Content uploaded by John E. Kelly
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by John E. Kelly on Jan 07, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
A preview of the PDF is not available
Cahokia and Its Role as a Gateway Center in Interregional Exchange.
Abstract and Figures
Examines the concept of Gateway Center to Cahokia Mounds and its role in Interergional Exchange
Figures - uploaded by John E. Kelly
Author content
All figure content in this area was uploaded by John E. Kelly
Content may be subject to copyright.
... These finds were associated with the Lohmann phase, as were most other orthoquartzite artifact contexts from the American Bottom. Further, the HSS identification was incorporated into models seeking to understand Cahokia's relation to northern hinterland sites (e.g., Kelly 1991). Even after updated raw-material identifications for other resources shifted to within 150 km of Cahokia (e.g., Emerson andHughes 2000:90-94, Pauketat 2004:121), HSS continues to be considered a northern import along with Lake Superior copper and, more recently, Baraboo Pipestone (e.g., Boles et. ...
Hixton Silicified Sandstone (HSS) from Silver Mound in western Wisconsin has been reported in Lohmann phase contexts at Cahokia, including points from a Mound 72 arrow cache and debitage from other contexts across the American Bottom. This source identification has inspired interpretations of early connections with the contemporary Mississippian settlement at Trempealeau, Wisconsin. Similarly, numerous unnotched "quartzite" Madison points from Aztalan in southeast Wisconsin have been used to suggest cross-state interaction during the Mississippian period. To test whether the orthoquartzite artifacts from Cahokia and Aztalan are in fact HSS, samples were subjected to nondestructive, cold cathodoluminescence analysis and compared to control samples from potential sources in western Wisconsin and southwestern Illinois. The results indicate that Cahokia and Aztalan artifacts are not from Silver Mound, and it now becomes imperative to identify the actual source or sources of these exotic materials in Mississippian contexts.
... With the accumulating evidence from both bioarchaeology and the vast array of nonlocal domestic and ritualistic material culture in Greater Cahokia, it has become apparent that the late precontact populations of the region were mobile and the composition of Cahokia's population was fluid and ever changinga characteristic common to other early urban populations centers (Emerson 2018a;Emerson et al. 2020;Pauketat 2004). The earlier interpretations using the presence of foreign or nonlocal styles to construct intricate exchange-network models (e.g., Kelly 1991;Peregrine 1992) are no longer sufficient explanations. Instead, these exotic materials and styles in Greater Cahokia, when seen in conjunction with the new bioarchaeological evidence, indicate significant movements of people in addition to, or perhaps instead of, the movement of craft items or materials. ...
The development of Southeastern Ceremonial Complex (SECC) iconography has been posited to have had its origins in pre–AD 1200 Greater Cahokia. The recovery of fragments of an engraved shell cup, a few engraved pottery sherds, and copper residue from Mound 34 at Cahokia as well as two regional rock-art sites are said to confirm that the early Braden art style had a Cahokian heritage. Furthermore, on this basis, the origin, production, and distribution of engraved shell cups and copper repoussé plates have been attributed to Cahokian artisans. Here the archaeological context and chronology of this evidence is reexamined and found to be problematic—it does not support Cahokia origins for engraved shell cups and copper repoussé plates. The small amount of early Braden materials attributed to Cahokia are better explained as byproducts of the demonstrable presence of early Caddo immigrants and influences in the American Bottom. The skewed distribution and early chronology of Mississippian engraved shell cups and copper repoussé plates confirm they are likely products of Spiro-influenced ritual practitioners. The production and accumulation of such ritual paraphernalia at Spiro can most reasonably be attributed to the site's rise as a sacred place and central locus for regional pilgrimages.
... While the contextual evidence is limited, at least one conclusion that is apparent is that a single variable or function is unlikely to explain all instances of LNG distribution in the region. Generally, interpreters (e.g., Duncan [2020]; Duncan and Diaz-Granados [2000]; Hall [1997]; Kelly [1991]) have proposed all-encompassing explanations to account for LNG function and distribution (with less attention on context or chronology) that related to their role in facilitating trade and exchange, in enabling high-level political-religious relations, or as markers of religious or political status. As has been discussed above, while these interpretations may explain the movement of LNG maskettes between political and economic centers, they are a poor fit for those more numerous occurrences north of Cahokia, nor do they account for any issues of chronological variation in function. ...
Long-nosed god (LNG) maskettes and iconography have traditionally been seen as a pre-Southern Cult phenomena, placed variously in the tenth to thirteenth centuries. Researchers have suggested they were employed in political and religious interactions or to facilitate trade, but few have looked in detail at their chronology, context, and distribution. Here, an in-depth review of radiocarbon dates and context raises questions about the place of LNGs in midcontinental Native societies. This reassessment illustrates that LNG images do not predate the appearance of Caddo and Cahokian symbolic emergence and can be first securely documented in the late eleventh century. They clearly are objects that signify personal endowments and are inalienable, following that individual to the grave. Their context and distribution indicate that LNG icons are an integral part of the Caddo religious and political networks but are tangential at Cahokia and take on totally different contextual meanings to the north of Cahokia. This study demonstrates that proposing uniform explanations for LNG ideology and implementation does not correlate with the archaeological evidence. Future studies that account for regional variations in LNG chronology, context, and spatial distribution are needed to begin addressing the roles of these unique objects in Native societies.
Pipestones of the midcontinental U.S. have a long history of use by native peoples to craft high status and religious objects, especially pipes, that were often widely exchanged. In this research we describe native use of west central Wisconsin Baraboo Range pipestone as well as identify chemical and mineralogical variation within that formation. The pipestone variants are Baraboo A (dominated by kaolinite, muscovite, and pyrophyllite) and Baraboo B (dominated by pyrophyllite with minor quartz). The recognition of Baraboo pipestone variation allows us to identify previously unsourced pipestone objects. This sourcing project modifies assumptions of Cahokia-centric patterns of earspool manufacture and exchange during the Mississippian period (CE 1000-1400). It demonstrates that Baraboo pipestone Mississippian earspools were quarried, produced, and circulated among a small group of contemporaneous Mississippian societies located in the northern Upper Mississippi River valley — quite outside the Cahokia exchange network. This work establishes that employing rigorous, scientifically sound, and reproducible methodologies to identify the geological source of objects is essential to the interpretation of native interactions.
) mound near Emmons Cemetery, Crable site, II
- Crable Site
- Ii
Crable site, II. (3)
mound near Emmons Cemetery,
Crable site, II. (3)
) Jones site, la. (14) Siouxland Sand and Gravel site, la
- Diamond Mero Site
- Bluff
- Wi
Mero site, Diamond Bluff,
Wi. (1)
Jones site, la. (14)
Siouxland Sand and Gravel site,
la. (15)
11) cave near Rogana, Tenn. (7) Shipps Ferry site, Ark. (8) site near
- Muscle Cave
- A I Shoals
cave, Muscle Shoals, AI. (11)
cave near Rogana, Tenn. (7)
Shipps Ferry site, Ark. (8)
site near Belleville, II. (6)
Gahagan site, La. (12) Spiro site, Okla. (10) Harlan site, Okla. (9) Spiro site, Okla. (10) Spiro site, Okla. (10) Spiro site, Okla
- Grant Mound
- Fla
Grant Mound, Fla. (13)
Gahagan site, La. (12)
Spiro site, Okla. (10)
Harlan site, Okla. (9)
Spiro site, Okla. (10)
Spiro site, Okla. (10)
Spiro site, Okla. (10)