thus, in the end, appearances are deceptive. Cultural structures and macroregional traditions are illusory except as memories recollected and brought forward through ongoing practices (see also Pauketat 2001a, 2001c). Such structures and traditions were not so fundamental as to obviate the need to understand how localized practices might have transmogrified them with each instance of mound building.

We cannot even assume that all flat-topped pyramidal mounds – even within just one region or during just one phase – meant the same thing or functioned in the same ways.While platform mound construction in Wisconsin “may seem superficially analogous” to that at Cahokia or Toltec or Kings Crossing, “the discursive reasons” for each construction “were very different” (Meskell, this volume). Here, the idea of social memory (as constructed under multivocal and syncretic conditions) is neces- sary to explain how the labor-intensive creations of the Eastern Woodlands mound- plaza complexes simultaneously could be the realization of the “deliberate” plans of a few actors and the inclusive constructions of all people.

To make this point, we should first ask: exactly what was transmitted from place to place or across generational lines, when and how was that done, and by whom? The answers are to be found within the layers of Cahokia’s mounds and among the residential remains of contemporary farming villages recently excavated in the Greater

164 Timothy R. Pauketat and Susan M. Alt

Cahokia region. The layers of Cahokia’s mounds reveal an unprecedented regularity to construction – unlike documented mound constructions elsewhere – that we inter- pret as evidence of inclusion.At the same time, the farming villages indicate that those who were presumably included in construction projects did not necessarily speak or act with one voice.

Practice, Pluralism, and the Creation of Cahokia

At about 1050 ad, events accelerated the centralizing tendencies of agricultural life in the American Bottom (for a regional-historical overview, see Pauketat 1998). Over the span of the tenth through early eleventh centuries, a series of agricultural villages grew to sizeable proportions. Cahokia itself may have had a thousand-plus residents in the early eleventh century; a handful of other villages may have reached popula- tion levels of several hundred residents (Pauketat and Lopinot 1997). The reasons for this growth are poorly understood, although the evidence at Cahokia of possible trade with foreigners, if not the presence of foreign potters themselves, suggests processes that in the very least attracted the attention of outsiders.

Then, in dramatic fashion at about 1050 ad, a planned capital center was con- structed over the former village, entailing a series of massive labor projects and a kind of urban renewal never before seen in North America. The new 19ha Grand Plaza and perimeter platform mounds were built over a short period of time.The earth for construction was taken from borrow pits surrounding the central earthworks, at least one of which was refilled with rich organic residues and sumptuary goods apparently left over from public feasts with political–religious overtones (Pauketat et al. 2002). The population of the central capital swelled rapidly to 10,000–16,000 people in an area of under 2 sq.km; many of them lived in a new style of house and were engaged to some extent in crafting an array of “invented” local symbols (sensu Hobsbawm and Ranger 1983). Additional living space and more people occupied the East St. Louis and St. Louis “centers” which appear to be part of a continuous residential sprawl connected to Cahokia.

Elsewhere, we have argued that the construction of earthen platform mounds at Cahokia embodied a distinctive negotiation of many different groups of people of all statuses and identities (Alt 2001a; Pauketat 2000b).The negotiation, contingent on the history of all of the peoples involved, was a synergistic process wherein people who lived (or used to live) in outlying agricultural settlements accommodated the repre- sentations and interests of Cahokians, and vice versa. While power and identity- politics were definite underlying currents of Cahokia’s inception, the practices of farmers are thought to have greatly contributed to the shape of what Cahokia would become. Cahokia, by one or more orders of magnitude the largest of native North American political–cultural formations, was large precisely owing to the kind of participatory “promotion” that a Cahokian community embodied. The place was itself the negotiated compromises between people and their memories of the past (Pauketat 1997, 2000a, 2000b; Pauketat and Emerson 1999).

Mounds, Memory, and Contested Mississippian History 165

Mound building evidence

The stratigraphic evidence of earthen pyramid construction at and around Cahokia shows clearly that mound building was a regularly prosecuted, communal effort (Pauketat 1993, 2000b; Pauketat and Rees 1996; Pauketat et al. 1998; Porter 1974; Reed et al. 1968; Smith 1969). With each major building event, laborers appear to have demolished the temples and houses atop the platforms, laid down one or two mantles of earth, and rebuilt the surmounting architecture. Excavations into the Emerald, Kunnemann, Horseshoe Lake, Red (#49), and East St. Louis mounds appear to affirm the use of alternating light and dark or sandy and clayey fills, some of which appear “engineered” (see Bareis 1975; M. Kolb, personal communication, 2001; Pauketat 1993; Pauketat and Rees 1996; Pauketat et al. 1998).

The most salient feature of mound construction in the Greater Cahokia region is the “blitz” in which it was pursued (V. J. Knight, personal communication, 1998). More than other Mississippian mounds to the south and east, Cahokia’s mounds betray innumerable vertical and horizontal “stage enlargements,” “blanket mantles,” and various other modifications to mound faces, surmounting buildings, and marker posts (see overview in Pauketat 1993; cf. Anderson 1994; Knight 1989; Lindauer and Blitz 1997). The pre-Mississippian platform mounds of the Coles Creek and Plum Bayou regions were not built in the “blitz” mode of early Cahokia’s mounds. Larger mound stages there were added during construction events that were probably not annual affairs (see Rolingson 1982, 1998). However, in the best-documented Cahokian exam- ples, something seems to have happened to the mound every year.

While the central pyramids of “downtown” Cahokia may possess massive clayey cores built ca. 1050 ad, other mounds clearly began as mere lenses of fill beneath important buildings. In the case of the Kunnemann, Horseshoe Lake, and at least one East St. Louis mound, the earliest “stages” of a particular platform were sometimes only a few centimeters high (Pauketat 1993; Pauketat, report in preparation; Pauketat et al. 1998). These blanket mantles probably would have not been visible from a distance, at least relative to the large buildings constructed atop them. Some time and several blanket mantles or stage enlargements later, the shape of a platform may have finally become evident. However, it seems reasonable to assert that in these cases, an imposing mound was not the goal of mound construction. Possibly, the goal of construction in these cases was the act of construction itself (and all that this entailed). Presumably, the greater the frequency of communal construction, the greater the integrative effects on a disparate population.

By contrast, the creation of an imposing monument seems to have been a likely goal of the laborers who built the Grand Plaza and the early stages of its perimeter pyramids, especially Monks Mound.This was a grand memorializing act (in the sense of Collins and Chalfant 1993). Its form and scale appear to have established, through the relations of monuments and the people and values associated with them, the grounds for a new kind of community. Subsequently, and even in the case of the 30m high prominence, a regular and likely routinized annual construction cycle seems evident in the many thin blanket mantles observed in platform mound excavations

166 Timothy R. Pauketat and Susan M. Alt

(see Pauketat 2000b:Figure 9.3). In the end, with scores of pyramids under con- struction simultaneously, year after year within the period 1050–1150 ad, Cahokia’s laborers appear to have been involved regularly in a labor-extensive, if not also labor- intensive, building process. Given that pyramids are found at outlying towns as well, it would seem that most people within the region were actively involved in the con- tinuous and symbolically charged rhythms of this new living landscape.

One could say, if predisposed toward structuralist explanations, that Cahokia’s Mississippian culture was reaffirmed every year in this way: mound building was merely an expression of relatively static traditions. If predisposed toward functionalist explanations, one could claim that such a construction cycle was an ideological strategy that, by elevating Mississippian elites, ensured the continued functioning of a hierarchically based political economy. Static traditions in this case would have been a means to an end.

But both structuralist and functionalist explanations, while perhaps not entirely wrong, fail to explain either how all people would have come to share in such static traditions in the first place, or why they might have been duped into affirming it in the second. A third explanation involves raising the possibility that Cahokia was an unintended consequence of social negotiations at an unprecedented scale between Cahokians and a diverse farming population. These negotiations were contentious and dynamic, and the scale of Cahokian construction is a memorial to the unifica- tion of one Mississippian community from such a contentious and continually changing field. Identifying the participants in this process is a necessary first step in situating memory in the construction of mounds and the production of Mississippian history.

Upland Mississippian pluralism

Since 1995, the authors have been engaged in (1) a survey of a portion of these uplands (now called the “Richland Complex”) to locate early Mississippian sites coeval with Cahokia’s coalescence, and (2) the excavation of large portions of these upland sites to delineate how villagers lived ca. 1050–1150 ad (Alt 1999, 2000, 2001a, 2001b; Pauketat 1998, 2000a, 2003). Other survey and excavation recently conducted in this same vicinity has resulted in the identification and excavation of additional Cahokia- related villages in the hilly uplands surrounding the American Bottom (e.g., Hargrave and Hedman 2001; Holley et al. 2000, 2001; Jackson 2000).

A total of 255 domiciles and hundreds of related pit, hearth, and post features have been excavated at 15 Richland-Complex settlements dating to the eleventh century ad (see Alt 2001a, 2001b; Pauketat 2003). Based on this substantive database, these upland Richland peoples are known to have originated from elsewhere within – and possibly beyond – the American Bottom floodplain. At a point around 1050 ad, hun- dreds and possibly thousands of pre-Mississippian farmers resettled in a zone of open forest and prairie some 10 to 20km east and southeast of Cahokia proper. Once there, villagers appear to have retained a good deal of autonomy in their everyday routines (Alt 2001a).Yet, these village farmers lived only a day’s walk from the new plaza and

Mounds, Memory, and Contested Mississippian History 167

pyramids of Cahokia, a distance deemed insufficiently great to impart any real politi- cal autonomy (Pauketat 2003, following Hally 1993). The relationship between Cahokians and these hill farmers is, in fact, revealed by quantitative measures of arti- fact density in domestic refuse. There, the resharpening debitage from chipped stone hoe blades is found in exceedingly high densities relative to Cahokia or other flood- plain sites; conversely, the finely crafted wares and exotic raw materials possibly obtained through Cahokia are found in the lowest densities known from the region (Pauketat 1998:Figure 6).

Alt (2001a, 2001b) has analyzed the material culture of the Richland villagers, casting further light on the relationship of the immigrant upland farmers and Cahokians. For example, by contrasting settlement plans, architecture, and sizes of ceramic cooking pots, she has deduced two features of social life in the Greater Cahokia region. First, the upland villagers lived a more communal existence than did their floodplain neighbors. They conducted daily life in and around clusters of “tra- ditional” post-wall buildings around small courtyards. In the floodplain, and particu- larly at Cahokia proper, pre-Mississippian post-wall house styles were all but eliminated at 1050 ad; the small courtyards of the pre-Mississippian village were replaced with neighborhoods; novel tool forms and technologies became prevalent; communal cemeteries may have been localized at Cahokia proper; certain public or community symbols or practices – pipe smoking, marker posts, and the gaming pieces for a popular competitive sport (“chunkey”) – were centralized at Cahokia and its subsidiary towns (see DeBoer 1993; Pauketat 1994, 1997, 1998, 2000a). Yet, the outlying upland villages retained their own chunkey stones, ca. 10cm wide stone disks used to play a high-stakes team sport. These same villages were associated with cemeteries where the dead were arranged in patterns reminiscent of the nearby domestic courtyards (Emerson et al. 2002; Hargrave and Hedman 2001; Holley et al. 2000).

Second, social diversity within and between contemporaneous upland settlements was potentially profound.The material aspects of Cahokia adopted by these villagers, along with the timing of adoption, seem to have varied from village to village. In addition, particular individuals within some settlements, and possibly some villages more than others, produced craft goods ranging from cloth to shell beads and stone axheads (Alt 1999, 2001a). Production of such goods, comparable to the early Mississippian pattern at and nearer to Cahokia proper, suggests an integrated Cahokia-centric economy that pulled goods and labor from a hinterland (Pauketat 1997; see also Emerson and Hughes 2000).

Given the (1) possible regional economic integration, (2) evidence for the physi- cal movement of Richland villagers into the uplands at the same time horizon as Cahokia’s abrupt coalescence ca. 1050 ad, and (3) signs of practical differences between those upland people and their Cahokian counterparts, we believe that the early Mississippian population of Greater Cahokia was not so homogeneous as often assumed (compare Pauketat 2003 with Kelly 1990 or Milner 1998). Rather, cultural pluralism, albeit possibly village-level in scale, may have been an important factor underlying the character of the social negotiations that defined early Cahokia (see also Emerson and Hargrave 2000).The diverse practices of distinct villages within the

168 Timothy R. Pauketat and Susan M. Alt

Cahokian sphere are believed to have profoundly influenced the manner in which labor was mobilized to build Cahokia’s impressive earthen pyramids.

Discussion

It seems increasingly unlikely that Cahokia’s resettled farmers, apparently called upon to craft goods and till the soil as part of a regional Cahokian order, accommodated all Cahokia-centric changes with equal affability. It seems unlikely that Cahokia’s labor and product expropriations were entirely commensurate with the practices of farmers at ca. 1050 ad. Instead, the diverse contexts of experience among farmers prior to 1050 ad would have ensured an embedded resistance to Cahokians. And yet Cahokia was built, forcing us to ask: what elements of tradition and community did Cahokians seek to emphasize? What traditions and meanings did the outlying farmers partici- pating in Cahokia’s construction promote? More to the point, how was a compro- mise struck between the two and then embedded in Cahokia’s mound-and-plaza plan at 1050 ad? How did the “life” of this particular “collectivity” begin? Who decided at 1050 ad “which events to include and which to exclude” from memory so as to legitimate the unprecedented construction of a massive public place (Trouillot 1995:16)?

At this point it should be noted that the homelands of some of the earliest Cahokians could have been to the south (cf. Smith 1984). Perhaps such a migration might help explain the dramatic disjuncture represented by the timing and scale of Cahokia’s earliest known mound-and-plaza construction. In such a scenario, some segment of a Plum Bayou or Coles Creek population – with a working knowledge of how and why to build four-sided platform mounds – would have arrived at the large village of Cahokia before 1050 ad and superimposed their interests on a local population (compare Morse 1977; Morse and Morse 2000; Perino 1971). The pan-Mississippi-valley settlement pattern – particularly the abandonment of the Plum Bayou region – may lend credence to an explanation for population shifts, if not directly to Cahokia then certainly across the regions of the Midwest and Midsouth.

Whether migration was involved or not, the founding of the Mississippian site of Cahokia at 1050 ad was a major cultural disjuncture. Particular individuals might have acted as founding figures (DeBoer and Kehoe 1999:264; Pauketat 1994). Their individual memories of mounds and plazas may have been the basis for that memo- rialized in the newly built center. However, founding figures – even charismatic leaders – could not have built plazas and pyramids without collaborators, making the founding of Cahokia an inclusive, social phenomenon that cannot be reduced to a Great Man explanation (in the sense of Scott 1990:221; see Pauketat 2000b).The social construction of memory holds the key to understanding this founding event.

To wit, most of the pre-Mississippian peoples of the American Bottom at 1050 ad would have possessed only vague, unmarked senses of what mounds signified. The cross-generational or pan-regional transmission of more than this – that is, the special

Mounds, Memory, and Contested Mississippian History 169

knowledge about the functions and meanings of mounds – would have been inhib- ited by the temporal and spatial gaps in mound construction across the Mississippi valley. Under these circumstances, the de-centered cultural practices of peoples and the disparate loci of memory construction could have been co-opted and arrayed under the banner of a new kind of Cahokian community (Pauketat and Emerson 1999; Pauketat 2001a). Whatever cultural resistance there may have been to such a Cahokian co-optation of space, labor, and meaning – perhaps only realized at the moment of attempted “domination” (sensu Scott 1990:27) – could have been sub- sumed within the multivocality and inclusive character of the place.

This does definitely entail that the platform mounds seen elsewhere, even if con- sciously emulated by a founding figure, could not have been built in the same way at Cahokia as they were at other places. Cultural structures could not have been trans- planted intact from the south to Cahokia any more than the idea of Cahokia could have been emulated without significant change at Trempealeau, Aztalan, or elsewhere. The history of the people doing the building would have shaped differently each locality, if not each mound, regardless of the original plan. The mounds of Cahokia necessarily would have become vehicles for cultural compromises rather than intact cultural structures imported from elsewhere. The construction of social memories, in the context of the eleventh-century American Bottom, was materialized as a distinctly Cahokian variant of the platform mound. Each instance of mound construction there, or anywhere in the Mississippi valley, would have been different from the next because the memories of them were always locally constructed.

Ultimately, it seems that the tensions in the process of creating Cahokia also pulled it apart. Factionalism has been identified within the region and it may be evidenced in the form of possible intrusive “refugee” settlements to the north midway through the twelfth century (see Emerson 1991; Pauketat 1992; Pauketat and Emerson 1997). Palisade constructions at this same time emphasize that Cahokia and its associated town sites had become highly contested grounds (Pauketat 1998:71). In Cahokia’s case, political disintegration was accompanied by an overall abandonment of the region, a process probably more or less complete by 1350 ad. As with its initial con- solidation at 1050 ad, Cahokia’s abandonment was part of an apparent midcontinent- wide movement of peoples, opening up large “vacant” zones between former polities, if not between emergent ethnicities (e.g., S. Williams 1990).

That Cahokia rose and fell during the early Mississippian period before many other Mississippian complexes developed to the south might suggest that its historical role was as a founding capital (for regional comparisons of histories, see King 2001; Knight 1997; Pauketat 1998). Perhaps the rest of the Mississippian world consisted of attempts to recreate the distant memory of Cahokia (Anderson 1997). Such an idea would be consistent with the degree to which outsiders had looked to Cahokia as a place of pilgrimage during the eleventh through twelfth centuries. “Remembered places have often served as symbolic anchors of community for dispersed people” and that same effect may well be extended to the pan-regional influence of places as singular as Cahokia (Gupta and Ferguson 1997:289)

Clearly the thousands of people who had resided in the Greater Cahokia region left and went elsewhere. How was the memory of Cahokia’s earthen pyramids recon-

170 Timothy R. Pauketat and Susan M. Alt

structed in the locations where the Cahokians ended up? This question remains a puzzle, although it does seem apparent in the juxtaposition of macroregional cultural complexes (“traditions”) that Cahokia splintered and various groups ended up in the eastern Plains, to the west, and perhaps amidst other “Mississippians,” to the south (see Pauketat and Emerson 1997). The fact that immigrants from the north moved into the American Bottom following 1350 ad, along with evidence of twelfth- and thirteenth-century Cahokian interactions primarily with the south, would seem to preclude significant counter-movements northward on the part of Cahokians. Several scholars have favorably compared the material culture, historic accounts, and iconic representations of Dhegiha Souian speakers, like the Osage of the eastern Plains or the Quapaw of Arkansas, to the supposed features of the earlier Mississippians of Greater Cahokia (Diaz-Granados and Duncan 2000; Gartner 1996; Hall 1991; Hoffman 1994; Kehoe 2001).

In any event, it is instructive that no southern Mississippian groups ever matched the mound construction frenzy of their Cahokian forebearers. Even more instructive, however, is the fact that earthen platform mounds were not being built among the Dhegihans at the times of contact. Perhaps more than any other line of evidence, the possible termination of mound construction by Dhegiha-Souian speakers affirms that mounds are matters of memory creation.Those mounds are inextricably linked to the places through the construction of memory, and cannot be excised from those places.

Conclusion

In the Mississippi valley, the construction of earthen pyramids was at one time thought to be a hallmark of hierarchy and of a deep-seated and widely shared “Mississippian” belief system.Although the archaeological evidence accumulated over the last 30 years has eroded this line of reasoning, archaeologists have not adequately explained the process whereby four-sided and flat-topped earthen pyramids were built by different peoples at different times, from Coles Creek, to Cahokian, to later Mississippi valley landscapes. The common-sense appeal to cultural structures in earlier analyses, while not entirely wrong, remains unsatisfactory.

That four-sided platform mound construction stretched across the Mississippi valley and lasted in some form or another for millennia probably attests to the power of the inscription of social memory in landscapes. Mounds were powerful media that shaped the lived experiences of people. And yet the hundreds of kilometers and tem- poral hiatuses that separate mound-building peoples in parts of the Mississippi valley, along with the localized variability in the mode of mound construction, are sugges- tive of dynamic traditions.

There are few regions anywhere in the Eastern Woodlands where mound building persisted from the fourth millennium bc to contact (northeastern Louisiana is the only candidate).That fact emphasizes the importance of pilgrimages, regional demographic shifts, and migrations in the history of places. And it emphasizes the potential signi- ficance of the construction of social memory in the punctuated history of mound construction in the Mississippi valley. There, regions were abandoned, unusual places

Mounds, Memory, and Contested Mississippian History 171

were founded, and memories were actively constructed – and perhaps in the case of Cahokia’s abandonment – intentionally forgotten (DeBoer and Kehoe 1999:267).The construction and abandonment of mounds was a matter of building memories and, not incidentally, alternately underwriting or undoing central authority.

Our analysis locates the platform-mound-building “tradition” of the Mississippi valley in the local processes of cultural construction involving the practices of every- day people. We find that merely attributing platform mounds to some antecedents and assuming a uniform transferal of structures or behaviors is insufficient. Yes, Coles Creek centers were probably invoked as memories in the construction of Cahokia, and Cahokia may have been a memory for those Mississippians who sought to emulate that powerful archetype. But people constructed their pasts in contested fields and at multiple loci. Mounds were features of living landscapes, observed by all, recollected differently by many, liable to be co-opted and intruded as statements of inclusion or hegemony.

Given the archaeological traces of trans-Mississippi contacts and migrations, there is no reason to invoke widely shared or deeply imbued structures to explain the mounds. In our reanalysis, practices in the context of founding events, pilgrimages, migrations, and resettlements explain the putative structural continuities of the Mississippi valley. Such events necessitate memory construction in wholly new con- texts, allowing for old forms to take on novel meanings even while retaining the old appearances. Thus, we translate structures into memories, and allow the past to have been actively constructed by all of the peoples of that past.

References Cited

Abercrombie, T. A. 1998: Pathways of Memory and Power: Ethnography and History Among an Andean People. Madison, Wisc.: University of Wisconsin Press.

Ahler, S. R. 2000: Projectile point caches. In The Mound 72 Area: Dedicated and Sacred Space in Early Cahokia, ed. M. L. Fowler, J. Rose, B. Vander Leest and S. R. Ahler. Springfield: Illinois State Museum, Reports of Investigations, No. 54, pp. 101–15.

Alt, S. M. 1999: Spindle whorls and fiber production at early Cahokian settlements. South- eastern Archaeology 18, pp. 124–33.

Alt, S. M. 2000: Identity, tradition, and accommodation during the rise of Mississippianism in the American Bottom. Paper presented at the 57th Annual Southeastern Archaeological Conference, November 8–11, Macon, Georgia.

Alt, S. M. 2001a: Cahokian change and the authority of tradition. In The Archaeology of Tradi- tions: Agency and History Before and After Columbus, ed. T. R. Pauketat. Gainesville: University Press of Florida, pp. 141–56.

Alt, S. M. 2001b: Keeping order in the uplands: a look at a Cahokian administrative center. Paper presented at the 58th Annual Meeting of the Southeastern Ceremonial Conference, November 14–17, Chattanooga, Tennessee.

Anderson, B. 1983: Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origins and Spread of Nationalism. London:Verso.

Anderson, D. G. 1994: The Savannah River Chiefdoms: Political Change in the Late Prehistoric Southeast. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.

172 Timothy R. Pauketat and Susan M. Alt

Anderson, D. G. 1997: The role of Cahokia in the evolution of Southeastern Mississippian society. In Cahokia: Domination and Ideology in the Mississippian World, ed. T. R. Pauketat and T. E. Emerson. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, pp. 248–68.

Appadurai, A. 1996: Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Bareis, C. J. 1975: Report of 1972 University of Illinois-Urbana excavations at the Cahokia site. In Cahokia Archaeology: Field Reports, ed. M. L. Fowler. Springfield: Illinois State Museum Papers in Anthropology Number 3, pp. 12–15.

Bense, J. A. 1994: Archaeology of the Southeastern United States: Paleoindian to World War I. San Diego: Academic Press.

Blitz, J. H. 1999: Mississippian chiefdoms and the fission-fusion process. American Antiquity 64, pp. 577–92.

Buchner, C. A. 1998: A forked eye Ramey Incised jar from Mississippi County, Arkansas. Field Notes: Newsletter of the Arkansas Archeological Society 283, pp. 8–9.

Buikstra, J. E., Charles, D. K. and Rakita, G. F. 1998: Staging Ritual: Hopewell Ceremonialism at the Mound House Site, Greene County, Illinois. Kampsville Studies in Archeology and History 1. Kampsville, Illinois: Center for American Archeology.

Chesson, M. S. 2001: Social memory, identity, and death: an introduction. In Social Memory, Identity, and Death: Anthropological Perspectives on Mortuary Rituals, ed. M. S. Chesson. Washington, D.C.: Archeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association Number 10, pp. 1–10.

Clark, G. R. 1928 [1778]: The Life of George Rogers Clark, by J. A. James. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Collins, J. M. and Chalfant, M. L. 1993: A second-terrace perspective on Monks Mound. American Antiquity 58, pp. 319–32.

Connerton, P. 1989: How Societies Remember. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dalan, Rinita 1997: The construction of Mississippian Cahokia. In Cahokia: Domination and

Ideology in the Mississippian World, ed. T. R. Pauketat and T. E. Emerson. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, pp. 89–102.

DeBoer, W. R. 1993: Like a rolling stone: the chunkey game and political organization in eastern North America. Southeastern Archaeology 12, pp. 83–92.

DeBoer, W. R. and Kehoe, A. B. 1999: Cahokia and the archaeology of ambiguity. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 9, pp. 261–67.

Diaz-Granados, C. and Duncan, J. R. 2000: The Petroglyphs and Pictographs of Missouri.Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.

Diaz-Granados, C. M., Rowe, W., Hyman, M., Duncan, J. R. and Southon, J. R. 2001: AMS radiocarbon dates from three rock paintings and their associated iconography. American Anti- quity 66, pp. 481–92.

Dillehay, T. D. 1990: Mapuche ceremonial landscape, social recruitment and resource rights. World Archaeology 22, pp. 223–41.

Drechsel, E. J. 1994: Mobilian jargon in the “prehistory” of southeastern North America. In Perspectives on the Southeast: Linguistics, Archaeology, and Ethnohistory, ed. P. B. Kwachka.Athens: University of Georgia Press, pp. 25–43.

Emerson,T. E. 1991: Some perspectives on Cahokia and the northern Mississippian expansion. In Cahokia and the Hinterlands: Middle Mississippian Cultures of the Midwest, ed.T. E. Emerson and R. B. Lewis. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, pp. 221–36.

Emerson, T. E. and Hargrave, E. 2000: Strangers in paradise? Recognizing ethnic mortuary diversity on the fringes of Cahokia. Southeastern Archaeology 19, pp. 1–23.

Mounds, Memory, and Contested Mississippian History 173

Emerson,T. E., Hargrave, E. and Hedman, K. in press: Death and ritual in early rural Cahokia. In Theory, Method, and Technique in Modern Archaeology, ed. R. J. Jeske and D. K. Charles.West- port: Bergin and Garvey.

Emerson, T. E. and Hughes, R. E. 2000: Figurines, flint clay sourcing, the Ozark Highlands, and Cahokian acquisition. American Antiquity 65, pp. 79–101.

Emerson, T. E. and McElrath, D. L. 2001: Interpreting discontinuity and historical process in midcontinental Late Archaic and Early Woodland societies. In The Archaeology of Traditions: Agency and History Before and After Columbus, ed.T. R. Pauketat. Gainesville: University Press of Florida, pp. 195–217.

Ford, J. A. 1951: Greenhouse: A Troyville-Coles Creek Period Site in Avoyelles Parish, Louisiana. Anthropology Papers,Volume 44(1). New York: American Museum of Natural History.

Fortier, A. C. 1998: Pre-Mississippian economies in the American Bottom of southwestern Illinois, 3000 bc–ad 1050. Research in Economic Anthropology 19, pp. 341–92.

Fortier, A. C. and McElrath, D. 2001: Revisiting the Emergent Mississippian concept in the American Bottom: the case for the Terminal Late Woodland (ca. ad 800–1050). Paper presented at the 47th annual meeting of the Midwest Archaeological Conference, October 12–14, La Crosse, Wisconsin.

Fowler, M. L., Rose, J.,Vander Leest, B. and Ahler, S. R. 2000: The Mound 72 Area: Dedicated and Sacred Space in Early Cahokia. Springfield: Illinois State Museum, Reports of Investiga- tions, No. 54.

Fritz, G. J. and Kidder, T. R. 1993: Recent investigations into prehistoric agriculture in the Lower Mississippi Valley. Southeastern Archaeology 12, pp. 1–14.

Gartner, W. G. 1996: Archaeoastronomy as sacred geography. Wisconsin Archeologist 77, pp. 128–50.

Gibson, J. L. 2000: The Ancient Mounds of Poverty Point: Place of Rings. Gainesville: University Press of Florida.

Gosden, C. and Marshall,Y. 1999: The cultural biography of objects. World Archaeology 31, pp. 169–78.

Green, W. 2001: Chiwere sociopolitical complexity?: reconciling mythology and archaeology. Paper presented at the 47th annual meeting of the Midwest Archaeological Conference, October 12–14, La Crosse, Wisconsin.

Green, W. and Rodell, R. L. 1994: The Mississippian presence and Cahokia interaction at Trempealeau, Wisconsin. American Antiquity 59, pp. 334–59.

Gupta,A. and Ferguson, J. 1997: Beyond “culture”: space, identity, and the politics of difference. In Culture, Power, and Place: Explorations in Critical Anthropology, ed. A. Gupta and J. Ferguson. Durham: Duke University Press, pp. 33–57.

Hagedorn, K. J. 2001: Divine Utterances:The Performance of Afro-Cuban Santería.Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Hall, R. L. 1991: Cahokia identity and interaction models of Cahokia Mississippian. In Cahokia and the Hinterlands: Middle Mississippian Cultures of the Midwest, ed. T. E. Emerson and R. B. Lewis. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, pp. 3–34.

Hall, R. L. 1997: An Archaeology of the Soul. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Hally, D. J. 1993: The territorial size of Mississippian chiefdoms. In Archaeology of Eastern

North America: Papers in Honor of Stephen Williams, ed. J. B. Stoltman. Jackson, Mississippi: Archaeological Report No. 25, Mississippi Department of Archives and History, pp. 143–68.

Hargrave, E. A. and Hedman, K. 2001: The Halliday Site (11-S-27): Investigations into Early Mississippian Mortuary Behavior. Illinois Transportation Archaeological Research Program, Research Reports No. 50. Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois Press.

174 Timothy R. Pauketat and Susan M. Alt

Heidegger, M. 1962: Being and Time, trans. J. Macquarrie and E. Robinson. Oxford: Blackwell. Hobsbawm, E. and Ranger, T. (eds.) 1983: The Invention of Tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press. Hoffman, M. P. 1994: Ethnic identities and cultural change in the Protohistoric period of

eastern Arkansas. In Perspectives on the Southeast: Linguistics, Archaeology, and Ethnohistory, ed. P. B. Kwachta. Athens: The University of Georgia Press, pp. 61–70.

Holley, G. R., Dalan, R. A. and Smith, P. 1993: Investigations in the Cahokia site Grand Plaza. American Antiquity 58, pp. 306–19.

Holley, G. R., Parker, K. E.,Watters, H.W. Jr., Harper, J. N., Skele, M., Ringberg, J. E., Brown, A. J. and Booth, D. L. 2000: The Prehistoric Archaeology of the Knoebel Locality, Scott Joint- Use Archaeological Project. Report submitted to the Illinois Department of Transportation, Southern Illinois University, Edwardsville.

Holley, G. R., Parker, K. E.,Watters, H.W. Jr., Harper, J. N., Skele, M. and Ringberg, J. E. 2001: The Prehistoric Archaeology of the Lembke Locality, Scott Joint-Use Archaeological Project. Report submitted to the Illinois Department of Transportation, Southern Illinois University, Edwardsville.

Holtorf, C. J. 1998: The life-histories of megaliths in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (Germany). World Archaeology 30, pp. 23–38.

House, J. H. 1996: East-central Arkansas. In Prehistory of the Central Mississippi Valley, ed. C. H. McNutt. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, pp. 137–54.

Howard, J. H. 1968: The Southeastern Ceremonial Complex and Its Interpretation. Columbia, Missouri: Missouri Archeological Society Memoir No. 6.

Hudson, C. 1976: The Southeastern Indians. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press. Jackson, D. 2000: The Mississippian community at the Grossmann site. Paper presented at the

57th Annual Southeastern Archaeological Conference, November 8–11, Macon, Georgia. Johnson, J. K. 1987: Cahokia core technology in Mississippi: the view from the South. In

The Organization of Core Technology, ed. J. K. Johnson and C. A. Morrow. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, pp. 187–206.

Joyce, R. A. 2000: Heirlooms and houses: materiality and social memory. In Beyond Kinship: Social and Material Reproduction in House Societies, ed. R. A. Joyce and S. D. Gillespie. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, pp. 189–212.

Joyce, R. A. 2001: Burying the dead at Tlatilco: social memory and social identities. In Social Memory, Identity, and Death: Anthropological Perspectives on Mortuary Rituals, ed. M. S. Chesson. Washington, D.C.: Archeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association Num- ber 10, pp. 12–26.

Joyce, R. A. and Hendon, J. A. 2000: Heterarchy, history, and material reality: “communities” in Late Classic Honduras. In The Archaeology of Communities: A New World Perspective, ed. M. A. Canuto and J.Yaeger. London: Routledge, pp. 143–60.

Kehoe, A. B. 2001: Osage texts and Cahokia data. Manuscript in possession of the authors. Kelly, J. E. 1990: The emergence of Mississippian culture in the American Bottom region. In

The Mississippian Emergence, ed. B. D. Smith.Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, pp. 113–52.

Kelly, J. E. 1991: The evidence for prehistoric exchange and its implications for the devel- opment of Cahokia. In New Perspectives on Cahokia: Views from the Periphery, ed. J. B. Stoltman. Monographs in World Archaeology 2. Madison, Wisc.: Prehistory Press, pp. 65– 92.

Kelly, J. E. 1997: Stirling-phase sociopolitical activity at East St. Louis and Cahokia. In Cahokia: Domination and Ideology in the Mississippian World, ed. T. R. Pauketat and T. E. Emerson. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, pp. 141–66.

Mounds, Memory, and Contested Mississippian History 175

Kidder, T. R. 1992: Coles Creek period social organization and evolution in northeast Louisiana. In Lords of the Southeast: Social Inequality and the Native Elites of Southeastern North America, ed. A. W. Barker and T. R. Pauketat. Washington, D.C.: American Anthropological Association, Archaeological Papers 3, pp. 145–62.

Kidder, T. R. 1998: Mississippi period mound groups and communities in the Lower Mississippi Valley. In Mississippian Towns and Sacred Spaces: Searching for an Architectural Gram- mar, ed. R. B. Lewis and C. Stout. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, pp. 123–50.

Kidder, T. R. 2002: Investigating the plaza at the Raffman site (16MS20), northeast Louisiana. Manuscript in possession of the authors.

Kidder, T. R. and Fritz, G. J. 1993: Subsistence and social change in the Lower Mississippi Valley: excavations at the Reno Brake and Osceola sites, Louisiana. Journal of Field Archaeology 20, pp. 281–97.

King, A. 2001: Long-term histories of Mississippian centers: the developmental sequence of Etowah and its comparison to Moundville and Cahokia. Southeastern Archaeology 20, pp. 1–17.

Knight, V. J. 1986: The institutional organization of Mississippian religion. American Antiquity 51, pp. 675–87.

Knight, V. J. 1989: Symbolism of Mississippian mounds. In Powhatan’s Mantle: Indians in the Colonial Southeast. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, pp. 279–91.

Knight, V. J. 1990: Excavation of the Truncated Mound at the Walling Site: Middle Woodland Cul- ture and Copena in the Tennessee Valley. Alabama State Museum of Natural History, Divi- sion of Archaeology, Report of Investigations No. 56. Tuscaloosa, Alabama: University of Alabama.

Knight,V. J. 1997: Some developmental parallels between Cahokia and Moundville. In Cahokia: Domination and Ideology in the Mississippian World, ed. T. R. Pauketat and T. E. Emerson. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, pp. 229–47.

Koldehoff, B. and Carr, P. J. 2001: Chipped stone technology: patterns of procurement, production, and consumption. In Excavations at Wickliffe Mounds, by K. Wesler, Chapter 10 (CD-ROM). Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.

Koldehoff, B., Pauketat, T. R. and Kelly, J. E. 1993: The Emerald site and the Mississippian occupation of the central Silver Creek valley. In Highways to the Past: Essays on Illinois Archaeology in Honor of Charles J. Bareis, ed. T. Emerson, A. Fortier and D. McElrath. Illinois Archaeology 5, pp. 331–43.

Koldehoff, B.,Witty, C. O. and Kolb, M. 2000: Recent investigations in the vicinity of Mounds 27 and 28 at Cahokia: the Yale Avenue borrow pit. Illinois Archaeology 12, pp. 199–217.

Kus, S. 1997: Archaeologist as anthropologist: much ado about something after all? Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 4, pp. 199–213.

Larson, L. H., Jr. 1989: The Etowah site. In The Southeastern Ceremonial Complex: Artifacts and Analysis, ed. P. Galloway. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, pp. 133–41.

Levi-Strauss, C. 1967[1958]: Structural Anthropology. New York: Doubleday. Lewis, R. B. and Stout, C. (eds.) 1993: Mississippian Towns and Sacred Spaces: Searching for an

Architectural Grammar. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press. Lindauer, O. and Blitz, J. H. 1997: Higher ground: the archaeology of North American plat-

form mounds. Journal of Archaeological Research 5, pp. 169–207. Lopinot, N. H., Conner, M. D., Ray, J. H. and Yelton, J. K. 1998: Prehistoric and Historic Proper-

ties on Mitigation Lands, Horseshoe Lake Peninsula, Madison County, Illinois. St. Louis District Historic Properties Management Report No. 55. St. Louis: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Mainfort, R. C., Jr. 1988: Middle Woodland ceremonialism at Pinson Mounds, Tennessee. American Antiquity 53, pp. 158–73.

176 Timothy R. Pauketat and Susan M. Alt

Mainfort, R. C., Jr. 1996: The Reelfoot Lake basin, Kentucky and Tennessee. In Prehistory of the Central Mississippi Valley, ed. C. H. McNutt. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, pp. 77–96.

McElrath, D. L. and Fortier, A. C. 2000:The early Late Woodland occupation of the American Bottom. In Late Woodland Societies:Tradition and Transformation across the Midcontinent, ed.T. E. Emerson, D. L. McElrath and A. C. Fortier. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, pp. 97– 121.

Milner, G. R. 1998: The Cahokia Chiefdom: The Archaeology of a Mississippian Society. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Moore, J. H. 1994: Ethnoarchaeology of the Lamar peoples. In Perspectives on the Southeast: Lin- guistics, Archaeology, and Ethnohistory, ed. P. B. Kwachka. Athens: University of Georgia Press, pp. 126–41.

Morse, D. F. 1977: The penetration of northeast Arkansas by Mississippian culture. In For the Director: Research Essays in Honor of James B. Griffin, ed. C. E. Cleland. Museum of Anthropology Anthropological Papers 61. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, pp. 186– 211.

Morse, D. F. and Morse, P.A. 2000: Social interaction between the American Bottom of Cahokia and the Crowley’s Ridge Lowlands Division of the Lower Mississippi River ad 800–1200. In Mounds, Modoc, and Mesoamerica: Papers in Honor of Melvin L. Fowler, ed. S. R. Ahler. Scientific Papers 28. Springfield: Illinois State Museum, pp. 347–60

Nassaney, M. S. 1991: Spatial-temporal dimensions of social integration during the Coles Creek period in central Arkansas. In Stability,Transformation, and Variation:The Late Woodland Southeast, ed. M. S. Nassaney and C. R. Cobb. New York: Plenum, pp. 177–220.

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 South- eastern North America, ed. A. W. Barker and T. R. Pauketat. Washington, D.C.: Archeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association No. 3, pp. 111–43

Nassaney, M. S. 1994: The historical and archaeological context of Plum Bayou culture in central Arkansas. Southeastern Archaeology 13, pp. 36–55.

Nassaney, M. S. 2001: The historical-processual development of Late Woodland societies. In The Archaeology of Traditions: Agency and History Before and After Columbus, ed. T. R. Pauketat. Gainesville: University Press of Florida, pp. 157–73.

Overstreet, D. F. 2000: Cultural dynamics of the late prehistoric period in southern Wisconsin. In Mounds, Modoc, and Mesoamerica: Papers in Honor of Melvin L. Fowler, ed. S. R. Ahler. Scientific Papers 28. Springfield: Illinois State Museum, pp. 405–38.

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 Southeastern North America, ed. A. W. Barker and T. R. Pauketat. Washington, D.C.: Archeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association 3, pp. 31–51.

Pauketat, T. R. 1993: Temples for Cahokia Lords: Preston Holder’s 1955–1956 Excavations of Kunnemann Mound. Museum of Anthropology Memoir No. 26. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.

Pauketat, T. R. 1994: The Ascent of Chiefs: Cahokia and Mississippian Politics in Native North America. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.

Pauketat, T. R. 1997: Cahokian political economy. In Cahokia: Domination and Ideology in the Mississippian World, ed. T. R. Pauketat and T. E. Emerson. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, pp. 30–51.

Pauketat, T. R. 1998: Refiguring the archaeology of Greater Cahokia. Journal of Archaeological Research 6, 45–89.

Mounds, Memory, and Contested Mississippian History 177

Pauketat, T. R. 2000a: Politicization and community in the pre-Columbian Mississippi valley. In The Archaeology of Communities: A New World Perspective, ed. M. A. Canuto and J.Yaeger. London: Routledge, pp. 16–43.

Pauketat, T. R. 2000b: The tragedy of the commoners. In Agency in Archaeology, ed. M.-A. Dobres and J. Robb. London: Routledge, pp. 113–29.

Pauketat, T. R. 2001a: A new tradition in archaeology. In The Archaeology of Traditions: Agency and History Before and After Columbus, ed. T. R. Pauketat. Gainesville: University Press of Florida, pp. 1–16.

Pauketat,T. R. 2001b:A waterline through Cahokia’s Grand Plaza. Cahokian (Spring), pp. 10–12. Pauketat, T. R. 2001c: Practice and history in archaeology: an emerging paradigm. Anthropo-

logical Theory 1, pp. 73–98. Pauketat, T. R. 2003: Resettled farmers and the making of a Mississippian polity. American

Antiquity 68. Pauketat, T. R. in press: Materiality and the immaterial in historical-processual archaeology. In

Current Issues in Archaeological Method and Theory, eds. T. L.VanPool and C. S.VanPool. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.

Pauketat, T. R. and Emerson, T. E. 1997: Introduction: domination and ideology in the Mississippian world. In Cahokia: Domination and Ideology in the Mississippian World, ed. T. R. Pauketat and T. E. Emerson. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, pp. 30–51.

Pauketat, T. R. and Emerson, T. E. 1999: The representation of hegemony as community at Cahokia. In Material Symbols: Culture and Economy in Prehistory, ed. J. Robb. Occasional Paper No. 26. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University, pp. 302–17.

Pauketat, T. R., Kelly, L. S., Fritz, G. J., Lopinot, N. H., Elias, S. and Hargrave, E. 2002: The residues of feasting and public ritual at early Cahokia. American Antiquity 67, pp. 257–279.

Pauketat, T. R. and Lopinot, N. H. 1997: Cahokian population dynamics. In Cahokia: Domina- tion and Ideology in the Mississippian World, ed. T. R. Pauketat and T. E. Emerson. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, pp. 103–23.

Pauketat, T. R. and M. A. Rees 1996: Early Cahokia Project 1994: excavations at Mound 49, Cahokia (11-S-34–2). Springfield: Report submitted to the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency.

Pauketat, T. R., Rees, M. A. and Pauketat, S. L. 1998: An Archaeological Survey of the Horseshoe Lake State Recreation Area, Madison County, Illinois. Quaternary Studies Program, Technical Report Number 95-899-34. Springfield: Illinois State Museum.

Perino, G. 1971: The Mississippian component at the Schild site (No. 4), Greene County, Illinois. In Mississippian Site Archaeology in Illinois I. Urbana: Illinois Archaeological Survey, Bulletin 8.

Phillips, P. 1970: Archaeological Survey in the Lower Yazoo Basin, Mississippi, 1949–1955. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology 60. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University.

Phillips, P. and Brown, J. A. 1978: Pre-Columbian Shell Engravings from the Craig Mound at Spiro, Oklahoma, Part I. Cambridge, Mass.: Peabody Museum Press.

Phillips, P., Ford, J. A. and Griffin, J. B. 1951: Archaeological Survey in the Lower Mississippi Alluvial Valley, 1940–1947. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology 25. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University.

Porter, J. W. 1974: Cahokia Archaeology as Viewed from the Mitchell Site: A Satellite Community at AD 1150–1200. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Wisconsin, Madison.

Rafferty, J. 1990: Test excavations at Ingomar Mounds, Mississippi. Southeastern Archaeology 9, pp. 103–15.

178 Timothy R. Pauketat and Susan M. Alt

Reed, N. A., Bennett, J. W. and Porter, J. W. 1968: Solid core drilling of Monks Mound: tech- nique and findings. American Antiquity 33, pp. 137–48

Rodman, M. 1992: Empowering place: multilocality and multivocality. American Anthropologist 94, pp. 640–56.

Rolingson, M. A. (ed.) 1982: Emerging Patterns of Plum Bayou Culture: Preliminary Investigations of the Toltec Mounds Research Project. Fayetteville: Arkansas Archeological Survey Research Series No. 18.

Rolingson, M. A. (ed.) 1998: Toltec Mounds and Plum Bayou Culture: Mound D Excavations. Fayetteville: Arkansas Archeological Survey, Research Series No. 54.

Rouget, G. 1985: Music and Trance: A Theory of the Relations Between Museum and Possession. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Rowlands, M. 1993: The role of memory in the transmission of culture.World Archaeology 25, pp. 141–51.

Salzer, R. J. and Rajnovich, G. 2000: The Gottschall Rockshelter: An Archaeological Mystery. St. Paul, Minn.: Prairie Smoke Press.

Samuel, R. 1994: Theatres of Memory. London:Verso. Sassaman, K. E. and Heckenberger, M. J. 2001: Roots of the Theocratic Formative of the

Archaic Southeast. Paper presented at the Southern Illinois University Visiting Scholar Conference “Hunters and Gatherers in Theory and Archaeological Research,” March 23–24, 2001, organized by G. Crothers. Carbondale, Illinois.

Saunders, J.W., Mandel, R. D., Saucier, R.T.,Allen, E.T., Hallmark, C.T., Johnson, J. K., Jackson, E. H., Allen, C. M., Stringer, G. L., Frink, D. S., Feathers, J. K., Williams, S., Gremillion, K. J.,Vidrine, M. F. and Jones, R. 1997: A mound complex in Louisiana at 5400–5000 years before the present. Science 277, pp. 1796–9.

Scott, J. C. 1990: Domination and the Arts of Resistance: Hidden Transcripts. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Shennan, S. J. 1993:After social evolution: a new archaeological agenda? In Archaeological Theory: Who Sets the Agenda?, eds. N.Yoffee and A. Sherratt. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 53–9.

Smith, B. D. 1978: Variation in Mississippian settlement patterns. In Mississippian Settlement Patterns, ed. B. D. Smith. New York: Academic Press, pp. 479–503.

Smith, B. D. 1984: Mississippian expansion: tracing the historical development of an explana- tory model. Southeastern Archaeology 3, 13–32.

Smith, H. M. 1969: The Murdock Mound: Cahokia site. In Explorations into Cahokia Archaeol- ogy, ed. M. L. Fowler. Urbana: Illinois Archaeological Survey Bulletin 7, pp. 49–88.

Squier, E. G. and Davis, E. H. 1998: Ancient Monuments of the Mississippi Valley (originally pub- lished 1848). Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Steponaitis,V. P. 1986: Prehistoric archaeology in the southeastern United States, 1970–1985. Annual Review of Anthropology 15, 363–404.

Stoltman, J. B. 1991: Cahokia as seen from the peripheries. In New Perspectives on Cahokia:Views from the Periphery, ed. J. B. Stoltman. Monographs in World Archaeology No. 2. Madison, Wisc.: Prehistory Press, pp. 349–54.

Stoltman, J. B. 2000: A reconsideration of the cultural processes linking Cahokia to its north- ern hinterlands during the period ad 1000–1200. In Mounds, Modoc, and Mesoamerica: Papers in Honor of Melvin L. Fowler, ed. S. Ahler. Springfield, Ill.: Illinois State Museum Scientific Papers 28, pp. 439–54.

Thomas, C. 1985[1894]: Report on the Mound Explorations of the Bureau of Ethnology. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Thomas, J. 1996: Time, Culture, and Identity. Oxford: Routledge.

Mounds, Memory, and Contested Mississippian History 179

Tilley, C. 1994: A Phenomenology of Landscape: Places, Paths, and Monuments. Oxford: Berg. Trouillot, M.-R. 1995: Silencing the Past: Power and the Production of History. Boston: Beacon

Press. Williams, H. 1998: Monuments and the past in early Anglo-Saxon England. World Archaeology

30, pp. 90–108. Williams, M. 1994:The origins of the Macon Plateau site. In Ocmulgee Archaeology 1936–1986,

ed. D. J. Hally. Athens: University of Georgia Press, pp. 130–37. Williams, S. 1990: The Vacant Quarter and other late events in the Lower Valley. In Towns and

Temples Along the Mississippi, ed. D. H. Dye. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, pp. 170–80.

Williams, S. and Brain, J. P. 1983: Excavations at the Lake George Site,Yazoo County, Mississippi, 1958–1960. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, No. 74. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University.

Wolf, E. 1982: Europe and the People Without History. Berkeley: University of California Press.