Southeastern Naturalist
J. Mitchell and E. Peacock
2014 Vol. 13, No. 3
626
2014 SOUTHEASTERN NATURALIST 13(3):626–638
A Prehistoric Freshwater Mussel Assemblage from the Big
Sunflower River, Sunflower County, Mississippi
Joseph Mitchell1,* and Evan Peacock2
Abstract - Zooarchaeological deposits present a unique insight into the trajectory of faunal
communities through time. Freshwater mussels (Bivalvia: Unionidae) are one of the world’s
most imperiled faunal groups, and, at the same time, constitute a significant component of
the archaeological record in North America. Current conservation efforts can be informed
by studies of prehistoric mussel assemblages that catalog communities as they existed prior
to any extensive modern impacts, ultimately representing an ecological baseline against
which current populations can be evaluated. Over 47,000 freshwater mussel valves were recovered
from the late prehistoric (ca. A.D. 700–1200) Kinlock site (22SU526), in Sunflower
County, MS. Analyses revealed that the Sunflower River once supported a mussel community
with greater taxonomic richness and more evenness among all the major species than
today. Additionally, the presence in the archaeological record of numerous species which
are currently considered rare, endangered, or extinct in the Sunflower River is indicative of
a habitat disturbed by increased human environmental impact in historic times.
Introduction
Bone and shell assemblages recovered from archaeological deposits are receiving
increased attention from scientists interested in the evolution and current state of
faunal communities (Frazier 2010; Lyman 1996, 2006; Peacock et al. 2011, 2014).
The applied value of zooarchaeology for a number of fields, including conservation
biology, has been noted (e.g., Anderson et al. 2010; Bailey et al. 2000; Crumley
1994; Frazier 2007; Lyman 1996, 2006) and has been demonstrated in a growing
number of case studies (e.g., Haag 2009, Lyman and Cannon 2004, Wolverton and
Lyman 2012). Identifying original species’ ranges and how they have changed over
time is an important component of conservation efforts. The perspective provided
by zooarchaeology in this regard is unique, allowing the characterization of faunal
communities as they existed prior to extensive modern impacts thus establishing an
ecological baseline against which data from current communities can be compared.
Freshwater mussel (Bivalvia: Unionidae) shells are common in archaeological
contexts in Mississippi; they are found at sites of various ages and sizes located along
lakes, major rivers, and small channels (Peacock and Jenkins 2010, Peacock et al.
2011). Zooarchaeological studies in Mississippi (e.g., Bogan 1987, Hartfield 1993,
Jones et al. 2005, Peacock and James 2002, Peacock and Mistak 2008, Peacock et al.
2011) and elsewhere (e.g., Barber 1982, Gordon 1983, Peacock et al. 2013, Randklev
and Lundeen 2012) have shown that sites frequently contain species not previously
1Department of Geosciences, Mississippi State University, Starkville, MS 39762. 2Cobb Institute
of Archaeology, Mississippi State University, Starkville, MS. 39762. *Corresponding
author - jam393@msstate.edu.
Manuscript Editor: Alex Huryn
Southeastern Naturalist
627
J. Mitchell and E. Peacock
2014 Vol. 13, No. 3
known to have existed in a given water body. Accordingly, data derived from archaeological
shell assemblages can be very useful for current conservation efforts,
particularly those data derived from sites located along waterways where modern biological
surveys have not been carried out or where modern coverage has been spotty
(Peacock et al. 2011:3, Randklev and Lundeen 2012). Despite being historically diverse
and abundant throughout much of North America, many freshwater mussel taxa
are presently in steep decline, and mussels in general are considered one of the most
imperiled faunal groups globally (Bogan 2008, Grabarkiewicz and Davis 2008, Haag
2009, Lydeard et al. 2004, Machtinger 2007, Neves et al. 1997). In Mississippi alone,
there are over 23 endangered mussel species (Jones et al. 2005, Mississippi National
Heritage Program 2011). Data obtained from shell-bearing archaeological sites can
be used to establish the pre-industrial ranges and expected natural proportions of
mussel species (Peacock 2012) in aquatic systems now extensively altered through
impoundment, channelization, dredging, water pollution, other forms of habitat destruction,
or hydrologic changes (Bogan 1993; Haag and Warren 1998; Strayer et al.
2004; Williams et al. 1993, 2008).
Here, we present data on a large assemblage of mussel shells obtained from a
prehistoric site located beside the Big Sunflower River in Sunflower County, MS,
and discuss differences between that assemblage and modern faunas recorded in
the waterway.
Methods
Specimens examined for this study are from the late prehistoric (ca. AD 700–
1200) Kinlock site (22SU526), located in southern Sunflower County, MS (Fig. 1).
The site is in an agricultural field along the Big Sunflower River, a major stream
in the Yazoo Basin, and consists of extensive deposits of habitation debris, a plaza,
and as many as six earthen mounds (Carlock and Rafferty 2009, Phillips 1970).
In the summer of 2009, the Mississippi State University (Mississippi State, MS)
archaeology field school collected shells from the surface of the shell-ring portion
of the site and from three excavation units—two in areas of high shell density and
one in the plaza (Carlock and Rafferty 2009). Workers screened excavated deposits
through 6.35-mm (quarter-inch) wire mesh to recover shells. Other details of collection
strategies, unit sizes, and recovery methods are given in Mitchell (2012).
Shells obtained from plowzones (surface-collected specimens) undoubtedly are
biased by differential preservation, with thicker, heavier shells disproportionately
represented (e.g., Peacock 2000, Peacock and Chapman 2001, Wolverton et al.
2010). Shells excavated from sub-plowzone contexts, however, were in excellent
condition (see Mitchell 2012 for details). Ultimately, we were able to determine the
species for 75% of the valves recovered from the site.
We identified shells to genus and species level using various guides (e.g., Burch
1975, Cummings and Mayer 1992, Howells et al. 1996, Parmalee and Bogan 1998)
and the freshwater mussel comparative collection housed at the Cobb Institute of
Archaeology, Mississippi State University, from which representative specimens
have been verified at a number of natural science collection locales. Taxonomy was
assigned using Turgeon et al. (1998) with minor updates.
Southeastern Naturalist
J. Mitchell and E. Peacock
2014 Vol. 13, No. 3
628
Results
A total of 47,431 valves retaining umbos were recovered from the site (surface
and excavated contexts combined), from which we identified 33 species.
These species (left and right valves combined) are listed in descending order of
abundance in Table 1.
Figure 1. Location of the Kinlock Site (22SU526), Sunflower Coun ty, MS.
Southeastern Naturalist
629
J. Mitchell and E. Peacock
2014 Vol. 13, No. 3
Table 1. Archaeological freshwater mussel valves from the Kinlock site (22SU526) and modern mussel
surveys in the Big Sunflower River, Sunflower County, MS. Data from modern surveys derived
from Miller and Payne (1995, 1997, 2004) and Miller et al. (1992). # = number of valves, and % =
percent identified valves.
Modern
Species # % surveys
Pleurobema rubrum (Rafinesque) Pyramid Pigtoe 6968 19.682 X
Amblema plicata (Say) Threeridge 6774 19.134 X
Plectomerus dombeyanus (Valenciennes) Bankclimber 5062 14.298 X
Fusconaia ebena (Lea) Ebonyshell 3714 10.491 X
Fusconaia flava (Rafinesque) Wabash Pigtoe 3703 10.460 X
Obliquaria reflexa (Rafinesque) Threehorn Wartyback 2730 7.711 X
Quadrula pustulosa (Lea) Pimpleback 1879 5.307 X
Quadrula quadrula (Rafinesque) Mapleleaf 1445 4.082 X
Quadrula nodulata (Rafinesque) Wartyback 647 1.828 X
Elliptio dilatata (Rafinesque) Spike 604 1.706
Lampsilis hydiana (Lea) Louisiana Fat Mucket 427 1.206 X
Lampsilis teres (Rafinesque) Yellow Sandshell 351 0.991 X
Cyprogenia aberti (Conrad) Western Fanshell 173 0.489
Megalonaias nervosa (Rafinesque) Washboard 166 0.469 X
Truncilla truncata (Rafinesque) Deer Toe 149 0.421 X
Quadrula apiculata (Say) Southern Mapleleaf 116 0.328
Ligumia recta (Lamarch) Black Sandshell 103 0.291
Quadrula verrucosa (Rafinesque) Pistolgrip 86 0.243 X
Lampsilis cardium (Rafinesque) Plain Pocketbook 72 0.203
Quadrula cylindrica (Say) Rabbitsfoot 56 0.158
Lampsilis siliquoidea (Barnes) Fatmucket 47 0.133
Arcidens confragosus (Say) Rock Pocketbook 46 0.130 X
Quadrula metanevra (Rafinesque) Monkeyface 18 0.051
Toxolasma parvum (Barnes) Lilliput 17 0.048
Plethobasus cyphyus (Rafinesque) Sheepnose 12 0.034 X
Glebula rotundata (Lamarck) Round Pearlshell 11 0.031 X
cf. Lampsilis ovata (Say) Pocketbook 8 0.023
Potamilus purpuratus (Lamarck) Bleufer 7 0.020 X
Ellipsaria lineolata (Rafinesque) Butterfly 5 0.014 X
Villosa lienosa (Conrad) Little Spectaclecase 4 0.011
Toxolasma texasiensis (Lea) Texas Lilliput 1 0.003 X
Strophitus undulatus (Say) Creeper 1 0.003
Obovaria subrotunda (Rafinesque) Round Hickorynut 1 0.003
Actinonaias ligamentina (Lamarck) Mucket 0 .000 X
Elliptio crassidens (Lamarck) Elephantear 0 .000 X
Leptodea fragilis (Rafinesque) Fragile Papershell 0 .000 X
Potamilus ohiensis (Rafinesque) Pink Papershell 0 .000 X
Pyganodon grandis (Say) Giant Floater 0 .000 X
Truncilla donaciformis (Lea) Fawnsfoot 0 .000 X
Uniomerus declivis (Say) Tapered Pondhorn 0 .000 X
Uniomerus tetralasmus (Say) Pondhorn 0 .000 X
Anodonta suborbiculata (Say) Fat Floater 0 .000 X
Utterbackia imbecillis (Say) Paper Pondshell 0 .000 X
Total identified: 35,403 100
Unidentifiable: 12,028
Total analyzed valves: 47,431
Southeastern Naturalist
J. Mitchell and E. Peacock
2014 Vol. 13, No. 3
630
Discussion
Comparison of archaeological and modern mussel assemblages is complicated
by a number of factors. For example, work at a given archaeological site might
produce tens of thousands of valves, as at Kinlock, so that the assemblage presumably
represents long-term collecting over a relatively small area (see Peacock 2002,
where spatially limited collection areas were demonstrated in an archaeological test
case). Modern biological surveys, on the other hand, represent very time-limited
collecting over stations that are widely (and usually not evenly) distributed in
space, so that results from modern surveys can vary significantly from year to year.
Even simple comparisons of richness and evenness are complicated by preservation
(and possibly prehistoric collection) biases in archaeological shells and by the
fact that some species have expanded their ranges in modern times. Accordingly,
comparisons between archaeological and modern faunas have tended to be qualitative
in nature (e.g., Lyons et al. 2007, Tevesz et al. 2002). While more statistically
formal, drainage-scale comparisons may be made when enough archaeological
assemblages have been reported (Haag 2009, Hughes and Parmalee 1999), such
is not yet the case with the Yazoo Basin, although both the quantity and quality of
data on archaeological mussel-shell assemblages is very much on the increase there
(Peacock et al. 2011). In this paper, we discuss differences between prehistoric and
modern faunas in a qualitative fashion.
We identified 13 species in the Kinlock assemblages not found in modern surveys
(Miller and Payne 1995, 1997, 2004; Miller et al. 1992). Of these, Lampsilis
ovata (Pocketbook) must be considered a tentative identification within the archaeological
assemblage, given the difficulty of separating this form from related
species. Those from Kinlock are more inflated and have a more pronounced break
along the posterior ridge than do the specimens identified as L. cardium (Plain
Pocketbook). We note however, that L. cardium also is not reported in the modern
surveys discussed in this article. While we believe we have consistently differentiated
between Toxolasma parvum (Lilliput) and T. texasiensis (Texas Lilliput)
based on size and surface sculpture (see Peacock et al. 2013), we acknowledge that
archaeological specimens of these forms can be difficult to separate and they are
not further discussed here. In contrast, although different species of Obovaria also
can be hard to discriminate, we are confident that those we have categorized as
O. subrotunda (Round Hickorynut) are correctly identified, based on a distinctive
shell shape and extensive comparison with modern specimens in museum collections.
The species is known historically from the Yazoo Basin (Jones et al. 2005),
where it also has been found at over half a dozen archaeological sites (Peacock et
al. 2011:map A-36).
Elliptio dilatata (Spike) is frequently characterized as a clear-water species (e.g.,
Parmallee 1967, Starret 1971), and its presence at Kinlock and other archaeological
sites in the Yazoo Basin (Hartfield 1993:table 1, Peacock et al. 2011:map A-10),
emphasizes changes that likely have occurred as a result of increased turbidity
(e.g., Dineen 1971, Hoeh and Trdan 1984, Klippel et al. 1978, Starrett 1971, Taylor
and Spurlock 1982, White 1977). The same applies to Cyprogenia aberti (Western
Southeastern Naturalist
631
J. Mitchell and E. Peacock
2014 Vol. 13, No. 3
Fanshell), an Ozarkian species known to have had a wide prehistoric distribution in
the Yazoo Basin (Bogan 1987, Hartfield 1993, Jones et al. 2005, Peacock and James
2002, Peacock et al. 2011). Both of these species also have been found in lowland
archaeological contexts along western tributaries in the Mississippi River drainage
(Peacock and Chapman 2001, Peacock et al. 2013, Vidrine 1993). Quadrula cylindrica
(Rabbitsfoot) and Quadrula metanevra (Monkeyface) are historically very
rare in Mississippi (e.g., Hartfield 1987:140); these species were widely distributed
but similarly rare in alluvial valley settings in Mississippi and adjacent states during
prehistoric times (Hartfield 1993, Jones et al. 2005, Peacock and Chapman 2001,
Peacock et al. 2011:map A-28, Peacock et al. 2013, Vidrine 2008). Monkeyface is
considered endangered nationally, but is currently presumed extinct in Mississippi
(Mississippi Natural Heritage Program 2011). Strophitus undulates (Creeper), a
critically imperiled species in Mississippi (Jones et al. 2005), is described as present,
but extremely rare in the Yazoo drainage (Jones et al. 2005). Apparently, it was
equally rare in the past, with only one other archaeological occurrence on the Big
Sunflower River in Coahoma County documented for Mississippi (Peacock et al.
2011:53; see Peacock et al. 2013 for occurrences from Bayou Bartho lomew, AR).
Species present in modern collections in the Big Sunflower River, but absent
at Kinlock, include Actinonaias ligamentina (Lamark) (Brass Mucket), Elliptio
crassidens (Lamark) (Elephantear Mussel), Leptodea fragilis (Rafinesque) (Fragile
Papershell), Potamilus ohiensis (Rafinesque) (Pink Papershell), Pyganodon
grandis (Say) (Giant Floater), Truncilla donaciformis (Lea) (Fawnsfoot), Uniomerus
declivis (Say) (Tapered Pondhorn), U. tetralasmus (Say) (Pondhorn), Anodonta
suborbiculata Say (Flat Floater), and Utterbackia imbecillis (Say) (Paper Pondshell).
Of these, Brass Mucket, Elephantear Mussel, Fawnsfoot, Tapered Pondhorn, and
Pondhorn have been reported from other archaeological sites in the Yazoo Basin, although
all were apparently quite rare there in prehistoric times (Peacock et al. 2011).
Fragile Papershell has been reported from archaeological contexts in numerous cases
(see Peacock et al. 2011:table 3), and its absence at Kinlock may be due to preservation
bias against thin-shelled species, a factor that also might explain the absence of Giant
Floater, Flat Floater, and Paper Pondshell.1 Alternatively, these species may have
spread into the drainage coincident with habitat change and/or the introduction of fish
hosts in historic times, a commonly noted phenomenon (e.g., Casey 1987, Grace and
Buchanan 1981, Taylor and Spurlock 1982, Williams et al. 2008:750–751). While it
is possible that some of the archaeological specimens we have identified as Potamilus
purpuratus (Bleufer) may be P. ohiensis, we do not think this is likely because our
specimens have the inflated shells characteristic of the former species. If we are correct,
then P. ohiensis seems to be a recent introduction into the Yazoo Basin.
Modern surveys in the Sunflower River found that mussel beds tend to be dominated
by one or two species. In one survey, for example, researchers found that
Amblema plicata (Threeridge) accounted for ~90% of the total population, and the
next most abundant taxon represented only 3.5% (Miller and Payne 1995:17). The
prehistoric assemblage is much more balanced, with eight species representing at
least 5 percent of the population and none accounting for more than 20 percent.
Also, large numbers of small valves were recovered from archaeological deposits,
Southeastern Naturalist
J. Mitchell and E. Peacock
2014 Vol. 13, No. 3
632
indicating healthy populations with consistent recruitment in all the major species,
whereas modern surveys of the Big Sunflower River show no recent recruitment
visible for several species (Miller and Payne 1995, 2004; Miller et al. 1992).
This historic decline in evenness is typical of disturbed habitats and likely is
related to increased human environmental impact (e.g., Haag and Warren 1998,
Miller and Payne 1995, Peacock et al. 2011). The Big Sunflower River has been
impacted in modern times by dredging activities of the US Corps of Engineers, the
negative effects of which have been discussed by Miller and Payne (1995) and others
(Miller et al. 1992, 1993). Hartfield (1993) suggested that siltation stemming
from erosion is also a factor in mussel scarcity (Hartfield 1993). The modern assemblages
referenced herein are generally similar, with differences between them more
likely due to sampling error than actual conditions. Not surprisingly, silt-tolerant
taxa dominate the modern fauna.
One unexpected finding in the Kinlock assemblage is a single Rangia cuneata
(G.B. Sowerby I) (Atlantic Rangia) valve (Fig. 2). Prior research on the geographic
Figure 2. Left valve of Rangia cuneata (Atlantic Rangia), recovered from the surface of the
Kinlock site.
Southeastern Naturalist
633
J. Mitchell and E. Peacock
2014 Vol. 13, No. 3
extent of Atlantic Rangia, a brackish-water bivalve (e.g., LaSalle and de la Cruz
1985, Wakida-Kusunoki and MacKenzie 2004; see also Cobb 2009), shows that
it is primarily associated with coastal archaeological sites. The most northerly archaeological
occurrence along the Gulf of Mexico is from the Lower Tombigbee
River, slightly north of the Mobile–Tensaw Delta of south Alabama, which seems
to have been the northern natural limit of the species in prehistoric times (Peacock
et al. 2014). Thus, the identification of Atlantic Rangia from a site on the upper Big
Sunflower River is curious. It is reasonable to assume that this shell is an import,
as has been suggested for a few other prehistoric sites. For example, Hill (1983)
discussed thousands of valves of Atlantic Rangia at the Arrowhead Farm site on
the Ohio River in Jefferson County, KY, and small numbers of valves have been
recovered from the famous Cahokia site in Illinois, near the confluence of the Mississippi
and Missouri rivers (Baker 1941, Parmalee 1958). The hypothesis that such
biogeographical anomalies represent imports can be tested and source areas can potentially
be determined using elemental and stable isotope analyses (e.g., Peacock
et al. 2010).
Conclusions
State and federal agencies are working hard to slow the decline of freshwater
mussel species in the US. Efforts to restore areas where mussel populations have
been seriously impacted have met limited success (Machtinger 2007). Unfortunately,
biologists and malacologists are still in the developmental stage in understanding
how to improve the survival rate, population growth, and recruitment of relocated
individuals in affected mussel communities (Machtinger 2007:7). The lack of a
true baseline in how we view and understand mussel communities is a perennial
problem, one that can be addressed via reference to the abundant zooarchaeological
record. To better understand how humans are affecting mussel communities today,
it is useful to first establish an evolutionary trajectory from past to present. Zooarchaeology
provides a unique perspective that can contribute to solving modern-day
problems by informing species-reintroduction efforts, providing long-term data on
endangered species, promoting conservation, and providing better understanding of
the long-term trajectory of human environmental impacts.
Notes
1Another explanation is that Indians were avoiding slack-water species due to taste. While
this is a legitimate hypothesis, such species are, in fact, frequently found with other species
in prehistoric middens (e.g., Peacock et al. 2013:table 3). There is an obvious danger
in using contemporary, common-sense assumptions to explain the behaviors of prehistoric
peoples from completely different cultures; such assumptions must be framed as hypotheses
and tested.
Acknowledgments
We thank Bradley Carlock, Janet Rafferty, and the Mississippi State University fieldschool
students and lab workers whose hard work yielded the interesting molluscan
Southeastern Naturalist
J. Mitchell and E. Peacock
2014 Vol. 13, No. 3
634
assemblage from Kinlock. The comments by an anonymous reviewer were very helpful,
especially in pointing us to sources on the archaeological occurrence of Rangia cuneata.
We also thank John Rodgers for providing the map used in Fig. 1.
Literature Cited
Anderson, E.N., N.J. Turner, E.S. Hunn, and D.M. Pearsall. 2010. Ethnobiology. Wiley-
Blackwell Press, New York, NY. 403 pp.
Bailey, G., R. Charles, and N. Winder. 2000. Human Ecodynamics. Symposia of the Association
for Environmental Archaeology No. 19. Oxbow Books, Oxford, UK. 160 pp.
Baker, F.C. 1941. The use of molluscan shells by the Cahokia mound-builders. Transactions
of the American Philosophical Society 32(2):51–77.
Barber, R.J. 1982. The indigenous distribution of Elliptio complanata in Ohio: Archaeological
evidence. The Nautilus 96:130–131.
Bogan, A.E. 1987. Molluscan remains from the Milner site (22YZ515) and the O’Neil site
(22YZ624), Yazoo County, MS. Appendix D, Pp. D1–D11, In L. Heartfield and G.R.
Price (Eds.). Data Recovery at the Milner (22YZ515) and O’Neil Creek (22YZ624)
Sites, Yazoo County, MS. Report submitted to the US Army Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg
District, Vicksburg, MS. 280 pp.
Bogan, A.E. 1993. Freshwater bivalve extinctions (Mollusca: Unionoida): A search for
causes. American Zoologist 33:599–609.
Bogan, A.E. 2008. Global diversity of freshwater mussels (Mollusca, Bivalvia) in freshwater.
Hydrobiologia 595:139–147.
Burch, J.B. 1975. Freshwater Unionacean clams (Mollusca: Pelecypoda) of North America.
US Environmental Protection Agency, Identification Manual No. 11. Revised Edition.
Malacological Publications, Hamburg, MI. 196 pp.
Carlock, J.B., and J. Rafferty. 2009. Spatially extensive examination of the Kinlock Site
(22SU526): Using controlled surface collection, magnetometry, excavation, and soil
cores. Paper Presented at 66th Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Mobile, AL. 7 pp.
Casey, J.L. 1987. Aboriginal and modern mussel assemblages of the lower Cumberland
River. Southeastern Archaeology 6:115–124.
Cobb, R. 2009. Rangia cuneata shells as an environmental proxy: Variations in elemental
concentrations within populations. The University of Alabama McNair Journal 9:45–58.
Cummings, K.S., and C.A. Mayer. 1992. Field Guide to Freshwater Mussels of the Midwest.
Illinois Natural History Museum Manual 5, Champaign, IL. 194 pp.
Crumley, C.L. 1994. Historical Ecology: Cultural Knowledge and Changing Landscapes.
School of American Research Press, Santa Fe, NM. 284 pp.
Dineen, C.F. 1971. Changes in the molluscan fauna of the Saint Joseph River, Indiana,
between 1959 and 1970. Transactions of the Indiana Academy of Science 80:189–195.
Frazier, J. 2007. Sustainable use and archaezoology. Journal of Natural Conservation
13(2):163–222.
Frazier, J. 2010. The Call of the Wild. Pp. 341–369, In Rebecca M. Dean (Ed.). The Archaeology
of Anthropogenic Environments, Occasional Paper 37, Center for Archaeological
Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL. 408 pp.
Gordon, M.E. 1983. A Pre-European occurrence of Glebula rotundata (Bivalvia: Unionidae)
in Arkansas. The Nautilus 97:42.
Grabarkiewicz, J.D., and W.S. Davis. 2008. An introduction to freshwater mussels as biological
indicators. EPA-260-R-08-015. US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Environmental Information, Washington, DC. 122 pp.
Southeastern Naturalist
635
J. Mitchell and E. Peacock
2014 Vol. 13, No. 3
Grace, T.B., and A.C. Buchanan. 1981. Naiades (mussels) of the Lower Osage River, Tavern
Creek, and Maries River, Missouri. Prepared for the US Army Corps of Engineers,
Kansas City District, Kansas City, MO. 147 pp.
Haag, W.R. 2009. Past and future patterns of freshwater mussel extinctions. Pp. 107–128,
In Samuel T. Turvey (Ed.). Holocene Extinctions. Oxford University Press, New York,
NY. 352 pp.
Haag, W.R., and M.L. Warren, Jr. 1998. Role of ecological factors and reproductive strategies
in structuring freshwater mussel communities. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and
Aquatic Science 55:297–306.
Hartfield, P.D. 1987. Status of selected freshwater mussels (Unionidae) in Mississippi.
Journal of the Mississippi Academy of Sciences 32:133–141.
Hartfield, P.D. 1993. Headcuts and their effect on freshwater mussels. Pp. 13–141, In K.S.
Cummings, A.C. Buchanan, and L.M. Koch (Eds.). Conservation and Management of
Freshwater Mussels. Proceedings of a UMRCC Symposium, 12–14 October, St. Louis,
MO. Upper Mississippi River Conservation Committee, Rock Island , IL. 293 pp.
Hill, F.C. 1983. Unexplained occurrence of the mactrid bivalve Rangia cuneata from the
Arrowhead Farms Indian site near Louisville, Kentucky. The Nautilus 97:7–81.
Hoeh, W.R., and R.J. Trdan. 1984. The freshwater mussels (Pelecypoda: Unionidae) of the
Upper Tittabawassee River drainage, Michigan. Malacological Review 17: 97–98.
Howells, R.G., R.W. Neck, and H.D. Murray. 1996. Freshwater Mussels of Texas. Inland
Fisheries Division, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Austin, TX. 218 pp.
Hughes, M.H., and P.W. Parmalee. 1999. Prehistoric and modern freshwater mussel (Mollusca:
Bivalvia: Unionoidea) faunas of the Tennessee River: Alabama, Kentucky, and
Tennessee. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management 15:25–42.
Jones, R.L., W.T. Slack, and P.D. Hartfield. 2005. The freshwater mussels (Mollusca: Bivalvia:
Unionidae) of Mississippi. Southeastern Naturalist 4:77–92.
Klippel, W.E., G. Celmer, and J.R. Purdue. 1978. The Holocene naiad record at Rodgers
Shelter in the western Ozark Highland of Missouri. Plains Anthropologist 23:257–271.
LaSalle, M.W., and A.A. de la Cruz. 1985. Species profiles: Life histories and environmentalrequirements
of coastal fishes and invertebrates (Gulf of Mexico): Common Rangia.
US Fish and Wildlife Biology Report 82 (11.31). TR EL-82-4:16. US Army Corps of
Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. 18 pp.
Lydeard, C., R.H. Cowie, W.F. Ponder, A.E. Bogan, P. Bouchet, S.A. Clark, K.S. Cummings,
T.J. Frest, O. Gargominy, D.G. Herbert, R. Hershler, K.E. Perez, B. Roth, M.
Seddon, E.E. Strong, and F.G. Thompson. 2004. The global decline of non-marine mollusks.
Bioscience 54:321–330.
Lyman, R.L. 1996. Applied Zooarchaeology: The relevance of faunal analysis to wildlife
management. World Archaeology 28:110–125.
Lyman, R.L. 2006. Paleozoology in the service of conservation biology. Evolutionary Anthropology
15:11–19.
Lyman, R.L., and K.P. Cannon. 2004. Zooarchaeology and Conservation Biology. University
of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, UT. 288 pp.
Lyons, M.S., R.A. Krebs, J.P. Holt, L.J. Rundo, and W. Zawiski. 2007. Assessing causes
of change in the freshwater mussels (Bivalvia: Unionidae) in the Black River, Ohio.
American Midland Naturalist 158:1–15.
Machtinger, E.T. 2007. Native Freshwater Mussels. Natural Resources Conservation Service,
Wildlife Habitat Council. Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Leaflet 46:1–16.
Southeastern Naturalist
J. Mitchell and E. Peacock
2014 Vol. 13, No. 3
636
Miller, A.C., and B.S. Payne. 1995. Analysis of freshwater mussels (Unionidae), Big Sunflower
River maintenance project: 1993 studies. US Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways
Experiment Station, Technical Report EL-95-26. Vicksburg, MS. 123 pp.
Miller, A.C., and B.S. Payne. 1997. An analysis of freshwater mussels (Unionidae) in five
tributaries of the Big Sunflower River drainage, 1996. US Army Corps of Engineers,
Waterways Experiment Station, Technical Report EL-97-20. Vicksburg, MI. 38 pp.
Miller, A.C., and B.S. Payne. 2004. reducing risks of maintenance dredging on freshwater
mussels (Unionidae) in the Big Sunflower River, Mississippi. Journal of Environmental
Management 73:147–54.
Miller, A.C., B.S. Payne, and P.D. Hartfield. 1992. Characterization of a freshwater mussel
(Unionidae) community in the Big Sunflower River, Sharkey County, Mississippi.
Journal of the Mississippi Academy of Sciences 37:8–11.
Miller, A.C., B.S. Payne, D.S. Shafer, and T.L. Neill. 1993. Techniques for monitoring
bivalve communities and populations in large rivers. Pp. 147–58, In K.S. Cummings,
A.C. Buchanan, and L.M. Koch (Eds.). Conservation and Management of Freshwater
Mussels. Proceedings of a UMRCC Symposium. Upper Mississippi River Conservation
Committee, St. Louis, MO. 293 pp.
Mississippi Natural Heritage Program. 2011. Listed species of Mississippi. Museum of
Natural Science, Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks, Jackson,
MS. 4 pp.
Mitchell, J. 2012. Addressing sample bias and representativeness at the Kinlock site
(22SU526): A freshwater mussel-shell ring in the Mississippi Delta. M. Sc. Thesis. Mississippi
State University, Starkville, MS. 116 pp.
Neves, R.J., A.E. Bogan, J.D. Williams, S.A. Ahlstedt, and P.W. Hartfield. 1997. Status of
aquatic mollusks in the southeastern United States: A downward spiral of diversity. Pp.
44–85, In G.W. Benz and D.E. Collins (Eds.). Aquatic Fauna in Peril: The Southeastern
Perspective. Special Publication 1, Southeast Aquatic Research Institute. Lenz Design
and Communications, Decatur, GA. 554 pp.
Parmalee, P.W. 1958. Marine shells of Illinois Indian sites. The Nautilus 71:132–139.
Parmalee, P.W. 1967. The Freshwater Mussels of Illinois. Illinois Museum of Popular Science
Series Volume 8. Springfield, IL. 108 pp.
Parmalee, P.W., and A.E. Bogan. 1998. The Freshwater Mussels of Tennessee. University
of Tennessee Press, Knoxville TN. 384 pp.
Peacock, E. 2000. Assessing bias in archaeological shell assemblages. Journal of Field
Archaeology 27:183–196.
Peacock, E. 2002. Shellfish use during the Woodland Period in the Middle South. Pp. 444–
460, In D.G. Anderson and R. Mainfort (Eds.). The Woodland Southeast. University of
Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, AL. 648 pp.
Peacock, E. 2012. Archaeological freshwater mussel remains and their use in the conservation
of an imperiled fauna. Pp. 42–67, In S. Wolverton and R.L. Lyman (Eds.). Conservation
Biology and Applied Zooarchaeology. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson,
AZ. 248 pp.
Peacock, E., and C. Jenkins. 2010. The distribution and research value of archaeological
mussel shell: An overview from Mississippi. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology
35:91–116.
Peacock, E., and S. Chapman. 2001. Taphonomic and biogeographic data from a plaquemine
shell midden on the Ouachita River, Lousiana. Southeastern Archaeology 20:4–55.
Peacock, E., and S. Mistak. 2008. Freshwater mussel remains from the Bilbo Basin site,
Mississippi, USA: Archaeological Considerations and Resource Management Implications.
Archaeofauna 17:9–20.
Southeastern Naturalist
637
J. Mitchell and E. Peacock
2014 Vol. 13, No. 3
Peacock, E., and T.R. James. 2002. A prehistoric unionid assemblage from the Big Black
River drainage in Hinds County, Mississippi. Journal of the Mississippi Academy of
Science 47:119–23.
Peacock, E., C. Jenkins, P.F. Jacobs, and J. Greenleaf. 2011. Archaeology and Biogeography
of Prehistoric Freshwater Mussel Shell in Mississippi. BAR International Series 2297.
Archaeopress, British Archaeological Reports. Oxford, UK. 154 pp.
Peacock, E., A. Moe-Hoffman, R.J. Scott, and M.D. Jeter. 2013. Prehistoric freshwater mussel
faunas from Bayou Bartholomew, Southeastern Arkansas. Southeastern Archaeology
32:1–13.
Peacock, E., S.W. McGregor, and A.A. Dumas. 2014. Behavioral, environmental, and applied
aspects of molluscan assemblages from the lower Tombigbee River, Alabama,
USA. Pp. 186–211, In T.M. Peres (Ed.). Trends and Traditions in Southeastern Zooarchaeology.
University of Florida Press, Gainesville, FL. 288 pp.
Phillips, P. 1970. Archaeological Survey in the Lower Mississippi Alluvial Valley, 1940–
1947. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology. Harvard University,
Vol. 25, Cambridge, MA. 592 pp.
Randklev, C.R., and B.J. Lundeen. 2012. Prehistoric biogeography and conservation status
of threatened freshwater mussels (Mollusca: Unionidae) in the Upper Trinity River
drainage, Texas. Pp. 68–91, In S. Wolverton and R.L. Lyman (Eds.). Conservation Biology
and Applied Zooarchaeology. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson, AZ. 288 pp.
Starrett, W.C. 1971. A survey of the mussels (Unionacea) of the Illinois River: A polluted
stream. Illinois Natural History Survey Bulletin 30:268–403.
Strayer, D.L., J.A. Downing, W.R. Haag, T.L. King, J.B. Layer, T.J. Newton, and S.J. Nichols.
2004. Changing perspectives on pearly mussels, North America’s Most Imperiled
Animals. Bioscience 54:429–39.
Tevesz, M.J.S., L. Rundo, R.A. Krebs, B.G. Redmond, and A.S. Dufresne. 2002. Changes
in the freshwater mussel (Mollusca: Bivalvia) fauna of the Cayahoga River, Ohio, since
Late Prehistory. Kirtlandia 53:13–18.
Taylor, R.W., and B.D. Spurlock. 1982. The Changing Ohio River naiad fauna: A comparison
of early indian middens with today. The Nautilus 96:49–51.
Turgeon, D.D., J.F. Quinn, Jr., A.E. Bogan, E.V. Coan, F.G. Hochberg, W.G. Lyons, P.M.
Mikkelsen, R.J. Neves, C.F.E. Roper, G. Rosenberg, B. Roth, M. Scheltema, F.G.
Thompson, M. Vecchione, and J.D. Williams. 1998. Mollusks. Second Edition. American
Fisheries Society Press. Bethesda, MD. 526 pp.
Vidrine, M.F. 1993. The Historical Distributions of Freshwater Mussels in Louisiana. Gail
Q. Vidrine Collectables, Eunice, LA. 225 pp.
Vidrine, M.F. 2008. The mollusca of the Freeman and Custis Expedition of 1806: Mollusks
(emphasis on mussels and associated parasites) of the Red River drainages. Pp. 111–146,
In L.M. Hardy (Ed.). Freeman and Custis Red River Expedition of 1806: Two Hundred
Years Later: A Symposium, June 14–17, 2006. Louisiana State University in Shreveport,
Bulletin of the Museum of Life Sciences 14, Shreveport, LA. 368 pp.
Wakida-Kusunoki, A.T., and C.L. MacKenzie, Jr. 2004. Rangia and marsh clams, Rangia
cuneata, R. flexuosa, and Polymesoda cardoliniana, in eastern Mexico: Distribution,
biology and ecology, and historical fisheries. Marine Fisheries Review 66(3):13–19.
White, D.S. 1977. Changes in the freshwater mussel populations of the Poteau River system,
Le Flore County, Oklahoma. Proceedings of the Oklahoma Academy of Science
57:103–105.
Williams, J., M. Warren, K. Cummings, J. Harris, and R. Neves. 1993. Conservation status
of freshwater mussels of the United States and Canada. Fisheries 9:6–22.
Southeastern Naturalist
J. Mitchell and E. Peacock
2014 Vol. 13, No. 3
638
Willams, J., A. Bogan, and J. Garner. 2008. Freshwater Mussels of Alabama and the Mobile
Basin in Georgia, Mississippi, and Tennessee. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa,
AL. 960 pp.
Wolverton, S., and R.L. Lyman (Eds.). 2012. Conservation Biology and Applied Zooarchaeology.
University of Arizona Press, Tucson, AZ. 248 pp.
Wolverton, S., C.R. Randklev, and J.H. Kennedy. 2010. A conceptual model for freshwater
mussel (Family: Unionidae) remains preservation in zooarchaeological assemblages.
Journal of Archaeological Science 37:164–173.