* Your assessment is very important for improving the work of artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download - iBrarian
Document related concepts
173 Chapter 8: Summary and Conclusions Summary The complexities of even contemporary human societies and our interactions with the environment belie easy explanation, and we should expect that understanding prehistoric societies would be even more difficult. Still, this study has revealed several interesting patterns in the connections between civic ceremonial centers in the Northern Caddo Area and the landscape, at least some of which bear directly on our understanding of the archaeological record and human/environment interactions. In this chapter I first briefly summarize general conclusions from the viewshed and bottomland proximity analyses, and methodological conclusions drawn from the GIS methods employed here. I then use this information to assess the three specific research questions presented in Chapter 1, and discuss the implications of this study to larger archaeological questions within the study area. Viewsheds The viewsheds generated in this study are not assumed to be the exact viewsheds that existed in late prehistoric times. Because the effects of vegetation and earth curvature are not taken into account, the results represent maximum potential viewsheds. The parameters used to generate the viewsheds were held constant between all sites, however, and they are useful for testing specific hypotheses concerning views from the mounds. 174 Comparison of ground-based viewshed size between different types of mounds demonstrates that they are not located preferentially in respect to size of viewshed. Viewsheds from mound summits show that platform mounds dominate the larger viewsheds, simply because they are generally taller than other mounds. To evaluate viewshed size against a statistical background, five separate models of mound location were generated, corresponding to the five topographic regions in which the mounds occur. These models were used in Monte Carlo simulations to determine average viewshed sizes expected if the mound locations had been chosen randomly with respect to viewshed size. The Monte Carlo simulations generated 99 samples from the modeled locations against which mound viewshed sizes were evaluated. These results showed that mounds at the Spiro site (including Skidgel) are located in landscape positions of significantly high visibility. With the exception of Craig (a burial mound on a terrace, lower than the rest of the mounds), the viewsheds are all greater than 89% of the generated sample. Taking into account the heights of the mounds, all of the large mounds associated with Spiro rank from 99 to 100 within the generated samples – demonstrating that the constructed mounds were among the most prominent features on the landscape. Within the Neosho River Region the results are similar for large mounds at Norman and Harlan, which are preferentially located with very large viewsheds to begin with. The construction of these mounds created some of the most prominent features within the region. Farther up the Neosho River, Reed and Lillie Creek do not appear to be located preferentially for large viewsheds, and construction of the mounds did not rank 175 them in the top 10% of generated viewsheds. This holds true even allowing for a height of 14.5 m for Lillie Creek (after Thoburn 1931), which is probably unrealistically tall. Within the Ozark Mountain Region larger sites (those with four or more mounds) are not differentiated in viewshed size from smaller sites (those with only one mound). Three sites (Goforth-Saindon, Huntsville, and Pineville) appear to be preferentially located for significantly smaller viewsheds than would be expected by chance. Within the Arkansas River 2 and Ouachita Regions most of the mounds appear to be located in areas with preferentially large viewsheds. Within the Ouachita Region, base-level viewsheds from all four major mound centers (Page, Logan Eddy, Bluffton, and Borrow Pit) are ranked above 89% of the generated sample. Examining the viewsheds qualitatively there are very few mounds which are clearly intervisible, or which even share locations of mutual visibility. Minor regions of overlap occur in the Ouachita Region, and Carden Bottom Cemetery and Point Remove would likely have been mutually visible from high points to the north. The chronology of these sites is not well established, however, and it is unclear whether these sites were contemporaneous, so the areas of mutual visibility may be spurious. Norman and Harlan are the two of the three largest and most elaborate mound centers. At less than 5 km apart, they are closer together than any other major mound centers, and were active centers contemporaneously. Because a tall ridge separates them they are not mutually intervisible. Only from one circumscribed location (a tall bluff about 5 km south of Harlan) would they both have been visible. An interesting viewshed/landscape relationship is demonstrated at Ewing Chapel Cemetery, Cavanaugh, Fort Davis, Copple Mound at Spiro, Mound 1 at Goforth-Saindon, 176 and possibly other mounds. The base of these mounds and the ground surrounding them (all but Copple are platform mounds or likely platform mounds) are concealed from the view of observers in the immediately surrounding bottomlands, but a great deal of the mounds themselves (and any structures on the mounds) would have been well within the view of the same observers. This revealed/concealed relationship was confirmed at Ewing Chapel Cemetery, the only location where one of these mounds still exists and modern construction or tree cover does not obstruct the view. Bottomlands Alluvial bottomlands were operationally defined through a novel GIS procedure for delineating specified elevations above local stream level across a large and diverse study area. From all sites within the core study area (excepting two which occur in uncorrected reservoirs), four different models of proximity were generated (straight-line distances, a simple cost model, a 'rivers as barriers' model, and a 'rivers as travel corridors' model), and classified into 10 proximity indices. Each proximity index approximates a territory or catchment area for the centers, with the 1st index the smallest (5 km in straight-line distance), and the 10th the largest (50 km in straight-line distance). The amount of alluvial bottomland within each proximity index was calculated for each site, and the results compared within and between the Arkansas River, Neosho River, and Ozark Mountain Regions. For the sites tested, the availability of bottomlands correlates very strongly with the size and elaboration of mound centers over most proximity indices when the lowest echelon sites are pooled into one category. The largest three sites (Spiro and Skidgel 177 considered a single site, Norman, and Harlan) rank consistently the highest, or close to the highest, in amount of proximate bottomland. The only other major site that ranks consistently as high is Hughes/Ft. Davis, which is a large 2nd echelon center located at the juncture of three major streams. The majority of 2nd echelon sites used in bottomland proximity analysis occur in the Ozark Region, and rank consistently below the 3rd echelon centers in all proximity models, across all proximity indices. Within the Ozark Region, small sites (with a single mound) are not differentiated from large sites (with four or more mounds) by proximate bottomland. The bottomland proximity analysis thus differentiates between sites of different size quantitatively fairly well, corresponding to the available resources between regions. Within regions, however, the sites remain mostly undifferentiated. By viewing the amount of bottomland proximate to sites at different scales it becomes clear that there is great variability at short distances (under proximity index 4), while at longer distances the ranking of sites to one another is relatively stable. Different models of proximity return very different results, indicating that different assumptions about movement across the landscape (whether rivers were corridors or barriers to travel, or made no difference) may lead to different conclusions concerning catchments, travel time, or caloric expenditure. Methodological considerations Two novel approaches are presented in this study: one an algorithm for delineating bottomlands, and the other a method for determining viewshed size even 178 when a mound's exact location is unknown. In addition, four different proximity models were applied to the same data, in part to determine how straight-line distance approximations compare to slope-derived friction distances, which are considered by most researchers to more realistically approximate the time or energy necessary to travel across a landscape. The bottomland delineation method 'de-trended' the base DEM for stream elevations by creating a stream-channel DEM surface and subtracting this from the original DEM, creating a new surface indicating not elevations above sea level but elevations above local stream levels. The de-trended DEM was then reclassified to separate elevations less than 8 m above local stream level to delineate bottomlands. Comparing the results to available SSURGO (2004) soils data and early aerial photographs, this method appears to work quite well for delineating bottomlands throughout the study area. One potential problem with this method is that bottomlands of varying productivity are not differentiated. For viewshed analysis, several of the mounds in question could not be located on the landscape with precision. A novel method was presented whereby a systematic grid of viewsheds is generated throughout an entire site area, and the sizes of these viewsheds compared. In cases where little variation between the generated viewsheds exists (compared to the overall variation in viewshed size between the sites), the size of a mound's viewshed can be estimated with relative confidence, even without knowing exactly where it is located within a site. In cases where the variation between the generated viewsheds is great, the mound's viewshed size cannot be estimated with confidence. This method yielded mixed results, with six out of eight sites returning 179 generated viewsheds of relatively low variation compared to the sample of viewshed sizes as a whole. Two sites returned generated viewsheds whose variance spanned much of the variance for the mounds as a whole, and were therefore not as useful. Four different proximity models were employed in the bottomland analysis. These included a straight-line model (returning circular catchments or territories), and three slope-derived friction surfaces: one simple model not taking rivers into account, one considering rivers to be barriers to movement, and one considering rivers to be corridors of easy travel. The four proximity models return significantly different results. For the three friction-surface models this is not in itself problematic, because each is based on different theoretical assumptions concerning rivers and rates or ease of travel. Neither the straight-line model nor the simple cost model take into account the effect of rivers on travel, and slope-derived friction surfaces are generally considered more realistic in approximating travel time or energy expended moving over a landscape. That these two models returned significantly different results implies caution in accepting straight-line distances, territories, or catchments, without methodological justification that the model realistically approximates the variable in question. 180 Conclusions With the above summaries in mind, I now return to the three main research questions. Research Question 1: Are mounds located preferentially with respect to viewsheds? The brief answer to this question appears to be yes for mounds in Arkansas River Region 1, Neosho River Region 1, the Ouachita Region, and for at least some mounds in the Ozark Region. Figures 8.1 and 8.2 plot the ranking of viewsheds from all major sites (2nd and 3rd echelon) against the Monte Carlo generated samples from within areas modeled as likely to contain mounds. The Monte Carlo samples serve as a statistical background against which to test the size of mound viewsheds, and significance is determined by simply ranking the realized sample (mound viewshed) against the 99 generated samples (Kvamme 1996). A viewshed larger than 95 of the generated viewsheds is significant at p = .05. From the bases of mounds (Figure 8.1), ten out of 27 have viewsheds larger than 90 of the generated samples, and seven have viewsheds larger than 95 (therefore significant at p = .05). Viewsheds from the base of three mounds (Skidgel, Page, and Bluffton) rank significantly higher than all 99 samples generated for their regions. Three mounds (Pineville, Goforth-Saindon, and Huntsville) are in the lowest 7% of generated samples for their region. When the mound heights are taken into account (Figure 8.2) exactly half (13 of 26) mounds have viewsheds larger than 95 of the generated samples. While the 181 generated samples were not designed to serve as a statistical background for mound summits, this does demonstrate the prominence of many of the mounds on the landscape. * Not used to generate parameters for modeled areas. Figure 8.1. Viewsheds by rank within modeled areas, from mound bases. * Not used to generate parameters for modeled areas. Figure 8.2. Viewsheds by rank within modeled areas, from mound summits. Viewshed from Loftin was generated 1.5 m above an uncorrected reservoir surface so no summit viewshed was generated. Figures 8.3 and 8.4 show the same site rankings, arranged by region. Only mounds in the Ozark Region are situated preferentially on the landscape for locations with small viewsheds. Mounds in the Arkansas River 1 and Ouachita Regions are situated preferentially on the landscape for locations with large viewsheds. Recall that 182 these rankings are generated within areas modeled as similar in landscape position to the mounds themselves. The Ozark mounds do not rank lower simply because viewsheds in the Ozarks are more constrained by topography than they are in the large river valleys; they rank quite low even taking this into account. Figure 8.3. Viewsheds by rank within modeled areas, from mound bases. Figure 8.4. Viewsheds by rank within modeled areas, from mound summits. The viewsheds from Goforth-Saindon and Huntsville are somewhat counterintuitive at first glance, because these are two of the largest and most elaborate civic ceremonial centers in the Ozark Plateaus. Instead of selecting for locations with large viewsheds for the regions, these sites appear to be selected for locations with small 183 viewsheds. In light of this evidence, Kay et al.'s impression of the view from Ozark civic ceremonial centers is put in a fuller context: "the visual effect is that of being on stage of a large amphitheater, as one has a commanding view of the valley and flanking uplands from any of the mounds" (1989:137). The mounds have a commanding view of the flanking uplands because the uplands are close – so close as to significantly restrict the viewsheds from Goforth-Saindon, Huntsville, Pineville, and possibly Loftin. If the mounds "were originally conceived with the aim of conveying ideas to a large audience" (Bradley 2000:158), it doesn't necessarily mean that they must have been visible from large portions of the landscape. The landscape relationship of these mound centers implies a more intimate feel than the centers in the large river valleys with viewshed sizes a full order of magnitude larger. Considering the strength of this evidence for highly different locational criteria for mound locations in Ozark and river valley regions based on smaller or larger viewsheds, I suggest this implies a social discontinuity in the meaning or use of the mounds between these regions. This is further discussed under research question #3 below. Research Question 2: Does the size and elaboration of mound centers correspond to locally available bottomland? The answer to this question depends upon the frame of reference we use for organizing mound centers. Not differentiating between sub-regions within the study area, the answer is a qualified yes – by almost any measure the largest centers have the largest amounts of bottomland in proximity to them, with few exceptions. The exceptions are mainly within the first four proximity indices, at relatively close distances to the centers 184 (corresponding to 5-20 km in straight-line distances). If we assume the mound center territories to be at least this large or larger, the 3rd echelon centers of Harlan, Norman, and Spiro are differentiated from lower-echelon centers very well. Beyond this, the lower echelon sites are mostly undifferentiated. In fact, the rather unintuitive result is that the two confirmed 1st echelon centers (Spinach Patch and Guy Brittain) generally rank higher in available bottomland than the larger 2nd echelon centers. Spinach Patch and Guy Brittain are both located within the Arkansas River 1 Region not more than 50 km from the 'premier' civic ceremonial center of Spiro, and with this clue we may shift our frame of reference from individual sites to individual regions. Viewing bottomland proximity differences between the Arkansas River, Neosho River, and Ozark Regions, a clear pattern emerges where, with very few exceptions, the river valley centers have much more proximate bottomland than the Ozark centers. This is certainly an intuitive conclusion, but by quantifying the mound center/bottomland relationships with three different proximity models a more complete picture emerges. From similarities and differences between the friction-surface based models it follows that: 1) No matter which of the three assumptions we make about rivers and travel, the river valley sites have more proximate bottomland than the upland sites; 2) If we consider rivers in the analysis at all (whether to be barriers or corridors), the Neosho River Region sites gain greater access to bottomlands than do sites in the Arkansas River Region, particularly if rivers are considered corridors; 3) Within the Neosho River Region, the 3rd echelon sites (Harlan and Norman) are consistently ranked higher in proximate bottomland than the 2nd echelon sites of Reed and Lillie Creek, but generally ranked lower than the 2nd echelon site of Hughes/Ft. Davis; and 4) No matter which 185 proximity model is used, larger and smaller sites in the Ozark Region are completely undifferentiated with respect to available bottomland. An overall picture emerges of a gradient in site size and elaboration flowing irregularly downstream from the bottomland-impoverished uplands to the bottomlandrich river valleys. Sites along streams in the Ozarks are undifferentiated by bottomland proximity, as if a minimum threshold necessary for 2nd echelon sites had been met throughout the region, but beyond this threshold bottomland is not responsible for variation in site size or elaboration. Recall that a platform mound is necessary for a site to be defined as 2nd echelon. All of the sites in the Ozarks used in this study (excepting Goshen, which is considered provisionally only) contain at least one platform mound. Whether they contain a single platform mound or four or more mounds, they are not situated differentially with respect to bottomland proximity. Downstream in the Neosho River Region 3rd echelon centers appear. Less than 5 km apart and contemporaneous centers for at least a few hundred years, Harlan and Norman present a puzzle to interpretation in this study. Considering that after Spiro these are the two largest sites within the Northern Caddo Area, Norman and Harlan have received surprisingly little attention in the literature. Extensive excavations were conducted at both sites from the 1930s to 1950s, and only Harlan received a thorough treatment in a site report (Bell 1970). Norman was the subject of one short piece shortly after the earliest investigations (Finklestein 1940), but substantial reports on the site did not appear until much later (Albert 2000; Rogers 2000; Vogele 2000; Vogel et al. 2005). The relationship of the sites to one another was long assumed to be neither competitive nor cooperative, but primarily diachronous with Norman replacing Harlan. Bell 186 (1984b:238), for example, theorized, "It would appear that, for some social reasons not presently understood, the political-religious control once centered at the Harlan site was shifted to the Norman site, and the Harlan mound center fell into disuse". Radiocarbon dates acquired since then (Rogers et al. 2000; this volume Appendix A) show that while Harlan may have been occupied first, and Norman may have continued for some time after Harlan was no longer active (although even this is not clear from the available date contexts), they were contemporaneous centers with active mound construction for a period of 200 years or more. Bottomland proximity was assessed for each site individually in this analysis, not taking into account the presence of other sites whose presence may have served as a limiting factor on other sites' territorial size. If Norman and Harlan represent competing centers with populations in mutually exclusive territories, each would more appropriately have been awarded approximately half of the available bottomland ascribed here. If this were the case, they would rank approximately equal to Lillie Creek and Reed in the Neosho River Region, and the overall differentiation in this analysis between 3rd echelon and smaller centers would be completely disrupted. If, instead, Norman and Harlan represent centers for cooperating polities, or even separate but related centers of the same polity, then the bottomland proximity analysis would change very little for the combined Norman/Harlan community, and the integrity of differentiation between 3rd echelon and smaller centers would be maintained. I propose that the latter possibility be considered, insofar as it is consistent with the rest of the analyses presented here. Only information directly from the sites themselves may be able to confirm or refute this proposition. 187 Further down the river valley, Spiro and associated sites (Skidgel and Cavanaugh) vie with Norman and Harlan for the greatest amount of proximate bottomland. Only in the simple cost model (not taking rivers into account) do Skidgel and Spiro rank higher than Norman and Harlan, and then only for distance indices 4 to 7. The implications of this may be somewhat misleading, however. The bottomland model is an imperfect proxy for many of the resources it approximates because it does not take into account differences in the productivity of bottomland throughout the study area, just the total area of bottomland. Because of the strong correlation between the largest sites and the largest amount of bottomland the model appears to be expressing a fairly coherent and intuitive outcome, but we should not use this to conclude that Norman and Harlan had greater access to resources in terms of soil productivity just because more bottomland was within easy reach. Research Question 3: Are mound/landscape relations different in the uplands than they are in the river valleys? Rose et al. (1998) found significant differences in skeletal samples between the river valleys and uplands in the Northern Caddo Area, with the river valley populations much healthier and a possessing a better overall adaptive efficiency. This dichotomy led Rose et al. to propose that the two regions either manifest different cultural adaptations, or that they manifest the same cultural adaptation which was simply not as effective in the uplands. Both the bottomland proximity and viewshed analyses shed light on the question of upland/river valley differences. Viewshed analysis may shed light on at least one aspect of cultural continuity between the regions as a characteristic of mounds as 188 artifacts. Intricately linked to social reproduction and organization as well as settlement systems and natural resources, mounds may express similarities or differences in cultural adaptations between populations in numerous ways. Even if we may not be able to interpret the significance of these similarities or differences, their presence alone may be telling. Viewshed analyses show an obvious difference between the Ozark Region and all five other topographic regions defined for purposes of this study. While the Arkansas River Region 1, Neosho River Region 1, and Ouachita Region sites are located in spots with preferentially large viewsheds, and the Arkansas River Region 2 and Neosho River Region 2 sites are undifferentiated with respect to viewshed size, only sites in the Ozark Region are located preferentially for small viewsheds. The Ozark Region has, on average, smaller viewsheds to begin with, but the sites are still situated on the landscape so as to minimize the overall view. Pineville, Huntsville, and Goforth-Saindon all have viewsheds that fall below 93% of their generated background samples. As a whole, the Ozark Region sites comprise 8 of the 12 lowest-ranked viewsheds both from mound bases and summits. Even with the added mound heights, no mound viewshed in this region is larger than about 60% of the generated sample. The viewsheds from these sites are simply small compared to the background distribution of possible viewsheds, even modeling for realistic mound locations. This contrasts sharply with sites in the adjacent river valleys, where the situation is completely reversed. The bottomland proximity analyses also show a sharp difference between the uplands and river valleys, but with slightly more equivocal results. There is no question that sites in the Ozark Region have far less proximate bottomland than sites in the river 189 valleys (on average about half the area or less), but this study has not been able to quantify whether sites in either region were selecting for larger or smaller stretches of bottomland than we would expect by chance alone, within each region. (Monte Carlo analysis in conjunction with the bottomland proximity analysis would have been able to answer this question, but was unfortunately impractical due to computing limitations.) Still, as noted above, the bottomland proximity analysis did demonstrate that the size and elaboration of mound centers and availability of bottomland are connected factors in the river valleys, but are not at all connected in the Ozark Region. Combining these ideas, a picture emerges of two populations who have at least one significantly different cultural trait in the form of mound viewsheds. As long-term, large-scale, carefully wrought modifications of the landscape, it is difficult to imagine such a significant difference in mound location between the two regions as the result of random variation alone. Mound centers in the uplands and river valleys, while exhibiting overall similar morphology and structure, articulate with the viewshed landscape in very different ways. The two populations also relate to the natural environment in a significantly different way, in that 'extra' bottomland proximate to sites in the river valley appears to have the potential to translate into larger or more elaborate mound centers, while in the Ozark uplands these two factors are completely divorced. This seems to agree fairly well with Rose et al.'s (1998:122) second hypothesis, "The alternative explanation is that the upland (especially in the Ozark Mountains) culture is different from that of the lowlands, but it is still not able to provide adequate stressor buffering". 190 Ozark populations were surely integrated with a wider cultural system in the river valleys in important ways, as demonstrated by the presence of the mounds themselves and numerous other cultural traits (Brown 1984; Fritz 1979), but the significant differences in this study show that certain important traits between the regions were not homogenous. Further considerations Aside from the three specific research questions addressed above, the information provided by this study bears in direct and indirect ways on other questions concerning the study area's s prehistory, and in some ways on southeastern prehistory in general. This study is specific to a region that has been given little attention in the archaeological literature in recent decades. Perttula (1996:296) writes, "Caddoan area archaeology and native history have been all but overlooked and forgotten in current regional syntheses by archaeologists, ethnohistorians, and historians." This study synthesizes information on a specific type of site within one portion of the Caddo area, and as such is a necessary, and necessarily parochial, step in understanding regional prehistory. At an early Caddo Archaeology conference James Griffin cautioned against wide-scale conclusions from such studies, "You cannot understand any segment of the Southeast unless you encompass this whole area, and you cannot reach rational conclusions as to what was happening unless you do this. You may be wrong, but you can be wrong with a good idea and that's a lot better than being wrong because you've been parochial" (quoted from Davis et al. 1971:49). 191 I note that this study may at least offer methodological approaches and theoretical suggestions to be tested in other areas of the prehistoric world. The Mississippian Southeast is often viewed as offering rich information on the development of complex societies because it is a circumscribed, relatively isolated region with a unique cultural trajectory in world prehistory. As a circumscribed sub-region with a unique cultural trajectory of its own within the Mississippian Southeast, the Northern Caddo Area may serve as a manageable 'test case' for many ideas. With Griffin's caution in mind, I hope that the views presented here, while from a necessarily parochial point of view, may add to a wider discussion of the Southeast as a whole. The territorial size of Mississippian chiefdoms has received a great deal of attention in the archaeological literature, with widely differing estimates of the geographic range of political power. Hally (1993:143) summarizes several estimates of Mississippian chiefdom territory size ranging from 28 to 200 km for the Moundville site alone. The four models of proximity presented in this work have not been applied directly to test for the potential size of territories represented by mound center spacing. The results do imply, however, that at distances greater than 20 km (or distance index 4 in the proximity models based on cost surfaces), the amount of locally available resources between centers changes very little. At distances shorter than this, the relative amount of available resources changes greatly depending on the exact size of territory used. Considering the general correlation of mound center size and elaboration with proximate bottomland above distance index 4, I suggest that the influence of the centers extended at the very least to this distance. For purposes of catchment analysis in this region, how much larger the influence extended does not matter. 192 The general correspondence of the amount of proximate bottomland and the size of mound centers implies the importance of bottomland resources for the centers and the populations served by them. While a large amount of bottomland may have been necessary for the large mound centers, this alone was not sufficient for their development. Large stretches of bottomland exist with no recorded mound centers – between the Skidgel and Cat Smith sites, for example (see Figure 7.6), and along a very wide stretch of rich Arkansas River bottomland between the Spinach Patch and Scotia sites. Barring unrecorded large mound sites in these areas, this suggests that a large amount of proximate bottomland may have been a necessary but not a sufficient criterion for the existence of a large mound center. Put another way, large amounts of bottomland resources may have created the potential for the development of large mound centers, but this potential was simply not realized in some locations. Why this might be the case could be an interesting direction for future study. Both the bottomland proximity analysis and viewshed studies may bear at least indirectly on questions of social organization as they relate to the mound sites. Recall Emerson's (1997) view of mound centers as regional nodes within a hierarchical network, and Muller's (1997) argument that mound centers may have been autonomous communities with the mounds themselves serving as markers of, and possibly necessary constructions for, their own autonomy. Neither view was intended as a panMississippian model of political organization, but both have implications for the distribution and patterning of mounds within the northern Caddo area. Muller's (1997) autonomy model implies a more direct relationship between locally available resources and mound preeminence and size. If construction of the 193 mound centers relied chiefly on surplus generated locally, their size and elaboration may reflect available bottomland within the territory of the mound centers. The distribution of bottomlands as a measure of territorial resources would approximate the hypothetical distribution shown in Figure 8.5a. This distribution reflects sub-sets of the population who may have had close ties to neighboring groups, but maintained a large degree of political independence reflected in an investment of local resources into local monumental architecture. Emerson's (1997) hierarchy model implies a non-direct relationship between locally available resources and mound center preeminence and size. Kay et al (1989) similarly interpret the patterning of the mound centers in the Arkansas and White River drainages as reflecting a well organized, widespread settlement system. They note the nearly regular spacing of some of the larger mound centers, and of the interspersed smaller 'satellite' centers. This interpretation corresponds closely to Emerson's view of a highly structured, hierarchical system of populations represented by large mound centers extracting tax or tribute from populations at smaller mound centers. The distribution of mounds within the bottomlands as a measure of territorial resources may in this case more closely approximate the hypothetical distribution of mounds in Figure 8.5b. This distribution reflects the necessity of not simply larger tracts of arable bottomland within the territories of the large centers, but the necessity of a certain number of associated smaller mound centers. 194 Figure 8.5. Idealized mound distributions. Left represents the model proposed by Muller (1997) of largely autonomous mound centers whose size and elaboration depended primarily on locally available resources. Right represents the model proposed by Emerson (1997) of hierarchically-organized mound centers, with larger centers extracting resources from the smaller ones. The bottomland proximity analysis conducted in this study shows a general correspondence with the autonomy model, over nearly all proximity indices: larger and more elaborate mound centers have, on average, more bottomland in close proximity than do the smaller centers. The correspondence is regional, however, and may say more about available bottomland resources by region, not by mound center territory. Monte Carlo statistical analysis on bottomlands within the study area may be able to answer this question in the future. The viewshed analysis shows a striking difference in mound locations between the Ozark Plateaus and valleys of the Neosho and Arkansas Rivers, again pointing to important regional differences which may obscure patterning characteristics of the sites as a whole, particularly given the relatively small number of sites to begin with. Recall 195 that the size and elaboration of sites in the river valleys correspond fairly strongly with locally available bottomland, while the size and elaboration of sites in the Ozarks does not. If, as this analysis at least weakly supports, the Ozark sites represent a separate cultural adaptation from that of the river valleys, the Ozark adaptation appears to be less dependent upon, or less influenced by, excess bottomland in proximity to mound centers. Another possibility is that the location of the mound centers was patterned more directly not by environmental or political concerns, but by trade of high-status goods across long distances. The Spiro site has long been recognized as a potential 'gateway' trading community, situated between the plains to the west and north, and eastern woodlands and Mississippian River bottomlands to the east. Spiro's location along a major waterway connecting these regions is often cited in support of its importance as a trading center, and the vast quantity of high-status, exotic items found at Spiro certainly point to the importance of long-distance trade in at least these items. Schambach (1993, 2000, 2003, and elsewhere) argues that trade at the Spiro site and elsewhere in the Arkansas River drainage extended far beyond high-status, exotic goods, serving as an important economic input to the community as a whole. In this interpretation, Spiro gained preeminence in the region not directly because of locally or regionally available generated agricultural surplus, but because of control over long-distance trade. Although the specific analyses conducted here were not geared to address this question directly, the general trend from large centers along the larger rivers to smaller centers along smaller streams certainly supports the importance of long-distance trade. This observation is not at all new, but perhaps the methods and information generated for this study will lead to further refinements and quantification of the question. 196 Further Questions As nearly all such studies, this research raises more questions than it answers. Much of this research was a struggle with available computing resources. At a very practical level, several lines of inquiry are suggested when increased computing capacity and more elaborate and complete datasets become available. These include: 1) Cumulative viewshed analysis (Wheatley 1995), whereby the viewshed from every pixel on a landscape is computed and summed to create a surface showing the visibility 'prominence' of all locations. This holds the potential to determine not only which mounds have larger or smaller viewsheds than would be expected by chance, but exactly where on the landscape larger and smaller viewsheds are naturally located. 2) Least-cost pathway analysis between sites, conducted with the three friction models, may shed light on potential connections between the mound centers. 3) Monte Carlo analysis applied to the bottomland proximity methodology laid out in this study. This would better demonstrate the similarities or differences of mound center locations both between and within regions, in relation to the locally available bottomland, and would allow for more robust conclusions concerning their relationship. 4) Further testing of the bottomlands as defined by the algorithm developed for this study through SSURGO soils data or other detailed soils/landscape layers as they become available. 5) Refinement of the bottomland layer as used in this study through SSURGO soils data or other sources, taking into account not just the amount of available bottomlands but also the potential productivity of the soils. 197 Directions 1-3 were not undertaken in the present study simply because of computing resources. For example, a cumulative viewshed analysis was attempted for a circumscribed portion of the base DEM, defined by a bounding raster 200 km on each side. When left to run on a computer for 48 hours, the module progress indicator showed the process 0.1% complete. Extrapolating a steady rate of progression this returns a somewhat daunting 5.5 years of processing time, assuming no hardware or software failure. I am confident, however, that the process will be feasible with easily available computing resources before such a process begun now would finish. Further archaeological directions relating to this work include: 6) Time-sensitive analysis of both the viewshed and bottomland proximity data generated for this study. Currently, the regional chronology is too coarse to assign tight age ranges to most sites or mounds within the study area. Unfortunately, this dissertation added little to our understanding of regional chronology (although new dates for Norman and Elkins are reported here for the first time, see Appendix A). 7) Further analysis of the landscape similarities and differences between mound centers based on more than topographical and hydrological data. This study used standard USGS 30 m raster elevation data to derive most layers. This was largely a matter of necessity, as few other datasets incorporate such large areas with the same level of precision. Detailed, digitized vegetation layers are available for the study area, but were not incorporated into this analysis because it is unclear how closely this information reflects prehistoric vegetation patterns. 8) Analyses conducted on non-mound sites similar to that conducted here would almost certainly provide fruitful results. Village and farmstead sites are far less visible in 198 the archaeological record, and many of them are undoubtedly submerged beneath the impoundments of major streams in the area. Even significant village sites are therefore much more likely to have gone unrecorded. Still, they may represent a more direct connection to the environment than civic ceremonial centers, and could provide an additional view of the dynamics of late prehistoric human/landscape relationships. 199 References Albert, Lois E. 2000 The Norman Site: Descriptions. Caddoan Archeology 11(1-2):23-59. Anderson, David G. 1994 The Savannah River Chiefdoms: Political Change in the Late Prehistoric Southeast. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Archuleta, Toby Edward 1980 Analysis of Mima Mounds in Northeastern Arkansas. Unpublished Master's thesis, Department of Geology, University of New Orleans. Arkansas Gazette 1908 Former Home of Mound Builders [by line: Arkansaw Traveler], 14 September, Little Rock, Arkansas. Ashenden-Duncan, Alice 1980 Preliminary Speculations Concerning the Sherds From the Society Dig in 1967 at Point Remove. Manuscript on file, Arkansas Archeological Survey, Fayetteville. Ashmore, Wendy and Bernard Knapp (editors) 1999 Archaeologies of Landscape: Contemporary Perspectives. Blackwell Publishers Ltd., Oxford. Bareis, Charles John 1955 The Bracket Site, Ck-43, of Cherokee County, Oklahoma. Bulletin of the Oklahoma Anthropological Society, 3:1-39. Bareis, Charles John 1957 Comments on Prehistoric Corn Samples. Oklahoma Anthropological Society Newsletter 6(5):7-8. Baerreis, David A. and R. A. Bryson 1965 Historical Climatology and the Southern Plains. Bulletin of the Oklahoma Anthropological Society 13:69-75. Bell, Robert E. 1947 Preliminary Report on Archaeological Activities Conducted by the Department of Anthropology in the Wister Reservoir Area in the Summer of 1947. Report on file at Oklahoma Archaeological Survey, Norman. 200 Bell, Robert E. 1956 Stone Pipe Found in Muskogee County, Oklahoma. Oklahoma Anthropological Society Newsletter 5(3):6-7. Bell, Robert E. 1972 The Harlan Site, CK-6, a Prehistoric Mound Center in Cherokee County, Eastern Oklahoma. Memoirs No. 2, Oklahoma Anthropological Society. Bell, Robert E. 1974 Mounds and Fieldwork Near Muskogee, Oklahoma. Oklahoma Anthropological Society Newsletter 22(8):6-9. Bell, Robert E. 1980 Cavanaugh Mound Near Fort Smith. Oklahoma Anthropological Society Newsletter 28(2):11. Bell, Robert E. (editor) 1984 Prehistory of Oklahoma. Academic Press, Inc., New York. Bell, Robert E. 1984b Arkansas Valley Caddoan: the Harlan Phase. In Prehistory of Oklahoma, edited by Robert E. Bell, pp. 221-240, Academic Press, Inc., New York. Bell, Robert E. and David A. Baerreis 1951 A Survey of Oklahoma Archeology. Bulletin of the Texas Archeological and Paleontological Society, Vol. 22:7-100, Lubbock. Bell, Robert E. and David J. Wenner 1947 Daily Field Record of Archaeological Investigations in the Wister Reservoir Area in 1947. Appendix C in Preliminary Report on Archaeological Activities Conducted by the Department of Anthropology in the Wister Reservoir Area in the Summer of 1947. Report on file at Oklahoma Archaeological Survey, Norman. Bender, Margaret M., R. A. Bryson and David A. Baerreis 1965 University of Wisconsin Radiocarbon Dates I. Radiocarbon 7:399-407. Bender, Margaret M., R. A. Bryson and David A. Baerreis 1968 University of Wisconsin Radiocarbon Dates IV. Radiocarbon 10:161-168. Bennett, W. J. Jr., Ann Frances Gettys, Aubra Lee, Lawson Smith, Beverly Watkins 1986 Archeology in the Arkansas River Valley: A Cultural Resources Survey in the Central Arkansas River Valley. Archeological Assessment Report No. 47, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Little Rock District, Arkansas. 201 Berg, Andrew W. 1990 Formation of Mima Mounds: A Seismic Hypothesis: Geology 18(3):281284. Blitz, John H. 1999 Mississippian Chiefdoms and the Fission-Fusion Process. American Antiquity 64:577-592. Blitz, John H. and Patrick Livingood 2004 Sociopolitical Implications of Mississippian Mound Volume. American Antiquity 69:291-301. Bond, Clell 1970 Spinach Patch, 3FR1, and the River Bank Site, 3FR23, West-Central Arkansas. Report submitted to the National Park Service, Southeast Region, and the University of Arkansas Museum, Contract No. 14-10-7:911-14. On file at the Arkansas Archeological Survey. Bradley, Richard 2000 An Archaeology of Natural Places. Routledge, London. Brakenridge, Robert G. 1981 Late Quaternary floodplain sedimentation along the Pomme de Terre River, southern Missouri. Quaternary Research 15:62-76. Bray, Robert T. (Editor) 1983 The Loftin Component, 23SN42. The Missouri Archaeologist 44:1-74. Brooks, Robert 1977 An Archaeological Assessment of the Proposed Continental Telephone Cable Line. Report on file at Arkansas Archeological Survey, Fayetteville. Brown, Greg 1992 Dream Cafe. Red House Records, St. Paul, Minnesota. Brown, James A. 1984 Prehistoric Southern Ozark Marginality: A Myth Exposed. Missouri Archaeological Society Special Publications, No. 6. Columbia, Missouri. Brown, James A. 1996 The Spiro Ceremonial Center: The Archaeology of Arkansas Valley Caddoan Cultures in Eastern Oklahoma. Memoirs of the Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, No. 29, Ann Arbor. 202 Brown, James A. 2004 The Cahokian Expression. In Hero, Hawk, and Open Hand: American Indian Art of the Ancient Midwest and South, edited by Richard F. Townsend, pp. 105-123. The Art Institute of Chicago and Yale University Press, New Haven. Brown, James A. and J. Daniel Rogers 1999 AMS Dates on Artifacts of the Southeastern Ceremonial Complex from Spiro. Southeastern Archaeology 18:134-141. Bryson, R. A., D. A. Baerreis and W. M. Wendland 1970 The Character of Late-Glacial and Post-Glacial Climatic Change. In Pleistocene and Recent Environments of the Central Great Plains, edited by W. Dort Jr. and J. J. Knox Jr., pp. 53-74, University of Kansas Press, Lawrence. Buckner, H. F. 1878 Mounds in Indian Territory. The American Antiquarian and Oriental Journal 1:14. Cain, R.H. 1974 Pimple Mounds: A new viewpoint. Ecology 55:178-182. Caldwell, Warren W. 1958 Smithsonian Institution River Basin Surveys Field Forms and Notes. On File at Arkansas Archeological Survey, Fayetteville. Caldwell, Warren W. 1958b Archeological Investigations in the Dardanelle Reservoir, West-Central Arkansas. Smithsonian Institution Missouri Basin Project Report, on file at Arkansas Archeological Survey, Russellville. Campbell, T. N. 1961 Caddoan Radiocarbon Dates. Bulletin of the Texas Archeological Society 31:145-151. Clements, Forrest E. 1945 Historical Sketch of the Spiro Mound. Contributions to the Museum of the American Indian, Heye Foundation, 14:48-68. Colbe, John D. 1993 An Archeological Investigation on AHTD Job Number 040167 and site 3SC22 Waldron, Arkansas. Addendum to Project Identification Form. On file at Arkansas Archeological Survey, Fayetteville. 203 Campbell, T. N. 1961 Caddoan Radiocarbon Dates. Bulletin of the Texas Archaeological Society 31:145-151. Cleaveland, M. K. 2000 A 963-Year Reconstruction of Summer (Jja) Streamflow in the White River, Arkansas, USA, from Tree-Rings. The Holocene 10(1):33-41. Conner, Michael D. 1998 National Register of Historic Places Registration Form for 23MD46, Pineville Site. On File at Center for Archaeological Research, Southwest Missouri State University, Springfield. Caylor, Jule A. 1988 How to Use Aerial Photographs for Natural Resource Applications. Edited by Henry M. Lachowski, USDA Forest Service Washington Office Engineering Nationwide Forestry Applications Program, Washington, D.C. Crane, H. R. and J. B. Griffin 1958 University of Michigan Radiocarbon Dates III. Science 128:1117-1123. Crane, H. R. and J. B. Griffin 1963 University of Michigan Radiocarbon Dates VIII. Radiocarbon 5:228-253. Crane, H. R. and J. B. Griffin 1965 University of Michigan Radiocarbon Dates X. Radiocarbon 7:123-152. Crane, H.R. and J. B. Griffin 1968 University of Michigan Radiocarbon Dates XII. Radiocarbon, 10:61-114. Curtiss, Edwin 1879 Notes on Visit to Point Remove site (3CN4). Harvard University Peabody Museum Curtiss Collection 80-20. DataNational 2004 Northwest Arkansas Regional Community Phonebook, 19th edition. Chantilly, VA. Davis, Hester A. 1967 The Puzzle of Point Remove. Field Notes: Monthly Newsletter of the Arkansas Archeological Society 33:2-7. Davis, Hester A., Don G. Wyckoff and M. A. Holmes 1971 Proceedings of the Eighth Annual Caddo Conference. Occasional Publication Number 2, Oklahoma Archaeological Survey, Norman. 204 Dellinger, Samuel C. 1929 Letter to Mr. J. E. Garner, Editor, Southwest American, concerning a recent article about site 3YE15 (Bluffton Mounds), 18 December. On file at University of Arkansas Museum. Dollar, Clyde 1958 Report on Site Zeta (3SB3). On file at Arkansas Archeological Survey in 3SB3 Site Files, Fayetteville, Arkansas. Dort, W. Jr. 1987 Salient aspects of the terminal zone of continental glaciation in Kansas. In Quaternary Environments of Kansas: Kansas Geological Survey Guidebook Series 5, Midwest Friends of the Pleistocene, 33rd Field Conference, edited by W. C. Johnson, pp. 55-66. Cox, George W. 1990 Form and dispersion of Mima mounds in relation to slope steepness and aspect on the Columbia Plateau. Great Basin Naturalist 50:21-31. Emerson, Thomas E. 1997 Cahokia and the Archaeology of Power. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Exon, Sally, Vince Gaffney, Ann Woodward, and Ron Yorston 2000 Stonehenge Landscapes. Archaeopress, Oxford. Fayetteville Weekly Democrat (FWD) 1899 News Item Concerning Recently Excavated Burials. Thursday March 16, p. 3, column 3. Fayetteville. Feld, Steven and Keith H. Basso 1996 Senses of Place. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe. Finklestein, J. Joe 1940 The Norman Site Excavations Near Wagoner, Oklahoma. Oklahoma Prehistorian 3(3):2-15. Reprinted in Caddoan Archeology 11(1-2):6-22. Foreman, Grant 1939 Fort Davis. Chronicles of Oklahoma 17:147-151. Fritz, Gayle J. 1979 Mounds in the Ozarks of Northwest Arkansas. Paper presented at the Arkansas Archeological Society Annual Meetings, Arkadelphia, Manuscript on file at Arkansas Archeological Survey, Fayetteville. 205 Fritz, Gayle J. 1986 Mounds in Northwest Arkansas: A More Positive Approach. In Contributions to Ozark Prehistory, Arkansas Archeological Survey Research Series No. 27, edited by George Sabo III, pp. 49-54, Fayetteville, Arkansas. Galm, Jerry R. 1978 Archaeological Investigations at Wister Lake, LeFlore County, Oklahoma. Archaeological Research and Management Center, Research Series 1, University of Oklahoma, on file at Oklahoma Archaeological Survey, Norman. Galm, Jerry R. 1981 The Prehistoric Cultural Adaptations in the Wister Valley, East-Central Oklahoma. Ph.D. dissertation, Washington State University. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor. Galm, Jerry R. 1984 Arkansas Valley Caddoan Formative: The Wister and Fourche Maline Phases. In Prehistory of Oklahoma, Edited by Robert E. Bell, pp. 199219, Academic Press, Inc., New York. Gifford, Charlette and George H Odell 1999 Digging in Museums: WPA Archaeology in the Grand River Valley as Seen From the Duck Creek Site. Bulletin of the Oklahoma Anthropological Society 47:83-111. Greengo, Robert E. 1957 Appraisal of the archaeological resources of the Dardanelle Reservoir, Arkansas. Report submitted to the Smithsonian Institution River Basin Surveys, Washington, D.C. On file at the Arkansas Archeological Survey, Fayetteville. Guccione, M. J. 1999 Geomorphology of the Poteau River and Fourche Maline Creek. In Aspects of Soil Geomorphology in Eastern Oklahoma: A Pleistocene Medley, Guidebook for South-Central Friends of the Pleistocene and Discussion Group for Quaternary Earth Scientists Field Trip, 59 pages. Guccione, Margaret J. and Barbara Rieper 1988 Late Quaternary history of the White River, Fayetteville, Arkansas. The Compass: Earth Science Journal of Sigma Gamma Epsilon 65(4):199-206. Guccione, M. J., R. A. Shingleur, R. B. Van Arsdale, and M. Pratt 1991 Origin of some prairie mounds in northwestern Arkansas. Abstracts with Programs Geological Society of America 23(4):28. 206 Hall, Stephen A. 1988 Environment and archaeology of the central Osage Plains. Plains Anthropologist 33(120):203-218. Hally, David J. 1993 The Territorial Size of Mississippian Chiefdoms. In Archaeology of Eastern North America: Papers in Honor of Stephen Williams, edited by James B. Stoltman, pp. 143-167. Mississippi Department of Archives and History, Archaeological Report No. 25, Jackson. Hally, David J. 1996 Platform-Mound Construction and the Instability of Mississippian Chiefdoms. In Political Structure and Change in the Prehistoric Southeastern United States, edited by John F. Scarry, pp. 92-127. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Hally, David J. 1999 The Settlement Pattern of Mississippian Chiefdoms in Northern Georgia. In Settlement Pattern Studies in the Americas: Fifty Years Since Virŭ, edited by Brian R. Billman and Gary M. Feinman, pp. 96-115. Smithsonian Institution Press: Washington D. C. Haynak, Christine M. 2001 A Study of Nineteenth Century Gravemarkers in Northwest Arkansas. Unpublished Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville. Haynes, C. Vance 1985 Mastadon-Bearing Springs and Late Quaternary Geochronology of the Lower Pomme De Terre Valley, Missouri. Geological Society of America Special Paper. Heartfield, Price and Greene, Inc. 1984 Cultural Resources Survey of Proposed Ozark Gas Transmission Lateral Gas Gathering System, Annual Report No. 1. Report Prepared for Ozark Gas Pipeline Corp. and Delhi Gas Pipeline Corp., Dallas, Texas. On file at Arkansas Archeological Survey, Fayetteville. Henry, Donald O. 1998 The area in the vicinity of Tulsa, Oklahoma during the Late Holocene. Bulletin of the Oklahoma Anthropological Society 47:67-81. Higuchi, Tadahiko 1983 Visual and Spatial Structure of Landscapes. Translated by Charles Terry. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, Massachusetts. 207 Hilliard, Jerry 1981 An Archeological Survey of the Independent Living Community Fort Smith, Sebastian Co., Arkansas. Report on file at the Arkansas Archeological Survey, Fayetteville. Hillman, Ross G. and Robert L. Gearhart 1983 Mound Excavations. In The Loftin Component, 23SN42, The Missouri Archaeologist 44:7-13, Robert T. Bray, Editor. Hoffman, Michael P. 1965 An Archeological Survey of the Ozark Reservoir in West-Central Arkansas. Manuscript on file at the Southeast Archeological Center, Macon, and the Arkansas Archeological Survey, Fayetteville. Hoffman, Michael P. 1968 Aerial Photography Over Ozark Reservoir in West-Central Arkansas. Manuscript on file at Arkansas Archeological Survey, Fayetteville. Hoffman, Michael P. 1977 An Archeological Survey of the Ozark Reservoir in West-Central Arkansas. In Ozark Reservoir Papers: Archeology in West-Central Arkansas 1965-1970, Arkansas Archeological Survey Research Series No. 10, pp. 1-44, Fayetteville. Hoffman, Michael P. 1985 Central Arkansas River Valley Antiquities Dealers in the 1920s-1950s Era. Manuscript on File at Arkansas Archeological Survey, Fayetteville, and paper presented at Annual Meetings of the Southern Anthropological Society, Fayetteville. Howard, Lynn E. 1938 (?) Muskogee County, Introduction. WPA project notes. On file at University of Oklahoma Western History Collection, WPA Archaeological Survey Project Collection, Box 1, Folder 2(1), Norman, Oklahoma. Howard, Lynn E. 1939 Cherokee County Quarterly Report. In Federal Works Agency Work Projects Administration Quarterly Report of the Oklahoma Archaeological Excavations of Prehistoric Indian Sites Project, Forrest E. Clements, editor, pp. 7-35. On file at University of Oklahoma Western History Collections, WPA Archaeological Survey Project Collection, Box 3, Folder 4, Norman, Oklahoma. 208 Howard, Lynn E. 1940 Preliminary Report of Cherokee County, Oklahoma Archaeology. Oklahoma Prehistorian 3(1):2-9. Howard, Lynn E. 1949 Report of Archaeological Explorations in the Southern Part of Arkansas from November 23 to November 28, 1949. Report on file at University of Arkansas Museum, Fayetteville. Howard, Lynne E 1949b Letter to James B. Griffin, Director, University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology at Ann Arbor, concerning 3SB1 and other sites. On file at University of Arkansas Museum, Fayetteville. Hudson, Gailen E. 1984 National Register of Historic Places Inventory Nomination Form for Site 3SB245 (Goforth-Saindon), on file at Arkansas Archeological Survey, Fayetteville. Hunt, Cliff F. 1999 Chapter 3: Visibility. In Ozark-Ouachita Highlands Assessment, Report 2: Air Quality, United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station General Technical Report SRS-31, pp. 23-31, Asheville, North Carolina. Irving, Washington 1835 A Tour on the Prairies. Carey, Lea & Blanchard, Philadelphia. Johnson-Peterson, Jennifer S. 1998 Visibility in Hercules Glades Wilderness, Taney County, Missouri: A Study of Baseline Conditions. Unpublished Master's thesis, Department of Geography, Geology, and Planning, Southwest Missouri State University. Kay, Marvin 1986 Caddoan Mound Construction Chronologies of the Western Ozark Highlands, Arkansas. In Contributions to Ozark Prehistory, edited by George Sabo III, pp. 77-79, Arkansas Archeological Survey Research Series No. 27, Fayetteville. Kay, Marvin and John Dixon 1990 Archaeology and geomorphology of the Cherokee Turnpike project, Mayes County, Oklahoma. Bulletin of the Oklahoma Anthropological Society 39:57-101. 209 Kay, Marvin, George Sabo III and Ralph Merletti 1989 Late Prehistoric Settlement Patterning: A View from Three Caddoan Civic-Ceremonial Centers in Northwest Arkansas. In Contributions to Spiro Archaeology: Mound Excavations and Regional Perspectives, edited by J. Daniel Rogers, Don G. Wyckoff, and Dennis A. Peterson, pp. 129157, Oklahoma Archeological Survey Studies in Oklahoma's Past No. 16. Kessler, M.A. and B. T. Werner 2003 Self-Organization of Sorted Patterned Ground. Science 229:380-383 Klinger, Timothy C., Don R. Dickson and John L. Gray IV 1999 South Mountain Water Association System Improvements. Historic Preservation Associates Report 99-06, submitted to Arkansas Historic Preservation Program Department of Arkansas Heritage, Little Rock. Knight, Vernon James Jr. 1986 The Institutional Organization of Mississippian Religion. American Antiquity 51: 675-689. Knight, Vernon James Jr. 1989 Symbolism of Mississippian Mounds. In Powhatan's Mantle: Indians of the Colonial Southeast, edited by Peter H. Wood, Gregory A. Waselkov, and M. Thomas Hatley, pp. 279-291. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln. Kvamme, Kenneth L. 1996 Randomization Methods for Statistical Inference in Raster GIS Contexts. The Colloquia of the XIII International Congress of Prehistoric and Protohistoric Sciences, edited by Amilcare Bietti, Alberto Cazzella, Ian Johnson, and Albertus Voorrips, 107-111, A.B.A.C.O., Forli, Italy. Lave, Jean 1988 Cognition in Practice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Lave, Jean 1991 Situated Learning. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Llobera, Marcos 2000 Understanding Movement: A Pilot Model Towards the Sociology of Movement. In Beyond the Map: Archaeology and Spatial Technologies, edited by Gary Locke, pp. 65-84. NATO Science Series, IOS Press, Amsterdam. 210 Lock, Gary (editor) 2000 Beyond the Map: Archaeology and Spatial Technologies. NATO Science Series A, Vol. 321, IOS Press, Amsterdam. Lock, Gary 2000 Lock, Gary 2003 Session 1 Discussion: A Particular View. In Beyond the Map: Archaeology and Spatial Technologies, edited by Gary Lock, pp. 60-64, NATO Science Series A, Vol. 321, IOS Press, Amsterdam. Using Computers in Archaeology: Towards Virtual Pasts. Routledge, London. Madole, Richard F., C. Reid Ferring, Margaret J. Guccione, Stephen A. Hall, William C. Johnson and Curtis J. Sorensen 1991 Quaternary Geology of the Osage Plains and Interior Highlands. In The Geology of North America, Vol. K-2, Quaternary Nonglacial Geology: Conterminous U.S.,The Geological Society of America. Mainfort, Robert C. Jr. and Sarah R. Demb 2001 Edwin Curtiss' Archaeological Explorations Along the St. Francis River, Northeast Arkansas, 1879-1880. The Arkansas Archeologist 41:1-27. Marquardt, William H. and Carole L. Crumley 1987 Theoretical Issues in the Analysis of Spatial Patterning. In Regional Dynamics: Burgundian Landscapes in Historical Perspective, edited by Carole L. Crumley and William H. Marquardt, pp. 1-18. Academic Press, San Diego. Mason, Clint 1929 Letter to University of Arkansas Museum Director Samuel Dellinger about 3WA1, Elkins Mound site, 5 June 1929, on file in University of Arkansas Museum X-files, Fayetteville. Mayo, Michael B. 1975 A Resurvey and Assessment of the Prehistoric Resources of Wister Lake, LeFlore County, Oklahoma. Oklahoma River Basin Survey Project General Survey Report No. 15, University of Oklahoma. On file at Oklahoma Archaeological Survey, Norman. McAlexander, William 1994 Hwy 253 Safety Improvements, Sebastian County. Archeological Report for Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department, on file at Arkansas Archeological Survey, Fayetteville. 211 McFaul, Michael 1979 A Geomorphic and Pedological Interpretation of the Mima-Mounded Prairies, South Puget Lowland, Washington State. Unpublished Master's thesis, Department of Geography, University of Wyoming, Laramie. McKern, C. W. 1939 The Midwestern Taxonomic Method as an Aid to Archaeological Culture Study. American Antiquity 4:301-313. Meagher, Tom 1939 (?) Map of the Falls of the Verdigris. WPA Indian-Pioneer History Project S-149, Grant Foreman, Supervisor, on file at Oklahoma Archaeological Survey, Norman. Moorehead, Warren King 1931 Archaeology of the Arkansas River Valley. Yale University Press, New Haven. Morrow, Juliet E. 2004 The Sacred Spiro Landscape, Cahokia Connections, and Flat Top Mounds. Central States Archaeological Journal 51:112-114. Muller, Jon 1997 Mississippian Political Economy. Plenum Press, New York. Muskogee Daily Phoenix 1932 Discovery of Crumbling Bones of Vanished Race Under Mound Near Gore Attracts Scientists. 22 May, pp. 1-3, Muskogee, Oklahoma. Muto, Guy R. 1978 The Habiukut of Eastern Oklahoma. Parris Mound, Part I, Phase I: An Archaeological Report. Series in Anthropology No. 3, Oklahoma Historical Society, Oklahoma City. Muto, Guy R., Molly S. Mayo and Kay Zahrai (editors) 1980 From Hunting and Gathering to Business and Banditry: Holocene Adaptations in Lee's Creek Valley, an Anthropological Assessment. Draft report for Oklahoma Historical Society, on file at Oklahoma Archaeological Survey, Norman. Northrip, John D. and W. J. Bennett Jr. 1988 Archaeological Site Location and Evaluation. Archaeological Assessments Report No. 82, Little Rock District, Corps of Engineers. Nuttall, Thomas 1821 Journal of Travels into the Arkansa Territory. Palmer, Philadelphia. 212 Orr, Kenneth G. 1941 The Eufala Mound: Contributions to the Spiro Focus. The Oklahoma Prehistorian, 4(1):2-15. Orr, Kenneth G. 1942 The Eufala Mound, Oklahoma: Contributions to the Spiro Focus. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Chicago. Parsons, Arthur R. 1910 Archaeological Notes (Mounds in Oklahoma). The Archaeological Bulletin 2:92-93, Council Grove, Kansas. Peebles, Christopher S. 1978 Determinates of Settlement Size and Location in the Moundville Phase. In Mississippian Settlement Patterns, edited by Bruce D. Smith, pp. 369-416, Academic Press, New York. Perttula, Timothy K. 1983 The Loftin Site and Phase in Ozark Prehistory. The Missouri Archaeologist 44:40-74. Perttula, Timothy K. 1996 Caddoan area Archaeology Since 1990. Journal of Archaeological Research, 4:295-333. Perttula, Timothy K. and James E. Bruseth (editors) 1998 The Native History of the Caddo. Texas Archaeological Research Laboratory, The University of Texas at Austin. Printup, Dan 1969 Experiments in Aerial Photography. Arkansas Academy of Science Proceedings, Vol. 23:24-28, Fayetteville. Purrington, Burton L. 1971 The Prehistory of Delaware County, Oklahoma: Cultural Continuity and Change on the Western Ozark Periphery. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Wisconsin. Pursell, Corin C. 2004 Geographic Distribution and Symbolism of Colored Mound Architecture in the Mississippian Southeast. Paper presented at the combined 50th Midwest Archaeological Conference and 61st Southeastern Archaeological Conference, St. Louis. 213 Quinn, J.H. 1961 Prairie mounds of Arkansas. Arkansas Archaeological Society Newsletter, 2(6):1-8. Ray, Jack H. 1996 Preservation Measures and Limited Test Excavations at the Pineville Site. Missouri Archaeological Society Quarterly 13(3):12-18. Reimer, P. J., M. G. L. Baillie, E. Bard, A. Bayliss, J. W. Beck, C. J. H. Bertrand, P. G. Blackwell, C. E. Buck, G. S. Burr, K. B. Cutler, P. E. Damon, R. L. Edwards, R. G. Fairbanks, M. Friedrich, T. P. Guilderson, A. G. Hogg, K. A. Hughen, B. Kromer, F. G. McCormac, S. W. Manning, C. B. Ramsey, R. W. Reimer, S. Remmele, J. R. Southon, M. Stuiver, S. Talamo, F. W. Taylor, J. van der Plicht, and C. E. Weyhenmeyer 2004 IntCal04 Terrestrial Radiocarbon Age Calibration, 26-0 ka BP. Radiocarbon 46:1029-1058. Riggs, John 1996 Stanson Davis Poultry Houses. Arkansas Archaeological Project Area Database Project No. 3536, Report on File at Arkansas Archeological Survey, Fayetteville. Rogers, Hugh C. 1958 Letter to Dr. Charles McGimsey concerning Cavanaugh Mound. On file in University of Arkansas Museum X-Files, Fayetteville Arkansas. Rogers, J. Daniel 1978 Federally Sponsored Work in Oklahoma Before World War II. Manuscript on File at Oklahoma Archaeological Survey, Norman. Rogers, J. Daniel 1982 Specialized Buildings in Northern Caddo Prehistory. University of Oklahoma Papers in Anthropology 23(1):105-117. Rogers, Daniel J., Don G. Wyckoff and Dennis A. Peterson, Eds. 1989 Contributions to Spiro Archaeology: Mound Excavations and Regional Perspectives. Oklahoma Archaeological Survey Studies in Oklahoma's Past, Number 16, Norman. Rogers, J. Daniel, Lois E. Albert, and Frank Winchell 2000 Chronometrics at the Norman Site. Caddoan Archeology Newsletter 11 (102):61-68. 214 Rose, Jerome C., Michael P. Hoffman, Barbara A. Burnett, Anna M. Harmon, and James E. Barnes 1998 Skeletal Biology of the Prehistoric Caddo. In The Native History of the Caddo: Their Place in Southeastern Archeology and Ethnohistory, edited by Timothy K. Perttula and James E. Bruseth, pp. 113-126. Texas Archeological Research Laboratory Studies in Archeology 30,, The University of Texas at Austin. Rose, Jerome C. (editor) 1999 Bioarchaeology of the South Central United States. Arkansas Archeological Survey Research Report No. 55, Fayetteville. Rousmaniere, John 1983 The Annapolis Book of Seamanship. Simon and Schuster, New York. Sabo, George III 1982 The Huntsville Site (3MA22): A Caddoan Civic Ceremonial Center in the Arkansas Ozarks. Paper presented at the 47th Annual Meeting of the Society For American Archaeology, Minneapolis. On file at Arkansas Archeological Survey, Fayetteville. Sabo, George III 1986 Preliminary Excavations at the Huntsville Site. In Contributions to Ozark Prehistory, edited by George Sabo III, Arkansas Archeological Survey Research Series No. 27, pp. 55-76, Fayetteville. Sabo, George III and Ann M. Early 1990 Prehistoric Culture History. In Human Adaptations in the Ozark and Ouachita Mountains, by George Sabo III, Ann M. Early, Jerome C. Rose, Barbara A. Burnett, Louis Vogele Jr., and James P. Harcourt, Arkansas Archeological Survey Research Series No. 31, pp. 34-120, Fayetteville. Schambach, Frank F. 1970 Pre-Caddoan Cultures of the Trans-Mississippi South. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Harvard University, Cambridge. Schambach, Frank F. 1993 Some New Interpretations of Spiroan Culture History. In Archaeology of Eastern North America: Papers in Honor of Stephen Williams. Edited by James B. Stoltman, Archaeological Report No. 25, Mississippi Department of Archives and History, Jackson, Mississippi. 215 Schambach, Frank F. 2000 Spiroan Traders, the Sanders Site, and the Plains Interaction Sphere: A Reply to Bruseth, Wilson, and Perttula. Plains Anthropologist 45(171): 7-33. Schambach, Frank F. 2003 Osage Orange Bows, Indian Horses, and the Blackland Prairie of Northeast Texas. In Blackland Prairies of the Gulf Coastal Plain; Nature, Culture, and Sustainability. Edited by E. Peacock and T. Shauwecker, pp. 212-236. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Schruben, Paul 1999 Color Shaded Relief Map of the Coterminous United States. Electronic document, U.S.G.S. Open-File Report 99-11: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/of99-011/online.html, accessed March 2005. Scholtz, James A. and Michael P. Hoffman 1968 An Archeological Survey of the Arkansas River Navigation Projects in Arkansas. Manuscript on file at Arkansas Archeological Survey. Shaeffer, James 1956 News—Salvage Archaeology. Oklahoma Anthropological Society Newsletter 5(11):4. Simpson, Duane 2002 A Hybrid Classification Technique for Predicting Cultural Anomalies in a Set of Geophysical Data from the Black Hoe Site, 3BE356, Benton County, Arkansas. Unpublished Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville. Southwest American [Fort Smith, Arkansas] 1929 Polluck's Bluff Mounds are Rich in Indian Artifacts. 14 December, Fort Smith, Arkansas. Squire, Ephraim G. and Edwin H. Davis 1848 Ancient Monuments of the Mississippi Valley. Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge, Vol. 1. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. SSURGO 2004 Soil Survey Geographic Database, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Fort Worth, Texas. Accessed in November and December of 2004: http://SoilDataMart.nrcs.usda.gov. 216 Stahle, David W. and Malcolm K. Cleaveland 1994 Tree-ring reconstructed rainfall over the southeastern U.S.A. during the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age. Climatic Change 26:199-212. Story, Dee Ann 1998 The George C. Davis site: Glimpses into early Caddoan symbolism and ideology. In The native history of the Caddo: Their place in southeastern archaeology and ethnohistory, edited by T. K. Perttula and J. E. Bruseth, pp. 9-43. Texas Archaeological Research Laboratory Studies in Archaeology No. 30, The University of Texas at Austin. Stuiver, M. and P. J. Reimer 1993 Extended 14C Database and Revised CALIB Radiocarbon Calibration program. Radiocarbon 35:215-230. Thoburn, Joseph B. 1925 Quarterly Report of the Secretary of the Oklahoma Historical Society. Chronicles of Oklahoma 3(3):240-248. Thoburn, Joseph B. 1926 Oklahoma Archaeological Explorations in 1925-1926. Chronicles of Oklahoma 4(2):143-148. Thoburn, Joseph B. 1929 The Prehistoric Cultures of Oklahoma. Chronicles of Oklahoma 7(3):211241. Thoburn, Joseph B. 1931 The Prehistoric Cultures of Oklahoma. In Archaeology of the Arkansas River Valley, by Warren King Moorehead, pp. 53-150, Yale University Press, New Haven. Tobler, Waldo R. 1970 A Computer Movie Simulating Urban Growth in the Detroit Region. Economic Geography 46:234-240. Townsend, Richard F. and Chester P. Walker 2004 The Ancient Art of Caddo Ceramics. In Hero, Hawk, and Open Hand: American Indian Art of the Ancient Midwest and South, edited by Richard F. Townsend, pp. 230-245. The Art Institute of Chicago and Yale University Press, New Haven. Tryon, Charles P. 1976 Final Report on the Gray Hollow Glades Management Study. Report on file, Ava Ranger District, Mark Twain National Forest. 217 United States Geological Survey 2004 Seamless Data Distribution System, National Center for Earth Resources Observations and Science (EROS). Electronic data distribution system, http://seamless.usgs.gov/, accessed 2004. Valastro, S. Jr., and E. M. Davis 1970 University of Texas at Austin Radiocarbon Dates VII. Radiocarbon 12:249-280. Valastro, S. Jr., E. M. Davis, and C. T. Rightmire 1968 University of Texas at Austin Radiocarbon Dates VI. Radiocarbon 10:384-401. Van Leusen, Martijn 2002 Pattern to Process: Methodological Investigations into the Formation and Interpretation of Spatial Patterns in Archaeological Landscapes. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Groningen. Vogel, Gregory 1998 An Assessment of Prairie Mound Origin Theories at University of Arkansas Experimental Farms. Manuscript on File at University of Arkansas Department of Anthropology, Fayetteville. Vogel, Gregory 2005 Cavanaugh: A Late Prehistoric Platform Mound in Western Arkansas. Caddoan Archaeology Journal 14:35-63. Vogel, Gregory, Marvin Kay and Louis Vogele Jr. 2005 A Platform Mound at the Norman Site (34WG2), Eastern Oklahoma. Southeastern Archaeology 24:28-45. Vogel, Gregory 1999 A Geoarchaeological Study in the Dissected Uplands of Ava District, Mark Twain National Forest. Unpublished Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville. Vogele, Louis E. Jr. 2000 Current Status of the Norman Site. Caddoan Archeology 11(1-2):69-71. Ward, Phillip A. III and Brian J. Carter 1999 Rates of stream incision in the middle part of the Arkansas River basin based on late Tertiary to mid-Pleistocene volcanic ash. Geomorphology 27:205-228. 218 Washburn, A. L. 1988 Mima Mounds, an evaluation of proposed origins with special reference to the Puget Lowlands. Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geology and Earth Resources Report of Investigations 29. Watson, V. 1947 A Report of Archaeological Reconnaissance in the Wister Reservoir Area, LeFlore County, Oklahoma. Appendix A in Preliminary Report on Archaeological Activities Conducted by the Department of Anthropology in the Wister Reservoir Area in the Summer of 1947. Report on file at Oklahoma Archaeological Survey, Norman. Wheatley, David 1995 Cumulative Viewshed Analysis: A GIS-Based Method for Investigating Intervisibility, and its Archaeological Application. In G. Lock & Z. Stancic (Edsitors), Archaeology and Geographical Information Systems: A European Perspective. (pp. 171-185). London: Taylor and Francis. Wheatley, David and Mark Gillings 2000 Vision, Perception, and GIS: Developing Enriched Approaches to the Study of Archaeological Visibility. In Beyond the Map: Archaeology and Spatial Technologies, edited by Gary Lock, pp. 1-27, NATO Science Series A, Vol. 321, IOS Press, Amsterdam. Whitley, Thomas G. and Lacey M. Hicks 2003 A Geographic Information Systems Approach to Understanding Potential Prehistoric and Historic Travel Corridors. Southeastern Archaeology 22:77-91. Willey, Gordon R. and Philip Phillips 1958 Method and Theory in American Archaeology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Wolfman, Daniel 1990 Archaeomagnetic Dating in Arkansas and Border Areas of Adjacent States—II. In Archaeomagnetic Dating, edited by Jeffrey L. Eighmy and Robert S. Sternberg, pp. 237-260. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Woodall, J. Ned 1969 Cultural Ecology of the Caddo. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Southern Methodist University. 219 WPA (Works Progress Administration) 1937 Historical Mound. WPA Historic Sites and Federal Writers Project Collection, University of Oklahoma Western History Collections, Box 6 Folder 6. Alternate copy in Box 21, Folder 10. Wyckoff, Don G. 1980 Caddoan Adaptive Strategies in the Arkansas Basin, Eastern Oklahoma. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Washington State University. Wyckoff, Don G. and Thomas P. Barr 1967 The Cat Smith Site: A Late Prehistoric Village in Muskogee County, Oklahoma. Bulletin of the Oklahoma Anthropological Society 15:81-106.