47th annual reelfoot arts & craft festival

Week 3 - Mississippian and Cahokia/Discussion for Cahokia.docx
Anthropology P363/P663 Professor Laura L. Scheiber

North American Prehistory through Fiction Spring, 2018
In-Class Discussion
March 29: Cahokia and Cricket Sings
Question Group 1: Introduction to Cahokia – Emerson (2002)

What is the main point of this article? Why is Cahokia such an important archaeological site in North America? Why is scale particularly important when discussing the site of Cahokia? Where do trade goods come from? How does the author of Cricket Sings deal with the issue of scale and Cahokian interrelationships? Describe at least the ways that your optional article related to the events in the novel.

Question Group 2: Introduction to Cahokia – Emerson (2002)

What is the main point of this article? Why is Cahokia such an important archaeological site in North America? According to Emerson, how should we best characterize the Cahokian emergence? How does this compare with the story told by Cricket Sings? Describe at least the ways that your optional article related to the events in the novel.

Question Group 3: Introduction to Cahokia – Emerson (2002)

What is the main point of this article? Why is Cahokia such an important archaeological site in North America? According to Emerson, what two theories are often proposed for the Cahokian collapse? Which of these theories does this author favor and why? Do you think the events in Cricket Sings could support one or both of these interpretations? Describe at least the ways that your optional article related to the events in the novel.

Question Group 4: The Mississippian Period – Kehoe (2002)

What is the most interesting thing you learned while reading this chapter? Why is Cahokia such an important archaeological site in North America? Based on this chapter, what is the evidence for the death and burial ceremonies of the Sun King, as described in Cricket Sings? What is the evidence for clothing, adornment, activities, and cosmology? Describe at least the ways that your optional article related to the events in the novel.

Question Group 6: Mounds, Memory, and Contested Mississippian History – Pauketat and Alt (2003)

What is the main point of this article? Why are structuralist and functionalist arguments for mound building at Cahokia probably not the best explanations? What do the authors propose as an alterative? Do you think these authors would agree with the explanations of mound building as expressed in Cricket Sings? Describe at least the ways that your optional article related to the events in the novel.

1

Week 3 - Mississippian and Cahokia/Crown et al. 2012 - Ritual Black Drink consumption at Cahokia.pdf
Ritual Black Drink consumption at Cahokia Patricia L. Crowna,1, Thomas E. Emersonb, Jiyan Guc, W. Jeffrey Hurstd, Timothy R. Pauketate, and Timothy Wardc

aDepartment of Anthropology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM 87131; bIllinois State Archaeological Survey, Prairie Research Institute, University of Illinois, Champaign, IL 61820; cKeck Center for Instrumental and Biochemical Comparative Archaeology, Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Millsaps College, Jackson, MS 39210; dHershey Technical Center, Hershey, PA 17033; and eDepartment of Anthropology, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign, Urbana, IL 61801

Edited* by Bruce Smith, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC, and approved June 29, 2012 (received for review May 18, 2012)

Chemical analyses of organic residues in fragments of pottery from the large site of Cahokia and surrounding smaller sites in Illinois reveal theobromine, caffeine, and ursolic acid, biomarkers for species of Ilex (holly) used to prepare the ritually important Black Drink. As recorded during the historic period, men consumed Black Drink in portions of the American Southeast for ritual puri- fication. This first demonstrated discovery of biomarkers for Ilex occurs in beaker vessels dating between A.D. 1050 and 1250 from Cahokia, located far north of the known range of the holly species used to prepare Black Drink during historic times. The association of Ilex and beaker vessels indicates a sustained ritual consumption of a caffeine-laced drink made from the leaves of plants grown in the southern United States.

archaeology | organic residue analysis | caffeinated drinks | Mississippian ritual

Organic residue analysis of ceramics from Cahokia, the largestprehispanic site north of Mexico, reveals the presence of theobromine, caffeine, and ursolic acid, biomarkers for Ilex, or holly, species. We analyzed residue samples using liquid chroma- tography–mass spectrometry/mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS), and show that occupants of Cahokia and surrounding small sites con- sumed Ilex drinks, documented historically as Black Drink, from beakers dating circa A.D. 1050–1250 (Fig. 1). Here we provide unique evidence of prehispanic use of Ilex, providing evidence for historical continuity in the use of caffeinated drinks in ritual activity in North America. Cahokia was the earliest and greatest of the pre-Columbian

native polities of the Mississippian era, dating to circa A.D. 1050– 1600 (Fig. 2). This proto-urban center and its allied sites were spread across the fertile floodplains and uplands of the Mis- sissippi River near modern St. Louis; a region marked by the conjunction of several major rivers and physiographic zones. By A.D. 800, numerous small farming villages dotted the landscape. In the mid-1000s, a religious, social, and political consolidation (Lohmann phase, A.D. 1050–1100) signified the rise of Cahokia as a discrete polity. Within a century, the central core, a Greater Cahokia administrative-political center, had grown in size to cover a 14.5-km2 area. It encompassed more than 200 earthen mounds including the largest in North America, the multiterraced MonksMound, ceremonial plazas, postcircle monuments, marker posts, borrow pits, dense habitation zones of elites and com- moners, and a population of 15,000+ inhabitants. By the early to mid-1300s, Cahokia was abandoned (1–5). Greater Cahokia includes three imposing ceremonial pre-

cincts. The largest precinct is at Cahokia, where an expansive 19– 24 ha plaza is fronted on the north by Monks Mound rising more than 30 m in height. This precinct contained 120 other platform and burial mounds, residential areas, specialized workshops, borrow pits, and subsidiary plazas. Situated between Cahokia and the river, the East St. Louis ceremonial precinct with ∼50 mounds may have served as a special or high-status residential district for Greater Cahokia. On the opposite of the river the St. Louis ceremonial precinct, with its 26 mounds, provided access to the northern Ozarks. Within a day’s walk of Monks Mound lay

14 subordinate single and multiple mound centers, and many hundreds of small rural farmsteads (4, 6, 7). Cahokia’s rapid growth was generated by considerable immi-

gration drawn from regional populations of several adjacent states. This suggests that Cahokia was multiethnic and linguisti- cally diverse. Early models of Cahokian growth postulated a wide trading network as pivotal to that process; however, more recent research has shown that large-scale acquisition and exchanges were focused on resources in the nearby Ozark highlands. Cahokia did, however, participate in the limited long-distance acquisition of items such as marine shell, sharks teeth, pipestone, mica, Hixton quartzite, exotic cherts, copper, and galena (4, 8– 11). Consequently, Cahokia maintained a broad network of interactions with widely diverse groups ranging from the Gulf Coast and Southeast to the trans-Mississippi South (especially the Arkansas River valley Caddoans), the eastern plains, the upper Mississippi valley, and the Great Lakes. At Contact, populations throughout much of the New World

consumed beverages created from plant leaves, twigs, bark, or nibs and characterized by the presence of methylxanthines, including caffeine, theobromine, and sometimes theophylline. These drinks derived from two primary sources: Theobroma cacao and plants of the Ilex species, which are members of the holly family found on every continent except Antarctica. Because consumption of such drinks was widespread, an important question concerns when New World populations first created drinks from these plants, how they accessed the primary ingredients, and under what circumstances they drank them. The research reported here concerns consump- tion of such drinks at and near Cahokia. The best-known New World drink with methylxanthines is

chocolate derived from the Theobroma cacao tree. Native to the upper Amazon, the tree was cultivated in the tropics of Meso- america and exchanged widely, including into the American Southwest (12, 13). Beginning in the 1500s, early explorers reported consumption

of drinks containing caffeine in the area now comprising the southeastern United States (14). Over a large area from Florida to Texas, Arkansas to North Carolina, reports described Native Americans preparing and drinking beverages made from the toasted leaves of a variety of holly, probably Ilex vomitoria Ait., also called Yaupon (Fig. 2). Men often drank these beverages from cups made of marine shells. I. vomitoria grows to 8 m tall and is native to the Coastal Plain of the southeastern US from Vir- ginia to Florida and west to Texas, as well as Bermuda, Chiapas and Veracruz (15). There is strong evidence that I. vomitoria was transplanted and cultivated by Native American populations to create this drink (14, 16, 17). A second holly, Ilex cassine L.,

Author contributions: P.L.C., T.E.E., W.J.H., and T.R.P. designed research; J.G. and T.W. performed research; P.L.C. and W.J.H. analyzed data; and P.L.C., T.E.E., J.G., W.J.H., T.R.P., and T.W. wrote the paper.

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

*This Direct Submission article had a prearranged editor. 1To whom correspondence may be addressed. E-mail: pcrown@unm.edu.

This article contains supporting information online at www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10. 1073/pnas.1208404109/-/DCSupplemental.

13944–13949 | PNAS | August 28, 2012 | vol. 109 | no. 35 www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1208404109

mailto:pcrown@unm.edu
http://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1208404109/-/DCSupplemental
http://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1208404109/-/DCSupplemental
www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1208404109
known as Dahoon, might also have been used to prepare such drinks (15). I. cassine L. is native to the southeastern coastal area of North America from Virginia to southeastern Texas, Veracruz, and the Bahamas, Cuba, and Puerto Rico. This large shrub or tree grows up to 13 m in height, with evergreen leaves. Explorers called the beverage by various names, but today it is generally referred to as the Black Drink or cassina (18). Some scholars have suggested that both plants were used to create Black Drink, but most argue that only I. vomitoria was used in this way, an argu- ment bolstered by the considerably higher amount of caffeine in I. vomitoria (15). Populations in South American continue to make drinks from

varieties of holly. Yerba maté made from Ilex paraguariensis St.-Hil., té o’ maté made from Ilex tarapotina Loes., and guayusa made from Ilex guayusa Loes. are popular drinks with a deep history in South America (15). All of these holly drinks contain differing ratios of the methylxanthines caffeine and theobromine. Because plant parts rarely preserve in archaeological contexts

and because preparation of these drinks degrades or destroys the primary plant parts, direct evidence is scarce for the use of these plants to create prehispanic beverages. Fortunately, absorbed organic residue analysis allows identification of methylxanthines preserved in ceramics, permitting researchers to identify the presence of this class of beverage in the past. Absorbed organic residue analysis has been incorporated into archaeological in- terpretation for almost four decades. It relies on interpreting residues absorbed into porous, unglazed ceramics through use. Such residues can preserve for long periods of time because the interior pores are relatively protected from degradation. The residues are released upon grinding and extraction at elevated temperatures with ultrasonication. Researchers generally analyze multiple samples of ceramics to compare the results as a method of confirming initial findings. Absorbed organic residue analysis has identified cacao residues in a variety of contexts and vessel forms. Experimental work has demonstrated the persistence of caffeine from I. vomitoria in varied environmental contexts (19). When caffeine and theobromine are encountered in absorbed

organic residue analysis of archaeological materials, dis- tinguishing which of the plants with methylxanthines left the residues may be difficult. First, residues may be differentially preserved, depending on various factors including the porosity of ceramic paste, original firing temperature of the pottery, use/ cleaning of the vessel before deposition, preservation conditions at the site, and treatment/cleaning by archaeologists on recovery. Second, although each of the possible plants has a distinctive profile of methylxanthines compared with the others, the actual amounts also vary within each species. In Ilex, the amount of

caffeine declines with the age of the leaves (18); shade (20) and latitude (21) may affect methylxanthine concentrations as well. Finally, preparation techniques, including the number of leaves used as well as the amount of water and other additives, alter the concentrations of methylxanthines in the drinks. For instance, tea leaves contain more caffeine than coffee beans, but brewed coffee has many times more caffeine than tea (15). The drinks with methylxanthines consumed in the New World were pre- pared in a variety of ways. Thus, drinks made with cacao ranged from thick to thin, hot to cold, with a variety of additives (22). In contrast to a recent argument that caffeine alone is an

adequate biomarker for distinguishing such drinks when com- bined with geography (19), we argue that caffeine alone shows only that a caffeinated drink was prepared in or consumed from the vessel, not the ingredients of that drink. For some parts of the New World, including South America, Mesoamerica, and the southeastern US, multiple plants were available for creating caffeinated drinks. In other areas, such as the American South- west or the American Bottom (the flood plain of the Mississippi River in southern Illinois), no locally available plants were suit- able for producing these drinks. The closest resources are not necessarily the resources used. So, we have searched for more secure means of distinguishing which plant left the residues found in pottery fragments. Fortunately, research shows patterning in the ratios of meth-

ylxanthines in the Ilex species and cacao (15, 23, 24). Of the options known to have been present in North America, gener- ally, I. vomitoria has a ratio of caffeine to theobromine of about 5:1 (15). In contrast, I. cassine has a ratio of caffeine to theo- bromine of 1:2, and low levels of both (15). T. cacao has a ratio of caffeine to theobromine of anywhere from 1:4 to as much as 1:7 (24). Specific compounds help to distinguish these as well. Although theobromine and caffeine are present in all of these plants, theophylline is not detected in I. vomitoria or I. cassine, but is present in low amounts in cacao. Our research indicates that ursolic acid is a biomarker for distinguishing Ilex from cacao. Ursolic acid (3b-hydroxy-urs-12-en-28 oic acid) is a triterpe-

noid known to occur in a wide variety of plants in the form of a free acid or as an aglycone (25). It does not occur in cacao, although it does occur in many plants in addition to holly. We believe that use of a number of biomarkers provides an or- thogonal approach to resolving the question of which plant left the organic residues; hence the inclusion of ursolic acid along with the methylxanthines. In attempting to distinguish the source of organic residues in

the Illinois material, we looked specifically at the ratios of caf- feine to theobromine, the presence/absence of theophylline, and the presence/absence of ursolic acid. We note that theophylline occurs in low amounts in cacao and should not be taken as a necessary marker for chocolate drinks. If theophylline is present, chocolate was definitely present; if theophylline is absent, the ratios of theobromine to caffeine may help to determine the original substance. One additional issue confounds the search for caffeinated

drinks in the prehispanic NewWorld: drinking vessels may or may not have been dedicated to use with only a single specific drink. It is entirely possible that populations with access to both chocolate drinks and Ilex drinks consumed both from the same vessel. Researchers need to be aware that vessels may have held multiple types of drinks, each potentially made from multiple ingredients.

Materials and Methods For Cahokia, eight samples frombeakers excavated at four separate siteswere analyzedusing LC-MS/MSat theKeckCenter for Instrumental andBiochemical Comparative Archeology at Millsaps College. Initial sample preparation in- volved burring all exterior surfaces from fragments of ceramics ∼1 cm2 in size using a tungsten-carbide bit. Because the instrumentation is highly sensitive and the ceramics porous, samples may be contaminated from any contact

Fig. 1. Beakers from Greater Cahokia and the hinterlands (Linda Alexander, photographer). [Used with permission of the Illinois State Archaeological Survey].

Crown et al. PNAS | August 28, 2012 | vol. 109 | no. 35 | 13945

A N TH

RO PO

LO G Y

CH EM

IS TR

Y

with caffeine, so it is critical that laboratory workers wear masks, gloves, and gowns and that no caffeinated drinks enter the laboratory. Samples were then ground into a powder for analysis.

For methylxanthine analysis, ∼500 mg of ground sample was weighed out into a test tube and ∼3 mL of hot deionized water was added to the test tubes. The samples were then heated in the heating block at 85 °C for 20 min. Samples were then cooled to RT and placed in a centrifuge for 10 min at a speed of at least 1,000 RPM. The supernatant was decanted into a 10-mL beaker and was reduced at 90 °C on the heating block until ∼1.5 mL remained. Spiked solutions were created to confirm the trace peaks. Spiked solutions were made by taking a 495-μL aliquot of each 1.5-mL sample so- lution and spiking it with 5 μL of a standard solution of 1 ppm caffeine and

theobromine. After mixing, this resulted in a spiked solution with an addi- tional concentration of 10 ppb of caffeine and theobromine. All samples were transferred to auto sampler vials for LC-MS/MS analysis.

For the ursolic acid analysis, ∼500 mg of ground sample was weighed into a test tube and ∼3 mL of hot methanol added to the test tube. The samples were placed in an ultrasonic bath for 10 min, followed by a centrifuge for 10 min at a speed of at least 1,000 rpm in a Fisher Scientific Micro-V 7200 Gram Capacity Micro Centrifuge. The supernatant was decanted into a 10-mL beaker and reduced in an ultrasonicator until ∼1.5 mL remained. Spiked solutions were made by taking a 495-μL aliquot of the 1.5-mL sample solu- tion and spiking it with 5 μL of a 10-ppm ursolic acid standard solution. After mixing, this resulted in a spiked solution with an additional concentration of

Fig. 2. Map showing distribution of Ilex vomitoria and Ilex cassine and Cahokia area sites used in study. Distribution data from http://esp.cr.usgs.gov/data/ atlas/little/. (Ron L. Stauber, draftsman).

13946 | www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1208404109 Crown et al.

http://esp.cr.usgs.gov/data/atlas/little/
http://esp.cr.usgs.gov/data/atlas/little/
www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1208404109
100 ppb ursolic acid. All samples were transferred to auto sampler vials for LC-MS/MS analysis.

The samples were analyzed using a Varian 325 LC-MS/MS. For methyl- xanthine analysis, the drying gas temperature was set at 400 °C and the voltage on the detector was set at 1400 V. Separations were performed on a Grace 4.6 mm × 50 mm C18 reverse phase column with a mobile phase consisting of 85% (vol/vol) ammonium acetate buffer 0.1% (vol/vol) at pH of 4.2 and 15% (vol/vol) acetonitrile at a flow rate of 200 μL/min. For ursolic acid analysis, the drying gas temperature was set at 300 °C, the voltage on the detector was set at 1200 V. Separation was performed on a 4.6 mm × 50 mm FRULIC-C column with a methanol–water mobile phase [85% (vol/vol) methanol, 15% (vol/vol) water, 0.2% (vol/vol) ammonium hydroxide, and 0.3% (vol/vol) acetic acid] at a flow rate of 200 μL/min. Table 1 lists the mass fragments used to monitor caffeine, theobromine, theophylline, and ursolic acid in the ESI mode. In SI Text we provide the data for sample 2085, in- cluding chromatograms of standard, sample, and spiked sample for quan- tification respectively for caffeine and theobromine as well the total ion chromatogram of caffeine, theobromine, and theophylline for sample 2085 (Figs. S1–S3); two chromatograms of ursolic acid show the mass fragment (457.4–439.3) and the parent fragment (455.0) (Figs. S4 and S5).

All samples were routinely analyzed at least twice to ensure the accuracy of the results. Multiple blank samples were routinely analyzed between the archaeological samples to acquire a blank reference and to prevent con- tamination. There were no signals for any of the compounds detected in any of our blank solutions. Limits of detections (LODs) were calculated based on the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) method: 3 * s (noise of the blank)/m (slope of the calibration curve). LODs are defined by both the noise and the signal intensity. We note that although all of the samples in this study produced positive results, in our larger study of 137 samples from other geographic areas, the number of samples analyzed with negative results (39 of 137) provides evidence that we are not simply mon- itoring background contamination.

Beakers are usually mug-shaped and -sized containers with relatively flat bottoms, near-vertical walls, lug handles, and depths and orifice diameters of less than 20 cm. Beakers are unknown in the greater Cahokia region before the 1000s (26, 27). These vessel forms might ultimately derive from similar vessels common among the ceremonial wares of various peoples in Arkan- sas, Mississippi, and Louisiana. After appearing in the early 11th century, beakers remain a ubiquitous, although infrequent, component of Cahokia’s assemblages (28–30). They seldom comprise more than a small percentage of any assemblage, attesting to their use as special serving dishes.

The eight vessels in the present sample include beakers dating from A.D. 1050–1250 (Table 2). At least four beakers were shattered in ritual per- formances, including one beaker from the sub-Mound 51 pit (31), one from ritual refuse at a Cahokian “ritual-administrative” outpost (8), and two from platform mound contexts at Cahokia proper (32, 33). Two others were offerings buried with an adult at the Curtiss Steinberg Road site, a small rural cemetery 10 km south of Cahokia (34). The last two vessels are from likely domestic contexts from pits at both the Olszewski site, a large resi- dential outlier on the southern border of Cahokia (35), and the Cahokia site’s Dunham Tract area (30).

Results The results in Table 2 demonstrate a combination of theobro- mine, caffeine, and ursolic acid, confirming the presence of Ilex. Although historic documents would suggest that the source was likely I. vomitoria, the detection of more theobromine than caf- feine in many of the samples indicates that we cannot rule out the use of I. cassine instead, or even a combination of both species.

Discussion Black Drink was recorded as used in historic period political, religious, and social contexts among many tribes of the US Southeast and trans-Mississippi South (14, 18, 36, 37). Its prep- aration involved the parching of holly leaves and small twigs that were subsequently placed in a large pot with water, boiled, and finally agitated into froth before consumption. For many groups, Black Drink played a central role in the ritual cleansing and purging of the body when combined with fasting and vomiting that was an essential precursor to conducting any important activities. Euroamerican observers documented the prodigious consumption of Black Drink, especially by men, often followed by bouts of ritual vomiting, before individual or community re- ligious rituals, important political councils and negotiations, ballgames, or war parties. There are five implications of this research that we outline be-

low. First, the documentation of Black Drink at ∼ A.D. 1050 is the earliest known precontact use. Second it demonstrates the

Table 1. Mass fragments used tomonitor caffeine, theobromine, theophylline, and ursolic acid in the ESI mode

Compound Mode Mass fragments

Caffeine Positive 195.0 > 109.9 Positive 195.0 > 137.9

Theobromine Positive 181.0 > 138.0 Positive 181.0 > 163.0

Theophylline Positive 181.0 > 123.9 Ursolic acid Positive 457.4 > 297.3

Positive 457.4 > 411.3 Positive 457.4 > 439.3 Negative 455.0

Table 2. Samples analyzed by HPLC-MS with contextual information and results

Beaker sample no. Site Context Phase Reference

Theobromine ppb*

Caffeine ppb*

Ursolic acid ppb*

2085 Cahokia Submound 51, feasting pit Lohmann A.D. 1050–1100 (31) 1.1 0.48 3 2086 Cahokia Mound 33, general

contexts Late Stirling–early Moorehead

A.D. 1150–1250 (32) 0.8 0 6

2087 Grossmann Feature 308, ritual deposit in pit

Stirling phase A.D. 1100–1200 (8) 0 T 2

2088 Curtiss Steinberg Road site

Feature 8, adult burial Late Stirling–early Moorehead A.D. 1150–1250

(34) T 1.1 4

2089 Curtiss Steinberg Road site

Feature 8, adult burial Late Stirling–early Moorehead A.D. 1150–1250

(34) T T 4

2090 Olszewski Feature 11, refuse pit Late Stirling phase A.D. 1150–1200

(35) T T N

2091 Cahokia Mound 11, general collection

Late Stirling phase A.D. 1150–1200

(33) 0 0 3

2092 Cahokia Feature 34, Dunham Tract Stirling phase A.D. 1100–1200 (30) 1 0.5 N

All samples are from collections of the Illinois State Archaeological Survey at the University of Illinois, Urbana–Champaign. *T, trace (theobromine in trace level (0.15–0.3 ppb); caffeine in trace level (0.1–0.2 ppb); N, insufficient sample available to analyze; 0, nothing detected. No samples had theophylline. LODs for theobromine, 0.1 ppb; for caffeine, 0.06 ppb; and for ursolic acid, 0.7 ppb.

Crown et al. PNAS | August 28, 2012 | vol. 109 | no. 35 | 13947

A N TH

RO PO

LO G Y

CH EM

IS TR

Y

http://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1208404109/-/DCSupplemental/pnas.201208404SI.pdf?targetid=nameddest=STXT
http://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1208404109/-/DCSupplemental/pnas.201208404SI.pdf?targetid=nameddest=SF1
http://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1208404109/-/DCSupplemental/pnas.201208404SI.pdf?targetid=nameddest=SF3
http://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1208404109/-/DCSupplemental/pnas.201208404SI.pdf?targetid=nameddest=SF4
http://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1208404109/-/DCSupplemental/pnas.201208404SI.pdf?targetid=nameddest=SF5
presence of Yaupon or Dahoon holly far north of their natural distributions, indicating their deliberate transportation. Third, it suggests that beakers may have been manufactured specifically to play a role in Black Drink ceremonies (38). Fourth, it reinforces other evidence for the existence of a fertility/life-renewal cult at Cahokia that included Black Drink ceremonies. Most importantly, it bolsters earlier suggestions that Cahokia played an important role in the subsequent religious developments in the Southeast. Given its close association with important religious and polit-

ical events in areas south of Cahokia, and given Cahokia’s documented ties to those areas, especially with the Caddoan groups, Black Drink would logically seem to have been an integral part of Cahokian ritual activities (38). Cahokia, however, is well outside the historically recorded natural distribution of I. vomi- toria or I. cassine (Fig. 2). Historical accounts place I. vomitoria in southwestern Arkansas and the southeastern corner of Oklahoma (south of the Arkansas River), in the southern one-half of Loui- siana, and the southern one-third of Mississippi, distance ranging from ∼500–650 km overland from Cahokia. I. cassine would be found at an even greater distance from Cahokia. Early accounts (14, 16, 36, 39) indicate that populations

without access to natural stands of holly acquired dried Yaupon leaves through trade or transplanted Yaupon holly bushes near to their habitations in settings where it could survive the local climate. Unfortunately, archaeological signatures of such activi- ties are difficult to identify. For example, University of Illinois archaeobotanical researchers have examined nearly 10,000 L of Mississippian period soil samples, searching for carbonized Ilex remains, to no avail. There is no ethnobotanical evidence for the presence of Yaupon or Dahoon holly in the American Bottom. It appears then that when Cahokians imbibed Black Drink, it

was an imported luxury. If Black Drink were as intimately in- terwoven into the spiritual and political life of Cahokians as it was among historic natives in the Southeast, they would have required large amounts of Ilex. Such an exchange network would have connected Cahokians to groups who had access to holly, such as their Caddoan neighbors in the Arkansas River valley or groups near the mouth of the Mississippi River. Scholars have postulated that Black Drink ritualism may have

been more widespread in precontact than in historic times based on its close association with marine shell cups and renewal and purification ceremonialism (39). Cahokians certainly possessed both shell cups and ceramic effigy shell cups, and some researchers have used this line of reasoning to argue for Black Drink at Cahokia (38). Others have suggested the centrally manufactured, highly iconic Ramey jars may have been used for the preparation and distribution of medicines, perhaps including Black Drink (40). The association of shell cups, Ramey jars, and possibly effigy shell cups with Black Drink consumption needs to be verified with residue analysis. The conclusive evidence for the use of beakers as part of Black

Drink ceremonialism raises the issue of whether this form is consistently evidence for Black Drink consumption. If so, then its appearance marks a significant elaboration in ritual Black Drink ceremonialism at Cahokia during the 11th to 13th centuries. In addition, the spread of this unique vessel form up the Illinois River

valley and into southern Wisconsin with suspected American Bottom missionaries, colonists, or emigrants indicates another close but previously unrecognized religious tie to the Cahokia homeland’s practices. It suggests that the beakers spread as part of a religious package including a suite of ritual accoutrements such as flint clay figures, Ramey Incised vessels, and accompanying icons and religious ceremonies. If their association with Black Drink is shown to be exclusive, then beakers add another dis- tinctive artifact to those already associated with Cahokian religion during the Stirling phase (A.D. 1100–1200) (1, 41). Fairbanks (36) has argued that Black Drink ceremonialism has

time depth in the Eastern Woodlands, perhaps even dating to late Archaic times, but most probably present in Hopewellian times. Future research should consider this argument. If it is shown to be correct, it is possible that Cahokian beakers repre- sent ritualized elaboration of earlier localized Black Drink con- sumption practices, practices that may have continued past the demise of the polity. Creation of a regional history of Black Drink consumption will require analysis of earlier and later ce- ramic wares. Our results represent unique proof that Black Drink ceremonialism has actual time depth—pushing its docu- mented use from historic accounts in the 1500s back four cen- turies to the 11th century in the northern midcontinent. In the areas where I. vomitoria, and perhaps I. cassine, is native, its use may have very deep roots. Whether the historic meaning and ceremonialism have a similar time depth is unknown. We rec- ognize that Cahokia was the primate center in the Eastern Woodlands, and that its ritualism, religion, and political and social milieu had a deep impact on surrounding groups. Al- though Cahokia residents are not likely to have invented Black Drink, they may well have shaped its role in native religious ceremonialism and served as a catalyst for its spread across the Eastern Woodlands. Before this study, arguing for Black Drink purification cere-

monialism in the American Bottom depended on proxy evi- dence. Such assertions were made based on the recognition of agricultural ceremonies involving fertility/life-renewal rituals at Cahokia (38). The demonstrated presence of Ilex in Cahokian beakers beginning around A.D. 1050 and continuing to around A.D. 1250, both in central Cahokia, and in outlying sites estab- lishes that Black Drink consumption was intimately associated with the polity and that its use was pervasive across a number of political, social, and religious contexts.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. We acknowledge the Illinois State Archaeological Survey for their contributions to this project. Josh Henkin provided samples of Ilex species for our analysis. T.E.E. and T.R.P. selected the samples from the collections of the Illinois State Archaeological Survey at the University of Illinois, Urbana–Champaign. Ellen Sieg aided P.L.C. in preparing the archae- ological samples. T.W. and J.G. analyzed the samples at the Millsaps College Keck Center for Instrumental and Biochemical Comparative Archaeology with help from undergraduates Erin Redman, Syed Ali, and Marlaina Berch. Linda Alexander photographed the beakers in Fig. 1 and Ron Stauber drafted Fig. 2. We thank Bruce Smith and two anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on an earlier draft of this paper. This research was con- ducted with funding from National Science Foundation Grant BCS-1012438 (to P.L.C. and W.J.H.) and the WM Keck Foundation (to Millsaps College).

1. Emerson TE (1997) Cahokia and the Archaeology of Power (Univ of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa).

2. Milner GR (1998) The Cahokia Chiefdom: The Archaeology of a Mississippian Society (Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC).

3. Pauketat TR (1994) The Ascent of Chiefs: Cahokia and Mississippian Politics in Native North America (Univ of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa).

4. Pauketat TR (2004) Ancient Cahokia and the Mississippians (Cambridge Univ Press, Cambridge).

5. Pauketat TR, Lopinot NH (1997) Cahokian Population Dynamics. Cahokia: Domi- nation and Ideology in the Mississippian World, eds Pauketat TR, Emerson TE (Univ of Nebraska Press, Lincoln), pp 103–123.

6. Emerson TE (2002) An introduction to Cahokia 2002: Diversity, complexity, and his- tory. Midcontinentl J Archaeol 27:127–148.

7. Alt SM, Kruchten JD, Pauketat TR (2010) The construction and use of Cahokia’s Grand

Plaza. J Field Archaeol 35:131–146. 8. Alt SM (2002) Identities, traditions, and diversity in Cahokia uplands.Midcontinental J

Archaeol 27:217–236. 9. Emerson TE, Hughes RE (2000) Figurines, flint clay sourcing, the Ozark highlands, and

Cahokian acquisition. Am Antiq 65:79–101. 10. Emerson TE, Hughes RE, Hynes MR, Wisseman SU (2003) The sourcing and in-

terpretation of Cahokia-style figurines in the trans-Mississippi South and Southeast.

Am Antiq 68:287–313. 11. Pauketat TR, Emerson TE (1997) Conclusion: Cahokia and the Four Winds. Cahokia:

Domination and Ideology in the Mississippian World, eds Pauketat TR, Emerson TE

(Univ of Nebraska Press, Lincoln), pp 269–278.

13948 | www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1208404109 Crown et al.

www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1208404109
12. Merrill W (1979) The Beloved Tree: Ilex vomitoria among the Indians of the Southeast and Adjacent Regions. Black Drink: A Native American Tea, ed Hudson CM (Univ of Georgia Press, Athens), pp 40–82.

13. Edwards AL, Bennett BC (2005) Diversity of methylxanthine content in Ilex cassine L. and Ilex vomitoria Ait.: Assessing sources of the North American stimulant cassina. Econ Bot 59:275–285.

14. Hammett J (1992) The shapes of adaptation: Historical ecology of anthropogenic landscapes in the southwestern United States. Landscape Ecol 7:121–135.

15. Smith BD (2011) General patterns of niche construction and the management of ‘wild’ plant and animal resources by small-scale pre-industrial societies. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 366:836–848.

16. Hudson CM (1979) Introduction. Black Drink: A Native American Tea, ed Hudson CM (Univ of Georgia Press, Athens), pp 1–9.

17. Crown PL, Hurst WJ (2009) Evidence of cacao use in the prehispanic American Southwest. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106:2110–2113.

18. Washburn DK, Washburn WN, Shipkova PA (2011) The prehistoric drug trade: Widespread consumption of cacao in ancestral Pueblo and Hohokam Communities in the American Southwest. J Archaeol Sci 38:1634–1640.

19. Reber EA, Kerr MT (2012) The persistence of caffeine in experimentally produced Black Drink residues. J Archaeol Sci 39:2312–2319.

20. Coelho GC, et al. (2007) Effect of light intensity on methylxanthine contents of Ilex paraguariensis A. St. Hil. Biochem Syst Ecol 35:75–80.

21. Levin DA (1976) Alkaloid-bearing plants: An eco-geographic perspective. Am Nat 110: 261–284.

22. McNeil CL (2006) in Chocolate in Mesoamerica, a Cultural History of Cacao, ed McNeil CL (Univ Press of Florida, Gainesville), pp 1–30.

23. Reginatto FH, Athayde ML, Gosmann G, Schenkel EP (1999) Methylxanthines Accu- mulation in Ilex species—Caffeine and Theobromine in Erva-Mate (Ilex para- guariensis) and other Ilex Species. J Braz Chem Soc 10:443–446.

24. Weinberg BA, Bealer BK (2001) The World of Caffeine (Routledge, New York). 25. Liu J (1993) Pharmacology of oleanoic and ursolic acid. J Ethnopharmacol 49:57–68. 26. Fortier AC, Emerson TE, McElrath DL (2006) Calibrating and Reassessing American

Bottom Culture History. Southeastern Archaeology 25:170–211. 27. Kelly JE, et al. (1984) Emergent Mississippian Period. American Bottom Archaeology,

eds Bareis CJ, Porter JW (Univ of Illinois Press, Urbana), pp 128–157.

28. Holley GR (1989) The Archaeology of the Cahokia Mounds ICT-II: Ceramics. Illinois Cultural Resources Study No. 11 (Illinois Historic Preservation Agency, Springfield).

29. Milner GR, Emerson TE, Mehrer MW, Williams J, Esarey D (1984) Mississippian and Oneota Period. American Bottom Archaeology, eds Bareis CJ, Porter JW (Univ of Il- linois Press, Urbana), pp 158–186.

30. Pauketat TR (1998) The Archaeology of Downtown Cahokia: The Tract 15A and Dunham Tract Excavations. Illinois Transportation Archaeological Research Program, Studies in Archaeology Number 1 (Univ of Illinois, Urbana).

31. Pauketat TR, et al. (2002) The residues of feasting and public ritual at early Cahokia. Am Antiq 67:257–279.

32. Moorehead WK (1929) The Cahokia Mounds. Univ of Illinois Bulletin, Vol. XXVI, No. 4, Urbana.

33. Pauketat TR (1993) Temples for Cahokia Lords: Preston Holder’s 1955-1956 Ex- cavations of Kunnemann Mound. Memoirs of the University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology, Number 26 (Univ of Michigan, Ann Arbor).

34. Koldehoff B (2001) Archaeological Investigations within the Goose Lake Meander: Phase II Testing at Eleven Sites in the Sauget Industrial Park, St. Clair County, Illinois. Illinois Transportation Archaeological Research Report No. 80 (Univ of Illinois, Ur- bana).

35. Pauketat TR, Koldehoff B (1988) Salvage data recovery at the Olszewski site: A small Mississippian community in the American Bottom. Rediscovery 4:32–50.

36. Fairbanks CH (1979) The Function of Black Drink among the Creeks. Black Drink: A Native American Tea, ed Hudson C (Univ of Georgia Press, Athens), pp 120–149.

37. Hudson CM (1976) The Southeastern Indians (The Univ of Tennessee Press, Knoxville). 38. Emerson TE (1989) in The Southeastern Ceremonial Complex: Artifacts and Analysis,

ed Galloway P (Univ. of Nebraska Press, Lincoln), pp 45–92. 39. Milanich JT (1979) Origins and Prehistoric Distribution of Black Drink and the Cere-

monial Shell Drinking Cup. Black Drink: A Native American Tea, ed Hudson CM (Univ of Georgia Press, Athens), pp 83–119.

40. Pauketat TR, Emerson TE (1991) The ideology of authority and the power of the pot. Am Anthropol 93:919–941.

41. Emerson TE (1997) Cahokia Elite Ideology and the Mississippian Cosmos. Cahokia: Domination and Ideology in the Mississippian World, eds Pauketat TR, Emerson TE (Univ of Nebraska Press, Lincoln), pp 190–228.

Crown et al. PNAS | August 28, 2012 | vol. 109 | no. 35 | 13949

A N TH

RO PO

LO G Y

CH EM

IS TR

Y

Week 3 - Mississippian and Cahokia/Emerson 2002 - Introduction to Cahokia.pdf
AltaMira Press

AN INTRODUCTION TO CAHOKIA 2002: DIVERSITY, COMPLEXITY, AND HISTORY Author(s): Thomas E. Emerson Reviewed work(s): Source: Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology, Vol. 27, No. 2, Cahokia 2002: Diversity, Complexity, and History (Fall, 2002), pp. 127-148 Published by: AltaMira Press on behalf of the Midwest Archaeological Conference, Inc. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20708175 . Accessed: 18/03/2013 13:53

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 of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

Midwest Archaeological Conference, Inc. and AltaMira Press are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded on Mon, 18 Mar 2013 13:53:25 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=altamira
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mac
http://www.jstor.org/stable/20708175?origin=JSTOR-pdf
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
AN INTRODUCTION TO CAHOKIA 2002: DIVERSITY, COMPLEXITY, AND HISTORY

Thomas E. Emerson

ABSTRACT

Cahokia research has advanced rapidly in the last two decades. Our understanding of Cahokia has been promoted by the acquisition of new data sets and fresh theoretical paradigms. These advances have allowed Cahokia researchers to reexamine the scale of the Cahokian polity, the timing of its emergence and collapse, and the nature of its eco nomic and ideological parameters. This r??valuation indicates that Cahokia was a unique pristine center and that understanding its historical trajectory is an important facet of comprehending the development of contemporaneous and subsequent societies of the Eastern Woodlands.

There is little question that Cahokia was the most complex political and social

polity in the late precolumbian Eastern Woodlands. The implications of this com

plexity for regional societies, however, have been difficult to ascertain (see dis cussions of these issues in Emerson 1991, 1999; Emerson and Hughes 2000; Pauketat 1998a; also articles in Emerson and Lewis 1991 and Stoltman 1991). For those concerned with Cahokia and its role in regional cultural evolution, the

availability of detailed archaeological data has been limited. Early scholars such as Griffin (e.g., 1960) had little beyond ceramic chronologies with which to as sess the impact of Cahokian Mississippian throughout the Midwest. Further

more, they struggled with the ongoing problem of whether the similarities they observed were due to the historical relatedness of those groups or, rather, to like

responses to similar stimuli (that is, to homology or analogy; Lyman et al. 1997; Smith 1990). The absence of adequate contextually based archaeology at Cahokia and contemporaneous regional sites led archaeologists to depend on broad dis tributional studies subsumed under the rubrics of trade, diffusion, migration, or,

more recently, prestige economy to interpret site relationships. Although these studies documented the spatial distribution of Cahokia-like materials or local imitations in part of the midcontinent, they provided little understanding of the

social, political, ideological, or even economic forces that generated this distri

bution, nor, more importantly, their effects on indigenous societies. Given this situation it is little wonder that regional perspectives of what we might label the "Cahokia effect" have produced contrasting interpretations. Scenarios developed on the Cahokian peripheries often characterize Cahokia as a powerful force, a

Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology, Vol. 27, No. 2

? 2002 by The University of Iowa

This content downloaded on Mon, 18 Mar 2013 13:53:25 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
128 Thomas E. Emerson

deus ex machina of northern cultural transformation. At the same time, other scenarios of midwestern precolumbian history steadfastly downplay Cahokia's role in regional social, religious, or political transformations.

Both sets of interpretations reduce Cahokia to a monolithic entity with little attention to its internal history, complexity, or diversity. Such an approach may have been unavoidable two or three decades ago, but regional archaeologists have access today to a large and rapidly growing corpus of evidence related to Cahokia. Beginning at the end of the 1970s with the FAI-270 Archaeological Mitigation Project, large-scale excavations and, more importantly, timely pub lished reports have been forthcoming on American Bottom Mississippian ar

chaeology. In the last decade alone we have seen major publications on Cahokia's ICT-II and 15A residential tracts and on the Mound 72 elite mortuary. During this period two comprehensive summary articles (Milner 1990; Pauketat 1998a), nine monographs (Emerson 1997a; Fowler 1997; Fowler et al. 1999; Mehrer

1995; Milner 1998; Pauketat 1993,1994,1998b; Young and Fowler 2000), and four edited volumes (Emerson and Lewis 1991; Fowler 1996; Pauketat and Emerson 1997a; Stoltman 1991) have focused on the Cahokian polity or its re

gional interactions. The American Bottom Cahokian populations of the eleventh to fourteenth centuries are now some of the most thoroughly chronicled

precolumbian peoples of the Eastern Woodlands. We have extensive information on their settlements, technologies, monumental constructions, subsistence, and

mortuary activities and are making significant strides in interpreting their social,

political, and symbolic practices. In fact, the very pace and volume of archaeo

logical research on Cahokia makes it difficult even for specialists to keep abreast of new developments. Thus we come to the reason for this issue.

The 2001 Midwest Archaeological Conference symposium that generated this issue originated as a result of my attendance at numerous conference papers that

explored the impact of Cahokia on various prehistoric midwestern and Plains societies. In doing so, I realized that many regional researchers were unaware of recent advances in Cahokian archaeology. I thought that this information gap

might be partially remedied by bringing some of the people who are actively engaged in this research together in a forum such as the Midwest Archaeological Conference. The articles in this issue represent a potpourri of topics ranging from Late Woodland social interaction to Mississippian feasting and resettle ment within a seven-century period beginning about A.D. 600. In one way or another they all reflect on issues of scale and diversity, emergence and collapse, and spatial and ideological structure. I would like to touch on a few of these issues in the remainder of this introduction.

The Matter of Scale

During the past few decades, the matter of scale has been of considerable ar

chaeological concern. We have come to realize that in interpreting social collec

tivities, scale is not a simple linear progression from small to large. Rather, it is a threshold phenomenon that may have dramatic transformational potential. The

This content downloaded on Mon, 18 Mar 2013 13:53:25 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
Introduction to Cahokia 2002 129

Figure 1. Artistic reconstruction of Cahokia (used with the permission of the Cahokia Mounds State Historic Site; painting by William Iseminger).

crossing of such population and organizational thresholds literally creates a "new

society" politically, symbolically, and structurally. In the matter of scale, the Cahokian polity was unique among its contemporaries. This scalar dimension is

significant and cannot be measured by such size comparisons as noting Cahokia is five times the size of Moundville. Such comparisons are descriptive, not ex

planatory. The confusion on the issue of scale at Cahokia is typified by the common

perception that Cahokia is simply a Mississippian town writ large. This perspec tive is encouraged by most early artistic reconstructions of Cahokia?it is por trayed as a typical fortified Mississippian town (Figure 1). But this portrayal disguises rather than amplifies our understanding of Cahokia; it strips Cahokia of its context. Cahokia is more a regional system than a settlement. If we inter

pret Cahokia as simply "a big village," we distort its significance. The degree of distortion this causes is magnified when we observe that Cahokia, which itself contains over 100 mounds (including Monks Mound, the largest in North America) and 1.8 km2 of inhabited land, is in fact contiguous with the large East St. Louis

Mound Group of ca. 45 mounds and habitation areas, which in turn is located

immediately across the Mississippi River from the St. Louis Mound Group of 26 mounds (Figure 2). To put this in a broader perspective, let us do some ranking by size (following Payne 1994:Table 3-1). Most of us realize that Cahokia is the

largest Mississippian site in the Eastern Woodlands. Fewer are aware, however, that the adjacent East St. Louis group is the second largest and that the St. Louis

group is the fourth largest. To have three of the four largest mound centers in the

This content downloaded on Mon, 18 Mar 2013 13:53:25 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
130 Thomas E. Emerson

55 G

^ ? 3 Ol)

fa -g o -

This content downloaded on Mon, 18 Mar 2013 13:53:25 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
Introduction to Cahokia 2002 131

Eastern Woodlands located within a 13-km-long corridor of the American Bot tom is notable at least. This essentially unbroken continuum of mound, plaza, and habitation zones

has been referred to as the Cahokian "Central Political-Administrative Com

plex" (Pauketat 1994). It forms a corridor that encloses roughly 14.5 km2, aver

ages a little over 1 km wide, and contains nearly 200 Mississippian platform and burial mounds. The density of these monumental constructions is reflected in the

presence of one mound every 19 acres concentrated within an area representing

only 3 percent of the northern American Bottom. Additionally, outside of the

complex, but within 25 km of Monks Mound, are 14 other mounded Mississip pian centers in the floodplain and the uplands, half of which have multiple mounds

(Figure 3; Table 1). The majority of this monumental construction of platform and mortuary mounds, woodhenges, and plazas, borrow pit excavation and rec

lamation, and occupation of hundreds of hectares of habitation zones, where well documented, occurred during the eleventh and thirteenth centuries. In spa tial extent and monumental construction Cahokia is equal to other early centers

Figure 3. Map of Mississippian mound centers in the American Bottom and adja cent uplands. Small dots

= single-mound centers; medium dots

= multiple-mound

centers; large dot = Cahokia.

This content downloaded on Mon, 18 Mar 2013 13:53:25 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
132 Thomas E. Emerson

Table 1. American Bottom Mississippian Mound Centers in Cahokia Locality.

Site Name IAS Site Number No. of Mounds*

Distance from Monks Md (km)f

Floodplain Cahokia

Mitchell

Pulcher

East St. Louis

St. Louis

Hoeffken

Horseshoe Lake

McDonough Lake

McAdams

Bishop Morrison

Rolle/Olszewski

Lohmann

Uplands Pfeffer

Emerald

Copper Kuhn Station

MS29 MS30 S40 S706

MS179 MS37 MS46 MS1530 MS38 MS 1548 S72 S49

S204 SI S3 MS29

Possible Cahokia/East St. Louis (ESTL) Outliers

Powell Group MS2 Mound 1-2 MS2

Wilson Mound S34

Fairmount City S 82

McCarty S706

120+ 10+

7+

45+

26

1

1

K?) 1 1 1 2 1

2 5+ 4 1

6 2 1 4+ 1+

NA 11.0

23.2

7.6

10.9

10.5

5.1

5.9

2.1

3.0

3.5

3.8

8.6

21.7

24.2

18.7

22.5

2.5 2.0

2.8

4.5

6.5

Note: Mound numbers and site identification should be taken as a first approximation. Survey and

reporting data for these mounds are so erratic that they can be considered only moderately reliable.

* Number of mounds in multiple-mound centers are estimates based on the best available informa

tion.

f Distances are straightline measurements from Cahokia's Monks Mound to the presumed center of

the outlying site.

(?) May be a Middle Woodland mound.

around the world. Given the varying spatial and chronological parameters of Cahokia within its

overall historical trajectory, the matter of analytical scale becomes critical in any discussion of this society's local and regional influence (e.g., Marquardt 1985;

Marquardt and Crumley 1987). At the lowest level there is the central precinct of Cahokia that, when palisaded at A.D. 1150 or so, enclosed an area of about 83 ha with about 18 mounds, including Monks Mound. Adjacent to this "downtown

Cahokia," Fowler (1997:193-200) recognized the possibility of at least 11 sub urban mound clusters. Encompassing the downtown and suburbs is the Cahokia that forms a roughly 1,400-ha diamond-shaped area of fairly continuous habita tion zones and over 100 mounds (Fowler 1974). But are its limits really an im

This content downloaded on Mon, 18 Mar 2013 13:53:25 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
Introduction to Cahokia 2002 133

permeable Cahokian boundary? On its western border the habitation zones of this diamond-shaped Cahokia join with the eastern edges of the greater East St. Louis site. The recorded mounds of these two contemporaneous sites come within

1,200 m of one another. Immediately across the Mississippi River from the East St. Louis center loomed the large St. Louis mounds. In early historic times it

appears that there may have been a crossing point on the Mississippi between these two centers. It is the proximity and contemporaneity of these three ar

chaeological sites that encouraged Pauketat (1994) to speak of yet another Cahokia?the earlier-mentioned Cahokian Central Administrative-Political Com

plex. What are the edges of this continuous precolumbian urban sprawl? Fowler

(1974,1978) has contended that Cahokia should be seen within the context of a

local network of associated secondary mound centers such as Pulcher to the south and Mitchell to the north. What about the additional dozen or so mound centers that lie within that 25-km radius of downtown Cahokia, all within a one-day walk (see Hally 1993) of three of the largest mound centers in the Eastern Wood lands? It seems that the relationship to Cahokia must have been intimate and,

perhaps, occasionally uncomfortable. So perhaps the concept of precolumbian Cahokia can easily be expanded to cover portions of three Illinois counties (Madi son, Monroe, and St. Clair) and at least one or two Missouri counties (St. Louis and Jefferson). For the majority of researchers this is the greatest acceptable extent of what we might consider direct Cahokian control.

But we can further visualize Cahokia and its relationships beyond this Ameri can Bottom core. Pauketat and Emerson (1997b) speak of Inner (<150 km) and Outer (>150 km) Spheres of Greater Cahokia as zones for the acquisition of

staples and exotics. Authors too numerous to mention include the Upper Missis

sippi River valley within a Cahokian network of trade and interaction, the most

spatially inclusive of these models being Kelly's (1991) gateway and Peregrine's (1991,1992) world systems models. The most expansive of the regional politi cal models is O'Brien's (1991, 1994) Ramey State. She sees an integrated Cahokian political and economic sphere of 52,000 km2 centered on the Ameri can Bottom. Few have ventured beyond this localized vision, but Alice Kehoe

(1998:150-171), provocative as usual, asks us to look at Cahokia in the context of the rise of the Toltec state in Mexico, not as some Toltec colony but as a

possible result of increasing interaction, trade, and personal contacts between the Toltec core and a polity on its northern periphery.

These approaches display an impressive range of variation, from a slightly larger-than-normal Mississippian fortified village to a center with midcontinental connections reaching into Mexico. Those who downplay the significance of Cahokia as a regional force tend to encapsulate the site within its inner fortifica tion wall, confining it to the modern state historic site boundaries. Such a per spective disconnects it from its precolumbian social, political, and ideological context. At the other end of the spectrum are those who subsume Cahokia and the other American Bottom Mississippian centers into a broad, well-integrated regional political and economic polity. The multiscalar nature of Cahokia and

This content downloaded on Mon, 18 Mar 2013 13:53:25 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
134 Thomas E. Emerson

the striking variation in its political and economic domain through time make such multiplicity of views common. Many continue to conflate hierarchical lev els of control with levels of scale (see discussion in Crumley 1979). In such

deliberations, variation of scale is considered a reflection of chains of power, so the larger sites control the smaller and so forth. But these are relationships that need to be demonstrated, not assumed. Only by careful and extensive work at the various sites within the Greater Cahokian sphere can we hope to ever approach the problem of Cahokian interrelationships with something better than our present presumptions. Even more essential is the clarification of scale of comparison in our current discussions to ensure that we are not simply talking past one another.

Cahokian Emergence

The story of Cahokian emergence is also being rethought. In the 1980s when we were building a new American Bottom cultural sequence (see Bareis and Porter

1984) to incorporate the massive amount of information provided by the FAI 270 excavations, we were supremely confident that this sequence could be best understood within an evolutionary framework. If the evolutionary scenario was a little ragged, a little discordant in places, a little too directed, we were sure it would all sort itself out if we just collected a little more data. Now, however, after another two decades of fairly intensive excavations and analyses in the

region we find the very directed linear evolutionary sequence less satisfactory than it was in 1984. Nowhere is this more obvious than in the Late Woodland-Emergent Missis

sippian sequence. As a result of the 1997 Urbana Late Woodland Conference

(Emerson, McElrath, and Fortier 2000) we found ourselves having to reassess

seriously the validity and utility of that taxonomic conundrum?the Emergent Mississippian. Some aspects of this issue are addressed by Fortier and McElrath's article in this issue. But in brief it seems difficult to justify the artificial segmen tation of what is essentially a Late Woodland lifeway (cal A.D. 650-1050) into

sequential Late Woodland and Emergent Mississippian stages or periods (see McElrath et al. 2000). Our reading of the rapidly accumulating evidence, based in large part on the numerous Late Woodland sites excavated by the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (UIUC) in the last decade, indicates that inter

jecting a Late Woodland-Emergent Mississippian break at A.D. 800/900 is un

necessary and misleading. The Emergent Mississippian stage also suffers from a number of definitional

problems, ones that Fortier and McElrath (this issue) treat in some detail. There are questions as to the reality of the generally accepted gradualistic evolutionary progression in community nucleation, population size, increasing use of maize, and material culture changes recounted in the 1984 summary (Kelly et al. 1984). In addition, our increased control of American Bottom chronology indicates a

decreased time span available for this linear evolutionary transition to take place. It now appears that the time slot available for the Emergent Mississippian to

"emerge" has been condensed from about 250 years to less than 150 years (Fortier

This content downloaded on Mon, 18 Mar 2013 13:53:25 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
introduction to Cahokia 2002 135

and Jackson 2000). Previous scholars have justly and accurately criticized the concept of the Emer

gent Mississippian as essentially teleological in nature (e.g., Brown 1991 ; Muller

1997). We concur in that assessment. In fact, an unintended conceptual product of creating an Emergent Mississippian period is an attitude of inevitableness about Cahokia's emergence. Prefaced by an Emergent Mississippian period, Cahokia's appearance needs no further explanation. The archaeological evidence

suggests otherwise. It indicates that the appearance of Cahokia Mississippian was a social and political revolution, a rapid dramatic break on many fronts with earlier practices during what Fortier and McElrath (this issue) now call the Ter minal Late Woodland.

We believe that the picture of a gradualist, apparently inexorable evolutionary progression of Cahokian Mississippian emergence does not articulate well with the archaeological evidence. Pauketat (1994, 1998a) portrays the A.D. 1050 Lohmann phase political consolidation at Cahokia as a "Big Bang"

?

archaeologically, a virtually instantaneous and pervasive shift in all things politi cal, social, and ideological. This event was marked by the construction of mul

tiple large monuments, dramatic shifts in material culture, the structural reorga nization of social relations, ideology, and political leadership, and significant changes in population densities. Resident populations in Cahokia at this time are

thought to have multiplied at least 500 percent within a generation from a pre Mississippian population of some 1,000-3,000 people to a Lohmann phase Mis

sissippian population of 10,000-15,000 people. One recognizable aspect of this transformation was the movement of what must previously have been spatially, and, perhaps, politically, socially, or even ethnically discrete populations into central Cahokia.

One remarkable event that accompanied the early Lohmann phase coalescence was a demonstrable change in settlement distribution. This Lohmann nucleation involved the relative depopulation of some rural areas around Cahokia and re lated lesser centers as well as the first appearance of large and diverse upland settlements. These observations are based on the evidence provided by numer ous surface surveys and by excavated samples that show the abandonment of or marked decrease in rural occupations between the Terminal Late Woodland and

early Mississippian periods. These trends indicate movement of rural inhabit ants to the nucleated centers and reorganization of the Lohmann phase rural po litical environment. In the floodplain this new rural pattern saw the appear ance of dispersed farmsteads and small nodal centers replacing Terminal Late

Woodland villages whose inhabitants had previously numbered in the several hundreds (Emerson 1997a).

Recent surveys and excavations by the UIUC, reported here by Alt and Pauketat, indicate that the uplands, which had been virtually vacant during the Emergent

Mississippian period, suddenly bloomed with Lohmann phase villages and even mound centers. Pauketat (1998a) has identified the sites representing this Cahokia driven reorganization and possible relocation of upland populations as the "Richland complex" (see Alt, this issue). These populations retained characteris

This content downloaded on Mon, 18 Mar 2013 13:53:25 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
136 Thomas E. Emerson

tics, even during the Lohmann phase, that indicate their resistance to becoming fully integrated within the Cahokia pattern, including earlier forms of architec tural and organizational behavior. Such rural subcommunities may have existed

throughout Cahokia's history and may have been important factors in the subse

quent trajectory of its development. With the rapid accumulation of evidence of large, densely packed villages in

the uplands, our perspective of Cahokia's political and organizational complex ity continues to broaden. An empty American Bottom uplands occupied early by only scattered households and later by a few simple polities created as a result of the Cahokian disintegration is rapidly disappearing from our interpretive reper toire (e.g., Woods and Holley 1991). No longer is it possible to define Cahokian

Mississippian as simply a specific social and cultural adaptation to "linear, envi

ronmentally circumscribed floodplain habitat zones" (Muller and Stephens 1991 ; Smith 1978:486). The new information requires serious reconsideration of our

previous models of Cahokian subsistence and organization. At Cahokia proper, the pre-Mississippian courtyard groups?houses around a

small open space?disappeared during the early Lohmann phase, perhaps lead

ing to an alteration of preexisting kin-based traditions. Foreign individuals, small

groups, or perhaps even whole populations may have been drawn into the Cahokian sphere from extralocal locations during these times (see Pauketat 1998a, 2000). Such a breaking up and reconstitution of various populations probably created numerous subcommunities within the larger Cahokian community of the sort that Fowler (1997) identified in the Cahokian suburbs. Some of this diver

sity may be recognizable in the heterogeneity now becoming apparent in the

mortuary practices, diets, and health of American Bottom populations explored by Hedman et al. (this issue; also Emerson, Hargrave, and Hedman 2003; Hargrave and Hedman 2002). We know that the "boundaries" of early polities were not stable or firmly fixed but, rather, were characterized by permeability. Therefore, our interpretations of the Cahokian emergence must account for the very real

possibility that this early polity contained a diverse population.

Cahokian Collapse

The early centripetal immigration was followed by the Stirling phase, a period marked by an American Bottom Cahokian hegemony, which was in turn fol lowed by a centrifugal process of emigration. Beginning in the twelfth century, Cahokian influences, artifacts, and, probably, populations began a process of out-movement that climaxed in the early fourteenth century with the abandon ment of Cahokia (Emerson 1991). Within the unstable context of demographic realignments, shifting political and cultural hegemonies, and new patterns of domination and resistance, this thirteenth-fourteenth-century process of politi cal and demographic reorganization may have led to the reemergence of ethnic identifications previously subdued at the height of Cahokian consolidation. The best evidence for the existence of such ethnic communities has come from the

reanalysis of the late-thirteenth-century Kane Mound cemetery (Emerson and

This content downloaded on Mon, 18 Mar 2013 13:53:25 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
introduction to Cahokia 2002 137

Hargrave 2000). The burial program there showed a remarkable number of simi larities to that of northern Mississippian peoples along the Illinois River valley and little similarity to contemporary American Bottom mortuary practices. The

presence of possible ethnic enclaves also may be suggested by the evidence Hedman and her colleagues (this issue) have found of dramatically different di ets among contemporary American Bottom late Mississippian populations.

Another Cahokia truism has recently been challenged. In 19911 stated confi

dently that Cahokia did not go out with a bang but a fizzle. Today I would be much more hesitant regarding that statement. Whereas our understanding of the Cahokian coalescence has increased dramatically, the same cannot be said for our understanding of Cahokia's end. As Lopinot and Woods (1993:206, 209) comment, there are many theories of the Cahokian collapse, few of which have been systematically assessed, and all of which represent ideas that have been

perpetuated primarily by word of mouth. Essentially these explanations fall into two distinct categories, one relying on environmental factors, the other on eco nomic causes. In 19941 initiated the Cahokia Collapse Project to reevaluate the evidence and the timing of the decline of Cahokia. It has produced some very

interesting results. Our first area of investigation was the people themselves?their mortuary pat

terns, diet, and health. We reanalyzed a series of classic Sand Prairie phase stone box grave cemeteries presumed to date to the period between the late-thirteenth and mid-fourteenth centuries (Emerson and Hargrave 2000; Emerson et al. 1996). These populations should represent individuals who were actually experiencing the Cahokian decline. If factors such as environmental degradation or change, subsistence failure, disease, or increasing warfare were having detrimental ef fects on the residents, they should be reflected in the skeletal remains.

Of primary importance to this effort were accurate radiocarbon dates for the

mortuary sites in question (Emerson and Hargrave 2000:Table 1). The temporal affiliation of these sites had been based on the typology of stone-box graves that were presumed to date to the post-A.D. 1300 era. Our dating project revealed a different picture. Eight calibrated radiocarbon dates on bone from the East St. Louis mortuary clustered tightly between cal A.D. 1253 and cal A.D. 1295. A

single calibrated date from the Florence Street cemetery dates to cal A.D. 1288. In addition, new radiocarbon dates between cal A.D. 1263 to 1275 and cal A.D. 1261 to 1281 from "ossuaries" in Corbin Mounds and Hill Prairie Mounds over

lapped with those of the stone-box grave cemeteries. These ossuary sites consist of mounds that include intrusive mass graves of primarily disarticulated indi viduals. In the calibrated chronology for Cahokia, the Moorehead phase dates between A.D. 1200 and A.D. 1275 and the Sand Prairie phase from A.D. 1275 to A.D. 1350. These cemeteries seem to cluster around the Moorehead-Sand Prai rie transition of A.D. 1275. These new dates support the few earlier nonbone dates run on material from these cemeteries, which all predated the Sand Prairie

phase. In fact, the redating of these cemeteries to the earlier late Moorehead

phase leaves us with no evidence of subsequent Sand Prairie mortuary practices. This dating exercise has also indicated that it may be appropriate to adjust the

This content downloaded on Mon, 18 Mar 2013 13:53:25 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
138 Thomas E. Emerson

end of the calibrated Moorehead phase from its present A.D. 1275 to A.D. 1300. This shift would fully encompass the securely dated cemeteries, which provide no actual evidence of any Sand Prairie phase affiliation.

If Cahokia's decline was caused by environmental degradation, such stresses should be reflected in other aspects of the archaeological record such as subsis tence and diet (e.g., Lopinot and Woods 1993). Consequently, we reexamined the ethnobotanical record for the late Mississippian phases. Comprehensive studies of Mississippian-period subsistence have demonstrated the intensification of both

starchy seed and maize cultivation during the emergence of the Cahokian polity. The picture is less clear during its decline, but most researchers have assumed that maize became somewhat less important during the Sand Prairie and

Moorehead phases, whereas starchy seed use continued. This trend has been tied

by some researchers to the existence of an unstable subsistence base and de

creasing health (Rindos and Johannessen 1991). An intensive restudy of these collections by Mary Simon (pers. comm. 1999), however, indicated no drastic

change in subsistence during the Moorehead and Sand Prairie phases. Rather, the pattern shifted to one that was perhaps looser, or less intensely focused on

agriculture, with a concomitant increasing reliance on nut crops and perhaps wild foods in general. Corn remained a significant part of the diet, but we do not see the intensive corn cultivation strategy that appears to have characterized later

precolumbian groups elsewhere in the Midwest. Another body of evidence for late Cahokian diet is provided by direct analysis

of human skeletal material. The contribution of maize to the diets of Mississip pian populations has been the focus of considerable research using carbon and

nitrogen isotopes from bone collagen. These results provide insight into fluctua tions in the importance of various dietary resources during the collapse of Cahokia. Carbon isotope ratios can be used to determine the amounts of tropical grains such as maize in human diets. In contrast, bone apatite carbonate accurately re flects the isotopie composition of the whole diet, even when protein and nonpro tein components are very different. Hence, both apatite and collagen carbon iso

tope ratios can be used to reconstruct both the protein and nonprotein compo nents of the diet. Our isotopie studies of late Mississippian peoples, reported in this issue by Hedman et al., support the argument for significant maize depen dence by these individuals (also see Emerson et al. 1996). An unexpected result of this work was the revelation of a significant amount of variation in maize and

protein consumption between various American Bottom Moorehead groups (Hedman et al., this issue). At this point we feel that we have made significant progress through the Cahokia

Collapse Project in understanding the nature of the decline of political and social

complexity at Cahokia. There seems to be little evidence of nutritional stress in the Moorehead phase. This seems contrary to our expectations if Cahokia was

being affected by severe environmental degradation and the declining reliability of maize. Instead, both the ethnobotanical and the stable isotope data have shown that significant maize consumption continued throughout this period. The post

A.D. 1300 Mississippian Sand Prairie occupation of the American Bottom was

This content downloaded on Mon, 18 Mar 2013 13:53:25 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
Introduction to Cahokia 2002 139

very sparse, which may indicate the end of any centralized power in the area.

Reexamining the available data, the precipitous and abrupt decline of the Cahokian

polity at about A.D. 1300 seems most likely due to political and social collapse. We now know that Cahokia started with a "bang"?we suspect it may have ended

the same way.

Raw Materials and Exchange

We have also gained new insights into Cahokia's inner workings through a re cent series of archaeometric studies of the sources of raw materials (Emerson and Hughes 2000, 2001; Emerson, Hughes, et al. 2003; Emerson et al., this is

sue). In his study of the archaeological remains of Tract 15A, Pauketat (1994, 1998a; Pauketat and Emerson 1997b) reviewed the sources of many of the non

perishable raw materials (especially those considered somewhat exotic) and found that relatively few came from farther than 150 km distant. This pattern is in line with Walthall's (1981) classic study of Cahokian galena, in which he found nearly 90 percent of the raw lead ore had its source in nearby Missouri. Randall Hughes and several colleagues and I began a series of archaeometric studies of the source of Cahokian pipestones in the mid-1990s (cited above). These studies revealed that the red stone used to craft the large Stirling phase Cahokia-style figures recovered at American Bottom sites derived from the local St. Louis flint clay quarries rather than from distant Arkansas or Oklahoma sources (Emerson and

Hughes 2000). Subsequent research also proved that similar Cahokia-style fig ures in the Caddoan towns in the Trans-Mississippi South and villages in the

Upper Mississippi River valley were made from Missouri flint clay and strongly indicated that all of these figures and pipes must have been crafted in Cahokia, only later to move out of that center (Emerson, Hughes, et al. 2003, this volume). Our sourcing studies also demonstrated that the popular northern red stone, catlinite, did not move south into the American Bottom until after the collapse of Cahokia (Emerson and Hughes 2001). These studies and others have done much to cast doubt on theories that postulate Cahokia's rise and fall was linked to extensive long-distance trade networks. The research reported here continues to

support the premise that, at least in the instances where we can trace the sources of nonperishable materials, Cahokians were primarily concerned with the acqui sition and utilization of local resources.