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

2 Fort Ancient and the Range of Mississippian Social Complexity In this chapter, the basic range of Mississippian and Fort Ancient site and social structures and mortuary patterns are outlined, along with evolutionary models that have been previously formulated regarding the development of Fort Ancient with respect to Mississippian interactions. Defining Mississippian Differentiating the Mississippian continuum began with Holmes’s (1886) geographical differentiation of late prehistoric pottery in the midwestern United States into Upper, Middle, and Lower Mississippian types. Middle Mississippian was based largely on the presence of shell-tempered pottery (Holmes 1903). Middle and Upper Mississippian terms were in common usage by 1930 (Griffin 1985) and would later contribute to the development of the Midwestern Taxonomic System (McKern 1939; Phillips et al. 1951), which continues to form the basis for differentiation of late prehistoric societies located in the Midwest. The Midwestern Taxonomic System consists of four archaeological constructs based on nested sets of shared material attributes (mostly pottery): components (single sites), foci (sets of closely related sites), aspects (series of foci), and phases (many aspects). Middle Mississippian and Upper Mississippian were defined as phases (Griffin 1943). Holmes’s (1886) Middle Mississippi area included large portions of Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana , Mississippi, Tennessee, and Texas. Middle and Upper Mississippian phases are generally located in distinct environmental zones. Middle Mississippian mound centers are typically located along major rivers, with the more complex ones being situated in broad aggraded valleys with developed backwater areas containing abundant wetland resources and soils most suitable for intensive agriculture (Smith 1978, 1985; Ward 1965). Upper Mississippians are generally located in areas within the prairie peninsula (Stuckey 1981;Transeau 1935).This is particularly clear for the Oneota (Brown 1982), although I would extend this to include Oliver phase 22 / Chapter 2 and Fort Ancient societies that inhabited the fragmented eastern portion of this ecoregion dotting parts of central Indiana and southwest Ohio (SunWatch is located in such a prairie opening [Cooper 1800]). This environmental distinction appears to have had consequences in terms of maize dependency, which was lower for Fort Ancient groups than for neighboring Middle Mississippian societies (Schurr and Schoeninger 1995). In contrast, elk were more intensively utilized in the Fort Ancient region (Smith 1986). This well-known pattern of the general boundaries between Middle and Upper Mississippian groups in the study area may be obscuring reality a bit. A recent examination of Middle and Upper Mississippian site distributions included all recorded sites in state inventories (including many in the vast “gray” literature) for Ohio, Kentucky, Indiana, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, and Illinois (Schroeder 2004). Results of this effort differ from the generalized depiction in two respects (Figure 2.1; compare with Figure 1.1). First, it is clear that there is inconsistency regarding what is deemed to be the distinction between Middle and Upper Mississippian sites, particularly in central Indiana, as sites referred to as Middle Mississippian are attributable to the Oliver phase, which are equivalent in social structure to Fort Ancient and other Upper Mississippian sites (Redmond and McCullough 2000). Second, and more germane to the present study, was the finding that both Middle and Upper Mississippian sites are commonly represented in counties situated at the interface of Middle and Upper Mississippian site concentrations; this is particularly evident in the tri-state area (Kentucky, Indiana, Ohio) and northern Illinois (see Figure 2.1). This depicts more of a gradation of one group into another, from those attributed to Middle Mississippian into those defined as Upper Mississippian, rather than rigid boundaries, which may be more an artifact of our own creation than “on the ground” reality, a fact that will become apparent in the present investigation . Following Service’s (1962, 1975) model of social evolution and the general fit with archaeological correlates (see Creamer and Haas 1985:742–743), most researchers have categorized Middle Mississippians as “chiefdoms” and Upper Mississippiansas“tribes.” Chiefdoms consist of clearly defined social hierarchies with significant differences between groups of higher and lower status. These differences are maintained by the restricted and conspicuous use of sumptuary goods by elite kinship groups. Chiefdoms are also socially and politically centralized , consisting of economically interdependent communities (Adams 1975; Fried 1967; Sahlins 1968; Service 1962, 1975). In contrast, tribes consist of economically independent villages. Production is usually for subsistence purposes; limited surpluses are produced but are not centralized. Surpluses are usually Figure 2.1. Middle and Upper Mississippian site concentrations in the midwestern United States. (Adapted from Schroeder 2004:Figure 3 and Figure...

Share