Download - iBrarian

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.