MISSISSIPPIAN CRAFT SPECIALIZATION ON THE AMERICAN BOTTOM Richard W. Yerkes Craft specialization in Cahokia Mississippian society is in- vestigated from an evolutionary perspective by examining the distribution of artifacts and raw materials associated with the production of shell beads and other shell craft items at sites assigned to the Fairmount !Lohmann (A .D. 900-1050), Stirling (A.D. 1050-1150), Moorehead (A.D. 1150-1250), and Sand Prairie (A.D. 1250- 1400) phases of the Cahokia ceramic chronology. Shell working during the Fairmount / Lohmann phases is characterized as a household specialization . The craft becomes a regional specialization during the Stirling phase. By the Moorehead and Sand Prairie phases, shell craft production is confined to Cahokia and the Mitchell site on the American Bottom, although shell drills are still present at sites in the uplands along Richland Creek. The evolution of shell craft production systems seems to reflect the rise of status differentiation and a ranked society on the American Bottom. The concept "craft specialization" is often clouded in the archaeological literature. Although Renfrew (1973) argued that the beginning of craft specializa- tion is an important step toward the economic and social interdependence which leads toward civiliza- tion and urban life, little is known of the ways in which prehistoric craft specialists were integrated into past socioeconomic systems. Even in societies such as the Classic Maya where the existence of craft spe- cialists has been documented through ethnohistory, iconography, and archaeological data , the role of the specialist is not clear (Aldenderfer 1989). Craft spe- cialists have been characterized as individuals who produced goods for the elite in stratified societies, and as people who processed imported materials that supplied the needs of larger populations (Adams 1970; Peebles and Kus 1977; Prentice 1983; Sanders and Price 1968). Gledhill (1978) suggested that the control of craft production is one way that the elite members of a society can accumulate wealth, but others see the beginning of craft specialization as a means of im- proving the effiCiency of an economy during periods of population growth (Becker 1973; Kidder 1950). Does craft specialization represent a threshold in 93 cultural evolution, part of a new level of socioeco- nomic integration? Or, should it be characterized as a long-standing institution that has developed from a simple division of labor into a form of social dif- ferentiation? In this study the latter definition is fa- vored. The nature and significance of craft specialization in Cahokia Mississippian society is examined here from an evolutionary perspective. This study begins by defining several different types of craft special- ization, then, the archaeological evidence for these phenomena are specified and evaluated . Finally, the role of craft speCialization in Mississippian society and its implications for the development of urban life at Cahokia are presented . Methods of Analysis Some of the analytical techniques used in this study are derived from the work of Flannery and his col- leagues, who investigated the emergence of craft spe- cialization during the Formative period (1500-500 B.C.) in Oaxaca (Flannery 1976). Flannery and Winter (1976) examined the tool kits and activity areas as- sociated with Formative households in Oaxaca. The function of Formative artifacts was inferred from eth- nographic analogies, and the distribution of func- tionally specific tools within houses, household units (Flannery 1982), and settlements was plotted to de- termine if there was any evidence for craft special- ization. In this study, functional interpretations of prehis- toric stone artifacts are based on microwear analYSis (Keeley 1980; Yerkes 1983, 1987). The American Bot- tom region does not have the continuity of life that is found in rural Mesoamerica, and the form of a prehistoric artifact does not directly reveal its func- tion. Use-wear studies are required to determine how the Mississippian tools were used. Household tasks in Oaxaca were categorized as uni- versal household activities, household specializa- tions, regional specializations, and unique special- izations . The presence of male and female activity areas in Formative Oaxacan and modern Mayan houses represents a simple sexual division of labor . Most of the male or female activities that were documented by artifact analysis or observation pertain to domestic tasks or the production of goods that were used by