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

42 I Robert H. Lafferty III and James E. Price ditional dates from three features (9, 10, and 11) at the site. Feature 9 was believed to be the same as the Prices' Feature 1. Feature 9 was a large pit that showed some evidence of intrusion by small rodents. The two dates from Feature 9 (Table 1-9 and Figure 1-17, Nos. 2 and 4) were run on the largest wood carbon available, are virtually identical, and calibrate to the A.D. 980s. Unhappily, this material was found below the level of Feature 1 dated by the Prices. Assuming that Features 1 and 9 are indeed the same feature, the dates are not in proper stratigraphic order. It would appear that the feature was closed ca. A.D. 1000 (Sierzchula and Lafferty's dates) and that twoto three-century-old wood was being burned (Prices' dates) just prior to closure. Feature 10 was a pit or pit bottom, 1.7 meters in diameter, with no evidence of intrusion. The four dates from this feature (Table 1-9 and Figure 1-17, Nos. 5-8) are significantly different at the p =.05 level and indicate a pair of earlier (cal. early tenth century) and a pair of later (cal. mid-eleventh century) dates. The dates, however, are not in stratigraphic order. One of the early dates (charcoal ; Beta-64557) and one of the late dates (nutshells; Beta-61385) came from the same collection unit in the bottom of Feature 10. Two other samples (Beta-64556 and 64558) came from a dark band of charcoal and were selected from large chunks of charcoal. The former sample dates to the mid-900S and the latter to the late A.D. 1000S (Table 1-9 and Figure 1-17, Nos. 7 and 8, respectively). The dispersion of dates and their stratigraphic inconsistency suggest that the feature was filled in around A.D. 1100 and that twocentury -old wood was involved in the fire. In the cases of both Features 9 and 10, it seems more reasonable to accept the later dates for the features (ca. A.D. 1000 and 1050, respectively) and assume that earlier carbon was included in the feature (probably as fuel) than to assume that the late carbon was introduced as a contaminant into the bottom of both features. Feature 11 had a 2- to 3-centimeter root cast piercing its bottom. The loose root fill was segregated from the upper part of the feature fill and subsequently discarded. No diagnostic material was recovered from Feature 11. A single date was obtained; it is rather late, calibrated to the mid-thirteenth century. The North Fork site radiocarbon dates fill a gap in the latter part of the early Mississippi period. Associated stemmed, corner-notched (Reed) arrow points now appear to date as early as A.D. 1000. A finely made knife blade from North Fork is previously unreported for a dated Ozark context. Six radiocarbon dates from the Ozark Edge fall in the post-1400 time period (Table 1-9 and Figure 1-17, Nos. 10-12, 16, 17, and 24). All have been rejected by the excavators. In retrospect and on the basis of more recent work, we have been too hasty in rejecting some of these dates. It seems highly improbable that all of them are in error. In conclusion, a chronological sequence of Mississippian components Southeast Missouri I 43 (broadly construed) for the Western Lowlands and Ozark Edge can be offered as follows: 23CT54 Gooseneck 23SH10 Owls Bend 230 R49 23SH141 23RI192 North Fork 23WE627 Shell Lake 23SH19 Powers phase 23WE627 Shell Lake 3RA78 (calibrated) A.D. 650-900 A.D. 650-900 A.D. 700-750 A.D. 700-900 A.D. 1000-1050 A.D. 800-1000?? (J. P.) A.D. 1000-1400 A.D. 1300 A.D. 1300-1400 ?? (R. L.) A.D. 1450-1650 Major Research Problems for the Future Sufficient research has been conducted in southeast Missouri to delineate several fruitful research domains that deserve future study. Some among these are described below. Additional Refinement of the Cultural Sequence and Dating of Phases throughout Southeast Missouri Although a great amount of archaeological data has been generated on the cultural sequence of southeast Missouri, there remain major gaps in our knowledge . Many areas have never even received initial survey. Even in those areas surveyed with some intensity, very few sites have been adequately tested, and even fewer have had any major archaeological...

Share