In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Every classi¤cation scheme has its exceptions, and so it is with the cache typology. Two reported caches have a sizable number of both utilized and nonutilized specimens. One large hoard of 108 hoes has been reported from a site near Big Lake in northeast Arkansas, and a photograph depicts several broken specimens (Anonymous 1973). Morse and Morse (1983:255) describe this cache as an “alleged” ¤nd, but if genuine it represents one of the largest known. A smaller cache of 44 hoes was recovered from the Mound Lake site in Illinois (Miller 1958). Four are noted as having wear from use, and “a few” were broken . It is dif¤cult to say what is represented by these mixed caches. Were people storing their own, used hoes with a supply of new hoes for the upcoming agricultural season? Were they offerings of some sort? Even with the other cache types it cannot be argued that they always neatly ¤t into the distributional/domiciliary taxonomy. The East St. Louis ¤nd, for example, seems to have elements of a votive deposit of some sort, given its association with caches of other objects. On the basis of the available evidence, it is possible to forward the following conclusions about hoe caches in the Mississippian Southeast: (1) the regular occurrence of large, often pristine, caches with mound sites suggests that individuals at these centers enjoyed a preferred access to the regional hoe trade as a function of their status and of the strategic placement of centers along major waterways; (2) the regular occurrence of small caches of used hoes with houses indicates the large caches were broken up and disseminated to smaller communities as part of local exchange systems; and (3) a few of the hoe caches may have been ceremonial deposits. The distribution and use of the Mill Creek chert “ceremonial” blades were quite distinct from those of the hoes. Maces seem to be the rarest item in this category, and ¤nds include the burial interment at the Lilbourn site and one from the Craig mound at the Spiro site in eastern Oklahoma (Bell 1947). Spatulate celts are somewhat more common and occasionally occur in caches at mound sites (Titterington 1938:6–7), although Mill Creek chert is not always the predominate material represented . Duck River–style swords made from Mill Creek chert also have been found at the Great Mortuary at Spiro (Hamilton 1952), but the recovery of one from the wall trench of a structure at the Hazel site also indicates they were not restricted to elite contexts (Morse and Morse 1983). The eccentric types made from Mill Creek chert and other silicious materials often have pigment residues, primarily in red, green, and yellow; in some cases the implements may have been painted, in others the residues may have rubbed on as a direct result of tool use (Sievert 1994). The bifaces known as Ramey knives are the most common Mill 70 Exchanging Chert, Consuming Chert Creek chert “display” lithics recovered, although their contexts suggest they found their way into utilitarian uses as well. For instance, in the American Bottom they occur singly and in caches in domestic structures and with burials (Milner 1984:92; Pauketat 1983; Perino 1963:96). Outside of the American Bottom, large Mill Creek chert knives often occur as mortuary goods (e.g., Conrad 1991; Santeford 1982:254–58). Except for Ramey knives, all of the Mill Creek chert ceremonial implements are relatively rare. Their ceremonial use has been inferred from their frequent inclusion in burials, although, as described earlier in this chapter, they occasionally are found in secular contexts. Long knives and maces are also found depicted in the hands of individuals on shell gorgets and engravings, as well as on copper plates (Lewis and Kneberg 1946:115; Phillips and Brown 1978:177, plate 56; Thurston 1897:98), which is taken as further support for their special role in Mississippian society. Beyond the idea that these unusual items were highly valued in late prehistoric times, however, we have little understanding of how the different categories of ceremonial objects ¤t into the Mississippian world view. Such studies are hampered by our small sample size. Although there is a tendency to collapse all bifaces other than hoes into a ceremonial category, there does seem to be some variation among the individual types that is worthy of further study, if the sample sizes can be increased and the proveniences secured. This variation may relate to ceremonial and practical uses...

Share