Mississippian Status in Western Kentucky: Evidence from the Annis Mound

Abstract

Models of Mississippian sociopolitical complexity depend heavily on data derived from large sites such as Cahokia, Moundville, and Etowah. This top-down approach has led to a masking of the variation within Mississippian societies. Results of an analysis of WPA collections from excavations at Annis Mound (15BT2), a small Mississippian mound site in western Kentucky, show that, apart from large summit architecture, there is little evidence for the differentiation of elites that is seen at larger sites. Artifacts found in summit features and mound fill do not reflect typical patterns. Archaeologists typically describe Mississippian societies of the pre-Columbian southeastern United States as possessing elements of social ranking and permanent offices of political and ritual importance. Platform mounds and their contents are critical elements in arguments characterizing Mississippian societies as chiefdoms, and social differentiation relates to the residence of elites on these mounds. What is less clear is the extent of the social distinctions between the elite and the non-elite. While markers of social differentiation often are readily apparent, the ways in which individuals of high status are separated economically from those of lower status are unclear and the subject of much debate (e.g., Cobb 2003; Milner 1998; Muller 1997; Pauketat 1994; Schroeder 2002). There is general agreement among Mississippian researchers about the kin-based nature of chiefly power, and that chiefs had some control over the labor and resources of their followers (Cobb 2003; Schroeder 2002). A limited number of individuals was somehow set apart from the general population and exercised influence and authority. This elevation of certain individuals is most notable in residence on platform mounds and in rich burials such as those at Mound C at Moundville (Moore 1996:162-166; Knight and Steponaitis 1998; Peebles 1971), Mound C at Etowah (King 2003; Larson 1971), Mound 72 at Cahokia (Fowler et al. 1999), the Craig Mound at Spiro (Brown 1971, 1996), and many lesser known sites (e.g., Jenkins and Krause 1986; Milner et al. 1984). The higher social standing of elites, the prestige and privilege that goes with high status, and the central importance of platform mounds in Mississippian societies (see also Knight 1986, 1989; Krause 1990; Lindauer and Blitz 1997) are suggested by the archaeological features of these mounds, although the social implications of overall mound volume are debated (e.g., Blitz and Livingood 2004). Disagreement exists, however, about the degree of control elites had over the basic necessities of life. While evidence indicates that elites had some preferential access to prestige items, it is less clear that they enjoyed an advantage with respect to foodstuffs and the more mundane artifacts associated with daily life. Most studies of status differentiation in the archaeological literature focus on large multiple mound sites, leaving archaeologists with a top-down view of political economy. While this approach has resulted in the recognition of a social elite at the largest Mississippian sites, comparatively little is known about the nature of status distinctions within the much more numerous and smaller mound sites that dot the Southeast. Knowledge of Mississippian status and elite privileges is therefore hampered by the bias toward large mound centers (see Clay 1997). Further, models that appear plausible at the larger sites do not necessarily work for mid-sized and small mound sites. In order to address these issues, I evaluate the evidence for status differentiation at a small mound site, the Annis Mound (15BT2), located along the Green River in Butler County, Kentucky (Figure 1), on the fringe of the Mississippian world. Models of Mississippian Differentiation Researchers marshal both historical and archaeological evidence to delimit the extent of differentiation within Mississippian societies. …

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 13 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.