The Lubbub Creek Microlith Industry.

THE LUBBUB CREEK MICROLITH INDUSTRY Author(s): H. Blaine Ensor Source: Southeastern Archaeology, Vol. 10, No. 1 (Summer 1991), pp. 18-39 Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. on behalf of the Southeastern Archaeological Conference Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/40712939 Accessed: 12-11-2019 15:30 UTC REFERENCES Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article: https://www.jstor.org/stable/40712939?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references. 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. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at https://about.jstor.org/terms Taylor & Francis, Ltd., Southeastern Archaeological Conference are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Southeastern Archaeology This content downloaded from 192.101.185.9 on Tue, 12 Nov 2019 15:30:29 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms THE LUBBUB CREEK MICROLITH INDUSTRY H. Blaine Ensor Perino 1961) and Zebree (Morse and Sierzchula 1977; Sierzchula 1980), and it resembles at least a portion of the Black Warrior microlithic assemblage (Pope 1989). Analysis and description of a microlith industry in westThe primary goals of the current analysis are to (a) central Alabama suggests that part-time lithic craft compare spethe Lubbub Creek microlith industry to related microlith industries to determine its cultural cialization probably existed in the vicinity of the Summer- ville mound at the hubbub Creek archaeological locality. and chronological placement, (b) place the microliths within the context of Summerville economics, (c) reThis industry is interpreted as being part of a widespread Emergent Mississippian microblade technology designed tothe concept of craft specialization as it may review late to Lubbub Creek, discussing micro-contextual and promote efficient manufacture of microdrills and ultimately macro-contextual indicators of craft specialization, and shell beads for the elite members of Mississippian society. Although data are still sketchy, it is possible that(d) Late draw conclusions regarding the presence or abWoodland people participated in microdrill manufacture sence of specialization based on the available lines of evidence. The Lubbub Creek microliths can contriband use although the technology clearly functioned within the broad context of regional Mississippian economics. ute to our understanding of craft specialization in Mississippian society since they come from well-dated contexts, are spatially restricted within the locality, and constitute a sample that has allowed a detailed The Lubbub Creek archaeological locality is in weststudy of the technology used in their manufacture. central Alabama on a sharp bend of the Tombigbee The following section reviews the evidence for CaRiver (Figure 1). It consists of a series of Late Woodhokia-related microlith industries in the Southeast land and Mississippian occupations which were de- and contiguous areas, as they may bear upon the intected primarily on the basis of surface density plots terpretation of the Lubbub Creek assemblage. It should of Late Woodland and Mississippian pottery (as be well noted that in at least one instance (Palm Court as other materials; Blitz 1983; Jenkins and Ensor 1981; site), the microlith industry discussed may not have Peebles 1983). Past research by the University of Albeen directly associated with a Mississippian society abama (Jenkins and Ensor 1981) and the University per se, but it is included because of its morphological of Michigan (Peebles 1983) has documented the remand technological associations. nants of a large Mississippian mound (1PÌ85) within a palisaded area. The area also contained distinctive Related Industries residences for prehistoric Summerville peoples (Blitz 1983; Peebles 1983). These consisted of the remains The Cahokia Microlith Industry of aboriginal structures built on different surfaces of Titterington (1938) first described small drills from the mound during several building stages. SummerCahokia. However, it was Mason and Perino (1961: ville occupations at the Lubbub Creek locality are 553-557) who first described the microliths as being closely tied by material culture to the adjacent Moundville variant of the Mississippian stage on the part of a distinctive lithic industry based on collecBlack Warrior River (Jenkins 1982; Jenkins and Krause tions made at the Cahokia site (Figure 1) in Illinois. Dan Morse first introduced Mason and Perino to the 1986). Excavations and controlled surface collections conindustry and later published an analysis of it (Morse 1974). The Cahokia microlith collection described by ducted at Site 1PÌ33, which lies just outside the main Mason and Perino consists of cores, blades, and finplaza of the Summerville community at Lubbub Creek, ished tools made on blades. Contained within the have produced a substantial number of Mississippian microlith elements (Ensor 1980, 1981, 1985). Addicollection are single-ended drills and gravers, doutional excavations by the University of Michigan at ble-ended drill and chisel combinations, side blades, this locality have produced microlith elements in and side and blade combinations (Mason and Perino much lower numbers than at 1PÌ33 (Allen 1983). This 1961:555). These tools exhibit fine pressure flaking assemblage of microliths appears to be related to sim- along the entire margin of the artifact creating a rod- ilar microlith assemblages at Cahokia (Mason and like shape. These cylindrical tools are derived from 18 This content downloaded from 192.101.185.9 on Tue, 12 Nov 2019 15:30:29 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms THE LUBBUB CREEK MICROLITH INDUSTRY ^ ^ Illinois | | Ohio fJ "~ l/^z-N W' 'y < S ' í INDIANA r- <*J « r' ¿Mil < j MISSOURI #^ l^^' ' ^ { ^ 3$ I ) ^f* KENTUCKY /X^^ ^ ^^k x ' i*/ j'^' NORTH CAROLINA >I^O < | 4WJ> TENNESSEE ,'r ^2% O / ARKANSAS Lì 1 T ' ^ Nv 'f 1 Lubbub Creek ' ARKANSAS ^ ^^ ¡ /#q I ' ' SOUTH v^l: ""S J I , ' ' CAROLINA # A Ì < J L1 I , ' ' ' /: ,y 2 Moundville f- ! ) ' ALABAMA ' GEORGIA '9T 0° 3 Carson Mound x h ' 7 ' / ¡ ' £ /MISSISSIPPI1] { { LOUISIANA /^«y. ♦ Í v v 4 Zebree ^^jjJL )*u¿fl^.5 ^^^WV^?ff^' ]£ ::%^/^ ' * ' 6 Cahokia ^^jj GULF OF MEXICO T ^ ' ? Ge°r 0 100 200 V i ._ "• , ;^%5^ Miles 'f ._ ' f'V'4 Figure 1. Location of the Lubbub Creek archaeological local flattened to triangular-shaped which lage blades hamlets (Yerkes 1983; have Prentice been 1983). It is believed that the majority of the microdrills at Cahokia thors note that the small size of the drills almost are associated with Old Village ceramics at circa A.D. 900-1200 (Yerkes 1983:500). These drills were used certainly means that they were hafted. A connection struck from columnar bi-directional cores. The au- between the profuse amount of shell refuse, as shell part of household-level specialization in shellbeads, and microdrills found at the site wasworking postu- during the Lohmann phase (A.D. 900-1050), lated. but during the Stirling phase (A.D. 1050-1150) the Yerkes (1983:499-518), has carried out lithic use- pattern of microlith distribution resembles a regional specialization (Flannery and Winter 1976). After A.D. Powell Mound and Dunham tract at the Cahokia site 1200, shell- working seems to be restricted to the Cahokia in Illinois. A sample of 41 microlithic tools was ex-site (Yerkes 1989a, 1989b). wear studies on a collection of microliths from the amined for traces of wear and compared to experimental productions (Yerkes 1983:508). He concluded that the Cahokia microlith industry was designed to The Zebree Microlith Industry produce prismatic microblades or "burin spalls" which were then hafted and used as drill bits to bore holes Morse and Sierzchula (1977:19.1-19.33; Sierzchula in shell. 1980) have described a collection of microcores, microblades, and microdrills from the Zebree site in Yerkes's study suggests that the microdrills were specialized tools manufactured specifically for use northeastern in Arkansas (Figure 1), and have discussed shell product manufacture, principally shell beads the techniques used in their manufacture. (Yerkes 1983:514). The existing data suggest that some Replication experiments showed that the following form of specialists were producing the microdrills production steps could have been used to manufacand shell products at Cahokia and surrounding vilture finished microdrills: First (a) produce usable cores 19 This content downloaded from 192.101.185.9 on Tue, 12 Nov 2019 15:30:29 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms SOUTHEASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 10(1) Summer 1991 entire length. She concludes that the majority of the from the raw material via free-hand and bipolar pertools in the collection represent a microlith industry cussion, (b) detach thick, triangular blades by hard whose remains "constitute a distinct and uniform rehammer free-hand percussion, and (c) reduce these blades into finished tools using bifacial pressure re-duction technology" (Pope 1986:6). touch accomplished with an antler tine and woodenA major emphasis of Pope's study involves a use- wear analysis of replicated microliths using the high Use-tests were conducted using the finished prod-magnification approach (Keeley 1980). The results of this study determined that 60% of the microliths were ucts. These consisted primarily of drilling and enused to work shell-principally by drilling and gravgraving shell, wood, and bone. Using a drill bit hafted ing. Minor evidence for bone-working was found on in a piece of fresh cane attached to a bow drill, the 4 tools, 13 had evidence for both shell and bone workauthors found that penetrating all of these substances ing, and 4 others had evidence of dry hide work (Pope was relatively easy. The addition of a lubricant and 1986:8, 1989). The overall conclusions reached by the grinding platforms to facilitate hafting and reduce study indicate that 2 major functional groups are presgrinding effects were the only treatments necessary. ent in the sample: biconvex drills used to drill both Shell beads were produced using this technique as well as perforated bone, wood, and teeth. A compar-shell and bone and cylindrical drills used to drill shell ative study between the Zebree and Cahokia microl- almost exclusively. Other morphologically distinct forms are present, some of which evidently correlate ith industries revealed close technological similarities leading Morse and Sierzchula (1977:19-31) towith specific uses such as perforating dry hides and engraving bone and /or shell. define a Cahokia-like microdrill industry for the Early vise. Mississippian Big Lake phase in that area (A.D 750- A.D 950). Palm Court Site Microliths in the Vicinity Morse and Tesar (1974:89-106) have described a microlith industry from northwestern Florida (Figure 1). Artifacts recovered from this site could possibly Pope (1986, 1989) has recently described a microl- of Moundville belong to a Weeden Island II component at the site ithic tool industry from Late Woodland-Mississip- (Morse and Tesar 1974:104-105). Similarity with the pian sites (A.D. 900-1200) in the vicinity of the large Cahokia microlith industry is seen in the emphasis Mississippian ceremonial complex of Moundville on producing thick blades with triangular cross-sec(Figure 1) on the Black Warrior River in west-central tions. Alabama (Peebles 1974; Steponaitis 1984). She terms this the Black Warrior microlithic assemblage and Palm Court microliths are divided into 6 primary states that it seems to be associated with West Jeffercategories for descriptive purposes. These are based principally upon treatment and form of the hafted son/Early Mississippian components. A total of 105 portion, nature of retouch along the lateral margins, microliths were analyzed from surface collections and excavations. Based on a morphological analysis Pope'sand tip morphology. The categories are (a) microliths made on crest blades or initial blade removals, (b) initial breakdown recognized 3 basic groups: (a) finished microdrills derived from a core /blade technol-bulbous-based microliths which have expanded bases ogy (b) a small group of drills made on recycled tri-and lateral spurs along with steeply retouched bits, (c) cylindrical microliths which retain bulbous-batangular arrow points, and (c) assorted small tools tered tips and bilaterally retouched margins, (d) tanged consisting of unifacially and bifacially retouched microliths which have the proximal end modified for pieces (Pope 1986:5). Subsequent refinement of the analysis led her to define a "blade bit-tool industry"hafting, (e) nipple-tipped microliths which have a short blunted tip and retouched or unretouched basal which is contrasted with "flake bit tools", the major portions, and (/) laterally retouched blades (Morse difference being the use of a blade technology to and Tesar 1974:99-104). produce the desired microtool in the former industry. Pope indicates that this blade-core industry based on The cores from which the microblades were drawn are blocky-rectangular in form with only one conical local pebbles is closely related to the Lubbub Creek blade core present. As noted, blades are thick and assemblage. triangular in cross-section and represent blanks for microlith production (Morse and Tesar 1974:97). Morse and Tesar indicate that most of the microliths appear The general model of microlith manufacture sug- gested by Pope includes heating local Tuscaloosa gravels prior to reduction, core preparation and blade removal, and bifacial reduction of the blades into to have been used as drills while others may have finished microdrills. Both bi-convex and cylindrical been used in engraving and scraping, based on ex- cross-sections are represented. It is stated that theperiments conducted and observation of resulting cylindrical tools are bifacially retouched along their traces of wear. 20 This content downloaded from 192.101.185.9 on Tue, 12 Nov 2019 15:30:29 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms THE LUBBUB CREEK MICROLITH INDUSTRY The Carson Mounds restricted distribution at this site may indicate par- ticular loci which were set aside for microdrill man- The Carson Mound complex, located in the Yazoo ufacture, use, or perhaps even discard. River basin of northwestern Mississippi, has yielded evidence of a Cahokia-like microlith industry from surface collections (Johnson 1987). The Carson moundOther Cahokia-Related group lies at the approximate southern boundary of Microliths the sphere which encompasses the use of Burlington Schnell, Knight, and Schnell (1979:222) describe a chert to produce microliths by Mississippian groups series of bifacially flaked microliths from the Early (Figure 1). According to Johnson, this industry conMississippian Rood phase mound complex known as tains 3 types of microlithic blade cores: (a) tabular (b) Cemochechobee in southwestern Georgia. They note columnar and (c) amorphous. In addition, large numthat similar specimens are found over a wide area and bers of flake cores and some bipolar cores are present. long time span but hesitate to ascribe a use for the A limited number of narrow, thick blades are de- tools due to the lack of obvious use-wear. These tools scribed which seem to have been produced from tabappear similar to the Cahokia and Zebree microliths. ular blade cores. The end product of the blade techThe occurrence of microliths at the above sites, esnology was drills (Johnson 1987:198). No patterned, pecially those from Cahokia and the American Botintentional retouch is mentioned for any of the blades, tom and the vicinity of Moundville, Zebree, Carson, only that substantial use-wear is present and that the and Cemochechobee appear to be most closely related tools seem to have functioned in a manner parallel to the Lubbub Creek microlith industry described to their Cahokia and Zebree counterparts (Johnson below. It should be pointed out that Jenkins (1975) 1987:198). Johnson points out some of the important and Nielsen and Jenkins (1973) first described miramifications of the Carson data with regard to Miscrodrills from the Gainesville Lake area at Site lGr2 sissippian economy, the distribution of exotic matedownstream from the Lubbub Creek locality (Figure rials, and the rise of complex societies in this region. 2) and at Site 1PÌ18 in what is now known as the For example, he points out the parallel development northwestern portion of the Lubbub Creek archaeoof blade industries with complex societies at Poverty logical locality. Point, Middle Woodland Hopewellian sites and such regional Mississippian centers such as Cahokia. He is careful to note, however, that the mere presence of a blade technology is not sufficient evidence for specialization. The Lubbub Creek Microlith Industry Cultural Context, Chronological Placement, and Nature of Sample Microliths from the George C. Davis Site Microlith elements were recovered from three main Baskin (1981:276-284) has described a collection of contexts at Site 1PÌ33 in the Lubbub Creek locality. First, a total of 195 elements were recovered from the lithic "perforators" from the George C. Davis site controlled surface collection, excavation units, and (Figure 1) in east Texas (Newell and Krieger 1949). A large number of these perforators were recoveredfeatures. They were all recovered in the vicinity of from Unit 65 north of Mound B. She describes two Feature 51 and from within the rectangular dashed main groups. The first was recovered exclusively from area depicted on Figure 2. Second, a total of 89 were Unit 65. These possess narrow, bifacially flaked shafts recovered from a single pit feature, Feature 51 (Figure and rectangular stems, evidently for hafting. The ma3), with the majority (N=52) of these occurring within jority are made of local chert. Some of these may abesingle stratum of this pit (Zone B). Third, 39 were found in test units, 37 in other features, and the refrom recycled Alba points whose shoulders have been maining 30 are from the controlled surface collection removed by resharpening or reduction into drills. (Table 1). The second group consists of stemmed perforators, While all of which have been recycled from Alba points. the surface collected artifacts are of limited The majority of these are from Unit 65 and are made utility in assigning cultural and chronological placement, two radiocarbon determinations are available of local chert. They all have stems, shoulders, and from a sealed context, Feature 51, where the concenreworked blades which are long and narrow. tration of microliths (N=89) were recovered. The A preliminary use-wear analysis conducted by Shafer (in Baskin 1981:276-284) notes that the majority charcoal sample from the upper zone where the mahave wear along the lateral shaft edges with twisting jority of the microliths were found (Zone B) dated to or spiral fractures common. Shafer indicates that A.D. at 1030 ± 55 while the second sample from a lower least some of the specimens were used as drills. Their zone (Zone D) yielded an identical date of A.D. 1030 21 This content downloaded from 192.101.185.9 on Tue, 12 Nov 2019 15:30:29 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms SOUTHEASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 10(1) Summer 1991 ^ '^^W Summervllle Mound j ) ' ^^w N. J ' V ' ¡ 1PI33 '^w^ N / ^ V ' I I / ''"' Lubbub Creek / / XV [y '*°>' V I Feature,/ ^Aj / Archaeo ^n^V«. ÌV I # 51y</ / ¡ ft Adapted from Jenkins N, ^^^^^ j >w J jr/ // • J and Ensor 1981 ^^^^^-^-^ ^/ ^^^r ^^^ , s I * scale 130 f/ Figure 2. L Map - - of ^y/ the I meters Lubbub Creek archaeologic 900N |^ ^a £ ^^-^ Te Lubbub Creek Archaeological Locality ^'^?ce Distribution of Summerville 1 Period soon - J>'^^^ I N 700N 600N • C J • • !• •• ß Y •* ^v • • ^' 500N *% 400N : : • ^ Feature ^^^ 51 I// • J^ Archaeological Features 300N >/ - n- Outer Palisade yS ^ -I-^-I- Inner Palisade 200N / e ° S-1 Structure Numbers X • Archaeological Unit with Moundville /^ Incised Variety Moundville 100N I -600E -500E -400E -300E -200E -100E 0 100E 200E 300E 0 100 200 Meters Adapted from P..ble», 1983. Figure 3. Distribution of Summerville I period structures and diagnostic ceramics, Lubbub Creek (after Peebles, 1983). ¿¿ This content downloaded from 192.101.185.9 on Tue, 12 Nov 2019 15:30:29 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms THE LUBBUB CREEK MICROLITH INDUSTRY Table 1. Provenience of Microlith Samples from Site 1PÌ33, Lubbub Creek Archaeological Locality. Proximal Distal and Large Small Sections of Complete Microblade Micro- Microdrill Microdrill Finished Finished Cores blades Preforms Preforms Microdrills Microdrills Location No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % Total Feature 51 3 18.8 2 12.5 1 6.3 4 25.0 2 12.5 4 25.0 16 Feature 51, Zone A 1 12.5 2 25.0 2 25.0 1 12.5 2 25.0 0 0 8 Feature 51, Zone B 3 5.8 1 1.9 5 9.6 19 36.5 8 15.4 16 30.8 52 Feature 51, Zone C 1 12.5 0 0 1 12.5 3 37.5 2 25.0 1 12.5 8 Feature 51, Zone D 1 20.0 1 20.0 0 0 1 20.0 2 40.0 0 0 5 Features; Burials 3 8.1 4 10.8 5 13.5 9 24.3 6 16.2 10 27.0 37 Test Units 5 12.8 1 2.6 0 0 11 28.2 11 28.2 11 28.2 39 Controlled Surface Collection 10 33.3 5 16.7 0 0 4 13.3 5 16.7 6 20.0 30 Total 27 16 14 52 38 ± 55 (Jenkins time span for bub Creek as well as the Terminal Woodland Gaines- 48 195 1981). The both the Table 2. Summary Statistics for Lubbub Creek Mi- ville subphase which overlap in the central Tombig- crolith Industry. bee drainage. The Summerville I period at Lubbub Creek is estimated to have lasted from approximately A.D 1000 to A.D 1200 (Blitz 1983; Peebles 1983). Jenkins and Krause (1986) place the Gainesville subphase Class Standard Std. Error Devi- Min. Max. of Vari- Variable No. Mean ation Value Value Mean ance between A.D. 1000 and A.D. 1100. These dates seem Blade Cores to indicate, as others have mentioned recently (Peebles 1983; Jenkins and Krause 1986), that Late WoodLength 13 30.0* 7.7 13.0 42.0 2.1 59.3 Width 13 29.5 6.2 18.0 39.0 1.7 37.8 land Miller dates overlap by at least 100 years with Platform those of Summerville I. The material content of Fea- ture 51 is primarily Late Woodland in nature (Jenkins Angle 26 70.0 8.9 50.0 82.0 1.7 78.8 1981) while the microliths definitely conform to a No. Blade Removals 27 4.2 2.3 1.0 12.0 0.4 5.3 Cahokia-related Mississippian microlith industry. TheBlades ramifications of these data will be explored later. Length 14 27.1 5.0 19.6 34.1 1.3 24.9 The microlith elements consist of microblades, mi- Width 16 10.3 3.2 4.9 19.0 0.8 10.5 crocores, microdrills, and possibly microgravers. A total of 27 microblade cores, 16 microblades, and 152 retouched microliths varying in their stage of manufacture and use are present in the sample. Debitage, apparently from microlith production, was also associated with the microliths in Feature 51. Summary statistics are presented in Table 2. Metric variables Thickness 16 4.3 2.0 2.2 10.2 0.5 3.9 Large Microdrill Preforms Length 5 31.3 5.8 21.9 36.6 2.6 33.3 Width 12 14.6 1.4 12.6 17.3 0.4 2.0 Thickness 14 8.9 2.0 6.0 12.3 0.5 3.8 Small Microdrill Preforms Length 4 24.7 7.2 18.4 32.9 3.6 52.3 Width 44 10.3 2.3 7.0 16.0 0.3 quantified, dependent upon the particular category, Thickness 46 5.7 1.4 3.3 10.0 0.2 include length, width, thickness, bit length, bit width, bit thickness, platform angle (cores and blades) and Proximal Sections of Finished Microdrills minimum number of blade removals (cores only). Measurements are to the nearest tenth of a millimeter. Length 0 - 5.2 1.8 _____ Width 36 8.2 1.6 5.4 12.0 0.3 2.4 Thickness 37 4.9 1.2 3.1 8.3 0.2 1.4 Distal and Complete Finished Microdr Analytical Description and Model Length 26 21.1 5.9 12.3 32.6 1.2 34.3 of Microlith Production Width 41 7.7 1.6 4.2 11.4 0.3 2.5 Thickness 43 4.3 1.1 2.2 7.4 0.2 1.2 The classification method used to describe the mi- Bit Length 31 6.8 2.4 3.0 12.6 0.4 5.7 Bit crolith assemblage employs a combination of mor- Width 33 4.5 1.1 2.9 8.3 0.2 1.2 Bit phological and technological attributes in the manner Thickness 32 3.6 0.7 2.5 5.9 0.1 0.5 described by Rouse (1972). The morphological cate- gories may be viewed simply as descriptive types * Measurements in millimeters. in 23 This content downloaded from 192.101.185.9 on Tue, 12 Nov 2019 15:30:29 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms SOUTHEASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 10(1) Summer 1991 0 12 3 Figure 4. Microblade cor microblades. By standardized is is meant that the meththat their main purpose to allo od of blank production must be similar specifiable with sufformal comparison with a ficient regularity and redundancy to insure unamnological criteria are used to de biguous assignments with regard to other modes of steps in microdrill manufactur blank production. This contrasts sharply with mortechnological model based on pr phologically similar tools produced by multiple coretechnological model is augment blank reduction practices. Thus the term microlith wear data directly related to this industry may encompass any element of the producby in-depth use-wear studies of s tion sequence from core to 1989b) blade to finished toolan in by Yerkes (1983, 1989a, The term microlith refers litera a generic sense. However, specific terms such as microblade, microdrill, etc. are used herein to refer only of stone. In order to promote ter to specific product groups or end-products of the rethe expression microlith industry duction sequence. the small products and by-produc technological practice. In the pres maximum dimensional value recorded for microcores Microblade Cores, N=27 was 42 mm, for microblades 34.1 mm, for microdrill (Figures 4-5) preforms 36.6 mm, and for finished microdrills, 32.6 Step 1 involves core preparation, usually by conmm. The specific technology in this instance is a mi- trolled crocore and microblade technology which has as its heating of Tuscaloosa chert pebbles obtained from local gravel bars or terraces, but also by removprimary product group (Collins 1975) thick triangular 24 This content downloaded from 192.101.185.9 on Tue, 12 Nov 2019 15:30:29 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms THE LUBBUB CREEK MICROLITH INDUSTRY 0 18 3 1 i fru^ { j wêêêêêêêK-- j^-Jêêêêëêêêm lh Figure 5. Microblade cores. by splitthe original form of the pebble blank. Four cores ing platform preparation flakes and on occasion arehamsub-conical in shape, have acute platform angles, ting the pebble into one or more pieces by hard appear to be exhausted, and possess numerous negmer percussion. Only one core was of a non-local ative blade scar removals (Figure 5). The mean nummaterial, a single sub-conical form which appeared ber of blade removals for all cores is 4.2 and the mean to be made of blue-gray Bangor chert probably from northwestern Alabama. Thermal alteration angle experibetween the striking platform and core face is ments demonstrate that thermal treatment of Tusca- 70°. loosa chert pebbles was practiced. Pebbles which have These cores may be classified as resulting from a been heated at temperatures at or below 400° C. turnstandardized core technology (Parry and Kelly 1987) in which it was intended that the products of core a dark red to yellowish-red color depending on the individual specimen and degree of heat applied (En-reduction (blades) have a restricted range in terms of sor 1980, 1981a, 1981b, 1985). Most of the blade coresoverall shape, and /or size (Johnson 1987; Arnold 1987; possess such attributes. Heat alteration was appliedPope 1989), in preparation for their further reduction to the pebble prior to platform preparation and initialinto microdrills. core reduction. It appears that emphasis was placed on creating pebble blanks free of thermal damage Microblades, N=16 (Figure 6) (Ensor 1980). However, on a few occasions, blade cores are made on thermally shattered heat spalls. Addi- The second step in microdrill manufacture was the tionally, there is evidence that intact pebbles wereproduction of suitable blades. This was accomplished split or fractured to produce one or more secondary in most instances by hard hammer free-hand percuscores which were then used as sources of blades. sion on pebble or thermal spall cores with varying platform configurations. The blades produced are After heating the pebbles, platforms were prepared generally triangular in cross-section with a few being in some cases by transversely fracturing one end to flattened to prismatic (Figure 6). It appears that a blade produce a striking platform (Figure 4). In these inwith a thick cross-section was desired, perhaps to stances, core platform preparation was accomplished minimize fracture during the drilling process which by directing transverse percussion blows originating would exert a large amount of force perpendicular to at the core edge, which extend several millimeters the long axis of the tool. All but one retained edge across the striking platform before termination. Frealong lateral margins, apparently from quently the natural cortex served as the platform. modification If use. the pebble had been thermally fractured during heating, convenient striking platforms were often pro- A total of 14 blades have a mean platform 74 degrees as measured between the plane duced along internal fracture planes. The most common core form is columnar to amorto the striking platform and that tangent to tral blade surface. This is close to the angle phous, the form being determined to a large degree 25 This content downloaded from 192.101.185.9 on Tue, 12 Nov 2019 15:30:29 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms SOUTHEASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 10(1) Summer 1991 Û 1 2 3 I I ~~~MBi^BBBi~~~i"~~] okj ■■■■lZjlZjHHH L»M Figure 6. Microblades. for the cores. The average number previous blade was used for of the most part during initial and primary blade reduction. removals as determined by negative blade scars is 1.4. Mean length of measurable blades 27.1 mm; Many of is these artifacts retainmean the original striking width and thickness on 16 blades are 10.3 mm and platform at their proximal ends. There is quite a bit variation in the width and thickness of these ar4.3 mm respectively. All of these appear to have of been thermally altered. tifacts suggestive of either differential selection of blade size or inability to produce the desired product consistently. Both large (Figure 7) and small (Figure 8) preforms are hypothesized to occur as products of Microdrill Preforms, N=66 blade reduction. These are assigned to Step 3 in the (Figures 7-8) model. The apparent high incidence of manufacture Step 3 involves the initial reduction of blades. These error exhibited by these specimens, primarily due to have been bifacially (64) or unifacially (2) flaked over lateral snap, indicates that successful manufacture of the entire length of the tool or over only a portion finished microdrills may have required considerable (Figures 7-8). Widely spaced flake scars extend ap- skill. proximately one-half the width of the blade and terminate, often in hinge or step fractures. Successive Finished Microdrills, N=86 removals from alternate platforms on both lateral (Figures 9-10) margins and dorsal /ventral surfaces result in bifacially flaked triangular cross-sections which are median-ridged. It appears that a hard hammer percussor Step 4 involves the successful reduction of both large and small microdrill preforms into serviceable 26 This content downloaded from 192.101.185.9 on Tue, 12 Nov 2019 15:30:29 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms THE LUBBUB CREEK MICROLITH INDUSTRY ^ùry 0 12 3 ^búij Figure 7. Large microdrill preforms. ^''^' mmrrtt^n Figure 27 This content downloaded from 192.101.185.9 on Tue, 12 Nov 2019 15:30:29 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 8. Sm SOUTHEASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 10(1) Summer 1991 Figure 9. Finished microdrills. 0 i 2 3 Hi^HHM____L_ _■■■■■■ L-n Figure 10. Finished microdrills. 28 This content downloaded from 192.101.185.9 on Tue, 12 Nov 2019 15:30:29 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms THE LUBBUB CREEK MICROLITH INDUSTRY microdrills (Figures 9-10). These are generally biconvex to cylindrical in cross-section and are noticeably thinner and narrower than the preforms. They are bifacially flaked by intentional pressure retouch along The model of microdrill production was tested utilizing the entire population of Step 3 and Step 4 mi- croliths. The measurements given in Table 2 were used, with width and thickness selected as the de- the entire length of the lateral margins. Opposing pendent variables. The sample included both large and small Step 3 microdrill preforms and the hypothesized proximal and distal sections as well as flake scars terminate near the midline forming a me- dian ridge on most examples. Flake scars are closely spaced and overlap along the entire length of the tool. Pressure flaking was used in some cases to shape complete Step 4 microdrills. If the large and small preforms and the finished microdrills come from populations with different Pressure retouch has also been used to flake the means with regard to width and thickness, we can single and double projections (Figure 9) or drill test bits for statistical differences which may be signifi- the haft or main body of the drill. which sometimes extend a considerable distance dis- cant. In the case of the large and small preforms a bit tally from the widest portion of the microdrill. These of circularity is introduced into the analysis since projections are generally cylindrical while the medial these categories are based, in part, on intuitive estiand /or proximal portions may be biconvex to flatmates of size. However, they are included in the analtened or cylindrical, evidently for hafting purposes. ysis to verify the subjective classification with the Heavy use-wear along the lateral margins of these realization that any significant difference obtained projections has undoubtedly contributed substantialbetween them are likely a function of the classification criteria. ly to the cylindrical, narrow form of the working ends. These projections or bits presumably represent Initially a one-way analysis of variance was calthe working or distal portions of finished microdrills culated using width and thickness respectively as de(Figure 9). The specimens with double projections pendent variables. This procedure was run using the may represent drills which were re-used by alterStatistical Analysis System routine GLM (SAS Instinately selecting either end for drilling. Also present tute Inc. 1985). The null hypothesis for both tests within this category are the proximal sections of fracstates that all of the category means are equal. The tured microdrills which do not possess a functional null hypothesis was rejected in both instances at the or working bit (Figure 10). These retain the same .0001 level of significance. The rejection of the null bifacial flaking as the distal sections except for the hypothesis indicates that the two microlith categouse-worn bits. ries, including the large and small preforms, did not Pope (1989), as noted previously, refers to similar come from single populations. In order to determine tools in the Black Warrior microlith assemblage as means were significantly different, multiple which blade "bit-tools" stressing that they were hafted comparison and analysis was selected as an option (SAS served as drill bits affixed to shafts to facilitate the Institute Inc. 1985) to simultaneously evaluate the upper and lower confidence intervals and control for Type I experimental error. The necessity of this meth- drilling process. od has been demonstrated by Scheps (1982:836-851). Evaluation of the The results are presented in Table 3. A scatter plot of Reduction Model width by thickness (Figure 11) graphically illustrates these differences and similarities. The reduction model specifies four steps, each comprised of a series of one or more operations necessary It appears that the overall reduction model is subto complete the steps. The first and second steps which stantiated. The Step 3 large and small preforms differ involve core and blade production are recognized onsignificantly from the Step 4 finished microdrills. the basis of technological attributes discussed preLikewise the large and small Step 3 preforms differ viously and are readily apparent. However, the finalsignificantly from each other as we may have pre- two steps are not as clear. It has been hypothesized dicted given that size was in part used to classify that after production of a suitable blade, bifacial rethem. This suggests that either different blade sizes duction occurred. This may be demonstrated empir-were desired to produce different sized microdrills ically since many of the Step 3 preforms retain theor that the large preforms may have been intended striking platform and other blade attributes such as for reduction into small preforms and ultimately into negative blade scar removals on their dorsal surface.finished microliths. Since their is no clear evidence Two categories of Step 3 microdrill preforms are presfor bimodality in the finished microlith population ent in the sample based on overall size and stage of to suggest that different sized microdrills were being technological reduction: large and small (Figures 7manufactured, the latter hypothesis seems more like- 8). Finally, Step 4 microdrills reflect the final end ly. The wide discrepancy in size between the mi- products of manufacture and use (Figures 9-10). These crodrill preform categories may be, in part, reflective consist of distal, proximal, and intact specimens. of an inability to produce blades of the desired size 29 This content downloaded from 192.101.185.9 on Tue, 12 Nov 2019 15:30:29 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms SOUTHEASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 10(1) Summer 1991 Width in millimeters 18 - 17 16 - 15 - - ■ " . A A A ■ " 11 o O AA A-j o A0 A O ■ A io- 0<^iOAl? " ° A A/ °O WA¿K|A6a^ o^Oo^ O *A ° O A 8 - (^ò^T^iZk A a A v ^V^ng^ A ^ : : •> % 3 - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ' 2.2 2.9 3.6 4.3 5.0 5.7 6.4 7.1 7.8 8.5 9.2 9.9 10.6 11.3 12.0 Thickness In millimeters LEGEND ■ Large Microdrill Preforms 6 Proximal (Haft) Portions of Finished Microdrills ▲ Small Microdrill Preforms q Finished Microdrills - Intact and Distal Tips Figure 11. Scatter plot of width by thickness. on a consistent basis. As expected, no significant dif- attributes recorded follow Ahler (1979) and were used ferences were obtained between the proximal and only as very general indicators of potential tool use. distal microdrill sections, further substantiating that A sample of 20 Step 4 finished microdrills was ex- these represent fractured portions of finished mi- amined including 15 distal sections and 5 proximal crodrills. A sequence of core preparation, blade production, bifacial reduction of blades, and finished microdrill is supported by the data. sections. These data are summarized in Table 4. finished, serviceable microdrills. The experiments performed by Morse and Sierzchula (1977) and the detailed use-wear studies by Yerkes (1983, 1989a, 1989b) and Pope (1986, 1989) on similar forms has proven useful in interpreting the range of uses potentially represented by this assemblage. Although A variety of wear attributes were recorded, primarily at the 20-30 x range of magnification. Wear was concentrated primarily along the lateral margins and tips of the implements. Edge smoothing, blunting, polishing, and step flaking are the most common traces of wear noted. This wear was intense and present over virtually the entire length of the drill bits. Polish was generally confined to restricted edge and tip areas. No striations were observed. Step flaking occurred on alternate edges, perhaps indicating a back and forth movement of the bit. Several examples appeared to retain crushed shell residue within mi- no in-depth use-wear studies were carried out on these specimens, a small sample of microliths was examined es. However it was unclear whether the residue was Use The model indicates that the Step 4 microliths are using a Bausch and Lomb zoom stereoscopic microscope with a magnification power of 10-70 x. Wear crof ractures of the blunted and step fractured bit edgthe result of use or had leached onto the tools from the abundant shellfish remains found in the pit. These 30 This content downloaded from 192.101.185.9 on Tue, 12 Nov 2019 15:30:29 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms THE LUBBUB CREEK MICROLITH INDUSTRY Table 3. Tukey's Studentized Range Test for Variables Width and Thickness. Differences Significant at the 0.05 Level Thick- Category Comparison Width ness Large Microdrill Preform Small Microdrill Preform X X Large Microdrill Preform Proximal Finished Microdrill Section X X Large Microdrill Preform Distal Complete Finished Microdrill Section X X Small Microdrill Preform Large Microdrill Preform X X Small Microdrill Preform Proximal Finished Microdrill Section X X Small Microdrill Preform Distal Complete Finished Microdrill Section X X Proximal Finished Microdrill Section Large Microdrill Preform X X Proximal Finished Microdrill Section Small Microdrill Preform X X Proximal Finished Microdrill Section Distal Complete Finished Microdrill Section Distal Complete Finished Microdrill Section Large Microdrill Preform X X Distal Complete Finished Microdrill Section Small Microdrill Preform X X Distal Complete Finished Microdrill Section Proximal Finished Microdrill Section uted to data, consumers." Evans's (1973, 1978) four main data, in conjunction with comparative published criteria or archaeological measures of craft specialstrongly suggest that the majority of the Step 4 microliths were used to drill shell. ization are (a) that craft specialists represent a minor With these data in hand, the following section dis-portion of any community, (b) that craft goods are produced by these specialists which involves devotcusses the implications of the Lubbub data set with regard to craft specialization, socioeconomic activity,ing some of their time to the task, (c) that, therefore, they may not devote all their time to basic subsistence and the Late Woodland-Mississippian transition. tasks, and (d) that in return for the production of specific craft items, they receive a portion of or their entire subsistence livelihood (Evans 1973:55). Torrence (1986:42-45) discusses specialization in a Archaeological Implications: Lithic Craft Specialization and variety of contexts and considers it closely related to Summerville Economics the concepts of efficiency and standardization. Technological efficiency can be construed in Schneider's Craft Specialization terminology as economizing which refers to the maximum utilization of one's resources in both human Craft specialization as a major area of study in arand natural terms (Schneider 1974, cited in Roemer chaeological research has been discussed in detail re1984). Lithic technological sophistication is difficult cently by numerous authors (Arnold 1985, 1987; Evans to define and even harder to measure. As described 1973, 1978; Gregg 1975; Michaels 1987; Prentice 1983; by Roemer (1984:69-70) standardization involves the Rice 1981; Roemer 1984; Sheets 1978; Spence 1982; notion of control or restriction in behavioral terms Torrence 1981, 1986; Yerkes 1983, 1989a, 1989b; Muland may be conceptualized in two basic ways. The ler 1984; Tosi 1984; Flannery and Winter 1976; Renfirst may be regarded as a local or micro-contextual frew 1973). These authors have offered a variety of phenomenon (Michaels 1987), where conformity is ideas about how best to focus this concept in archaeexpressed or measured in terms of a "norological research. No attempt is made here to regularly exmative" value (minimum size, particular form etc.). haustively review these various approaches. Rather, craft specialization will be defined for purposesThe of second relates to the regional or macro-contextual level of control and concomitant political, religthis study, and a set of archaeological correlates exious and economic orders, as well as other mechaamined, which have the potential to link the Lubbub nisms of human interaction and involvement. Creek microlith industry with social and economic Torrence (1986:44) views craft specialization in the aspects of Summerville society. Hopefully, this will allow the data to be evaluated independently byhuman the behavioral context of cost-control and maxi- mization of profits, specifically, resources, tools, techreader and promote reasonable conclusions regarding niques, space, and labor force. The following genthe presence or absence of lithic craft specialization at Lubbub Creek. erally summarizes these concepts of specialization. It is noted that specialization in the context of efficiency Craft specialization is defined by Roemer (1984:67requires that resource type or raw materials be avail68) as "the markedly efficient and standardized proable in large quantities with a minimum of effort. duction of a given class of artifacts which is distrib31 This content downloaded from 192.101.185.9 on Tue, 12 Nov 2019 15:30:29 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms SOUTHEASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 10(1) Summer 1991 Table 4. Summary of Use Wear Attributes Observed on Microlith Sample. Class Edge Edge Edge Edge Edge Edge Edge Surface Surface Surface Surface Cat. Round- Facet- Smooth- Edge Blunt- Crush- Stria- Grind- Step Scratch- Round- Smooth- Surface GrindNo, ing ing ing Polish ing ing tions ing Flaking es ing ing Polish ing Proximal Microdrill Sections 52-11 X------X------ 54-13 52-13 X-X----XX----- ______________ 51-20 52-9 X-X-X---X----- ______________ Distal 458-55 and 614-426 661-3 52-15 Complete Mi X-XXX---X-XX-X-XXX---X----- X-XXX---X----- X-XXXX--X-XX-- 50-3937 52-26 52-29 52-10 348-39 59-323 X-XXX---X----- X-X-X---X----X-XXX---X----- X-XXX---X-XXX- 648-1737 47-1012 48-416 52-17 52-13 X-X-X---X----- X-X-X---X----- X-XXX---X----X-X-X---X----- X-X-XX--X----X-X-X---X----X-X-----X----- X Present. - Absent. forms based on social differentiation. No Likewise technological innovation would stress elaborate high specificity with regard to tool use since "tools devellevel of sociocultural development need be implied oped for a single task are more likely to reduce labor using this definition. Yerkes (1989a, 1989b) takes a costs" (Torrence 1986:44). This view carries over into similar position with regard to his evolutionary pertechniques of artifact production. Segregation of work spective of Mississippian shell craft production sys- tems. space may be useful in maximizing production in some cases. Finally, specialization in the work force In contrast, Müller (1984) has argued that in order may result in increased efficiency, but not necessarily to be useful in Mississippian studies, the term craft so. Here a careful distinction is drawn between a specialization should only be used in reference to "skilled knapper who may produce artifacts onfull-time a part- specialization. He points out that the term time basis for people within a local group" (Torrence specialization may apply to varying levels of socio1986:45), and a knapper who is supported by acultural relig- complexity and therefore the term should ious elite, and who is a full-time industrial specialist. only be used when carefully defined. Müller (1984: Thus a continuum of craft specialization occurs in makes a useful distinction between site spe490-493) various socioeconomic systems. Major distinctions becialization and consumer specialization. Specializatween craft production and mass replication of prodtion in reference to single sites refers to the limited ucts are noted (Torrence 1986; Sheets 1978; Rathje or restricted nature of activities at a site. The concept 1975), with the former referring to the knowledge of consumer specialization, as explained by Müller, possessed by a minority of the populace with work the mode of production and the proportion involves performed on a part-time basis and the latterof being an individual's livelihood sustained by the craft organized into a commercial, profit-oriented activity. econo- A distinction has also been drawn between house- my. Tosi (1984) has also presented a discussion hold regardversus regional specialization by Flannery and ing quantification in economic specialization. He lists(1976) based on their work in Mesoamerica. Winter five variables important in the discrimination of de- specialization is characterized by the presHousehold gree of specialization including: population, ence kind ofof functionally or use-specific tools, unfinished commodity, output of commodity, time range, and worked craft items, and associated manor partially spatial distribution. Renfrew (1973) indicates that craft ufacturing debris in only one or two houses within specialization is best viewed as a continuuma which cluster. However, Flannery and Winter found that clusters of houses contained similar shell orhas developed from a division of labor intocertain more 32 This content downloaded from 192.101.185.9 on Tue, 12 Nov 2019 15:30:29 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms THE LUBBUB CREEK MICROLITH INDUSTRY to represent domestic habitations (Blitz 1983) (Figure 3). Scattered human interments, a single elite cemetery partially encapsulated by an oval wattle and daub structure, and other pit and hearth features, including Feature 51, where the concentration of microliths was recovered, are believed to date to this period (Jenkins naments, ostensibly for distribution to other regions, thus the term regional specialization. Michaels (1987:61) has synthesized these concepts into a flexible definition of craft specialization which emphasizes use of both micro- and macro-contextual indicators in interpretation. Reference to the term and Ensor 1981; Blitz 1983). Feature 51 was assigned to the Terminal Woodland Gainesville subphase by craft specialization, as used herein, refer to Michaels's definition: Jenkins (1981) which overlaps with the Summerville I period. There has been some controversy surrounding the validity of the Gainesville subphase (Rafferty and Starr 1987) and for the present it is known only the relatively regular and standardized production of a craft product at levels clearly higher than those necessary for household consumption, by persons having restricted access to specific technology, knowledge, skills, and raw materials characterized by a full-blown or emergent division of labor [Michaels 1987:61]. that the Lubbub Creek microliths were manufactured Implicit within Michaels's definition is that craft during a time period when both Mississippian and Terminal Woodland peoples inhabited the Lubbub production is synonymous with trade or exchange,Creek archaeological locality. Jenkins (personal comeither for subsistence requirements or for special itemsmunication, 1989), however, believes the material contents of Feature 51 other than the microliths are to be used in specialist craft production. This defi- nition further assumes that craft specialization may very similar to those from other Gainesville subphase occur in varying forms of complexity from "low en- features. Although Rafferty and Starr (1987) and Fu- ergy, part time specialization to complex, high en- tato (1987) have explained the discrepancies among the dates, the microliths, and the Woodland characergy, full-time specialization" (Michaels 1987:61). It seems reasonable to organize the discussion of teristics detected by Jenkins as a product of mixing, this is not consistent with the virtually identical racraft specialization and its relevance to understanddiocarbon dates obtained from the upper and lower ing the Lubbub Creek microlith industry and Sumportions of the pit. merville economic development around micro and Regardless of the outcome of this debate, it seems macro indicators after Michaels's definition (1987:58clear that the industry functioned within the broad 71). He uses the term macro-contextual to refer to context of Summerville rather than Late Woodland regional indicators of craft specialization. In contrast, micro-contextual indicators, which represent the ma-economy. These constitute the major features thought to be associated with the Summerville I community jority of the archaeological evidence for craft specialization (Michaels 1987), refer to local facilities, plan at Lubbub Creek. Turning to lithic materials, the following distinctions are made with regard to microlith distribution at this locality. Allen (1983:180) reports that despite Micro-Context a much larger excavation area, less than one-half the number of microliths reported by Ensor (1981b, 1985) The general extent of the Summerville I settlement were recognized during subsequent investigations by at Lubbub Creek may be examined by referring to the University of Michigan. Blitz (1983:261) reports Figure 3 redrawn from Peebles (1983:Figure 12.1). that three microliths were recovered from the northBlitz has described the settlement as follows: east corner of Structure 2 in Hectare 400N/-300E activities, and artifact distributions. The Summerville I community may have been the most (Figure 3) and three additional microliths were re- covered from the mound fill (Allen 1983). The overall disposal pattern of lithic and other remains contrasts sharply between Summerville I and spatially extensive settlement ... on the bend. The pre-Mississippian Late Woodland components were moderate sized, perhaps seasonally variable, and widely dispersed. In contrast, the Summerville I components represented a large fortified village that extended from the western palisade Late Woodland occupations at Lubbub Creek. Late Woodland features and middens contain high den- east to the point at the bend and the most densely occupied area was between Palisade I in Hectare 500N/-400E and sities of lithic manufacturing debris while most Mississippian features contain very little of such material. Several structures thought to have functioned pri- This trend has been noted for virtually all classes of marily in religious or communal activities were found debris by previous researchers (Jenkins 1982:125) and perhaps is best summarized from an overall subsisbeneath the Summerville mound and may have been tence standpoint as offered by Woodrick (1983) who used during the Summerville I occupation. Two other Summerville I structures, one west of the mound, the indicates that disposal of food remains exhibited a the cemetery in 400N/0E [Blitz 1983:255]. other south of it, yielded radiocarbon determinations greater effort by Summerville peoples than Late of A.D. 1070 ± 80 years (Structure 1) and A.D. 1090 Woodland residents. Blitz (1983) notes that the floors ± 90 years (Structure II) respectively and are believed of pre-mound structures were swept virtually clean. 33 This content downloaded from 192.101.185.9 on Tue, 12 Nov 2019 15:30:29 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms SOUTHEASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 10(1) Summer 1991 This corresponds to the general paucity of lithic re- to contain a group of intentionally associated artifacts consisting of a large sandstone abrader, three pointed The differences in refuse discard behavior between bone tools (pressure flakers?) manufactured from the Late Woodland and Summerville peoples are paralwild turkey (Curren 1981) and three pristine Madison leled in important ways with regard to lithicarrow tech-points. A similar interment has been found at nology. site lGr2, a late Summerville period farmstead located The Lubbub Creek microlith industry described south of the Lubbub Creek locality (Jenkins and Ensor above reflects a degree of standardization not found 1981) (Figure 2). An adult male (Burial 20) (Hill 1981) mains in Summerville I contexts at Lubbub Creek. in Late Woodland lithic assemblages. Those assem- had in direct association three finished and appar- blages are characterized by a high incidence of arrow points, cutting, scraping, piercing and chopping tools ently pristine microdrills manufactured from blades found mixed with other debris in organically rich 1981). A sandstone abrader was also recovered from the pit fill, but due to minor disturbance, its associa- (Ensor 1981b) and two pointed bone tools (Curren shell middens (Ensor 1981a, 1981b). The context of use, disposal, and manufacture indicates that no spe- cialization existed and that production centered on the needs of the immediate household. As discussed tion with the interment could not be established. These data suggest that certain individuals may have been involved in specialization of labor, by virtue of either ascribed or achieved status. The association of by Futato (1987:172-173), Late Woodland microtools are technologically distinct from the Lubbub Creek the probable lithic tool kit with the individual in the microlith industry, being made on flakes. elite Summerville I cemetery suggests that this person In contrast, the presence of all stages of microdrill may have had privileged access to certain goods and manufacture and use within the same depositional commodities as reflected by the overall superior health stratum of a subterranean facility dating to of theelite Summerville individuals (Cole et. al 1982; Powell 1983). Gainesville subphase /Summerville I period argues that the debris was deposited intentionally and synIn summary, an examination of the micro-contexchronically. It appears likely that it came from atual re- data from the Summerville I component at Lubstricted area where specialized activities occurred. bub Creek supports the contention that some form of These included microblade core preparation and blade lithic craft specialization and part-time specialization removal, manufacture of drills from blades, prepaof labor were an integral part of the early formation ration of hafting materials and mounting of theof miMississippian economic structure at Lubbub Creek. crodrills, and the drilling and working of shellThis andspecialization was probably "low energy" in Mi(1987) continuum and was not conducted on perhaps other materials. It should also be pointedchaels's out a full-time basis. If we examine the micro-contextual that in her sample of analyzed shell from the Lubbub Creek locality, Woodrick (1983) found only 45data cutin terms of Torrence's views on craft specializashell by-products of freshwater invertebrates while tion, we find that several of her expectations appear Curren (1981) detected 16 such fragments withintoFeabe met by the Summerville economic system. First, ture 51 or almost 40 percent of Woodrick's total the de-notions of behavioral control, standardization, spite the vast differences in sample size. No marine and efficiency all appear to be present in one form or shell was identified from this feature, however 16 another. Although no direct measures of standardperforated and /or cut freshwater mussel shells were ization were employed in the analysis (cf. Sheets 1978), recovered. The apparent concentration of microliths the identification and description of the relatively east of the Summerville mound at Lubbub Creek also regular and consistent method of microlith producsuggests that certain areas may have been restrictedtion suggests that such standardization was present. for particular activities such as microlith production Additionally, the relative abundance of raw materials and use. expected to be present for the manufacture of mi- Individuals interred in the elite cemetery encomcroliths are present in the form of local heat-treated passing Feature 51 and Structure II (Jenkins and Ensor cherts. Second, the specificity in their use (drilling 1981) east of the Summerville mound, were associated shell and possibly other materials) conforms to Torrwith numerous cut, drilled, and ground shell beads, ence's assumption that tools developed for single tasks apparently manufactured from the whorl of marine are most likely to be economical. Third, the apparent gastropods Busy con or conch (Curren 1981). Microdsegregation of work-space noted above may have aidrill bit widths and thicknesses easily conform to ed theSummerville craftsmen in maximizing production costs. All of this seems to conform to Michaels' defvariability of dimensions of holes in the shell beads. Besides the associations between the shell by-prodinition of craft specialization in that the quantities of ucts and microliths noted above, evidence for the microliths found in restricted context at Lubbub Creek existence of a specialized lithic tool kit exists fromare "clearly higher than that necessary for household the cemetery. A single adult (Burial 18, sex indeter- consumption" and that most likely certain persons minate), dating to the Summerville I period, was foundhad "restricted access to specific technology, knowl34 This content downloaded from 192.101.185.9 on Tue, 12 Nov 2019 15:30:29 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms THE LUBBUB CREEK MICROLITH INDUSTRY duction. This is based on the apparent correlation of West Jefferson Phase ceramics and microtools at sites edge, skills, and raw materials" (Michaels 1987:61). While obviously microlith use occurred in domestic and the occurrence of a cylindrical "bit-tool" in a households both at Lubbub and at nearby sites (Blitz 1983; Ensor 1981b) during the Summerville I period, West Jefferson pit. The presence of two technological such concentration of the Lubbub Creek microliths means of producing microdrills (flake-bit and bladebit) in Pope's sample, indicates that they could have within a restricted context argues for a degree of cenbeen made by separate cultural groups since most of tralization of craft-related activities involving mithe data are from surface context. However she seems crolith production and use. to refer to a single technology in some of her discussion, so it is unclear if she assigns any cultural meanMacro-Context ing to the different technological modes of production in "bit-tool" manufacture. Various authors, including Peebles (1974, 1978), Peebles and Kus (1977), Steponaitis (1983, 1986a, Additional evidence which may reflect on craft specialization comes from mound site lTu50, located just 1986b), Welch (1987), Hardin (1980), Prentice (1983), outside the Moundville site proper, where a small Yerkes (1983, 1989a, 1989b), and Pope (1989), have lithic collection "contains an unusually high proporindicated that craft specialization in some form or fashion may have existed at such major Mississippiantion of non-local materials" (Steponaitis 1986b:7). Steponaitis, referring to this material from lTu50, mencenters as Moundville and Cahokia and possibly at tions that the presence of exotic materials may be minor centers or "farmsteads" as well (Figure 1). related to the development of trade and craft proDespite the many views that craft specialization was an integral part of developing Mississippian eco-duction at Moundville. Documentation of microliths from primarily surface contexts at sites dating to the nomic systems, other opinions exist as discussed preLate Woodland-Mississippian transition in the Black viously. Müller (1984), for instance, prefers to restrict the term craft specialization when referring to Mis-Warrior Valley near Moundville suggests that some form of craft production, perhaps at the domestic levsissippian economies to full-time specialization. Acel, occurred at sites peripheral to this ceremonial cencording to this definition, Müller indicates that little ter (Pope 1986, 1989) with most recovered from a few evidence for production above the household level existed within the Black Bottom of the lower Ohio larger sites. The importance of understanding the place of lithic Valley. With regard to his data from the Great Salt Spring site in southern Illinois, Müller states that salt and other specialized technologies within regional production by Mississippian societies in that region economic and political development has been recwas "consistent with the suggestion of part-time or ognized by Steponaitis who states: even seasonal production on a small scale, and the case for full-time specialization, at least, fails on that account" (Müller 1984:504). The extent and content of the Moundville chief- dom has been described by Peebles (1974), Peebles and Kus (1977), Steponaitis (1983) and Welch (1987). The relationship between it and the Summerville oc- it may not be a coincidence that microlithic tools . . . and other possible signs of shell bead manufacture are most prevalent in many regions between A.D. 800 and 1300, precisely when Mississippian polities emerged and consolidated [Steponaitis 1986a:392]. This has been noted by Pope (1989) in her study cupations at Lubbub Creek have been discussed by and this phenomenon has been expanded by Johnson Peebles (1983) and Jenkins (1982) and Jenkins and (1987) to encompass a longer span of prehistory Krause (1986). It is generally agreed that fairly strong evidence for the existence of specialization exists at Moundville in terms of lithics, shell bead manufacture, and other commodities such as ceramics (Peebles and Kus 1977; Steponaitis 1983, 1986a, 1986b; Hardin 1980; Welch 1987). The apparent differential use of space at Moundville as attested by the large fired areas west of Mound P, thought to be indicative of mass pottery production, the concentration of non-local or exotic stone north of Mound R, and the high density of debris from shell bead manufacture east of Mound E, all support the above conclusions. On the other hand, data from Pope's (1989) distributional analysis of the Black Warrior microliths from the vicinity of Moundville suggests to her that microdrill manufacture was not organized at a level above domestic pro- whereby it is noted that "One of the interesting things about blade and core techniques in the Southeast is their coincidence with periods of maximum cultural complexity" (Johnson 1987:204). Both S wanton (1946) and Adair (1775) have noted the historic use of shell beads and strings of shell beads by Indians as "wampum" or shell "money." Prentice (1983, 1987) has discussed the possibility that shell beads were used as a medium of exchange in Mississippian societies with or without a market economy. He introduced the cottage industry concept as a model for Mississippian society. Drawing on both historical and archaeological data, Prentice defines a cottage industry as "the part-time production of items for trade at the household level" (Prentice 1983:33). He interprets the apparent intensive shell bead man- 35 This content downloaded from 192.101.185.9 on Tue, 12 Nov 2019 15:30:29 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms SOUTHEASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 10(1) Summer 1991 ufacture at Cahokia (Mason and Perino 1961) as pos- specialized areas segregated from ordinary activities. sible evidence for full-time craft specialization. How- Pope's data from the Black Warrior "farmsteads" or ever, both Müller (1984) and Yerkes (1989b) have non-mound sites do not conflict with this. It may well questioned Prentice's use of the term "cottage in- be that if lithic craft specialization existed within the dustry" as a model of Mississippian economic sys- early Moundville economic system that it will be tems. They both feel that this term is not very useful found at Moundville proper and other major mound or is misleading in the analysis of these systems since centers such as lTu50 (Pope 1989:238) as the evidence the original definition of "cottage industry" implies currently seems to suggest. This is also considered the existence of a true market economy. the most likely scenario for the Summerville economSmaller sites such as Lab Woofie (Prentice and Meh- ic system based on current data. rer 1981) and Labras Lake (Yerkes 1980) are believed to have been involved with local, part-time manu- Conclusions facture of craft items, possibly indicative of the cottage industry model. In fact, Yerkes (1989a), based on The Emergent Mississippian microlith industry a distributional study of artifacts associated with shell documented at the Lubbub Creek archaeological lobead production and shell craft products in Cahokiacality in west-central Alabama is believed to span the Mississippian society, concluded that while the pat- full range of Mississippian development at Lubbub tern of shell-bead manufacture changed through time, Creek. Elements of the industry have been found in full-time craft specialists were not present in Missis- apparent Summerville III context at site lGr2 to the south as well as in Summerville I context. sippian society. When the data from the Lubbub Creek microlith It is concluded that reasonable evidence for part- industry is interpreted in light of micro-contextual time lithic craft specialization exists at Lubbub Creek. and macro-contextual indicators, it seems evident that The presence of one or more specialized areas of craft some form of specialization existed for most if not production all or workshops is inferred from the con- of the Summerville period occupations at Lubbub centration of microliths in a subterranean facility and the differential distribution of microliths within the Creek. Because no comparative data exist from outlying communities associated with the Summerville locality. The microliths and associated manufacturing mound with the exception of 1PÍ61 and lGr2, interdebris had evidently been systematically collected pretations of local economic developments must from be a restricted area and redeposited there. Further, restricted largely to that from Lubbub Creek. The a degree of lithic standardization is recognized for current data suggest that the Lubbub Creek microlith the Summerville I society that is absent in Late Woodindustry and any associated craft specialists may have land stone technology. The regional data from been concentrated at the major center near the SumMoundville and surrounding mound sites tends to merville mound during the Summerville I period support the interpretation that craft specialization may (A.D. 1000-1200). These individuals would presumhave been an important part of developing Summer- ably be involved primarily with the manufacture of ville economy. While aspects of new technology were introduced to these local groups in the form of microcores and microblades, traditional lithic practices household level probably served to facilitate local were preserved in the use of local heat-treated pebexchange or to meet household needs. There is bles, certain possibly pressure flaking techniques, and perevidence supporting this in that only a few microliths haps the persistence of morphologically similar but have been found in a domestic setting at Lubbub or technologically distinct perforators used in Late 1PÍ61 during the Summerville I period. The dataWoodland from society. In this view, the craft production site lGr2, where a Late Mississippian farmstead was at Lubbub may have benefited, in part, from Late present (Jenkins and Ensor 1981), indicate thatWoodland more individuals residing in settlements close intensive shell bead and microlith manufacturetomay the Summerville mound and aristocracy. Since it now established that Late Woodland and Missishave been carried out at the household level is during this time period. How applicable the cottage industry sippian society overlapped in time in the central Tommodel may be with regard to the Summerville eco-Valley, such must be considered seriously, esbigbee nomic system is uncertain, especially if the term is pecially in the light of data from the Bessemer site to used as originally defined to refer to state-level marthe east where Seckinger and Jenkins (1980) have ket systems. Relatively few surplus goods are thought made a plausible case for such interaction between to have been produced in the domestic setting Mississippian during peoples at the Bessemer site and local the early portion of Summerville development and West Jefferson populations. As these authors note, the it is doubtful if a state-level economy or true market presence of plural societies organized around spesystem existed during Summerville occupation. cialized Rath- production is documented ethnohistorically er, production may have been concentrated within and may serve as one of several models to be tested microliths and associated shell beads for the elite. Minor shell bead manufacture at the individual 36 This content downloaded from 192.101.185.9 on Tue, 12 Nov 2019 15:30:29 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms THE LUBBUB CREEK MICROLITH INDUSTRY in future studies of Late Woodland-Mississippian Allen, Aljean W. 1983 An Analysis of Lithic Materials from the Lubbub Creek transition in the Southeast. Recent data from the Black Warrior Valley (Mistovich 1988) suggest that Emergent Mississippian development may have proceeded slowly with gradual acculturation and assimilation of the resident Late Woodland population. Archaeological Locality. In Studies of Material Remains from the Lubbub Creek Archaeological Locality, edited by Christopher S. Peebles, pp. 138-193. Prehistoric Agricultural Communities in West Central Alabama, vol. 2. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Arnold, Jeanne E. For the present, the data suggest that some form of 1985 Economic Specialization in Prehistory: Methods of Doclithic craft specialization was a part of Summerville umenting the Rise of Craft Specialization. In Lithic Resource economy. It was most likely confined to mound cenProcurement: Proceedings from the Second Conference of Prehistoric ters, at least for the early portion of Summerville development. The exact mechanisms responsible for Chert Exploitation, edited by Susan C. Vehik, pp. 37-58. Occasional Papers No. 4. Center for Archaeological Investigations, this are unknown, but are likely intertwined in social, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. 1987 Technology and Economy: Microblade Core Production political, and religious activities carried out by the elite during the development of a hierarchical structure at Lubbub Creek. It is possible that Late Wood- from the Channel Islands. In The Organization of Core Technology, edited by Jay K. Johnson and Carol A. Morrow, pp. 207238. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado. Baskin, Barbara S. land groups contributed to and practiced the tech- 1981 Lithic and Mineral Artifacts. In Archaeological Investigations at the George C. Davis Site, Cherokee County, Texas, Summers of nology in some capacity; however, the basic knowledge of technological production appears organized around, and grounded in, regional Mississippian economy. 1979 and 1980, edited by Dee Ann Story, pp. 239-320. Occasional Papers No. 1. Texas Archeological Research Laboratory, The University of Texas, Austin. Blitz, John H. 1 983 The Summerville I Community. In Excavations in the Lubbub Creek Archaeological Locality, edited by Christopher S. Peebles, Notes pp. 254-278. Prehistorical Agricultural Communities in West Acknowledgements. This paper has been improved significantlyCentral Alabama, vol. 1. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. by the comments of D. Bruce Dickson, Ned Jenkins, Jay Johnson, Cole, and Rick Yerkes. However, the author is solely responsible for theGloria G., Mary C. Hill, and H. Blaine Ensor 1982 Bioarchaeological Comparisons of the Late Miller III and content and any errors in fact or interpretation. Summerville I Phases in the Gainesville Lake Area. In ArI would also like to thank the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, chaeology of the Gainesville Lake Area: Synthesis, by Ned J. JenMobile District, for funding the data recovery programs which kins, pp. 187-258. Archaeological Investigations in the Gainesmade this research possible. Corps senior archaeologist Jerry J. ville Lake Area of the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway, vol. Nielsen and archaeologist Ernest Seckinger are especially thanked 5. Reports of Investigations No. 23. Office of Archaeological for their interest and support in these programs. Carey B. Oakley, University of Alabama, University. Assistant Director of the Alabama Museum of Natural History, Research, is also thanked for his commitment to the Gainesville Lake excava- Collins, Michael B. tions and analysis which has greatly contributed to the results 1975 Lithic Technology as a Means of Processual Inference. In contained herein. The following people were instrumental in proLithic Technology: Making and Using Stone Tools, edited by Earl viding notes, papers, articles, and manuscripts which made workSwanson, pp. 15-34. Mouton, The Hague. ing on this article a little easier: Rick Yerkes, Eugene Futato, Chris-Curren, Cailup B., Jr. topher Peebles, Melody Pope, Janet Rafferty, Neil Robison, Earnest 1981 Appendix A. Zooarchaeological Analysis of 4,991 Bone Seckinger, Vincas Steponaitis, and Paul Welch. Rick Alvey illus- trated the artifacts and Charles Moore drafted the remaining figures, both of whom are greatly appreciated. David L. Carlson provided advice on computational methods and made the facilities at the Archeological Research Laboratory, Texas A&M University, available during manuscript preparation. For this I offer my thanks. and Shell Artifacts from the Gainesville Lake Area. In Biocul- tural Studies in the Gainesville Lake Area, by Gloria M. Caddell, Anne Woodrick, and Mary C. Hill, pp. 169-210. Archaeological Investigations in the Gainesville Lake Area of the TennesseeTombigbee Waterway, vol. 4. Report of Investigations No. 14. Office of Archaeological Research, University of Alabama, Uni- An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 50th Annual versity. Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Denver, Colo-Ensor, H. Blaine rado. Collections. The artifacts and notes used in this study are curated in the Erskine Ramsey Archaeological Repository at the David L. Dejarnette Archaeological Research Center, Mound State Monument, Moundville, Alabama. 1980 An Evaluation and Synthesis of Changing Lithic Technologies in the Central Tombigbee Valley. Southeastern Archaeological Conference Bulletin 22:83-90. 1981a Lithic Morphology, Technology, and Use in the Central Tombigbee Drainage: the Miller II and Miller HI Phases. Master's thesis, University of Alabama, University. 1981b Gainesville Lake Area Lithics: Chronology, Technology, and Use. Archaeological Investigations in the Gainesville Lake Area References Cited of the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway, vol. 3. Report of Investigations No. 13. Office of Archaeological Research, University of Alabama, University. 1775 The History of the American Indians. London. 1985 Lithic Craft Specialization in the Southeast: Data from the Ahler, Stanley A. 1979 Nonobsidian Chipped Stone Artifacts: Terms, Variables,Lubbub Creek Archaeological Locality. Paper presented at the and Quantification. In Lithic Use-Wear Analysis, edited by Brian 50th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Denver, Colorado. Hayden, pp. 301-328. Academic Press, New York. Adair, James 37 This content downloaded from 192.101.185.9 on Tue, 12 Nov 2019 15:30:29 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms SOUTHEASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 10(1) Summer 1991 Evans, Robert K. Keeley, Lawrence H. 1973 Craft Specialization in the Chalcolithic Period of the Balkan Peninsula. Ph.D. dissertation, Anthropology Department, University of California, Los Angeles. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor. 1978 Early Craft Specialization: an Example from the Balkan Chalcolithic. In Social Archaeology: Beyond Subsistence and Dating, edited by C.L. Redman, M.J. Berman, E.V. Curtin, W.T. Langhorne, N.M. Versaggi, and J.C. Wanser, pp. 113-129. Academic Press, New York. 1980 Experimental Determinations of Stone Tool Uses. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Mason, Ronald J., and Gregory Perino 1961 Microblades at Cahokia, Illinois. American Antiquity 26(4): 553-557. Michaels, George H. 1987 A Description and Analysis of Early Post classic Lithic Technology at Colha, Belize. Master's thesis, Department of Anthro- pology, Texas A&M University, College Station. Mistovich, Tim S. Flannery, Kent V., and Marcus C. Winter 1976 Analyzing Household Activities. In The Early Mesoamerican Village, edited by Kent V. Flannery, pp. 34-47. Academic Press, New York. 1988 Early Mississippian in the Black Warrior Valley: the Pace of Transition. Southeastern Archaeology 7(l):21-38. Morse, Dan F. 1974 The Cahokia Microlith Industry. Newsletter of Lithic Technology, 3(2):15-19. Futato, Eugene M. 1987 Archaeological Investigations at Shell Bluff and White Springs, Morse, Dan F., and Michael Sierzchula Two Late Woodland Sites in the Tombigbee River Multi-Resource 1977 The Zebree Microlith Industry. In Excavation, Data InterDistrict. Report of Investigations No. 50. Office of Archaeologpretation, and Report on the Zebree Homestead Site, Mississippi ical Research, Alabama Museum of Natural History, University County, Arkansas, edited by Dan F. Morse and Phyllis A. Morse, of Alabama, University. pp. 19-33. Arkansas Archaeological Survey, Fayetteville. Gregg, Michael L. Morse, Dan F., and Louis Tesar 1975 Settlement Morphology and Production Specialization: The 1 974 A Microlithic Tool Assemblage from a North West Florida Horseshoe Lake Site, a Case Study. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertaSite. The Florida Anthropologist 27:89. tion, Department of Anthropology, University of Wisconsin, Muller, Jon Madison. 1984 Mississippian Specialization and Salt. American Antiquity, Hardin, Margaret A. 49(3):489-507. 1980 The Identification of Individual Style on Moundville En- Jerry J., and Ned J. Jenkins Nielsen, graved Vessels: A Preliminary Note. Southeastern Archaeological 1973 Archaeological Investigations in the Gainesville Lock and Dam Conference Bulletin 24:108-112. Reservoir: 1972. Report on file, Office of Archaeological Re- Hill, Mary C. 1981 Analysis, Synthesis, and Interpretation of the Skeletal Ma- search, Moundville, Alabama. Parry, William J., and R.L. Kelly terial Excavated for the Gainesville Section of the Tennessee- 1987 Expedient Core Technology and Sedentism. In The Or- Tombigbee Waterway, vol. 1. In Biocultural Studies in the Gainesganization of Core Technology, edited by Jay K. Johnson and Carol ville Lake Area, by Gloria M. Caddell, Anne Woodrick, and Mary A. Morrow, pp. 285-304. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado. C. Hill, pp. 211-334. Archaeological Investigations in Peebles, the Christopher S. Gainesville Lake Area of the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway, 1978 Moundville: The Form and Content of a Mississippian vol. 4. Report of Investigations No. 14. Office of Archaeological Society. Ms. in possession of the author. Research, University of Alabama, University. Peebles, Christopher S. (editor) Jenkins, Ned J. 1983 Prehistoric Agricultural Communities in West Central Alabama. 1975 Archaeological Investigations in the Gainesville Lock and Dam Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Reservoir: 1974. Report on file at the Office of Archaeological Research, University of Alabama, Moundville, Alabama. Peebles, Christopher S., and Susan Kus 1981 Gainesville Lake Area Ceramic Description and Chronology. Ar1977 Some Archaeological Correlates of Ranked Society. Amer- chaeological Investigations in the Gainesville Lake Area of theican Antiquity 42(3):421-448. Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway, vol. 2. Report of InvestigaPope, Melody K. tions No. 12. Office of Archaeological Research, University 1986 of Microdrills from the Moundville Region: Technology, Alabama, University. Function, and Context. Paper presented at the 43rd Annual 1982 Archaeology of the Gainesville Lake Area: Synthesis. ArchaeMeeting of the Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Nashville, Tennessee. ological Investigations in the Gainesville Lake Area of the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway, vol. 5. Report of Investiga1989 Microtools from the Black Warrior Valley: Technology, Use, tions No. 23. Office of Archaeological Research, University ofand Context. Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, State Alabama, University. University of New York, Binghamton. Jenkins, Ned J., and H. Blaine Ensor Powell, Mary Lucas 1981 The Gainesville Lake Area Excavations. Archaeological In1983 Biocultural Analysis of Human Skeletal Remains from the vestigations in the Gainesville Lake Area of the Tennessee-Lubbub Creek Archaeological Locality. In Studies of the Material Tombigbee Waterway. Report of Investigations No. 11. OfficeRemains from the Lubbub Creek Archaeological Locality, edited by of Archaeological Research, University of Alabama, UniverChristopher S. Peebles, pp. 430-477. Prehistoric Agricultural sity. Communities in West Central Alabama, vol. 2. Museum of Jenkins, Ned J., and Richard A. Krause Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Prentice, Guy 1986 The Tombigbee Watershed in Southeastern Prehistory. Univer- sity of Alabama Press, University. 1983 Cottage Industries: Concepts and Implications. Mid-Continental Journal of Archaeology 8(l):17-48. Johnson, Jay K. 1987 Marine Shell as Wealth Items in Mississippian Societies. 1987 Cahokia Core Technology in Mississippi: the View from Mid-Continental Journal of Archaeology 12:193-224. the South. In The Organization of Core Technology, edited by Jay K. Johnson and Carol A. Morrow, pp. 187-206. Westview Press, Prentice, Guy, and Mark Mehrer Boulder, Colorado. 1981 The Lab Woofie Site (ll-S-346): an Unplowed Mississip38 This content downloaded from 192.101.185.9 on Tue, 12 Nov 2019 15:30:29 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms THE LUBBUB CREEK MICROLITH INDUSTRY pian Site in the American Bottom Region of Illinois. Mid- Steponaitis, Vincas P. continental Journal of Archaeology 6:33-53. Rafferty, Janet, and Mary E. Starr 1986 Test Excavations at Two Woodland Sites, Lowndes County, Mis- 1983 Ceramics, Chronology, and Community Patterns: an Archaeological Study at Moundville. Academic Press, New York. 1 986a Prehistoric Archaeology in the Southeastern United States, sissippl. Report of Investigations No. 3. Cobb Institute of Archaeology, Mississippi State University. Rathje, William L. 1986b The University of Alabama Excavations at lTu50, a 1970-1985. Annual Review of Anthrovolovv 15:363-404. Moundville I Phase Center in the Black Warrior Valley. Paper presented at the 43rd Annual Meeting of the Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Nashville, Tennessee. 1975 The Last Tango in Mayapan: a Tentative Trajectory of Production-Distribution Systems. In Ancient Civilization and Trade, edited by Jeremy A. Sabloff and C.C. Lamberg-Karlovsky, pp. 405-448. University of New Mexico, Albuquerque. Swanton, John R. 1946 The Indians of the Southeastern United States. Bureau of Renfrew, Colin American Ethnology Bulletin 137. Smithsonian Institution, Wash- 1973 Trade and Craft Specialization. In Neolithic Greece, edited ington, D.C. by D.R. Theocharis, pp. 179-191. National Bank of Greece, Titterington, P.F. 1938 The Cahokia Mound Group and its Village Site Materials. P.F. Titterington, St. Louis. Athens. Rice, Prudence M. 1981 Evolution of Specialized Pottery Production: a Trial Mod-Torrence, Robin el. Current Anthropology 22(3):219-240. Roemer, Erwin, Jr. 1981 Obsidian in the Aegean: Towards a Methodology for the Study of Prehistoric Change. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Univer- 1984 A Late Ceramic Maya Lithic Workshop at Colha, Belize. Mas- ter's thesis, Department of Anthropology, Texas A&M Uni- sity of New Mexico, Albuquerque. 1986 Production and Exchange of Stone Tools, Prehistoric Obsidian in the Aegean. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. versity, College Station. Tosi, Maurizio Rouse, Irving 1972 Introduction to Prehistory: a Systematic Approach. McGraw- 1984 The Notion of Craft Specialization and Its Representation Hill, New York. in the Archaeological Record of Early States in the Turanian SAS Institute, Inc. 1985 SAS User's Guide: Statistics. Version 5 Edition. SAS Institute, Basin. In Marxist Perspectives in Archaeology, edited by M. Spriggs, pp. 22-52. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Welch, Paul D. Inc., Cary, N.C. 1987 The Economy of the Moundville Chiefdom. Paper presented at the 44th Annual Meeting of the Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Charleston, S.C. Scheps, Sheldon 1982 Statistical Blight. AmericanAntiquity 47(4):836-851. Schneider, Harold K. 1974 Economic Man, the Anthropology of Economics. The Free Press, Woodrick, Anne New York. 1983 Molluscan Remains and Shell Artifacts. In Studies of MaSchnell, Frank, V.J. Knight, and G.S. Schnell terial Remains from the hubbub Creek Archaeological Locality, edited 1981 Cemochechobee: Archaeology of a Mississippian Ceremonial by Christopher S. Peebles, pp. 391-427. Prehistoric AgriculCenter on the Chattahoochee River. University of Florida Press, tural Communities in West Central Alabama, vol. 2. Museum Gainesville. of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Yerkes, Richard W. Seckinger, Ernest W., and Ned J. Jenkins 1980 A Plural Society in Prehistoric Alabama. Paper presented 1980 A Microblade Drill from the Mississippian Component of at the 37th Annual Meeting of the Southeastern Archaeologthe Labras Lake Site (ll-S-229). In Investigations of the Labras ical Conference, New Orleans, Louisiana. Lake Site - Volume I, Archaeology, edited by J.L. Phillips, R.L. Sheets, Payson D. Hall, and R.W. Yerkes, pp. 318-324. Reports of Investigations 1978 From Craftsman to Cog: Quantitative Views of Meso- No. 1. Department of Anthropology, University of Illinois at Chicago Circle, Chicago. american Lithic Technology. In Papers on the Economy and Architecture of the Ancient Maya, edited by Raymond Sidrys, pp. 1983 Microwear, Microdrills, and Mississippian Craft Specialization. American Antiquity 48(3):499-518. 40-71. Monograph No. 8. Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles. 1989a Mississippian Craft Specialization on the American BotSierzchula, Michael C. tom. Southeastern Archaeology 8(2):93-106. 1989b Shell Bead Production and Exchange in Prehistoric Mis1980 Replication and Use Studies of the Zebree Microlith Industry. Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of sissippian Populations. In Proceedings of the 1986 Shell Bead Arkansas, Fayette ville. Conference, edited by L. Ceci and C.F. Hayes III, pp. 113-124. Spence, Michael W. 1982 The Social Context of Production and Exchange. In Con- Research Records 20, Rochester Museum and Science Center, Rochester, New York. texts for Prehistoric Exchange, edited by Timothy K. Earle and Jonathan E. Ericson, pp. 173-197. Academic Press, New York. 39 This content downloaded from 192.101.185.9 on Tue, 12 Nov 2019 15:30:29 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms