mm. It is suspected that the wide cupules on the three Lawhorn cobs

might be attributed to diffusion of Northern Flint from the Southeast as readily as from the North, possibly in diluted form. In the case of the Banks site, Cutler and Blake (1961) suggested that the influence of Northern Flint may have reached there in the form of a mixture rather than directly or, alternatively, that low row numbered corn may have entered from the Southwest where 8 and 10 rowed corn was dominant after 700 A.D.

TABLE 6—COMPARATIVE ANALYSES OF CORN FROM LAWHORN AND FOUR AREA SITES Row No. % total Cobs Median (in mm.) Site No. 8 10 12 14 16 Mean K. Th. C.W.[1] Cobs Row No.

Lawhorn 7 — 28.6 71.4 — — 11.4 3.3 6.8 Banks 51 3.9 47.1 43.1 5.9 — 11.0 3.3 5.4 Mound 34 27 7.4 18.5 48.2 22.2 3.7 11.9 3.6 6.4 Crosno 16 31.3 43.7 25.0 — — 9.9 3.4 7.0 Plum Island 17 35.3 29.4 35.3 — — 10.0 3.8 7.4

[1]K. Th. = Kernel Thickness C.W. = Cupule Width, a measure of the cob cavity in which a pair of grains is borne.

TABLE 7—COMPARATIVE DATES FROM LAWHORN AND FOUR AREA SITES Site Location Estimated Date

Lawhorn Craighead Co., Ark. On Channel B, 1550 A.D. Plus. (Phillips et al., 1951, p. 304) Banks Crittenden Co., Ark. C14, 1535 A.D. ± 150 years. (Letter G. Perino, Oct. 27, 1959) Crosno Mississippi Co., Mo. Middle Mississippi. (Date?) Mound 34 Madison Co., Ill. Submound pit, C14, 700-900 B.P. ± 300 years. (Griffin, 1952, p. 367) Plum Island LaSalle Co., Ill. Protohistoric (11LS2) Circa 1600-1650 A.D.

APPENDIX C BURIALS AT THE LAWHORN SITE

by Charles H. Nash Memphis, Tennessee

The 35 burials from which we can get some data concerning sex and age groups seem to represent a relatively homogeneous group. Over half of the 26 adult burials were either too fragmentary for any further determination or the bone was not recovered during the course of excavation. In such instances, age group associations were made in the field. Burial determinations in Tables 8-11 were made in the laboratory.

Of the 35 burials, twelve, or 34% had grave goods which included, in all cases, pottery vessels. Two burials had single beads with them but these were probably items of dress and not mortuary offerings. The only other object found was a questionable association of a flint drill. There were only three burials, 9%, which had more than one vessel in association and, of these, one had two bowls, another had a bottle and a bowl and the third had a bottle, a bowl and a small jar. Twenty three, or 66%, of the burials had no grave goods with them. The pottery vessels were divided about evenly between bottles and bowls.

There were fourteen adult burials from which closer age criteria were available.

The two females in their early twenties were not representative of the burial customs of these people, being in fact depositions of scattered bone showing little or no orientation and obviously not articulated. The crushing of the bone was probably due to earth moving machinery of recent years, but the general broken nature of the bones may more likely be the work of the Indians themselves. These bones appeared to have been laid on the ground and then covered over and it would seem that both had been interred at the same time. Both individuals show heavy charring of the bone; in one instance the feet were intensely charred with the rest of the bone showing progressively less toward the skull and the skull showing none. The most intense heat was obviously at the feet. The hands and lower arms also show heavy charring. The other individual was more generally charred but once again little or no burning appeared around the skull. These burials were not cremated at the spot at which they were found since there was no evidence of a heavy fire there. It must be assumed that the burning occurred elsewhere and that after further mutilation the bones were finally interred at this place. It is difficult not to conclude that these young ladies were victims of tribal displeasure.

Insufficient skeletal material has been recovered and is in too fragmentary condition to yield a great deal of information. It might be well to mention at this point that ‘week end’ archaeology is hard put to produce a satisfactory record of this type of material. The days’ activities of locating and staking a square, preliminary excavation and organization take up so much time that once a skeleton is located there is insufficient time to uncover it properly, record it and remove the bones with minimum damage. Even if the material is in good condition it is hard to do an adequate job in one day; if the bone is in a poor state of preservation the job becomes much more complicated. The specimens come easy but to clean, photograph, record and remove skeletal material will almost always require a second day. The thought comes to mind that with proper preparation much could be removed encased in protective materials for further processing at home thereby speeding up the process in the field. There are a number of ways this can be done, from using plaster impregnated burlap over the entire burial to wrapping bones in crumpled newspaper with much of the surrounding earth still in place and carefully placing in cartons large enough to hold them freely. Transportation must be handled with equal care. Much important information concerning the people themselves, their diet and health can be learned from skeletal material and no amateur “week end” archaeologist should feel free to ignore this class of data or throw it away.

This sampling of skeletons is perhaps ample to give a general picture of the burial customs of these people. The universal position was supine and apparently laid out on top of the ground or in a shallow scooped out grave no deeper than the body itself. This then was presumably covered with a mound of earth and possibly marked by logs until decay had once again leveled the ground. There was no evidence of the use of pits. Grave goods, when present, were always pottery vessels presumably containing food and water for the departed. These were placed at the head. There was little or no evidence of clothing or decoration other than the two beads mentioned before.

This burial complex is more like the extended burials of the Walls focus to the south than other comparable groups. Even the use of bottles and bowls together is suggestive. The almost total absence of grave goods other than pottery and the positioning around the head is again a Walls trait, as is the complete absence of other grave goods with many burials. This is the major evidence of Walls focus traits among the Lawhorn folk and even here the bottle form is at quite some variance.

TABLE 8—BURIAL DATA Burial Age Sex Position Condition and Grave Goods Number Completeness

6 adult ? ? frag. and poor none 7 9-12 yr child ext. on back poor—legs missing small bowl, bone bead 8 35-40 male ext. on back lower legs missing none 9 8-9 yr child ext. on back lower legs none missing—poor 10 25-30 yr female ext. on back disturbed but none complete 11 -6 yr child ext. on back hands and feet none missing—poor 12 25-30 yr female ext. on back both legs two bowls missing—poor 13 -2 yr infant on back incomplete none 14 adult ? ext. on back all above pelvis none missing 15 adult ? ext. on back complete—poor bottle 16 adult ? ext. on back complete—very poor none 17 plus 50 male ext. on back poor complete bottle and bowl 18 adult ? ext. on back fragmentary none 19 adult ? ext. on back fragmentary none 20 ? ? ? very frag. disturbed none 21 adult ? ext. on back crushed by machinery bottle 22 adult ? ext. on back completely crushed bowl 23 plus 30 female ext. on back no hands or bottle and feet—disturbed shell bead 24 plus 30 male ext. on back no feet present flint drill, bottle jar, bowl 25 adult ? ext. on back complete bowl 26 pre-natal infant ? none 27 28 25-30 yr male 29 3 yr child 30 31 pre-natal infant in a firebasin 32 35 yr male ext. on back complete but crushed none plus 33 35-40 male ext. on back pathological suture bowl closure only squamous open 34 25-30 yr male ext. on back complete but poor bottle condition 35 adult ? ? only an arm present bottle 36 plus 60 male ext. on back complete—all none sutures closed—no upper teeth—no lower molars 37 adult ? ? not worked out shallow bowl 38 plus 20 female scattered burned none bone bone—heaviest at feet—none on skull 39 plus 20 female scattered burned bone—deep none bone charring general some over body—not on placement of skull long bones? 40 plus 50 male ? ? 41-42 pre-natal infants bundled complete—42 covered none with a sherd

TABLE 9—AGE AND SEX GROUPS 35 Burials Total Male Female Indeterminate 2-6 yr Infant Pre-natal Percent

Adults 74 22 14 37 Children 11 5.5 5.5 Infants 14 3 11

TABLE 10—MORTUARY VESSELS Bottles Bowls Jars Total

Adult Male 4 4 1 9 Adult Female 1 2 3 Adult Indet. 2 2 4 Children 1 1 Infants 0 Totals 7 9 1 17

TABLE 11—AVERAGE AGE OF FOURTEEN BURIALS Age Group Percentage Male Female Total Remarks

20 yr 14 0 2 2 See discussion 25-30 yr 29 2 2 4 30-35 yr 14 1 1 2 35-40 21 3 3 40-46 0 0 50 plus 21 3 3 Totals 9 5 14

REFERENCES CITED

BAERREIS, DAVID A. 1957 The Southern Cult and the Spiro Ceremonial Complex. _Bulletin of the Oklahoma Anthropological Society._ Vol. III. BELL, ROBERT E. 1958 Guide to the Identification of Certain American Indian Projectile Points. _Special Bulletin No. 1 Oklahoma Anthropological Society._ BRAY, ROBERT T. 1956 The Culture Complexes and Sequence at the Rice Site (23SN200) Stone County, Missouri. _The Missouri Archaeologist_, Vol. 18, nos. 1-2. BROWN, WILLIAM L., and ANDERSON, EDGAR 1947 The Northern Flint Corns. _Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden_, Vol. 34, No. 1. CUTLER, HUGH C., and BLAKE, LEONARD W. 1961 Corn from the Banks Site, Crittenden County, Arkansas. (ms) EVERS, EDWARD 1880 _Ancient Pottery of Southeastern Missouri Contributions to the Archaeology of Missouri_. Archaeological sections of the St. Louis Academy of Science, part 1, pp. 21-30. FISK, HAROLD N. 1944 _Geological Investigations of the Alluvial Valley of the Lower Mississippi River._ Washington, D. C. FORD, JAMES, A., and CLARENCE WEBB 1956 Poverty Point, A Late Archaic Site in Louisiana. _Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History_, Vol. 46, No. 1, New York. FORD, JAMES A., PHILLIP PHILLIPS and WILLIAM G. HAAG 1955 The Jaketown Site in West Central Mississippi. _Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History_, Vol. 45, No. 1, New York. GRIFFIN, JAMES B. 1952 Prehistoric Cultures of the Central Mississippi Valley, in _Archeology of the Eastern United States_, University of Chicago Press. GRIFFIN, JAMES B. 1960 Climatic Change: A Contributory Cause of the Growth and Decline of Northern Hopewell Culture. _Wisconsin Archaeologist_, Vol. 41, no. 2. GRIFFIN, JAMES B. nd. _Prehistoric Pottery of the Eastern United States_, mimeographed, Ann Arbor. HUMPHRIES, CECIL C. 1960 The Formation of Reelfoot Lake and Consequent Land and Social Problems. _The West Tennessee Historical Society, Papers_, Vol. XIV. MARSHALL, RICHARD A. 1958 The Use of Table Rock Reservoir Projectile Points in the Delineation of Culture Complexes and Their Distribution, M.A. Thesis, University of Missouri. 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_, Vol. XXV. SUHM, DEE ANN 1954 An Introductory Handbook of Texas Archaeology, Vol. 25. The Texas Archaeological Society. WALKER, WINSLOW and ROBERT McCORMICK ADAMS 1946 Excavations in the Mathews Site, New Madrid County, Missouri. _Transactions of the Academy of Science of St. Louis_, Vol. XXXI No. 4. WEBB, CLARENCE H. 1959 The Belcher Mound. _American Antiquity_, Vol. XXIV, No. 4,