Calibrating and Reassessing American Bottom Culture History

CALIBRATING AND REASSESSING AMERICAN BOTTOM CULTURE HISTORYAuthor(s): Andrew C. Fortier, Thomas E. Emerson and Dale L. McElrathSource: Southeastern Archaeology, Vol. 25, No. 2, Contributions of TransportationArchaeology to American Bottom Prehistory (Winter 2006), pp. 170-211Published by: Allen Press on behalf of the Southeastern Archaeological ConferenceStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40713401 .

Accessed: 20/01/2014 16:51

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Allen Press and Southeastern Archaeological Conference are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserveand extend access to Southeastern Archaeology.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 130.126.32.13 on Mon, 20 Jan 2014 16:51:13 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=acg

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sac

http://www.jstor.org/stable/40713401?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


CALIBRATING AND REASSESSING AMERICAN BOTTOM CULTURE HISTORY

Andrew C. Fortier, Thomas E. Emerson, and Dale L. McElrath

The FAI-270 Project represents one of the most extensive Cultural Resource Management (CRM) undertakings in North America, resulting in the publication of dozens of site reports and, in 1984, a benchmark synthetic volume that presented a new chronology and culture history of the American Bottom region of the Mississipppi River (Bareis and Porter, eds. 1984). This sequence was based on material assemblages and radiocarbon dates from extensive excavations. The ongoing FAI-270 Project continues to invigorate local and regional research, transforming the American Bottom sequence into one of the most detailed Eastern Woodlands chronologies available. Since the Bareis and Porter (eds. 1984) volume, the quantity of archaeological data and available published reports have increased exponentially, with ten new phases identified. Our understanding of both diachronic and synchronie cultural relationships have undergone major transformations. In general we find that the earlier neoevolutionary model no longer "explains" the archaeological evidence. This article presents a newly revised calibrated sequence using some 300 radiocarbon dates from over 100 sites and examines significant changes in the chronological sequence. We present a new perspective on American Bottom cultural historical development that stresses cultural discontinuities, historical contingencies, local abandonment, population movement, and social and political continuities and disruptions.

Two decades have passed since the publication of American Bottom Archaeology: A Summary of the FAI-270 Project Contribution to the Culture History of the Mississippi River Valley, edited by Charles J. Bareis and James W. Porter (1984). Since its presentation, the American Bottom sequence has become one of the main pillars for interpreting midcontinental Eastern Woodland prehistory. The foundations of this cultural and chronological sequence are in distinct contrast to many other regional chronologies, which are based on composite cultural assemblages and dates from multi- state areas. The 1-270 sequence is based almost exclusively on contextually secure information from large-scale excavations in open-air sites from a compar- atively small geographic locale (or "locality," sensu Willey and Phillips [1958]) in an archaeologically rich area of the Mississippi River Valley (Figures 1 and 2).

The American Bottom sequence has been exception- ally well documented with the publication of 28 volumes of primary data from excavated sites (the FAI-270 Site Reports, University of Illinois Press) as well as being supported by many dozens of journal articles and numerous limited-distribution reports. The impetus for the production of this sequence was supplied by the FAI-270 Archaeological Mitigation Project (1-270 Project) sponsored by the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) and coordinated by IDOT chief archaeologist Dr. John Walthall. Building on the investigations of earlier area scholars, 1-270 researchers were able to provide a fine-grained sequence starting at about 3000 B.C. and continuing through Mississippian times (Figure 3; chapters in Bareis and Porter, eds. 1984). It is important to recognize, however, that the American Bottom sequence is also a "work in progress" and has been continually refined since its primary formulation in 1982. Since the official "end" of the initial 1-270 fieldwork in

1981, there have been three extensions of the original 1-270 highway corridor (under the supervision of project director Andrew Fortier) involving substantial archaeological mitigation efforts by the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (UIUC) (e.g., Emerson and Walthall 2006; Emerson et al., this volume). IDOT has also sponsored several equally impressive CRM projects in the East St. Louis Mound Group (Fortier 2007; Pauketat 2005) and the MidAmerican Airport (Holley, this volume; Holley et al. 2001; Holley, Parker, Scott, Skele et al. 2001; Holley, Parker, Watters, Harper, Skele, and Ringberg 2001; Holley, Skele, Watters, Parker et al. 2001) that have added significantly to our primary archaeological database. Although more recent research reports have partially reassessed the impact of new excavations on our understanding of American Bottom prehistory, there has been no comprehensive attempt to summarize these developments. This article presents our current conception of the American Bottom cultural and chronological sequence and relates how more than two decades of reflection and information gathering has altered our perception and understanding of the prehistory of this significant region. It also clearly defines areas where our lack of knowledge makes the sequence less secure and identifies portions of the sequence that are under renewed scrutiny and debate.

Three major considerations provide the driving force for this reassessment: (1) the need to provide a calibrated radiocarbon sequence,1 (2) the need to incorporate insights from additional and ongoing archaeological

170




Figure 1. The American Bottom locality (shaded area).

research into what appears to be an increasingly unsuitable chronological and taxonomic framework, and (3) the desire to explore interpretive insights gained in archaeological space-time systematics as they relate to our recognition and interpretation of historical processes affecting this region.

When Hall (1991:9-10) presented his revised calibrated Mississippian time chart, he argued that the continued use of an uncalibrated sequence in the American Bottom was detrimental to understanding interregional relations and comparisons. From his standpoint, the calibrated dates from the Late Woodland Patrick through Mississippian Sand Prairie phases did not fit expected time lines. He noticed the same thing that we have observed for other periods: When calibrated dates are used, boundaries shift from expected ranges, and phase spans are sometimes compressed or,

in earlier periods, expanded. For this reason, we present here, for the first time, the entire prehistoric sequence in calibrated form.2

The calibration of the radiocarbon-derived sequence appears straightforward but shifting dates have raised new questions concerning long-established cultural and chronological relationships. The new chronology chart presented in Figure 4 represents a graphical depiction of a newly calibrated American Bottom sequence. It is currently based on nearly 280 calibrated dates, which we list in Tables 1-6. In addition, additional large-scale excavations have produced new archaeological data that have both supported atfd challenged our earlier interpretations. These new data sets forced us to reconsider issues of cultural continuity and stability and reinforced our maxim that interpretations of the past are always "works in progress." A number of the

171



SOUTHEASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 25(2) WINTER 2006

Figure 2. American Bottom site locations.

results of our ongoing research encouraged us to reevaluate the theoretical underpinning of the original 1-270 cultural sequence and to address fundamental theoretical precepts that are at the core of our discipline and that affect how researchers perceive the archaeological record.

Chronology and Systematics

The framework for the American Bottom chronology and systematics were published first in the FAI-270 Project summary volume (Bareis and Porter, eds. 1984). The participants in the volume followed in the footsteps of earlier midwestern researchers by employing Willey and Phillips's (1958) archaeological units as a guide (Bareis and Porter 1984:1-14). Geographically, they

recognized the American Bottom as including 161 kms of linear Mississippi River floodplain from Alton in the north to Chester in the south. Preferring common usage, Willey and Phillips's area and region were reversed so the region became the most inclusive unit and was defined as the general Midwest. This left the American Bottom area as the intermediate spatial unit.

The American Bottom is spatially expanded here to include the Mississippi River floodplain, adjacent uplands, and interior drainages in Illinois. It is bounded by the Silver Creek drainage to the east and on the north by the west fork of Wood River. The southern limits of the American Bottom are defined as where the Kaskaskia River empties into the Mississippi River, just north of Chester, Illinois. In Missouri it stretches from the Meramec River and Big River drainages in the west south to the Jefferson County line (Figure 1). The

172




Figure 3. 1984 American Bottom chronology.

American Bottom unit has been expanded in recognition of the extensive research recently carried out in the uplands near Richland and Silver Creeks (Alt 2002; Holley, this volume; Holley et al. 2001; Holley, Parker, Scott, Skele, et al. 2001; Holley, Parker, Watters, Harper, Skele, and Ringberg 2001; Holley, Skele, Watters, Parker et al. 2001; Pauketat 2003). Researchers also have reverted to the original Willey and Philips hierarchy of spatial categories of locality, region, and area but have incorporated intermediary spatial unit designations (e.g., subregional, macroregional, greater midwestern area) in order to characterize cultural expressions that seem to have recognizable spatial/temporal boundaries that do not conveniently fit the earlier tripartite spatial hierarchy (e.g., McElrath, Emerson, and Fortier 2000).

At a conceptual level, the 1-270 Project research was linked to the environmental paradigm of the 1960s and 1970s and was driven by an explicit goal of "study[ing] prehistoric adaptations to a major riverine setting over a time continuum of 10,000 or more years" (Bareis and Porter 1984:3). The 1-270 Project cultural chronology was a product of its time and place in American archaeology - in line with prevailing research agendas labeled as "materialist paleoecological" (Watson 1991) or "adapta- tionist" (Emerson and McElrath 2001) paradigms. Such

Figure 4. Revised calibrated American Bottom chronology.

paradigms encouraged interpretations that viewed the forces of change as gradualistic, external to society, and primarily generated by environmental factors and containing an inherent ecological functionalism. The sequence also contained a hint of neoevolutionary thinking, often subtly promoting the perception of a unilinear cultural evolutionary pathway (Emerson and McElrath 2001).

However, this effort was carried out within the context of a solidly grounded "culture historical paradigm" or through what Willey and Phillips (1958:5) would call a program of "cultural-historical integration." This approach focuses on the definition and description of archaeological units and the "investigation of their relationships in the contexts of function and natural environment, and [the] determination of their internal dimensions and external relationships in space and time" (Willey and Phillips 1958:5). It also carries the

173




Table 1. Calibrated Archaic Dates from the American Bottom. Uncorrected Calibrated B.C. Dates

Lab No. Site Phase B.P. S.D. B.C. Dates (1 sigma) (1 sigma) Reference

ISGS-599 Missouri-Pacific No. 2, S46 Prairie Lake 2540 75 590 800 (771) 529 McElrath and Fortier 1983

RL-1287 Labras Lake, S299 Prairie Lake 2670 130 920 922 (814) 771 Yerkes 1987 ISGS-605 Missouri-Pacific No. 2, S46 Prairie Lake 2755 75 805 988 (900) 818 McElrath and

Fortier 1983 ISGS-369 Floyd, MS621 Prairie Lake 2790 90 840 1023 (916) 827 Evans 2001 ISGS-588 Missouri-Pacific No. 2, S46 Prairie Lake 2800 75 850 1016 (922) 839 McElrath and

Fortier 1983 ISGS-3686 Floyd, MS621 Prairie Lake 2810 80 860 1035 (927) 842 Evans 2001 ISGS-3682 Floyd, MS621 Prairie Lake 2820 70 870 1035 (976, 965, 935) 867 Evans 2001 ISGS-3687 Floyd, MS621 Prairie Lake 2830 80 880 1112(987,956,944)867 Evans 2001 ISGS-3683 Floyd, MS621 Prairie Lake 2850 70 900 1117(999)910 Evans 2001 ISGS-3685 Floyd, MS621 Prairie Lake 2850 70 900 1117 (999) 910 Evans 2001 ISGS-601 Missouri-Pacific No. 2, S46 Prairie Lake 2860 75 910 1123 (1004) 913 McElrath and

Fortier 1983 RL-1291 Labras Lake, S299 Prairie Lake 2880 140 930 1262(1022)848 Yerkes 1987 ISGS-3684 Floyd, MS621 Prairie Lake 2890 80 940 1197 (1034) 927 Evans 2001 RL-1292 Labras Lake, S299 Prairie Lake 2900 160 950 1313 (1045) 848 Yerkes 1987 RL-1357 Labras Lake, S299 Prairie Lake 2910 140 960 1306 (1112, 1101, 1064) 905 Yerkes 1987 ISGS-3691 Floyd, MS621 Prairie Lake 2990 80 1040 1376 (1254, 1243, 1213) 1062 Evans 2001 RL-1285 Labras Lake, S299 Prairie Lake 3020 130 1070 1415 (1262) 1034 Yerkes 1987 Beta 5310 Cahokia ICT Prairie Lake 3110 80 1160 1436 (1396) 1264 Nassaney

et al. 1983 RL-1283 Labras Lake, S299 Labras Lake 3120 140 1170 1518 (1401) 1204 Yerkes 1987 Beta 5307 Cahokia ICT Prairie Lake 3140 100 1190 1513 (1410) 1267 Nassaney

et al. 1983 RL-1061 Labras Lake, S299 Labras Lake 3180 140 1230 1606 (1429) 1267 Yerkes 1987 RL-1294 Labras Lake, S299 Labras Lake 3220 130 1270 1626 (1504, 1477, 1462) 1324 Yerkes 1987 RL-1231 Labras Lake, S299 Labras Lake 3220 130 1270 1626 (1504, 1477, 1462) 1324 Yerkes 1987 ISGS-2197 Marge MO99 Labras Lake 3210 70 1260 1523 (1494, 1486, 1450) 1409 Fortier 1996 Beta 5309 Cahokia ICT Prairie Lake 3210 60 1260 1520 (1494, 1486, 1450) 1414 Nassaney

et al. 1983 ISGS-2196 Marge, MO99 Labras Lake 3300 80 1350 1677 (1527) 1461 Fortier 1996 ISGS-2195 Marge, MO99 Labras Lake 3330 80 1380 1731 (1613) 1515 Fortier 1996 ISGS-2198 Marge, MO99 Labras Lake 3360 70 1410 1737 (1671, 1664, 1636) 1524 Fortier 1996 ISGS-2194 Marge, MO99 Labras Lake 3380 70 1430 1743 (1677) 1529 Fortier 1996 RL-1233 Labras Lake, S299 Labras Lake 3460 140 1510 1936 (1745) 1540 Yerkes 1987

implicit assumption that any archaeological units recognized had a "correspondent historical reality" (Willey and Phillips 1958:77). Within this cultural- historical backdrop, the 1-270 Project research was intimately concerned with field excavation methodology The project was committed, wherever possible, to a large-scale excavation strategy that exposed entire prehistoric communities for study (Bareis and Porter 1984:9). More than anything, this strategy ensured that the project would make a major contribution to regional archaeology.3

Bareis and Porter (1984:11, 13-14) adopted a traditional midwestern perspective regarding the taxonomic units employed to organize the American Bottom sequence. The chronological organization included the Late Archaic, Early Woodland, Middle Woodland, Late Woodland, Emergent Mississippian (newly created), Mississippian, Oneota, and Historic "temporal labels" that were "generally accepted" by regional scholars (Figure 3). Although this acceptance has been true of most of the temporal units recognized, the newly fashioned Emergent Mississippian' s taxonomic validity

Table 2. Calibrated Early Woodland Dates from the American Bottom. Uncorrected Calibrated B.C.

Lab No. Site Phase B.P. S.D. B.C. Dates Dates (1 sigma) Reference

ISGS-631 Carbon Monoxide, MO593 Columbia 2120 100 170 353 (157, 137, 125) 1 Fortier 1985a ISGS-944 Florence Street, S458 Florence 2130 110 180 361 (165) 1 Emerson et al. 1983 ISGS-2816 Ringering, MS71 Columbia 2150 70 200 353 (181) 58 Evans and Evans 2000 ISGS-711 Mund, S435 Carr Creek3 2180 90 230 373 (196) 67 Fortier et al. 1983 ISGS-946 Florence Street, S458 Florence 2290 80 340 401 (381) 204 Emerson et al. 1983 ISGS-2819 Ringering, MS71 Carr Creek 2330 90 380 413 (393) 257 Evans and Evans 2000 ISGS-2909 Ringering, MS71 Carr Creek 2390 80 440 753 (405) 388 Evans and Evans 2000 ISGS-902X Florence Street, S458 Florence 2400 75 450 754 (407) 392 Emerson et al. 1983 ISGS-2911 Ringering, MS71 Ringering 2530 140 580 814(768)405 Evans and Evans 2000 ISGS-2914 Ringering, MS71 Ringering 2570 100 620 814 (790) 532 Evans and Evans 2000 ISGS-2915 Ringering, MS71 Carr Creek 2580 120 630 827(793)525 Evans and Evans 2000 ISGS-2913 Ringering, MS71 Carr Creek 2610 120 660 843 (799) 546 Evans and Evans 2000 ISGS-2916 Ringering, MS71 Carr Creek 2670 180 720 999 (814) 546 Evans and Evans 2000

a Dates strata directly above Carr Creek material.

174




Table 3. Calibrated Middle Woodland Dates from the American Bottom.

Uncorrected Calibrated Lab No. Site Phase BP S.D. B.C. /A.D. Dates Dates (1 sigma) Reference

ISGS-4075 Petite Michele, S750 Cement Hollow 2340 70 390 B.C. 409 B.C. (395 B.C.) 372 B.C. Fortier 2004 ISGS-4076 Petite Michele, S750 Cement Hollow 2270 70 320 B.C. 395 B.C. (372 B.C.) 201 B.C. Fortier 2004 ISGS-4081 Petite Michele, S750 Cement Hollow 2120 70 170 B.C. 199 B.C. (157, 137, 125 B.C.) 40 B.C. Fortier 2004 ISGS-866 Mund, S435 Cement Hollow 2080 80 130 B.C. 190 B.C. (58 B.C.) A.D. 12 Fortier et al. 1983 ISGS-645 Mund, S435 Cement Hollow 2070 110 120 B.C. 196 B.C. (50 B.C.) A.D. 66 Fortier et al. 1983 ISGS-1777 Widman, MS866 Cement Hollow 1970 70 20 B.C. 36 B.C. (A.D. 59) A.D. 120 Wolforth et al.1990 A-13202 (AMS) Petite Michele, S750 Cement Hollow 1935 60 A.D. 15 A.D. 15 (A.D. 78) A.D. 133 Maher 1996 A-15574 (AMS) Mund, S435 Cement Hollow 1925 50 A.D. 25 A.D. 29(A.D. 82) A.D. 133 Maher 1996 A-13196 (AMS) Mund, S435 Cement Hollow 1890 45 A.D. 60 A.D. 77 (A.D. 125) A.D. 212 Maher 1996 A-13206 (AMS) Petite Michele, S750 Cement Hollow 1850 70 A.D. 100 A.D. 83 (A.D. 146, 190) A.D. 249 Maher 1996 A-13204 (AMS) Petite Michele, S750 Cement Hollow 1830 60 A.D. 120 A.D. 124 (A.D. 222) A.D. 315 Maher 1996 A-13195 (AMS) Mund, S435 Cement Hollow 1820 60 A.D. 130 A.D. 129 (A.D. 230) A.D. 320 Maher 1996 A-13194 (AMS) Mund, S435 Cement Hollow 1795 60 A.D. 155 A.D. 142 (A.D. 242) A.D. 332 Maher 1996 A-13203 (AMS) Petite Michele, S750 Cement Hollow 1770 65 A.D. 180 A.D. 217 (A.D. 253, 304, 314) A.D. 378 Maher 1996 A-13205 (AMS) Petite Michele, S750 Cement Hollow 1740 60 A.D. 210 A.D. 239 (A.D. 264, 281, 329) A.D. 398 Maher 1996 ISGS-1574 Nochta, MS128 Holding 1970 120 20 B.C. 90 B.C. ( A.D. 59 ) A.D. 194 Higgins 1990 ISGS-1521 Holding, MS118 Holding 1940 80 A.D. 10 2 B.C. (A.D. 76) A.D. 141 Fortier et al. 1989 ISGS-1310 Holding, MS118 Holding 1920 90 A.D. 30 A.D. 5 (A.D. 84) A.D. 223 Fortier et al. 1989 ISGS-1314 Holding, MS118 Holding 1870 100 A.D. 80 A.D. 59 (A.D. 135) A.D. 314 Fortier et al. 1989 ISGS-1517 Holding, MS118 Holding 1860 80 A.D. 90 A.D. 75 (A.D. 141) A.D. 249 Fortier et al. 1989 A-8717 (AMS) Holding, MS118 Holding 2077 70 127 B.C. 179 B.C. (55 B.C.) A.D. 8 Maher 1996 A-8718 (AMS) Holding, MS118 Holding 2017 50 67 B.C. 48 B.C. (0) A.D. 62 Maher 1996 A-13191 (AMS) Meridian Hills, MS1258 Holding 1860 65 A.D. 90 A.D. 81 (A.D. 141) A.D. 242 Maher 1996 A-15576 (AMS) Holding, MS118 Holding 1830 45 A.D. 120 A.D. 132 (A.D. 222) A.D. 247 Maher 1996 A-13201 (AMS) Meridian Hills, MS1258 Holding 1795 65 A.D. 155 A.D. 140 (A.D. 242 (A.D. 335 Maher 1996 A-15572 (AMS) Meridian Hills, MS1258 Holding 1785 45 A.D. 165 A.D. 221 (A.D. 246) A.D. 330 Maher 1996 A-13200 (AMS) Meridian Hills, MS1258 Holding 1775 70 A.D. 175 A.D. 148 (A.D. 251, 308, 311) A.D. 378 Maher 1996 A-13183 (AMS) Meridian Hills, MS1258 Holding 1770 60 A.D. 180 A.D. 221 (A.D. 253, 304, 314) A.D. 375 Maher 1996 A-15573 (AMS) Meridian Hills, MS1258 Holding 1750 45 A.D. 200 A.D. 241 (A.D. 260, 289, 324) A.D. 379 Maher 1996 A-13190 (AMS) Meridian Hills, MS1258 Holding 1730 65 A.D. 220 A.D. 241 (A.D. 268, 274, 334) A.D.410 Maher 1996 A-13182 (AMS) Meridian Hills, MS1258 Holding 1710 70 A.D. 240 A.D. 248 (A.D. 347, 360, 374) A.D. 420 Maher 1996 A-13184 (AMS) Meridian Hills, MS 1258 Holding 1650 70 A.D. 300 A.D. 340 (A.D. 415) A.D. 532 Maher 1996 A-13187 (AMS) Holding, MS118 Holding 1640 70 A.D. 310 A.D. 346 (A.D. 347, 360, 374) A.D. 535 Maher 1996 ISGS-1515 Holding, MS118 Hill Lake 2010 80 60 B.C. 91 B.C. (A.D. 5) A.D. 80 Fortier et al. 1989 ISGS-2257 Dash Reeves, MO80 Hill Lake 1890 80 A.D. 60 A.D. 59 (A.D. 125) A.D. 235 Fortier 2001b ISGS-2358 Dash Reeves, MO80 Hill Lake 1870 70 A.D. 80 A.D. 75 (A.D. 135) A.D. 240 Fortier 2001b ISGS-600 Truck No. 7, MO200 Hill Lake 1860 75 A.D. 90 A.D. 77 (A.D. 141) A.D. 247 Fortier 1985a ISGS-2256 Dash Reeves, MO80 Hill Lake 1840 100 A.D. 110 A.D. 75 (A.D. 215) A.D. 329 Fortier 2001b ISGS-634 Truck No. 7, MO200 Hill Lake 1790 75 A.D. 160 A.D. 137 (A.D. 244) A.D. 371 Fortier 1985a ISGS-1554 Holding, MS118 Hill Lake 1790 80 A.D. 160 A.D. 135 ( A.D. 244) A.D. 374 Fortier et al. 1989 ISGS-2360 Dash Reeves, MO80 Hill Lake 1780 70 A.D. 170 A.D. 145 (A.D. 249) A.D. 375 Fortier 2001b ISGS-1558 Holding, MS118 Hill Lake 1760 90 A.D. 190 A.D. 146 (A.D. 256, 296, 319) A.D. 406 Fortier et al. 1989 ISGS-2258 Dash Reeves, MO80 Hill Lake 1750 80 A.D. 200 A.D. 214 (A.D. 256, 296, 319) A.D. 398 Fortier 2001b ISGS-703 Truck No. 7, MO200 Hill Lake 1720 75 A.D. 230 A.D. 241 (A.D. 341) A.D. 418 Fortier 1985a ISGS-2260 Dash Reeves, MO80 Hill Lake 1710 90 A.D. 240 A.D. 239 (A.D. 347, 360, 374) A.D. 428 Fortier 2001b ISGS-2367 Dash Reeves, MO80 Hill Lake 1660 80 A.D. 290 A.D. 264 (A.D. 412) A.D. 532 Fortier 2001b ISGS-636 Truck No. 7, MO200 Hill Lake 1505 75 A.D. 445 A.D. 455 (A.D. 568, 574, 593) A.D. 641 Fortier 1985a A-13199 (AMS) Dash Reeves, MO80 Hill Lake 1770 60 A.D. 180 A.D. 221 (A.D. 253, 304, 314) A.D. 375 Maher 1996 A-13188 (AMS) Holding, MSI 18 Hill Lake 1710 60 A.D. 240 A.D. 252 (A.D. 347, 360, 374) A.D. 416 Maher 1996 A-13186 (AMS) Dash Reeves, MO80 Hill Lake 1710 65 A.D. 240 A.D. 251 (A.D. 347, 360, 374) A.D. 418 Maher 1996 A-13189 (AMS) Holding, MS118 Hill Lake 1690 75 A.D. 260 A.D 254 (A.D. 389) A.D. 430 Maher 1996 A-13197 (AMS) Truck No. 7, MO200 Hill Lake 1675 45 A.D. 275 A.D. 339 (A.D. 401) A.D. 424 Maher 1996 A-13198 (AMS) Truck No. 7, MO200 Hill Lake 1670 70 A.D. 280 A.D. 264 (A.D. 405) A.D. 440 Maher 1996 A-13185 (AMS) Dash Reeves, MO80 Hill Lake 1630 60 A.D. 320 A.D. 388 (A.D. 423) A.D. 535 Maher 1996 A-13207 (AMS) Dash Reeves, MO80 Hill Lake 1625 60 A.D. 325 A.D. 392 (A.D. 425) A.D. 537 Maher 1996

Note: Expected calibrated range: Cement Hollow: 100 B.C.-A.D. 50; Holding: A.D. 50-150; Hill Lake: A.D. 150-350.

was and has been questioned by a number of researchers (e.g., Anderson and Mainfort 2002; Brown 1991; Fortier and McElrath 2002; Milner 1998; Müller 1997). These units "merely serve[d] as arbitrary brackets in the total time frame for the American Bottom" (Bareis and Porter 1984:14). Although never actually clarified, the 1-270 Project chronology treated the Late Archaic through Historic units as "periods" that were affixed to the local chronological boundaries of the phases (sensu Stoltman 1978).

1-270 Project researchers focused primarily on the "phase" as the organizational and taxonomic unit for both culture and chronology. As defined, the phase was

an "archaeological unit that emphasizes cultural context during a relatively short time period and in a restricted geographical area. [It] . . . focuses on the artifactual and architectural content . . . [and] the combination of traits used to define a phase should be unique enough to set it off from any other defined phases. It is preferable ... to restrict a phase to a relatively short period of time" (Bareis and Porter 1984:13).

Such an approach stemmed from Griffin, Flanders, and Titterington' s (1970) convention of creating unique series of phases for specific geographical units (for example, segments of the Illinois River Valley). Griffin's influence on American Bottom and Illinois archaeology

175




Table 4. Calibrated Initial Late Woodland Dates from the American Botttom. Uncorrected Calibrated A.D.

ISGS-Lab No. Site Phase B.P. S.D. A.D. Dates Dates (1 sigma) Reference

709 Alpha 1, S632 Rosewood 1830 90 120 83 (222) 329 Bentz 1988b 710 Alpha 1, S632 Rosewood 1710 75 240 246 (347, 360, 377) 422 Bentz 1988b 603 Carbon Dioxide, MO594 Rosewood 1700 80 250 248 (382) 428 Finney 1985 771 Leingang, MO722 Rosewood 1670 75 280 262 (405) 443 Bentz 1988a 755 Columbia Quarry, S629 Mund 1660 80 290 264 (412) 532 Finney and Bentz 1988 689 Carbon Dioxide, MO594 Rosewood 1630 75 320 349 (423) 540 Finney 1985 885 George Reeves, S650 Mund 1620 70 330 389 (427) 542 Fortier et al. 1983 921 Hofstetter, S693 Mund 1610 90 340 381 (432) 554 Reported here 80490a Jens, S784 Rosewood 1610 60 340 404 (432) 542 Holley, Parker, Watters, Harper

Skele, and Ringberg 2001 668 Leingang, MO722 Rosewood 1585 75 365 411 (449, 488, 493) 592 Bentz 1988a 663 Alpha 1, S632 Rosewood 1580 75 370 413 (459, 478, 510, 531) 594 Bentz 1988b 745 Columbia Quarry, S629 Mund 1570 80 380 415 (535) 601 Finney and Bentz 1988 739 Columbia Quarry, S629 Mund 1560 90 390 415 (538) 610 Finney and Bentz 1988 2894 Cunningham, MSI 353 Cunningham 1550 80 400 423(541)610 Meinkoth et al. 2001 2893 Cunningham, MSI 353 Cunningham 1550 80 400 423 (541) 610 Meinkoth et al. 2001 2891 Cunningham, MS1353 Cunningham 1540 70 410 431 (544) 611 Meinkoth et al. 2001 2890 Cunningham, MS1353 Cunningham 1540 70 410 431 (544) 611 Meinkoth et al. 2001 884 George Reeves, S650 Mund 1510 70 440 455 (563, 586, 591) 635 McElrath and Finney 1987 2813 Cunningham, MS1353 Cunningham 1500 80 450 455(596)647 Meinkoth et al. 2001 734 Leingang, MO722 Rosewood 1480 75 470 539 (605) 653 Bentz 1988a 892 George Reeves, S650 Mund 1480 70 470 541 (605) 651 McElrath and Finney 1987 ? Hayden, 23SL36b Mund 1470 70 480 544(610)654 Harl 1995 865 Mund, S435 Mund 1470 80 480 541 (610 ) 657 Fortier et al. 1983 2811 Cunningham, MS1353 Cunningham 1470 90 480 538(610)660 Meinkoth et al. 2001 1700 Widman, MS866 Cunningham 1450 70 500 544 (610) 654 Wolforth and Alvey 2003 2810 Cunningham, MSI 353 Cunningham 1450 90 500 544 (628) 665 Meinkoth et al. 2001 2818 Cunningham, MSI 353 Cunningham 1420 110 530 547 (646) 685 Meinkoth et al. 2001 712 Alpha 7, S638 Rosewood 1415 75 535 600 (649) 672 Bareis and Porter, eds. 1984 670 Steinberg, S653 Rosewood 1395 75 555 609 (655) 681 Lacampagne and Bentz 1988 715 Alpha 1, S632 Rosewood 1390 80 560 609 (657) 686 Bentz 1988b 735 Steinberg, S653 Rosewood 1390 100 56.0 600 (657) 756 Lacampagne and Bentz 1988 643 Mund, S435 Mund 1380 75 570 622 (660) 688 Fortier et al. 1983 ? Hayden, 23SL36b Mund 1320 50 630 662 (680) 772 Harl 1995 ? Hayden, 23SL36b Mund 1310 60 640 662 (685) 779 Harl 1995 2819 Cunningham, MS1353 Cunningham 1310 130 640 634 (685) 883 Meinkoth et al. 2001 2812 Cunningham, MSI 353 Cunningham 1210 80 740 710(740)956 Meinkoth et al. 2001

a Beta Analytic Laboratory. b Missouri.

was pivotal in defining local systematics; his specific role in the 1-270 Project, as an archaeological monitor, reviewer, and mentor, ensured his continuing interaction with the researchers. He recommended the development of local-level phase names, independent of other regions, thereby avoiding definitional drift for previously defined units; at the same time, however, he urged the vigorous exploration of relationships between the American Bottom cultural expressions and nearby and even far-flung archaeological cultures (Griffin 1984a, 1984b). Sixteen of the 23 phases in the 1-270 Project 1984

sequence were newly defined, and many of the others, while retaining their previous names, were redefined or modified. Such a dramatic remaking of the archaeological sequence is understandable if one considers the earlier state of knowledge. Our understanding of pre- Mississippian groups in Illinois and the surrounding area was fairly restricted, and most of the existing taxonomic units were based on small samples of poorly published or unanalyzed materials (often primarily from mortuary contexts), sometimes from geographically scattered excavations of often functionally differentiated sites. The resultant archaeological units were compila-

tions of disparate materials, frequently incorporated into a rapidly disappearing McKern Midwestern Taxonomic System. Consequently, they were often minimally defined and seldom internally coherent in terms of materials, chronology, settlement, and subsistence content.

This situation inevitably forced (or one might say enabled) 1-270 Project researchers to virtually begin anew in building phase definitions and chronologies grounded in large-scale excavations yielding contextually and chronologically secure assemblages. It also created an atmosphere in which 1-270 Project analysts were not concerned with creating units incorporating a broad regional perspective. They concentrated on establishing and confirming an independent local sequence with only occasional attention to correlating it with a regional sequence (Willey and Phillips 1958:25- 26). To a large degree, this disinterest was encouraged by the near virtual absence of adequate comparative materials from the surrounding region. It is extremely difficult, for example, to make comparisons, correla- tions, or even meaningful observations of patterns revealed in Archaic sites containing hundreds of pit features with the data recovered from a small, deep excavation in a rock shelter or a few one-meter squares

176




Table 5. Calibrated Patrick and Sponemann Phase Dates from the American Bottom.

Uncorrected A.D. Dates Calibrated

Lab No. Site Phase B.P. S.D. (1 sigma) A.D. Dates Reference

ISGS-853 Range, S47 Patrick 1510 75 440 448 (563, 586, 591) 638 Kelly et al. 1987 ISGS-4082 Woodland Ridge, MO880 Patrick 1470 70 480 544(610)654 Koldehoff 2002 ISGS-1012 Range, S47 Patrick 1430 70 520 595 (641) 666 Kelly et al. 1987 B-95859 John H. Faust No. 2, S239 Patrick 1420 70 530 597 (643) 664 Holley et al. 2001 ISGS-1044 Fish Lake, MO608 Patrick 1390 70 560 617 (657) 681 Fortier et al. 1984b B-81559 Technique, S70 Patrick 1360 60 590 646(665)692 Holley, Parker, Scott et al. 2001 ISGS-1062 Fish Lake, MO608 Patrick 1360 130 590 600 (665) 786 Fortier et al. 1984b ISGS-1572 Sponemann, MS517 Sponemann 1340 70 610 651 (671) 772 Fortier et al. 1991 B-95864 John Faust No. 2, S239 Patrick 1330 50 620 657 (674) 765 Holley et al. 2001 B-80480 Technique, S70 Sponemann 1330 70 620 654 (676) 776 Holley, Parker, Scott et al. 2001 ISGS-889 Columbia Quarry, S629 Patrick 1330 70 620 654 (676) 776 Finney and Bentz 1988 B-81558 Technique, S70 Patrick 1320 80 630 654 (680) 783 Holley et al. 2001 ISGS-837 Holdener, S685 Patrick 1310 75 640 658 (685) 784 Wittry et al. 1994 ISGS-1213 Ogle Creek Terrace, S708 Patrick 1290 70 660 660 (685) 786 Reported here ISGS-5140 Dugan Airfield, MO718 Patrick 1300 70 650 659 (689) 778 Reported here ISGS-846 Holdener, S685 Patrick 1300 75 650 661 (690) 788 Wittry et al. 1994 B-95865 John H. Faust No. 2, S239 Patrick 1280 50 670 672 (693, 699, 715, 749, 764) 778 Holley et al. 2001 B-81573 Adam and Eve Schobert, S785 Patrick 1270 60 680 675 (728, 732, 772) 861 Holley, Parker, Scott et al. 2001 ISGS-5158 Dugan Airfield, MO718 Patrick 1260 70 690 673(723,740,771)878 Reported here B-81561 Lembke No. 3, S87 Patrick 1290 50 660 670 (711, 746, 755) 783 Holley, Parker, Waiters, Harper

Skele, and Ringberg 2001 ISGS-5146 Sprague, MO716 Patrick 1270 70 680 665(719,746,768)860 Unpublished ISGS-1943 Widman, MS866 Patrick 1290 70 660 665 (711, 746, 755) 790 Wolforth and Alvey 2003 ISGS-719 Alpha3,S634 Patrick 1290 75 660 663(711,746,755)853 McElrath 1988 B-81564 John H. Faust No. 1, S237 Sponemann 1250 60 700 686 (775) 878 Holley et al. 2001 ISGS-5120 Ronda, MO717 Patrick 1260 60 690 675(776)881 Reported here ISGS-5122 Ronda, MO717 Patrick 1260 70 690 675(776)881 Reported here ISGS-5123 Sprague, MO716 Patrick 1240 70 710 686 (776) 888 Reported here B-95860 John H. Faust No. 2, S239 Patrick 1230 40 720 694 (778) 879 Holley et al. 2001 ISGS-1944 Widman, MS866 Patrick 1250 90 700 671 (779) 888 Wolforth and Alvey 2003 ISGS-1304 Sponemann, MS517 Sponemann 1240 70 710 684 (782) 886 Fortier et al. 1991 B-80492 Bill Schobert, S786 Patrick 1230 70 720 689 (786) 888 Holley, Parker, Scott et al. 2001 ISGS-704 Dohack, S642 Patrick 1230 80 720 684(786)891 Stahl 1985 ISGS-685 Holdener, S685 Patrick 1230 75 720 687 (786) 890 Wittry et al. 1994 M-1684 Stolle Quarry, S92 Patrick 1230 110 720 671 (786) 961 Hall and Vogel 1963 Wis? Maeys, MO233 Patrick 1225 65 725 710 (788) 888 Porter 1972 ISGS-5137 Dugan Airfield, MO718 Patrick 1200 70 750 695 (782, 790, 815, 846, 859) 943 Reported here ISGS-5129 Sprague, MO716 Patrick 1190 70 760 723 (784, 787, 833, 836, 877) 958 Reported here ISGS-5157 Sprague, MO716 Patrick 1190 70 760 723 (784, 787, 833, 836, 877) 958 Reported here ISGS-5147 Sprague, MO716 Patrick 1190 70 760 723 (784, 787, 833, 836, 877) 958 Reported here ISGS-1294 Sponemenn, MS517 Sponemann 1210 70 740 719 (821, 840, 860) 941 Fortier et al. 1991 B-80491 Adam and Eve Schobert, S785 Patrick 1200 50 750 779 (872) 891 Holley, Parker, Scott et al. 2001 ISGS-1305 Sponemann, MS517 Sponemann 1200 90 750 710 (872) 967 Fortier et al. 1991 ISGS-3048 Vaughn Branch, MS1437 Patrick 1190 70 760 775 (881) 962 Jackson and Mulhouse 2003 ISGS-1047 Fish Lake, MO608 Patrick 1170 110 780 719 (886) 997 Fortier et al. 1984 ISGS-1060 Fish Lake, MO608 Patrick 1170 110 780 719 (886) 997 Fortier et al. 1984 ISGS-3050 Linkeman, MS108 Sponemann 1170 70 780 782(886)973 Reported here ISGS-619 Range, S47 Patrick 1160 75 790 784 (888) 981 Kelly et al. 1987 ISGS-3051 Linkeman, MSI 08 Sponemann 1160 70 790 786 (888) 979 Reported here ISGS-4078 Woodland Ridge, MO880 Patrick 1150 70 800 789(891)984 Koldehoff 2002 B-96771 John H. Faust No. 2, S239 Patrick 1150 50 800 782 (892) 977 Holley et al. 2001 B-81574 Bill Schobert, S786 Patrick 1140 60 810 871 (893) 1017 Holley, Parker, Scott et al. 2001 B-80489 James Faust No.l, S776 Sponemann 1110 80 840 784 (902, 917, 962) 1017 Holley et al. 2001 B-81247 E.J. Pfeifer No. 1, S241 Patrick 1110 60 840 887 (902, 917, 962) 998 Holley et al. 2001 ISGS-696 Dohack, S642 Patrick 1135 75 815 820 (894, 918, 952) 997 Stahl 1985 B-81563 John H. Faust No. 1, S237 Patrick 1130 70 820 786 (897, 922, 942) 992 Holley et al. 2001 ISGS-626 Range, S47 Patrick 1110 90 840 871 (967) 1017 Kelly et al. 1987 ISGS-3049 Vaughn Branch, MS1437 Patrick 1110 70 840 883 (967) 1011 Jackson and Mulhouse 2003 ISGS-4077 Woodland Ridge, MO880 Patrick 1110 70 840 883 (967) 1011 Koldehoff 2002 ISGS-901 Range, S47 Patrick 1100 70 850 885 (973) 1014 Kelly et al. 1987 ISGS-706 Dohack, S642 Patrick 1100 75 850 884 (973) 1015 Stahl 1985 B-96770 John H. Faust No. 2, S239 Patrick 1090 50 860 894 (979) 1015 Holley et al. 2001 ISGS-893 Range, S47 Patrick 1080 80 870 888 (984) 1023 Kelly et al. 1987 ISGS-642 Range, S47 Patrick 1070 100 880 886 (989) 1032 Kelly et al. 1987 M-1683 Stolle Quarry, S92 Patrick 1050 110 900 888 (1005) 1153 Hall and Vogel 1963 B-81244 John H. Faust No. 1, S237 Patrick 1030 50 920 981 (1004, 1008, 1017) 1025 Holley et al. 2001 RL-1234 Labras Lake, S299 Patrick 1040 100 910 893 (1011) 1153 Bareis and Porter (eds.) 1984 M-1195 Meyer Cave, MO945 Patrick 1040 150 910 881 (1011) 1168 Parmalee 1967 ISGS-1046 Fish Lake, MO608 Patrick 1030 100 920 895 (1014) 1156 Fortier et al. 1984 B-80482 John H. Faust No. 1, S237 Patrick 980 80 970 990 (1025) 1160 Holley et al. 2001

in an Archaic lithic scatter or from a multicomponent midden site.

The phase-by-phase, building-block approach used to create the American Bottom local sequence was based

on assumptions that were seldom acknowledged. Chief among those was the general acceptance of an overall neoevolutionary schema that was presumed to duplicate the regional sequence at the local level. To some

177




Table 6. Calibrated Terminal Late Woodland Dates from the American Bottom. Uncorrected A.D. Calibrated

ISGS Lab No. Site Phase B.P. S.D. Dates (1 sigma) A.D. Dates Reference

651 Range, S47 Range 1250 130 700 659 (779) 961 Kelly et al. 1990 1369 Sampson, MSI 19 Collinsville 1200 70 750 727 (872) 956 Reported here 776 Range, S47 Range 1170 75 780 780 (886) 976 Kelly et al. 1990 1366 Sampson, MSI 19 Collinsville 1120 70 830 881 (906, 961) 1005 Reported here 1368 Sampson Bluff, MS1186 Collinsville 1120 70 830 881 (906, 961) 1005 Reported here 1372 Sampson Bluff, MS1186 Collinsville 1120 70 830 881 (906, 961) 1005 Reported here 129280a Bivouac, MS1665 Merrell 1100 100 850 871 (973) 1023 Galloy et al. 2000 905 Range, S47 Dohack 1090 70 860 888 (978) 1017 Kelly et al. 1990 129279a Bivouac, MS 1665 Merrell 1080 50 870 895 (984) 1014 Galloy et al. 2000 678 Dohack, S642 Dohack 1090 75 870 889 (984) 1021 Stahl 1985 177 Lunsford-Pulcher, S40 Lindeman 1075 55 875 895 (987) 1017 Kelly 1993 802 BBB Motor, MS595 Edelhardt 1060 75 890 894 (997) 1027 Emerson and Jackson 1984 787 BBB Motor, MS595 Edelhardt 1040 75 910 899 (1011) 1035 Emerson and Jackson 1984 811 Range, S47 Range 1040 75 910 899 (1011) 1035 Kelly et al. 1990 5341 Kane Village, MS52 Loyd 1030 70 920 972 (1014) 1037 Reported here 1198 Robert Schneider, MS1177 Loyd/Merrell 1030 70 920 972 (1014) 1037 Fortier 1985b 2357 Marge, MO99 Lindeman 1030 70 920 972 (1014) 1037 Fortier 1996 810 Range, S47 Lindeman 1010 75 940 981 (1020) 1155 Bareis and Porter, eds. 1984 986 Joan Carrie, MO663 Dohack 1000 70 950 989 (1022) 1156 Esarey and Johannessen 1994 620 Range, S47 Range 990 75 960 993 (1025) 1161 Kelly et al. 1990 914 Range, S47 Dohack 990 70 960 996 (1025) 1159 Kelly et al. 1990 5343 Kane Village, MS52 Loyd 980 70 970 1004 (1028) 1162 Reported here 5345 Kane Village, MS52 Loyd 970 70 980 1011 (1032) 1165 Reported here 5339 Kane Village, MS52 Loyd 970 70 980 1011 (1032) 1165 Reported here 665 Dohack, S642 Dohack 970 75 980 1008 (1032) 1167 Stahl 1985 824 Range, S47 Lindeman 970 75 980 1008 (1032) 1167 Bareis and Porter, eds. 1984 913 Range, S47 Dohack 960 70 990 1014 (1037) 1168 Kelly et al. 1990 2363 Marge, MO99 Lindeman 960 70 990 1014 (1037) 1168 Fortier 1996 801 BBB Motor, MS595 Edelhardt 950 80 1000 1014 (1150) 1199 Emeron and Jackson 1984 691 Dohack, S642 Dohack 940 100 1010 1011 (1046, 1097, Stahl 1985

1115, 1144, 1153) 1222 984 Joan Carrie, MO663 Dohack 940 70 1010 1019 (1046, 1115, Esarey and Johannessen 1994

1144, 1153) 1199 788 BBB Motor, MS595 Edelhardt 930 75 1020 1021 (1052, 1085, Emerson and Jackson 1984

1121, 1130) 1216 623 Range, S47 Range 880 90 1070 1032 (1176) 1265 Kelly et al. 1990 627 Range, S47 Range 880 90 1070 1032 (1176) 1265 Kelly et al. 1990 664 Dohack, S642 Dohack 830 75 1120 1163 (1225) 1281 Stahl 1985 646a Range, S47 Range 810 75 1140 1169 (1245) 1285 Kelly et al. 1990 646b Range, S47 Range 810 75 1140 1169 (1245) 1285 Kelly et al. 1990 595 Range, S47 Range 795 75 1155 1192 (1258) 1288 Kelly et al. 1990 2259 Marge, MO99 Lindeman 700 80 1250 1273 (1293) 1391 Fortier 1996

a Beta Analytic Laboratory.

extent, this concept was encouraged by the use of de facto "periods" that provided the impression of continuity through time. Consequently, the American Bottom 1984 chronology and phase sequences, as depicted in Figure 3, showed no data gaps, no disjunctures, and no disruptions. Beginning with the Late Archaic, local cultures appear to smoothly evolve and adapt, inevitably headed toward a climax in the Mississippian culture. Such inherent preconceptions helped explain away apparent divergences in chronology and material culture. These were generally attributed to the absence of linking assemblages and the vagaries of the archaeological record. There was an implicit assumption that phases did "evolve" out of one another, a view much more in line with Alfred Kidder's than Willey and Phillips' s belief in the evolutionary connection of phases (Willey and Phillips 1958:22). However, these historical and evolutionary connections were assumed rather than demonstrated. For the most part, in the 1984 FAI-270 Project summary volume, the connections and relationships between blocks of similar phases were only sketchily addressed. As others have observed, midwest-

ern archaeologists have been little concerned with broader integrative taxonomies (e.g., Brown 1986).

To eliminate the perception of continuous cultural and chronological development, in this article we have clustered the local phases, and, in some cases, cultures, into broadly recognized Eastern Woodland units (in our locale), that is, Archaic through Mississippian periods. Although specific local chronological parameters are often attached to phases, the periods in which they are grouped have no hard and fast chronological boundaries. The phase has been and continues to be the taxon of choice for organizing area prehistory. In the current sense, phases are thought of taxonomically as the "minimally recognizable space-time unit" that likely represent individual, geographically separate, regional social groups (Farnsworth and Asch 1986:330).

The more inclusive term "culture" has recently come into vogue and gained some usage in the American Bottom and adjacent Illinois River Valley. Such usage clusters similar contemporaneous but spatially separated phases on the basis of "substantial homogeneity . . . along virtually any dimension of sociocultural variability"

178




(Farnsworth and Asch 1986:330; for a conflicting opinion, see Green 1999). The even more inclusive unit "period" groups flexible and fluid aggregates of culturally similar phases. These periods, as we conceive of them, imply no inherent levels of "neoevolutionary progress" and are not in and of themselves directional.

We have retained the phase, culture, and period designations as useful brick-and-mortar units upon which to build a cultural and chronological sequence; at the same time, we are aware of the limitations of these categorical concepts for presenting the history of human practices and interactions in a local context. We are faced with the obvious question: What degree(s) of variation in the constellation of material classes and combined stylistic elements discernable in the archaeological record justifies the designation of a phase? Moreover, we acknowledge the essentialist paradox (Lyman et al. 1997) that presents itself when one is forced to allocate material assemblages to discrete phases, thereby obscuring the recognition of transitional forms. However, the presumption of cultural continuity that is incorporated into essentialist critiques leads to the opposite quandary of obscuring discontinuities in the archaeological record.

Despite perceptions of smooth American Bottom neoevolutionary transitions, even in 1984 there was an appreciation that there was important contradictory evidence in the archaeological sequence. For example, in the Late Archaic there was a growing recognition that the Titterington phase was intrusive into the American Bottom with no clear local antecedents or descendents (Emerson and Fortier 1986; Emerson, McElrath, and Williams 1986; Fortier 1983; McElrath 1993). The Terminal Late Archaic to Early Woodland "transition" was marked by a dramatic disjuncture in which large, perhaps even somewhat permanent populations, were replaced by small, highly mobile groups (Emerson and Fortier 1986; Emerson and McElrath 2001; Emerson, McElrath, and Williams 1986). There was a strong probability that diverse local Early Woodland populations coexisted, in some cases contemporaneously (Emerson and Fortier 1986; Emerson and McElrath 2001; Fortier 2001a). Later, during the Middle Woodland period, a possible intrusion of a Hopewell "horizon" from the north had been recognized, as well as the absence of a clear transition to Late Woodland lifestyles (Fortier 2001a; McElrath and Fortier 2000). Equally perplexing was the apparent existence of a "north- south" ceramic division resulting in sequential contem- porary phases during the Terminal Late Woodland (a.k.a. Emergent Mississippian). Some of these phases were perceived as spatially confined to an area smaller than a modern Illinois county and to a quarter-of-a- century time span (Kelly 1990; Kelly, Ozuk, et al. 1984).

In our visual presentation (Figure 4) of the new American Bottom sequence, we have adopted several

conventions to indicate significant data gaps, cultural discontinuities, or long-term continuities. In some instances, we have graphically conveyed specific interpretations of the relationships between phases in the chronological sequence. We have not adopted or im- ported elements (e.g., material culture, phases, or radiocarbon dates) from outside of the American Bottom region to fill in when we lack information in our local (primarily northern American Bottom) sequence. We have left distinctive gaps between Archaic phases where we do not have supporting radiocarbon dates (gray areas on chart). The sequence in Figure 4 in fact begins at 5700 B.C. because we currently only have undated or indirectly dated materials from the Early Archaic and paleo-Indian periods. We have depicted continuities between adjacent phases using a dashed line and discontinuities with a bold line. In one case (Initial Late Woodland), we have indicated a "perceived inherent" relationship between the Rosewood and subsequent Cunningham and Mund phases but have declined to identify a uniform temporal break to divide these units because the temporal and spatial relationships are poorly understood and, we suspect, very complicated (McElrath and Fortier 2000). The following discussion of the archaeological record

for the American Bottom highlights the recent advances in our understanding of the sequence (especially since Bareis and Porter, eds. 1984) while focusing on in- terpretational elements of continuities and discontinuities that are not well known outside the region. Additionally, it will serve as a gateway to the extensive literature that discusses in detail the material content of individual phases and interpretive issues. We hope that such a presentation will encourage similarly critical réévaluations of the shortcomings and strengths of other regional chronologies.

Paleo-Indian Period

The 1984 American Bottom cultural and chronological sequence did not discuss a paleo-Indian presence because no significant materials dating to this era were recovered during the course of 1-270 Project investigations. Artifacts dating to this period had long been recognized in the area of St. Louis (Koldehoff 1977, 1978, 1983; Smail 1951), but no systematic investigations had been reported for regional paleo-Indian sites. Since 1984, there have been limited excavations and analyses of surface collections from several regional sites: Bostrom (Tankersley 1995; Tankersley et al. 1993), Compensatory Basin North (Evans et al. 1997), Lincoln Hills (Morrow 1996), Martens (Koldehoff et al. 1995), Mueller (Koldehoff 1977, 1978), and Kimswick (Graham and Kay 1988; Graham et al. 1981), as well as regional summaries (Koldehoff and Walthall 2007; Tankersley

179




1991; Tankersley and Issac 1990; Tankersley and Morrow 1993). Most of these assemblages fall within the Clovis tradition, which, although well represented in the Eastern Woodlands, has yet to be successfully dated in the American Bottom region. Two sites, Bostrom (Tank- ersley 1995; Tankersley et al. 1993) and Compensatory Basin North (Evans et al. 1997) with subsurface features thought to potentially date to this early episode, yielded more recent dates. The early "paleo-Indian" date from the Modoc rock shelter has also been dismissed based on subsequent investigations (Ahler 1993).

Researchers in the Plains and Eastern Woodlands recognize a tripartite (early, middle, and late) division of the paleo-Indian period, and although rare points have been recovered from the American Bottom region that would provisionally date to the later two portions of the sequence (e.g., Folsom, Agate Basin), the major occupation of the area seems to pertain primarily to the earlier Clovis "horizon/' In this regard, it should be noted that what had been earlier identified as Agate Basin points at the Nochta site (Higgins 1990) have since been reassigned (McElrath et al. 2007) to the Searcy type, which has been securely dated to the later Early Archaic in Missouri (Ray et al. 2007) and at Modoc rock shelter (Ahler and Koldehoff 2007). The settlement organization employed by Clovis

groups appearing in the American Bottom region mimics that recognized elsewhere in the Midwest (Koldehoff 1999; Tankersley 1991) and seems to involve a several-hundred-mile seasonal or perhaps yearly round focusing on specific chert sources and restricted landmark destinations. The preferred chert source for Clovis occupants of the American Bottom region derives from the Attica quarries of western Indiana. This long- distance, interior, upland-oriented pattern of transhu- mance stands in stark contrast with all major subsequent occupations of the American Bottom region during which Burlington chert (usually from the Crescent Quarries of Missouri) dominate the chert raw material use (Koldehoff 1983; Koldehoff 2006; Koldehoff and Walthall 2007). This observation, along with detailed comparisons of stone tool production and use, has led American Bottom researchers (Koldehoff and Walthall 2007; McElrath et al. 2007) to conclude that Dalton culture is distinct from paleo-Indian, and rather than representing a "transitional" episode of occupation in the Central Mississippi Valley as viewed by some (e.g., Morse 1997), instead represents the first true Early Archaic cultural expression (also see McElrath and Emerson 2007).

Archaic Period

A large number of Archaic sites have been investigated in the intervening years that have verified and

expanded this portion of the sequence. Two new Middle Archaic phases, Dennis Hollow (Walz et al. 1998) and Nochta (Higgins 1990), and an additional Late Archaic phase, Mule Road (McElrath 1993), have been defined since 1984. In addition, we have identified a new Tep complex, dating to the Middle Archaic. Several regional survey summaries have also contributed to our understanding of Archaic settlement systems and occupational histories for the American Bottom floodplain and adjacent uplands (Ahler 1984, 1998; Emerson, McElrath, and Williams 1986; Koldehoff 2006). Koldehoff's (2006) survey data specifically has altered our view of the uplands east of the American Bottom floodplain. We previously had not anticipated that the Early Archaic sites would be well represented in the uplands, with a site density decline during Middle Archaic times, and a subsequent increase in site density again in the Late Archaic. Revisits to the Modoc rock shelter have re- sulted in a comprehensive review of radiocarbon dates from earlier excavations and the addition of several more to the series (Ahler 1993). A series of articles have extensively reported on environmental reconstructions, subsistence, and settlement trends during the Archaic for the Modoc locality (Ahler 1998; Ahler et al. 1992; Ahler and Styles 1998). Importantly, for the present discussion, publications have also reported on the dated strata and the recovered hafted biface diagnostics (Ahler et al. 1992; Ahler and Koldehoff 2007).

The number of radiocarbon dates available for Archaic research has been expanded considerably due to the various investigations. We report on 69 Archaic dates, primarily from open-air sites. Additionally, Ahler and Koldehoff (2007) have recently used 47 Archaic dates to group living surfaces from Modoc into 500 year intervals, as well as identifying and tabulating the associated point types when present. The half-millennia intervals shift unevenly with calibration, but we have tried to retain the rough groupings for materials that are relevant to the present discussion; the reader is referred to Ahler and Koldehoff (2007) for more precise information (especially Table 2, which includes the calibrated dates by strata).

Early Archaic

Dalton culture was as poorly understood as the paleo- Indian occupation of the region in the early 1980s and was only represented in the original 1-270 Project corridor by a few projectile points recovered from sites dating to later time periods. We now realize Dalton- age sites are well represented in the region (Koldehoff 2006; Koldehoff and Walthall 2007; McElrath et al. 2007). This, no doubt, accounts for their systematic recovery and reuse by later groups, a fact evidenced by their presence in minor numbers throughout virtually all of the Archaic strata at Modoc rock shelter (Ahler and

180




Koldehoff 2007). Several sites have yielded Dalton-age materials from both excavated and surface contexts, most notably Nochta (Higgins 1990) and, more recently, several upland sites (Koldehoff and Walthall 2004, 2007; Walthall and Holley 1997). The recognition of wood- working as the focus of much of the Dalton toolkit, and the evidence for dugout canoe manufacture as one of the activities undertaken (Morse and Goodyear 1973; Gaertner 1994; Yerkes and Gaertner 1997), underscores the basic river orientation of these early inhabitants of the region, setting them off from the potentially much earlier Clovis inhabitants. Unfortunately, we lack radiocarbon dates for any Dalton occupation for the region; for this reason, while we accept priority for this manifestation in relation to the subsequent Early Archaic expressions based on the consistent stratigraphie positioning of Dalton related materials throughout the Midcontinent (Walthall 1998), we refrain from identifying temporal boundaries that would have to be projected from neighboring regions.

There are several commonly represented Early Ar- chaic point types in addition to Dalton that are consistently recognized in American Bottom surface collections (Thebes, St. Charles, Hardin, and Kirk Cluster points; that is, Koldehoff 2006); relatively few of these have been recovered from excavated contexts. The floodplain Nochta site did yield significant quantities of Dalton, Hardin, Kirk, and Searcy points from an expansive buried living surface with over 150 features, including hearths, pits, and rock concentrations (Hig- gins 1990; McElrath et al. 2007). Unfortunately, no diagnostic material was recovered from datable feature contexts. The large number and variety of chipped and ground stone tools and extensive evidence for their on- site manufacture indicates that this locality supported a substantial base camp for one or more Early Archaic occupations. Its location on a low, buried portion of the Savanna terrace was instrumental in protecting it from the later paleo-meandering of the Mississippi River, which reworked many of the prime locations that would have been available for early and mid-Holocene occupation of the floodplain.

The only dates for Early Archaic diagnostics derive from Modoc rock shelter (Ahler and Koldehoff 2007). The earliest dated levels with associated diagnostics (EA Strata 1, cal. 8100-7600 B.C) yielded a small number of Graham Cave Side-Notched points; succeeding levels (EA Strata 2, cal. 7600-7100 B.C.) produced a number of varieties, including Kirk Corner-Notched, Searcy, Hid- den Valley Stemmed, and Bifurcate Horizon points (Ahler and Koldehoff 2007). The presence of Graham Cave, Searcy, and Hidden Valley points in the American Bottom attest to the influence of the Ozark region of Missouri at times on the former, as these points are rare outside of the Mississippi trench area of Illinois (Koldehoff 2006). The central intercept for the most

Figure 5. Middle Archaic projectile points.

recent Early Archaic date from Modoc is cal. 6925 B.C. (Ahler and Koldehoff 2007).

Middle Archaic

The earliest dates for Middle Archaic deposits are from Modoc, where researchers have identified two initial strata of Middle Archaic deposits (MA Strata 1, cal. 6600-6100 B.C., and MA Strata 2, cal. 6100-5600 B.C.). The earlier levels contain points that seem to be related to the Cypress Creek I types of the mid-South, while the later level yielded points similar to the Cypress Creek II type (Ahler and Koldehoff 2007). The earliest defined cultural manifestation, however, is the Dennis Hollow phase (Adams et al. 1997; Walz et al. 1998) identified at the open-air Strong site. It has six associated radiocarbon dates ranging from cal. 5698 to 5445 B.C., and we have assigned a phase date of 5700- 5450 B.C. The site, located in an upland setting at the valley margin, contained several dozen features. The distinctive broad, corner-notched, expanding-stemmed bifaces typical of this phase, that is, Valmeyer Corner- Notched (Walz et al. 1998), have also been compared to the Cypress Creek I and II points, but the points from the Strong site (Figure 5) appear to be distinct from those at Modoc (McElrath et al. 2007). Only a few such points have been identified from surface collections (Koldehoff 2006), and it is clear that we need to increase our sample size and conduct direct comparisons in order to sort out this situation. Similar points have been recovered from the lower Illinois River Valley with coeval dates (Stafford 1985; Wiant et al. 2007), but several point styles were also present in the same horizon.

The other formally defined Middle Archaic assemblage is the Nochta phase (Higgins 1990), which dates from about 5450 to 5100 B.C. This phase is based on

181




materials recovered from a sealed living surface and associated pit features and rock clusters (N = 220) at the Nochta site. The dominant diagnostic artifact is the Brannon Side-Notched point type (Figure 5). Nochta also includes the first local evidence of a domestic structure (Higgins 1990:100-101). The dates for this phase (cal. 5433-5133 B.C.) follow closely on the heels of the Dennis Hollow phase (with a single "outlying" Nochta date cal. 5710 B.C.). The point styles of the two phases are distinctive, and although they seem to be temporally sequential, the Nochta phase's stylistic characteristics (Brannon Side-Notched) are not logically derived from the previous Dennis Hollow forms (Figure 5). The defined Middle Archaic Strata 4 (cal. 5600-5100 B.C.) at Modoc overlaps the two defined phases, and although there were few recovered diagnostics, those present were mainly of the side-notched variety (Ahler and Koldehoff 2007).

We have retained a hiatus in the American Bottom chronology after the Nochta phase, and although there are three acceptable dates from Modoc (Ahler and Koldehoff 2007) for the two main strata that span this subsequent period (MA Strata 5; 5100-4400 B.C. and MA Strata 6; 4400^100 B.C.), there are several unresolved issues concerning the temporal relationship between the Matanzas and the Godar type points. While side-notched points (Brannon, Godar, Raddatz, etc.) are very common in the American Bottom, Matanzas points are much less common (Koldehoff 2006; McElrath et al. 2007); they occur more prevalently in the southern American Bottom, in the vicinity of Modoc rock shelter and along interior drainages, especially in the Kaskaskia locality along the periphery of the American Bottom region (Koldehoff, personal communication, 2006). Because of the apparent abundance of Matanzas-style points at sites in the lower Illinois River Valley (Cook 1976; Odell 1996; Wiant et al. 2007), it had been assumed (McElrath et al. 1984) that such components were also present in the American Bottom but were as yet undiscovered. It now seems likely, given the expansive regional scope of surveyed and excavated Archaic sites, that Matanzas components are more restrictive in their occurrence in the American Bottom region (Koldehoff 2006; McElrath et al. 2007).

There are a few dates from the American Bottom region that have been obtained on material dating to the end of the fifth millennium B.C. (Table 1). These dates are on small assemblages such as at Tep (Moffat 1980) or at multicomponent sites such as Modoc Village (Ahler and Koldehoff 2002) and Leingang (Bentz 1988a), that are not sufficiently large or contextually secure enough to provide representative assemblage information. We have tentatively identified a Tep Complex, recognized by the presence of Karnak Stemmed points, that we have placed between cal. 4200 and 4000 B.C. (Figure 5) (McElrath et al. 2007).

Late Archaic

The summary volume Late Archaic chronology (McElrath et al. 1984) was based on 26 radiocarbon dates and materials obtained primarily from four extensively excavated sites: Go-Kart North (Fortier 1984), Missouri-Pacific No. 2 (McElrath and Fortier 1983), Dyroff-Levin (Emerson 1984), and Labras Lake (Phillips and Hall 1981; Yerkes 1987). In addition to these assemblages, there were excavated, but incom- pletely analyzed at that time, materials from the McLean (McElrath 1986), Range (Fortier 1987; Kelly et al. 1987), and George Reeves (McElrath 1993, McElrath and Finney 1987) sites. The assemblages from these sites were used to develop the first phase-level Late Archaic sequence for the region (McElrath et al. 1984). It included the Falling Springs (uncorrected 3200- 2300 B.C.), Titterington (uncorrected 2300-1900 B.C.), Labras Lake (uncorrected 1900-1000 B.C.), and Prairie Lake (uncorrected 1000-600 B.C.) phases.

New excavations of several additional sites with important Late Archaic occupations have strengthened and enhanced our understanding of the relative dating and content of the original four defined Late Archaic phases. These sites include Ringering (Evans and Evans 2000), Floyd (Evans 2001), Modoc rock shelter (Ahler 1998; Ahler and Koldehoff 2007; Ahler et al. 1992), Meyer (Fortier et al. 1998), Marge (Fortier 1996), ICT-II Tract (Nassaney et al. 1983; Nassaney and Lopinot 1986), and South Roxanna (Witty and Kelly 1993). At least some of the advances in our understanding

are attributable to reanalysis and reflection on existing assemblages. For example, the definition of the Mule Road phase (McElrath 1993) was based on a reconsider- ation of materials that had originally been assigned to the Titterington phase (McElrath and Finney 1987). Similarly, the reexamination of the Labras Lake site materials (Phillips and Hall 1981) led to the recognition of a major Prairie Lake phase occupation at this site (Yerkes 1987). In addition, the number of available Late Archaic radiocarbon assays has more than doubled since our 1984 summary (see Table 1). Finally, several regional surveys contributed to our knowledge of Archaic settlement systems and occupational histories for the uplands adjacent to the American Bottom (Ahler 1984, 1998; Emerson, McElrath, and Williams et al. 1986; Koldehoff 2006; McElrath et al. 2007).

The Falling Springs phase (cal. 3400-2900 B.C.), the earliest defined Late Archaic phase, is well represented at the McLean site, which has yielded five radiocarbon dates, ranging from cal. 2890 B.C. to cal. 3357 B.C. This phase is also found at the Modoc rock shelter with similar dates (see Ahler and Koldehoff 2007; McElrath et al. 2007). The Falling Springs phase has not been formally adopted for the lower Illinois River Valley (Wiant et al. 2007), although similar point styles have

182




Figure 6. Late Archaic projectile point sequence.

been identified at the Quasar site (Goatley 1998), with a date of cal. 2780 B.C., and the Cyprus Land site, with dates of cal. 3499 B.C., cal. 3639 B.C., and cal. 3660 B.C. (Conner 1986). Associated point types for this phase are variously referred to as Ferry, McLean, or Helton and are possibly derivative of more southern point types, such as Saratoga types in southern Illinois and the mid- South (Figure 6). For this time period, side-notched types (Godar or Raddatz) dominate assemblages north of the Illinois/Mississippi River confluence region (Nolan and Fishel 2007), and an ethnic boundary may exist between two distinct groups.

The subsequent Titterington phase (cal. 2800-2500 B.C.) represents an intrusion into this confluence region. The Titterington manifestation seems to originate in the southern Prairie Peninsula region of northwestern Missouri and southeastern Kansas, where it derives from a cultural matrix (Titterington-Sedalia-Nebo Hill phases, or "TSN culture") that both predates and

postdates the Titterington occupation of western Illinois. The hypertrophie blades that are the signature of this archaeological manifestation required reliable, and high-quality, chert sources, and, as several researchers have pointed out (Harl,1998; McElrath 1993; Reid 1984), TSN culture sites are essentially mapped on to the locations where outcrops of Keokuk or Burlington chert are abundantly available. This may account for the distribution of Titterington phase sites at the confluence region of the Mississippi and Illinois Rivers, where such quarries are present. Based on the distribution and age of the TSN culture, it is unlikely that this represents an outgrowth of the preceding lower Illinois River Valley Helton phase as suggested by some (Cook 1976; Odell 1996). Point types recognized for the Titterington phase in the American Bottom include Etley and Wadlow types (Figure 6); interestingly, the Sedalia type, which dominates assemblages to the west and north, are largely absent from the American

183




Bottom (Fortier 1983, 1984; Harl 1995, 1998; McElrath et al. 2007).

The newly defined Mule Road phase (cal. 2100 B.C.) chronologically succeeds the Titterington phase and is best known from the George Reeves site (McElrath 1993; McElrath and Finney 1987; McElrath et al. 2006). Al- though there is a significant Mule Road phase occupation at this multicomponent site, only a single radiocarbon determination is available. A date with multiple calibrated intercepts of 2128, 2080, and 2045 B.C. was obtained, and we assign a tentative date of cal. 2100 B.C. for this intrusive point style but are unable to determine its temporal duration without additional dates. Mule Road phase points appear to be cognates of the better known Ledbetter points common in the mid-South (Figure 6). Dozens of blanks, manufacturing failures, and completed Ledbetter-style points were recovered at the George Reeves site, which was a lithic workshop area, and habitation location (McElrath 1993).

Whereas the immediately preceding Titterington phase represents an intrusion from the west, all of the cultural antecedents for the Mule Road phase are clearly to the south. We view the appearance of Ledbetter points not merely as an expanding sphere of influence but as actual population shifts. In any event, the utilization of the American Bottom region by these southern populations is brief. Mule Road phase sites are the least represented Late Archaic phase in the region. Sporadic surface materials have been recovered from floodplain and upland sites in the region (Fortier 1990), and at least one large site on the Richland Creek drainage is known (Koldehoff 2006; McElrath et al. 2007); otherwise, there is no evidence for major occupations. Mule Road phase material has been identified north of the American Bottom in the Mississippi River floodplain (Fortier 1990; McElrath 1993), but only occasional points show up in surface collections in western Illinois (Nolan and Fishel 2007).

After the brief foray into southwestern Illinois on the part of this mid-South group, the American Bottom region becomes inhabited by Labras Lake phase (cal. 1800-1400 B.C.) groups that have ties to the Ohio and Wabash River regions of southeastern Illinois. This is underscored by the presence of the diminutive Riverton- style point cluster (Winters 1969) (Figure 6). These points are found sporadically throughout all of Illinois; Merom points (Figure 6; three points on the far right) are the most common but never the predominate form in assemblages. In the American Bottom, Merom points occur as a consistent minority with an expanding point type recently termed "Whale-Tail" points (Evans 2001). They are well represented at both the Labras Lake (Phillips and Hall 1981; Yerkes 1987) and Floyd (Evans 2001) sites.

The Labras Lake site was the first major Late Archaic site to be analyzed in the American Bottom (Phillips and Hall 1981). Subsequent analysis of other assemblages,

such as Dyroff -Levin (Emerson 1980, 1984) and Missouri- Pacific No. 2 (McElrath and Fortier 1983), demonstrated that Labras Lake was actually a multicomponent Late Archaic assemblage. Subsequent reanalysis by Richard Yerkes (1987) revealed a consistent spatial separation of Labras Lake phase from the later Prairie Lake phase materials at the site. More recently, the Marge site (Fortier 1996) has yielded several features, surface diagnostics, and five additional radiocarbon dates for this poorly understood archaeological phase.

There are ten Labras Lake phase dates yielding central intercepts ranging from cal. 1745 to 1401 B.C. Based on these dates, we suggest a time range of cal. 1750-1400 B.C. This is consistent with Riverton age materials from the eastern side of the state, but is a shorter time span than in the mid-South. Because Riverton points form a minority of the actual points recovered from this phase, the implication is that, rather than new populations, the Labras Lake phase seems to indicate interaction between the Wabash or other regions occupied by the Riverton culture and the American Bottom. Reid (1984) has identified the presence of Riverton points on TSN culture sites west of the Mississippi River, suggesting a shared frontier. It is indeed ironic, that the TSN culture, with a penchant for oversize points (the largest during the Archaic), shared a boundary with Riverton culture, with the smallest known points. This also confounds any attempt to place projectile point size into a temporal size-gradient trend (contra Shott 1996; also see Figure 6 for visual emphasis of this point).

The terminal Archaic Prairie Lake phase (cal. 1400- 900 B.C.) is the best-represented Late Archaic phase in the region. It is securely dated by over 20 radiocarbon determinations from several major sites. It is easily recognizable by its three most diagnostic point types (Figure 6): Dyroff (third, fourth and fifth points), Springly (two on the far left), and Missouri-Pacific (last point, on the far right) (Emerson 1980, 1984; Emerson and McElrath 1983; McElrath and Fortier 1983). This phase appears to be indistinguishable from the Kamps- ville phase in the lower Illinois River Valley and from the Logan phase in the central Illinois River Valley (Conrad 1986); and the covering term "Prairie Lake culture" has been applied to all three phases (Farns- worth and Asch 1986). Another infrequently occurring but securely dated diagnostic is grooved (as opposed to drilled) hematite plummets of the Snyders and Gilcrease varieties (Farnsworth and Asch 1986:342). These were originally thought to date to the Titterington phase (Titterington 1950) or even to Middle and Late Woodland times (Perino 1961:55-56), but we concur with Farnsworth and Asch's assessement (1986:340) that they occur exclusively on Prairie Lake /Kamps ville/ Logan phase sites (often as burial goods). Their occurrence at Titterington age sites is confined to

184




instances where Prairie Lake phase occupations are also present.

Prairie Lake phase sites are rare in the interior uplands but are frequently located along interior drainages (Emerson, McElrath, and Williams 1986; Fortier 1987; Fortier, Emerson, and Parker 1998; Koldehoff 2006; McElrath et al. 2007), suggesting a settlement system of floodplain base camps occupied essentially year around; these occupations in the Mississippi floodplain are so expansive, often extending for several miles along the backwater sloughs of the American Bottom, that they have been referred to as "base locales'' (Emerson and McElrath 1983; Emerson, McElrath, and Williams 1986). Poor preservation at the sites has hampered a proper understanding of subsistence, but rare insight is derived from a buried horizon at the ICT Tract at the Cahokia site (Nassaney et al. 1983; Nassaney and Lopinot 1986) that yielded some 30 taxa of seed plants (including marsh elder, giant ragweed, and chenopod). Possible domestic structures have been identified at Missouri- Pacific No. 2 (McElrath and Fortier 1983) and even more likely ones at Labras Lake (Yerkes 1987).

Early Woodland Period

Little was known about the Early Woodland occupation and utilization of the American Bottom prior to the inception of the 1-270 Project. A single Marion culture site, Jean Rita, had been tested in the early 1970s and yielded an unacceptably young date of A.D. 35 (Linder 1974). Beyond that excavated sample, only a thin scattering of Marion ceramics and lithics and a few isolated examples of Black Sand and Morton ceramics had been recovered. With 1-270 Project excavations, this sample increased and a number of new phases were recognized. Excavations of Early Woodland components at the Carbon Monoxide site (Fortier 1985a) and the Florence Street site (Emerson, Milner, and Jackson 1983) lead to the definition of three new taxa. These recognized a Marion phase (uncorrected 300-600 B.C.) and the newly defined Florence phase (uncorrected 300-500 B.C.) as well as the Columbia complex (uncorrected 150-300 B.C.) (Emerson, Milner, and Jackson 1983; Fortier 1985a; Fortier, Emerson, and Finney 1984). The chronology for these phases was based on only five radiocarbon dates. In a 1986 réévaluation of the American Bottom Early Woodland sequence, Emerson and Fortier (1986:484), on the basis of ceramic variation and geographical separation, reclassified the "Marion phase" as the Carr Creek phase of the Marion culture. They further suggested that the Florence phase might be ancestral to the Columbia complex.

Since that initial work in the 1980s, excavations at the major Early Woodland Ringering site on the Wood River terrace has provided important new information on the

chronology and life ways of these early inhabitants (Evans and Evans 2000). These components produced eight radiocarbon dates that led to the recognition of a new Ringering phase (uncorrected 500-800 B.C.), which is essentially equivalent to the Black Sand phase of the lower Illinois River Valley, and the recognition of the Columbia complex as a phase.

We now have 13 radiocarbon dates from cultural contexts for four Early Woodland phases (Table 2). The calibrated dates for these phases provide a chronological assortment that could indicate the contemporaneity of at least some of these groups. The Carr Creek phase has five dates ranging between cal. 814 and cal. 393 B.C. The Florence phase has three dates between cal. 407 B.C. and cal. 165 B.C. The Ringering phase yielded two dates of cal. 790 and cal. 768 B.C., and the Columbia phase two dates of cal. 181 and cal. 137 B.C.

The archaeological record suggests that during the Early Woodland, by and large, the American Bottom was "utilized" rather than "occupied" by small, fairly mobile groups of hunters and gatherers who were part of broader social groupings with origins outside the valley (Emerson 1986; Emerson and Fortier 1986; Emerson and McElrath 2001; Farnsworth 1986; Fortier, Emerson, and Finney 1984). The Carr Creek phase represents the southern fringe of the widespread mid western Marion culture (Emerson 1986; Emerson and Fortier 1986; Fortier 1985a). Characteristically small deposits of ceramic and lithic debris found in both upland and bottomland environments suggesting widespread foraging typify Carr Creek camps. It is possible that these people may have shared the area with the Prairie Lake phase Terminal Archaic inhabitants and the Ringering phase visitors. It should be noted, however, that based on the distribution of radiocarbon dates, there appears to be a century-long hiatus between the end of the Terminal Late Archaic and the initial Early Woodland occupation of the American Bottom, and from a settlement standpoint, intermingled settlements and assemblages are extremely rare. In addition, there are dramatic differences in technological practices between Prairie Lake Archaic and Carr Creek peoples. The Ringering phase signature in the valley is ephemeral and is only known from a small number of temporary camps that contained diagnostic Black Sand ceramics and contracting stem points (Evans and Evans 2000). These are part of the larger incised-line ceramic tradition that originated in the mid-South and spread north through Missouri and into the lower Illinois River Valley (Farnsworth 1986). Neither the Carr Creek nor Ringering phase peoples have any clear antecedents or descendents in the American Bottom.

The Florence phase represents the unambiguous intrusion of southern grog-tempered ceramic users into the American Bottom (Emerson, Milner, and Jackson 1983; Emerson and Fortier 1986; Emerson and McElrath

185




2001). They brought a new lifestyle adapted to riverine exploitation, larger and more permanent camps, and new ceramic and lithic styles. Their cultural ties appear to lie with the earlier Alexander and Tchefuncte groups in the mid-South and lower Mississippi River Valley. It is possible that Carr Creek peoples were still present when they arrived. The large riverside camps of these people extend to the north at least as far as the lower Illinois River Valley (Farnsworth and Asch 1986) and up the Missouri River (Fishel 2002). On the basis of the material culture, the poorly known Columbia phase appears to represent a much-diminished local continu- ation of the Florence phase (Emerson and Fortier 1986; Fortier 1985a).

From our earliest formulations of the Early Woodland chronology and systematics, we realized that we were faced with at least two very distinct cultural patterns - one represented by the Marion culture and the other by the Florence phase (Fortier, Emerson, and Finney 1984). The relationship between these archaeological assemblages was not straightforward but clearly was not a case of in situ evolution. Chronologically, it appeared that we had a reasonable sequence of Terminal Archaic Prairie Lake, Carr Creek (Marion), Florence, and Columbia phases. Culturally, however, it seemed difficult to derive the Carr Creek phase out of the previous Prairie Lake phase or the Florence phase out of a Marion culture predecessor. The only possible developmental relationship recognized was the derivation of the Columbia phase out of an earlier Florence phase. The relationship of the Carr Creek phase and Florence phase was shown in the original chronology by a diagonal dashed line and the Florence phase-Columbia separation by a dashed line to represent this ambiguity.

With the additional evidence from new excavations and analysis, the Early Woodland sequence has, in some ways, been both clarified and made more complicated (Emerson and McElrath 2001; Fortier 2001a). We now have data to suggest the presence of multiple partially contemporaneous "phases" within the same archaeological locality. Clearly, this is a taxonomic concern. Our most recent evaluation of the Early Woodland materials suggests that it is useful to think of these various archaeological assemblages as representing distinct ethnic groups (i.e., ethnic cores) who through time sporadically occupied the valley (Emerson and McElrath 2001). This perspective allows us to more fully model the explanatory potential of cultural interaction, boundary creation and maintenance, and ethnic identity during a time of cultural diversity in the American Bottom.

Middle Woodland Period

The Middle Woodland sequence for the American Bottom was developed in the early 1980s as a direct

consequence of the 1-270 Project excavations (Fortier, Emerson, and Finney 1984; Bareis and Porter, eds. 1984). Two phases, Cement Hollow and Hill Lake, were established on the basis of excavations at two sites, Mund and Truck No. 7, and six radiocarbon dates. The assemblages and dates were thought to represent the earlier and latter spectrums of a Middle Woodland period that extended from 150 B.C. to A.D. 300. This range was primarily based on the Middle Woodland sequence already established from the nearby lower Illinois River Valley. Missing in the American Bottom cultural history was evidence representing the Havana/ Hopewell florescence in the central portion of the Middle Woodland period.

In the decade after 1984, the number of excavated Middle Woodland components rose dramatically (Fortier 2001b, 2004; Fortier and Ghosh 2000; Fortier et al. 1989; Higgins 1990; Jackson 1990a, 1990b; Williams 1993; Wolforth et al. 1990). Excavations have currently been conducted at 14 Middle Woodland sites. The large Holding village site first revealed remains per- taining to Havana /Hopewell cultures, and other Hopewell occupations provided information lacking in the earlier investigations. On the basis of these new materials, the Holding phase was defined (Figure 7; Fortier et al. 1989:558-559). In 1989, Fortier and colleagues proposed a revised Middle Woodland phase unconnected chronology consisting of the Cement Hollow phase (150 B.C. to 50 B.C.), the Holding phase (50 B.C. to A.D. 150), and the Hill Lake phase (A.D. 150 to 300). That chronology has been supported by thirteen additional Middle Woodland radiocarbon dates (Table 3) that now include 30 AMS (see below) and 25 standard dates.

During the early 1990s, as part of his dissertation research, Tom Maher obtained 30 University of Arizona AMS dates from Middle Woodland sites in the American Bottom and nearby Missouri (Maher 1991, 1996). Maher presented a newly calibrated sequence (also based on seriated ceramic types) and suggested that the Holding phase be subdivided into the called Holding I sub-phase phase and Holding II sub-phase (Maher 1996:109-124). This has not been widely utilized, primarily because such a refined analytical division is difficult to utilize with small assemblages. Maher's (1996) calibrated AMS dates also created a serious dilemma for American Bottom Middle Woodland researchers. The new dates promised to radically alter the existing phase chronological boundaries, extending the sequence beyond the limits of the established Middle Woodland-Late Woodland boundary. They also created a large gap at the Early Woodland-Middle Woodland boundary that was exac- erbated by the fact that sometime around 220 B.C., earlier dates calibrate away from the present while later dates calibrate (increase in age) toward the present.

186




Figure 7. Diagnostic Holding phase (Hopewell) artifacts: (a) chert hoe, (b) Hopewell Zoned Stamped jar, (c) lamellar blade core, (d) limestone bowl, (e) lamellar blades, (f) miniature copper celt, (g) copper awl, (h) chert disk scrapers, (i) projectile point types, (j) clay figurines, (k), chert bird effigy; (1) micro-drills, (m) gravers.

For this article, Fortier initially attempted to integrate both the AMS and conventional Middle Woodland dates. When the dates were organized by phase and plotted on a graph (Figure 8), a surprising picture emerged. The calibrated AMS dates were consistently later in age than the conventional dates. In four cases, materials from the same feature were dated by both techniques with a similar shift. No explanation for this variation has been offered from the University of Arizona laboratory or the Illinois State Geological Survey (ISGS) lab at the University of Illinois. The chronological ranges for each of the three primary phases vary according to dating technique. For example, the Cement Hollow phase boundaries are circa cal. 150

B.C. and 50 A.D., using conventional dates (N = 4). Two other conventional dates are included in Table 3 from the Petite Michele site, but they are very early, that is, circa cal. 390 B.C., and are unacceptable based on the material assemblage. The range for the AMS dates (N = 9) from this same phase and site is, surprisingly, cal. A.D. 75 to A.D. 350. In other words, in this more extreme example, there is an age discrepancy for the Cement Hollow phase of from 225 to 300 years at each end of the range. Of 30 AMS dates, only one falls into the expected Cement Hollow range.

At present, we accept the conventional Middle Woodland date range and we exclude the University of Arizona AMS dates from the chronology. The AMS

187




Figure 8. Comparison of calibrated conventional and AMS Middle Woodland dates from the American Bottom.

dates are not in line with either the rest of the American Bottom radiocarbon sequence, nor with the broader established regional sequences. Unfortunately, we do not know whether such a problem is inherent to the Middle Woodland period or to radiocarbon technology itself. We do note, however, that a quarter of a century of ISGS lab dates for the American Bottom sequence have been internally consistent.

Currently, the Middle Woodland sequence is represented by 25 conventional calibrated radiocarbon dates from seven sites. The range extends from cal. 150 B.C. to A.D. 350. The greatest overlap occurs between the Holding and Hill Lake phases, and this is paralleled by the difficulty of separating Holding and Hill Lake material assemblages (i.e., at the cal. A.D. 150 boundary). One consequence of calibration is a shortening of the Holding phase and a lengthening of the Hill Lake phase. This is in keeping with our opinion that the so- called Hopewell fluorescence in the American Bottom can be best conceived of as a "horizon." The Hill Lake phase has conversely been seen as a longer period of Hopewellian decline and eventual disappearance from

the American Bottom landscape circa cal. A.D. 350 (McElrath and Fortier 2000; Fortier 2001a).

Changes have occurred since 1984 in interpreting the Middle Woodland "continuum" in the American Bot- tom, particularly in terms of its relationships and interfaces with the preceding Early Woodland and subsequent Late Woodland societies. These issues involve the ambiguous transition from Early Woodland to Middle Woodland, apparent discontinuities within the Middle Woodland sequence, and the abrupt transition from Middle to Late Woodland. First, the relationship between the various Early Woodland assemblages of the American Bottom and subsequent Cement Hollow assemblages is complex and poorly understood. Early Woodland and early Middle Wood- land habitations generally occupy similar land surfaces, that is, low, sandy locations in the Mississippi River floodplain, and display nearly identical plant subsistence practices that are primarily focused on the exploitation of aquatics, tubers, and nuts. However, there is also evidence for domesticated starchy culti- gens, such as erect knotweed, little barley, maygrass,

188




chenopods, and even sunflower (see Simon and Parker, this volume). The variety of domesticated plant usage is not nearly as diverse as seen during the subsequent Holding phase, but this observation may be influenced by smaller, shorter-term occupations of the Early Woodland and early Middle Woodland periods. In addition, preservation of plant or animal remains at Early Woodland campsites is notoriously bad. Addi- tionally cultural materials from this period are almost exclusively recovered from middens rather than pit contexts, a notable exception being the Early Woodland Florence site (Emerson, Milner, and Jackson 1983).

The use of disc scrapers, humpback scrapers, and contracting-stemmed points characterize both Cement Hollow and Early Woodland, Columbia (Fortier 1985a), Ringering (Evans and Evans 2000), and Florence (Emerson, Milner, and Jackson 1983) phase lithic assemblages (see also Emerson and Fortier 1986). Such a linkage is missing between the Marion culture Carr Creek phase and Middle Woodland lithic assemblages in this area. While we can draw some connections between Early Woodland and initial Middle Woodland lithic assemblages, linkages between ceramic assemblages are missing. Also perplexing, is the fact that Early Woodland and Middle Woodland occupations virtually never inhabit the same site location. The lone exception is at the Holding site where Black Sand (Ringering phase) materials occur with later Middle Woodland occupations. In situ development of early Middle Woodland Cement Hollow people out of a local Early Woodland group within the American Bottom cannot be proposed at this time although we note that such a development probably occurred elsewhere in the region, that is, the central Illinois River Valley. Finally, we would also opine that the criteria for separating the Early and Middle Woodland periods needs redefinition. It is clearly not based on fundamental taxonomic, lifestyle, or material assemblage differences. This is even more dramatically highlighted by the sudden appearance of a subsequent Hopewell horizon that differs significantly from previous early Middle Wood- land practices in this area.

The transition from the early Middle Woodland Cement Hollow phase to the Havana /Hopewell Hold- ing phase is abrupt and involved considerable changes in subsistence, technology, and settlement configura- tions (Fortier 1995, 2001a, 2001b; McElrath and Fortier 2000). Large settlements with multiple structures appear for the first time with subsistence economies primarily focused on a variety of new domesticates, including a significant increase in the use of starchy seeds, and the first-time appearance of maize and tobacco (Riley et al. 1994; Simon and Parker, this volume). New technologies and tool kits emerged, including the use of prismatic core-derived lamellar blades, the common procurement of nonlocal cherts, and the acquisition of exotic lithics

and minerals, such as obsidian, fluorite, mica, and copper (Figure 7). A great deal of experimentation in ceramic technology and style also occurred, including the use of limestone and grog tempers, the appearance of bowls and thin-walled miniature jars, and the emergence of new decorative motifs, such as cross-hatching, interior rim channeling, small punctates, and multiple- paneled design fields (Fortier et al. 1989:558-559).

In short, the multiplicity of technological, subsistence, settlement, and stylistic innovation at this time represents a greater-magnitude divergence of the Holding phase from previous Cement Hollow assemblages, than does the transition from Early Woodland to the early Middle Woodland. If a demarcation between Early Woodland and Middle Woodland was based on the archaeological evidence at hand, it could be argued that this boundary should be drawn at the point at which Havana /Hopewell cultures are first recognizably introduced into the American Bottom, rather than prior to this time. There is, however, no consensus that such a fundamental change should be made at this time.

The final segment of the Middle Woodland sequence, the Hill Lake phase, is characterized as a period during which Hopewellian traits and practices disappear. It is important, however, to note that this follows a local developmental path, and includes subtle changes in ceramic decorative style, and a reduction in nonlocal Hopewell Interaction Sphere artifacts. This long period of Hopewellian subsidence is ultimately marked by an abandonment of the area, circa cal. A.D. 350, and possible retraction into so-called homeland areas such as the lower Illinois River Valley. McElrath and Fortier (2000) have proposed a short occupational hiatus in the American Bottom at the end of the Middle Woodland. It is beyond the scope of this article to elaborate on that process, but it is an important deviation from our previous model of gradual Middle to Late Woodland devolution presented in the 1984 summary volume (Fortier, Emerson, and Finney 1984:103).

Late Woodland Period

The CRM era has generated a fundamental transformation of the Late Woodland database in the American Bottom. Its definition and place in the sequence has been greatly expanded beyond its 1971 Cahokia Conference identification as the solitary and cursorily defined Patrick phase (Fowler and Hall 1975:2; Hall 1975). Few researchers anticipated that, in terms of sheer numbers of sites, Late Woodland occupations of the American Bottom would eventually exceed those of all other periods (with the possible exception of the Cahokian polity at its height). CRM archaeology was responsible for exposing previously underresearched floodplain and upland environments in the American

189




Bottom, many of which proved to be major focal points of Late Woodland settlement.

Our perceptions of Late Woodland have been radically altered as we recognize that rather than a monotonous intermediary between Hopewellian and Mississippian cultures, it was a period of technological innovation and increasing social complexity (Emerson, McElrath, and Fortier 2000). For the first time, societies with specific regional identities emerged in the American Bottom (Fortier and Jackson 2000). Population levels dramatically increased, as evidenced by the eventual occupation of virtually every floodplain and upland niche in the region. Broad-scale excavations have revealed early community patterns with structural diversity, interestingly enough, based on a pre-maize and local resource- focused economy (e.g., see Koldehoff and Galloy 2006; Koldehoff and Galloy, this volume; Simon and Parker, this volume). Later, maize becomes an important component of the subsistence economy, but its virtual absence during the formation of large Late Woodland populations - for example, during the Patrick phase - clearly suggests that it was not the prime mover of social complexity that it was once thought to be.

The 1984 summary volume recognized the importance of the Patrick phase and followed the A.D. 600- 800 (uncorrected) dating proposed by the Cahokia Ceramic Conference (Kelly, Finney, et al. 1984). At that time, an expanded Late Woodland sequence that included two earlier phases, Rosewood and Mund, was introduced - to accommodate new site materials dating to the period from A.D. 300-600, uncorrected. It also proposed a sequence of phases postdating the Patrick phase (Kelly, Ozuk, et al. 1984) that transformed what were identified earlier as "Woodland" materials into an "Emergent Mississippian" category that taxonomically involved a segmentation of Vogel' s Late Bluff culture (Vogel 1975).

The Initial Late Woodland (cal A.D. 400-650)

McElrath and Fortier (2000) have demonstrated that the initial Late Woodland cultures of the American Bottom are not directly descended from previous American Bottom Middle Woodland societies. This is diametrically opposed to interpretations made in the 1984 summary volume asserting a self-evident Middle to Late Woodland evolutionary linkage (Fortier, Emer- son, and Finney 1984:103; Kelly, Finney, et al. 1984:104). This reflected the 1-270 Project neoevolutionary perspective that persisted into the early 1990s.

The archaeological evidence now indicates little discernible cultural continuity between Middle and Late Woodland assemblages. Instead, Middle Woodland groups appear to have abandoned the American Bottom at the end of the Hill Lake phase, circa cal. A.D. 350, perhaps for core Middle Woodland areas to the north.

The reasons for this abandonment are not known (but see McElrath and Fortier 2000 for a fuller discussion). We suggest a minor occupational hiatus of roughly half a century before the reoccupation of the area by Late Woodland groups, circa cal. A.D. 400, bearing new subsistence and lithic technologies, different settlement preferences, new ceramic forms and decorative styles, distinctive patterns of trash disposal, and new community layouts. The avoidance of floodplain localities in the Mississippi River trench is most striking, as this preference appears to persist until cal. A.D. 650. McElrath and Fortier (2000) have conjectured that a period of hydraulic instability in the floodplain may have diverted initial Late Woodland settlements to bluff base and upland habitats. There may be other reasons for this dramatic settlement avoidance of floodplain environments that are not yet clear to us.

In the 1984 summary volume, we argued that Mund phase people (A.D. 450-600) were directly descended from Rosewood phase (A.D. 300-450) populations. Our ongoing excavations, as well as our newly calibrated dates (N = 36; Table 4), now suggest that this model is too simplistic. For example, although Rosewood assemblages appear throughout the region, Mund assemblages are mostly restricted to a single locality, the bluff top and bluff base habitats of the Hill Lake locality. The calibrated dates for Rosewood (N = 13) and Mund assemblages (N = 12) continue to support the view that Mund postdates Rosewood, but the relationship between the two peoples is far from clear. The use of differing projectile point styles by these peoples supports our view that they represent distinct cultural units (Figure 8). More recent work at the Cunningham site in the northern American Bottom has revealed another early Late Woodland component that appears to represent a stylistic amalgamation of the Rosewood and Mund ceramic assemblages. Projectile point styles again differ from either the Mund or Rosewood assemblages (Figure 8). In terms of calibrated dates (N = 11), Cunningham parallels the latter end of both the Mund and Rosewood phases. The site analysts proposed a new Cunningham phase (Meinkoth, Hedman, and McElrath 2001), but its status as a phase, rather than a variant of the Mund or Rosewood phases or an outside intrusion, is still uncertain.

Late Woodland (cal. A.D. 650-900)

The central portion of the Late Woodland sequence, the Patrick phase, might be thought of as the archetyp- ical American Bottom Late Woodland manifestation. It is a period during which Late Woodland societies flourished, especially in regard to increased populations and community size (Fortier and Jackson 2000). The early uncorrected dates suggested these events ranged over two centuries, from A.D. 600 to 800. Sixty-nine

190




calibrated dates indicate a 250-year range for this phase ending at cal. A.D. 900 (Table 5). The cal. A.D. 900 terminus is supported by 51 of the 69 dates {75%) that fall within the cal. A.D. 650-900 range. Four dates predate cal. A.D. 650, four are within the cal. A.D. 900- 950 range, and 14 postdate cal. A.D. 950. We therefore conservatively reject those earlier and later Patrick dates as statistical outliers. By choosing the cal. A.D. 900 boundary, we are extrapolating an approximately one and a half century existence for the Terminal Late Woodland period that follows. The limitations of radiocarbon dates in resolving chronological problems from the Patrick phase highlight the increasingly restricted role C14 assays can play as we deal with more recent periods and shorter intervals of time. It reinforces our conviction that the refinement of Wood- land and Mississippian chronologies depends on care- fully constructed artifact chronologies coupled with feature superpositioning, and contextually sound, large- scale excavations.

The Patrick phase is a cultural anomaly in American Bottom prehistory. It is one of the most stable and most homogeneous phases in the entire sequence (Fortier and Jackson 2000; Galloy 2002; Koldehpff and Galloy 2006; Koldehoff and Galloy, this volume). Material assemblages remain essentially unaltered for nearly three centuries. It is a period of tremendous population growth, and numerous settlements spring up not only in the uplands but also in the previously unoccupied Mis- sissippi River floodplain, representing a departure from initial Late Woodland practices. Patrick phase settlements are also more complex than their predecessors, with new house types (keyholes, large public structures, rectilinear domestic shelters), and more diverse settlement forms, including multistructure clustered settlements, extractive camps, isolated house clusters, and dispersed linear arrangements of pits and structures Kelly et al. 1987; Fortier, Lacampagne, and Finney 1984). Yet as Koldehoff and Galloy (this volume) convincingly demonstrate it is a period dominated by shifting patterns of settlement tied to slash and burn horticul- tural patterns. Even apparently large sites sometimes interpreted as 'Villages'' (e.g., Kelly, Finney, et al. 1984) appear to be no more than composites of multiple short- term occupations.

It is during this phase that the bow and arrow was widely adopted, replacing the bifacial spear or atlatl points of the Rosewood, Mund, and Cunningham phases (Figure 9). This is illustrated, for example, in the wholesale transition from dart points during initial Late Woodland times to the use of arrow points during the Patrick phase (Figure 9). Ceramic inventories also changed and new vessel forms such as large bowls and storage vessels were utilized. For the first time, ceramic assemblages can be acknowledged as being purely American Bottom in origin. This is also a time when

Patrick phase assemblages are identified beyond the limits of the American Bottom proper; for example, to the east in the Kaskaskia River Valley (Kuttruff 1991) and to the west in Missouri (Harl 2000). Based on the dramatic changes that characterize the Patrick phase, we propose that the transition from initial Late Woodland societies to the Patrick phase represents a discontinuity (a solid line on the chronology chart; see Figure 4).

So dramatic were the changes that were thought to have occurred at the beginning of the Patrick phase that sòme researchers began to question the criteria used to differentiate Late Woodland from the newly defined Emergent Mississippian cultures by arguing that it was at that time that we first see the beginnings of the processes leading to Mississippianization in this region (Emerson and Jackson 1987). The dramatic increase in the use of maize and minor changes in ceramic decorative practice, such as not cord marking the upper portions of jars, and the use of Z-twist cord marking (defining characteristics of the Emergent Mississippian in the summary volume), were regarded as being steps along a longer process of local intensification that was initiated at cal. A.D. 650. Given the calibration sequence and the compression of the previously constructed Emergent Mississippian sequence, it makes even better sense now to recognize the contribution that Patrick phase peoples made in establishing the foundations for Mississippian developments in the region, particularly in terms of population growth and densities, geographical expansion, and settlement pattern complexity, all of which had their origins in the Patrick phase.

Terminal Late Woodland (cal. A.D. 900-1050)

The Terminal Late Woodland is perhaps the most diverse and dynamic period in the American Bottom sequence. It has provoked by far the most taxonomic and theoretical questions, including those related to the recognition of rates of culture change, the use of teleological terminology, the réévaluation of archaeological material taxonomies, the definition of ethnic boundaries, the meaning of complexity, and the role of cultural diversity and population growth in the appearance of later Mississippian peoples (Kelly 1982, 1987, 1990, 2000; Kelly, Ozuk, et al. 1984; Emerson 1997b; Emerson and Jackson 1987; Fortier 1991; Fortier and McElrath 2002). For this reason, our discussion of this period is somewhat more lengthy.

In a recent article, Fortier and McElrath (2002) have advocated replacing the summary volume designation "Emergent Mississippian" with "Terminal Late Wood- land" (TLW) to designate the time dating from cal. A.D. 900 to 1050 (previously A.D. 800 to 1000). It is, in effect, an argument for a return to the earlier pre-I-270 American Bottom Late Woodland cultural sequence.

191




Figure 9. Late Woodland projectile points, by phase.

The term "Emergent Mississippian" was previously utilized by most researchers in the area to describe cultures "that are transitional between 'pure' Late Wood- land and subsequent Mississippian culture" (Kelly 1982:224). Although this term had been used in a purely taxonomic sense - that is, filling a chronological and cultural gap in the prehistoric record - its had become a de facto "explanation" of Mississippian emergence. It presumed the importance of various causal factors as generating this process, such as increasing regional interaction and trade, population increase, community complexity, and utilization of maize, to name a few. A reexamination of the archaeological evidence often does not support those presumptions (Fortier and McElrath 2002).

The Emergent Mississippian phase sequence (now the TLW) as first presented in the summary volume (Kelly, Finney, et al. 198a) has since been modified several times to incorporate changing interpretations. In 1984, and since then (e.g., Kelly 1987, 1990, 2000), the existence of two parallel American Bottom ceramic traditions was proposed; that is, a northern "Late Bluff" and a southern "Pulcher" tradition. In creating these two traditions, Kelly (e.g., 1990) remained true to Willey's original

definition of a tradition as "a Une ... of pottery development through time within the confines of a certain technique or decorative constant" (1945:53). The diagnostic criteria for identifying these two traditions is differing tempering materials. Pulcher tradition ceramics are limestone tempered, whereas Late Bluff ceramics are grit and grog tempered (Kelly 2002a:159). The Pulcher tradition spans no more than two centuries (cal. A.D. 900-1100) making it more of a horizon than a tradition while the duration of the northern grit-and- grog-based Late Bluff tradition could reasonably be thought of as running from cal. A.D. 600 into the A.D. 1300s (i.e., Studenmund 2000). Recently, Kelly has expanded the temporal length and cultural signatures of these two north-south traditions (1990, 2002a, 2002b). The spatial limits of these traditions beyond the immediate American Bottom are undefined.

The current taxonomic units (Kelly 1990) in the northern Late Bluff tradition include, from earliest to latest, the Collinsville, Loyd, Merrell, and Edelhardt phases and spatially covers the area from the Goose Lake meander to Alton, Illinois. Fortier and McElrath (2002) recently proposed the inclusion of the Spone- mann phase in the Late Bluff tradition.4 Kelly (1990,

192




1993, 2000) identifies the Pulcher tradition as extending from Goose Lake south for some indeterminate distance, perhaps to the mouth of the Kaskaskia River. The tradition includes, from earliest to latest, the Dohack, Range, George Reeves, and Lindeman phases.

The difference between the Pulcher and Late Bluff traditions is temper variation, with the predominant use of limestone tempering characterizing the ceramic assemblages south of Goose Lake. However, as Pauketat (2001b:82) has observed, the American Bottom throughout the TLW was a virtual cornucopia of local pottery- making traditions, with combinations of grit, grog, and limestone and, eventually, shell tempers utilized in various localities. Such "microstylistic modes" represented the norm, not the exception (Emerson 1991; Emerson and Jackson 1984; Pauketat 2001b:82). In short, splitting the valley into two exclusive pottery temper traditions appears too one-dimensional in terms of characterizing the true variety and diversity of local social and technological traditions. As Milner notes (1998:20-21), the Pulcher area "limestone" tradition can most expeditiously be accounted for by the propinquity of the massive limestone outcrops. There is little dissent among regional researchers that the TLW is a time of extreme heterogeneity, especially in terms of ceramic assemblages. Determining the social and political implications of this diversity (especially in regard to temper variations) is a difficult and ongoing process (compare Kelly 2002b with Fortier and McElrarth 2002 or Milner 1998:20-21).

The archaeology of the TLW is fraught with a series of unresolved issues. The length of individual phases in the Pulcher or Late Bluff cultural traditions, proposed in 1984, represented, at best, reasonable speculation. As a working model, they were arbitrarily separated into equal segments of time, 50 years per phase. Because the process of Mississippianization was believed to be gradual, it was widely thought that several centuries of development were essential for its emergence. A total of 24 uncalibrated radiocarbon dates from Emergent Mississippian contexts was considered to "confirm" its duration of two centuries. But the ability to refine or confirm the chronology of individual 50 year phases within a two-century period exceeds the capabilities of radiocarbon dating.

However, the chronology of the two parallel traditions was not based on the radiocarbon dates but on ceramic seriation, on a series of presumed time-sensitive diagnostic traits and artifacts, and on an implicit assumption of progressive, developmental change. For example, in the analysis of the Range site, the relative occurrence of bowls, certain jar forms, and lip notching are assumed to be sensitive time markers and are used collectively to seriate occupations within phases as well as to differentiate between phases (Ozuk 1990a, 1990b). Such a use of stylistic seriation to sequentially order TLW assemb-

lages is appropriate only if one can demonstrate independently the validity of such stylistic changes and if one excludes the possibility that functional variation plays a significant role in the configuration of ceramic assemblages. For example, the relative percentages of bowls in different occupational areas might be as easily related to differential feasting or even family size as to chronological increase in the use of bowls through time. Moreover, the seriation method cannot typically be applied to sites with small assemblages. At the Range site itself, for example, the namesake phase could only be identified because of the large size of its ceramic assemblage (Kelly, Ozuk, and Williams 1990). It raises a crucial methodological and taxonomic question as to the validity of the creation of the Emergent Mississippian phases based solely on minor ceramic variations.

Since 1984, researchers have been attempting to confirm the TLW sequence with a series of contextually secure calibrated radiocarbon dates. The 39 radiocarbon dates collected to date, instead of clarifying the sequence, have presented us with a chronological conundrum (Table 6). Of the calibrated dates, only 11 fall within the range of the associated phase (arbitrarily established as circa 35-year divisions). Nineteen dates (using the central intercepts) (48.7% of the total) fall outside expected TLW limits, most of them in the middle to late phases of the Mississippian period (Figure 10). The dates that best fit the sequence are those from the final TLW Lindeman and Edelhardt phase assemblages where approximately 65 percent of the dates fall within the expected limits. The most erratic dates are those from the earliest phases, that is, Dohack, Range, and Loyd phases. Of 22 dates run from these three phases, none fall within their expected ranges. The majority of these dates are, in fact, a century or more years later than they should be. Also hampering our understanding of the TLW chronological sequence has been a lack of balance in the selection of contexts to date. For example, one phase, George Reeves, lacks any radiocarbon determinations and only two dates exist for the Merrell phase. Ironically, the phase with the least archaeological visibility in the region, Range, has a total of nine radiocarbon dates, or just over 26 percent of all TLW dates run, and moreover, all derived from one location within the Range site.

The Terminal Late Woodland is a time of dramatic cultural heterogeneity and rapid change, making our attempts to locate patterning in the midst of diversity very difficult. We echo Dalan and her colleagues' (Dalan et al. 2003:70) observation that "a bewildering ceramic sequence has been offered for the Emergent Mississip- pian, and it is likely that this will be significantly revised in the future." For nearly 20 years, 1-270 Project analysts have recognized that there is a distinct and recognizable break between the early (Range and Dohack) and late

193




1360-

1340-

1320-

1300- O

1280- T

1260- Q

1240- œ

1200-

..o R

1160- | ! 1 I '

n R R

1140-

1120-

1100-

1080-

1060-

1040- ~

~~"i^^rl 1020- T T -■ O^'

~ I

T --nw()"' • • * " D 1000- Ly

LyLy D L D L E D Terminal Late Woodland 2

I I I ,n R D GR, M, L, E 980- r.^'--- L

D "

LyLyL 96°- |

. M

940- Terminal Late Woodland 1 C, Ly, D, R

920-

900 - - - . 1- I 6 I ¿MDLEER 880" C C C

M 860-

840-

820-

800-

780- e l 760-

740 - Phases

¿ C Collinsville Ly Loyd D Dohack 7C0" R Range GR George Reeves M Merrell

660 L Lindeman Ir E Edelhardt

O -Dates not falling in expected TLW1, TLW2 range or phase range Note: see endnote 1 for calibration program; all date lines are one-sigma ranges

Figure 10. Distribution of Terminal Late Woodland calibrated radiocarbon dates.

194




(George Reeves and Lindeman) southern Emergent Mississippian phases. These have been colloquially referred to for years as "EM I" and "EM II." We believe that division, into "early" and "late," is demonstrably verifiable and applicable in a broader context and is not limited to just the Range site.

Given Fortier and McElrath's (2002) argument for replacing the teleological Emergent Mississippian with the Terminal Late Woodland, we propose that the period should be divided into an earlier TLW I and a later TLW II. Such a conflation better represents the actual state of our archaeological knowledge. TLW I includes the initial Range and Dohack phases in the south and the Collinsville (as yet undefined) and Loyd phases in the north. The TLW II includes the southern George Reeves and Lindeman phases and the northern Merrell and Edelhardt phases. This organization also reflects our finding and others' (Holley, this volume; Holley et al. 2001:483; Milner 1998:20-21) that vessel forms, subsistence practices, lithics, and community layout are duplicated in the north and south sequences and that there is little basis to distinguish between them except for the predominate use of limestone tempering in the south. Moreover, there has been virtually no systematic attempt to characterize (i.e., quantify) the ceramic assemblages south of the Pulcher area, so the true extent of the limestone-tempering horizon is presently undocumented. We present individual TLW I and TLW II phases horizontally in Figure 4 because their relative chronological relationships cannot, in most cases, be effectively demonstrated. Many of these phase divisions are created from subtle ceramic seriations, typically based on a priori typological assumptions, not on clear-cut stratigraphy or superpositioning.

Because the length of the TLW sequence is not central to the process of Mississippian emergence, the radiocarbon conundrum referred to above is not a matter of great concern. We note that radiocarbon dating is not precise enough to establish TLW phase boundaries, or perhaps even the chronological parameters of the TLW itself. Contributing to this dilemma is the possibility that there may be technical factors influencing dates from this time (e.g., fluctuations in atmospheric carbon) that are producing widely disparate dates (Hall 1981; Stuiver and Quay 1980, 1981). The chronological sequence will therefore continue to be based on a combination of stratigraphie and superpositioning evidence and cultural markers that include not only pottery types, but also archaeobotanical, faunal, lithic, and settlement data.

The TLW in the American Bottom was a dynamic time highlighted by incredible assemblage diversity and the creation of multiple sociopolitical landscapes. There is no doubt that it is this cultural mélange that created the preconditions that allowed Cahokia's emergence. How- ever, this emergence was neither inevitable nor dictated by progressive, technologically focused changes in

material culture. There are many examples in the Midwest of comparable societies who possessed maize, relatively large populations, regional levels of interaction, and moderate levels of sociopolitical organization that never became Mississippians. In any case, limited material continuities aside, the Mississippian transformation with its own unique defining characteristics represents too radical a departure from the previous Terminal Late Woodland way of life to see this transformation as anything but revolutionary in nature.

Mississippian Period

The 1960s and early 1970s of American Bottom Mississippian research was focused to a considerable extent on projects within the state-owned lands at the Cahokia site itself. Some of this work slowly became available through theses and articles but, for the most part, substantive excavations and collections remained (and still remain) unanalyzed. Melvin Fowler has recently summarized these activities in his highly accessible Cahokia Atlas (1997) and Cahokia: The Great Native American Metropolis (Young and Fowler 2000). The advent of the 1-270 Project, linked to a linear floodplain corridor to the east of Cahokia, served to redirect Mississippian research toward settlements outside the major mound centers (Bareis and Porter, eds. 1984; Milner et al. 1984). The resultant excavations and analyses demonstrated that rural Mississippian settlement was more than simply the family households of farmers (e.g., Emerson 1992, 1997a, 1997b; Mehrer 1995; Milner 1990, 1998). Instead, 1-270 Project researchers established that there were complex rural networks of farmers, temples and priests, and local hamlet leaders, all woven into the greater Cahokia polity.

The 1-270 Project investigations also led to the refining of the earliest portion of the Cahokia Mississippian chronology. The Cahokia Ceramic Conference, as out- lined by Fowler and Hall (1975), created an initial Fairmount phase (A.D. 900-1050) that was characterized as "transitional" between Woodland and Mississippian cultures. The Fairmount phase was further refined by Kelly's (1982) thesis work dividing the Cahokia Merrell Tract into early and late subphases. Emerson's excavations at the BBB Motor site (Emerson and Jackson 1984), a few miles east of Monks Mound, recovered numerous early Fairmount houses and pits. The analysis of this material led to the recognition of a distinct early assemblage in which Late Woodland materials dominated, leading Emerson and Jackson (1982) to define a new Edelhardt phase (A.D. 950-1000) as the terminal phase of what the 1-270 Project archaeologists then called the Emergent Mississippian. The definition of this assemblage, additional excavations, and analysis of other Mississippian rural sites revealed that the material

195




culture of the latter portion of the Fairmount phase was, in fact, pure "Mississippian." The summary volume designated this initial Mississippian assemblage as the Lohmann phase (A.D. 1000-1050).

Robert Hall (1991) was responsible for a significant advance in Cahokian research when he calibrated the existing radiocarbon date sequence to produce the first "real-time" Cahokia chronology. His chronology was rapidly adopted and has become the standard timeline for American Bottom late prehistoric investigators. No attempt is made here to duplicate Hall's radiocarbon data. It has been an important ingredient in recent thinking about Mississippian emergence and decline. The precalibration chronology stretched Mississippian development for six centuries, from A.D. 900 to 1500. Hall's calibrated chronology only allows three centuries, between A.D. 1050 to 1350, for this process.

In general, ongoing excavations have contributed to a better understanding of Cahokia but have not been central in new revisions. It has been in the analysis of old collections and the more detailed analysis of earlier IDOT excavations from the 1960s and 1970s that continue to provide new insights. Pauketat's (1991, 1994, 1998b) analysis of the 1960s Tract 15A and his current analysis of Tract 15B IDOT excavations from downtown Cahokia demonstrated the extreme swift- ness of Cahokian cultural and monumental construction. A reexamination of the skeletal materials earlier studied by Milner (1982) provided new information on the diversity of Mississippian diet and health as well as suggesting the fall of Cahokia may have been more abrupt than previously thought (Emerson and Hargrave 2000; Emerson et al. 1996; Hedman, this volume; Hedman et al. 2002). IDOT excavations in the adjacent uplands to the American Bottom have also assisted in defining the presence of major Cahokia-related upland villages and other settlements (Alt 2002; Holley, this volume; Jackson 2000; Pauketat 2003), thus changing forever our concept of the floodplain-dominated adaptations in the regional Mississippians (see Alt 2001, 2002). Because the placement of new transportation corridors has primarily been in rural or moderately developed regions of the American Bottom, the UIUC has continued to encounter rural Mississippian settlements, with just over 100 now having been excavated and analyzed (Emerson and Mulhouse 2003).

IDOT excavations in the East St Louis Mound center (Fortier 2007; Pauketat 2005) and on the Mississippi River Bridge Project have provided dramatic new evidence on the second largest Mississippian center in the Eastern Woodlands. The East St. Louis Mound center excavations also have provided the first evidence of the large-scale storage of maize and other comestibles in storage huts within elites' compounds at mound centers. The presence of major Stirling phase plaza and mound construction episodes at the site again empha-

sizes the tremendous nucleation of populations in the American Bottom at that time. As has been suggested for Cahokia, and on the basis of skeletal remains studies, the "Big Bang" must have seen the coalescence of diverse populations, even different ethnic groups, into the large centers (Ambrose et al. 2003; Emerson and Hargrave 2000; Pauketat 1998a, 2003, 2004a, 2004ba).

The archaeological investigations of rural areas and the chronological refinements ultimately provided important insights on Mississippian development. They were essential in promoting a new model of Cahokian complexity, one promulgated by Timothy Pauketat in the early 1990s and based on historical processes. His approach, often labeled the "Big Bang theory," suggests that in seeking to understand the origins and development of Cahokia, it is best undertaken by looking at the actions of the Cahokians themselves. Pauketat has been prolific in his exposition of an historical processual vision of Cahokia and we defer discussion to his numerous publications on the subject (e.g., 1993, 1994, 1997a, 1997b, 1998a, 2000a, 2000b, 2003, 2004a, 2004b). In addition, Emerson (2002; Emerson and Pauketat 2002) and Milner (1998) have published recent summaries of advances in Cahokia archaeology. With this new wave of scholarship, Cahokia is taking its rightful place among the early complex societies of the world.

Oneota

One of the more interesting contributions of the summary volume research was the recognition of Oneota-related groups in the American Bottom during the fifteenth century (Milner et al. 1984). Earlier researchers had encountered isolated instances of Oneota- like ceramics but no definite assemblages had been excavated (e.g., Fowler and Hall 1975). The definition of a distinct Oneota component in the locality was first noted at the Range site where two structures and 16 pits were discovered (Hanenberger 2003). Mark Mehrer (Milner et al. 1984) linked these to the Orr phase and named the local variant the Vulcan phase (A.D. 1400- 1500 uncorrected). On the first northerly extension of the 1-270 Project, additional, but distinct, Oneota ceramics, houses, and pits were encountered at the Sponemann site (Jackson, Fortier, and Williams 1992) and were correlated with the well-known Bold Counselor phase in the central Illinois River Valley (Esarey and Conrad 1998). This projection of a Bold Counselor enclave outside of its region of definition into the American Bottom breaks all of Willey and Phillips's and the general 1-270 Project practices for the use of "phases." Because the Sponemann site Oneota component is spatially separated from the Bold Counselor phase occupations of the central Illinois River Valley, Jackson (1992, 1998), in following Willey and Phillips's systematics, technically should have given it a new name.

196




However he chose, correctly we think, to emphasize the intrusive nature of the materials by linking them with the central Illinois River Valley manifestation.

Finally, CRM excavations in the outskirts of modern East St. Louis exposed another small cluster of Oneota structures and pits (Wells and Holley 1993) that have been associated with the Oneota Developmental horizon and have been categorized locally as the Groves phase. Douglas Jackson has calibrated the few available American Bottom radiocarbon dates (N = 10) and placed the Bold Counselor and Groves phases in the fourteenth century and the Vulcan phase in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries (Jackson 1998:103, Table 1). As yet the archaeological evidence for Oneota peoples in the American Bottom is ephemeral at best.

The American Bottom Groves phase relates to the Developmental horizon and the Vulcan phase to Classic horizon Oneota groups across the Midwest (see Hen- ning 1998). Although the associations are much less clear, as with Bold Counselor phase peoples, the Groves and Vulcan phase peoples are temporary intruders into the American Bottom and are most likely linked to contemporaneous groups in Missouri and southeastern Iowa. The American Bottom, as was common in earlier times, is on the frontier of larger Oneota cultural expressions on its north and west. This begs the question of whether these assemblages should, given their extremely ephemeral nature (with each component usually limited to a few houses and pits), be recognized as independent phases. At present, we are maintaining the current phase terminology but recognize that future work may require its revision.

The possible presence of Oneota peoples in the American Bottom during the fourteenth century - that is, contemporaneously with the declining days of Cahokia - presents a number of potential scenarios of Oneota-Mississippian interaction. The traditional model of Cahokia's political history (e.g., Brown and Kelly 2000; Emerson 1991; Milner 1998) sees the polity gradually sinking into decline over a century-long process, terminating sometime in the mid- to late 1300s. In this case, Oneota peoples would be moving into the rural areas on the periphery of the active major mound centers and cohabiting the landscape with Mississippian farmers. If such a pattern of interaction was occurring, we might expect to see pottery and tool exchanges between the groups. Unfortunately, most of the known Oneota components are constructed in (or on top of) Mississippian occupations and have mixed assemblages. For example the intensity of mixing can be seen in the contents of features in the Range Oneota occupation where 62.5 percent (25 of 40) of the diagnostic rims recovered actually date to earlier components (Hanen- berger 2003).

However, another possible scenario suggested by Emerson and his colleagues (1996; also Emerson and

Hargrave 2000) suggests that the Cahokian decline is actually a collapse that occurred rapidly, probably within a generation, at about A.D. 1300. They argue that the end of the Cahokian community was likely because of a politically inspired breakdown that caused a polity-wide disintegration. If this was the case, the isolated Oneota homesteads that have been encountered in the floodplain were occupying a generally de- populated area on the southern border of Oneota expansion. As yet, we do not have sufficient information to clarify the context or nature of the Oneota intrusion in this area.

Observations: Building Traditions, Building Phases

The 1-270 Project taxonomy emerged as a direct product of a practical need to organize hundreds of thousands of artifacts, thousands of structural features, hundreds of new radiocarbon dates, and uncounted quantities of archaeobotanical and archaeofaunal samples into a coherent chronological and cultural schema where none had previously existed. It took fewer than four years from when the first shovel dug into the ground to the final draft of the newly crafted cultural sequence. This sequence covered nearly 5,000 years and recognized 23 phases and one complex; 16 of these constructs were defined for the first time.

Taxonomic issues aside, the identification of phases as the "cultural expression of related groups of people" has much to recommend it, especially when applied to spatially restricted assemblages like those the 1-270 Project researchers excavated in Madison, Monroe, and St. Clair Counties in the American Bottom (e.g., Bareis and Porter 1984:13). These phases, perhaps because they were conceptualized as representing "people" rather than "traits," incorporated a sense of flexibility and fluidity that we believe kept them from being the stereotypically essentialist "black boxes." Because the I- 270 Project taxonomy is perceived by us as a viable and adaptable tool, we have revisited it in this article (and earlier), to both question and reshape its structure. Aside from constructing a new chronology to account for calibrated dates, the most pressing questions in the 1-270 Project cultural sequence have to do with the broader recognition of what we characterize as "traditions" and the issue of comparability in the degree of variation used to differentiate phases. These questions are not mere taxonomic quibbling; they are essential to interpreting the histories of the American Bottom pre- Columbian societies.

Other researchers have recently chronicled and critiqued the advances and shortcomings of archaeological efforts, especially by archaeologists in the first half of the twentieth century, to create historical sequences (Lyman et al. 1997). They suggest that one

197




of the more intractable problems with defining archaeological phases revolves around the conundrum of "essentialism." Unfortunately, this term has acquired strong negative connotations through its usage by postmodernists. However, although essen tialist involve- ment in archaeological unit designations (phases, artifact types, cultural groupings, etc.) is much less obvious, it nevertheless needs to be confronted. The central problem, in the latter regard, has to do with constructing categories that involve making "either /or" choices during classification, thereby precluding the recognition of intermediate or transitional forms. The- oretically, the argument goes, by assigning an assemblage to one classificatory unit or the other, we lose sight of the many similarities that adjoining units may share, and thereby enshrine differences.

Ironically, we found that the opposite was the case. Thus, when it came to phase assignment in 1984, by "stacking" one phase after another in order to construct the chronological sequence, we created the sometimes false illusion that one phase necessarily grew (some would say "evolved") out of the preexisting one. This perception, which would not have been so prevalent in the first half of the twentieth century (during which archaeologists overtly recognized the processes of diffusion and migration), was pandemic among our colleagues (including ourselves). We attribute this phenomenon partly to the neoevolutionary framework in which North American archaeology is invariably taught in schools and presented in textbooks. This view, favoring in situ developmental sequences at the regional level, can also be traced back to a sea-change in thinking initiated, in large part, by Louis Binford. In one of his seminal discussions, Binford (1972) presented a cogent and well-directed critique of the earlier habit of explain- ing the local presence of all traits or artifacts as if they originated from somewhere outside of the region. We believe that New Archaeology's all pervasive presumption of in situ cultural continuity needs to be seriously questioned. In fact, one of the major purposes of this article is to confront such overt and covert assumptions by recognizing both the continuities and discontinuities that we see in the archaeological record of the American Bottom. We believe that essentialism is, at worst, a self- inflicted problem that is best overcome by consciously and explicitly exploring the relationship between phases to determine whether relationships exist. We also con- tend that essentialist classifications are best combated by data, that is, by working with very large assemblages from secure contexts with the goal of creating strong "cultural histories."5

A reading of The Rise and Fall of Culture History (Lyman, O'Brien, and Dunnell 1997), aside from dredging up graduate school memories of prelim questions concerning whether or not "types" exist in the real world, provides us with a heightened appreci-

ation of our culture historian predecessors, and much food for thought on the direction of archaeological theory and practice. Upon reflection, for example, one gains a fresh appreciation of how much modern archaeologists have benefited from the establishment of basic chronologies through radiocarbon dating. Our early-twentieth-century colleagues were forced to create "time" by excavating rock shelters and deep midden sites seeking large inventories of relatively dated artifacts. Whatever advantage was gained through enhanced preservation and a general stratigraphie layering of archaeological remains from artifact-rich middens and rock shelters was seriously impaired by the inevitable mixing and "collapsing" of archaeological assemblages in such sites. Dense midden sites are particularly prone to artifact mixing, resulting in de- ceptive "battleship curves" (McElrath and Emerson 2000). Logic dictates that rock shelters, although famous for the preservation of environmental data, of necessity, were limited in usage to specialized activities, and, unrelated to those activities, especially susceptible to cultural mixing (Walthall 1998:225). Such sites are therefore unable to provide a complete picture of prehistoric life (e.g., we know of few North American groups who maintained substantial habitations in rock shelters). We have been more fortunate in the American Bottom in that we have been able to rely on primarily unmixed assemblages from open-air sites of all sizes and types to construct sequences.

One of the clearest lessons learned in the building of chronological and cultural sequences was the value of smaller, primarily single-component sites (which in- cidentally can also be the locations of specialized activities). Such sites, because of their generally un- adulterated material assemblages, clear organizational patterns, and short occupation spans, provided critical materials for radiocarbon dating and for artifact sequencing. These sites, often overlooked in pre-CRM days, were the key to the American Bottom 1-270 Project success. From the beginning of the project, it was acclaimed that the large multicomponent Range site was the "battleship of the 1-270 Project fleet"- it was perceived as the key to unraveling the mysteries of American Bottom prehistory. Consequently, it con- sumed most of the funding, expenditure of labor, and attention of the project's leadership. Yet it was the very factors that made it so attractive in the abstract - that is, its large size, long occupation, and multicomponent nature - that made it difficult for the site to live up to the expectations of its proponents. Therefore, when the 1-270 Project chronology was constructed, the contribution of the Range site materials was minimal because the materials were largely unanalyzed. The phase chronology and assemblage definitions were, therefore, built on the basis of those smaller, less-mixed sites that abounded throughout the project limits.

198




One of the traditional taxonomic problems that bedevil all classification systems is the seemingly simple (but actually extremely complex) issue of determining the degree of similarity or difference necessary to categorize assemblages within specific phases. In most instances, the 1-270 Project separation of phases was straightforwardly accomplished because of significant variation and distinctiveness in material assemblages, subsistence, chronology (based on radiocarbon dates and typological seriation), and settlement patterns, and through comparisons with other regional sequences. In the case of the southern American Bottom Emergent Mississippian and Mississippian sequence, however, it was not that effortless. Kelly and colleagues (Kelly, Ozuk, et al. 1984) separated the complex and apparently continuous Emergent Mississippian occupation at the 5,000-plus-feature Range site into four sequential phases and distinguished them from the northern Emergent Mississippian assemblages. Subsequently, Kelly (1990) proposed a Lindhorst phase at the Range site as the earliest Mississippian phase in the south (although this same component is identified as a Lohmann phase assemblage by Milner et al. [1984] and by the Range site Mississippian component analyst Hanenberger [2003]). The criteria for distinguishing these five phases, which cover a span of less than two centuries, are, in many cases, subtle.

Similar situations, where American Bottom analysts have encountered conditions that led them to identify refined chronological distinctions, were present in the Cahokia Tract 15 A. In a detailed chronological analysis, Pauketat (1998b), based on feature superpositioning, ceramic seriation, and C14 dates, was able to recognize a series of subdivisions within the existing Emergent Mississippian and Mississippian phases, which he labeled EMI-III, Lohmann I-IV, Stirling I-II, and Moore- head I-II. However, he acknowledged that the chronological subdivisions he could define within the complex of superimposed houses and features in central Cahokia would be virtually unrecognizable in smaller sites or rural areas. He also acknowledged that, although these minor distinctions were important chronological markers, they did not warrant the distinction of a new phase. In this sense, Pauketat has been restrained in his application of these distinctions to the broader American Bottom cultural sequence. Our experience suggests that his position on this issue is responsible, and, despite the tremendous amount of excavation and analysis undertaken to date, our information does not yet have the specificity to allow the definition of phases that represent the material assemblage of a single human generation. This judgment is reflected in our creation of the TLW I and TLW II division to consolidate the poorly defined phases of the previous Emergent Mississippian taxon.

One of the conceptual difficulties in constructing any chronology chart is that it imparts the notion of vertical

integration and hence promotes the view of in situ (even unilineal) cultural development. This may be an accurate reflection of broad pan-regional sequences, however, local sequences may be much more complex and possibly discontinuous and spatial and chronological linkages may be less apparent. The American Bottom sequence is a case in point. The value and importance of developing sequences based on local assemblages cannot be underestimated. Too often, researchers fill in gaps in local sequences by extrapola- tion from cultures in neighboring regions when in fact such cultural entities are only presumed to exist locally. The past was not uniform, homogeneous, or normative. We must take seriously the admonitions of our colleagues who stress the multiscalar nature of human societies and argue that our interpretations and analyses must reflect this (e.g., Nassaney and Sassaman 1995).

Concluding Remarks

So what has been the effect of radiocarbon calibration (now over 250 pre-Mississippian calibrated dates), and the excavation of nearly 100 additional sites, on the existing 1984 sequence in the American Bottom? We have identified within each period specific problems or issues that arise with the calibration of the radiocarbon dates. Firstly, disregarding the calibration issue for the moment, we need to remember that radiocarbon dating, calibrated, or uncorrected, has not been the only basis for establishing the sequence. The sequence has also been rooted in stratigraphy, superpositioning, and seriation of material culture. Radiocarbon dating has been important in linking our assemblages to broad periods (usually confirming our expectations based on material analysis) but has been less useful in resolving issues in tight chronological increments of late prehistory. The Terminal Late Woodland is a case in point, containing a dual four-phase sequence that runs from cal. A.D. 900 to 1050. Does radiocarbon dating confirm the sequence? No. From radiocarbon dating, particularly when the dates are calibrated and the sequence is much conflated, one could argue that all Terminal Late Woodland people were contemporaneous, an argument we believe would be difficult to support based on context, material culture, and superpositioning.

Throughout much of prehistory, the American Bottom represented a cultural crossroads and frontier through which transient groups passed. In each of the previous chronological sections, we have tried to highlight the importance of these groups because they comprise much of the American Bottom "sequence."

While we know there were paleo-Indian peoples passing through and utilizing the area, we have still been unable to excavate any site that would provide us with sound evidence to place them in the local

199




chronology. Unfortunately, we have a somewhat similar situation with Early Archaic societies; however, in that case, while we lack radiocarbon dates from open-air sites, we have been fortunate in locating a large deeply buried Early Archaic occupation at the Nochta site (Higgins 1990; McElrath et al. 2007). This component contains many deep pit features, nonportable furniture, and many bifacial and some ground stone tools, all of which indicate a major area of human habitation and utilization. This unique site truly demonstrates that Early Archaic peoples did more than "lightly step" on the landscape; they settled in. Our newly defined Middle Archaic phases demonstrate sporadic inhabitants using the bluff edges but little else is known about this period. We do not expect especially dense or heavy utilization of the region at this time and our present evidence confirms those suppositions. It is not until the Terminal Late Archaic, Prairie Lake phase, that we can actually identify what appears to be a long-term resident American Bottom population, yet even this phenomenon was relatively short-lived. By cal. 800 B.C., there are no recognizable Late Archaic groups residing in the American Bottom. The Woodland groups that follow represent intrusive, unassociated cultures.

Using calibrated dates, we have extended the Late Archaic sequence back by some 200 to 400 years, depending on the phase under consideration, revising previous boundary markers. The Titterington phase, for example, which previously had been thought to extend from 2300 to 1900 B.C., calibrated now extends from cal. 2800 to 2500 B.C. Of course, these boundaries are also arbitrary and only imprecisely conform to the current radiocarbon dates, a statement we can uniformly make regarding all cultural boundaries in the American Bottom sequence. The intrusive and nondevelopmental nature of Archaic populations in the American Bottom Late Archaic period can be observed in Figure 5 where the lack of continuity of projectile point styles from phase to phase is especially noticeable. There are also striking differences in core technology and knapping practices between phases and periods (e.g., McElrath et al. 2007).

The Early and Middle Woodland phases are in- credibly diverse, sometimes represented by single unique assemblages. For the Early Woodland period, virtually all cultural assemblages appear to be intrusive, mostly unassociated, and follow no clear chronological trajectories (Emerson and McElrath 2001). We also see Middle Woodland influences (and small groups of people) coming into the area from both the north and south (Fortier 2001a:179). It was a dynamic period with important interactions with Havana /Hope well people to the north and Crab Orchard people to the south. Hopewell is a superimposed phenomenon and is not well represented archaeologically in the American Bottom. Both Early and Middle Woodland population density in the area is limited.

During the Middle Woodland period, we have identified a discrepancy in the results of conventional dating versus AMS dating. The AMS dates have been consistently a century later than conventional dates, often on samples from the same feature. This issue has yet to be resolved, but it means that we are denied the combined use of both techniques of dating to refine or confirm our sequence. We have also noted the accordion effect of the calibration system itself, with dates prior to 220 B.C. calibrating away from the present and dates after 220 B.C. calibrating toward the present. This phenomenon has created a gap at precisely the time we expect the Early and Middle Woodland boundary to occur. Calibrated radiocarbon dating, therefore, cannot resolve the precise timing of this transition.

At the end of the Middle Woodland, the area is abandoned, and after a short hiatus it is reoccupied by Late Woodland peoples, dissimilar in their own cultural makeup and unconnected with the previous American Bottom Middle Woodland population. The intrusive and discontinuous character of the Archaic through early Late Woodland sequence was generally overlooked in the 1-270 Project summary volume.

In fact, an indigenous American Bottom residential population is not apparent until the Late Woodland Patrick phase (Fortier and Jackson 2000). These people had little in common with the previous Late Woodland populations. The discontinuity apparent between the early Late Woodland and Patrick phase is so great that the transition has been referred to as the "Little Bang" (Fortier and McElrath 2002:174; McElrath, Emerson, and Fortier 2000). The Patrick phase represents an American Bottom anomaly. For nearly 250 years, virtually no stylistic changes can be detected in ceramics, lithics, or settlement (Fortier and McElrath 2002; Galloy 2002; Koldehoff and Galloy, this volume). Such homogeneity represents a unique and uncharacteristic event in the American Bottom sequence. The only cultural anomaly during this period is the appearance of foreign Sponemann folk, who in various places, north and east of Cahokia, and especially at the Sponemann site itself, intermingle with the local Patrick population. After cal. A.D. 900, the cultural setting changes dramatically. The TLW material assemblages, especially in house construction and ceramics, are altered virtually every generation. No community plan is duplicated. Maize is more abundant in the archaeological record. Unlike the Patrick phase, which presents an homogenous material culture for 250 years, the time from cal. A.D. 900 to 1050 is marked by considerable diversity, and influences from outside are common, particularly at the end of the sequence.

Although this sequence has been regarded as developmental, ultimately leading to the Mississippian culture (Kelly 1990; Kelly, Ozuk, et al. 1984), it has been more recently argued that this "emergence" is more

200




apparent than real (Fortier and McElrath 2002; Pauketat 1998a). The Big Bang at cal. A.D. 1050 was not a technological or subsistence change; it was a sociopolitical phenomenon that overwhelmed and homoge- nized the previous era of diversity (Emerson 1991, 2002; Pauketat 1994, 1998a). The Mississippian period was probably the only time when the American Bottom can be regarded as a regional nexus and a source of internally generated innovation. During most of prehistory, the American Bottom was a frontier, and, as we refine and reconstruct this local sequence, researchers must keep this fact in mind. In short, the sequence is anything but vertically integrated, and the lines de- marcating many of the phases on the chart should be regarded as problematic and subject to change.

American Bottom researchers have been both blessed and cursed by the overwhelming quantity of new data generated over the past three decades. On the one hand, it has allowed us to create a chronological sequence that now incorporates most of the prehistoric record. Since 1984, we have added eleven new phases to the American Bottom sequence, bringing the current total number of phases to 34. On the other hand, the more we dig, the more variation within phases is produced. Some of this variation is not the product of in situ development and is therefore difficult to characterize taxonomically. We observe, as in some other regions, that the most reified sequences tend to be those with the smallest data sets. Having the kind of diverse data set that we now have in the American Bottom - and one that is still exponentially increasing - means that we must create a sequence that is inherently fluid enough to account for potential and predictable horizontal and vertical expansion. It must also be a sequence flexible enough to provide a context for studying dynamic historical processes within small units of time and space, as well as recognizing the often-discontinuous nature of cultural change. Accounting for and understanding assemblage variation at the phase level will represent one of the major challenges of future archaeology in the American Bottom.

Given our academic training and our practical experience in analyzing several scores of large archaeological assemblages, and in constructing a fine-grained chronological and cultural sequence for a relatively confined portion of a region, we have endeavored to employ an historically grounded approach in interpreting the archaeological record. This concern with the historical potentiality of archaeology stems from our long-held interest in "culture history." Whether it was being maligned by the New Archaeology or more sympathetically reviewed in recent historical assess- ments of the discipline (e.g., Lyman et al. 1997), we have always thought those treatments, to one degree or another, fundamentally missed the mark in that they conflated methods with goals. We have consistently

interpreted the goals of culture history to be exactly what its proponents said it was: an attempt to recreate the "histories" of past societies. There is little doubt that many of the methodologies employed and even the basic premises under which such scholars labored were less than effective in achieving those goals. But this does not invalidate the goal itself.

As long as material culture was viewed as a static reflection or was inexorably linked to cultural ecology as a passive adaptive mechanism, its role in the creation of society was nonreflexive. Cultural historians through processualists failed to recognize that the material world was more than simply a "fossilized" image of human action. More recent archaeological conceptualizations of the material world, far from portraying it as passive, argue that, in fact, it is actively involved in the creation and mediation of social practices. This perspective redirects us from the static physical form and function of objects toward a focus on the ability of material to be actively creative and to have important historical and spatial dimensions. Whether we are considering trash pits or mound complexes, the creation, possession, and consumption of materials form a communicative discourse that reflects the larger structuring of society. This material patterning should be of direct interest to us because it reproduces the structured nature of social discourse, whether that discourse is one of communal- ism, ethnicity, resistance, co-option, or submission. The American Bottom, with its fine-grained regional chronology and grand-scale database, is an ideal laboratory for such analysis.6

Notes

Acknowledgments. The original FAI-270 Archaeological Mitiga- tion Project lasted less than half a decade, yet it made an impact on our understanding of midcontinental prehistory that continues to this day. At least some of that continuing impact is due to the fact that, under different administrative guises (see Emerson et al. this volume), the project goes on with excavations currently under way in the uplands north of the American Bottom and at the massive Janey B. Goode site, a multicomponent Late Woodland through Mississippian site with 6,200 features (and still growing). The 1-270 Project was primarily a University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign endeavor, although important contributions have been made by other organizations. The continuing project has operated since 1994 under the auspices of the Illinois Transportation Archaeological Research Program (ITARP) at UIUC under the direction of Thomas E. Emerson. The 1-270 Project emerged primarily because of a several-decades-long understanding between the state archaeological professional organization, the Illinois Archaeological Survey (IAS), and IDOT concerning the relationships of archaeologists and IDOT in highway construction projects. When the 1-270 Project began, IDOT hired their first chief archaeologist, Dr. John Walthall, in 1978, to provide program oversight. The primary IAS representative was Professor Charles J. Bareis, UIUC. Ultimately these two individuals were responsible for project direction and for shaping the success of the 1-270 Project.

201




In producing this new summary of American Bottom prehistory, we are grateful to our colleagues at ITARP, especially Douglas Jackson, Brad Koldehoff, Joe Galloy, Mary Simon, Rick Fishel, and Dave Nolan, for their advice and input. As usual, comments by Timothy Pauketat were important in putting us back on track. Observations by Charles Cobb, anonymous SEAC reviewers, and SEAC editors were very helpful in giving us outside perspectives on our efforts and sharpening our arguments. We also thank all the past researchers who have contributed in diverse ways to our understanding of American Bottom prehistory. As always, Mike Lewis and Mike Farkas were instrumental in producing the figures which are used by permission of ITARP. None of this research would be possible without the continuing support of the Illinois Department of Transportation and their chief archaeologist, Dr. John Walthall.

1 More than 250 uncorrected pre-Mississippian radiocarbon dates from the American Bottom have been calibrated for this paper using Stuiver and Reimer (1993), CALIB Rev. 3.0.3c. We realize that the Stuiver and Reimer calibration program has recently been revised, but we have opted, for the time being, not to use the newer calibration program. It should also be noted that no attempt is made in this paper to recalibrate or present calibrated Mississippian or Oneota dates because the former task was accomplished by Robert Hall (1991), and the latter by Douglas Jackson (1998). Hall used an earlier Quaternary Research Center (QRC) calibration version, CALIB, Rev. 2.0, of Stuiver and Reimer (1986). There are differences in the results from the two calibration programs, but these are inconsequential in terms of the placement of Mississippian /Oneota phases. 2 During the process of gathering radiocarbon dates for this

study, including those that have been generated from other projects or institutes, we became aware that others used calibration programs that were not based on Stuiver and Reimer and the QRC in Seattle. These calibration programs, including several used at QRC over the years, produce different results. The dates run for the Scott Air Force Base Project, for example, were run from Beta Analytic Lab using the Pretoria Calibration Procedure. We recalibrated these dates using Stuiver and Reimer (1993) to see what, if any, differences there were between the two programs - the differences in dates and intercepts were considerable. To make our own data set comparable, we recalibrated all dates derived from programs other than the Rev. 3.0.3c. For an interpretive history and evaluation of the 1-270 Project

and IDOT's Cultural Resource Program, see Emerson and Walthall (2006), Emerson et al. (this volume), and Walthall, Farnsworth, and Emerson (1997). 4 Fortier (1991; Fortier and Jackson 2000:132; Fortier, Mäher, and Williams 1991) had placed the Sponemann assemblage from the Sponemann type-site in the TLW, based on the occurrence of maize (although not all components have produced maize), Z-twist cord decoration, and the prevalence of exterior lip decoration. However, it is important to note that the Sponemann assemblage is a somewhat anomalous mix of local and nonlocal pottery traditions that seem ultimately linked to northeastern Missouri. It appears during the Patrick phase but seems to make no significant stylistic contributions to subsequent TLW cultures. Most Sponemann sites have produced no evidence of maize. There are no Sponemann sites known south of Cahokia. As a phase, it is presently restricted to the northern American Bottom floodplain and bluff top and to some of the interior river drainages 10-15 km east of the floodplain. The significance of these differential patterns of

subsistence and land use is not well understood at this time. It has been suggested that Sponemann assemblages should be associated with the Late Woodland Patrick phase, largely because its lacks classic Late Bluff jars (Kelly 1990). However, the Dohack phase, although assigned to the TLW, also lacks plain-necked "Late Bluff" jars. Therefore, the presence or absence of this kind of jar is clearly not useful as a taxonomic marker.

The nine radiocarbon dates from several Sponemann phase assemblages are problematical. Although seven of the mid- intercept dates fall between cal. A.D. 775 and 917 or, as expected, late in the Patrick sequence, two date to the first half of the Patrick phase (Table 5), or in one case to a later time (actually to the beginning of the TLW). On the chronology chart (Figure 3), we have placed the Sponemann phase in the late Patrick phase, but we may have to reconsider its placement in the future, particularly if our ongoing excavations continue to generate early radiocarbon dates. Spone- mann peoples are now generally regarded as a foreign and early precursor TLW assemblage, that is, peoples who actually predate local TLW Dohack, Collins ville, and Loyd peoples. Current dates indicate that the TLW Sponemann peoples, whose origins are to the north in the Mississippi River trench, may have intermingled with Patrick peoples in the American Bottom over the course of the entire Patrick phase. The Sponemann taxonomic problem is discussed by Fortier and McElrath in greater detail elsewhere (2002). 5 We cannot help but comment on the value of the practical experience gained in constructing a detailed subregional chronological sequence based on assemblages of features, houses, ceramics, lithics, floral and faunal remains, and radiometrie data, especially by comparison with the views expressed by several of our colleagues on how such a procedure should ideally be undertaken (e.g., Lyman, O'Brien, and Dunnell 1997; O'Brien and Lyman 2000). Our efforts in this regard date to the late 1970s; and our first major attempt at summarizing the sequence in the American Bottom region (Bareis and Porter, eds. 1984) was an explicit attempt to contribute to "the culture history of the Mississippi Valley." 6 Consequently, given our interest in the active role of material

culture and in culture history, we are drawn to the "historical processual" approach presented in a series of position papers and articles by our colleague Pauketat (e.g., 2000a, 2000b, 2001a, 2001b, 2003, 2004a, 2004b). This approach is of particular interest and relevance to us because it was created primarily on the basis of American Bottom data. Historical processualism is founded in practice and agency theory and recognizes social change as stemming from the actions and interactions of individuals in the multifaceted contexts of social traditions (Pauketat 2001a, 2001b) as opposed to abstract group or individual behavioral responses to exogenous factors of environment, subsistence, population pressure, and so on. The goal of historical processual research is to establish the genealogy of homologous practices in order to identify how rather than why social change is effected.

References Cited

Adams, Brian, Gregory R. Walz, Paul P. Kreisa, Kevin P. McGowan, Jacqueline M. McDowell, and Cynthia L. Balek 1997 Archaeological Investigations for the Relocation of Valmeyer,

Monroe County, Illinois. Vol. 2, The Strong Site. Public Service Archaeology Program Research Report No. 28. Public Service Archaeology Program, Department of Anthropology, University of Illinois, Urbana.

202




Ahler, Steven R. 1984 Archaic Settlement Strategies in the Modoc Locality,

Southwest Illinois. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Uni- versity of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.

1993 Stratigraphy and Radiocarbon Chronology of Modoc Rock Shelter, Illinois. American Antiquity 58:462-488.

1998 Early and Middle Archaic Settlement Systems in the Modoc Locality, Southwest Illinois. Illinois Archaeology 10(l&2):l-109.

Ahler, Steven R., Mary J. Bade, Frances B. King, Bonnie W. Styles, and Paula J. Thurson 1992 Late Archaic Components at Modoc Rock Shelter, Randolph

County, Illinois. Illinois State Museum Reports of Inves- tigations No. 48. Illinois State Museum, Springfield.

Ahler, Steven R., and Brad Koldehoff 2002 Archaic Period Radiocarbon Assays from the Modoc

Village Site (11R266) 2001 IAAA Field School Grant Results. Illinois Antiquity 37(2):6-7.

2007 Dated Projectile Point Sequences from Modoc Rock Shelter and Applications of Assemblage-Based Analysis. In Archaic Societies of the Midcontinent, edited by T. E. Emerson, D. L. McElrath, and A. C. Fortier. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, in press.

Ahler, Steven R., and Bonnie W. Styles 1998 A Summary of Changes in Archaic Period Subsistence

and Site Formation at Modoc Rock Shelter. Illinois Archaeology 10Cl&2):110-154.

Alt, Susan M. 2001 Cahokian Change and the Authority of Tradition. In The

Archaeology of Traditions: Agency and History Before and After Columbus, edited by T. R. Pauketat, pp. 141-156. Univer- sity Press of Florida, Gainesville.

2002 Identities, Traditions, and Diversity in Cahokia' s Up- lands. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 27:217-236.

Ambrose, Stanley H., Jane E. Buikstra, and Harold W. Krueger 2003 Gender and Status Differences in Diet at Mound 72,

Cahokia, Revealed by Isotopie Analysis of Bone. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 22:217-226.

Anderson, David G., and Robert C. Mainfort 2002 An Introduction to Woodland Archaeology in the

Southeast. In The Woodland Southeast, edited by D. G. Anderson and R. C. Mainfort, pp. 1-19. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Bareis, Charles J., and James W. Porter 1984 Research Design. In American Bottom Archaeology: A

Summary of the FAI-270 Project Contribution to the Culture History of the Mississippi River Valley, edited by C. J. Bareis and J. W. Porter, pp. 1-14. University of Illinois Press, Urbana.

Bareis, Charles J., and James W. Porter, editors 1984 American Bottom Archaeology: A Summary of the FAI-270

Project Contribution to the Culture History of the Mississippi River Valley. University of Illinois Press, Urbana.

Bentz, Charles 1988a The Rosewood Phase Occupation at the Leingang Site.

In Late Woodland Sites in the American Bottom Uplands, edited by C. Bentz, D. L. McElrath, E A. Finney, and R. B. Lacampagne, pp. 17-74. American Bottom Archaeology, FAI-270 Site Reports Vol. 18, edited by C. J. Bareis and J. W. Porter. University of Illinois Press, Urbana.

1988b The Rosewood Phase Occupation at the Alpha 1 Site. In Late Woodland Sites in the American Bottom Uplands, edited by C. Bentz, D. L. McElrath, F A. Finney, and R. B. Lacampagne, pp. 107-139. American Bottom Archaeology FAI-270 Site Reports Vol. 18. University of Illinois, Urbana.

Binford, Lewis R. 1972 An Archaeological Perspective. Seminar Press, New York. Brown, James A. 1986 Early Ceramics and Culture: A Review of Interpreta-

tions. In Early Woodland Archeology, edited by K. B. Farns worth and T. E. Emerson, pp. 598-608. Kamps ville Seminars in Archeology No. 2. Center for American Archeology, Kampsville, IL.

1991 Afterword. In Stability, Transformation, and Variation: The Late Woodland Southeast, edited by M. S. Nassaney and C. R. Cobb, pp. 323-327. Plenum Press, New York.

Brown, James A., and John E. Kelly 2000 Cahokia and the Southeastern Ceremonial Complex. In

Mounds, Modoc, and Mesoamerica: Essays in Honor of Melvin L. Fowler, edited by S. R. Ahler, pp. 469-510. Scientific Papers Vol. 28. Illinois State Museum, Springfield.

Conner, Michael D. 1986 Cypress Land: A Late Archaic/Early Woodland Site in the

Lower Illinois River Valley Floodplain. Technical Report Vol. 2. Center for American Archeology, Kampsville Archeo- logical Center, Kampsville, IL.

Conrad, Lawrence A. 1986 The Late Archaic/Early Woodland Transition in the

Interior of West-Central Illinois. In Early Woodland Archeology, edited by K. B. Farns worth and T. Emerson, pp. 301-325. Kampsville Seminars in Archeology Vol. 2. Center for American Archeology, Kampsville, IL.

Cook, Thomas Genn 1976 Koster: An Artifact Analysis of Two Archaic Phases in

Westcentral Illinois. Prehistoric Records No. 1, Koster Research Reports No. 3. Northwestern Archaeological Project, Evanston, IL.

Dalan, Rinita A., George R. Holley, William I. Woods, Harold W. Watters, and John A. Koepke 2003 Envisioning Cahokia: A Landscape Perspective. Northern

Illinois University Press, Dekalb. Emerson, Thomas E. 1980 The Dyroff (ll-S-463) and Levin (ll-S-462) Sites: A Late

Archaic Occupation in the American Bottom. FAI-270 Archaeological Mitigation Project Report No. 24. De- partment of Anthropology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

1984 The Dyroff and Levin Sites. American Bottom Archaeol- ogy FAI-270 Reports 9. University of Illinois Press, Urbana.

1986 A Retrospective Look at the Earliest Woodland Cultures in the Heartland. In Early Woodland Archeology, edited by K. B. Farnsworth and T. E. Emerson, pp. 621-634. Kampsville Seminars in Archeology No. 2. Center for American Archeology, Kampsville Archeological Center, Kampsville, IL.

1991 Some Perspectives on Cahokia and the Northern Mississippian Expansion. In Cahokia and the Hinterlands: Middle Mississippian Cultures of the Midwest, edited by T. E. Emerson and R. B. Lewis, pp. 221-236. University of Illinois, Urbana.

203




1992 The Mississippian Disperse Village as a Social and Environmental Strategy. In Late Prehistoric Agriculture: Observations from the Midwest, edited by W. Woods, pp. 198-216. Studies in Illinois Archaeology No. 8. Illinois Historic Preservation Agency, Springfield.

1997a Reflections from the Countryside on Cahokian Hege- mony. In Cahokia: Ideology and Domination in the Mississip- pian World, pp. 167-189. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.

1997b Cahokia and the Archaeology of Power. University of Alabama Press. Tuscaloosa.

2002 An Introduction to Cahokia 2002: Diversity, Complexity, and History. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 27:127- 148.

Emerson, Thomas E., and Andrew C. Fortier 1986 Early Woodland Cultural Variation, Subsistence, and

Settlement in the American Bottom. In Early Woodland Archeology, edited by K. B. Farns worth and T. E. Emerson, pp. 475-522. Center for American Archeology, Kamps ville, IL.

Emerson, Thomas E., and Eve Hargrave 2000 Strangers in Paradise? Recognizing Ethnic Mortuary

Diversity on the Fringes of Cahokia. Southeastern Archae- ology 19:1-23.

Emerson, Thomas E., Eve A. Hargrave, Kristin M. Hedman, Mary L. Simon, and Valerie F. Williams 1996 New Data and Preliminary Insights into the Cahokian

Collapse. Paper presented at the 61st Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, New Orleans.

Emerson, Thomas E., and Douglas K. Jackson 1982 The BBB Motor Site: An Early Mississippian Occupation.

FAI-270 Archaeological Mitigation Project Report No. 38. Department of Anthropology, University of Illinois, Urbana.

1984 The BBB Motor Site (ll-S-595). American Bottom Archaeology FAI-270 Site Reports Vol. 6. University of Illinois Press, Urbana.

1987 The Edelhardt and Lindeman Phases: Setting the Stage for the Final Transition to Mississippian in the American Bottom. In The Emergent Mississippian: Proceedings of the Sixth Mid-South Archaeological Conference, edited by R. A. Marshall, pp. 172-193. Mississippi State University, State College.

Emerson, Thomas E., and Dale L. McElrath 1983 A Settlement-Subsistence Model of the Terminal Late

Archaic Adaptation in the American Bottom, Illinois. In Archaic Hunters and Gatherers in the American Midwest, edited by J. L. Phillips and J. A. Brown, pp. 219-242. Academic Press, New York.

2001 Interpreting Discontinuity and Historical Process in Midcontinental Late Archaic and Early Woodland Socie- ties. In The Archaeology of Traditions: Agency and History Before and After Columbus, edited by T. R. Pauketat, pp. 195-217. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

hmerson, Ihomas h., Dale L. Mchlrath, and Andrew C. Fortier, editors 2000 Late Woodland Societies: Tradition and Transformation

Across the Midcontinent. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.

Emerson, Thomas, Dale L. McElrath, and Joyce A. Williams 1986 Patterns of Hunter-Gatherer Mobility and Sedentism

During the Archaic Period of the American Bottom. In Foraging Collecting and Harvesting: Archaic Period Sub- sistence and Settlement in the Eastern Woodlands, edited by S. W. Neusius, pp. 247-273. Occasional Papers No. 6. Southern Illinois University, Center for Archaeological Investigations, Carbondale.

Emerson, Thomas E., and Philip Mulhouse 2003 Myths and Realities in the Interpretation of Mississip-

pian Settlement Hierarchies. Paper presented in "Borne on a Litter with Much Prestige": Leadership and Polity in Mississippian Society, 20th Annual Visiting Scholar Conference, Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale

Emerson, Thomas E., George R. Milner, and Douglas K. Jackson 1983 The Florence Street Site. American Bottom Archaeology

FAI-270 Site Reports Vol. 2. University of Illinois Press, Urbana.

Emerson, Thomas E., and Timothy R. Pauketat, editors 2002 Cahokia 2002: Diversity, Complexity, and History.

Midcontiental Journal of Archaeology 27:127-338. hmerson, Ihomas h., and John A. Walthall 2006 Building on the Past: The Archaeology of Large-Scale

Transportation-Related Corridors. In Landscapes Under Pressure: Theory and Practice of Cultural Heritage Research and Preservation, edited by L. Lozny, pp. 163-180. Springer Press, New York.

Esarey, Duane, and Lawrence A. Conrad 1998 The Bold Counselor Phase of the Central Illinois River

Valley: Oneota's Middle Mississippian Margin. The Wis- consin Archeologist 79:38-61.

Esarey, Duane, and Sissel Johannessen 1994 The Joan Carrie Site: A Short Term Patrick and Dohack

Phase Occupation on the American Bottom Bluff Edge. Illinois Archaeology 6(l&2):58-97.

Evans, J. Bryant 2001 The Floyd Site: A Terminal Archaic Habitation in the

Northern American Bottom. Transportation Archaeological Research Reports No. 11. Illinois Transportation Archae- ological Research Program, Department of Anthropology, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaien.

Evans, J. Bryant, and Madeleine G. Evans 2000 The Ringering Site and the Archaic-Woodland Transition in

the American Bottom. Transportation Archaeological Re- search Reports No. 8. Illinois Transportation Archaeolog- ical Research Program, Department of Anthropology, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.

Evans, J. Bryant, Madeleine G. Evans, and Edwin R. Hajic 1997 Paleoindian and Early Archaic Occupations at the CB

North Site, Madison County, Illinois. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 22:159-196.

Farns worth, Kenneth B. 1986 Black Sand Culture Origins and Distribution. In Early

Woodland Archeology, edited by K. Farnsworth and T. Emerson, pp. 634-641. Center for American Archeology Press, Kampsville, IL.

Farnsworth, Kenneth B., and David L. Asch 1986 Early Woodland Chronology, Artifact Styles, and

Settlement Distribution in the Lower Illinois Valley Region. In Early Woodland Archeology, edited by K. B. Farnsworth and T. E. Emerson, pp. 326-457. Kampsville

204




Seminars in Archeology No. 2. Center for American Archeology, Kampsville, IL.

Finney, Fred A. 1985 The Carbon Dioxide Site. American Bottom Archaeology

FAI-270 Site Reports Vol. 11. University of Illinois Press, Urbana.

Finney, Fred A., and Charles Bentz 1988 The Mund Phase Occupation at the Columbia Quarry

Site. In Late Woodland Sites in the American Bottom Uplands, edited by C. Bentz, D. L. McElrath, E A. Finney, and R. B. Lacampagne, pp. 141-168. American Bottom Archaeology, FAI-270 Site Reports Vol. 18. University of Illinois Press, Urbana.

Fishel, Richard L. 2002 Phase III Archaeological Recovery at the Gill Site,

(23BT102), Section 14, T51N-R27W, Ray County, Missouri. Contract Completion Report 846. Office of the State Archaeologist, University of Iowa, Iowa City.

Fortier, Andrew C. 1983 Settlement and Subsistence at the Go-Kart North Site: A

Late Archaic Titterington Occupation in the American Bottom. In Archaic Hunters and Gatherers in the American Midwest, edited by J. L. Phillips and J. A. Brown, pp. 243- 260. Academic Press, New York.

1984 The Go-Kart North Site. American Bottom Archaeology FAI-270 Site Reports Vol. 9. University of Illinois Press, Urbana.

1985a Selected Sites in the Hill Lake Locality. American Bottom Archaeology FAI-270 Site Reports Vol. 13. University of Illinois Press, Urbana.

1985b The Robert Schneider Site. American Bottom Archaeol- ogy FAI-270 Site Reports Vol. 11. University of Illinois Press, Urbana.

1987 The Archaic Occupation. In The Range Site: Archaic through Late Woodland Occupations, edited by J. E. Kelly, A. C. Fortier, S. J. Ozuk, and J. A. Williams, pp. 34-113. American Bottom Archaeology FAI-270 Site Reports Vol. 16. University of Illinois Press, Urbana-Champaign.

1990 Investigations in the Mainline Portion of the Nochta Site. In The Nochta Site: The Early, Middle, and Late Archaic Occupations (ll-Ms-128), by M. Higgins, pp. 163-223. Part 2. American Bottom Archaeology FAI-270 Site Reports Vol. 21 . University of Illinois Press, Urbana.

1991 The Late Woodland /Emergent Mississippian Transition in the American Bottom. In The Sponemann Site: The Formative Emergent Mississippian Phase Occupations, by A. C. Fortier, T. O. Maher, and J. A. Williams, pp. 5-10. American Bottom Archaeology FAI-270 Site Reports Vol. 23. University of Illinois Press, Urbana.

1995 Renaissance and Disequilibrium: Middle Woodland Discontinuities in the American Bottom. Paper presented at the 60th Annual Conference of the Society for American Antiquity, Minneapolis.

1996 The Marge Site: Late Archaic and Emergent Mississippian Occupations in the Palmer Creek Locality. American Bottom Archaeology FAI-270 Site Reports Vol. 27. University of Illinois Press, Urbana.

2001a A Tradition of Discontinuity: American Bottom Early and Middle Woodland Culture History Reexamined. In The Archaeology of Traditions: Agency and History Before and

After Columbus, edited by T. R. Pauketat, pp. 174-194. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

2001b The Dash Reeves Site: A Middle Woodland Village and Lithic Production Center in the American Bottom. American Bottom Archaeology FAI270 Site Reports Vol. 28. Univer- sity of Illinois Press, Urbana.

2004 The Petite Michele Site: An Early Middle Woodland Occupation in the American Bottom. Transportation Archae- ological Research Reports No. 19. Illinois Transportation Archaeological Research Program, Department of Anthro- pology, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.

Fortier, Andrew C, editor 2007 The Archaeology of the East St. Louis Mound Center: Part II,

The Northside Excavations. Illinois Transportation Archae- ological Research Program, Research Reports No. 65. Department of Anthropology, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.

Fortier, Andrew C, Thomas E. Emerson, and Fred A. Finney 1984 Early Woodland and Middle Woodland Periods. In

American Bottom Archaeology: A Summary of the FAI-270 Project Contributions to the Culture History of the Mississippi River Valley, edited by C. J. Bareis and J. W. Porter, pp. 59- 103. University of Illinois Press, Urbana.

Fortier, Andrew C, Thomas E. Emerson, and Kathryn E. Parker 1998 The Meyer Site: A Terminal Late Archaic Residential

Camp in the American Bottom. Illinois Archaeology 10(l&2):195-228.

Fortier, Andrew C, Fred A. Finney, and Richard B. Lacam- pagne 1983 The Mund Site. American Bottom Archaeology FAI-270

Site Reports 5. University of Illinois, Urbana. Fortier, Andrew C, and Swastika Ghosh 2000 The Bosque Medio Site: A Hopewellian Campsite in the

American Bottom Uplands. Illinois Archaeology 12(1 &2): 1-56.

Fortier, Andrew C, and Douglas K. Jackson 2000 The Formation of a Late Woodland Heartland in the

American Bottom, Illinois cal A.D. 650-900. In Late Woodland Societies: Tradition and Transformation Across the Midcontinent, edited by T. E. Emerson, D. L. McElrath, and A. C. Fortier, pp. 122-147. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.

Sortier, Andrew C, Richard b. Lacampagne, and trea A. Finney 1984 The Fish Lake Site (ll-Mo-608). American Bottom

Archaeology FAI-270 Site Reports Vol. 8. University of Illinois Press, Urbana.

Fortier, Andrew C, Thomas O. Maher, and Joyce A. Williams 1991 The Sponemann Site: The Formative Emergent Mississippian

Sponemann Phase Occupation. American Bottom Archaeol- ogy Vol. 23. University of Illinois Press, Urbana.

Fortier, Andrew C, Thomas O. Maher, Joyce A. Williams, Michael C. Meinkoth, Kathryn E. Parker, and Lucretia S. Kelly 1989 The Holding Site: A Hopewell Community in the American

Bottom. American Bottom Archaeology FAI-270 Site Reports Vol. 19. University of Illinois, Urbana.

Fortier, Andrew C, and Dale L. McElrath 2002 Deconstructing the Emergent Mississippian Concept:

The Case for the Terminal Late Woodland in the American Bottom. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 27:172-215.

205




Fowler, Melvin L. 1997 The Cahokia Atlas: A Historical Atlas of Cahokia Archaeol-

ogy. Illinois Transportation Archaeological Research Pro- gram. Studies in Archaeology No. 2. University of Illinois Press, Urbana.

Fowler, Melvin L., and Robert L. Hall 1975 Archaeological Phases at Cahokia. In Perspectives in

Cahokia Archaeology, edited by J. A. Brown, pp. 1-14. Bulletin 10. Illinois Archaeological Survey, Urbana.

Gaertner, Linda M. 1994 Determining the Function of Dalton Adzes from

Northeast Arkansas. Lithic Technology 19:97-109. Galloy, Joseph M. 2002 Late Woodland Settlement Dynamics and Social In-

teraction in the American Bottom Uplands, A.D. 650-900. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University.

Galloy, Joseph M., Kathryn E. Parker, and Nathan J. Babcook 2000 The Bivouac Site (11MS1665): An Emergent Mississip-

pian Camp in the American Bottom Uplands. Illinois Archaeology 12(l&2):218-243.

Goatley, Daniel B. 1998 Quasar: A Stratified Archaic Site in the Floodplain of the

Lower Illinois River Valley. Illinois Archaeology 10(l&2):267-293.

Graham, Russell W., C. Vance Haynes, Donald L. Johnson, and Marvin Kay 1981 Kims wick: A Clovis Mastodon Association in Eastern

Missouri. Science 213:1115-17. Graham, Russell W., and Marvin Kay 1988 Taphonomic Comparisons of Cultural and Noncultural

Faunal Deposits at the Kimswick and Hambart Sites, Jefferson County, Missouri. In Paleoecology and Archaeology of the Eastern Great Lakes Region, edited by R. S. Laub, N. G. Miller, and D. W. Steadman, pp. 227-240. Bulletin No. 33. Buffalo Society of Natural Sciences, Buffalo, NY.

Green, William 1999 Integrative Taxa in Midwestern Archaeology. In Taming

the Taxonomy: Toward a New Understanding of Great Lakes Archaeology, edited by R. F. Williamson and CM. Watts, pp. 25-36. Eastend Books, Toronto, ONT.

Griffin, James B. 1984a A Historical Perspective. In American Bottom Archaeol-

ogy: A Summary of the FAI-270 Project Contribution to the Culture History of the Mississippi River Valley, edited by C. J. Bareis and J. W. Porter, pp. xv-xviii. University of Illinois Press, Urbana.

1984b Observations on the FAI-270 Project. In American Bottom Archaeology: A Summary of the FAI-270 Project Contribution to the Culture History of the Mississippi River Valley, edited by C. J. Bareis and J. W. Porter, pp. 253-261. University of Illinois Press, Urbana.

Griffin, James B., Richard E. Flanders, and Paul F. Titterington 1970 The Burial Complexes of the Knight and Norton Mounds in

Illinois and Michigan. Memoirs of the Museum of Anthro- pology No. 2. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Hall, Robert L. 1975 Chronology and Phases at Cahokia. In Perspectives in

Cahokia Archaeology, pp. 15-31. Bulletin No. 10. Illinois Archaeological Survey, University of Illinois, Urbana.

1981 Radiocarbon Chronology for the Labras Lake Site. In Labras Lake: Investigations into the Prehistoric Occupations of

a Mississippi Floodplain Locality in St. Clair County, Illinois, edited by J. L. Phillips and R. L. Hall, pp. 383-414. Department of Anthropology, University of Illinois at Chica eo-Circle.

1991 Cahokia Identity and Interaction Models of Cahokia Mississippian. In Cahokia and the Hinterlands: Middle Mississippian Cultures of the Midwest, edited by T. E. Emerson and R.B. Lewis, pp. 3-34. University of Illinois Press, Urbana.

Hall, Robert L., and Joseph O. Vogel 1963 The Illinois State Museum Projects. In American Bottoms

Archaeology, July 1, 1962-June 30, 1963, Illinois Archaeolog- ical Survey, Second Annual Report, pp. 24-30. University of Illinois, Urbana.

Hanenberger, Ned H. 2003 The Range Site 3: Mississippian and Oneota Occupations.

Transportation Archaeology Research Reports No. 17. Illinois Transportation Archaeological Research Program, Urbana.

Harl, Joseph L. 1995 Data Recovery Investigations at the Hayden Site (23SL36),

and the Rabanus Site (23SL859), Chesterfield, St. Louis County, Missouri: New Insights into the Titterington/ Sedalia Phase in East-Central Missouri. Prepared by Archaeological Services Department of Anthropology and a Division of Continuing Education-Outreach University of Missouri- St. Louis. Research Report No. 182.

1998 The Titterington Phase in East-Central Missouri and Archaeology of the Hayden Site: Evidence of Long-Term Occupation in the Late Archaic. Illinois Archaeology 10(l&2):229-266.

2000 Late Woodland Sites Along the Lower Missouri River Valley, St. Louis and St. Charles Counties, Missouri. In Late Woodland Societies. Tradition and Transformation Across the Midcontinent, edited by T. E. Emerson, D. L. McElrath, and A. C. Fortier, pp. 263-274. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.

Hedman, Kristin, Eve A. Hargrave, and Stanley H. Ambrose 2002 Late Mississippian Diet in the American Bottom: Stable

Isotope Analyses of Bone Collagen and Apatite. Mid- continental Journal of Archaeology 27:237-271.

Henning, Dale R. 1998 Managing Oneota: A Reiteration and Testing of Con-

temporary Archeological Taxonomy. The Wisconsin Arche- ologist 79:9-28.

Higgins, Michael J. 1990 The Nochta Site: The Early, Middle, and Late Archaic

Occupations. American Bottom Archaeology FAI-270 Site Reports Vol. 21. University of Illinois Press, Urbana.

Holley, George R., Kathryn E. Parker, Elizabeth M. Scott, Harold W. Watters Jr., Julie N. Harper, Mikels Skele, Alan J. Brown, Joyce A. Williams, and Jennifer E. Ringberg 2001 The Faust South Locality, Scott Joint-Use Archaeological

Project. Office of Contract Archaeology, Southern Illinois University, Edwardsville.

Holley, George R., Kathryn E. Parker, Elizabeth M. Scott, Harold W. Waiters Jr., Mikels Skele, and Joyce A. Williams 2001 The Faust North Locality, Scott Joint-Use Archaeological


206




Holley, George R., Kathryn E. Parker, Harold W. Watters Jr., Julie N. Harper, Mikels Skele, and Jennifer E. Ringberg 2001 The Lembke Locality, Scott Joint-Use Archaeological


Holley, George R., Mikels Skele, Harold W. Watters Jr., Kathryn E. Parker, Elizabeth M. Scott, Joyce A. Williams, Donald L. Booth, Julie N. Harper, Alan J. Brown, Christine L. Fulton, and Laura L. Harmon 2001 Introduction to the Prehistoric Archaeology of the Scott

Joint-Use Archaeological Project. Office of Contract Ar- chaeology, Southern Illinois University, Edwardsville.

Jackson, Douglas K. 1990a The Willoughby Site (ll-Ms-610). In Selected Early

Mississippian Household Sites in the American Bottom, edited by D. K. Jackson, and N. H. Hanenberger, pp. 12-89. American Bottom Archaeology FAI-270 Site Reports Vol. 22. University of Illinois Press, Urbana.

1990b The Esterlein Site (ll-Ms-598). In Selected Early Mississippian Household Sites in the American Bottom, edited by D. K. Jackson and N. H. Hanenberger, pp. 91-216. American Bottom Archaeology FAI-270 Site Reports Vol. 22. University of Illinois Press, Urbana.

1992 Ceramics. In The Sponemann Site 2: The Mississippian and Oneota Occupations, edited by D. K. Jackson, A. C. Fortier, and J. A. Williams, pp. 429-463. American Bottom Archaeology FAI-270 Site Reports Vol. 24. University of Illinois Press, Urbana.

1998 Settlement on the Southern Frontier: Oneota Occupa- tions in the American Bottom. The Wisconsin Archeologist 79:93-116.

2000 The Mississippian Community at the Grossman Site. Paper presented at the Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Macón, GA.

Jackson, Douglas K., Andrew C. Fortier, and Joyce A. Williams 1992 The Sponemann Site 2: The Mississippian and Oneota

Occupations. American Bottom Archaeology FAI-270 Site Reports Vol. 24. University of Illinois Press, Urbana.

Jackson, Douglas K., and Philip G. Mulhouse 2003 The Vaughn Branch and Old Edwardsville Road Sites. Late

Stirling and Early Moorehead Phase Mississippian Occupations in the Northern American Bottom. Illinois Transportation Archaeological Research Program. Transportation Archae- ological Research Reports No. 16. Department of anthropology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Keny, jonn £. 1982 Formative Developments at Cahokia and the Adjacent

American Bottom: A Merrell Tract Perspective. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Wisconsin. Published by Archaeological Research Labora- tory, Western Illinois University, Macomb.

1987 Emergent Mississippian and the Transition from Late Woodland to Mississippian: The American Bottom Case for a New Concept. In The Emergent Mississippian: Proceedings of the Sixth Mid-South Archaeological Conference, edited by R. A. Marshall, pp. 212-226. Cobb Institute of Archaeology, Occasional Papers 87-01. Mississippi State University.

1990 The Emergence of Mississippian Culture in the Amer- ican Bottom Region. In The Mississippian Emergence, edited

by B. D. Smith, pp. 113-152. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.

1993 The Pulcher Site: An Archaeological and Historical Overview. Illinois Archaeology 5(1&2):434-451.

2000 The Nature and Context of Emergent Mississippian Cultural Dynamics in the Greater American Bottom. In Late Woodland Societies: Tradition and Transformation Across the Midcontinent, edited by T. E. Emerson, D. L. McElrath, and A. C. Fortier, pp. 163-175. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.

2002a The Pulcher Tradition and the Ritualization of Caho- kia: A Perspective from Cahokia' s Southern Neighbor. Southeastern Archaeology 21:136-148.

2002b Woodland Period Archaeology in the American Bottom. In The Woodland Southeast, edited by D. G. Anderson and R. C. Mainfort, pp. 134-161. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Kelly, John E., Fred A. Finney, Dale L. McElrath, and Steven J. Ozuk 1984 Late Woodland Period. In American Bottom Archaeology:

A Summary of the FAI-270 Project Contribution to the Culture History of the Mississippi River Valley, edited by C. J. Bareis and J. W. Porter, pp. 104-127. University of Illinois, Urbana.

Kelly, John E., Steven J. Ozuk, Douglas K. Jackson, Dale L. McElrath, Fred A. Finney, and Duane Esarey 1984 Emergent Mississippian Period. In American Bottom

Archaeology: A Summary of the FAI-270 Project Contribution to the Culture History of the Mississippi River Valley, edited by C. J. Bareis and J. W. Porter, pp. 128-157. University of Illinois Press, Urbana.

Kelly, John E., Andrew C. Fortier, Steven J. Ozuk, and Joyce A. Williams 1987 The Range Site: Archaic through Late Woodland Occupa-

tions. American Bottom Archaeology FAI-270 Site Reports Vol. 16. University of Illinois Press, Urbana.

Kelly, John E., Steven J. Ozuk, and Joyce A. Williams 1990 Range Site 2: The Emergent Mississippian Dohack and

Range Phase Occupations. American Bottom Archaeology FAI-270 Site Reports Vol. 20. University of Illinois Press, Urbana.

Koldehoff, Brad 1977 The Mueller Site: Evidence of Paleo-Indian Occupation

in St. Clair County, Illinois. Illinois Association for the Advancement of Archaeology, Newsletter 9:25-27.

1978 The Mueller Site: Evidence of Paleo-Indian Occupation in St. Clair County, Illinois. Central States Archaeological Journal 25:138-142.

1983 Paleo-Indian Chert Utilization and Site Distribution in Southwestern Illinois. The Wisconsin Archeologist 64:201- 238.

1999 Attica Chert and Clovis Land Use in Illinois: The Anderson and Perkins Sites. Illinois Archaeology 11(1&2): 1-26.

2002 The Woodland Ridge Site and Late Woodland Land Use in the Southern American Bottom. Illinois Transportation Archaeological Research Program. Transportation Archae- ological Research Reports No. 15. Department of Anthro- pology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

2006 Paleoindian and Archaic Settlement and Lithic Procurement in the Illinois Uplands. Research Reports No. 108. Illinois

207




Transportation Archaeological Research Program, Univer- sity of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.

Koldehoff, Brad, and Joseph M. Galloy 2006 Late Woodland Frontiers: Patrick Phase Settlement along the

Kaskaskia Trail Monroe County, Illinois. Transportation Archaeological Research Reports No. 23. Illinois Trans- portation Archaeological Research Program, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaien.

Koldehoff, Brad, Juliet E. Morrow, Toby A. Morrow, and R. Martens 1995 The Martens Site: A Clovis Occupation in St. Louis

County, Missouri. Current Research in the Pleistocene 12: 24-26.

Koldehoff, Brad, and John A. Walthall 2004 Settling In: Hunter-Gatherer Mobility During the

Pleistocene-Holocene Transition in the Central Mississippi Valley. In Essays in Honor of Howard D. Winters, edited by A.-M. Cantwell and L. A. Conrad. Illinois State Museum, Springfield.

2007 Dalton and the Early Holocene Midcontinent: Setting the Stage. In Archaic Societies of the Midcontinent, edited by T. E. Emerson, D. L. McElrath, and A. C. Fortier. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, in press.

Kuttruff, Carl 1991 Late Woodland Settlement and Subsistence in the Lower

Kaskaskia River Valley, Illinois. In Stability, Transformation, and Variation: The Late Woodland Southeast, edited by M. S. Nassaney and C. R. Cobb, pp. 47-68. Plenum, New York.

Lacampagne, Richard B., and Charles Bentz 1988 The Rosewood Phase Occupation at the Steinberg Site.

In Late Woodland Sites in the American Bottom Uplands, edited by C. Bentz, D. L. McElrath, E A. Finney, and R. B. Lacampagne, pp. 75-106. American Bottom Archaeology FAI-270 Site Reports Vol. 18, edited by C. J. Bareis and I. W. Porter. University of Illinois Press, Urbana.

Linder, Jean 1974 The Jean Rita Site: An Early Woodland Occupation in

Monroe County, Illinois. The Wisconsin Archeologist 55:99- 162.

Lyman, R. Lee, Michael J. O'Brien, and Robert Dunnell 1997 The Rise and Fall of Culture History. Plenum Press, New

York. Maher, Thomas O. 1991 Time and Community Patterns at Holding: A Middle

Woodland Site in the American Bottom. Southeastern Archaeology 10:114-133.

1996 Time, Space, and Social Dynamics during the Hopewell Occupation of the American Bottom. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

McElrath, Dale L. 1986 The McLean Site (ll-S-640). American Bottom Archaeol-

ogy FAI-270 Site Reports Vol. 14. University of Illinois Press, Urbana.

1988 The Patrick Phase Occupation at the Alpha 3 Site. In Late Woodland Sites in the American Bottom Uplands, edited by C. Bentz, D. L. McElrath, E A. Finney, and R. B. Lacampagne, pp. 169-186. American Bottom Archaeology FAI-270 Site Reports Vol. 18. University of Illinois Press, Urbana.

1993 Mule Road: A Newly Defined Late Archaic Phase in the American Bottom. In Highways to the Past: Essays on Illinois Archaeology in Honor of Charles J. Bareis, edited by T. E.

Emerson, A. C. Fortier, and D. L. McElrath. Illinois Archaeology 5(1&2):148-157.

McElrath, Dale L., and Thomas E. Emerson 2000 Toward an 'Intrinsic Characteristics" Approach to

Chert Raw Material Classification: An American Bottom Example. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 25:215-244.

2007 Concluding Thoughts on the Archaic of the Eastern Woodlands. In Archaic Societies of the Midcontinent, edited by T. E. Emerson, D. L. McElrath, and A. C. Fortier. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, in press.

McElrath, Dale L., Thomas E. Emerson, and Andrew C. Fortier 2000 Social Evolution or Social Response? A Fresh Look at

the "Good Grey Cultures" After Four Decades of Midwest Research. In Late Woodland Archaeology: Tradition and Transformation across the Midcontinent, edited by T. E. Emerson, D. L. McElrath, and A. C. Fortier, pp. 3-36. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.

McElrath, Dale L., Thomas E. Emerson, Andrew C. Fortier, and James L. Phillips 1984 Late Archaic Period. In American Bottom Archaeology: A

Summary of the FAI-270 Project Contributions to the Culture History of the Mississippi River Valley, edited by C. J. Bareis and J. W. Porter, pp. 34-58. University of Illinois, Urbana.

McElrath, Dale L., and Fred A. Finney 1987 The George Reeves Site (ll-S-650). American Bottom

Archaeology FAI-270 Site Reports Vol. 15. University of Illinois Press, Urbana.

McElrath, Dale L., and Andrew C. Fortier 1983 The Missouri Pacific #2 Site. In American Bottom

Archaeology FAI-270 Site Reports Vol. 3. University of Illinois Press. Urbana.

2000 The Early Late Woodland Occupation of the American Bottom. In Late Woodland Societies: Tradition and Trans- formation Across the Midcontinent, edited by T. E. Emerson, D. L. McElrath, and A. C. Fortier, pp. 97-121. University of Nebraska, Lincoln.

McElrath, Dale L., Andrew C. Fortier, Brad Koldehoff, and Thomas E. Emerson 2007 The American Bottom Archaic: A Cultural Crossroads.

In Archaic Societies of the Midcontinent, edited by T. E. Emerson, D. L. McElrath, and A. C. Fortier. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, in press.

Mehrer, Mark 1995 Cahokias Countryside. Northern Illinois University Press,

Dekalb. Meinkoth, Michael C, Kristin M. Hedman, and Dale L. McElrath 2001 The Cunningham Site: A Late Woodland Occupation in the

American Bottom. Illinois Transportation Archaeology Research Program Research Reports No. 41. Illinois Transportation Archaeological Research Program, Depart- ment of Anthropology, University of Illinois, Urbana- Champaign.

Milner, George R. 1982 Measuring Prehistoric Levels of Health: A Study of

Mississippian Period Skeletal Remains from the Ameri- can Bottom, Illinois. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, De- partment of Anthropology, Northwestern University, Evanston.

208




1990 The Late Prehistoric Cahokia Cultural System of the Mississippi River Valley: Foundations, Florescence, and Fragmentation. Journal of World Prehistory 4:1-43.

1998 The Cahokia Chief dom: The Archaeology of a Mississippian Society. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.

Milner, George R., Thomas E. Emerson, Mark M. Mehrer, Joyce A. Williams, and Duane Esarey 1984 Mississippian and Oneota Period. In American Bottom

Archaeology: A Summary of the FAI-270 Project Contribution to the Culture History of the Mississippi River Valley, edited by C. J. Bareis and J. W. Porter, pp. 158-186. University of Illinois Press, Urbana.

Moffat, Charles E. 1980 The Tep Site (ll-Mo-154). In Final Report of the

Investigations of Three Archaeological Sites in Luhr Brother's Borrow Pit #4, Monroe County, Illinois, edited by D. Esarey and C. E. Moffat, pp. 12-40. FAI-270 Archaeological Mitigation Project Report No. 35. Department of Anthro- pology, Western Illinois University, Macomb.

Morrow, Julie E. 1996 The Organization of Early Paleoindian Lithic Technol-

ogy in the Confluence Region of the Mississippi, Illinois and Missouri Rivers. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Washington University, St. Louis.

Morse, Dan F. 1997 Sloan: A Paleoindian Dalton Cemetery in Arkansas.

Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC. Morse, Dan F, and Albert C. Goodyear 1973 The Significance of the Dalton Adze in Northeast

Arkansas. Plains Anthropologist 18:316-322. Muller, Jon 1997 Mississippian Political Economy. Plenum, New York. Nassaney, Michael S., and Neal H. Lopmot 1986 The Significance of a Short-term Late Archaic Occupa-

tion in the American Bottom. In Foraging, Collecting, and Harvesting. Archaic Period Subsistence and Settlement in the Eastern Woodlands, edited by S. W. Neusius, pp. 201-224. Occasional Paper No. 6. Center for Archaeological Inves- tigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.

Nassaney, Michael S., Neal H. Lopinot, Brian M. Butler, and Richard W. Jefferies 1983 The 1982 Excavations at the Cahokia Interpretive Center

Tract, St. Clair County, Illinois. Research Paper No. 37. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.

Nassaney, Michael S., and Kenneth E. Sassaman, editors 1995 Native American Interactions: Multiscalar Analyses and

Interpretations in the Eastern Woodlands. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.

Nolan, David J., and Richard L. Fishel 2007 Archaic Cultural Variation and Life Ways in West

Central Illinois. In Archaic Societies of the Midcontinent, edited by T. E. Emerson, D. L. McElrath, and A. C. Fortier. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, in press.

O'Brien, Michael J., and R. Lee Lyman 2000 Applying Evolutionary Archaeology: A Systematic Ap-

proach. Kluwer Academic /Plenum, New York. Odell, George H. 1996 Stone Tools and Mobility in the Illinois Valley: From Hunter-

Gatherer Camps to Agricultural Villages. Archaeological

Series 10. International Monographs in Prehistory, Ann Arbor, MI.

Ozuk, Steven J. 1990a Dohack Phase Ceramics. In The Range Site 2: The

Emergent Dohack and Range Phase Occupations, edited by J. E. Kelly, S. J. Ozuk, and J. A. Williams, pp. 117-183. American Bottom Archaeology FAI-270 Site Reports Vol. 20. University of Illinois Press, Urbana.

1990b Range Phase Ceramics. In The Range Site 2: The Emergent Mississippian Dóhack and Range Phase Occupations, edited by J. E. Kelly, S. J. Ozuk, and J. A. Williams, pp. 387-448. American Bottom Archaeology FAI-270 Site Reports Vol. 20. University of Illinois Press, Urbana.

Pauketat, Timothy R. 1991 The Dynamics of Pre-State Political Centralization in the

North American Midcontinent. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan.

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

1998a Refiguring the Archaeology of Greater Cahokia. Journal of Archaeological Research 6:45-89.

1998b The Archaeology of Downtown Cahokia: The Tract 15 A and Dunham Tract Excavations. Studies in Archaeology No. 1. Illinois Transportation Archaeological Research Program, Urbana.

2000a Politicization and Community in the Pre-Columbian Mississippi Valley. In The Archaeology of Communities: A New World Perspective, edited by M. A. Canuto and J. Yaeeer. dd. 16-43. Routledee, London.

2000b The Tragedy of the Commoners. In Agency in Archaeology, edited by M. A. Dobres and J. Robb, pp. 113-139. Routledee, London.

2001a A New Tradition in Archaeology. In The Archaeology of Traditions: Agency and History Before and After Columbus, edited by T. R. Pauketat, pp. 1-16. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

2001b Practice and History in Archaeology: An Emerging Paradigm. Anthropological Theory 1:73-98.

2003 Resettled farmers and the Making ot a Mississippian Polity. American Antiquity 68:39-66.

2UU4a Ancient Lahokia ana the Mississippians. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

2004b The Economy of the Moment: Cultural Practices and Mississippian Chiefdoms. In Archaeological Perspectives on Political Economies, edited by G. M. Feinman and L. W Nicholas, pp. 25-39. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Pauketat, Timothy R., editor 2001 The Archaeology of Traditions: Agency and History Before

and After Columbus. University Press of Florida, Gaines- ville.

Pauketat, Timothy R., editor 2005 The Archaeology of the East St. Louis Mound Center: Part I,

The Southside Excavations. Illinois Transportation Archae- ological Research Program. Transportation Archaeological Research Reports 21. Department of Anthropology, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.

Perino, Gregory 1961 Tentative Classification of Plummets in the Lower

209




Illinois River Valley. Central States Archaeological Journal 8:48-56.

Phillips, James L., and Robert L. Hall, editors 1981 Labras Lake: Investigations into the Prehistoric Occupations

of a Mississippi Floodplain Locality in St. Clair, County, Illinois. Department of Anthropology, University of Illinois at Chicago Circle.

Porter, James W. 1972 An Archaeological Survey of the Mississippi Valley in

St. Clair, Monroe, and Randolph Counties. In Preliminary Report of 1971 Historic Sites Survey Archaeological Re- connaissance of Selected Areas in the State of Illinois; Part 1, Summary, Part 1, Summary Section A, pp. 25-33. Illinois Archaeological Survey, Department of Anthropology, University of Illinois, Urbana.

Ray, Jack H., Neal H. Lopinot, and Edwin R. Hajic 2007 Archaic Prehistory of the Western Ozarks of Southwest

Missouri. In Archaic Societies of the Midcontinent, edited by T. E. Emerson, D. L. McElrath, and A. C. Fortier. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, in press.

Reid, Kenneth C. 1984 Nebo Hill and the Late Archaic Prehistory of the Southern

Prairie Peninsula. Publications in Anthropology No. 15. University of Kansas.

Riley, Thomas J., Gregory R. Walz, Charles J. Bareis, Andrew C. Fortier, and Kathryn E. Parker 1994 Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (AMS) Dates Confirm

Early Zea mays in the Mississippi River Valley. American Antiquity 59:490^198.

Shott, Michael J. 1996 Innovation in Prehistory: A Case Study from the

American Bottom. In Stone Tools: Theoretical Insights into Human Prehistory, edited by G. H. Odell, pp. 279-309. Plenum Press, New York.

Smail, William 1951 Some Early Projectile Points from the St. Louis Area.

Journal of the Illinois State Archaeological Society 2(1):11- 16. Stafford, C. Russell - 1985 The Campbell Hollow Archaic Occupations. Research Series

Vol. 4. Center for American Archaeology, Kampsville Archeological Center, Kampsville, IL.

Stahl, Ann Brower 1985 The Dohack Site (ll-S-642). American Bottom Archaeol-

ogy FAI-270 Site Reports Vol. 12. University of Illinois Press, Urbana.

Stoltman, James B. 1978 Temporal Models in Prehistory: An Example from

Eastern North America. Current Anthropology 19:703-746. Studenmund, Sarah 2000 Late Woodland Occupation in the Lower Illinois Valley:

Research Questions and Data Sets. In Late Woodland Societies: Tradition and Transformation Across the Midconti- nent, edited by T. E. Emerson, D. L. McElrath, and A. C. Fortier, pp. 301-344. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.

btuiver, Minze, and raul U. (juay 1980 Changes in Atmospheric Carbon-14 Attributed to

a Variable Sun. Science 207:11-19. 1981 Atmospheric 14C changes resulting from fossil fuel CO2

release and Cosmic Ray Flux Variability. Earth .and Planetary Science Letters 53:349-362.

Stuiver, Minze, and Paula J. Reimer 1986 A Computer Program for Radiocarbon Age Calibration.

Radiocarbon 28:1022-1030. 1993 Extended 14C Database and Revised CALIB Radiocar-

bon Calibration Program. Radiocarbon 35:215-230. Tankersley, Kenneth B. 1991 A Geoarcheological Investigation of Distribution and

Exchange in the Raw Material Economies of Clovis Groups in Eastern North America. In Raw Material Economies Among Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherers, edited by A. Montet-White and S. Holen, pp. 285-304. University of Kansas Press, Lawrence.

1995 Paleoindian Contexts and Artifact Distribution Patterns at the Bostrom Site, St. Clair County, Illinois. Midconti- nental Journal of Archaeology 20:40-61.

Tankersley, Kenneth b., and Barry L. Isaac, editors 1990 Early Paleoindian Economies of Eastern North America. JAI

Press, Greenwich, CT. Tankersley, Kenneth B., Brad Koldehoff, and Edwin R. Hajic 1993 The Bostrom Site: A Paleo-Indian Habitation in South-

western Illinois. North American Archaeologist 14:43-69. Tankersley, Kenneth B., and Juliet E. Morrow 1993 Clovis Procurement and Land Use Patterns in the

Confluence Region the Mississippi, Missouri, and Illinois Rivers. In Highways to the Past: Essays on Illinois Archaeology in Honor of Charles J. Bareis, edited by T. E. Emerson, A. C. Fortier, and D. L. McElrath, pp. 119-129. Illinois Archaeol- ogy Vol. 5. Illinois Archaeological Survey, Urbana.

Titterington, Paul F. 1950 Some Non-Pottery Sites in the St. Louis Area. Journal of

the Illinois State Archaeological Society 1:18-31. Vogel, John O. 1975 Trends in Cahokia Ceramics: Preliminary Study of the

Collections from Tracts 15A and 15B. In Perspectives in Cahokia Archaeology. Illinois Archaeological Survey Bulle- tin 10.

Walthall, John A. 1998 Rockshelters and Hunter-Gatherer Adaptations to the

Pleistocene /Holocene Transition. American Antiquity 63:223-238.

Walthall, John A., and George R. Holley 1997 Mobility and Hunter-Gatherer Toolkit Design: Analysis

of a Dalton Lithic Cache. Southeastern Archaeology 16:152- 162.

Walthall, John A., Kenneth Farnsworth, and Thomas E. Emerson 1997 Constructing (on) the Past: Illinois Paves the Way for

Preservation Partnerships. Common Ground 2(l):26-33. Walz, Gregory K., Brian Adams, Paul 1. Kreisa, Kevin Jr. McGowan, and Jacqueline M. McDowell 1998 The Strong Site and the Dennis Hollow Phase: A New

Perspective on Middle Archaic Chronology, Technology and Subsistence. Illinois Archaeology 10(l&2):155-194.

Watson, ratty jo 1991 A Parochial Primer: The New Dissonance as Seen from

the Midcontinental United States. In Processual and Postprocessual Archaeologies: Multiple Ways of Knowing the

' Past, edited by R. Preucel, pp. 197-210. Occasional Papers No. 10. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.

210




Wells, Christy L, and George R. Holley 1993 Archaeological Investigations at the 78th Street Site

(UMS821), East St. Louis, Illinois. Office of Contract Archaeolgy, Southern Illinois University, Edwardsville. Submitted to the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency, Springfield.

Wiant, Michael D., Kenneth B. Farnsworth, and Edward Hajic 2007 The Archaic Period in the Lower Illinois River Basin.

In Archaic Societies of the Midcontinent, edited by T. E. Emerson, D. L. McElrath, and A. C. Fortier. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, in press.

Willey, Gordon R. 1945 Horizon Styles and Pottery Traditions in Peruvian

Archaeology. American Antiquity 11:49-56. Willey, Gordon R., and Philip Phillips 1958 Method and Theory in American Archaeology. University of

Chicago Press, Chicago. Williams, Joyce A. 1993 Meridian Hills: An Upland Holding Phase Middle

Woodland Habitation Site. In Highways to the Past: Essays on Illinois Archaeology in Honor of Charles /. Bareis, edited by T. E. Emerson, A. C. Fortier, and D. L. McElrath, pp. 193- 200. Illinois Archaeology Vol. 5. Illinois Archaeological Survey.

Winters, Howard D. 1969 The Riverton Culture: A Second Millennium Occupation in

the Central Wabash Valley. Illinois State Museum Reports of Investigations No. 13. Springfield.

Wittry, Warren L., John C. Arnold, Charles O. Witty, and Timothy R. Pauketat 1994 The Holdener Site: Late Woodland, Emergent Mississippian ,

and Mississippian Occupations in the American Bottom

Uplands. American Bottom Archaeology FAI-270 Site Reports Vol. 26. University of Illinois Press, Urbana.

Witty, Charles O., and John E. Kelly 1 993 Summary of Archaeological Investigations of the Grassy Lake

(Ì1-MS-4) and South Roxanna Sites (U-MS-66), South Roxanna, Madison County, Illinois. Contract Archaeology Program, Southern Illinois University, Edwardsville. Sub- mitted to Illinois Department of Transportation, Spring- field.

Wolforth, Thomas R., and Richard L. Alvey 2003 Archaeological Investigations at the Widman Site, Madison

County, Illinois. Illinois Transportation Archaeological Research Program. Research Reports No. 56. Department of Anthropology, University of Illinois at Urbana- Champaign.

Wolforth, Thomas R., Mary L. Simon, and Richard L. Alvey 1990 The Widman Site (ll-MS-866): A Small Middle Wood-

land Settlement in the Wood River Valley, Illinois. Illinois Archaeology 2(l&2):45-69.

Yerkes, Richard W. 1987 Prehistoric Life on the Mississippi Floodplain. Prehistoric

Archeology and Ecology Series. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Yerkes, Richard W., and Linda M. Uaertner 1997 Microwear Analysis of Dalton Artifacts. In Sloan:

A Paleoindian Dalton Cemetery in Arkansas, edited by D. F. Morse, pp. 58-71. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.

Young, Biloine Whiting, and Melvin L. Fowler 2000 Cahokia: The Great Native American Metropolis. University

of Illinois Press, Urbana.

211



Date post:	19-Nov-2023
Category:	Documents
Upload:	illinois
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

Calibrating and Reassessing American Bottom Culture History

Documents