A Chronology of 

Middle Missouri Plains 

Village Sites

By Craig M. Johnson

with contributions by

Stanley A. Ahler, Herbert Haas, and Georges Bonani

Smithsonian Institution

Scholarly Press

Smithsonian Institution

Scholarly Press

smithsonian contributions to anthropology • number 49

Artifacts from the Craig 

Mound at Spiro, Oklahoma

April K. Sievert with J. Daniel Rogers

Contribution by Javier Urcid
Series Publications of the Smithsonian Institution

Emphasis upon publication as a means of “diffusing knowledge” was 

expressed by the first Secretary of the Smithsonian. In his formal plan 

for the Institution, Joseph Henry outlined a program that included 

the following statement: “It is proposed to publish a series of reports, 

giving an account of the new discoveries in science, and of the changes 

made from year to year in all branches of knowledge.” This theme of 

basic research has been adhered to through the years by thousands of 

titles issued in series publications under the Smithsonian imprint, commencing with Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge in 1848 and 

continuing with the following active series: 

Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology

Smithsonian Contributions to Botany

Smithsonian Contributions to History and Technology

Smithsonian Contributions to the Marine Sciences

Smithsonian Contributions to Museum Conservation

Smithsonian Contributions to Paleobiology

Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology

In these series, the Institution publishes small papers and full-scale 

monographs that report on the research and collections of its various 

museums and bureaus. The Smithsonian Contributions Series are 

distributed via mailing lists to libraries, universities, and similar institutions throughout the world. 

Manuscripts submitted for series publication are received by the 

Smithsonian Institution Scholarly Press from authors with direct affiliation with the various Smithsonian museums or bureaus and are subject 

to peer review and review for compliance with manuscript preparation 

guidelines. General requirements for manuscript preparation are on the 

inside back cover of printed volumes. For detailed submissions requirements and to review our manuscript preparation and style guides for 

authors, visit the Submissions page at www.scholarlypress.si.edu.
smithsonian contributions t o anthropology • number 49

washington, D.c.

2011

Artifacts from the Craig 

Mound at Spiro, Oklahoma

April K. Sievert with J. Daniel Rogers

Contribution by Javier Urcid
ABSTRACT

Sievert, April K., with J. Daniel Rogers and contribution by Javier Urcid. Artifacts from the Craig Mound at Spiro, Oklahoma. Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology, number 49, xiv + 231 pages, 163 figures, 11 plates, 48 tables, 2011.—This 

monograph presents the historical context and detailed descriptions of a remarkable collection of more than 20,000 artifacts 

from the Craig Mound at the Spiro site in eastern Oklahoma. Spiro is one of the key sites known for the Mississippian Period 

(ad 900–1500) of the eastern United States. Aside from the cultural importance of the site in regional history, the artifacts from 

Spiro provide an almost unique glimpse into the ceremonial life and artistic innovations of a people who developed an important 

but poorly known cultural tradition. Between 1933 and 1936 the Spiro site was looted, and artifacts were sold and traded to 

many collectors. Subsequently, professional archaeological excavations were conducted, and those collections primarily reside at 

the Sam Noble Oklahoma Museum of Natural History. The Smithsonian Spiro collection is under the care of the Department of 

Anthropology at the National Museum of Natural History. The collection came to the Museum through 14 accessions between 

1936 and 1986. The largest portion was acquired from Harry M. Trowbridge in 1958. Of particular note in the collection are 

marine shells engraved with a wide variety of human and animal images. The collection also includes pigments, basketry, clothing with dyed designs, pipes, weapons, ornaments, containers, and figurines made from several different materials. Many of the 

artifacts are made from raw materials that were acquired by the Spiro people through an extensive trade network extending 

from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean and from the upper Midwest in the north to central Mexico in the south.

Cover image: Detail of Figure 2.1, Craig Mound in 1913 prior to excavation.

Published by SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION SCHOLARLY PRESS

P.O. Box 37012, MRC 957

Washington, D.C. 20013-7012

www.scholarlypress.si.edu

Text and images in this publication may be protected by copyright and other restrictions or owned by individuals and entities 

other than, and in addition to, the Smithsonian Institution. Fair use of copyrighted material includes the use of protected materials for personal, educational, or noncommercial purposes. Users must cite author and source of content, must not alter or 

modify content, and must comply with all other terms or restrictions that may be applicable. Users are responsible for securing 

permission from a rights holder for any other use.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Sievert, April Kay, 1953–

 Artifacts from the Craig Mound at Spiro, Oklahoma / April K. Sievert with J. Daniel Rogers ; contribution by Javier Urcid.

 p. cm. — (Smithsonian contributions to anthropology ; no. 49)

 Includes bibliographical references and index.

1. Spiro Mounds Archaeological State Park (Okla.)—Antiquities. 2. Indians of North America—Oklahoma—Spiro—

Antiquities. 3. Indians of North America—Material culture—Oklahoma—Spiro. 4. Material culture—Oklahoma—

Spiro—History—To 1500. 5. Mounds—Oklahoma—Spiro. 6. Excavations (Archaeology)—Oklahoma—Spiro. 7. Spiro 

(Okla.)—Antiquities. I. Rogers, J. Daniel. II. Urcid, Javier. III. Title.

E78.O45S6 2011

976.6’79—dc22

2010042354

ISSN: 0081-0223 (print) / 1943-6661 (online)

 The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American National Standard for Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials Z39.48–1992. 
LIST OF FIGURES vii

LIST OF TABLES xi

PREFACE by April K. Sievert xiii

1  SPIRO AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF A REGIONAL social

SYSTEM 1

J. Daniel Rogers

 A Chronology of Site Organization 2

Evans Phase Components 2

 Harlan Phase Components 2

 Norman and Spiro Phase Components 7

Patterns of Change 8

 Conclusions 11

2  HISTORY OF SPIRO RESEARCH 13

April K. Sievert and J. Daniel Rogers

Early and Commercial Excavations at Spiro 13

Professional Excavation at Spiro 15

 A New Synthesis 17

3  SPIRO COLLECTION AT THE SMITHSONIAN 19

April K. Sievert

 Accession History 19

Early Years: 1936–1958 19

 The Trowbridge Acquisition 21

 The Meyer Acquisition 22

Later Accessions 23

Previous Studies of the Smithsonian Materials 23

 Conservation 23

Research 23

 The Present Study 24

 Historical Sources 24

 Artifact Analysis 24

Contents
i v • s m ithsonian cont r i bu tions to anth r o p o l o g y

4  CONTAINERS 27

April K. Sievert

 Ceramics 27

 Style 27

Raw Material 29

Manufacture 30

Use 30

 Grog-, Grit-, and Bone Tempered Types 30

 Shell-Tempered Wares 35

 Slipped Wares 36

 Other Ceramic Pieces 38

 Other Wares 38

 Shell Cups 39

 Condition and Conservation 39

Raw Material 39

Residues 40

Manufacture 41

Use 42

 Taphonomy 43

Design Styles 43

Unengraved Shells 51

 Wooden Vessels 52

 Stone Bowls 53

 Other Containers 54

5 FIBER ARTIFACTS 55

April K. Sievert

Raw Materials 57

 Cordage 58

Yarn 58

Braid 59

 Wrapped Basket Fiber 59

 Cloth 60

 Styles 60

 Spaced Weft Twining 61

 Wrapped Warps 64

 Twined Tapestry 65

 Simple Weave 65

Fabric Decoration 66

Beads and Textiles 66

Function and Use 67

Basketry 67

 Square Shallow Baskets 68

 Coiled Baskets 69

 Twilled Matting or Baskets 69

 Open-Work Weave 70

 Twined Matting 70

Basketry Impression 70

Fiber Identification 71
number 49 • v

6  WEAPONRY AND EXTRACTIVE TOOLS 73

April K. Sievert

 Chipped Lithic Weaponry 73

 Style 73

Manufacture 74

 Hafting 74

Lithic Raw Materials 75

Use and Curation 76

 Small Projectile Points 76

Large Projectile Points 89

Large Bifaces 91

 Haftable Bifaces 91

 Special Chipped-Stone Weaponry 93

 Sword-Form Bifaces 93

Maces 95

 Celts 97

 Other Weaponry Components 100

Utilitarian Artifacts 101

 Chipped Stone 101

 Ground Stone 103

7 ORNAMENTS and decorations 105

April K. Sievert

Earspools 105

Pulley-Shaped Earspools 105

 Other Earspools 112

Beads 113

 Shell Beads 113

 Stone Beads 121

 Copper Beads 122

Pendants 123

 Shell Pendants 123

Unusual Shell Forms 125

 Stone Pendants 126

Bone Pendants 127

 Ceramic Pendant 127

 Gorgets 127

 Shell Gorgets 127

Bone Gorget 132

 Headdresses 133

Pins 133

 Headdress Plaques and Plates 135

 Cone Ornaments 135

PLATES 137

8 RITUAL EQUIPMENT AND CEREMONIAL MATERIALS 149

April K. Sievert

Manufactured Objects 149

Pipes 149
v i • s m ithsonian cont r i bu tions to anth r o p o l o g y

Discoidals 159

 Copper 160

Figurines 162

Bone Objects 166

 Wooden Objects 168

Leather 170

 Other Worked Objects 170

Unworked Ritual Materials 171

Pigment 171

Minerals 171

 Other Materials 172

 Summary 173

9  HUMAN REMAINS 175

Javier Urcid

 Catalog Number 423344 175

 Catalog Number 423345 175

 Catalog Number 423346 176

 Catalog Number 423347 176

 Catalog Number 423348 176

 Catalog Number 423349 176

 Catalog Number 423350 176

 Catalog Number 423351 176

 Catalog Number 448935 177

 Catalog Number 448936 177

 Summary Remarks 178

10 CONCLUSION 179

April K. Sievert

Representativeness of the Collection 179

 Significance of the Collection 180

 The Spiro Collection and Mississippian Research 181

APPENDIX A: CATALOG summary 183

APPENDIX B: CONCORDANCE OF REFERENCES 211

REFERENCES 221

INDEX 227
List of Figures

1.1. Contour map of Spiro site showing the location of major 

features and recent excavations 3

1.2. Grave lot periods and cultural phases 4

1.3. Excavations at House Mound 5 at the Spiro site 5

1.4. “High-status” artifacts per burial from selected Spiro phase 

(ad 1250–1450) sites 10

2.1. Craig Mound prior to excavation 14

2.2. North cone of the Craig Mound during excavation by 

the WPA 16

4.1. Ceramic attributes and key 28

4.2. Ceramic vessel profiles 31

4.3. Whole and partial vessels 32

4.4. Crockett Curvilinear Incised bowl 33

4.5. Rollout of design from two incised vessels 33

4.6. Pennington Punctate rim sherds 34

4.7. Carinated bowl 34

4.8. Incised sherds 35

4.9. Effigy adornos 36

4.10. Slipped and decorated rim sherds 37

4.11. Non-Caddoan Southwestern sand- and grit-tempered sherds 

with black-on-white design 38

4.12. Busycon, or whelk shell, outer surface 40

4.13. Engraved Pleuroploca, or conch shell 40

4.14. Unengraved shell cups with exterior basket impressions 41

4.15. Residue on interior shell surface 41

4.16. Well-preserved cup showing form of finished artifact 41

4.17. Detail of incised surfaces showing tool marks and overcutting 42

4.18. Drilled holes in shell apex perhaps indicating a repair 42

4.19. Braden A style entwined snake motif 44

4.20. Braden A style cup showing spiral designs similar to Spiro 

Engraved ceramic styles 45

4.21. Braden B snake motif 45
viii • s m ithsonian cont r i bu tions to anth r o p o l o g y

4.22. Braden B bird motif with court-card symmetry 46

4.23. Mace, ogee with streamers, human head, and bilobed arrows 

on two sides of Braden B style shell 46

4.24. Snake and warfare motifs in Braden C style 46

4.25. Spiral patterns executed in Braden C style 47

4.26. Distal fragment of Craig A style cup excised in low relief 

with incised decoration 48

4.27. Craig A style carving showing birdman theme 48

4.28. Fragments of Craig A style cup depicting bison 48

4.29. Craig B style cup showing fabulous animal with complex 

forked-eye motif 49

4.30. Fabulous beast with serpentine, avian, and raccoon features 49

4.31. Craig B cup depicting avian characteristics 49

4.32. Craig B petaloid sun icons free floating across the field 50

4.33. Craig B cup showing man and snake themes 50

4.34. Craig C style cup showing snake and talon motif 50

4.35. Craig C cup depicting two men facing a pole 51

4.36. Apical fragment of Craig C snake and talon cup 52

4.37. Wood animal effigy bowl handle 53

4.38. Wood bird head effigy perched on bowl rim 53

4.39. Limestone bowl with human effigy adornment 54

4.40. Limestone bowl with snake head adornment 54

5.1. One of Trowbridge’s boxes of textile fragments 56

5.2. Yarns 58

5.3. Cord-wrapped paddle 59

5.4. Braid 59

5.5. Braided rope 60

5.6. Twined and resist-dyed cloth with ties 60

5.7. Bundles of spaced weft twining 61

5.8. Bundle, spaced weft twining 62

5.9. Bundle of cloth 62

5.10. Spaced weft twining showing resist-dye pattern 63

5.11. Spaced weft twining 63

5.12. Spaced weft twining close-up 63

5.13. Spaced weft twining 64

5.14. Spaced weft twining 64

5.15. Spaced weft twining tight weave 65

5.16. Twined tapestry 65

5.17. Twined tapestry 66

5.18. Twined tapestry showing human face 66

5.19. Simple weave cloth with resist-dye decoration 67

5.20. Close-up of simple weave cloth with resist-dye decoration 67

5.21. Square shallow basket 68

5.22. Coiled baskets 69

5.23. Large mat or basket fragments 70

5.24. Twill basketry 71

6.1. Flaked lithic artifact nomenclature and measurements 74

6.2. Attributes of biface form 74

6.3. Common forms of damage to projectile points 77

6.4. Small projectile points 77
number 49 • ix

6.5. Small projectile points 77

6.6. Small projectile points 78

6.7. Small projectile points 78

6.8. Small projectile points 79

6.9. Small projectile points 79

6.10. Small projectile points 80

6.11. Small projectile points 80

6.12. Small projectile points 86

6.13. Large and unusual points 90

6.14. Large bifaces and drills 92

6.15. Large triangular preform or celt-form biface 93

6.16. Duck River bifaces 94

6.17. General sword-form bifaces 95

6.18. Maces 96

6.19. Depiction of mace on Braden B shell cup 97

6.20. Celts: nomenclature and measurement 98

6.21. Elongate celts 99

6.22. Cannel coal spatulate celts 99

6.23. Spatulate celts 100

6.24. Atlatl weights 101

6.25. Other stone tools 102

6.26. Abrading tools 103

7.1. Perforated pulley-shaped stone earspool fragments 106

7.2. Perforated pulley-shaped earspool with concentric circle 

decoration 108

7.3. Earspools with chevron decoration 109

7.4. Perforated pulley-shaped earspool 109

7.5. Divided flange earspools 111

7.6. Composite wood and shell earspools 111

7.7. Ceramic flanged ring earspool 112

7.8. Canine wooden effigy earspools 112

7.9. Manufactured shell bead types 114

7.10. Concave disc beads 116

7.11. Spherical columella beads 116

7.12. Cylindrical beads 117

7.13. Concavo-cylindrical “phalange” beads 117

7.14. Bulging beads 118

7.15. Hexagonal and asymmetrical convex beads 118

7.16. Shell mask bead 119

7.17. Whole shell beads 120

7.18. Pearl beads 121

7.19. Phosphate beads 122

7.20. Copper disc beads 122

7.21. Small and medium copper beads 123

7.22. Cat-man warrior wearing necklace of columella pendants 

and displaying scalps 124

7.23. Sculpted columella pendant 124

7.24. Pendants 125

7.25. Sculpted shell pendant 125

7.26. Shell pendant 126
x • s m ithsonian cont r i bu tions to anth r o p o l o g y

7.27. Shell hooks 126

7.28. Cannel coal pendant 126

7.29. Stone pendants 127

7.30. Circular fenestrated gorget depicting sun symbol 128

7.31. Craig A gorget fragments 129

7.32. Gorget showing man facing forked pole 129

7.33. Craig B style gorget depicting avian subject 130

7.34. Noncircular fenestrated gorgets 130

7.35. Gorgets with woodpecker head and Janus-faced figure 131

7.36. Gorget made from Cassis shell 131

7.37. Masks 132

7.38. Bone gorget 133

7.39. Copper pins 133

7.40. Bone pins 134

7.41. Bone awls, pins, or piercers 135

7.42. Other ornamental objects 136

8.1. T-shaped pipes 151

8.2. Cylindrical bowl T-shaped pipes 152

8.3. Decorated T-shaped pipes 153

8.4. Stone pipes 153

8.5. Ceramic and stone pipe fragments 154

8.6. Feline effigy pipe 155

8.7 Effigy pipe bases showing design detail 155

8.8. Feline effigy pipe 155

8.9. Crouching human effigy pipe 156

8.10. Human effigy pipe 157

8.11. Human effigy pipe, pipe holder style 157

8.12. Human effigy pipe, pipe holder style 158

8.13. Two-headed human effigy pipe 158

8.14. Human-bird effigy pipe 159

8.15. Discoidals 160

8.16. Copper sheet artifacts 161

8.17. Wooden figurines 163

8.18. Wooden figurine, seated “Spiro Man” 163

8.19. Galena figurine 164

8.20. Shell figurine 165

8.21. Shell cameo maskettes 166

8.22. Beaver leg bone bundle tied with cordage 167

8.23. Bone spatulas 167

8.24. Wooden artifacts, blade-like forms 169

8.25. Wooden spatulate artifact 170
List of Tables

3.1. NMNH accessions of material from Spiro 20

3.2. NMNH collection summary 25

4.1. Ceramic types and sherd counts 29

4.2. Characteristics of complete vessels 30

4.3. Characteristics of shells cups 44

4.4. Engraved shell fragments not reported in Phillips and Brown 

(1978, 1984) 51

5.1. Styles of textiles in the NMNH collection 57

5.2. Characteristics of basketry in the NMNH collection 68

5.3. Fiber identifications for Craig Mound textiles 72

6.1. Small point styles and raw material summary 81

6.2. Alba points measurement summary 81

6.3. Hayes points measurement summary 81

6.4. Agee points measurement summary 82

6.5. Massard points measurement summary 84

6.6. Scallorn points measurement summary 85

6.7. Reed points measurement summary 86

6.8. Keota points measurement summary 86

6.9. Reed/Keota variety measurement summary 87

6.10. Presence of postmanufacturing heat alteration 89

6.11. Large point styles and raw materials 90

6.12. Large biface types and raw materials 93

6.13. Mace types, characteristics, and raw materials 97

6.14. Elongate celt characteristics and raw materials 98

6.15. Spatulate celt characteristics and raw materials 100

6.16. Atlatl weight characteristics 101

6.17. Frequency of utilitarian tools 101

7.1. Counts of ear ornaments by style 106

7.2. Characteristics of perforated pulley-shaped earspools 107

7.3. Earspools by raw material 108

7.4. Frequency and characteristics of shell beads 115

7.5. Variety and range of gastropod and bivalve shells 120
xii • s m ithsonian cont r i bu tions to anth r o p o l o g y

7.6. Frequency and characteristics of stone beads 122

7.7. Frequency and characteristics of tubular copper beads 123

7.8. Frequency and characteristics of columella pendants 124

7.9. Frequency and characteristics of shell gorgets 128

7.10. Fraudulent copper pins 134

8.1. Characteristics of stone and ceramic pipes 150

8.2. Characteristics of effigy pipes 154

8.3. Discoidal characteristics and raw materials 160

8.4. Sheet copper artifact fragments 161

8.5. Human effigy figurines and maskettes 162

8.6. Frequency and characteristics of bone artifacts 167

8.7. Frequency and characteristics of wooden objects 168

8.8. Burned mineral lump measurement summary 171

8.9. Unmodified galena nodule measurement summary 172

9.1. Types of human teeth in the collection 176

Appendix A

 A.1. Summary of artifacts in the Spiro collection 186

Appendix B

B.1. Reference summary of the NMNH Spiro collection 212
Preface

I

n 1992, when I first glimpsed the small galena figurine reposing quietly 

in the drawer where it had crouched for 30 years, I frankly did not give it 

much thought. Since then, that figurine has come to embody, for me, the intense specialness of the site of Spiro. Galena Man sits cross-legged, his limbs 

and facial features crudely modeled in a solid lump of the dull, gray mineral. 

While in the Craig Mound, he must have been sitting on matting because he still 

carries basketry impressions and residues. As my work in wringing information 

from the Spiro collection continued, I gained more and more appreciation for 

Galena Man, wondering, just what does he represent? He has a kind of power—

solidity and an abiding presence that transcends the mineral itself and perhaps 

even the culture that made him. He commands respect. 

There is no doubt that this collection is special, ceremonial, and unique. The 

legendary engraved shells provide the best glimpse we have into Caddoan iconography. The well-preserved textiles testify to Caddoan artistry and skill. The 

pieces at the National Museum of Natural History (NMNH) represent a large 

and varied collection, and this monograph provides a glimpse into that collection. Many of the artifacts have been pictured elsewhere over the last 70 years 

or so and are thus familiar. Others, like Galena Man, are relatively unknown. 

This work began as an attempt to document the large collection from the 

Craig Mound at Spiro for the Repatriation Office of the NMNH. J. Daniel 

Rogers spearheaded this project and then hired me to do the bulk of the data 

collection. Little did I realize that the next year would be spent documenting 

over 20,000 artifacts and generating more than 2,000 pages of text. The project 

generated a catalog of Spiro’s materials, and a summary report was submitted 

to the NMNH Repatriation Office in 1992. Since then, Dan Rogers and I have 

been working on this version, with Dan providing the overall context for Spiro 

and me giving the basic artifact description. The chapters that follow are organized topically, beginning with Caddoan context, and followed by historical 

information about Spiro and the collection that ultimately found its way to the 

Smithsonian Institution. Chapters on containers, textiles, weapons and tools, 

ornaments, and ceremonial objects follow. Human remains in the collection 

were analyzed by bioarchaeologist Javier Urcid with the assistance of osteologist 

April K. Sievert, Department of Anthropology, Indiana University, Student Building 130, 701 East 

Kirkwood Avenue, Bloomington, Indiana 47405, 

USA. J. Daniel Rogers, Department of Anthropology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, P.O. Box 37012, MRC 112, 

Washington, D.C. 20013-7012, USA. Correspondence: A. Sievert, asievert@indiana.edu.

Manuscript originally accepted for publication by Smithsonian Institution Press 27 May 

2004; revised manuscript received by Smithsonian Institution Scholarly Press 5 April 2010. SISP 

acknowledges that a primary factor contributing 

to the significant delay in publication of this work 

was the closure of the former Smithsonian Institution Press in January 2005.
xiv • s m ithsonian cont r i bu tions to anth r o p o l o g y

Beverly Byrd, both formerly of the NMNH Repatriation 

Office. These results are presented by Urcid as chapter 9. 

Finally, Appendix A provides a list of the catalog numbers 

along with basic data and Appendix B provides a concordance of catalog numbers with references to other published sources on many of the artifacts.

Help came from many quarters. The advice and 

opinions of James B. Griffin and James A. Brown were 

invaluable. Candace Green, Karen Dohm, Dennis Peterson, Robert Brooks, Don Wyckoff, and Timothy Baugh 

offered insights into various aspects of the collection. Bill 

Billeck provided an immense service by editing the original report to the Repatriation Office. Jai Alterman, Sarah 

Flores, and Marcia Bakry contributed very substantially 

to the final editing of text and the preparation of images. 

Sheree Sievert gave me valuable advice for editing this 

version. Repatriation photographers Jerome Edwards 

and Sarah Zabriskie, independent curator Pamela Keech, 

and James Brown assisted with the prodigious task of 

taking record photographs. The staffs of the National 

Anthropological Archives and the NMNH Registrar’s 

Office were continually helpful. Registrar for the NMNH

Repatriation Office at the time of the study was Marjorie Wilson. She not only tried to keep me organized, 

but she also spent huge amounts of time photocopying 

the resulting 2,500 pages of catalog supplement. Since 

doing the analysis, discussions with Joe Watkins, Karen 

Wise, Lane Beck, and Anne Pyburn gave me new perspectives. Valerie Cressler proved invaluable to the effort 

to correlate the artifacts with references and illustrations 

published elsewhere, and her work is evident in the concordance (Appendix B). I am indebted to Alex Barker, 

James Brown, and Bruce Smith for reviewing the manuscript and suggesting improvements. As ever, Mike Snow 

and Sheree Sievert put up with a lot.

This study is offered as a testament to the important 

cultural traditions of a people whose descendants are still 

with us today and are still contributing their own unique 

perspectives to American diversity and cultural life.

April K. Sievert

Indiana University

Bloomington, Indiana
Beginning in the eighth and ninth centuries ad, a new cultural system 

took shape in the eastern woodlands of North America, a region ex-

tending from the Midwest to the Gulf of Mexico to the Mid-­Atlantic. 

The groups already living in this vast region either adopted or them-

selves developed a way of life that accounted for some of the most complex so-

cial achievements in prehistoric America, north of Mexico. This cultural “style” 

is referred to as Mississippian and consisted of populations scattered across the 

region organized into chiefdoms, or what is sometimes referred to as ranked 

or middle-range societies (Smith, 1990:1–8; Barker and Pauketat, 1992; Bense, 

1994; Pauketat, 1994, 2007). As diverse as these societies were, they also shared 

many attributes, almost always including the cultivation of maize and other na-

tive domesticates (Smith, 1986), the construction of earthen mounds, and par-

ticipation in a religious system known as the Southeastern Ceremonial Complex 

(Galloway, 1989; King, 2007).

During the last two decades the quality and quantity of the archaeological 

data have improved, and we are now able to say much more about the nature of 

these societies. In fact, the eastern woodlands have become a major laboratory 

for studying the emergence of social complexity and variation within middlerange societies. Archaeologists are now investigating settlement patterns, trade 

networks, evidence for social hierarchies, social memory and identity, the con-

struction of adaptive systems, and many other factors associated with the rise 

of social complexity and regional similarities and differences (e.g., Scarry, 1996; 

Schroeder 2004; Wilson 2010). Throughout much of this research, there has 

been an emphasis on community and religious centers usually marked by the 

presence of one or more earthen mounds. Lately, this emphasis has given way to 

a more balanced consideration of all types of sites, from the grand mound centers 

like Cahokia (Fowler, 1989; Brown and Kelly, 2000; Pauketat, 2009) to the lowly 

individual farmsteads (Rogers and Smith, 1995). Even so, it has always been 

recognized that the mound centers offer great interpretive potential and must be 

included in any analysis of social change. The Spiro site is a major mound center, and there can be little doubt that 

it played a significant role in the development of the prehistoric societies in the Northern Caddoan region, an area including the Arkansas Basin and Ozark 

1Spiro and the Development 

of a Regional Social System

J. Daniel Rogers
2 • s m ithsonian cont r i bu tions to anth r o p o l o g y

Highlands of Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Missouri. In fact, 

Spiro was, by all available evidence, a ceremonial center of 

paramount importance (Orr, 1946; Rogers, 1991a, 2009a; 

Schambach, 1993; Brown, 1996). Given the relevance of 

this site in both regional social dynamics and long-distance 

interactions, it is critical to understand the physical organization of Spiro itself. This chapter evaluates the changing 

layout of the Spiro site in relation to local and regional developments and assesses the extent to which changes in site 

organization can be used to evaluate the relationship between regional interaction and the apparent development of 

increasingly centralized authority. This approach serves to 

contextualize the artifacts, from both a site and a regional 

perspective. The final section analyzes Spiro’s external relationships in the context of social developments of the Caddoan tradition in the Arkansas Basin and Ozark Highlands.

A Chronology of Site Organization

The Spiro site (Figure 1.1) was utilized for a period of 

at least 550 years, beginning about ad 900 and ending at 

approximately ad 1450. Recently, the Spiro chronology 

has been revised by James A. Brown on the basis of a detailed seriation of grave lots from Craig Mound (Duffield 

1973; Brown, 1996:153–167; see also Brown and Rogers, 

1999; Rogers, 2006). The analysis prepared by Brown is a 

sophisticated study not only of the burial associations but 

also of marker attributes with regional and extraregional 

significance. The grave lots at Spiro were ordered into four 

grave periods with several subperiods for a total of seven 

material and contextual clusters with chronological significance. Rather than the previous four phases, Brown 

now recognizes five cultural phases. These five phases 

are Evans, Harlan, Norman, Spiro, and Fort Coffee (Figure 1.2). Each phase is discussed below in relation to the 

mounds and other features at the site.

Evans Phase Components

The earliest securely recognized components at Spiro 

are representative of the Evans phase (ad 900–1050 or 

1100). It should be noted, however, that some burials at 

the Craig and Ward Mounds are very similar to those of the 

earlier Fourche Maline phase. The term Fourche Maline 

refers to primarily Woodland period hunting and gathering 

groups that lived across the Caddoan region (Schambach, 

1998). The Fourche Maline phase as defined specifically 

for eastern Oklahoma is based primarily on materials from 

the Wister Valley and vicinity, 30–40 km south of Spiro 

(Galm, 1978, 1981, 1984; Galm and Flynn, 1978; Bell, 

1980). With the support of numerous radiocarbon dates, 

the Fourche Maline phase is defined as dating from circa 

300–200 bc to ad 700–800 (Galm, 1984:207). Some premound burials at Craig and Ward 1 Mounds and burials 

from Ward Mound 2 (Rogers, 1980:111) exhibit Fourche 

Maline characteristics. If the burials in question can be 

attributed to the Fourche Maline phase, then they probably date to the latest part. The artifacts associated with 

these burials are characteristic of the Fourche Maline phase 

but also occur in the later Evans and Harlan phases (cf. 

Galm, 1984:214–215). Other premound burials at Craig 

are somewhat more elaborate and include Le Flore Plain 

ceramics, associated with late Fourche Maline, Evans, and 

Harlan phases, and larger quantities of ornate artifacts. 

These burials date to the Evans and the even later Norman 

phases (Brown, 1996:166). Whether or not it may eventually be possible to isolate a Fourche Maline component, it is 

apparent that from its beginning the Spiro site was a place 

of ceremonial importance. There is virtually no indication 

of a Fourche Maline habitation component on the site; only 

the earliest burials at the Craig and Ward Mounds indicate 

how the site may have been used in this phase.

The Evans phase (ad 900–1050 or 1100) marks the 

beginning of recognizable Mississippian influences and 

the basic characteristics that were to become Caddoan. At 

Spiro the Evans phase is defined principally on the basis of 

a series of burials from the lower levels of Craig Mound 

(Brown, 1996:137). A series of trade ceramics in these 

burials indicates the origin of a regional trade network 

and potentially other types of connections with the Plum 

Bayou culture in central Arkansas (Rolingson, 1987). 

Whereas Williams Plain and Le Flore Plain ceramics, of 

local manufacture, continue to be present, other types also 

occur, including Coles Creek Incised var. Plum Bayou and 

var. Lonoke and French Fork-like Agee Incised (Brown, 

1996:162). Other than the few burials at Craig Mound, 

Evans phase assemblages are tentatively also recognized 

at House 4 and a midden area northwest of Craig Mound 

(Rogers, 1980:115, 121; Brown, 1996:165).

Harlan Phase Components

The first large-scale utilization of the site occurred in 

the Harlan phase (ad 1050 or 1100–1250). This phase is 

named after the Harlan site, another of the mound centers 

in the region, with its primary utilization concentrated in 

this time range (Bell, 1972; Rogers, 2009b). During this 

phase the site continued to expand, both physically and 

in terms of its role as a ceremonial center. Beginning with 
FIGURE 1.1. Contour map of Spiro site showing location of major features and recent excavations. Adapted from Rogers (1982:4) with permission of the Oklahoma Archeological Survey.
4 • s m ithsonian cont r i bu tions to anth r o p o l o g y

the Harlan phase, it is possible to talk about an overall 

organizational pattern that served to segregate activity 

areas for approximately the next 400 years. During the 

Harlan phase additional burials were placed in the early 

construction phases of Craig Mound and at Ward Mound 

1, a number of domestic buildings were constructed on 

the lowland portion of the site, and platform mounds and 

“house mounds” came into use on the uplands. These new 

constructions produced a tripartite spatial arrangement at 

the site. Running from west to east, the structure can be 

characterized as areas relating to rituals of death, daily 

living activities, and disposal of the dead.

The first of the major spatial divisions, encompassing 

the western portion of the site, may be inferred to be an 

area relating to rituals of death. The mounds and other 

features in this segment of the site signify ritual performances, some of which were apparently linked to mortuary or charnel house activities (explained below). This 

western area consists principally of a ring of mounds enclosing an area of approximately 2.75 ha, referred to as 

the “Plaza” (Rogers et al., 1982). The mounds that make 

up the ring consist of House Mounds 1–4 and 6, Dollop 

Mound, Copple Mound, and Brown Mound. Also associated with this area are House Mound 5 and Plaza Mounds 

A, B, and C. Five of these mounds (Dollop Mound, House 

Mound 5, and Plaza Mounds A, B, and C) were only identified after the resumption of excavations at the site in 

1979 (Rogers et al., 1982). The house mounds listed here 

are not substructure mounds as the term is used in Mesoamerican archaeology but are instead soil mantles built 

over the remains of presumable special-purpose buildings.

House Mound 5 is a good example of the house 

mound pattern found at Spiro and other mound centers 

in the region as well as in other portions of the Caddoan 

area. Although the Works Progress Administration (WPA) 

dug some house mounds, House Mound 5 is the only 

one excavated in recent years using fine-scale recovery 

techniques (Rogers, 1982). At House Mound 5 a series 

of three square buildings were discovered, each with four 

interior support posts and an extended entryway (Figure 

1.3). These three buildings averaged roughly 9 × 9 m in 

size and were built, used, and apparently intentionally destroyed in relatively rapid succession. These buildings, and 

by implication, the structures associated with other house 

mounds, are inferred to have served special purposes, 

perhaps functioning as combinations of charnel houses 

and the residences of elite functionaries. Bell (1984:229–

230) has argued that similar structures at the Harlan site 

(36CK-6) served a mortuary/charnel house function. The 

principle evidence for this interpretation comes from the 

unusual nature of the buildings and their contents. At 

House Mound 5 the exceptionally large size of the buildings (compared to domestic structures of the same phase) 

and the possibility that the buildings were intentionally 

destroyed and subsequently rebuilt over almost exactly 

the same spot with the same directional orientation lend 

support to the identification of these structures as having 

a special purpose. Exactly what this purpose was is hard 

to say; however, the material remains found in the buildings give some strong clues. Of special note were a few 

Spiro IVB

Spiro IV

Spiro III

 

Spiro II

Spiro IB

Spiro IA

Fort Coffee

Spiro

Norman

Harlan

Evans

1650

1600

1500

1400

1300

1200

1100

1000

Spiro IVC

Grave Periods Culture Phases

FIGURE 1.2. Grave lot periods and cultural phases. Adapted from 

Brown (1996:161).
number 49 • 5

fragments of human bone and three ovoid “Class A” bifaces made of an imported chert (Rogers, 1980:168–169). 

The latter are similar to some bifaces recovered from burials at Craig Mound. The general character of the artifact 

assemblage was also suggestive of a special function for 

these buildings. Although the artifacts recovered were not 

what might be referred to as “high-status goods” (that is, 

highly elaborate, decorated, or exotic), they did reflect a 

set of activities not typical of common domestic structures. 

In particular, tools associated with primary subsistence activities, such as hunting and horticulture, were virtually 

absent, whereas tools related to grinding and cutting activities were extremely common. It is not clear what was 

being ground or cut. The artifacts recovered indicate that 

a special set of activities was conducted at House Mound 

5, but it is also probable that the structures were used for 

domestic purposes by some individuals. This inference is 

bolstered by the presence of a wide variety of potential 

animal and plant food remains.

In addition to the platform mounds and house mounds 

associated with the western portion of the site, there was 

another type of mound identified as Dollop Mound and 

Mounds A, B, and C. These four mounds lie in an east–

west linear arrangement extending from the western edge 

through the center of the Plaza (Rogers et al., 1982). 

The function of these mounds is unknown. The mounds 

FIGURE 1.3. Excavations at House Mound 5 at the Spiro site. Adapted from Rogers (1982:13) with permission of the Oklahoma Archeological Survey.
6 • s m ithsonian cont r i bu tions to anth r o p o l o g y

contain a variety of artifactual debris, consisting primarily 

of common ceramics and lithics. Although these mounds 

received only limited testing, there is presently no indication of stratification or evidence of building remains. It 

may be that these mounds represent the piles of debris 

produced by a periodic cleaning of the Plaza or were the 

foundations for poles or other superstructures.

The final type of mound in the Plaza ring consists of 

the two rectangular platform mounds: Copple and Brown. 

Brown Mound is the larger of the two and was extensively 

damaged by pot hunters in the 1930s before excavation by 

the WPA. Although the pot hunters caused a lot of damage, the WPA crews did identify the remains of a structure 

on the ground surface under the mound and several discrete mound construction episodes. One extremely interesting characteristic of Brown Mound, discovered by the 

WPA, is evidence for a subterranean pit that was dug from 

an upper level in the mound down through the mound 

and deep into the premound strata (Bauxar, 1953; Brown, 

1996:105–112). Whereas information on this feature is 

incomplete, it may have extended 6 m or more below the 

original surface. Because of groundwater and time constraints on their lease, the WPA did not explore this feature. In 1982 an attempt to learn more about this pit was 

initiated by the Oklahoma Archaeological Survey (Rogers 

et al., 1989). An extremely high water table and limited 

funds forced curtailment of the project; however, this test 

did lend support to the existence of the pit as an aboriginal 

feature.

Copple is the second and smaller of the platform 

mounds, and like Brown Mound it was also partially excavated by the WPA. In 1982 further testing at Copple 

revealed a complex history of mound construction and 

use (Leonhardy, 1989; Peterson, 1989). The structure of 

the mound included at least three superimposed buildings that had existed at early levels near the center of the 

mound. There was a considerable amount of “midden” in 

and near these structures, and as part of the mound construction process, soil had been piled up against the sides 

of one or more of the buildings. At some point, however, 

each building had been dismantled, probably after being 

burned, and the space was filled in with soil. It is also apparent from the presence of ash and burned soil that a 

number of fires had existed at various times on different 

surfaces of the mound. A similar history of mound use 

can be identified at Parris Mound (34SQ-12), located 30 

km north of Spiro (Muto, 1978). Leonhardy (1989) notes 

that mounds are stereotypically described as being built in 

stages. A layer of soil was piled up and used for some purpose for some time. This initial layer was then covered to 

make the pile larger and the pile was again used. The pile 

may have been enlarged several times, either as a platform 

for some ceremonial structure or as a place to inter the 

dead. Always implicit in the “construction stage” notion 

is that the piling of dirt was uniform around the axis of the 

mound and that each stage was a short-term, single-event 

phenomenon separated from the succeeding stage by some 

long-term period of use. Rather than discrete construction 

stages, it is more appropriate to regard Copple Mound as 

composed of interior, middle, and periphery deposits.

Whereas mounds were an important focus of research 

in the western portion of the site, testing of intervening 

areas did take place. In general, habitation debris outside 

of the mounds was sparse, although some material was 

recognized by the WPA in the vicinity of House Mounds 

4 and 6, and later testing revealed some midden areas 

west of House Mound 5, perhaps evidence of additional 

structures.

The central portion of the site, including the slope 

down from Brown Mound and the flat area east to Craig 

Mound, in the Harlan phase, contained evidence of activities relating to everyday life. This area was tested by 

the WPA, and at least five square, four-center-post houses 

were excavated. Notes from the testing in this area indicated that as many as 15 additional houses might be present. This number of buildings means that Spiro has the 

densest concentration of structures known for any Harlan 

phase site in the Arkansas Basin. The buildings are not especially large, nor are there any associated house mounds. 

It appears that the houses are simple domestic structures. 

Although it is possible that these were dwellings for elite, 

the scarcity of evidence for a sizable Harlan phase population at any other site in the area makes it unlikely that a 

large (relatively speaking) group of religious or political 

functionaries resided at Spiro in the Harlan phase. The 

ceremonial specialists probably lived in the cyclically destroyed buildings buried under house mounds, whereas 

the buildings in the central portion of the site probably 

were ordinary domestic structures.

The final site area relevant to the Harlan phase is 

the eastern portion, including Craig Mound and Ward 

Mound 1. The principle use for this site area concerns 

final disposal of the dead, although three possible domestic structures were excavated in the area east of the Ward 

Mounds. The burials in Craig Mound are associated with 

very early levels, prior to the major mortuary deposits assigned to the later Norman and Spiro phases. At Ward 

Mound 1, disturbance by early excavations (Thoburn in 

1916–1917) and poor record keeping by the WPA limited 

the inferences that could be drawn, but this mound (and 
number 49 • 7

probably Ward Mound 2) includes some of the characteristics of the house mounds on the western side of the 

site. There was probably a structure buried in the mound; 

additionally, there does not appear to be any stratigraphic 

differentiation within the mound fill, which might indicate 

a single construction episode or the continual and gradual 

addition of soil to the mound. Only nine burials were excavated under controlled conditions. Some 28 additional 

burials were removed for which there is little information 

(see Thoburn, 1930). Only three burials were recovered 

from Ward Mound 2, and none of these were associated 

with diagnostic artifacts.

Norman and Spiro Phase Components

The detailed chronological analysis of Spiro grave lots 

conducted by Brown (1996:133–167) made it possible to 

recognize a series of burials with distinctive material assemblages at Craig Mound that could be attributed to a 

time frame designated as the Norman phase (ad 1250–

1350). In Brown’s (1996:137) grave lot sequence, the Norman phase is based on grave period III. At Spiro only the 

Craig Mound burials can be attributed to the Norman 

phase; however, within the region there are several components linked with this time frame (Brown, 1996:163–165; 

Rogers et al., 2000).

In terms of spatial organization, the tripartite arrangement that characterized the Spiro site in the Harlan 

phase was carried over, with certain important modifications, into the Norman and Spiro phases (ad 1250–1450). 

During these periods an amazing growth occurred in the 

number and variety of exotic trade goods associated with 

the burials at Craig Mound (Brown, 1996: vol. 2). These 

objects are described in detail and are the principal focus 

of this volume. The expansion in the trade good inventory is not matched, however, by an expansion of the site. 

In the western portion of the site there is only inferential 

evidence that the upper levels at Brown Mound can be 

attributed to the Spiro phase plus a single intrusive burial 

in the flank of the mound. The House Mounds and other 

mounds associated with the Plaza show no indication of 

use in the Spiro phase. Similarly, the small cluster of buildings that stood in the central portion of the site was abandoned. The population moved from their close association 

with the ceremonial center to small clusters of houses scattered along the rich farming soils of the Spiro vicinity (see 

Rohrbaugh, 1982, 1985a, 1985b).

The major utilization of the Spiro site during the Spiro 

phase is reflected in the numerous and elaborate burials 

from Craig Mound. During this phase the major portions 

of the four separate conical units of the mound are constructed. Pot hunter digging destroyed much of the upper 

portions of the three lesser units, but WPA excavations 

did recover extensive information from undisturbed areas 

(see chapter 2). Within the main cone of the mound the 

pot hunters tunneled into an open cavity they called the 

“central chamber.” Although later excavations revealed 

that this was not an intentionally constructed chamber, an 

unusual preservation context did exist within this hollow 

space, thus allowing survival of an extraordinary assortment of perishable artifacts (Brown, 1996:85–88).

The construction of the main mound unit at Craig 

Mound is characterized by a series of flat-topped stages, 

some or all of which are encircled by fences of cedar poles. 

Presumably, a building (probably a mortuary) stood on 

the summit of each mound level. A ramp providing access 

to the various levels may have extended to the north. Of 

the several buildings that stood at different levels, there is 

only one, the Great Mortuary, for which any appreciable 

amount of information exists. This is the mortuary that 

was revealed in the hollow cavity and partially destroyed 

by the pot hunters. The Great Mortuary is the largest and 

the only mortuary that did not have its contents removed 

prior to dismantlement of the building and the addition 

of a new layer of soil to the mound. Recent research by 

James A. Brown (2010) suggests that the organization of 

the Great Mortuary and other features at Craig Mound 

potentially represents a spatial cosmology.

The overall conical shape of Craig Mound and the 

rounded deposit that caps the last of the platform surfaces 

in the main unit suggests a planned end to the use of this 

mound. There is, however, no evidence for the construction of a new mound to begin anew the cycle of mortuary use, dismantlement, and final disposal of the dead 

at Spiro or anywhere in the region. The closing of Craig 

Mound seems to be associated with major changes in the 

Arkansas Basin and coincides with the beginning of what 

is referred to as the Fort Coffee phase (ad 1450–1660; 

Rogers, 2006). There is no verifiable evidence that the 

Spiro site was used during the Fort Coffee phase. The 

definition of the transition from the Spiro to the Fort 

Coffee phase is closely linked to the apparent decline of 

the complex status hierarchy represented in the burials at 

Craig Mound and other regional mound centers (Brown, 

1971a; Rogers, 1983, 1995). The decline of the status 

hierarchy extended to other aspects of Spiroan political 

and religious organization, including a drastic decline in 

the construction and use of mounds and a corresponding 

decrease in exchange of exotic materials such as copper or 

marine shell (Rogers, 2006).
8 • s m ithsonian cont r i bu tions to anth r o p o l o g y

The truncation of the social hierarchy and the collapse 

of the eastward-oriented trade network in exotic goods 

are not reflected in obvious ways at the lower levels of 

society. The farmers that had lived in the sites surrounding 

the Spiro ceremonial center continued to do so, and the 

houses they built were like those of the Spiro phase (i.e., 

two center posts, rectangular, with an extended entryway).

Patterns of Change

Multiple patterns relating to cultural changes on a 

local and regional level are evident within the chronological ordering of site components described above. The interpretive position taken here is that a socially “external” 

agent of change, such as environment, serves to provide a 

“context of change” that must be considered in conjunction with a variety of social and technological constraints. 

Several factors—population fluctuations, the availability 

of appropriate cultigens, the presence of natural resources, 

individual and collective forms of agency, social constraints on the production of surplus, or factors affecting 

the centralization of authority—play important roles in 

understanding the trajectory, extent, or even the general 

nature of social transformations (e.g., Beck, 2003). Another consideration in understanding the cultural developments in the study region is the potential significance of 

interaction between local polities. Most of these factors, 

but especially interaction and trade, are best considered by 

adopting a regional perspective that allows consideration 

of the relationship between sites. In the Arkansas Basin 

and Ozark Highlands the development of an integrated 

regional perspective has been surprisingly slow to develop. 

Only since the 1980s have significant efforts been made 

to integrate information from Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Texas (cf. Brown, 1984a; Kay et al., 1989; Perttula, 1989; Rogers, 1989, 1991a, 1991b). These studies 

have highlighted the cultural connections between regions, 

primarily during the Mississippian period (ad 800–1500), 

although connections extend far deeper in time (cf. Anderson and Sassaman, 1996).

From a regional perspective the events and processes responsible for the expansion of Spiro during the 

Evans and Harlan phases (ad 1000–1250) or the establishment of other mound centers in the region are very 

poorly known. However, the late Fourche Maline and 

Evans phases represent the beginning of a ranked form 

of social organization associated with the Emergent Mississippian (ad 800–1000) across the Midwest and Southeast (cf. Smith, 1990). The beginnings of the Mississippian 

are linked to a widespread phenomenon with no single 

point of origin but, rather, with the relatively synchronous development of similar social and material systems 

in a number of different regions (Phillips et al., 1951:451; 

Smith, 1984:20). In the Spiro area, changes are a part of 

the regional Caddoan manifestations also associated with 

cultural developments in northwestern Louisiana, eastern 

Texas, southwestern Arkansas, and southern Oklahoma. 

Although clearly part of the Caddoan tradition, the area 

of the Arkansas Basin and Ozark Highlands presents local 

differences that form a distinctive variation on the overall 

Caddoan theme.

The chronology of cultural developments in the Arkansas Basin and Ozark Highlands is outlined above in 

the context of the growth and change of the Spiro site itself. These developments have their origin in the transition 

from the Late Woodland to the Mississippian. The Late 

Woodland time frame (ca. ad 600–900) in the study area 

falls largely into what is locally referred to as the Fourche 

Maline phase (Galm, 1984; Rogers, 1991a:224–225) and 

is characterized by hunting and gathering groups that used 

the bow and arrow and made simple forms of pottery. Although there is some evidence for the presence of groups 

with Kansas City Hopewellian affiliation, these peoples 

seem to have had little influence on later developments in 

the area. In contrast, there is a strong material continuity 

between the Fourche Maline and the Emergent Mississippian of the Evans phase. There is also some continuity in 

settlement location, but the transition to the Evans phase 

is characterized by a variety of social and technological 

changes that are far more significant than the areas of 

constancy with the earlier hunter-gatherer adaptations. 

Around ad 900 several mound centers were established in 

the region, representing a sharp contrast to previous settlement patterns. The new settlement system is organized 

hierarchically, and sites tend to be located with access to 

soils suitable for horticulture. At several of these centers 

there is good early evidence for complex ceremonial activities associated with the construction and use of mounds, 

mortuary activities, and special-purpose buildings, such as 

the structures mentioned earlier for Spiro’s House Mound 

5. The Harlan phase is also characterized by increased evidence for horticulture, substantial architecture, expanded 

levels of long-distance exchange, and sharply different 

forms of social organization.

The implications of the transition from the Fourche 

Maline to Evans phase for the organization of social control are especially significant. In kinship-based societies, 

presumably characteristic of the Fourche Maline phase, 

authority is often structured and legitimated by ancestral 

sanctions (Meillassoux, 1960). Fourche Maline sites in 
number 49 • 9

many cases show long periods of continuity in their utilization and are also places for the burial of the dead. These 

sites embody a conceptual continuity between the activities 

of the living and the sources of authority provided by the 

ancestors. With the beginning of the Harlan phase there 

is an abrupt departure from the settlement continuities of 

earlier times, probably associated with the redefinition of 

the basis for authority and patterns of organization at all 

levels of society (Rogers, 1996:56–57). Evidence from the 

Evans and Harlan phases (Rogers, 1983) strongly indicates the presence of a ranked, chiefdom or middle-range 

type of social organization. In these types of societies authority is tied to positions recognized through hereditary 

linkages; however, social control tends to cut across strict 

lineage relationships to encompass larger segments of the 

population. The basis for authority is generally through 

direct access to the supernatural, rather than by appeal 

to the ancestors as intermediaries. The historic period in 

the Southeast offers good comparative examples of chiefly 

authority being derived from supernatural sources, such as 

among the Natchez in the Lower Mississippi Valley or the 

Hasinai Caddo of east Texas (White et al., 1971; Rogers 

and Sabo, 2004).

The settlement pattern of the Evans and Harlan phases, 

especially concerning mound centers as the loci of major 

ceremonial activities, is very different from prior patterns 

as seen in the Fourche Maline phase. This major difference provides a basis for interpreting the Fourche Maline/

Evans transition. However, the social, technological, and 

environmental “mechanisms” responsible for instigating 

the transition are, not surprisingly, poorly known; even 

so, some suggestions may be offered. In particular, increasing evidence for exchange and long-distance interaction 

is probably closely related to the general phenomenon 

of Mississippian emergence (Rogers, 1991a). On a local 

basis, control of exchange may have provided a means for 

individuals in positions of some authority (e.g., lineage 

heads) to gain wealth, prestige, and access to objects and 

information of ritual significance. Attempts by individuals 

to consolidate authority could lead to a cycle of increasing control, ultimately contributing to the new form of 

social organization. Attempts by individuals to consolidate power are seen as a principal mechanism, although 

there are certainly other key variables in the equation. The 

availability of appropriate technologies and environmental opportunities are especially important. In this regard, 

the Arkansas Basin and Ozark Highlands were relatively 

sparsely inhabited and represented a region ripe for the expansion of a horticultural adaptive strategy. The available 

data provides no basis for suggesting that environmental 

conditions in the ad 700–900 period would have significantly deterred the practice of horticulture in the region 

(Henry, 1978; Henry et al., 1979). With regard to the 

technology of maize horticulture, there is currently little 

evidence for the cultivation of tropical or indigenous cultigens from Fourche Maline sites. But the necessary technology could have easily been made available at the Evans 

phase (ad 850–1250) transition through the expanding 

interaction networks. There is confirmation of maize in 

the Southeast by around ad 400 (Icehouse Bottom site; 

Smith, 1986:44), plus there is evidence for maize (Maiz de 

Ocho) of Southwestern origin by ad 780 at the Davis site, 

an early Caddoan site in Texas (Story, 1981:149).

Often a strong link has been made between sedentism 

and the adoption of agriculture, and it would seem that 

this is justifiable, to some extent, in the Northern Caddoan 

case. There are, however, extenuating circumstances, and as 

various researchers have pointed out, it may be inaccurate 

to link sedentism and agriculture too closely (Hitchcock, 

1982:224–225, 230; Powell, 1983; Rafferty, 1985:134). In 

the Arkansas Basin and Ozark Highlands, maize or other 

cultigens are a relatively small component of paleoethnobotanical samples prior to ad 950 (Wyckoff, 1980:419), and 

even after that date maize, in any Caddoan site, is relatively 

scarce compared to sites in other areas of the Southeast 

(Schambach, 1982:191). This absence indicates that maize 

may not have played a strong role in the initial transition 

to sedentism in the study area. Throughout the Caddoan 

sequence maize was heavily supplemented by wild plants 

foods (Rogers, 2011). In terms of sedentism the Northern 

Caddoan area may again prove to be a contrast with adaptive systems further to the east. An unexplored but still 

conceivable issue is that the continued emphasis on collecting and hunting wild resources was linked to periodic 

abandonment of settlements for purposes of conducting 

hunting and/or gathering expeditions. The data necessary to investigate this issue are, as yet, largely unavailable. Whether or not the Northern Caddoans did occupy 

their dwellings year-round, population densities were low 

and settlements were well dispersed across the landscape, 

which would have expedited access to not only a variety 

of natural resources but also soils suitable for agriculture 

(Wyckoff, 1980). The relatively small population and dispersed farmsteads of the Caddoan settlement system have 

been viewed as a strategy for mitigating the effects of a 

region with unpredictable rainfall (Schambach, 1982:192).

With the establishment of mound centers such as 

Spiro in the ad 800s and 900s the settlement system takes 

on a hierarchy of site complexity that correlates with the 

ranked forms of social organization associated with the 
1 0 • s m ithsonian cont r i bu tions to anth r o p o l o g y

Mississippian period (Brown et al., 1978). During the 

Evans and Harlan phases (ad 1000–1250) the Harlan and 

Spiro sites are roughly on the same level of complexity, 

although there are indications that even at this early date 

Spiro incorporates some subtle differences that would seem 

to place it at the apex of the settlement system. Namely, 

there is a wider variety of exotic and presumably highstatus artifacts associated with the burials at Spiro than at 

any other site in the region (Figure 1.4). This fact is considered an indication of the level of control Spiro exercised 

over the exchange of objects used as status markers and 

symbols of authority and ideological legitimation (Rogers, 

1996). By the succeeding Norman phase (ad 1250–1350) 

Spiro accounts for the vast majority of exotic prestige 

goods. The variation in the presumed control of exotic 

trade items by Spiro in the Evans and Harlan phases does 

not necessarily mean that the Northern Caddoan region 

was operating as a single polity at this time. It is entirely 

conceivable that two or more systems were in operation 

at various times during these phases (Rogers, 1983:60), 

although as Berthoud and Savelli (1979:748) point out,

the exercise of political power is strengthened 

by privilege; simultaneously, privilege increases 

with the permanence of power. Prestige goods 

therefore become what Baudrillard calls a “sign 

value”, embodying the ideology of domination.

As such, Spiro’s role in the region may have been 

enhanced by an early control of exchange ties with the 

East, closely linked to participation in the Southeastern 

FIGURE 1.4. Comparison of mean number of “high-status” artifacts per burial from selected Spiro phase (ad 1250–1450) 

sites. From Rogers (1983:69) with permission of the Oklahoma Archeological Survey.
number 49 • 11

Ceremonial Complex. By the Norman phase the largest population concentration is in the immediate vicinity of Spiro, further supporting the notion that Spiro is 

in some way dominating, if not literally controlling, the 

ideological, social, political, and economic interactions in 

the region.

The transition from the Harlan to the Norman phase 

incorporates a number of changes in addition to the centralization of control at the Spiro site. Domestic and ceremonial architecture changes across the region from large 

(mean floor area of 46 m2) square, four-center-post buildings to smaller (mean floor area of 37 m2

) rectangular, 

two-center-post structures. Such a change has strong implications for the composition of the household plus changes 

in kinship organization on a larger scale (Rogers, 1995). 

There is also evidence for shifts in settlement distribution 

in the region (Wyckoff, 1980:514) and for a number of 

changes in artifact styles. The changes in building type and 

settlement location are also linked to apparent changes in 

regional population levels. A review of information on 

buildings from the Harlan and Spiro phases (excluding 

those with special or presumed ceremonial functions) was 

made in order to compare the relative number of structures and the mean floor area for each period. If these data 

are used as a rough indication of population trends, then 

the far greater number and larger size of domestic buildings in the Evans and Harlan phases in comparison to the 

Norman and Spiro phase suggest that the earlier periods 

had the greatest population. Population seems to decline 

in the Norman and Spiro phases, with the trend continuing into the following Fort Coffee phase (ad 1450–1660) 

and ending with the eventual abandonment of the region 

in the protohistoric period.

Admittedly, the data for suggesting this population 

trend are suspect on the grounds of unsystematic sampling, yet if the inclination holds true under eventually 

closer scrutiny, then an inverse relationship would exist 

between population and social complexity. Such a relationship is contrary to the cultural evolutionary argument 

that generally acknowledges a link between population 

increase and augmented social complexity. It may be that 

the changes recognized as taking place between the Harlan and Norman phases are not sufficiently sweeping to 

be considered as significant from a cultural evolutionary 

perspective. Perhaps this is true, but it is also relevant to 

consider the actual or potential role played by a process 

such as the centralization of authority, as far as population fluctuations are concerned. Increased social complexity of this type does not inherently require an increased 

population, nor is it necessarily a response to social or 

environmental stress. It is not requisite to view increased 

complexity as a form of intensification. With increasingly 

centralized authority there will, however, be a leadershipbased demand for increased production to supply the consumption needs of the elite and for their participation in 

long-distance exchange, but that increase could be met by 

shifting production rather than a long-term response such 

as increasing population to increase production. What 

seems to have been happening in the Spiro case is a mode 

of social intensification at the elite level but not necessarily 

at the level of household production. It was noted some 

time ago (Plog, 1974:120) that in the Southwest, social 

intensification and increasing agriculture correlated with a 

decline in population. Whereas Johnson (1982) observed 

this on a cross-cultural basis, the correlation between population and organizational complexity is relatively weak 

when comparisons are made using fine-grained population level estimates. These observations open the door to a 

more varied and realistic interpretation of the relationship 

between population levels and social change.

Conclusions

The Spiro site was, throughout its history, an integral and often dominating part of the trends in social and 

technological change characterizing the late prehistory of 

the Arkansas Basin and Ozark Highlands. It was one of 

the first mound centers established in the region (perhaps 

sometime between ad 850 and 950), and it continued to 

grow in importance until the collapse of the chiefdom level 

of social organization around ad 1450. During the Mississippian period, mound centers in the Caddoan area tended 

to be “vacant” or sparsely inhabited. Spiro certainly fits 

this pattern, especially during the Norman and Spiro 

phases. This was the time in which most of the elaborate 

burials were placed in Craig Mound, but it was also a 

time of less extensive but more focused use of the site. It is 

likely that very few people lived at Spiro during the Spiro 

phase, perhaps only those individuals responsible for certain ceremonial duties. Activities at the site were concentrated on the sequentially constructed buildings at Craig 

Mound and perhaps the buildings that may have stood on 

the upper layers of Brown Mound. Other than these structures, probably no more than two at any one time, there 

is no other evidence for buildings at the site. This pattern 

of vacant ceremonial centers may be viewed as a physical 

reflection of the conceptual and cosmological separation 

of the elite, or at least the context of ceremonial activity, 

from ordinary people and domestic activities.
1 2 • s m ithsonian cont r i bu tions to anth r o p o l o g y

At about ad 1450 activities at Spiro came to an end, 

probably associated with the collapse of the social system 

and the general decline of the Mississippian chiefdoms 

across the Southeast beginning about this time. As with 

the beginning of ranked forms of social organization in the 

Caddoan area, their decline also seems to have been linked 

with developments further to the east. Whether environmental variability played a significant role in the demise 

of the Spiro system, it does seem that change in the level 

of interaction with the East was a critical factor. A decline 

in the exchange of exotic goods from the East may have 

severely impacted the material sources of chiefly ideological legitimization and eroded one aspect of the basis for 

authority. Complex chiefdoms are inherently unstable and 

prone to decentralization. If trade with the East was on 

the decline, for whatever reason, the upper levels of Spiro 

society may have been unable to bridge the symbolic gap. 

Although farming households continued to live in the region, mound construction and other evidence for centralized authority disappeared.
S

everal writers have told or retold the story of the excavations at Spiro 

(Clements, 1945:48–66; Orr, 1946; Hamilton, 1952:23–35; Brown, 

1966a:23–35, 1996:43–62; Hamilton et al., 1974:1–5; Phillips and 

Brown, 1978:1–8; Rogers, 1980:10–21; La Vere, 2007). The episodes 

in Spiro’s excavation reflect the changes in the way archaeology has been conducted in North America during this century. First, the site was subject to severe 

damage as treasure hunters sought saleable artifacts. Then, a massive WPA effort 

systematically removed huge amounts of fill, still with a goal of artifact recovery 

and only secondarily to understand the ways in which objects became part of 

the archaeological record. Finally, excavations in the 1970s and 1980s used a 

problem-based research approach. The chaotic digging by the early commercial 

relic hunters is particularly relevant here because the Smithsonian collections 

derive from these early excavations. Subsequent WPA excavations recovered 

materials that serve as the comparative collection to this one. Later excavations 

revealed site chronology, habitation, and site structure and provide the basis 

for interpreting Spiro. Discussion of these episodes of archaeology at Spiro and 

work done using these collections provide a framework for study of the materials from the site that are at the Smithsonian Institution.

EARLY AND COMMERCIAL EXCAVATIONS AT SPIRO

The first recorded excavations at the Spiro site took place in 1916–1917 

and were conducted by Joseph B. Thoburn, a historian from the Oklahoma Historical Society (Thoburn, 1930, 1931:64–69). Thoburn photographed the site 

prior to any excavations (Figure 2.1). Thoburn excavated Ward Mound 1 in an 

attempt to prove that the small “prairie mounds” of eastern Oklahoma were the 

remains of collapsed earth lodges, similar to those occupied by such groups as 

the Pawnee or Arikara. Thoburn’s excavations revealed the remains of a burned 

structure and several burials, which were, for him, reasonable confirmation of 

the human origins of the small mounds dotting the landscape. Subsequent geological and archaeological work illustrates that Thoburn’s use of Ward Mound 

1 as a test for his earth lodge hypothesis was inappropriate. The so-called prairie 

2 History of Spiro Research

April K. Sievert and J. Daniel Rogers
1 4 • s m ithsonian cont r i bu tions to anth r o p o l o g y

mounds, though still not completely understood, are geological in origin, not made by people (Brown, 1996:10). 

Thoburn’s contribution was that he identified the prehistoric remains of eastern Oklahoma, including Spiro, as belonging to people of Caddoan origin (Thoburn, 1931:60). 

Caddoan is a term that refers both to a group of related 

languages and the cultural traditions that emerged in the 

four-state region of Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Oklahoma (Rogers and Sabo, 2004). The concept of Caddoan 

is a theme that still underlies most research on the late 

prehistoric phases of eastern Oklahoma and has recently 

been expanded to include the Ozark Highlands of Arkansas and a portion of Missouri (Brown, 1984a; Kay et al., 

1989; Perttula, 1989; Rogers, 1989).

Following Thoburn’s work, the Spiro site remained 

untouched until 1933 when the Vandagriff (also spelled 

Vandigriff and Vandergriff) brothers dug a trench into the 

center of Brown Mound. In the summer of 1933, Joseph 

W. Balloun began hunting for relics in the southern portion of the “Great Temple Mound,” marking the earliest 

recorded digging into the mound now known as the Craig 

Mound (Figure 2.1). The northern portion of the Craig 

mound containing the primary cone belonged to a different property owner than the southern portion. It had 

belonged for years to Aunt Rachel Brown, who allowed 

no one on the property, thereby effectively protecting the 

site. At her death the property passed to William Craig, 

who also protected the mound, and it is from his family 

that the name derives. When he died, the land passed to 

two grandchildren who were still minors. Their guardian, 

George Evans, held stewardship of the property in 1933 

(Clements, 1945:52).

FIGURE 2.1. Craig Mound prior to excavation, as photographed by Joseph Thoburn in 1913. Photograph courtesy of the Research Division 

of the Oklahoma Historical Society (Thoburn Collection 196.2.1).
number 49 • 15

Later in 1933, six men formed a group, adopted the 

name Pocola Mining Company, and approached George 

Evans to acquire a two-year lease to excavate in the northern section of the mound. One excavator was John O. 

Hobbs, who lived near the Craig Mound and farmed near 

there with his Native American wife for many years. Other 

relic hunters in this group included William and Kimball A. 

MacKenzie, a father and son from Le Flore County (Clements, 1945:54). The remaining excavators were contemporaries of the younger MacKenzie and included Glenn 

Cooper of Booneville, Arkansas; James Vandargriff of 

Paeola, Arkansas; and R. W. Wall (Hamilton, 1952:25). 

They began work late that year. For nearly two years these 

excavators concentrated on the lower (southernmost) three 

mounds, presumably because desirable relics could be 

found at relatively shallow depths. Eventually, anthropologists at the University of Oklahoma, including Forest Clements and David Baerreis, were alerted to the destruction 

at the site. In 1934, Clements prepared the National Park 

Service Survey form (BAE manuscript 4845 in the National 

Anthropological Archives) for the official recording of 

Spiro or, as it was then called, Scullyville Mounds. This report states that the Pocola or “Poteau” Mining Company 

leased the property. Anthropologists, who were appalled 

by the destruction of the Craig Mound, were eventually 

able to gain the support from the public and state legislators needed to initiate legislation to restrict excavation 

of archaeological sites in Oklahoma to qualified researchers only, and this restriction was supposed to take effect 

in 1935. Unfortunately, they were not in time to halt the 

destruction of the mortuary features at Craig Mound.

The relic miners desisted digging in July of 1935, when 

the licensing requirement took effect. However, the legislation proved difficult to enforce, and Clements, its major 

proponent, left the area to conduct research in California. The excavators soon returned, knowing that they had 

but little time to continue digging before either the state 

forced them to desist or their lease expired in November 

of that year. At that time they had scarcely explored the 

largest and potentially richest portion of the northernmost 

mound. In the late summer of 1935 the Pocola Mining 

Company tried a time-saving tactic: tunneling. The men of 

the company had been miners, so tunneling was a natural 

alternative strategy. Tunneling proved to be remarkably 

lucky and effective when these men struck a large mortuary feature replete with funerary offerings, including 

copper, textiles, wood, and a large number of engraved 

Busycon cups. The men dug several tunnels that met in 

the center of the mound, where they reported discovering a central chamber virtually brimming with artifacts. 

Word spread quickly, and artifact dealers arrived to purchase materials on the spot. Materials continued to sell 

throughout 1936 and later, perhaps aided by a newspaper 

article by MacDonald (1935) that appeared in the Kansas 

City Star proclaiming “A ‘King Tut’ Tomb in the Arkansas 

Valley.”

The Pocola Mining Company finally stopped digging 

when their lease expired on 27 November 1935, but not before a substantial inner portion of the mound had been destroyed. Furthermore, at the cessation of their digging, the 

looters used dynamite to collapse their tunnels. Figure 2.2 

shows the mound after the commercial excavations ceased.

Although they may have been aware that damaged 

artifacts would not bring as high a price, the commercial 

excavators worked in a style that was not conducive to 

preservation. It became clear after later excavation that 

entire burials were contained in baskets and that a large 

amount of perishable textiles was present. An inestimable 

amount of textiles, engraved shells, and wood was probably destroyed during the tunneling procedure. Clements 

(1945:56) describes the scene when he returned from California later in 1935.

Sections of cedar poles lay scattered on the 

ground, fragments of feather and fur textiles littered the whole area; it was impossible to take a 

single step in hundreds of square yards around the 

ruined structure without scuffing broken pieces of 

pottery, sections of engraved shell, and beads of 

shell, stone, and bone. The site was abandoned; 

the diggers had completed their work.

PROFESSIONAL EXCAVATION AT SPIRO

In 1936, the Oklahoma Historical Society obtained 

the lease for the Craig property at auction. Clements 

began directing systematic excavation of the remainder of 

the damaged Craig Mound with the aid of the WPA (Figure 2.2). In two seasons, until November of 1937, University of Oklahoma and WPA personnel removed nearly 

the entire area of the mound that fell on Craig property. 

The number of workers employed in the excavations was 

large, and the experience of the supervisors was limited. 

One result was confusing and scanty provenience and 

stratigraphic information on the numerous burials recovered from the mound. However, Clements filed a WPA

report (1935–1938, NAA Report 4844) that contains information regarding original archaeological context. The 

Craig Mound was nearly leveled during these excavations.
1 6 • s m ithsonian cont r i bu tions to anth r o p o l o g y

WPA crews worked between 1936 and 1941 to excavate the vestiges of mound remaining on the adjacent 

Brewer property as well as other mounds and house floors 

around the site. In 1941, World War II brought an end 

to the WPA work before any significant site report could 

be published. A fair amount of publicity was accorded to 

the excavations at Spiro due in part to the spectacular nature of the artifacts, which was enhanced by the excellent 

preservation. For example, a photo feature in The Daily 

Oklahoman (Sunday, 13 December 1942) entitled “Soonest Sooners” focused on the WPA excavation and on Clements’ and Baerreis’ work at Spiro.

Publications on the Craig Mound during the postwar period ensued and included Burnett’s (1945) study of 

materials that the Museum of the American Indian, Heye 

Foundation, had received and, in the same volume, Clements’ “Historical Sketch of the Spiro Mound.” Two articles appeared in American Antiquity and would therefore 

have received a relatively wide circulation: Orr’s (1946) 

treatment of the general archaeology and Bell’s (1947) 

paper on trade. Hamilton (1952) produced a major publication on the looted objects from Spiro in a special issue 

of Missouri Archaeologist, to which James B. Griffin also 

contributed.

The WPA project turned up a large amount of material similar in style to and, in some cases, refitting to 

that recovered by the commercial relic hunters. From these 

excavations, it was clear that the Craig Mound had contained a mortuary deposit unique in size and complexity. 

Some burials along with considerable funerary offerings 

had been placed on litters made of cedar poles. Other 

burials were made in baskets. Although the WPA project 

resulted in the recovery of a large amount of material, including intact burials, the mining operation into the center 

of the mound clearly struck the densest deposit of material. Near the end of the excavations an interested student 

named Robert E. Bell took a number of photographs of 

objects and the work of the relic hunters. Robert Bell was 

FIGURE 2.2. The north cone of the Craig Mound during excavation by the WPA. Photograph taken by H. M. Trowbridge on 

6 September 1936 (Trowbridge Catalog in Waldo Wedel correspondence file, National Anthropological Archives, National 

Museum of Natural History).
number 49 • 17

later to become professor of anthropology at the University of Oklahoma and the principal scholar studying the 

prehistory of the state (Merriam and Merriam, 2004). Additional details of Craig Mound are described in chapter 1.

After World War II, the site slipped into relative obscurity, and no further excavation was attempted for 30 

years. With the construction of the Arkansas River Navigation System in the late 1960s, Spiro once more began to 

receive attention. Much of the area occupied by the site 

was scheduled for use as a borrow pit associated with the 

construction of a nearby lock and dam on the Arkansas 

River. If not for the forethought of a few individuals, much 

of the site would probably have been lost. The state leased 

the property and began development as an archaeological 

park, which included reconstructing the Craig and Ward 

Mounds in 1970 and opening a visitor’s center in 1978 

(Rogers, 1980:21). In 1970 the area of the Craig Mound 

was excavated with the goal of correlating WPA maps 

with extant topography (Wyckoff, 1970). Remnants of 

the Craig Mound were located during this effort, and the 

fortuitous discovery of the remains of a cedar pole that 

had been recorded in WPA notes allowed for correlation 

with the old WPA grid.

Although a report on the engraved shells compiled 

by Duffield appeared in 1964, a comprehensive report of 

the Craig Mound excavations conducted by the WPA was 

not published until the 1960s and 1970s when James A. 

Brown undertook that task of analyzing the artifacts and 

records from the site. His analysis was published by the 

Stovall Museum of Science and History and the University 

of Oklahoma Research Institute as a series of reports designated as Spiro Studies (Brown, 1966a, 1966b, 1971b, 

1976; Brown and Bell, 1964).

Between 1979 and 1982 systematic research was once 

again undertaken at Spiro (Rogers, 1980, 1982, 1983; 

Rogers et al., 1982, 1989). The principle objective of this 

work was to understand Spiro’s organizational characteristics during the four chronological periods represented at 

the site and to relate these patterns to larger-scale trends 

in the Arkansas Basin and Ozark Highlands. To fulfill this 

objective, test excavations were conducted in the “village 

area” on the lowland portion of the site (Rogers, 1980). 

On the upland area, five previously unidentified mounds 

were tested, one of which was excavated extensively (Rogers, 1982). Test excavations and a magnetometer survey 

were conducted in the so-called Plaza area (Bennett and 

Weymouth, 1982; Rogers et al., 1982). Subsequent to 

these excavations, additional nondestructive remote sensing research was conducted in 1994 (Goodman et al., 

1995) and 2006.

A NEW SYNTHESIS

In 1996, Brown combined and updated his original 

analyses into a major new two-volume study, The Spiro 

Ceremonial Center, bringing the early excavations at Spiro 

into focus again, fully 60 years after the relic-hunting episode that first brought fame to the Craig Mound. Brown 

reworked the Craig Mound chronology and synthesized a 

new picture of the Great Mortuary, the burial feature at 

the center of the Craig Mound, from which the Smithsonian collections originate.

The only other person to publish specific information about the central mortuary feature was Hamilton 

(1952). When Hamilton attempted to recover information regarding the commercial excavations, he talked to 

members of the original excavation team. He published a 

description of the Craig Mound deposit as John Hobbs 

recalled it (Hamilton, 1952:29–31). The interior of Craig 

Mound was alleged to contain a hollow structure, and 

a diagram was published by Hamilton (1952: pl. 5) and 

later by Brown (1996: fig. 1-28). At the time of his first 

Spiro Studies in the 1960s, Brown largely dismissed the 

reports that there had been a hollow tomb at the center 

of the Craig Mound. Tombs would be uncharacteristic 

of any North American mortuary treatment. However, 

Brown (1996:85–94) reanalyzed the reports of an airspace at the center of Craig Mound, and he now thinks 

that an airspace did exist, mostly as an artifact of mound 

construction and settling. The huge piles of artifacts could 

have settled beneath a system of cedar posts that leaned 

inward. The general lack of crushing of many objects suggests they were protected in a hollow void, although not 

an intentionally created void. Furthermore, the work of 

the relic hunters served to enlarge any airspace that may 

have been there, thereby making it seem larger and more 

discrete.

Brown refers to the central portion of the Craig 

Mound, with its well-preserved caches, as the Great Mortuary. He has also been able to characterize the burials 

in the Great Mortuary deposit, identifying litter burial 

heaped with shell cups, textiles, and shell beads. Careful 

study of the grave lots associated with the Great Mortuary 

and with other levels and contexts at Spiro has enabled 

Brown to seriate the grave lots into a chronological sequence. The Great Mortuary burials constitute a period 

identified as Spiro IVB, which dates to around ad 1400 

(Brown, 1996). The way that the Spiro IVB period fits 

into the overall sequence at Spiro in terms of Brown’s 

(1996:133–134,161–164) chronology is summarized in 

Figure 1.2, with revisions from Rogers (2006).
1 8 • s m ithsonian cont r i bu tions to anth r o p o l o g y

The grave lot sequence will be referred to elsewhere 

in this report because it provides a way of associating the 

material from the commercial excavation with the material from the WPA excavations. Some artifact types have 

more limited distribution, while others occur throughout 

the sequence. Brown discussed associations and distributions in terms of his grave lot seriation. For the sake of 

comparability, the present text will also.
ACCESSION HISTORY

The members of the Pocola Mining Company, the relic hunters who first dug 

into the main mound at Spiro, marketed their finds to collectors and relic dealers, many of whom visited the site. Hamilton (1952) wrote that there were three 

dealers who purchased most of the artifacts directly from the miners: Joe Balloun, 

the first relic hunter at Craig Mound; G. E. Pilquist of Dardanelle, Arkansas; and 

J. G. Braecklein. These people, in turn, resold material to other dealers or collectors. Word of the finds at Spiro Mounds reached the Smithsonian Institution 

quite early. Jack Reed of Fayetteville, Arkansas, traveled east with a number of 

artifacts that he showed to scholars. He apparently appeared at the Smithsonian 

with Mr. McRoy and Mrs. Lake of Fortune and Time magazines on 18 May 1936 

to exhibit 12 shell cups, shell gorgets, a small wooden mask with shell eyes and ear 

plugs, a string of pearls, textiles, and matting. Reed said, “Shells had been thrown 

out of trenches or burial chamber,” a space he described as having textile-covered 

walls and roof timbers (National Museum of Natural History, 1960).

Much of the material found in the commercial excavation made its way 

to serious collectors who amassed large collections from this operation. It was 

through these collectors, who eventually sold or donated their collections to the 

museum, that the National Museum of Natural History (NMNH) accessioned 

materials from Spiro (see Table 3.1). There were 14 donations or sales of material from Spiro to the Smithsonian during the 50 years between 1936 and 1986. 

Only Braecklein and Trowbridge provide information regarding the original archaeological context for some artifacts. Information regarding collectors and 

their donations to the Smithsonian is derived from the museum’s accession files 

housed primarily in the Office of the Registrar of the NMNH along with supplemental documentation from correspondence or other materials in the National 

Anthropological Archives.

Early Years: 1936–1958

Dealers purchased directly from the miners then sold the artifacts they acquired 

to relic collectors and other dealers. George Braecklein, one of the collectors to 

3 Spiro Collection at the 

Smithsonian

April K. Sievert
2 0 • s m ithsonian cont r i bu tions to anth r o p o l o g y

witness the commercial excavation, was an architect with 

Braecklein, Besecke & Swanson of Kansas City, Missouri. 

Braecklein is credited with gathering objects personally 

and later distributing them to other collectors. He apparently purchased some objects from John Hobbs, an original 

member of the Pocola Mining Company team. Braecklein 

was the first to bring materials from Craig Mound to the 

attention of the Smithsonian Institution. In 1936, not long 

after the cessation of commercial excavation, Braecklein 

wrote to the Smithsonian and then loaned a crown-type 

mace chipped from jasper (as it was then identified) and a 

catlinite pipe to the Smithsonian so that the NMNH could 

make casts for the museum collection. The chipped mace 

was recorded as having been “found in hematite bed, one 

end next to a cremation” (National Museum of Natural 

History, 1936). Later in 1936 these pieces were returned 

to Braecklein, along with complimentary casts made at 

the NMNH. Ultimately, Braecklein transferred these and 

other artifacts to another collector, Harry Trowbridge, 

who later sold them to the NMNH. Therefore, the catlinite 

pipe (423152) and the mace (423197) ultimately returned 

to the Smithsonian. Many of the materials at the NMNH

passed through the hands of George Braecklein. Braecklein 

also indicates that he personally picked up or found objects 

that came out of the mound, so in some cases Braecklein 

was the original collector. Apparently, during December of 

1935 and January of 1936, Braecklein continued to locate 

artifacts that he later distributed to collectors.

Several of the pieces in the collection bear Braecklein’s initials in pen and ink as well as brief descriptions 

of provenience. The early acquisition of plaster casts was 

followed soon thereafter by a larger donation of artifacts 

from Braecklein in 1937, when he sent over 90 items, 

comprising sherds, beads, and lithic artifacts. In 1938, 

Braecklein contacted Dr. Setzler at the Smithsonian and 

made another donation, this time including bone artifacts, 

beads, and pipe fragments.

Between 1937 and 1958, the Smithsonian acquired 

small lots of artifacts from Spiro. These included a textile 

received in 1937 from D. I. Bushnell, Jr. In 1943, Henry 

Hamilton donated nine lots of textiles, including one piece 

of twilled matting with copper adhering, shredded fibers, 

colored cloth fragments, and other fragments of feathers, 

hair, and cloth. He had purchased these from various dealers. In 1950, Edna Graham, the widow of collector Judge 

William Graham, donated his relic collection. This collection contained material from across the United States, including a few pieces from Spiro—shell beads that Graham 

had purchased from H. T. Daniel and copper pins that he 

received from G. E. Pilquist.

Accession number 206664 from the University of 

Oklahoma in 1955 consists solely of a plaster cast of a 

shell recovered during the WPA excavation.

The Lightner accession shown in Table 3.1 was not an 

outright donation, but a loan, and these artifacts are no longer at the Smithsonian. However, circumstances surrounding the loan are indicative of the way in which objects from 

Spiro spread about the country. In 1956, Clifford Evans, 

then an associate curator in the Division of Archaeology 

at the Smithsonian Institution, happened into the Lightner 

Museum of Hobbies in St. Augustine, Florida. Evans noticed seven engraved shells on the bottom shelf in a case of 

Native American exhibits. He recognized that these could 

well be from Spiro, or at least they closely resembled the 

engraved shell cups found in abundance at Spiro. Evans 

immediately inquired about the objects, their provenience 

or any catalog data that may have existed. Cecil Zirkan, 

General Manager of the Lightner Museum, replied on 13 

January 1956 that “unfortunately, Mr. Lightner had died 

before the catalog of the collections were completed, and 

no data of any sort existed” (Zirkan, 1956).

Zirkan suggested that the Lightner Museum send the 

shells to the NMNH for examination. This procedure 

was carried out, and the artifacts were repaired, refit, 

photographed, and judged to be excellent examples of 

shell engraving from Spiro. These artifacts had not been 

reported or listed in any publications that discussed the 

shell engraving from Spiro (such as Hamilton, 1952). The 

NMNH and Lightner Museum agreed on arranging an 

TABLE 3.1. National Museum of Natural History (NMNH) accessions of material from Spiro.

NMNH 

accession 

number Year Donor

137937 1936 Anthropological Laboratory, NMNH

145540 1937 J. G. Braecklein

145859 1937 D. I. Bushnell, Jr.

150758 1939 J. G. Braecklein

166197 1943 Henry W. Hamilton

187689 1950 William J. Graham via M. Edna Graham

206664 1955 University Museum, University of Oklahoma

210052 1956 Lightner Museum of Hobbies

217907 1958 Richard G. Slattery

228126 1960 Harry M. Trowbridge

249362 1963 Smithsonian Institution

272249 1966 Richard K. Meyer

350434 1986 R. King Harris

358176 1986 J. Allen Eichenberger
number 49 • 21

“indefinite loan” of the materials to the Smithsonian so 

that they could be included in an exhibit on North America. This meant that the NMNH could keep the shells 

indefinitely but that ownership was still vested with the 

Lightner Museum of Hobbies and that at any time, the 

Lightner Museum could request that they be returned. 

In 1973, the Lightner Museum did request return of the 

shells to place them on display in a totally renovated 

museum. Therefore, in 1974, four of the shell fragments 

(411904–411907) were returned to the Lightner Museum 

and are no longer in the collection at the NMNH. However, three fragments (411901–411903) were on display 

at the Smithsonian at the time and were not returned to 

Florida until the late 1980s, when the artifacts were removed from display.

In 1958, Richard Gates Slattery of Rockville, Maryland, donated a few Spiroan objects as part of a larger 

collection of artifacts collected from Maryland, the District of Columbia, and 22 other states (accession 217907). 

Slattery was described at the time as a “knowledgeable 

amateur” and an officer in the Maryland Archaeological 

Society (unpublished, National Anthropological Archives 

Reference Guide, p. 419).

Accession 249362 represents the accession of a cast 

made by the Smithsonian of a blade originally collected 

by Braecklein.

The Trowbridge Acquisition

One of the major collectors of artifacts from Spiro 

was Harry M. Trowbridge of Bethel, Kansas. His collection consisted of 3,191 specimens, including some extremely well preserved textiles. Trowbridge amassed the 

collection between 1935 and 1952 from dealers and collectors who had, in turn, gotten them from the mound’s 

looters during the 1933–1935 commercial excavation. 

Trowbridge’s collection was already legendary, and many 

of his artifacts had been illustrated in Hamilton (1952) 

and Burnett (1945).

Trowbridge was keenly interested in the scientific value 

of his collection and was especially intrigued by the textiles. He had made contact with the Smithsonian through 

Waldo Wedel, then an assistant curator, as early as 1936, 

when he sent Wedel a bit of yarn from a Spiro textile. By 

1937 Trowbridge had sent textile samples to be analyzed 

for composition (Whitford, 1941; Willoughby, 1952). In 

1938 he published a short report on an “Analysis of Spiro 

Mound Textiles” in American Antiquity (Trowbridge, 

1938:51–52 ). He also wrote a brief report of the results 

of fiber testing done at the National Bureau of Standards 

in 1937 and published it in the Journal of the Illinois Archaeological Society (Trowbridge, 1944). According to a 

1942 letter from Trowbridge to Wedel, Trowbridge relays 

the information that much of his Spiro material was at 

that time on display at the Kansas City Museum, Kansas City, Missouri (a fact also noted by Hamilton, 1952). 

“The museum offered the best room in the building, and 

built in addition, a fire-proof room for the Spiro textiles, 

out of waste space opening off of the other room . . . In 

six large cases in the main room are most of the relics” 

(National Museum of Natural History, 1960).

Wedel and Trowbridge established a cordial and familiar correspondence. When Trowbridge’s collection was 

accessioned, Wedel was the chair of the Department of 

Anthropology, and he handled much of the administration 

of this large accession.

On 14 May 1958, Trowbridge wrote a letter to Remington Kellogg, director of the U.S. National Museum, 

offering his collection for sale for $20,000. By 20 May 

a purchase order, number 38446, had been prepared, 

indicating how important this collection was deemed 

by the NMNH. However, it was not until early in 1960 

that the collection was received and completely cataloged 

into the collection of the NMNH. Although it is not precisely clear from Trowbridge’s correspondence, it seems 

as though his actions may have been prompted partly by 

a desire to see his collection in the hands of people who 

would appreciate and use it and perhaps partly from financial need. At the time of the transaction, Trowbridge 

wrote the following passage in the preface to his catalog 

on 27 June 1958, and it describes well his attitude toward 

the collection.

For twenty-two years he has felt the joy and the 

anxiety of a trustee, delegated by the fates to preserve these evidences of a people skilled in many 

arts. The mound material has been virtually a 

member of the family, the textiles having had in 

recent years their own light-proof and fireproof 

room, and the other specimens similar space adjoining. He gives them up as one would an old 

friend, but tempered with the knowledge they 

will be under the expert and enduring custody 

of the basic research and education center of our 

country, – the Smithsonian Institution.

Unlike most of the other donors of artifacts from 

Spiro, Trowbridge kept records of his collection and 

maintained a catalog. He had assigned each artifact a 

number and recorded from whom he received the objects 

as well as any other information regarding the original 
2 2 • s m ithsonian cont r i bu tions to anth r o p o l o g y

circumstances under which the artifacts were obtained. 

His records provide the only extant link to the original 

archaeological context for any materials in the NMNH’s 

collection derived from commercial excavations.

In many cases, he recorded which of the original members of the Pocola Mining Company excavated particular 

pieces, and he recorded from whom he purchased various pieces. His suppliers included Joseph W. Balloun, J. G. 

Braecklein, H. T. Daniel, Albert H. Hansen, John Hobbs, 

Kenneth G. McWade (the only dealer not specifically mentioned by Hamilton, 1952), G. E. Pilquist, H. I. Player, 

and Lyle A. Stephenson. In 1958, Trowbridge prepared 

an abridgement of his own catalog and sent it to Wedel. 

A series of letters written between Trowbridge and Wedel 

in 1965 describe drawings that Trowbridge had loaned 

the museum but which ultimately had been returned to 

Trowbridge.

Harry Trowbridge died following a massive stroke in 

1969 at the age of 81. He had been a serious amateur 

archaeologist throughout most of his life. He was born in 

1888 in Blue Mound, Kansas, served in army intelligence 

during World War I, and graduated from the University 

of Kansas (Kansas City Star, 1 July 1969). Trowbridge 

served as president of the Kansas City chapter of the Missouri Archaeological Society. After he retired, he devoted 

most of his time to establishing and acting as curator for 

the Wyandotte County Museum in Kansas City, Kansas. 

This museum still retains Trowbridge’s papers and, presumably, Trowbridge’s original documentation regarding 

the Spiro collection (J. Brown, Northwestern University, 

personal communication, 1992).

It is apparent from reading his notes and letters that 

he treated the materials from Spiro with great respect. 

Many of the textiles in his collection had been bundled 

originally, and Trowbridge himself had painstakingly 

unrolled several of these. Trowbridge then housed them 

under glass in wooden frames. Although in hindsight this 

may not have been the best way to treat the objects, he 

was clearly motivated by a desire to save them from perishing. When it came time to ship them to the NMNH, he 

contacted Wedel for clearance to ship the textiles standing 

up on end, rather than lying flat. Trowbridge felt that the 

potential damage from slippage in the frames (although 

they appear to have been well constrained within their 

frames) was lower than potential damage should the glass 

break during transportation.

Trowbridge’s collection comprises roughly one half of 

the collection in the NMNH. The other major acquisition 

came from Richard K. Meyer of Peoria, Illinois, in the late 

1960s.

The Meyer Acquisition

Richard K. Meyer of Peoria, Illinois, began collecting 

in the 1930s and by the 1960s had amassed an impressive collection that included artifacts of pottery, stone, 

shell, wood, bone, and copper. Meyer appreciated the 

aesthetic qualities of materials from Spiro, and his collection contained some of the more remarkable artistry from 

the Craig Mound. For example, Meyer had collected rare 

wooden figurines, which were well preserved and remarkable for their detail. Engraved shell is particularly plentiful 

in his collection.

Meyer did not catalog his collection as Trowbridge 

had done, so there is no information pertaining to who his 

suppliers were or where in relation to the Craig Mound 

certain artifacts might have been recovered. Hamilton 

(1952) reports that Meyer was a student at the time of 

the excavation and that he traveled directly to the site to 

acquire materials.

Meyer had at one time sent his collection to the National Textile Museum in Washington for study. The acting head of anthropology for the National Museum of 

Natural History, Richard B. Woodbury, apparently heard 

of the collection through Alan Sawyer of the National 

Textile Museum. Woodbury’s first correspondence with 

Meyer was on 26 June 1965, when he wrote Meyer inquiring about the collection and expressing NMNH’s interest 

in acquiring it. Meyer was interested in donating the collection because it would amount to a significant charitable 

contribution with substantial tax advantages. That many 

items were at the National Textile Museum proved to be 

extremely convenient because when the materials were donated to the Smithsonian, many of them were already in 

Washington. Meyer personally delivered other items on 23 

May 1966. At that time Meyer was directing the Lakeview 

Center Museum in Peoria, Illinois.

Meyer’s accession was rather complicated in that not 

all materials were listed as being donated in the same year. 

Meyer wanted to maximize the tax advantages of the large 

donation, so he requested an accession process that would 

allow approximately one-third of the materials to be formally accessioned in each of three years, 1966, 1967, and 

1969. Steven Williams at the Peabody Museum, Harvard 

University, appraised the materials in this collection for 

tax purposes. After this appraisal was rejected by Meyer 

as being too low, the collection was reappraised by Andre 

Emmerich of the Andre Emmerich Gallery, New York 

City. George Metcalf inventoried the objects upon arrival 

at the NMNH, and Beth Gibson implemented conservation of some items.
number 49 • 23

Later Accessions

More than a decade passed before the next donation 

of materials from Spiro. In 1980 the large collection of 

Plains artifacts belonging to R. King Harris of Dallas, 

Texas, was sold to the Smithsonian. Although the museum actually received the materials in 1981, they were 

not formally accessioned until 1986. When Harris died in 

1980, his collection and personal papers were also sent to 

the Smithsonian. The National Anthropological Archives 

houses his extensive document collection, which includes 

both a biography of the man and a bibliography of his 

work. Harris was a dedicated amateur born in 1912 who 

studied engineering at Southern Methodist University 

until the advent of the Great Depression cut short his college career. He became deeply interested in Texas archaeology and conducted excavations across the state. Harris 

was also a codeveloper of the Caddoan Conference. His 

biography indicates that materials were kept first in a 

china cabinet in his dining room and then in a museum in 

the back yard when the collection exceeded the size constraints of the dining room.

The materials that Harris collected are the only fragments that are not from the commercial mining operation. 

Harris had visited Spiro Mound, probably during the late 

1950s, and collected material from the surface. Therefore, 

although it is certain these materials are from Spiro, it is 

less certain where they came from at the site. All of these 

artifacts are weathered, supporting the information that 

they were indeed found on the surface. They comprise 

lithic tools (steeply retouched tools and points), potsherds, 

and engraved shell fragments. Presumably, the shell fragments derived from excavation back dirt, although this is 

not certain. These materials cannot be clearly associated 

with a mortuary context.

The final acquisition is that of a set of casts made of 

artifacts from North America. Referred to as the Eichenberger cast collection, it did contain examples of Spiroan 

materials.

PREVIOUS STUDIES OF THE

SMITHSONIAN MATERIALS

Conservation

During the 1970s conservation scientist Joan S. Gardner worked extensively with the collection. She was particularly interested in textiles and worked with many of 

the pieces in the collection. She prepared cards containing 

photocopies of the original catalog cards and kept her 

own notes on conservation measures taken, identifications 

that she elicited, and stylistic and descriptive observations. These cards were of inestimable aid in producing 

this report. In many cases, Gardner’s records also include 

Polaroid photos of the objects that can be used for identification and study. These records are maintained in the 

Anthropology Conservation Laboratory as part of the 

collections management records of the Department of 

Anthropology.

Research

Although Orr (1946) wrote a general treatment of 

Spiro’s archaeology, Hamilton’s report in 1952 provided a 

more extensive overview of archaeological materials from 

the site. Hamilton was a serious avocational archaeologist 

who surveyed materials from all of the major collectors of 

Spiroan artifacts around the Plains and Midwest. Hamilton consulted with collectors and photographed pieces 

from their collections. Much of what he pictured and discussed includes materials now at the Smithsonian.

Clements published a report in 1945 of the history 

of the WPA excavation and submitted a summary report 

to the WPA. However, an in-depth report of the findings 

from the WPA work was not completed at that time. It 

was not until Brown tackled the materials in the 1960s 

that a comprehensive interpretive analysis of Spiro came 

about. Brown’s work does refer to materials held in collections other than those from the WPA excavations, and 

in this context some of the materials in the Smithsonian 

were referenced.

Studies of iconography have in some cases utilized design elements on Spiroan materials at NMNH. Fundaburk 

and Foreman (1957) compiled illustrations on Mississippian Southern Cult iconography, and their work also provided a venue for discussing some of the materials in the 

collections of the Smithsonian.

Shell in particular has been well documented. Duffield 

(1964) wrote an encyclopedia of designs on shell and utilized materials from the Smithsonian. In the 1970s Philip 

Phillips of Harvard University and James A. Brown undertook a massive project to correlate all engraved shell fragments by making rubbings, grouping designs by shape, 

and refitting portions of single shells by matching the 

tracings. In 1974 Joan Gardner at the Smithsonian joined 

this project and provided tracings of shells that had not 

been previously surveyed. This project culminated in a 

six volume work, later condensed into two tomes, which 

include basic descriptions of shell engraving technology, 
2 4 • s m ithsonian cont r i bu tions to anth r o p o l o g y

illustrations of all shell fragments known, and interpretation of manufacturing and iconographic styles (Phillips 

and Brown, 1978, 1984).

Textiles were also of considerable interest. Trowbridge (1938) published early on the textiles, and his study 

was followed by a discussion by Whitford (1941) regarding vegetal textile identification. King and Gardner (1981) 

published a more intensive study of the textiles. Kuttruff 

(1988) produced a doctoral dissertation on Mississippian 

textiles and took samples from the NMNH’s collection for 

analysis.

Hamilton et al. (1974) analyzed copper materials 

from Spiro, and their report gives a nice overview of the 

various patterns and styles present on embossed copper 

sheets. Some of the materials in the NMNH collection are 

featured in that report.

A concordance that references prior discussion or illustration of the materials in the collection of the NMNH

is included in Appendix B of this volume. This concordance should facilitate further research using the materials 

and enable the study of the iconography by referencing 

illustrations in Phillips and Brown (1978, 1984).

THE PRESENT STUDY

Materials are presented and discussed in a similar format to that utilized by Brown (1976, 1996) in his analysis 

of Spiro collections from the WPA excavation and other 

sources. This should maximize comparability of the data 

presented here, thus facilitating any attempts to correlate 

information from the two primary collections. However, 

different nomenclature is used in some instances. Brown 

employs the term “sociotechnic” to refer to those items 

that are in some way grand versions of what would 

otherwise be everyday kinds of artifacts. I sometimes 

refer to such unusual, exaggerated, or ritual objects as 

being “special-elite,” a word that subsumes both special 

social function and ceremonial meaning. Otherwise, my 

categories for discussion are similar, although I do not 

make a clear dichotomy between utilitarian and specialelite artifacts based just on form. This distinction may 

be turbid because of the clearly ceremonial nature of this 

mortuary deposit. Even if objects appear to represent 

utilitarian items, they still may be imbued with ritual aspects and therefore may be accorded special treatment or 

deposition.

Phillips and Brown (1978:18) distinguish among five 

general functional contexts: (1) utilitarian equipment, 

(2) weaponry, (3) ornaments for the hair, head, or neck, 

(4) ritual objects such as pipes, shell cups, and figurines 

and (5) perishable containers and clothing. Brown’s 1976 

report and his 1996 revision concerning the artifacts also 

reflect this general division as well as heeding broad raw 

material or manufacture categories. My approach also 

uses a combination of functional and raw material categories. The first step in organizing this collection for study involved assigning each catalog entry to a raw material type. 

The seven types include (1) lithic, (2) ceramic, (3) textile, 

(4) bone, (5) shell, (6) metal, and (7) other artifacts. In 

many cases, however, the artifacts are composite and possess elements from more than one material type.

Material types also cut across functional categories. 

With a collection of the complexity of that from Spiro, 

working with material type only as the primary grouping 

is unsatisfactory. Rather, I created a grouping based on 

a combination of function, raw material, and manufacture. Artifacts are grouped analytically into (1) vessels of 

ceramics, shell, and stone, (2) fiber artifacts that include 

woven and braided objects along with basketry, (3) weaponry and extractive tools, many of which are stone, (4) ornaments that include beads, pendants, gorgets, and objects 

of various raw materials, and (5) ritual and special objects, 

including pipes and other artifacts again of various materials. An overview of the collection is shown in Table 3.2.

In analyzing the collection, information was drawn 

from two sources.

Historical Sources

Descriptive, conservation, and historical information 

regarding these artifacts derives from catalog and conservation records. Included herein are any accession files and 

extra notes regarding provenience that might have been 

located. Information from old descriptions or evaluations 

for the artifacts documents the history of interpretation 

of this collection. When Trowbridge sold his collection 

to the Smithsonian, he prepared a condensation of his 

own records as a catalog that he gave to Waldo Wedel. 

This catalog contains information regarding dealers from 

whom Trowbridge bought artifacts. This document is 

available in the National Anthropological Archives in 

the Waldo Wedel personal correspondence file under 

“Trowbridge.”

Artifact analysis

Artifact analysis included examining, describing, measuring, and photographing the artifacts. The types of data 

included in the study comprise the following:
number 49 • 25

1. Volumetric data with sizes and weights of artifacts 

allow comparison with materials described by 

Brown and others.

2. Detailed measurements may contribute to a better 

resolution in the chronology represented by material from Craig Mound. Some attributes may have 

chronological relevance. Information such as sherd 

thickness can be used to differentiate some chronological ceramic types.

3.  Stylistic information includes components of design and iconography, which provide information 

about symbolic systems and can aid in both an 

assessment of meaning and in linking the objects 

from Spiro to other archaeological contexts.

4. Raw materials can point toward trade relationships and intergroup interaction.

5. Manufacturing indicators suggest how craft production at Spiro may have been organized. Spiroan 

artifacts represent a high degree of workmanship 

and skill, and such craft working is still not completely understood. It has been suggested that much 

of the material may have been traded in, as evidenced by the raw materials utilized. Manufacturing 

details are helpful in sorting out some of the organizational and situational aspects of production.

6. Use and wear indicators contribute to interpreting 

how artifacts function within the contexts that engendered their use. There is still much we do not 

know about the specific nature of artifact usage in 

ceremonial situations, and often, a designation that 

an artifact was for “social display” lacks depth.

7. Residues can indicate contexts for use. In other 

cases residues represent the sole vestige of the original archaeological depositional environment.

There are three additional considerations to make in 

an analysis of this particular collection, and these stem 

from the nature of excavation, distribution, and acquisition of artifacts by collectors. The first is the possibility 

of fraudulent artifacts being included in the collection. 

Hamilton (1952) believed that the proportion of fake artifacts in the collection would be small. First, there were 

relatively few people handling the materials at the site, 

and they were distributed very quickly. Second, even the 

fine art from Spiro did not bring high prices because the 

massive amounts of relics distributed from Spiro increased 

the supply to the extent that they flooded the market for 

antiquities (Hamilton, 1952). Suspected fakes included 

copper pins and beads. Hamilton also mentions some 

double-platform pipes being faked.

The second consideration is the inclusion of artifacts 

that are not from Spiro at all but are otherwise prehistoric artifacts. Collectors of relics were not always experts 

in North American archaeology, although many were. 

Therefore, it would not have been unlikely for dealers to 

market non-­Spiroan artifacts as reputedly deriving from 

Spiro. For example, there are some potsherds from the 

Southwest in the collection (see chapter 4) that may not 

have come from Spiro.

A final consideration concerns artifacts from the Craig 

Mound whose integrity has been compromised. In some 

cases, dealers may have sought to increase the chance for 

sale by reconstructing broken artifacts, thus rendering imperfect objects “whole” to consumers who put a premium 

on the perfect. Fillers, pigments, and adhesives may all 

have been put to this task. In addition, damaged portions 

of artifacts may have been rebuilt or even removed and 

then reconstructed.

TABLE 3.2. Summary of the Spiro collection in the NMNH.

Artifact count

Artifact group and subgroup (whole and partial)

Containers

 Ceramic 322

 Shell 907

 Other 4

Textiles

 Cloth bundles or pieces 107

Baskets 34 a

 Cordage 260

Weaponry and extractive tools

 Small projectile points 166

Large projectile points 12

Large bifaces 15

 Sword-form bifaces 10

Maces 4

 Celts 15

 Other lithic tools 26

Ornaments

Earspools 211

 Shell beads 22,028

 Stone and copper beads 59

Pendants 112

 Gorgets 54

Ritual and special objects

Pipes 33

 Copper 382

 Human effigies 9

 Wood 92

Bone 43

Total count 24,905

a Includes 2 lots.
2 6 • s m ithsonian cont r i bu tions to anth r o p o l o g y

These three factors pose a challenge to analysis. Since 

this report is designed to give a complete description of 

the collection, I paid considerable attention to recording 

details that may help to assess the effect of these factors.

There are only a few human remains in the collection. 

These are not from discrete burials but represent bones 

picked up at random at the site. Bioarcheologist Javier 

Urcid, formerly of the Department of Anthropology Repatriation Office in Smithsonian’s National Museum of 

Natural History, presents the analysis of these remains in 

chapter 9.

Throughout the discussion, specific objects are referred to by catalog number. For this collection it became 

necessary to assign subnumbers to refer to specific items 

within larger lots. Although each object could not be considered separately (there are nearly 25,000 individual objects, including beads), artifacts were divided into subunits 

that would be analytically meaningful. Therefore, catalog 

numbers include my subnumbers, prefaced by “s” in cases 

where there is more than one object or entry per catalog 

number.
The Smithsonian collections from Spiro include containers and container fragments of ceramic, shell, stone, wood, and basketry. Baskets 

and basket fragments were found throughout the Craig Mound and 

will be included with the chapter 5 treatment of textiles. Ceramic vessels include a few whole pots and numerous sherds. In far greater numbers are 

containers made from the shells of large whelks of the genus Busycon, a univalve 

that inhabits the Gulf of Mexico.

Ceramics

Style

Ceramics of the Harlan and Spiro phases have been well described (Bell, 

1953; Suhm et al., 1954; Brown, 1971b, 1996; Rogers, 1980 Bell, 1984; Fischbeck et al., 1989). Descriptions of ceramics must account for the variability 

inherent in typologies, the descriptive criteria used, and the differing opinions 

of analysts. The typology used here follows Brown (1971b, 1996) and Rogers 

(1980). James A. Brown (Northwestern University), James B. Griffin (National 

Museum of Natural History), and J. Daniel Rogers were also consulted regarding ceramic classification. Because ceramics from the WPA excavations at Spiro 

had been classified by Brown as part of his work, an attempt was made to place 

sherds from the NMNH collection into the same classificatory scheme to maintain comparability between these two collections.

Variables shown below serve to characterize the regional ceramic styles. 

Nomenclature and criteria used are summarized in Figure 4.1. Variables noted 

include the following:

1. Vessel form is the form of the vessel in respects to three different shapes, 

namely, bowl, jar, or bottle. Subcategories describe the kind of bowl or jar, e.g., 

carinated. The presence of slip is an indicator that was useful in deciding vessel 

form on the basis of body sherds. According to J. A. Brown (personal communication, 1992) jars were not slipped, whereas bowls were. Therefore, for slipped 

body sherds, a designation of bowl is reasonable, especially if the slip occurs on 

4 Containers

April K. Sievert
2 8 • s m ithsonian cont r i bu tions to anth r o p o l o g y

both faces. Bottles can have slip only on the outer surface, 

and bottle sherds will not be smooth on the inner surface.

2. Rim cross section is the shape of a cross section of 

the rim.

3. Lip form is the method of finishing off the lip, either 

flat or round, with variations shown in Figure 4.1.

4. Rim orientation indicates rims can be standing, inverted, or everted.

5. Bases can be either flat or round. Flat bases may 

have margins that are rounded, defined, or stilted. Round 

bases may be quite spherical, in which there is no appreciable change in arc from the body to the base, or they 

FIGURE 4.1. Ceramic attributes and key. After Brown (1971b:fig. 2; 1996:333).
number 49 • 29

may be truncated, in which case there is a change in direction for the body as it meets the base.

6. Surface treatment possibilities include slipped, 

smoothed, burnished, and polished, with decorations that 

are incised, engraved, and painted.

7. Color can be useful for distinguishing pastes and 

for analyzing firing.

8. Paste composition can be characterized according 

to texture: fine, medium fine, medium, medium coarse, 

and coarse.

9. The temper composition is really apparent temper 

because petrographic analysis has not been done.

10. Wall thickness can be useful for distinguishing between ceramic styles or vessel forms when the pastes are 

similar.

11. Size is a useful indicator of vessel function and is 

relevant to an understanding of pottery manufacture.

Table 4.1 shows the number of sherds, weights, and 

mean wall thickness recorded for the various ceramic types.

Raw Material

Raw material is divided into two analytical components, paste and temper. In most cases the paste is finegrained grayish clay. Temper can include grog, grit, bone, 

and shell with inclusions of charcoal, sand, mica, and 

shale. Brown (personal communication, 1992) sees ceramics with sand in the paste as exotic. There were several 

sherds with sand in the paste, some of which are probably truly from the Spiro mounds. There are others with 

TABLE 4.1. Sherd counts, measurements, and stylistic references for the various ceramic types. A dash (-) indicates that data are not 

available.

Mean wall Total

Number thickness weight

Style and subgroup sherds (cm) (g) Stylistic reference(s)

Grog tempered

 Williams Plain 23 1.14 825.2 Brown (1996:343); Rogers (1980:150)

Leflore Plain 19 0.62 426.6 Brown (1996:346); Rogers (1980:153)

 Smithport Plain 1 0.56 809.9 Brown (1996:348)

Undifferentiated plain 34 0.71 865.4 Brown (1996)

Undifferentiated incised 3 0.61 31.1 Brown (1996)

 Crockett Curvilinear Incised 6 0.58 582.4 Brown (1996:358–359)

Pennington Punctate 2 0.62 29.0 Brown (1996:360)

Friendship Engraved 1 0.66 42.9 Brown (1996:376)

 White Engraved 1 0.74 -

 Haley Engraved 1 0.56 74.3 Brown (1996:377)

 Hatchel Engraved 1 0.64 109.3

Slipped

Poteau Plain 34 0.80 1,802.9 Brown (1996:405)

 Sanders Engraved 6 0.77 431.7 Brown (1996:403)

 Sanders Plain 109 0.77 2,121.9 Brown (1996:401–403); Rogers (1980:154)

 Sanders Plain/Old Town Red 26 0.69 1,249.1 Brown (1971b, 1996:404)

 Sanders Plain/Clement Redware 2 0.61 196.5 Sanders: Brown (1996); Clement: Brown 

(pers. comm., 25 Mar 1992) 

Undesignated bowl 1 0.72 637.2

Undesignated slipped 4 0.78 36.0

Shell tempered

 Woodward Plain 20 0.80 770.4 Brown (1996:389); Rogers (1980:157)

Effigy 2 0.65 92.0

Undifferentiated plain 4 0.56 41.4 Brown (1996)

Undifferentiated incised 1 0.55 13.8 Brown (1996)

Other

 Southwestern 6 0.56 225.0

Polychrome 1 0.78 33.0

Unclassified 5 0.55 266.7

 Glazed 1 0.72 21.0

Total sherds 314
3 0 • s m ithsonian cont r i bu tions to anth r o p o l o g y

extremely sandy pastes that appear to be from pots of the 

Puebloan Southwest and therefore are unlikely to be from 

Spiro at all.

Manufacture

With the exception of a tiny pinch pot (448930), the 

ceramic vessels are built by coiling. Walls are generally 

well smoothed, and most are burnished or even polished 

to a high sheen. Slipped vessel surfaces are burnished as 

well. Some of the pots are evidently quite large, as suggested by the low arc of curvature for some large body 

sherds. This is especially true of Sanders Plain. Handles 

and adornos are modeled.

Use

Some pottery in the collection exhibits signs of use, 

indicated by residue on the inner surfaces of the sherds. 

The whole pots do not appear to have been heavily utilized. One bottle has a worn patch on one side, and a base 

contains green pigment. Utilitarian pots used intensively 

will tend to break preferentially over wares that are less 

intensively used. Therefore, whole pots probably represent 

the less utilitarian among the ceramic wares.

The collection contains six complete vessels and three 

more partial vessels. Vessels complete enough for vessel 

dimensions to be measured are listed in Table 4.2. Vessel cross sections are shown in Figure 4.2. Three of the 

complete vessels, the carinated bowl designated White 

Engraved, the gourd-form bowl, and the Smithport Plain 

bottle are unique in that there are no sherds from these 

styles, just the complete vessels. There are numerous fragments from red oval bowls. (See the specific sections for 

Sanders Plain and Old Town Red for a discussion of classification of these oval bowls.)

Grog-, Grit-, and Bone-­Tempered Types

These types were the most numerous and the most 

varied in style and decoration. They include plain, incised, 

and slipped wares.

Williams Plain

This is a relatively thick, grog-tempered ware. In 

three cases, the temper also contains grit, bone, and small 

amounts of shell. For the four sherds for which the rim 

orientation could be estimated, three are everted and one 

is standing. The lips are flat or rounded and are either 

rolled, thinned, or direct in cross section.

Color for Williams Plain is highly variable, with hues 

ranging from light yellowish brown to very dark gray and 

black. Included are reddish browns and various shades of 

brown and gray. The colors cluster around a hue of 7.5 

YR in the Munsell soil color chart.

One partial vessel is probably Williams Plain (448648 

and 448643). This vessel is a globular jar having a flat 

base and everted rim. It has the form of a restricted jar (see 

Table 4.2) with an everted rim. The bowl is heavily coated 

with residue that appears to have been heated. Along a 

broken edge are crystals of unknown composition. The 

temper in some cases appears to contain a small amount 

of shell or shell-tempered grog.

TABLE 4.2. Characteristics of complete vessels in the National Museum of Natural History (NMNH) collection. A dash (-) indicates 

not applicable.

Length Diameter Height

Style Form (cm) (cm) (cm)

Crockett Curvilinear Incised Cylindrical jar - 11.53 9.58

Undesignated Spouted bowl 21.5 12.38 16.80

Sanders Plain/Old Town Red Oval globular bowl 16.8 11.87 7.69

Sanders Plain/Old Town Red Oval globular bowl 18.0 11.80 8.00

Sanders Plain Oval globular bowl 16.7 11.10 7.50

Smithport Plain Bottle - 16.40 23.90

Williams Plain Restricted jar - 8.76 8.37

White Engraved Carinated bowl - 24.50 14.20

Undesignated Pinch pot - 2.33 1.83
number 49 • 31

Leflore Plain

Similar to Williams Plain in paste, this ware is generally thinner and the colors lean toward grays and black. 

Surfaces tend to be burnished as opposed to merely 

smoothed. Vessel forms include bowls and jars. The five 

rim sherds demonstrate that the lip cross section is direct, 

and the orientation of the rim is either standing or everted. 

Lips can be either flat or rounded. Temper contains a bit 

more grit, bone, and sand than does the Williams Plain. 

Differentiation between Williams and Leflore Plain wares 

were made on the basis of wall thickness and surface treatment. Table 4.1 indicates that the mean thickness for Leflore Plain is nearly half that recorded for Williams Plain.

Smithport Plain

One complete bottle (423144) is present (see Table 

4.2). This bottle has a flat base, well-rounded spherical 

body, and a long neck that is missing the rim (Figure 4.3a). 

On one side there is a pitted patch approximately 7 cm in 

diameter, apparently caused by the vessel being knocked 

or rested repeatedly against a hard surface. The apparent 

temper is grit with some bone. Firing clouds are present 

on the body, which varies in shades of brown and gray 

(hue 10YR on the Munsell soil color chart). The inner surface is dark gray. The outer surface is smoothed but not 

burnished. James A. Brown (personal communication, 25 

March 1992) suggested that this vessel is possibly an import from Arkansas.1

Crockett Curvilinear Incised

One complete vessel (Figure 4.4), a base and rim sherd 

from another vessel, two refitted rim sherds, and a base 

represent this type. These vessels are low-carinated cylindrical bowls. Decoration includes incised and punctated 

design on burnished surfaces. The single complete vessel 

(423147) has a motif representing the apical end of a shell, 

and this motif is repeated four times (Figure 4.5a). These 

FIGURE 4.2. Ceramic vessel profiles: a, Williams Plain (448948); b–c, Williams Plain, base and carinated body sherds 

from two different vessels; d, Sanders Plain oval bowl (448641s03); e, White Engraved bowl (423148); f, Coles Creek 

gourd-form bowl (423145); g, Crockett Curvilinear Incised bowl (423147); h, Smithport Plain bottle (423144).
3 2 • s m ithsonian cont r i bu tions to anth r o p o l o g y

incised circular motifs are not connected but are separated 

by a biconcave shape thickly punctated within. The knobs 

that would naturally occur on the apex of a whelk shell 

are simulated with punctation. The incising is shallow, but 

the punctations are deep and done using a reed tool with 

a maximum diameter of 3 mm. The design was punctated 

as the maker held the bowl mouth up and inserted the 

tool obliquely (see rollout diagram Figure 4.5a). The rim 

is circled with horizontal incised lines. The jar appears 

to have been mended and reconstructed, perhaps by the 

dealer who sold it. Tenacious black sooty residue is present on the inner surface. A different well-blended black 

residue covers mends and was likely applied by the dealer/

reconstructor. One fingerprint is evident in the clay.

Other examples of Crockett Curvilinear Incised ceramics include two refitting pieces from a single bowl: rim sherd 

448942s18 and base sherd 448644s01. This vessel is decorated with three horizontal lines around the rim, a curvilinear 

FIGURE 4.3. Whole and partial vessels: a, Smithport Plain bottle (423144); b, Coles Creek redware bowl 

with hatched decoration (423145); c, Sanders Plain oval bowl (448641s03 or 423146); d, Sanders Plain/Old 

Town Red oval bowl (448641s01).
number 49 • 33

design, and punctations done with a stick. The surface is 

burnished. This vessel is notable because it contains a thick 

deposit of what appears to be glauconite (a greenish mineral) 

in the base. The green residue underlies a buff-colored siltlike sediment. A base sherd from a separate cylindrical bowl 

(448642s02) exhibits a similar greenish mineral deposit. The 

presence of mineral deposits such as glauconite, which are 

clearly nonedible materials, indicates that these cylindrical 

bowls were probably for something other than food processing. A ritual or craft use seems likely. Perhaps these were 

used for preparing pigments used in painting.

Pennington Punctate

This ware is represented by two refitted rim sherds 

from bowl 448642s17 (Figure 4.6). The type is indistinguishable from Crockett Curvilinear in paste, but there is 

some difference in incised design, with Pennington incising conforming to geometric and especially triangular elements as opposed to the circular and spiral patterns seen 

on Crockett. The example here carries design elements 

of both types. Diagonal elements laid out in a horizontal band around the rim are characteristic of Pennington 

Punctate. The concentric rings under this diagonal element 

are more characteristic of Crockett. Punctations are made 

using a reed that is set nearly perpendicularly to the surface, leaving a well-rounded small circle.

Friendship Engraved

This ware is distinguished by having small raised ridges 

on the neck of the vessel and is represented by only one 

sherd (448642s19). One of these ridges is clearly visible 

on the right side of this body sherd from a bottle. The grittempered ware is black on the outer surface and pinkish on 

the inner surface. There is also a brown stain on the inner 

surface. Tool and smoothing marks are visible on the inner 

surface. Across the little diagnostic vertical ridge there are 

two fine hatches that form part of the overall design. The 

FIGURE 4.5. Rollout of design from two incised vessels: a, 423147, 

Crockett Curvilinear Incised; b, 423148, possibly White Engraved.

FIGURE 4.4. Crockett Curvilinear Incised bowl (423147).
3 4 • s m ithsonian cont r i bu tions to anth r o p o l o g y

variety derives from southwest Arkansas, probably the 

Ouachita Highland area (Suhm et al., 1954:274).

White Engraved

This designation was given to a large simple-carinated 

bowl (423148) with a band of motifs formed around a cross 

or “X” pattern along the upper outer edge (Figures 4.5b, 

4.7). The paste is gray clay with a medium-fine texture, and 

it is tempered with grit, charcoal, and very fine shell. The 

bowl has been reconstructed using some form of glue or filler 

mixed with coarse grog that is plastered over breaks. The 

joins have become dry and brittle. The surface is burnished, 

incised, and punctated. The horizontal block design consists 

of large X’s in squares. The spaces between the X design 

and the square are filled either with hatching or tiny punctations done with a stick. Incised lines define each square, and 

there is an extra vertical incision between each motif. Faint 

rippled horizontal polishing toolmarks are present on the 

inside. This type is not listed by Brown (1971b, 1996) as 

coming from the WPA excavations at Spiro. This type designation is based on a suggestion from James A. Brown. There 

are no other sherds of this type. This bowl in particular may 

be relatively late and may resemble styles employed by Native Americans after the arrival of Europeans.

Hatchel Engraved

Hatchel Engraved is represented by one sherd from 

the body of a bottle (448642s15). It has heavy, probably 

culturally relevant, residue on the inner surface. The outer 

surface is engraved and burnished, whereas the inner surface displays the rough surface and toolmarks typically 

seen on bottles. The design is without the parallel lines 

that Suhm et al. (1954:290) record as usually dividing 

the circular panels found on this type. Four parallel lines 

ring the neck, and one lower down defines the top of a 

decorated panel (Figure 4.8a). The area between circular 

motifs is filled with smaller circles, and the bands between 

motifs are filled with cross-hatching. Temper is grit and 

grog, and the color is a very dark brown (10YR3/2).

Haley Engraved

One large body sherd has the geometric pattern of 

bands of narrow parallel lines characteristic of Haley Engraved (Suhm et al., 1954:284). The design has a vertical orientation overall. Incised grooves are U-shaped and 

were probably executed using a finely pointed stick tool 

(Figure 4.8b). Tiny spurs extend out from the outermost 

lines of the L-shaped notched bands, making these lines 

appear thorny. The temper is grog, and the sherd is very 

dark gray. This relatively late style shows similarity to the 

Braden shell engravings that include ticked concentric 

ovals. Brown (1971b:129) writes that Haley is known 

from a post-­Great Mortuary burial as well as a Great 

Mortuary burial and the general collection. The sherd 

shown in Figure 4.8b closely resembles the cylindrical 

bottle shown in Brown (1971b: fig. 18f; 1996: fig. 2–31f).

FIGURE 4.6. Pennington Punctate rim sherds (448642).

FIGURE 4.7. Carinated bowl, possibly White Engraved (423148).
number 49 • 35

Undifferentiated Grog-Tempered Plain

This category includes sherds that were ambiguous 

or that did not fit into established types (n = 34). There 

is considerable variation in temper and paste within this 

group. Two refitting sherds (448642s03), for example, 

contain a considerable amount of charcoal in the paste 

along with grog. Some of the undifferentiated sherds display residues. Sherd 448642s09 is from a base and has a 

tenacious residue on the outer surface. Also, 448642s11 

is coated on the inner surface with a thick dark reddish 

brown material. Although it could well be postdepositional, this material could just as well be associated with 

use or treatment. Within this undifferentiated group, pastes 

vary from medium coarse to medium fine in texture. Two 

sherds (448642s02 and 448642s09) contain some sand. 

Most of the sherds in this group have surfaces that have 

been smoothed or, in the case of nine sherds, burnished.

Undifferentiated Grog-Tempered Incised

Undifferentiated incised sherds are less common 

(n = 3). There are two sherds with curvilinear incised 

lines (448646s03), and they appear to be from the same 

pot. Another sherd (448642s20) has a dark gray paste of 

medium-fine texture and grog temper. The engraved design consists of four parallel horizontal lines. This rim 

sherd from a jar exhibits a thinned and rounded rim with 

an inverted orientation. It has some shell residue on its 

badly eroded exterior surface.

Shell-­Tempered Wares

Woodward Plain

Woodward Plain is the most common type of shelltempered ware in eastern Oklahoma. It is a plain, heavily 

shell-tempered ware without slip. The surface is usually 

smoothed and occasionally burnished (but burnished to 

a lesser degree than are some of the other types). Colors 

range from light brown to dark gray, with the preponderance of pieces in the gray category. Brown (1996:390) 

refers to Woodward Plain as a regional variant of Mississippian Plain, the ubiquitous shell-tempered ceramics of 

the southern Mississippi Valley. The most common shapes 

are jars and bowls. The Smithsonian collection includes 

20 Woodward Plain sherds, comprising 16 body sherds, 

2 base sherds, and 2 rims. Of the two rims, both are direct and standing. The lips are in one case rounded and 

the other case flat. Four of the sherds (515780s01) were 

recovered from the surface at Spiro and are not directly 

associated with the commercial digging in the 1930s.

Effigy

Two adornos or rim ornaments from pots are also 

present (Figure 4.9). One effigy is in the form of a human 

head with simple molded features. The face measures 6.6 

cm long by 5.0 cm wide. The sherd was heavily tempered 

with shell that has since been badly leached.

The other is an effigy handle from a negative painted 

vessel. This resembles a duck’s bill and is decorated in 

black pigment on a buff ware. The background is painted 

black, leaving a motif of unpainted dots. Perhaps this style 

associates with the style Neelyville Negative Painted, listed 

FIGURE 4.8. Incised sherds: a, 448642, Hatchel Engraved; b, 

448642, Haley Engraved.
3 6 • s m ithsonian cont r i bu tions to anth r o p o l o g y

by Brown (1971b) as occurring at Spiro. This sherd is shell 

tempered, measures 8.25 cm long by 7.62 cm wide, and 

is 3.74 cm high. Several styles of negative painted ceramics are recorded for Mississippian contexts in the lower 

Ohio valley (Hilgeman, 1985). Hilgeman finds that negative painted wares were produced between ad 1250 and 

1450 and that a black-on-red slipped ware predates black 

on buff. The example from the Spiro collection is black on 

buff. It was likely to have been imported because this type 

of decoration was used at relatively few areas, including 

sites on the Ohio River such as Angel and Kincaid, in the 

Cairo lowlands, and near Nashville (Hilgeman, 1985:195).

Undifferentiated Shell Tempered

Two contexts include unidentified plain shell-tempered 

ware (448642s12 and 448642s13). These are undesignated primarily because they are both badly burned, and 

charring may obscure details. Another, 448642s20, is an 

incised and punctated sherd that is tempered with shell. 

Sherd 448646s05 shows toolmarks on the inner surface and was perhaps from a bottle. The outer surface is 

smooth and black.

Slipped Wares

Poteau Plain

Poteau paste is similar to that of Woodward Plain, but 

the vessels are slipped. A number of sherds were slipped 

with deep red clay; others received a thin slip much lighter 

in color. For those with a light-colored slip, it was sometimes difficult to identify the slip as being distinct from 

the paste.

Undesignated Bowl

However, one bowl (423145) is a vessel that mimics 

the shape of a gourd or possibly a shell vessel (Figures 4.2f, 

4.3b). Horizontal incising around the rim is reminiscent of 

the decoration often seen on Coles Creek Incised ceramics (Thorne and Broyles, 1968:110). The temper is grog, 

bone, and shell. The unusual characteristic here is a red slip 

that was applied to both the inner and outer surfaces. Although Coles Creek, a shell-tempered ware, is not customarily slipped, Brown (1971b) lists one Coles Creek vessel as 

bearing a red slip. The shape of the pot is that of a spouted 

vessel, with an incurved rim opposite the spout. A similar, 

though not identical, form can be seen in Brown (1996: 

fig. 2–20a), who describes it as Coles Creek Polished Plain. 

The piece, however, could be considered to be of undesignated style. Both Griffin (1952) and Hamilton (1952:41) 

point to an analog in a vessel pictured by Moorehead in his 

work on Cahokia (Moorehead, 2000: pl. xvii, fig. 6). The 

pot he shows from the Sawmill Mound site is more globular, and the spout has a clear break in the form at the point 

at which the spout extends outward.

Sanders Plain

Sanders Plain is a relatively fine ware with a medium 

finely grained paste and grog temper. Many pieces are 

heavily slipped in red. The designation was given to all 

nondecorated red-slipped, grog-tempered body sherds in 

the Smithsonian collection. Sanders Plain is well made, has 

medium-fine texture, and is tempered with grog and grit 

that can include a smaller percentage of shell. In most of 

the sherds represented, the core is black. The color is often 

quite brilliant at 10R4/8 on the Munsell soil color chart. 

Sanders Plain sherds make up the bulk of the ceramic collection. Neck sherds indicate that at least two bottle forms 

are represented (448641s19 and 448645s01).

Sanders Plain/Old Town Red

Thorne and Broyles (1968:78) list Old Town Red 

as a shell-tempered ware. Brown (1996:401) describes 

the ware as having either grog or shell temper. The vessel form represented is that of the oval globular bowl (see 

Brown, 1996: fig. 2–36b, for an identical vessel). Brown 

FIGURE 4.9. Effigy adornos: a, human head effigy adorno (448649); 

b, negative painted vessel handle (448643s08).
number 49 • 37

differentiates between Old Town Red bowls of oval form 

and similar Sanders Plain bowls depending on the morphology of the base (Brown, 1971b:180; 1996:404), with 

Old Town Red bowls having a rounded base and Sanders Plain always having a flat base. The examples of oval 

bowls in the NMNH collection are not absolutely flat, nor 

are they truly rounded, a fact that emphasizes the problems 

inherent in creating and using ceramic typologies. James 

B. Griffin, National Museum of Natural History (personal 

communication, 1992) stipulated that Old Town Red has 

limestone in the temper—these bowls do not.

There are at least five such vessels represented. Three 

of them are complete enough to offer overall pot dimensions (Table 4.2). There is some variation in the relative 

roundness of the base, and several bases could sit without rocking. There is one complete (reconstructed) vessel 

(423146). A dull red material has been applied over the 

original pot surface, and it is difficult to tell how much 

of the actual pot remains. The whole pot is from Trowbridge’s collection, whereas the fragmentary pots are from 

Meyer’s. One base was refitted from four separate sherds 

in Meyer’s collection, and the numerous other sherds might 

be refitted into more complete pots. This vessel type is the 

most numerous in this collection. The incidence of this type 

and many similar bowls is unlikely to be coincidental, and 

it is reasonable to speculate that they were part of a cache. 

Although it is debatable whether they are best designated 

Old Town Red or Sanders Plain, that they fall into such a 

narrowly defined pattern in form is not. The bowls are all 

very similar. Some contain residues, notably patchy black 

films that can appear on inner or outer surfaces.

Sanders Engraved

The paste is identical to Sanders Plain. Decoration 

most often consists of hatching along the rim. There are 

four rim sherds and two body sherds with portions of 

the incised rim intact (Figure 4.10a,c). Four sherds are 

engraved on the inner surfaces of the rim. These derive 

from vessels that have quite deep profiles (Figure 4.10a). 

The vessels have a very shallow curvature but still probably fall within the range for Sanders Engraved vessels. 

FIGURE 4.10. Slipped and decorated rim sherds: a, Sanders Engraved rim with engraving on inner surface; 

b, Clement Redware (448641); c, Sanders Engraved with engraving on outer surface.
3 8 • s m ithsonian cont r i bu tions to anth r o p o l o g y

They also have a black grog temper and paste identical 

to the other Sanders sherds. Two rim sherds (448642s12 

and 448645s04) exhibit engraving on the outer rim surface and are from bowls that have standing rims (Figure 

4.10c). The lip is direct and rounded both for the bowls 

with the engraving on the inner surface and for the bowls 

with engraving on the outer surfaces. Body sherds from 

these vessels that show no evidence of the engraving were 

collapsed into the Sanders Plain category.

Sanders Plain/Clement Redware

There are only two sherds of this type (448641s16), 

characterized by a deep profile and scalloped everted rim 

(Figure 4.10b). They appear to be from the same vessel. 

The temper is a black grog mixed with grit and a small 

amount of shell similar to that found in some of the Sanders sherds. The sherds are not from a carinated vessel 

form. The alternate designation as Clement Redware derived from personal communication with James A. Brown 

(25 March 1992).

Other Ceramic Pieces

Other ceramic elements include nodes, lugs, or handles. There is one strap handle from a highly polished red 

slipped vessel. The handle is 4.81 cm long by 3.44 cm wide, 

with a thickness of 1.89 cm, and consists of two refitted 

sherds (448647). An irregularly shaped, sand-tempered 

node or appliqué that is 2.87 cm long (448645s05) exhibits indentations and a yellowish red color. A miniature 

pinch pot (448930) no bigger than a fingertip (2.33 cm in 

diameter and 1.83 cm high) completes the inventory of 

miscellaneous vessel parts.

Other wares

In addition to these wares, there are sherds that appear to be from a far-removed archaeological context. 

In particular, there are six sherds from black-on-white 

painted vessels, white slipped and blackened sandtempered wares (Figure 4.11). They are characteristic of 

Southwestern ceramics styles. Although it is possible that 

these sherds demonstrate interaction and trade with cultures of the American Southwest, it is also possible that 

these sherds are not from Spiro at all. In his study of over 

15,000 sherds from the WPA excavations, Brown (1971b, 

1996) does not record a single sherd of Southwestern construction or decoration. Because of the loss of provenience 

for this material as it was passed from antiquities dealer 

to collector, it is possible that some artifacts were reputed 

to have come from Spiro, when, in fact, they did not. All 

FIGURE 4.11. Non-­Caddoan Southwestern sand- and grit-tempered sherds with black-on-white design (423151).
number 49 • 39

of the Southwestern sherds were from the collection made 

by Harry Trowbridge, and he did not receive these sherds 

until six years after the commercial artifact mining ceased. 

The black-on-white sherds remain enigmatic.

One polychrome sherd from a bowl rim is present. Its 

source is unknown. The colors are red, orange, and black. 

This thinned rim has a flat lip and is inverted. The sherd 

is only about 5 cm wide, and relatively little of the design 

is visible. The decoration consists of a red rectilinear design outlined in black against an orange field. The color 

of the sherd interior is light red, and the paste is gray. This 

sherd is of the same lot as the black-on-white material 

(423151s09). Cultural affiliation for this piece is unknown.

In addition, from the same lot (423151s10) there is 

a piece of glazed earthenware. The glaze is on the inner 

surface and along the rim on the outer surface. Again, the 

provenience of this sherd is questionable.

The final group recorded as unclassified consists of 

five sherds, two from Meyer’s collection (448644s03, a 

base sherd, and 448645s05, an appliqué) and three from 

Trowbridge’s (423151s08). The appliqué piece has sand 

temper without grog. It is globular in shape and has one 

deep, one shallow, and two irregular indentations. The 

exterior surface and paste are yellowish red; the interior 

surface is very dark gray. The back or bottom appears 

broken, as if it had been attached to something, hence the 

designation as an appliqué. The base sherd is black on the 

interior surface and in the core and very dark brown on 

the exterior surface. The surface has been burnished, and 

the paste is tempered with a mixture that includes grog, 

grit, and possibly bone. The three unclassified sherds from 

Trowbridge’s collection include two rims and one body 

sherd of a smoothed, gray, sandy ware tempered with very 

fine grog. These two rims are everted. The three sherds are 

not typical of Mississippian ceramics from the region.

SHELL CUPS

Shell vessels make up the bulk of the Spiro collection 

(>130 kg). A minimum of 330 shells made up of over 915 

fragments is present. Whole vessels had been given separate 

catalog numbers by the NMNH, whereas individual fragments were usually grouped into lots (e.g., Plates 1–11).

Joan S. Gardner examined shells in the Spiro collection in the mid-1970s. She performed necessary conservation measures and made a considerable effort to match 

similar shell designs and refit shell fragments. This was done 

partially in the context of the shell iconography study performed by Phillips and Brown (1978, 1984). Even after the 

original tracings of shells were made for the Phillips and 

Brown work, Gardner traced shell engravings at the Smithsonian and then forwarded those to Phillips, who was able 

to refit a considerable number of such designs. Gardner refitted many shells together and researched motifs represented.

Phillips and Brown (1978, 1984) discuss many of these 

shells in their work on the shell engravings and iconography. In some cases the various designs on the shells can be 

linked to designs on other media, such as pottery and copper (Brown and Rogers, 1989). Because the shell component of the Spiro collection provides such a rich and varied 

corpus of iconography, it has also been the best studied.

For the present study, shell fragments were grouped 

for analysis using several different criteria. If style could 

be easily determined, style was used; if style was uncertain but subject matter was specified, then subject matter 

was used (e.g., feet or feathers). If subject matter was not 

distinguishable, shell portion present was used (e.g., distal 

tips, apices). This applies especially to 448880, a lot of 

fragments containing 178 fragments that were combined 

into 44 different groups for analysis.

Condition and Conservation

Condition of shells as discovered by Joan Gardner is 

noted on her record cards. In many cases shells had yellowed because of the breakdown of old consolidants or 

conservatives. She removed excess polyvinyl acetate (PVA) 

with acetone that lightened the shells significantly, so that 

very few are found today that have yellowed.

The shells from the Trowbridge collection are in 

poorer condition than those from the Meyer collection. 

They are whiter, chalkier, and lighter in weight overall. 

(Refer to the section on columella pendants in chapter 7 

for a brief discussion of possible causes for differences between the Meyer and Trowbridge collections.)

The unengraved shells in the collection had not been 

given the attention that the engraved shells received. Some 

of these were never treated, yet others have thick coats 

of a preservative that has yellowed (especially 448883). 

Those that have never been treated are chalky, flaking, and 

fragile. The best-preserved interior residues are found on 

unengraved shells. In many cases this interior residue is 

thick and powdery. It is likely that decreased handling of 

unengraved shells has helped to preserve this residue.

Raw Material

The prevalent type of shell used is that of the sinistrally whorled whelk, Busycon sinistrum (catalog 
4 0 • s m ithsonian cont r i bu tions to anth r o p o l o g y

notations use the nomenclature B. contrarium Conrad 

1840 or B. perversum Linné 1758). See Figure 4.12. The 

taxonomy of the genus Busycon has been reexamined for 

archaeological purposes (Pendergast, 1989:105) on the 

basis of a revised taxonomy developed by malacologists 

(Turgeon et al., 1988). The name Busycon pulleyi Hollister 1958 now subsumes the classifications B. perversum

Linné, B. perversum pulleyi Hollister 1958, and Fulgur 

perversa. This group includes the prickly whelk found 

in the Gulf of Mexico from just east of the Mississippi 

Delta to the Yucatan. The name Busycon sinistrum Hollister 1958 now refers to the lightning whelk, previously 

called Busycon contrarium Conrad 1840. This mollusk 

ranges from New Jersey to the Gulf of Mexico. In the 

Gulf of Mexico, it blends with B. pulleyi. The lightning 

whelk ranges in length from 10 to 40 cm and is the shell 

primarily used for the Spiro shell engravings. It appears 

that the left-handed whorl is the typical pattern for such 

whelks.

Several pieces of Pleuroploca gigantea (conch) are 

present (Figure 4.13). Cassis madagascarensis shells were 

utilized especially for gorgets, for which they were cut, the 

ends smoothed, and the edges incised with small, hatched 

lines. Shells other than Busycon are rarely engraved, although there are fragments of Pleuroploca in the collection that have been engraved (423288).

Residues

Basketry impressions are frequently visible on the 

outer surfaces of the shells (n = 28). In most cases the 

residue is located on the body of the piece, that is, on 

the underside when the shell is held as a vessel (Figure 

4.14).This location indicates that shells were probably 

placed in the mound with the cup opening up. In one case 

the opposite is true; 448860 exhibits textile-based residue 

along the edges, as though the vessel were seated in a thick 

pile of fabric, with the shell’s design showing.

On the interior surface of some of these shells are residues that appear to have resulted from evaporating fluids. 

The result is a series of rings on the inside. Usually, the 

residue found in these shells resembles a silty sediment and 

is light brown or yellowish brown (Figure 4.15). In other 

cases darker brown stains are visible on both inner and 

sometimes outer surfaces. These stains appear to be the 

result of a natural taphonomic process operating on the 

shell. There is also a very different residue that is distinctly 

yellow in color. It usually stains the inner surface and is 

not found on the outer surface. Where thin, it resembles 

a dull stain; where thicker, it appears grainy and in some 

FIGURE 4.12. Busycon or whelk shell, outer surface (542538).

FIGURE 4.13. Engraved Pleuroploca or conch shell (423288).
number 49 • 41

areas resinous. A different powdery brown residue occurs 

on some unengraved shells.

Cup 423269 is a Braden C style vessel with red grainy 

or crystalline residue on the inner surface. The surface is 

stained as though a fluid evaporated. This could be a culturally relevant residue.

Manufacture

Phillips and Brown (1978) describe in depth the manufacture of the shell containers. In making a shell cup, the 

columella and a portion of the outer wall are removed 

(Figure 4.16). Usually, the right side of the shell (when 

viewed from the outer side with the apex positioned at the 

top) is left unworked. The shoulder is sometimes cut away 

at the opening. Other times the shoulder is left intact and 

then cut to remove the columella. This occurs along the 

body wall approximately 1 cm from the shoulder.

The surface is usually ground smooth. Most Busycon

have some form of ridge or knobs occurring at the shoulder. Knobs are usually removed, although in rare cases, 

these have been modified as a part of the decoration. In 

one case these knobs were incorporated into the design. FIGURE 4.14. Unengraved shell cups with exterior basket impressions (423232s02 and 423232s04).

FIGURE 4.15. Residue on interior shell surface (423239).

FIGURE 4.16. Well-preserved cup showing form of finished artifact 

(542538).
4 2 • s m ithsonian cont r i bu tions to anth r o p o l o g y

Human faces were engraved around the knobs such that 

the knobs became the noses for the faces. In some cases, 

toolmarks from grinding the surface can still be seen. For 

cups, the inner surface is never decorated; for gorgets the 

inner surface is often decorated.

Engraving or incising appears to have been done using 

a sharp tool, probably lithic, given the V-shaped profile of 

the engraved lines. Shell is a hard and brittle material and, 

unless fresh, is difficult to work. Many of the incised lines 

are typified by false starts and overcutting, typical results 

of working rounded surfaces using chipped-stone cutting 

tools (Figure 4.17). In most cases the designs are incised; 

however, in a few cases the designs have excised elements. 

It appears that a dark pigment was rubbed into the incised 

lines in order to make the design stand out.

Holes are often drilled into the distal and/or apical 

portions. These are consistently drilled from the outside 

through to the inside. On the apex, the hole is usually located in the center of the opening that has been cut to create the vessel. It is usually approximately 1 cm in toward 

the apex from the rim. More rarely, this hole is on the 

body wall between the shoulder and the rim. Holes drilled 

through apical and distal end range in diameter from 0.3 

to 0.7 cm. The mean is 0.47 cm, suggesting that medium 

to medium-large drills were used. The drills were probably stone because the holes are either contracting or, more 

rarely, biconical. Furthermore, shell is a hard material and 

not easy to drill. It would require a durable drill bit. It is 

possible but by no means certain that abrasives were used 

in the drilling process.

Use

These cups appear to be well used. In many cases the 

interior surface exhibits fine, long striations as though the 

inner surface had been scoured. Often, these striations 

underlie residue or sediment, testifying to the prehistoric 

origin of these damage lines. Inner surfaces are naturally 

smooth, and there seems to have been little reason to scour 

the inner surface in the context of manufacture.

On one Braden B fragment (448880s29) there is a 

curious arrangement of four tiny holes drilled around a 

larger worn hole (Figure 4.18). Perhaps these holes are the 

vestiges of an attempt to patch a cup that developed a leak. 

This arrangement implies reuse, but as of yet there is no 

way of knowing how long the use life of one of these vessels might be. They are breakable and might easily be damaged during use. Most of the shells, even nearly complete 

ones, lack the distal tip. Few unattached tips are present in 

the collection. It is possible that this type of breakage typifies use damage when a heavy vessel containing fluid was 

FIGURE 4.18. Drilled holes in shell apex perhaps indicating a repair 

(448880s29).

FIGURE 4.17. Detail of incised surfaces showing toolmarks and 

overcutting (448858).
number 49 • 43

held by the weakest part, the tapering handle. If such damage had occurred during use, it would follow that distal 

tips might be discarded elsewhere. However, the artifact 

miners could easily have overlooked distal shell fragments 

even had they been present in the Craig mound. Overall, 

the best indicator of use may be the residues remaining in 

the vessels.

Hamilton (1952) mentions that unengraved shell cups 

were reported to have held clay pigment. Such a use is intriguing and plausible. A spongy, powdery brown residue 

found on unengraved shells does appear claylike. Another 

pigment, probably glauconite, is present in the collection 

from Spiro, but none was noted on the inner surfaces of 

unengraved shells. Instead, it is found on the interior surfaces of ceramic vessels.

Taphonomy

Many shells have holes in varying sizes on one or 

more faces. Usually, these holes are accompanied by 

greater deterioration of the shell. These holes were caused 

either by intentionally punching holes in them (perhaps in 

an effort to ceremonially kill the objects) or by preferential 

deterioration of those areas that were in contact with the 

ground surface on which the shells rested (Figure 4.12). 

If the shells were simply broken, then there seems to be 

no reason why these areas would have incurred greater 

deterioration in areas adjacent to the holes. Most appear 

worn through, not punched through. If this is the case, 

the location of holes might be indicative of the positions 

and orientations that the shells may have assumed in the 

mound, i.e., resting on the rounded surface. This wear 

pattern corroborates information from basketry impressions that imply the shells sat with the openings facing up. 

Worm action is also indicated.

Design Styles

Each engraved shell was given the style designation 

assigned by Phillips and Brown (1978, 1984). There are 

six possible styles based on two major schools with three 

phases in each. The primary division is between the Braden 

and Craig schools. These styles are distinguished according to the way in which the space available on the shell 

surface is used by the artist, the iconographic elements, 

and workmanship. Several items in the NMNH collection 

are not pictured in Phillips and Brown, and these were assigned to styles where possible (Table 4.4).

Braden style engraving differs from Craig in the execution of the incising. The overall appearance of Braden 

A and B style engravings is one of greater control. There 

is little overcutting where lines that were meant to stop 

at a given boundary cross the boundary limit. Craig style 

engraving is replete with this characteristic of execution. 

With Braden style engraving, areas to be filled or hatched 

were incised first, and then the outlines were done. The 

best way to achieve such control, based on my experiments with shell engraving, is to outline the area to be 

filled with a partially carved line. This line clearly marks 

a delimiter and provides a natural stop for a tool meeting 

the incision from another direction. Then, the interior of 

the design element can be incised. Finally, the outline areas 

are finished and deepened, thereby eradicating many small 

overcuts made when the interior portions were carved up 

to the outline. With Braden style engraving, areas to be 

filled or hatched do appear to have been completed first, 

and then the outlines were done. With Craig engraving, 

lines tend to be shallower and narrower, and there is much 

less excising. Excising is common with Braden style engraving, especially with the earliest, Braden A.

Apparently, the Braden and Craig styles are more or 

less contemporaneous. Within each school the style of execution changes over time. Braden A and Craig A styles 

contain the most detail. Designs are intricate and often very 

finely done. Human figures are common among the motifs. During Braden B and Craig B, designs become bolder 

and less detailed. Animal figures abound. Braden B is devoid of full-bodied humans. Craig B offers a plethora of 

stylized animals, fantastic figures, and composite animal/

human creatures. During Braden C and Craig C the styles 

become the simplest. Highly stylized patterns, often poorly 

executed, are frequent. Braden C examples appear crude 

compared to Braden A. Craig C designs are bold, large, and 

simple. They adhere closely to specific themes. Craig C is 

usually sketchy, and the execution shows much overcutting 

and tool slippage. However, when a desired line was actually cut, it was deepened and widened to the point where 

the slippage seems inconsequential or hardly noticeable.

There is variability in the execution of incising shells 

that extends beyond style boundaries. Sometimes there is 

variability on a single vessel, with some lines being deep 

and confident and others being sketchy.

The cups present in the NMNH collection are subdivided into the groups shown in Table 4.3. Maximum size 

values are included to give the upper size limit. The maximum sizes for each group have been averaged to produce 

an average upper limit on size. Maximum values are given 

in order to emphasize just how large these artifacts are.

The total minimum number of individuals (MNI) of 

330 underestimates the total number of separate shell 
4 4 • s m ithsonian cont r i bu tions to anth r o p o l o g y

vessels represented. Some analytical units consist of shell 

fragments having similar designs. Each of these is counted 

simply as one vessel in the Table 4.3. Of the total MNI, 80 

are unengraved, placing the estimate of engraved shells at 

220. It is possible that there may still be matches among 

the shell fragments present. With the aid of Phillips and 

Brown (1978, 1984) a concerted effort was made to 

match fragments; however, it is possible that refits were 

overlooked.

Braden A

Thirty-eight entries fall under Braden A. There are 

many loose fragments in this designation. Meticulous execution of design and greater detail typify Braden A shells. 

Usually, shell designs in Braden A are not oriented according to the axis or surface area presented by a shell. Instead, 

motifs may be scattered at random across the surface. 

The shell apex is not treated as a separate plane. Rather, 

the design spills over onto the apex (Phillips and Brown, 

1984:ix–x.) Humans are shown in naturalistic proportions. Often, the body is decorated with closely spaced 

hatching. Accessories are plentiful and highly detailed. 

Beads are usually rendered as spherical. Bilobed arrow 

headdresses are common.

Some of the more frequent themes include intertwined 

snakes, a motif referred to as “amphisbaena” by Phillips 

and Brown (1978) (Figure 4.19). Some snakes are shown 

from above so that only the dorsal markings show, but 

most are viewed from the side and exhibit two distinct 

bands of design, representing the dorsal markings and underbelly of the snake. In one case the design spills over 

onto the columella stump. Using the stump as part of the 

design field is extremely rare and occurs only with the 

Braden A intertwined snake theme cups (448838).

TABLE 4.3. Characteristics of shell cups in the NMNH collection.

 Maximum Maximum Maximum

Fragment Shell Weight length width height b

Style count MNI a (g) (cm) (cm) (cm)

Braden A 115 38 8,667.2 30.0 18.5 11.5

Braden B 63 35 14,182.7 35.2 20.2 13.0

Braden C 30 20 9,421.2 33.2 22.3 16.2

Craig A 90 29 6,126.3 33.4 18.4 12.8

Craig B 155 63 20,268.4 34.5 21.0 15.0

Craig C 57 41 22,449.2 34.9 21.0 14.3

Unengraved 230 80 46,072.1 31.3 20.0 12.8

Unclassified 121 18 4,668.4 24.5 19.8 11.8

Various 46 6 2,543.1 16.0 10.7 -

Total count or mean value 907 330 134,398.6 30.3 19.1 13.4

a MNI, minimum number of individuals.

b A dash (-) indicates data nonexistent or not available.

FIGURE 4.19. Braden A style entwined snake motif (448791).
number 49 • 45

There are also motifs that are similar to pottery styles, 

primarily Spiro Engraved (Figure 4.20). On these shells 

the entire surface is filled with spirals and curvilinear patterns. On another variety with geometric motifs, rayed 

concentric barred ovals and rectilinear designs referred to 

as Davis rectangles are present and are usually combined 

on the same shell. Sometimes these are bordered by a sawtooth pattern that runs along the rims.

Overall, the impression is of considerable detail and 

great skill in incising. The time spent in carving individual 

shells must have been considerable. Careful incising has 

created smooth curves, finely rendered circles, and deep 

excision of some design elements.

One of the more unusual motifs (448865) is a mortuary figure identified by his long, spindly, knobby, skeletal legs. The mouth is shrunken in death. Included in 

this figure is the only rendition of human genitalia seen 

on humans depicted on shells (Phillips and Brown, 1978: 

pl. 21). Again, the detail on this cadaverous form is finely 

rendered.

Braden B

These designs consist primarily of animal themes and 

include some human heads. No full human figures are present. There are 33 separately analyzed examples. Common 

iconographic motifs include broken maces, arrows, and 

bones. Disembodied human heads are frequent. Snakes 

and intertwined snakes are still present, but the style is 

less controlled and more variable (Figure 4.21). Birds and 

composite animals are also present. Some designs adhere 

to a horizontal layout. In addition, the apex begins to be 

treated as a separate plane and is incorporated into the 

overall design accordingly.

Cup 423257 shows two birds, one facing up, the other 

down (Figure 4.22). They have long beaks, and the feet are 

well detailed. A serpentine border design shows tails crossing at the distal tip. This is an example of orientation using 

so-called “court card” symmetry after the type of symmetry found on playing cards (Phillips and Brown, 1978: pl. 

89). This layout is found also in Craig B designs.

Another interesting shell combines a number of motifs. Cup 448785 (referenced in Phillips and Brown, 1978: 

pl. 62, as 488880-B) exhibits human heads with forked 

and streaming eyes, bilobed arrows, ogees with streamers, maces, perforated pulley earspools, facial markings, FIGURE 4.20. Braden A style cup showing spiral designs similar to 

Spiro Engraved ceramic styles (448827).

FIGURE 4.21. Braden B snake motif (423249).
4 6 • s m ithsonian cont r i bu tions to anth r o p o l o g y

beaded forelocks, and a headdress. One mace is tied with 

a raccoon binding, and another has a tassel hanging from 

one of the protuberances on the top of its crown (Figure 

4.23). Perhaps this is what these protuberances were designed for. Fiber or something adheres to the inner apical 

surface, and there are stains from fluid evaporation on the 

inner surface, but these have been scoured. At any rate, the 

motifs in Braden B designs are oriented toward weaponry 

and warfare.

Unfinished shells found their way into the deposit as 

well. For example, 423263 is a relatively small Braden B 

cup that is unfinished. The outer shell surface exhibits many 

striations. A snake figure is visible from only one body arc.

Braden C

These are crude, simple patterns splayed out over the 

shell surfaces. Execution is typically very poor with considerable tool slippage, overcutting, and jerky rendition of 

curves. The number of examples is less common. There 

are 20 separate data entries represented.

One Braden C cup (423259) has copper residue on the 

inner surface along the right edge. This cup had been resting on copper, a rarity among these shells. Instead, most 

seem to have been placed on basketry, away from copper, 

judging by the paucity of copper residue or staining on 

engraved shells.

Serpent designs are common, but the rendering is 

quite different from those done in Braden A style. Cup 

448809 shows the popular entwined snake theme, but the 

craftsmanship is sketchy and simple (Figure 4.24). There 

is one unfinished snake cup (448793).

Scenes suggesting warfare continue. Cup 448809 is 

sketchily executed and almost appears unfinished. In the 

design a face hangs from a mace and has one eye outside 

on its forehead. Raccoon bindings are present on another 

mace. These are combined with snakes that are crosshatched and intertwined. Feathers hang from both the 

FIGURE 4.22. Braden B bird motif with court card symmetry 

(423257).

FIGURE 4.23. Mace, ogee with streamers, human head, and bilobed 

arrows on two sides of Braden B style shell (448785).

FIGURE 4.24. Snake and warfare motifs in Braden C style (448809).
number 49 • 47

maces and the head. Another cup in which a snake attacks 

a lizard (448830) may be metaphorical for warfare.

Scenes of death are present as well. Cup 448864 is 

unusual because it depicts a skull with hair. The execution is poor, with considerable overcutting and slippage. 

This shell exhibits the characteristic deep yellowish brown 

discoloration on the inner surface, as though some fluid 

sat here and altered the shell (Phillips and Brown, 1978: 

pl. 103).

One cup that is not featured in Phillips and Brown 

(1978) is 423252 from the Trowbridge collection. It may 

depict an armadillo and, if so, is the only such depiction 

known. The long-snouted animal appears alongside a bird 

in flight and displays four vertical lines on the body. These 

lines could easily represent the segmentation characteristic 

of armadillo markings. The four feet are shown as flagshaped “hooves.” Armadillos would not be unexpected in 

eastern Oklahoma.

Geometric patterns are not uncommon (Figure 

4.25a,b). Spiral patterns like those found on the exquisitely carved Braden A shells are also present, but again, 

they are more simply rendered, with shallower incising.

Craig A

Craig A is the least numerous among the Craig style 

shells. Twenty-nine analytical units are present (cups or 

small lots of similar shell). Craig A style cups exhibit a 

fair amount of detail. Craig designs utilize the shape of 

the shell as a field for the artwork. Human figures are rendered naturalistically.

In one instance the shell is not merely incised, it is 

carved in low relief. This harkens back to the excision 

present with some Braden A forms. Cup 423296 features 

horizontal registers of human heads. The surface is well 

polished and there are no whittle marks. Raised carved 

beading (convexo-cylindrical beads laid end to end) separate registers of right-facing heads. This includes an apex 

(423296) and (423297) distal fragment (Figure 4.26). The 

apex has shallower relief, and the heads are frontal view, 

rather than profile. Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 159) tentatively place them together, and the Trowbridge numbers 

are sequential. There are so few low-relief carvings that 

it would not be unlikely that they match. (For the present study, a fragment numbered 448846 was added to this 

context.) The heads so modeled present one of the rare 

representations of unperforated earspools among the depictions of people on the shell cups.

Other motifs include raccoon bindings, petaloid border treatments that frame portrait heads, crosses, and avian 

themes. The birdman theme is prevalent. For example, 

448825 is a shell with a very ornate and complicated design 

showing a figure wearing three very long vertically hanging plumes (Figure 4.27). One knee is raised to the figure’s 

right in dancing, and the arms swing to the figure’s left. The 

character is quite animated. The man wears an apron that 

has a square plate in the center. Lines extending out from 

the plate could be hair decorated with convexo-cylindrical 

FIGURE 4.25. Spiral patterns executed in Braden C style: a, 448816; b, 423250.

a b
4 8 • s m ithsonian cont r i bu tions to anth r o p o l o g y

beads. The part-human face has a beak. The person wears 

a beaded forelock, feather plumes, columella pendant inscribed with apical banding, apron or scalp plaque below 

the waist, perforated pulley earspool, and two rolls about 

the waist. There is an orange organic residue inside the vessel. Manufacture is complex as well in that there is both 

incision and excision. Joan S. Gardner (unpublished notes, 

1970–1971, National Museum of Natural History, Department of Anthropology conservation files) observed that the 

hand is similar to that of the mortuary figure on cup 448865.

One unusual cup is 448871s01. The subject matter 

here is a bison that has been shot (Figure 4.28). This design is one of the few that refer directly to animals of the 

Great Plains. Another (448874s03) also depicts a bison; 

however, this time the head is shown in frontal view.

Craig B

The Craig school offers up a remarkable bestiary. More 

of the shells (n = 63) fit into Craig B than into any other 

style. Common themes include hands and hand-in-eye motifs arranged in horizontal registers, birdmen that occupy the 

FIGURE 4.26. Distal fragment of Craig A style cup excised in low 

relief with incised decoration (423297). Depicts human heads arranged in horizontal registers.

FIGURE 4.27. Craig A style carving showing birdman theme 

(448825). Note beaded apron, forelock, avian characteristics, and 

leg raised in movement.

FIGURE 4.28. Fragment of Craig A style cup (448871s01) depicting 

a bison flank (in lower section) shot with an arrow.
number 49 • 49

full plane, and composite animals having serpentine, avian, 

arachnid, and feline characteristics (Figures 4.29, 4.30). Interesting things are done with symmetry, including the arrangement of four serpent-birds into a swastika formation. 

Raccoons achieve prominence and several fabulous animals 

have raccoon eyes. Raccoon bindings are shown on objects 

and on humans, and these are wrapped thrice around the 

object to which they are bound. Certain other characteristics exclusive or nearly exclusive to Craig B include the 

depiction of a double hair bun on the top of the head, a bent 

feather headdress, and two beads on the forelock. Spiders 

are present in Craig B but do not appear in the Braden style 

of any phase. Bird representations abound (Figure 4.31). 

Fish and other fabulous composite animals appear. Other 

motifs include the pear-shaped, forked eye (in which one 

fork is truncated) and cross-in-circle (Figure 4.32).

As in the Braden school, figures are simpler in Craig B 

than in Craig A. Figures such as those shown in Figure 4.33 

are decorated with bead bracelets and anklets; however, 

the beads are rendered as grids. In manufacturing, sometimes the apex was cut back so that the vessel could lie flat 

when turned upside down. Designs were usually oriented 

vertically on the vessel.

Craig C

Craig C is well represented with at least 40 examples. Workmanship is bold and designs are simplified and 

stylized. Throughout the Craig school humans become 

quite stylized. By the time of Craig C, humans have lost 

FIGURE 4.29. Craig B style cup showing fabulous animal with complex forked-eye motif (448821). The animal appears to be drinking 

from a shell cup.

FIGURE 4.30. Fabulous beast with serpentine, avian, and raccoon 

features (423236).

FIGURE 4.31. Craig B cup depicting avian characteristics (448787).
5 0 • s m ithsonian cont r i bu tions to anth r o p o l o g y

the pelvic region entirely and legs extend directly from a 

dropped belted waist.

Prevalent themes of this style include the snake and 

talon motif and the “men facing a forked pole” or “busk” 

theme. There are multiple examples of very similar designs 

in each of these categories. The workmanship and style 

represented in the talon and snake motifs are so similar 

that it seems likely that the shells were produced by the 

same craftsperson. The snake and talon motif shows one 

snake on the apex and another on the body, the apical 

snake usually faces right while the lower one faces left 

(Figure 4.34). Three eagle or hawk talons are fit between 

the two snakes, and one talon is shown on the distal portion of the shell, below the lower snake. There are six 

shells with this design.

The forked pole theme is another common one (Figure 4.35). Here two men face one another, separated by a 

forked pole (or sometimes a serpent pole). They usually 

FIGURE 4.33. Craig B cup showing man and snake themes 

(448858).

FIGURE 4.32. Craig B petaloid sun icons free floating across the 

field (423287).

FIGURE 4.34. Craig C style cup at two different angles showing 

snake and talon motif (448813).
number 49 • 51

have large woodpecker heads extending from the front of 

their belts. There are 11 shells having designs that follow 

this theme. Similar designs depict a man facing a serpent 

staff. Five shells fall into this group.

There is remarkable consistency in the designs falling 

into the major themes in Craig C. Birdmen and hand-ineye motifs reoccur as in Craig B, but the designs become 

simpler and bolder. Barred ovals are common.

Overall, the styles change from being highly involved 

and painstakingly executed to less carefully done and simpler. Although most of the materials in the Smithsonian’s 

collection were reported in Phillips and Brown (1978, 

1984), several were not. These fall into all of the major 

styles and are presented in Table 4.4. They include common themes such as the snake and talon motif shown in 

cup 423253 (Figure 4.36).

Unengraved Shells

The Trowbridge collection contains 31 shells 

cataloged as number 423228. These shells were not 

FIGURE 4.35. Craig C cup depicting two men facing a pole 

(423243).

TABLE 4.4. Engraved shell fragments in the NMNH collection not reported in Phillips and Brown (1978, 1984).

Catalog

number Fragment type Style Motifs / notes

378246 Gorget Type 9 Hatching

378262 Gorget Type 1 Sun disc; possible refit with catalog number 448741

423238 Damaged cup Craig C Birdman holding serpent staff; shown in Hamilton (1952: pl. 92B)

423252 Cup, distal portion Braden C Large bird in flight with armadillo-like animal; assigned Braden C because of poor 

missing execution and lack of detail

423253 Apex and body Craig C Rectangles, chevrons, woodpecker heads; complete except for large hole in body; 

snake and talon theme; may fit center in Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 333C)

423277 Body Braden B Long bones 

423291 Distal Braden B Snake markings vessel

423294 Gorget Type 5 Plain with drilled holes

423343 Gorget Irregular Bone gorget with concentric circles and scalloped line

448740 Gorget Type 1 Sun circle (aka Moundville circle)

448743 Gorget Mask Apical fragment that uses the shell apex as the nose for the otherwise incised 

facial feature

448744 Gorget Unclassified Fenestrated; possible cross-in-circle design

448757 Gorget Type 2 Unclear decoration on inner surface

448822 Cup Craig C Paired figures facing a pole; similar to Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 317)

448824 Cup Craig C Perhaps two figures with a pole; woodpecker head at waist

448839 2 distal Craig C Man, mace, bird head belt

448840 Apical Craig B Pear-shaped motif floats about the apex; the rest is shown in Phillips and Brown 

(1984: pl. 267)

448843 Left distal Braden A Concentric semicircles, possible Davis rectangle; Hamilton (1952: pl. 137A)

448853 3 various Craig B Hands with eyes

448858s03 Apical body Craig C Bird man

448858s11 Fragments Craig A, B Snake man

448860 Shoulder and apex Braden A Bilobed arrow, human head, forked eye; Phillips and Brown (1978: pl. 12) show 

body fragment, but large piece of shell has been added through refitting

(continued)
5 2 • s m ithsonian cont r i bu tions to anth r o p o l o g y

specifically tagged with subnumbers because they can all be 

cross-linked by using their Trowbridge number.1 Meyer’s 

collections also contained a large number of unengraved 

shells. These are grouped into lots numbered 448883 and 

448728. The unengraved vessels show that while shell cups 

were often engraved, this was by no means standard.

WOODEN VESSELS

Two fragments from wooden effigy bowls are present 

(Figures 4.37, 4.38). One represents a handle on which an 

animal effigy, in this case a feline, stands (448893). This 

handle was carved from one solid piece of cedar, as pictured 

in Hamilton (1952: fig. 29B). Toolmarks are very vague. 

The face is disproportionately large compared to the body. 

Four legs are realistically modeled with paws exhibiting 

four toes. A long tail is connected to the flat semielliptical 

handle. The face is turned slightly toward the left, and the 

mouth has been carved out. Mouth and snout are damaged. 

Size is 12.4 cm long, 9.84 cm wide, and 12.8 cm high. Large 

TABLE 4.4. Continued

Catalog

number Fragment type Style Motifs / notes

448866s01 6 various Braden Snakes, twined snakes

448867s02 Apical fragment Craig A May match Phillips and Brown (1984: plate 182); woodpeckers

448869s01,02 6 various Craig Feathers and forelocks; barred oval

448871s02 1 distal (448866) Braden B Broken arrow

448871s03 Apical Braden A Arrowheads, arrow fletching

448876s02 16 various Braden A One linked to Phillips and Brown (1978: pl. 37a), others are not; rayed concentric 

barred ovals

448876s04 10 various Braden A Spiro engraved ceramic design

448877s06 11 various Braden A Davis rectangle and barred ovals

488880s05 1 distal, 1 apical Craig A Eagle, bead grid

448880s08 9 various Braden A Intertwined snake theme, concentric dotted circles; 4 found in Phillips and Brown 

(1978, 1984), 5 not

448880s13 3 distal Braden B Bi-triangular arrows

448880s14 Apex and body Craig B Barred ovals, snake

448880s16 Body Craig C Birdman

448880s17 Body Craig C Forked pole theme

448880s26 Body Craig A One small fragment

448880s29 1 body Braden A or B Amphisbaena 

448880s34 39 various Unclassified Various (both schools) 

448880s38 9 various Unclassified Exfoliated surfaces

448880s40 1 body Unclassified Bird or snake form

448880s42 10 various Unclassified Human form, sash, snaky bits

448880s43 7 various Unclassified Poor condition, uninterpretable

448880s44 2 worked scales Unclassified Worked alligator gar scales

448881 3 fragments Unclassified Brickwork pattern, hemicircle, arrow point

448882 Shoulder Braden A Amphisbaena

515786 1 body Craig Wings

FIGURE 4.36. Apical fragment of Craig C snake and talon cup 

(423253).
number 49 • 53

eye spots have been excised for inlays. The bowl sides have 

concentric rings incised below the handle.

The second fragment is that of a bird head effigy figure perched on the rim of the bowl (448894). The bird 

faces inward. It has disproportionately large shell disk 

eyes. Rectangular shell insets were glued along the crest 

of the head and down onto the beak. Four concentric 

rings are incised around the outside of the bowl. There is 

a trace of basketry matting on the crest (the fiber is 0.4 cm 

wide). Residue remains in the locations where shell insets 

are missing; perhaps this is aboriginal glue. Large eyes are 

made of inset concave shell discs (5.50 cm diameter average). The face is narrow at 2.5 cm and along the width 

of the head is a crest formed by three insets of shell. The 

posterior inset (5.25 cm long) is missing. The middle is 

4.9 cm and has the matting impression on it. The anterior 

inset is 2.8 cm long. The beak is 4 cm long and also had 

insets, but those are missing. The bird faces out from the 

bowl. This entire vessel from which the piece was broken 

would have been huge judging by the shallowness of the 

arc. There are a total of seven shell insets. The piece is also 

pictured in Hamilton (1952: fig. 29A).

STONE BOWLS

There are two stone vessels in the collection (Figures 

4.39, 4.40). Both appear to be marble (or other calcareous stone) and are badly fragmented but have been refitted. 

The manufacturing technique is similar for both. An effigy 

figure is shown peering out from the rim on both bowls. 

On the opposite side is a tail-like handle. Vessel 423149 

has three incised lines around a raised collared rim (similar 

to the wooden vessels). These lines dip down to become 

concentric half circles around the human effigy and the 

handle. The human head is only 3.00 cm wide and 7.05 cm 

high. It rises 4 cm above the rim. Features are modeled in 

relief, but they are very faint because of the surface erosion. 

In spots, the original surface is visible, and where so, it is 

highly polished. Ears and hair bun or ponytail are modeled 

on the sides and back of the head. Facial features include 

a low nose, what may have been an open mouth, and faint 

eyes. The neck protrudes from the side of the bowl like a 

figurehead on a ship. The vessel consists of 13 fragments 

refitted and held with epoxy. Dimensions are 21.2 cm long 

× 19.0 cm wide × 12.5 cm high. Weight is 1,170.90 g.

The other bowl (423150) weighs 870.40 g, is 21.2 

cm long, 18.8 cm wide, and 11.4 cm high. Five concentric 

rings are incised horizontally around the raised collared 

rim. They also dip down to become semicircles around the 

FIGURE 4.38. Wood bird head effigy perched on bowl rim (448894).

FIGURE 4.37. Wood animal effigy bowl handle (448893).
5 4 • s m ithsonian cont r i bu tions to anth r o p o l o g y

effigy snake head. Toolmarks are obliterated by deterioration. A section of wall has fallen out because of a weakened 

epoxy join. The effigy snake head is 2.65 cm wide, 6.36 cm 

high, and 5.35 cm deep. It is similar enough in design, execution, and raw material to have been made by the same 

artist that produced 423149. In each case the handles are 

flat shelves extruding out from the rim but not elevated 

above the rim. The incising simply follows the contours of 

the handle, without dipping down below the handle. This 

bowl consists of 35 fragments refitted and held with epoxy.

OTHER CONTAINERS

Other containers include baskets, bags, sacks, or 

pouches. Basketry, because it resembles textiles in manufacture, is treated in the next chapter. Other bags or containers could be made from rawhide, leather, or textiles. 

Chapter 8 includes a discussion of leather. Brown (1996) 

includes cedar pole litters as containers. Although technically these are containers, in this publication they are 

included along with other special ceremonial objects and 

discussed in chapter 8.

NOTE

1. A master list of equivalent numbers can be found in Appendix A.

FIGURE 4.39. Limestone bowl with human effigy adornment 

(423149).

FIGURE 4.40. Limestone bowl with snake head adornment 

(423150).
The textiles from Spiro are among some of the best preserved examples 

of native North American textiles outside the arid Southwest. Included 

are examples of woven fabrics, plaited strips, and cordage. There are 

also examples of matting and basketry. All of these types are grouped 

here in a chapter predicated on grouping artifacts of similar manufacture and 

raw material usage rather than on function per se. Uses for the textiles include 

bindings or wrappings, clothing, coverings, and containers. Most of the textiles 

derive from the Trowbridge collection. Trowbridge attempted to salvage the 

material and described his acquisition thus (Trowbridge, 1938:52):

On the whole, the material is in a remarkable state of preservation. 

The first specimens reached me about three weeks after they had been 

excavated, and were quite damp. It is thought this dampness is a feature of recent years only, pits having been sunk by relic hunters and 

letting surface water into the central portion of the mound.

Most of the fabrics appeared to have been folded when placed in 

the mound, but responded, in the case of the larger pieces, to careful 

manipulation. . . . These were pinned to fibre board and underwent 

a stretching process of weeks, the pins being moved outward a trifle 

each day. At the same time, quantities of lime, probably from shell, 

and perhaps from soft shell ornaments originally decorating the garments, were removed bit by bit.

Some of the materials have been examined or analyzed at various times, 

usually for identifying fibers used in their construction. Trowbridge (1938) was 

the first to publish on these textiles when he wrote up a report based on analysis 

performed at the National Bureau of Standards on samples that he had sent to 

the Smithsonian in 1937. In 1941, A. C. Whitford at the American Museum of 

Natural History reported on the identity of vegetable fibers that he examined 

(Whitford, 1941:15), and his designations have been retained in the NMNH

catalog records. Hamilton (1952: pls. 140–152) includes plates of several of 

Trowbridge’s textiles, including most of the large pieces. Willoughby (1952) also 

wrote about the textiles, in a companion piece to Hamilton’s study of the artifacts. Burnett (1945) discussed Spiro textiles primarily from the collection of the 

5 Fiber Artifacts

April K. Sievert
5 6 • s m ithsonian cont r i bu tions to anth r o p o l o g y

Museum of the American Indian, Heye Foundation, now 

in the collections of the National Museum of the American 

Indian. Baerreis (1947) produced a short article on the basketry. Brown (1976) reported on textiles in his report on 

the materials from the WPA excavation. King and Gardner 

(1981) produced an article reviewing the techniques and 

materials used in producing the textiles in the NMNH. In 

1978, Hoffman produced a Master’s thesis on the subject 

of the conservation of Spiro textiles. The most in-depth 

analysis was that of Kuttruff (1988), who included Spiro 

textiles in her sample for her study of Caddoan textiles. 

Kuttruff’s work contains significant analysis of techniques, 

raw materials, and styles as well as a complete review of 

research done on textiles from Spiro. She used 37 samples 

from textiles from the Smithsonian collections. Rogers et 

al. (2002) analyzed 101 feather samples from numerous 

textile fragments to determine the bird species represented.

The analysis presented here is primarily an inventory. 

None of the reports listed above has summarized the extent of the NMNH collection or listed the contents of the 

collection by type. The collection comprises several large, 

nearly complete pieces, numerous fragments of all sizes, 

and odd lots of jumbled fibers. Many of the fragments 

may have derived from single artifacts; however, with time 

and handling, much of the association between fragments 

has now been lost. A brief discussion regarding numbering 

and cataloging is warranted to put Trowbridge’s complicated collection in perspective.

Trowbridge housed his collection of textile fragments 

and relatively complete pieces in walnut boxes (Figure 5.1) 

or under glass in walnut frames and gave them all catalog numbers. In most cases, he assigned separate numbers 

for separate items, provided they were stored as separate 

discrete objects, which applies to most of the larger textile 

fragments. Smaller fragments were stored in boxes or cases 

and were numbered by him according to the case in which 

they were stored. For example, his artifacts numbered 2719 

were all from one box. He differentiated among items by 

assigning alphabetical suffixes. Presumably, his numbers 

reflect best the original association among pieces. When 

these items were transferred to the Smithsonian, museum 

catalog numbers were assigned. These reflect Trowbridge’s 

original groupings. Trowbridge’s cases with numerous fragments were each assigned a single number. For example, all 

pieces designated 2719 by Trowbridge were given a catalog 

number of 423373. Through time, the assignment of Trowbridge’s numbers has become muddled. For example, there 

are items marked 423373 (2719-F, H, L). In this case, the 

item is a single fragment of twined cloth. Since it was known 

that Trowbridge’s numbers referred to discrete objects, 

there is no way a single fragment could be from each of 

2719-F, 2719-­H, and 2719-L; rather, it must be from only 

one of these. Because of this problem, the relationship of 

such objects to other objects labeled 2719-F, H, or L cannot 

be reconstructed. Trowbridge did, however, leave original 

photographs of the items in his collection. These include 

photographs taken of his boxes, and the objects within the 

boxes are labeled with their subletter. These photographs 

are in the Trowbridge catalog among Waldo Wedel’s correspondence in the National Anthropological Archives.

After coming to the National Museum of Natural History, most textile pieces were conserved and placed in safe 

mounts that facilitated examination. During the 1970s 

conservator Joan S. Gardner placed many of these materials between sheets of Plexiglas. All but two large pieces and 

several smaller fragments were so conserved. Fragments 

similar in style were combined within the same subnumber 

context. Subgroups were designated within catalog numbers on the basis of storage status. Some of the lots with 

large numbers of pieces were stored in Riker boxes. Because of the fragility of these materials, artifacts so housed 

were not handled for this study, and subnumbers were not 

FIGURE 5.1. The contents of one of Trowbridge’s boxes of textile 

fragments (423372).
number 49 • 57

written on the boxes. At most, the lid was removed for a 

better view. During the 1990s, conservation of the textiles 

was further upgraded with new storage boxes with glass 

lids. Materials can now be observed without handling.

Any object of interwoven or plaited fibers was designated as a textile. In many cases, a single catalog context 

will contain both textiles and other materials such as shell 

beads or copper fragments. Still, there is a limited number 

of object types, which include the following:

1. Cordage is spun or unspun fibers plaited or twisted 

into a yarn, rope, or braid.

2. Cloth is textile made from fibers spun into cordage 

and then interwoven to form a sheet. The term is used interchangeably with “fabric,” a term employed by Kuttruff 

(1988) to refer to the same sort of artifact.

3. Basketry is material made from strips of vegetable 

material, plaited, coiled, or interlaced to form a container 

or sheet. In some cases the objects were classified as mats 

if it was clear that the original piece had been flat.

4. Sample refers to bits of textiles used as samples. 

Many of these are prepared as microscope slides.

The above categories comprise the larger divisions 

among the textile groups. Note that basketry is included 

here along with other fiber constructions. The similar 

processes of manufacture link these artifacts even though 

the functions of the artifacts vary. Cordage either acted 

as the first step in the construction of woven textiles or 

was the desired product and was used for tying and holding objects and stringing beads. Cloth may have been used 

for garments, including capes or kilts, or for blankets. Basketry is used to make mats or containers into which other 

burial accessories were placed.

Textile styles are listed in Table 5.1. The count column 

refers to the number of catalog contexts for which the style 

is recorded. By multiplying the number of contexts by the 

count per context, the minimum number of fragments in 

the category is derived. Sizes of the largest members of the 

category are included as well.

RAW MATERIALS

An array of plant and animal fibers was utilized (see 

Table 5.3 on page 72 for a summary of identifications). 

Fur and feathers were spun into yarns. The predominant 

animal hair used was rabbit. In his 1977 analysis of Spiro 

textiles, Michael A. Bogan (National Museum of Natural 

History, Department of Anthropology, Smithsonian Institution, unpublished manuscript) suggested that the most 

likely species included Sylvilagus floridanus (eastern cottontail), Sylvilagus aquaticus (swamp rabbit), and Lepus 

californicus (black-tailed jackrabbit). Feathers were acquired primarily from turkeys and also from geese. Rogers 

et al. (2003) examined 101 textile samples from the collection microscopically in order to determine more specifically which species of birds are represented. Of this sample, 

which yielded 85 examples of feathers, 77.6% were turkey (Meleagris gallopavo), 17.6% were goose (Branta 

canadensis), and 4.7 were trumpeter swan (Cygnus, cf. 

buccinator) (Rogers et al., 2002:245). These authors point 

out that although raptorial birds and woodpeckers are 

present in artistic representations, their feathers do not 

appear to have been used in textile production. Vegetable 

fibers include cane and pawpaw fibers (Whitford, 1941) as 

TABLE 5.1. Styles of textiles in the National Museum of Natural History (NMNH) collection.

 Minimum Maximum Maximum

 fragment length width

Object Style Occurrences count (cm) (cm)

Cordage Braid 13 53 41 18

Yarns 17 47 17 18

 Wrapped basketry 3 7 11 4

Cloth Twined tapestry 36 76 28 33

 Spaced weft twining 24 70 61 139

 Wrapped warp twining 24 113 31 64

 Simple weave 1 1 45 148

Total 118 367
5 8 • s m ithsonian cont r i bu tions to anth r o p o l o g y

well as numerous unidentified fibers. Plant fibers include 

very few seed hairs (Kuttruff, 1988).

CORDAGE

For cordage, style was assigned on the basis of ply 

and twist direction. Therefore, the two major classifications of cordage were Z-twist and S-twist. Ply was simply 

designated as one-ply, two-ply, and so on. Cordage was 

encountered in the context of the textile collection and in 

combination with artifacts that are stored separately from 

the textiles. In addition to braided or twisted cords, I also 

included a type of weaving in which basketry fibers, such 

as cane or grasses, are wrapped with yarn.

Yarn

Yarn refers to spun or unspun fibers that are twisted 

into a usable length (Figure 5.2). Usually, the yarns will be 

composed of more than one ply, most often two but occasionally three or more. Yarns with more than two plies 

seem to have been preferred for stringing beads and are 

not common in woven cloth. Yarns will be the components of other textile constructions. On the other hand, 

they may also be utilized as for stringing beads or possibly 

sewing. Yarns are manufactured from both vegetable and 

animal fibers.

Yarns vary greatly in diameter. The finest are less than 

1 mm in width, while the average is 0.3 cm. When possible, ply number and twist directions were recorded. For 

the yarn category, the fragment count is underestimated. 

Much of the material in this category consists of loose 

yarns from unraveled cloth. In cases for which there were 

several groupings of yarn fragments present in a context, 

the number of separate groups of yarn was counted, rather 

than the number of strands within each group.

There are a number of pieces of yarn or cordage utilized for tying objects together or stringing beads. The 

composition of these yarns varies. In some cases, the yarns 

or cords appear to be of animal hair; in others they are 

vegetable. No yarns made of feathers appear to have been 

manufactured into cordage that would be used for fastening or stringing. The only example of cordage demonstrably used for tying is artifact 448939s01.2, a piece of 

two-ply, Z-twist cordage used for making a bundle of four 

mammal leg bones (Figure 8.22). It is a thick yarn of a stiff 

vegetable fiber. It is glossy and well preserved, suggesting 

that some preservative has been used on it.

Beads are strung on cordage in several cases. Lot 

448714 contains four examples of cordage as part of a 

group of tubular copper beads and copper pin fragments. 

The cordage was used to string the beads and may have 

been well preserved because of its contact with the copper. In one instance (448714s06.2) the cordage consists 

of a two-ply, S-twist string on which two copper beads remain strung. A thicker gauge Z-twist yarn (448714s07.2) 

manufactured by braiding three strands of a two-ply cord 

together retains three intact tubular copper beads (Figure 

7.21a). There are also two loose fragments of string in 

this context (448714s08 and 448714s09). These consist 

of a three-ply S-twist cord and a narrow, fine, Z-twist twoply string, respectively. The same context contains tubular 

copper beads that retain the original cordage inside the 

center bore but for which the characteristics of the cord 

cannot be determined (Figure 7.21b).

Another composite artifact (448934) is a large rectangular basket filled with beads, many of which are still 

strung on the original cord (although in most cases this 

cord has decomposed). The cord in this case is of vegetable 

fiber. Composite artifact 423381 (Figure 5.3) is a piece of 

wood wrapped with two-ply Z-twist cordage.

FIGURE 5.2. Yarns (423375).
number 49 • 59

Braid

Braid is manufactured of several plies that are plaited 

or interlaced together. Plaiting is an easy way to create 

ropes or cords of different sizes that can then be used in 

multiple ways. Plaiting can be accomplished to produce 

wider cord than that produced by twisting, and some of 

these may have been used for headbands, belts, or ties. 

Mean length is 5.1 cm for braided cordage in the collection. One knotted piece of braid (423384) adheres to a 

piece of copper (Figure 5.4). At least six strands of two-ply 

S-twist yarn are plaited into a rope. There is a second type 

of cord consisting of a thicker Z-twist two-ply yarn that 

extends out from under the knot on the copper sheet. The 

fiber appears to be hair.

Some braids were often quite colorful. Planned use of 

red, black, and light brown yarns yielded a braid with a 

chevron design (Brown, 1976: fig. 68c). Braiding was a 

technique also used in finishing off garment edges. In this 

case, hanks of loose warps or wefts were left long, then 

plaited into a braid about 3 cm wide, and then divided 

and plaited, usually into four smaller braids, thus effectively creating a tassel. Other braids are quite thick. Figure 

5.5 shows many strands of two-ply Z-twist yarn combined 

into a thick rope (423382).

Wrapped Basket Fiber

This category presents a different concept in creating 

cordage. Strips of cane or other vegetable material (like 

those used in making matting or basketry) are wrapped 

with medium-fine yarns (423372s03, 423373s22). Usually 

the finished cordage is about 1 cm in diameter. It would 

have been flexible when fresh, but stiffer than other braids 

produced solely of spun fibers. The yarns used in wrapping were invariably dyed. Red, black, and a natural light 

brown are evident. It is possible that what appears now 

to be light brown was once a brighter yellow. Combining 

these resulted in cordage that was colored in alternating 

bands having high contrast, resembling the black, red, and 

yellow markings on king or coral snakes.

FIGURE 5.3. Cord-wrapped paddle (423381).

FIGURE 5.4. Braid (423384).
6 0 • s m ithsonian cont r i bu tions to anth r o p o l o g y

CLOTH

Styles

Styles were assigned according to how the cloth was 

woven. Methods of weaving present in this and other Spiro 

collections are outlined by King and Gardner (1981:132) 

and include plain weft twining, spaced weft twining, 

twined tapestry, oblique twining, wrapping, oblique interlacing, and plain weave. Twining is the most common 

and involves interlocking pairs of weft yarns around the 

warps. In twining, the warps may be single, paired, or 

paired alternating (Brown, 1976; Kuttruff, 1988). Furthermore, the wefts can be wrapped, resulting in an overall S- or Z-twist. Fabrics can be constructed using one or 

both of the twisting directions. In some cases, such as the 

tapestries, the direction varies from row to row, resulting 

in a countered weft twining.

Much of the cloth is fragmentary; however, there are 

eight large pieces that represent unrolled bundles. These 

appear to be the major portions of actual garments. They 

are referred to as mantles and skirts in the collection records. One (423353) has ties on either end, which suggests 

that it was indeed tied about the body, possibly about the 

waist or neck (Figure 5.6). Large fabrics without ties may 

have been draped over the back (Brown, 1996:620). FIGURE 5.5. Braided rope (423382).

FIGURE 5.6. Twined and resist-dyed cloth with ties (423353).
number 49 • 61

Spaced Weft Twining

Medium-gauge yarns are used in making a spaced 

weft twined cloth. There are seven bundles of spaced weft 

cloth that have not been unfurled (Figures 5.7, 5.8, 5.9).

The remainders, which have been unfurled, demonstrate 

that several different cloth types are manufactured using 

this technique. In one type, the warps consist of a relatively wide gauge yarn approximately 3 mm in diameter. 

Wefts are sometimes missing in this type, leaving skeletal 

FIGURE 5.7. Bundles of spaced weft twining: a, 423361; b, 423360, wefts decomposed; c, 423362, 

wefts decomposed.
6 2 • s m ithsonian cont r i bu tions to anth r o p o l o g y

warps. The appearance now is that of large hanks of fringe, 

composed solely of the well-preserved warps as in bundle 

423361 (Figure 5.7a). These are the so-called fringed 

skirts reported by Willoughby (1952). It is reasonable 

to agree with Kuttruff’s communication to James Brown 

(1996:621) that these were not intentionally fringed—they 

only appear that way because the wefts are missing. This 

cloth is most often made from what appears to be rabbit 

hair and dyed red. The red has faded to a muted reddish 

brown. The missing wefts have, however, left impressions 

on the warps. The wefts appear to have been a completely 

different yarn from the warp, very fine, and of a material 

that has decomposed. The spacing between wefts averages 

1 cm, meaning that the overall weave was fairly loose.

Another type of spaced weft twining involves warps 

similar to those described above, but they are twined using 

weft of similar composition and weight to the warp. Five of 

the large bundles unrolled by Trowbridge fit this category: 

423353 (Figure 5.10), 423354 (Figure 5.11, 5.12), 423355, 

423356 (Figure 5.13), 423357 (Figure 5.14). In these cases 

both warps and wefts were preserved. Spacing between 

wefts was less than 1 cm. In the case of large framed textile 

423353 (Figure 5.6), the wefts are spaced 0.6 cm apart and 

are made from similar yarn to the warp. This particular 

cloth exhibits three fringed selvages. The pattern of twining for 423353 calls for alternate paired wefts.

A third type of spaced weft twining involves a completely different yarn used to make an unusually fine small 

weave (423379). The yarn is fine, approximately 1 mm in 

FIGURE 5.9. Bundle of cloth (423366), spaced weft twining.

FIGURE 5.8. Bundle (423364), spaced weft twining.
number 49 • 63

FIGURE 5.10. Spaced weft twining (423353) showing resist 

dye pattern.

FIGURE 5.12. Spaced weft twining (423354) close-up.

FIGURE 5.11. Spaced weft twining (423354).
6 4 • s m ithsonian cont r i bu tions to anth r o p o l o g y

diameter, and appears to be vegetable (Figure 5.15). The 

warp and weft are of the same fiber. King and Gardner 

(1981:126) cite Whitford’s report that this fiber may be 

Amsonia ciliata, dogbane or bluestar. Weft spacing is approximately 3 to 4 per centimeter. This produces a tight 

weave. The border is close, forming the selvages.

Wrapped Warps

For some cloth the warps are spun and twisted from 

vegetable or other fiber, and then this cordage is wrapped 

with dyed feather strips. The effect is a strikingly soft 

and lustrous fabric. These fabrics were dyed in black, 

red, or yellow. The wefts are in most cases missing, but 

they appear to have been fine yarns worked in a spaced 

weft twining. The wefts are invisible, as they are hidden beneath the tendrils of the feather from the wrapped 

warps. These fabrics were bundled, as were the other 

twined textiles. Bundles of this type tend to be smaller 

and more fragile than the twined cloth constructed 

of hair. There are four bundles that have not been 

opened.

FIGURE 5.14. Spaced weft twining (423357).

FIGURE 5.13. Spaced weft twining (423356).
number 49 • 65

Twined Tapestry

Tapestry refers to twined fabrics with tightly packed, 

paired wefts. Twining with single colors was done in 

patches or blocks, which followed a pattern to create an 

overall design. These fabrics are usually made from finegauge predyed yarns. Yarns of contrasting colors are used 

to provide outlines (usually black, but sometimes red). 

The most intricate fabric designs known from Spiro are 

produced using this method (Figures 5.16, 5.17, 5.18). In 

twined tapestry, the black outlining wefts are usually of 

thicker yarn than the inner areas. This thread does seem 

to outlast the others and often extends beyond the limits of the preserved mesh. In some cases, traces of a pattern outline are present, but the yarn used to fill in the 

space is largely missing. The colors found in this type of 

weaving are strong and, when originally produced, would 

have been brilliant. When samples of tapestry wefts from 

fragments of textile number 386188 were analyzed at the 

Smithsonian’s Conservation Analytical Laboratory (CAL, 

now renamed the Museum Conservation Institute) in 

1976, they were found to consist entirely of feather and 

contained no mammal hair or vegetable material.2

 Down, 

most likely from turkeys or waterfowl, was spun into 

this type of yarn. Kuttruff (1988:206) reports that rabbit 

hair was used for some of the twined tapestry weaving, 

including the large fragment showing human faces with 

forked-eye motifs (423373). The yarns used in the tapestry 

twining are quite fine, approximately 1.5 mm in diameter. 

Although some tapestries were worked in three colors, 

red, black, and light brown (referred to as tan in the literature), in some, a fourth color, brown, is indicated as well. 

There is considerable variation in shade.

In the tapestry cloths, the warps have often decomposed, leaving skeletal wefts. Therefore, warps must have 

been of a different material entirely. Kuttruff (1988:206) 

reports that for some, unspun strips of vegetable material 

were used for the warps.

Simple Weave

This weave is a simple over one and under one weft 

weave. It is rare but does appear in one large decorated 

fabric piece (423358s01) shown in Figure 5.19. Although 

the weave is different from the spaced weft twining, the 

yarns and colors used appear to be similar.

FIGURE 5.15. Spaced weft twining, tight weave (423379).

FIGURE 5.16. Twined tapestry (423373s24).
6 6 • s m ithsonian cont r i bu tions to anth r o p o l o g y

Fabric Decoration

For twined tapestry textiles, braids, and featherwrapped fabrics, the yarns appear to have been colored 

prior to weaving. Kuttruff (1988:117) noted that as many 

as six different colors may have been used in textiles from 

Spiro. Dyeing was presumably done using traditional 

dyes, such as black walnut and madder. The other major 

method of decoration was the creation of patterns using a 

resist dyeing method (batik is one such method). The technique is clearly depicted on several of the large unrolled 

textiles from the Trowbridge collection (Figures 5.6, 5.10, 

5.19, 5.20). These textiles are twined, with the exception 

of the one simple weave cloth. Patterns are placed around 

the borders and comprise concentric hemicircles (423355), 

ogee, and key motifs (423353). Usually, the fabric is a soft 

shade of red or dusky red, while the design is now a light 

brown (tan or buff) color.

The designs are most intricate among twined tapestries because the method of weaving using different colored yarns allows creating patches of different color with 

greater facility. The twined tapestry motifs include geometric and human facial motifs (Figure 5.18). Many fragments are small, and therefore, it is difficult to estimate the 

range of variation among motifs employed.

Beads and Textiles

A note from Trowbridge (National Museum of Natural History, 1960) says “all the beads in tray 2721 were 

exposed when the entire textile collection was being 

cleaned and unfolded.” Therefore, these could be from 

any textiles in the entire collection, and there is no way 

to match them with the textile with which they may have 

been associated originally, nor is it known whether they 

were attached to the cloth in some way or simply deposited in association.

FIGURE 5.17. Twined tapestry (423373s25).

FIGURE 5.18. Twined tapestry showing human face (423373s27).
number 49 • 67

Function and Use

The majority of the textiles were bundled. There is no 

evidence to suggest that textiles were placed unbundled 

into the Great Mortuary. Trowbridge unfurled eight large 

textiles during the late 1930s and placed them between 

glass in walnut frames.3 Joan Gardner remounted six of 

these. Several of the large fragments are still bundled. Two 

textiles that were on exhibit during Gardner’s project were 

not remounted (423359 and 423355) and as of 1992 were 

still within Trowbridge’s original walnut frames.

BASKETRY

The term “basketry” is used to refer to any object interwoven of relatively wide strips of vegetable material. 

Fibers used in basketry include cane or reed. There is one 

complete basket, several fragments of baskets, and a considerable number of basket impressions on other pieces. 

Baskets can be distinguished between twilled and woven 

baskets and wicker. Wicker differs from other basketry 

in that it involves the use of a support structure around 

which the baskets are made. There was very little wicker 

present in or suggested by the collection. In at least one 

case a mat contained a support structure, and this support 

is of similar fiber as the matting it supports.

In most cases it is difficult to tell whether a basketry 

fragment derived from a shaped basket container or from 

FIGURE 5.20. Close-up of simple weave cloth with resist dye decoration (423358).

FIGURE 5.19. Simple weave cloth with resist dye decoration 

(423358).
6 8 • s m ithsonian cont r i bu tions to anth r o p o l o g y

a flat mat. Since many baskets were rectangular, no curvature would be expected for their fragments. Often, the fragments are small, and although weave can be reconstructed, 

overall size and shape cannot. Selvage edges are rare.

Manufacturing is usually done in a twill pattern, although there are examples of coiled baskets. Twill plaiting is done by lacing wefts over and under more than one 

warp and then offsetting the next weft to create a herringbone pattern. Brown (1976, 1996) uses a simple method 

for characterizing woven patterns by counting the number of warps that a weft crosses over, then the number it 

crosses under. For example, if the weft crosses over two 

and under two, it can be denoted 2-2. This is similar to 

the way in which Baerreis (1947) refers to baskets. The 

width of fibers used in basketry ranges between 0.3 and 

0.57 cm. The average width is 0.43 cm, with a standard 

deviation of 0.09 cm for fiber width. The total number of 

discrete basketry fragments or lots of fragments is 34. The 

incidence of basketry is recorded in Table 5.2.

Square Shallow Baskets

The single complete specimen is a large flat basket 

lined with leather (Figure 5.21). It contains beads, copper 

fragments, and shell fragments. This artifact (448934) is 

unique in that it retains much of its contents (Hamilton, 

1952). The basket is well preserved and measures 54 cm 

long by 29 cm wide by approximately 10 cm deep. The 

basket has collapsed in on itself, but the selvage or basket rim is present on three sides. One side is damaged. A

second basket fragment with intact edge sits on top (the 

lid), covering some of the beads within. This second fragment is not shown in the illustration in Hamilton. This 

suggests that it was replaced on top during rehousing at 

some point. There is no reason to doubt that this fragment 

does belong to this artifact. The size is in the same range 

as that reported for a group of twelve similar flat rectangular baskets in the collection of the University of Arkansas 

(Brown, 1996:414; Horton and Sabo, 2011).

The weave is a twill done with fibers of 0.3 cm diameter in a 3-3 pattern. Some of the material found within 

the basket has become separated and is stored in small 

boxes alongside the basket. The basket is lined with fabric 

TABLE 5.2. Characteristics of basketry in the NMNH collection. A dash (-) indicates that data are nonexistent or not available.

Catalog Subnumber Length Width

number (if any) Object Style (cm) (cm) Count Comments

423388 Basketry Twill 6.5 4.5 3 Fragment

423387 Basketry Twill 13 5 1 Selvage fragment

448778 s01.2 Basketry Twill 8.1 3 2 Fragments

386185 s01 Basketry Twill 15.7 4.43 1 Rim fragment

423386 Basketry Twill 2.5 1.5 1 Fragments

423224 s01.2 Basketry Twill 7 6.6 5 Fragments

448922 Basketry Twill 75 11.5 2 Mat selvage fragment

448934 s01.1 Basketry Twill 54 29 1 Complete

386186 s01 Basketry Twill 17 12 1 Fragment

448914 Basketry Loose fibers - - 1 lot Fragments

448927 s01.2 Basketry Twill 7.35 4.13 1 Fragment

448934 s07 Basketry Unclassified 25 1 12 Fragments

448934 s05 Basketry Unclassified - - 1 lot Fragments

423389 Basketry Coil 7 7 1 Basket bottom

423390 Basketry Coil 20 6.5 1 Fragment

FIGURE 5.21. Square shallow basket, 54 × 29 cm (448934).
number 49 • 69

that supports numerous strings of shell disc beads. This 

cloth is 41 cm wide by at least 8 cm long. It is difficult to 

determine the original form of the cloth because the fabric 

is wadded up and smashed under the weight of the other 

objects that were in the basket. Along one edge, running 

along the basket selvage, is a braided tassel, which is really 

the only part for which a clear style can be seen. Over 500 

shell beads repose on the fabric. Many of these are still 

strung on a vegetable yarn. In addition, there are approximately 1650 more beads that have become detached and 

are stored in a separate box. Also in separate boxes, but 

presumably from the same basket, are three medium-sized 

spherical beads with straight bores, one piece of engraved 

shell, loose basketry fibers, and approximately 60 fragments of sheet copper weighing 100 g.

Coiled Baskets

There are two examples of coiled baskets in the collection (Figure 5.22). These baskets were manufactured 

by stitching together a coiled structural fiber using a narrower, thinner fiber. One example is the center or bottom 

of a coiled basket (423389). The other is a piece from the 

side of a coiled basket or mat (423390). For this piece, 

the center or beginning of the coil is not present. Both are 

from the Trowbridge collection. Coiled baskets are unusual at Spiro, according to Baerreis (1947), who discusses 

the basketry present in the University of Oklahoma collection and in the McDannald collection.

Twilled Matting or Baskets

Twilled matting refers to basketry done in characteristic twill plaiting but without the curvature expected 

for some containers. Most pieces are too small to exhibit 

curvature, so much of what appears to be matting may 

actually be small fragments from containers. Rectangular 

shallow baskets will not exhibit curvature, even though 

they are containers. Baerreis (1947:7) discusses the incidence of matting as a common artifact among historic 

FIGURE 5.22. Coiled baskets: a, 423389; b, c, 423390.
7 0 • s m ithsonian cont r i bu tions to anth r o p o l o g y

groups of the southeast, such as the Natchez, Chitimacha, and Taensa. The largest piece of basketry that may 

be matting in the NMNH collection is a long selvage edge 

fragment, 75 cm long and almost 12 cm wide (448922). 

It consists of two fragments laid end to end (Figure 5.23) 

and is a large matlike creation consisting of three layers of 

twill work. This piece from the selvage and shows clearly 

how one layer was folded over and reworked to finish off 

the edge. A long wide piece of woody cane runs along the 

piece between the layers. This probably served for support. The twill is a large weave; however, the twill for both 

pieces does not match. The larger piece is plaited in a pattern of 7-3, and the smaller piece is 6-2. Brown (1996:414) 

cautions that for those artifacts that are demonstrably 

mats, the twill pattern is always a regular weave of 1-1. 

Therefore, the twill in this case better resembles that of a 

basket. Both fragments are three layers thick. Edges are 

frayed more on the smaller piece.

Other examples of twilled basketry are present in much 

smaller fragments. Some adhere to copper (Figure 5.24a). 

The twill weave can be used to produce variation and hence 

regular patterns in the overall design (Figure 5.24b).

Open-­Work Weave

Another type of woven mat is a very loose weave, with 

as much as 2 cm between fibers in the basketry. This is evident in two cases: one is a small bit of basketry adhering to 

copper plating; the other is an impression only. The latter 

is an impression on a large piece of leather. The leather apparently rested on the matting and conformed to the mat 

surface (448934s08). Although this object has the same 

catalog number as the large shallow basket containing 

strung shell beads, it is uncertain whether or not this truly 

came from that artifact.

Twined Matting

There is one example of twined matting made from 

wide yarns of vegetable bast fibers (448913). Kuttruff 

(1988:207) reports that this fragment was not dyed and 

was woven in a spaced twined mesh using single warps. 

She reports six yarns per square inch. The entire piece is 

over 15 cm long and 10 cm wide.

Basketry Impression

Many artifacts exhibit impressions of basketry. Nowhere is this more evident than with the engraved shells. 

Thirty shell cups carry basket impressions. On the shells 

the basket impressions appear as patterned staining on 

the surface. They occur in small patches or cover a large 

portion of the shell surface. The impressions are almost 

invariably on the rounded surface of the shell, indicating 

that the shells were placed aperture up in the mound. Basket impressions are seen on clay and stone objects too. 

FIGURE 5.23. Large mat or basket fragments (448922).
number 49 • 71

At least three limestone earspools exhibit clear basket imprints, as does a figurine made of galena.

FIBER IDENTIFICATION

Several attempts have been made to identify fibers used 

to manufacture these textiles and baskets. The first person 

to have fibers analyzed was Trowbridge. He sent materials to the Smithsonian, which had them analyzed by the 

National Bureau of Standards (now the National Institute 

of Standards and Technology) in 1937. Analytical results 

of Trowbridge’s NBS inquiry were published the following 

year (Trowbridge 1938). Several samples (B, C, D, F, G, J, 

K, and L) were reported to be rabbit hair, with a remote 

possibility of them being from a related animal, such as 

either squirrel or rat. Two samples (D and G) were rabbit 

hair wrapped around a vegetable material warp that might 

have been wood or bark. Two other samples (A and E) were 

feathers. Sample A was composed of feathers with strips of 

skin wrapped around a two-ply vegetable material thread. 

A more extensive analysis of feathers used in textiles was 

FIGURE 5.24. Twill basketry: a, curved basket section (386185); b, twill matting (432385).
7 2 • s m ithsonian cont r i bu tions to anth r o p o l o g y

conducted by Rogers et al. (2003). Finally, sample H was 

identified as hair, possibly “buffalo or bear, or perhaps dog 

or horsehair” (Trowbridge 1938:53). We now know that 

the sample could not have been horsehair, as the archaeological context dates at least two hundred years before the 

Spanish introduction of horses to North America.

Whitford studied vegetable fibers in 1941. Joan Gardner elicited identifications from the Conservation Analytical Laboratory and from Michael A. Bogan, who produced 

a short summary of his findings. Supplemental notations 

on Bogan’s report were made by Roxie Laybourne, an expert on feathers. The same slides were also examined by 

Douglas Deedrick of the FBI, who agreed with the identifications (M. A. Bogan, unpublished; see Table 5.3, footnote b). Kuttruff (1988) examined fibers as part of her 

research. Textile identifications made during these earlier 

studies are summarized in Table 5.3.

Rogers et al. (2002:246) published a report on the microscopic study of 106 feather samples used in a number of 

textile fragments from the NMNH collection. Most prevalent were wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo), Canada goose 

(Branta Canadensis), and swan (Cygnus sp.), in that order. 

Feathers from raptorial birds appear not to have been used 

in constructing textiles (Rogers et al., 2002:249).

NOTES

2. See CAL reports 2089, 2090, 2091 (Smithsonian Institution, Museum Conservation Institute, unpublished).

3. Object 423352 was never located (a large fabric in Plexiglas). A temporary specimen removal card for 423352 

dated 1989 and signed by Natalie Firnhaber indicates the 

destination was Smithsonian’s Museum Support Center, 

where the object is probably located at A120305003.

TABLE 5.3. Fiber identifications for Craig Mound textiles.

Catalog

number a Identification Source

423372 (2718K) Nolina georgiana (yucca) Whitford (1941)

378240 Rabbit and unidentified Bogan (unpublished) b

386188 Feather CAL report 2089 c

423353 Rabbit Bogan (unpublished) b

423353 Fur fiber Kuttruff (1988:205)

423361 Rabbit and canid? Bogan (unpublished) b

423365 (2717C) Asimina tribola (pawpaw) Whitford (1941)

423366 (2717E) Asimina tribola (pawpaw) Whitford (1941)

423367 (2717H) Asimina tribola (pawpaw) and Arundinaria tecta (cane) Whitford (1941)

423367 Rabbit and rodent? Bogan (unpublished) b

423368 Feathers (goose and turkey) Bogan (unpublished) b

423368 Vegetable fiber CAL report 2090 c

423370 Turkey feather, rabbit Bogan (unpublished) b

423371 (2722D, I) Arundinaria tecta (canebrake) Whitford (1941)

423372 (2718K) Asimina tribola (pawpaw)

423372 Rabbit and some turkey Bogan (unpublished) b

423373 Warp, vegetable; weft, fur Kuttruff (1988:206)

423373 Rabbit and unidentified (mustelid?) Bogan (unpublished) b

423374 Rabbit and unidentified Bogan (unpublished) b

423377a Rabbit, small rodent, turkey Bogan (unpublished) b

423377b Rabbit, turkey, small rodent Bogan (unpublished) b

423378 Rabbit Bogan (unpublished) b

448913 Bast fibers Kuttruff (1988:207)

448917 Rabbit Bogan (unpublished) b

448917 Bundled plant material CAL report 2091 c

a Numbers in parentheses are the original Trowbridge catalog numbers.

bMichael A. Bogan, Smithsonian Institution, National Museum of Natural History, Department of Anthropology, Spiro Textile Analysis, unpublished manuscript, 1977.

c Unpublished reports of the Museum Conservation Institute (formerly Conservation Analytical Laboratory 

[CAL]), various dates. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
This chapter treats objects used in resource extraction—farming, 

manufacturing, or hunting—as well as tools that may have served 

in warfare-related activities. These artifacts are generally made from 

lithic materials. The category includes weaponry, artifacts presumably 

used for hunting or warfare (smaller projectile points), and boatstones or other 

parts of composite artifacts. In addition, there are lithic artifacts that probably 

represent a range of functions. Special or symbolic weaponry—large, ornate, 

and decorated objects such as maces or sword-form bifaces—probably served 

important social or ceremonial functions. Extractive implements comprise tools 

that were designed to obtain or process resources or raw materials and include 

chipped- and ground-stone spades, drills, and scrapers. 

CHIPPED LITHIC WEAPONRY

Chipped lithic weaponry can be divided into three major groups: small haftable points, larger haftable points, and large bifaces that vary widely in form 

and may or may not have been hafted. Excavation techniques utilized by the 

Pocola Mining Company may not have been conducive to the recovery of small 

lithic tools, and that there are any small projectile points at all is remarkable. 

Caching may have contributed to the recovery of small chipped lithics. There 

is little or no minimally modified lithic material, either because debitage was 

overlooked by the excavators as worthless or because it was not included among 

grave offerings.

Style

Chipped lithic tools were examined for edge modification, morphological 

characteristics, traces from use, manufacturing traces and workmanship indicators, raw materials, and styles. Fairly complete point typologies exist for the 

southern Plains and can be useful for making chronological interpretations. 

Therefore, small projectiles and larger haftable bifaces were assigned to known 

types styles for the sake of communication and comparability. Characteristics 

6 Weaponry and 

Extractive Tools

April K. Sievert
7 4 • s m ithsonian cont r i bu tions to anth r o p o l o g y

of small point styles that occur in and around Spiro were 

compiled from Bell (1958, 1960), Perino (1968, 1970), 

Brown (1976, 1996), and Justice (1987). 

Metric attributes include total axial length, stem length, 

maximum width of blade, distal stem width (minimum haft 

width for Brown), proximal stem width (basal width), and 

thickness. Nomenclature for bifaces is shown in Figure 6.1.

Two ratios in particular are useful in assessing morphology and workmanship. These are the thickness to 

width (T/W) ratio and the proximal stem width to blade 

width (PSW/BW) ratio. The T/W ratio offers the relative 

degree of bifacial thinning. The PSW/BW ratio gives the 

relative narrowness of the base, which can be useful for 

looking at the differences between stemmed and notched 

points or in distinguishing side-notched Reed points from 

wide-based Washita points in ambiguous cases.

Manufacture

Edge modification was described in simple terms of bifacial or unifacial retouch and the relative fineness of the knapping. Other manufacturing variables of importance include 

characteristics of basal and tang retouch and the presence of 

barbs. Blade outlines were categorized into triangular, ovate, 

incurved, excurved, and recurved forms as shown in Figure 

6.2. Base shapes can be concave, convex, or straight.

Hafting

Nearly all points in the small projectile class have a retouched hafting element of some type, consisting of shoulders, stems, or notches. In Figure 6.1, the hafting element 

is referred to as the stem. The biface shown in Figure 6.1 

displays long extended barbs. Not all tools exhibit such an 

exaggerated barb. If a piece has no over extended barb, it is 

FIGURE 6.1. Diagram of a flaked lithic artifact showing nomenclature and measurements. After Brown (1976, 

1996), Rogers (1980).

Tip

Blade

Shoulder or

Barb Length

Tang

Thickness

Width

Stem Stem length

Base (Proximal end)

Distal Stem Width (DSW)

Proximal Stem Width (PSW)

Distal end

FIGURE 6.2. Attributes of biface form.
number 49 • 75

said to possess a shoulder. In some cases, the base, stem, or 

shoulders have sustained some damage from twisting motion. This suggests that at least some of the projectiles found 

at Spiro may have been used. The majority appear not to 

have been used. There are no traces of hafting materials, 

such as mastic. Given the excellent preservation at Craig 

Mound, this seems unusual. It seems unlikely that these 

tools were hafted at the time when they were placed in the 

mortuary feature because contact with copper should have 

contributed to preservation of some hafting compounds 

had there been any. On the other hand, cleaning by collectors may have removed traces of hafting materials. There 

are no traces of bindings or wooden handles present either.

Lithic Raw Materials

Raw materials derive from a wide variety of locations, 

and these are important for understanding cultural relationships suggested by social contact and trade. Identification of lithic material was based on visual characteristics 

and therefore must be considered “apparent” rather than 

certain. Identifications were made with the assistance of a 

reference collection of lithic raw materials collected and 

described by Dickson (1989). Samples of all known varieties from the Ozark Highlands, Flint Hills, and Ouachita 

Highlands are present in this reference collection. Dickson (1989) classifies these according to geological formation, including subtypes and varieties. Using this reference 

set, raw material designations could be made. Banks’ 

(1990) study of major raw materials contains a comprehensive study of raw materials from a wider range than 

represented by the available reference collection, and this 

source proved to be invaluable. Lithic raw materials derive 

primarily from four general locations.

Southern Ozarks

Most of the lithic materials are expected to derive 

from sources in the Southern Ozarks. This area produces 

the varieties of chert sometimes referred to as Boone chert, 

but there is considerable variation in the materials from 

the formations in the region. The following chert varieties 

from various formations have been identified for the Spiro 

material from the NMNH. Type descriptions were compiled from Dickson (1989) and Banks (1990). 

Ordovician Cotter. Ordovician Cotter, 

including Jefferson City Cotter, has distinctive banding in 

gray shades.

Pitkin. Pitkin chert is a highly distinctive dark 

bluish gray to black chert with a slightly milky appearance. 

Mississippian Compton. Mississippian 

Compton can be waxy and occurs in blue-gray and tan 

combinations.

Mississippian Reed Springs. Mississippian Reed Springs cherts come in grays and tans; one 

variety is green. Several varieties have dark splotches surrounded by a light “halo.” Texture is usually fine, and 

many varieties are vitreous or have a waxy luster. Bluegray varieties weather to tan. This might not be easily differentiated from the Boone varieties discussed below.

Burlington/Boone. Cherts from the following formations have been included under the name 

Boone: Keokuk, Elsey, and Burlington. The Elsey Formation yields cherts in cream to light gray, with a rough 

texture and dull luster. Keokuk Formation cherts are generally lighter in color than Reed Spring, often with wispy 

and hazy darker or lighter patches. Most varieties are 

peppered with tiny spots, giving an overall hazy or dusty 

appearance. These are duller and less vitreous than Reed 

Springs varieties. They occur in larger nodules than Reed 

Springs; consequently, they are used for large artifacts. 

Burlington chert is usually whitish to blue-gray and is improved by intentional heat treating.

Flint Hills

This area of southern Kansas and north central Oklahoma produces some highly distinctive cherts known to 

have been used prehistorically.

Florence (Kay County). This highly distinctive chert from the Florence Formation is characterized by a light brownish gray to pinkish gray color and 

concentric narrow banding in alternating light and dark 

colors. At Spiro it appears especially among large ovoid 

bifaces (Brown, 1976, 1996).

Ouachita Mountains

Arkansas Novaculite. Novaculite accounts for 31% of the total chipped lithic collection. 

The presence of novaculite is culturally relevant because 

it clearly indicates contact with areas to the southeast of 

Spiro. The texture of novaculite when unheated is distinctive. Extremely fine grain size and crystalline structure result in a sugary texture. Novaculite may also have been 

heated to improve flaking qualities. The relative increase 

in translucence from heating is variable. Novaculite flakes 

in such a way that lipped hinge terminations result in 

fracture planes being clearly visible on the surface, even 

though most novaculites are fairly opaque. This results 
7 6 • s m ithsonian cont r i bu tions to anth r o p o l o g y

in translucent slivers that are clearly visible on artifact 

surfaces. 

Devonian Woodford. The Devonian 

Woodford Formation (from the Ti Valley) contains a dark, 

vitreous, and fine chert, excellent for knapping. 

Mississippian Pierson. The Mississippian 

Pierson Formation produces reddish and bluish varieties, 

which can be waxy. 

Red River

Red River Jasper. At least one variety of 

jasper, a dark brown to olive green variety, derives from 

the Red River basin in Texas. This opaque silicate was 

used for some projectiles in the NMNH Spiro collection. 

Brown (1996:649) refers to this material as ranging in 

color from buff to dull orange, brown, and red.

Texas Panhandle

Alibates Agatized Dolomite. Alibates 

agatized dolomite derives from Upper Permian formations 

along the upper reaches of the Canadian River. A major 

source of Alibates used in prehistory is the quarry located 

in the Texas Panhandle, although very small amounts of 

alibates also occurs in the terraces of the Washita River 

and in gravels along the Arkansas River (Potter County 

Historical Survey Committee, 1964; Thurmond, 1991). 

Alibates is characterized by waxy luster, some translucence, and wide concentric banding. One large mace from 

the Spiro collections may be manufactured from alibates, 

a material that resembles agate.

Other Sources

Smoky Hills (Niobrara) jasper comes from Kansas. 

Other varieties such as Dover chert from Tennessee and 

Mill Creek chert from Illinois appear in sword-form bifaces and maces. Mill Creek chert is a medium-grained 

material, opaque, and with a matte luster. Fine-grained 

Dover chert is often streaked with darker black or gray 

vitreous inclusions (Brown, 1996:647–648). Numerous 

other lithic materials of unknown source were utilized for 

chipped- and ground-stone tools.

Use and Curation

It is expected that tools will exhibit some forms of 

damage that might have occurred while the object was 

used kinematically (with active motion) and curated (kept 

and transported). The evidence for use is discussed in 

the context of each artifact style. General characteristics 

of use that can be evaluated for assessing the function of 

tools are discussed briefly as follows.

Types of damage that are useful in assessing wear include edge damage, striations, and polishes. Most polishes 

are invisible under stereomicroscopy, so these are of lesser 

importance here in assessing damage. Edge damage can derive from use, manufacture, and postexcavation damage. 

Edge damage consists of small flake scars removed from 

along the edges of tools. Certain types of edge damage are 

highly diagnostic. For example, impact fractures are small 

flake scars that are removed at the distal tip of a tool upon 

impact when that tool is used in projection (using a bow 

or atlatl). The point of impact is clearly shown as a cone of 

percussion. Lateral edge damage may signify use in cutting 

or sawing. Damage to the tang, base, or barbs can occur 

as impact forces the load onto the area of the tool that is 

firmly affixed to the haft or handle. Snap fractures occur if 

a tool breaks through the medial section as a result of use, 

manufacture, or postutilization processes. A snap fracture 

generally exhibits no bulb or cone of percussion, although 

it may possess a lip or hinge. The other type of fracture 

that is common is the shear fracture caused when a rotating projectile experiences torque when striking a solid. 

This spin causes fragments of the tool literally to twist off. 

Types of visible damage are shown in Figure 6.3.

Damage from curation will be more subtle and can 

arise from prehistoric or modern manipulation. It develops in places where artifacts rub together during storage, 

either in a box or drawer after it has been collected or 

while wrapped loosely in cloth or leather sacks during in 

the prehistoric past. Curation wear appears as smoothing 

to dorsal ridges, especially if the tools are carried or moved 

about. The wear need not always occur only on facial 

ridges, however, as barbs or tang elements may be damaged while the arrows are grouped in quivers or bundles.

Small Projectile Points

Small projectile points include any bifaces or unifacially worked pieces displaying pointed distal tips and 

modified hafting elements. A wide variety of small point 

styles can be expected during Harlan and Spiro phase occupations in the region of the Spiro site (Figures 6.4–6.11).

Clements et al. (1935–1938:263) noted in their WPA

report on the lithic materials from Craig Mound that

projectile points are uniformly small, thin, and 

finely flaked. Many of them have serrated edges 
number 49 • 77

FIGURE 6.4. Small projectile points: a, 423181s01 showing impact 

flake at tip; b, 423181s02; c, 423182s03 Agee point with damage 

to barb; d, 423182s02 Agee point; e, 423182s01 Agee point; f, 

423181s01; g, 423181s02 Reed point; h, 423181s03.

FIGURE 6.3. Common forms of damage to projectile points.

FIGURE 6.5. Small projectile points (423192): a–j, 423192s01–s10 

Agee; k–o, s11–s15 corner-notched points; p, s16 Maud point; q–aa, 

s17, s19–s27 Ashley (recurvate), Agee, and Perdiz (stemmed) points.
7 8 • s m ithsonian cont r i bu tions to anth r o p o l o g y

and either diagonal or transverse notches. They 

belong unmistakably to the Lower Mississippi 

culture, and were found literally in thousands. In 

many cases they seemed never to have been used, 

but were manufactured solely as votive offerings. 

They were commonly found in heaps of several 

hundred piled between heads of a burial or were 

sometimes arranged in a definite pattern with the 

points turned one way.

Small projectile point styles and raw materials are 

shown in Table 6.1. Raw material usage is described more 

fully in discussing each point style individually.

Stemmed Points

Stemmed points include Alba, Hayes, Hayes Short, 

Perdiz, and Bonham point styles. Brown (1976) uses the 

characteristic of wide haft opening to demarcate this 

group of points. They are barbed and the stems may be 

well thinned to a semicircular basal outline (Alba), narrow 

and pointed (Perdiz), or left unretouched (Hayes). Varying degrees of retouch on bases and tangs can muddy the 

distinction between Alba, Hayes, Hayes Short, and Perdiz. 

In some cases, what appears to be extremely fine retouch 

on tang elements may be spontaneous retouch produced 

during notching.

Alba

Brown (1996:439) describes Alba points as having 

wide haft openings and wide stems with straight sides and 

links them to Spiro II grave lots. Most of the nine Alba 

FIGURE 6.7. Small projectile points (423192): a–e, s58–s62 Reed 

and Keota points; f–m, s64–s71 Reed/Keota variety; n, s63.

FIGURE 6.6. Small projectile points (423192): a–h, s28–s35 Perdiz, 

Alba, and Agee points; i, s36 Martindale point; j, s37 Haskell; k, 

s38 side-notched point; l–t, s39–s47 Reed points; u, s18 Reed point; 

v–dd, s49–s57 Reed and Keota points.
number 49 • 79

points in the Smithsonian collection are barbed. Brown 

(1996) stresses that retouch on the base and tang for Alba 

points varies, and in one case from the Smithsonian collection (423192s31) the basal retouch is minimal. In all cases 

but two, the lateral retouch is of very fine or fine quality, 

with regularly spaced pressure flaking and maximal thinning. One point is only shallowly retouched, and another 

is unifacially retouched. Of the nine Alba points, two are 

recurved, and the rest triangular. None are broken.

Use. One point sustained snap fractures on both 

barbs (448651s43). Two more are damaged at the shoulders. All of this damage could be related to excavation 

damage as easily as wear.

Residues. Residues are present on two artifacts. On one, the residue consists of a reddish brown 

sediment; on another it appears resinous.

Raw Material. Cherts primarily from the 

Southern Ozarks are represented, including Reed Springs 

and Boone varieties. There are three tools of novaculite, 

and one is Red River jasper. Brown (1996:439) found relatively more novaculite in the sample from WPA excavations, where it comprises 85% of the total.

Hayes

Hayes points have minimally retouched and somewhat pointed stems, but they are otherwise barbed like 

Alba points. Brown (1996:440) places them firmly in 

Spiro II contexts. For Hayes points in the Smithsonian 

collection, thinning and pressure flaking is less fine than 

on the projectile points designated Alba. Three are essentially unifacial. One is serrated (423192s32). None of the 

nine points really have pointed bases, which according to 

Bell (1958:32), is a fundamental characteristic. However, 

FIGURE 6.8. Small projectile points (448650): a, s01 Agee; b, s02 

Rockwall; c, s03; d–f, s04–s06 Sequoyah; g, s07 Haskell; h, s08 

Morris; i, s09; j–l, s10–s12 Agee.

FIGURE 6.9. Small projectile points: a–f, 448650s13–s18 various; 

g, 448651s01 Edwards; h–l, 448651 s02, s07, s17, s21, s20 various.
8 0 • s m ithsonian cont r i bu tions to anth r o p o l o g y

seven have bases that are highly convex and that form an 

angular juncture with the proximal corner of the notch. 

Two are nearly straight based but are classified as Hayes 

because of their lack of stem retouch. Blade outlines are 

triangular in two cases, incurved in three cases, and recurved in four cases. 

Use. Four points exhibit signs of damage that 

could be either from use or other mechanical process. 

One has polished ridges (423192s22) that might indicate 

curation.

Residues. There are no residues beyond sediment on 448651s19.

Raw Material. The nine tools are nearly 

evenly divided between chert (n = 5) and jasper (n = 4). In 

one case the jasper is banded. Brown (1996:440) reports 

that jasper made up the larger portion of Hayes points in 

the WPA collection.

Hayes Short

Brown (1966:440) classifies them as perhaps later 

than Alba and Hayes points, with caches associated with 

Spiro III and IV grave lots, while being found singly in 

Spiro II grave lots. There are two Hayes Short points in the 

Smithsonian collection. One has a triangular outline, and 

the other is incurved. Bases are strongly convex. Bifacial 

retouch is either fair or moderately fine. Dimensions are 

1.68 and 2.04 cm in length, 1.09 and 1.55 cm in width, 

0.35 and 0.37 cm in thickness.

Residue. None.

FIGURE 6.10. Small projectile points (448651): a, s03 Reed; b, s04 

Keota; c, s05; d, s08 Alba; e–f, s24–s25 Alba; g, s06 Ashley; h, s28 

Agee; i, s42 Agee; j–k, s09–s10; l, s12 Haskell.

FIGURE 6.11. Small projectile points (448651): a, s13 Reed; b, s15; 

c, s16; d, s14; e, s18; f, s27; g, s38; h, s14; i, s23; j, s11; k, s31, l, s26 

Fresno; m, s22 unshouldered; n, s29; o, s30; p–s, s32–s35.
number 49 • 81

TABLE 6.1. Small projectile point styles and raw material summary.

 Style

Style Quartz Novaculite Chert Jasper Unclas. Unknown total

Agee 1 12 10 1 0 1 25

Alba 0 3 5 1 0 0 9

Ashley 0 2 2 1 0 0 5

Ashley Chocoville 0 0 1 0 0 0 1

Bonham 0 0 1 0 0 0 1

Bonham Tahlequah 0 0 2 0 0 0 2

Collier 0 1 2 0 0 0 3

Coryell 0 0 2 0 0 0 2

Edwards 0 0 1 0 0 0 1

Fresno 0 0 2 0 0 0 2

Haskell 0 0 4 0 0 0 4

Hayes 0 0 5 4 0 0 9

Hayes Short 0 1 1 0 0 0 2

Homan 0 1 0 0 0 0 1

Keota 0 1 9 0 0 0 10

Martindale 0 0 1 0 0 0 1

Massard 0 2 10 0 0 0 12

Maud 0 0 1 0 0 0 1

Morris 0 0 3 0 1 0 4

Nodena 0 0 2 0 0 0 2

Perdiz 0 0 6 0 0 0 6

Reed 0 2 10 0 0 0 12

Reed/Keota cluster 0 5 6 0 0 0 11

Rockwall 0 0 2 0 0 0 2

Scallorn 0 3 9 0 0 0 12

Sequoyah 0 1 3 0 0 0 4

Unclassified 0 0 8 0 0 0 8

Unclassified corner notch 0 0 4 0 0 0 4

Unclassified side notch 0 0 1 0 0 0 1

Uniface 0 0 1 0 0 0 1

Washita 0 1 1 0 0 0 2

Washita garvin 0 0 2 0 0 0 2

Washita chaffee 0 0 1 0 0 0 1

Washita peno 0 0 2 0 0 0 2

Young 0 0 1 0 0 0 1

Material total 1 35 121 7 1 1 166

TABLE 6.2. Alba points measurement summary (n = 9).

 Standard

Measurement Mean Extremes deviation

Length (cm) 2.85 1.89 / 4.51 0.75

Width (cm) 1.56 1.2 / 2.11 0.27

Thickness (cm) 0.32 0.28 / 0.36 0.03

Proximal stem width (cm) 0.77 0.59 / 0.96 0.13

Distal stem width (cm) 0.68 0.57 / 0.82 0.08

Stem length (cm) 0.71 0.55 / 0.82 0.09

Thickness/width ratio 0.21 0.17 / 0.3 0.04

Width/proximal stem width 2.07 1.36 / 2.69 0.45

TABLE 6.3. Hayes points measurement summary (n = 9).

 Standard

Measurement Mean Extremes deviation

Length (cm) 2.45 2.07 / 2.71 0.18

Width (cm) 1.41 1.14 / 1.64 0.15

Thickness (cm) 0.35 0.23 / 0.52 0.11

Proximal stem width (cm) 0.72 0.5 / 0.95 0.14

Distal stem width (cm) 0.64 0.55 / 0.85 0.09

Stem length (cm) 0.56 0.45 / 0.7 0.08

Thickness/width ratio 0.26 0.15 / 0.46 0.11

Width/proximal stem width 2.04 1.2 / 2.8 0.42
8 2 • s m ithsonian cont r i bu tions to anth r o p o l o g y

Raw Material. One is novaculite and the 

other is chert (possibly Burlington).

Homan

The single point classified as Homan is novaculite, incurvate, and 1.75 × 1.08 cm in size. It is finely retouched 

and has a use-related break at the tip. Brown (1996:444) 

found that novaculite was the preferred material for 

Homan points, which are characterized by narrow haft 

openings. They were included in a Spiro IB cache.

Bonham

The one Bonham point (448651s33) has bifacial retouch with slight serration. Burination-type flake removal 

forms both sides of a narrow tang. This might have been 

either deliberate in manufacturing design or a use (impact) 

stress fracture. As it stands, the parallel sides of the stem 

were used as the criterion for assigning it to this type.

Length is 1.83 cm, width is 1.03 cm, and the artifact 

is 0.41 cm thick. Proximal stem width is 0.38 cm, whereas 

the distal stem width is 0.45 cm, indicating that the stem 

contracts slightly. A high width to stem width ratio of 2.71 

is in keeping with Bonham styling. The base is pointed and 

the blade triangular.

Bonham Tahlequah

There are two points of this style, one each from the 

Trowbridge and Meyer collections. Overall, retouch is medium fine. The point numbered 423192s30 is 2.52 cm long 

by 1.6 cm wide and 0.4 cm thick. The straight-sided and 

straight-based stem narrows from 0.5 to 0.41 cm to the 

proximal end, resulting in a very high width to stem width 

ratio of 3.9. It is made from a heat-altered chert. The second, 448651s09, is made from the distinctive Pitkin chert 

and measures 2.62 cm in length, 1.06 cm in width, and 

0.42 cm in thickness. It has sustained a shear fracture to 

the base and slight shoulder damage. Brown (1996:440) 

found Bonham Tahlequah points in an early cache, in a 

Spiro IA grave lot.

Perdiz

There are six Perdiz points, and all but one of these 

has a triangular blade outline; the other is ovate. Bases 

are either pointed or convex but narrow. Mean length is 

3.23 cm, the shortest is 2.5 cm, and the longest is 3.79 

cm. Width ranges from 1.57 to 2.09 cm, with an average 

of 1.75 cm. The tools are moderately thin, ranging from 

0.26 to 0.43 cm in thickness. The thickness to width ratio 

is low, ranging from 0.14 to 0.27. Stem length ranges from 

0.49 to 0.67 cm. One is heat altered and one shows mechanical damage. Perdiz points are distinctive because in 

three cases they were made on thin flake blanks (contributing to the low T/W ratio). One is coarsely serrated. Brown 

(1996:439) notes that Perdiz points do not appear to have 

been cached in quantity in the Craig Mounds graves but 

appear as isolated finds in Spiro II and Spiro IV grave lots.

Use. One has edge damage near the tip 

(423192s24). Two display either irregularity or edge damage on one edge.

Residues. None.

Raw Material. At least four appear to be 

manufactured from chert from the Reed Springs Formation. One may be Reed Springs or Jefferson City–Cotter 

Undifferentiated. The sixth is probably a Boone chert.

Corner-Notched Points

The next group includes points that are corner notched 

or seen to have a narrow haft opening according to Brown 

(1976, 1996). The distinction between Agee, Rockwall, 

Ashley, and Homan in this group is sometimes unclear. 

Collier and Coryell styles are included here as well.

Agee

There are 25 Agee points in the collection, making 

Agee points the most common style represented. Summary measurements are given in Table 6.4. Fourteen are 

serrated, and nearly all are characterized by fine bifacial 

retouch. Bases may or may not be retouched. Ninety-two 

percent have either triangular or incurvate blade shapes, 

with triangular blades more common and accounting for 

TABLE 6.4. Agee points measurement summary (n = 24).

 Standard

Measurement Mean Extremes deviation

Length (cm) 2.42 1.88 / 3.82 0.43

Width (cm) 1.59 1.29 / 2.1 0.2

Thickness (cm) 0.37 0.24 / 0.7 0.1

Proximal stem width (cm) 0.83 0.6 / 1.16 0.16

Distal stem width (cm) 0.62 0.47 / 0.83 0.09

Stem length (cm) 0.56 0.39 / 0.73 0.1

Thickness/width ratio 0.23 0.12 / 0.36 0.6

Width/proximal stem width 1.95 1.25 / 2.53 0.36
number 49 • 83

60% of the total. One point is slightly ovate and one is 

slightly excurvate. Two were clearly manufactured on flake 

blanks. Brown (1966:441) places Agee points in early components at Spiro on the basis of inclusion in Spiro IA, IB, 

and II grave lots. They may also have been reinterred in 

later Spiro IV contexts in the Great Mortuary.

Use. Damage from use is expected to occur in 

the form of shear fractures to barb or tang elements, distal 

damage, and damaged serrations. Among these artifacts, 

10 have damaged barbs or shoulders, some apparently 

resulting from torque. Four tools are blunted or hinged 

at the tip, suggesting use. The most likely candidates for 

tools actually having been fired include 448651s16 and 

423192s04. Point 448651s16 has a small bending snap 

fracture at tip and one broken barb. The base appears to 

be missing its corners. Point 423192s04 has snap/shear 

fractures on the shoulders, and the tip has been blunted 

by a hinge fracture, which could have been caused during 

manufacture or use. One tool (423192s08) is polished on 

the ridges, and this could have developed from curation.

Residues. No residues are present, with the 

exception of soil on two points.

Raw Material. The most common raw material is novaculite, which accounts for 48% of the total. 

Brown (1966:441) found a much higher proportion (85%) 

of novaculite from the WPA samples of Agee points. Forty 

percent are chert from the Southern Ozarks. Of the Ozark 

chert points, two are of Pitkin chert, and three appear to 

be of the general Keota and Burlington Formations. There 

are also two that appear to be from the Reed Springs Formation. In moving to sources farther away, one point appears to be made from Kay County chert, although this is 

tentative because of the difficulty of assigning chert types 

on the basis of the small surface area sample presented 

by small points. At Spiro, Kay county chert was used primarily for making large bifaces, not small points. There 

is also one Agee point finely chipped from quartz crystal. 

One point is from Red River jasper, and another is of an 

unknown material.

Rockwall

Closely related to the Agee style is the somewhat 

larger and more robust Rockwall style. Rockwall appears 

earlier than Agee over much of its range and may well be 

the precursor to the Agee style. Brown (1996:441) shows 

Rockwall points in conjunction with Spiro IA and Spiro 

II grave lots, where they often occur along with Agee and 

Ashley points. Rockwall points are barbed, and they may 

have deep serrations.

There are only two Rockwall points recorded for this 

collection. One is serrated coarsely, and the other is nonserrated. Both are well barbed. Lengths are 3.15 and 3.44 

cm for points 448650s02 and 448651s42, respectively. 

The points are 1.83 and 1.54 cm wide, respectively.

Sequoyah

Sequoyah points are similar to the Agee general pattern except that they customarily have long narrow blades 

often embellished with coarse serration. Four Sequoyah 

points are present in the Smithsonian’s collection from 

Spiro. The basal morphology is variable, with two being 

straight and one slightly convex. There are three such 

points present in the Meyer collection. One problematic 

point from the Trowbridge collection (423184) was tentatively assigned to this category. The artifact has a rather 

wide blade for Sequoyah points, but its serration is coarse, 

and the point would fit into the group on that basis. The 

blade tapers somewhat at the tip, another characteristic of 

Sequoyah points. These points range from 3.11 to 4.23 cm 

in length, 1.22 to 1.41 cm in width, and 0.37 to 0.39 cm in 

thickness, yielding a high T/W ratio of 1.07–1.75.

Justice (1987:223–224) treats Sequoyah as an outgrowth of the Scallorn cluster dating from ad 1000 to the 

end of the Spiro phase. He considers these the most common and typical points found from Spiro phase contexts 

at Spiro. Furthermore, Justice reports that although Sequoyah points spread as far north as southwestern Indiana, 

they are not found in appreciable quantities to the south of 

Spiro, as the Alba cluster varieties are. Brown (1966:443) 

reports that Sequoyah point caches are present in Spiro II

and Spiro IV grave lots; however, these points do occur in 

small amounts spanning the time from Spiro IA to Spiro IV.

Raw Material. One is a light pink novaculite (423184), and three are unidentified cherts. Brown 

(1996:443) reports a range of materials for the points 

from the WPA collections, including jasper, various cherts, 

and a small amount of novaculite.

Ashley

Ashley points are similar to Agee in style, but with 

longer stem lengths relative to the tool width. Brown 

(1996:442) reports that one cache of Ashley points derived from an early (IA) Craig Mound grave lot and that 

its later inclusion into the Great Mortuary was fortuitous.

The five Ashley points are all finely bifacially retouched. They are, by definition, strongly recurved in outline and well barbed. The amount of retouch on the base 
8 4 • s m ithsonian cont r i bu tions to anth r o p o l o g y

varies. The mean length is 2.52 cm, with a minimum of 

2.21 cm and a maximum of 3.09 cm. Width ranges from 

1.24 to 1.78 cm; however, this range underestimates the 

width because of damage to the barbed shoulders. Thickness ranges from 0.29 to 0.36 cm.

Use. All Ashley points are damaged at the shoulders; however, they are not damaged at the tips.

Raw Material. These are equally split between chert and novaculite. One of the chert points is a 

fine-quality black chert that may be of the Mississippian 

Bayou Menard Formation.

Ashley Chocoville

The single projectile in this style is a classic example of 

the type, which Brown (1996:442) refers to as a sociotechnic counterpart to the Ashley type (Figure 6.13a). It has a 

pair of extra notches along the lateral edges and is made 

from a fine-quality, lustrous light gray chert that appears 

to be from the Reed Springs Formation (423187).

Coryell

The two Coryell points are bifacially retouched in a 

fine or medium-fine manner. They are 2.0 and 3.4 cm in 

length and 1.42 and 1.94 cm in width, respectively. The 

smaller is 0.44 cm thick, and the larger is well thinned at 

0.28 cm thick.

Use. Artifact number 448651s47 has polish on 

most ridges, probably from prehistoric curation.

Raw Material. The polished artifact is of 

an unknown chert; the other, 448651s20, is made from a 

chert likely from the Reed Springs Formation.

Collier

There are three Collier points. All have fair workmanship in that bifacial retouch is minimal, steep and shallow, 

or just shallow. Two exhibit stepping or humping from 

poorly controlled flaking. They vary in size. Lengths range 

from 1.94 to 3.85 cm.

Use. One exhibits edge damage.

Raw Material. White novaculite was used 

for one. The other two are chert, from southern Ozarks 

sources.

Martindale

A single Martindale point, 423192s36, exhibits bifacial retouch and a manufacturing error on one lateral 

edge. Stepped terminations create a hump, so the piece 

is irregular in cross section. It has the characteristic “fish 

tail” base (Bell, 1960) and is somewhat translucent. Martindale points were used between 5000 and 1000 bc, so 

they represent an earlier intrusion into the collection. The 

length is 3.67 cm, width is 1.81 cm, and the tool is 0.59 

cm thick.

Residues. A very dark brown residue is present on basal ridges. The probable age of this piece would 

make it highly unlikely for this to be mastic for hafting.

Raw Material. The waxy lustered raw material is dotted with whiter inclusions and resembles Reed 

Springs chert.

Massard

Massard points are corner-notched varieties without 

barbs. Brown (1996:440) lists these as appearing in Spiro 

II through Spiro IV grave lots.

Among the 12 Massard points, one is ovate, one is 

incurved in outline, and the rest are triangular. Four have 

straight bases, whereas eight are subconvex to convex. 

Two are broken at the shoulders. Measurements are given 

in Table 6.5.

Use. Six points exhibit damage traces that may 

be use related. These are manifested as shear fractures or 

burination at the shoulders and, in one case, distal damage 

consistent with impact.

Residues. One has a brown stain, and another 

has a brownish sediment adhering to the surface.

Raw Material. One is clearly novaculite 

from the Ouachita Mountains of Arkansas. Another is 

possibly a heat-altered novaculite that resembles chalcedony. Chalcedony would be an unusual material for this 

area. Heat alteration might alter the novaculite, giving it 

TABLE 6.5. Massard points measurement summary (n = 12).

 Standard

Measurement Mean Extremes deviation

Length (cm) 2.38 1.87 / 2.68 0.28

Width (cm) 1.18 0.84 / 1.51 0.17

Thickness (cm) 0.39 0.3 / 0.52 0.07

Proximal stem width (cm) 0.88 0.59 / 1.21 0.16

Distal stem width (cm) 0.6 0.45 / 0.72 0.07

Stem length (cm) 0.7 0.54 / 0.85 0.1

Thickness/width ratio 0.34 0.21 / 0.47 0.8

Width/proximal stem width 1.36 0.95 / 1.78 0.22
number 49 • 85

the waxiness and translucence usually characteristic of 

chalcedony. Two novaculite tools would be fewer than expected on the basis of Brown’s (1976, 1996) study, which 

indicates Massard (especially the variety designated “B”) 

points are produced predominantly from novaculite. This 

can be explained partially in terms of the small sample 

size of Massard points in the Smithsonian collection and 

partially in terms of the subjectivity involved in doing 

point typologies. Three of the cherts could not be identified with any confidence. One may be Keokuk, Prior Aggregate variety, and another has the characteristic banding 

of the Ordovician Cotter or Jefferson City Formations. 

Another may be from the Reed Springs Formation, also in 

the southern Ozark Highlands.

Scallorn

Scallorn points are summarized in Table 6.6. The 12 

Scallorn points are distinguished by corner notching and 

are usually barbed. Blade outline is predominantly triangular (62%), although there are ovate outlines (23%) and 

one each of incurvate and asymmetrical triangular outlines. 

One-half of the bases are straight, five are convex, and one 

is concave. Serration does occur on the point edges. Workmanship is good, with fine bifacial retouch being typical, 

although there is one unifacially worked point that falls 

into this class. Justice (1987:220–222) places this cluster 

in the Late Woodland to Mississippian transition, about 

ad 700–1000 or the Fourche Maline, Evans, and Harlan 

phases. Brown (1996:442) reports on Scallorn points from 

Spiro II and III grave lots, implying that Scallorn points 

were being made later, from ad 1100 to 1300.

Use. Shear fractures on the barbs is the most 

frequent damage recorded. Three may be altered by heat. 

Point 423192s04 is serrated, with a retouched base and 

snap or shear fractures on the shoulders. The tip is blunted 

by a hinge fracture that could also have been caused during manufacture. Artifact 448651s15 exhibits a bending 

fracture at the tip that could easily be from use.

Residues. Two points have some form of residue that may be prehistoric. Point 423192s63 has orange 

residue near the tip on the numbered face.

Raw Material. Nine of the 12 are chert, and 

three are of Arkansas novaculite. The chert points all appear to be of Keota, Burlington, or Reed Springs Formations. One may be of the Pierson Formation.

Side-Notched Points

Side-notched points include Reed, Morris, Keota, 

Haskell, and Washita and its variations. The side-notched 

group as a whole usually exhibits fine thinning and secondary retouch, but points are unbarbed.

Reed

This straight-based point style is listed by Brown 

(1996:444) in grave lots as early as Spiro IA but is present in larger numbers in caches in Spiro II/III and Spiro III

grave lots. The 12 Reed points reported here are characterized by good to fine bifacial thinning and basal retouch 

(Figure 6.12). None of the Reed points are broken. By and 

large, they are thin and finely worked, although several are 

steeply retouched. Eight are triangular, and four are ovate 

in outline. Two of the Reed points are serrated.

Use. Fine edge damage is present on one point, 

but otherwise, characteristics of use are lacking.

Raw Material. All are chert except for two, 

which are novaculite.

Keota

Ten projectile points have the convex bases and relatively narrow side notches characteristic of the Keota 

style. Three bear traces of heat alteration. Eighty percent 

have a triangular blade outline; 20% are ovate. The base 

may or may not be retouched. Tools having a lower T/W

ratio also tend to have retouched bases. There is a varying 

degree of fineness displayed in finishing knapping. Keota 

points are found in a variety of grave lot styles, occasionally in Spiro IB and II and cached in Spiro III and IV grave 

lots (Brown, 1996:444). 

Use. Point 448651s53 (Figure 6.12p) has steep 

unifacial retouch to form a thick tip. A steep intersection 

at the tip would make a useful graver or incising tool and 

TABLE 6.6. Scallorn points measurement summary (n = 12).

 Standard

Measurement Mean Extremes deviation

Length (cm) 2.67 1.74 / 3.82 0.63

Width (cm) 1.38 1.06 / 1.69 0.2

Thickness (cm) 0.47 0.27 / 1.44 0.3

Proximal stem width (cm) 0.96 0.61 / 1.49 0.26

Distal stem width (cm) 0.62 0.53 / 0.78 0.9

Stem length (cm) 0.62 0.39 / 0.77 0.12

Thickness/width ratio 0.34 0.21 / 0.93 0.18

Width/proximal stem width 1.51 0.94 / 0.33 0.39
8 6 • s m ithsonian cont r i bu tions to anth r o p o l o g y

would be unusual for projectile points. The tip edge resembles scraper retouch but is pointed very sharply. Also, the 

wide blade would strengthen a tool that would be used for 

gouging, although there are no obvious direct traces of use.

Residues. Yellowish sediment on one, black 

resinous residue on another.

Raw Material. Of 10 Keota points, nine 

are chert and only one is a highly lustrous novaculite. 

Artifact 448651s53 is a small Keota point made of pink 

semitranslucent, nonwaxy novaculite that is homogeneous 

and nongrainy. Of the chert points, one appears to be the 

deeply blue-black waxy Pitkin chert, one is unclassified, 

and the remainder appear to be of the Burlington, Keota, 

Elsley cluster (Boone). Of the Boone group, one has tiny 

dark gray flecks in the matrix. Another is a very distinctive 

mottled and variegated highly lustrous chert in grays with 

some brown swirls. It resembles samples of Keota Formation, Prior Aggregate variety. Another is probably Reed 

Springs. All raw materials with the exception of the novaculite are regionally available, and therefore, the Keota 

points do not present much in the way of exotic material.

Reed/Keota Variation

There are side-notched points made using a slightly 

different design from either Reed or Keota. These nonbarbed points are asymmetrical in cross section and are not 

nearly as finely thinned as are others in the Reed, Keota, 

and Washita macrogroup. They have long stems and wide 

side notches. Bifacial retouch does not always reach the 

axis of the piece, showing clearly the ventral surface of a 

flake blank on which these were almost invariably made. 

The retouch is in most cases steep and shallow. Blade outlines are primarily triangular but include incurvate shapes 

FIGURE 6.12. Small projectile points (448651): a–b, s36–s37; c, s39 

Alba; d, s40 Reed; e, s41; f, s43 Alba; g–h, s44–s45; i, s48 Massard; 

j, s46; k, s47 Coryell; l, s45 Agee; m, s54; n, s50 Hayes; o, s51; p, s53 

Keota; q, s52 ground Washita point.

TABLE 6.7. Reed points measurement summary (n = 12).

 Standard

Measurement Mean Extremes deviation

Length (cm) 2.27 1.59 / 3.88 0.63

Width (cm) 1.12 0.75 / 1.94 0.35

Thickness (cm) 0.38 0.26 / 0.97 0.2

Proximal stem width (cm) 1.11 1.89 / 1.52 0.2

Distal stem width (cm) 0.63 0.49 / 0.86 0.13

Stem length (cm) 0.64 0.55 / 0.86 0.1

Thickness/width ratio 0.37 0.14 / 1.29 0.3

Width/proximal stem width 1.0 0.77 / 1.69 0.24

TABLE 6.8. Keota points measurement summary (n = 10).

 Standard

Measurement Mean Extremes deviation

Length (cm) 2.53 1.52 / 3.49 0.65

Width (cm) 1.19 0.97 / 1.43 0.13

Thickness (cm) 0.39 0.28 / 0.57 0.03

Proximal stem width (cm) 1.1 0.98 / 1.25 0.1

Distal stem width (cm) 0.7 0.52 / 0.89 0.11

Stem length (cm) 0.76 0.64 / 0.98 0.09

Thickness/width ratio 0.33 0.24 / 0.45 0.7

Width/proximal stem width 1.08 0.9 / 1.37 0.16
number 49 • 87

as well. Three have a tip that tapers to a nearly needlelike 

point. Four of 11 are serrated, one of which shows pronounced serration. Identical points are shown for the Harlan site (Bell, 1984:234). There are two varieties, straight 

based and convex based.

The straight-based variation is clearly side notched, 

but the notches are very wide, giving the piece a long 

stem. The base is unretouched. Included are 423192s40, 

423192s44, and 423192s67. All are very finely serrated. 

These are all novaculite.

The convex-based variation has exactly the same 

notching and blade form as the straight-based examples, 

but the base is retouched convex (though the basal retouch 

may be unifacial or minimal). Included are 423192s45, 

423192s64, 423192s65, and 423192s66. The two raw 

materials used to make them are novaculite and dark bluegray Pitkin chert. Five of 11 points in this combined classification are Pitkin chert.

Both varieties can easily be combined into one type 

that overlaps the Reed and Keota types, hence the grouping here. The tools listed as both above, combined with 

423192s69 and 423192s71, all seem to go together. One 

could also add 423192s51 and 423192s55, which are essentially Reed points but are very like 423192s65 both 

in workmanship and raw material. Although singled out 

here as a variation on the Mississippian styles of Reed and 

Keota points, which share some characteristics with Cahokia (Washita) points in style, Justice (1987) would probably place these points into the same group as Sequoyah.

Use. None of these points are broken, nor are 

there any other indicators that would suggest they had actually been used.

Residues. None.

Morris

There are four Morris points that have the characteristic deeply concave basal morphology. Brown (1996:444) 

places these points between ad 1000 and 1200. The mean 

length is 2.36 cm, with a minimum of 1.47 cm and a maximum of 3.13 cm. Mean width is 1.26 cm, minimum width 

is 1.05 cm, and maximum width is 1.48 cm. Three of the 

points are finely serrated. All appear to have been altered 

by heat. Workmanship is very good.

Use. One exhibits a shear fracture on the base.

Residues. Point 423185s02 has a band of 

dark material that may be a residue.

Raw Material. Three of these points are 

from chert, and one is an unidentified material. Brown 

(1996:444) found high levels of heat treating for the Morris points in the WPA collections.

Haskell

Two concave-based Haskell points are finely flaked 

using well-controlled pressure flaking techniques. One 

(423192s37) resembles a Reed point (423192s46) in 

both raw material and flaking style and could have been 

produced by the same flintknapper. This would support 

the contention that some of these pieces do derive from 

cached materials. The third Haskell point is steeply retouched on the edges only. A fourth was surface collected 

at the site after the WPA excavations. Haskell points from 

the WPA work were found cached in Spiro II and III grave 

lots (Brown, 1996:444).

Use. The two finely flaked Haskell points each 

have damaged tips.

Residues. One has a deposit of sediment.

Raw Material. All are chert. Brown 

(1996:444) reports that Haskell points he analyzed were 

primarily made of a dark gray, red-banded chert.

Washita

There are five Washita points in the varieties Washita 

garvin, Washita peno, and Washita chaffee. Washita-style 

projectiles are characterized by fine flaking, thin cross section, and relatively highly placed narrow side notches. 

These are typical of the Cahokia site in Illinois. Two more 

Washita points were not classified into subtypes. According to Brown (1996:445), the Washita garvin style was 

found cached in Spiro III grave lots and is also found in 

some Spiro II contexts.

TABLE 6.9. Reed/Keota variety points measurement summary 

(n = 11).

 Standard

Measurement Mean Extremes deviation

Length (cm) 2.49 1.89 / 3.27 0.42

Width (cm) 1.12 0.91 / 1.29 0.11

Thickness (cm) 0.37 0.3 / 0.5 0.06

Proximal stem width (cm) 1.09 0.92 / 1.24 0.1

Distal stem width (cm) 0.59 0.42 / 0.75 0.1

Stem length (cm) 0.8 0.6 / 0.99 0.1

Thickness/width ratio 0.33 0.25 / 0.42 0.05

Width/proximal stem width 1.04 0.89 / 1.24 0.12
8 8 • s m ithsonian cont r i bu tions to anth r o p o l o g y

Use. The Washita peno points both show signs 

of use in the form of a blunt tip on one (423192s38) and a 

burination from impact on the other (448651s03). 

Raw Material. The two Washita garvin 

points are made from gray Reed Springs chert and Boone 

chert. The Washita peno points are both of Reed Springs 

chert. One unspecified Washita point of novaculite is 

heavily ground on both faces (Figure 6.12q, 448651s52). 

One thick novaculite point is unusual in that the edges 

have been ground on both faces (Figure 6.12q). The grinding nearly, but not quite, eliminates the flake scars from 

knapping. This type of grinding is rare for projectile points 

from North America. The other unspecified Washita example is chert of unknown source. The Washita chaffee 

point is possibly made from a high-quality chert of the 

Devonian Woodford Formation from the Ouachita Hills.

Unclassified Side-Notched Points

One side-notched point (448650s16) was left unclassified because it exhibits characteristics of more than one type. 

The small tool has a typical Reed base but is coarsely serrated 

and more ovate in form than most Reed points are. It may 

be a variety of Reed point or a resharpened tool, giving it the 

shorter overall aspect and more rounded form. The small 

point of light olive-gray Reed Springs chert measures 2.32 

cm in length, 1.29 cm in width, and 0.24 cm in thickness. 

Unshouldered Points

Unshouldered points are rare and include Fresno 

(straight based), Young and Nodena (convex based), and 

a single Maud point with serrations part of the way down 

the edges along with a concave base.

Maud

There is one Maud point of a very fine grained black 

chert with a matte luster. Although rare from the Spiro 

Craig Mound collection, Maud points are reported elsewhere at Spiro phase localities nearby. For example, 

Rohrbaugh (1985a:70) records the incidence of four 

Maud points at the Geren site (34Lf36).

Fresno

Small projectiles with a straight base and triangular 

blade outline are classified as Fresno points. There are two 

such in the Spiro collection (378271s03 and 448651s26), 

measuring 1.48 and 1.88 cm in length, 1.26 and 1.07 cm 

in width, and 0.28 and 0.26 cm in thickness, respectively. 

They are both chert. One appears to be consistent with 

Boone chert varieties, and the other is unidentifiable. 

Brown (1996:446) finds Fresno points in relatively late 

contexts (Spiro IV) based on his grave lot seriation.

Young and Nodena

There are three unshouldered, convex-based points 

with ovate blade outlines. The two Nodena points, 

448651s22 and 448652s06, average 1.98 cm in length and 

0.95 cm in width. The T/W ratio is 0.24. The Young style 

(448650s18) is characterized by a wider blade (1.27 cm). It 

is longer overall than the Nodena points at 2.58 cm.

Unclassified Points

Eight points were unclassified. In some cases diagnostic features are broken, hampering classification. Two 

of these (448651s51 and 448651s46) are similar arrow 

points with wide shallow side notches. They are made 

from Reed Springs chert. Another narrow, thick point 

(378271s01) was manufactured from a reddish yellow 

chert, possibly a variety of Boone or Keokuk chert. 

Small Projectile Point Summary

Heat Alteration

Heat treatment was almost certainly done to improve 

flaking quality of some of the raw materials. However, intentional heat treatment may produce only subtle effects in 

some materials and may be confused with nonintentional 

heat alteration in others. Conversely, it is important not 

to assume intentional heat treatment every time an artifact displays signs of having been heated because there are 

many other factors that can bring tools into contact with 

heat, including hearth proximity, prairie fire, or cremation.

Postmanufacture heating is suggested by eight projectile points that have a pink or reddish tip consistent with 

heat alteration (Table 6.10). If the reddening is from heat, 

it must be postmanufacture because otherwise it would 

not affect just the tip unless mostly finished preforms were 

being heated. This alteration could be some form of purposeful treatment as part of the mortuary procedure or 

simply a characteristic of chance contact with heat.

The characteristic of postutilization heat alteration 

needs to be examined for contexts with better provenience, 

especially in nonburial situations. All in all, few points appear to have burned after use. Burning after use might be 
number 49 • 89

expected (1) as a function of random disposal in domestic 

contexts or (2) as a function of mortuary ritual in which 

some materials might be burned. Postutilization heat alteration is usually uncontrolled (as opposed to controlled 

heat treatment to improve flaking quality) and often results 

in crazing, thermal fracturing, potlid scarring, and resinous or sooty residues. None of the specimens from Spiro 

exhibit any of these dramatic damage indicators.

Caches

Some similarities among points suggest cached deposits with points having been made of similar material by a 

single manufacturer. There are definite similarities among 

points in the Trowbridge and Meyer collections. Caching was studied by Brown (1976, 1996). Several points in 

the Trowbridge collection are of an unusual olive brown 

lusterless opaque jasper, which probably comes from the 

Red River area (Brown, personal communication, 1992). 

These are similar morphologically as well and fit into the 

Hayes and Alba groups. They could easily represent a 

group made by a single manufacturer and perhaps were 

cached in a single burial context or feature.

Likely candidates for cache composition among the 

small points include (1) group A, 423192s51, s55, s65; (2) 

group B, 423192s66, s67; and (3) group C, 423192s17, 

s18, s19, s20, s21, s22, maybe 423192s08 with s33.

Use

There are some indicators of use. In most cases they 

consist of damage to shoulder, barb, or base, characteristic 

of damage from projection when the force of impact is 

loaded onto the haft. However, such damage may also be 

produced by mechanical, excavation, and curation (keeping a tool) processes. There are few broken pieces. The 

propensity for tools to be complete might result from the 

preference among both diggers and dealers to collect complete pieces to which they accord a higher value. Shear 

fractures on barbs would be unlikely to affect the overall 

value greatly or might not even be noticed by a collector.

The possibility for arrows to have been held together 

in a quiver might account for the relatively high amount 

of shoulder damage. If arrows are held together in a tight 

cluster, the portions of the tools that will come in contact 

with one another are the barbs or shoulders, and these will 

be more likely to become damaged. This is an example of 

damage that may occur as a result of curation: keeping 

and perhaps transporting objects together.

Small projectile points recovered from nonmortuary 

contexts at Spiro appear to have incurred a greater degree of damage. Most of the points illustrated from the 

1979 excavations at Spiro (Rogers, 1980:172) exhibit 

some form of breakage consistent with wastage during 

use. Small points in the NMNH collection from the Craig 

Mound are remarkably whole, given the total number of 

small points. Although the projectiles may not have been 

in a pristine state when they were deposited, as a group 

they were definitely utilized only to a slight degree.

Large Projectile Points

Larger bifaces that display a haft element but are too 

large to have functioned as arrow points are present in 

the collection and were classified as large points. Most are 

stemmed as opposed to notched, although there are exceptions. These may have been utilized as knives or projectiles 

for use with atlatls or spears. Among the large points, the 

most common styles are Gary and Lange. There are also 

others that do not fit well into known types, and those 

were listed as unclassified.

Gary

Gary points are distinguished by ovate blade outlines 

and stems with well-rounded convex bases. They range 

from Late Archaic to Woodland contexts and are associated with Fourche Maline phase sites in Arkansas (Justice, 1987:189). Since these tools are generally earlier than 

the Spiro phase Great Mortuary deposit, they were possibly redeposited in the Craig Mound as fill taken from 

older habitation areas during mound construction. There 

Table 6.10. Presence of postmanufacturing heat alteration in 

small projectile points.

Catalog

number Style Notes

423192s05 Agee Already red; tip and barbs

slightly darker

423192s14 Unclassified corner notch

423192s24 Perdiz Grayish red tip on a light 

brown tool

423192s47 Reed Slightly pinker at tip

423192s49 Keota Red tip

448651s50 Hayes More pink at tip

448651s24 Alba Although entire piece is red, 

tip is darkest area on tool

448650s08 Morris Redder tip
9 0 • s m ithsonian cont r i bu tions to anth r o p o l o g y

are four Gary points, one of which has a midblade snap 

fracture. The other three range from 5.74 to 9.02 cm in 

length and 2.7 to 3.87 cm in width. Thickness ranges from 

0.88 to 1.76 cm. Stem length ranges from 0.87 to 2.17 cm. 

Stem width at the distal juncture with the blade ranges 

from 1.72 to 1.99 cm. Bifacial thinning is deep, and in 

three cases secondary edge retouch is minimal, although 

stepped terminations are common.

Use. The Gary points do appear to have been 

utilized. One (448652s01) has a medial break that could 

have been incurred in any number of ways, including use. 

Another (448652s03) has burination originating at the 

shoulder and continuing more than one-half of the distance up one lateral edge. It also shows edge rounding especially at the tip. Artifact 448929 exhibits clear damage 

and blunting to the tip. The fourth tool has a flake taken 

out of one shoulder, which may be from either manufacture or use. All of these damage types are consistent with 

the action of projection (Sievert, 1992), and none would 

typify utilization along a lateral edge in cutting or sawing.

Residues. No residues were present.

Raw Material. All are chert; however, in 

most cases the type of chert is unknown. One may be chert 

from the Jefferson City Formation. Two are of a material 

that has apparently been heated.

Lange

Lange-style lithic artifacts are characterized by straight 

or slightly expanding stems (Figure 6.13c,d.). The blade 

is usually narrow relative to length. There are four such 

tools in the Spiro collection. Three are large and range 

from 9.48 to 11.42 cm in length, 3.23 to 3.69 cm in width, 

and 0.8 to 1.15 cm in thickness. The fourth (448652s02) 

is considerably smaller at 5.4 cm long, 2.65 cm wide, and 

0.57 cm thick. Lintz (1978:141) discusses similar Lange 

points recovered on survey in Haskell County, Oklahoma.

Use. Point 378372 exhibits highly polished 

ridges and a green stain that is probably copper. Two others 

have damage consistent with impact; 423175s01 exhibits 

burination on the stem and a corresponding shear fracture 

on the shoulder of the same edge. Point 448652s02 has 

distal damage typical of impact.

Raw Material. All are chert. However, in 

one case (423175) the biface is of an unusual purple color, 

which possibly resulted from heating. Another (423176) is 

Table 6.11. Large projectile point styles and raw materials.

Catalog

Style number Raw material

Gary 417939s02 Jefferson City–Cotter chert

448652s01 Keokuk/Boone chert

448652s03 Chert

448929 Chert

Lange 423175s01 Keokuk chert

423176 Jefferson City–Cotter chert

448652s02 Keokuk/Boone chert

Johnson 423189 Boone or Reed Springs chert

Graham Cave 423190s01 Chert

423177 Chert

Expanding stem B 423190s02 Chert

Eccentric 448653 Keokuk/Boone chert

FIGURE 6.13. Large and unusual points: a, Ashley Chocoville point 

(423187); b, very early point, Graham Cave (423177); c, d, Lange 

points (423175s01, 423176); e, Kay point (423175).
number 49 • 91

a distinctive banded chert not inconsistent with the cherts 

of the Cotter Formation in the Southern Ozarks.

Johnson

One haftable point exhibits a pattern of inverse retouch that creates a bevel and is tentatively assigned to 

the Johnson category. It has shallow serration and stepped 

termination on the secondary retouch flake scars. It is 

unbarbed, with a minimally retouched base. It resembles 

Ellis points (Bell, 1958) with beveling along the sides of 

the blade, but the stem does not expand significantly. 

Johnson points are usually dated to the Late Archaic or 

Early Woodland periods (Perino, 1968). Raw material is a 

typical Boone chert.

Graham Cave

One biface has an ovate blade outline, a definite side 

notch and a slightly concave base (423190s01). It is made 

from a dull brown chert and measures 5.87 × 2.07 cm. Another (423177, Figure 6.13b) resembles 423190s01 except 

that the blade is excurvate, the base is markedly concave, 

and the ears are more rounded. These both appear to be 

Archaic period point styles, with resemblance to the Early 

to Middle Archaic Graham Cave styles found in the region 

(Justice, 1987). Along with the Johnson point, these two 

early points may have been deposited in the Craig Mound 

through the mound building process, or they may have 

been intentionally collected from earlier sites by the Spiro 

people and redeposited in the secondary burials placed 

into the Great Mortuary.

Expanding Stem Points

Artifact 423190s02 is a medium-sized haftable point 

having an excurvate outline and wide expanding stem. It 

is 4.98 cm long, 2.59 cm wide, and fairly thick at 0.98 cm. 

Raw material is a fine-quality waxy-lustered translucent 

brown chert.

Eccentric Points

There is one truly eccentric haftable biface produced 

from a good quality white chert not unlike Burlington 

(448653, Figure 6.14e). It is a complete tool 7.45 cm long, 

4.02 cm wide, and 0.65 cm thick. Distal stem width is 2.2 

cm, which contracts to a proximal stem width of 1.21 cm. 

The stem is 1.41 cm long and notched in the center of the 

base. There are three sets of notches along the triangular 

blade edges. The distal notch is shallow, the medial notch 

is wide and deep, and the proximal notch is shallower 

and narrower than the medial notch. The shoulders are 

barbed.

Large Bifaces

There are various types of larger bifaces ranging from 

ovoid bifaces to sword-form knives and maces. Clements 

et al. (1935–1938:263) noted that

finely shaped, very thin stone blades are typical 

of this culture. These blades range from eight 

inches to twenty-eight inches in length and seem 

to have been manufactured for ceremonial use 

as they are far too fragile to have served any 

utilitarian purpose, although the larger ones may 

have been used as knives. The only large points 

that were found were “V” shaped with small 

tangs at the apices of the “V” and average about 

five inches in length.

Raw materials used in producing large bifaces vary 

(see Table 6.12). Banks (1984) mentions argillite, which 

was used for some celts and reputedly comes from a “siltstone” ledge in the Atoka Formation, which abuts the 

Arkansas River. Smoky Hills jasper, also called Niobrara 

jasper, comes from Kansas but was utilized at Spiro, primarily for large bifaces. Novaculite, quartzite, and varieties of chert complete the inventory of materials used for 

large bifaces. In most cases, these large bifaces probably 

served a social or ceremonial function. 

Haftable Bifaces

Ovoid Bifaces

There are two examples of the type that Brown 

(1976:127–131; 1996:464) refers to as “ovoid bifaces,” 

type A (Figure 6.14f,h). They are made from Kay County 

chert of the Flint Hills region of northern Oklahoma. This 

chert has the characteristic banding, and the bifaces have 

lopsided blade outlines, with one edge convex and the 

other straight. One is broken, such that only the proximal end is present. They are notched a short distance from 

the base. The complete biface has thick brown sediment 

adhering to one face near the tip and is well polished on 

dorsal ridges. Near the tip, along both lateral edges the 

residue is abruptly truncated about 1 mm from the edge, 

leaving a narrow residue-free band. Function of these 

tools is uncertain.
9 2 • s m ithsonian cont r i bu tions to anth r o p o l o g y

An unusually shaped ovoid biface is present (423179, 

Figure 6.14g.). This is a fine, thin blade made from what is 

probably heat-altered novaculite. It has a clear red color and 

waxy luster. The tool has a well-defined shoulder and shallow notches in the lateral edges set high on the blade distal to 

the shoulder. Some edge damage is visible on one lateral edge 

near the tip. The tool measures 12.19 cm in length and 3.81 

cm in width. Another biface fragment is made from a dense 

grainy material that appears to be siltstone (423191s03). It 

is broken and tapers near the tip of the wide, thin blade.

Kay

One biface corresponds to the morphology reported 

for Kay points (Brown, 1976); however, it is crudely made 

of an unidentified yellowish brown grainy chert instead 

of the more usual Kay County chert (Figure 6.13e). This 

point (423175s02) has rounded corner notches and a burination extending up the stem from the base. There is an 

odd whitish residue on one face of this artifact that could 

be adhesive. It is 11.53 cm long and 3.95 cm wide.

FIGURE 6.14. Large bifaces and drills: a, expanding stemmed drill (423193s01); b, barbed 

drill (423193s02); c, drill made on a pebble (448655); d, quartz graver (423191s04); e, 

eccentric point (448653); f, h, ovoid bifaces of Kay County chert (423178, 417939); g, 

novaculite biface (423179).
number 49 • 93

Preforms

There are nine pieces that may be preforms. Of these, 

three are large bifacially worked tools (423170) of novaculite or chert with triangular outlines and broad flat bases. 

It is conceivable that such tools could have been utilized 

as celts; however, it is also possible that since they are of 

nonlocal raw material, they may have been imported in 

this form, to be used or finished by local knappers. One is 

of a high-quality grayish novaculite (Figure 6.15), similar 

in raw material to that used to manufacture biface number 423180 (a long, thick lanceolate biface which likewise 

could be a preform but is more likely a resharpened knife 

form). Ovoid and lanceolate bifaces of catalog number 

448654 consist of four chert forms and one novaculite 

form, all of which appear unfinished.

SPECIAL CHIPPED-STONE WEAPONRY

Brown (1996:470) divides special weaponry clubs into 

three types: maces, axes, and sword forms. Both chippedstone and ground-stone manufacturing methods are used 

for celts and maces. Sword-form tools are chipped stone. 

Ceremonial weapons were perhaps designed to resemble 

more utilitarian weapons; however, they were embellished 

or altered to reflect a symbolic component. Contexts of 

use will involve display or demonstration.

Sword-­Form Bifaces

Sword-form bifaces are large bifacially worked tools 

that fit into several morphological classes, including general bifaces, Duck River bifaces, and fusi-elliptical form 

bifaces. These forms may have served as batons or clubs 

rather than as knives or other cutting tools. They are listed 

in Table 6.12.

Duck River

Spiro is known to have yielded fragments of very 

long narrow blades, often pointed at both ends. A reconstructed biface and five fragments (Figure 6.16) are present. These artifacts are similar in morphology and raw 

material to the Duck River cache of bifaces found in Tennessee (Brown, 1996:474) and have been given the name 

“Duck River” for that reason. Brown (1976:159) notes 

that all of the ones in the WPA collection were broken 

and writes that they can be expected to occur in highly 

fragmented form, suggesting intentional breakage or ceremonial “killing.” Pronounced hinge fractures as well as 

FIGURE 6.15. Large triangular preform or celt-form biface 

(423170s01).

TABLE 6.12. Large biface types and raw material summary.

Catalog

Type number Raw material

Ovoid biface A 417939s01 Kay County chert

423178 Kay County chert

Ovoid (irregular) 423179 Novaculite 

Kay 423175s02 Chert

Celt form 423170s01 Novaculite

423170s02 Novaculite

423170s03 Chert

423173 Chert

Preform 423180 Novaculite

448654s02 Chert

448654s03 Novaculite

448654s04 Chert

448654s05 Chert

General sword form 423174s01 Chert

423174s03 Chert

423191s03 Siltstone

Duck River sword form 423172s01 Boone chert

423174s04 Mill Creek chert

423174s05 Mill Creek chert

423174s06 Mill Creek chert

423174s07 Dover chert

423174s08 Dover chert

Fusi-elliptical sword form 423171 Quartzite

Hoe 423174s02 Chert

Unclassified 448654s01 Chert

448690s01 Unknown
9 4 • s m ithsonian cont r i bu tions to anth r o p o l o g y

battering and retouch on the edges of medial breaks support the idea that the blades were deliberately broken. The 

pieces in the Smithsonian collection are all smeared with 

green pigment, and the five nonreconstructed pieces bear 

ocher stains as well. This residue is truncated by hinge 

fractures; in one case (423174s05) the hinge fracture extends for 2.81 cm onto the face. Therefore, the pieces must 

have been smeared with pigments and then ceremonially 

broken and strewn about. The fragments range from 4.39 

to 8.43 cm in length and 3.86 to 2.53 cm in width.

The reconstructed biface is composed of at least four 

other fragments clumsily fit together to make a 30 cm 

blade (423172). Trowbridge acquired the piece and recorded in his catalog that this blade was constructed from 

similar but nonrefitting fragments by J. W. Balloun, from 

whom he purchased it. One join has given way so that the 

tool is now in two pieces. An outstanding feature of the 

reconstructed biface is the retouch on the edges of one of 

the breaks. It appears to be recent and occurs on an edge 

that is broken at an oblique angle. It does not seem possible that this edge could be the base of the fragment but 

perhaps was nicked away at the edges by Mr. Balloun in 

order to produce fragments that would fit together in a 

straight line, thereby reducing the true edge of the break 

and creating a false “fit.” Residues on the tool are plentiful 

and include traces of glauconite, copper, and ocher. Modern residues include plaster or wood filler, green pigment, 

and adhesive. The entire surface is smeared with reconstructive material. Beneath the material, relatively fresh 

flake scars can be seen along the broken edges, which indicates that the dealer who reconstructed the blade battered 

away at the broken edges in order to create a smooth fit. 

The chert is homogeneous and peppered with very small 

dark speckles. The same raw material has been used in 

FIGURE 6.16. Duck River bifaces: a, reconstructed biface (423172); b, fragments (423174).
number 49 • 95

each piece. Hamilton (1952: pl. 46) shows several bifaces 

that may have been similarly reconstructed.

There are two types of chert represented (Table 6.12). 

One is a grainy brownish chert that is probably material from Mill Creek in Illinois. The other form is a finergrained, lighter gray, slightly mottled chert typical of 

materials from Dover, Tennessee (Brown, personal communication, 1992). The reconstructed biface appears to 

be of the Dover variety, although the raw material of some 

of its component fragments is obscured by applied reconstruction material.

General Sword-Form Bifaces

In the collection is a complete but broken biface of 

a white chert (423174s01, Figure 6.17b). It consists of 

four large fragments and one small fragment that refit to a 

length of 25.5 cm. The maximum width is 6 cm. The blade 

is pointed distally and rounded proximally. The pointed 

end is refitted from a fragment from lot 423191, and this 

break occurred before excavation. There are at least two 

breaks that occurred after cataloguing at the NMNH. A

brown residue adheres to one face only and is present on 

the oldest break surface. The point of impact for the earliest break is on the face of the piece, leaving a cone of 

percussion on the break surface. This is a typical result of 

hitting a biface with a stone hammer to break it intentionally (Sievert, 1992). The white chert has a homogeneous 

texture and sparse darker elliptical spots with very light 

halos suggestive of the Reed Springs Formation.

Biface fragment 423174s03 has an asymmetrical outline with one edge being more convex. The straighter edge 

is clearly beveled, with the opposite edge retouched. The 

retouched convex edge is polished, and the distribution 

of wear suggests use as a side scraper. It is of a pinkish 

gray chert of unknown origin. Brown (1996:472) reported 

this type of biface from Spiro II and Spiro IV grave lots. 

He found the raw materials to include Smoky Hills jasper, 

Kay County chert, and other unidentified cherts.

Fusi-elliptical Bifaces

These long bifaces are wider near the distal end. 

Artifact 423171 has a distinct shoulder occurring 3.96 

cm from one end. Bifacial thinning with secondary edge 

retouch has produced a sinuous cross section. There is 

polish on either end and on dorsal ridges. It is hard to 

say which end is distal and which is proximal. Generally, there is more polish on the shorter, wider end, which 

could be from hafting or from use, such as digging. Polish 

extends well up toward midblade on some ridges. It is 

clearly fusi-elliptical in outline but broader and thicker 

than other similar bifaces described by Brown (1976:161, 

1996:474), which could put it into a class more similar 

to the Ramey knife described by Perino (1963). The raw 

material is a dark quartzite with sparse darker gray to 

black mottles and streaks surrounded by halos of a rusty 

hue. It is unlike any other lithic material encountered in 

this collection. 

Maces

There are four large, ornate, and impressive crownform bifaces of varied morphology. These bifaces have 

been referred to as crown maces and fall into a number of 

FIGURE 6.17. General sword-form bifaces: a, 423191; b, 423174.
9 6 • s m ithsonian cont r i bu tions to anth r o p o l o g y

documented morphological types (Brown, 1976:166–173; 

1996:474–476).

The first is represented only by the elaborate haft element consisting of a stem and wide flanges proximal to 

deep notches (423196, Figure 6.18a). The margins of the 

haft element are discolored to a very dark grayish brown, 

possibly related to the way it was hafted. The discoloration may be due to mastic or bindings. This discoloration 

follows the edges, where bindings would be expected, not 

in the center, where mastic might be expected. None of the 

tools in this collection exhibit any trace of mastic, which 

implies that mastic was simply not used. The mace has 

been shown in Hamilton (1952: pl. 44A).

During the 1970s, A. Segovia (University of Maryland, Department of Geology) identified the raw material as novaculite (Joan S. Gardner, unpublished notes on 

conservation measures taken for the Spiro collections at 

the National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian 

Institution, 1970–1971). However, the texture, color, and 

inclusions are unlike that of any of the novaculites in the 

reference collection. Rather, this tool appears to be a dark 

grayish brown fine-quality chert, resembling those of the 

Woodford Formation. There are at least two kinds of residue on the piece, a greenish clay that resembles glauconite 

and a brown sediment that overlays the glauconite and 

probably represents sediment from the mound fill.

A second large crown-type mace made of what was 

at first thought to be jasper was loaned to the NMNH

in 1936 by Braecklein for casting (Figure 6.18b). Several casts were made, and there are two in the collection 

(377378, 377379). The original was later turned over to 

Trowbridge and entered the NMNH collection more than 

two decades later (423198). Braecklein (1936), in a letter 

to the Smithsonian, indicates that the artifact was “found 

in hematitie [sic] bed, one end next to a cremation.” This 

mace is an impressive piece of lithic workmanship of the 

shape that Brown (1996:475) refers to as type 1. This 

crown mace has two projections on the convex expanding 

distal end, one in the middle, and one at the side. Presumably, there was a third on the opposite corner, but this corner has been fractured. There is a pair of large “ears” on 

either side in the medial section of the artifact, and below 

these ears are two short, downward-pointing barbs. This 

artifact is pictured in Hamilton (1952: pl. 41), Fundaburk 

and Foreman (1957: pl. 92), and Merriam and Merriam 

(2004: fig. 15). The mace is quite similar to 18/9334 of the 

National Museum of the American Indian (Burnett, 1952: 

pl. xvi). The mace pictured by Burnett lacks the thorny 

barbs and is painted. The upper projections or ears may 

have served as anchors for tassels that are shown dangling 

from such maces in the iconography of the incised shells 

(Phillips and Brown, 1978: pl. 62)

The tool is made from a large block of high-quality 

cryptocrystalline material with a waxy luster. Brown 

(1996:475) reports that all known examples are made of 

a semitransparent flint known as Kaolin chert, which derives from Illinois. There is red ocher smeared over the 

piece (fortunately, it was never washed). The raw material is characterized by subtly shaded concentric bands in 

gray, yellowish brown, and red. One red vein runs along 

the axis of much of the blade. This is possibly coincidental; however, in light of the treatment of the third blade 

described below, such an intentional design element cannot be put beyond the skills of the lithic craftspeople who 

made these implements.

A third mace is pointed and has a pair of lateral projections (423197). One longitudinal half of the artifact 

is deeply stained with red ocher (Figure 6.18c). This tool 

was either painted or rubbed with ocher. Furthermore, 

tiny bits of yellow residue overlay the red pigment. The 

line formed by putting ocher on the blade follows the 

axis of the piece. In shell depictions, crown maces are 

FIGURE 6.18. Maces: a, 423196; b, 423198; c, 423197; d, 423195.
number 49 • 97

sometimes shown crossed with lines (see Figure 6.19). 

This mace is broken at the proximal end, so the original 

length is unknown. The proximal portions, or handles, 

of these maces are extremely narrow given the overall 

massiveness of the blades (Table 6.13). This artifact is 

pictured in both Hamilton (1952: pl. 44A) and Fundaburk and Foreman (1957: pl. 92). Brown has labeled this 

shape “type 2.”

The fourth mace (423195) is considerably smaller and 

corresponds to a type described by Brown (1976, 1996:476) 

and labeled “type 5,” which Brown believes derives from 

Tennessee. It has two sets of lateral projections above the 

shoulder (Figure 6.18d). Flaking consists of moderately 

well controlled bifacial thinning and secondary retouch. 

The dorsal ridges are smooth and appear polished, perhaps 

from some sort of scabbard. This mace carries no residue. 

It was pictured in Hamilton (1952: pl. 42). There are no 

ground-stone maces in the NMNH collection.

Celts

These tools fall into two major categories, those for 

utilitarian or extractive tasks and those for special or ceremonial use. They may be utilized to accomplish everyday 

tasks, or they may be reserved for very special occasions. 

Some probably served as part of composite weapons. For 

celts, indicators of use include chips and crushing along 

the working edge; asymmetry of the working edge, which 

may indicate resharpening; and, sometimes, striations. Although in some cases it may be unclear whether or not the 

axes or celts served utilitarian purposes, all celts, utilitarian or symbolic, will be treated in this section.

For celts several attributes were recorded in addition 

to those noted for chipped-stone implements: width of the 

working edge, width of the poll, and shape of the working 

edge. Celts vary in morphology, but they all have a working edge and some form of haft device (although it may 

be undifferentiated from the bit, i.e., unshouldered). Some 

celts resemble chisels, some resemble axes, and some are 

without analogy. Celt nomenclature and measurement are 

shown in Figure 6.20.

FIGURE 6.19. Depiction of mace on Braden B shell cup (423266).

Table 6.13. Mace types, characteristics, and raw materials.

 Stem Proximal 

Catalog Length Width Thickness length stem width Weight Raw

number Type (cm) (cm) (cm) (cm) (cm) (g) material

423195 Type 5 15.5 5.56 1.33 5.46 2.73 74.0 Chert

423196* Unclassified 18.25 8.18 0.95 7.58 7.3 187.6 Chert

423197* Type 2 28.9 10.47 2.25 6.5 4.25 540.8 Chert

423198 Type 1 27.6 11.58 1.52 12.38 5.47 424.8 Alibates

* Incomplete.
9 8 • s m ithsonian cont r i bu tions to anth r o p o l o g y

Elongate Celts

Elongate celts are, by definition, long and narrow and 

often have a flared or splayed bit. In cross section they are 

rectangular to subelliptical. There are six elongate celts in 

the collection, ranging in size and shape. Most resemble 

the celts in the collections of the National Museum of the 

American Indian illustrated by Burnett (1945: pl. xxii 

h,i.). Elongate celts from the NMNH collection are listed 

in Table 6.14.

Only one is flared out into a rounded bit (448670). 

This celt has been broken and glued back together (Figure 6.21a). The pieces were likely in different depositional contexts, judging by the difference in appearance 

of the readhered sections. The center section is more deteriorated than the two end fragments. This long limestone celt is illustrated in Hamilton (1952: pl. 24A), 

where it is incorrectly referred to as a bone spatula. Celt 

448670 closely resembles a celt pictured in Brown (1976: 

fig. 33n). 

The smallest of the elongate celts is a small complete 

artifact of jasper (448676) and was made from a pebble. 

The poll end retains considerable cortex (Figure 6.21d).

Celt 448671 has been reconstructed (Figure 6.21b). 

The proximal end of the blade has been rebuilt using a compound resembling plaster. The reconstructive material is 

smeared over the original stone surface in some areas. The 

additive contains grit and also some form of very fine white 

fibrous material that resembles fiberglass or synthetic fiber, 

such as nylon. (Bits of filler material that were removed 

were retained in a small vial now kept with the artifact.)

Spatulate Celts

Spatulate celts are wide and flat, usually with convex 

working edges. Notable is the collection of cannel coal 

celts (Figure 6.22a,b). There is one complete celt and bit 

portions of two others as well as a few small fragments. 

These are wide and relatively thin. The condition is poor 

to fair because of the softness of the material and its tendency to flake and disintegrate over time. Such celts could 

only have served a special function because the bits could 

stand no percussive forces, lest they split and fracture. One 

cannel coal celt has a pronounced shoulder and deeply 

convex bit. Two others have convex bits that flare to the 

sides and a simple juncture with the poll. Sizes of all spatulate celts are shown in Table 6.15.

There are two large stone spatulate celts. One has 

wide parallel sides and a biplano cross section and is 

manufactured of a high-quality, dense, dark greenstone 

or serpentine from an unknown source (448673, Figure 

FIGURE 6.20. Celts: nomenclature and measurement.

Table 6.14. Elongate celt characteristics and raw materials.

Working 

edge Poll

Catalog Length width Thickness width Raw 

number (cm) (cm) (cm) (cm) material

448676 14.68 6.30 4.36 4.58 Unknown

448670 30.20 4.74 2.12 2.60 Limestone

423201 15.54 2.75 1.93 n/a Sedimentary

448672 10.66 3.20 1.75 1.98 Greenstone

448671 23.50 2.17 2.02 1.91 Sedimentary

448676 9.05 2.90 2.70 3.00 Jasper
number 49 • 99

FIGURE 6.21. Elongate celts: a, flared bit (448670); b, reconstructed celt (448671); 

c, elongate celt (423201); d, small jasper pebble celt (448676s01); e, wide celt 

(448676s02).

FIGURE 6.22. Cannel coal spatulate celts: a, expanding bit (448690); b, shouldered (448675).
100 • s m ithsonian cont r i bu tions to anth r o p o l o g y

6.23b). The other is a large tool, perforated in the center 

(448674, Figure 6.23a). It was made from high-quality 

white marble and was broken but has been repaired. A

small missing triangular section was reconstructed by the 

dealer or collector. The center perforation was drilled 

from both sides. This celt is a morphological twin to a celt 

reported from the WPA excavations (Brown, 1976: fig. 

179f; 1996: fig. 2-178f); however, the tool at the NMNH

is larger. Both large stone spatulate celts were shown in 

Hamilton (1952: pl. 52).

Other Celts

There are four other celt fragments that either fell 

outside the above two categories or were too fragmentary for certain identification. Of these, three are 

cannel coal and probably represent parts of larger spatulate celts. The fourth (423200) is a small flat celt of 

a sedimentary stone 8.04 cm long, 4.45 cm wide, and 

1.0 cm thick. It exhibits some damage to the bit (Figure 6.25a). There are no monolithic axes in the NMNH

collection.

OTHER WEAPONRY COMPONENTS

Other components of composite weapons are present. These include ground-stone artifacts, such as atlatl 

weights, and decorations. Pieces of wood that may or 

may not derive from weapons are included with other 

wooden objects in chapter 8. There are also some ceremonial copper covered wooden blades that are also treated 

in chapter 8.

Four artifacts are classified as atlatl weights (448677). 

They are all boatstones, that is, hollowed out crescentshaped devices (Figure 6.24). All are manufactured from 

what appears to be greenstone, described as porphyritic 

igneous material and as being altered (J. Gardner, unpublished notes on conservation measures taken for the 

Spiro collections at National Museum of Natural History, 

Smithsonian Institution, 1970–1971). The color is a dark 

olive gray. All four sit on flattened keels. The ends of the 

boatstones are notched with grooves ranging from 0.35 

to 0.71 cm in length. They are highly polished, and surface cavities appear to contain residues that in two cases 

appear to be ocher. Toolmarks are visible on the inner surfaces of the cavity. These boatstones are shown by Hamilton (1952: pl. 59), who reports that six such boatstones 

were recovered from one of the smaller southern mounds 

in the Craig Mound group. Two keeled boatstones were 

recorded by Brown (1976:115; 1996:465–466) for the 

WPA excavations from pre-­Harlan phase contexts at 

Spiro. The WPA boatstones were not of greenstone as the 

four specimens from the relic-hunting excavations are. 

Boatstones are usually associated with earlier Woodland 

occupations when atlatls were in greater use. However, 

Brown (1996:465) reports that they were still in use in 

the Caddoan area until ad 1000 and may have been used 

for symbolic purposes after they ceased to be used directly 

for weaponry.

Table 6.15. Spatulate celt characteristics and raw materials.

Working 

edge Poll

Catalog Length width Thickness widtha Raw 

number (cm) (cm) (cm) (cm) material

448690s06 16.0 18.8 1.84 n/a Cannel coal

448690s05 9.68 13.79 1.48 n/a Cannel coal

448673 b 23.3 15.7 1.83 12.76 Greenstone

448675 18.0 16.4 2.14 n/a Cannel coal

448674 b 24.9 18 1.57 6.36 Marble

a “n/a” indicates data are not applicable. 

b Complete artifact.

FIGURE 6.23. Spatulate celts: a, perforated marble celt (448674); b, 

large greenstone celt (448673).
number 49 • 10 1

There may also be segments of wooden weapons, 

possibly bow or atlatl (see chapter 8 for discussion of 

wooden objects.). The wooden segments present are too 

fragmented to be clearly linked with a particular artifact 

form (see Table 8.7).

UTILITARIAN ARTIFACTS

Although there are utilitarian implements, they are 

definitely in the minority in this collection. Such artifacts 

most likely served needs for resource procurement and 

processing, or needs associated with the manufacturing of 

other artifacts. Both chipped-stone and ground-stone extractive tools are in the NMNH collection. The collection 

of utilitarian tools is summarized in Table 6.17.

Chipped Stone

Hoes and Spades

There are two hoe-like implements chipped from chert. 

These are relatively thin and finely made. One is a broken 

hoe from a heat-altered, good quality chert (423174s02). 

The other is a large, thin biface from a brown and white 

mottled chert (423173) that shows clear evidence for 

grinding or insertion into an abrasive substrate. The ridges 

and edges of the piece are quite smooth. It is 13.34 cm 

long and 6.79 cm wide.

There are three massive, thick, crude spade-like implements that have definite shoulders and stem elements. 

One is made from a fossiliferous chert and is quite crude 

in manufacture (a large brachiopod mold is evident in one 

face). The source of this chert is indeterminate. It is heavily patinated to a deep brown surface color. Two more 

shouldered spades are made from a dense siltstone or argillite (Brown, 1976), which Banks (1984) sees as deriving 

from the Atoka Formation. These siltstone tools (448656) 

measure 15.12 and 12.65 cm in length, 6.94 and 7.35 cm 

FIGURE 6.24. Atlatl weights or boatstones (448677).

TABLE 6.16. Atlatl weight characteristics. Raw material is greenstone for each specimen.

Catalog Length Width Depth Cavity

number (cm) (cm) (cm) depth (cm)

448677s01 15.02 2.66 4.07 2.22

448677s02 16.00 2.78 3.49 2.90

448677s03 19.10 2.70 4.00 3.42

448677s04 19.80 2.57 3.97 3.16

TABLE 6.17. Frequency of utilitarian 

tools by type.

Tool type Count

Engravers 1

Abraders 2

Manos 3

Polishers 2

Drills 4

Hoes 2

Hammerstones 3

Flakes 4

Worked pebbles 5

Total tools 26
102 • s m ithsonian cont r i bu tions to anth r o p o l o g y

in width, and 1.83 and 2.48 cm in thickness, respectively. 

The smaller of the two is shown in Figure 6.25b.

Drills

There are four drills, each having a unique morphology. There are two large drills made from whitish cherts 

(423193s01, s02, Figure 6.14 a,c.). One is stemmed and 

has long barbed shoulders (6.96 cm long). The bit is thick, 

wide, and damaged. Its companion in the same catalog 

context has a simple expanding base and a thick, wide 

bit (6.08 cm long). Its lateral edges are heavily rounded. 

The third drill (423191s01) is a unifacial tool made from 

novaculite and has a widely expanding base. All three of 

these were probably hafted. The fourth is a small tool 

manufactured on a pebble that has been retouched to a 

short fine point (448655). The base of the tool retains cortex. Only the latter tool could have been used for doing 

delicate work, and it would have to have been held in the 

fingers.

Unifacial Graver

One tool would have served well as a graver or incising 

tool. This a unifacial piece with a projection (423191s04, 

Figure 6.14d.). It is made of quartz crystal and so would 

be hard enough to use effectively on hard materials such 

as shell or bone.

Scrapers

There are three small end scrapers made from local 

chert. They have straight to convex working edges of approximately 2 cm in width. They are all from surface collection done by R. King Harris and are not necessarily from 

Craig Mound contexts at Spiro. The only other scraper is 

a unifacial obsidian scraper donated by J. G. Braecklein 

(378273, Figure 6.25c). Obsidian tools would be unusual 

for Spiro (no other obsidian tools are present in collections from controlled excavations), and therefore, this tool 

is highly interesting. The tool has shallow engraving on 

the ventral side reading “Le Flore Mound Okla.” Other 

scratches also occur on ventral surface. It is not impossible 

that obsidian trade goods could have entered the site from 

far away, especially later in the sequence. Records indicate 

that Braecklein personally collected the obsidian artifact 

from the east tunnel of the Craig Mound in December of 

1935 (National Museum of Natural History, 1937), so the 

provenience is more or less assured. Braecklein was a careful and knowledgeable collector. Barker et al. (2002) used 

energy dispersive X-ray fluorescence to obtain the trace 

element signature of the obsidian. Results indicate that the 

obsidian derived from the well-studied Pachuca source in 

the state of Hidalgo, north of Mexico City. This obsidian 

artifact is therefore the only certifiably Mesoamerican artifact to be found in a Mississippian context.

Flakes

There are only four small flakes and one clearly bipolar flake. The flakes (488688) appear to be of a grayish to 

reddish local chert, perhaps from river pebbles, judging 

from the cortex on two of the flakes.

FIGURE 6.25. Other stone tools: a, celt (423200); b, shouldered 

spade (448656); c, obsidian scraper originating from the Pachuca 

source in central Mexico (378273).
number 49 • 10 3

Ground Stone

Abrading Tools

Abrading tools fall into three categories. The first includes tools for polishing narrow objects and would include shaft abraders and similar forms. These would be 

manufacturing tools. Two tools fall into this category. One 

is a piece of unidentified stone with one wide groove and 

one smaller groove in its surface (423206, Figure 6.26a). 

The grooves are of even width and run the length of the 

stone, which would be expected for shaft polishers. The 

other abrader has been referred to in the NMNH catalog 

as a sharpener (423205). It has four grooves, two on either 

face (Figure 6.26b). The grooves are deepest in the center 

and are confined to the central area of the faces.

The second type includes manos, which would have 

been ground against other stone surfaces, presumably in 

food preparation. Grinding clay or pigments with manos 

would be distinct possibilities as well. Manos often have 

a pit in the center of one surface (448681, as shown in 

Figure 6.26c). Manos in this collection are similar to those 

reported from the excavation of domestic areas at Spiro 

(Rogers, 1989: fig. 73).

The third type comprises those stones that are polished to a high sheen on one or more faces. These were 

either used in fine sanding activities and became polished 

through use or were intentionally polished to produce a 

mirror-like surface. They are classified as polishing stones 

and could have been employed in burnishing ceramics. 

There are two such stones in the collection. One is a large 

piece of quartzite polished to a high gloss on one face 

(423203, Figure 6.26d). It is biplano in cross section. The 

other face is smoothed but not glossy. The second such 

stone is a black stone, which is plano-convex in cross section. The flat face is glossy. The opposite face is faceted 

into a roughly five-sided pyramid. These faces are not 

equivalent in size. The outline of the piece is circular. In 

the Smithsonian records, the raw material has been alternately referred to as hematite (possible) or chalcedony 

(unlikely). It is a dense, black material.

Hammerstones

There are three quartz cobbles with extreme damage from battering. They are roughly equivalent in size. 

The damage is consistent with hammerstone use, and 

the overall shape and size place them in a similar class to 

hammerstones recovered from nonmound excavations at 

Spiro (Rogers, 1980:166). Hammerstones from the 1979 

excavations were recovered in two areas, north and east 

of Craig Mound. 

Worked Pebbles

Four worked pebbles are present and differ in shape 

and material: a long, slender, broken sandstone pebble; 

a smoothly polished triangular pebble and a thin ovoid 

pebble, both of fine, dense, dark gray or black stone; and 

a broken plano-convex stone that appears to have been 

burned. The function for these pebbles is unclear.

FIGURE 6.26. Abrading tools: a, grooved abrader (423206); b, 

grooved abrader (423205); c, mano (448681); d, polishing stone 

(423203).

Ornaments are decorative objects used or worn primarily for personal 

adornment or as components of clothing and headgear. Such decorations include beads, earspools, plaques, pins, and pendants made from 

a wide variety of materials, including bone, shell, wood, and leather.

EARSPOOLS

One ubiquitous Mississippian ornament is the earspool. These are large earrings worn through extended holes in the earlobe. They are known from various 

Mississippian contexts, including several other sites in Oklahoma, Arkansas, 

and northern Texas, with variation in style, size, and composition. Raw materials desired for making earspools include stone, copper, wood, ceramic, and shell. 

Some spools are composed of two or more materials in combination, such as 

stone with copper foil wrapping or wood with a shell disc in the center. Both 

Baerreis (1957) and Brown (1976, 1996) described elements of earspools. Most 

are shaped like pulleys (hence the name) and have an outward facing flange that 

is often decorated and an inner flange that faces the neck of the wearer. They 

may or may not be perforated by a central bore. Earspools from the Smithsonian 

collections fit into the style typology developed by Brown (1976, 1996). There 

are 53 whole or partial earspools and over 200 fragments. Table 7.1 shows the 

distribution of earspools and fragments by style. The whole or partial count 

column reflects complete earspools or pieces large enough to be measured in at 

least one dimension.

Pulley-­Shaped Earspools

Pulley-shaped earspools are by far the most common. They are characterized by an outer flange, an inner flange, and a central core and are primarily 

constructed of stone. In many cases, vestiges of a copper flashing remain visible 

on the spool surfaces. Often the core is perforated with a central bore. Spools 

can be classified by the morphology of the flanges and the presence or absence 

of central bores.

7 Ornaments and Decorations

April K. Sievert
106 • s m ithsonian cont r i bu tions to anth r o p o l o g y

Perforated Pulley-Shaped Earspools

Perforated earspools are common, comprising 47% 

of the total measurable earspool collection. In most cases 

the perforation is small (~1.5 cm in diameter), leaving 

ample surface space for decoration. Figure 7.1 shows several fragments of differently styled pulley earspools. The 

earspools are heavy, averaging 55.2 g per earspool for the 

whole and nearly whole ornaments. Table 7.2 gives the 

dimensions for perforated earspools (see Appendix A for 

measurement procedures).

Manufacture

The earspool central bore is parallel-sided and may 

be either smooth or ridged. A ridged bore has narrow 

incised grooves resembling threads within the bore. The 

threads are fairly even and were mechanically produced by 

the techniques used to drill out the stone. Both decorated 

FIGURE 7.1. A variety of perforated pulley-shaped stone earspools: a, complete example carved from argillaceous siltstone (448698s01); b, large earspool carved from argillaceous siltstone (448698s02); c, fragment 

with narrow pulley groove (448698s03); d, fragment made of soft claystone (448698s04); e, unfinished 

specimen with central hole only partially drilled (448698s05); f, flanged example carved from sandstone 

(448698s06); g, fragment carved from siltstone (448698s07).

TABLE 7.1. Counts of ear ornaments (whole and fragments) by 

style.

Whole or

partial Ornament

Style ornaments fragments Total

Pulley shaped

Perforated 31 7 38

Unperforated 7 58 65

Divided flange 6 13 19

 Nesting 1 0 1

 Central boss 2 0 2

Flanged ring 1 0 1

 Composite 2 0 2

Other 

Effigy 2 0 2

 Wooden disc 1 1 2

Unclassified 0 132 132

Total ornaments or pieces 53 211 264

Total weight (g) 2,137 452 2,589
number 49 • 10 7

(448691) and undecorated (448699) earspools exhibit this 

feature to varying degrees. If drilling was accomplished 

using a hollow cylinder, such as a reed (perhaps with an 

abrasive), such a pattern might develop. Similar ridges 

occur on the surface of other stone objects with wide 

drilled bores (e.g., pipes). The central bore may have a 

partially utilitarian function. By drilling out the inner pulley, the earspool becomes considerably lighter, thus lessening the pull on the earlobe. In addition, the central bore 

might also facilitate removing the material between the 

two flanges. Placing a shaft through the bore would allow 

the spool to spin as if on a lathe.

Another manufacturing characteristic appears on the 

inner faces of the flanges where fine striae radiate out from 

the center of the pulley. This must be a result of grinding 

out the pulley. Pulling a cord or thick thong around the 

pulley could result in similar marks, especially if abrasives 

were used. The interior surfaces of the pulley shank are 

smooth, without obvious toolmarks.

Raw Material

The complete and nearly complete earspools are manufactured from either limestone or a fine-grained siltstone 

or sandstone. Baerreis (1957) and Brown (1976) refer to 

the latter as sandstone, and indeed, there is a fine crystalline graininess visible in the surface of this stone. However, 

the grain size is very small. Conservator Joan Gardner 

noted that this raw material may be argillaceous siltstone 

on the basis of examination by geologist A. Segovia from 

the University of Maryland in 1974. It is brown, usually 

in the 10YR hue range using the Munsell Soil Color Chart 

(Munsell Color Co., 1973). In some areas the surface has 

become exfoliated as layers of the raw material flaked 

away. Exfoliation might be expected if the stone is, indeed, 

a siltstone. The stone is tough, and surfaces in general exhibit very little weathering, also typical of siltstones. This 

stone accounts for 13% of the total number of earspool 

fragments. This percentage may seem insignificant except 

that this material makes up 44% of the earspool collection 

by weight because the stone is durable and so many of the 

spools made from it are unbroken (Table 7.3).

The other commonly used stone is limestone, a white 

or light gray soft and fine-grained variety. In general, the 

limestone has fared poorly, and many fragments show 

weathering and leaching of the surface. Several limestone spools are undecorated and without the residue that 

would indicate that they once had a copper foil covering. 

Limestone has a much greater tendency to be broken than 

does the siltstone. It is softer, more friable, and highly affected by acid.

Associations

Copper foil is a common decoration for earspools. It 

occurs on both decorated and undecorated spools. Bell 

(1984:234) notes that the perforated stone earspools 

found at the Harlan site are not decorated but are covered 

with copper foil. He notes also that they become larger in 

diameter through time. Brown writes also that the nonincised stone earspools are associated with Harlan phase 

contexts and suggests that through time the inner flange 

becomes larger in proportion to the outer flange (Brown, 

1976:279). Decorated earspools are found throughout the 

Spiro phase. Similar styles of decoration are shown among 

the earspools depicted in Burnett (1945: pls. xi–xii).

Most of the earspools from the NMNH collection 

will be from Spiro or late Spiro phase burials, as suggested 

by the patterns recorded for earspools from the WPA excavations (Brown, 1976:303, 1996). The distribution of 

perforated pulley-shaped earspools is wide, and they are 

found across the Caddoan area (Brown, 1996:566). These 

earspools cease to be used in later Caddoan sites, and at 

Spiro they were in use primarily during the Spiro II and 

Spiro III periods (Brown, 1996:566).

Decoration

The majority of earspools are smooth. However, some 

are decorated with incised designs. Designs registered on 

perforated pulley-shaped earspools include both geometric 

and figural representations. Brown (1996:563) links the 

geometric designs with Spiro II burials and figural designs 

with Spiro III. Decoration occurs on the outer face only. 

TABLE 7.2. Characteristics of perforated pulley-shaped earspools. All measurements are in centimeters.

 Standard

Measurement (count) a Mean Extremes deviation

Thickness (31) 1.67 1.18 / 2.32 0.25

Outer flange diameter (29) 6.63 3.27 / 9.06 1.61

Inner flange diameter (23) 5.58 2.43 / 7.95 1.6

Pulley diameter (27) 3.36 1.43 / 4.2 0.7

Hole diameter (28) 1.67 0.53 / 3.39 0.52

Wall thickness (29) 0.48 0.3 / 0.68 0.1

a Numbers in parentheses are the number of artifacts having this measurable component.
108 • s m ithsonian cont r i bu tions to anth r o p o l o g y

Perforated spools are often covered with copper foil and 

decorated with an incised pattern of geometric forms. The 

copper foil would be carefully pressed into the relief designs carved on the surface of the flange. Concentric circles 

occur on four examples of whole or partial rings (Figure 

7.2). There are two earspools that are nearly identical in 

form and decoration. These could easily represent a pair.

Only one pattern occurs with any regularity. A chevron pattern repeated in four quadrants of the spool is 

present on four of the specimens from NMNH and was 

common in the WPA collections (Brown, 1976: fig. 58p; 

1996: fig. 2-119p). In three cases the chevrons are narrowly incised lines that radiate out from the central bore. 

There are four repetitions of the chevron pattern. In one 

case, the space between the lines in the chevrons is greater, 

thus effectively dividing the field into quarters. Artifacts 

448691s01 and 448691s02 represent a pair, with narrow 

incised lines forming the chevrons. The surface is without copper (Figure 7.3a,b). Artifact 448692 is a similar 

earspool with wider incised lines and remnants of the original copper foil intact (Figure 7.3c).

In most cases the decoration is incised into the surface, 

but in a few cases, it is excised. The single earspool from 

Spiro known to depict a human figure (423162) is from the 

Trowbridge collection, and it is excised (Figure 7.4a). The 

figure appears in low relief, with detail added by incising 

the sandstone surface. The lower body of the figure is depicted in unusual form in that legs are not shown. Rather, 

the body terminates in what resembles a flared skirt. This 

might represent a desire to impart avian characteristics to 

the figure (a bird’s tail feathers), or the artist may simply 

have run out of room for legs. The head is shown in profile 

with the nose transformed into a hawklike beak. The eye 

is a simple diamond shape. Elbows are bent with hands 

upraised. In this particular case, the central bore seems 

not to be incorporated into the overall design. Instead, it 

TABLE 7.3. Summary of earspool styles by raw material. A dash (-) indicates that no earspools occur in this raw 

material category.

Siltstone/ Style

Style Limestone Sandstone Wood Copper Other total

Pulley shaped

Perforated 17 15 6 - 1 39

Unperforated 59 - 6 - - 65

Divided flange 16 3 - - - 19

 Nesting 1 - - - - 1

 Central boss - - 2 - - 2

Flanged ring - - - - 1 1

 Composite - - 2 - - 2

Other 

Effigy - - 2 - - 2

Disc - - 2 - - 2

Unclassified 50 8 - 74 - 132

Raw material total 143 26 20 74 2 265

Total weight (g) 1,131 1,209 187 24 38 2,589

FIGURE 7.2. Perforated pulley-shaped earspool with concentric 

circle decoration (448693).
number 49 • 10 9

FIGURE 7.3. Earspools with chevron decoration: a, b, pair of earspools without copper foil (448691s01, 448691s02); c, earspool with chevron 

design and copper foil (448692).

FIGURE 7.4. Perforated pulley-shaped earspool: a, human warrior figure design 

(423162); b, petaloid design (423163).
110 • s m ithsonian cont r i bu tions to anth r o p o l o g y

perforates the figure. This spool is illustrated in Hamilton 

(1952: pl. 81). Brown (1996:566) refers to the figure as a 

standing warrior. Human figures are rare on earspools and 

have been noted for only the Norman and Wilbanks sites 

(Brown, 1996:567).

There is one complete earspool bearing a six-lobed 

double petaloid line around the central bore (423163) 

(Figure 7.4b). This sandstone earspool also has one ring 

incised close to the perforation and is pictured in Hamilton (1952: pl. 81). It has no exact match in the other collections known to be from Spiro. Brown (1996:566) refers 

to a similar motif as a double-line meander. Traces of the 

copper facing remain.

There is excellent information as to how earspools 

were worn. Perforated earspools are illustrated as adorning 

the ears of people depicted on engraved shells from Spiro 

and on shell gorgets from across the Southeast. Usually, 

the motif is executed by incising a circle and then starting 

a drill hole in the center of the circle, resulting in a perfectly round dot. This motif appears frequently elsewhere 

in Spiro art, for example, as decoration on the bodies of 

serpentine forms or as the eyes of zoomorphs. Whether 

the earspool design reflects an iconographic formula or the 

iconography reflects a style of dress is debatable.

Alteration

Several earspools also show evidence for having been 

reconstructed after excavation. Artifact 448698s16 appears to have been reconstructed with plaster or a similar filler. Two sections of the outer face were rebuilt and 

smeared with a green pigment to mimic copper staining.

Unperforated Pulley Earspools

Unperforated earspools are similar to the perforated 

form, except that they do not have holes drilled through 

the center. As shown in Table 7.1, there are seven unperforated pulley-shaped earspools. However, six of these are 

of wood, leaving only one unperforated earspool made of 

limestone. This earspool is incomplete and consists of the 

flanges of a limestone earspool that have been cemented 

together with copper. The unperforated stone earspool in 

this collection is not decorated. This contrasts with the 

unperforated stone earspools recovered by the WPA excavations, which generally have decoration excised in shallow relief.

Many of the fragments of stone earspools recorded as 

being from unperforated earspools may actually be from 

the perforated or divided flange types, but without a trace 

of the inner flange, this is difficult to ascertain. There is a 

fairly large number of such fragments recorded (n = 58), 

and they are all limestone. It is possible that they may be 

from the outer flanges of the broken earspools recorded as 

having divided flanges or from perforated earspool flanges.

There are four matching pulley-shaped wooden 

spools with flanges of unequal widths (448902, 448903, 

448904, 448905s01). They could represent two matching pairs. In each of these four spools one flange is wide, 

markedly concave, and extremely thin. It carries a narrow 

lip. This surface is not finely finished, and toolmarks are 

visible on this face in every case. The opposite flange is 

narrower in diameter, thicker, and excised to form a dishshaped indentation. With the exception of 448904, which 

may have once held a shell disc, there is no evidence that 

another component was set into the shallow hollow space. 

If 448904 ever held a shell disc, it is not there now, and the 

earspool is otherwise so similar to the other unperforated 

wooden spools that it seems justifiable to classify it with 

them. The earspools are relatively plain and do not appear 

to have been covered with copper. A third pair of plain 

wooden spools differs from the other two pairs only in that 

the flanges are quite narrow (448905s02, 448905s05). Although these are fairly thick, the absence of a noticeable 

flange makes them appear more like wide plugs. This pair 

is marked by flattening and deformation, so the stylistic 

characteristics may simply be harder to discern. The unperforated wooden earspools have a mean weight of 7.98 

g. They average 1.6 cm in thickness, 4.15 cm in outer 

flange width, 3.56 cm in inner flange width, and 3.4 cm in 

pulley width. Two of the unperforated wooden earspools 

have traces of fiber wrapping around the pulley (448903 

and 448904).

Divided Flange Earspools

Earspools with divided inner flanges are common 

(Figure 7.5). The divided flange is characterized by two 

equally sized, semicircular halves that are separated by a 

sharply defined channel (see Baerreis, 1957:32). This type 

may be prototypical to the later Foster type earspool in 

which the inner flange is reduced to two lugs. Surfaces of 

the divided flange earspools are usually concave. There 

were no earspool fragments of the Foster type from the 

NMNH collection.

The divided flange earspools are badly fragmented, 

with none being complete. The 11 limestone fragments in 

448699s03 represent a minimum number of six earspools. 

Residues are plentiful, and nearly every fragment is stained 

with copper. One earspool has a well-adhered fragment 
number 49 • 11 1

of mica on the outer surface (448695s02), suggesting that 

mica may have been an alternative to copper for decorating earspool surfaces. In addition, there are three flange 

sections having twilled basketry impressions on the surface. The impressions appear to be similar, and it is likely 

that they were from similar depositional contexts.

Average dimensions for divided flanges are as follows: 

thickness, 1.67 cm (n = 4); outer flange, 5.77 cm (n = 1); 

inner flange, 5.45 cm (n = 3); and pulley width, 3.41 cm 

(n = 5).

Central Boss Earspools

One pair of wooden spools with a central boss is present (448900s02 and 448905s04). These have the inset 

inner flange and a raised mound on the outer flange and 

were clearly covered with copper foil. Faint toolmarks 

around the outer flange of 448900s02 suggest that a 

tool with a working edge width of about 0.45 cm was 

used in shaping these. Its probable mate is slightly damaged around the perimeter. The mean dimensions of these 

earspools are as follows: thickness, 1.89 cm; outer flange 

width, 4.66 cm; inner flange width, 3.6 cm; pulley width, 

3.46 cm; and weight, 12.45 g.

Composite Earspools

Composite earspools are manufactured from more 

than one element (Figure 7.6). For example, a wooden or 

stone spool may possess an inlaid disc of shell or stone. 

The two examples of complete composite earspools are 

wooden with inlaid shell, but they do not constitute a 

matching pair.

The first is a wooden pulley with both flanges intact 

(448900s01). The inset size of the outer flange is 1.8 cm 

in diameter; the inner flange inset size is 2.1 cm. The shell 

disc in the outer flange is present. There is nothing in the 

shallow depression on the inner flange; however, there is a 

perforation on the perimeter of the inner flange as well as 

slight breakage. There are traces of fiber wrapped around 

the pulley.

Wooden earspool 448905s03 was also inlaid on the 

outer flange with shell, and it is stained with copper. It is 

embellished with small bumps that have been excised from 

the outer surface. There are six extant bumps, and there is 

room for two more in the missing, broken portion of the 

outer flange. This earspool carries only a faint impression 

that the inner flange was excised. This is a thin earspool 

pulley compared to other wooden forms.

Nesting Earspools

One small limestone earspool appears to be the male 

portion of a nesting ring earspool (448699s02). Nesting 

spools consist of two parts that fit together, one flange 

nesting inside the other. This fragment is 1.03 cm thick 

and has a pulley width of 1.4 cm. Brown (1976:278) reports that this variety was also found in the burial mound 

at the Harlan site.

FIGURE 7.5. Divided flange earspools: a, 448695s01; b, 448695s02. FIGURE 7.6. Composite wood and shell earspools: a, 448900s01; 

b, 448905s03.
112 • s m ithsonian cont r i bu tions to anth r o p o l o g y

Flanged Ring Earspools

The single earspool that could be called a flanged ring 

is ceramic, not stone (448696). It displays a wide central 

opening and very narrow flanges. The paste is tempered 

with shell. It is complete and in good condition (Figure 7.7).

Other Earspools

Earspools not shaped like pulleys are much less common. Furthermore, most of these are manufactured from 

something other than stone.

Wood Disc Earspools

One complete wooden disc is present (448901). It is 

flat except for a raised portion in the center of the disc. 

Copper and a trace of matting or woven surface are visible. The width of the fiber is not clear but seems fairly 

wide (0.5 cm) and indicates contact with basketry or 

matting. There is a perforation in the flat posterior face 

that is centered, approximately 0.2 cm deep, and appears 

to be drilled. There is also a fragment of a wooden disc 

(448909). Exactly how they were worn or used is unclear.

Effigy Earspools

The only effigy earspools are a pair of carved cedar 

canine heads (448895s01, 448895s02). Tongues hang out 

as if the animals were panting (Figure 7.8, 7.42a). The 

figures have exaggerated snouts and excised eye patches 

(which might have held an insert, although there is no residue in the depression to attest to this) and display small, 

rounded upright ears. Two pairs of small holes flank each 

ear and may have formed a means of attachment. Residue clogs these holes. This pair was shown by Hamilton 

(1952: fig. 30a). The only other effigy earspool reported to 

be from Spiro is known only from a photograph published 

by Brown (1996: fig. 2-121d). It depicts the head of a bird 

of prey with shell inset eyes.

Shell Rings and Discs

Shell rings or discs may have been utilized for purposes other than to decorate ears or earspools. However, 

given that inlays for earspools are often of shell and that 

shell earspools are a known type, any shell discs and rings 

are discussed here in the context of earspools. Shell discs 

may either be planar or concave. Whether these may have 

served as parts of composite earspools, figures or other 

artifacts, or as independent objects is unclear.

There are 14 shell discs. All are well smoothed. Together they weigh 153.1 g. Five are perforated in the center, drilled straight through from one face to the other. 

Diameters range from 2.88 to 6.0 cm and average 4.34 

cm (standard deviation, 1.03 cm). Sizes do seem to cluster, 

with one size measuring close to 4 cm in diameter and 

a larger size measuring nearly 6 cm. Most are concave, 

exhibiting the natural curvature of the shell wall from 

which they were cut. Signs of manufacture include scouring marks, especially on the inner surfaces.

FIGURE 7.8. Canine wooden effigy earspools, side and frontal 

views (448895).

FIGURE 7.7. Ceramic flanged ring earspool, both sides (448696).
number 49 • 11 3

One is incised with a star design reminiscent of a 

seven-point Moundville star (448908). Around the inside 

of the perimeter is brown prehistoric adhesive. Copper 

foil remains in some of the scallops around the star. The 

star would have been manufactured of shell and glued into 

the center of another object, probably a wooden earspool 

(now gone). The outer surface would then be covered in 

copper foil carefully cut to fit the scalloped pattern engraved into the shell disc. The result would be a flashy 

copper ornament with a lustrous central star.

Beads

Beads are numerically the largest component of the 

Spiro collection, and shell is by far the most common material used to make them. Shell beads are present strung on 

the original prehistoric cordage, piled into lots (and sometimes restrung on modern string), or as a component of 

other composite artifacts. Most of the beads are combined 

into lots. At the time of original cataloguing some beads 

were apparently sorted by type, while other lots were not. 

Trowbridge had his beads strung in many cases, perhaps 

to display them better. Most of these were not resorted 

when they were accessioned, and Trowbridge’s original 

groupings tended to stay together. The combinations of 

beads in Trowbridge’s lots probably depended primarily 

on the circumstances of his acquisition—what he received 

together, he kept together. In some cases, several kinds of 

beads (primarily the small varieties) were mixed into large 

groupings that included other artifact types as well, especially quartz and galena.

Shell Beads

Manufacture

Shell beads can be manufactured in three ways. (1) 

The columella of univalves (which in some cases can be 

extremely thick) can be used as raw material. Shell thickness is greatest in the columella and is ideal for making 

large beads. Beads manufactured this way often display 

the groove of the mollusk’s anal canal. (2) Beads can be 

worked from the outer surfaces of either univalve or bivalve mollusks. In these cases, original curvature of the 

shell may be visible. (3) Finally, whole shells can be used. 

For small shells such as the miniature species of Olivella, 

the apex may be ground down, leaving a circular hole. The 

bead can then be strung using this hole and the natural 

opening at the distal end.

There seems to be no simple rule regarding which 

bead types are drilled from both ends and which are 

drilled straight through. The smallest disc beads are nearly 

always drilled from both sides. This may prevent breakage 

as the rim gets progressively thinner with deeper drilling. 

Beads with a round cross section are always drilled from 

both ends. Some elliptical and convexo-cylindrical beads 

are drilled from one side only. Some beads have relatively 

equal bore holes on each end and a straight bore, suggesting that the drill used was a reed or other similar material. 

Overall, most beads have a biconical or contracting bore, 

suggesting the use of a stone drill.

Some beads were altered by heat. Brown (1996:576) believes that burned beads were not typical of the litter burials 

in the Great Mortuary because few other objects found with 

the large quantities of beads were burned. Burned beads 

would be more characteristic of the earlier burials that were 

redeposited for the construction of the Great Mortuary.

Beads had a wide use in personal decoration. Necklaces, hair ornaments, ear ornaments, bracelets, and 

anklets were prevalent and are identified on the shell iconography that depicts human figures.

Styles

Beads come in a wide variety of styles, as illustrated 

in Hamilton (1952: pl. 66). A number of bead shapes are 

represented in the NMNH collection, as shown in Figure 

7.9. Beads from the NMNH collection are not split into 

quite so many types as done by Brown (1976). For example, for purposes of this report, beads made from the 

columella are included with other beads of the type. Frequency and size range for beads are shown in Table 7.4.

Disc Beads

The overall shape is round and flat, with relatively 

straight sides. There are four substyles.

1. For very small beads with flat or slightly convex 

sides, the diameter of the hole occupies a substantial proportion of the total diameter. These are included in the 

“small” category in Table 7.4.

2. Very thin discs (~1 mm) are distinguished by a 

low thickness-to-diameter (T/D) ratio. They are listed as 

“thin discs” in Table 7.4. These discs were noted in only 

two catalog contexts (423331 and 448721) and were always mixed in with small disc beads and small convexocylindrical beads. The bore is relatively small, and the size 

is uniform at approximately 1 cm in diameter. One such 

bead was sculptured along the edges.
114 • s m ithsonian cont r i bu tions to anth r o p o l o g y

3. Larger discs are similar to small disc beads except 

that the diameter is relatively greater, especially as related 

to the diameter of the hole. These correspond to the “medium” and “large” categories in Table 7.4.

4. Concave disc beads, although disc-shaped, do not 

lie flat (Figure 7.10).

Disc beads number over 10,000, making them the 

most common bead type present in the collection. Furthermore, this number does not include beads in the composite artifact 448934, a basket containing leather, beads, 

and copper. It was not feasible to count the beads nestled 

among the other artifacts in that basket.

Flat Circular Beads

These are also disc shaped; however, the bore enters 

the bead from the side rather than the face. Of these, there 

are only two (448735), and they are large (see Table 7.4). 

Thickness averages at 1.5 cm. The center bore is 0.82 cm 

in diameter at the surface and is biconical. The surfaces 

are well smoothed but have weathered.

Elliptical Beads

Elliptical beads are much less common. Beads are classified as elliptical if their diameter exceeds their length and 

if the outline forms a fairly smooth curve. Elliptical beads 

in small, medium, and large categories are present. They 

are similar to disc beads in style, but the rounded outline 

implies greater investment in finishing.

Convexo-Cylindrical Beads

These are the common “barrel-shaped” beads mentioned often in the literature. They are less numerous than 

disc beads at a total of over 2,300. Length exceeds diameter. There is variation in the sizes here as well, but they do 

seem to cluster into three major categories.

FIGURE 7.9. Manufactured shell bead types in the National Museum of Natural History collection 

(after Brown, 1976:345).
number 49 • 11 5

1. Small beads are <1 cm long. Mean bead length in 

this group is 0.79 cm, and mean bead diameter is 0.55 cm.

2. Medium beads generally fall between 1 cm and 2 

cm in length.

3. The largest beads are made from the columella of 

Busycon shells. Usually quite long (>3 cm) they almost 

always display the anal canal from the mollusk. This category includes all of the large columella beads and some 

other large convexo-cylindrical beads that may or may not 

be from columellas.

Sculpted Beads

This style is another variation on the convex-sided 

beads and includes any beads that were modified further by incising extra detail on the surface. Making these 

would involve added time expenditure. Sculpted beads 

come in two sizes: small (<~1.5 cm) and larger (>2 cm). 

There are very few. The small ones comprise two pearl 

beads that were treated with extra incisions around the 

circumference (423337s02). The large beads are columella 

beads in which either the canal spiraling down the length 

of the columella is embellished or extra grooves are added. 

There are two large beads of this type (423323s01 and 

448768s02).

Asymmetrical Convex (Bowed) Beads

These beads are convex in outline (or somewhat hexagonal) but are bowed when viewed from the side and display natural shell surface sometimes on both faces. They 

appear to have been made from either distal portions of 

TABLE 7.4. Frequency and characteristics of shell beads. A dash (-) indicates data are not available or not applicable.

Weight Length (cm) Width (cm)

Style Size Count (g) Maximum Minimum Maximum Minimum

Disc Small 10,377 1,423.1 0.67 0.11 0.78 0.31

Medium 135 284 0.92 0.29 2.85 0.67

Large 79 209.4 1.00 0.42 2.62 1.87

 Thin 162 10.4 0.18 0.07 0.83 0.68

Flat circular - 2 76.2 4.33 4.2 4.64 4.27

Convexo-cylindrical Small 2,130 651.7 1.22 0.24 0.94 0.25

Medium 237 299.7 2.50 0.71 1.54 0.52

Large 45 410.1 13.73 1.72 2.67 0.94

Bowed - 196 1,123.3 10.06 2.39 0.94 1.57

Drop-shaped - 3 3.69 2.07 1.80 1.62 1.33

Sculptured Pearl 2 - 0.93 0.69 0.54 0.53

 Columella 2 39.0 8.25 4.65 2.10 1.82

Spherical Small 107 51.8 1.35 0.25 1.27 0.33

Medium 9 45.0 1.75 1.18 1.96 1.23

Large 180 2,121.8 3.58 1.90 4.22 1.15

Elliptical Small 47 15.4 0.92 0.35 0.79 0.28

Medium 28 27.3 1.04 0.32 1.95 0.40

Large 2 14.9 1.10 0.90 2.24 2.17

Bulging - 124 176.6 3.44 1.02 2.27 0.62

Concave disc - 64 421.6 1.20 0.43 3.10 1.75

Concavo-cylindrical - 143 168.1 2.60 0.82 1.24 0.48

Cylindrical Medium 5 15.9 3.65 2.30 1.26 0.54

 Small 584 201.0 1.25 0.40 0.69 0.37

Tooth - 10 28.9 2.62 0.22 1.42 0.62

Hexagonal - 2 9.9 2.90 - 2.80 -

Mask - 1 96.3 5.46 - 5.50 -

Pearl 

 Spherical - 238 43.3 0.74 0.31 0.80 0.32

 Natural (baroque) - 186 - 2.87 0.24 2.78 0.39

Mixed - 321 46.9 1.10 - 0.90 -

Olivella - 6,592 486.3 1.8 0.65 0.85 0.22

Oliva? - 1 21.4 6.07 2.70 - -

Marginella - 15 2.6 0.98 0.82 0.68 0.50
116 • s m ithsonian cont r i bu tions to anth r o p o l o g y

columellas or from the thickest parts of the body of shells 

(usually distal). This style is perhaps what Brown (1976) 

refers to as “large elongate” beads. Convexo-cylindrical 

and large elongate beads might represent a similar conception of bead morphology. The difference lies in the constraints of the raw material. The convex outline sometimes 

resembles a lengthened hexagon (Figure 7.15). These have 

also been referred to as “spindle-shaped” beads.

Convexo-Cylindrical Drop-Shaped Beads

These beads are flattened at each end and are significantly narrower at one end so that the bead assumes a 

drop shape (448723s04 and 448728s01). There are three 

such beads, and all of them are broken along the axis.

Spherical Beads

Length equals diameter for spherical beads (Figure 

7.11). They can be somewhat irregular and not precisely 

round when viewed from the end. This irregularity stems 

somewhat from the difficulty of working with shell. Larger 

spherical beads are almost always made from the columella (thickest part) of large univalves, primarily Busycon. 

Smaller spherical beads can be made from other parts of 

shells, including thick wall sections sometimes found in 

distal areas of the whelk shells. Beads cluster into three 

general size categories, as shown in Table 7.4.

Cylindrical Beads

Cylindrical beads are nearly straight sided and are 

longer than they are wide (Figure 7.12). This grouping 

posed a problem in that in many cases within lots of similar beads, the beads graded from being clearly convex in 

outline to being cylindrical. In such cases the beads are 

not separated into smaller groups because it seems that the 

variation is due more to variation in manufacturing than 

to a different “mental template” used by the craftsperson 

to manufacture the beads.

Concavo-Cylindrical Beads

These beads are concave in outline, constricted in the 

center, and flared outward at the ends of the bead (Figure 

7.13). Spool shaped, they resemble human phalanges, and 

en masse they look very much like small bones. This resemblance to bone may not be an accident. The shape is 

similar to that of bones as presented in the iconography of 

shell engraving (see Phillips and Brown, 1978:151). Brain 

and Phillips (1996:361) believe this spool-type shell bead 

may prove to be a useful chronological marker, as it appears to be linked to late prehistoric and protohistoric 

contexts.

FIGURE 7.11. Spherical columella beads (423314).

FIGURE 7.10. Concave disc beads (423313).
number 49 • 11 7

Bulging (Compound Cylindrical) Beads

These interesting beads are a variation on a convexocylindrical theme in that they have constrictions near each 

end, giving the impression that they are composed of three 

distinct sections (e.g., 378258s01). Usually, the wider center section bulges distinctly outward. They are recorded as 

“bulging” beads (Figure 7.14).The 124 beads of this type 

range between approximately 1 and 3.4 cm in length.

Flattened Hexagonal Beads

A low T/D ratio distinguishes flattened hexagonal 

beads from the asymmetrical bowed beads of hexagonal 

shape discussed above. One such bead (378253s01) is 

shown in the left center of Figure 7.15. There are only two 

in the collection. They measure 2.9 cm in length by 2.8 cm 

in width.

FIGURE 7.13. Concavo-cylindrical “phalange” beads (378259).

FIGURE 7.12. Cylindrical beads (423316).
118 • s m ithsonian cont r i bu tions to anth r o p o l o g y

FIGURE 7.14. Bulging beads (423327).

FIGURE 7.15. Hexagonal and asymmetrical convex beads (378253).
number 49 • 11 9

Convex Disc Beads

There are only three of these beads (423169s05, 

423329s02, 423311). The curvature indicates that the 

bead blank was cut from a shell wall. One exhibits red 

ocher on the surface.

Mask Beads

Only one mask bead is present, but it is well crafted 

(Figure 7.16). Bead number 448773 is realistically 

modeled and incised with deep V-shaped lines. The head 

wears no forelock. The view is frontal, with the eye 

treated as an oval within a forked-eye pattern. The pupil 

was created using a drill. Teeth are raised, and the center of the mouth is missing from the surface. The person 

wears a band around the forehead that has three parallel lines in the center, with sets of two lines on each 

side. Features appear to be rendered in Craig style. The 

human face wears a perforated pulley earspool. The bead 

measures 5.46 cm long by 5.5 cm wide. A 0.66 cm diameter hole has been bored from either end. The channel 

has considerable sediment remaining inside it. This large 

bead weighs 96.3 g.

Shell Tooth Beads

These beads are shaped like teeth. They have a pyramidal shape, with the hole drilled through the wider portion of the piece. They are not numerous (n = 10), but 

they do vary in size. Included in this category is one tiny 

pyramidal pearl drilled through the apex. The shell beads 

in this group are all fairly large, with dimensions of greater 

than 1 cm in diameter and 2 cm in length.

Gastropod and Bivalve Beads

A variety of small freshwater snails are present, but 

in small numbers. Table 7.5 lists these varieties along 

with their ranges, when known (Figure 7.17a). These designations are based on identifications made prior to my 

study and recorded on the catalog cards for 378250. For 

448889, identifications had been elicited from Dr. Rosewater of NMNH’s Department of Invertebrate Zoology, 

Division of Mollusks, in the mid-1970s. The small snails 

Campeloma, Angitrema, and Anculosa were undoubtedly 

used for beads.

Bivalves include one specimen identified by Rosewater as Laevicardium elatum Sowerby. This is a cockle that 

derives from the Pacific, and its presence is interesting because it suggests elaborate economic integration. Cockles 

of the same genus are also found off the coast of Florida. 

Another Pacific shell is a specimen of genus Haliotis, which 

includes abalones. This shell has well-preserved nacreous 

luster and appears to be unmodified.

Marginella. Marginella sp. is a small marine univalve (Figure 7.17b). Used for beads across North 

America, they are present but not plentiful in the collection from Spiro at the NMNH. Whole Marginella shells 

are worked by grinding down the apex on the side of the 

shell obliquely to create a hole. The beads can then be 

strung using this hole and the natural aperture at the distal 

shell.

Olivella. There are several species of Olivella. The smallest, also referred to as “rice shells,” resemble small grains of rice (Figure 7.17a). Olivella are 

small marine univalves. Multiple species have been identified in the materials recovered from the WPA excavations (Brown, 1983:149). There are two primary sizes 

present, representing a minimum of two different species. 

The tiny “rice” shells rarely exceed 10 mm in length. A

larger variety varies around a length of 1.5 cm. There is 

FIGURE 7.16. Shell mask bead (448773).
120 • s m ithsonian cont r i bu tions to anth r o p o l o g y

one example of a larger shell (6 cm in length) that may 

be a different genus, perhaps Oliva. Species designations 

for the smaller shells in the collection from NMNH are 

given as Olivella dama, a Gulf of California species. Reanalysis of other Olivella beads in the collections from 

the Sam Noble Oklahoma Museum of Natural History 

have also turned up O. dama (Kozuch, 2002:697). This 

finding supports the probability that materials reached 

Spiro from considerably farther west.

Pearls

Pearls are numerous (Figure 7.18), as indicated in 

Table 7.4. In nearly all cases, pearls were not modified 

TABLE 7.5. Variety and range of gastropod and bivalve shells.

 Catalog

Mollusk Count Range Type number(s)

Gastropods

Campeloma sp. 5 Widespread Freshwater snail 378250,

 448889

Angitrema salebrosa Conrad 4 Tennessee River Freshwater mollusk 378250

Anculosa tintinnabulum Lea. 45 Tropical America Freshwater mollusk 378250,

 448733

Angitrema verrucosa Raf. 1 Tennessee River Freshwater mollusk 378250

Angitrema sp. 18 Tennessee River Freshwater mollusk 448733

Prunum sp. 1 Caribbean? Marine snail 448889

Total gastropod count 74

Bivalves

Donax sp. 3 Widespread Marine clam 448889

Scallop? 1 Variable Unknown 448885

Haliotis fulgens Philippi 1 Pacific: Oregon to Baja Abalone 448776

Laevicardium elatum Sowerby 1 Southern California to Panama Cockle 448775

Pecten sp. 2 Widespread Freshwater bivalve 448889

Unio sp. 1 Widespread Freshwater mussel 448889

Total bivalve count 9

FIGURE 7.17. Whole shell beads: a, Olivella beads (378252); b, Marginella beads (378251); c, gastropods (378250).
number 49 • 12 1

beyond drilling them for suspension. Freshwater pearls 

derive from bivalves from the Unionidae family. They are 

subdivided according to shape, with oddly shaped or baroque pearls grouped separately from spherical pearls. In 

some cases, this division was reflected when catalog numbers had been originally assigned. The largest single pearl 

is a baroque pearl 2.87 cm by 2.78 cm. Others are extremely small, approximately 3 mm in diameter.

Composite Bead Artifacts

Artifact 423331 consists of a modern glass jar containing galena in small chunks (<20 mm maximum), the 

small variety of Olivella shell beads, very small disc beads, 

quartz fragments, small cylindrical beads, and larger thin 

disc beads. Bits of dried clay, dirt, organic matter and bone 

were also present. This mass was sorted into its constituents for study. Lot 448734 contained similar combinations 

of beads. In another case a single glass jar (423330) contained the small disc beads mixed with convexo-cylindrical 

beads. Groupings or mixtures of beads are relevant to reconstructing original context. It is certainly possible that 

beads so grouped were actually recovered together, especially in the case of 423331, which contained dirt, clay, 

and bone fragments along with the beads.

In several cases beads still adhere to the original prehistoric string. One set consists of seven small (0.25 cm thick 

and 0.7 in diameter) elliptical shell beads on an S-twist, 

two-ply string measuring approximately 5 cm in length 

(423307). A number of beads nestle among textile fragments (423378). Trowbridge stated in his catalog that these 

became detached during his unrolling of textile bundles.

Stone Beads

Stone beads are made either from a black carbonate 

fluorapatite (phosphate), a black or dark gray sedimentary 

stone (possibly slate), or a dark brown finely grained claystone or siltstone. A few appear to be hematite, judging 

from the red ocher deposit on the surface. These, however, 

FIGURE 7.18. Pearl beads: a, small round pearls, strung (423332); b, large baroque pearl (423340).
122 • s m ithsonian cont r i bu tions to anth r o p o l o g y

are manufactured as pendants rather than beads. The 

stone beads assume the form of thick discs, convex-sided 

cylinders, or spheres. Apparently, the phosphate nodules 

are naturally spherical, occurring as nodules within shale 

(Brown, 1996:643), and require little modification beyond 

drilling. The stone is lustrous, shiny, and black. In all cases 

the bores drilled through stone beads are biconical.

Banks (1984:78) refers to the phosphate nodules that 

are found in the Seminole Formation along Flat Rock Creek 

in Tulsa, Oklahoma, which is likely the source for the phosphate for beads at Spiro. Sources for the other stone raw 

materials are unknown. Stone beads are not common (n = 

27). Types represented in the NMNH collection are listed 

in Table 7.6, and several phosphate beads are shown in 

Figure 7.19. The elliptical, spherical, and cylindrical beads 

are all manufactured from phosphate nodules. The disc 

beads are primarily of sedimentary stone, either siltstone 

or, in one case, sandstone. Only one disc bead appears to be 

phosphate. An interesting feature is the inclusion of bead 

blanks. Three unfinished convexo-cylindrical bead blanks 

are of an unclassified lithic material. Undrilled beads were 

certainly not strung, so they were unlikely to have been 

“worn” into a mortuary deposit by the deceased. They 

must have been placed into the graves as a discrete offering. The half-finished beads imply that bead manufacture 

was carried out either at Spiro or nearby.

Copper Beads

Copper beads are rare. There are two types present in 

this collection, disc and tubular, and the disc type is probably fraudulent.

Disc Type

The copper disc beads present in the collection of 

NMNH and shown in Figure 7.20 do not appear to be 

TABLE 7.6. Frequency and characteristics of stone beads. A dash (-) indicates data nonexistent or not available; Max., maximum; Min., 

minimum.

Combined Length (cm) Diameter (cm)

Style Count weight (g) Mean Max. Min. Mean Max. Min.

Convexo-cylindrical 7 35.4 1.84 0.75 2.96 1.32 1.09 1.66

Elliptical 3 26.5 1.30 1.69 1.04 1.95 2.66 1.32

Spherical 6 68.3 1.65 2.03 1.16 2.11 2.47 1.72

Cylindrical 3 13.2 1.59 2.20 1.21 1.04 1.23 1.57

Irregular disc 1 1.6 0.34 - - 0.2 - -

Disc 7 18.6 0.62 1.12 0.30 1.58 2.35 0.89

Total count and weight 27 163.6

FIGURE 7.19. Phosphate beads (448686).

FIGURE 7.20. Copper disc beads—apparently fraudulent (448713).
number 49 • 12 3

prehistoric artifacts because they were manufactured of 

smelted copper.4

Brown (1976, 1996) writes that beads of this style 

are not known to occur in Mississippian contexts. There 

are 35 disc beads from catalog numbers 378266, 423216, 

and 448713, representing donations from Braecklein, 

Trowbridge, and Meyer. All three collectors could easily 

have received beads from the same individual. Combined 

weight is 225.5 g. Bead length ranges from 0.40 to 0.75 

cm, with diameters between 1.90 and 1.45 cm.

Tubular Type

There are some clearly prehistoric copper beads in the 

collection, and these are long and tubular in form, manufactured from rolled copper sheeting (Figure 7.21). They 

seem to divide naturally into four sizes. Sizes and frequencies of beads are shown in Table 7.7. They are all from lot 

448714.

The string may even remain inside the copper tube 

thanks to the preservative properties of copper. In two 

cases, the string is well preserved, testifying to how these 

beads may have been worn. Lot 448714 includes a thick 

cord on which three tubular copper beads and one very 

small shell disc bead have been preserved. Another artifact 

in the same lot contains a long bead broken into two fragments that cling to the original string.

PENDANTS

There are pendants of stone, shell, and bone. All contain some element by which the piece may have been suspended, usually consisting of holes or grooves. Pendants 

may have been placed with the body or included as part of 

composite ornaments.

Shell Pendants

Shell is by far the most common material for making 

pendants, as it is for making beads. Most of these are columella pendants, a type made by removing the outer shell 

wall of large Busycon. A few other types of shell pendant 

are present as well.

Columella

These pendants are pictured in the iconography of 

shell and copper artifacts. They were suspended from 

necklaces and rested on the wearer’s chest such that the 

apex of the shell is pointed downward (Figure 7.22). Columella pendants may be drilled through distally, or they 

may be left undrilled.

Trowbridge’s pendants have all been combined into 

lot 423305. He numbered his specimens individually, and 

for this reason, each columella from his collection was 

analyzed separately. Objects in Meyer’s collection do not 

benefit from separate numbering, and because the pendants were numerous, these were grouped into smaller 

lots for which measurements were averaged. Width of the 

columella and length of the whole columellas are useful 

for estimating the size of the parent univalve. The people 

of Spiro favored large shells for cups and for making gorgets (see gorgets in this chapter). Cutting the columella 

away from the shell results in a large hole being left in the 

fabric of the shell.

FIGURE 7.21. Small and medium copper beads: a, three beads 

strung on original cordage (448714); b, loose beads, several with 

original cordage remaining inside (448714).

TABLE 7.7. Frequency and characteristics of tubular copper 

beads.

Length Weight

Size (cm) Count (g)

Small 1.5–2.0 5 4.4

Medium 2.5–3.5 7 6.8

Medium large 3.5–4.5 14 17.0

Large 4.5–6.0 6 11.9

Total count, weight 32 40.1
124 • s m ithsonian cont r i bu tions to anth r o p o l o g y

Columellas in Trowbridge’s collection all appear white 

and chalky. There is little prehistoric residue present, implying that he may have cleaned them. Meyer appears not 

to have cleaned his specimens because they do appear to 

be stable and well caked with residue. Also, Meyer may 

have treated his with something to halt deterioration. At 

any rate, there is a distinct difference between the two collections in terms of amount of residue present and condition of the shell.

Large lots were subdivided on the basis of the location 

and extent of damage. This division reflects variation in 

taphonomic process more than style or use. Stylistically, 

these pendants are all similar. In most cases the distal tip 

is absent, and therefore, presence or absence of a drilled 

hole (the only stylistic difference noted by Brown, 1976) is 

unknown. Table 7.8 summarizes dimensions and descriptions of the columella pendants.

Several types of residue occur on the columella beads. 

One columella (448778) accompanies two fragments of 

well-preserved twill-weave basketry. Other columellas 

have faint traces of matting or mat impressions, and these 

combined impressions suggest that such pendants were 

disposed of in proximity to basketry (or matting) in the 

mound. Very little copper stains the pendants, so they 

were not placed in proximity to copper.

Sculpted Columella

Only one of the over 90 columella pendants has been 

modified beyond drilling a hole in the distal end for suspension (Figure 7.23). Pendant 448780s01 has a design 

consisting of two parallel lines extending down from the 

apex, following the natural whorls around to the opening, 

and then following the shoulder to the opposite side of 

the opening. Two more sets of these double lines extend 

TABLE 7.8. Frequency and characteristics of columella pendants. 

Dash (-) indicates data are nonexistent or not available.

Total

Mean length Width Weight

Portion present count (cm) (cm) (g)

Whole pendants 

with distal tip 16 18.7 5.4 1,659.0

Apical fragments 28 12.5 5.4 2,538.4

Distal fragments 1 4.0 - 7.4

Nearly complete pendants 34 19.3 6.5 4,635.6

Lateral fragments 5 18.5 6.1 485.0

Spines only 9 12.0 3.3 471.5

Total count, weight 93 9,796.9

FIGURE 7.22. Cat-man warrior wearing necklace of columella pendants and displaying scalps (423245).

FIGURE 7.23. Sculpted columella pendant (448780s01).
number 49 • 12 5

around the apex. The artifact has a brown crusty residue 

on the apex. One spot of brown residue is quite thick. In 

addition, a fragment of mica adheres to the apex.

Other Shell Pendants

Several other forms of shell pendants were fabricated. 

One variety is made from a long, cylindrical piece of columella that has been perforated at one end. It differs from 

columella pendants in that the apex is not present. There 

are six of these in the collection (Figure 7.24b). Mean dimensions are length 7.02 cm, diameter 2.7 cm, and hole 

diameter 0.28 cm. The longest is 9.35 cm long; the shortest is 4.92 cm. Total weight amounts to 94.2 g. Holes are 

usually biconical; however, one such pendant has a contracting hole, indicating that it was drilled all the way 

through from one side.

The second variety is a shell bauble with a groove carved 

around one end and no hole. This variety resembles weights 

or sinkers. The two present in the collection (448886 and 

448727) measure 6.72 and 6.78 cm long and 0.96 and 1.18 

cm in diameter, respectively. A larger type (Figure 7.25) has 

three incised proximal grooves (448738) and resembles an 

artifact shown by Brown (1996: fig. 2-129a).

The third type is a pendant cut from shell and incised (448769). It is shaped like a tassel and, if inverted, 

resembles the shape of a crown mace (Figure 7.26). It is 

possible that this type was meant to be worn from the 

ear or earspool because an identical artifact is pictured 

on engraved shell number 423234 (Phillips and Brown, 

1984: pl. 282). A nearly identical artifact from the WPA

excavations is pictured in Brown (1976: fig. 77e; 1996: 

fig. 2-129).

Unusual Shell Forms

There are also some other unusual forms of shell artifact. One is a small, irregularly shaped piece of bivalve 

wall that has two small perforations along one side. Presumably, it was meant to be strung and worn as an ornament, in the same manner as some gorgets are worn.

FIGURE 7.24. Pendants: a, bone pendant carved to resemble bear 

tooth (378264); b, cylindrical columella shell pendant (378263). FIGURE 7.25. Sculpted shell pendant (448738).
126 • s m ithsonian cont r i bu tions to anth r o p o l o g y

Two shell hooks are present in the collection (Figure 

7.27). The flat hooks are grooved around one end for 

tying. Another similar artifact is less curved. A similar 

pendant from another collection is shown in Hamilton 

(1952: pl. 83A). In another artifact, the opening edges of 

shells were perforated (423302s02). The use of this artifact is unknown.

Stone Pendants

Other pendants can be classified according to where the 

hole is placed. The most common form is that of a worked 

stone having a hole in one end for stringing or tying.

Cannel Coal

Two pendants are made from this soft material. In 

both cases the pendant is oval (423167) or elliptical in 

shape (448683s04) and perforated with a single hole at 

one end (Figure 7.28). The perforation is incomplete on 

one of the pendants, with a drill start on one face only.

Hematite

These small pendants are made of dense, heavy stones 

that exhibit a powdery reddish residue on the surface. The 

shape is cylindrical. There are two finished pendants of 

this type and one that is roughed out but unperforated. 

These are grouped along with beads of phosphate nodules 

in catalog number 448686.

Other Stone

An odd pendant of greenstone is incised on one face 

(448684). This is an unusual design in that the stone is 

not simply drilled through the top to provide a point of 

FIGURE 7.27. Shell hooks (447770).

FIGURE 7.26. Shell pendant (448769).

FIGURE 7.28. Cannel coal pendant, both sides (423167).
number 49 • 12 7

attachment; rather it has a carved loop (Figure 7.29). The 

surface is well polished and exhibits a design of crossed 

lines. Overall, it resembles the back of a beetle, with the 

wings outlined and the loop serving as the head. Another 

stone pendant is perforated in the center (423166). It has 

an overall diamond shape and is made of sandstone. This 

object resembles Woodland period gorgets and may be an 

older object that was interred as part of a reburial. Finally, 

an unfinished pendant is merely a pebble with the hole for 

suspension only partially drilled.

Bone Pendants

There is one broken pendant of bone (see Table 8.6). It 

is drilled through on one end (423341). Another pendant 

(Figure 7.24a) is composed of what appears to be antler 

(378264). This artifact represents a bear tooth and is identical with other bear tooth pendants shown in Hamilton 

(1952: pl. 60) and in Fundaburk and Foreman (1957). It 

is 5.6 cm long and well polished. This artifact is in excellent condition.

Ceramic Pendant

The only ceramic pendant is 448931. It is very heavy 

and stonelike but friable, and magnification shows a gritty 

paste. The pendant is broken in half medially. A deep 

groove extends around the top of the pendant.

GORGETS

Gorgets are ornaments that were suspended from the 

neck to hang upon the wearer’s chest. Such ornaments are 

analogous to the pectorals worn throughout Mesoamerica 

and manufactured of jade and bone. Gorgets are made primarily from shell, usually Busycon, although there is also 

a bone gorget fragment in the collection.

Shell Gorgets

Brown (1976) classified shell gorgets into morphological types on the basis of attributes of manufacture and 

design. The custom was to decorate gorgets on the inside 

surface of the shell wall, which would afford a concave 

surface for decoration. Gorgets were less frequently incised with the design on the outer surface, which is quite 

interesting in light of the tradition of engraved shell cups, 

all of which were decorated on the outside wall only. 

The inner surface is of a somewhat different luster and 

smoothness. Perhaps the decoration itself could be more 

easily executed on inner surfaces. The inner surface is naturally smooth and, for fresh shells, is softer and easier to 

engrave. (As indicated in my experiments done to simulate 

engraving shell using stone tools, fresh shell is not as hard 

as seasoned shell, and the inner surface is softer than the 

outer.) There are 56 gorget fragments, representing at least 

31 gorgets.

The gorgets can be classified according to either 

manufacturing style or iconographic style. Brown (1976, 

1996) devised a scheme for classifying gorgets according 

to manufacturing style. The portion of the shell used (inner 

or outer surface), the areas decorated, shape (circular or 

otherwise), and the medium of decoration (e.g., incising) 

are all indicators of manufacturing style.

An adaptation of this method is used in discussing the 

gorgets in the NMNH collection. A summary of gorgets 

and masks is given in Table 7.9.

When Phillips and Brown worked with the shell cup 

designs, they were able to extrapolate the design styles to 

include gorgets as well as cups. Phillips and Brown (1978, 

1984) refer to two major design schools, Braden and 

Craig. Gorgets correspond only to the Craig school. The 

number of fragments in each catalog context represents 

the total number of fragments, including those that have 

been refitted and readhered.

FIGURE 7.29. Stone pendants: a, beetle-shaped greenstone pendant 

(448684); b, broken stone pendant (423168); c, diamond-shaped 

pendant (423166).
128 • s m ithsonian cont r i bu tions to anth r o p o l o g y

Brain and Phillips (1996) published a separate study 

of gorgets and plotted design distribution across the southeast. They refer to styles based on subject matter, orientation, and other characteristics. They connect several styles 

to Spiro: Pearce, which has a single bird, interpreted as a 

turkey; Jackson, which displays birds in swastika orientation; Hull, which has human hand motifs; and Philbrook, 

a birdman theme. They refer to one style that is found only 

at Spiro as Hamilton (Brain and Phillips, 1996:55–59). In 

the Hamilton style, two human figures are arranged symmetrically on either side of a pole and are executed within 

the parameters associated with Craig A styling.

Fenestrated Gorgets

The best represented style was the fenestrated gorget. 

These artifacts are usually round (type 1 in Brown, 1976, 

1996) but may be other shapes as well (type 3 in Brown, 

1976, 1996). Portions of the design have been cut out, resulting in an overall lacy effect. Cutting shell in this way is 

difficult and time-consuming; however, the resulting gorgets are quite impressive. The contrast between the shell 

and the background would make them show up vividly on 

the wearer. Brown’s type 1 refers to artifacts with a circular outline. Type 3 refers to gorgets cut to conform to the 

outline of the design on the gorget. In other words, they 

are often not round.

The 17 examples of circular gorgets comprise 37 separate fragments. Most of these represent the Craig A style; 

only two examples are Craig B. Four of these circular gorgets are decorated with a modified star with concentric 

circles (Figure 7.30). (See Brown, 1976: fig. 81g for an 

identical type in the University of Arkansas collection.) 

The style resembles a motif associated with Moundville 

(Fundaburk and Foreman, 1957).

TABLE 7.9. Frequency and characteristics of shell gorgets by style.

Style Iconographic style Symbols Count MNI a Weight (g)

Fenestrated 

 Circular Craig A Raccoon, concentric rings 8 6 214.4

 Craig B Bird, cross, dotted circle 7 2 133.6

 Craig unclassified Humans, Greek cross 19 6 b 267.7

Unclassified Sun disc 3 3 26.9

 Other shape Craig A and unclassified Concentric half circles and rings, 

forked eye, Akron grid 4 3 223.8

Solid 

Engraved inner surface Craig A and unclassified Dots, birdman 2 2 123.9

Engraved outer surface, mask Craig B Forked eye 3 1 37.0

Perforated circular Unclassified None 1 1 9.2

Unmodified wall section Unclassified None 2 2 175.7

Unclassified Craig unclassified None 4 3 147.3

Mask Craig B and unclassified Human face 3 2 189.9

Total counts, weight 56 31 1,549.4

a MNI = minimum number of individuals.

b Includes 448742, a gorget not located for this analysis.

FIGURE 7.30. Circular fenestrated gorget depicting a sun symbol 

(448740).
number 49 • 12 9

The Pearce style (Brain and Philips, 1996) is represented by artifacts 423292 and 448765, two fragments 

that refit. The birdman Philbrook style shows up on artifact 423293. Brain and Phillips (1996:61) point out the 

sophistication of this design in which the wings hanging 

down from the birdman’s arms cross in front of the body.

Examples of the bilaterally symmetrical Hamilton 

style are 448747, 448748, 448749, 448755, and fragments from 448765 (see Figure 7.31). Gorget 448742 

depicts a man facing a forked pole, a Craig C motif (see 

Figure 7.32). Brain and Phillips classify this as the Houston style. They distinguish this style, one that has a similar 

design to Hamilton, for the simple reason that Hamilton 

depictions are Craig A, whereas this is Craig C. Another 

circular fenestrated gorget depicts a birdlike creature rendered in Craig B style (Figure 7.33).

Two of the gorgets in this group were made on the 

reverse face of engraved shell cup fragments. One is large 

and highly concave and has a large hole in the center 

(448761s02.1). The other (448761s01.1) is made on the 

inner surface of a shell fragment and depicts a human 

holding tightly to a raccoon staff (a whole raccoon dangles 

from the top of the staff).

The noncircular gorgets include a variety of forms. 

One artifact is a long, narrow object with a pattern of 

brickwork (448763) (Figure 7.34a). Another is an unusual gorget made on a Pleuroploca shell (Figure 7.34b). 

FIGURE 7.31. Craig A gorget fragments: a, depicts raccoon pole (448750); b, depicts warrior (448747).

FIGURE 7.32. Gorget showing man facing forked pole (448742).
130 • s m ithsonian cont r i bu tions to anth r o p o l o g y

On the outer face is an amphisbaena-type tongue, probably a remnant of an engraved shell cup design. On the 

inner surface motifs depict a forked eye and bird’s tail. 

The cutout area appears to be a part of the inner surface 

design. Although this could be a case of reuse, Phillips and 

Brown (1978:vi, 1984: pl. 274) discuss the possibility that 

this was intended as a two sided design. A third artifact 

appears to be a cutout of a woodpecker’s head and tail 

(Figure 7.35a). It has a thick copper incrustation on one 

face (448762). The precise mode of wearing or using such 

an object is unknown (but see Phillips and Brown, 1984: 

pl. 338D). Another gorget of this type is a reused engraved 

shell cup (448762s02). A large circle has been removed 

from the center, probably for making another gorget.

Motifs. Motifs seen on these gorgets include 

raccoon bindings, eye-in-hand motifs, concentric rings, 

Greek cross, forked eye, concentric half circles, chevrons, 

and bird and human motifs.

Residues. Among the residues present are 

brown resinous patches, brown stains, copper stains, and 

basket impressions.

Solid Gorgets

Solid gorgets are much less common. There are only 

three, and one of these is more appropriately classified as 

a mask or maskette (423295). Two others are solid pieces 

decorated on the inner surface (type 2 in Brown, 1976). 

One is a round object (448757) decorated on the inner 

surface with lines of dots. The dots were executed through 

a series of drill starts that are not very deep and are arranged in two rows spaced 2.6 cm apart.

The other (423293) shows a serpentine arm with claw 

and bead brickwork at the wrist, elbow, and shoulder. 

This is a fragment of a birdman with outstretched arm, 

feathers, and petaloid decoration (Phillips and Brown, 

1984: pl. 148).

Perforated Gorgets

Perforated gorgets are decorated with numerous circular perforations drilled through the piece. There is only 

one gorget of this type in the collection. Brown (1976) 

referred to this variation as type 5. Artifact 423294 has 

two perforations on a circular gorget. The fragment represents only a small portion of the whole. It is possible since 

this is a small piece that the perforations present were for 

suspending the object. Therefore, it is impossible to tell if 

this came from a gorget with lots of holes or if these holes 

would have been the only two.

FIGURE 7.34. Noncircular fenestrated gorgets: a, pattern of brickwork (448763); b, Craig B bird motif on inner surface of Pleuroploca shell (448746).

FIGURE 7.33. Craig B style gorget depicting avian subject (423292).
number 49 • 13 1

Unclassified Gorget

One unclassified gorget is engraved on an irregularly 

shaped piece and depicts a Janus-faced figure whose head 

is surrounded by a sort of semicircular frame (448759) 

(Figure 7.35b).

Shell Sidewall Gorgets

There are two gorgets of this type (referred to as type 

9 in Brown, 1976). They are manufactured by taking a 

section of the outer wall of a univalve and polishing off 

the edges. The shape is that of the shell wall, with upper 

and distal body areas retained. One is made from a Cassis 

shell and bears an inscription that reads “Tally Gorget.” 

It is signed by Braecklein (Figure 7.36). The perimeter of 

this gorget has been incised with short hatched lines running perpendicular to the edge (378246). On the outside 

are two impressions or stains that are reminiscent of cordage. The other gorget of this type is from a small Busycon 

(423308s01). It exhibits some hatching on the top lip, but 

that is the only decoration.

Mask Gorgets

There are three masks. Such masks may have been 

worn over the face, perhaps after death (Phillips and 

Brown, 1984: pl. 273). As such, they are not gorgets proper 

but are included here because they are similar in terms of 

analysis. One is made from the apex of a shell (448743) 

and might have been worn as a gorget, judging from the 

holes for suspension (Figure 7.37a). The impression is that 

of a human face. Taking out the tip of the apex formed the 

gaping mouth. Two eyes are drilled all the way through, 

and an incised circle surrounds these. A long raised nose 

extends down between the eyes. The surface is very well 

polished. The mouth has five incised lines extending down 

from the lower edge. Three parallel lines zigzag out and 

down from each eye. Odd random lines also seem to emanate from below the eye. Beneath the mouth on the left is 

a recently incised scribble. This gorget is complete. Total 

measurements are 11.36 × 9.08 cm. The holes at the top 

for suspension are 0.45 cm in diameter and biconical in 

FIGURE 7.36. Gorget made from Cassis shell (378246).

FIGURE 7.35. Gorgets: a, Woodpecker head gorget (448762); b, 

Janus-faced figure (448759).

b

a
132 • s m ithsonian cont r i bu tions to anth r o p o l o g y

shape. This is a very interesting and unique artifact, unlike 

anything from the WPA excavations.

The second mask is a fairly large artifact manufactured from the distal part of a Busycon shell (448861s07). 

A human face is shown, done in the Craig B style (Figure 7.37b). The mouth is open and shows teeth that are 

separated (Phillips and Brown, 1984: pl. 273A). A beaded 

forelock is shown pulled to the left (when viewing). The 

nose is a long trapezoid, and the eyes resemble fish. The 

width of the artifact is 11.45 cm.

The third is a smaller mask (width is 7.72 cm), also 

done in the Craig B style (423295). Faint toolmarks are 

visible around the relief-carved features (Figure 7.37c). 

The piece consists of three refitted fragments. The eyes 

are sunken, making the nose stand out. Lips and teeth 

protrude, and large forked eyes frame the nose. The figure’s teeth, eye decoration, and ear detail are incised. Two 

holes on each side and at least one at the top are present. The smaller size and plentiful holes imply use on a 

headdress or other composite artifact (Phillips and Brown, 

1984: pl. 273). Traces of red ocher are present.

Bone Gorget

A single bone gorget fragment is present (423343). 

This disc was cut from bone and then perforated in the 

center (Figure 7.38). Two circles are inscribed around the 

perforation. What appears to be a circular arrangement of 

perforations encloses the central design. Parts of at least 

five perforations are visible. Three more lines are inscribed 

FIGURE 7.37. Masks: a, whimsical face cut from shell apex (448743); b, Craig B style face (448861s07); 

c, Craig B style gorget (423295).
number 49 • 13 3

around the ring of perforations. The outer edge is scalloped. 

The artifact has an overall finish in a dark, rich reddish 

brown, as though it has a patina or was affected by pigment. The finished size of the gorget can be estimated at 7 

cm in diameter (see Table 8.6). The bone appears to be the 

scapula of a large mammal, e.g., bison, deer, bear, or elk.5

Headdresses

Headdresses were composite artifacts that consisted 

of plumes, pins, headbands, plaques, fastenings, and beads 

or pendants. They often contained parts using a wide 

variety of raw materials, including copper, wood, bone, 

leather, shell, and textiles.

Pins

Pins were used in fastening portions of headdresses 

and especially in attaching copper plumes. Pins are known 

to have been made from copper and from bone, and both 

of these material types are represented.

Copper Pins

Prehistoric copper pins have square cross sections and 

taper gradually from the center to the tips. There are only 

six fragments of authentic pins (448714). These are broken 

into segments approximately 5 cm long. The set includes 

two tips. The lot containing these pin fragments consisted 

primarily of tubular copper beads, and the pin segments 

had gone unnoticed among the beads. These copper pins 

are heavily corroded and highly fragmented (Figure 7.39b). 

FIGURE 7.38. Bone gorget (423343).

FIGURE 7.39. Copper pins: a, fraudulent pins manufactured from copper wire (448712); b, authentic copper pins and S-shaped pieces (448714s10, s11).
134 • s m ithsonian cont r i bu tions to anth r o p o l o g y

Six other small curved fragments were also identified from 

the same lot. These are S-shaped, approximately 1.0 cm 

wide, and 0.65 cm thick. These are also fragmented, with 

an average length of about 2.6 cm. The function of the 

curved segments is unknown, but they could also be segments of pins or other fasteners. The curved pieces are all 

covered on one side with fragments of a coarse, straight, 

pale brown fibrous material that J. Gardner (unpublished 

notes on conservation measures taken for Spiro collections 

at National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, 1970–1971) apparently interpreted as leather, although it also resembles vegetable fiber. It is highly likely 

that the curved segments were recovered together from the 

same archaeological context. Perhaps they were used to 

hold a garment together.

Most of the artifacts listed as copper pins are fraudulent, a fact mentioned in the inventory of materials accessioned from J. G. Braecklein (National Museum of 

Natural History, 1937). Both Mohrman (1939) and 

Hamilton (1952:51) address the concern over authenticity of copper pins. Analysis performed on one of the pins 

showed the artifact to be of smelted copper (CAL report 

on artifact number T1421; Smithsonian Institution, Museum Conservation Institute, unpublished). These pins are 

cigar shaped, with consistent diameter and round cross 

section. None are broken or bent, a condition suspicious 

in itself because most of the copper artifacts are quite fragmentary. They were probably made of copper wire (Figure 

7.39a). Apparently fraudulent copper pins in the collection include the artifacts listed in Table 7.10.

These pins were apparently widespread, as they appeared in several different accessions. Trowbridge’s catalog does not indicate from whom he received the pins, but 

they are listed among other materials that he received in 

1936. Therefore, the perpetrator of the fraud is unknown, 

but the pins entered the artifact market not long after the 

commercial excavation of Craig Mound (see also Mohrman, 

1939). In an accession inventory of materials received from 

Braecklein in 1937, there is a notation that copper pins were 

received from the property owners at the mound.

Bone Pins

Bone pins are present as well (see Table 8.6). These are 

distinguished from awls or other bone tools by a lack of 

wear on the pointed tips (Figure 7.40a). The copper and 

bone pins in the collection are nearly all broken, and this 

may have been part of the ritual process in depositing them 

in the mortuary feature. Artifact 448707 is a complete pin 

17.3 cm long that tapers to the distal tip and features a 

spatulate end. It is heavily copper stained (Figure 7.40b). 

Lot number 448408s01 consists of 15 fragments of bone 

that refit into nine pin fragments. Seven distal pieces are 

included. Eight more fragments of tapering pins are present in 423324 and 379214. These are narrow, straight, 

and round to elliptical in cross section. Several are heavily 

stained with copper. The most massive of the tapering type 

is 1.05 cm in diameter (379214).

The other type of bone pin or implement is grooved 

on one or both surfaces (448708s02). These are noticeably 

wider and have a concavo-convex cross section. Six fragments refit into five sections. Their use is not clear because 

of the grooves and greater width of the implements. In the 

NMNH catalog, all of these are referred to as awls.

TABLE 7.10. Apparently fraudulent 

copper pins in the collection.

Catalog number Count

378268 2

397719 2

423217 4

448712 15

542527 to 542531 5

Total pins 28

FIGURE 7.40. Bone pins: a, fragments (448708); b, complete pin 

with spatulate end (448707).
number 49 • 13 5

Two artifacts may, indeed, be awls or some kind of 

piercing implement (Figure 7.41). They have very sharp 

oblique tips. One has been made from the os penis of a 

raccoon, Procyon lotor, and the other is a tibia, probably 

also from a raccoon. The tibia tool has two worn patches 

along the body of the piece.

Headdress Plaques and Plates

Copper

Sheet copper is known to have been used for making copper plumes, which were attached to headdresses, 

and plaques, which comprised the frontal portion of some 

headdresses. Headdress plaques are thin plates with numerous perforations for the attachment of bindings or 

other ornaments. Some of the copper foil materials in 

the NMNH collection could easily be from headdresses. 

One set of fragments consists of two pieces with an outline done in a reverse scallop. Several other fragments appear to match these, although they do not refit (423221). 

Copper sheet artifact fragments, which usually cannot be 

differentiated between headdress parts and free-standing 

plates, are discussed and shown in chapter 8.

Brown lists four types of headdress plumes from copper that are all designed to mimic feathers. These would 

have been either lashed to a pin with cordage or other 

fiber threaded through pairs of holes along a pin track or 

fastened by the pin using a riveted copper piece (Brown, 

1976:311). Plumes often exhibit a dorsal offset near the 

base. They are often but not always decorated in repousse 

patterns of parallel lines representing feather markings. In 

this collection, no pieces can be called plumes unambiguously, although there is one fragment that may possibly 

have come from a plume. Catalog number 448716s02 

contains a sheet copper artifact with one pair of perforations flanking a groove, presumably for attachment of the 

pin. The fragment has a repousse design.

Bone

There is also a small plaque of turtle carapace with 

several small perforations (448898). It has a parabolic 

shape and is decorated with parallel incised lines (see 

Table 8.6). Although it is by no means certain that this is 

indeed a fragment from a headdress plaque, it is similar 

enough to be included in this section (Figure 7.42c).

Another bone plate consists of two fragments 

(423221s03). In the collection, this is included in a lot containing copper fragments. It is a thin circular disc of bone 

with a hole in the center. The diameter when complete 

would have been at least 12 cm. The doughnut-shaped 

item has small holes around the periphery and around 

the center hole. On one side it has been reverse painted 

in a design of concentric circles (see Figure 7.42d). This 

artifact resembles a bone plaque shown and discussed by 

Brown (1966:553, fig. 2-112b) from collections of the Gilcrease Institute. That plaque has a cross and circle motif 

painted on the center and concentric rings. It has only a 

small perforation in the center, not the large hole implied 

by the artifact in the Smithsonian collection.

cone Ornaments

The final artifacts considered in this chapter are five 

cone-shaped wooden ornaments (448889). These have a 

raised rim around the outer wide edge and are hollowed 

for about one-half of their length. They have become 

warped and squashed (Figure 7.42b). In all cases a hole 

has been drilled through the apex of the cone, out through 

the hollow in the back of the cone. The raised rim is perforated in four spots equidistant around the perimeter. In 

all but one of these ornaments there are two depressions, 

one on either side, about halfway between apex and rim. 

These are not exactly opposite, but fall in one hemisphere 

FIGURE 7.41. Bone awls, pins, or piercers: a, sharpened os penis

from a raccoon (379212); b, mammal bone tool (379213).
136 • s m ithsonian cont r i bu tions to anth r o p o l o g y

of the piece. Although there is no residue in these spots, 

they could represent eyespots in some sort of stylized zoomorphic form. Dimensions for the cones are summarized 

as follows: length from the apex to the rim ranges from 

6.97 to 7.4 cm, and diameter ranges from 5.5 to 6.43 cm. 

Mean weight is 29.3 g. The use of these cone artifacts is 

unclear. Because they have holes in the perimeter, they 

could have been sewn or tied to some other object.

NOTES

4. These were analyzed at the Smithsonian’s Museum Conservation Institute, according to notes on the conservations 

cards, but the report number is unknown. 

5. Identification by R. Purdy, Department of Vertebrate Paleontology, Smithsonian Institution, 1975.

FIGURE 7.42. Other ornamental objects: a, effigy earspools (448895); b, zoomorphic wooden cones (448899); c, turtle 

carapace plaque (448898); d, bone plate plaque.
Plates

The 11 plates that follow show photographs of selected engraved shells to 

illustrate a range of engraving styles. Many fragments not previously published 

are included.

In the images, numbers following the letter “A” are the assigned catalog 

numbers for the artifacts shown; number labels beginning “ANT” no longer 

have relevance and should be disregarded. 

In the captions, an asterisk (*) indicates an object not in Phillips and Brown 

(1978, 1984). Codes within square brackets (e.g., “[s07 ]”) are the catalog identifier subnumbers used to identify fragments in Table A.1 and Appendix B; numbers in parentheses refer to the plate number(s) in Phillips and Brown (1978, 

1984). 
138 • s m ithsonian cont r i bu tions to anth r o p o l o g y

PLATE 1. Row 1: 423253, Craig C cup with snake and talon motifs*; 423343, bone gorget. Row 2: 423238, Craig C cup with man holding 

serpent staff, lateral view*; 423252 (on right), Braden C cup with bird in flight and possible armadillo*. Row 3: 423238, dorsal view; 423253, 

apical view.
number 49 • 13 9

PLATE 2. Row 1: 448822, Craig C cup with forked pole theme*; 448839, Craig C cup with human figure, disembodied heads, and bow, lateral 

view. Row 2: 448839, dorsal view; 448740, type 1 gorget with sun circle; 448744, type 1 unclassified gorget. Row 3: 448840, Craig C cup with 

pear-shape motif and bands; 448843, Braden A cup lip fragment with serrated border*.
140 • s m ithsonian cont r i bu tions to anth r o p o l o g y

PLATE 3. Row 1: 448877, 448880, and 448816, fragments in two views. Row 2: 448877, left, [s07], Craig B cup with bilobed arrows motif; 

right (cluster of three), [s11], [s05], and [s03], sun circles and snake motifs. Row 3: 448877, from left, [s04] Braden A cup with concentric circles 

(34.5); [s05] Craig B with snake man theme (222Da); [s02] unclassified (A2); [s03] Braden (B2C); and two snake fragments.
number 49 • 14 1

PLATE 4. Row 1: 448860 with refits from 448880, Braden A with human heads and bilobed arrows (12); 448867[s03], unclassified 

cup with snake, forked eye, and circles motifs. Row 2: 448867 (4 fragments), Craig B and unclassified snake and bird themes; 448869 

(5 fragments), Craig style wing motifs. Row 3: 448869, left (2 fragments), [s03], Craig B wing motifs; center (3 fragments), Craig feather 

and plume motifs; far right, [s02], Craig A feathers and barred oval. Row 4: 448869, far left, [s01]; 7 fragments to right, Craig feather 

and plume motifs.
142 • s m ithsonian cont r i bu tions to anth r o p o l o g y

PLATE 5. 448866. Row 1: left, 2 fragments; center, apical view of Craig B fragment with snake (241A); right, 3 fragments, center of which 

is [s05] Craig (218Aa). Row 2: left, fragment; center, [s01], apex; right, [s06], Braden A (8Aa). Row 3: left, 5 fragments with cross-hatching; 

center, feather motif; right (2 fragments), [s10], Braden A. Row 4: left, [s11], Craig B cup (242); right, [s12], Braden A Amphisbaena (28A).
number 49 • 14 3

PLATE 6. 448858. Row 1: left, [s01], Craig B; center upper, [s02]; center lower, [s05], human figure wearing columella pendant; right, 4 fragments. Row 2: [s06]; [s07] (2 fragments), Craig A; [s09]; birdman theme. Row 3: left, [s10] (2 fragments), Craig B; [s11] (3 fragments); birdmen 

in various styles.
144 • s m ithsonian cont r i bu tions to anth r o p o l o g y

PLATE 7. Row 1: 448871, left, [s01] (4 fragments), Craig cup with bison; center, [s03] (2 fragments), Braden A*; right, [s02] (2 fragments), 

Braden B. Row 2: 448871; 448876 (2 fragments); 448877 (2 fragments). Row 3: 448877[s04] (4 fragments), concentric circle motif. Row 4: 

448877, left, [s08], Craig B cup with bilobed arrows; right, [s07], Craig B cup.
number 49 • 14 5

PLATE 8. Row 1: 448880, left, Craig A, 3 distal and body fragments (168B, -C); right, [s29], Braden B, 2 fragments (96A, B-7). 

Row 2: 448880[s34], 38 fragments, including (B-3J, -H, B4Bb) mostly Braden (most not in Phillips and Brown, 1978, 1984). Row 

3: 448880: left, 8 fragments; center, [s40] (2 fragments), Braden A-B miscellaneous (B-4G, -E); right, [s40] (2 fragments including 

A-Sk). Row 4: left, 515786; center, 448881 (not labeled), 2 fragments with basketry impression*; right, 448882, Amphisbaena 

cup with basketry impression*.
146 • s m ithsonian cont r i bu tions to anth r o p o l o g y

PLATE 9. 448858. Row 1: left cluster, same as Plate 6, top right; right, [s03], human male figure*. Row 2: with 448880, 2 refitted fragments 

shown in two views. Row 3: left, distal fragment (278b); center, Craig B (195a); right, [s04], Braden A atlatl; far right, small fragment. Row 

4: left, [s11], 8 fragments showing human legs (163E Craig A is second from left); right, 4 fragments (2 refitted) including human figures and 

framed figures.
number 49 • 14 7

PLATE 10. 448866. Row 1: left, [s01], 4 fragments (lower left is 96.13); right, [s09], 2 fragments, Craig (198Hb). Row 2: from left, [s03]; 

[s04], 2 fragments; [s05], Craig (224b); [s08], Braden (52A). Row 3: center, [s09], small fragment Craig piasa. Rows 4, 5: upper and lower 

left, [s19], cup with spider and rattlesnake, Craig B (242); upper and lower right, [s12], Braden A cup (28A).
148 • s m ithsonian cont r i bu tions to anth r o p o l o g y

PLATE 11. 448853. Row 1: left, 4 fragments; right, with 448867[s02]. Row 2: from left, [s03], [s04], and [s05], human hands on apical view. 

Row 3: [s05], dorsal view of human hands.
Ritual equipment encompasses objects thought to be associated with 

ceremonial or special circumstances. Activities surrounding the use 

of these materials may be social, religious, or both. Such equipment 

would include pipes, figurines, copper plates, and discoidals. In addition, other objects—raw materials, crystals, pigments, or minerals—might also 

connote ritual or special activity. This chapter is organized into three sections, 

the first being devoted to clearly manufactured artifacts such as pipes and figurines. The second part deals primarily with worked materials of uncertain function. The third covers unworked materials, including pigments, minerals, and 

other miscellaneous but interesting items.

Some of the materials discussed in this chapter might fit more easily into the 

sections on decoration and ornamentation in chapter 7. However, without clear 

linkage to parts of costumes or headwear, fragments of copper, wood, bone, and 

leather can just as reasonably be considered here.

Manufactured Objects

Pipes

Pipes are considered to be among the most special objects used in North 

America. Pipe making is a recognized art, with skilled pipe makers working 

with carefully selected materials. Some of the pipes represented are self-stemmed 

pipes, meaning they lack a separate stem. This type includes the numerous 

T-shaped pipes. Other pipes are composite artifacts in which the user inserts a 

smoking tube into the pipe to act as a stem. All of the effigy forms fall into this 

category. Pipes having shapes other than effigy are listed by style in Table 8.1. 

Effigy pipes are treated separately in Table 8.2.

T-Shaped Pipes

These pipes resemble an upside-down letter T, with the base forming the 

crossbar and the bowl forming the upright. Complete pipes have a bowl that 

8 Ritual Equipment and 

Ceremonial Materials

April K. Sievert
150 • s m ithsonian cont r i bu tions to anth r o p o l o g y

rests on or near the center of a long, cigar-shaped stone 

base. One side will be drilled for use as the pipestem. The 

opposite end remains solid (in most cases). The NMNH

collection contains complete pipes, pipe fragments, and an 

unfinished pipe of this type.

The pipes are usually made of relatively soft stone, 

including the siltstone, sandstone, and steatite found in 

the NMNH collection. Brown (1996:507) also lists hematite, shale, and limestone among the locally available 

hard stone materials used for T-shaped pipes. It is possible 

that siltstone, as identified here, is a material that Brown 

would refer to as either a sandstone or possibly shale. The 

“siltstone” is a very finely grained homogeneous material 

(based on small grain size, rather than on petrographic 

analysis).

T-shaped pipes are divided here into the three categories employed by Brown (1976, 1996:505): contracting 

bowl, cylindrical bowl, and Chandler. They constitute 

typical Mississippian artifact types and can be described 

using three fragment categories: bowl, stem, and tail 

(stem projection). Differences in the types of pipe usually 

reflect differences in the morphologies of these three pipe 

sections.

Chandler T-Shaped Pipes

These pipes have stems and projections that are unequal in both cross section and length. They are probably 

the earliest form (Brown, 1996:505). There is one complete Chandler pipe in the collection (448657), shown 

in Figure 8.1. It is made from fine-grained sandstone. In 

cross section the stem is round and the tail is a flattened 

ellipse. The surface is polished. Brown residue is caked 

onto the sides of the bowl, which exhibit shallow ridges 

TABLE 8.1. Characteristics of stone and ceramic pipes by type (except effigy). All measurements are in centimeters. The abbreviation 

“T” indicates T-shaped; a dash (-) indicates that data are nonexistent or not available.

Catalog Bowl Bore Bowl

number Type Element Length Width Height Diameter diameter depth length Material

423156 Elbow Complete 5.81 2.92 4.22 2.32 0.71 2.15 2.37 Siltstone

379215 Red River Stem 6.84 0.76 - - 0.35 - - Clay

423154 T cylindrical or Bowl 8.76 4.61 8.7 3.22 1 5.6 - Siltstone/ 

  Chandler sandstone

448657 T Chandler Complete 15.28 3.32 8.29 2.38 0.85 5.44 6.75 Sandstone

448658 T contracting Complete 32.2 3.89 7.57 2.66 0.54 5.35 14.8 Siltstone or 

 pipestone

448660s02 T contracting Bowl and base 8.68 4 6.32 2.82 0.58 4.05 - Siltstone

 fragments

423157 T cylindrical Complete 25.2 3.5 7.95 2.72 0.84 5.25 10.73 Siltstone

448659 T cylindrical Complete 20.1 3.6 7.5 3.27 1 4.82 8.78 Siltstone

448660s01 T cylindrical Bowl and base 20.7 4.28 9.46 3.48 1.05 6 - Siltstone

 fragments

448660s03 T cylindrical Bowl and base 16.6 4.23 7.82 3.45 0.91 5.95 - Siltstone

 fragments

423158 T cylindrical Complete 40.8 3.95 10.1 2.99 1.44 6.41 19.5 Siltstone

423159 T cylindrical or Complete 29.4 4.06 9.49 5.2 - 5.8 11.7 Siltstone 

contracting (siliceous 

 shale)

423155s01 T unclassified Tail 10.68 2.47 1.83 - - - - Siltstone

423155s03 T unclassified Stem 7.31 1.66 1.67 - 0.68 - 7.31 Siltstone

423155s04 T unclassified Tail fragment 4.72 3.74 2.16 - - - - Siltstone

448661s02 T unclassified Bowl and tail 4.65 2.58 5.35 1.98 0.45 3.99 - Clay

448661s03 T unclassified Bowl base and tail 7 3.12 3.33 2.28 0.15 - - Clay

448661s04 T unclassified Bowl, half - - - - - 3.89 - Clay

448661s05 Unclassified Bowl fragments - - - - - - - Siltstone

448662s01 T unclassified Tail fragment 4.95 3.25 2.31 - - - - Limestone

448662s02 T unclassified Tail 7.9 2.51 2.34 - - - - Steatite

423155s02 Unclassified Stem 6.59 2.28 2.1 - 0.58 - 5.33 Clay

448661s01 Unclassified Bowl only - 3.58 - 2.18 - 3.9 - Clay

417938s05 Unclassified Bowl fragment 3.73 3.66 1.22 - - - - Sandstone
number 49 • 15 1

from the drilling process. There is also a bowl of another 

pipe that could come from either a Chandler or cylindrical bowl pipe (423154). The fragment consists of the 

entire bowl and a short piece of the tail. Material is a very 

finely grained siltstone or sandstone. The tail is planoconvex in cross section. The bore extends across the bowl 

and indents into the tail, suggesting the possibility that 

the bore was drilled before the bowl. There are toolmarks 

on the base, and the interior of the bowl is ridged, in a 

manner similar to the central perforation on pulley-type 

earspools. There is brown sediment in the bowl, a brown 

patchy hard and thin residue on the outer surface near 

the tail, and copper stains in two locations on the outer 

surface. The flat bottom of this pipe would allow it to sit 

upright.

Cylindrical Bowl T-Shaped Pipes

These pipes have been found in Harlan and Spiro 

phase contexts (Brown, 1976:227; 1996: fig. 2-90h). This 

style of pipe has a cylindrical bowl along with stems and 

stem projections that are roughly equal in length and 

cross section (Figure 8.1b,c). The cylindrical bowl types 

are often found broken. The breakage may be either from 

intentional “killing,” from excavation, or from damage 

incurred during use. Most of the collection of T-shaped 

pipes in the NMNH falls into this category. Four cylindrical bowl pipes are complete.

One such pipe is an unfinished blank (423159). The 

pipe shape is roughed out, and a depression has been created in the top for the bowl (Figure 8.2a). From the rough, 

nicked surface of the unfinished pipe, it is clear that the 

method for creating the blank is pecking. Furthermore, the 

base shows that a narrow tool was applied using an adzing 

motion in shaping the base. This artifact correlates with a 

similar unfinished pipe in Brown (1996: fig. 2-90h).

The largest artifact of this type is a pipe measuring 

over 40 cm in total length (423158). It has incurred a 

break near the bowl, but both parts refit exactly, without 

loss of material at the point of the break (Figure 8.2b). 

An unusual characteristic of this pipe is that it has yellow ocher smeared all over the surface. An ashy residue 

remains in the bottom of the bowl.

One of the pipes in this group is incised with a design on either side of the bowl. On pipe 423157 is a motif 

similar to that present on a pipe from the WPA excavations (Brown, 1976:240, fig. 45a; 1996: figs. 2-89e, 2-

91a). This motif appears to be a circle with two legs or 

streamers, housed under a parabolic motif (Figures 8.2c, 

8.3a,b). The motif is then repeated below, only reversed 

vertically. The motif may be a stylized hawk eye or “weeping eye” representation (Brown, 1996:508). The design is 

present on both the right and left sides of the bowl. The 

bore contains a reddish brown residue. In the bowl the 

residue is thick, caked, and dark. The bore enters the bowl 

just slightly off center. Polishing and grinding marks are 

visible on the surface. The incised design displays a neat 

V-shaped groove, suggesting it was carved using a chippedstone tool. The stem is round in cross section.

The last complete pipe of this style (448659) has a 

slightly damaged bowl that sits just slightly toward the 

tail (Figure 8.1b). The stem and tail are the same shape 

in cross section. The bowl displays ridges from the boring 

process, but they are uneven, unlike the bowls of other cylindrical bowl pipes. The material appears to be siltstone, 

and there is sediment remaining in the bowl.

FIGURE 8.1. T-shaped pipes: a, Chandler pipe (448657); b, cylindrical bowl pipe (448659); c, cylindrical bowl pipe (448660).
152 • s m ithsonian cont r i bu tions to anth r o p o l o g y

Two other pipes of this type are broken (448660s01 

and 448660s03). In each case, the bowl and portions of 

both stem and tail are present, but the tips are missing. 

These both have thick, unanalyzed residues on the inner 

surfaces of the bowl.

Contracting Bowl T-Shaped Pipes

With these pipes, the bowl contracts as it moves up 

from the base. Only two such pipes are present in the 

NMNH collection. One (448658) is incised and was probably painted as well (see Figures 8.3a, 8.4a). The decorated pipe has lines incised in a spiral around both the 

stem and tail and incised chevrons on the bowl. This chevron pattern on the bowl is reminiscent of the decoration 

along the rims of Sanders Engraved ceramics. The surface 

of the pipe appears to have been painted with a reddish 

pigment. In spots the pigment has flaked off to show plain 

gray stone beneath. The inner surface of the bore is gray. 

There are traces of soot in the bowl.

The other pipe with a contracting bowl (448660s02) 

is not decorated. It exhibits copper stains on the outer surface and thick brown residue on the inside of the bowl. A

shiny film on the outer surface may be a preservative. The 

cross section on the tail is round; on the stem it is a slightly 

flattened ellipse. The bore enters the bowl off center. Unlike the other T-shaped pipes, this one appears to be made 

from steatite.

T-Shaped Unclassified Pipes

There are also fragments of tails, stems, and bowls 

that cannot be classified into types. Overall, the cross section of such pipe stems and tails is round to plano-convex, 

with the majority being round. One tail fragment is limestone (448662s01). Some residue is present in the bowls 

FIGURE 8.2. Cylindrical bowl T-shaped pipes: a, unfinished pipe blank (423159); b, very long pipe 

(423158); c, pipe with incised bowl (423157).
number 49 • 15 3

and bores of nearly all fragments. Although in some cases 

this residue appears to be depositional sediment, in others 

it appears charred and probably represents the remains of 

the material smoked. Two pipes having short tails are ceramic (448661s02, 448661s03). One exhibits a patch of 

red hair stuck to a broken edge (423155s04).

Elbow Pipe

One elbow pipe is present (423156). It appears to be 

made of a fine-grained siltstone and is complete and undamaged (Figure 8.4b). Inside the bore is a reddish residue. The bore enters the bowl off center. Grinding marks 

are visible around the bowl. Faint red lettering reads “C26 

13oo,” interpreted as a price of $13.00.

Red River Pipe

Artifact 379215 is the stem from a single Red River 

pipe. These pipes are ceramic, with a narrow, straight, 

polished stem and a bowl that sits squarely on one end. 

There are two sections that refit for a total 6.84 cm in 

length. The diameter is 0.76 cm. Bore diameter is 0.35 cm. 

The paste is a grog-tempered clay that registers 2.5YR 4/4 

reddish brown on the Munsell Color Chart. There are no 

bowl fragments. Presumably, the stems are manufactured 

by rolling clay around a narrow reed.

FIGURE 8.3. Decorated T-shaped pipes; a, 

painted and incised contracting bowl pipe 

(448658); b, incised cylindrical bowl pipe 

(423157); c, incised pipe.

FIGURE 8.4. Stone pipes: a, contracting bowl 

pipe (448658); b, elbow pipe (423156); c, catlinite effigy pipe (423152).
154 • s m ithsonian cont r i bu tions to anth r o p o l o g y

Unclassified Pipes

Various portions of other ceramic and lithic pipes, including bowl fragments and stem tips, are present as well 

(Figure 8.5). One bowl fragment appears to have a projection, resembling a lug, on the side (448661s05). The rim 

of the bowl is incised with hatch marks (Figure 8.5f). A

shell-tempered ceramic bowl fragment (448661s01) also 

exhibits hatching around the rim (Figure 8.5a).

Two stone cone-like fragments included in an artifact 

lot containing various pipe fragments appear at first glance 

to be pieces of pipe bores (448662s03). However, closer examination reveals that they have an internal structure consisting of rays extending out from a center. They are broken 

longitudinally along the center axis. These are more likely 

fossil corals or perhaps some crystalline mineral. The outer 

surfaces do appear to have been intentionally smoothed.

Effigy Pipes

There are effigy pipes manufactured to represent both 

people and animals (and one that crosses this distinction). 

Dimensions for effigy pipes are shown in Table 8.2.

All of the effigy pipes are carved of stone, which is 

ground and polished to a smooth outer finish. In several 

cases, the bottoms of the pipes are decorated. Because 

every side of the piece may be visible during use, it comes 

as no surprise that they often have decorations on all faces, 

including the bottom.

Zoomorphic Effigy Pipes

There are three pipes made in the form of animals. 

Two resemble a feline (possibly puma), and the third 

FIGURE 8.5. Ceramic and stone pipe fragments: a, ceramic 

(448661s01); b, stone (448661s02); c, ceramic pipe, top view 

(448661s03); d, ceramic pipe, side view (448661s02); e, ceramic 

pipe bowl fragment (448661s03); f, stone pipe bowl fragment 

(448661s05).

TABLE 8.2. Characteristics of effigy pipes by style. All measurements are in centimeters; a dash (-) indicates that data are nonexistent or not available.

Catalog Bowl Bore Bowl

number Style Length Width height diameter diameter Depth

423152 Canine 17.70 2.32 4.92 1.76 0.98 2.92

423160 Crouching man 8.70 5.05 8.87 - 2.47 -

448663 Pipe holder 10.72 6.66 13.49 2.75 2.37 3.10

448664 Pipe holder 10.20 8.24 14.1 2.99 2.35 2.95

448665 Two-headed figure 9.42 8.27 10.00 3.30 3.00 3.80

448666 Feline 14.70 5.82 7.00 3.30 2.47 3.40

448667 Feline 10.40 7.80 8.40 8.90 3.05 4.20

448668 Human–bird 18.50 15.00 16.00 4.20 3.30 3.60

448669 Crouching woman 18.50 14.00 24.00 4.45 4.00 4.85
number 49 • 15 5

represents a canine. The tail of the feline on pipe 448667 

(Figure 8.6) curves up and around the bowl, terminating 

near the head, in a pattern similar to that described by 

Brown (1976:247; 1996:513) for two puma pipes from 

the WPA excavations. It appears that the feline crouches 

over or straddles a human form. The piece is carved on all 

surfaces, including the bottom (Figure 8.7c). The view of 

the bottom clearly shows a headless human form in outline. The person’s head appears to wrap around the front 

of the pipe to face out below the head of the cat. The bowl 

is in the form of a round, lipped pot similar to the bowl of 

448663, and it sits squarely in the center of the animal’s 

back. The stem extends out from behind the animal, so the 

effigy would not face the smoker. Spirals are incised onto 

shoulders and knees. Lines are also incised at elbow and 

ankle joints. Horizontal incised lines decorate each side 

of the body. The animal clearly has rounded paws with 

incised claws and was illustrated in Hamilton (1952: pl. 

17D). This pipe is manufactured from a highly crystalline 

stone of uncertain composition, perhaps bauxite or sphalerite, as suggested by notes accompanying the artifact. 

Sediment remains in the crevice around the bowl.

The second limestone zoomorphic pipe (448666) is in 

poorer condition than 448667. Featured is a deteriorated 

rendition of a quadruped (Figure 8.8). The animal seems 

FIGURE 8.6. Feline effigy pipe (448667).

FIGURE 8.7. Effigy pipe bases showing design detail: a, 448665; b, 

448663; c, 448667.

FIGURE 8.8. Feline effigy pipe (448666).
156 • s m ithsonian cont r i bu tions to anth r o p o l o g y

to be seated on its haunches but raised up slightly on forelegs. It could represent either a feline or canine stance. The 

head faces forward but is not raised. The overall slinky 

pose suggests cat. The stem exits from the animal’s hindquarters, and the bowl rises from the animal’s back. The 

surface is badly eroded from chemical decomposition of 

the limestone. It is very friable, unlike other raw materials used for pipes. Although it is possible to discern that 

the surface was once ground smooth, most of the original 

surface is gone. Dark sooty residue is present in the bowl.

Pipe 423152 is of an effigy style that would be irregular for Caddoan pipes (Figure 8.4c; Hamilton, 1952: pl. 

22B). It has the red color and soft texture typically expected from catlinite (most notably deriving from Minnesota sources). The bowl sits well forward, right behind 

the head of a canine animal with an open mouth and wellcarved tongue. Teeth are shown along the mouth opening. The canine head has drilled eyes and is also drilled 

through the ears. The body of the pipe has alternating excised diagonal bands and constricts at the butt. A rattlesnake is incised on the bottom. The surface is coated with 

a patina, and on the smoking end a lighter shade of red 

shows through. The style is more often associated with 

later contexts (Griffin, 1952:91), and although there is no 

reason to doubt J. G. Braecklein’s report concerning its 

provenience as the Craig Mound, it very likely represents 

a depositional episode much later than that which created 

the Great Mortuary. Trowbridge (1958) records that John 

Hobbs excavated the pipe in November 1935. Hobb’s wife 

sold it to Braecklein, who in turn sold it to Trowbridge on 

11 December 1935.

The bowl was incised with concentric rings. It was 

originally broken and repaired. The reconstructed portion 

has been painted to resemble the original surface but is 

not incised. The patched area appears to have been filed 

with a metal file, leaving toolmarks on the catlinite near 

the joins. These file marks are also found in spots on the 

bowl. They appear as minute, perfectly parallel sets of 

shallow incised lines. This was the first pipe from Spiro 

to find its way to the Smithsonian Institution. In 1936, 

Braecklein loaned the piece to the Smithsonian for casting, 

and there are three casts of this pipe in the collection. The 

pipe was returned to Braecklein and was later acquired by 

Trowbridge. The original was accessioned along with the 

remainder of the Trowbridge collection. This pipe has no 

prehistoric residue; however, paint and some form of filler 

were used in reconstructing the bowl. The repaired surface 

is outlined with a thin yellow line. Trowbridge (1958) records that the repair was done by the Smithsonian Institution at the time they made casts of it in 1936.

Human Effigy Pipes

Six finely worked limestone pipes are present. These 

include some styles that duplicate those in the collections 

from the WPA excavations and others that do not.

Crouching Man. The first (423160) is a 

rather small pipe that depicts a man holding his arms 

crossed in front, with his hands resting on opposite shoulders (Figure 8.9). Feet are modeled in two different ways on 

the two sides. On one side, the foot is tucked underneath 

the leg, and just the toes and distal ball of the foot show. 

On the other side the foot is twisted up on the outside of 

the body and is shown in profile. The individual’s facial features are distorted in a grimace. Features are modeled in 

low relief. The pipe is broken, and part of the top of the 

pipe is missing. This pipe was shown in Hamilton (1952: pl. 

17A). No culturally deposited residue appears to remain.

Crouching Woman. Pipe number 448669 

is a very large limestone artifact (Figure 8.10). It depicts a 

human wearing beaded side locks and a double back hair 

bun. The figure is squatting. The stem exits at the rear, and 

the bowl opens at the top, behind the head. The mouths of 

both the bowl and stem bores are flush with the surface. 

This large pipe stands over 24 cm high. The head is 8.8 

cm wide, 8.0 cm high, and 9.5 cm deep. The figure has 

two small breasts at the front and probably represents a 

woman. Her hands rest on her knees. The back hair bun 

is tied around the middle and modeled by a raised band 

with two horizontal incised lines. The forehead shows a 

clear case of frontal flattening and deformation. At the ear 

is an oddly shaped motif done in bas-relief. It resembles 

FIGURE 8.9. Crouching human effigy pipe: a, side view; b, front 

view (423160).
number 49 • 15 7

a round-tipped stemmed projectile point with a square 

notch on the right lateral edge of the motif. Beaded side 

locks are done in relief down either side of the head. The 

body is blocky and spare, with the exception of rounded 

buttocks on the figure’s back.

There is some crusty residue in the bowl. Copper is 

present on the base, and ocher can be seen inside a depression on one side. Perhaps this was originally painted. A

large black stain on the base suggests that someone set 

this down on a dark fluid that seeped into the stone. Some 

striae from grinding are visible, and the stone was incised 

using a sharp fine tool that left V-shaped grooves. Abrasion from use or excavation is visible on the front left 

lower side.

Pipe Holder. Two pipe holder effigies are 

present. One human effigy pipe (448663) of limestone 

portrays a kneeling figure with the legs folded underneath 

the body (Figure 8.11). Arms are outstretched and hold 

up a pipe with a large round pipe bowl. The stem issues 

from the abdomen, so that the pipe faces the smoker. The 

head is slightly turned to the right side. The modeled bowl 

is held slightly to the left side so that the bowl is not precisely above the stem. The round bowl has an indented, 

standing flat rim. A large nose and open mouth are visible on the pipe holder. Ears are shaped realistically. Long 

hair or a headdress flows down the back of the head and 

extends to the waist. The original surface is visible on the 

posterior base, where the buttocks are clearly modeled. 

The original surface is visible on the outer posterior bowl, 

an area that may have been protected. Between the buttocks on the base is an incised triangular form that might 

represent genitalia (Figure 8.7b). Manufacturing traces 

are mostly obliterated by weathering, and the limestone is 

badly leached. Sediment and sooty residue line the bowl. 

The bore is clogged with residue. Some brown residue is 

also present on the posterior face. This pipe was pictured 

by Hamilton (1952: pl. 13) and resembles one from the 

collection of the Gilcrease Institute and shown in Brown 

(1996: fig. 2-101c). The only difference between the pipe 

in the NMNH collection and that at the Gilcrease is the 

position of the pipe holder’s legs, which in the case of the 

latter, are extended.

Another pipe, 448664, is similar stylistically to 

448663, except that the arms encircle an elbow pipe with 

hands clasped in front (Figure 8.12). As with 448663, the 

stem extends out from the abdomen such that the smoker 

faces the figure. The figure is raised up on his lower legs 

so that there is a space between the legs on the base. Feet 

FIGURE 8.10. Human effigy pipe (448669): a, side view; b, oblique 

view front; c, oblique view rear.

FIGURE 8.11. Human effigy pipe, pipe holder style (448663): a, 

oblique view front; b, side view.
158 • s m ithsonian cont r i bu tions to anth r o p o l o g y

are turned inward with the toes pointing toward the spine. 

The figure wears its hair pulled back into a bun. The head 

is tilted backward so that it extends beyond the line formed 

by the spine. Body length is 8 cm. This artifact is weathered, and no trace of the original surface remains. Any 

traces of manufacturing have been obliterated. The only 

residue on the pipe is soot in the very base of the bore.

Two-­Headed Figure. Pipe number 448665 

is a two-headed human limestone figure (Figure 8.13). The 

heads are positioned side by side rather than back to back 

as they are in a pipe from the WPA excavations described 

by Brown (1996:526, fig. 2-101a,b). The two-headed effigy from the WPA excavation has double torsos, whereas 

the one from Meyer’s collection at the Smithsonian has 

a single body only. The stem extends out 1 cm from the 

posterior surface. The bore perforates the figure from the 

anterior to posterior surface. Toolmarks extend down into 

the bowl. Eyes and mouths are simple slits and are not 

rendered with much detail. The right head has crude features incised with the eye, extending into the nose. The 

ears are crudely defined with an incised curvilinear line. 

In each case the right ear is clearer. Knobs on the backs of 

the head are probably hair buns. The left head has been 

broken off but readhered. The figure kneels with knees 

together. There is one hand on either side of the bowl, and 

these are broken away. The right wrist has two parallel 

lines incised as bracelets. Below the knees there are incised 

lines running parallel around the leg. Five lines encircle 

the right leg, and six deep and two shallow lines can be 

seen on the left leg. The widest point is at the heads. The 

user of this pipe would face the back of the figure. On 

the base, the feet are shown by extending the leg carving 

using an incised line. The heels point up. The buttocks 

are clearly shaped, and a groove extends onto the base, 

where it terminates in an incised circle (Figure 8.7a). The 

right buttock has two incised concentric ring motifs. The 

left buttock has an incised foot but no other decoration. 

Hamilton (1952: pl. 16A) illustrates this piece sans the left 

head. There is some smoke residue on upper surface of 

inner pipe bowl.

Human–Bird. Artifact 448668 is a large 

pipe that is part bird and part human (Figure 8.14). The 

right side shows a crouching eagle with wing and incised 

tail. Its leg rests on its foot, and the talons are clearly 

incised. The bird leg wears an incised bracelet. The head 

is a rounded knob incised with an oval design that terminates at the chin. The left side depicts a kneeling, crouching human wearing bracelets. The hand rests on the knee, 

and five digits are clearly incised on the hand. The foot 

is tucked under the body. One buttock is incised around 

onto the posterior surface and flanks the stem opening. 

The opening is flush with the surface on both stem and 

FIGURE 8.13. Two-headed human effigy pipe (448665): a, oblique 

view front; b, front view.

FIGURE 8.12. Human effigy pipe, pipe holder style (448664): a, 

front view; b, side view.
number 49 • 15 9

bowl. An incised line connects the oval on the head to 

the bowl. Another incised line rings the neck. A human 

shoulder is clearly modeled. The base has two diagonal 

incised lines extending from front right to posterior left. 

The effigy does not face the smoker. The bird wing and 

leg extend farther forward than the human shoulder and 

knee. The juxtaposition of bird and human reflects the 

birdman theme often seen on engraved shells. The bird is 

clearly a raptorial type.

Both V-shaped and U-shaped grooves are visible. Horizontal toolmarks are present in the bowl. The limestone is 

similar to that used for 448665. This is a large, heavy pipe 

and would be somewhat unwieldy to use. Copper extends 

onto the human side of the piece, on the dorsal surface and 

on the posterior rim of the bowl. Very little residue is visible in the bowl. Red residue (ocher) is present only on the 

base and is quite faint. The pipe was shown in Hamilton 

(1952: pl. 8). No pipes of this type were recovered in the 

WPA excavations (Brown, 1996:514). Griffin (1952:90) 

wrote that he did not believe the composite human-eagle 

effigy pipe shown by Hamilton to be authentically made 

by Spiro’s inhabitants. It is unclear if Griffin is referring to 

this pipe or to the pipe showing an eagle crouching over a 

human (Hamilton, 1952: pl. 6). The crouching eagle representation is not an uncommon one for Spiro and is recorded for the WPA excavations, assuming that Griffin did 

refer to the human-bird composite pipe in this collection, 

which shares overall characteristics of manufacture with 

the large crouching woman pipe, 448669. Also, given the 

frequency of human-bird representations in Spiro’s artistic 

representations, a human-bird transformation such as this 

one seems reasonable from an iconographic perspective. 

In addition, the copper and other residues are consistent 

with other stone pieces from the Craig Mound.

Discoidals

Gaming stones and related paraphernalia are expected 

for Caddoan sites. The most obvious indicators of games 

or competitions are “chunkee” stones, large discoidal artifacts used in the prehistoric game that involved hurling or 

bowling a stone disc. Four such stones are present (Figure 

8.15). Of these, two are miniature and would likely have 

been too small for use in actual games. One is a large, 

smooth, biconcave artifact of a red metamorphic stone, 

possibly quartzite. Another is of a smooth, fine-grained 

black sedimentary stone. One of the miniatures is made of 

marble, and the other is made of a dark gray sedimentary 

stone. Sizes are shown in Table 8.3. Three of the four are 

biconcave in cross section, whereas the remaining one is 

biplano (448676). The depths of the concavities on each 

side are variable. None exhibit clear traces of utilization. 

FIGURE 8.14. Oblique views of human-bird effigy pipe (448668): a, left side, the human; b, right side, the bird.
160 • s m ithsonian cont r i bu tions to anth r o p o l o g y

Chunkee stones are, if utilized, expected to exhibit some 

damage to the outer perimeter.

Copper

Copper has been discussed to some extent in chapter 7 under the topic of headdress parts. The discussion 

is continued here to include certain other lots of copper 

and composite copper artifacts. The NMNH collection 

contains some 1,582 g of copper (excluding pins and 

beads). In most cases, the copper is highly fragmentary or 

folded several times. Fragments total 382, and many are 

quite small (<1 cm maximum dimension). Because copper was folded and corroded into masses, it was generally 

not possible to distinguish among what might have been 

copper plumes, headdress plaques, and falcon plates that 

have been reported for Spiro elsewhere (Hamilton, 1952; 

Brown, 1996). However, other characteristics, such as 

presence of perforations or rivets, were noted and may enable some gross interpretations along these lines. A summary of sheet copper artifacts is shown in Table 8.4.

For sheets, it is difficult at best to ascertain the character of the parent artifact from squashed and folded 

fragments. Simple style designations such as perforated, 

embossed, or unclassified are used to refer to types among 

the sheet artifacts. In subdividing lots having numerous 

fragments for analysis, size, thickness, and degree of folding and crumpling are also used as criteria.

FIGURE 8.15. Discoidals; a, 448678; b, 448679; c, 448680s01; d, 448680s02.

TABLE 8.3. Discoidal characteristics and raw materials.

Catalog Diameter Length Raw

number (cm) (cm) material Notes

448676 12.89 6.3 Quartzite Large but unused

448679 11.3 3.18 Sedimentary No depression

448680s01 5.88 2.18 Marble Thin in center 

(0.4 cm)

448860s02 6.58 2.98 Sedimentary Has a lip
number 49 • 16 1

Brown (1976:413) and Hamilton (1952) discuss copper plates and copper-covered wooden plaques. Here 

Brown observes that copper artifacts are made in two 

different ways. Plates are stiff, self-supporting sheets, 

whereas plaques are made of a carved wooden backing 

covered with a thinner copper foil. It seems likely that 

copper plumes would also be made to be thicker and selfsupporting. The plates can be either figural or geometric.

From the WPA excavations, well-preserved copper 

plates were found with twilled basketry, implying that 

the copper was buried in baskets (Brown, 1996:546). The 

copper from commercial excavation in the Great Mortuary was recovered broken, crumpled, and folded (Figure 

8.16). This copper was demolished prior to burial. The 

highly fragmentary and crumpled condition of the copper 

pieces in the Trowbridge and Meyer collections is consistent with their recovery in the Great Mortuary by the relic 

hunters. Despite being damaged, the copper still retains 

basket impression, suggesting it was also deposited in baskets or on mats.

Artifact 423227s01.1 could represent a portion of a 

hawk plate, although the head present on the plate resembles a woodpecker more than a raptorial bird. This artifact 

has been X-rayed in an attempt to reconstruct more of the 

design. This attempt was largely unsuccessful.

Hamilton (1974) records significant patching to plates 

done with rivets; therefore, rivets should be present among 

the copper pieces from the NMNH collection. Figure 8.16b 

shows a piece that has numerous rivets. Rivets would also 

be useful in providing ways to attach the components of 

TABLE 8.4. Sheet copper artifact fragments.

Style Size (cm) Count Weight (g) Comments

Embossed square plate 10.4 × 6.5 1 16.5 448715s07; partial square

Embossed fragment <2.0 × 3.0 176 166.2 448715s01, s02; 448718

 423221s04; 423222

<3.0 × 10.0 30 332.5 448715s03, s04, s06, s09, 

 s10; 448737s01.1

Embossed bird motif 12.0 × 9.25 6 161.1 423227s01.1; woodpecker 

8.0 × 5.0 14 244.3 448715s04; badly folded and 

 corroded

Embossed motif 5.0 × 5.10 1 4.2 423218s01

Nonembossed 16.0 × 15.0 8 81.4 448716s01

Riveted 10.0 × 5.6 5 82.3 448715s08

Perforated 14.0 × 7.3 5 22.5 423221s02

Riveted 6.15 × 5.9 1 8.1 423221s01

Unclassified <2.0 × 3.0 118 193.3 423225s01; 378267; 448715s05, 

s11; 448737s13; 448934s06; 

 423218s02; 42319

>2.0 × 3.0 3 29.6 423223; 448717; 423220

Composites 12.0 × 9.25 6 161.1 Sheet with pendants, basketry 

 423227s01.1

3.9 × 2.57 1 7.6 Fragment with disc shell bead; 

 423226s01.1

11.1 × 4.55 1 61.4 Distal end Busycon on sheet; 

 448737s02

10.0 × 7.0 6 112 Fragments with fiber and shell beads; 423224s01.1

Total count and weight 382 1,684.1

FIGURE 8.16. Copper sheet artifacts: a, crumpled embossed fragment (423218); b, fragment with numerous rivets (423221s01).
162 • s m ithsonian cont r i bu tions to anth r o p o l o g y

copper artifacts. Brown (1996:547) remarks that rivets 

would be expected more for objects that would undergo 

stress, perhaps as a function of being worn during ceremonial or dance contexts. Therefore, rivets will be expected 

more for costume components than for discrete plates that 

were not parts of other artifacts.

Copper has been instrumental in preserving organic 

materials. Copper artifact 378267 is a lot containing bits 

of copper plating. One fragment adheres to a fragment of 

leather 2.1 × 4.2 cm in size. The leather is thin and brown 

and very soft. Lot 423224 contains a group of copper 

fragments, one with a very long frayed bit of basketry fiber 

adhering to it. There is also copper with basketry covered 

in two colors of clay, green and brown. The basketry fiber 

is very friable and splits easily, so the entire piece appears 

brushy. Many of the other copper fragments display bits 

of basketry or even cloth that have been preserved by the 

action of copper salts in reducing bacterial and fungal 

growth. Some copper pieces are undergoing decomposition. In one case, 423220, a residue that resembles soap is 

present and may be cuprous chloride, but this residue has 

not been analyzed.

Shell beads are stuck to the copper in some cases. Artifact group 448737 contains copper plates with beads attached. Convexo-cylindrical, disc, bowed, and columella 

beads are present.

Figurines

Figurines are functionally somewhat different from 

other decorated objects. Their function is for display and 

representation. They cannot be smoked, worn, or filled. 

There are five figurines representing humans, and these are 

listed in Table 8.5. Raw materials vary, as do sizes and 

styles of representation.

Wood

Brown (1996:531) reports that several wooden 

human effigies were recovered, and these came primarily 

from the relic-hunting episode that struck the Great Mortuary deposit. Wooden statuary is thought to have been 

a standard feature in mortuary contexts. There are three 

wooden sculptures depicting human males in the collections that Richard Meyer donated to the Smithsonian. 

The figures are seated. One figure (448891) is attached to 

a tenon (Figure 8.17a), which probably served to anchor 

the sculpture (Hamilton, 1952: pl. 25). The eye spots are 

excised and probably had inlays at one time. Total length 

including the tenon is 50.5 cm. The buttocks are defined. 

The head has two slots in the center and right of center (the 

left side is damaged). A deep incision runs around the head 

behind the ears. The right ear is realistically rendered. A

dent in the abdomen could signify the navel. The hairline 

is clearly carved as well. The right arm has separated at 

the shoulder. Residues include glauconite, copper, and a 

basket fragment that adheres to the face (cheek). Although 

the right side is well preserved, the left side shows evidence of fire damage. Perhaps it was burned prior to or as 

a part of a mortuary ritual. The piece was burned enough 

to damage the head and destroy the left arm and leg.

Another figure is represented by a body (448890) and 

a separate but refitting head (448896). The head (Figure 

8.17b) became detached and is a slightly different color 

than its body; however, even with warping, these clearly 

refit (and are shown together in Hamilton, 1952: pl. 26B). 

TABLE 8.5. Characteristics of human effigy figurines and maskettes. A dash (-) indicates data are nonexistent or not available.

Width/

Catalog Length diameter Height

number (cm) (cm) (cm) Raw material Notes

448890, 448896 11.40 9.97 28.60 Red cedar Seated man

448891 9.20 21.50 38.70 Red cedar Seated man with tenon

448892 13.00 16.00 30.50 Red cedar “Spiro Man”; painted

448706 7.00 7.35 9.70 Galena Small seated male

448772 - 10.82 21.00 Shell Standing male; Craig C

423298 4.15 - - Shell Maskette

423299 3.95 - - Shell Maskette

423300 4.05 - - Shell Maskette

423301 3.90 - - Shell Maskette
number 49 • 16 3

The figure is sitting on one knee with the other leg flexed 

in front and the foot flat on the basal plane. An occipital 

hair knot is worn. Very vague toolmarks can still be seen. 

The buttocks are defined by a groove. The head is narrow 

and somewhat flattened longitudinally. The left side of the 

face is clearly defined, especially the left ear and eye, as 

well as the nose. The eye spot is deep and could have held 

an inset. The right eye is flattened toward the side of the 

face. The right side is featureless except for part of the eye. 

In this case it was the right side that became damaged by 

burning. Workmanship and style are quite similar to that 

of 448891. Although it is speculation that they were made 

by the same artist, it is clear they were engendered by a 

single genre in human depiction.

The third wooden figure (448892) is a well-preserved 

seated male (Figure 8.18). This is a well-known figurine that has been illustrated (Hamilton, 1952: pl. 26A; 

Brown, 1984b:247; Brose et al., 1985:138). The man is 

modeled realistically. Deeply sunken eyes once held insets 

that are now missing (they may have been copper or shell). 

The forehead is high and not flattened (i.e., without cranial deformation). The nose is aquiline, and nostrils are 

shown. The lips protrude around an open mouth. The 

head is 10.77 cm long and 8.9 cm wide. A long neck extends above a clearly defined clavicle. The width at the 

shoulder is 13.44 cm. Pectorals are modeled on the chest. 

The man is nude and devoid of ornament except for an ear 

decoration. Male genitalia are realistically sculpted. The 

man sits cross-legged, with his feet tucked underneath his 

knees and his hands resting on his knees. He wears no 

footwear, but the toes are visible. The area between his 

crotch and legs is carved out, leaving a space. The back 

FIGURE 8.18. Wooden figurine, seated “Spiro Man” (448892).

FIGURE 8.17. Wooden figurines: a, seated man with tenon 

(448891); b, head only (448896).
164 • s m ithsonian cont r i bu tions to anth r o p o l o g y

shows no detail and is without the buttock definition present on pipes.

The sculpture exhibits remnants of adhesive and 

traces of copper in the eyes. There is red paint residue in 

the mouth and white paint around the mouth and on the 

cheeks. Traces of copper occur elsewhere on the body. The 

right ear has a bit of cordage drawn through a drilled hole 

in the lobe. The only decoration on the base is the excision 

of the feet. The left earlobe is damaged. The right arm is 

broken in two places but has been repaired and filled with 

some sort of filler that has been colored brown to match 

the object. The front part of the legs has also cracked, and 

these cracks are filled with an unidentified residue. The left 

hand is damaged. The most interesting damage is present 

on the back, where the man was stabbed four times. The 

perforations run in a line extending from the man’s upper 

left to the lower right. The holes are square in outline, and 

depths of the holes are 0.3, 0.75, 0.3, and 0.98 cm. These 

stab holes could have been used to mount the figure. The 

square outline of these holes suggests that the damage was 

done prehistorically with a copper pin, which is customarily square in cross section. If done after excavation, the 

implement used would have to have been a square nail, 

either cut or hand wrought. The latter seems unlikely.

Stone

One human figurine was carved from a single lump of 

galena (Figure 8.19). The figure is seated, with arms resting 

on legs in a posture similar to that assumed by the wooden 

figurines. Details are absent. The galena (lead sulfide) has 

undergone some chemical alteration, and some features 

originally present may now be obscured. The base of the 

figure is coated with a thick layer of copper and malachite. 

Perhaps it rested on a copper deposit while buried. This 

galena figure is interesting in that galena is a less than tractable material for doing lapidary art. Crude modeling is 

typical of the piece, but the arms are realistically shaped. 

Ears are depicted as bumps. The lack of detail may be as 

much a function of the difficulty in working galena as it is 

of style, intent, or the skill of the artisan. The buttocks are 

modeled, and the head is flattened at the forehead. Some 

of this flattening may be from erosion of the original surface, or it may represent cranial deformation. This object 

has not been reported elsewhere, and similar figures have 

not (to my knowledge) been reported. It is significant that 

Hamilton (1952) did not report this effigy figure among 

the stone effigies that he listed. It is from the Meyer collection, which Hamilton did inventory. Perhaps the figure was 

included with the 500 pounds of worked galena reported 

by Hamilton (1952:87). Galena is known to assume the 

shape of balls and other geometric shapes, probably as a 

result of grinding it to obtain white lustrous pigment. The 

figurine is a rare form. In fact, Brown (1996:643) indicates 

that galena was not used in making other artifacts. This 

artifact appears to be an exception.

The figure has basketry impression and residue on the 

anterior side, especially on the figure’s face, knees, and 

chest. There is little to no basketry on the figure’s back. 

This lack, along with the heavy layer of copper on the 

base, suggests that the figure sat upright on copper, facing 

and touching basketry.

Shell

One figural shell effigy is present in the collection 

(Figure 8.20). It differs from other effigies in that the raw 

material limits the object to two dimensions. This object 

consists of a human form cut out from shell and incised 

with decorations depicting accessories. The total height of 

21 cm excludes the head, which is not with the collection.6

The front of the figure is the inner shell surface; however, the simple bead grid designs are carried around to 

the back (outer shell) surface at wrists, knees and feet. The 

man is shown wearing a belt decorated with a repeated 

motif of dotted circles in diamonds. A triangular bib extends down onto the chest from the neck. The Craig C

styling is bold and simple.

A striking feature of this object is that it was made 

using material from a previously engraved cup. The outer 

FIGURE 8.19. Galena figurine (448706): a, front view; b, side view.
number 49 • 16 5

surface presents a palimpsest of designs. The original 

Braden B design on the outer surface depicts large faces 

with bilobed arrow headdresses and was used by Phillips 

and Brown in refitting the head from the collection of the 

National Museum of the American Indian. The overall 

large size suggests that the original Busycon from which it 

was cut was a very large specimen.

Maskettes

There are four small shell maskettes carved in low relief on shell discs (Figure 8.21). They were almost certainly 

made by the same craftsperson because they are very similar in workmanship and style. Human faces are depicted 

in frontal view, and each person has a beaded forelock. In 

two cases the forelocks are pulled to the right side of the 

face, and in the other two they are pulled to the left. Two 

have facial decoration (one each of the right-sided and leftsided forelock wearers). The ones with facial decoration 

have larger round faces, and the hair on top is detailed using 

hatched lines. The two smaller-faced people have no decoration and less overall detail on their faces. Original notes suggest that these represent women, whereas the larger faces 

represent men. All four have pendants hanging from the 

ear or earspools. The smaller-faced people have smaller ear 

pendants too. These artifacts are referred to as cameos in 

the NMNH catalog. It is possible that when new, the differential luster of layers of shell may have been visible. At this 

time, all surfaces are equally weathered and dulled. All four 

maskettes have a yellow residue, perhaps ocher, on the face.

These are the medallions originally reported by Hamilton (1952:57–58, pl. 85) as having been found inside a 

FIGURE 8.20. Shell figurine (448872): a, front view; b, back view showing previous engraving.
166 • s m ithsonian cont r i bu tions to anth r o p o l o g y

cedar box that the commercial excavators destroyed. The 

box reputedly had a lid of mica. Brown (1996:531) argues 

that the maskettes placed in a mica-topped box represent 

a symbolic burial. Hamilton (1952:57) also reported that 

these came from one of the southern mounds of the Craig 

Mound complex.

Animal Effigies

Animal effigy forms in this collection are rare. One 

wooden effigy (448910) represents a small bird head. Insets have been excised for eyes and a crest. A large glob of 

melted resin rests in the posterior inset. There is no sign 

that this artifact was attached to anything. That is, there 

is no body, but the object does not appear to have been 

broken. Overall, the head closely resembles the figure on 

the wooden effigy bowl handle (448894) except that it is 

much smaller (see Figure 4.38). Brown (1996:531–532) 

describes bird effigies that were probably designed to sit 

atop staffs. The birds he describes are whole birds, not 

just the head.

Bone Objects

Objects of bone are not plentiful. It is possible that 

as the relic hunters discarded human bone, they also discarded artifacts of modified bone. One artifact (448939) 

comprises four beaver bones, including innominate, femur, 

tibia, and fibula (Figure 8.22). The bones are tied together 

with cordage and may represent a ritual bundle. The presence of beaver bones is interesting because beavers do not 

otherwise occur in the iconography.

Several other bone artifacts or implements are present. They consist of awls, spatulas, and tubes (Table 8.6). 

Two artifacts appear to be spatulate scrapers: 448710, 

which is made from an elk metapodial, and 448709, 

which is made from an ungulate long bone. Artifact 

448709 is a long object made from a long bone that has 

been split (Figure 8.23a). The handle retains the shape of 

the condyle. All edges are well rounded, and the surface is 

covered with striations from grinding. The working edge 

or tip is worn to an asymmetrical shape and well rounded 

from use.

FIGURE 8.21. Shell cameo maskettes: a, 423298; b, 423299; c, 423300; d, 423301.
number 49 • 16 7

FIGURE 8.22. Beaver leg bone bundle tied with cordage (448939).

TABLE 8.6. Frequency and characteristics of bone artifacts. A dash (-) indicates data are nonexistent or not available.

Catalog Length Width Thickness Weight

number Object (cm) (cm) (cm) (g) Count Comments

448939 Bundle 13.0 5.0 4.5 54 4 Beaver bones

423341 Pendant 0.71 1.93 - 0.8 1 Unmodified bone

378264 Pendant 5.60 1.51 1.19 13.2 1 Antler tooth

423343 Gorget 5.00 3.40 0.42 5.8 1 Mammal scapula

448708s02 Awl 17.50 2.13 0.89 46.4 6 Troughed fragments

379212 Awl 8.1 3.53 0.46 2.4 1 Os penis

379213 Awl 8.53 1.21 1.10 2.3 1 Long bone

423342 Pin 8.87 0.67 - 3.8 1 Distal fragment

448707 Pin 17.13 0.97 0.51 5.9 1 Spatulate

379214 Pin 7.50 0.74 - 37.1 7 Fragments, 1 distal

448708s01 Pin 13.43 0.65 0.60 28.3 15 Fragments, 7 distal

448710 Scraper 26.70 4.67 5.1 214.6 1 Metapodia, elk

448709 Scraper 33.5 5.10 - 81.5 1 Long bone, ungulate

448711 Tube 17.3 2.5 2.1 73.7 1 Hollow long bone

448898 Perforated plate 10.06 4.78 0.26 6.5 1 Turtle

423221s03 Perforated plate 9.50 3.38 0.1 5.9 2 Round, thin

FIGURE 8.23. Bone spatulas: a, ungulate long bone (448709); b, elk bone metapodia spatula with 

toothed tip (448710).
168 • s m ithsonian cont r i bu tions to anth r o p o l o g y

The other spatulate scraper, 448710, is a long bone that 

has been split to open up half the length (Figure 8.23b). The 

working edge is 3.4 cm wide, and along this edge are fine 

teeth cut in with a very narrow tool, perhaps cord and grit. 

The teeth are precisely parallel, so they could not have been 

cut using a stone tool. There is a red patchy residue on the 

outer surface, and the working edge is damaged.

The one tube, 448711, is manufactured from a hollowed long bone. The exterior is well polished, and it appears to have sediment inside.

Wooden Objects

Wood preservation is excellent, and there are numerous fragments of worked wood. Some items are complete, 

others appear to be the wooden portions of composite artifacts, and still others are fragmentary. Wooden artifacts 

in the NMNH collection are listed in Table 8.7, and some 

are shown in Figure 8.24.

One artifact type known from Spiro is a large, lanceolate, wooden blade form that was encased in copper foil. 

The objects in the NMNH include two small wooden fragments and one larger distal fragment that are all deeply 

carved on one face (Figure 8.24a). These fragments could 

be portions of similar wooden blades. Piece 423391 exhibits very faint toolmarks and copper residue. The depressions carved onto one face mimic flake scars. Although 

only the distal tip is extant, the size of the tip suggests 

an overall artifact size consistent with the examples from 

the Ohio Historical Society (Brown, 1976:194). Brown 

(1996) refers to these artifacts as ceremonial weaponry, 

carved and copper covered to form large symbolic blades. 

The NMNH also retains three plaster casts of artifacts 

that are in the collection of the Ohio Historical Society.

There is a large blade-form artifact of wood (448897) 

that is asymmetrical in shape (Figure 8.24d). It is perforated in several locations, and one face is carved with shallow, smooth-sided depressions, perhaps representing flake 

scars (Figure 8.24 Hamilton, 1952: pl. 24B). The proximal 

end of this tool has a rectangle excised into it on each face 

(offset, not back-to-back). This recessed and perforated 

area could have served as a location for setting in and 

TABLE 8.7. Frequency and characteristics of wooden objects in the collection. A dash (-) indicates that data are nonexistent or not available.

Catalog Length Width Thickness Weight

number Object (cm) (cm) (cm) (g) Count Comments

448897 Blade 26.00 5.61 0.83 28.1 1 Distal fragment

423396 Charcoal 8.50 2.64 1.45 7.4 7 Three are charred 

 wood

423397 Fragment - - - 4.1 20 Splinters

448910 Effigy object 5.85 2.65 3.25 15.6 1 Bird head effigy

423392 Ornament 6.79 4.16 0.96 4.6 1 Blade

423393 Ornament 10.07 2.06 0.50 1.3 1 Fragment of blade

423391 Blade 14.34 4.63 0.83 9 1 Distal fragment of 

ovate blade; 

plano-convex 

cross section

423398 Pole 11.12 10.00 - 456.2 1 Log segment

423400 Pole 279.00 10.00 - - 1 Tapering

423399 Pole 309.00 10.00 - - 1 Straight

423401 Pole 414.00 10.00 - - 1 Tapering

423395 Stick 35.00 1.76 0.91 11.4 1 Splinter

448893 Vessel 12.40 9.84 12.80 220.9 1 Vessel ornament, 

 puma

448894 Vessel 13.58 8.47 11.24 162.8 1 Bird effigy and 

bowl rim

448911s02 Worked fragment 3.57 2.00 1.13 4.4 17 Fragments

448911s01 Worked fragment 6.62 5.18 2.30 55.1 8 Various

448911s05 Worked fragment 13.45 6.04 1.55 58.6 1 Spatulate artifact

448911s04 Worked fragment 18.80 4.00 2.00 229.1 24 Stick fragments

423394 Cedar 4.00 2.20 1.25 3.4 3 Fragments
number 49 • 16 9

affixing another facet (now missing) of a composite artifact. There is no residue to belie the character of this missing component. The proximal edge has three projections.

Artifact 448911s05 is a complete spatulate artifact 

(Figure 8.25). It is thinner at the wider end. Perhaps it 

once belonged to a macelike form, although the morphology is not consistent with known wooden maces.

Some of the most interesting wooden objects are also 

among the plainest. Lot 448911s04 includes fragments of 

wood that at first glance seem simply to be narrow thin 

sticks. There is regularity in form, however, and on closer 

examination, it is apparent that many of these fragments 

refit. Two fragments are shaped at one end, one exhibits a mat impression, and others are stained with copper. 

Dimensions given in Table 8.7 are the maximum. Eleven 

of the fragments are 5–7 cm in length and 1.5–2.5 cm in 

width. They are regular and do not exhibit branching. It is 

suspected that several pieces represent parts of similar artifacts or the same artifact and may represent portions of 

a bow. One flat, wide fragment differs from the others and 

may be a portion of atlatl or wooden mace or blade. Some 

are slightly charred. Smaller, chunky fragments within this 

lot are less suggestive, although they also appear to have 

been worked.

FIGURE 8.24. Wooden artifacts, blade-like forms: a, blade-form fragment (423391); 

b, (423392); c, 423393; d, asymmetrical blade-form artifact (448897).
170 • s m ithsonian cont r i bu tions to anth r o p o l o g y

There are also three long cedar poles. These are all 

10 cm in diameter and between 2.5 and 4 m long (Table 

8.6). They are either from litters or from internal mound 

supports. Two taper to one end, and one is of consistent 

diameter throughout. A small section of a cut log is also 

present in the collection.

Leather

Very few pieces of leather are present in the collection. Leather is a highly perishable material that normally 

would not preserve. The leather present either adheres to 

copper or is heavily copper stained, suggesting that the 

copper and copper salts acted as a preservative.

Artifact 448934s08 is a tanned leather rectangle. Copper stains one side. The piece is perforated along the edges, 

presumably for stitching. It exhibits a well-preserved mold 

of a loosely meshed basket or mat. The leather sat flat 

on the mat and worked its way down to conform to the 

structure of the matting. It is possible that the leather was 

actually sewn to the mat structure. It was originally part 

of the large twill basket, but their association is unclear. It 

may be that the basket had a covering of leather.

Artifact 423378s01 consists of leather fragments adhering to corroded copper sheets. Perhaps these represent some sort of composite artifact, such as a headdress 

plaque with leather facing.

Pieces of leather along with fragments of basketry 

adhere to copper sheet fragments (378267). One piece 

of leather is 2.1 × 4.2 cm in size. The leather is thin and 

brown and soft, unlike rawhide.

Another fragment (423376s02) is a thin piece of 

hide from an unidentified animal. Yet another fragment 

(448920) is a tanned leather rectangle similar to that recorded for 448934s08. Copper fragments adhere to one 

face. At one time it had been square—at least, there is a 

perfectly square corner present. It had been sewn. Small 

perforations are present close to the remaining edges at approximately 1.2 cm intervals. Edges are slightly scalloped 

in appearance, as they would be if the piece had been sewn 

and stretched in the process. There are two larger round 

perforations in the left central area. This piece is partially 

decomposed.

There is also a soft reddish brown leather fragment 

(448916s01) that is 4.0 cm by 3.5 cm in size.

OTHER WORKED OBJECTS

Other materials, including several kinds of minerals, show modification. One intriguing object is a lump 

of ocher (448924) that has been shaped into a rounded 

mound. There are wide, shallow grooves running vertically along the face, and these appear to be finger trails. 

There is a pit nearly 1.0 cm deep in the top, suggesting that something was embedded into the apex of the 

object.

A few of the galena pieces show signs of working as 

well. One is a smoothed cube with a depression in one face 

(448704). The artifact is 5.42 cm long by 5.01 cm wide 

by 3.75 cm high. It is a nodule with incised or cut crosshatching on four faces. One corner has the surface shaved 

off in strips 0.33 cm wide and as much as 3.0 cm long. 

One face is smooth and ground out, leaving an indentation with wide, shallow walls and circular toolmarks. The 

different surface treatments are interesting. This could be 

a piece used in producing pigment, or it could be a ritual 

object.

Another is a pyramidal galena object, approximately 2.0 cm in length, with six well-smoothed faces 

(448705s01). Perhaps this object was worked as a preform for a pendant or was used in gaming or another unknown purpose.

In addition, a baked clay biconical object is also present. This object (448928) is a typical representative of a 

class of objects associated with the Late Archaic site of 

Poverty Point in Louisiana. It suggests some interesting alternatives. The object in question could have been traded 

for, kept, and handed down through successive generations; it could have been recycled from an earlier context; 

or it may not derive from Spiro at all.

FIGURE 8.25. Wooden spatulate artifact (448911s05).
number 49 • 17 1

UNWORKED RITUAL MATERIALS

Unworked materials include items which may be 

of ritual importance or the result of ritual behavior but 

which are essentially unmodified. This category includes 

paint or pigments and chunks of minerals, such as quartz, 

galena, or mica. Also, any materials that are not manufactured artifacts but are, rather, by-products of the activities 

at Spiro are included.

Pigment

Brown (1996:536) lists numerous minerals that were 

used as pigment, including minerals that could be used to 

create hues of the colors red, yellow, brown, green, white, 

and black.

Ocher

Both the Trowbridge and Meyer collections contained 

ocher. Most of it is fragmentary, yet there are some large 

lumps present. The combined weight of ocher is 2,682.5 g, 

including the weight of worked ocher lumps. The weight 

excludes highly fragmentary and friable ocher contained in 

two 1-pint jars. The ocher ranges from a dark, almost maroon, color to yellow; however, most of it is a strong red.

Ocher is present as a residue on many artifacts, including lithic tools and shell cups. Furthermore, the red 

slip found on Sanders ceramics was apparently produced 

using red ocher. Red paint produced from ocher remains 

on one of the large stone maces.

Glauconite

There are 171 fragments of glauconite in one lot in the 

collection of R. K. Meyer (448923). Combined weight is 

755.9 g. Glauconite, which Brown (1996:644) describes 

as a hydrous silicate of iron, aluminum, and potash, is 

a claylike mineral ranging in color from green to bluish 

green. Glauconite was apparently used in painting or for 

smearing on artifacts. Maces such as 423196 and figures 

such as 448891 exhibit traces of glauconite on the surfaces. Glauconite is of such a distinctive color that it is 

unlikely to be mistaken for naturally occurring clay sediment. Where it occurs, it is usually overlaid by pale brown 

clay, interpreted as vestiges of mound sediment. The glauconite must have been applied to the surface before the artifacts were deposited in the mound. Glauconite has been 

associated with Crockett Curvilinear Incised ceramics. 

Several vessel bases of this type are present and contain 

thick deposits of this mineral on the interior of the vessels. 

Sources for glauconite include marls located in Arkansas 

as well as gulf coastal areas.

Minerals

Mineral Lumps

There are 10 odd pieces of heavily burned stone. A

report on analysis done by the Conservation Analytical 

Laboratory (Smithsonian Institution, Museum Conservation Institute, 1975, unpublished CAL report 2018) indicates that these are of micaceous sandstone that has been 

coated with a vegetable gum. Brown (personal communication, 1992) suggested that they may contain manganese. 

The gum is very likely flammable and would probably burn 

brightly. These pieces may represent the remains of torchlike objects whose function was to provide light. Subsequent reanalysis in 2010 of fragments from lump 448689 

(Smithsonian Institution, Museum Conservation Institute, 

unpublished MCI report 2018.2) did not confirm the original interpretation. Additional analyses will be necessary to 

determine the possible function of the mineral lumps. Descriptive statistics are shown in Table 8.8.

These stones appear to be artificially shaped. Several 

exhibit long, wide grooves that do not appear altogether 

natural. They all have irregular but smoothly curved surfaces along with the grooves. Use beyond burning is not 

indicated. They are heavily burned and thickly coated 

with a layer of charcoal. The stone matrix is friable from 

heat damage.

Galena

Raw galena (lead sulfide) is conspicuous. A large 

number of small fragments (n = 140, weight = 1,762.1 g) 

were recovered from a quart jar of mixed Olivella beads 

TABLE 8.8. Statistical summary of burned mineral lump measurements (n = 10).

 Standard

Measurement Mean Extremes deviation

Length (cm) 11.11 7.60 / 13.02 1.90

Width (cm) 5.19 4.10 / 6.95 0.90

Thickness (cm) 3.54 2.42 / 4.46 0.63

Weight a (g) 186.14 101.8 / 251.1 55.26

 aTotal weight is 1,861.4 g.
172 • s m ithsonian cont r i bu tions to anth r o p o l o g y

and small shell beads (presumably found in the same provenience). There are other nodules and cubes of various 

sizes as well, as shown in Table 8.9.

Some of the pieces exhibit signs of working, possibly as a part of the production of pigment because the 

modification appears random, not directed toward the 

creation of finished galena artifacts. Piece 448703 has 

red pigment and thickly applied brown clay in crevices. 

Although the catalog card stipulates that there are no 

signs of use, the object appears to have been reduced in 

a couple of areas. This is the largest nodule and is naturally shaped roughly like a crouching animal. Perhaps this 

natural shape led to this nodule being used as a ritual 

object. Otherwise, it could have been raw material for 

obtaining powdered galena. Another object, 448702, is 

worked slightly, with both ends ground using a circular, 

pestle-type motion.

Quartz

Brown (1996:644–645) writes that quartz crystals are 

not uncommon from Craig Mound contexts and records 

at least 17 unmodified crystals from the WPA excavations. 

Trowbridge collected two large quartz crystals (423208, 

423211). One is milky and measures 9.92 cm long, 5.18 

cm wide, and 4.29 cm high. It weighs 267.4 g. A milk 

quartz crystal was also recovered during the WPA project (Brown, 1996:536). That crystal is battered or ground 

along its sides. Brown (1996:537) writes that quartz occasionally shows battering.

The other quartz from the Trowbridge collection is 

a long, transparent crystal of fine quality that measures 

12.54 cm by 4.22 cm by 3.16 cm and weighs 222.3 g. 

The larger crystal is a single rock crystal with sparse red 

residue on its surface. The base has been shaped, and there 

are fairly even conchoidal fractures around the perimeter 

of the angled base.

Still other fragments of quartz are present, but they 

are miniscule. Thirty-two tiny fragments of quartz were 

mixed with galena, small shell disc and convexo-cylindrical 

beads, and a large quantity of Olivella shell beads that 

were separated from lot number 423331.

Mica

Mica is not plentiful. There is a single vial containing three small fragments, each approximately 1 cm long. 

These fragments are all elliptical in shape. A few tiny 

flakes (n = 3) were recovered from the conglomeration of 

beads and galena that compose 423331. Another large 

piece of mica (448921) is more than 4 cm in diameter. It 

exhibits one clearly cut edge whereas the other edges are 

ragged. Brown (1996:543–544) reports on mica recovered 

from the Craig and Brown mound contexts at Spiro. One 

use for mica was in covering cedar boxes reported to have 

been excavated by the relic hunters but then destroyed.

Other Materials

The following materials are not assumed to have ceremonial or ritual function, although the slag suggests a 

mortuary event if it resulted from cremation. These materials do, however, provide information regarding the original archaeological context.

Glass Slag

There is a piece of frothy vitrified silica with a large 

glass bubble present in the surface (423210). The glass 

bubble measures 0.88 × 1.02 cm in diameter, and the slag 

is 8.48 cm long, 4.57 cm wide, and 1.65 cm high. Weight 

is 47.7 g. There appears to be bone within this slag as 

well. Rogers (1980) mentions the recovery of silica froth 

from another part of the site. According to Brown (personal communication, 1992), crematory remains—vitrified bones—are not uncommon. Silica froth also occurs 

from the intense burning of grassy materials (Brown, 

1996:645).

Three other fragments of burned bone and shell are 

present as well. These are small and exhibit no vitrification 

(423303).

Coprolites

There are three pieces of fecal matter that weigh 5 

g total. Maximum dimensions are approximately 6 cm 

TABLE 8.9. Unmodified galena nodule measurement summary 

(n = 140). All measurements are in cm. Total weight is 1,762.1 g.

 Standard

Measurement Mean Extremes deviation

Length 5.1 2.4 / 11.0 2.96

Width 4.17 2.4 / 7.3 1.84

Thickness 3.28 1.5 / 6.69 1.69
number 49 • 17 3

long by 0.8 cm in diameter. Organic material is clearly 

preserved in these artifacts.

Sediment

In some cases, vials of sediment have been removed 

from some objects at some point during their curation, 

and these vials can be considered as remnants or residues 

relating to the original archaeological context. Of the six 

artifacts that fit into this category, one derived from a stone 

pipe (448669s02), one from a shell gorget (423308s04), 

one from a copper sheet (448715s05), one from a textile 

(4233378s05), and two, which contain clay and bits of 

vegetable matter, from mixtures of beads, mica, and metal 

fragments (423330s06, 4233301s02).

Seed

A single large seedpod is present among the wooden 

fragments of 448911. The plant represented has not been 

identified.

Summary

The magnitude of the collection of ceremonial, special, or prestige materials present in the collection from 

NMNH cannot be underestimated. The ritual items described in this chapter do not constitute the entire ceremonial assemblage from the mound deposit by any means. 

Shell cups in particular were undoubtedly used in special 

or ceremonial contexts but were more easily discussed as 

containers. Of all the materials included in this chapter, 

pipes, many of which are figural, and the other effigy figures clearly indicate that a life rich in social interaction 

and spiritual import typified the individuals buried in the 

Great Mortuary.

In some ways, the presence of raw materials having 

ritual significance, such as pigments and minerals, is surprising. The artifact miners apparently collected materials that were not made into obvious finished artifacts. 

Although it is impossible to say that these raw materials 

themselves were used in a ritual context, they certainly 

were deposited in a special context, having been interred 

in the Craig Mound. In addition, the prestige value of materials such as copper, hematite, and galena has a long history in eastern North America, having been included as a 

major component of grave goods during Middle Woodland Copena contexts in the Southeast.

NOTE

6. Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 285) remarked that the head 

was acquired from the Museum of the American Indian, 

Heye Foundation, by the Smithsonian and that the two 

pieces are now together. No record of such a transaction 

could be located, and there is no head present in the collection at the National Museum of Natural History.

Javier Urcid, Department of Anthropology, 

Brandeis University, P.O. Box 549110, MS 006, 

Waltham, Massachusetts 02454, USA (formerly 

with the Department of Anthropology Repatriation Office, National Museum of Natural 

History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, 

D.C., USA).

This chapter deals with the skeletal remains from the Craig Mound at 

Spiro and discusses only those catalog numbers that contain human 

bone. The set of remains with number 448937 includes 109 loose teeth 

that were sorted into the groupings shown in Table 9.1.7

These teeth have not yet been studied and documented. Given their condition—not only fragmentary but also outside of anatomical context—it is considered that their future study will not greatly affect the conclusions reached here 

regarding minimum and maximum number of individuals. Some of these teeth 

might actually form part of maxillary and mandibular fragments listed under 

number 448935.

CATALOG NUMBER 423344

This catalog number includes two right and one left parietal. Two of them 

are antimeric. All the sutures (sagittal, occipital, and a portion of the coronal in 

the partially assembled cranium) are open both endo- and ectocranially, suggesting that both crania were from young adults. Although warped and deformed, 

the incomplete cranium seems small and thus might belong to a female. The 

isolated parietal is larger and might belong to a male. Both skulls had ossicles in 

the lambdoid suture. Their color and texture are very similar, suggesting that the 

two came from the same underground burial context. The isolated left parietal 

has a green stain in the ectocranium, in the area of asterion. There is no evidence 

of pathology.

CATALOG NUMBER 423345

This catalog number includes the left half of an adult mandible. On the basis 

of slight to moderate dental wear the individual could have been between 35 

and 45 years of age. The mental shape and eminence suggest a male. Although 

the mandibular is eroded, the entire left lower dental arch is present. There are 

some moderate alveolar tori. Traces of soil, especially along the broken edge, 

9 Human Remains

Javier Urcid
176 • s m ithsonian cont r i bu tions to anth r o p o l o g y

indicate that the bone was found in an underground burial 

context.

CATALOG NUMBER 423346

This catalog number includes the complete left humerus of an adult individual. Specific age is undeterminable. The occurrence of slight marginal osteophytes in the 

distal epiphysis suggests an age range between 35 and 45 

years. The shaft of the bone looks robust, but the diameter 

of the head is only 39 mm, well below the mean for females, 

which is 43 mm. Near the distal end of the shaft there is a 

bony excrescence that is not surrounded by active remodelling. It seems to be a very localized and healed osteitis.

CATALOG NUMBER 423347

Included in this catalog number is the complete right 

tibia of an adult individual. Specific age cannot be determined. However, the lack of degenerative lesions on the 

surfaces of articulation suggests a young adult. The bone 

is gracile and might correspond to a female. Some erosion 

on the epiphyses and cracks on the surface of the bone 

indicate an underground burial context. There is no evidence of pathology.

CATALOG NUMBER 423348

This catalog number includes the complete left innominate of a male between 30 and 40 years old. The 

sexual determination is based on the angle of aperture in 

the sciatic notch, the lack of a preauricular sulcus, the lack 

of medial projection of the auricular surface, absence of a 

ventral arch, and broad medial aspect of the ischiopubic 

ramus. The age assessment is based on the morphological 

changes of the pubic symphysis. The acetabulum has slight 

marginal osteophytes and slight localized porosis in the 

articulatory surface. There is postmortem damage, caused 

apparently by the tip of a nail, in the ventral surface of the 

ilium, very close to the superior border.

CATALOG NUMBER 423349

This catalog number includes two incomplete innominates. Only one is human. It is from the left side. It 

belongs to an adult perhaps between 40 and 50 years of 

age, as suggested by the morphological changes of the auricular articulation. The criterion of changes of the pubic 

symphysis cannot be used since this portion is missing. 

Female sex can be determined on the basis of an open sciatic notch, marked preauricular sulcus, and medial projection of the sacroiliac articulation. The bone is eroded 

and incomplete, with cracks in the surfaces, some exfoliation, warping, and bleaching, mainly on the ventral surface. These traits indicate partial exposure weathering. 

The yellow color on the dorsal surface indicates a previous underground burial context.

CATALOG NUMBER 423350

This catalog number includes a very eroded fragment 

of a right femur. It belongs to an adult individual, but 

specific age and sex are undeterminable. Erosion, exfoliation, and cracks indicate that the fragment was exposed to 

weathering. Because of its advanced erosion, its previous 

taphonomic history has been obliterated. The fragment includes portion of the distal shaft and parts (amorphous) of 

the distal epiphysis. There is no evidence of pathology in 

what remains of the original surface of the bone.

CATALOG NUMBER 423351

This catalog number includes three vertebrae, two of 

which are nonhuman. The human vertebra is incomplete, 

represented only by the right half of the centrum and a 

portion of the right arch. It is probably a C4 and belongs 

to an adult. Because of color and texture it cannot be from 

TABLE 9.1. Types and counts of human teeth present in catalog 

number 448937.

Type Count

Incisors 10

Canines and premolars 20

Third molars 16

Upper molars 14

Unerupted or partially erupted teeth 2

Teeth with cavities 1

Unsorted teeth 18

Undifferentiated molars 22

Unrecognizable tooth fragments 6

Total 109
number 49 • 17 7

individual B in number 448936. Specific age and sex are 

undeterminable.

CATALOG NUMBER 448935

This catalog number includes several different sets of 

bones. Two are fragments of human skull. On the basis of 

differences in color and texture they do not belong to the 

same individual, but both were undoubtedly in an underground burial context. One is an incomplete right parietal 

from a young adult. The sagittal and lambdoid sutures 

were both endo- and ectocranially open, except for the endocranial area of obelion. The coronal suture was already 

endocranially fused but open in the ectocranium. Sex is 

undeterminable. There is a fine osteoporosis over much of 

the ectocranial surface. The other fragment corresponds 

to a right temporal and might belong to a young adult 

since there are no degenerative lesions on the temporomandibular joint. Also, both the superior and inferior 

sphenotemporal sutures are open endo- and ectocranially. 

The medium size of the mastoid process does not allow a 

reliable determination of sex. There is a postmortem perforation just anterior to the origin of the zygomatic bridge, 

and the hole was produced from the inside to the outside. 

Thus, the temporal bone was already isolated from the 

skull when the perforation occurred. This might have been 

produced by an excavating tool, perhaps a small pick. 

There is no evidence of pathology in this fragment.

Also included are two incomplete maxillae that 

match. From the surviving sutures, the person was an 

adult between 25 and 30 years of age. The dental wear in 

the surviving teeth is slight. The left fragment corresponds 

to the anterior portion and includes alveoli of the incisors, 

the canine, the two premolars, and the medial surface of 

the first molar. No teeth remain. The central incisor was 

lost antemortem. The other teeth fell out after death, and 

the dental pieces might be among the set of loose teeth 

numbered 448937. The right maxilla includes the canine, 

first premolar, and the second molar. The first molar was 

lost antemortem but shortly before death. The sockets for 

the tooth’s roots are in an initial stage of resorption. The 

incisors and the third molar were lost postmortem.

Additionally, there are two incomplete mandibles. 

The permanent dentition, the slight degree of attrition, 

and the dental pathology (caries) suggest that both mandibles pertain to young or middle-aged adults. On the basis 

of color differences, none of the mandibles match with the 

paired maxillae. Using the same criteria, however, one of 

the mandibles might correspond with the right parietal 

described above. Thus, there could be as many as four different adult individuals in this set.

CATALOG NUMBER 448936

This catalog number includes the miscellaneous remains of various individuals. In the discussion of each 

anatomical set, these individuals are distinguished with 

letters.

1. Four cervical vertebrae (C1 to C4) of an adult individual (A). The color and anatomical fit between them 

clearly indicates that they belong to the same individual. 

The lack of degenerative lesions suggests a young adult 

less than 40 years of age. Sex is undeterminable. Traces 

of soil adhered by shellac evinces an underground burial 

context.

2. Cervical vertebra (C3) of an adult individual (B). 

Color and texture are different from the previous set. No 

pathology is evident. This is apparently a young adult; sex 

is undeterminable. Traces of soil and a crack in the centrum indicate an underground burial context.

3. Two fragments of ribs. Both are from adult 

individual(s). Judging from the color and texture, it is feasible that one fragment belongs to individual A and the 

other to individual B. Cracks and erosion on both fragments indicate an underground burial context.

4. Hand bones, including five metacarpals and three 

phalanges. The metacarpals include one right third (proximal epiphysis unfused), one right fourth, one left fourth, 

one left fifth that lacks portion of the distal epiphysis, and 

one metacarpal without distal epiphysis. Thus, its position and side are undeterminable. Because the right and 

left fourth metacarpals do not match, the incomplete left 

fifth and the left fourth listed above cannot belong to the 

same individual, and since the right third metacarpal had 

its proximal epiphysis unfused, then this set of bones represents at least three individuals. Two were adults and the 

third was less than 15 years of age. There are also three 

proximal hand phalanges. Two are complete and could 

belong to the same individual. The third is incomplete and 

seems to belong to another person.

5. Five long bones, including four femora and an ulna. 

Three of the femora are left and another is right. The latter 

matches one of the left ones. The paired bones are almost 

complete but eroded in some parts. They have pronounced 

exfoliation on the anterior surface and gouges that seem 

to be the result of postmortem damage. Portions of the 

epiphyses are missing. The head diameter (44 mm) suggests a male. There is no evidence of degenerative lesions 
178 • s m ithsonian cont r i bu tions to anth r o p o l o g y

in what remains of the articulatory surfaces, so presumably, the pair belonged to a young adult. The right femur 

had traces of a red powder adhering to the surface around 

the lesser trochanter and tiny spots on the femoral head. 

This substance might be cinnabar. The evidence of the red 

paint is less conspicuous on the left femur, but a few traces 

are discernible on the femoral head and in two spots along 

the posterior surface of the shaft. There is a cut 216 mm 

long in the head of the right femur. Because of its location the cut is either a peri- or postmortem cut. The other 

two left femora show similar surface changes as the pair 

discussed above, suggesting that all come from the same 

burial context. The proximal epiphyses of both bones are 

incomplete, but enough remains to derive the head diameters. According to these, which are 42 and 43 mm, the 

femora could belong to two females, yet in other features 

of the shafts, they seem to be slightly more robust than the 

pair described above. Only one of these left femora has 

traces of red powder adhered to the femoral head. The 

fifth long bone in this set is a left ulna from an adult individual. Its relative robusticity and the lack of degenerative lesions in the articulations suggest a young adult male. 

Traces of soil are adhered by a layer of shellac, evincing 

an underground burial context. However, the color of the 

bone and the lack of surface changes indicate that the ulna 

probably does not come from the same burial context as 

the femora, although the differences could be the result of 

the bone having been found at a deeper level.

6. Nine foot bones, all from adult individuals. One is 

an incomplete left navicular. There are also six metatarsals, including two complete left first, one complete right 

first, one complete left third, one complete right fourth, 

and a fragment that includes only the proximal epiphysis 

and portion of the shaft of an unidentified metatarsal. The 

latter might be from a right foot. The right first metatarsal does not match with either of the two left ones, and 

thus, the set of bones has remains of at least three adult 

individuals. On the basis of color similarities, the right 

first metatarsal, the right fourth, and the left third might 

belong to the same individual. Other foot bones in this 

set include two first proximal phalanges. On the basis of 

color and size, one seems to correspond to one of the left 

first metatarsals, and the other seems to articulate with the 

right first metatarsal.

7. Fragment of a parietal bone and the shaft of a left 

fibula. Both are from an immature individual and probably 

from the same skeleton (C). Age and sex are undeterminable. The shaft fragment is 13 cm long. It is estimated 

that the complete bone would have been at least 16 cm in 

length, giving a possible age of 4 to 7 years. A tag on the 

fibula says that its weight is 6.2 g.

Summary Remarks

Considering groups of anatomical elements, the following are independent counts of minimum number of 

individuals.

Skulls At least four adult individuals and one 

immature person (4–7) years old

Mandibles At least three adult individuals

Vertebrae At least three adult individuals

Humerus At least one adult individual

Ulna At least one adult individual

Hand bones At least three adults and one immature individual less than 15 years old 

but older than the immature person 

counted in the skulls set

Innominates At least two adult individuals

Femora At least four individuals: three under 

number 448936 and one under number 423350

Tibia At least one adult individual

The figures generated by the skulls and the hand bones 

provide a composite picture of at least six individuals: four 

adult, a child between 4 and 7 years old, and an adolescent less than 15 years old. If no relationship is assumed 

between all the remains, then a maximum count of 24 individuals results. The archaeological context should allow 

determining a more accurate number of individuals. This 

determination would also permit a more accurate sorting 

of the age and sex assessments that were provided in the 

descriptions.

NOTE

7. Osteologist Beverly Byrd, formerly of NMNH’s Department 

of Anthropology Repatriation Office, assisted in collecting 

and organizing the information on human teeth.
The NMNH collection from the Craig Mound contains general artifact types similar to those found during controlled excavations by the 

WPA. Shell vessels, pipes, and wooden statuary are well represented 

in collections made by relic hunters. Looters, however, miss things. 

The Pocola Mining Company undoubtedly went for large, obvious, and wellpreserved materials. They discarded human bone, ignored small lithic materials, probably missed thousands of shell beads, and hastened the destruction of 

organic or fragile materials, such as textiles, leather, ceramics, or copper sheet 

artifacts. This concluding chapter assesses the significance of the NMNH collection in light of the problems with provenience and explores its potential both as 

a research tool and as a major piece of North American cultural heritage.

REPRESENTATIVENESS OF THE COLLECTION

The NMNH collection of materials from Spiro represents a large portion of 

the materials known from the site, aside from the collections made during the 

WPA operations. The NMNH collection includes some of the first pieces brought 

to the attention of professional archaeologists; collector J. G. Braecklein sent materials to the Smithsonian for perusal and casting as early as 1936. In the NMNH

collection from the site are just fewer than 5,000 artifacts (not including beads). 

Of these, 2,072 are lithic artifacts, including implements, beads, earspools, pipes, 

and pieces of minerals. Ceramic artifacts, including sherds, account for 327 

pieces. Shell artifacts number 1,160, excluding the over 20,000 shell beads.

But just how representative is this sample of artifacts from Craig Mound? 

The relic hunters collected a little bit of every type of material present, but there 

are notable differences between the WPA assemblages and those in the NMNH. 

For example, the WPA excavation has relatively more ceramic material, more 

small lithic material, and proportionately fewer complete shell vessels.

Reasons that account for these differences should reflect something about 

the nature of commercial excavation and collecting.

The first possibility addresses the selective nature of artifact collection in 

which hunters collected only what they saw and what they thought they could 

10 Conclusion

April K. Sievert
180 • s m ithsonian cont r i bu tions to anth r o p o l o g y

sell. Small projectile points probably escaped notice, as may 

have other small items. There are very few copper plate 

pieces in the NMNH collection. The fragility of copper 

plates may have contributed to them being destroyed by the 

relic hunters but salvaged by the more careful WPA crews.

Second, collectors purchase what they personally desire. We can expect that the large collections amassed by 

Meyer and Trowbridge reflect the men’s personal tastes. 

Whereas Trowbridge may have recognized the value of 

bundled textiles that may have looked mucky and fragile 

to others, Meyer apparently had an eye for showy sculptural pieces. Differences between the collections from 

Trowbridge and Meyer are remarkable and highlight the 

serendipitous nature of artifact collecting. For example, 

of the nine whole or nearly whole pots in the collection, 

Trowbridge had possessed five, which he sold along with 

only a handful of other sherds. Meyer donated primarily 

sherds, including many of the slipped sherds from ovaloid 

bowls, some of which have been refitted to form nearly 

whole pots. This is interesting in light of the conception 

(discussed below) that only whole artifacts are of interest 

to collectors. Trowbridge collected 199 pieces of cloth to 

Meyer’s 29. Among wooden artifacts, it was Trowbridge 

who collected four cedar poles and no effigies figures and 

Meyer, on the other hand, who possessed three human figural effigies, two vessel handles, and 19 wooden earspools. 

Meyer also donated seven stone effigy pipes, and Trowbridge sold two to the museum.

Third, collectors and relic hunters are interested in complete artifacts, rather than broken pieces. Shell cup fragments 

number 908, including 84 whole or nearly whole decorated 

and undecorated cups. This compares with 85 complete vessels plus 3,695 fragments reported by Brown (1996: table 

2-81) for the WPA material. Although several of the complete cups in the NMNH collection have been refitted from 

multiple fragments, the presence of the same number of 

whole cups to four times the fragments is remarkable.

Finally, there could easily also have been real differences in the nature of the deposits removed by the Pocola Mining Company compared to nearby contexts in 

the mound. The artifact hunters did strike at and remove 

much of the central portion of the large feature that Brown 

(1996) refers to as the Great Mortuary. There may have 

been more intact shell in this area, which is thought to 

have been a protected hollow cavity.

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE COLLECTION

Many of the materials from the Great Mortuary feature in the Craig Mound are unique. Wooden mortuary 

figures, well-preserved stone effigy pipes, textiles, and galena figurines are rare. For these reasons, the Craig Mound 

burials offer a rare glimpse into late prehistoric lifeways. 

Preservation of materials interred in the Craig Mound was 

extraordinary, due in part to the large amount of copper 

artifacts placed in the mound and to the rather impermeable sediments capping the mortuary features. Although 

not a tomb in the sense evoked by some of the newspaper 

writing of the 1930s, the possibility of a protected cavity 

has been supported by Brown (1996). These conditions 

are in part responsible for the overall character of the collection as rare and unique. Spiro yielded one of the largest 

collections of Mississippian textiles known, and the textiles at the NMNH form a large component of this material. Collector Harry Trowbridge’s work at conserving the 

textiles that he rescued, in part by controlling temperatures, undoubtedly contributed to the fact that so many 

textile pieces have survived. Of course, we have no way 

of knowing how much material was destroyed during the 

commercial excavations.

The artifact hunters were none too careful as they tunneled into the center of the Great Mortuary. Therefore, 

the material in the collection comes from a context that 

did not entail the collection of provenience data, and what 

there is, is anecdotal. Therefore, the materials from commercial excavations at Spiro present two problems. The 

first is an ethical one in that the materials derive from 

commercial excavation (looting). Wylie (1995) has discussed the issue of looting and the fact that publication 

of looted materials adds commercial value to the artifacts, 

something that archaeologists wish to avoid. Second, the 

lack of contextual information makes these materials less 

than useful for many types of analyses—those dealing 

with mound structure or burial associations, for example. 

This problem may actually be less critical for material 

from Craig Mound than for other Mississippian burial 

contexts. Brown (1996:98–102) points out that the assemblages of materials within burial units at Spiro were in 

some cases probably already mixed, as a result of a mortuary practice that involved collecting and reburying earlier 

remains with later ones.

Even so, the materials in the NMNH collection are 

not without scientific utility (Sievert, 2003). The artifacts themselves can provide technological information 

concerning raw materials, manufacturing, and use. The 

extensive iconography displayed on the artifacts can be 

used to interpret social and ceremonial life. These data, in 

turn, can be used in researching questions of subsistence, 

technology, social interaction, regional integration, and 

religion. Although problematic on a site structural scale, 

when put into the larger framework of what happened 
number 49 • 18 1

during the Late Mississippian period, the materials have 

a lot to say.

THE SPIRO COLLECTION AND 

MISSISSIPPIAN RESEARCH

Throughout the decade of the 1990s, foci for Mississippian research changed, with more emphasis on political economy, the structure of prestige systems, social 

interaction and integration, and religion. Research on the 

edges of the Mississippian world, from the perspectives of 

both geography and time (King and Meyers, 2002), has 

shown that manifestations of Mississippian society were 

far-reaching and influential, despite individual polities not 

always enjoying far-reaching regional influence. Although 

it is not the intent of this work to fully review late prehistoric research in the Caddoan area or the Southeast, 

it does seem appropriate to point out the relevance of a 

collection like this one to ongoing research into Mississippian society.

Part of what characterizes the late prehistoric period 

in eastern North America is far-reaching intercultural social interaction. Similarities in mound form and iconography indicate the spread of ideas over a wide area, from 

Wisconsin in the north to Florida in the south and from 

Oklahoma in the west to Virginia in the east. There is 

ample evidence for interaction in the form of trade, and 

this becomes apparent when looking at the artifact distribution maps developed by Brain and Phillips (1996). Some 

information on trade comes from style; other data can be 

gathered on the basis of source analyses. Because scientific methods for the analysis of materials are constantly 

improving, the Spiro collection will be useful continually. 

The source analysis done for the obsidian end scraper 

(catalog number 378273) collected by J. G. Braecklein 

in 1935 is a case in point. Energy dispersive X-ray fluorescence revealed a trace element signature that indicates 

the material came from the Pachuca obsidian source in 

Mexico (Barker et al., 2002). This result supports the notion that trade relations extended across a wide expanse, 

in this case to Mesoamerica. Petrographic analyses of 

lithic materials and chemical analyses of lithic, clay, and 

other minerals could prove invaluable for interpreting social interaction and integration on a wide scale. Furthermore, Spiro is itself a mound center located on the edge of 

the Mississippian world (Payne and Scarry, 1998:47). It 

retains connections to sites in the east but is poised on the 

edge of the Great Plains, perhaps brokering trade to and 

from the west (Rogers, 1991a, 1991b; Schambach, 1993). 

For this reason, an understanding of Spiro is critical to an 

understanding of trade relations throughout the western 

half of the Mississippian world.

The collection from Spiro can inform not only on 

matters of distant trade but also on social interaction at 

the site itself. Objects that were social in usage, such as 

pipes and cups (relatively common artifacts in the Craig 

Mound), were used not in solitary situations but in contexts involving more than one person. Pipe ceremonies 

such as the calumet of the historic period were ceremonies 

that extended social relations (Hall, 1997).

The materials from the Craig Mound—the wealth—

indicate individuals of importance, perhaps a hereditary 

chiefly elite. Much of the research about the structure of 

political influence during the Mississippian (Barker and 

Pauketat, 1992) has been focused on Cahokia (Pauketat, 

1993, 1994; Pauketat and Emerson, 1997; Milner, 1998). 

Spiro, a much smaller site with a smaller population yet 

possessing a remarkably appointed mortuary feature, 

makes an excellent counterpoint to the Middle Mississippian manifestation farther north.

Finally, archaeologists can expect more focus on the 

study of iconography and its meaning. As research becomes increasingly emic, the iconography found at Spiro 

and other sites throughout the southeast is taking on 

added dimension. It is likely that we are only beginning to 

appreciate the magnitude of the knowledge coded in the 

symbols and motifs of the Mississippian world.

Appendix A: Catalog 

Summary of Artifacts in the 

National Museum of Natural 

History Spiro Collection

ANALYTICAL PROCEDURE AND DATA LIST

The artifacts in the Spiro collection fit into one or more of seven raw material categories: lithic, ceramic, shell, metal, textile, bone, and wood. Listed 

below are some of the variables used for recording different kinds of objects and 

the methods employed for taking measurements.

Ceramics

Color. Paste colors were recorded using the Munsell Color system 

for the outer surface, the inner surface, and the core. In cases where the colors 

ranged among adjacent levels in tone or value, the hue was recorded along with 

the name of general color family. For black, it is difficult to assign a hue, so black 

was often referred to simply as black.

Wall Thickness. For rim sherds, wall thickness was measured 

consistently approximately 1 cm below the rim. For body sherds, which can 

vary widely, one measurement was taken at what appeared to be an average 

thickness. For base sherds, thickness was measured near the center of the base.

Size. For whole vessels, diameter and height were taken. For nonspherical vessels (i.e., elliptical bowls), length and width were noted. In the database, diameter and width occupy the same data field. In some cases single sherds 

were measured to indicate size, especially if it represented a large part of a vessel. 

In cases of partial pots, those dimensions that could be measured or estimated 

were recorded.
184 • s m ithsonian cont r i bu tions to anth r o p o l o g y

A separate subnumber was given to each separate 

grouping created to record multiple styles or elements 

within each catalog number.

Shell Cups

A separate data form was created for each fragment. 

In cases where fragments adhered to other fragments, the 

single fragment comprising the largest portion of the vessel was chosen, and the data form was made on the basis 

of that catalog number. In cases where the largest fragment derived from a lot with many artifacts and there 

was another fragment of the same cup that was assigned 

a unique catalog number, the data form was based on the 

unique fragment, thereby reducing the number of separate 

data forms created.

As with other artifact categories, information from 

catalog cards was recorded along with information taken 

directly from the artifacts themselves. Conservation cards 

kept with the collection included a compendium of ideas 

about and interpretations of motifs recognized in the 

shell engravings. Joan S. Gardner’s notes (unpublished) 

on motifs represented were recorded, along with personal 

interpretations.

Basic measurements that were taken include length, 

width, and height of shells that were complete enough to 

suggest overall dimensions for the complete vessel or shell. 

Length was measured as the distance from apex to distal 

tip, width was the maximum distance across the opening, and height was recorded as the maximum height of 

the piece when resting on the shell opening. Dimensions 

for smaller fragments were also taken, but these were recorded as maximum or minimum dimensions, especially 

for lots containing more than one fragment. Weights of 

fragments and vessels were recorded.

In general, shell fragments were treated similarly to 

potsherds. Refitting is an aid to analysis in that it allows 

for the interpretation of more complete, discrete artifacts. 

In cases for which there is more than one fragment of a 

shell but they do not refit exactly, fragments will still be 

counted together under one data entry. For example, parent fragment 448816 has been refit to a small fragment of 

448880 and an apical fragment from 448877. In addition, 

two other fragments, one each from 448877 and 448880, 

refit each other but do not exactly refit to 488816. Because they are considered by Phillips and Brown (1978, 

1984) to have derived from the same shell, they will be 

counted as one shell. Unless fragments are treated in this 

way, the redundancy of design among segments of the 

same vessel will inflate the counting of the incidence of 

motif occurrence. Here Phillips and Brown (1978, 1984) 

were consulted in order to match portions of single shells. 

The term “parent” is used to refer to the largest portion 

of shell or the one having a unique catalog number, and it 

will be this parent fragment that will be given a data form. 

Other fragments included under the parent were listed in 

the section devoted to my comments.

Descriptions of design use an orientation with the distal end down, the apex up, and the shell lying on the aperture. Right and left designations used in descriptions refer 

to this orientation. What Phillips and Brown (1978) refer 

to as spire is referred to in the present study as apex. Inner 

always refers to the inner surface of the shell.

For incomplete vessels, width refers to minimum 

width in order to give a width measurement that would 

identify the piece but would not be presumed to constitute the actual width of the vessel. For fragments, maximum width is the maximum width of the largest fragment 

within a lot. Maximum length is the length of the longest 

fragment in a lot. Fragments were measured along the 

axis of the original shell, with length always referring to 

the shell axial length. Therefore, a piece might be wider 

than it is long. Measurements could not be taken for all 

fragments. However, maximum or minimum widths are 

sometimes given to indicate the general size of the artifacts. These maximum and minimum dimensions give an 

idea of the range of fragment sizes represented. These are 

not to be interpreted as vessel dimensions because such 

fragments rarely are complete enough to allow for estimating vessel length or width. Fragment counts are the 

total number of fragments including components of pieces 

which have been glued together (necessary because objects 

often comprise several NMNH catalog numbers). Weights 

were always taken, but in the case of combined fragment 

groupings, weights were added together.

All engraved shell cups and gorgets were examined 

and, if needed, conserved by Joan Gardner between 1974 

and 1976. In 1992 the shells were in stable condition for the 

most part. Gardner described and recorded the condition of 

the shells in 1992. Shell condition can be ranked as follows.

•	 Poor condition implies a badly eroded, pitted, and 

porous surface. Chalking and flaking occur over 

75% of the surface area.

•	 Fair condition implies eroded surfaces of flaky, 

chalking, and porous areas accounting for 50% of 

the surface.

•	 Adequate condition implies some fairly deteriorated spots affecting between 25% and 50% of the 

surface area.

•	 Good condition presents very solid surfaces overall, with few chalking or flaky areas.
number 49 • 18 5

•	 Excellent condition requires no flaking or chalky 

areas.

The history of the engraved shells prior to Gardner’s 

treatment remains largely unknown. Gardner noted excess 

polyvinyl acetate (PVA), which had in many cases yellowed 

on the specimens. She removed excess PVA with acetone 

and reapplied a thinner coat. This thick coat of PVA may 

have been applied by the collectors. When Meyer’s collection reached the Smithsonian in the late 1960s, Elizabeth 

Gibson was the conservator who examined and treated 

the collection. Given how yellowed Gardner found the 

shells, it seems unlikely that the PVA applied at the time of 

accession would have altered that drastically in the 6- to 

15-year interval between Trowbridge’s and Meyer’s donations and 1974 when Gardner examined the collection. 

The collectors could easily have treated objects themselves, leaving 20 to 30 years for the PVA to become yellowed. Furthermore, we have no way of knowing exactly 

what type of conservative the collectors might have used, 

and therefore, they may have applied other sealants such 

as shellac or varnish, which would be expected to become 

yellow.

Joan Gardner reported treating three unengraved 

shells from the Trowbridge accession but stipulates only a 

specific two that she treated.

Textiles

Measurements are not exact, but are approximations. 

Rather than risk damaging fragments, textile fragments 

were measured on top of the glass or Plexiglas that covers 

them. In cases where there are several fragments, the largest in the group was measured. The dimensions therefore 

represent maximum dimensions. Weights were not taken 

for textiles because of the fragility of the artifacts. In most 

cases thickness was not measured. Width of the primary 

yarns or fibers used in both textiles and basketry was sampled. In the case of basket fragments, the length of the 

longest single strip present was measured.

The textile materials have undergone two major conservation efforts during the past 20 years. Joan Gardner 

worked with the collection in the mid-1970s. At that time 

she unfurled several of the bundles, cleaned and applied 

preservatives to fragments that had already been unfolded, and prepared new mounts for others. At the time 

she finished, there were still objects stored in Trowbridge’s 

original boxes. In the early 1990s, Lynn Arden, contract 

conservator, prepared new box mounts: sturdy acid-free 

paperboard boxes with glass insets in the lids. The objects 

were placed in the mounts on foam that was covered with 

a smooth synthetic fabric. The artifacts are held in place 

by the lid, which places gentle pressure on the artifact, 

keeping it from shifting within the mount.

Condition of the textiles varies. Some are in excellent 

condition, meaning that they retain the integrity of the 

original textile and that color and weave are clearly visible. Others are highly fragmentary. Still others remain as 

bundles.

There has been some difficulty in maintaining the discrete nature of many of these textiles. For example, catalog numbers 423373 and 423372 contain many different 

fragments of twined tapestry done in multiple colors. 

Number 423373 represents pieces in Trowbridge’s box 

labeled 2719. Unfortunately, over the years the integrity 

of his designations has been compromised, and in some 

cases, the linkage between Trowbridge’s number and the 

correct fragment is unclear. Some bundles were unfolded 

during the 1970s, and the resulting fragments were sometimes placed in Plexiglas and sometimes not.

Baskets

Discrete fragments were counted within groupings 

when possible. Small fragments were grouped into lots.

Projectile Points

In his study of the artifacts from the Craig Mound, 

Brown (1976, 1996) used a variety of attributes to characterize the small projectile points and then created a key for 

point identification based on these attributes. Many of the 

same measurements were used in the present study.

Earspools

The following measurements were taken for pulleyshaped earspools.

1.  Inner flange diameter is the diameter of the flange 

that forms the back of the spool. This is usually 

smaller than the front or outer flange.

2.  Outer flange diameter is the diameter of the outer 

flange, the one meant to be seen. It is the outer 

flange that is often decorated.

3.  Thickness is the maximum thickness of the entire 

spool.

4. Diameter of perforation can be used to separate 

the pulley ring forms from the pulleys having a 

narrow central bore.

5.  Wall thickness is average flange thickness, measured 1 cm from the edge of the outer flange.
186 • s m ithsonian cont r i bu tions to anth r o p o l o g y

6. Pulley width is the core diameter measured between the flanges.

Beads

Shells that were cemented together were counted separately, so in some cases, the number in the lot will be 

higher than the total number of discrete pieces. Lot count 

is a minimum number of beads rather than a piece count.

Beads were so numerous that measurements on individual shell beads were in most cases not taken. In many 

cases, individual lots of beads number into the thousands. 

Rather than take individual measurements, groups within 

each morphological bead class were sorted by size, and 

representative measurements were then taken to arrive at 

an approximate mean for the group. For large lots, count 

was estimated by dividing the total weight by the weight 

of 100 beads, then multiplying by 100. It is estimated that 

the total count will be off by no more than 10% by using 

this method. For beads of generally rounded shape, the 

width measurement was consistently taken at the widest 

point. Beads that were rounded but not truly round in 

cross section were also measured at the widest point.

Pipes

Bore diameters were measured approximately 1 cm 

into the bore. Bowl diameter is the inside diameter of the 

bowl. In the case of unfinished pipe 423159, the bowl 

diameter represents the outer diameter. The width of the 

bowl is measured approximately 4 cm up from the base. 

This is generally the widest portion of the T-shaped pipe.

Note on Catalog Supplement

There are 1464 separate analytical forms covering 

over 630 catalog numbers listed in the NMNH catalog. 

These forms, along with history forms for each catalog 

number, are contained in an extended catalog supplement kept in the Department of Anthropology collections management records. The catalog is the primary 

data source for this collection and can be utilized as a 

collection guide and analytical tool for studying the collection. There is one history form for each NMNH catalog number, along with one or more data forms. A single 

template was used to record historical information. Alternate data collection templates were used in order to 

accommodate different material types and manufactured 

goods. The history form contains historical information 

about the pieces, including extra conservation notes and 

descriptions made by Joan Gardner. The data forms present information collected by the author of the present 

study.

Inventory of Data Forms

Table A.1 presents a summary of the collection listed 

by catalog number. This summary serves as a quick reference source and as an inventory of data forms. Data forms 

generated in the database are listed by catalog number followed by subnumbers and abbreviations indicating material types. Also included are object name (which may 

differ from the object name recorded in the NMNH electronic database), style (usually abbreviated), count, raw 

material, and template code.

TABLE A.1. Summary of artifacts in the Spiro collection. Material type codes are as follows: T, textile; S, shell; L, lithic; C, ceramic; 

M, metal; B, bone; W, wood; O, other. Other abbreviations are S Point, small projectile point; L Point, large projectile point; Lg Biface, 

large biface; frag, fragment; Convexo-cylin, convexo-cylindrical; Concavo-cylin, concavo-cylindrical; Undesig., undesignated; Micac., 

micaceous.

Catalog Subnumber Material Raw material

number (if any) type Object Style Count (if known)

378240 s01 T Cordage Braid 1

378240 s02 T Cloth Spaced weft twining 1

378240 s03 T Cordage Wrapped warp 1

378240 s04 T Cordage Wrapped warp barrel-shaped 2

378240 s05 T Cordage Braid 2

378240 s06 T Sample Slide 2

378240 s07 T Sample Slide 8
number 49 • 18 7

Catalog Subnumber Material Raw material

number (if any) type Object Style Count (if known)

(continued)

378242 S Cup Unengraved 1 Shell

378243 s01 S Cup Unengraved 1 Shell

378243 s02 S Cup Unengraved 1 Shell

378243 s03 S Cup Unengraved 2 Shell

378243 s04 S Cup Unengraved 1 Shell

378244 S Pendant Columella 2 Shell

378245 S Worked shell Unengraved 1 Shell

378246 S Gorget Type 9 1 Univalve

378247 s01 S Cup Unengraved 1 Cassis

378247 s02 S Cup Unengraved 1 Cassis

378248 S Cup Unengraved 1 Univalve

378249 S Pendant Unengraved 1 Shell

378250 s01 S Bead Gastropod 3 Snail

378250 s02 S Bead Gastropod 1 Freshwater snail

378250 s03 S Bead Gastropod 2 Freshwater snail

378250 s04 S Bead Gastropod 1 Freshwater Snail

378251 S Bead Marginella 10 Univalve

378252 S Bead Olivella 45 Shell

378253 s01 S Bead Hexagonal 2 Shell

378253 s02 S Bead Convexo-bowed 4

378253 s03 S Bead Convexo-bowed 1

378254 s01 S Bead Cylindrical 1 Shell

378254 s02 S Bead Cylindrical 1 Shell

378254 s03 S Bead Convexo-cylin 6 Shell

378254 s04 S Bead Spherical 1 Shell

378254 s05 S Bead Convexo-cylin-columella 1 Shell

378254 s06 S Bead Convexo-cylin-columella 1 Shell

378255 s01 S Bead Disc 1

378255 s02 S Bead Disc 1

378255 s03 S Bead Elliptical 2

378255 s04 S Bead Elliptical 1 Pearl

378255 s05 S Bead Elliptical 1 Shell

378256 s01 S Bead Cylindrical 15 Shell

378256 s02 S Bead Elliptical 16 Shell

378256 s03 S Bead Disc 440 Shell

378256 s04 S Bead Disc 278 Shell

378256 s05 S Bead Disc 23 Shell

378256 s06 S Bead Disc 92 Shell

378256 s07 S Bead Elliptical 30 Shell

378256 s08 S Bead Spherical 20 Shell

378257 s01 S Bead Convexo-cylin 61 Shell

378257 s02 S Bead Convexo-cylin 398 Shell

378257 s03 S Bead Convexo-cylin 10 Shell

378257 s04 S Bead Convexo-cylin 5 Shell

378257 s05 S Bead Convexo-cylin 1 Shell

378257 s06 S Bead Spherical 5 Shell

378258 s01 S Bead Bulging 1 Shell

378258 s02 S Bead Bulging 4 Shell

378259 S Bead Concavo-cylin 4 Shell

378260 S Bead Spherical pearl 104 Pearl

378261 L Bead Cylindrical 1 Phosphate

378262 S Gorget Type 1 1 Shell

378263 S Pendant Carved 1

378264 B Pendant Tooth 1 Antler

378265 S Worked frag Inset 1

378266 M Bead Fraudulent-disc 4 Copper

378267 M, T, O Sheet Unclassified 11 Copper

378268 M Pin Fraudulent 2 Copper

378269 L Earspool Unperforated 2 Limestone

378270 L Cube Unmodified 1 Galena

378271 s01 L S Point Unclassified 1 Chert
188 • s m ithsonian cont r i bu tions to anth r o p o l o g y

Catalog Subnumber Material Raw material

number (if any) type Object Style Count (if known)

378271 s02 L S Point Ashley 1 Chert

378271 s03 L S Point Fresno 1 Chert

378271 s04 L S Point Massard 1 Chert

378271 s05 L S Point Unclassified 1 Chert

378272 L L Point Lange 1 Chert

378273 L Scraper Uniface 1 Obsidian

379212 B Awl 1 Os penis

379213 B Awl 1 Long bone

379214 B Pin Tapering 7 Bone

379215 C Pipe Red River 2 Clay

379216 S Bead Concavo-cylin 1

379217 s01 S Bead Disc 5 Shell

379217 s02 S Bead Convexo-cylin 4 Shell

379217 s03 S Bead Concavo-cylin 1 Shell

379218 s01 S Bead Disc 1 Siltstone

379218 s02 L Bead Disc 1 Phosphate

379218 s03 L Bead Disc 1 Sandstone

379218 s04 L Bead Disc 1 Sedimentary

379218 s05 L Bead Disc 1 Sedimentary

379218 s06 L Bead Convexo-cylin 1 Phosphate 

sphericalate

379218 s07 L Bead Disc 1 Sedimentary

379218 s08 L Bead Disc 1 Sedimentary

386185 s01 T, M Basket Twill 1 Wicker

386186 T Basketry Twill 1

386187 s01 T Cloth Tapestry 1

386188 s01 T, O Cordage Strand 2 Hair

386188 s02 T, O Cloth Wrapped warp 3 Feather

386188 s03 T, O Cordage Tapestry 1 Hair

386188 s04 T, O Sample Slide 1 Feather

397718 s01 S Bead Convexo-cylin 106

397718 s02 S Bead Disc 105

397719 M Pin Fraudulent 2 Copper

407190 S Shell cast 1 Plaster

417938 s01 C Sherd Williams Plain 10 Clay

417938 s02 C Sherd Leflore Plain 5 Clay

417938 s03 C Sherd Sanders Plain 1 Clay

417938 s04 C Sherd Woodward Plain 3 Clay

417938 s05 L Pipe Unclassified 1 Sandstone

417939 s01 L Lg Biface Ovoid A 1 Chert

417939 s02 L L Point Gary 1 Chert

417940 L Mano Pitted 1 Sandstone

417941 S Bead Disc 1 Shell

423144 C Vessel Smithport Plain 1 Clay

423145 C Vessel Redware-Coles Creek variation 1 Clay

423146 C Vessel Sanders Plain 1 Clay

423147 C Vessel Crockett Curvilinear Incised 1 Clay

423148 C Vessel White Engraved 1 Clay

423149 L Vessel Effigy 1 Marble

423150 L Vessel Effigy 1 Marble

423151 s01 C Sherd Sanders Plain 1 Clay

423151 s02 C Sherd Sanders Plain 1 Clay

423151 s03 C Sherd Williams Plain 1 Clay

423151 s04 C Sherd Sanders Plain 1 Clay

423151 s05 C Sherd Undesig. Plain Grog 1 Clay

423151 s06 C Sherd Williams Plain 1 Clay

423151 s07 C Sherd Southwestern 6 Clay

423151 s08 C Sherd Unclassified 3 Clay

423151 s09 C Sherd Polychrome 1 Clay

423151 s10 C Sherd Glazed 1 Clay

423152 L Pipe Effigy-Irregular 1 Catlinite
number 49 • 18 9

Catalog Subnumber Material Raw material

number (if any) type Object Style Count (if known)

(continued)

423154 L Pipe T-shaped, cylindrical bowl or 1 Siltstone/

  Chandler sandstone

423155 s01 L Pipe T unclassified 1 Siltstone

423155 s02 C Pipe Unclassified 1 Clay

423155 s03 L Pipe T-shaped, unclassified 1 Siltstone

423155 s04 L Pipe T-shaped, unclassified 1 Siltstone

423156 L Pipe Elbow 1 Siltstone

423157 L Pipe T-shaped, cylindrical bowl 1 Siltstone

423158 L Pipe T-shaped, cylindrical bowl 3 Siltstone

423159 L Pipe T-shaped, cylindrical/contracting 1 Siltstone

423160 L Pipe Effigy 1 Limestone

423161 L Earspool Perforated 1 Sandstone

423162 L Earspool Perforated 1 Sandstone

423163 L Earspool Perforated 1 Sandstone

423164 L Earspool Perforated 1 Limestone

423165 L Earspool Divided flange 1 Limestone

423166 L Pendant Center perforated 1 Siltstone

423167 L Pendant Perforated at end 1 Coal

423168 L Pendant Perforated at end 1 Chert

423169 s01 L Bead Cylindrical 1 Phosphate

423169 s02 S Bead Convexo-cylin 1 Shell

423169 s03 S Bead Convexo-cylin 1 Shell

423169 s04 S Bead Convexo-cylin 1 Shell

423169 s05 L Bead Convexo Disc 1 Phosphate

423170 s01 L Lg Biface Celt form 1 Novaculite

423170 s02 L Lg Biface Celt form 1 Novaculite

423170 s03 L Lg Biface Celt form 1 Chert

423171 L Lg Biface Fusi-elliptical or Ramey 1 Quartzite

423172 s01 L Lg Biface Sword form, Duck River 1 Chert

423173 L Lg Biface Celt 1 Chert

423174 s01 L Lg Biface Sword form, general 1 Chert

423174 s02 L Lg Biface Hoe 1 Chert

423174 s03 L Lg Biface Sword form, general 1 Chert

423174 s04 L Lg Biface Sword form, Duck River 1 Chert

423174 s05 L Lg Biface Sword form, Duck River 1 Chert

423174 s06 L Lg Biface Unclassified 1 Chert

423174 s07 L Lg Biface Sword form, Duck River 1 Chert

423174 s08 L Lg Biface Sword form, Duck River 1 Chert

423175 s01 L L Point Lange 1 Chert

423175 s02 L Lg Biface Kay (like) 1 Chert

423176 L L Point Lange 1 Chert

423177 L Lg Biface Unclassified 1 Chert

423178 L Lg Biface Ovoid A 1 Chert

423179 L Lg Biface Ovoid irregular 1 Novaculite

423180 L Lg Biface Preform 1 Novaculite

423181 s01 L S Point Agee 1 Novaculite

423181 s02 L S Point Massard 1 Novaculite

423182 s01 L S Point Agee 1 Novaculite

423182 s02 L S Point Agee 1 Novaculite

423182 s03 L S Point Agee 1 Novaculite

423183 s01 L S Point Massard 1 Chert

423183 s02 L S Point Reed 1 Chert

423183 s03 L S Point Massard 1 Calcedony

423184 L S Point Sequoyah 1 Novaculite

423185 s01 L S Point Agee 1 Chert

423185 s02 L S Point Morris 1 Chert

423186 L S Point Agee 1 Novaculite

423187 L S Point Ashley Chocoville 1 Chert

423188 L S Point Agee 1 Quartz crystal

423189 L L Point Johnson 1 Chert

423190 s01 L L Point Unclassified side notch 1 Chert
190 • s m ithsonian cont r i bu tions to anth r o p o l o g y

Catalog Subnumber Material Raw material

number (if any) type Object Style Count (if known)

423190 s02 L L Point Expanding B 1 Chert

423191 s01 L Drill Expanding 1 Novaculite

423191 s02 L S Point Uniface 1 Chert

423191 s03 L Lg Biface Sword form 1 Siltstone

423191 s04 L Uniface Projection 1 Quartz crystal

423192 s01 L S Point Agee 1 Novaculite

423192 s02 L S Point Agee 1 Novaculite

423192 s03 L S Point Agee 1 Chert

423192 s04 L S Point Agee 1 Chert

423192 s05 L S Point Agee 1 Unknown

423192 s06 L S Point Agee 1 Chert

423192 s07 L S Point Agee 1 Chert

423192 s08 L S Point Agee 1 Jasper

423192 s09 L S Point Agee 1 Chert

423192 s10 L S Point Scallorn 1 Chert

423192 s11 L S Point Scallorn 1 Novaculite

423192 s12 L S Point Scallorn 1 Chert

423192 s13 L S Point Unclassified corner notch 1 Chert

423192 s14 L S Point Unclassified corner notch 1 Chert

423192 s15 L S Point Unclassified corner notch 1 Chert

423192 s16 L S Point Maud 1 Chert

423192 s17 L S Point Ashley 1 Chert

423192 s18 L S Point Ashley 1 Jasper

423192 s19 L S Point Hayes 1 Jasper

423192 s20 L S Point Hayes 1 Jasper (banded)

423192 s21 L S Point Hayes 1 Chert

423192 s22 L S Point Hayes 1 Jasper

423192 s23 L S Point Alba 1 Chert

423192 s24 L S Point Perdiz 1 Chert

423192 s25 L S Point Perdiz 1 Chert

423192 s26 L S Point Perdiz 1 Chert

423192 s27 L S Point Perdiz 1 Chert

423192 s28 L S Point Perdiz 1 Chert

423192 s29 L S Point Perdiz 1 Chert

423192 s30 L S Point Bonham Tahlequah 1 Chert

423192 s31 L S Point Alba 1 Chert

423192 s32 L S Point Hayes 1 Chert

423192 s33 L S Point Hayes 1 Jasper

423192 s34 L S Point Ashley 1 Novaculite

423192 s35 L S Point Hayes 1 Chert

423192 s36 L S Point Martindale 1 Chert

423192 s37 L S Point Haskell 1 Chert

423192 s38 L S Point Washita Peno 1 Chert

423192 s39 L S Point Scallorn 1 Novaculite

423192 s40 L S Point Reed/Keota variety 1 Novaculite/

chert

423192 s41 L S Point Massard 1 Chert

423192 s42 L S Point Massard 1 Chert

423192 s43 L S Point Scallorn 1 Chert

423192 s44 L S Point Reed/Keota variety 1 Novaculite

423192 s45 L S Point Reed/Keota variety 1 Chert

423192 s46 L S Point Reed 1 Chert

423192 s47 L S Point Reed 1 Chert

423192 s48 L S Point Reed 1 Chert

423192 s49 L S Point Keota 1 Chert

423192 s50 L S Point Reed 1 Chert

423192 s51 L S Point Reed/Keota variety 1 Chert

423192 s52 L S Point Reed 1 Novaculite

423192 s53 L S Point Reed 1 Novaculite

423192 s54 L S Point Scallorn 1 Chert

423192 s55 L S Point Reed/Keota variety 1 Chert
number 49 • 19 1

Catalog Subnumber Material Raw material

number (if any) type Object Style Count (if known)

(continued)

423192 s56 L S Point Keota 1 Chert

423192 s57 L S Point Reed 1 Chert

423192 s58 L S Point Reed 1 Chert

423192 s59 L S Point Scallorn 1 Chert

423192 s60 L S Point Scallorn 1 Chert

423192 s61 L S Point Collier 1 Novaculite

423192 s62 L S Point Keota 1 Chert

423192 s63 L S Point Scallorn 1 Chert

423192 s64 L S Point Reed/Keota variety 1 Novaculite

423192 s65 L S Point Reed/Keota variety 1 Chert

423192 s66 L S Point Reed/Keota variety 1 Novaculite

423192 s67 L S Point Reed/Keota variety 1 Novaculite

423192 s68 L S Point Keota 1 Chert

423192 s69 L S Point Reed/Keota variety 1 Chert

423192 s70 L S Point Alba 1 Chert

423192 s71 L S Point Reed/Keota variety 1 Chert

423193 s01 L Drill Unclassified 1 Chert

423193 s02 L Drill Expanding 1 Chert

423194 L Celt Shouldered spade 1 Chert

423195 L Mace Type 5 1 Chert

423196 L Mace Unclassified 1 Chert

423197 L Mace Type 2 1 Chert

423198 L Mace Type 1 1 Chert

423200 L Celt Unclassified 1 Sedimentary

423201 L Celt Elongate 1 Sedimentary

423202 L Abrader Polishing stone 1 Hematite

423203 L Abrader Polishing stone 1 Quartzite

423204 L Mano Pitted 1 Quartzite

423205 L Abrader Sharpener 1 Sandstone

423206 L Abrader Shaft abrader 1 Igneous?

423207 s01 L Galena Nodule 1 Galena

423207 s02 L Galena Nodule 1 Galena

423207 s03 L Galena Nodule 1 Galena

423207 s04 L Galena Worked 1 Galena

423208 L Quartz Unmodified 1 Quartz crystal

423209 s01 O Pigment Worked a

 Ocher

423209 s02 O Pigment Chunk 1 Ocher

423210 L Slag Unmodified 1 Ash/bone/glass

423211 L Quartz Crystal 1 Quartz crystal

423212 L Mineral lump 1 Micac. sandstone

423213 L Pigment Powder 1 Ocher

423214 L Pigment Unmodified 15 Glauconite

423215 L Mica Worked 3 Mica

423216 M Bead Fraudulent-disc 20 Copper

423217 M Pin Fraudulent 4 Copper

423218 s01 M Sheet Plume? 1 Copper

423218 s02 M Sheet Unclassified 9 Copper

423219 M, T Sheet Unclassified 3 Copper

423220 M Sheet Unclassified 1 Copper

423221 s01 M Sheet Perforated 1 Copper

423221 s02 M Sheet Perforated 5 Copper

423221 s03 B Sheet Perforated 2 Bone

423221 s04 M Sheet Embossed 12 Copper

423222 M Sheet Embossed 70 Copper

423223 M, T Sheet 1 Copper

423224 s01.1 M, T, S Sheet Composites 6 Copper

423224 s01.2 M, T, S Basket Twill 5 Wicker

423225 s01 M, T Sheet Unclassified 10 Copper

423225 s02 M, T Sheet Unclassified 4 Copper

423226 s01.1 M Composite Disc 1 Copper

423226 s01.2 S Bead Disc 1 Shell
192 • s m ithsonian cont r i bu tions to anth r o p o l o g y

Catalog Subnumber Material Raw material

number (if any) type Object Style Count (if known)

423227 s01.1 M, T, S, W Composite Unclassified 6 Copper

423227 s01.2 S Bead Columella 3 Shell

423227 s01.3 T Mat Twill 1 Wicker

423227 s01.4 T Cordage 2 ply Z-twist 1 Fiber

423228 s01 S Cup Unengraved 1 Univalve

423228 s02 S Cup Unengraved 1 Univalve

423228 s03 S Cup Unengraved 1 Univalve

423228 s04 S Cup Unengraved 1 Univalve

423228 s05 S Cup Unengraved 1 Univalve

423228 s06 S Cup Unengraved 1 Univalve

423228 s07 S Cup Unengraved 1 Univalve

423228 s08 S Cup Unengraved 1 Univalve

423228 s09 S Cup Unengraved 1 Univalve

423228 s10 S Cup Unengraved 1 Univalve

423228 s11 S Cup Unengraved 1 Univalve

423228 s12 S Cup Unengraved 1 Univalve

423228 s13 S Cup Unengraved 1 Univalve

423228 s14 S Cup Unengraved 1 Univalve

423228 s15 S Cup Unengraved 1 Univalve

423228 s16 S Cup Unengraved 1 Univalve

423228 s17 S Cup Unengraved 1 Univalve

423228 s18 S Cup Unengraved 1 Univalve

423228 s19 S Cup Unengraved 1 Univalve

423228 s20 S Cup Unengraved 1 Univalve

423228 s21 S Cup Unengraved 1 Univalve

423228 s22 S Cup Unengraved 1 Univalve

423228 s23 S Cup Unengraved 1 Univalve

423228 s24 S Cup Unengraved 1 Univalve

423228 s25 S Cup Unengraved 1 Univalve

423228 s26 S Cup Unengraved 1 Univalve

423228 s27 S Cup Unengraved 1 Univalve

423228 s28 S Cup Unengraved 1 Univalve

423228 s29 S Cup Unengraved 1 Univalve

423228 s30 S Cup Unengraved 1 Univalve

423228 s31 S Cup Unengraved 1 Univalve

423229 s01 S Cup Unengraved 4 Univalve

423229 s02 S Cup Unengraved 1 Shell

423230 s01 S Cup Unengraved 1 Shell

423230 s02 S Cup Unengraved 1 Shell

423231 S Pendant Drop 1 Shell

423232 s01 S, T Cup Unengraved 1 Univalve

423232 s02 S, T Cup Unengraved 1 Univalve

423232 s03 S Cup Unengraved-sculptured 1 Univalve

423232 s04 S, T Cup Unengraved 1 Univalve

423233 s01.1 S, T Cup Unengraved 1 Univalve

423233 s01.2 S, T Cordage 2-ply Z-twist 1

423234 S Cup Craig C 1 Univalve

423235 S Cup Braden B 1 Univalve

423236 S Cup Craig B 1 Univalve

423237 S Cup Braden C 1 Univalve

423238 S Cup Craig C 1 Univalve

423239 S Cup Craig C 1 Univalve

423240 S Cup Braden C 1 Univalve

423241 S Cup Craig C 1 Univalve

423242 S Cup Braden C 1 Univalve

423243 S Cup Craig C 1 Univalve

423244 S Cup Braden C 1 Univalve

423245 S Cup Craig C 1 Univalve

423246 S Cup Craig C 1 Univalve

423247 S Cup Craig C 1 Univalve

423248 S Cup Craig B 1 Univalve
number 49 • 19 3

Catalog Subnumber Material Raw material

number (if any) type Object Style Count (if known)

(continued)

423249 S Cup Braden B 1 Univalve

423250 S Cup Braden C 1 Univalve

423251 S Cup Craig B 2 Univalve

423252 S Cup Braden C 1 Univalve

423253 S Cup Craig C 1 Univalve

423254 S Cup Craig B 1 Univalve

423255 s01 S Cup Craig B 1 Univalve

423256 S Cup Craig C 1 Univalve

423257 S Cup Braden B 2 Univalve

423258 S Cup Craig B 2 Univalve

423259 S Cup Braden C 2 Univalve

423260 S Cup Braden B 1 Univalve

423261 S Cup Craig B 1 Univalve

423262 S Cup Craig C 1 Univalve

423263 S Cup Braden B 1 Univalve

423264 S Cup Craig B 2 Univalve

423266 S Cup Braden B 1 Shell

423267 S Cup Craig C 1 Univalve

423268 S Cup Unclassified 1 Univalve

423269 S Cup Braden C 1 Univalve

423270 S Cup Craig B 1 Univalve 

423271 S Cup Craig B 1 Univalve

423273 S Cup Craig C 1 Univalve

423274 S Cup Braden A 1 Univalve

423276 S Cup Craig B 1 Univalve

423277 S Cup Braden B 1 Univalve

423279 S Cup Craig A 5 Univalve

423281 S Cup Braden B 2 Univalve 

423282 S Cup Craig C 1 Univalve 

423283 S Cup Craig C 1 Univalve 

423284 S Cup Craig B 1 Univalve

423285 S Cup Unclassified 1 Univalve

423287 S Cup Craig B 2 Univalve 

423288 S Cup Craig A 1 Univalve

423289 S Cup Craig B 1 Univalve

423290 S Cup Craig B 2 Univalve 

423291 S Cup Braden B 2 Univalve

423292 S Gorget Craig B, type 1 2 Univalve 

423293 S Gorget Craig A, type 2 1 Univalve 

423294 S Gorget Type 5 1 Univalve 

423295 S Gorget-mask Type 7 3 Shell

423296 S Cup Craig A 3 Univalve

423298 s01 S Cameo Maskette 1 Shell

423299 S Cameo Maskette 1 Shell

423300 S Cameo Maskette 1 Shell

423301 S Cameo Maskette 1 Shell

423302 s01 S Worked shell Unengraved 1 Univalve

423302 s02 S Object Unmodified 1 Shell

423303 S, B Bead Disc 3 Shell

423304 S Barnacle Unmodified 1 Shell

423305 s01 S Pendant Columella 1 Shell

423305 s02 S Pendant Columella 1 Shell

423305 s03 S Pendant Columella 1 Shell

423305 s04 S Pendant Columella 1 Shell

423305 s05 S Pendant Columella 1 Shell

423305 s06 S Pendant Columella 1 Shell

423305 s07 S Pendant Columella 1 Shell

423305 s08 S Bead Disc 6 Shell

423305 s09 S Pendant Columella 1 Shell

423305 s10 S Pendant Columella 1 Shell

423305 s11 S Pendant Columella 1 Shell
194 • s m ithsonian cont r i bu tions to anth r o p o l o g y

Catalog Subnumber Material Raw material

number (if any) type Object Style Count (if known)

423305 s12 S Pendant Columella 1 Shell

423305 s13 S Pendant Columella 1 Shell

423305 s14 S Pendant Columella 1 Shell

423305 s15 S Pendant Columella 1 Shell

423305 s16 S Pendant Columella 1 Shell

423305 s17 S Pendant Columella 1 Shell

423305 s18 S Pendant Columella 1 Shell

423305 s19 S Pendant Columella 1 Shell

423305 s20 S Pendant Columella 1 Shell

423305 s21 S Pendant Columella 1 Shell

423305 s22 S Pendant Columella 1 Shell

423306 s01 S, M Bead Spherical 1 Shell

423306 s02 S Bead Disc 1 Shell

423307 s01.1 S, T Bead Elliptical 7 Shell

423307 s01.2 T Cordage 2-ply S-twist 1 Fiber

423308 s01 S Gorget Type 9 1 Univalve

423308 s02 S Bead Disc 31 Shell

423308 s03 S Bead Baroque 1 Pearl

423308 s04 S Sediment 1 Unknown

423309 s01 S Bead Disc 31 Shell

423309 s02 S Bead Disc 1,020 Shell

423310 S Bead Disc 2 Shell

423311 S Bead Convexo disc 2 Shell

423312 S Disk Disc 1 Shell

423313 S Bead Concavo disc 64 Shell

423314 s01 S Bead Spherical-columella 23 Shell

423314 s02 S Bead Spherical-columella 48 Shell

423315 S Bead Spherical 1 Shell

423316 s01 S Bead Cylindrical 478 Shell

423316 s02 S Bead Cylindrical 36 Shell

423317 s01 S Bead Convexo-cylin 81 Shell

423317 s02 S Bead Disc 13 Shell

423318 s01 S Bead Concavo 117 Shell

423318 s02 S Bead Convexo-cylin 5 Shell

423319 S Bead Concavo 6 Shell

423320 S Bead Convexo-cylin 16 Shell

423321 S Bead Convexo-cowed 53 Shell

423322 S Bead Convexo-cylin-columella 8 Shell

423323 s01 S Bead Convexo-cylin-sculptured 1 Univalve

423323 s02 S Bead Convexo-cylin-columella 2 Shell

423324 s01 S Bead Convexo-cylin 42 Shell

423324 s02 S Bead Disc 42 Shell

423324 s03 S Bead Olivella 1 Shell

423325 s01 S Bead Disc 52 Shell

423325 s02 S Bead Convexo-bowed 2 Shell

423325 s03 S Bead Convexo-cylin-columella 1 Univalve

423325 s04 S Bead Convexo-cylin 17 Shell

423325 s05 S Bead Concavo 1 Shell

423325 s06 S Bead Spherical-columella 2 Univalve

423325 s07 S Bead Disc 6 Shell

423325 s08 S Bead Spherical 12 Shell

423325 s09 S Bead Olivella 2 Shell

423326 s01 S Bead Concavo 4 Shell

423326 s02 S Bead Convexo-bowed 6 Shell

423326 s03 S Bead Convexo-cylin-columella 1 Univalve

423326 s04 S Bead Spherical-columella 2 Univalve

423326 s05 S Bead Spherical 7 Shell

423326 s06 S Bead Convexo-cylin-columella 9 Univalve

423326 s07 S Bead Convexo-cylin-columella 55 Univalve

423327 S Bead Bulging 108 Shell

423328 S Bead Bulging-columella 1 Univalve
number 49 • 19 5

Catalog Subnumber Material Raw material

number (if any) type Object Style Count (if known)

(continued)

423329 s01 S Bead Tooth 3 Shell

423329 s02 S Bead Convexo disc 1 Shell

423329 s03 S Bead Elliptical 3 Shell

423329 s04 S Bead Spherical 1 Shell

423330 s01 S Bead Disc 5,715 Shell

423330 s02 S Bead Convexo-cylin 1,545 Shell

423330 s03 S Bead Spherical 28 Shell

423330 s04 S Bead Spherical pearl 2 Pearl

423330 s05 S Bead Olivella 4 Shell

423330 s06 B, W, O Sediment 30 Bone

423330 s07 S Bead Marginella 1 Shell

423330 s08 S Bead Elliptical 5 Shell

423331 s01 S Bead Olivella 2,750 Shell

423331 s02 O Sediment 1 Soil/bone/

wood

423331 s03 L Galena Nodule 1,400 Galena

423331 s04 S Bead Disc 980 Shell

423331 s05 S Bead Disc-thin 96 Shell

423331 s06 S Bead Convexo-cylin 4 Shell

423331 s07 S Bead Cylindrical 55 Shell

423331 s08 L Mica Unmodified 3 Mica

423331 s09 L Quartz Unmodified 32 Quartz

423332 S Bead Spherical pearl 94 Pearl

423333 S Bead Spherical pearl 8 Pearl

423334 S Bead Spherical pearl 99 Pearl

423335 S Bead Baroque 10 Pearl 

423336 S Bead Spherical pearl 5 Pearl

423337 s01 S Bead Spherical pearl 18 Pearl

423337 s02 S Bead Convexo-cylin-sculptured 2 Pearl

423337 s03 S Bead Tooth 1 Pearl

423338 S Bead Baroque 63 Pearl 

423339 S Bead Baroque 118 Pearl

423340 S Bead Baroque 1 Pearl

423341 B Pendant Drop 1 Bird

423342 B Pin Tapering 1 Bone

423343 B Gorget Irregular 1 Scapula 

423344–

423351 b 

423352 s01 T Cloth Spaced weft twining 1 Hair

423352 s02 T Cordage Fiber 1 Hair

423352 s03 T Cordage Braid-tassel 1 Hair

423352 s04 T Cordage Strand 1

423353 s01 T Cloth mantle Spaced weft twining 1 Hair

423353 s02 T Sample Slide 1

423354 s01 T Cloth mantle Spaced weft twining 1 Hair

423354 s02 T Cordage Strand 1 Hair

423354 s03 T Sample Slide 1

423355 T Cloth mantle Spaced weft twining 1 Hair

423356 s01 T Cloth Spaced weft twining 1 Hair

423356 s02 T Cloth Spaced weft twining 1 Hair

423356 s03 T Cordage Strand 1 Hair

423357 s01 T Cloth Spaced weft twining 1 Hair

423357 s02 T Cordage Strand 1 Hair

423358 s01 T Cloth Simple weave 1 Hair

423358 s02 T Cordage Strand 1 Hair

423358 s03 T Cordage Strand 1 Hair 

423358 s04 T Sample 2

423359 T Cloth Spaced weft twining 1 Hair

423360 T Cloth bundle Spaced weft twining 1 Hair

423360 s02 T Sample Slide 1

423361 T Cloth bundle Spaced weft twining 1 Hair
196 • s m ithsonian cont r i bu tions to anth r o p o l o g y

Catalog Subnumber Material Raw material

number (if any) type Object Style Count (if known)

423362 T Cloth bundle Spaced weft twining 1

423363 s01 T Cloth bundle Spaced weft twining 1

423363 s02 T Sample Slide 1

423364 T Cloth bundle Spaced weft twining 2 Hair

423365 T Cloth bundle Wrapped warp 6 Feather

423366 T Bundle Spaced weft twining 5

423367 s01 T Cloth bundle Wrapped warp 1 Feather

423367 s02 T Cloth bundle Wrapped warp 1 Feather

423367 s03 T Cloth bundle Spaced weft twining 1 Hair

423367 s04 T Cloth bundle Wrapped warp 1 Feather

423367 s05 T Sample Strand 1

423367 s06 T Cloth Unclassified 2

423367 s07 T Cloth Spaced weft twining 1

423368 s01 T Cloth Spaced weft/wrapped warp 6

423368 s02 T Cloth Wrapped warp 6 Feather

423369 s01 T Cloth Wrapped warp 8 Feather

423369 s02 T Cloth Spaced weft twining 6

423369 s03 T Cloth Spaced weft twining 7 Vegetal

423369 s04 T Cloth Spaced weft twining 2 Hair

423369 s05 T Cordage Braid-tassel 2 Hair?

423369 s06 T Cloth Wrapped warp 2 Feather

423370 s01 T Cloth Wrapped warp 2 Feather

423370 s02 T, O Cordage, cloth Wrapped warp, braid 8 Feather

423371 s01 T Cloth Wrapped warp 8 Feather

423371 s02 T Cloth Wrapped warp 9 Feather

423371 s03 T Cloth Wrapped warp 8 Feather

423372 s01 T Cloth Tapestry 1 Hair

423372 s02 T Cloth Tapestry 2 Feather

423372 s03 T Cordage Wrapped basketry 1 Hair

423372 s04 T Cloth Tapestry 2

423372 s05 T Cloth Tapestry, wrapped warp 9 Hair

423372 s06 T Cordage Wrapped basketry 3 Hair

423372 s07 T Cloth Wrapped warp 1 Feather

423372 s08 T Cloth Tapestry 2 Hair

423372 s09 T Cloth Spaced weft twining 1 Hair

423372 s10 T Cloth Wrapped warp 1 Feather

423372 s11 T Cloth Tapestry 2 Hair

423372 s12 T Cloth Tapestry 1 Hair

423372 s13 T Cloth Tapestry 1 Hair

423372 s14 T Sample 1 Hair

423373 s01 T Cloth Tapestry 1 Hair

423373 s02 T Cloth Tapestry 1

423373 s03 T Cloth Tapestry 5 Hair

423373 s04 T Cloth Tapestry 3 Hair

423373 s05 T Cloth Tapestry 2 Hair

423373 s06 T Cordage Tapestry, wrapped warp 1

423373 s07 T Cloth Tapestry 4 Hair

423373 s08 T Cloth Tapestry 3 Hair

423373 s09 T Sample Slide 1

423373 s10 T Cloth Tapestry 4 Hair

423373 s11 T Cloth, cordage Tapestry, braid 5 Hair

423373 s12 T Cloth Tapestry 2 Hair

423373 s13 T Cloth Tapestry 1 Hair

423373 s14 T Cloth Tapestry 1 Hair

423373 s15 T Cloth Tapestry 1 Hair

423373 s16 T Cloth Tapestry 1 Hair

423373 s17 T Cloth Tapestry 2 Hair

423373 s18 T Cloth Tapestry 2 Hair

423373 s19 T Cloth Braid, tapestry 1 Hair

423373 s20 T Sample Slide 1

423373 s21 T Cloth Tapestry 1 Hair
number 49 • 19 7

Catalog Subnumber Material Raw material

number (if any) type Object Style Count (if known)

(continued)

423373 s22 T Textile Wrapped warp barrel-shaped 1 Hair

423373 s23 T Cloth Wrapped warp 3 Feather

423373 s24 T Cloth Tapestry 1 Hair

423373 s25 T Cloth Tapestry 2 Hair

423373 s26 T Cloth Tapestry 1 Hair

423373 s27 T Cloth Tapestry 1 Hair

423374 s01 T Cloth Wrapped warp 10 Feather

423374 s02 T Cordage Braid 3 Hair?

423375 T Cordage Strand 2

423376 s01 T Cordage 2-ply Z-twist 5

423376 s02 O Hide 1

423377 s01 T Cordage Strand 12

423377 s02 T Sample Slide 2

423378 s01 T, S Cloth Wrapped warp, tapestry 9 Hair

423378 s02 T Cloth Wrapped warp, braid 3 Hair

423378 s03 T Cordage Strand 1

423378 s04 S Bead Spherical pearl 4 Pearl

423378 s05 S Powder Unmodified 1 Lime

423378 s06 S Cup Unclassified 1 Shell

423378 s07 S Bead Convexo-cylin 13 Shell

423378 s08 S Bead Disc a

 Shell

423378 s09 S Bead Convexo-cylin a

423378 s10 S Bead Convexo-bowed 10

423378 s11 M, O Hide Leather 3 Copper

423379 T Cloth Tapestry 1 Vegetal

423380 T Cloth Spaced weft twining 6 Hair?

423381 T, W Cordage 2-ply Z–twist 1

423382 T Cordage-rope Braid 14 Possibly hair

423383 T Cordage Loose fibers 1

423384 T, M Cordage Braid 2 Hair

423385 T, M Basketry Matting 3

423386 T Basketry Twill 1

423387 T Basketry Twill 1

423388 T Basketry Twill 3

423389 T Basketry Coil 1

423390 T Basketry Coil 1

423391 W Point Ceremonial 1

423392 W Ornament Worked 1 Cedar

423393 W Ornament Worked 1

423394 W, M Stick Variety 3 Cedar

423395 W Stick Unmodified 1 Cedar

423396 W Charcoal Unmodified 7 Cedar

423397 W Stick Unmodified 20 Cedar

423398 W Pole Unmodified 1 Cedar

423399 W Pole ST 1 Cedar

423400 W Pole Taper 1 Cedar

423401 W Pole Taper 1 Cedar

448641 s01 C Vessel Sanders Plain–Old Town Red 6 Clay

448641 s02 C Vessel Sanders Plain–Old Town Red 11 Clay

448641 s03 C Vessel Sanders Plain–Old Town Red 3 Clay

448641 s04 C Vessel Sanders Plain–Old Town Red 4 Clay

448641 s05 C Sherd Sanders Plain–Old Town Red 2 Clay

448641 s06 C Sherd Sanders Plain–Old Town Red 6 Clay

448641 s07 C Sherd Sanders Plain 9 Clay

448641 s08 C Sherd Sanders Plain 8 Clay

448641 s09 C Sherd Sanders Plain 39 Clay

448641 s10 C Sherd Sanders Plain 28 Clay

448641 s11 C Sherd Sanders Plain 1 Clay

448641 s12 C Sherd Sanders Engraved 1 Clay

448641 s13 C Sherd Sanders Engraved 1 Clay

448641 s14 C Sherd Sanders Engraved 1 Clay
198 • s m ithsonian cont r i bu tions to anth r o p o l o g y

Catalog Subnumber Material Raw material

number (if any) type Object Style Count (if known)

448641 s15 C Sherd Sanders Engraved 2 Clay

448641 s16 C Sherd Clement Redware/Sanders 2

448641 s17 C Sherd Sanders Plain 2 Clay

448641 s18 C Sherd Sanders Plain 1 Clay

448641 s19 C Sherd Sanders Plain 1 Clay

448641 s20 C Sherd Sanders Plain 3 Clay

448641 s21 C Sherd Poteau Plain 2 Clay

448641 s22 C Sherd Undesig. grog tempered 2 Clay

448641 s23 C Sherd Poteau Plain 7 Clay

448641 s24 C Sherd Poteau Plain 1 Clay

448641 s25 C Sherd Poteau Plain 4 Clay

448641 s26 C Sherd Poteau Plain 1 Clay

448641 s27 C Sherd Poteau Plain 1 Clay

448641 s28 C Sherd Sanders Plain-Old Town Red 4 Clay

448642 s01 C Sherd Leflore Plain 8 Clay

448642 s02 C Sherd Undesignated grit 1 Clay

448642 s03 C Sherd Undesig. plain 2 Clay

448642 s04 C Sherd Leflore Plain 2 Clay

448642 s05 C Sherd Undesig. grog 3 Clay

448642 s06 C Sherd Leflore Plain 1 Clay

448642 s07 C Sherd Leflore Plain 2 Clay

448642 s08 C Sherd Williams (?) 5 Clay

448642 s09 C Sherd Undesig. plain grog 1 Clay

448642 s10 C Sherd Williams Plain 1 Clay

448642 s11 C Sherd Undesig. grog plain 2 Clay

448642 s12 C Sherd Undesig. shell tempered 2 Clay

448642 s13 C Sherd Undesig. shell tempered 2 Clay

448642 s14 C Sherd Poteau Plain 3 Clay

448642 s15 C Sherd Hatchel Engraved 1 Clay

448642 s16 C Sherd Haley Engraved 1 Clay

448642 s17 C Sherd Pennington Punctate 2 Clay

448642 s18 C Sherd Crockett Curvilinear Incised 1 Clay

448642 s19 C Sherd Friendship Engraved 1 Clay

448642 s20 C Sherd Undesig. engraved 1 Clay

448642 s21 C Sherd Undesig. incised shell 1 Clay

448642 s22 C Sherd Undesig. plain 5 Clay

448643 s01 C Sherd Poteau Plain 10 Clay

448643 s02 C Sherd Poteau Plain 2 Clay

448643 s03 C Sherd Poteau Plain 1 Clay

448643 s04 C Sherd Undesig. grog tempered 5 Clay

448643 s05 C Sherd Woodward Plain 10 Clay

448643 s06 C Sherd Woodward Plain 2 Clay

448643 s07 C Sherd Woodward Plain 1 Clay

448643 s08 C Sherd Effigy 1 Clay

448644 s01 C Sherd Crockett Curvilinear Incised 1 Clay

448644 s02 C Sherd Crockett Curvilinear Incised 1 Clay

448644 s03 C Sherd Unclassified 1 Clay

448645 s01 C Sherd Sanders Plain 2 Clay

448645 s02 C Sherd Crockett Curvilinear Incised 2 Clay

448645 s03 C Sherd Leflore Plain 1 Clay

448645 s04 C Sherd Sanders Engraved 1 Clay

448645 s05 C Sherd Unclassified 1 Clay

448645 s06 C Sherd Williams Plain 1 Clay

448645 s07 C Sherd Undesig. slipped incised 1 Clay

448645 s08 C Sherd Williams Plain 1 Clay

448646 s01 C Sherd Undesig. grit tempered 11

448646 s02 C Sherd Undesig. slipped grog 3

448646 s03 C Sherd Undesig. incised grog 2

448646 s04 C Sherd Poteau Plain 1

448646 s05 C Sherd Undesig. shell tempered 2

448647 C Sherd Red on polished 2 Clay
number 49 • 19 9

Catalog Subnumber Material Raw material

number (if any) type Object Style Count (if known)

(continued)

448648 C Vessel Williams Plain? 2

448649 C Sherd Effigy 1 Clay

448650 s01 L S Point Agee 1 Novaculite

448650 s02 L S Point Rockwall 1 Chert

448650 s03 L S Point Keota 1 Chert

448650 s04 L S Point Sequoyah 1 Chert

448650 s05 L S Point Sequoyah 1 Chert

448650 s06 L S Point Sequoyah 1 Chert

448650 s07 L S Point Haskell 1 Chert

448650 s08 L S Point Morris 1 Chert

448650 s09 L S Point Morris 1 Unclassified

448650 s10 L S Point Agee 1 Chert

448650 s11 L S Point Agee 1 Chert

448650 s12 L S Point Agee 1 Novaculite

448650 s13 L S Point Agee 1 Novaculite

448650 s14 L S Point Hayes Short 1 Novaculite

448650 s15 L S Point Keota 1 Chert

448650 s16 L S Point Unclassified side notch 1 Chert

448650 s17 L S Point Unclassified 1 Chert

448650 s18 L S Point Young 1 Chert

448651 s01 L S Point Edwards 1 Chert

448651 s02 L S Point Massard 1 Chert

448651 s03 L S Point Washita Peno 1 Chert

448651 s04 L S Point Keota 1 Chert

448651 s05 L S Point Collier 1 Chert

448651 s06 L S Point Ashley 1 Novaculite

448651 s07 L S Point Massard 1 Chert

448651 s08 L S Point Alba 1 Novaculite

448651 s09 L S Point Bonham Tahlequah? 1 Chert

448651 s10 L S Point Massard 1 Chert

448651 s11 L S Point Washita Chaffee 1 Chert

448651 s12 L S Point Haskell 1 Chert

448651 s13 L S Point Reed 1 Chert

448651 s14 L S Point Washita Garvin 1 Chert

448651 s15 L S Point Scallorn 1 Chert

448651 s16 L S Point Agee 1 Chert

448651 s17 L S Point Massard 1 Chert

448651 s18 L S Point Haskell 1 Chert

448651 s19 L S Point Hayes 1 Chert

448651 s20 L S Point Coryell 1 Chert

448651 s21 L S Point Massard 1 Chert

448651 s22 L S Point Nodena 1 Chert

448651 s23 L S Point Keota 1 Chert

448651 s24 L S Point Alba 1 Chert

448651 s25 L S Point Alba 1 Jasper

448651 s26 L S Point Fresno 1 Chert

448651 s27 L S Point Reed 1 Chert

448651 s28 L S Point Agee 1 Novaculite

448651 s29 L S Point Collier 1 Chert

448651 s30 L S Point Scallorn 1 Novaculite

448651 s31 L S Point Unclassified 1 Chert

448651 s32 L S Point Alba 1 Novaculite

448651 s33 L S Point Bonham 1 Chert

448651 s34 L S Point Washita Garvin 1 Chert

448651 s35 L S Point Hayes Short 1 Chert

448651 s36 L S Point Agee 1 Chert

448651 s37 L S Point Hayes 1 Chert

448651 s38 L S Point Homan 1 Novaculite

448651 s39 L S Point Alba 1 Novaculite

448651 s40 L S Point Reed 1 Chert

448651 s41 L S Point Unclassified 1 Chert
200 • s m ithsonian cont r i bu tions to anth r o p o l o g y

Catalog Subnumber Material Raw material

number (if any) type Object Style Count (if known)

448651 s42 L S Point Rockwall 1 Chert

448651 s43 L S Point Alba 1 Chert

448651 s44 L S Point Scallorn 1 Chert

448651 s45 L S Point Keota 1 Chert

448651 s46 L S Point Unclassified 1 Chert

448651 s47 L S Point Coryell 1 Chert

448651 s48 L S Point Massard 1 Chert

448651 s49 L S Point Agee 1 Novaculite

448651 s50 L S Point Unclassified corner notch 1 Chert

448651 s51 L S Point Unclassified 1 Chert

448651 s52 L S Point Washita 1 Novaculite

448651 s53 L S Point Keota 1 Novaculite

448651 s54 L S Point Unclassified 1 Chert

448652 s01 L L Point Gary 1 Chert

448652 s02 L L Point Lange 1 Chert

448652 s03 L L Point Gary 1 Chert

448653 L L Point Eccentric 1 Chert

448654 s01 L Lg Biface Unclassified 1 Chert

448654 s02 L Lg Biface Preform 1 Chert

448654 s03 L Lg Biface Preform 1 Novaculite

448654 s04 L Lg Biface Preform 1 Chert

448654 s05 L Lg Biface Preform 1 Chert

448654 s06 L S Point Nodena 1 Chert

448655 L Drill Nonhaft 1 Chert

448656 s01 L Celt Shouldered spade 1 Siltstone

448656 s02 L Celt Shouldered spade 1 Siltstone

448657 L Pipe T-shaped, Chandler 1 Sandstone

448658 L Pipe T-shaped, contracting 1 Siltstone/pipest

448659 L Pipe T-shaped, cylindrical bowl 1 Siltstone

448660 s01 L Pipe T-shaped, cylindrical bowl 1 Siltstone

448660 s02 L Pipe T-shaped, contracting 1 Siltstone

448660 s03 L Pipe T-shaped, cylindrical bowl 1 Siltstone

448661 s01 C Pipe Unclassified 1 Clay

448661 s02 C Pipe T-shaped, unclassified 1 Clay

448661 s03 C Pipe T-shaped, unclassified 1 Clay

448661 s04 C Pipe T-shaped, unclassified 1 Clay

448661 s05 L Pipe T-shaped, unclassified 2 Siltstone

448661 s06 L Sherd Poteau Plain 1 Clay

448662 s01 L Pipe T-shaped, unclassified 1 Limestone

448662 s02 L Pipe T-shaped, unclassified 1 Steatite

448662 s03 L Cone object Unclassified 2 Quartz

448663 L Pipe Effigy 1 Limestone

448664 L Pipe Effigy 1 Limestone

448665 L Pipe Effigy 1 Limestone

448666 L Pipe Effigy 1 Limestone

448667 L Pipe Effigy 1 Sphalerite

448668 L Pipe Effigy 1 Limestone

448669 s01 L Pipe Effigy 1 Limestone

448669 s02 L Sediment None 1 Clay-silt

448670 L Celt Elongate 1 Sedimentary

448671 L Celt Elongate 1 Sedimentary

448672 L Celt Elongate 1 Greenstone

448673 L Celt Spatulate 1 Greenstone

448674 L Celt Perforated spatulate 1 Marble

448675 L Celt Spatulate 1 Coal

448676 s01 L Celt Elongate, small 1 Jasper

448676 s02 L Celt Elongate 1 Igneous

448677 s01 L Atlatl weight Boatstone 1 Greenstone

448677 s02 L Atlatl weight Boatstone 1 Greenstone

448677 s03 L Atlatl weight Boatstone 1 Greenstone

448677 s04 L Atlatl weight Boatstone 1 Greenstone
number 49 • 20 1

Catalog Subnumber Material Raw material

number (if any) type Object Style Count (if known)

(continued)

448678 L Discoidal Chunky 1 Quartzite

448679 L Discoidal Chunky 1 Sedimentary

448680 s01 L Discoidal Chunky 1 Marble

448680 s02 L Discoidal Chunky 1 Sedimentary

448681 L Mano Pitted 1 Sandstone 

448682 L Hammerstone 3 Quartz

448683 s01 L Pebble Worked 1 Quartz

448683 s02 L Pebble Worked 1 Unknown

448683 s03 L Pebble Worked 1 Unknown

448683 s04 L Pendant Perforated end 1 Coal

448683 s05 L Pebble Worked 1 Stone

448684 L Pendant Perforated end 1 Greenstone

448685 L Pendant Perforated end 1 Sandstone

448686 s01 L Pendant Perforated end 1 Phosphate

448686 s02 L Pendant Perforated end 1 Phosphate

448686 s03 S Bead Convexo-cylin 1 Shell

448686 s04 L Bead Convexo-cylin blank 1 Unclassified

448686 s05 L Bead Convexo-cylin blank 1 Unclassified

448686 s06 L Bead Convexo-cylin blank 1 Unclassified

448686 s07 L Bead Elliptical 1 Phosphate

448686 s08 L Bead Cylindrical 1 Phosphate

448686 s09 L Bead Elliptical 1 Phosphate

448686 s10 L Bead Convexo-cylin 1 Phosphate

448686 s11 L Bead Spherical 1 Phosphate

448686 s12 L Bead Elliptical 1 Phosphate

448686 s13 L Bead Spherical 1 Phosphate

448686 s14 L Bead Spherical 1 Phosphate

448686 s15 L Bead Spherical 1 Phosphate

448686 s16 L Bead Spherical 1 Phosphate

448686 s17 L Bead Spherical 1 Phosphate

448686 s18 L Bead Convexo-cylin 1 Phosphate

448687 L Bead Disc 1 Sedimentary

448688 s01 L Flake Secondary 1 Chert

448688 s02 L Flake Blank 1 Chert

448688 s03 L Flake Secondary 1 Chert

448688 s04 L Flake Blank 1 Chert

448689 s01 L Mineral lump 1 Micac. sandstone

448689 s02 L Mineral lump 1 Micac. sandstone

448689 s03 L Mineral lump 1 Micac. sandstone

448689 s04 L Mineral lump 1 Micac. sandstone

448689 s05 L Mineral lump 1 Micac. sandstone

448689 s06 L Mineral lump 1 Micac. sandstone

448689 s07 L Mineral lump 1 Micac. sandstone

448689 s08 L Mineral lump 1 Micac. sandstone

448689 s09 L Mineral lump 1 Micac. sandstone

448690 s01 L Lg Biface Unclassified 1 Unknown

448690 s02 L Celt Unclassified 1 Coal

448690 s03 L Celt Unclassified 1 Coal

448690 s04 L Celt Unclassified 1 Coal

448690 s05 L Celt Spatulate 3 Coal

448690 s06 L Celt Spatulate 2 Coal

448691 s02 L Earspool Perforated 1 Sandstone

448692 L Earspool Perforated 1 Sandstone

448693 L Earspool Perforated 1 Sandstone

448694 L Earspool Perforated 1 Limestone

448695 s01 L Earspool Divided flange 1 Limestone

448695 s02 L Earspool Divided flange 1 Sandstone

448696 C Earspool Perforated 1 Clay

448697 L Earspool Perforated 1 Limestone

448698 s01 L Earspool Perforated 1 Silt/sandstone

448698 s02 L Earspool Perforated 1 Silt/sandstone
202 • s m ithsonian cont r i bu tions to anth r o p o l o g y

Catalog Subnumber Material Raw material

number (if any) type Object Style Count (if known)

448698 s03 L Earspool Perforated 1 Silt/sandstone

448698 s04 L Earspool Perforated 1 Limestone

448698 s05 L Earspool Perforated 1 Siltstone

448698 s06 L Earspool Perforated 1 Sandstone

448698 s07 L Earspool Perforated 1 Siltstone

448698 s08 L, M Earspool Perforated 1 Limestone

448698 s09 L Earspool Perforated 1 Limestone

448698 s10 L Earspool Perforated 1 Limestone

448698 s11 L Earspool Perforated 1 Limestone

448698 s12 L Earspool Perforated 1 Limestone

448698 s13 L Earspool Perforated 1 Limestone

448698 s14 L Earspool Perforated 1 Limestone

448698 s15 L Earspool Perforated 1 Limestone

448698 s16 L Earspool Perforated 1 Limestone

448698 s17 L Earspool Perforated 1 Limestone

448698 s18 L Earspool Perforated 1 Limestone

448698 s19 L Earspool Perforated 1 Limestone

448699 s01 L Earspool Perforated 1 Limestone

448699 s02 L Earspool Nesting 1 Limestone

448699 s03 L Earspool Divided flange 11 Limestone

448699 s04 L, M Earspool Unperforated 1 Limestone

448699 s05 L, M Earspool Unperforated 56 Limestone

448699 s06 L Earspool Perforated 2 Sandstone

448699 s07 L Earspool Unclassified 8 Siltstone

448699 s08 M Earspool Unclassified 5 Copper

448699 s09 L Earspool Divided flange 1 Limestone

448699 s10 L Earspool Divided flange 1 Limestone

448699 s11 L Earspool Divided flange 1 Limestone

448699 s12 L Earspool Unclassified 50 Limestone

448699 s13 L Earspool Divided flange 2 Siltstone

448699 s14 C Sherd Woodward 1 Ceramic

448700 L, M Earspool Unclassified 69 Copper

448702 L Galena Worked 1 Galena

448703 L Galena Worked 1 Galena 

448704 L Galena Worked cube 1 Galena

448705 L Galena Worked 1 Galena

448705 s02 L Galena Nodule 8 Galena

448706 s01.1 L Figure Effigy 1 Galena

448706 s01.2 T Basket impression Unclassified 1 Reed or cane

448707 B Pin Spatulate 1 Bone

448708 s01 B Pin Tapering 15 Bone

448708 s02 B Awl Troughed 6 Bone

448709 B Scraper Unclassified 1 Long bone

448710 B Scraper Unclassified 1 Metapodial

448711 B Tube Hollow 1 Long bone

448712 M Pin Fraudulent 15 Copper

448713 M Bead Fraudulent-disc 11 Copper

448714 s01 M Bead Tubular small 5 Copper

448714 s02 M, T Bead Tubular medium 4 Copper

448714 s03 M, T Bead Tubular medium large 12 Copper

448714 s04 M Bead Tubular large 4 Copper

448714 s05 M, T Bead Tubular large 2 Copper

448714 s06 M, T Bead Tubular medium large 2 Copper

448714 s06.2 T Cordage 2-ply S-twist 1 Fiber

448714 s07.1 M, T, S Bead Tubular medium 3 Copper

448714 s07.2 T Cordage 2-strand 3–ply Z-twist 1 Fiber

448714 s08 T Cordage 3-ply S-twist 1 Fiber

448714 s09 T Cordage 2-ply Z-twist 1 Fiber

448714 s10 M Pin Tapering 6 Copper

448714 s11 M Pin Curved 11 Copper

448715 s01 M Sheet Embossed 5 Copper
number 49 • 20 3

Catalog Subnumber Material Raw material

number (if any) type Object Style Count (if known)

(continued)

448715 s02 M Sheet Embossed 12 Copper

448715 s03 M Sheets Embossed 16 Copper

448715 s04 M Sheets Embossed 14 Copper

448715 s05 M, W Sheets Unclassified 1 Copper

448715 s06 M Sheet Embossed 7 Copper

448715 s07 M, W Sheet Embossed 1 Copper

448715 s08 M Sheet Nonembossed 5 Copper

448715 s09 M, W Sheet Embossed 1 Copper

448715 s10 M Sheet Embossed 3 Copper

448715 s11 M, W Sheet Unclassified 10 Copper

448716 s01 M Sheet Nonembossed 8 Copper

448716 s02 M Sheet Plume? 2 Copper

448717 M Sheet 1 Copper

448718 M Sheet Embossed 77 Copper

448719 s01 S Bead Disc 119 Shell

448719 s02 S Bead Elliptical 3 Shell

448720 S Bead Disc 76 Shell

448721 s01 S Bead Disc 1,400 Shell

448721 s02 S Bead Disc-thin 65 Shell

448721 s03 S Bead Disc-thin-sculptured 1 Shell

448721 s04 L, O Bead Crinoid and seed 2 Fossil

448722 s01 S Bead Variety pearl 321 Pearl

448722 s02 S Bead Baroque 1 Pearl

448723 s01 S Bead Convexo-bowed 85 Shell

448723 s02 S Bead Cylindrical 3 Shell

448723 s03 S Bead Convexo-cylin 5 Shell

448723 s04 S Bead Convexo-cylin 1 Shell

448724 s01 S Bead Convexo-cylin-columella 17 Shell

448724 s02 S Bead Convexo-bowed-large 2 Shell

448724 s03 S Bead Convexo-bowed 1 Shell

448724 s04 S Bead Columella 3 Shell

448725 s01 S Bead Spherical-columella 80 Shell

448725 s02 S Bead Baroque 1 Pearl

448725 s03 S Bead Elliptical 2 Shell

448726 S, M Bead Spherical 3 Shell

448727 S Pendant Grooved drop 1 Shell

448728 s01 S Bead Convexo-cylin 2 Shell

448728 s02 S Bead Convexo-cylin 50 Shell

448728 s03 S Bead Disc 7 Shell

448728 s04 S Bead Baroque 1 Pearl

448728 s05 S Bead Elliptical 7 Shell

448728 s06 S Bead Spherical 17 Shell

448729 S Bead Convexo-cylin 154 Shell

448730 s01 S Bead Bulging-columella 1 Shell

448730 s02 S Bead Bulging 9 Shell

448731 S Bead Concavo 9 Shell

448732 S Bead Tooth 6 Shell

448733 s01 S Bead Gastropod 44 Univalve

448733 s02 S Bead Marginella 3 Univalve

448733 s04 S Bead Gastropod 18 Univalve

448734 S Bead Olivella 2,790 Shell

448735 S Bead Flat circular 2 Shell

448736 S Pendant Gorget-like 1 Shell

448737 s01.1 M, S, T Sheet Embossed 3 Copper

448737 s01.2 S Bead Convexo-cylin-columella 2 Shell

448737 s02 M, S, T Worked shell Unclassified 1 Shell

448737 s03.1 M, S, T Bead Convexo-cylin-columella 1 Shell

448737 s03.2 T Cordage 2-ply S-Twist 1 Fiber

448737 s04 M, S Bead Convexo-cylin-columella 1 Shell

448737 s05 M, S Bead Spherical columella 2 Shell

448737 s06 M, S Bead Convexo-cylin 1 Shell
204 • s m ithsonian cont r i bu tions to anth r o p o l o g y

Catalog Subnumber Material Raw material

number (if any) type Object Style Count (if known)

448737 s07 M, S Bead Convexo-cylin-columella 1 Shell

448737 s08 M, S, T Bead Convexo-cylin 1 Shell

448737 s09 M S Bead Convexo-cylin 3 Shell

448737 s10 M S Bead Convexo-cylin 1 Shell

448737 s11 M S Bead Convexo-cylin-columella 1 Shell

448737 s12 M, S, T Bead Spherical columella 1 Shell

448737 s13 M, T Sheet Unclassified 14 Copper

448738 S Pendant Drop 1 Shell

448739 S Pendant Disc 1 Shell

448740 S Gorget Type 1 1 Shell

448741 S Gorget Type 1, Craig A 1 Shell

448743 S Gorget Mask 1 Shell

448744 S Gorget Type 1, Unclassified 1 Shell

448745 S Worked shell Unclassified 1 Shell

448746 S Gorget Craig B 1 Shell

448747 S Gorget Type 1, Craig A 1 Shell

448748 S Gorget Type 1 1 Shell

448749 S Gorget Type 1, Craig A 2 Shell

448750 S Gorget Type 1, Craig A 2 Shell

448752 S Gorget Type 1, Craig A 1 Shell

448753 S Gorget Type 1, Craig 1 Shell

448755 S Gorget Type 1, Craig 2 Shell

448757 S Gorget Type 2, Unclassified 1 Shell

448758 S Gorget Style 1, Craig A 1 Shell

448759 S Gorget Type ?, Craig 1 Shell

448760 S Gorget Type 1, Craig B 5 Shell

448761 s01.1 S Gorget Type 1, Craig 2 Shell

448761 s01.2 S CUP Braden A 2 Shell

448761 s02.1 S Gorget Type 3, Craig A 2 Shell

448761 s02.2 S Cup Craig A 2 Shell

448762 S, T, M Gorget Type 3, Craig 1 Shell

448763 S Gorget Type 3, Craig 1 Shell

448764 S Worked Shell Plain 2 Shell

448765 S Gorget Type 1, Craig 12 Shell

448766 S Pendant Irregular 1 Shell 

448768 s01 S Bead Olivella 1 Shell

448768 s02 S Bead Convexo-cylin-sculptured 1 Univalve

448769 S Pendant Irregular 1 Shell

448770 S Worked shell Hook 2 Shell

448771 s01 S Disk Plain 1 Shell

448771 s02 S Disk Plain 1 Shell

448772 S Figurine Craig C 1 Shell

448773 S Bead Mask 1 Shell

448774 S Cup Unengraved 1 Univalve

448775 S Worked shell Worked 1 Shell

448776 S Worked shell 1 Bivalve

448777 S Pendant Drop-columella 4 Univalve

448778 s01.1 S, T Pendant Columella 1 Univalve

448778 s01.2 T, S Basketry Twill 2 Wicker, cane 

448779 s01 S Pendant Columella 4 Univalve

448779 s02 S Pendant Columella 4 Univalve

448780 s01 S, L Pendant Columella-sculptured 1 Univalve

448780 s02 S Bead Spherical pearl 1 Pearl

448781 s01 S Pendant Columella 5 Shell

448781 s02 S Pendant Columella 5 Shell

448781 s03 S Pendant Columella 13 Shell

448781 s04 S Pendant Columella 5 Shell

448781 s05 S Pendant Columella 6 Shell

448781 s06 S Pendant Columella 1 Shell

448781 s07 S Pendant Columella 5 Shell

448781 s08 S Pendant Columella 10 Shell
number 49 • 20 5

Catalog Subnumber Material Raw material

number (if any) type Object Style Count (if known)

(continued)

448781 s09 S Pendant Columella 6 Shell

448781 s10 S Pendant Columella 1 Shell

448782 s00 S Cup Unengraved 1 Univalve

448782 s01 S Cup Unengraved 1 Shell

448782 s02 S Cup Unengraved 8 Shell

448782 s03 S Cup Unengraved 14 Shell

448782 s04 S Cup Unengraved 5 Shell

448782 s05 S Cup Unengraved 26 Shell

448782 s06 S Cup Unengraved 1 Shell

448782 s07 S Cup Unengraved 1 Shell

448782 s08 S Cup Unengraved 1 Shell

448782 s09 S Cup Unengraved 1 Shell

448782 s10 S Cup Unengraved 1 Shell

448782 s11 S Cup Unengraved 1 Shell

448782 s12 S Cup Unengraved 1 Shell

448782 s13 S Cup Unengraved 1 Shell

448782 s14 S Cup Unengraved 1 Shell

448782 s15 S Cup Unengraved 1 Shell

448782 s16 S Cup Unengraved 1 Shell

448782 s17 S Cup Unclassified 1 Shell

448782 s18 S Cup Unengraved 1 Shell

448783 S Cup Braden B 1 Univalve

448784 S Cup Craig C 1 Univalve

448785 S Cup Braden B 2 Univalve

448786 S Cup Braden C 1 Univalve

448787 S Cup Craig B 1 Univalve

448788 S Cup Braden B 1 Univalve

448789 S Cup Braden B 1 Univalve

448790 S Cup Braden B 1 Univalve

448791 S Cup Braden A 3 Univalve

448792 S Cup Braden C 1 Univalve

448793 S Cup Braden C 1 Univalve

448794 S Cup Craig C 1 Univalve

448795 S Cup Craig C 1 Univalve

448796 S Cup Craig C 1 Univalve

448797 S Cup Craig C 1 Univalve

448798 S Cup Craig A 1 Univalve

448799 S Cup Craig C 1 Univalve

448800 S Cup Craig C 1 Univalve

448801 S Cup Craig B 1 Univalve

448802 S Cup Craig C 1 Univalve

448803 S Cup Braden B 2 Univalve

448804 S Cup Craig C 1 Univalve

448805 S Cup Braden B 1 Univalve

448806 S Cup Craig B 6 Univalve

448807 S Cup Braden B 8 Univalve

448808 S Cup Craig B 1 Univalve

448809 S Cup Braden C 1 Univalve

448810 S Cup Braden B 1 Univalve

448811 S Cup Braden B 1 Univalve

448812 S Cup Craig C 2 Univalve

448813 S Cup Craig C 1 Univalve

448814 S Cup Craig B 2 Univalve

448815 S Cup Craig A 2 Univalve

448816 S Cup Braden C 5 Univalve

448817 S Cup Craig B 3 Univalve

448818 S Cup Craig B 3 Univalve

448819 S Cup Braden A 2 Univalve

448820 S Cup Braden B 2 Univalve

448821 S Cup Craig B 5 Shell

448822 S Cup Craig C 1 Univalve
206 • s m ithsonian cont r i bu tions to anth r o p o l o g y

Catalog Subnumber Material Raw material

number (if any) type Object Style Count (if known)

448823 S Cup Unclassified 1 Univalve

448824 S Cup Unclassified 1 Univalve

448825 S Cup Craig A 3 Univalve

448826 S Cup Craig B 3 Univalve

448827 S Cup Braden A 3 Univalve

448828 S Cup Braden C 3 Univalve

448829 S Cup Braden A 2 Univalve

448830 S Cup Braden C 2 Univalve

448831 S Cup Craig B 5 Univalve

448832 S Cup Craig C 4 Univalve

448833 S Cup Braden A 2 Univalve

448834 S Cup Craig C 3 Univalve

448835 S Cup Craig C 4 Univalve

448836 S Cup Craig 4 Univalve

448838 S Cup Braden A 2 Univalve

448839 S Cup Craig C 2 Univalve

448840 S Cup Craig B 4 Univalve

448843 S Cup Braden A 1 Univalve

448844 S Cup Braden A 1 Univalve

448845 S Cup Craig B 1 Univalve

448847 S Cup Braden A 2 Univalve

448848 S Cup Craig B 6 Univalve

448849 S Cup Braden A 4 Univalve

448850 s01 S Cup Braden B 2 Univalve

448850 s02 S Cup Craig 1 Univalve

448851 S Cup Craig A 5 Univalve

448852 S Cup Craig B 4 Univalve

448853 s01 S Cup Craig B 3 Univalve

448853 s02 S Cup Craig B 2 Univalve

448853 s03 S Cup Craig B 2 Univalve

448853 s04 S Cup Craig B 3 Univalve

448853 s05 S Cup Craig C 2 Univalve

448854 S Cup Braden C 3 Univalve

448855 S Cup Braden B 1 Univalve

448856 S Cup Braden B 2 Univalve

448857 S Cup Braden B 1 Univalve

448858 s01 S Cup Craig B 3 Univalve

448858 s02 S Cup Craig C 1 Univalve

448858 s03 S Cup Craig C 1 Univalve

448858 s04 S Cup Braden A 2 Univalve

448858 s05 S Cup Craig B 1 Univalve

448858 s06 S Cup Craig A 2 Univalve

448858 s07 S Cup Craig A 2 Univalve

448858 s08 S Cup Craig B 1 Univalve

448858 s09 S Cup Craig B 1 Univalve

448858 s10 S Cup Craig B 3 Univalve

448858 s11 S Cup Various 16 Univalve

448858 s12 S Cup Craig A 3 Univalve

448859 S Cup Craig A 1 Univalve

448860 S Cup Braden A 4 Univalve

448861 s01 S Cup Craig B 4 Univalve

448861 s02 S Cup Braden C 1 Univalve

448861 s03 S Cup Craig B 2 Univalve

448861 s04 S Cup Craig B 1 Univalve

448861 s05 S Cup Braden A 1 Univalve

448861 s06 S Cup Craig A 2 Univalve

448861 s07 S Gorget-mask Craig B 2 Univalve

448862 S Cup Craig A 6 Univalve

448863 S Cup Braden A 1 Univalve

448864 S Cup Braden C 1 Univalve

448865 S Cup Braden A 6 Univalve
number 49 • 20 7

Catalog Subnumber Material Raw material

number (if any) type Object Style Count (if known)

(continued)

448866 s01 S Cup Braden 6 Univalve

448866 s02 S Cup Braden A 3 Univalve

448866 s03 S Cup Craig B 2 Univalve

448866 s04 S Cup Braden A 2 Univalve

448866 s05 S Cup Craig B 4 Univalve

448866 s06 S Cup Braden A 3 Univalve

448866 s07 S Cup Craig B 3 Univalve

448866 s08 S Cup Braden A 1 Univalve

448866 s09 S Cup Craig B 2 Univalve

448866 s10 S Cup Braden A 2 Univalve

448866 s11 S Cup Craig B 7 Univalve

448866 s12 S Cup Braden A 4 Univalve

448867 s01 S Cup Craig B 2 Univalve

448867 s02 S Cup Unclassified 4 Univalve

448867 s03 S Cup Unclassified 5 Univalve

448868 S Cup Braden B 5 Univalve

448869 s01 S Cup Craig various 16 Univalve

448869 s02 S Cup Craig A 2 Univalve

448869 s03 S Cup Craig B 2 Univalve

448870 S Cup Braden B 2 Univalve

448871 s01 S Cup Craig A 5 Univalve

448871 s02 S Cup Braden B 2 Univalve

448871 s03 S Cup Braden A 2 Univalve

448872 S Cup Craig B 4 Univalve

448873 S Cup Craig B 1 Univalve

448874 s01 S Cup Craig B 2 Univalve

448874 s02 S Cup Unclassified 1 Univalve

448874 s03 S Cup Craig A 3 Univalve

448875 s01 S Cup Craig A 2 Univalve

448875 s02 S Cup Craig A 2 Univalve

448875 s03 S Cup Braden B 3 Univalve

448875 s04 S Cup Craig C 2 Univalve

448876 s01 S Cup Braden A 2 Univalve

448876 s02 S Cup Braden A 16 Univalve

448876 s03 S Cup Craig A 1 Univalve

448876 s04 S Cup Braden A 10 Univalve

448877 s01 S Cup Craig C 3 Univalve

448877 s02 S Cup Unclassified 2 Univalve

448877 s03 S Cup Braden 3 Univalve

448877 s04 S Cup Braden A 2 Univalve

448877 s05 S Cup Craig B 2 Univalve

448877 s06 S Cup Braden A 11 Univalve

448877 s07 S Cup Craig B 2 Univalve

448877 s08 S Cup Craig B 2 Univalve

448878 s01 S Cup Craig A 6 Univalve

448878 s02 S Cup Craig A 4 Univalve

448878 s03 S Cup Braden B 3 Univalve

448879 s01 S Cup Craig B 2 Univalve

448879 s02 S Cup Craig B 6 Univalve

448880 s00 S Cup Craig C 2 Univalve

448880 s01 S Cup Braden A 1 Univalve

448880 s02 S Cup Braden A 1 Univalve

448880 s03 S Cup Braden A 2 Univalve

448880 s04 S Cup Craig B 2 Univalve

448880 s05 S Cup Craig A 7 Univalve

448880 s06 S Cup Braden A 1 Univalve

448880 s07 S Cup Craig A 2 Univalve

448880 s08 S Cup Braden A 9 Univalve

448880 s09 S Cup Braden A 1 Univalve

448880 s10 S Cup Braden A 1 Univalve

448880 s11 S Cup Unclassified 2 Univalve
208 • s m ithsonian cont r i bu tions to anth r o p o l o g y

Catalog Subnumber Material Raw material

number (if any) type Object Style Count (if known)

448880 s12 S Cup Braden C 1 Univalve

448880 s13 S Cup Braden B 3 Univalve

448880 s14 S Cup Craig B 2 Univalve

448880 s15 S Cup Braden B 2 Univalve

448880 s16 S Cup Craig C 1 Univalve

448880 s17 S Cup Craig C 1 Univalve

448880 s18 S Cup Craig C 1 Univalve

448880 s19 S Cup Craig C 3 Univalve

448880 s20 S Cup Craig A 4 Univalve

448880 s21 S Cup Craig A 2 Univalve

448880 s22 S Cup Craig B 4 Univalve

448880 s23 S Cup Craig B 6 Univalve

448880 s24 S Cup Craig B 2 Univalve

448880 s25 S Cup Craig A 3 Univalve

448880 s26 S Cup Craig A 6 Univalve

448880 s27 S Cup Braden C 1 Univalve

448880 s28 S Cup Braden B 1 Univalve

448880 s29 S Cup Braden A and B 3 Univalve

448880 s30 S Cup Craig A 4 Univalve

448880 s31 S Cup Braden A 1 Univalve

448880 s32 S Cup Braden B 2 Univalve

448880 s33 S Cup Braden B 1 Univalve

448880 s34 S Cup Unclassified 39 Univalve

448880 s35 S Cup Unclassified 11 Univalve

448880 s36 S Cup Unclassified 14 Univalve

448880 s37 S Cup Craig B 2 Univalve

448880 s38 S Cup Unclassified 9 Univalve

448880 s39 S Cup Craig A 1 Univalve

448880 s40 S Cup Unclassified 4 Univalve

448880 s41 S Cup Craig B 4 Univalve

448880 s42 S Cup Unclassified 10 Univalve

448880 s43 S Cup Unclassified 7 Univalve

448880 s44 S Worked shell Scales 3 Scales

448881 S Cup Unclassified 3 Univalve

448882 S Cup Braden A 1 Univalve

448883 s01 S Cup Unengraved 4 Univalve

448883 s02 S Cup Unengraved 2 Univalve

448883 s03 S Cup Unengraved 15 Univalve

448883 s04 S Cup Unengraved 20 Univalve

448883 s05 S Cup Unengraved 10 Univalve

448883 s06 S Cup Unengraved 12 Univalve

448883 s07 S Cup Unengraved 1 Univalve

448884 S Worked shell Unengraved 1 Univalve

448885 s01 S Worked shell Unengraved 5

448885 s02 S Worked shell Unengraved 1

448885 s03 S Pendant Unengraved 2 Univalve

448885 s04 S Worked shell Unclassified 6

448885 s05 S Worked shell Unmodified 1 Bivalve

448886 S Pendant Grooved drop 1

448887 s01 S Worked shell Columella 7 Shell

448887 s02 S Pendant Columella 3 Shell

448887 s03 S Worked shell Unclassified 1 Univalve

448888 S Worked shell Unengraved 1 Univalve

448889 s01 S Worked shell Unmodified 3 Univalve

448889 s02 S Bead Marginella 1 Univalve

448889 s03 S Shell Unmodified 1 Univalve

448889 s04 S Worked shell Unmodified 1 Univalve

448889 s05 S Worked shell Unmodified 2 Univalve

448889 s06 S Shell Unmodified 2 Univalve

448890 W Figure Effigy 1 Red cedar

448891 W Figure Effigy 1 Red cedar
number 49 • 20 9

Catalog Subnumber Material Raw material

number (if any) type Object Style Count (if known)

(continued)

448892 W Figure Effigy 1 Cedar

448893 W Vessel Effigy 1 Cedar

448894 W, S Vessel Effigy 1 Cedar

448895 s01 W Earspool Effigy 1 Cedar

448895 s02 W Earspool Effigy 1 Cedar

448897 W Blade Ceremonial 1 Cedar

448898 B Ornament Perforated plate 1 Turtle

448899 s01 W Earspool Cone 1 Cedar 

448899 s02 W Earspool Cone 1 Cedar

448899 s03 W Earspool Cone 1 Cedar

448899 s04 W Earspool Cone 1 Cedar

448899 s05 W Earspool Cone 1 Cedar

448900 s01 W, S Earspool Composite 1 Cedar

448900 s02 W Earspool Central boss 1

448901 W, M Earspool Worked 1 Cedar

448902 W Earspool Unperforated 1

448903 W Earspool Unperforated 1

448904 W Earspool Unperforated 1

448905 s01 W, S Earspool Unperforated 1

448905 s02 W Earspool Unperforated 1

448905 s03 W, S Earspool Composite 1 Cedar

448905 s04 W, S Earspool Central boss 1 Cedar

448905 s05 W, S Earspool Unperforated 1 Cedar

448906 s01 S Disk Plain 4 Shell

448906 s02 S Disk Perforated disc 2

448906 s03 S Disk Plain large 2 Shell

448907 S Disk Perforated disc 2

448908 S Disk Engraved 1 Shell

448909 W Earspool Perforated 6 Cedar

448910 W Object Effigy 1

448911 s01 W Worked frag Unknown 8

448911 s02 W Worked frag Unknown 17

448911 s03 O Pod Unmodified 1

448911 s04 W Worked frag Stick 24 Cedar

448911 s05 W Worked frag Mace or atlatl 1

448912 T Basketry Twill matting 1 Cane

448913 s01 T Basketry Spaced weft twining 1 Vegetal

448913 s02 T Sample Slide 1

448914 T Basketry Loose fibers 1

448915 T Cloth Tapestry 4 Hair?

448916 s01 T Cloth Tapestry 3 Hair?

448916 s02 T Cloth Spaced weft twining, 4 Hair

wrapped warp

448916 s03 T Cloth Spaced weft twining 17 Hair

448916 s04 T Hide Leather 1

448917 s01 T Cordage Braid, wrapped warp 10 Vegetal

barrel-shaped wrapped warp

448917 s02 S Bead Convexo-cylin 7 Shell

448918 T Cordage Loose fibers 1

448919 T Cordage, fur 2-ply S-twist 1 Vegetal

448920 O Hide Leather 1 Hide

448921 L Mica Flake 1 Mica

448922 T Basketry Twill 2 Cane

448923 O Clay Worked 171 Glauconite

448924 O Pigment Worked 1 Ocher

448925 O Pigment Raw 2 Ocher

448926 s01 O Clay Chert unknown 1 Clay

448926 s02 O Clay Worked 1 Clay

448927 s01.1 O Pigment Unmodified 1 Ocher

448927 s01.2 T Basket Twill 1 Reed/cane

448927 s02 O Pigment 1 Ocher
210 • s m ithsonian cont r i bu tions to anth r o p o l o g y

Catalog Subnumber Material Raw material

number (if any) type Object Style Count (if known)

448927 s03 O Pigment Worked 1 Ocher

448927 s04 O Pigment 1 Ocher

448927 s05 O Pigment Raw 1 Ocher

448928 C Object Poverty point object 1 Clay

448929 L L Point Gary 1 Chert

448930 C Sherd Undesig. 1 Clay

448931 C Pendant Grooved 1 Clay

448932 s01 L Tube 1 Stone

448932 s02 L Bead Irregular disc 1 Unknown

448933 O Coprolite 3 Organic

448934 s01.1 T Basketry Twill 1 Cane

448934 s01.2 T Cloth Braid 1 Hair

448934 s01.3 S Bead Disc 500 Shell

448934 s02 S Bead Disc 1,650 Shell

448934 s03 S Bead Spherical 3 Shell

448934 s04 S Cup Unengraved 4 Shell

448934 s05 T Basketry Unclassified 1 Cane

448934 s06 M Sheet Unclassified 60 Copper

448934 s07 T Basketry Unmodified 12 Cane

448934 s08 T Leather Tanned 1 Hide

448935–

448937 b 

448939 s01.1 B, T Bone object Unclassified 4 Beaver

448939 s01.2 T Cordage 2-ply Z-twist 1 Vegetal

515780 s01 C Sherd Woodward Plain 3 Clay

515780 s02 C Sherd Williams Plain 1 Clay

515780 s03 C Sherd Poteau Plain 1 Clay

515781 L S Point Morris 1 Chert

515782 s01 L Flake Bipolar 1 Chert

515782 s02 L Scraper End 1 Chert

515782 s03 L Scraper End 1 Chert

515782 s04 L Scraper End 1 Chert

515783 L S Point Washita 1 Chert

515784 s01 S Bead Spherical 9 Shell

515784 s02 S Bead Convexo-cylin 99 Shell

515785 s01 S Bead Olivella 7 Shell

515785 s02 S Bead Disc 142 Shell

515786 S Cup Craig 1 Shell

515787 S Cup Unengraved 37

542527 M Pin Fraudulent 1 Copper

542528 M Pin Fraudulent 1 Copper

542529 M Pin Fraudulent 1 Copper

542530 M Pin Fraudulent 1 Copper

542531 M Pin Fraudulent 1 Copper

542532 L Earspool Perforated 1 Limestone

542533 S Bead Spherical-columella 21 Shell

542534 S Bead Convexo-bowed 32 Shell

542535 S Bead Spherical 14 Shell

542536 S Bead Olivella 990 Shell

542537 s01 S Bead Convexo-cylin 42 Shell

542537 s02 S Bead Spherical pearl 2 Pearl

542537 s03 S Bead Olivella 2 Shell

542538 S Cup Unengraved 1 Univalve

a No number available.

b Human remains—see chapter 9.
Appendix B: 

Concordance of References

Many of the artifacts in the Spiro collection have been illustrated and discussed in other publications. Table B.1 provides a list of artifact catalog numbers 

along with notes and references to the other major published sources.
212 • s m ithsonian cont r i bu tions to anth r o p o l o g y

TABLE B.1. Reference summary of the National Museum of Natural History’s Spiro collection by catalog number. (NAA = National 

Anthropological Archives.)

Catalog Subnumber

number (if any) Object References and notes

377378 Mace Crowned maces discussed by Brown (1976:166–172), designated as type 1 

(figs. 30a, 31a,b) Hamilton’s (1952) pl. 41 is the same artifact

378240 Fragment Rogers et al. (2002)

378244 Pendant Fundaburk and Foreman (1957) depict whelk picks, but these are not made 

solely of the columella

378261 Bead Brown (1976:377) gives types for similar beads 

378264 Pendant See Burnett (1945: pls. LXXXI, LXXXII, LXXXV) for similar pendants and 

use on headband; see Brown (1976)

378273 End scraper Barker et al. (2002)

386187 Cloth Rogers et al. (2002)

386188 Cloth Rogers et al. (2002)

411901 Worked shell Fundaburk and Foreman (1957: pl. 25)

411904 Worked shell Illustrated (Duffield, 1964: pl. VII2)

411905 Worked shell Fundaburk and Foreman (1957: pl. 27?)

423145 Vessel Hamilton (1952: pl. 32A)

423147 Vessel Hamilton (1952: pls. 32A, 33C)

423148 Vessel Hamilton (1952: pls. 32A, 33B)

423149 Vessel Hamilton (1952: pl. 31), partially restored

423150 Vessel Hamilton (1952: pl. 31B); Fundaburk and Foreman (1957: pl. 89)

423152 Pipe Hamilton (1952: pl. 22B), restored

423160 Pipe Hamilton (1952: pl. 17A)

423161 Earspool Hamilton (1952: pl. 80, upper left?)

423162 Earspool Hamilton (1952, pl. 81)

423163 Earspool Hamilton (1952: pl. 81)

423195 Mace Hamilton (1952: pl. 42); Griffin (1952:93–94) notes resemblance to Duck 

River focus, Tennessee

423196 Mace Hamilton (1952: pl. 44A)

423197 Mace Hamilton (1952: pl. 44A); Fundaburk and Foreman (1957: pl. 92)

423198 Mace Hamilton (1952: pl. 41); Fundaburk and Foreman (1957: pl. 92)

423227 Pendant Compare with Hopewell bird in Moorehead (1897:259, fig. XLII)

423234 Cup Hamilton (1952: pl. 106); Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 282)

423235 Cup Hamilton (1952: pl. 117A); Phillips and Brown (1978: pl. 81), Braden Style

423236 Cup Hamilton (1952: pl. 108A); Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 232)

423237 Cup Hamilton (1952: pl. 131B); Phillips and Brown (1978:pl. 116), style Braden C

423238 Cup Hamilton (1952: pls. 92B, 105); not in Phillips and Brown (1978, 1984)

423239 Cup Hamilton (1952: pl. 115B); Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 329)

423240 Cup Duffield (1964: pl. XXXIII); Phillips and Brown (1978: pl. 114), Braden C; 

 Hamilton (1952: pl. 129B)

423241 Cup Hamilton (1952: pl. 94A); Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 318)

423242 Cup Hamilton (1952: pl. 129A); Phillips and Brown (1978: pl. 113), Braden C

423243 Cup Hamilton (1952: pl. 94B); Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 320) 

423244 Cup Hamilton (1952: pl. 128B); Fundaburk and Foreman (1957: pl. 28); Phillips 

and Brown (1978: pl. 121)

423245 Cup Hamilton (1952: pl. 118); Fundaburk and Foreman (1957: pl. 25); also see 

 Clements (1945: pl. XLIII) for similar depiction; Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 305)

423246 Cup Hamilton (1952: pl. 119A); Fundaburk and Foreman (1957: pl. 25); Phillips 

and Brown (1984: pl. 278a)

423247 Cup Hamilton (1952: pl. 92A); Fundaburk and Foreman (1957: pls. 24, 27); 

Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 315)

423248 Cup Hamilton (1952: pl. 122A); Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 214a)

423249 Cup Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 79); Hamilton (1952: 115A); Phillips and 

Brown (1978: pl. 79)

423250 Cup Hamilton (1952: pl. 136A); Phillips and Brown (1978, pl. 1222)

423251 Cup Hamilton (1952: pl. 134D); Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 246)

423252 Cup Bird in flight, chevron, and an animal that may be an armadillo; not in 

Phillips and Brown (1978, 1984); assigned Braden C based on execution
(continued)

number 49 • 21 3

Catalog Subnumber

number (if any) Object References and notes

423253 Cup Nearly identical to Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 327); not in Phillips and Brown 

(1978, 1984) but might fit center portion shown in their (1984) pl. 333C

423254 Cup Hamilton (1952: pl. 136B); Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 264)

423255 Cup Hamilton (1952: pl. 108B); Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 230)

423256 Cup Hamilton (1952: pl. 95A); Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 312)

423257 Cup Duffield (1964) plate XXII5 could be a piece of this or similar shell; Hamilton (1952: 

pl. 103C); Phillips and Brown (1978: pl. 89b)

423258 Cup Hamilton (1952: pl. 122B); Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 213a)

423259 Cup Hamilton (1952: pl. 120B); Phillips and Brown (1978: pl. 101)

423260 Cup Hamilton (1952: pl. 114B); Phillips and Brown (1978: pl. 76), Braden style

423261 Cup Hamilton (1952: pl. 132C); Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 234.1)

423262 Cup Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 308.1)

423263 Cup Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. B-7L)

423264 Cup Hamilton (1952: pl. 125A); Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 233)

423265 Cup Hamilton (1952: pl. 103B); Phillips and Brown (1978: pl. 86a); see also 448870

423266 Cup Hamilton (1952: pl. 128A); Fundaburk and Foreman (1957: pl. 28); Phillips and 

Brown (1978: pl. 64)

423267 Cup Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 316A)

423268 Cup Hamilton (1952: pl. 130C); Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. A-1Cb)

423269 Cup Hamilton (1952: pl. 117B); Phillips and Brown (1978: pl. 108)

423270 Cup Hamilton (1952: pl. 116A); Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 240a)

423271 Cup Burnett (1945: pls. LI and LII); Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 234a); Hamilton (1952: 

pl. 132B)

423272 Cup Phillips and Brown (1978: pl. 89a)

423273 Cup Hamilton (1952: pl. 122C); Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 295a), Craig style

423274 Cup Phillips and Brown (1978: pl. 45a)

423275 Cup Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 225c)

423276 Cup Hamilton (1952: 134C); Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 247a)

423277 Cup Hamilton (1952: 138E); Duffield (1964: pl. XXIX4), probably same shell; similar to 

fragment shown in Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. A-1F)

423278 Cup Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 187c); Duffield (1964: pl. XXXII1); Hamilton 

(1952:75, pl. 124A); 

423279 Cup Hamilton (1952: 116B); Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 167c)

423280 Cup Hamilton (1952: 138C); Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 257a); see also 448852

423281 Cup Hamilton (1952: 125D); Phillips and Brown (1978: pl. 53a), Braden B style; Phillips 

and Brown (1978) show 448880F as being from same shell

423282 Cup Hamilton (1952: pl. 125C); Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 304C)

423283 Cup Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 287Gb); Hamilton (1952: pl. 126A)

423284 Cup Hamilton (1952: pl. 125B); Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 215A); Duffield (1964: 

pl. XII) has pictured a fragment that might fit this one

423285 Cup Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. A-2B)

423286 Cup Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 174a)

423287 Cup Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 263c); Hamilton (1952: pl. 138A)

423288 Conch Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 178.1B)

423289 Cup Hamilton (1952: pl. 134B); Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 237b)

423290 Cup Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 252b); Hamilton (1952: pl. 138D)

423291 Cup Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. B-80)

423292 Gorget Hamilton (1952: pl. 91D); Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 275Ba); Brain and Phillips 

(1996:446)

423293 Gorget Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 148Ab); Brain and Phillips (1996:445)

423295 Gorget Hamilton (1952: pl. 91B); Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 273C)

423296 Cup Hamilton (1952: pl. 139A); Phillips and Brown (1984: pls. 159h, 163D)

423297 Cup Hamilton (1952: pl. 139B); Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 159e); see also 423296

423298 Cameo Hamilton (1952: pl. 85); Fundaburk and Foreman (1957: pl. 158); Phillips and 

Brown (1984: pl. 152Ba)

423299 Cameo Hamilton (1952: pl. 85); Fundaburk and Foreman (1958); Phillips and Brown (1984: 

pl. 152B)

423300 Cameo Hamilton (1952: pl. 85)

423301 Cameo Hamilton (1952: pl. 85)

423305 Pendant Hamilton (1952: pl. 83B)

423309 Bead Type illustration Hamilton (1952: pl. 66)
214 • s m ithsonian cont r i bu tions to anth r o p o l o g y

Catalog Subnumber

number (if any) Object References and notes

423310 Bead Hamilton (1952: pl. 66)

423312 Disc Hamilton (1952: pl. 66)

423313 Bead Hamilton (1952: pl. 66)

423314 Bead Hamilton (1952: pl. 66)

423315 Bead Hamilton (1952: pl. 66)

423317 Bead Hamilton (1952: pl. 66)

423318 Bead Hamilton (1952: pl. 66)

423324 Bead Hamilton (1952: pl. 66)

423329 Bead Hamilton (1952: pl. 66)

423352 Mantle Pictured in Hamilton (1952: pl. 146); lower also shown in Trowbridge notebook in 

 NAA (Wedel correspondence file)

423353 Mantle Hamilton (1952: pl. 145); also shown in Trowbridge notebook in NAA (Wedel 

correspondence file)

423354 Mantle Hamilton (1952: pl. 146); also shown in Trowbridge notebook in NAA (Wedel 

correspondence file)

423355 Mantle Hamilton (1952: pl. 147); Fundaburk and Foreman (1957: pl. 133); also shown in 

 Trowbridge notebook in NAA (Wedel correspondence file)

423356 Mantle Hamilton (1952: pl. 145); also shown in Trowbridge notebook in NAA (Wedel 

correspondence file); Rogers et al. (2002)

423357 Mantle Hamilton (1952: pl. 148, lower); also shown in Trowbridge notebook in NAA (Wedel 

correspondence file)

423358 Mantle Hamilton (1952: pl. 148); also shown in Trowbridge notebook in NAA (Wedel 

correspondence file)

423359 Bundle Hamilton (1952: pl. 149, lower); also shown in Trowbridge notebook in NAA (Wedel 

correspondence file)

423360 Bundle Hamilton (1952: pl. 149); also in Trowbridge notebook in NAA (Wedel 

correspondence file)

423361 Bundle Hamilton (1952: pl. 149); Rogers et al. (2002)

423362 Bundle Hamilton (1952: pl. 149); Rogers et al. (2002)

423365 Bundle Whitford (1941); Rogers et al. (2002)

423366 Bundle Rogers et al. (2002)

423367 Fragments Rogers et al. (2002)

423368 Fragments Whitford (1941); Rogers et al. (2002)

423369 Fragments Whitford (1941); Rogers et al. (2002)

423370 Fragments Hamilton (1952: pl. 143); Rogers et al. (2002)

423371 Fragments Rogers et al. (2002)

423372 Fragments Rogers et al. (2002)

423373 Fragments Rogers et al. (2002)

423374 Fragments Rogers et al. (2002)

423375 Cord Rogers et al. (2002)

423377 Cord Rogers et al. (2002)

423378 s02 Cloth Rogers et al. (2002)

423378 s06 Cup incised pattern too fragmentary to infer style, has curvilinear pattern, perhaps of the 

ceramic mimicry styles of Braden

423379 Cloth Hamilton (1952: pl. 152)

423380 Cloth Rogers et al. (2002)

423386 Matting Whitford (1941)

423388 Matting Hamilton (1952: pl. 62)

423389 Basketry Hamilton (1952: pl. 62); Whitford (1941)

423390 Basketry Hamilton (1952: pl. 62)

448663 Pipe Hamilton (1952: pl. 13, left); Griffin (1952) states this pipe is Middle Mississippian 

and associates it with pipes from Gahagan (Coles Creek and Gibson aspects); Spiro 

is the western margin of the pipe’s distribution (Griffin, 1952:92)

448664 Pipe Hamilton (1952: pl. 13, right); Griffin (1952) states this pipe is Middle Mississippian 

and associates it with pipes from Gahagan (Coles Creek and Gibson aspects); Spiro 

is the western margin of the pipe’s distribution (Griffin, 1952:92)

448665 Pipe Hamilton (1952: pl. 16A)

448667 Pipe Hamilton (1952: pl. 17D); discussed by Griffin (1952:91–92)

448668 Pipe Hamilton (1952:34, pl. 8)

448670 Celt Hamilton (1952: pl. 24A); described therein as bone spatula

448673 Celt Hamilton (1952: pl. 52, bottom)
number 49 • 21 5

(continued)

Catalog Subnumber

number (if any) Object References and notes

448674 Celt Hamilton (1952: pl. 52); Brain and Phillips (1996:378)

448677 Boatstone Hamilton (1952:47, pl. 59)

448678 Discoidal Hamilton (1952:47, pl. 58)

448679 Discoidal Hamilton (1952:47)

448689 Mineral lumps CAL Report 2018; MCI Report 2018.2 (Smithsonian Institution, Museum 

 Conservation Institute, unpublished reports, 1975 and 2010)

448711 Tube See Fundaburk and Foreman (1957)

448713 Bead Hamilton (1952: pl. 69)

448740 Pendant Same type as 448741

448741 Pendant Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 152Ib); also see Brown (1976: fig. 81g) for identical 

type in University of Arkansas collection

448742 Pendant Hamilton (1952: pl. 88D); Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 336a)

448743 Gorget Not pictured elsewhere

448744 Gorget Not in Phillips and Brown (1978, 1984); fenestrated

448746 Gorget Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 274a)

448747 Gorget Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 138a)

448748 Gorget Phillips and Brown (1978: pl. 23Cb); Brain and Phillips (1996:447)

448749 Gorget Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 134A); Brain and Phillips (1996:453)

448750 Gorget Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 131D); Brain and Phillips (1996:454)

448751 Gorget Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 131D); Brain and Phillips (1996:454); see also 448750

448752 Gorget Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 144A); Brain and Phillips (1996:453)

448753 Gorget Phillips and Brown (1978: pl. 23A)

448754 Gorget Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 128d); see also 448761s011 and s012

448755 Gorget Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 131B); Brain and Phillips (1996:453)

448756 Gorget Not located

448758 Gorget Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 125); Brain and Phillips (1996:453)

448759 Gorget See Watson (1950); Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 152E)

448760 Gorget Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 275a,b); Brain and Phillips (1996:453)

448761 s011 Gorget Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 128c); Brain and Phillips (1996:452)

448761 s012 Cup See Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 128)

448761 s021 Gorget Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 146); Brain and Phillips (1996:455)

448761 s022 Cup Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 146)

448762 Gorget Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 338D)

448763 Gorget Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 152K)

448765 Gorget Phillips and Brown (1984: pls. 131B,C, 134B [see also 448749], 148, 151E, 151N, 

273F, 275Ab [see also 448760], 275Bb, 277Ca–b); see Brain and Phillips 

(1996:451) for hand and eye fragments; Brain and Phillips (1996:453–454)

448769 Pendant See Duffield (1964: pl. XIII1–3) for ear pendants; Burnett (1945); Clements (1945: pl. 

LVIII d); Hamilton (1952: pl. 106) (423234) shows man wearing one; Phillips and 

Brown (1984: pl. 338E)

448770 Hook pendant Hamilton (1952: pl. 83)

448772 Effigy Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 285b)

448773 Effigy Hamilton (1952: pl. 66, top right)

448782 Cup Phillips and Brown (1978:30, fig. 11)

448783 Cup Phillips and Brown (1978: pl. 83)

448784 Cup Hamilton (1952: pl. 115B); Burnett (1945: pl. LVIII); Phillips and Brown (1984: 

pl. 331) (incorrectly numbered as 448819 in Phillips and Brown)

448785 Cup Phillips and Brown (1978: pl. 62), where it is referred to as 448880, not 448785

448786 Cup Phillips and Brown (1978: pl. 115)

448787 Cup Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 200)

448788 Cup Phillips and Brown (1978: pl. 80)

448789 Cup Phillips and Brown (1978: pl. 77)

448790 Cup Hamilton (1952: pl. 114A); Phillips and Brown (1978: pl. 57)

448791 Cup Phillips and Brown (1978: pl. 24)

448792 Cup Phillips and Brown (1978: pl. 122)

448793 Cup Phillips and Brown (1978: pl. 119)

448794 Cup Similar to Hamilton (1952: pl. 95A); Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 317)

448795 Cup Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 322)

448796 Cup Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 296)

448797 Cup Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 330)

448798 Cup Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 165.1)
216 • s m ithsonian cont r i bu tions to anth r o p o l o g y

Catalog Subnumber

number (if any) Object References and notes

448799 Cup Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 321)

448800 Cup Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 299)

448801 Cup Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 238a)

448802 Cup See 448812 similar design; Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 300)

448803 Cup Phillips and Brown (1978: pl. 99a)

448804 Cup Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 259)

448805 Cup Phillips and Brown (1978: pl. 100)

448806 Cup Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 260a)

448807 Cup Phillips and Brown (1978: pl. 47), Braden style

448808 Cup Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 235)

448809 Cup Phillips and Brown (1978: pl. 106)

448810 Cup Duffield (1964, pl. XXXIII6); similar to Phillips and Brown (1978: pl. 67)

448811 Cup Hamilton (1952: pl. 121B); Phillips and Brown (1978: pl. 58)

448812 Cup Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 301)

448813 Cup Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 328)

448814 Cup Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 188)

448815 Cup Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 266A,B)

448816 Cup Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 122.1b)

448817 Cup Hamilton (1952: 116A); see 423270 for other horned snakes; Phillips and Brown 

(1984: pl. 241B)

448818 Cup Duffield (1964, pl. XXXIII); Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 269a,b)

448819 Cup Phillips and Brown (1978: pl. 11a)

448820 Cup Phillips and Brown (1978: pl. 55c), Braden B style, joins to 448871 (Phillips and 

Brown, 1978: pl. 55b)

448821 Cup Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 225a)

448822 Cup Not believed to be in Phillips and Brown (1978, 1984); paired figures facing a pole 

similar to Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 317)

448823 Cup Not believed to be in Phillips and Brown (1984), compare with their pl. 283.1

448824 Cup Not believed to be in Phillips and Brown (1984) 

448825 Cup Pictured in Duffield (1964)?; Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 169a)

448826 Cup Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 205a)

448827 Cup Hamilton (1952: pl. 137A); Phillips and Brown (1978: pl. 46)

448828 Cup Phillips and Brown (1978: pl. 122.3a)

448829 Cup Phillips and Brown (1978: pl. 2b)

448830 Cup Phillips and Brown (1978: pl. 110a,c)

448831 Cup Hamilton (1952:75, pl. 124A) Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 187a); Duffield (1964: 

pl. XXXII)

448832 Cup Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 310.1)

448833 Cup Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. B-3Ra,b)

448834 Cup Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 297a)

448835 Cup Similar figures on 423234; see Clements (1945: pl. XXXVI); Hamilton (1952: 

pl. 119B); Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 283a)

448836 Cup Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 207Ba)

448837 Cup Phillips and Brown (1978: pl. 2a); see also 449929

448838 Cup Phillips and Brown (1978: pl. 25a,c) 

448839 Cup Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 286b); compare with Hamilton (1952: pl. 126A); Heye 

(catalog number 18/9118); and see Burnett (1945: pls. XXXIV and XL)

448840 Cup Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 267)

448841 Cup Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 263a); compare to Hamilton (1952: pl. 138A); see 423287

448842 Cup Hamilton (1952: pl. 116B); Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 167a,b,d)

448843 Cup Hamilton (1952: pl. 137A,B); not in Phillips and Brown (1984)

448844 Cup Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. B-1G); see Phillips and Brown (1978: pl. 51) for rest of 

vessel

448845 Cup Hamilton (1952: pl. 104B); Burnett (1945: pls. XVII, XVIII); Phillips and Brown 

(1984: pl. 219G)

448846 Worked shell Hamilton (1952: 138B); Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 159a)

448847 Cup Hamilton (1952: pl. 123); Phillips and Brown (1978: pl. 1)

448848 Cup Phillips and Brown (1984: pls. 226Db, 227a)

448849 Cup Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 31B), Braden A

448850 s01 Cup Phillips and Brown’s (1978) pl. 59Aa,Ac along with fragment from 448874 is part of 

same shell and shown again in Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. B-2Bd; these were 

given subnumber 448850s01
number 49 • 21 7

(continued)

Catalog Subnumber

number (if any) Object References and notes

448850 s02 Cup Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. B-12H)

448851 Cup Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 153a,b); Hamilton (1952: pl. 127B) shows refitting 

piece of same shell

448852 Cup Hamilton (1952: pl. 138C); Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 257b,c)

448853 s01 Cup Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 251a,b)

448853 s02 Cup Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 2571b)

448853 s03 Cup Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 258b)

448853 s04 Cup One could be from vessel in Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 252)

448853 s05 Cup Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 324)

448854 Cup Phillips and Brown (1978: pl. 104); Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. B-8G)

448855 Cup Phillips and Brown (1978: pl. 95)

448856 Cup Duffield (1964, pl. XVIII1–3); Phillips and Brown (1978, 1984)

448857 Cup Hamilton (1952: pl. 109) for comparable figure; Phillips and Brown (1978: pl. 70)

448858 s01–33 Cup Phillips and Brown’s plates (1978: pl. 3a; 1984: pls. 168d, 195a) show bridge between 

448880 and 1 fragment 448858A similar to pl. XXVII of Clements (1945); also see 

Fundaburk and Foreman (1957: pl. 54)

448858 s01 Cup Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 197a), 2 refitted fragments 448858; 1 matching 

fragment from 448861 (Phillips and Brown, 1984: pl. 197b)

448858 s02 Cup Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 311); 2 men facing each other and holding snake staffs

448858 s03 Cup Not in Phillips and Brown (1978, 1984); birdman

448858 s04 Cup Called the Atlatl Cup in Phillips and Brown (1978: pl. 9a)

448858 s05 Cup Possibly Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 190)

448858 s06 Cup Possibly Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 158)

448858 s07 Cup Possibly Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 155a), fragment 2, one facing right, arms out 

in Bilbao stance

448858 s08 Cup Intertwined snake men theme, Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 195a)

448858 s09 Cup Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 217b) man with long snake head and neck

448858 s10 Cup Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 210Ac,Ca,Cb)

448858 s11 Cup 16 fragments; shown in Phillips and Brown (1984: pls. 163E,F, 198B, 278b) 

448858 s12 Cup Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 168.1a); see their note

448859 Cup Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 163A)

448860 Cup Hamilton (1952: pl. 123B); Phillips and Brown (1978: pl. 12a)

448861 s01–04 Cup Phillips and Brown (1978: pl. 21); see also 448865-2 fragments in Phillips and Brown 

(1984: pls. 155B, 169c, 210D, 273A, 297b, B-8G; B-8K)

448861 s01 Cup Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 220b) 

448861 s02 Cup Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 8-K), rows of heads facing left

448861 s03 Cup Possible serpent man; has hair on end and lidded eye as on 448852

448861 s04 Cup Shows snout with teeth; small fragment, Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 226A)

448861 s05 Cup Phillips and Brown (1978: pl. 22G)

448861 s06 Cup Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 156); includes fragment of 448858

448862 Cup Hamilton (1952: pl. 126B); Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 161b,c); see also 448858

448863 Cup Phillips and Brown (1978: pl. 22D), Braden A

448864 Cup Phillips and Brown (1978: pl. 103), Braden C

448865 Cup Hamilton (1952: pl. 127A); Phillips and Brown (1978: pl. 21a,h [448861], 21d,e 

[448865, 448880])

448866 s01–12 Cup Phillips and Brown (1978: pls. 25, 110c); Phillips and Brown (1984: pls. 171Cb, 

198Hb, 241A, B-3A, B-3L); Hamilton (1952: pl. 111); University of Arkansas 

collection shell with snake-jaguar-wing combination is probable match; see Phillips 

and Brown (1984: pls. B8, B22, B52) for further matches; see also 448838

448866 s01 Cup Various serpent motifs, mostly in Braden B style, cross-hatching; on one apical 

fragment the snake wraps around the apex and has excised bits and an underbelly 

of trapezoid with center rectangles; not pictured in Phillips and Brown (1984); 

twined snakes mostly; one is Phillips and Brown (1978: pl. 96.1)

448866 s02 Cup Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 26) include 2 fragments, 448880 and 448866

448866 s03 Cup Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 204C)

448866 s04 Cup Phillips and Brown (1978: pl. 22H)

448866 s05 Cup Three fragments from one vessel; Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 224b); largest 

fragment (448866) shows anus of animal surrounded by a nimbus with hair marks; 

2 more smaller fragments of 448880 go with this vessel; 1 edge fragment is from 

another vessel in Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 218Aa)
218 • s m ithsonian cont r i bu tions to anth r o p o l o g y

Catalog Subnumber

number (if any) Object References and notes

448866 s06 Cup Snake with dotted circle, modified trilobite on snake body; Phillips and Brown (1978: 

pl. 8Aa,B), 1 large fragment 448866, 1 small fragment 448848, another small 

fragment 448876 included under parent 448866s06

448866 s07 Cup Phillips and Brown (1984); smaller 4 body fragments are 448878

448866 s08 Cup Phillips and Brown (1978: pl. 52a)

448866 s09 Cup Larger apical fragment, Phillips and Brown (1978, 1984: pl. 198Hb), small fragments 

numbered; 448866-B resembles exactly the representation in Phillips and Brown 

(1984: pl. 229); serpentine piasa in swastika arrangement, grouped because of 

motif similarity

448866 s10 Cup Phillips and Brown (1978: pls. 30D [small], 35Aa [larger])

448866 s11 Cup Phillips and Brown (1984: pls. 242, B-7I); 6 fragments are 448866 and 448880 

448866 s12 Cup Two large fragments 488866, 2 small fragments 448880; Phillips and Brown (1978: 

pl. 28A,B), Braden A (1 fragment)

448867 s01–04 Cup Hamilton (1952: pls. 99C, 108, 110–117); Phillips and Brown (1984: pls. 241A, 

257.1a, B-6Ad)

448867 s01 Cup Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 243A,B)

448867 s02 Cup One fragment is 448866 and 1 is 448880; 2 are 448867A; Phillips and Brown (1984: 

pl. 182B,C,G) and apical fragment not shown in Phillips and Brown (1984)

448867 s03 Cup One large fragment is 448867, 4 others are 448880; Phillips and Brown (1984: pls. 

B6Aa–Ac, B6Ad)

448868 Cup Phillips and Brown (1978: pl. 91a,b,c); Braden, also 1 fragment 448880; Phillips and 

Brown (1984: pl. 186B)

448869 s01–03 Cup Phillips and Brown (1984: pls. 183b, 186H, 208Ha, 208.1Ad, 209.1)

448869 s01 Cup Phillips and Brown (1984: pls. 171Cc,Cb, 186H, 186B) (448868); Phillips and Brown 

(1984: pl. 209.1), woodpecker head with dotted beak; Phillips and Brown (1984: 

pl. 183b); several may not be pictured in Phillips and Brown

448869 s02 Cup Barred oval, feathers, beaded forelock, divided arcs; similar to Phillips and Brown 

(1984: pl. 204.1) but does not match

448869 s03 Cup Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 208Ha,b)

448870 Cup Phillips and Brown (1978: pl. 86b)

448871 s01 Cup Phillips and Brown (1984: pl.176), of a shot bison; pl. 176b is 448871

448871 s02 Cup Maces and broken arrows; Phillips and Brown (1978: pl. 66a)

448871 s03 Cup Two fragments, neither of which is in Phillips and Brown (1978, 1984); show arrow 

fletching, arrowheads

448872 Cup Hamilton (1952: pl. 130A); Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 270b,e,f,g); 2 large 

fragments 448872; 2 small fragments 448871

448873 Cup Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 201a)

448874 s01 Cup Hamilton (1952: pls. 134C,D, 135); Phillips and Brown (1978: pls. 59C [see 

448850s01], 183, 174c [s03], 248a,b [s01])

448874 s02 Cup Very rare to see double outlining; see Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. A-5M)

448874 s03 Cup Consists of large fragments 423286, distal fragment 448874, small fragment 448880; 

single animal face with horns and snout on background of concentric scallop 

design; Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 174)

448875 s01 Cup Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 170F)

448875 s02 Cup Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 172)

448875 s03 Cup Phillips and Brown (1978: pl. 90)

448875 s04 Cup Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 333E)

448876 Cup 448876–448876A is subsumed in s02; Phillips and Brown (1978: pls. 36a,b; 38b)

448876 s01 Cup Phillips and Brown (1978: pl. 18)

448876 s02 Cup One placed to Phillips and Brown (1978: pl. 37A), but the others are not in Phillips 

and Brown (1978, 1984)

448876 s03 Cup Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 179D)

448876 s04 Cup Not in Phillips and Brown (1978, 1984); spirals, dotted half circles, and sawtooth 

border

448877 Cup Phillips and Brown (1978: pls. 34b, 122.1a, 122.3b; 1984: pl. 225); 448877A, 

Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 333F)

448877 s01 Cup Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 338H)

448877 s02 Cup Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. A-2 A,P)

448877 s03 Cup Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. B-2C)

448877 s04 Cup Phillips and Brown (1978: pl. 34B)

448877 s05 Cup Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 222Da)
number 49 • 21 9

(continued)

Catalog Subnumber

number (if any) Object References and notes

448877 s06 Cup Not in Phillips and Brown (1978, 1984); Davis rectangle and concentric rayed, barred 

ovals

448877 s07 Cup Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 271); designated as 448877A by Phillips and Brown 

(1984)

448877 s08 Cup Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 272B)

448878 Cup Phillips and Brown (1984: pls. 199K, B-3Rb, B-4Ba); 448878B, Phillips and Brown 

(1984: pl. 185f)

448878 s01 Cup Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 184)

448878 s02 Cup Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 185)

448878 s03 Cup Phillips and Brown (1978: pl. 97a,b) (448880)

448879 Cup See Duffield (1964: pl. XXXV2) for similar design; Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 183.1a,c)

448879 s01 Cup Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 261)

448879 s02 Cup Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 260)

448880 s00 Cup Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 280.1) 

448880 Various Cup See Duffield (1964: pls. XXIX3, X1 [on pendant]); Phillips and Brown (1978: pls. 4c, 

9b [with 448858], 13B, 14b, 15a, 20c, 21 [2 fragments, see 448865], 22E, 24 [with 

448791], 26d [with 448866s02], 28B [with 448866s12])

448880 Various Cup Phillips and Brown (1978: pls. 30A, 31A, 33B, 43b, 53bc, 59F, 91a [with 448868], 

92, 94A, 96A, 97B [with 448878s03], 99B [with 448803], 111A, 112a; 1984: 

pls. 161a,d [with 448862], 162f, 163Ba,c, 166.1, 168b,c, 168.1b [with 448858s12])

448880 Various Cup Phillips and Brown (1984: pls. 170A,D, 171A, 173Aa,B, 174d [with 448874s03], 

175d,e, 176a,e,f [with 448871s01], 177b, 179Ba,C, 179Da, 181F, 182d, 183c,d,e, 

183.1d, 183.1b,e,f [with 448879s02]; 184d, 186D; 204Ab,B)

448880 Various Cup Phillips and Brown (1984: pls. 204.1c, 204.1a,b, 207A,Bb [with 448836], 208Cb, 

208.1Aa, 208.1Ab, 209.1E,F,G, 210Ca [with 448858s10], 210Bb,E, 220a [with 

448861s01], 222H, 224a,f [with 448866s05], 225e [with 448821], 227b,c [with 

448848], 229b, 239h, 244a)

448880 Various Cup Phillips and Brown (1984: pls. 262D, 266b [with 448815], 271.1e, 273G, 280.1b, 

283.1 [mislabeled as 448823], 302.1, 310.1 [with 448832], 333A [with 448875], 

334, 338Ha,b [with 448877], A-4G,P, A-5I,K,R, B-1C,J,N, B-1H, B-2Cb,c [with 

448877], B-2H [with 448816])

448880 Various Cup Phillips and Brown (1984: pls. B-2I [with 448828], B-3E,G,N,Pa, B-3B,H,J,K,O, 

B-4Bb,E,G,L, B-6Aa-c [with 448867], B-7A,D,H, B-7J,K, B-8F,H, B-8I, B-12Ga, 

B-12Q)

448880 s01 Cup Phillips and Brown (1978: pl. 43)

448880 s02 Cup Phillips and Brown (1978: pl. 13B)

448880 s03 Cup Phillips and Brown (1978: pls. 4C, 22E)

448880 s04 Cup Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 244A)

448880 s05 Cup Phillips and Brown (1984: pls. 171A, 173A,B, 177B, 179Ba,C, 182D)

448880 s06 Cup Phillips and Brown (1978: pl. 14B)

448880 s07 Cup Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 170A,D)

448880 s08 Cup Phillips and Brown (1978: pls. 30A, 31A); Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. B-3K,O)

448880 s09 Cup Phillips and Brown (1978: pl. 15) and Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 197), fragment 

pictured twice

448880 s10 Cup Phillips and Brown (1978: pl. 33B)

448880 s11 Cup Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. A-4G)

448880 s12 Cup Phillips and Brown (1978: pl. 111A) 

448880 s13 Cup Not in Phillips and Brown (1978, 1984); bitriangular arrows 

448880 s14 Cup Not in Phillips and Brown (1978, 1984); barred oval, snake, feathers

448880 s15 Cup Phillips and Brown (1978: pl. 53B,C)

448880 s16 Cup Not in Phillips and Brown (1978, 1984); Bird Man

448880 s17 Cup Not in Phillips and Brown (1978, 1984); bird head on belt, pear-shaped object, pole 

with protuberance

448880 s18 Cup Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 302.1) 

448880 s19 Cup Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 334) 

448880 s20 Cup Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 183) 

448880 s21 Cup Phillips and Brown (1984: pls. 163Bb, 186D) 

448880 s22 Cup Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 209.1E,F)

448880 s23 Cup Phillips and Brown (1984: pls. 204.1C, 208.1Ab, 209.1G); Phillips and Brown’s 

(1984) pls. 204Ab,B and 204.1A,B may be included with these fragments, but there 

is no photographic evidence
220 • s m ithsonian cont r i bu tions to anth r o p o l o g y

Catalog Subnumber

number (if any) Object References and notes

448880 s24 Cup Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 210Bb; 222H)

448880 s25 Cup Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 175D,E) 

448880 s26 Cup Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 168B,C,D) 

448880 s27 Cup Phillips and Brown (1978: pl. 112A) 

448880 s28 Cup Phillips and Brown (1978: pl. 94A) 

448880 s29 Cup Phillips and Brown (1978: pl. 96A); Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. B-7Jb)

448880 s30 Cup Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 166.1A,B,C,D)

448880 s31 Cup Phillips and Brown (1978: pl. 20C) 

448880 s32 Cup Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. B-1Ha,Hb)

448880 s33 Cup Phillips and Brown (1978: pl. 92A)

448880 s34 Cup Phillips and Brown (1984: pls. 208Cc, B-3H,J, B-4Bb); 35 other pieces that are 

unintelligible

448880 s35 Cup Phillips and Brown (1984: pls. 273G, A-5I, B-3B, B-4Ba,L); other pieces not in 

Phillips and Brown (1978, 1984)

448880 s36 Cup Phillips and Brown (1984: pls. 210E, A-5R); other pieces not in Phillips and Brown 

(1978, 1984)

448880 s37 Cup Phillips and Brown (1984: pls. 262D, 271.1E)

448880 s38 Cup Either too little of design present to matter or unengraved

448880 s39 Cup Phillips and Brown (1984: pl. 162F)

448880 s40 Cup Phillips and Brown (1984: pls. A-5K, B-4E,G); one other fragment not found in 

Phillips and Brown

448880 s41 Cup Phillips and Brown (1984: pls. 229B, 239H, B-12Ga,Q)

448880 s42 Cup Phillips and Brown (1978: pl. 59F); Phillips and Brown (1984: pls. A-4P, B-7K, B-8I); 

other pieces not in Phillips and Brown (1978, 1984)

448880 s43 Cup All badly deteriorated; not in Phillips and Brown (1978, 1984)

448880 s44 Cup Worked shell; not in Phillips and Brown (1978, 1984)

448880 s45 Cup Phillips and Brown (1978: pl. 62) 

448881 Cup Not in Phillips and Brown (1978, 1984); unclear designs due to a heavy mat 

impression

448882 Cup Not in Phillips and Brown (1978, 1984)

448885 s04 Worked shell Not in Phillips and Brown (1978, 1984)

448890 Figure Hamilton (1952: pl. 26) (shown with head)

448891 Effigy Hamilton (1952: pl. 25)

448892 Effigy Hamilton (1952: pl. 26); Brose (1985: pls. 96, 138); identified by Brose as seated male 

figure, Caddoan culture Spiro phase, Mississippian period ad 1200–1350

448893 Effigy bowl Hamilton (1952: pl. 29B)

448894 Effigy bowl Hamilton (1952: pl. 29A); see Griffin (1952:92) for relation to Middle Mississippi 

area effigy bowls 

448895 Effigy Hamilton (1952: pl. 30A); Griffin (1952:92); these “dog heads” resemble shell 

specimens from the Huasteca, Mexico

448896 Effigy Hamilton (1952: pl. 26)

448897 Worked wood Hamilton (1952: pl. 24B) (wooden blade)

448899 Worked wood Hamilton (1952: pl. 24C); Burnett (1945, pl. LXXXV)

448915 Cloth fragment Rogers et al. (2002)

448916 Cord Rogers et al. (2002)

448917 Cordage, cloth Rogers et al. (2002)

448919 Cloth Rogers et al. (2002)

448934 Basketry Hamilton (1952: pl. 67)
References

Anderson, D. G., and K. E. Sassaman, eds. 1996. The Paleoindian and Early Archaic 

Southeast. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.

Baerreis, D. A. 1947. Spiro Focus Basketry. The Museum of the University of Oklahoma, 

Information Series, Circular 2:1–12.

———. 1957. The Southern Cult and the Spiro Ceremonial Complex. Bulletin of the 

Oklahoma Anthropological Society, 5:23–28.

Banks, L. D. 1984. “Lithic Resources and Quarries.” In Prehistory of Oklahoma, ed. 

R. E. Bell, pp. 65–95. New York: Academic Press.

———. 1990. From Mountain Peaks to Alligator Stomachs: A Review of Lithic Sources 

in the Trans-Mississippi South, the Southern Plains, and Adjacent Southwest. Oklahoma Anthropological Society Memoir, No. 4. Oklahoma City: Oklahoma Anthropological Society.

Barker, A. W., and T. R. Pauketat, eds. 1992. Lords of the Southeast: Social Inequality 

and the Native Elites of Southeastern North America. Archeological Papers of the 

American Anthropological Association, No. 3. Washington, D.C.: American Anthropological Association.

Barker, A. W., C. E. Skinner, M. S. Shackley, M. D. Glascock, and J. D. Rogers. 2002. 

Mesoamerican Origin for an Obsidian Scraper from the Precolumbian Southeastern 

United States. American Antiquity, 67(1):103–108.

Bauxar, J. J. 1953. Evidence of a Substructure Chamber under the Brown Mound at 

Spiro. American Antiquity, 19(2):169–170.

Beck, R. A. 2003. Consolidation and Hierarchy: Chiefdom Variability in the Mississippian Southeast. American Antiquity, 68(4):641–661.

Bell, R. E. 1947. Trade Materials at Spiro Mound as Indicated by Artifacts. American 

Antiquity, 12(3):181–184.

———. 1953. Pottery Vessels from the Spiro Mound, Cr-1, Le Flore County, Oklahoma. 

Bulletin of the Oklahoma Anthropological Society, 1:25–38.

———. 1958. Guide to the Identification of Certain American Indian Projectile Points. 

Special Bulletin of the Oklahoma Anthropological Society, No. 1. Oklahoma City: 

Oklahoma Anthropological Society.

———. 1960. Guide to the Identification of Certain American Indian Projectile Points. 

Special Bulletin of the Oklahoma Anthropological Society, No. 2. Oklahoma City: 

Oklahoma Anthropological Society.
222 • s m ithsonian cont r i bu tions to anth r o p o l o g y

———. 1972. The Harlan Site, Ck-6, a Prehistoric Mound 

Center in Cherokee County, Eastern Oklahoma. Oklahoma 

Anthropological Society Memoir, No. 2. Oklahoma City: 

Oklahoma Anthropological Society.

———. 1980. “Fourche Maline: An Archaeological Manifestation in Eastern Oklahoma.” In Caddoan and Poverty Point 

Archaeology: Essays in Honor of Clarence Hungerford 

Webb, ed. J. L. Gibson. Louisiana Archaeology, 6:83–125.

———. 1984. “Arkansas Valley Caddoan: The Harlan Phase.” 

In Prehistory of Oklahoma, ed. R. E. Bell, pp. 221–240. 

New York: Academic Press.

Bennett, C., and J. Weymouth. 1982. “A Magnetic Survey in the 

Plaza Area of the Spiro Mounds Site.” In Spiro Archaeology: 1980 Research, by J. D. Rogers, pp. 215–226. Norman, Okla.: Oklahoma Archaeological Survey.

Bense, J. A. 1994. Archaeology of the Southeastern United 

States: Paleoindian to World War I. San Diego, Calif.: Academic Press.

Berthoud, G., and F. Savelli. 1979. Our Obsolete Production 

Mentality: The Heresy of the Communal Formation. Current Anthropology, 20:745–760.

Braecklein, J. G. 1936. “Letter to Smithsonian Institution.” Accession File 137937. National Museum of Natural History, 

Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Brain, J. P., and P. Phillips. 1996. Shell Gorgets: Styles of the Late 

Prehistoric and Protohistoric Southeast. Cambridge, Mass.: 

Peabody Museum Press.

Brose, D. S., J. A. Brown, and D. W. Penney. 1985. Ancient 

Art of the American Woodland Indians. New York: Harry 

Abrams, in association with the Detroit Institute of Arts.

Brown, J. A. 1966a. Description of the Mound Group. First Part 

of the Second Annual Report of Caddoan Archaeology—

Spiro Focus Research. Norman, Okla.: University of Oklahoma Research Institute.

———. 1966b. The Graves and Their Contents. Second Part of 

the Second Annual Report of Caddoan Archaeology—Spiro 

Focus Research. Norman, Okla.: University of Oklahoma 

Research Institute.

———. 1971a. “The Dimensions of Status in the Burials at 

Spiro.” In Approaches to the Social Dimensions of Mortuary Practices, ed. J. A. Brown, pp. 92–112. Washington, 

D.C.: Society for American Archaeology.

———. 1971b. Pottery Vessels. First Part of the Third Annual Report of Caddoan Archaeology—Spiro Focus Research. Norman, Okla.: University of Oklahoma Research 

­Institute.

———. 1976. The Artifacts. Second Part of the Third Annual 

Report of Caddoan Archaeology—Spiro Focus Research. 

Norman, Okla.: University of Oklahoma Research Institute.

———. 1983. “Spiro Exchange Connections Revealed by Sources 

of Imported Raw Materials.” In Southeastern Natives and 

Their Pasts: A Collection of Papers Honoring Dr. Robert E. 

Bell, ed. D. G. Wyckoff and J. L. Hofman, pp. 129–162. 

Norman, Okla.: Oklahoma Archeological ­Survey.

———. 1984a. Prehistoric Southern Ozark Marginality: A Myth 

Exposed. Missouri Archaeological Society Special Publication, No. 6. Columbia, Missouri: Missouri Archaeological 

Society.

———. 1984b. “Arkansas Valley Caddoan: The Spiro Phase.” In 

Prehistory of Oklahoma, ed. R. E. Bell, pp. 241–263. New 

York: Academic Press.

———. 1996. The Spiro Ceremonial Center: The Archaeology 

of Arkansas Valley Caddoan Culture in Eastern Oklahoma. 

Volumes 1–2. Memoirs of the Museum of Anthropology, 

No. 29. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.

———. 2010. “Cosmological Layouts of Secondary Burials as 

Political Instruments.” In Mississippian Mortuary Practices: 

Beyond Hierarchy and the Representationist Perspective, 

ed. L. P. Sullivan and R. C. Mainfort, Jr., pp. 30–53. Gainesville: University of Florida Press.

Brown, J. A., and R. E. Bell. 1964. The First Annual Report 

of Caddoan Archaeology—Spiro Focus Research. Norman, 

Okla.: University of Oklahoma Research Institute.

Brown, J. A., R. E. Bell, and D. G. Wyckoff. 1978. “Caddoan 

Settlement Patterns in the Arkansas River Drainage.” In 

Mississippi Settlement Patterns, ed. B. D. Smith, pp. 169–

200. New York: Academic Press.

Brown, J. A., and J. Kelly. 2000. “Cahokia and the Southeastern Ceremonial Complex.” In Mounds, Modoc and 

Mesoamerica, ed. S. R. Ahler, pp. 469–510. Illinois State 

Museum Scientific Papers, Vol. 28. Springfield: Illinois 

State Museum.

Brown, J. A., and J. D. Rogers. 1989. Linking Spiro’s Artistic 

Styles: The Copper Connection. Southeastern Archaeology, 

8:1–8.

———. 1999. AMS Dates on Artifacts of the Southeastern Ceremonial Complex from Spiro. Southeastern Archaeology, 

18:11–18.

Burnett, E. K. 1945. The Spiro Mound Collection in the Museum. New York: Museum of the American Indian, Heye 

Foundation.

Clements, F. E. 1945. Historical Sketch of the Spiro Mound. 

Contributions to the Museum of the American Indian, Heye 

Foundation, No. 14:48–68. New York: Museum of the 

American Indian, Heye Foundation.

Clements, F. E., and Associates. 1935–1938. Preliminary General Report on Archaeological Work in Oklahoma Sponsored by the University of Oklahoma as a Works Progress 

Administration Project. WPA Progress Report 4844. Washington, D.C.: National Anthropological Archives, Smithsonian Institution.

Dickson, D. 1989. Lithic Raw Materials in the Southern Ozark 

Highlands. Unpublished manuscript. Department of Anthropology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Duffield, L. F. 1964. Engraved Shells from the Craig Mound at 

Spiro, Le Flore County, Oklahoma. Memoir 1. Oklahoma 

City: Oklahoma Anthropological Society.
number 49 • 22 3

———. 1973. The Oklahoma Craig Mound: Another Look at 

an Old Problem. Bulletin of the Oklahoma Anthropological 

Society, 22:1–10.

Fischbeck, H. J., J. D. Rogers, S. R. Ryan, and F. E. Swenson. 

1989. Sourcing Ceramics in the Spiro Region: A Preliminary 

Study Using Proton-­Induced X-ray Emission (PIXE) analysis. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology, 14(1):3–18.

Fowler, M. L. 1989. The Cahokia Atlas: A Historical Atlas of 

Cahokia Archaeology. Studies in Illinois Archaeology, 

No. 6. Springfield: Illinois Historic Preservation Agency.

Fundaburk, E. L., and M. D. Foreman, eds. 1957. Sun Circles 

and Human Hands: The Southeastern Indians Art and Industries. Luverne, Ala.: Authors, self-published.

Galloway, P. 1989. The Southeastern Ceremonial Complex: Artifacts and Analysis. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Galm, J. R. 1978. Archaeological Investigations at Wister Lake, 

Le Flore County, Oklahoma. Archaeological Research and 

Management Center, Research Series, No. 1. Norman, 

Okla.: Archaeological Research and Management Center.

———. 1981. Prehistoric Cultural Adaptations in the Wister 

Valley, Eastern Oklahoma. Ph.D. diss., Washington State 

University, Pullman. Ann Arbor, Mich.: University Microfilms.

———. 1984. “Arkansas Valley Caddoan Formative: The Wister 

and Fourche Maline Phases.” In Prehistory of Oklahoma, 

ed. R. E. Bell, pp. 199–219. New York: Academic Press.

Galm, J. R., and P. Flynn. 1978. The Cultural Sequences at the 

Scott (34Lf-11) and Wann (34Lf-27) Sites and Prehistory 

of the Wister Valley. Archaeological Research and Management Center, Research Series, No. 3. Norman, Okla.: Archaeological Research and Management Center.

Goodman, D., Y. Nishimura, and J. D. Rogers. 1995. GPR 

(Ground Penetrating Radar) Time Slices in Archaeological 

Prospection. Archaeological Prospection, 2:85–89.

Griffin, J. B. 1952. An Interpretation of the Place of Spiro in 

Southeastern Archaeology. The Missouri Archaeologist,

14:89–106.

Hall, R. L. 1997. An Archaeology of the Soul: North American Indian Belief and Ritual. Urbana: University of Illinois 

Press.

Hamilton, H. W. 1952. The Spiro Mound. The Missouri Archaeologist, 14:17–88.

Hamilton, H. W., J. T. Hamilton, and E. F. Chapman. 1974. Spiro 

Mound Copper. Memoir, Missouri Archaeological Society, 

No. 11. Columbia, Mo.: Missouri Archaeological Society.

Henry, D. O. 1978. Big Hawk Shelter in Northeastern Oklahoma: Environmental, Economic, and Cultural Changes. 

Journal of Field Archaeology, 5:269–287.

Henry, D. O., B. H. Butler, and S. A. Hall. 1979. The Late Prehistoric Human Ecology of Birch Creek Valley, Northeastern 

Oklahoma. Plains Anthropologist, 24(85):207–238.

Hilgeman, S. L. 1985. Lower Ohio Valley Negative Painted Ceramics. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology, 10(2):195–

214.

Hitchcock, R. K. 1982. “Patterns of Sedentism Among the Bosarwa of Eastern Botswana.” In Politics and History in 

Band Societies, ed. E. Leacock and R. B. Lee, pp. 223–268. 

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hoffman, M. J. 1978. Conservation Systems for the Spiro Textiles. Master’s thesis, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville.

Horton, E., and G. Sabo III. 2011. Spiro Perishable Project 

Makes Exciting New Discovery. Field Notes, 358:9–13.

Johnson, G. A. 1982. “Organizational Structure and Scalar 

Stress.” In Theory and Explanation in Archaeology: The 

Southampton Conference, ed. C. Renfrew, M. J. Rowlands, 

and B. A. Segraves, pp. 389–421. New York: Academic Press.

Justice, N. D. 1987. Stone Age Spear and Arrow Points of the 

Midcontinental and Eastern United States. Bloomington: 

Indiana University Press.

Kay, M., G. Sabo III, and R. J. Merletti. 1989. “Late Prehistoric Settlement Patterning: A View from Three Caddoan 

Civic-­Ceremonial Centers in Northwest Arkansas.” In Contributions to Spiro Archaeology: Mound Excavations and 

Regional Perspectives, ed. J. D. Rogers, D. G. Wyckoff, and 

D. A. Peterson, pp. 129–157. Studies in Oklahoma’s Past, 

No. 16. Norman, Okla.: Oklahoma Archaeological Survey.

King, A. 2007. Southeastern Ceremonial Complex: Chronology, 

Content, Context. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.

King, A., and M. S. Meyers, eds. 2002. Frontiers, Backwaters, 

and Peripheries: Exploring the Edges of the Mississippian 

World. Southeastern Archaeology, 21(2):113–116.

King, M. E., and J. Gardner 1981. “The Analysis of Textiles 

from Spiro Mound, Oklahoma.” In The Research Potential 

of Anthropological Museum Collections, ed. A. E. Cantwell, 

J. B. Griffin, and N. A. Rothschild. Annals of the New York 

Academy of Science, 376:123–139.

Kozuch, L. 2002. Olivella beads from Spiro and the Plains. 

American Antiquity, 67(4):697–709.

Kuttruff, J. 1988. Textile Attributes and Production Complexity 

as Indicators of Caddoan Status Differentiation in the Arkansas Valley and Southern Ozark Regions. Ph.D. diss., Department of Anthropology, Ohio State University, ­Columbus.

La Vere, D. 2007. Looting Spiro Mounds: An American King 

Tut’s Tomb. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. 

Leonhardy, F. 1989. “The Physical Stratigraphy of Copple 

Mound.” In Contributions to Spiro Archaeology: Mound 

Excavations and Regional Perspectives, ed. J. D. Rogers, 

D. G. Wyckoff, and D. A. Peterson, pp. 15–26. Norman, 

Okla.: Oklahoma Archaeological Survey.

Lintz, C. 1978. An Archaeological Survey of the Kerr–McGee 

Choctaw Coal Mine Facility, Haskell County, Oklahoma.

Project Report Series No. 2. Norman, Okla: Archaeological 

Research and Management Center, University of Oklahoma.

MacDonald, A. B. 1935. “A ‘King Tut’ Tomb in the Arkansas 

Valley.” Kansas City Star, 14 December 1935.

Meillassoux, C. 1960. Essai d’interprétation du phénomene 

économique daus les sociétiés traditionnelles d’antosubsistence. Cahiers d’Etudes Africains, 4:36–67.
224 • s m ithsonian cont r i bu tions to anth r o p o l o g y

Merriam, L. G., and C. J. Merriam. 2004. The Spiro Mound: A 

Photo Essay. Oklahoma City, Okla.: Merriam Station Books.

Milner, G. R. 1998. The Cahokia Chiefdom: Archaeology of a 

Mississippian Society. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Mohrman, D. 1939. The Detection of Fraudulent Copper 

Needles. Transactions of the Illinois Academy of Sciences, 

32:60–61.

Moorehead, W. G. 1897. The Hopewell Group. The Antiquarian

1(10):254–264.

———. 2000. The Cahokia Mounds. Tuscaloosa: University of 

Alabama Press.

Munsell Color Co. 1973. Munsell Soil Color Charts. Baltimore, 

Md.: Munsell Color Co.

Muto, G. 1978. The Habiukut of Eastern Oklahoma: Parris 

Mound, Part 1, Phase 1, an Archaeological Report. Series in 

Anthropology, No. 3. Oklahoma City: Oklahoma Historical Society.

National Museum of Natural History. 1936. “J. G. Braecklein 

loan.” Accession File 137937. Smithsonian Institution, 

Washington, D.C.

———. 1937. “Inventory list of J. G. Braecklein gift.” Accession 

File 145540. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

———. 1960. “Harry M. Trowbridge purchase.” Accession File 

228126. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Orr, K. G. 1946. The Archaeological Situation at Spiro, 

Oklahoma: A Preliminary Report. American Antiquity,

11(4):228–256.

Pauketat, T. R. 1993. Temples for Cahokia Lords. Memoirs of 

the Museum of Anthropology, No. 26. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.

———. 1994. The Ascent of Chiefs: Cahokia and Mississippian 

Politics in Native North America. Tuscaloosa: University of 

Alabama Press.

———. 2007. Chiefdoms and Other Archaeological Delusions. 

Lanham, Md.: Altamira Press.

———. 2009. Cahokia: Ancient America’s Great City on the 

Mississippi. New York: Viking.

Pauketat, T. R., and T. E. Emerson, eds. 1997. Cahokia: Domination and Ideology in the Mississippian World. Lincoln: 

University of Nebraska Press.

Payne, C., and J. F. Scarry. 1998. “Town Structure at the Edge 

of the Mississippian World.” In Mississippian Towns and 

Sacred Spaces: Searching for an Architectural Grammar, ed. 

R. B. Lewis and C. Stout, pp. 22–48. Tuscaloosa: University 

of Alabama Press.

Pendergast, J. F. 1989. “The Significance of Some Shell Excavated 

on Iroquoian Archaeological Sites in Ontario.” In Proceedings of the 1986 Shell Bead Conference, Selected Papers, ed. 

L. Ceci, pp. 97–112. Research Records, No. 20. Rochester, 

New York: Rochester Museum and Science Center.

Perino, G. 1968. A Guide to Certain Projectile Points. Special 

Bulletin of the Oklahoma Anthropological Society, No. 3. 

Oklahoma City: Oklahoma Anthropological Society.

———. 1970. A Guide to Certain Projectile Points. Special 

Bulletin of the Oklahoma Anthropological Society, No. 4. 

Oklahoma City: Oklahoma Anthropological Society.

Perttula, T. K. 1989. “The Late Prehistoric Period in the Western 

Ozarks of Southwest Missouri.” In Contributions to Spiro 

Archaeology: Mound Excavations and Regional Perspectives, ed. J. D. Rogers, D. G. Wyckoff, and D. A. Peterson, 

pp. 117–128, Studies in Oklahoma’s Past, No. 16. Norman, 

Okla.: Oklahoma Archaeological Survey.

Peterson, D. 1989. “Copple Mound Excavations.” In Contributions to Spiro Archaeology: Regional Perspectives and 

Mound Excavations, ed. J. D. Rogers, D. G. Wyckoff, and 

D. A. Peterson, pp. 27–41. Studies in Oklahoma’s Past, 

No. 16. Norman, Okla.: Oklahoma Archaeological Survey.

Phillips, P., and J. A. Brown. 1978. Pre-Columbian Shell Engravings from the Craig Mound at Spiro, Oklahoma, Part 1. 

Cambridge, Mass.: Peabody Museum of Archaeology and 

Ethnology.

———. 1984. Pre-Columbian Shell Engravings from Craig 

Mound at Spiro, Oklahoma, Part 2. Cambridge, Mass.: 

Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology.

Phillips, P., J. A. Ford, and J. B. Griffin. 1951. Archaeological Survey on the Lower Mississippi Alluvial Valley, 1940–1947. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, 

No. 25. Cambridge, Mass.: Peabody Museum Press.

Plog, F. T. 1974. The Study of Prehistoric Change. New York: 

Academic Press.

Potter County Historical Survey Committee. 1964. Alibates Flint 

Quarries: A National Monument, 2 Volumes. Amarillo, 

Texas: Panhandle Geological Society.

Powell, S. 1983. Mobility and Adaptation: The Anasazi of Black 

Mesa, Arizona. Southern Carbondale: Illinois University Press.

Rafferty, J. E. 1985. The Archaeological Record on Sedentariness: Recognition, Development, and Implications. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, No. 8, ed. 

M. B. Schiffer, pp. 113–156. New York: Academic Press.

Rogers, J. D. 1980. Spiro Archaeology: 1979 Excavations. Studies in Oklahoma’s Past, No. 6. Norman, Okla.: Oklahoma 

Archeological Survey.

———. 1982. Spiro Archaeology: 1980 Research. Studies in 

Oklahoma’s Past, No. 9. Norman, Okla.: Oklahoma Archaeological Survey.

———. 1983. “Social Ranking and Change in the Harlan and 

Spiro Phases of Eastern Oklahoma.” In Southeastern Natives and Their Pasts: Papers in Honoring Robert E. Bell,

ed. D. F. Wyckoff and J. Hofman, pp. 17–128. Studies in 

Oklahoma’s Past, No. 11. Norman, Okla: Oklahoma Archeological Survey.

———. 1989. “Settlement Contexts for Shifting Authority in the 

Arkansas Basin.” In Contributions to Spiro Archaeology: 

Mound Excavations and Regional Perspectives, ed. J. D. 

Rogers, D. G. Wyckoff, and D. A. Peterson, pp. 159–176. 

Studies in Oklahoma’s Past, No. 16. Norman, Okla.: Oklahoma Archeological Survey.
number 49 • 22 5

———. 1991a. “Patterns of Change on the Western Margin of 

the Southeast, A.D. 600–900.” In Stability, Transformation, 

and Variation: The Late Woodland Southeast, ed. M. S. Nassaney and C. R. Cobb, pp. 221–248. New York: Plenum.

———. 1991b. Regional Prehistory and the Spiro Site. Southeastern Archaeology, 10:63–69.

———. 1995. “Dispersed Communities and Integrated Households: A Perspective from Spiro and the Arkansas Basin.” In 

Mississippian Communities and Households, ed. J. D. Rogers and B. D. Smith, pp. 81–98. Tuscaloosa: University of 

Alabama Press.

———. 1996. Markers of Social Integration: The Development 

of Centralized Authority in the Spiro Region. In Political 

Structure and Change in the Prehistoric Southeastern United 

States, ed. J. F. Scarry, pp. 53–68. Gainesville, Florida: University Press of Florida.

———. 2006. Chronology and the Demise of Chiefdoms: Eastern Oklahoma in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries. 

Southeastern Archaeology, 25:20–28.

———. 2009a. “The Spiro Site.” In Archaeology in America: An 

Encyclopedia, ed. F. P. McManamon, pp. 324–329. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press.

———. 2009b. “The Harlan Site.” In Archaeology in America: 

An Encyclopedia, ed. F. P. McManamon, pp. 322–323. 

Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press.

———. 2011. Stable Isotope Analysis and Diet in Eastern Oklahoma. Southeastern Archaeology, 30.

Rogers, J. D., L. E. Albert, and F. Winchell. 2000. Chronometrics 

at the Norman Site. Caddoan Archaeology, 11:11–18.

Rogers, J. D., C. J. Dove, M. Heacker, and G. R. Graves. 2002. 

Identification of Feathers in Textiles from the Craig Mound 

at Spiro, Oklahoma. Southeastern Archaeology, 21:245–

251.

Rogers, J. D., M. Moore, and R. Greaves. 1982. Spiro Archaeology—The Plaza. Studies in Oklahoma’s Past, No. 10. Norman, Okla.: Oklahoma Archaeological Survey.

Rogers, J. D., and G. Sabo III. 2004. “The Caddos.” In Handbook of North American Indians, ed. W. C. Sturtevant. 

Volume 14: Southeast, ed. R. D. Fogelson, pp. 616–631. 

Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Rogers, J. D., and B. D. Smith, eds. 1995. Mississippian Communities and Households. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama 

Press.

Rogers, J. D., D. G. Wyckoff, and D. Peterson, eds. 1989. Contributions to Spiro Archaeology: Regional Perspectives and 

Mound Excavations. Studies in Oklahoma’s Past, No. 16. 

Norman, Okla.: Oklahoma Archaeological Survey.

Rohrbaugh, C. L. 1982. Spiro and Fort Coffee Phases: Changing Cultural Complexes of the Caddoan Area. Ph.D. diss., 

University of Wisconsin, Madison. Ann Arbor, Mich.: University Microfilms.

———. 1985a. LfGeI, The Geren Site, 34LF36, of the Spiro 

Phase. Bulletin of the Oklahoma Anthropological Society, 

34:9–81.

———. 1985b. The Subdivision of Spiro Phase. Midcontinental 

Journal of Archaeology, 10(2):155–170.

Rolingson, M. A. 1987. “An Assessment of the Significance 

of Clay-­Tempered Ceramics and Platform Mounds at the 

Toltec Mounds Site.” In The Emergent Mississippian: Proceedings of the Sixth Mid-South Archaeological Conference, 

ed. R. A. Marshall, pp. 107–116. Occasional Papers 87-01. 

Mississippi State: Cobb Institute of Archaeology, Mississippi State University.

Scarry, J. F., ed. 1996. Political Structure and Change in the Prehistoric Southeastern United States. Gainesville: University 

Press of Florida.

Schambach, F. F. 1982. “An Outline of Fourche Maline Culture 

in Southwest Arkansas.” In Arkansas Archeology in Review, 

ed. N. L. Trubowitz and M. D. Jeter, 132–197. Research Series, No. 15. Fayetteville: Arkansas Archeological Survey.

———. 1993. “Some New Interpretations of Spiroan Culture 

History.” In Archaeology of Eastern North America: Papers 

in Honor of Stephen Williams, ed. J. B. Stoltman, pp. 187–

230. Archaeological Report, No. 25. Jackson: Mississippi 

Department of Archives and History.

———. 1998. Pre-Caddoan Cultures in the Trans-Mississippi 

South: A Beginning Sequence. Research Series, No. 53. Fayetteville: Arkansas Archeological Survey.

Schroeder, S. 2004. Power and Place: Agency, Ecology, and History in the American Bottom, Illinois. Antiquity, 78:812–

827.

Sievert, A. K. 1992. Maya Ceremonial Specialization: Lithic 

Tools from the Sacred Cenote at Chichen Itza, Yucatan. 

Madison, Wis.: Prehistory Press.

———. 2003. “Spiro Painted Maces and Shell Cups: The Scientific Use of Artifacts without Context.” In Theory, Method, 

and Practice in Modern Archaeology, ed. R. J. Jeske and 

D. K. Charles, pp. 182–194. Westport, Conn.: Praeger.

Smith, B. D. 1984. Mississippian Expansion: Tracing the Historical Development of an Explanatory Model. Southeastern 

Archaeology, 3:13–32.

———. 1986. The Archaeology of the Southeastern United 

States: From Dalton to de Soto, 10,500–500 B.P. Advances 

in World Archaeology, 5:1–95.

———, ed. 1990. The Mississippian Emergence. Washington, 

D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Story, D. A., ed. 1981. Archaeological Investigations at the 

George C. Davis Site, Cherokee County, Texas: Summers 

of 1979 and 1980. Occasional Papers, No. 1. Austin: Texas 

Archaeological Research Laboratory.

Suhm, D. A., A. D. Krieger, and E. B. Jelks. 1954. An Introductory Handbook of Texas Archaeology. Bulletin of the Texas 

Archeological Society, No. 25. Austin: Texas Archeological 

Society.

Thoburn, J. B. 1930. The Northern Caddoan Peoples of Prehistoric Times and the Human Origin of the Natural Mounds, 

So Called, of Oklahoma and Neighboring States. Thoburn 

Collection, Oklahoma Historical Society, Oklahoma City.
226 • s m ithsonian cont r i bu tions to anth r o p o l o g y

———. 1931. “The Prehistoric Cultures of Oklahoma.” In Archaeology of the Arkansas River Valley, ed. W. K. Moorehead, pp. 53–82. Andover, Mass.: Phillips Academy.

Thorne, R. M., and B. J. Broyles, eds. 1968. Handbook of Pottery Types Found in Mississippi. SEAC Bulletin, 7.

Thurmond, J. P. 1991. Archeology of the Dempsey Divide: A Late 

Archaic/Woodland Hotspot on the Southern Plains. Bulletin 

of the Oklahoma Anthropological Society, 39:103–157.

Trowbridge, H. M. 1938. Analysis of Spiro Mound Textiles. 

American Antiquity, 4(1):51–53.

———. 1944. The Trowbridge Collection of Spiro Mound Artifacts. Journal of the Illinois Archaeological Society, July:21–23.

———. 1958. “Catalog of Artifacts from Spiro Mound.” National Anthropological Archives, W. Wedel Collection, Correspondence file: “Trowbridge.” Smithsonian Institution, 

Washington, D.C.

Turgeon, D. D., H. E. Bogan, E. V. Coan, W. K. Emerson, 

W. G. Lyons, W. L. Pratt, C. F. E. Roper, A. Scheltema, 

F. G. Thompson, and J. D. Williams. 1988. Common and 

Scientific Names of Aquatic Invertebrates from the United 

States and Canada: Mollusks. Special Publication No. 16. 

Bethesda, Md.: American Fisheries Society.

Watson, V. D. 1950. The Wulfing Plates: Products of Prehistoric 

Americans. St. Louis, Mo.: Washington University Press.

White, D. R., G. P. Murdock, and R. Scaglion. 1971. Natchez 

Class and Rank Reconsidered. Ethnology, 10:369–388.

White, S. 1940. Human Effigy Pipes from Spiro Mound, Le Flore 

County, Oklahoma. The Oklahoma Prehistorian, 3(1): 

10–11.

Whitford, A. C. 1941. Textile Fibers Used in Eastern Aboriginal 

North America. Anthropological Papers of the American 

Museum of Natural History, No. 38. New York: American 

Museum of Natural History.

Willoughby, C. C. 1952. Textile Fabrics from the Spiro Mound. 

The Missouri Archaeologist, 14:107–118.

Wilson, G. D. 2010. Community, Identity, and Social Memory at 

Moundville. American Antiquity, 75:3–18.

Wyckoff, D. G. 1970. A Preliminary Report on 1970 Field Research at the Spiro Site, Le Flore County, Oklahoma. Norman, Okla.: Oklahoma Archaeological Survey.

———. 1980. Caddoan Adaptive Strategies in the Arkansas 

Basin, Eastern Oklahoma. Ph.D. diss., Washington State 

University. Ann Arbor, Mich.: University Microfilms.

Wylie, A. A. 1995. “Archaeology and the Antiquities Market: 

The Use of ‘Looted’ Data.” In Ethics in American Archaeology: Challenges for the 1990s, ed. M. J. Lynott and A. A. 

Wylie, pp. 17–21. Washington, D.C.: Society for American 

Archaeology.

Zirkan, C. 1956. “Record Unit 305: Letter to Clifford Evans.” 

Accession 210052. National Museum of Natural History, 

Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Index

Page numbers for tables are in italics and for figures are in bold.

agriculture, 9

and sedentism, 9

Alibates agatized dolomite, 76, 97

animal effigies, 166

animal hair, 57, 62, 65, 71, 72, 72

Arkansas novaculite, 75–76, 85

Balloun, Joseph W., 14, 19, 22, 94

basketry, 25, 67–68, 185

coiled, 68, 69, 69

impressions on other artifacts, 40, 41, 70–71

 NMNH collection of, 68

open-work woven, 70

square shallow, 68, 68–69

twill woven, 68, 68, 69–70, 70, 71

beads, 25, 113–23, 186

composite, 121

copper (see copper: beads)

shell (see shell beads)

stone, 121–22, 122, 122

stringing of, 57, 58

and textiles, 66

boatstones, 100, 101

bone artifacts, 167

awls, 134–35, 135, 167

gorgets, 128, 132–33, 133, 167

pendants, 125, 127

pins, 134, 134–35, 135

plaques, 135, 136

ritual objects, 25, 166, 167, 167, 168

Boone chert, 75, 88, 90, 91, 93

Braden style engraving, 43–47, 44, 127
228 • s m ithsonian cont r i bu tions to anth r o p o l o g y

Braden style engraving (continued)

 A, 43–45, 44, 44, 45, 51–52

B, 43, 44, 45–46, 45, 46, 51–52

 C, 43, 44, 46–47, 46, 47, 51–52

Braecklein, J. G., 19–20, 20, 22, 96, 

102, 123, 131, 134, 156, 179, 181

Brown, Aunt Rachel, 14

Brown Mound, 3, 4, 6, 7, 11, 14

Busycon, 27, 39–40, 40, 41, 115, 116, 

123, 127, 131, 132, 161, 165

Caddoan, 14

 Northern region, 1, 9, 10

Cahokia, 1, 36, 87, 181

cannel coal, 98, 99, 100, 126, 126

celts, 25, 91, 93, 93, 93, 97, 98, 99,

100, 100, 102

elongate, 98, 98, 99

spatulate, 98, 99, 100, 100, 100

ceramics, 25

characterizing features of, 27–29, 28, 

183–84

 Clement Redware, 29, 37, 38

 Coles Creek, 2, 31, 32, 36

 Crockett Curvilinear Incised (see Crockett Curvilinear Incised ceramics)

effigy, 29, 35–36, 36

French Fork-like Agee Incised, 2

Friendship Engraved, 29, 33–34

glazed, 29, 39

grit-tempered, 31, 33, 34, 36, 38

grog-tempered, 29, 30–35

 Haley Engraved, 29, 34, 35

 Hatchel Engraved, 29, 34, 35

Le Flore Plain (see Le Flore Plain 

ceramics)

manufacture of, 30

Mississippian Plain, 35

 Old Town Red, 29, 30, 32, 36–37

Pennington Punctate (see Pennington 

Punctate ceramics)

Plum Bayou, 2

polychrome, 29, 39

Poteau Plain, 29, 36

raw material used for, 29–30

 Sanders Engraved, 29, 37, 37–38

 Sanders Plain, 29, 30, 30, 31, 32, 36–37

 Sanders Plain/Clement Redware, 29,

37, 38

 Sanders Plain/Old Town Red, 29, 30, 

32, 36–37

shell-tempered, 29, 35–36

sherd counts, 29

slipped, 29, 36–38

 Smithport Plain, 29, 30, 31, 31, 32

 Southwestern, 29, 38, 38–39

undifferentiated grog-tempered incised, 

29, 35

undifferentiated grog-tempered plain, 

29, 35

undifferentiated shell tempered, 29, 36

use of, 30

 White Engraved, 29, 30, 31, 33, 34, 34

 Williams Plain (see Williams Plain 

ceramics)

 Woodward Plain, 29, 35, 36

chert

Boone, 75, 79, 82, 86, 88, 90, 91, 93

Burlington, 75, 82, 83, 85, 86, 91

Devonian Woodford, 76, 88

Dover, 76, 93, 95

Florence (Kay County), 75, 83, 91, 

92, 92, 93, 95

Jefferson City–Cotter, 75, 82, 85, 90, 

90

Keokuk, 75, 85, 90

Mill Creek, 76, 93, 95

Mississippian Compton, 75

Mississippian Pierson, 76, 85

Mississippian Reed Springs, 75, 79, 

82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 88, 90, 95

 Ordovician Cotter, 75, 85

Pitkin, 75, 82, 83, 86, 87

Red River jasper, 76, 79, 83

 Smoky Hills (Niobrara) jasper, 76, 91, 

95

chiefdoms, 1, 9, 11, 12

chipped lithic weaponry, 73, 74

damage to, 75, 76, 77, 89

haftable bifaces, 91

large bifaces (see large bifaces)

large projectile points (see large projectile points)

raw materials used for, 75–76, 81

small projectile points (see small projectile points)

Clements, Forest, 15, 23

cloth, 25, 57, 57

decorations, 66

dyed, 60, 63, 64, 66, 67

simple weave, 57, 65, 67

spaced weft twining, 57, 61–62, 61,

62, 63, 64, 64, 65

twined tapestry, 57, 65, 65, 66, 66

weaving styles, 60–67

wrapped warp, 57, 64

See also textiles

cones, 135–36, 136

copper, 160

beads, 25, 58, 122, 122–23, 123, 123

decoration on earspools, 107–8, 108,

109, 111, 113

on headdresses, 135 (see also copper 

pins)

pins (see copper pins)

preservation of organic materials by, 

162, 170

ritual objects, 25

sheet, 24, 69, 135, 160–62, 161, 161

copper pins

authentic, 133, 133–34

fraudulent, 25, 133, 134, 134

Copple Mound, 3, 4, 6

coprolites, 172

corner-notched points, 77, 81, 89

 Agee, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82–83, 82, 

86, 89

 Ashley, 77, 80, 81, 83–84

 Ashley Chocoville, 81, 84, 90

 Collier, 81, 84

 Coryell, 81, 84, 86

Martindale, 78, 81, 84

Massard, 81, 84, 84–85, 86

Rockwall, 79, 81, 83

 Scallorn, 81, 83, 85, 85

 Sequoyah, 79, 81, 83, 87

Craig, William, 14

Craig Mound, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, 16

closing of, 7

construction of, 7, 17

destruction of, 15, 16

pre-excavation, 14

premound burials, 2

Craig style engraving, 43, 44, 127, 128

 A, 43, 44, 47–48, 48, 51, 128, 129

B, 43, 44, 48–49, 49, 50, 51, 128,

130, 132

 C, 43, 44, 49–51, 50, 51, 51, 52

Crockett Curvilinear Incised ceramics, 

29, 30, 31, 31–33, 33, 171

Pennington Punctate ceramics compared to, 33

crown maces. See maces

Davis site, 9

discoidals, 159–60, 160, 160

Dollop Mound, 3, 4, 5–6

earspools, 25, 105–13, 106, 108

analysis of, 185–86

central boss, 106, 108, 111

composite, 106, 108, 111, 111
number 49 • 229

decorations on, 107–8, 108, 109,

112–13

depicted on shell cups, 45, 47, 48, 110

divided flange, 106, 108, 110–11, 111

effigy, 106, 108, 112, 112, 136

flanged ring, 106, 108, 112, 112

nesting, 106, 108, 111

perforated pulley-shaped (see perforated pulley-shaped earspools)

raw materials used for, 108

unperforated pulley-shaped (see unperforated pulley-shaped earspools)

wooden disc, 106, 108, 112

effigy pipes, 153, 154, 154

human, 154, 156–59, 156, 157, 158,

159

zoomorphic, 154, 154–56, 155,

158–59, 159

Emergent Mississippian period, 8, 9

Evans, George, 14–15

Evans phase, 2, 4, 8, 10, 85

population during, 11

transition to, 8–9

feathers, 57, 65, 72, 72

figurines, 162, 162

human effigy, 25, 162, 162–65, 163,

164, 165

shell, 162, 164–65, 165

stone, 162, 164, 164

wooden, 162, 162–64, 163

See also maskettes

Fort Coffee phase, 2, 4, 7

population during, 11

Fourche Maline phase, 2, 8–9, 85, 89

transition to Evans phase from, 9

fraudulent artifacts, 25, 133, 134, 134

functional contexts, 24

galena, 164, 164, 170, 171–72, 172

glass slag, 172

glauconite, 33, 171

gorgets, 25, 127–33

bone, 128, 132–33, 133, 167

design distribution of, 128

shell (see shell gorgets)

solid, 130

Great Mortuary, 7, 17

“Great Temple Mound”, 14

Hamilton, Henry, 16, 17, 20, 20, 23

Harlan phase, 2, 4, 4–7, 8, 9, 10

population during, 11

transition to Norman phase from, 11

Harlan site, 4, 10

Harris, R. King, 23

Hasinai Caddo, 9

headdresses

bone pins, 134, 134–35, 135

bone plaques, 135, 136

copper foil materials on, 135

copper pins (see copper pins)

plaques and plates, 135

hematite, 126

House Mound 1, 3, 4

House Mound 2, 3, 4

House Mound 3, 3, 4

House Mound 4, 2, 3, 4, 6

House Mound 5, 3, 4–5, 6

buildings at, 4–5, 5

House Mound 6, 3, 4, 6

House Mounds, 7. See also specific 

House Mound

human effigies. See effigy pipes: human; 

figurines: human effigy

human remains, 175–78

femora, 176, 177, 178

foot bones, 178

hand bones, 177, 178

humerus, 176, 178

innominates, 176, 178

mandibles, 175–76, 177, 178

ribs, 177

skulls, 175, 177, 178

teeth, 175, 176

tibia, 176, 178

ulna, 177–78

vertebrae, 176–77, 178

large bifaces, 25, 91–95, 93, 92

celts (see celts)

Kay, 90, 92, 93

maces (see maces)

ovoid, 91–92, 92, 93

preforms, 93, 93, 93

sword-form (see sword-form bifaces)

large projectile points, 25, 89–91, 90

eccentric, 90, 91

expanding stem, 90, 91

 Gary, 89–90, 90

 Graham Cave, 90, 90, 91

Johnson, 90, 91

Lange, 90, 90, 90–91

leather, 170

Le Flore Plain ceramics, 2, 29, 31

compared to Williams Plain ceramics, 

31

Lightner Museum of Hobbies, 20, 20–21

maces, 25, 93, 95–97, 96, 97

depicted on shells, 46, 51, 97

maize, 1, 9

Marginella, 115, 119, 120

maskettes, 165–66, 166

material types, 24

mats, 57, 67

twilled, 69–70, 70, 71

twined, 70

medallions. See maskettes

Meyer, Richard K., 22

mica, 111, 172

middle-range societies, 1, 9

mineral lumps, burned, 171, 171

Mississippian cultural “style”, 1, 2

Mississippian period, Emergent, 8, 9

Mound A (see Plaza Mound A)

Mound B (see Plaza Mound B)

Mound C (see Plaza Mound C)

Natchez, 9

National Museum of Natural History 

Spiro collection

accession history, 19–23, 20

 Harris collection, 23

Meyer collection, 22, 39, 180

Mississippian research and, 181

representativeness of, 179–80

significance of, 180–81

summary of, 25

 Trowbridge collection, 21–22, 39, 55, 

56, 56, 180

 See also specific artifact type

NMNH. See National Museum of 

­Natural History Spiro collection

Norman phase, 2, 4, 6, 7, 10, 11

population during, 11

transition to, 11

novaculite, 75–76, 79, 81, 82, 83, 

84–85, 86, 87, 88, 91, 92, 92, 93, 

93, 96, 102

ocher, 171

Olivella, 115, 119–20, 120

Parris Mound, 6

pendants, 25, 123–27

bone, 125, 127

ceramic, 127

shell (see shell pendants)

stone, 126, 126–27, 127

Pennington Punctate ceramics, 29, 33, 34

 Crockett Curvilinear Incised ceramics 

compared to, 33
230 • s m ithsonian cont r i bu tions to anth r o p o l o g y

perforated pulley-shaped earspools, 106, 

106, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110

decorations on, 107–8, 108, 109

manufacture of, 106–7

raw material used for, 107, 108

pipes, 25, 149, 150, 154, 154, 154, 186

effigy (see effigy pipes)

elbow, 150, 153, 153, 158

Red River, 150, 153

 T-shaped (see T-shaped pipes)

plant fibers, 57–58, 72

platform mounds, 4, 6

Plaza Mound A, 3, 4, 5–6

Plaza Mound B, 3, 4, 5–6

Plaza Mound C, 3, 4, 5–6

Plaza Mounds, 7. See also specific Plaza 

Mound

Plum Bayou culture, 2

Pocola Mining Company, 15, 19, 73, 

179, 180

population levels

and social change, 11

at Spiro site, 11

pulley-shaped earspools. See earspools

quartz, 172

rabbit hair, 65, 71, 72

ranked societies, 1, 8, 9, 12

relic hunters, 13–15, 19, 166, 179, 180

ritual materials, 25, 149, 170, 173

animal effigies, 166

bone objects, 25, 166, 167, 167, 168

discoidals, 159–60, 160, 160

figurines (see figurines)

leather pieces, 170

maskettes, 162, 165–66, 166

minerals, 171–72

pipes (see pipes)

unworked, 171–73

wooden objects, 25, 168, 168–69, 

169, 170

Scullyville Mounds, 15

sedentism, 9

and agriculture, 9

shell beads, 25, 115

bowed (asymmetrical convex), 114, 

115, 115–16, 117, 118

bulging, 114, 115, 117, 118

concave disc, 114, 115, 116

concavo-cylindrical, 114, 115, 116, 

117

convexo-cylindrical, 114, 114, 115

cylindrical, 114, 115, 116, 117

disc, 113–14, 114, 115, 116, 119

drop-shaped, 114, 115

elliptical, 114, 114, 115

flat circular, 114, 114, 115

flattened hexagonal, 114, 115, 117, 

118

gastropod and bivalve, 119–20, 120,

120

manufacture of, 113

mask, 115, 119, 119

pearls, 115, 120–21, 121

sculpted, 115, 115

spherical, 114, 115, 116, 116

styles of, 113–19, 114, 115

tooth, 114, 115, 119

shell cups. See shell vessels

shell discs, 112–13

shell fragments, engraved, 51–52

shell gorgets, 127, 128

engraved fragments, 51–52

fenestrated, 51, 128–30, 128, 128,

129, 130, 131

iconographic styles, 127–28, 128

manufacturing styles, 127

mask, 128, 131–32, 132

perforated, 128, 130

sidewall, 128, 131, 131

solid, 128, 130

shell pendants, 123–26, 125, 126

Columella, 123–25, 124, 124, 125

shell vessels, 39, 25

analysis of, 184–85

conservation of, 184–85

engraved fragments, 51–52

engraving styles (see Braden style 

engraving; Craig style engraving)

incising on, 42, 42, 43–51, 44, 45, 46,

47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 138–48 (see 

also Braden style engraving; Craig 

style engraving)

manufacture of, 41–42

 NMNH collection of, 44, 51, 51–52

raw material used for, 39–40, 40

residues on, 40–41, 41

unengraved, 51–52

use of, 42–43

side-notched points, 78, 81, 88

 Haskell, 78, 79, 80, 81, 87

Keota, 78, 80, 81, 85–86, 86, 86, 87, 

89

Morris, 79, 81, 87, 89

Reed, 77, 78, 80, 81, 85, 86, 86, 87, 

88, 89

Reed/Keota variation, 78, 81, 86–87, 

87

 Washita, 81, 86, 86, 87–88

small projectile points, 25, 76–88, 77,

78, 79, 80, 81, 86

caches of, 89

corner-notched (see corner-notched 

points)

damage to, 77, 89

Edwards, 79, 81

heat alteration of, 88–89, 89

side-notched (see side-notched points)

stemmed (see stemmed points)

unshouldered (see unshouldered 

points)

Spiro excavations

history of, 13–17

publicity of, 16

Spiro phase, 2, 4, 6, 7–8

population during, 11

Spiro site, 3

ceramics from (see ceramics)

copper from (see copper)

cultural phases, 2–8, 4

decline of, 12

excavations at (see Spiro excavations)

fraudulent artifacts from, 25, 133, 

134, 134

grave lots, 2, 4, 7, 17

“high-status” artifacts at, 10

“Plaza” area, 4

population at, 11

role in region, 10–11

shell from, 23–24 (see also shell 

beads; shell discs; shell gorgets; 

shell pendants; shell vessels)

stone bowls from, 53–54, 54

structure density at, 6

textiles (see textiles)

transition to Fort Coffee phase, 7

utilitarian implements from (see utilitarian implements)

weaponry from (see weaponry)

wooden vessels from, 52–53, 53

stemmed points, 78

 Alba, 78–79, 78, 80, 80, 81, 86, 89

Bonham, 78, 81, 82

Bonham Tahlequah, 81, 82

 Hayes, 78, 79–80, 81, 86, 89

 Hayes Short, 78, 80, 81

 Homan, 81, 82

Perdiz, 77, 78, 78, 81, 82, 89

sword-form bifaces, 25, 93

Duck River, 93, 93–95, 94
number 49 • 231

fusi-elliptical, 93

general, 93, 95, 95

tapestry. See cloth: twined tapestry

textiles, 15, 20, 23, 24, 25, 180

analysis of, 185

basketry (see basketry)

beads and, 66

braid, 57, 57, 59, 59, 60

cloth (see cloth)

conservation of, 185

cordage, 25, 57, 57, 58–60, 59

raw materials used for, 57–58, 71–72, 

72

styles of, 57, 57, 58–65

 Trowbridge collection of, 21–22, 55, 

56, 56

uses of, 55, 57, 67

wrapped basket fiber, 57, 59

yarn, 57, 57, 58, 58

Thoburn, Joseph B., 13–14

tools, 101

abrading, 101, 102–3, 103

drills, 42, 92, 101, 102

flakes, 101, 102

hammerstones, 101, 103

hoes and spades, 93, 101, 101, 102

incising (graver), 86, 92, 101, 102

manos, 101, 103, 103

polishing stones, 101, 103, 103

scrapers, 95, 102, 102, 166, 167, 168

Trowbridge, Harry, 19, 20, 20, 21–22, 

24, 38, 55, 56

T-shaped pipes, 149–50, 150, 152–53

 Chandler, 150, 150–51, 151

contracting bowl, 150, 152, 153

cylindrical bowl, 150, 151, 151–52, 

152, 153

unperforated pulley-shaped earspools, 

106, 110

raw materials used for, 108, 110

unshouldered points, 80, 88

Fresno, 80, 81, 88

Maud, 77, 81

 Nodena, 81, 88

Young, 81, 88

utilitarian implements, 101

chipped stone, 101–2

ground stone, 102–3

Vandagriff excavations, 14

Vandergriff excavations. See Vandagriff 

excavations

Vandigriff excavations. See Vandagriff 

excavations

Ward Mound 1, 2, 3, 4, 6–7, 13

Ward Mound 2, 2, 3, 7

weaponry, 25, 185

atlatl components, 100, 101, 101

chipped lithic (see chipped lithic 

weaponry)

Williams Plain ceramics, 2, 29, 30, 30, 

31

compared to Leflore Plain ceramics, 31

Wister Valley, 2

wood

earspools, 106, 108, 112

figurines, 162, 162–64, 163

ritual objects, 25, 168, 168–69, 169,

170

vessels, 52–53, 53

Woodland period, 2, 89, 127

Early, 91, 100

Late, 8, 85

Middle, 173

Works Progress Administration. See 

WPA Craig Mound excavation

WPA Craig Mound excavation, 15–16, 

179–80

yarn, 57, 57, 58, 58
All manuscripts are reviewed for adherence to the SISP Manuscript Preparation and 

Style Guide for Authors (available on the “Submissions” page at www.scholarlypress.si.edu). Manuscripts not 

in compliance will be returned to the author. Manuscripts intended for publication in the Contributions Series are evaluated by a content review board and undergo substantive peer 

review. Accepted manuscripts are submitted for funding approval and scheduling to the Publications Oversight Board. 

Minimum manuscript length is thirty manuscript 

pages. If a manuscript is longer than average, an appropriate 

length will be determined during peer review and evaluation 

by the Content Review Board. Authors may be asked to edit 

manuscripts that are determined to be too long. 

Text must be prepared in a recent version of Microsoft 

Word; use a Times font in 12 point for regular text; be double 

spaced; and have 1" margins. Each chapter/section must be 

saved in a separate file.

Required elements are title page, abstract page, table 

of contents, main text, and reference section. See the SISP 

Manuscript Preparation and Style Guide for Authors for the 

order of all elements.

Headings should be styled so different levels of headings are 

distinct from each other and so the organization of the manuscript is clear. Insert one line space above and one line space 

below all headings.

Front matter should include title page, abstract page, 

and table of contents. All other sections are optional. Abstracts must not exceed 300 words. Table of contents should 

include A-, B-, and C-level headings.

Tables (numbered, with captions, stubs, rules) should be 

submitted in separate MS Word files; should include footnotes, if appropriate; should have rules only at top, bottom, 

and beneath column heads. Printouts of each table should 

accompany the manuscript to ensure correct layout of data. 

Tabulations within running text should not be numbered or 

formatted like formal tables, and should be included in the 

text of the manuscript. 

Figure captions should be provided in a separate MS 

Word file.

Figures (e.g., photographs, line art, maps) should be numbered sequentially (1, 2, 3, etc.) in the order called out; be 

placed throughout text, not at end of manuscript; have all 

components of composites lettered with lowercase letters and 

described in the caption; include a scale bar or scale description, if appropriate; include any legends in or on the figure 

rather than in a caption. 

Art must not be embedded in the main text.

Figures must be original and submitted as individual TIFF 

or EPS files. Resolution for art files must be at least 300 dpi 

for grayscale and color images and at least 1200 dpi for line 

art. Electronic images should measure no more than 100% 

and no less than 75% of final size when published. JPG files 

will not be accepted. Color images significantly increase 

costs so should be included only if required. Funding for 

color art is subject to approval by SISP and the Publications 

Oversight Board.

In-text references should be used rather than bibliographic notes and should follow the author-date system in the 

following format: “(author last name, year)” or “. . . author 

(year)”; “(author, year:page used within the text)” or “. . . 

author (year:page).” A full citation should be included in a 

“References” section.

Endnotes are to be used in lieu of footnotes and should 

be keyed manually into a separate MS Word file, in a section titled “Notes.” Notes should not contain bibliographic 

information. Manually type superscript numerals in text and 

use full-sized numerals at the beginning of each note in the 

“Notes” section. SISP will determine the best placement of the 

notes section, either at the end of each chapter or at the end 

of the main text.

References should be in alphabetical order, and in chronological order for same-author entries. Each reference should 

be cited at least once in main text. Complete bibliographic information must be included in all citations (e.g., author/editor, 

title, subtitle, edition, volume, issue, pages, figures). For books, 

place of publication and publisher are required. For journals, 

use the parentheses system for volume(number):pagination 

[e.g., “10(2):5–9”]. Do not use “et al.”; all authors/editors 

should be included in reference citations. In titles, capitalize 

first word, last word, first word after colon, and all other 

words except articles, conjunctions, and prepositions. Examples of the most common types of citations are provided in the 

SISP Manuscript Preparation and Author Style Guide. 

For questions regarding the guidelines, please email SISP at 

schol.press@si.edu. 

requirements for smithsonian series publication