Who Fed Cahokia

Marks

UndergraduateResearchAcademy (URA)

Cover Sheet

SEND TO CAMPUS BOX 1300

BY NOON, WEDNESDAY, MARCH 15, 2006

(Please type)

STUDENT ______Erin Marks ______

MENTOR ______Dr. Julie Zimmerman Holt______

PROJECT TITLE ______Who Fed Cahokia? ______

ABSTRACT: The abstract is a brief, comprehensive summary of the content of the proposal in about 150 words in plain language. Reviewers receive their first impression from this abstract. The information needs to be concise, well organized, self contained, and understandable to persons outside your academic discipline.

The goal of this project is to study the relationship between the urban center of Cahokia and the upland farmsteads that existed in its shadow. The D. Hitchens site is an example of these upland farmsteads and will be excavated this summer. For my URA project, I intend to study the lithic artifacts, ceramic artifacts, floral and faunal remains that come from the site along with the site layout to determine the relationship that existed between Cahokia and this farmstead. From the work of previous archaeologists, we can conclude that this site was used as a farmstead with its close proximity to rare soil with good conditions for farming. There is debate in the field of archaeology about what exactly the relationship between the metropolis of Cahokia and these smaller sites that skirted it. It is my ambition for this project to determine the boundaries of the relationship between Cahokia and this site, to determine whether it is possible that these farmsteads presented their surplus to Cahokia, and to determine to the best of my ability what they received in return of their tribute.

Upon submitting this proposal, I verify that this writing is my own and pledge to fulfill all of the expectations of the UndergraduateResearchAcademy to the best of my abilities. I understand that failure to do so may result in return of fellowship money to the University and forfeiture of academic credit and honors recognition.

Signature of the Student ______

I am able, willing, and committed to providing the necessary facilities and to take the time to mentor this student during this project. I verify that this student is capable of undertaking this proposed project.

Signature of the Faculty Mentor ______

This project is within the mission and scope of this department, and the department fully supports the faculty mentor and student during this venture.

Signature of the Department Chairperson ______

I testify that all necessary research protocols (human, animal, toxic waste) have been fulfilled, and I support this proposed faculty-student scholarly activity as within the mission of the College/School.

Signature of the Associate Dean of the College/School ______

Who Fed Cahokia?

E. L. Marks

7 December 2006

Glossary

C 14 Radiocarbon Dating: measures the breakdown of C14 into C12 that occurs after a carbon-based organism dies. gives definite dates for 30-40,000 years into the past, calibrated with CO2 levels in the air

Ceramic Artifacts: pottery taken from archaeological sites.

Chert: micro-crystalline silicate: shiny, smooth, fine-grained rock that forms between layers of limestone, sometimes in nodules. Used by prehistoric peoples to make stone tools, also called flint.

FAI-270-Federal Aid Interstate-270 Archaeological Mitigation Project. A project undertaken in the early 1980s to preserve the cultural resources that would be destroyed by the establishment of Interstate 270. Today the path of highway involved in this project is known as Interstate-255.

Faunal Remains: remains of animals found on an archaeological site, in the form of bones, teeth, antler, horn, and shell that preserve.

Floral Remains: plant and wood remains recovered from an archaeological site.

Lithic Artifacts: any stone recovered from an archaeological site that appears to have been modified by humans.

Paleoethnobotany: studies the relationship between plants and people in prehistoric times, recovered in flotation samples-looks for evidence of domestication.

11-Ms-1124, 1174, 341-official site names given to a site the first time it is recorded. 11 is for IL, Ms is for MadisonCounty, and 1124 is because that is 1,124th site identified in MadisonCounty

Introduction

Residing at a university twenty minutes from the largest pre-Columbian structure in North America, we have all heard something about Cahokia (Kelly 2000; Milner et al. 1984; Rindos and Johannessen 2000; Young and Fowler 2000). This prehistoric site has “tested the imagination of every scientist who has ever had anything to do with it” (Hall 1991:3). Cahokia was the political and economic center of the American Bottom region (Pauketat and Emerson 1997; Pauketat 2004; Hall 1991; Pauketat 200;, Koldehoff 1989) from its beginning around AD 1000 until its abandonment around AD 1400. The site is located on the floodplain of the Mississippi River housing 120 earthen mounds, mostly used for burials and foundations for houses. Population estimates for Cahokia range from 10-16,000 to 25,000 (Pauketat 2003; O’Brien 1989). The research on this project will focus on the hidden, unheard story from this “metropolis” (Young and Fowler 2000) that is told only in the academic writings of archaeologists who have studied it. It is a story of the people who fed Cahokia.

While Cahokia was thriving in the American Bottom floodplain, the upland farmsteads in the Cahokia Creek drainage northeast of the city were producing all-important maize on a rare soil known as Wakeland silt loam (Woods and Holley 2000; Woods 1986). Cahokia Creek flows south to the site of Cahokia. In the Cahokia Creek drainage, the sites that have been identified are on Wakeland silt loam, soil that is perfect for maize agriculture. Their environment and their agricultural practices would have also given the people who populated these farmsteads greater access to the other all-important food sources of the Cahokian culture, white-tail deer and various fish species.

The D. Hitchens site (Ms-1124) is an upland farmstead that lies 32 kilometers from Cahokia. Artifacts from this site have been collected over the years by the landowners and collectors in the area. Not much else is known about the site since it has not been excavated since being recorded. This site will be excavated this summer in a field school offered by Southern Illinois University Edwardsville under the direction of Dr. Julie Zimmermann Holt. The excavation will be completed before July 1st, leaving the lab work for this study to be completed in the fall. The ceramic and lithic artifacts and floral and faunal remains, along with the structure and layout of the site, will provide much needed information about the uplands of Cahokia, about Cahokia itself, and about the politics of this chiefdom-state.

Literature Review

There have been extensive excavations done at and around the ancient city of Cahokia itself (Young and Fowler 2000). The FAI-270 mitigation project was conducted in the early 1980s, and it investigated sites that were to be destroyed by the construction of Interstate-255 (Bareis and Porter 1984). This research, while priceless in the knowledge it has given us about the “suburbs” of Cahokia, is mostly limited to the floodplain. Research in the upland regions of Southwestern Illinois has been limited (Koldehoff 1989:39, 43; Pauketat 2004:99). The upland settlements have been lost in the shadow of the great city, but without them, Cahokia could possibly have starved.

In the survey conducted for his dissertation in 1986, Woods identified eleven sites in the Cahokia Creek drainage that dated to the Late Woodland period from roughly AD 300 to AD 1000 (Woods 1986:89). In the Mississippian period from AD 1000 to AD 1400 this number drops to four (Woods 1986:91). It is speculated by archaeologists that the many people who were in the uplands moved to Cahokia when it was built (Pauketat 2004:97; Pauketat 2002:161; Koldehoff 1989:61). Occupants of a few farmsteads stayed behind in the uplands either by volunteering or being assigned there by the ruling elite at the center, Cahokia. It is a logical step to conclude that the people living in the Cahokia Creek upland drainage sent their surplus downstream to Cahokia either in trade or tribute (Pauketat 2004:103), or took it to the center for a feast (Kelly 200; 2001). This would have been simple for them because of “the interconnected network of streams, oxbow lakes, and other canoe-navigable waters would have facilitated travel of people and harvested produce to and from...more distant fields” (Lopinot 1997:60). It is impossible to say for certain with the present evidence we hold. Truth be told, the archaeological research in the uplands area is markedly lacking (Koldehoff 1989:39, 43; Pauketat 2004:99).

The Cahokia Creek drainage differs from the more developed and therefore extensively excavated Silver Creek drainage (Woods and Holley 2000) and the DouglasCreek watershed (Koldehoff 1989) because it holds only four sites (Fig. 1 appendix 1). This is in contrast to eleven sites in the Late Woodland period (Fig. 2 appendix 1). The placement of these Mississippian sites requires a moment of speculation. One site (Ms-26) guards the area at the break in the bluff where Cahokia Creek drains into the floodplain. The three other sites (Ms-1174, Ms-1124, Ms-341) are clustered together in one spot fourteen kilometers east of the bluff face. One of the three remaining sites (Ms-341) is believed to be a village that might have been fortified, but the other two sites are farmsteads (Ms-1124, Ms-1174). Were these run by two family groups? Does this particular arrangement suggest an area that produced more than enough maize to feed the people living in the Cahokia Creek drainage? They surely would have produced a surplus with the logistics of maize agriculture, and the only logical conclusion is that they sent that surplus to the city thirty-two kilometers away that held a little more than 20,000 residents (Young and Fowler 2000:310-311).

Goals and Operating Hypothesis

The goals for this UndergraduateResearchAcademy project are first to learn the skills of an archaeologist for future endeavors in the field. Second, working on this site and analyzing the artifacts and data from it, I hope to contribute to the body of knowledge forming about the upland region. My hypothesis is that there is a definite relationship between these farmsteads and village sites and the greater Cahokia, that these people did indeed feed Cahokia, and that they received little if anything in return (cf. Pauketat 2004).

To corroborate the hypothesis I have stated above will demand some direct evidence. To determine that a relationship existed between Cahokia and the upland settlements, one would expect to find complementary patterns represented in the lithic, ceramic, faunal, and floral evidence; site layout; and architectural styles. Lithic remains typical of the region would be similar to those found at Cahokia. The chert source used at Cahokia would most likely be present, but in smaller numbers. Also, flaking patterns on the tool itself would differ from Cahokia points due to the different people that resharpened the points. The points themselves that are typical of the Mississippian period are small triangular arrowheads with side notches and sometimes a notch on the bottom of the point. Ramey knives, which are oval in shape with a sharp tip on one end, are common (Milner et al. 1984). Ceramic evidence at the site would also be similar to Cahokia. Jars are most common on outlying Cahokian sites; they are shell tempered, the rims are angled, and some have a red-filmed exterior (Milner et al. 1984). Faunal remains come in the form of animal bones. The densest bones preserve the best and bone preserves the best in soil with pH of 7.8-7.9 (Reitz and Wing 1999). Soil in this region tends to be acidic and bone does not always survive its interment in the ground. However, the presence of limestone in some features neutralizes the soil and helps to preserve bone. Furthermore, in these upland farmsteads I might expect to find deer bones that would have held less meat that are associated with a primary butchery site (i.e. heads and feet), while the meatier parts of the deer were sent to Cahokia (Kelly 2000). Floral remains at the archaeological site will be recovered using flotation sampling and identified by a specialist at the IllinoisStateMuseum in Springfield. One would expect to find evidence of storage pits associated with floral remains.

In order to determine whether or not the upland farmers fed Cahokia with their surpluses, one needs to consider the use and appearance of storage pits. In an article written in 1988, Warren R. DeBoer combines ethnohistorical and archaeological evidence to present a discussion of storage pits throughout the United States. DeBoer states that new circumstances “encourage concealment from tribute demands emanating from a new kind of enemy, presumably in the form of elites based at Cahokia itself” (DeBoer 1988:10). He goes on to say that by storing food underground, these hamlets “resist the expropriation of their goods and labor” (DeBoer 1988:10). DeBoer states that underground storage could also indicate “seasonal settlement abandonment” or “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” (1988:14). It has not yet been determined with any real consensus the form of storage used by Mississippian peoples. Underground storage would be represented by bell-shaped pits in the ground. Above ground storage would be represented by a structure lifted off the ground on poles. With this knowledge in mind, a few questions should be considered. Did these early farmers hide their surplus from Cahokian elites? Did they store their surplus in underground or aboveground storage facilities? Did they in fact store maize at all in these upland farmsteads or send it immediately to the metropolis? It is my determination to answer these questions throughout the course of my project.

It should also be mentioned that it is believed among scholars that along with maize, these upland farmsteads provisioned Cahokia with venison. Lucretia Kelly is a zooarchaeologist who has been working in the area for over two decades. Her dissertation, written in 2000, focuses on studying faunal evidence to determine if a tribute system existed in the realm of Cahokia. She makes one point consistently throughout the report. She says:

Low food utility deer elements that comprise primary butchering debris (heads and feet) are consistently represented by low percentages (<5%) in all the Cahokia assemblages, whereas they occur in higher percentage (>44%) at the outlying sites (Kelly 2000:246).

She also suggests that instead of Cahokia being an exploitative center demanding tribute, a system of ritual feasting took place throughout the American Bottom. Farmers would store their surplus, and, on a given date, take their maize and venison to Cahokia for a ritual feast (Kelly 2000).

The last part of my hypothesis states that the upland farmers received little if anything in return for their tribute to Cahokia (cf. Woods 1986 and Pauketat 2004). Woods only mentions the D. Hitchens site in passing along with the other two farmsteads in the Cahokia Creek drainage. He identifies them as such by “the distribution of Mill Creek hoes and resharpening flakes” (Woods 1986:90). He mentions the site in an article written with Holley in 2000, but simply states that it held an angled-rim jar (Woods and Holley 2000). Pauketat writes that this lack of reciprocation “is evident...by the lack of Cahokian finery in the hands of upland farmers, [and] the better diet of Cahokians relative to those farmers” (Pauketat 2004:106). He also states that in the uplands “Cahokian valuables...occur in the lowest densities of any place in the region” (Pauketat 2004:100). However, an opposing position is presented by Dave Klostermeier, who collected artifacts from the D. Hitchens site and surrounding sites many times over the years (see Yancey 2005). Klostermeier found artifacts on the site that suggest some reciprocal trade with Cahokia. First is a discoidal, which is a disc similar to the chunky stones of Cahokia, except that this particular one has an engraving of an eye on one side and a sun on the other (see appendix 1). These are very rare and suggest that the D. Hitchens site could have been more elaborate than a mundane farmstead. The discovery of the discoidal (Fig. 3 appendix 1) leads Klostermeier to consider that this site might hold a village, rather than a simple farmstead, (Yancey 2005:16). These are two very different views on the function of the site. The excavation that will be done this summer and my project for next school year will at last shed light on what really occurred at the D. Hitchens site.

Timeline

May 15-July 7

I will be participating in the SIUEArchaeologyFieldSchool this summer under the direction of Dr. Julie Zimmermann Holt. We will be excavating the D. Hitchens Site (Ms-1124) near Worden, IL. I realize this falls before the duration of the UndergraduateResearchAcademy fiscal year. I found it worth mentioning because I will be using the floral remains, faunal remains, lithic artifacts, and ceramic artifacts from this site to determine the relationship between these upland populations and the people living in the urban center of Cahokia.