Death and the Parkin Phase:
Finding "Difference" in Late Prehistoric Northeast Arkansas.

Jamie C. Brandon

Paper presented to the 66th annual meeting of the Society for American Archaeology. April 18-20, 2001. New Orleans, LA 
Draft Copy: Do Not Cite Without Permission from jcb ©2001

---

[Title Slide] Archaeology in the Central Mississippi Valley has always been known for its stalwart support of the paradigm we call “Culture History” (Dunnell 1990).  Alternately this has garnered us as a region both criticism and praise (Dunnell 1990:19; Lyman et al 1997; McNutt 1996:xxiii; O’Brien 1996:257).  Whatever the implication it has been a defining aspect of our work.

One of the hallmarks of our chronological investigations is the construction and ordering of phases (see Willey and Phillips 1958:22)--a task that traces its very roots to the monumental archaeological projects carried out by the in the Central and Lower Mississippi Valley by the Lower Mississippi Valley Survey (LMS) during the 1940s and 50s (Phillips et al. 1951; Phillips 1971; Williams 1954).  The Parkin phase of eastern Arkansas is an excellent example of the how the method gets implemented in practice.

[Project Area] Although work had been conducted in the area that would become a part of the Parkin construct since the late-nineteenth century, the phase itself would slowly become codified over the course of the LMS’s work in the valley--starting from the “St. Francis sub-area” of the PF& G volume (Phillips et al. 1951:224, 329) to the Parkin Focus outlined in Griffin’s “Green Bible” (Griffin 1952:231-233) and finally into a construct now known as the Parkin Phase [Phillip’s Graph] formally structured by Phillip Phillips in 1970 (Phillips 1970:930) using the relative percentages of ceramic types.

Through the 1970s and 80s Dan and Phyllis Morse added to the understanding of the Parkin phase through salvage excavations at Hazel (D. Morse 1973; Morse and Smith 1973), a synthesis monograph on the Parkin site (P. Morse 1981) and a regional synthesis of the archaeology of the Central Mississippi Valley (Morse and Morse 1983) which remains one of the most important regional archaeological syntheses for the Mid-South.

The Morses’ added a great deal of information to the LMS construct, especially in the areas of settlement patterns, size and environmental settings (the important research questions which were driving much archaeology in the 1970s).

Finally, the 1990s saw the establishment of a research station of the AAS at the Parkin site itself.  And throughout the 1990s Dr. Mitchem has generated a great deal of data about the Parkin site which he will be outlining in his paper in this symposium.

But there seems to have been, however, little reassessment of the original construct of the Parkin phase itself--a construct that was, after all, a part of a provisional phase system cautiously advanced by the LMS (e.g., Phillips 1970:930).  Such a reassessment, using more rigorous methods and more disparate data sources, has been recently (and increasingly) called for by several researchers with different agendas (e.g., Fox 1992; Mainfort 1999).

[JHD] This paper is a brief summary of a larger body of research that attempts to utilize the burial data recovered in the 1930s by James Durham and Charles Finger (for the University of Arkansas’ museum collections) to examine the Parkin phase from a quantifiable data set other than ceramic typology percentages (Brandon 1999; Renfro 1999).  Additionally, it seeks to examine the nature of the “difference” noted between the Parkin phase and other phase constructs.  This is extremely important in light of the equation of the Parkin phase with the paramount chiefdom of Casqui described in the De Soto chronicles and the increasing interest in understanding the “ethnicity” of prehistoric groups and their relationship with modern Native American tribes.

 

The Data: Durham and the Parkin Phase

Between November 30^th of 1932 and August 20^th of 1933 a young University of Arkansas student named James H. Durham supervised the excavation of some 800 human burials from sites assigned to the Parkin phase--this includes over 900 whole vessels that were interred with the dead.  [Parkin Phase Map] The four sites that were extensively excavated by Durham make up the data for this study: Barton Ranch (3CT18), Vernon Paul (3CS25); Neeley’s Ferry (3CS24; mistakenly called “Togo” by Durham), and Hazel (3PO6).

Data for a suite of variables were collected from the University of Arkansas’ Museum collections--[Card] depth of burial from surface, skeletal length and artifactual data were collected from Durham’s burial cards, while spinal orientation, skeletal position and nearest neighbor data were supplied by the excavation maps.

Additionally, bioarchaeological data for this large collection was generated by the University Museum (and funded by government grant monies) in response to NGPRA legislation and used extensively in this research project.  However, as Brian Renfro’s paper will be addressing the bioarchaeology of the region specifically (and more in depth than my study has treated it), I’ll keep my comments on Parkin phase health to a minimum.

 

Death and the Parkin Phase

Some of the basic statistics generated by the project will come of no surprise to researchers in the Mid-South as they were noted by James Griffin as early as 1952 (p.232).  For example, [Position Chart] throughout the Parkin phase member-sites burial position is normatively extended supine with arms extended and legs either extended or with ankles together.  Secondary burial appears to be a common variation, especially at Hazel and Barton Ranch where secondary interments make up higher percentages of burial treatment than at the other sites (this treatment is almost non-existent at Neeley’s Ferry), but more on bundle burials in a moment. 

[Orientation] At first glance, grave orientation appears not to be consistent between sites, but clearly each site has a dominant orientation; the sites simply do not share that orientation in common.  This may indicate alignment with some aspect of site layout, not with a cardinal direction (e.g., alignment with mounds, orientation of the structure buried under, etc.). 

[Ceramictype] At all four sites the collective vessel form is remarkably consistent despite a century of pot-hunting and agricultural practices.  [Ceramic Number] In addition, the number of vessels interred with the dead also shows steady consistency.   Grave-good placement is most commonly at the head, and ceramic vessels are, by far, the largest class of grave inclusions (although shell beads make a decent showing).

 Interesting Points About Parkin’s Dead

The dead at three of the four sites (Barton Ranch, Hazel and Neeley’s Ferry) appears to have been excavated out of midden contexts.  [JDH comment] Comments in Durham’s field notes indicate that at Hazel and Neeley’s Ferry, many (if not all) burials were under house floors and, in fact, they were mostly excavating on low “house-mounds” like those excavated in other Late Mississippian contexts, including the Parkin site itself (e.g., Lumb and McNutt 1988:2; Mitchem 1996):

[Hazel Clusters] Observed spatial patterning appears to bear this out, especially at Hazel where some ossuary-like burial clusters even exhibit a square-ish shape.  Additional evidence can be seen in Hazel profile drawings.  Although they do not depict sub-floor burial pits, they do show a remarkable correlation between observed house floors and graves. 

Although some of the Parkin phase’s bundle burials may be caused by looter activity, many seem to include intact grave-goods indicating prehistoric mortuary processing.  Especially in the case of Hazel, this may be indicative of continual re-opening of sub-floor graves to inter additional individuals in a manner non-unlike Middle Woodland mortuary crypts (J. Brown 1979).  This hypothesis, of course, suffers from lack of data regarding house patterns and living surfaces on these sites.

Vernon Paul’s burial program seems somewhat ambiguously different.  Durham excavated Vernon Paul’s dead from two pyramidal, flat-topped mounds—not from midden contexts as on the other sites.  Interestingly, profiles of the mounds seem to indicate that they were sub-structural mounds which are normally not associated with large numbers of burials in the Mississippian cultural milieu.  Moreover, the 1964-1969 excavations at Hazel and mound work at Parkin (as well as the cuts at Rose Mound and Miller Mound) seem to indicate that large skeletal populations interred in pyramidal mounds are not normative behavior within the Parkin construct.  It may be the case that burials interred there either pre-date or post-date the use of the mound sub-structurally (perhaps like the late prehistoric/protohistoric burials in the sub-structural mound at Wickcliffe).  Unfortunately, the existing profiles are not such that this scenario is easily resolved.  Further work and tighter chronological control in the burials may be able to shed new light on this phenomenon.

[BAR Circle] Perhaps even more enigmatic is the circular pattern exhibited by Barton Ranch’s dead.  This could be due to a number of factors, one of which is the presence of a charnel structure with interment along its periphery.  Interestingly, Dr. James Hampson noted a similar but smaller pattern during his excavations at Upper Nodena.  Some of the few surviving Hampson field notes describe “seven human burials arranged in a circular pattern” (Fisher-Carroll 1997:77).  While the symbolism of the circle is not lost on ethnohistoric researchers in the southeast, it is difficult to assess what (if any) symbolism may be encoded in such an act.  It is possible, however, that some sort of renewal aspect may be involved. 

[Sword] Finally, so-called “symbols of authority” or “socio-technic” items appear to be largely absent from the Parkin phase samples.  Hazel (on the proposed “third tier” of the phase settlement hierarchy) and Parkin being the only sites to produce these objects in modern excavations.  Interestingly, Gannon points out that a copper headdress (whose description is close to that of the Hazel specimen) was recovered by C. B. Moore at Vernon Paul in the early decades of the last century (Gannon 1999:143; Moore 1910:307-308).  It may be somewhat telling that both Moore’s recovery and Durham’s copper artifacts came from midden burials, while no symbols of authority were recovered from the mound excavations at Vernon Paul (Gannon 1999:140) or Hazel (AAS site files).  This, of course may be explained in many ways (e.g., sample bias, temporal differences in interment, etc.), but is it tempting to suggest a rethinking of our understanding of “symbols of authority” as a pan-Mississippian concept (i.e., what constitutes a socio-technic item) or the degree to which these sites were participating in a larger ranked society.

Death among the Neighbors:
Parkin Phase compared to Turner, Upper Nodena and Campbell.  

[Phase Map] After the inter-phase comparison of burial data, let’s turn to comparisons to single sites belonging to neighboring phases.  Specifically I examined the burial data from Turner (23BU21A) in the Powers Phase along the Ozark escarpment in southern Missouri (Morse and Morse 1983; Price and Price 1990), Upper Nodena (3MS4) in the Nodena Phase (Parkin’s nearest neighbor to its northeast; Morse 1989, Fisher-Carroll 1997), and the Campbell site (23PM5) in extreme southeastern Missouri which once was classified as a part of the Nodena phase, but more recently has figured prominently in the creation of the very late (read protohistoric) Armorel phase (Williams 1980). 

Many of the trends observed within the Parkin construct to this point, prove to be broader, region-wide trends when the comparative material is examined. For instance, extended supine appears to be the dominate burial position throughout the region (Black 1979:101; Fisher-Carroll 1997:105; Holland 1991:183), while the number of bundled individuals varies widely—from 42% of individuals at Turner to almost nonexistent at Upper Nodena and Campbell.

Like trends in burial deposition, some aspects of funerary material culture are also more broad and regional.  For instance, the one and two vessel combination appears to be common at many regional sites, such as Campbell (Fisher-Carroll 1997:126; Holland 1991:210), and ceramics appear to be the dominate artifact-classes across the board with shell beads rating a distant second (Fisher-Carroll 1997:122; Holland 1991:194; Turner 1979:111).  Additionally, there is some evidence that the bottle/bowl vessel combination as a grave offering also crosses constructed social boundaries (e.g., Holland 1991:210).

The persistent relative percentages of vessel forms in the Parkin phase, however, slightly waver in other, non-Parkin phase collections with Upper Nodena and Campbell demonstrating a slightly higher ubiquity of water bottles than at Parkin-phase sites.  The Turner site falls in line with the Parkin-phase, but as only 13 pots were recovered due to extensive looting, this cannot be considered a clear picture.

[Deformation Schematic] Finally, one of the most striking correlations of skeletal observations with proposed phase boundaries occurs when one examines artificial cranial deformation.  While at Upper Nodena cranial deformation “appears to be the rule rather than the exception” (Fisher-Carroll 1997:112), a quite different picture emerges from the Parkin phase: only 10 individuals excavated from Parkin phase sites exhibit any kind of intentional deformation (see Renfro 1999).  The majority of these individuals are young adults and male.

Other researchers working in nearby culture areas have begun to approach cranial deformation as a potential ethnic marker (although, I’ll have to point out that the idea that any single material manifestation can be a “ethnic marker” is itself problematic).  If this was the case, it might certainly explain the rather “neat” segregation between Parkin phase cranial deformation practices and those of Upper Nodena.  However, as we still lack some chronological handles on the Parkin phase it would be difficult at this juncture to dismiss other explanations such as temporal changes in deformation practices.

 Reflections on Difference and the Parkin Phase

Let me take a moment now to depart from my the work that made up my master’s thesis and discuss how my thoughts on the Parkin phase have changed since I finished this work.

[De Soto] When I began this project I was concerned that we needed to refine the phase system--especially in light of the resurgent interests in ethnicity brought about by the Columbus Anniversary, NAGPRA claims on repatriation and the theoretical emphasis that post-processualism has brought to bear on race, gender and class in the archaeological record. 

This work was, in some ways, both critical and hopeful for the refinement of the phase systems via the inclusions of more and different types of data.  Moreover, it both drew attention to consistency across the entire region when it came to burial practices, and a few items (such as cranial deformation) that seemed to support the current constructs we use to understand the past.  My conclusions at the time pointed toward a still more precise understanding of the phase by attempting to tease out the middle Mississippian burials obviously present at the incredibly deep Parkin phase sites, to incorporate other data long sitting on museum shelves as my colleagues are doing, and perhaps attempting to understand the large Parkin phase whole vessel assemblage along structural lines.  I have, however, grown a bit more pessimistic about the system of late, although not along the lines of either my colleagues or my mentors.

All of Ford and Spaulding’s arguments about the emic/etic nature of our types aside, the basic underlying assumptions of the “phase system” is that our “archaeological cultures” are bounded, monlothic cultural entities restricted in space and time.  And of course, underling the further equation of archaeological sites with known cultural groups identified in ethnohistorical documents is the idea that these archaeological cultures equate to past peoples--ethnic groups, tribes, and/or races. 

[Ford] My recent work in historical archaeology and archaeology of the African Diaspora have forced me to recognize not only the problematic nature of the relationship between material culture and racial and/or ethnic groups, but also the non-bounded nature of these groups themselves--race, ethnicity, and any cultural affiliation are situational, positional and constantly shifting (in this slide the great James Ford himself is demonstrating the situational nature of culture at once he’s an academic elite and a self-identified southerner).  These two facts seem to doubly render our simplistic way of finding “difference” in the archaeological record of the Mid-South inadequate.

Black, Thomas K.

   1979  The Biological and Social Analyses of a Mississippian Cemetery From Southeaster Missouri: the Turner Site, 23BU21A.  Anthropological papers No. 68.  Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

 

Brandon, Jamie C.

   1999  Death and the Parkin Phase: Mortuary Patterning in the Archeological Data Recovered from the Durham Excavations in Northeastern Arkansas, 1932-1933.  Upbulished MA Thesis.  University of Arkansas, Department of Anthropology.  Fayetteville.

 

Dunnell, Robert C.

   1990  The Role of the Southeast in American Archaeology.  Southeastern Archaeology 9(1):11-22).

 

Fisher-Carroll, Rita L.

   1997  Sociopolitical Organization at Upper Nodena (3MS4) From a Mortuary Perspective.  Unpublished MA Thesis, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville.

 

Fox, Gregory L.

1992  A Critical Evaluation of the Interpretive Framework of the Mississippi Period in Southeast Missouri.  Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Missouri-Columbia.

 

Gannon, Thomas N.

   1999  A Mortuary Analysis of the Vernon Paul Site (3CS25):  Sociopolitical Organization at a Late Mississippian Site in Cross Country, Arkansas.  Unpublished MA Thesis.  University of Arkansas, Fayetteville.

 

Griffin, James B.

   1946  Cultural Change and Continuity in Eastern United States Archaeology.  In Man in Northeastern North America, F. Johnson (ed.).  Papers of the Robert S. Peabody Foundation for Archaeology, Vol. 3:Andover.

   1952  Prehistoric Cultures of the Central Mississippi Valley.  In Archeology of Eastern United States, J. B. Griffin (ed.).  University of Chicago Press: Chicago.

 

Holland, Thomas D.

   1991  An Archaeological and Biological Analysis of the Campbell Site.  Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Missouri-Columbia.

 

Lumb, Lisa C. and Charles H. McNutt

   1988  Chucalissa: Excavations in Units 2 and ^, 1959-1967.  Memphis State University Anthropological Research Center Occasional Papers No. 15. Memphis.

 

Lyman, R. Lee, Michael J. O’Brien, and Robert C. Dunnell

   1997  The Rise and Fall of Culture History.  Plenum Press: New York.

 

McNutt, Charles H. (ed.)

   1996  Prehistory of the Central Mississippi Valley.  University of Alabama Press: Tuscaloosa.

 

Mitchem, Jeffery T.

   1996 The Search for Protohistoric Houses at Parkin Archeological State Park.  Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Arkansas Archeological Society, Batesville, Arkansas, Sept. 28^th.

 

Moore, Clarence B.

   1910  Antiquities of the St. Francis, White and Black Rivers, Arkansas.  Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Vol. 14.

 

Morse, Dan F.

   1973  The Hazel Site: Archeological Salvage on the Pyramidal Mound, August 19, 1968.  Arkansas Archeologist 14:32-36

   1989  Nodena: An Account of 90 Years of Archeological Investigation in Southeast Mississippi County, Arkansas.  Arkansas Archeological Survey Research Series No. 30.  Fayetteville.

 

Morse, Dan F. and Phyllis Morse

   1983  Archaeology of the Mississippi Valley.  Academic Press, New York.

 

Morse, Dan F. and Samuel Smith

   1973  The Hazel Site: Archeological Salvage During the Construction of Route 308.  Arkansas Archeologist 14:36-78.

 

Morse, Phyllis

   1981  Parkin: The 1978-1979 Archeological Investigations of a Cross County, Arkansas Site.  Arkansas Archeological Survey Research Series No. 13. 

 

O’Brien, Michael J.

   1996  Paradigms of the Past: The Story of Missouri Archaeology.  University of Missouri Press, Columbia.

 

Phillips, Philip

   1970  Archaeological Survey in the Lower Yazoo Basin, Mississippi, 1949-1955.  Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, Vol. 60, Cambridge.

 

Phillips, Philip; James A. Ford and James B. Griffin

   1951  Archaeological Survey in the Lower Mississippi Alluvial Valley, 1940-1947.  Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, Vol. 25, Cambridge.

 

Renfro, Bryan

   1999  Standardized Analysis of Three late Mississippian Sites From Northeast Arkansas.  Unpublished MA Thesis, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville.

 

Willey, Gordon R. and Philip Phillips

   1958  Method and Theory in American Archaeology.  University of Chicago Press: Chicago.

 

Williams, Steven

   1954  An Archeological Study of the Mississippian Culture in Southeast Missouri.  Un published Ph.D. dissertation, Yale University.

   1980  Armorel: A Very late Phase in the Lower Mississippi Valley.  Southeastern Archaeological Conference Bulletin 22.