ON RECONSIDERING DISPLAY GOODS PRODUCTION AND CIRCULATION IN THE MOUNDVILLE CHIEEDOM

paramountcy ca. A.D. 1300-1450 (Knight and Steponaitis 1998). I find that the concept of a "prestige goods economy" does not fit the patterns of production and circulation evidence in the Moundville case. While not discounting the importance of display goods in the The "Prestige Goods Economy" model zoas created to explain political economy of Moundville, I suggest that we the rise of political complexity as the result of elite strategies need to rethink how display goods related to the social, to control access to exotic, finely crafted display goods. This political, and economic structures of this Mississippian concept is so ingrained in our current understandings of society. social, economic, and political life in Mississippian chiefdoms

Jon Bernard Marcoux

that it has become part of the very definition of "Mississippian." The political economy of the Moundville chiefdom, in particular, has long been associated with the prestige goods concept and a highly centralized system of crafting and longdistance exchange. Jn this paper, J bring together extant data from past excavations at Moundville and surrounding sites in order to test the current model of display goods production and circulation during the peak of the chiefdom's power (ca. A.D. 1300-1450). I find that while the production and circulation of display goods is ovenvhelmingly associated with elites at the Moundville center, the scale of local display goods production and the quantity of nonlocal display goods relative to locally made display goods at the site does not match the expectations generated by the current model of Moundville's political economy.

The Prestige Goods Model

In the 1970s as theoretical favor began to shift away from the view of chiefdoms as redistributive societies, archaeologists began to posit that chiefdoms were marked by inequality and control of social, political, and economic power (e.g., Earle 1978, 1991, 1997; Johnson and Earle 1987; Peebles and Kus 1977; Welch 1996; Wright 1984). Taking a lead from earlier ethnographical research by Malinowski (1922) and Mauss (2000), these archaeologists began focusing on the interplay between economy, politics, and ideology in chiefly societies. One of the most enduring products of this change in perspective was the "prestige goods economy" model. The model was originally conceived Within the last quarter century, researchers have cast by Friedman (1975) and Rowlands (Friedman and the prehistoric development of political complexity as Rowlands 1977) and applied to data from European the result of a limited set of strategies employed by Iron Age chiefdoms by Frankenstein and Rowlands individuals and groups seeking political advantage (1978). (e.g., Blanton et al. 1996; D'Altroy and Earle 1985; Earle The "prestige-goods economy" model described a 1987, 1994, 1997; Frankenstein and Rowlands 1978). very particular exchange system in w^hich political Central to this political-economy approach is the power was held by those who could control access to concept of a "prestige goods economy" in which the exotic wealth items through extemai exchange relaproduction and circulation of display goods together tions (Frankenstein and Rowlands 1978:76). The founform a crucial leverage point that was manipulated by dation of the model depended on a set of ethnographic individuals Ln order to establish and maintain political, analogies to groups that placed a high priority on sociaL and economic power. ^ Among studies of exotic wealth items in determining status (Ekholm Mississippian chiefdoms in the Southeast, one often 1972). The value of prestige goods was derived from encounters the prestige goods economy concept, their use as payments in a system of social transactions whether it is explicitly evoked as an explanatory model characterized by pervasive competition for status or implied within a broader theoretical framework between descent groups (Frankenstein and Rowlands (e.g., Anderson 1994; King 2003; Steponaitis 1991; 1978:76). Prestige goods were items that were used in Trubitt 2000; Welch 1991, 1996). In this paper, i revisit this ceaseless cycle of status competition (e.g., marriage the original context and intent of the prestige goods wealth, feasting) to pay social debts and to place social economy model, show how this model was modified to debt upon others. fit data from the Moundville chiefdom, and test how For Frankenstein and Rowlands (1978:76-78), status well the modified prestige goods concept fits current competitions, which were evident even in fairly evidence of display goods production and circulation egalitarian societies, naturally led to hierarchical in the Moundville chiefdom during the height of its economic, social, and political structures as nascent
232

DISPLAY GOODS PRODUCTION IN THE MOUNDVILLE

CHIEFDOM

elite descent groups invested food surpluses in wealth objects that were used to acquire more wives and dependents for the group. According to the authors, increasing the denrographic strength of the local group was a crucial strategy for gaining status in this system. Once the competitive cycle began to breed asymmetrical social relations, they argued that elites began to use sumptuary laws to assert control by determining what items could be used as prestige goods. By determining the form and value of these social commodities, elites, in effect, entrenched themselves at the top of the political and social hierarchy through a policy of social loan sharking. Life at the top, however, was never a stable environment. Frankenstein and Rowlands (1978:7879) noted that elites constantly struggled to control the supply of prestige goods in order to keep "inflation" from devaluing the objects. Thus trade with external polities, manufacturing techniques related to prestige goods production, and any sources of nonlocal raw materials had to be tightly controlled. In order to support the acquisition of exotic prestige goods, local production of items for the external trade needed to be "constant feature" of this type of economy. Also, the political aspirations of a host of underlings had to be dealt with through the dispersal of nonlocal goods to local subchiefs. tn sum, expansion of one's political power in this model was a function of the supply of prestige goods at one's disposal. When the supply of prestige goods was steady and tightly controlled, the political and social dominance of a particular elite group was maintained. When there was a disruption in the supply of prestige goods or loss of control over production, those elites lost dominance because they could no longer meet their ritual and social obligations. The prestige goods model has undergone some adjustments and appeared in various incarnations in recent years. Among these incarnations are Earle's (1997) and D'Altroy's (D'Altroy and Earle 1985) concept of "wealth finance" and Blanton et al.'s (1996) "networking strategies." These latter constructions provided a more elaborate discussion regarding the ideological dimension of the prestige goods economy. The authors used cross-cultural ethnographic data to suggest that foreign or exotic items, obtained from long-distance exchange, held power in prehistoric groups because of a shared worldview that equated geographical distance with cosmological distance and far-off places with great sources of esoteric knowledge (Blanton et al. 1996:5; DeMarrais et al. 1996:15; Earle 1987:299; see also Helms 1979, 1993). While these models engaged more with what these goods might have meant to prehistoric groups, they shared the original prestige goods model's emphases on status competition and wealth accumulation through control over local production and regional exchange. Timothy

Earle (1997:73) best expressed this view in writing that display goods were in essence "political currencies [that compensated] people within ruling institutions." The original case study of the Iron Age chiefdoms associated with the Hallstatt culture (ca. 650-300 B.C.) provides a good archaeological example of how a prestige goods economy operated (Frankenstein and Rowlands 1978; Gosden 1985). Prestige goods in central European Hallstatt chiefdoms consisted of items that were obtained from trade with distant Greek and Etruscan sources as well as ornate items made locally from imported raw materials. On the local side of this burgeoning long-distance trade system, items needed for export or for dispersal among local politicos (e.g., objects of iron, bronze, cloth, and glass) were manufactured in large numbers at specialized workshops. Archaeological evidence related to the scale of production at these workshops included the remains of specialized facilities like large furnaces, molds for casting metals, specialized tool kits, abundant production debris, and numerous production failures. The locations of these large workshops at chiefly centers, the level of standardization exhibited by many of the manufactured items, and the specialized knowledge needed to produce local prestige goods all suggest that this production was sponsored and controlled by elites (Frankenstein and Rowlands 1978:88-89). The circulation of prestige goods reflected the existence of an inclusive and pervasive system of prestige competitions that crosscut status groups. While participation in this system was open and likely compulsory, it was at the same time dominated by a very small number of individuals. This system was characterized in Hallstatt chiefdoms by a widespread yet highly concentrated distribution of prestige goods. In the Hallstatt cemeter}' at Heuneberg, for example, locally made "prestige goods" (some of which made from imported raw materials) were present in low^ numbers with many individuals; however, all of the foreign-made objects and the majority of locally made prestige goods were found with only a few (presumably elite) individuals (Frankenstein and Rowlands 1978:87). The importance of nonlocal prestige goods was exemplified by the finding that imported prestige goods comprised 10 of the 14 types of artifacts in the funerary assemblages at Heuneberg. The accumulation and conspicuous consumption of nonlocal prestige goods by Hallstatt elites was also expressed in the many large "ritual hoards" found across central Europe, each of which contained dozens of ornate Greek and Etruscan items and locally made weapons (Bradley 1988). Finally, extemai demand for locally made prestige goods was manifested through the distribution of significant quantities of Heunebergmade iron objects in neighboring regions (Frankenstein and Rowlands 1978:90). One can see through this

233

SOUTHEASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 26(2) WINTER 2007 example that the prestige goods economy model describes a cycle of supply and demand for display goods that was significant in its scope and scale. The Prestige Goods Model and the Moundville Chiefdom Current scholarly discussions of Mississippian chiefdoms from Etowah in northern Georgia to Cahokia in the American Bottom have involved the concept of "prestige goods economy" both advocating and critiquing its use (e.g.. Brown et al. 1990; Cobb 1996; King 2003; Muller 1997; Pauketat 1994, 1997; Trubitt 2000). Of all Mississippian chiefdonns, the Moundville chiefdom has had perhaps the longest and closest association with this concept. Over 30 years ago Peebles and Kus (1977; Peebles 1978:17) argued for elite sponsored production of display goods at the Moundville site based on the identification of manufacturing loci for greenstone celts, mica artifacts, and shell beads. This research established Moundville quite literally as a textbook example of elite control over display goods production in prehistoric chiefdoms (Peebles and Kus 1977; see also Price and Feinman 2001). Paul Welch (1986, 1991, 1996) continued this legacy by accomplishing much to clarify the dynamics of Moundville's political economy. For his dissertation, Welch (1986, 1991) tested the utility of four crosscultural models of political economy, including Service's (1962) "redistribution model/' the "mobilization model" developed by Peebles and Kus (Peebles and Kus 1977) and Earle (1977), Wright's (1977) "tributary model," and Frankenstein and Rowland's (1978) "prestige goods model." After reviewing subsistence and artifact data pertaining to Mississippian deposits at the Moundville paramount center, surrounding single mound centers, and smaller nonmound sites, Welch (1991:179) found that no one theoretical construct could accurately predict the archaeological data patterns pertaining to the economic articulation of the Moundville center and outlying sites. In Welch's (1991:181) study, comparisons of production evidence and the quantity and variety of finished display goods between Moundville and surrounding sites did not demonstrate a strict prestige goods economy in the sense of Frankenstein and Rowlands (1978), but the evidence did indicate vast, presumably status based, differences in access to display goods. Welch (1991:170) found that evidence of display goods production occurred only at the paramount center of Moundville and not in any of the surrounding sites. Furthermore, Welch (1991:177) found that most display goods were either imported as finished items or were made from nonlocal raw materials. Welch also noted a large disparity in the types and frequencies of local and nonlocal display goods between the Moundville center and single mound centers and a complete absence of finished display goods at the small hamlet or farmstead sites where commoners presumably would have lived Welch (1996:84). | Given these findings, Welch formulated a new model that better fit the production and distribution data related to display goods. While this model differed from the parhcular form of the prestige goods model laid out by Frankenstein and Rowlands (1978), it retained the notion that the power wielded by Moundville's elite depended heavily on control over display goods (Welch 1996:90). Welch (1996:89-91) aiso kept the idea that display goods were utilized in social competitions; however, he altered the model to reflect a very different type of competition. Rather than the frequent and theorehcally open (in regard to status) exchange system outlined in the original prestige goods model, the new model featured a closed elite-centered system of long-distance exchange that precluded participation by Moundville's commoners. The value of display goods in the new model rested on the idea that "locally valuable but nonlocally acquired" items were "visible, tangible emblems of the chief's supernatural efficacy" (Welch 1996:90-91; see also Blanton et al. 1996:5; DeMarrais et. al 1996:15; Earle 1987:299). Indeed, Welch (1996:89) argued that an elite monopoly over display goods would have given a hypothetical "chief" a distinct advantage in intrapoUty factional competition, which aided Moundville in remaining a stable polity for centuries. With good reason, this perspective on Moundville's political economy transcended the original analysis and became a foundational aspect of our collective definition of Mississippian. Researchers rendered this conceptualization on a broader geographic scale by treating the presence and relative abundance of nonlocal display goods as proxies to measure degree of regional influence exerted by Mississippian polities (e.g., Anderson 1994; Blitz 1993; Welch 1996). Steponaitis (1991) used this conceptual framework to compare the developmental trajectories of the Moundville chiefdom to another chiefdom in the Pocahontas region of Mississippi. Through a diachronic study of display goods in burial contexts at both polities, Steponaitis (1991:Figure 9.4) found that frequencies of nonlocal display goods in the Pocahontas region declined around the same time that dramatic political centralization was occurring at Moundville and other polities in the vicinity (ca. A.D. 1200). Based on this pattem, Steponaitis (1991:226-227) argued that the chiefdon:! in the Pocahontas region most likely never developed to the degree of Moundville because local elites lost access to exotic display goods-perhaps to the benefit of Moundville's corps of elites. Pauketat (1997) has critiqued the popular use of the prestige goods concept for interpreting data regarding

234

DISPLAY GOODS PRODUCTION IN THE MOUNDVILLE

CHIEFDOM

the production and circulation of display goods across the Mississippian southeast. His critique was largely aimed at the way recent studies overemphasized Mississippian elite dependence on noniocally n:iade display goods and long-distance exchange. Although Pauketat acknowledged the significance of nonlocal display goods as status symbols in Mississippian societies, he was doubtful that they were part of the kind of competitive "gifting" system modeled in the traditional prestige goods economy (Pauketat 1997:910). For the Cahokia polity, Pauketat (1997:10) argued instead for a model that emphasized elite strategies to control the local production of display goods for local distribution-stressing the intra- rather than interregional character of elite strategies. In support of this interpretation, Pauketat marshaled evidence related to the production and circulation of igneous-rock axeheads and mollusc-shell ornaments, items made from imported raw materials, throughout the American Bottom. Pauketat (1997:5-8) pointed to significant quantitative asymmetries in production evidence between the "central political-administrative complex" of Cahokia and surrounding sites within the polity. Density measures of microlith tools used for shell bead production, for example, were 950 times greater in parts of Cahokia than in rural homesteads. Similar differences, although on a much smaller scale, were noted for the production of igneous-rock axeheads. Pauketat (1997:10) concluded that production of display goods was highly centralized, yet the bulk of this production was not intended for use in longdistance exchange. Instead, he argued that the majority of locally made display goods crafted from nonlocal raw materials were circulated within the polity as part of elite strategies to promote political interests by controlling and disseminating cultural meanings. In this case, locally made display goods held value within the Cahokia polity as symbols of the transformation from "the distant unknown (exotic) ... to the locally known"-a transformation materialized through the elite sponsored act of production (Pauketat 1997:11). Thus Pauketat's more inward-looking model raises important questions about the widely promoted view of the Mississippian world as a "World System"-like network of polities bound together by a mutual elite dependence on nonlocal display goods (sensu Frankenstein and Rowlands 1978:80-81).

ville center and outlying sites have provided additional data that should be applied to our interpretations of display goods production and circulation during the height of political consolidation in the chiefdom (ca. A.D. 1300-1450). In this paper, I focus on what I believe to be three relatively simple and archaeologically testable premises undergirding the current interpretation that elites at Moundville garnered power by monopolizing a key social, political, and economic leverage point through the acquisition of nonlocal display goods. First is the notion that underlies all of the various forms of prestige goods economy, that nonlocal display goods formed a primary fund of power drawn upon by elites for status competitions. The prestige goods concept favors imported display goods over locally made display goods on the secular level as more desirable "political currencies" (Earl 1997) and on the ideological level as symbols of a leader's diplomatic and supernatural efficacy (Welch 1996). As in the case of the Hallstatt chiefdoms, the current model of Moundville's political economy predicts that elites were compelled not only to control the flow of nonlocal goods but also to maintain local production and long-distance exchange at certain "levels" in order to satisfy the demand of lesser elites and reduce the risk political of unrest (Welch 1991:191), In testing the supposed primacy of nonlocal goods in Moundville's political economy, I expect (1) that nonlocal display goods will be concentrated among elite contexts at Moundville dating to the height of its political ascendancy (ca. A.D. 1300-1450) and (2) that nonlocal display goods will be more abundant in these elite contexts than locally made display goods. The second and third premises follow from the first premise and are related to the idea that the acquisition of nonlocal display goods by elites was tied to a robust system of long-distance exchange. In the Hallstatt example, this exchange system was indicated by evidence of the specialized and centralized production of local display goods at large-scale workshops as well as the significant presence of these locally produced display goods outside of the Hallstatt region. If this type of requisite exchange system was in operation at Moundville, then I expect there to be evidence for local elite controlled display goods production on a large scale. I also expect significant quantities of locally produced Motindville display goods in foreign polities.
Study Methods

Testing the Prestige Goods Concept at Moundville Given the popularity of the prestige goods concept as well as Pauketat's recent critique, I propose, as did Welch (1986, 1991) before me, that current interpretations be periodically tested for goodness of fit with extant data. In recent years, excavations at the MoundIn order to test these three premises, I compare artifacts representing evidence of display goods production and finished display goods from tate Moundville II to early Moundville III phase contexts (ca. A.D.

235

SOUTHEASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 26(2) WINTER 2007 Aside from obvious problems of preservation, there are three caveats that must be mentioned before discussing the results of the study. First, as other researchers have noted, any differences in the presence and number of display goods between Moundville and outlying sites should be viewed cautiously as the potential product of sample bias due to large differences in the scale of excavations between the Moundville center and outlying sites (Muller 1997:350; Welch 1991:181, 183). Indeed, our ideas will likely change as more outlying homesteads and mound centers are excavated. Second, while evidence for the concentration of display goods at Moundville is compelling, virtually all of the items have been recovered from burial contexts. Steponaitis (1991) has shown that while the resident population at the Moundville center drastically declined during the height of the paramountcy (A.D. 1300-1450) the burial population at the site continued to increase. This suggests that most of the individuals interred at Moundville during this period did not live at the paramount center (Steponaitis 1998). While Moundville may represent the ultimate "consumption" location of these goods, there is a good possibility that the use histories of these objects took place at sites outside of the center. Third, this study is largely an artifact study and not an in depth study of the archaeological contexts detailing display goods production and circulation (e.g.. Knight 2004; Markin 1997; Wilson 2001). As such, the evidence for production is confined mostly to specimens that were discarded during manufacture. There are obvious drawbacks to studying only artifacts, and it is hoped that the results reported here can inform more detailed contextual studies that will doubtless follow.
Display Goods Production at Moundville

\
1
Snow's Bend >

Mill Creek Pride Place Hog Pen

tK9 L ^ *

Hemphi Bend Locality

- "V

B Powers

Moundville

V
\

t
* ^ White

0 kllomelers

Figure I. A map of the Moundville chiefdom featuring sites discussed in the text.

1300-1450) at Moundville, contemporaneously occupied subsidiary center sites, farmsteads, and cemeteries located within the presumed boundaries Moundville chiefdom (Figure 1). The Moundville center sample includes data from published reports and original excavation records from the 1869 to 1941 excavations (Moore 1996a, 1996b; Peebles 1979; Steponaitis 1983b). For this study, I inspected all accessible specimens from these excavations in the special collections room at the Office of Archaeological Services in Moundville, Alabama. I did not have the opportunity to personally inspect the materials recovered from C. B. Moore's excavations at Moundville, but instead relied upon published photographs. I also include in my study specimens recovered during recent University of Alabama excavations at Mounds Q, E, and F under the direction of Vernon James Knight Jr. Data for the sample of sites surrounding Moundville is derived from published works and personal communications with those who participated in the excavations. Farmstead sites in the sample include the Mill Creek site (lTu265) (Mistovich 1988; Welch 1998), Pride Place (lTul) (Johnson 1999), and the Powers site (lHall) (Welch 1998). Only one single-mound center. Snow's Bend (lTu3), provides sufficient chronological and artifact data to be included in the study (Dejarnette and Peebles 1970; Welch 1998).

I begin by addressing display goods production at the paramount center, hi this analysis, I recognize both direct and indirect evidence of display goods production. Direct evidence of production includes specimens that exhibit signs of partial manufacture. These specimens were either discarded or lost before being crafted into their final form. Indirect evidence of display goods production takes niultiple forms, including (1) concentrations of component raw materials used to produce display goods (e.g., copper scrap, marine shell, tabular sandstone), (2) concentrations of tools likely used to craft display goods (e.g., small-bit flake tools and sandstone saws), and (3) certain styles of finished goods thought to be locally made based on the regional concentration of these items in the Moundville chiefdom.

DISPLAY GOODS PRODUCTION IN THE MOUNDVILLE

CHIEFDOM

Figure 2. Quartz crystal bead discarded during production. Note the evidence of partial drilling on the end of the bead. I begin my study by reassessing the manufacturing loci of shell beads, mica artifacts, and greenstone celts identified by Welch (1991:Figure 5.1) and Peebles (1978) because these comprise a large part of the current model of display goods production at Moundville. After a thorough review of the excavation records from 1905 through 1951 (Peebles 1979), I cannot find any evidence for the reported manufacturing locus of shell beads east of Mound E. The only shell artifacts reported to come from nonmortuary contexts in that area are finished items including one shell bead, one shell pendant, and one shell ear plug (Peebles 1979:279). The high concentration of unworked mica found near the conference building at the northwestern fringes of the Moundville site does provide good evidence for display goods production; however, it is associated with a late Moundville I phase occupation that predates the timeframe of this study (Scarry 1998). Lastly, Wilson's (2001) recent analyses of greenstone artifacts casts doubt on the existence of a celt manufacturing locus north of Mound R. Welch (1991:165) had originally contended that 50 percent of greenstone fragments recovered from Scarry's (1986) excavations north of Mound R were unworked and thus provided evidence of celt production. Based on his analysis of material from Dejamette's 1931 and 1972-75 excavations north of Mound R, Wilson (2001), however, concludes tl-iat the majority of greenstone fragments exhibit polished surfaces indicative of tool usage rather than tool production (see also Moore 1996a:119). A review of artifacts from Knight's 1990s University of Alabama excavations of Mounds Q, F, and E, as well as the artifact collections from previous excavations at Moundville, could only identify six instances of direct evidence for display goods production at the paramount center. These six specimens are related to the production of two artifact types. One specimen is a

Figure 3. Tabular stone pendants discarded during production. Note the evidence for partial drilling on Uie upper portion of the middle specimen. quartz crystal bead exhibiting evidence of polishing and partial drilling at both ends (Figure 2). This artifact was recovered from the summit of Mound E. The remaining instances of direct evidence consist of five partially manufactured tabular stone pendants. The known corpus of both unfinished and finished tabular stone pendants, which numbers less than a dozen, includes specimens made of limonite or hematite in three recognized forms: oblong with engraved fiveand six-pointed star, swastika, and eye-in-hand motifs, mace head effigy, and human head effigy. Steponaitis (1983b:Figure lOg) previously identified one oblong pendant fragment recovered during a nineteenthcentury Smithsonian investigation at Moundville as a production failure because it exhibited six drilled holes, but lacked any of the usual engraved decoration. To this specimen, this study adds three undecorated oblong stone pendant "blanks" in intermediate stages of production. Two of the blanks were recovered from the area North of Mound R and the other from the area North of Mound E. This last specimen also exhibits evidence of partial drilling on both sides of its upper portion (Figure 3). A mace head shaped pendant blank found on the summit of Mound E rounds out the group. This specimen exhibits rough unground edges that appear as if they were freshly sawn and snapped from a larger tablet of limonite. The strongest indirect evidence for display goods production at Moundville during this period can be found in works by Wilson (2001), Knight (2004), and Markin (1997). These authors present detailed analyses of the area North of Mound E and midden contexts

237

SOUTHEASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 26(2) WINTER 2007 an embossed eye motif and exhibit a much wider regional distribution (Brain and Phillips 1996:373). Aside from the presence of two copper "swastika" gorgets recovered from mortuary assemblages at Etowah (Brain and Phillips 1996:374), the distribution of these styles of copper display goods appears confined to the burials at the Moundville center. Indirect evidence of this same sort exists for the local production of certain eccentric rimmed and engraved pottery vessels. The classification of these types of pottery vessels as display goods is admittedly arbitrary, being based on the ornate nature of their construction and decoration and their use as serving ware. Eccentric rimmed vessels are characterized by a rectanguloid shape and terraced lips (e.g., Steponaitis 1983a:Figure 63d). The other type of fine ware vessels include partially mold-made globular bottles and bowls that bear engraved representational art (Moundville Engraved, var. Hemphill in the parlance of the type-variety system) (Steponaitis 1983a:314-323). Elaborate stone bifaces, worked from exotic chert, may also have been produced at the paramount center. I identify these bifaces, whose shape is reminiscent of the "batons" featured in iconographic representations of the Southeastern Ceremonial Complex, as display goods because they are made of high-quality nonlocal chert, their distribution is confined to burials, and they do not exhibit any macroscopic evidence of use-wear.
Displai/ Goods Production at Outlying Sites

Figure 4. Formal notched and engraved Pottsville sandstone palettes. located in the flanks of Mound Q and Mound G at Moundville. Wilson's (2001) analysis of deposits from the 1932 excavations North of Mound E and later excavations on the summit of Mound E (Vernon J. Knight Jr., personal communication 2000) yield indirect evidence for the production of greenstone display goods. This evidence occurs as concentrations of tools such as sandstone saws, hammerstones, and abraders, as well as thin greenstone slabs exhibiting evidence of sawing. Also present in these deposits are sawn and snapped pieces of tabular sandstone debitage of the same distinct composition and thickness as the formal notched and engraved micaceous Pottsville sandstone palettes that are typically associated with Moundville (Figure 4) (Vernon J. Knight Jr., personal communication 2000; Whitney et al. 2002). Mound Q midden deposits dating to the Moundville II and Moundville III phases also contain quantities of items likely related to display goods manufacture. These include raw materials like copper scrap, galena, and mica; tools such as sandstone saws, small-bit flaked stone tools, and greenstone chisels; and mineral pigments (Knight 2004; Markin 1997). Indirect evidence for the local manufacture of other types of display goods at Moundville is admittedly more tenuous. Certain copper artifacts were likely fashioned at Moundville based on the presence of copper scrap in Moundville refuse deposits and the apparent local style exhibited in their decoration. This is the case with round and oblong-shaped sheet copper gorgets and side-notched sheet copper "symbol badges." The gorgets are embossed with five- and sixpointed star and swastika motifs that closely resemble the engraved motifs on local pottery vessels and locally produced tabular stone pendants. The overall form of the side-notched symbol badges differs from the socalled Cemochechobee-style badges that often feature

Substantial evidence for the production of display goods, either direct or indirect, is practically nonexistent in the deposits at the peripheral sites included in this study. Currently, only a single instance of evidence for display goods production outside of Moundville is known to exist. Welch (1996:83) reports that the 1992 excavations at the Hog Pen mound site, a late Moundville I to early Moundville II phase construction, found what might be a formal Pottsville sandstone palette fragment broken during production. According to Welch, the undecorated triangular fragment exhibits unground faces and a rounded saw grove that might represent an attempt to create a circular shape (Paul D. Welch, personal communication 2000). This concentrated distributional pattern is even more telling when one considers the lack of production evidence recovered from Pride Place (lTul), a habitation site located literally a stone's throw from outcrops of the micaceous Pottsville sandstone used to make the formal palettes found at Moundville (Johnson 1999). The excavation of a Moundville III midden (ca. A.D. 1400-1550) at the site recorded a startling lack of artifacts related to the production of these palettes. Indeed, only a single sandstone saw was recovered in

238

DISPLAY GOODS PRODUCTION IN THE MOUNDVILLE Table 1. Display Goods Included in the Study Sample.

CHIEFDOM

Brushed display good in the table, I record whether the items were produced locally or nonlocally based on Location of production evidence at Moundville, known distribuCount Production tions of decorative styles, and prior research (Brain and Copper objects Phillips 1996; Vernon J. Knight Jr., personal communiCopper-clad wooden eardtsks 99 Unknown 32 Oblong copper gorgets Probable local cation 2000). Given these criteria, I find that locally 6 Copper headdress elements Probable nonlocal produced display goods comprise 52 percent of the 19 Cemochechobee-style copper sj-mbol badges Probable nonlocal 7 Sido-notched copper symbol badges Probable local sample (n 325) and nonlocal display goods comprise 72 Copper-clad wooden beads Unknown 14 percent of the sample (n = 87). I cannot with any 28 Uniclentified copper ornaments Unknown 1 certainty classify the production origin of the remainCopper-clad shell beads Unknown Marine shell objects ing 34 percent of the sample (n = 211). Marine-shell bracelet 1 Probable local The distributions of probable nonlocal display goods 14 Engraved marine-shell gorgets/fragments Probable nonlocal and raw materials among the study sites are restricted 1 Marine-shell "axe" pendants Probable local solely to the Moundville site (Table 2). The complete Stone objects Oblong tabular stone pendants 6 Probable local absence of nonlocal display goods and exotic raw 2 Mace head eftigy tabular stone pendants Probable kxial materials among sites outside of Moundville is signif1 Human head effigy tabular stone pendants Probable local 1 Greenstone gorgets Probable local icant; however, as mentioned earlier, 1 believe this 2 Monolithic axe stone pendants Probable local pattern is tempered by the fact that virtually all of the 3 Mica ear ornaments Unknown 1 "Amethyst" pendants Unknown finished display goods were used as grave furnishings, 31 Galena beads Probable local and only one small cemetery utilized during late 1 Quartz crystal beads Probable local Moundville 11 and early Moundville III phases (Snows Objects of miscellaneous material Bend) is included in the sample. Shark ttwth pendants ! Unknown 12 Pearls (occurrfnct?s) Probable nonlocal Although not exclusive, the distribution of locally 1 "Resin" beads Unknown produced display goods is also heavily concentrated at Display objects Moundville (Table 3). The set of items found in outlying Copper objects li Copper-clad ates Probable nonlocal sites includes a single monolithic axe fragment, a single 2 Plain copper plates Probable nonlocal oblong tabular stone pendant, three instances of formal 11 Copper fishhooks Probable local 2 Copper-clad wooden effigy rattles Probable nonlocal notched and engraved Pottsville sandstone palettes, and 4 Unidentified copper objects Unknown numerous engraved fine ware ceramic vessels. The axe 1 Copper"dagger" Unknown fragment was found by a collector in a garden plot near Marine shell objects Romulus, Alabama, in an uncharacteristic upland Engraved marine-shell cups / fragments 3 Probable nonlocal 7 Undecorated marine-shell cups/fragments Probable nonlocal setting far from the floodplain of the Black Warrior Stone objects River (Knight 2000; Miller 1956). The fragment of an Chipped stone bifaces 7 Probable local engraved oblong stone pendant was found at the 10 Non-utilitarian greenstone axes/fragments Probable local 2 Powers site southwest of the paramount center. At the Monolithic axes Probable local Formal Potts\'ille sandstone palettes/fragments 63 Probable local Pride Place site, excavators recorded one complete 11 Stone effigy pipes/fragments Probable nonlocal Pottsville sandstone palette in a burial and one palette Pottery vessels fragment in a midden deposit (Johnson 1999). The other Engraved fineware pottery vessels/fragments 138 Probable local 8 Eccentric-rimmed pottery vessels/fragments Probabie local Pottsville sandstone palette fragment was identified in a Objects of miscellaneous material private collection from a site located in Hemphill Bend Woixlen dub 1 Probable local across the Black Warrior River from Moundville (Jennifer Meyer and Scott Hammerstedt, personal communication 2000). The presence of palettes at these the midden at Pride Place in contrast to 21 saws sites is easily explained by their location. Pride Place is recorded by Knight (2004:318) in Mound Q contexts at located within sight of a Pottsville sandstone outcrop, Moundville. and the location of the other find is just outside of the site limits of Moundville. The distribution of fine ware pottery vessels featurThe Circulation of Finished Display Goods within the ing engraved representational art is far more wideMoundville Chiefdom spread. This particular variety of pottery includes From my review of excavation reports, records, and bowls and bottles bearing engraved Southeastern artifact collections, I identify a total sample of 623 Ceremonial Complex iconography such as the winged finished display goods (Table 1). Nearly all of these serpent and crested bird. Unlike the other locally items were recovered from burial contexts; the remain- produced display goods, vessels, and sherds of this der of the items represents finds from surface collec- type are present at many sites throughout the Moundtions and general excavations. For each category of ville chiefdom (Knight 1986).
239

SOUTHEASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 26(2) WINTER 2007

Table 2. Distribution of Nonlocal Display Goods among Sites in the Study.
NonliKal Display Goods Copper objects Copper headdress elements Cemochechobee-style copper symbol badges Copper-clad axes Plain copper plates Copper-clad wooden effigy rattles Stone objects Stone effigy pipes/fragments Vlarine-shell objects Engraved marine-shell gorgets / fragments Engraved marine-shell cups/fragments Mis<:eUaneous objects Pearls (occurrences) Exotic raw matt-rials Copper scrap Marine shell Mica Galena Moundville 6 19 Powers U fl fl fl fl 0 0 fl 0 Absent Absent Absent Absent Pride Place Snow's Bend Mill Creek

11 2 2
11 14 3
12

0 fl 0 0
0

0 0. 0 0
0

e
<J 0 0

.0
0

0 0
0 Absent Absent Absent Absent

0 0

a
Absent Absent Absent Absent

0 Absent Absent Absent Absent

Present Present Present Present

The Circulafion of Finished Display Goods Beyond the Moundville Chiefdom

The distribution of locally produced display goods beyond the MoundviUe chiefdom can be assessed by focusing on the interregional distributions of tabular stone pendants and Pottsville sandstone palettes. I focus on these two artifact types because they are the most abundant artifact types in the sample that offer indisputable evidence for being produced at Moundville. Tabular stone pendants occur outside of Moundville in two instances. TVA excavations at the Seven Mile Island site in the Tennessee River Valley of northwest Alabama yielded a fragment of an engraved oblong tabular stone pendant that is identical in style and composition to specimens from Moundville (Webb and Dejarnette 1942:Plate 58.2). The second instance is a fragment of an engraved oblong stone pendant recovered from excavations at the Halbert Camp site in the Tombigbee River Valley (Rucker 1974:86-92, Plate 4). The known d istribution of formal notched and engraved Pottsville sandstone palettes is considerably

more far-reaching and consists of seven occurrences. Within 100 kilometers of Moundville, the distribution includes two palette fragments from the Lubbub village in the central Tombigbee River Valley of eastern Mississippi and a single palette fragment from the Fidor Mound site in Pickens County, Alabama (Blitz 1993; Jenkins and Ensor 1981). The renraining four instances are found in the lower Mississippi River Valley over 250 kilometers from Moundville. This set consists of a whole palette from the Glass site, two palette fragments from the Lake George site, and a palette fragment from the Anna site (Vincas Steponaitis, personal communication 2000; Williams and Brain 1983:265).

Discussion The results of this study generally do not support the three premises underlying the current model of display goods production and circulation in the MoundviUe chiefdom. The first premise, that norUocal display

Table 3. Distribution of Locally Made Display Goods among Sites in the Study.
Pride ^otal Display Goods Copper objects Side-notched copper symbol badges Oblong copper gorgeta Copper f is hooks Stone objects T.ibular stone pendants/fragments Greenstone gorgets vionolithic axe stone pendants Chipped stone hifaces jreenstone axes/fragments Vloiiotithic axes ^ottsville sandstone palettes/fragments 'ottery vessels iccentric-rimmed vessels/fragments Engraved fineware vessels/fragments Moundville
7 32 11 7 1 2 7 10 1 57 7

Powers
fl 0 0

riace
fl 0

Snow's Bend
0 0

MiU Creek 0
0

Hemphili Locality 0
0

Romulus Locality 0
0 fl

a
0 fl
fl

0 0
fl 0 0 fl fl fl ll

0 0
0 0 0 0 0

0
0 0

1
fl 0 0 0 0 0 fl

0 0
0

0
0 0

0 0
fl 2 fl

0
0

0
1 1

0 i
0

1 0
0

Present

Absent

Present

Present

Present

Unknown

Jn known

240

DISPLAY GOODS PRODUCTION IN THE MOUNDVILLE

CHIEFDOM

goods comprised a primary fund of power for Moundville elites, is not completely borne out by the data. On one hand, the distribution of nonlocal display goods is entirety concentrated among elite contexts at the Moundville site during the height of its political ascendancy (ca. A.D. 1300-1450). This suggests that access to nonlocal display goods was extremely centralized. The distribution of locally made display goods further indicates that access to these items was limited almost entirely to Moundville's elite. On the other hand, the overall paucity of nonlocal display goods relative to local display goods does not fit with the expectation regarding the importance of nonlocal display goods (Welch 1996). Indeed, the amount of display goods in the Moundville chiefdom I believe to be locally made (n = 325, 52%) far outnumbers imported display goods (n = 87, 14%). Even if all of the items of "unknown" production origin are combined with imported items, this total is still less than the total number of locally produced display goods in Moundville contexts. This pattern is similar to that found by Pauketat's (1997) for Cahokia except that the most numerous locally made display goods at Moundville (formal sandstone palettes, tabular stone pendants, and fine ware pottery vessels) are produced from local rather than imported raw materials. In order to put these results into a broader context, we can compare the Moundville data to other archaeological examples. How does the relative abundance of nonlocal display goods in the Moundville chiefdom compare to the classic Hallstatt chiefdom example? Unfortunately, direct frequency con^parisons are not possible because of a lack of quantitative data in the original case study by Frankenstein and Rowlands (1978). The relative number of local versus nonlocal artifact categories, however, can be utilized in a very rough comparison. Whereas 10 of the 14 artifact types (71%) in the Heuneberg mortuary assemblages are imported, only 10 out of 39 artifact types (26%) in the Moundville study sample are nonlocal. Also, unlike the Hallstatt chiefdoms and Cahokia, investigations at Moundville have produced no evidence for the caching or hoarding of nonlocal or even local display goods (e.g., Bradley 1988; Pauketat 1997). A more direct comparison can be made to the Pocahontas polity and the Lubbub polity, two neighboring Mississippian chiefdoms of much less renown (Blitz 1993; Steponaitis 1991). Traditional indicators of political complexity (e.g., settlement pattem and distributions of display goods) suggest that the social, political, and economic structures of the Pocahontas and Lubbub polities were more akin to simple chiefdoms or so-called Big Man societies than to the intensely hierarchical centralized Moundville polity. Steponaitis (1991:210-211, 223) and Blitz (1993:169-170) each offer quantitative comparisons between these

Table 4. Comparison of Nonlocal Display Goods among Three Mississippian Polities.

Moundville Total nonlocal display goods Total burials display gLX>ds per burial 371 0.30 Lubbub 32 115 ()-28 Pocahontas 22 124 0.18

polities and Moundville in the form of ratios measuring the number of nonlocal display goods per burial. Limiting the sample to roughly contemporaneous burials dating approximately to the time period of this study (ca. A.D. 1300-1450), the results of the comparison are telling (Table 4). First, the ratios of all three cases reflect a general paucity of nonlocal display goods. Second, while the number of nonlocal display goods per burial in the Moundville chiefdom is almost twice that of the Pocahontas chiefdom, the same value is practically identical to that calculated for the Lubbub chiefdom. To interpret these comparisons, one must remember that the "engine" driving the current political economy model of Moundville and the original prestige goods model is status competition among elites that proceeded through the conduits of interregional exchange. As many researchers in the southeast have argued, the relative power of regional polities in this model is inextricably linked to the abilities of resident elites to acquire nonlocal display goods (Blitz 1993:182; Steponaitis 1991:227; Welch 1996:90). With this in mind, the disparity between Moundville and Pocahontas is expected (Steponaitis 1991); however, for the san:\e reason, the similarity between the Moundville and Lubbub polities is provocative. If the current model is correct and display goods distribution is driven by elite competition, then the ubiquity of nonlocal display goods in a "weakly centralized" polity like Lubbub should be much lower than a paramount chiefdom like Moundville (Welch 1996:91). Taken together, the evidence leads to two conclusions regarding the first premise: (1) Nonlocal display goods were uniquely elite phenomena, but they do not appear to comprise a primary fund of power, instead, locally made display goods appear to have played a larger role within Moundville's political economy; and (2) the regional comparison to the Lubbub polity does not support the contention that nonlocal display goods were primarily used as "currencies" in an interregional competitive system of exchange. In regard to the second premise, two conclusions are reached regarding the nature of display goods production within the Moundville chiefdom during the height of its political ascendancy (ca. A.D. 1300-1450): (1) essentially all display goods production took place at the Moundville site just as Welch (1991, 1996) has argued, and (2) while I cannot objectively quantify the

243

SOUTHEASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 26(2) WINTER 2007 long-distance exchange system, these numbers are quite low. The presence of these items suggests a potentially important connection to those polities located to the west as opposed to polities in other areas; however, the apparent scale of this exchange does not support the existence of a World System-like network of interdependent polities engaged in competitive gift exchange (Frankenstein and Rowlands 1978:80-81). Indeed, interregional exchange at similar levels is indicated by evidence from Archaic and Woodland period "polities" across the southeast, yet rarely are these exchange systems considered in same light as that of the Mississippian period (e.g., Gibson 2001; DeBoer 2004).

Conclusion What then are we to make of the role played by display goods in the political economy of the Moundville chiefdom? There is a good deal of detailed work left to do with regard to specific display goods like the stone pendants and sandstone palettes, but some general conclusions can be drawn from this study. Craft Production Areas Obviously, the exclusive association of production 1 Mica 2 Oblong Stone Pendants 3 Stone Palettes 4 Oblong Stone Pendants, Greenstone Ornaments, evidence and finished local and nonlocal display goods Stone Palettes,Quartz Beads. Mace-head Stone Pendant 250 meters with elite contexts is sigruficant. As Welch (1991:179) has shown, this complete lack of display goods in soFigure 5. Locations of production areas identified in called commoner contexts also makes the Moundville this study. case incongruous with a classic prestige goods economy. Pushing this lack of fit further is the double scale production of display goods at Moundville, all of realization that (1) display goods were primarily made the evidence I have reviewed in this study points to a and distributed locally within the Moundville chiefrelatively small-scale practice that occurred not in large dom and (2) the empirically observed levels of special use areas around the Moundville site but within production and exchange of these display goods do elite household contexts (Figure 5). Again, this pattem not indicate the existence of a pervasive interregional of centralization is similar to that argued for Cahokia, system of competitive gift exchange. This should not be although on a much smaller scale (Pauketat 1997; interpreted as a minimalist argument {sensu Muller Wilson et al. 2006). Certainly, the evidence presented 1997), for I do not believe that these findings downplay here is at odds with the degree of specialization, the importance of these objects in Moundville's standardization, and scale of production that occurred political economy. Instead, I think that the items I call in the Hallstatt example, where hundreds of locally "display goods," for want of a better term, played niade display goods are found at a single site (Gosden important roles in the lives of the folk who crafted and 1985:479). Likewise, excavations at Moundville have interacted with them, as well as all of those who yet to produce evidence of display goods production participated in the private and community rituals for anywhere near the scale of that found by researchers at which they were created. In light of the pattems Cahokia (e.g., Pauketat 1993, 1997; Yerkes 1991). identified in this study, however, 1 do believe that we The known regional distribution of two types of need to follow Pauketat (1997) in thinking of alternative locally produced Moundville display goods bears on ways to conceptualize the intraregional role played by the third premise. The distribution of tabular stone display goods in Moundville's political economy. pendants and forn:\al Pottsville sandstone palettes John Kelly (2006), for example, makes a solid indicates that these items are heavily concentrated at argun:\ent for including in narratives of craft producthe Moundville site except for a few occurrences in the tion examinations of the rituals likely involved with the neighboring Tombighee and lower Mississippi River act of creation itself. By applying ethnographic data Valleys. Given that these two artifact types currently from historic Osage groups to Mississippian groups in represent the best candidates for use in a Mississippian the American Bottom, Kelly offers a socially inclusive
242

DISPLAY GOODS PRODUCTION IN THE MOUNDVILLE CHIEFDOM and nuanced interpretation of craft production evidence. Kelly's model highlights the corporate nature of crafting, demonstrating how different steps in the production of particular display goods were likely carried out by different kin-based groups. Through their ritual participation in creating and manipulating display goods, these groups actively reproduced their relationships to the community and to each other (Kelly 2006:255). While I do not believe that Kelly's model would fit the data associated with Moundville display goods production, I do agree that we must give more thought to the act of production (Wilson et al. 2006:63-64). Here, I am thinking about the household-level scale of display goods production at Moundville and the likelihood that this act, as well as the ritual manipulation of finished display goods, were highly personalized practices associated with certain groups of elite individuals (see Helms 1993:76). The patterns I see in the data lead me to believe that the crafting and use of display goods were likely related practices that were as much a part of the identity of some elite individuals as living on top of mounds and eating provisioned deer was for other elites (e.g.. Knight 2004). an anonymous reviewer strengthened this paper considerably. Any and all errors of fact or interpretation are mine alone. ' In this paper, I use the term "display goods" (Muller 1997:17) (alternatively known as "prestige goods" (Frankenstein and Rowlands 1978] or "skillfully crafted goods" [Helms 1993]) to refer to artifacts that are rare, non-utilitarian, and ornately crafted. The category often includes items produced from exotic raw materials that were either modified locally or obtained from nonlocal sources in a finished form.

References Cited

Anderson, David G 1994 The Savannah River Chiefdoms: Political Structure and Change in the Late Prehistoric Southeast. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Blanton, Richard E., Gary M. Feinman, Stephen A. Kowalewski, and Peter N. Peregrine 1996 Agency, Ideology, and Power in Archaeological Theory: A Dual-Processual Theory for the Evolution of Mesoamerican Civilization. Current Anthropology 37:1-14. Blitz, John H. 1993 Ancient Chiefdoms of the Tombigbee. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. ' In closing, 1 believe that as we begin to move away Bradley, Richard from the notion that nonlocal display goods formed the 1988 Hoarding, Recycling, and the Consumption of Prehistoric Metal work: Technological Change in Western primary fund of power for Moundville's elite, we Europe. World Arclmeology 20:249-260. should avoid using the term "prestige goods" in discussions regarding the political economy of Mound- Brain, Jeffrey P., and Philip Phillips ville. Some may argue that this is trivial semantics, but I 1996 Shell Gorgets: Styles of the Late Prehistoric and Protohistoric Southeast. Peabody Museum Press, Cambridge. would argue that the MoundviUe case demonstrates Brown, James A., Robert A. Kerber, and Henry D. Winters that the terms we use are laden with notions that shape 1990 Trade and the Evolution of Exchange Relations at the lhe way we sti.idy, think, and write about the past. Beginning of the Mississippian Period. In The Mississippian Emergence, edited by Bruce D. Smith, pp. 251-280. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. Notes Cobb, Charles R. 1996 Specialization, Exchange, and Power in Small-Scale Acknowledgments. A debt of gratitude is owed to Eugene Societies and Chiefdoms. Research in Economic AnthropolFutato and the staff at the Office of Archaeological Research ogy 17:251-294. for granting me access to Moundvilie's artifact collections. D'Altroy, Terrence N., and Timothy K. Earle This paper stems from M.A. research completed at the 1985 Staple Finance, Wealth Finance, and Storage in the University of Alabama. During and since that period, Vernon Inka Political Economy. Current Anthropology 26:187-206. James Knight Jr. has offered much appreciated guidance, wisdom, and encouragement. As a graduate student at the DeBoer, Warren R. University of Alabama and the University of North Carolina, 2004 Little Bighorn on the Scioto: The Rocky Mountain Connection to Ohio Hopewell. American Antiquity 69: 1 was fortunate to have a great cast of mentors and cadre of 85-108. graduate students to ponder display goods with. I am especially grateful to Greg Wilson, Amber VanDerwarker, Dejarnette, David L., and Christopher S. Peebles Tom Lewis, Virgil Beasley, Hunter Johnson, Vin Steponaitis, 1970 The Development of Alabama Archaeology: The Brian Billman, Tony Boudreaux, Chris Rodning, Margie Snow's Bend Site. lournal of Alabama Archaeology 16: Scarry, John Scarry, and Scott Hammerstedt for sharing their 77-119. comments, thoughts, research, and sympathetic ears. A DeMarrais, Elizabeth, Luis Jaime Castillo, and Timothy K. special thanks to Paul Welch for serving on my thesis Earle committee. His comments provided the kind of insight that 1996 Ideology, Materialization, and Power Strategies. Curcould only come from a person who has spent years thinking rent Anthropology 37:15-86. about the ins and outs of Moundville's political economy. Also a note of gratitude to Christopher Peebles, whose Earle, Timothy K. pioneering research at Moundville made my project possible. 1977 A Reappraisal of Redistribution: Complex Hawaiian The comments offered by Claudlne Payne, Greg Wilson, and Chiefdoms. In Exchange Systems in Prehistory, edited by
243

SOUTHEASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 26(2) WINTER 2007

Timothy K. Earle and Jonathan E. Ericson, pp. 213-229. and Paul D. Welch, pp. 236-263. Center for ArchaeologAcademic Press, New York. ical Investigations Occasional Paper 33, Southern Illinois 1978 Economic and Social Organization of a Complex Chiefdom: University, Carbondale. The Halelea District, Kaua'i, Hawaii. Museum of Anthro- King, Adam pology, Anthropological Papers 63. University of Michi- 2003 Etowah: The Political History of a Chiefdom Capital. gan, Ann Arbor. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. 1987 Chiefdoms in Archaeological and Ethnohistorical Knight, Vernon James, Jr. Perspective. Annual Reviezv of Anthropology 16:279-308. 1986 The Ir\stitutional Organization of Mississippian Reli1991 The Evolution of Chiefdoms. In Chiefdoms: Poiver, gion. American Antiquity 51:675-687. Economy, and Ideology, edited by Timothy K. Earle, 2004 Characterizing Elite Midden Deposits at MoundviUe. pp. 1-15. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. American Antiquity 69:304-321. 1994 Political Domination and Social Evolution. In Compan- Knight, Vernon James, Jr., and Vincas P. Steponaitis ion Encyclopedia of Anthropology, edited by Timothy 1998 A New History of Moundville. In Archaeology of the Ingold, pp. 940-961. Rutledge, London. Moundville Chiefdom, edited by Vemon J. Knight, Jr. and 1997 How Chiefs Come to Poioer: The Political Economy in Vincas P. Steponaitis, pp. 1-25. Smithsonian Institution Prehistory. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA. Press, Washington, D.C. Ekholm, Kajsa Malinowski, Bronoslaw 1972 Power and Prestige: The tUse and Fall of the Kongo 1922 Argonauts of the Western Pacific. E. P. Dutton, New Kingdom. Skriv Service, Uppsala. York. Frankenstein, Susan, and Michael J. Rowlands Markin, lulie G. 1978 The Internal Structure and Regional Context of Early 1997 Elite Stoneworking and the Function of Mounds at Iron Age Society in Southwest Germany. University of Moimdville. Mississippi Archaeology 32:118-135. London Institute of Archaeology Bulletin 15:73-112. Mauss, Marcel Friedman, Jonathan 2000 The Gift: The Form and Reason for Exchange in Archaic 1975 Tribes, States, and Transformations. In Marxist AnalySocieties. W. W. Norton, New York. ses and Social Anthropology, edited by Maurice Bloch, MiUer, Carl F. pp. 161-202. Tavistock, New York. 1956 A Monolithic Ax from Alabama. American Antiquity 24: Friedman, Jonathan, and Michael J. Rowlands 182-183. 1977 Notes Toward an Epigenetic Model of Civilization. In Mistovich, Tim S. ' The Evolution of Social Systems, edited by Jonathan Fried- 1988 Early Mississippian in the Black Warrior Valley: The man and Michael J. Rowlands, pp. 201-276. Duckworth, Pace of Transition. Southeastern Archaeology 7:21-38. London. Moore, Clarence B. Gibson, Jon L. 1996a Certain Aboriginal Remains of the Black Warrior 2001 The Ancient Mounds of Poverty Point. University Press of River. In The Moundville Expeditions of Clarence B. Moore, Florida, Gainesville. edited by Vernon J. Knight, Jr., pp. 23-142. University of Gosden, Chris Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. 1985 Gifts and Kin in Early Iron Age Europe. Man 2: 1996b Moundville Revisited. In The Moundville Expeditions of 475^93. Clarence B. Moore, edited by Vernon J. Knight, Jr., Helms, Mary W. pp. 143-214. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. 1979 Ancient Panama: Chiefs in Search of Power. University of Muller, Jon Texas Press, Austin. 1997 Mississippian Political Economy. Plenum Press, New 1993 Craft and the Kingly Ideal. University of Texas Press, York. Austin. Pauketat, Timothy R. Jenkins, Ned J., and H. Blaine Ensor 1993 Temples for Cahokia Lords: Preston Holder's 1955-1956 1981 The Gainesville Lake Area Excavations. In ArchaeologExcavations of Kunnemann Mound. Museum of Anthropolical Investigations in the Gainesville Lake Area of the ogy, Memoir 26. University of Michigan Press, Ann Tennessee-Tombigbee-Waterway, vol. 1. University of AlaArbor. bama Office of Archaeological Research Report of 1994 The Ascent of Chiefs. University of Alabama Press, Investigations No. 11, Tuscaloosa. Tuscaloosa. Johnson, Allen W., and Timothy K. Earle 1997 Specialization, Political Symbols, and the Crafty Elite 1987 The Evolution of Human Societies. Stanford University of Cahokia. Southeastern Archaeology 16:1-15. Press, Stanford, CA. Peebles, Christopher S. Jolinson, Hunter B. 1978 Determinants of Settlement Size and Location in the 1999 Archaeological Excavations at Pride Place (ITul) and Moundville Phase. In Mississippian Settlement Patterns, Its Role in the Moundville Economy. Paper Presented at edited by Bruce D. Smith, pp. 396-416. Academic Pre^, the 56th Annual Meeting of the Southeastem ArchaeoNew York. logical Conference, Pensacola. 1979 Excavations at MoundviUe, 1905-1951. Microfiche. UniKelly, John E. versity of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor. 2006 The Ritualization of Cahokia: The Structure and Peebles, Christopher S., and Susan M. Kus Organization of Early Cahokia Crafts. In Leadership and 1977 Some Archaeological Correlates of Ranked Societies. Polity in Mississippian Society, edited by Brian M. Butler American Antiquity 42:421-448. , 244

DISPLAY GOODS PRODUCTION IN THE MOUNDVILLE CHIEFDOM

Price, T. Douglass, and Gary M. Feinman 1990 Mississippian Emergence in West-Central Alabama. In 2001 Images of the Past. 3rd ed. Mayfield, Mountain View, CA. The Mississippian Emergence, edited by Bruce D. Smith, Rucker, Marc D. pp. 197-225. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, 1974 Archaeological Survey and Test Excavations in the Upper D.C. Central Tombighee River Valley: Alicezullc-Columbtis Lock and 1991 Moundville's Economy. University of Alabama Press, Dam Impoundment Areas, Alabama and Mississippi. MisTuscaloosa. sissippi State University, Starkville. 1996 Control over Goods and the Political Stability of the Scarry, C. Margaret Moundville Chiefdom. Tn Political Structure and Change in 1986 Change in Plant Procurement and Production during the Prehistoric Southeastern United States, edited by John F. the Emergence of the Moundville Chiefdom., UnpubScarry, pp. 69-91. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. lished Ph.D. diss.. Department of Anthropology, Univer- 1998 Outlying Sites within the Moundville Chiefdom. In sity of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Archaeology of the MoundviUe Chiefdom, edited by V. J. 1998 Domestic Life on the Northwest Riverbank at MoundKnight, Jr. and Vincas P. Steponaitis, pp. 133-166. ville. In Archaeolog}/ of the Moundinlle Chiefdom, edited by Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. Vemon J. Knight, Jr. and Vincas P. Steponaitis, pp. 63-101. Whitney, Cynthia, Vincas P. Steponaitis, and John J. W. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. Rogers Service, Elman 2002 A Petrographic Study of Moundville Palettes. South1962 Primitix'e Social Organization: An Evotutionanj Perspeceastern Arclmeology 21:227-234. tive. Random House, New York. Williams, Stephen, and Jeffrey P. Brain Steponaitis, Vincas P. 1983 Excavations at Like George, Yazoo County, Mississippi, 1983a Ceramics, Chronology, and Community Patterns: An 1958-1960. Papers of the Peabody Museum of ArchaeolArchaeological Study at MoundviUe. Academic Press, New ogy and Ethnology 74. Harvard University, Cambridge. York. Wilson, Gregory D. 1983b The Smithsonian Institution's Investigations at Moundville in 1869 and 1882. Mid-Continental lournal of 2001 Crafting Control and the Control of Crafts: Rethinking the Moundville Greenstone Industry. Southeastern ArchaeArchaeology 8:127-160. ology 20:118-128. 1991 Contrasting Patterns of Mississippian Development. In Chiefdoms: Power, Economy, and Ideology, edited by Wilson, Gregory D., Jon Bemard Marcoux, and Brad Koldehoff Timothy K. Earle, pp. 193-228. Cambridge University 2006 Square Pegs in Round Holes: Organizational Diversity Press, Cambridge. between Early Motmdville and Cahokia. In Leadership and 1998 Population Trends at Moundville. In Archaeology of the Polity in Mississippian Society, edited by Brian M. Butler Moundville Chiefdom, edited by Vemon J. Knight, Jr. and and Paul D. Welch, pp. 43-72. Center for Archaeological Vincas P. Steponaitis, pp. 26-43. Smithsonian Institution Investigations Occasional Paper 33, Southern Illinois Press, Washington, D.C. University, Carbondale. Trubitt, Mary Beth B. Wright, Henry T. 2000 Mound Building and Prestige Goods Exchange: Changing Strategies in the Cahokia Chiefdom. American 1977 Recent Research on the Origin of the State. Annual Rmnexv of Anthropology 6:79-97. Antiquity 65:669-690. 1984 Prestate Political Formations. In On the Evolution of Webb, William S., and David L. Dejamette Complex Societies: Essays in Honor of Harry Hoijer 1982, 1942 An Archaeological Survey of the Pickwick Basin in the edited by Timothy K. Earle, pp. 41-77. Undena PublicaAdjacent Portions of the States of Alabama, Mississippi, and tions, Malibu. Tennessee. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 129. Washington, D.C. Yerkes, Richard W. Welch, Paul D. 1991 Specialization in SheU Artifact Production at Cahokia. 1986 Models of Chiefdom Economy: Prehistoric Moundville In New Perspectives on Cahokia: Views from the Periphery, as a Case Study. Unpublished Ph.D. diss.. Department of edited by James B. Stoltman, pp. 4 9 - ^ . Prehistory Press, Anthropology, University of Michigan, Arui Arbor. Madison.

245