Chiefly Power and Food Storage in Southeastern North America Author(s): Cameron B. Wesson Source: World Archaeology, Vol.

31, No. 1, Food Technology in Its Social Context: Production, Processing and Storage (Jun., 1999), pp. 145-164 Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/125100 . Accessed: 07/05/2011 01:44
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=taylorfrancis. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to World Archaeology.

http://www.jstor.org

Chiefly

power

and North

food

storage
America

in

southeastern

Cameron B. Wesson

Abstract and earlyhistoricNative Americansites in southeastern North Recent researchon late prehistoric Americareveals a series of changesin the natureof food storage activities.These alterationsare and shed light on the relatedto changesin sociopoliticalcomplexityand householdorganization, in the and of societiesin of emergence collapse complex,hierarchically-ranked importance storage thisregion.It is arguedthatthe abilityof elites to controlsurplusfoods andcommunalstoragefacilNorthAmerica(c. AD 1000), ities playeda majorrole in the emergenceof chiefdomsin southeastern food storageto individualhouseholdsduringthe Protohistoric and and that the returnof primary Historicperiods(AD 1550-1750)playedan important partin their collapse.

Keywords Alabama;Creek;politics;households; storage

Introduction Attempts to explain the development of social complexity in chiefdom level societies have long stressed the role of material advantage in the emergence of hierarchical social formations. Elite social power is seen arising out of the role of chiefs as central redistributive officials (Fried 1967: 116-18; Sahlins 1958; Service 1962, 1975). These interpretations propose that chiefs overseeing communal stores of surplus goods (particularly food surpluses) gradually pressed these resources into service to finance not only public ventures but also their own personal aggrandizement. Although the cross-cultural importance of chiefly redistribution has been questioned (Earle 1987), there is ample evidence to support the idea that in many societies, chiefs were responsible for the storage and redistribution of surplus foods (Blitz 1993; Ingold 1983; Testart 1982). Serving in this vital capacity grants chiefs not only control over existing food storage but also gives them the right to call for additional periodic contributions to these stores. Earle (1977: 216) sees these demands transcending mere redistribution, serving instead as the mobilization of resources for chiefly use and social aggrandizement. These arguments suggest that the World Archaeology Vol. 31(1): 145-164 Food Technology in its Social Context ? Routledge 1999 0043-8243

146

Cameron B. Wesson

control of surplus foods and other economic resources is an essential mechanism in the development of social ranking in many societies. Recent research explores alternative pathways to power for aspiring chiefs (e.g. Carniero 1981; Earle 1987, 1991, 1997; Feinman and Neitzel 1984; Flanagan 1989; Flannery 1972; Hayden 1995; Helms 1979, 1993; Johnson and Earle 1987; Sanders and Webster 1978; Upham 1990). These studies have shifted the discussion of chiefly emergence from issues of redistribution to ideology, esoteric knowledge, prestige goods, and warfare. Although these efforts have advanced our understanding of complex societies, the political economy is still discussed as the most stable form of power for ascendant elites (Costin and Earle 1989: 691; Earle 1997: 6-7, 203-5). From this materialist perspective, only after elites install themselves in positions critical to the economic life of their communities can they turn their attention to other means of social control (Earle 1997: 203; Hayden 1995). As Earle (1997: 211) states, these other 'sources of power are effectively co-opted by using the surplus generated from intensive agriculture to finance control over warriors and police, craft specialists and managers, priests and ceremonies'. It is important to remember, however, that economics cannot be disembedded from social relations of authority and the larger political economy. Attempts by the elites to gain social power through the manipulation of the economy, ideology, or any other means would not have gone unchallenged. Non-elites and other aspiring elites most certainly would have played a significant role in the sociopolitical development of these societies. None the less, most attempts to explain the emergence of chiefdoms proceed from the assumption that the roots of social complexity are to be found in the efforts of highly motivated, aggressive, individual entrepreneurs, or 'aggrandizers' (see Clark and Blake 1994; Hayden 1995). These studies do not directly address non-elite actions in response to emergent inequalities, the implication being that non-elites are either unaware that the fruits of their labor are being siphoned off to support elite aspirations (they are complicitors in the process of social differentiation), or they are powerless to stop the growing social distance between themselves and elites. Morton Fried's (1967: 183) contention that non-elites played a minimal role in the development of social ranking, and that the events leading to hierarchical society 'passed without notice until they were fully accomplished' best represents such views. The rise of social complexity in southeastern North America, as in other world areas, is thought to coincide with the intensification of agriculturalproduction, in particularthe cultivation of maize (Smith 1989). Several scholars propose that the intensification of maize agriculture was the causal factor in the development of southeastern chiefdoms (Caldwell 1958; Griffin 1952); a view consistent with the idea that social ranking is dependent on the ability to produce food surpluses (Fried 1967: 111-12). Agricultural intensification would have radically altered existing relations of production in non-hierarchical southeastern societies, making it highly unlikely that the producers of this surplus (primarily non-elites) would have been unaware of its existence, or its use by elites to augment their own social positions. The production of agricultural surpluses and the expansion of elite sociopolitical power would have been visible processes; they would have necessitated changes in the storage and distribution of surplus foods that would have been apparent to even the most non-astute social actors. Attempts to model the development of complex society must take into account not only the actions of those desirous of increasing their social power, but also those

Chiefly power and food storage in southeastern North America

147

lacking such aspirations. We must resist the urge to reserve cultural causality for elites, and instead see the development of sociopolitical complexity as the result of a multi-causal process of negotiation that included all members of society. Symbolic capital and prestige goods economies Wealth, the ultimate basis of power, can exert power, and exert it durably, only in the form of symbolic capital, the unrecognizable, and hence socially recognizable, form of the other kinds of capital. Their chief is indeed, in Malinowski's phrase, a 'tribal banker', amassing food only to lavish it on others, in order to build up a capital of obligations and debts which will be repaid in the form of homage, respect, loyalty, and when the opportunity arises, work and services, which may be the bases of a new accumulation of material goods. (Bourdieu 1977: 195) Our understanding of sociopolitical developments in hierarchically ranked societies can be advanced through Bourdieu's (1977) concept of symbolic capital. Symbolic capital is the cultural value that derives from the ability to manipulate resources and social relations for the advancement of one's honor and prestige. Bourdieu (1977: 179-80) views the ability to convert material goods into symbolic capital as more socially valuable than the simple ownership of these items. Thus, building one's symbolic capital demands not the hoarding of resources, but their dispersal, symbolic destruction, or consumption. However, as Hayden (1995: 69) points out, 'the mere act of giving wealth away by itself does not result in increased power for the giver. To be effective, wealth must be given away in contexts that generate recognized and binding obligations or other expected practical benefits.' Archaeological evidence and ethnohistorical documents from southeastern North America indicate that social strategies were in place that favored gift giving and competitive feasting in order to solidify social alliances and generate symbolic capital. Such practices set the stage for the development of social ranking in southeastern North America. Recent explorations of the development of sociopolitical complexity in the southeast have focused on the role of elites in the control of prestige goods economies (Anderson 1990, 1994; Barker 1992; Brown et al. 1990; Muller 1997; Nassaney 1992; Pauketat 1992, 1994; Peregrine 1992; Rogers 1996; Scarry 1990,1996; Smith 1990; Steponaitis 1991; Welch 1991, 1996). Prestige goods economies are systems in which elite political power is advanced through the control of resources that are available only through external trade (Frankenstein and Rowlands 1978: 76). Prestige goods are considered valuable because they symbolize other-worldly authority, making them powerful representations of social power (sacra) and non-local contacts (Helms 1979, 1988, 1992, 1993; Knight 1986, 1990; Pauketat 1994; Peregrine 1992). Through their manipulation by elites, prestige goods become essential components of ideologies that support elite social aggrandizement (Knight 1985; Steponaitis 1986; Waselkov 1993). These items usually are not hoarded (i.e. commodified), but are used by elites to establish and strengthen social alliances through gift giving and trade. Thus, prestige goods systems produce symbolic capital through the conversion of material goods into social networks. The greater the investment of material resources in a social exchange, the greater the potential for increased symbolic capital for

148

Cameron B. Wesson

those offering these goods. What is ultimately accumulated is not the material, but 'a capital of honour and prestige' (Bourdieu 1977: 179). Those who play the game well are rewarded with increased social prestige and a clientele who are often both literally and figuratively in their debt. When individuals and/or lineages can successfully control access to prestige goods and convert them into symbolic capital, their social power expands (Helms 1988, 1993; Kleppe 1989). In most cases, however, they are not the game's only players. Other individuals or social groups are engaged in similar activities, attempting to improve their stock of symbolic capital as well. Frankenstein and Rowlands (1978: 76) state that [social] groups are linked to each other through the competitive exchange of wealth objects as gifts in feasting in continuous cycles of status rivalry. Descent groups reproduce themselves in opposition to each other as their leaders compete for dominance through differential access to resources and power. Due to a critical lack of sufficient economic resources and/or previously developed symbolic capital, the assets necessary to engage in such interactions are often well beyond the capacity of most members of society. Since symbolic capital distributes power unequally, those who have already amassed considerable wealth and prestige can afford to engage in the competitive cultivation of symbolic capital to a greater degree than their social rivals (Bourdieu 1977: 52, 67-8). But where do the resources necessary to compete in these lineage-based struggles for symbolic capital originate? In southeastern North America, the control of surplus foodstuffs appears to have provided much of the ammunition (symbolic capital) necessary for these 'status wars'. This paper examines the relationship between sociopolitical power and food storage in the late prehistoric and early historic Native American cultures of southeastern North America, using archaeological data from Muskogee Creek households in the present-day state of Alabama. Although the control of food storage has been argued by Hayden (1995: 73-4) to play a minor role in the evolution of social ranking, stored foods would have provided an unparalleled opportunity for the political manipulation of surplus for the advancement of elite hegemony. Through the analysis of archaeological data and ethnohistorical documents, we can examine long-term developments in food storage practices and their relationship to the expansion and contraction of chiefly power in the southeast. Due to the abundant documentation for the historical cultures of the southeast, these well-known groups provide rich analogies for groups from the previous Mississippian era (Blitz 1993: 10; Howard 1968; Hudson 1976; Swanton 1946). An examination of the political economy makes it possible to reveal strategies for social aggrandizement that may have originally brought southeastern elites to prominence during the Mississippian Period. In addition, if the archaeological correlates of these actions can be identified, our understanding of sociopolitical activity can be dramatically improved.

Food storage in southeastern North America The best evidence for sociopolitical complexity in the southeast is found at sites dating to the Mississippian Period (c. AD 900-1550). During this time, much of the region came

Chiefly power and food storage in southeastern North America

149

under the rule of paramount elites who controlled vast territories and large populations, uniting them into potent, complex chiefdoms. The most powerful of these elites is believed to have governed a polity extending over 200 miles in length along major southeastern river systems (DePratter et al. 1983; Hally et al. 1990; Hudson et al. 1985, 1987). It was these societies that the earliest European explorers encountered in the interior southeast, and written accounts of these meetings demonstrate the importance of chiefs (Biedema 1968; Elvas 1968; Ranjel 1904). The power of these elites included the ability to control external trade, raise armies and conduct warfare, oversee the construction of monumental earthen architecture, demand tribute, and control food surpluses (Smith and Hally 1992; Swanton 1946). Documentary evidence from the earliest Spanish contacts with southeastern peoples indicates that food storage was a public activity, with chiefs controlling the use and distribution of stored foods. Chronicles of the Hernando de Soto expedition (AD 1539-43), the earliest to penetrate the interior southeast, indicate that food was stored in large granaries (called barbacoas by the Spanish), under the direct control of chiefs (Swanton 1946: 372-9). As Robertson (1993: 75) states, They have barbacoas in which they keep their maize. This is a house raised up on four posts, timbered like a loft and the floor of cane ... [Around] the houses of the lords or principal men ... [are] many large barbacoas in which they gather together the tribute paid them by their Indians. Food from these stores was used to provision de Soto and his party (Elvas 1968; Ranjel 1904; Swanton 1922), suggesting that comestibles were used to establish alliances not only within Native American communities, but in their dealings with the Spanish as well (Rees 1997; Smith and Hally 1992: 102; Swanton 1922: 371). Muller (1997: 92) calculates that one of the smaller towns visited by the de Soto expedition was able to provision the Spanish with two to three metric tons of maize, indicating that even small villages were capable of producing and storing large food surpluses. Ward (1985: 98) suggests that these storage facilities functioned much like the Trobriand yam houses described by Malinowski (1961), with the conspicuous display of surplus foods demonstrating the wealth and social status of those controlling these facilities. Archaeological evidence also supports the idea that food storage was a communal activity. Mississippian societies usually lack household food storage facilities, indicating a preference for large, community-based facilities. This is particularly true in the largest Mississippian centers such as Cahokia (DeBoer 1988; Emerson 1997), Angel (Black 1967), Kincaid (Cole et al. 1951; Muller 1978), and Moundville (Welch cited in DeBoer 1988: 9), where household-based subterranean food storage is virtually unknown. However, prior to the Mississippian Period, there is little evidence for the communal storage of surplus foods. In fact, archaeological data from occupations immediately prior to the Mississippian emergence (c. AD 900) indicate that the majority of food storage was accommodated within individual households (DeBoer 1988; Dickens 1985; Ward 1985). Large, subterranean storage facilities are common in domestic structures from these pre-Mississippian, Late Woodland Period sites, some of which demonstrate extremely large capacities (exceeding 1.5 m3) (DeBoer 1988; Ward 1985). During the Protohistoric and Historic periods, archaeological and documentary evidence

150

Cameron B. Wesson

indicates that food storage continued to alternate, with communal storage giving way to household-based storage. These changes in storage practices, like those occurring during the Mississippian Period, have implications for the nature of chiefly power, and the role of individuals, households, and other small-scale social groups in the production of political culture. The Muskogee Creek provide a specific example of continued changes in storage practices that both resulted from, and played a role in, the erosion of traditional chiefly power. Food storage among the Creek The Creek were a sedentary agricultural society occupying central portions of the presentday states of Alabama and Georgia (Fig. 1). Composed of a confederacy of powerful Muskogean chiefdoms and several other ethnic groups, including portions of the Shawnee, Yuchi, Alabama, and Natchez, the Creek were one of the most powerful southeastern Native American groups (Corkran 1967: 4; Hawkins 1848: 14; Martin 1991; Swanton 1922; Wright 1986). Archaeological research indicates a strong link between the

NorthAmerica. Figure1 Area of Creekoccupationin southeastern

Chiefly power and food storage in southeastern North America

151

historic Creek and prehistoric Mississippian groups in the region (Fairbanks 1952, 1958; Hally 1994; Kelly 1938; Knight 1985, 1994a, 1994b; Mason 1963; Moore 1994; H. Smith 1973; Williams and Shapiro 1990), and linguistic evidence suggests that several of the paramount chiefdoms encountered by the de Soto expedition were themselves Muskogee Creek (Hudson 1976; Moore 1994; Swanton 1928, 1946). The Muskogee are traditional sources of analogies for Mississippian societies, and have helped establish widely accepted notions of Mississippian culture (Howard 1968; Knight 1981, 1986, 1990; Moore 1994; Swanton 1922, 1928; Waring 1968; Waring and Holder 1945). Recent archaeological research at the Creek site of Fusihatchee on the Tallapoosa River in Central Alabama (Fig. 1) has yielded the most complete information to date on Creek village life. Fusihatchee is important because it provides the first comprehensive data on Creek domestic structures, burials, and community structure, and because occupation lasted throughout the Protohistoric and Historic periods, yielding excellent diachronic data on household organization and food storage practices. The earliest evidence of a Creek presence at Fusihatchee is from the Protohistoric Atasi phase (AD 1550-1715), with continuous occupation until the middle of the Historic Tallapoosa phase (AD 1715-1832). Historical records indicate that Fusihatchee was abandoned after being destroyed by Andrew Jackson's forces during the First Creek War of 1813-14 (Swanton 1928). Analysis of Atasi phase domestic structures from Fusihatchee indicates limited household-based food storage facilities, with the majority of domestic structures lacking evidence of food storage (Fig. 2). These structures show little evidence of sub-surface storage features, suggesting that foods were most probably stored in above ground cribs (i.e. the barbacoas described by the Spanish). The few Atasi phase storage features encountered at Fusihatchee are very small in size (Fig. 3), with these shallow, dishshaped basins averaging only 0.17 m3 in volume (Fig. 4). The earliest accounts of Creek villages indicate that cribs for food storage were common, but most descriptions place them near elite residential compounds (Bartram 1958: 122-3; Bourne 1904: I: 53; Robertson 1993: 75). The limited number and size of subterranean storage features in Atasi phase domestic structures suggests that, as early accounts indicate, protohistoric Creek chiefs continued to control communal food storage facilities much as their Mississippian predecessors had. Food storage facilities in the subsequent Tallapoosa phase domestic structures at Fusihatchee reveal a very different pattern. Analysis of these structures indicates an abundance of household food storage features (Fig. 5). Unlike their small Atasi phase counterparts, Tallapoosa phase storage pits are usually large bell-shaped pits (Fig. 3), averaging 0.59 m3 in size, with some exceeding 1.70 m3 (Fig. 4). Both the increased number, and larger sizes of food storage features represent a dramatic change in the nature of food storage activities from the Atasi phase to the Tallapoosa phase. Such changes indicate the increasing importance of subterranean household-based food storage facilities, and suggest a possible transition from communal to individual household storage during the Protohistoric and Historic periods. Differences in household storage patterns between the Atasi and Tallapoosa phases coincide with changes in the architectural form and size of domestic structures (Wesson 1997), and with a dispersal of households across the landscape, away from nucleated

152

Cameron B. Wesson
Figure 2 Examples of
r.i. -/

r-~-

Atasi

.O XcO^i,?~~~

XI.

j/^*

J.
fchee.

Phase

domestic

structuresfrom Fusihat-

".

:cT.0'~ Xo7 C

l.~~ ,0\. Y y : 'Posts

meters

10

? (

Features

Structure Limit

villages (Ashley 1988). This pattern of change indicates a reduction in the size of domestic structures and, presumably, a decline in the number of individuals living under the same roof. These changes would have necessitated reorganization of household activities, and a shift in the household's importance for the Creek. These changes are best understood when viewed in concert with similar changes that occurred during the Mississippian emergence. The spatial structure of communities changes during the Mississippian Period, with data indicating that villages became increasingly nucleated (Bareis and Porter 1984: 156; Pauketat and Lopinot 1997). This evidence suggests not only increased population densities, but also the development of new modes of food storage for Mississippian peoples. Without storage pits, primary food storage for Mississippian peoples shifted to the aboveground granaries mentioned in early historical accounts. The shift from subterranean food storage facilities to public granaries has important implications for the organization of surplus, household production, and the nature of social and political relations. Attempts by dominant groups to gain (or maintain) power or control over others, are often countered by alternative ideologies that promote both active and symbolic resistance

Chiefly power and food storage in southeastern North America

/B
A
iid \ ::i L* :-:-i(i-i E i*E )E i d:,li,, Ei:: Ei: E* *:* TE ED-: E i i

153

i .... . . . .i . .
tEE.ES iS E. . E :-.!EEi .E S * .E i . .-::: ii*EE :,i. 5 ": EE X:i

-B

Figure 3 Examples of Atasi and Tallapoosa phase food storagefeatures.

A Plan Atasi Phase

B

Profile

N,

A
Plan Tallapoosa Phase Profile

to this domination (Bourdieu 1977; Beaudry et al. 1991; Giddens 1995: 50; McGuire 1992; McGuire and Paynter 1991). Such actions are often reflected in household remains, and recent research in southeastern North America indicates the significance of households to the understanding of sociopolitical processes (Mehrer and Collins 1995; Pauketat 1994; Rogers 1995; Scarry 1995; Smith 1995; Sullivan 1995; Wesson 1997; Williams 1995). Clandestine subterranean storage is an effective means of removing surplus foods from public display, reserving these surpluses for household use (DeBoer 1988). Visible surpluses cannot be effectively hidden from the knowledge of others, and such stores would be troublesome to households if they promoted excessive 'freeloading' by non-household members (Hayden 1995: 28-9). However, the successful manipulation of food surpluses would lead to the creation of new modes of economic exchange, and new possibilities for the cultivation of symbolic capital and political advantage. Previous research (summarized in DeBoer 1988: 9-10) indicates that, as elites begin their rise to power in the American Bottom region, two patterns of food storage emerge: sites in close proximity to Cahokia show decreased subterranean household storage, while those at some distance from the center show dramatic increases in both the number and size of subterranean food storage facilities. This led DeBoer (1988: 10) to conclude that these actions represent the conscription of surplus foods by the elites of Cahokia, with distant villages and farmsteads 'resist[ing] the expropriation of their goods and labor' by these elites. Food surpluses at sites closer to Cahokia were stored in large, communal granaries,

154

Cameron B. Wesson Figure 4 Examples of Tallapoosa Phase domestic strucfrom Fusihatchee.

:0--^-

B~e,,

M/ .--tures

./?9

,o Q/

meters

10

Posts
?.o

KY C~Bb

"Features
Storage Pits Structure Limit

under the direct supervision of chiefs, conforming to the description of chiefs as redistributors (Fried 1967; Malinowski 1935; Service 1962). Under such circumstances, namely the institutionalization of social ranking, DeBoer (1988: 8-9) contends that, 'There is no mystery to the absences of subterranean storage in such circumstances. It is expected.' Attempts to account for these divergent storage practices have focused on the increased productivity made possible by intensive maize cultivation and the transition to year-round sedentism (see DeBoer 1988; Ward 1985). These surpluses resulted from the intensification of agriculturalproduction that occurred in the southeast at around AD 1000. Although archaeologists have usually discussed the production of surplus in terms of maize alone, Lopinot (1997) suggests that this intensification included starchy seed plants and other domesticated plant species. DeBoer (1988:2) suggests that household-based subterranean storage is most effective when people are seasonally mobile or when they desire to conceal resources from invaders or members of their own community. Thus, the transition from individual household-based subterranean storage to above-ground communal storage suggests either a new commitment to year-round sedentism, the introduction of new

Chiefly power and food storage in southeastern North America

u./

155

0.60.5 ----

0.4 .------------------------E 0.30.20.10

of Atasi Figure5 Comparison and Tallapoosa phase food storage features. The upper figure is a chart illustrating average sizes of storage featuresfor each phase, while the lower figure is a box-plot representingthe variabilityin storagefeaturesize by phase.

Atasi

Tallapoosa ARCHAEOLOGICAL PHASES

IAtasi Phase|I

ITallapoosa Phasel

I* *

0.0 0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

subsistence practices, the emergence of a new social order, or a combination of these actions (DeBoer 1988: 9; Ward 1985: 99-100). Recent evidence indicates that sedentism and intensive agriculture pre-date the Mississippian emergence (Johannessen 1993; Scarry 1993; Smith 1992), suggesting that these may not have been the most important factors in the transition from household to communal food storage. Therefore, the possibility that storage played a significant role in, or is a reflection of, the development of new social and political practices must be examined.

Chiefly power, symbolic capital, and food storage Ward (1985), Dickens (1985), and DeBoer (1988) demonstrate that pre-Mississippian, Late Woodland Period storage practices were reliant on household-based subterranean food storage features. During the Early Mississippian period these features decrease in frequency, until they disappear from most large Mississippian sites. During the Protohistoric and Historic periods, these subterranean domestic storage features reappear, with

156

Cameron B. Wesson

increases in both the number and size of subterranean food storage facilities throughout these periods. But what forces encouraged individual households to abandon subterranean storage and surrender control of their food surpluses to chiefs? I believe the answer is to be found in the emergence of prestige goods economies and the asymmetrical cultivation of symbolic capital. The earliest granaries would not have been communal facilities under the control of paramount chiefs, but would have been used for the organization of food surpluses within extended family groups. These resources would have been used to meet not only the subsistence needs of these groups, but would have provided surpluses which could then be used for trade, gift giving and feasting; these activities were specifically designed to expand the group's symbolic capital. As Hayden (1995: 59) suggests, the use of such surpluses for the cultivation of social position by extended families would have given these groups an advantage over those attempting to control their resources independently. Once a group firmly established its superiority in such alliance building, it could then afford to invest more of its resources into cultivating additional relationships (Bourdieu 1977: 52; Sahlins 1963: 300). As Bourdieu (1977: 52) states, It is logical that the higher a group is placed in the social hierarchy and hence the richer it is in official relationships, the greater the proportion of its work or reproduction that is devoted to reproducing social relationships, whereas poor relations who have little to spend on solemnities, can make do with the ordinary marriages that practical kinship ensures them. It is from such successful groups that social leaders are believed to have emerged. These emerging inequalities ultimately sparked the development of social ranking and the institutionalization of political office. Along with the symbolic capital accumulated through trade, competitive feasting, and gift giving, prestige goods were another means of cultivating symbolic capital. Elite control, display, and exchange of these goods reinforced existing social and political hierarchies and established new social relationships (Pauketat 1994; Peregrine 1992; Sahlins 1963). Such interactions enabled southeastern elites to amass considerable power, and gave rise to social ideologies promoting elite hegemony as central to cultural continuity. As Peregrine (1992: 7) states, these developments were made possible because 'individuals ... intensified production to support their elites in competitive exchanges with others so that they would have had access to prestige goods, and hence a better opportunity to socially reproduce themselves at acceptable levels'. Although there is status and increased rank to be won through expanding one's social networks, the quest for prestige goods and symbolic capital is not free of pitfalls. In every exchange the players run the risk of losing material goods as well as a portion of their existing symbolic capital. Such risk causes symbolic capital to fluctuate between social groups and individuals, with fortunes rising and falling with each exchange (Bourdieu 1977: 56-8, 67-8). Challenges to elite control of socially desirable goods would have been an ever-present threat from both internal and external sources. Certain members of society, secondary elites in particular, would have been tempted to circumvent elite control of trade in attempts to build both economic and social capital for themselves and their kin. Such actions would arguably have been present from the initial moments of social ranking. To

Chiefly power and food storage in southeastern North America

157

present reconstructions of past cultural actors without such abilities would be, as Archer (1996: 9) states, to deny 'the readiness of opportunistic gurus, ambitious younger sons or disgruntled minorities to capitalize on cultural ambiguities and discontinuities which would advance their ambitions'. Gellner (1974: 143-4) argues that the failure to consider factional competition in social exchanges presents culture as if 'there can be no syncretism, no doctrinal pluralism, no deep treason, no dramatic conversion or doctrinal oscillation, no holding of alternative belief systems up one's sleeve, ready for the opportune moment of betrayal'. These threats would have presented considerable challenges to elite aspirations, and may account for other means of displaying and maintaining elite hegemony such as monumental earthen architecture, elaborate funerary offerings, and military fortifications. Anderson (1990, 1994, 1996a, 1996b) has demonstrated that southeastern chiefdoms were inherently unstable social formations, experiencing constant fluctuations in social complexity, and oscillating between periods of expansion, collapse, and reconstitution. Much of the cycling identified by Anderson and others (Blitz 1993; Hally 1996; Williams and Shapiro 1996) can be tied to fluctuations in elite control of prestige goods and stocks of symbolic capital. With political fortunes rising and falling, southeastern chiefdoms would have been far from stable, with factional competition and chiefly cycling being integral components of the developmental history of all southeastern chiefdoms. If chiefly power were financed largely through the control of food surpluses, then efforts to hide foods from the knowledge of chiefs within subterranean storage facilities would have represented significant challenges to continued elite hegemony. As DeBoer (1988: 14) argues, 'subterranean storage is ... a powerful signal of resistance to a new social order in which such inequality might be imposed by human elites, superhuman gods, or some holy coalition between the two'. Viewed from the perspective of prestige goods and symbolic capital, the relationship between food storage and chiefly power can be understood as a competitive process where surpluses were mobilized to advance elite interests. The decrease in the number and size of subterranean storage facilities in Mississippian centers during the height of elite power is a strong indication of elite control over food surpluses, while contemporary increases in these features in hinterland villages denotes resistance to tribute payments and/or elite confiscation. During the Protohistoric and Historic periods, the re-emergence of subterranean storage features implies opposition to the chiefly role as redistributor. For example, Bartram (1958: 122-3) indicates that contributions to communal granaries were no longer compulsory, but 'recommended'. Such changes in traditional sources of chiefly prerogative threatened the role of chiefs as central redistributive officials and the nature of social power in southeastern society. Increased household-based storage of foods together with decreased contributions to communal stores became powerful forms of resistance to the power of social elites. Reliance on household food reserves placed a premium on domestic relations in subsistence activities, as individuals chose to forgo longstanding mechanisms of elite controlled centralized redistribution. Such actions reinforced the importance of the domestic economy, and became the basis for the advancement of the household's status. Archaeological data from the Creek site of Fusihatchee provides evidence of the relationship between food storage, prestige goods, symbolic capital, and the collapse of

158

Cameron B. Wesson

traditional avenues of chiefly power in southeastern North America. One of the inherent problems of prestige goods economies concerns the control of the number of these goods circulating in a society at any one time (Helms 1979, 1988, 1992, 1993; Kleppe 1989; Pauketat 1994; Peregrine 1992). Increases in the number of these goods circulating in society threatens elite power since more of these goods are available to social competitors (Anderson 1994; Friedman 1982; Kleppe 1989). Alliances with those who control prestige goods are not required if all individuals have unrestricted access to them (Peregrine 1992: 31). Evidence from Fusihatchee indicates that during the Historic Period, along with an increase in subterranean food storage, individual Creek households had greater access to prestige goods through direct trade with Euroamericans instead of their chiefs (Wesson 1997). Ultimately, social power became tied to the control of large numbers of Euroamerican prestige goods rather than through traditional means of accumulating social power (Knight 1985: 175-9). This transition suggests that during the Historic Period social positions were negotiated through consensus rather than coercion (Beaudry et al. 1991: 165). Food storage practices have the potential to yield important information not only on diet, subsistence strategies, and environment, but also hold the potential to improve our understanding of larger social and cultural processes. Far from being an isolated cultural activity, food storage is embedded in larger networks of social meaning. In complex societies, individuals and social groups vie for control of food surpluses and compete for symbolic capital in an effort to advance their own social interests. Through the analysis of archaeological and ethnohistorical data from southeastern North America, food storage is demonstrated to have played an active role in the negotiation of social ranking and political power.

Acknowledgements I would like to thank Mark Rees and Ross Hassig for their helpful suggestions during the preparation of this manuscript. I would particularly like to acknowledge the many insightful comments of Marla Aviles and Jose Oliver. Maria and Jose have not only improved the present manuscript, their reviews have raised important theoretical considerations that will influence my future efforts as well. The assistance of John Cottier, Craig Sheldon, Greg Waselkov, and R. Barry Lewis is also gratefully acknowledged. Any errors in fact or interpretation are solely those of the author. Department of Anthropology University of Oklahoma

References Anderson,D. G. 1990.Stabilityand changein chiefdom-levelsocieties:an examinationof Mississippian political evolution on the South Atlantic slope. In Lamar Archaeology:Mississippian in theDeep South(eds M. Williamsand G. Shapiro).Tuscaloosa: Chiefdoms Universityof Alabama Press,pp. 187-213.

Chiefly power and food storage in southeastern North America

159

Anderson, D. G. 1994. Factional competition and the political evolution of Mississippian chiefdoms in the Southeastern United States. In Factional Competition and Political Development in the New World (eds E. M. Brumfield and J. W. Fox). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 61-76. Anderson, D. G. 1996a. Chiefly cycling and large scale abandonments as viewed from the Savannah River Basin. In Political Structure and Change in the Southeastern United States (ed. J. F. Scarry). Gainesville: University Press of Florida, pp. 150-91. Anderson, D. G. 1996b. Fluctuations between simple and complex chiefdoms: cycling in the late prehistoric southeast. In Political Structureand Change in the Prehistoric Southeastern United States (ed. J. F. Scarry). Gainesville: University Press of Florida, pp. 231-52. Archer, M. S. 1996. Culture and Agency: The Place of Culture in Social Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ashley, K. H. 1988. Effects of European and American colonization of the southeast on Upper Creek settlement patterns: 1700-1800. MA thesis, Department of Anthropology, Florida State University. Bareis, C. J. and Porter, J. W. 1984. American Bottom Archaeology. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Barker, A. W. 1992. Powhatan's pursestrings: on the meaning of surplus in a seventeenth-century Algonkian chiefdom. In Lords of the Southeast: Social Inequality and the Native Elites of Southeastern North America (eds A. W. Barker and T. R. Pauketat). Washington, DC: American Anthropological Association, pp. 61-80. Bartram, W. 1958. The Travels of William Bartram (ed. F. Harper). New Haven: Yale University Press. Beaudry, M. C., Cooke, L. J. and Mrozowski, S. A. 1991. Artifacts and active voices: material culture as social discourse. In The Archaeology of Inequality (eds R. H. McGuire and R. Paynter). Cambridge: Basil Blackwell, pp. 150-91. Biedema, L. H. 1968. Relation of Biedema. In Narratives of De Soto (ed. B. Smith). Gainesville: Palmetto Books, pp. 229-61. Black, G. A. 1967. Angel Site: An Archaeological, Historical, and Ethnological Analysis. Indianapolis: Indiana Historical Society. Blitz, J. H. 1993. Ancient Chiefdoms of the Tombigbee. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press. Bourdieu, P. 1977. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bourne, E. G. 1904. Narratives of the Career of Hernando de Soto. 2 vols. New York: Allerton. Brown, J. A., Kerbert, R. A. and Winters, H. D. 1990. Trade and the evolution of exchange relations at the beginning of the Mississippian Period. In The Mississippian Emergence (ed. B. D. Smith). Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press, pp. 251-80. Caldwell, J. R. 1958. Trend and Tradition in the Prehistory of the Eastern United States. American Anthropological Association Memoir, 88. Washington, DC: American Anthropological Association. Carneiro, R. L. 1981. The chiefdom: precursor to the state. In Transitions to Statehood in the New World (eds G. Jones and R. Kantz). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 37-79. Clark, J. E. and Blake, M. 1994. The power of prestige: competitive generosity and the emergence of rank societies in lowland Mesoamerica. In Factional Competition and Political Development in the New World (eds E. M. Brumfiel and J. W. Fox). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 17-30. Cole, F. C., Bell, R., Bennett, J., Caldwell, J., Emerson, N., McNeish, R., Orr, K. and Willis, R. 1951. Kincaid: A Prehistoric Illinois Metropolis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

160

Cameron B. Wesson

Corkran, D. H. 1967. The Creek Frontier, 1540-1783. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Costin, C. L. and Earle, T. K. 1989. Status distinction and legitimization as reflected in changing patterns of consumption in late prehistoric Peru. American Antiquity, 54: 691-714. DeBoer, W. R. 1988. Subterranean storage and the organization of surplus: the view from Eastern North America. Southeastern Archaeology, 7: 1-20. DePratter, C., Hudson, C. M. and Smith, M. T. 1983. The route of Juan Pardo's explorations in the interior southeast, 1566-1568. Florida Historical Quarterly, 62: 125-58. Dickens, R. S. 1985. The form, function, and formation of garbage-filled pits on southeastern aboriginal sites: an archaeobotanical analysis. In Structureand Process in Southeastern Archaeology (eds R. S. Dickens and H. T. Ward). Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, pp. 34-59. Earle, T. K. 1977. A reappraisal of redistribution: complex Hawaiian chiefdoms. In Exchange Systems in Prehistory (eds T. K. Earle and J. E. Ericson). New York: Academic Press, pp. 213-29. Earle, T. K. 1987. Specialization and the production of wealth: Hawaiian chiefdoms and the Inka. In Specialization, Exchange, and Complex Societies (eds E. Brumfiel and T. Earle). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 64-75. Earle, T. K. 1991. The evolution of chiefdoms. In Chiefdoms: Power, Economy, and Ideology (ed. T. K. Earle). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 3-41. Earle, T. K. 1997. How Chiefs Come to Power: The Political Economy in Prehistory. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Elvas, G. 1968. Relation of the Gentleman of Elvas. In Narratives of De Soto (ed. B. Smith). Gainesville: Palmetto Books, pp. 5-203. Emerson, T. E. 1997. Cahokia and the Archaeology of Power. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press. Fairbanks, C. H. 1952. Creek and pre-Creek. In Archaeology of Eastern United States (ed. J. B. Griffin). Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 285-300. Fairbanks, C. H. 1958. Some problems of the origins of Creek pottery. Florida Anthropologist, 11: 53-64. Feinman, G. M. and Neitzel, J. 1984. Too many types: an overview of sedentary prestate societies in the Americas. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 7 (ed. M. B. Schiffer). New York: Academic Press, pp. 39-102. Flanagan, J. 1989. Hierarchy in simple 'egalitarian' societies. Annual Review of Anthropology, 18: 245-66. Flannery, K. V. 1972. The cultural evolution of civilization. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 3: 339-426. Frankenstein, S. and Rowlands, M. 1978. The internal structure and regional context of early Iron Age society in South-Western Germany. Bulletin of the Institute of Archaeology of London, 15: 73-112. Fried, M. H. 1967. The Evolution of Political Society. New York: Random House. Friedman, J. A. 1982. Catastrophe and continuity in social evolution. In Theory and Explanation in Archaeology: The Southampton Conference (eds C. Renfew, M. J. Rowlands and B. A. Seagraves). New York: Academic Press, pp. 175-96. Gellner, E. 1974. Legitimation of Belief. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Giddens, A. 1995. A Contemporary Critique of Historical Materialism. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Chiefly power and food storage in southeastern North America

161

Griffin, J. B. 1952. Culture periods in Eastern United States archaeology. In Archaeology of Eastern United States (ed. J. B. Griffin). Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 352-64. Hally, D. J. 1994. An overview of Lamar culture. In Ocmulgee Archaeology, 1936-1986 (ed. D. J. Hally). Athens: University of Georgia Press, pp. 144-74. Hally, D. J. 1996. Platform-mound construction and the instability of Mississippian chiefdoms. In Political Structure and Change in the Prehistoric United States (ed. J. F. Scarry). Gainesville: University of Florida Press, pp. 92-127. Hally, D. J., Smith, M. T. and Langford, J. 1990. The archaeological reality of De Soto's Coosa. In Columbian Consequences Volume II, Archaeological and Historical Perspectives on the Spanish Borderlands East (ed. D. H. Thomas). Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 121-38. Hawkins, B. 1848. A Sketch of the Creek Country in the Years 1798 and 1799. New York: Krauss Reprints [1971]. Hayden, B. 1995. Pathways to power: principles for creating socioeconomic inequalities. In Foundations of Social Inequality (eds T. D. Price and G. M. Feinman). New York: Plenum Press, pp. 15-86. Helms, M. W. 1979. Ancient Panama: Chiefs in Search of Power. Austin: University of Texas Press. Helms, M. W. 1988. Ulysses' Sail. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Helms, M. W. 1992. Long-distance contacts, elite aspirations, and the age of discovery in cosmological context. In Resources, Power, and Interregional Interaction (eds E. M. Schortrnan and P. A. Urban). New York: Plenum Press, pp. 157-74. Helms, M. W. 1993. Craft and the Kingly Ideal. Austin: University of Texas Press. Howard, J. H. 1968. The Southeastern Ceremonial Complex and its Interpretation. Columbia: Missouri Archaeological Society. Hudson, C. 1976. The Southeastern Indians. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press. Hudson, C. M., Smith, M. T., Hally, D. J., Polhemus, R. and DePratter, C. B. 1985. Coosa: a chiefdom in the sixteenth-century Southeastern United States. American Antiquity, 50: 723-37. Hudson, C. M., Smith, M. T., Hally, D. J., Polhemus, R. and DePratter, C. B. 1987. In search of Coosa: reply to Schroedl and Boyd. American Antiquity, 52: 840-57. Ingold, T. 1983. The significance of storage in hunting societies. Man, 18: 553-71. Johannessen, S. 1993. Farmers of the late Woodland. In Foraging and Farming in the Eastern Woodlands (ed. C. M. Scarry). Gainesville: University Press of Florida, pp. 57-77. Johnson, A. W. and Earle, T. K. 1987. The Evolution of Human Societies: From Foraging Group to Agrarian State. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Kelly, A. R. 1938. A Preliminary Report on Archaeological Excavations at Macon, Georgia. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution. Kleppe, E. J. 1989. Divine kingship in Northern Africa: material manifestations of social institutions. In The Meaning of Things: Material Culture and Symbolic Expression (ed. I. Hodder). Winchester, MA: Unwin-Hyman. Knight, V. J. 1981. Mississippian Ritual. PhD dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida. Knight, V. J. 1985. Tukabatchee:Archaeological Investigations at an Historic Creek Town, Elmore County, Alabama, 1984. Tuscaloosa: Alabama State Museum of Natural History. Knight, V. J. 1986. The institutional organization of Mississippian religion. American Antiquity, 51: 675-87.

162

Cameron B. Wesson

Knight, V. J. 1990. Social organization and the evolution of hierarchy in southeastern chiefdoms. Journal of Anthropological Research, 46: 1-23. Knight, V. J. 1994a. The formation of the Creeks. In The Forgotten Centuries (eds C. Hudson and C. C. Tesser). Athens: University of Georgia Press, pp. 373-92. Knight, V. J. 1994b. Ocmulgee Fields culture and the historical development of Creek ceramics. In Ocmulgee Archaeology, 1936-1986 (ed. D. J. Hally). Athens: University of Georgia Press, pp. 181-9. Lopinot, N. H. 1997. Cahokia food production reconsidered. In Cahokia: Domination and Ideology in the Mississippian World (eds T. R. Pauketat and T. E. Emerson). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, pp. 52-68. McGuire, R. H. 1992. A Marxist Archaeology. New York: Academic Press. McGuire, R. H. and Paynter, R. (eds). 1991. The Archaeology of Inequality. Cambridge: Basil Blackwell. Malinowski, B. 1935. Coral Gardens and Their Magic. London: Allen & Unwin. Malinowski, B. 1961. Argonauts of the WesternPacific. New York: E. P. Dutton. Martin, J. W. 1991. Sacred Revolt: The Muskogee's Strugglefor a New World. Boston: Beacon Press. Mason, C. I. 1963. Eighteenth century culture change among the Lower Creeks. Florida Anthropologist, 16: 65-80. Mehrer, M. W. and Collins, J. M. 1995. Household archaeology at Cahokia and in its hinterlands. In Mississippian Communities and Households (eds J. D. Rogers and B. D. Smith). Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, pp. 32-57. Moore, J. H. 1994. Ethnoarchaeology of the Lamar peoples. In Perspectives on the Southeast: Linguistics, Archaeology, and Ethnohistory (ed. P. B. Kwachka). Athens: University of Georgia Press, pp. 126-41. Muller, J. 1978. The Kincaid system: Mississippian settlement in the environs of a large site. In Mississippian Settlement Patterns (ed. B. Smith). New York: Academic Press, pp. 269-92. Muller, J. 1997. Mississippian Political Economy. Plenum: New York. Nassaney, M. S. 1992. Communal societies and the emergence of elites in the prehistoric American Southeast. In Lords of the Southeast: Social Inequality and the Native Elites of Southeastern North America (eds A. W. Barker and T. R. Pauketat). Washington, DC: American Anthropological Association, pp. 111-43. Pauketat, T. R. 1992. The reign and ruin of the lords of Cahokia: a dialectic of dominance. In Lords of the Southeast: Social Inequality and the Native Elites of Southeastern North America (eds A. W. Barker and T. R. Pauketat). Washington, DC: American Anthropological Association, pp. 31-51. Pauketat, T. R. 1994. The Ascent of Chiefs: Cahokia and Mississippian Politics in Native North America. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press. Pauketat, T. R. and Lopinot, N. 1997. Cahokian population dynamics. In Cahokia: Domination and Ideology in the Mississippian World (eds T. R. Pauketat and T. E. Emerson). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, pp.103-22. Peregrine, P. N. 1992. Mississippian Evolution: A World-Systems Perspective. Madison: Prehistory Press. Ranjel, R. 1904. Relation. In Narratives of the Career of Hernando De Soto, Vol. II (ed. E. G. Bourne). New York: A. S. Barnes. Rees, M. A. 1997. A gift of many fishes: subsistence economy and political culture in the Protohistoric Central Mississippi Valley. Paper presented at the Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

Chiefly power and food storage in southeastern North America

163

Robertson, J. A. (translator). 1993. True relation of the hardships suffered Governor Hernando De Soto and certain Portuguese gentlemen during the discovery of the province of Florida. In The De Soto Chronicles: The Expedition of Hernando De Soto to North America in 1539-1543 (eds L. A. Clayton, V. J. Knight and E. C. Moore). Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, pp. 19-219. Rogers, J. D. 1995. The archaeological analysis of domestic organization. In Mississippian Communities and Households (eds J. D. Rogers and B. D. Smith). Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, pp. 7-31. Rogers, J. D. 1996. Markers of social integration: the development of centralized authority in the Spiro region. In Political Structure and Change in the Prehistoric Southeastern United States (ed. J. F. Scarry). Gainesville: University Press of Florida, pp. 53-68. Sahlins, M. 1958. Social Stratification in Polynesia. Seattle: University of Washington Press. Sahlins, M. 1963. Poor man, rich man, big-man, chief: political types in Melanesia and Polynesia. Comparative Studies in Society and History, 5: 285-303. Sanders, W. T. and Webster, D. 1978. Unilinealism, multilinealism, and the evolution of complex societies. In Social Archaeology: Beyond Subsistence and Dating (ed. C. Redmond). New York: Academic Press, pp. 249-302. Scarry, C. M. 1993. Introduction. In Foraging and Farming in the Eastern Woodlands (ed. C. M. Scarry). Gainesville: University Press of Florida, pp. 3-11. Scarry, J. F. 1989. The rise, transformation, and fall of Apalachee: a case study of political change in a chiefly society. In Lamar Archaeology: Mississippian Chiefdoms in the Deep South (eds M. Williams and G. Shapiro). Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, pp. 175-86. Scarry, J. F. 1990. The rise, transformation and fall of Apalachee: a case study of political change in a chiefly society. In Lamar Archaeology: Mississippian Chiefdoms in the Deep South (eds M. Williams and G. Shapiro). Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, pp. 175-86. Scarry, J. F. 1995. Apalachee homesteads: the basal social and economic units of a Mississippian chiefdom. In Mississippian Communities and Households (eds J. D. Rogers and B. D. Smith). Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, pp. 201-23. Scarry, J. F. 1996. Looking for and at Mississippian political change. In Political Structure and Change in the Prehistoric Southeastern Unites States (ed. J. F. Scarry). Gainesville: University Press of Florida, pp. 3-11. Service, E. R. 1962. Primitive Social Organization. New York: Random House. Service, E. R. 1975. The Origin of the State and Civilization. New York: W. W. Norton. Smith, B. D. 1989. Origins of agriculture in Eastern North America. Science, 246: 1566-71. Smith, B. D. (ed.). 1990. The Mississippian Emergence. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. Smith, B. D. 1992. Hopewellian farmers of Eastern North America. In Rivers of Change: Essays on Early Agriculture in Eastern North America (ed. B. D. Smith). Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press, pp. 201-48. Smith, B. D. 1995. The analysis of single-household Mississippian settlements. In Mississippian Communities and Households (eds J. D. Rogers and B. D. Smith). Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, pp. 224-49. Smith, H. G. 1973. Analysis of the Lamar Site (9Bi7) materials at the Southeastern Archaeological Center. Report on file, Department of Anthropology, Florida State University. Smith, M. T. and Hally, D. J. 1992. Chiefly behavior: evidence from sixteenth century Spanish accounts. In Lords of the Southeast: Social Inequality and the Native Elites of Southeastern North America (eds A. W. Barker and T. R. Pauketat). Washington, DC: American Anthropological Association, pp. 99-109.

164

Cameron B. Wesson

Steponaitis, V. P. 1986. Prehistoric archaeology in the Southeastern United States, 1970-1985. Annual Review of Anthropology, 15: 363-404. Steponaitis, V. P. 1991. Contrasting patterns of Mississippian development. In Chiefdoms: Power, Economy, and Ideology (ed. T. K. Earle). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 193-228. Sullivan, L. P. 1995. Mississippian households and community organization in Eastern Tennessee. In Mississippian Communities and Households (eds J. D. Rogers and B. D. Smith). Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, pp. 99-123. Swanton, J. R. 1922. Early History of the Creek Indians and their Neighbors. Washington, DC: Bureau of American Ethnology. Swanton, J. R. 1928. Social organization and social usages of the indians of the Creek Confederacy. In 42nd Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology. Washington, DC: Bureau of American Ethnology, pp. 31-726. Swanton, J. R. 1946. The indians of the Southeastern United States. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 137. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution. Testart, A. 1982. The significance of food storage among hunter-gatherers: residence patterns, population densities, and social inequalities. CurrentAnthropology, 23: 523-37. Upham, S. 1990. The Evolution of Political Systems: Sociopolitics in Small-Scale Sedentary Societies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ward, H. T. 1985. Social implications of storage and disposal patterns. In Structure and Process in Southeastern Archaeology (eds R. S. Dickens and H. T. Ward). Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, pp. 82-101. Waring, A. J. 1968. The southern cult and Muskogean ceremonial. In Peabody Museum Papers, Vol. 58 (ed. S. Williams). Cambridge: Peabody Museum, pp. 30-77. Waring, A. J. and Holder, P. 1945. A prehistoric ceremonial complex in the Southeastern United States. American Anthropologist, 47: 1-34. Waselkov, G. A. 1993. Historic Creek indian responses to European trade and the rise of political factions. In Ethnohistory and Archaeology: Approaches to Postcontact Change in the Americas (eds J. D. Rogers and S. M. Wilson). New York: Plenum, pp. 123-31. Welch, P. D. 1991. Moundville's Economy. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press. Welch, P. D. 1996. Control over goods and the political stability of the Moundville chiefdom. In Political Structure and Change in the Prehistoric Southeastern United States (ed. J. F. Scarry). Gainesville: University Press of Florida, pp. 69-91. Wesson, C. B. 1997. Households and hegemony: an analysis of historic Creek culture change. PhD dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Williams, M. 1995. Chiefly compounds. In Mississippian Communities and Households (eds J. D. Rogers and B. D. Smith). Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, pp. 124-34. Williams, M. and Shapiro, G. (eds). 1990. Lamar Archaeology: Mississippian Chiefdoms in the Deep South. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press. Williams, M. and Shapiro, G. 1996. Mississippian political dynamics in the Oconee Valley, Georgia. In Political Structures and Change in the Prehistoric United States (ed. J. F. Scarry). Gainesville: University of Florida Press, pp. 128-49. Wright, J. L. 1986. Creeks and Seminoles: The Destruction and Regeneration of the Muscogulge People. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.