Southe astern Ceremoni a l Complex
A Dan Josselyn Memorial Publication
Southeastern Ceremonial Complex Chronology, ...
103 downloads
851 Views
3MB Size
Report
This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form
Southe astern Ceremoni a l Complex
A Dan Josselyn Memorial Publication
Southeastern Ceremonial Complex Chronology, Content, Context
Edited by Adam King
the uni v ersit y of a l a ba m a press Tuscaloosa
Copyright © 2007 The University of Alabama Press Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35487-0380 All rights reserved Manufactured in the United States of America Typeface: AGaramond ∞ The paper on which this book is printed meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences-Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48-1984.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Southeastern ceremonial complex : chronology, content, context / edited by Adam King. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN-13: 978-0-8173-1554-2 (cloth : alk. paper) ISBN-10: 0-8173-1554-3 ISBN-13: 978-0-8173-5409-1 (pbk. : alk. paper) ISBN-10: 0-8173-5409-3 1. Mississippian culture. 2. Indians of North America—Southern States—Rites and ceremonies. 3. Indians of North America—Southern States—Antiquities. 4. Southern States—Antiquities. I. King, Adam, 1965– E99.M6815S68 2007 975′.01—dc22 2007004159
This book is dedicated to my wife, Jennifer, who has taught me where undertakings like this fit into my life.
Contents
List of Illustrations
ix
Acknowledgments
xv
1. The Southeastern Ceremonial Complex: From Cult to Complex Adam King 1 2. Prolegomena for the Analysis of the Southeastern Ceremonial Complex Jon Muller 15 3. Chronological Implications of the Bellows-Shaped Apron James A. Brown 38 4. Mound 34: The Context for the Early Evidence of the Southeastern Ceremonial Complex at Cahokia John E. Kelly, James A. Brown, Jenna M. Hamlin, Lucretia S. Kelly, Laura Kozuch, Kathryn Parker, and Julieann Van Nest 57 5. Shell Gorgets, Time, and the Southeastern Ceremonial Complex in Southeastern Tennessee Lynne P. Sullivan 88 6. Mound C and the Southeastern Ceremonial Complex in the History of the Etowah Site Adam King 107 7. Connections Between the Etowah and Lake Jackson Chiefdoms: Patterns in the Iconographic and Material Evidence John F. Scarry 134 8. An Assessment of Moundville Engraved “Cult” Designs from Potsherds Vernon James Knight, Jr. 151 9. Hightower Anthropomorphic Marine Shell Gorgets and Duck River SwordForm Flint Bifaces: Middle Mississippian Ritual Regalia in the Southern Appalachians Shawn Marceaux and David H. Dye 165 10. Mississippian Shell Gorgets in Regional Perspective David J. Hally 185
viii
Contents
11. Sex and the Southern Cult Susan M. Alt and Timothy R. Pauketat 12. Whither SECC? Adam King 251 References Cited Contributors Index
293
289
259
232
Illustrations
Figures 2.1.
Bilobed arrow
21
2.2.
Spiro gorget and a detail of the “raccoon” motif, LeFlore County, Oklahoma 22
2.3.
Small Lick Creek gorget from the Fred Lewis Farm, Carter County, Tennessee 25
2.4.
Hightower anthropomorphic gorget from Tennessee
2.5.
A figure from Mud Glyph Cave, Tennessee, and the Castalian Springs gorget 27
2.6.
Madison County, Illinois, gorget in the Eddyville style
2.7.
Arachnomorphic gorget from the Crable site, Fulton County, Illinois 29
2.8.
An aboriginally reworked gorget from the Crable site
2.9.
Lick Creek style gorget, Lick Creek site, Greene County, Tennessee, circa a.d. 1450 31
2.10.
“Transitional” herpetomorphic gorget from Etowah site, Bartow County, Georgia, circa a.d. 1550 31
2.11.
Citico style gorget, Williams Island, Hamilton County, Tennessee, circa a.d. 1600–1700 32
2.12.
Grave lot from Burial 6, Etowah site, Bartow County, Georgia
2.13.
Grave lot from Burial 113, Talassee site, Blount County, Tennessee
2.14.
Grave lot from Burial 116, Talassee site
2.15.
Comparison of Hightower and Williams Island themes and elements 35
3.1.
Transformational series of sacred scalp images taken from shell engravings of the Classic Braden and three temporal phases of the Craig style 44
3.2.
Depictions of the sacred scalp of the circular frontlet type in three regional styles of engraving on stone, pottery, and marine shell, with
26
29
30
33 34
34
x
Illustrations
accompanying styles of the human head: Craig C style, Late Braden style, Hemphill style 46 3.3.
The sacred scalp materialized as various styles of gorgets of the circular frontlet type: Craig C style, Hemphill style, Hightower style 47
4.1.
Map of the Cahokia site with central Cahokia and Mound 34 delineated 59
4.2.
Chronology for Cahokia and the American Bottom region
4.3.
Map of central Cahokia showing the location of the Palisade, Mound 34, and the Ramey Plaza during the Moorehead phase 61
4.4.
A 1950 contour map produced by UMMA of Mound 34 showing test pit locations 62
4.5.
UMMA 1950 profile maps of Test Pits 1–3
4.6.
Engraved shell recovered from Mound 34 excavations by UMMA and by Perino for the Gilcrease Museum 65
4.7.
Schematic profile and plan maps of Mound 34 showing Perino’s 1956 excavations 66
4.8.
Plan map of the Washington University excavations in Mound 34 from 1998 to 2005 67
4.9.
Illustration of the negative-painted platter recovered from Perino’s refuse trench 68
4.10.
Washington University’s profile map of Perino’s west wall showing Feature 3 70
4.11.
Profile map from Washington University’s exposure of Perino’s east wall 71
4.12.
Photograph of marine shell cache recovered by Washington University from Mound 34 73
4.13.
Profile map from Washington University’s exposure of UMMA’s Test Pit 3 76
4.14.
Perino’s south wall excavations in Mound 34, showing height of Mound 34 and burned posts from a building at the top of the mound 77
4.15.
Contour map of the Ramey Plaza area
5.1.
Kneberg’s 1959 gorget seriation shown with Brain and Phillips’s proposed dates 89
5.2.
Location of the Davis (40HA2), Hixon (40HA3), Dallas (40HA1), and selected other sites along the Tennessee River before flooding of the TVA’s Chickamauga Reservoir 91
60
64
83
Illustrations
xi
5.3.
Plan of the Davis site showing the location of the mound in relation to the WPA excavations in the “village” area 93
5.4.
North–south profile of the mound at the Davis site showing the initial two platforms and subsequent filling and capping of these to form a single mound 94
5.5.
Plan of the Hixon site showing the location of the mound in relation to the WPA excavations in the “village” area 97
5.6.
Composite profile of the mound at the Hixon site showing the main mound stages and various identified floors within these stages 98
5.7.
Corrected sequence of gorgets in the Hixon mound in relation to the radiometric and extrapolated beginning and ending dates for the mound’s construction 100
5.8.
Plan of the Dallas site showing the location of the mound in relation to the WPA excavations in the village area 102
5.9.
Remains of House 14-8 in the mound at the Dallas site
5.10.
Stratigraphic relationships of shell gorgets from the Dallas site
6.1.
Plan map of the Etowah site
6.2.
The 1956 profile, west side of Mound C
6.3.
Mound C profile showing Burials 57 and 38
6.4.
Partial Mound C plan map
6.5.
Mound C profile showing stratigraphy of Stages 5, 6, and 7
6.6.
Plan map of Mound C features excavated by Larson
6.7.
Composite feature map from all Mound C excavations
7.1.
Etowah and Lake Jackson in the Mississippian Southeast
7.2.
Repoussé copper plate from Etowah excavated by John P. Rogan
7.3.
Repoussé copper plates from Lake Jackson
7.4.
Comparison of the plates from Etowah and Lake Jackson
7.5.
Shell gorgets from Lake Jackson
7.6.
Limestone celts from Etowah and Lake Jackson
7.7.
Repoussé copper elements from Lake Jackson headdress
8.1.
A Moundville winged serpent
8.2.
A Moundville crested bird
8.3.
A Moundville raptor
8.4.
Some variations on the center symbols and bands theme
103 104
108 110 112
113 114
124 125 136
139 139
141 142 143
153
154
155 156
138
xii
Illustrations
8.5.
An example of the trophy theme at Moundville
157
8.6.
Comparison of theme frequencies in the sherd sample and whole vessel sample 160
8.7.
Comparison of theme frequencies by phase, from the sherd data
9.1.
Mortal combat theme marine shell gorget, Hixon site, Hamilton County, Tennessee 171
9.2.
Headsman theme marine shell gorget, Mound C, Etowah site, Bartow County, Georgia 174
9.3.
Sword-form flint biface, Humphreys County, Tennessee
9.4.
Raptor talon effigy flint biface, Humphreys County, Tennessee
163
175 176
10.1.
Gorget styles referred to in the text
187
10.2.
Gorget style sequence and chronology proposed by Brain and Phillips 190
10.3.
Revised gorget style sequence and chronology
195
10.4.
Distribution of known sites with shell gorgets
198
10.5.
Distribution of sites with Big Toco style gorgets
10.6.
Distribution of sites with Hixon style gorgets
10.7.
Distribution of sites with Ruffner style gorgets
10.8.
Distribution of sites with McAdams style gorgets
207
10.9.
Distribution of sites with Lick Creek style gorgets
208
10.10.
Distribution of sites with Cox fenestrated and Cox nonfenestrated style gorgets 209
10.11.
Distribution of sites with Nashville I style gorgets
209
10.12.
Distribution of sites with Pine Island style gorgets
210
10.13.
Distribution of sites with Big Toco and Eddyville style gorgets
10.14.
Distribution of sites with Hixon, Jackson, and Pearce style gorgets
10.15.
Distribution of sites with Ortner, McAdams, and Rudder style gorgets 212
10.16.
Distribution of sites with Ruffner, Younge, Lenoir, and Tibbee Creek style gorgets 212
10.17.
Distribution of sites with Citico, Carters Quarter, Brakebill, and Lick Creek style gorgets 213
10.18.
Distribution of sites with Ruffner and Dunning style gorgets
206 206 207
211
214
211
Illustrations
xiii
10.19.
Distribution of sites with Hixon, Big Toco, and Dunning style gorgets 214
10.20.
Distribution of sites with Younge, Eddyville, and McAdams style gorgets 215
10.21.
Distribution of sites with Spaghetti, Nashville II, and Lick Creek style gorgets 216
10.22.
Distribution of sites with Citico and Chickamauga style gorgets
10.23.
Distribution of sites with Citico style gorgets
10.24.
Distribution of sites with Buffalo style gorgets
10.25.
Distribution of sites with Chickamauga, McBee, and unidentified mask style gorgets 220
10.26.
Distribution of gorget style core areas
11.1
Details of possible primary female and child sacrifices in Burial Complex #3, Wilson Mound, Cahokia 238
11.2.
Red flint clay figurines: feminine characteristics on specimen from the Sponemann site, masculine characteristics on specimen from the Shiloh site, Tennessee 244
11.3.
The gendered distribution of Cahokia flint clay figurines
11.4.
Joyce Wike in Seattle, Washington, in October 2000
218 219
228
245
248
Tables 1.1.
Muller’s Horizons of the Southern Cult
8
3.1.
Radiocarbon Dates for the Scalp Motif
48
5.1.
Radiocarbon Dates from the Davis, Hixon, and Dallas Sites
6.1.
Etowah Site Phase Sequence
6.2.
Ceramic Collections from Selected Mound C Strata
6.3.
Radiocarbon Dates from Wilbanks Contexts
6.4.
Mound C Radiocarbon Series
8.1.
Frequency of Themes and Motifs: Sherd Data, Mounds Q, R, E, F, and G 159
8.2.
Comparison of Theme Frequencies by Mound, from the Sherd Data 161
8.3.
Frequency of Themes by Phase
95
117 118
120
122
162
217
xiv
Illustrations
9.1.
Corpus of Anthropomorphic Hightower Style Marine Shell Gorgets— Mortal Combat and Headsman Themes 170
9.2.
Anthropomorphic Hightower Style Marine Shell Gorgets—Mortal Combat and Headsman Themes (Motifs) 172
9.3.
Corpus of Duck River Sword-Form Bifaces
177
10.1.
Seriation of Gorget Styles from Grave Lot Associations
192
10.2.
Frequency of Gorget Burials Relative to Number of Burials at Select Sites 200
10.3.
Distances Across Shell Gorget Style Core Areas and Distances to Outlier Sites 205
10.4.
Temporal Associations of Gorget Themes in the Eastern Tennessee– Northern Georgia Area 217
10.5.
Gorget Styles Occurring in Non-Mound Contexts and Occurring with Female and Subadult Burials 222
Acknowledgments
This volume has been many (too many) years in the making. I would like to extend my thanks to all the contributors who stuck with it even when it seemed dead in the water. I also would like to thank the University of Alabama Press for showing confidence in me and believing (or hoping) in the ultimate success of the book. Assembling an edited volume is a complicated undertaking, and I was very fortunate to have had the help of two very fine people. I owe a special debt of thanks to Pamela Johnson and Christopher Thornock for assisting with assembling the final version of this book from the text to the figures and everything in between. Also, I want to express my appreciation for the continuing support of Mark Brooks and the entire staff of the Savannah River Archaeological Research Program. David Anderson once told me that I had the best job in the Southeast— because of the fine people I work with and the opportunities I am given, I believe he is right. Finally, I want to thank my wife, Jennifer, and my children, Alya and Avery, for their understanding, support, and most importantly, love.
Southe astern Ceremoni a l Complex
1 The Southeastern Ceremonial Complex From Cult to Complex Adam King
It is now 23 years since the Cottonlandia Conference brought together a collection of notable scholars to review current perspectives on that most venerable of concepts in the southeastern United States, the Southern Cult (Galloway, ed. 1989). The concept, which has its roots in the intensely productive decade of the 1930s, has a history that is both as long as and fundamentally tied to yet another venerable concept in southeastern archaeology: Mississippian. In 1984, as it is today, it was clear that our understanding of the objects, themes, and artistic styles associated with the Southeastern Ceremonial Complex (SECC) has changed a great deal, and it is equally clear that this complex is much more complex than once thought. Since the publishing of The Southeastern Ceremonial Complex: Artifacts and Analysis, new primary data have come to light that bear directly on the complex, and new theoretical approaches have continued to ask us to view it in new ways. Also in that time, Jeffrey P. Brain and Philip Phillips (1996) published a major work on engraved shell gorget styles, which has reignited many debates about the dating and nature of the SECC and reinvigorated studies of the complex. Given the circumstances, the contributors to this volume saw that the time was right to bring together and present these new data and perspectives on the SECC. The purpose here is not to present a single, unified conception of the SECC but rather to present new data and new ideas on the temporal and social contexts of the objects, artistic styles, and symbolic themes included in the complex. In fact, it will become clear that there is no single, unified perspective on the meaning, function, or content of the SECC precisely because the SECC was not a single, monolithic ceremonial complex, artistic tradition, or belief system. Despite this, for simplicity’s sake I will continue to refer to this complex as the Southeastern Ceremonial Complex or SECC. The purpose of this chapter is to create a context for the contributions that follow by briefly reviewing the development of our conceptions of the SECC
2
King
and the research that it has engendered. I organize this review around a series of publications that I consider to be watershed contributions in the history of the SECC. The reader is referred to Brown (2001a), Brown and Kelly (2000), Galloway (1989), and Williams (1968) for other fine reviews of the development of the SECC.
From the Warrior Cult to the Southern Cult (1931 to 1968) The first watershed publication on the SECC came in 1945 with the publication of “A Prehistoric Ceremonial Complex in the Southeastern United States” by Antonio Waring and Preston Holder (see Waring and Holder 1945). While this article is recognized by most as an important early work on the topic, it more than anything represents a systematic explication of ideas that were current in the 1930s. This is not to say that there is nothing original in the article, but it is important to recognize that it is a concrete statement that grew out of a larger debate occurring at the time (see Williams 1968). The earliest published discussion of some kind of cult or complex in the late prehistoric Southeast came from Spinden (1931), who suggested the presence of a “warrior cult” that was introduced from Mexico. Later in the 1930s while completing his dissertation at Harvard, Phillips (1940) concluded, as Williams (1968:6) notes, “quite independently,” that the exotic materials known from places like Etowah, Moundville, and Spiro could be explained as part of an “eagle warrior complex” that spread rapidly by a small number of people from Mexico. At roughly the same time, a “southeastern version” of a hypothesis to explain those same data was formulated. In 1937, Waring hosted an informal meeting in Savannah in which he and Holder, with James A. Ford and Gordon R. Willey in attendance, formalized their ideas about a Southern Cult that swept across the Southeast like the Ghost Dance would do in the West centuries later (see Williams 1968:6). Although their paper was not published until after the war, it was in large part finished and available to Ford and Willey when they published their influential synthesis on eastern archaeology (see Ford and Willey 1941). In that paper, Ford and Willey noted a “curious cult,” which they called the Southern Cult and which was in large measure the concept later elaborated upon by Waring and Holder. In their influential article, Waring and Holder proposed several key points that were to define the understanding of the SECC for many years to come, and to some extent that influence is still felt today. Using a trait list approach they argued that there was a high degree of similarity in the motifs and artifact forms used over a wide area, suggesting to them the existence of some kind of cult or cult complex. That complex was formulated in a single or a small number of communities in the Mississippi Valley late in prehistory. Elements of the complex were introduced from Middle America and they spread rapidly from center to center,
From Cult to Complex
3
where they were altered somewhat to fit local ceremonial practices and economies. In Waring and Holder’s conception, the cult appeared suddenly and disappeared almost as quickly. The ideas put forth in this article spurred a series of debates centering on the nature, origins, and dating of the SECC. As we will see, some of these debates carry on to this day. Concerning the nature of the SECC, as the term Southern Cult implies, these early notions (see Ford and Willey 1941; Phillips 1940; Spinden 1931; Waring and Holder 1945) conceived of the SECC as the material remains of a fast-spreading cult or complex of cults. For example, Ford and Willey (1941) argued that the SECC was a religious revival similar to the Ghost Dance and also may have been a reaction to the rapid population declines caused by the coming of Europeans. Griffin (1944) countered, seconded by Waring (1968a), that rather than a culture in decline, it appeared that the groups associated with the SECC were still at their peak. For Phillips (1940) the spread came as waves of Middle American influence impacted population centers. Waring and Holder (1945) argued that the spread originated from one or a small number of local centers and likely occurred along with the migration of “Middle Mississippian” populations. Waring (1968a) later developed a more nuanced explanation after demonstrating clear connections between SECC symbolism and ritual themes and symbolism historically documented among the Creeks and other Muskogean speakers. He argued that the SECC crystallized after the Middle Mississippian expansion and emerged within a network of Middle Mississippian–influenced communities. The cult built on existing ceremonial similarities and was born out of a desire to reunify increasingly distant Middle Mississippian cultural groups. As Waring (1968a:66–67) described it, “the Cult may have been an effort to refurbish and to restandardize the old ceremonial on one hand, and an attempt to give some political unity to scattered groups on the other. In other words, the Cult may have been a real religious revival with a strong proselytizing element at work, and in this respect, is comparable to the historic Ghost Dance.” The whole notion that the SECC represented a true cult was called into question in a roundtable discussion held at the 1947 Society for American Archaeology meeting and led by Griffin (see Waring 1948). In that discussion, Phillips expressed dissatisfaction with the use of the term and questioned whether they understood the true meaning of the SECC material. Holder indicated that he and Waring had used cult as a convenient term and did not believe that the SECC represented an actual cult. In that same session, Griffin argued that the SECC was not a single manifestation but was instead a series of complexes, earlier in some places such as Spiro and in others clearly influenced by Huastecan cultures. Somewhat later, Waring (1968a, probably written in the mid-1940s; see Williams 1968:7) echoed Holder’s uncertainty about the cult concept. Following in the footsteps of Willoughby (1932), Waring (1968a) demonstrated the clear connections between SECC content and ritual themes and symbolism
4
King
historically documented among the Creeks and other Muskogean speakers. Like Waring, Howard (1968) also examined Muskogean historical sources for connections to the SECC, but he took the pursuit further and included ethnographic investigations as well. While Howard saw the messianic or revitalization movement model as the most economical way to explain the development of the SECC, he rejected the idea of a cult given the connotations of secrecy and exclusivity implied by the concept. Intended or not, these studies fostered the notion that the SECC was intimately connected to the development of historically precedent Mississippian cultures. This same realization no doubt led Griffin (1952a, 1966) to consider the SECC the ceremonial culture of the Mississippian period rather than some type of cult or revitalization movement. In what strikes me as a very underappreciated article, Krieger (1945:490), much earlier than anyone else, argued against the messianic movement model and instead suggested the SECC reflected the “beliefs in ritualisms, in supernatural creatures and their magic powers, division of the universe into quarters or ‘winds’ [and] perhaps also matters of social status, rank, heraldry, and other aspects of the mental life of the times.” Discussions about the origins of the materials associated with the SECC predated the actual formulation of the Southern Cult concept, as a wide variety of authors noted early on the resemblance to Mesoamerican art and symbolism (see Bennett 1944; Holmes 1883, 1903; Mason 1937; Moore 1907; Nuttall 1932; Spinden 1913; Willoughby 1932; Thomas 1894). While many of the early cult authors accepted the Mexican connection (see, for example, Ford and Willey 1941; Griffin 1944; Phillips 1940; Waring and Holder 1945), Krieger (1945) was the first to proffer an argument against that perspective. In a single sentence, Krieger (1945:512) succinctly communicated a sentiment that many have echoed since concerning Mesoamerican influences on southeastern societies: “In all of this, there is little purpose in underrating the ability of Southeastern Indians to produce an elaborate and complex religious movement of their own, with only moderate help from the south or any other direction.” Krieger’s perspective ultimately won the day (see, for example, Griffin 1952a, 1966; Howard 1968), but, as I will discuss, this issue has not yet been retired. In terms of dating, it was well understood that the SECC occurred in archaeological contexts late in the prehistoric sequences of the Southeast and Midwest. Before the advent of radiocarbon dating, more precise estimates were not easily derived. One of the earliest specific statements about the dating of the SECC came with Griffin’s (1944) hypothesis that it was introduced into the Southeast by native Mexicans brought into the region between 1559 and 1561 by the Luna expedition. This suggestion was countered by Waring (1945), who was able to show, using the stratigraphic position of cult materials and by cross dating aboriginal ceramic complexes with European materials, that most of the Southern Cult material predated de Soto (see also Krieger 1945).
From Cult to Complex
5
As more was learned about the contexts from which SECC material was recovered, it became clear that there was a longer history to the complex than first thought. At the 1954 meeting of the Southeastern Archaeological Conference held at Moundville, Waring (1968b) suggested that the SECC could be divided into Formative, Developed, and Attenuated phases. With the wider application of the radiocarbon dating technique, it became apparent to many that the bulk of the SECC goods were found in contexts assignable to the period between a.d. 1200 and 1400 (Griffin 1952b; Howard 1968).
Reconsidering the Southern Cult (1971 to 1986) The influence of the New Archaeology was felt on SECC studies in the late 1960s when SECC goods began to figure prominently in mortuary treatment studies such as the classic Approaches to the Social Dimensions of Mortuary Practices, edited by James A. Brown (Brown, ed. 1971). While that volume did not focus on the SECC per se, articles on the three big “cult” centers of Moundville (Peebles 1971), Etowah (Larson 1971), and Spiro (Brown 1971) clearly showed that SECC materials functioned in part as markers of elevated status and political leadership. These were written around the same time that Brown’s (1966, 1971) work with the burials at Spiro was published and were followed by Hatch’s (1974, 1976a, 1976b) classic studies of Dallas mortuary practices and Peebles and Kus’s (1977) statistical treatment of social ranking at Moundville. All of these publications served to shift the emphasis of SECC studies away from the “cult” as a monolithic entity to be defined and toward understanding how SECC goods functioned in larger social systems. Out of this context grew a second watershed article in SECC studies, Brown’s (1976a) “The Southern Cult Reconsidered.” In it Brown (1976a:120) laid out the limitations of the trait list approach begun by Waring and Holder, which he argued placed too much emphasis on classification and ignored “functional interrelationships and cultural context of its elements.” Following up on many of the debates from decades earlier, Brown argued that the SECC was not the result of extraordinary historical circumstances as Ford and Willey (1941) had suggested and it was not the product of a single historically known group (cf. Waring 1968a). Rather than a cult, Brown saw the SECC as the product of an interregional interaction sphere that included many different style systems. The artifacts and motifs included in the SECC had as much to do with the hierarchical ranking structure inherent in chiefdoms as they did with religious beliefs. Brown suggested that most of the motifs and artifacts included in the SECC could be related to three organizational networks of social power operating in Mississippian hierarchical society. The first of these he referred to as “cult paraphernalia,” which encompassed symbols, badges, and other art motifs including sociotechnic artifacts like ceremonial maces, celts, and chert blades. The second
6
King
so-called organizational network of power focused on the “Conceptual Core” of the SECC, which focused on the association of the falcon with warfare and possibly the specific role of the war captain at Spiro. Symbolically, it included representations of the falcon, the falcon impersonator of the famous Rogan plates from Etowah, and the associated trappings of these individuals. The third network of power centered on the mortuary temple and included the stone figurines and skeletal art motifs, human masks, and head pots. This landmark publication injected three important concerns into SECC studies that are still with us today. The first is an interest in understanding the social context of SECC goods and the interrelationships among different elements of the SECC. The second is the idea that the SECC essentially was a regional interaction network intimately associated with elites and ranking. The final concern, no doubt resulting from Brown’s own involvement in SECC style studies (Phillips and Brown 1978), was the recognition that the SECC was made up of a series of different styles, each with its own geography and history. Each of these ideas has shaped and continues to shape SECC studies today. Not long after the publication of Brown’s “The Southern Cult Reconsidered,” the first of the two remarkable volumes by Phillips and Brown (1978) on the shell engravings from Spiro was published. The second followed a few years later (Phillips and Brown 1984). While these volumes did not represent the first formal treatment of artistic style in the Southeast (see Muller 1966a, 1966b), together they presented by far the most thorough exploration of style in the region. Using a methodology comfortable to art historians, the authors made a great deal of sense of the large and diverse corpus of engraved shell recovered from Spiro in Oklahoma. They identified two distinct schools, Braden and Craig, each with a series of subcategories or phases that could be arranged chronologically. The authors grappled with the problems presented by the presence of more than one school at Spiro and the connections between these two schools; ultimately they did not come to a resolution that satisfied them. They did demonstrate that the Braden style had more connections to styles of the East than Craig and also noted that it was “more deeply rooted in Southeastern prehistory than Craig” (Phillips and Brown 1984:6:xvi). As we will see, Brown and colleagues have since been able to make more sense of this puzzle. While clearly laying out a formal approach to the study of style and illuminating the formal qualities of the Braden and Craig schools, these authors also produced an incredibly valuable catalog of motifs and compositions that scholars continue to draw upon now. Just as important as their exploration of the styles represented at Spiro was their effort to draw stylistic connections between Spiro and many other places in the Southeast (see Phillips and Brown 1978:157– 209). Out of this effort came the realization that many of the core symbols of the SECC and the various styles of the SECC in the East were recognizable as related to the Braden style. This work began to make clear some elements of Mis-
From Cult to Complex
7
sissippian style geography and the relationships among various styles and places on the landscape. Building on Brown’s (1976a) call to contextualize the SECC, Knight in 1986 published “The Institutional Organization of Mississippian Religion.” In that article, Knight argued that Mississippian religion was made up of three different cults, each with its own set of sacra. The first cult was one that emphasized earth/fertility and purification ritual and had mounds as its principle sacra. Knight envisioned this as a nonexclusive cult that manipulated mounds as earth symbols and achieved its ends through communal rites of intensification. Knight’s second cult institution was focused on warfare and cosmogony and had as its principle sacra the warfare-related symbols and representational art with mythic content so closely identified with the SECC. He argued that the contexts in which these sacra were found indicated a cult institution whose membership was ascribed by belonging to privileged unilineal descent groups or clans. The symbols of elite status were drawn from this complex of sacra. Finally, the third cult institution was organized around mortuary ritual and ancestor veneration. The temple statuary made up this cult’s primary sacra, which Knight argued was controlled by a formal priesthood in charge of ritual activities, including those associated with death. This priesthood was an exclusive and age-graded grouping, but different from the chiefly lineage. Knight saw it as moderating between the earth/fertility and warfare/cosmogony cults because it likely played an important role in rituals of the other two cult institutions. That article was yet another landmark in the history of the SECC. It explicitly avoided the trait list approach and placed the symbols and themes associated with the SECC within the context of an integrated Mississippian religion. That religious system was made up of a set of cult institutions, each with its own constituency and associated key artifacts or objects known as sacra. By recasting core elements of the SECC in this way, Knight focused attention on how those elements were integrated into Mississippian society. In 1984 a respected group of scholars convened at the Cottonlandia Museum in Greenwood, Mississippi, to assess the current state of knowledge of the SECC. The papers from the Cottonlandia Conference, along with a catalog from the associated exhibition, were published in 1989 as The Southeastern Ceremonial Complex: Artifacts and Analysis (Galloway, ed. 1989). The volume runs the gamut from definitions of the complex to discussions of regional variants to interpretations. While many of the contributions are largely descriptive and in some form or another rely on trait lists, there are several standout papers whose contributions reach beyond the volume as a statement of current knowledge. One of those standout contributions was Muller’s “The Southern Cult” from the Definitions section of the volume. In it Muller (1989) makes the case that there are both regional and temporal differences in the stylistic and thematic content of the SECC. Ultimately he expresses dissatisfaction with the concept of the
8
King
Table 1.1. Muller’s Horizons of the Southern Cult Horizon
Date
Comments
Developmental Cult
a.d. 900–1150
Long-nosed god, square-in-cross
Southern Cult
a.d. 1150–1350
Bilobed arrow, striped pole, baton/mace, fringed apron, ogee, chunkey player, raccoon hindquarters, bellows-shaped apron
Attenuated Cult
a.d. 1250–1450
Materials historically developed from Southern Cult, often locally developed
Post–Southern Cult
a.d. 1350–1550
Often little historical connection to true Southern Cult, like scalloped triskele, mask gorget
Historic times
Post–a.d. 1550
From Muller 1989:13–18.
SECC because it implies a level of stylistic and thematic unity that did not exist. In fact, he argues that the stylistic similarities apparent across regions and through time likely had much more to do with generalized shared belief systems and longdistance exchange than with any presumed overall unity in the SECC. One of the most important contributions of Muller’s article is his discussion of the horizons of the Southern Cult (Table 1.1). While it may be possible to argue over the dates presented by Muller, his argument brings to the forefront that temporal and regional contexts are just as important to understanding the SECC as the social contexts of the materials themselves. Another of the standout articles in the Southeastern Ceremonial Complex volume is Brown’s (1989) “On Style Divisions of the Southeastern Ceremonial Complex: A Revisionist Perspective.” In it Brown begins to chart the style geography of the SECC, something he called for in “The Southern Cult Reconsidered” (Brown 1976a) and he and Phillips began in the first volume of the Pre-Columbian Shell Engravings set (Phillips and Brown 1978). He does this by looking not just at the artistic styles represented in shell engravings but also at those in engraved and incised pottery and in repoussé copper. What he finds is three geographic zones that he argues each had its own stylistic tradition. One of those zones comprises the Mississippi Valley from the American Bottom to Vicksburg and even east to Alabama. In this area, artistic styles show what Brown characterizes as a strong connection to the Braden style defined at Spiro. A second style zone is associated with eastern Tennessee and northern Georgia, which appears to be dominated by a stylistic tradition, particularly with respect to pottery and shell, that is distinct from Braden. Finally, he recognizes a third style zone in the Caddo area west of the Mississippi River, which is the home of the Craig style also recognized at Spiro.
From Cult to Complex
9
As we will see, Brown and colleagues have carried these efforts at reconstructing style geography even further. A third of the standout articles in the Southeastern Ceremonial Complex volume is Emerson’s (1989) “Water, Serpents, and the Underworld: An Exploration into Cahokian Symbolism.” Its significance lies in Emerson’s effort to attach meaning, at least in a thematic sense, to decorative elements of the famous Mississippi Valley stone figurines (like Birger, Keller, and Schild) and to motifs found on Ramey Incised pottery. While the specifics of some of Emerson’s interpretations may be modified, his general conclusions that iconography associated with Cahokia tends to have more to do with fertility and the Underworld than with warfare or the supernaturals depicted at Etowah, Moundville, and Spiro are likely to hold. It also makes clear the point that themes emphasized in the SECC varied through space and time just as styles did. A final standout article in the volume is Hall’s “The Cultural Background of Mississippian Symbolism.” In it, Hall (1989) draws upon his extensive knowledge of myth and oral history from across North America in an attempt to understand the cultural underpinnings of the SECC. For example, he makes the case that the bilobed arrow motif so prevalent in the SECC of the Middle Mississippian period is connected thematically to the long-nosed god symbolism of the Early Mississippian and ultimately has its roots in the Hopewell period of the Middle Woodland. He further argues that the symbols are connected to the theme of world renewal. Many have dismissed Hall’s approach because it is unscientific, because he ranges too broadly for comparative information, or because he attempts to use more recent written and oral traditions to interpret the distant past. However, as we will see shortly this work, along with many others by Hall (1997, for example) as well as Lankford (1987), has formed the basis for a more recent and very productive effort to uncover the meanings behind SECC symbolism.
From Cottonlandia to San Marcos: Style, Iconography, and Meaning (1986 to Present) Since Cottonlandia, SECC studies have continued in two key directions. One direction has been to continue Brown’s pursuit of a clearer understanding of the styles implicated in the SECC and their geographic homelands. This effort continues to be spearheaded largely by Brown and colleagues, with the most significant discovery being introduced in Brown and Kelly’s “Cahokia and the Southeastern Ceremonial Complex” (2000). In that article, Brown and Kelly marshal evidence pointing to the fact that the Braden style originated in the cultural milieu that saw the precipitous rise of Cahokia during the Early Mississippian period. Their evidence comes largely from the presence of key Braden themes (birdman) and motifs (Akron grid, Davis Rectangle, circle with cross) found on engraved
10
King
shell and pottery found in Early Mississippian contexts at Cahokia. That argument is further bolstered by the presence of other key Braden motifs and themes such as the bilobed arrow, birdman, and Akron grid visible in rock art surrounding the American Bottom, as summarized by Diaz-Granados and Duncan (2000). At least some of these representations have been dated to the Early Mississippian period. While Brown and Kelly continue to build their case (see this volume), their argument solves one of the problems that has plagued those working with the Spiro engraved shell corpus: the presence of two distinct styles in such a small place. This new argument places the Braden style at home in the Mississippi Valley, particularly the American Bottom, something Brown (1989) suggested based on styles represented in engraved pottery and repoussé copper. As noted earlier, Phillips and Brown (1984) and Brown (1989) have long suspected that the Craig style has its center of development locally in the Caddo area. This possible link between Braden and Cahokia makes even more interesting the apparent connection between Braden and many of the decorative styles found in the SECC of the East (Brown 1989; Phillips and Brown 1984). In fact, Brown has since argued that the Classic Braden style and its cultural context were the original inspiration for the styles and many of the symbolic themes that came to dominate the SECC in the East during the Middle Mississippian period. If this perspective becomes widely accepted, as I think it ultimately will, then in an interesting twist of history the old and abandoned view that Cahokia played a key role in the development of Mississippian across the Southeast will be revitalized. In addition to serving to connect Braden to the development of an important Early Mississippian center, the argument presented by Brown and Kelly (2000) makes another connection that may prove important to our larger understanding of the SECC. In the corpus of rock art surrounding the American Bottom are found representations that many scholars (Brown and Kelly 2000; Diaz-Granados and Duncan 2000; Hall 1989, 1997) argue are prehistoric analogues of historically described mythological beings. In particular, they argue that human figures shown wearing human-head earrings are Mississippian versions of a similar individual known among Siouan-speaking people like the Omaha, Osage, and the Winnebago as Red Horn, He-Who-Wears-Human-Heads-As-Earrings, or Morning Star. The presence of this being suggests a historical connection between the Braden style and the myths and oral history of those Siouan-speaking people of the upper Midwest. If Braden and the American Bottom turn out to be the stylistic and cultural inspiration for much of the SECC of the Middle Mississippian, then the myths and oral histories of people like the Omaha, Osage, Winnebago, and others are likely to provide more powerful explanatory models than the traditionally relied upon myths and oral histories of the Muskogean speakers. The second important direction that SECC studies have taken since Cottonlandia is toward the systematic study of SECC iconography using the tried-and-
From Cult to Complex
11
true methods of art history combined with Native American myths and oral history. Unlike most scholarly pursuits in the Southeast, this effort has been undertaken by a working group that has met 12 times since its inception in 1993. This working group was patterned on, and actually was an outgrowth from, the very successful Maya Meetings organized annually by Linda Schiele at the University of Texas. The group was formed by Kent Reilly of Texas State University at San Marcos and has met in San Marcos since budding from the Maya Meetings in 1996. In addition to several symposia and numerous conference papers resulting from the San Marcos meetings, Ancient Objects and Sacred Realms: Interpretations of Mississippian Iconography is set to be published shortly (Reilly and Garber 2007). The contributions in the volume range from explorations of the meanings of individual motifs to more work on style geography. Particularly important are contributions by Brown (2007a, 2007b) on the relationship of the Braden style school to the larger SECC and the identity of the birdman theme so prominent in the SECC. In addition, several chapters by Lankford (2007a, 2007b, 2007c) discuss cosmological motifs found in the SECC, the great serpent theme, and death imagery and the belief in the path of souls. Also, a contribution by Reilly (2007) explores evidence for locatives in Mississippian iconography. Following the work of Hall (1997), Brown (Brown and Kelly 2000), and Diaz-Granados and Duncan (2000), the myths and oral histories of northern Siouan speakers figure prominently in interpretations of themes and meaning. Ahead of the publication of the volume, several participants from the San Marcos group published a statement on the subject matter of the SECC (Knight et al. 2001). While in some respects the publication sums up the general sentiment of the San Marcos group, it presents ideas that are still debated both within and outside of that group. The article is significant because it attempts to address an issue largely avoided in the past: the thematic and stylistic content of the SECC. In the article, the authors make two key arguments. The first is that there is a thematic unity to the SECC. While it is clear that there are temporal and regional variations, they are historically and functionally related and therefore warrant consideration as part of the same concept—the SECC. That thematic unity is focused on otherworldly representations, particularly those of the celestial realm. The depictions of people, animals, and their activities, such as warfare, found in the SECC are not depictions of real-world events or historical figures but instead the doings of supernaturals in the Above World. The second argument lays out an approach to understanding the content of the SECC. If regional and temporal variants are related, then the key to unraveling the complex is tracing out those relationships over time and through space. To do this, the authors begin with the premise that the SECC has a core of themes and styles and that the rest of what should be included in the SECC can be mapped out by tracing relationships to that core. They suggest that the core includes fig-
12
King
ural art executed in three primary artifact genres: repoussé copper plates, engraved marine shell gorgets, and engraved shell cups. Figural art in these media display people and animals, often in composite form and in various interactive poses. Stylistically, the authors follow Brown (1989, 2007a) in assigning central priority to the Classic Braden style, which includes the Braden A of Spiro, the Eddyville style of gorgets (Muller 1966b, 1989), and the Classic Etowah copper style represented by the Rogan plates from Etowah (Brown 1989; Phillips and Brown 1978). To the extent that these motifs and other Mississippian imagery have clear iconographic or stylistic connection to the core, Knight and colleagues (2001:131) argue they should be included as part of the SECC. This approach to defining the SECC argues that not all Mississippian art is part of the SECC nor are all elements of material culture associated with Mississippian ritual and religious practice. It also leaves open to empirical evaluation whether other kinds of Mississippian representational art, such as temple statuary or Cahokian flint clay statues, should be included in the SECC. This stance is markedly different from the concept of the SECC articulated by Muller (1989) in the Cottonlandia volume. In that article Muller saw the SECC as being made up of a series of horizons, some of which were not historically related to what Knight and colleagues (2001) would call the core of the SECC. Only Muller’s Classic Cult horizon comes close to Knight and colleagues’ vision of the SECC—the rest of his horizons would be left out. The work of James Brown and others is beginning to show that what Muller calls the Classic Southern Cult was the result of a historical sequence set into play with the emergence of Classic Braden as a style and its spread, both in stylistic and thematic terms, eastward in the Middle Mississippian period. It is just as apparent that there were other artistic and symbolic traditions in use during the Mississippian period. Presumably, these will someday be defined stylistically and historically in as clear a manner as the complex inspired by Braden. I suspect, then, that Knight and colleagues’ use of the SECC will be seen as too restrictive or as co-opting what has become a general term for a specific historical phenomenon. Ultimately, it will likely become necessary to come up with more specific names for specific historically documented complexes and to reserve the SECC or some other label as a general term for the various artistic complexes that existed during the Mississippian period. Reilly (2004) has suggested Mississippian Artistic and Ceremonial Complexes as just such a term. Muller in the next chapter of this volume suggests the Southeastern Interaction Network, emphasizing the importance of interaction over clear association with ceremony or assumptions about the internal coherence of a complex.
An Old Debate Renewed In 1996, Brain and Phillips published a volume on engraved shell gorget styles in the Southeast that deserves to be considered another of the landmark works on
From Cult to Complex
13
the SECC. In it, the authors catalog what is essentially all of the engraved shell gorget styles recognized in the Southeast and Midwest. This includes a vast collection of photographs as well as verbal descriptions of each of the styles. While some of the style categories Brain and Phillips use were defined by others, many are defined first in the volume. The authors take these styles and attempt to place them in time and space by examining the archaeological contexts in which they were found. Ultimately, Brain and Phillips (1996:395–397) argue that the vast majority of the engraved shell gorgets, and by implication much of the material commonly associated with the SECC, were made and used only after a.d. 1400. The volume stands in many ways as an important contribution because it includes photographs or drawings of just about every shell gorget ever found in the Southeast and many other artifacts associated with the SECC. It also exhaustively treats the archaeological context of these materials, oftentimes including information that had never been published before. However, the volume also has been criticized on several grounds, most notably in a review by Jon Muller (1997a, see also this volume). In that review, Muller takes issue with the use of the term style. He argues that “the so-called ‘styles’ of shell gorgets in this volume are sorted on a hodgepodge of themes, motifs, and morphology, and are really just thematic types” (Muller 1997a:177). This thematic approach creates groupings that Muller recognizes as chronologically and stylistically different in some cases while in others separates stylistically related material into different groupings. The volume also has been criticized because of the conclusion the authors draw about the dating of engraved shell gorgets and the SECC in general. The criticism comes not so much from the fact that this conclusion is contrary to extant data and accumulated conventional wisdom. Instead the criticism arises from the fact that the conclusion drawn came from the authors’ own interpretations of individual site data sets without the benefit in most cases of the opinions of other scholars intimately familiar with those data sets. As Muller (1997a:177) states, “This seems not merely a minor oversight, but rather a systematic avoidance of what the original investigators would have said. Hearing opinions at odds with one’s interpretations might not have been pleasant, but it would have avoided unnecessary errors.” Despite the criticisms the volume has received, it has reopened an old debate about the dating of the SECC. As Brain and Phillips (1996) note, before the advent of radiocarbon dating their take on the dating of the SECC was the dominant one. Few have held to this view in the face of mounting radiocarbon data and improved ceramic chronologies. However, Larson’s (1993) use of Mound C data from Etowah to make a similar argument, along with the much more comprehensive argument articulated by Brain and Phillips, shows that there still is room to debate the dating of the SECC. The renewal of this debate was one of the driving forces behind my decision to organize a symposium with the title “The Temporal and Social Contexts of the
14
King
Southeastern Ceremonial Complex.” The session was held in 2000 at the Society for American Archaeology meeting in Philadelphia and included papers from all of the contributors to this volume with the exception of Jim Knight, who was gratefully added after the meeting. The purpose of the session was not so much to lay direct criticisms on Brain and Phillips but instead to give those scholars with the greatest command of data used by Brain and Phillips an opportunity to present their own perspectives on the temporal and social contexts of the SECC. The goal of this volume has remained the same; it is a response to the debate renewed by the publication of Shell Gorgets by Brain and Phillips.
The Chapters That Follow The request I made of the contributors to the original session and this volume was to provide a paper that dealt in some way with chronological aspects of the SECC but that also used the chronological information in a social context that said something new or important about the SECC or some particular part of it. The majority of contributions that follow deal at some level with chronology, but they also address many of the themes current in Mississippian research and studies focused on the SECC. For example, the chapters by Kelly and colleagues, Brown, and Knight all touch on understanding decorative style and reconstructing style geography, both of which are particularly critical to understanding the creation and exchange of SECC goods. Contributions by Sullivan, King, and Scarry all examine the role of the SECC in understanding Mississippian political change and the individual histories of important centers. Hally’s chapter focuses on a related theme but uses the large-scale distribution of gorgets to reconstruct clearly meaningful social boundaries that might represent some level of political and social organization or at least interaction spheres. The chapters contributed by Alt and Pauketat and Marceaux and Dye both use style, archaeological context, and interpretations of themes to explore the meaning and social function of SECCrelated objects and symbols. Finally, the volume begins with a chapter by Muller, who offers some lessons on the matter of style, provides some worthy cautions on interpreting meaning, and presents a case for temporal depth and creative diversity in the SECC. Taken as a group, these contributions provide a different interpretation of many of the same data sets considered by Brain and Phillips and also push our understanding of the SECC in new and important directions.
2 Prolegomena for the Analysis of the Southeastern Ceremonial Complex Jon Muller
These prolegomena or introductory essays are just that; they are merely an introduction to the issues raised by the analysis of certain art materials in archaeology. Such issues include the employment of inappropriate terminology, the use of unreasonable and ill-warranted ethnographic parallels, and the intrusion of an analyst’s own perspective into the art of an alien and unknown culture. While each of these interrelated issues presents its own difficulties, it is especially critical to remember that our hypotheses about the meaning and use of art will always remain to some extent untested. Nonetheless, with the exception of some postmodernists, most believe that there are enough objective aspects to the art that allow some testing of hypotheses against an objective reality, however dimly our senses and minds may reveal that reality. Data or facts from the past allow many different stories to be told, but some stories are clearly just dead wrong. Inevitably, theories of meaning and interpretation about a body of art require a metatheory that provides guidance in distinguishing between sheer fantasy and more probable interpretations. The first part of this chapter will introduce some of these issues, using southeastern examples. At the very least this will provide a basis for argument, if not agreement. The second part of the chapter extends this discussion to specific archaeological and stylistic problems in analyzing the Southeastern Ceremonial Complex (SECC). One important terminological clarification is that style as traditionally used in art, art history, archaeology, and other fields should not be confused with theme or motif. For example, considerable confusion has been introduced into the discussion of the SECC or Southern Cult by the use of names that I gave to various southeastern styles (Muller 1966a, 1966b, 1979, and other sources given in Muller 1989) to describe thematic and motif clusters (by Brain in Brain and Phillips 1996). I reject this later nomenclature for reasons summarized below (see also Muller 1997a). Terminology in this chapter for both concepts and the specific southeastern art materials follows my own, prior, usage (Muller 1966a, 1966b, 1989, 1997b). Another word for style is manner, although most modern usage goes beyond
16
Muller
this to see style as the underlying structure of a body of art, in effect, a role not unlike “grammar” in language studies. I should mention that such usage in aesthetics has little linkage to the archaeological distinction between “style” and “function” (e.g., Dunnell 1978) in which style is seen as being peripheral and unrelated to adaptive processes. Other uses of style include the “style as communication” arguments employed by many processual archaeologists that place the emphasis on the social roles played by stylistic differences (e.g., Wobst 1977). The discussion below deals with these issues at greater length. It is also necessary to provide some background to discussion of “artistic” phenomena in the Southeast of the Mississippian period (a.d. 900–1650). As discussed elsewhere (Muller 1989; see also below), there were a number of regionally and temporally distinct social entities within these broad temporal limits. Most particularly, I feel it is a mistake to treat all fancy goods of the period as being “Southern Cult” or “Southeastern Ceremonial Complex.” The term Cult has the advantages of brevity and historical precedence, while Southeastern Ceremonial Complex has slightly less implication of content but is more awkward. While we may be fairly sure that the Cult was not a “cult” in the strict sense, we have little more evidence of involvement with “ceremony” in the strict sense either. What we do know about these phenomena is that they were part of a widespread system of exchange of material items and, hence, certain themes. I would suggest “Southeastern Interchange Network,” but I suspect it is too late for “SIN” to replace “SECC” or “Cult,” so I’ll use the older terms more or less interchangeably but with some tendency to use “Southern Cult” to distinguish a recognized late thirteenth-century horizon, separate from the larger group of Mississippian period complexes. The surviving goods associated with the SECC and with other archaeologically similar complexes were made of much the same materials for over 2,000 years in the Eastern Woodlands— copper plates, ear spools, shell gorgets, and the like were made from Middle Woodland times on. Each generation took historically derived forms and adapted them to whatever purposes their own generation had. Thus “function” in the broadest sense may have been substantially altered as one generation supplanted another. Accordingly, arguments for “direct-historical” method in these cases must pay particular attention to those aspects of use and form that warrant a hypothesis of continuity of meaning. The situation is even more complicated when transcultural diffusion of motifs and themes is involved.
Terminology and General Points They create strange feverish fantasies, which they worship, satisfied. —Ancient Greek Prose Poem I have made some earlier efforts at defining terms such as style in a practical and analytical logic (e.g., Muller 1966b, 1971) and I have not altered those usages so
Prolegomena for the Analysis of the SECC
17
much as I have changed my perspective on larger issues. This necessarily changes my approach to style to a degree. I do not recall ever having believed that stylistic analysis could reveal “the mind of the maker,” but I most emphatically do not believe that today. In this sense, I am an instrumentalist (see below) when it comes to the concept and use of style. I confess that I do not think that most anthropological archaeologists have utilized stylistic analysis very completely or practically. Let us quickly work through several necessary terms of reference. Type Type is one concept that archaeologists have clearly worked out, especially since usage of the term is largely limited to archaeology, it not being of much interest to anyone else. There should be no reason to rehash the long debates in archaeology over type. The Spaulding-Ford debate still defines the main parameters between those for whom a type is “essential” and discovered within the body of observable fact (or so Spaulding’s argument has commonly been construed) and those for whom types are “instrumental”—merely defined from observable fact for the purposes of the analyst (as did Ford, arguably). However, careful reading of the actual papers written by Ford and Spaulding belies these simple characterizations of their positions (Ford 1954; Spaulding 1953 and elsewhere). If Spaulding never quite tried to get into the “mind of the maker” he was at least more interested in identifying consistent clusters of attributes through primitive statistical methods. To be sure, Ford was clearly an instrumentalist, but today neither the purposes nor the form of his “tools” is seen as being very significant. A modern synthesis of the type concept has not been spelled out very completely despite useful, diverse discussions such as those of Clarke (1968), Carr (1985), and Gardin (1980). One thing we have got: I think no one today believes that human cognition is a vast set of typological pigeonholes into which concepts such as “Mississippi Plain” are shelved. In practice, most twenty-first-century archaeologists come much closer to Brew’s (1946) advice to use whatever types we need for whatever purposes. In this sense, type today is practically used by nearly everyone in a more-or-less instrumental fashion. The critical point is that there is no right or wrong way to define types, merely useful and useless ways of doing so. This is true of all conceptual tools, of course. Today, ceramic types and many other typological constructs such as phases are still widely used. In some neo-evolutionary sense, the remaining typological constructs are those resulting from the archaeological “struggle for the survival of the fittest” (Gorodzov 1933). Of course this example points out better than most that the selection process merely has to do with differential survival, not with progress or other such nineteenth-century hopes. Ceramic types are still useful for the dayto-day decisions archaeologists must make, such as those about a new site found in a survey. The mere presence of Nashville Negative pottery sherds will suggest that a certain time span is indicated for the occupation of a site. Similarly, larger typological constructs such as archaeological culture or phase still have utility in
18
Muller
temporally clustering bodies of data for study or for teaching. Since most traditional types were created within the culture-historical period of archaeology in the Southeast, it is not surprising that they serve culture-historical ends best. However, the materials that make up the Southern Cult or SECC are relatively rare items and formal typology like that defined for ceramics never really developed. In the dark days before simple and accurate chronometric dating, it was enough to identify any fancy object in the East dating between a.d. 1000 and a.d. 1400 or so as belonging to the Southern Cult. Today we can do better, and we should recognize that this broad usage of “Southern Cult” (or of any other similar term) is no longer useful, confusing as it does a wide range of different kinds of materials and exchange systems. This was recognized early (e.g., Waring 1968b). Element Although the simplest level of style has many ways of being conceived, the center of its definition is that artistic elements may be properly spoken of as the conceptual and even graphic atoms of a style. Thus, an element is really just one of the components such as line, point, and volume that are combined in a series of geometric transformations (in visual arts, at least) into larger-scale combinations. The temptation in analysis is to begin with the higher-level combinations such as motif and theme (as described below), but practical experience in actually analyzing real art styles suggests that this is often a mistake. One reason this is so is the scholarly necessity for parsimony and elegance in description—it usually turns out that the kinds of morphological transformations necessary to combine higher-level concepts are already present in large part in the combinations of smaller units. To put it another way, styles emerge at least partly from the interaction of simple rules to produce complex systems. Even so, the combination of elements into higher-level analytical units does help to give a not entirely illusory “meaning” to representations. The catch, of course, is that persistent problem of just whose meaning is being uncovered and/or created in the process. Motif A motif is a combination of elements into a recognizable icon of some sort. Typically, this may be a named taxon whose semantic implications are often assumed, rather than argued. If we are lucky, the names become convenient labels without significantly prejudicing the analysis. The best sorts of names for a motif are those that are descriptive without overly implying some semantic interpretation. Thus “bilobed arrow” is a decent term for a motif; far better than “sun circle,” for example. The latter term provides no descriptive advance upon “circle” while committing the logical error of assuming the consequent. If we already know that this circle is a symbol for the sun, then why bother with the analysis? One thing is true; motifs do form a relatively independent level of analysis. The occurrence, repetition, and reoccurrence of bilobed arrows or circles and
Prolegomena for the Analysis of the SECC
19
their associations with one another can, when looked at with caution, be a path toward at least warranting reasonable hypotheses about meaning (as per Gardin 1958, 1967). Theme Theme is used to describe a motif or larger-scale representation as a part of a larger presentation. Thus themes are defined in relation to natural or imagined objects that are portrayed as part of a more-or-less consistent combination of elements and motifs. With little prejudice, we can identify a southeastern theme of a combination of raccoon motifs with various kinds of pole motifs. It is at this point, however, that special caution is called for. Identification of, say, an Iroquois myth involving raccoons and poles would not constitute an explanation of this thematic combination, nor does it justify an interpretation of its meaning. Yet, all too often the search for mythological parallels employs ethnographic comparisons that seem to assume that all “Indians” were alike in their beliefs. This is as unjustified as the common assumption among the public that there was a single “Indian” language. Thematic treatments are no stranger to culture-historical approaches, but their use as analytical tools has an even longer development in history, art history, and classical archaeology. In the broadest sense, themes are just another kind of type, but they differ in that the term is rarely used to refer to a complete artifact or presentation but rather is used for parts of broader representations. Thus, an entire shell gorget or cup would be described as displaying a theme rather than being a theme as such. Most of the list given by Waring and Holder (1945) is thematic in that these themes were portrayed on other objects, although the latter objects themselves were also often considered to be traits of the Southern Cult. Style Style refers to the manner in which motifs, themes, and other representations are presented. Style is not the combination of themes but the grammar, as suggested, of their combination and presentation. However, the fact that styles are complex does not necessarily mean that the “rules” that result in the final forms need be complex in themselves. Styles may or may not be significant in evolutionary developments. Styles may have very real functions including, but not limited to, the Wobstian one of communication of social membership. Although there is much debate on the unsettled issue of the unity of culture, styles are acquired through social networks and in social settings that encourage divergence in cases in which there is a lack of social interaction. Styles may often be recognized by the presence of particular motifs or themes, but this does not lead to an understanding of a style any more than recognizing German speech by the occurrence of der, die, and das explains the nature of that language. Practically, since styles can often be recognized by certain motifs, there is a ten-
20
Muller
dency to assume that shared motifs indicate shared style. This is incorrect. In the case at hand, the SECC has sometimes been suggested to be a style, even though few if any have been bold enough to actually call it a “horizon style.” In fact, there are a number of different styles within the Cult that represent spatial, temporal, and cultural distance among the makers of these objects, notwithstanding the sharing of some particular themes. Conclusions on Terminology and Theory The metatheory of analysis has to address such questions as adequacy for purpose, completeness in accounting for the relevant facts, and relative simplicity in relation to other, similar theories of these “data.” In discussing the connections of the artistic and other expressions of the Southeastern Ceremonial Complex(es), we need to keep the actual, concrete nature of the subjects of our study in the foreground and not allow a mystification or romanticization of the analysis by premature conclusions about the meaning and social significance of these objects. The latter are the conclusions we should reach through analysis and interpretation, not assumptions that we can usefully make. Let us now look at some of the chronological and other dimensions of the study of the Southern Cult.
The Southeastern Ceremonial Complex or Southern Cult For our discussion here, I use the term Mississippian as a period, not as a specific group of societies or a particular way of life. “Mississippian” covers a much broader time range than properly should be called SECC or Southern Cult. Thus, “Mississippian period” refers simply to the span of years in the Southeast between 900 and 1540 of the common era. The Southeastern Ceremonial Complex (SECC)—née Southern Cult—is just one central and particularly spectacular episode in a long series of cultural events associated with Mississippian and other late prehistoric groups from a.d. 800 on. Of course, the roots of many thematic components of this complex have roots in even more ancient forms. Moreover, it should not simply be assumed that the many other local and regional so-called florescences (such as the various genuinely late styles in gorgets) are either the same kind of phenomena as the SECC or are even remotely linked historically or culturally to the SECC. I, for one, still consider the “mainstream” Southern Cult, including such styles as Eddyville and Hightower (as originally defined by me as far back as 1966 and again in 1989), to date to the late thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries (ca. 1250 c.e. in uncorrected radiocarbon years). My assessment of the dating is not based only on associations at a few major sites like Spiro and Cahokia but rather on archaeological evidence and dates from many sites across the East. There is no doubt that some styles of southeastern fancy goods date to the fifteenth century and later—but one important issue is whether nearly all of the gorget and
Prolegomena for the Analysis of the SECC
21
Figure 2.1. Bilobed arrow.
other Cult styles are so late (Brain in Brain and Phillips 1996; cf. Muller 1997a). There are a number of early and late components within eastern iconographic tradition(s). These stretch the time line for elaborate display artifacts from before a.d. 1100 to well into the historical period. Many of these styles should not be treated as “Southern Cult,” per se. In the discussion to follow, I shall outline some arguments for this position. Motifs, Themes, and Markers As Waring and Waring and Holder noted many years ago, there is a set of similar motifs and themes that links artistic expressions from a number of major sites. Today, most agree that this “florescence” of fancy goods occurred mainly in the thirteenth century, mostly in the middle to later years of that century. Moreover, the core of the Cult appears to be a good candidate for an archaeological “horizon” as defined in Willey and Phillips (1958:33). It is, however, most emphatically not a horizon style (cf. Phillips and Willey 1953). Rather, a series of regional styles are linked through (1) transsocial movement of finished goods and (2) the sharing of a certain but limited range of motifs and themes. The motifs used by Waring and Holder (1945:2) present a range of representations, many of which were used in SECC times but many that were also used both earlier and later. Some, for example, cross motifs, are found from Paleoindian times to the present day in the New World. Others, such as the bilobed arrow (Figure 2.1), are much more limited in temporal distribution and do make good horizon markers. It is, of course, extremely important not to confuse the archaeological utility of some motifs with their semantic importance. The most important motif in terms of coming close to the center of symbolic structures in the New World is probably the cross and the cross-circle. Given the ubiquity of a four-part division of the world and all its symbolic ramifications in the New World as a whole, it is likely that the cross representations were part and parcel of the worldview of pre-
22
Muller
Figure 2.2. Spiro gorget (restored portions stippled) and a detail of the “raccoon” motif, LeFlore County, Oklahoma (Okla-Lf-S242; University of Oklahoma B108-4; © 2006 Jon Muller).
historic peoples as well. However, from a purely archaeological perspective, the cross-circle cannot be used to distinguish Hopewell from Mississippian, much less different style groupings within the latter period. It should be clear that typological and temporal significance for the analyst is not in any necessary fashion linked to semantic or ritual significance. In another case, the bilobed arrow itself must have been somehow important in the widespread dispersal of common themes in the early to mid-thirteenth century, yet its identification as an atlatl, a bow and arrow, or even a sexual representation is uncertain. It occurs in a fairly wide variation of forms, and it usually can be dated to some 50 years or so one side or the other of 1275 c.e. This short period of common use is helpful to the archaeologist, but its interpretation in terms of belief systems of its users is likely to remain conjectural. I do not mean to imply that conjectural interpretations are always to be avoided. For example, a gorget from Spiro is reconstructed in Figure 2.2. On the vertical bar above the striped pole motif is the “raccoon” motif (Figure 2.2, detail). At the level of observation, it is probably pretty safe to make the identification of this motif on this shell gorget as being a raccoon, but it is also important to note that the representation on the gorget is almost certainly not a live raccoon but the skin of a raccoon, as we can see from examination of other contexts. In many cases where such raccoon representations occur, the motif is often expressed as being knotted around a pole,
Prolegomena for the Analysis of the SECC
23
rather than on the pole as seems to be the case in this gorget. In any case, it is hard to justify wandering too far away from the simple and seemingly obvious identification of an animal into the realm of what either a raccoon or raccoon skin might have meant. It is also foolhardy simply to assume that a raccoon skin motif had the same meaning as a live raccoon representation might have had. A recent identification of wing elements on Hightower anthropomorphic gorgets as probably being representative of large moths (Knight and Franke 1997) rather than of raptors provides just one example that careful study of these graphic elements can aspire to identification of natural elements. Yet, at the same time, we all should remain aware that the likelihood is that such elements are not directly representing raccoons, moths, raptorial birds, or dancing humans. Instead, the overwhelming likelihood is that mythic/religious symbols were being invoked that may have had very little to do with the concrete reality of “moth” or “raccoon” but were linked to beliefs that will not easily be reconstructed. Another danger is circularity in argument: an interpretation of a graphical element is used to link an interpretation to a body of (much later and perhaps unrelated) myth, which is then fed back into the interpretation of the motif—not interpretatively progressing but merely circling.
Ethnographic and Historical Background One source of identification of such motifs and themes is certainly ethnographic and historical. Robert Hall (1997), for an example, has presented us with a detailed argument for links between certain artifacts and particular beliefs and ritual. There is, however, the issue of what body of ethnographic information is most likely to yield fruitful results. Most of us have heard the old story of the drunk who looks under the streetlight for his lost keys, even though he lost them elsewhere, because “the light is better” there. The “art historical” equivalent is the use, for example, of Cherokee myth to interpret what are probably Creek archaeological remains, or vice versa. Nor is it simply a matter of “Creek” or “Cherokee.” As many have argued (Muller 1997b; see King 2002 for a more recent bibliography on this topic), most southeastern social formations were historically in a state of flux that involved development through time of structurally mediated responses to changing conditions—including redefinition of social boundaries and specific settlement forms. No less seems to have been true in prehistoric times (e.g., Anderson’s [1994] analysis of social fluctuation and reformation; also see the complexity of social formation in Galloway’s [1995] study of the Choctaw). Southeastern societies in particular and in general are and were multiethnic communities composed locally and regionally as a result of internal and external events. The extinction of a mound center, for just one case, did not mean the universal extinction of the individuals who built those mounds. Dispersion of both individuals and lineages took place in a fashion abundantly documented in the historical records
24
Muller
of the Southeast. In the historical period, many of these groups retained a quasiseparate identity in their new societies, but assimilation was also common, especially over time. The diversity of many locally made ceramic wares— once thought to be “trade sherds”—suggests the same kind of process in the prehistoric societies, to give just one of many arguments for this hypothesis. This complexity of ethnic genesis and social formation has considerable implication for interpretation of archaeologically recovered remains through ethnographic comparisons. The social history of each town and even each person may be quite different, so that a history or myth repeated to an anthropologist may be only one of dozens of different traditions handed down by peoples whose origins were diverse and whose union in a particular historical social formation may have been quite recent. In relatively well-documented cases of origin myths, some Quapaw said they came from the Lower Ohio Valley; other accounts say they came from further north in the Mississippi Valley. Each of these apparently contradictory accounts may have been historically accurate for that particular person, lineage segment, or even town without being true for the Quapaw altogether. Such a diversity of origins for possible semantic referents in myths and histories does not bode well for any single-minded equation of mythic elements and those things found in the archaeological record. We do not need to be paralyzed (as if archaeologists could be!) by this problem, but neither can we afford to pretend it does not exist. We need to look in the places where there might be answers, not only in the places that we happen to have information about— or that we might wish were comparable. In the case under consideration here, Cherokee myth often looms large in interpretation, not least because there is a rich documentation of Cherokee myth and folklore. While it is undoubtedly true that the Cherokee were “southeasternized” in many ways, it behooves us to remember that they may be a particularly misleading example for the Southeast insofar as they retained elements of their Iroquoian background and thereby adopted southeastern patterns in ways filtered by their cultural heritage, as all people do. There is little reason to deny that the SECC was embodied in many linguistically and culturally diverse groups, but there is not much excuse for choosing an Iroquoian group of possibly non-chiefdom status as the “typical” southeastern culture.
Other Aspects of Interpretation Another question is that of just whose pattern is being “discovered” in the analysis. In one of my favorite quotations, Sagan (1980:110) commented on the analyst’s part in interpretation: “Lowell always said that the regularity of the canals was an unmistakable sign that they were of intelligent origin. This is certainly true. The only unresolved question was which side of the telescope the intelligence was on.” This “Martian parable” is a global illustration of the specific question of just whose meaning emerges in our analysis of the artistic representations of people
Prolegomena for the Analysis of the SECC
25
Figure 2.3. Small Lick Creek gorget from the Fred Lewis Farm, Carter County, Tennessee (TennCt-L1; USNM 388098; © 1967 Jon Muller).
who have been dead for hundreds of years. We need to be cautious that the interpretation is not solely our own constructed reality but is at least an effort to assess the fit of our constructions to the objective features shown in the art. Because of the Martian canal problem, the last of my little parables comes to attention. At Fort Sill, Oklahoma, in artillery training, an artillery spotter trainee is told not to identify “a barn” but rather to say “what seems to be a barn” in order to not cause prejudgment by the targeter. There may, similarly, be many good reasons to say “herpetomorphic” rather than “snake.” In the case of the gorget illustrated in Figure 2.3, there may be an argument about whether this is in actual fact the rattlesnake representation it appears to be. Such gorgets are found in sites that have a good chance of having been occupied by persons ancestral to some Cherokee (not, please note, the same thing as Cherokee). In this context it is easy to remember that the Cherokee have a mythological being they call the Uktena and that there are references to objects sometimes called “the scales of Uktena,” which may refer to these shell gorgets. The Uktena is a serpentlike creature and it was believed that anyone who had seen it would have misfortune (Hudson [1976] summarizes Uktena myths). Although serpentlike representations may be the Uktena, they may also represent any number of other herpetomorphic creatures who play a part in the many mythologies of the Southeast: tie snakes, hoop snakes, and, of course, actual rattlesnakes. Another example (Figure 2.4) from east Tennessee is of the anthropomorphic form characteristic of the Hightower style best known at Etowah. Most persons describing these objects place them in the last half of the thirteenth century or in the first half of the fourteenth century at the latest. Although the figure has been formerly identified as an “eagle warrior” because of the substitution of talons for either hands or feet, certain of the “wing” elements are now plausibly derived from
26
Muller
Figure 2.4. Hightower anthropomorphic gorget from Tennessee (Tenn-Hm-H6, Hixon site, Hamilton County, Tennessee; University of Tennessee 586/1Ha3, B1Ha62; © 1967 Jon Muller).
large nocturnal moths (see Knight and Franke 1997, as noted). Even so, other elements do still seem to be raptor representations. Such revisions of interpretation should again give us pause in the “rush to judgment” about the meaning of motifs in cases in which meanings were almost certainly purposefully ambiguous. Religious art all over the world uses a kind of visual punning to superimpose images that simultaneously “stand” for a broad range of referents (for an especially cogent analysis of this, see Victor Turner’s works [1967, 1975]). Given the likely symbolic content of these gorgets, we are very naïve if we expect to “read” them in any straightforward, linear fashion. The proper answer to the question of whether these “wings” are either “bird” or “moth” symbols may very well be “yes”! It is also important not to overlook significant aspects of the objects being analyzed. For an example, the Eddyville gorget from Castalian Springs, Tennessee, is usually illustrated with the head of the human figure upright (even in its original publication in Myer 1894:6), yet when compared with other similar representations in the same style and especially with the mural art of the Mud Glyph cave (Figure 2.5; also see Faulkner 1986), it becomes clear that the orientation chosen by the person who drilled the suspension holes was not a mere accident but that this is a representation of a figure whose torso is horizontal, not vertical. From this
Prolegomena for the Analysis of the SECC
27
Figure 2.5. A figure from Mud Glyph Cave, Tennessee (located at 70L; see Muller 1986a:Plate VIIa) and the Castalian Springs gorget. Both representations are of a figure whose back is parallel to the ground (Tenn-Sr-CS1, Castalian Springs, Sumner County, Tennessee; W. E. Myer Collection, Museum of the American Indian 15/853; © 1967 Jon Muller).
representation, we may also suggest that the “dancing warrior” interpretation is too simple an exegesis of this theme, since the horizontal presentation is unlikely to be a dance step. Perhaps such a representation is a constellation, though many other explanations are possible. Such matters as orientation, combination of forms, and the like are important data and should not simply be assumed to be insignificant. In this case, the orientation is surely significant, even though we may have only foggy ideas of what is signified. We have so few data; we can hardly afford to ignore the facts that we have.
Archaeological Issues A publication on shell gorgets concluded: “The generally accepted dating of the [Southern] Cult to the period a.d. 1200 to 1350 becomes untenable. . . . We suggest that the discrepancy could be on the order of two centuries. . . . We will argue that most of the gorgets described . . . were deposited in the archaeological contexts . . . after 1400 and before 1650” (Brain and Phillips 1996:1, 2–3). Scholars concerned with the Southern Cult have been “misled” (Brain and Phillips 1996:1), it seems, by associations at Cahokia and by Kneberg’s gorget seriation into accepting dates that are far too early. It is claimed that if the prejudice of a late thirteenth-century Cult is eliminated, the facts will speak for themselves. If true, this reworking of the chronology of the SECC has major implications for
28
Muller
our understanding of the prehistoric Southeast. Other supposed sources of error include overreliance on the concept of heirloom items. Dating What are the issues in dating the Cult? As noted, most scholars have placed the major events of the SECC in the late thirteenth century. There are a large number of radiocarbon dates in more-or-less good association with the limited range of the Cult in the narrow sense. These are usually close to 1275 c.e. For example, this is the dating of the Mud Glyph cave referred to above, where the average date for the site is 1248 c.e. in a range from 1155 to 1760. Thus, the similarity of forms between some of the Mud Glyph cave drawings and the Eddyville style (as in Figure 2.5) is congruent with what we should expect from the traditional dating of the Southern Cult. Indeed, Brain (in Brain and Phillips 1996) is correct in stating that the deposition of the artifacts in some cases is late, but this is no reason to deny that other contexts in which the same styles and themes occur do fall into the late thirteenth-century traditional dating. One place where there seem to be late Southern Cult gorgets is at the Crable site in Illinois (McDonald 1950; Morse 1960, 1969:63–68; Smith 1951). Eddyville arachnoid (“spiderlike”) gorgets were included among the materials from this site and some may fall into the post–a.d. 1400 dates proposed by Brain. This complex site may have been occupied as early as the late thirteenth century, but many associations there are in accord with the radiocarbon dating into the fourteenth century and even a little later. Brain is very scornful of arguments about artifacts such as these being “heirloom” items, deposited later than their period of use and manufacture (e.g., Brain and Phillips 1996:396), so let us look quickly at some of the “spider” or “arachnomorphic” (?) gorgets. First, there is a more-or-less “typical” gorget from Madison County, Illinois, found in a stone box grave, probably on the edge of the bluffs above the American Bottom (Figure 2.6). It is likely that this gorget dates to the late thirteenth century, at the latest, however late any other gorgets of this form may be. Figure 2.7 shows one specimen recovered from the Crable site. I think that even the poor-contrast, halftone illustration does not disguise the worn character of this gorget. Of course, such “wear” could be simply a result of poor preservation, although I think this very unlikely to be the explanation here. What tends to be less easily attributable to differential survival is the gorget shown in Figure 2.8.1 In his discussion of this and two other similar gorgets, Brain (Brain and Phillips 1996:268) acknowledges that they are “worn and reworked.” The shell of which these gorgets were made is extremely hard. Wear and reworking are evidence here of the likely passage of time between their original manufacture and their deposition in late contexts at Crable. This item is cut down in a way that does not suggest conservation of the original motifs was a particular concern of the person who modified this fragment of a gorget. This is not the use
Figure 2.6. Madison County, Illinois, gorget in the Eddyville style (Ill-Ms-X1; E. O. Matthews Collection, USNM 218642; © 1967 Jon Muller).
Figure 2.7. Arachnomorphic gorget from the Crable site, Fulton County, Illinois (Ill-Fu-C1; adapted from Morse 1960: Figure 60).
30
Muller
Figure 2.8. An aboriginally reworked gorget from the Crable site (Ill-Cu-C5; © 1965 Jon Muller).
of the “heirloom” concept in an absurd way (cf. Brain and Phillips 1996:396) but a reasonable interpretation of observable archaeological fact. Other, considerably less-worn, gorgets recovered at Crable appear to be related to styles that could be seen as late in date but are not Cult, strictly speaking. There is a wide range of dates associated with supposed Cult materials throughout the Southeast, but in many other cases the later dates cited are associated with material that is arguably not SECC in the strict sense. Instead, indisputable late dates in the fifteenth to sixteenth centuries are associated with styles that are derived from true Cult styles (as what I called the Williams Island style from Hightower). In other cases, late dates are associated with themes and styles that are distinct from the Southern Cult. Only collapsing all fancy goods and themes into a generalized “Cult” makes the latter seem to occur in late times. If one insists on throwing all decorated materials from the Southeast into one Southern Cult pot, then it is not surprising that a dating “hash” results. An example of later and largely unrelated styles occurs with the so-called rattlesnake gorgets of the Upper Tennessee basin. These cases are not only distinct in themes and motifs but also are not found in association with items of the more naturalistic styles. As is so often the case when these objects are analyzed stylistically, rather than in terms of themes (as is largely done in Brain and Phillips 1996), there is evidence for stylistic evolution. In the case of the “rattlesnake” gorgets this makes up a classic seriation of the forms shown in Figures 2.9, 2.10, and 2.11. The “village” associations at Etowah, for example, are indeed as late as Brain
Figure 2.9. Lick Creek style gorget, Lick Creek site, Greene County, Tennessee, circa a.d. 1450 (Tenn-Gn-LC6, Peabody Museum, Harvard 4741; collected by E. O. Dunning, 1871; © 1967 Jon Muller).
Figure 2.10. “Transitional” herpetomorphic gorget from Etowah site, Bartow County, Georgia, circa a.d. 1550 (Ga-BrtE27, USNM 170834; collected by R. Steiner, 1898; © 1967 Jon Muller).
32
Muller
Figure 2.11. Citico style gorget, Williams Island, Hamilton County, Tennessee, circa a.d. 1600–1700 (Tenn-Hm-W27, Museum of the American Indian 21/1374; © 1967 Jon Muller).
suggests, but the styles and themes associated there are the transitional forms (Figure 2.10) of the beginning of the Citico style (Figure 2.11). These derive, not from the naturalistic anthropomorphic and other themes of Mound C but from a geographically distinct earlier style in the area around Knoxville and to the north known as the Lick Creek style (Figure 2.9). It is only in the transition from the Lick Creek style to the later Citico style that this herpetomorphic theme appears further south and at Etowah, although by the time Etowah had this kind of gorget, the motifs had become those of the later Citico style; the structural form of the gorgets found at Etowah remains essentially the same as in the earlier Lick Creek style (see Muller 1966b, 1979). Only later are the new motifs such as the concentric-circle body units restructured into the organization of the design field characteristic of the developed Citico style. In the case of the Lick Creek style, and in the particular transitional gorget shown here, the “serpent” theme is laid out on a cross, a feature generally absent in Citico style proper. The later Citico gorgets are those found associated at a number of sites with probable historic Cherokee associations. In fact, there is supposed to be historical use of the Etowah site by the Cherokee. Similar continuities in developments of styles show the same themes being treated in very different ways at different times. If these were regionally distinct styles, rather than chronologically distinct, we should expect to see many more associations of the arguably late materials with earlier ones. The grave lots studied
Prolegomena for the Analysis of the SECC
33
Figure 2.12. Grave lot from Burial 6, Etowah site, Bartow County, Georgia (from Moorehead, ed. 1932:Figure 32).
so well by Madeline Kneberg (1959) do not show such associations of these styles in the same graves. Figure 2.12 shows a combination of forms in a single burial at Etowah. Note the consistency of the style (not theme) even between the various “turkey cock” gorgets and the single “spider” gorget. Then examine two grave lots (Figure 2.13 and Figure 2.14) from the Talassee site in Blount County, Tennessee. The same general thematic associations are present—“turkey cocks” and “spider”— but how different the styles are from those at Etowah! I suggest that the least complicated explanation here is the obvious one—that the Hixon style of the Talassee site is derived from and later than the Hightower style gorgets from Etowah. If late fourteenth- to early fifteenth-century dates are correct for the Hixon style, then must not their stylistic predecessors be still earlier, say the traditional late thirteenth-century dates for the Cult? Brain supposes late dating of many elements found at Etowah in Georgia. Mound C at Etowah remains were created in one local style that is contemporary with the Eddyville style (a.k.a. Braden A) of the Central Mississippi and Lower Ohio regions. I have named the style from east Tennessee and northern Georgia “Hightower” after an old name for the Etowah site. There are sufficient links of these gorgets with dated contexts in eastern Tennessee and in northern Georgia to make a late thirteenth-century date probable for the manufacture and even the archaeological deposition of most specimens. It is important that this style should
34
Muller
Figure 2.13. Grave lot from Burial 113, Talassee site, Blount County, Tennessee (drawings by M. Kneberg [1959:Figures 5, 16, and 21]).
Figure 2.14. Grave lot from Burial 116, Talassee site (drawings by M. Kneberg [1959:Figures 15 and 21]).
not be confused with the materials from other contexts in the so-called village areas of the Etowah site mentioned above. I am not convinced by the argument that these “overlap” at Etowah (Brain and Phillips 1996:172–174). In this case, Brain’s dating in his and Phillips’s study of shell gorgets depends heavily on what he terms “homogeneous burial associations” or “HBAs.” These HBAs are supposed to be “multiple graves in a well-defined archaeological context” with various similarities and that may be taken to “represent a relatively short duration” (Brain and Phillips 1996:129). The HBAs are a kind of substitute for actual grave-lot associations. In practice, however, Brain has created HBAs that are too broad and diverse, and whole sites are often treated as though they had only short-term, homogeneous occupations. I think these dubious HBAs are the major factors in the Shell Gorgets dating of many styles so much later than has been done by regional specialists in those sites. Brain attributes late associations to particular gorget “styles” by assuming their supposedly “reasonably contemporary” associations (Brain and Phillips 1996:129) in an entire mound or even an entire site. Thus, Brain argues for generally late dating, despite long periods of occupation at many of these sites. In many cases of claimed “association,” the question of concern to critics is site duration, rather than whether heirlooms exist in actual, direct association with later items. This is a particular problem for Etowah and for Lake Jackson
Prolegomena for the Analysis of the SECC
35
Figure 2.15. Comparison of Hightower (left) and Williams Island (right) themes and elements, with the Hightower gorget reversed left to right (not to scale; left, Ga-Brt-E8, exhibit at Etowah State Park; right, SE-X1, Field Museum 68554; © 1965 Jon Muller).
in Florida—sites that are crucial to Brain’s argument—but the same problems also are present for many other locations he discusses. Styles, Themes, and Motifs Another problem with dating all of these styles as contemporary and late is that they show evolutionary relationships in modifications of designs, as already discussed for the herpetomorphic gorget styles. Temporal and geographic variation can be confused with one another, but this seems unlikely here. Even if there were not the stratigraphic and associational evidence that we do have, the spatial distributions of these styles lead me to conclude that the variation is more often temporal. The evolutionary connection among the various herpetomorphic styles is only one example of stylistic continuity. In another example, the Williams Island human figures—such as the “spaghetti man” on the right in Figure 2.15—have the same combinations of elements seen in the Hightower representations. Some of the so-called spaghetti elements of the field on the former are an elaboration of the talons seen on the more naturalistic human figures. The talons were reinterpreted as curly elements attached to the bent leg that still retains the parallel lines above the end of the limb. In both cases, a plume of some kind comes from the mouth area, which is usually interpreted as either smoke or black drink in the Hightower gorgets. In the comparison shown, the Williams Island arms are themselves treated as “spaghetti” elements. The plumelike elements about the head are related to “raccoon skin” and/or antler elements more naturalistically represented in the Hightower style. The important point here is that these two gorgets are clearly representations of the same general
36
Muller
theme, whatever that may be. In addition, similar changes occur in the “turkey cock” and “spider” themes. While the distributions of these different styles overlap, they do not occur together in grave lots nor indeed in the same levels of sites, so far as we can tell in a situation where good provenience data are admittedly often lacking. The Williams Island gorgets also occur to the south and east of the range of the putatively earlier Hightower style—most notably in areas occupied by the ancestors of the historic Creek towns and probably in association with European goods in central Alabama. Historic associations also occur with the Citico style gorgets but not with Lick Creek or Hightower gorgets. Many other point-for-point similarities may be drawn between the different styles that suggest evolution rather than contemporaneous, regional differences. It is also important to keep in mind the caution that historical derivation does not show that meanings remained the same through time. Art history is full of examples of transformations in meaning and form occurring together, as in the archaeologically famous example of the death’s heads and cherubs on colonial New England tombstones. That sort of transformation is often associated with learning that occurred from seeing representations and copying them without necessarily understanding their meaning or context. I have elsewhere suggested that the relationship between the Lick Creek and Saltville styles in eastern Tennessee and southwestern Virginia may have resulted from such an uninformed copying in the latter region (Muller 1966a, 1966b, and agreed with in Brain and Phillips 1996:102).
Conclusions This discussion could be extended considerably with many more examples, but I think that the basic argument is clear. I believe the evidence in the Southeast suggests that there are complex social relations linking the social formations of the East together through time. There is substantial stylistic and stratigraphic evidence that suggests that these many styles are not all contemporary—that there are fairly clear horizons (but not “horizon styles”) that reflect different social conditions of the creation, use, and disposal of fancy goods in different areas and at different times. There are clear precedents for the Cult in earlier Mississippian and even earlier times. The cross theme is essentially universal and its combination with the circle form is common everywhere, so a simple cross gorget or copper item may be only a very poor chronological or symbolic “marker” for archaeologists. There are elements in the SECC, however broadly defined, that may very probably be derived from earlier Middle Woodland forms. Interestingly, similarities of any southeastern artistic materials to those of Mesoamerica evaporate on closer examination of either end of the supposed connection. I also believe, for reasons outlined above, that the main period of the Southern Cult proper is in the late thirteenth century, not later. As such, the styles of the
Prolegomena for the Analysis of the SECC
37
true Cult such as Eddyville, Braden A, and Hightower are found in sites like Kincaid and Cahokia that had little occupation after the end of the thirteenth century. At Cahokia, there are Cult materials, but they are associated with the final phases of occupation rather than the peak of that social formation’s political and social development. Although I think that tales of the great outreach of Cahokian chiefs over the Southeast are much exaggerated, it may be no accident that the Cult proper occurs just at the end of Cahokia’s florescence. If Southern Cult items are emblems of power, they seem to come into the exchange systems of the area just as power itself was, even by my standards, in a state of decline. Fancy goods do continue to be made and exchanged well after the end of the period of relatively large movements of finished goods around a.d. 1300, but the quantity of exchanged goods was less and most of the “derived” styles—styles that seem to have evolved out of the Cult styles proper—are much more localized in distribution than their predecessors. Fancy goods in the Southeast were of many different kinds. Their final use, in many cases, as burial furniture may reflect their use in daily and ritual life only dimly. Some of the shell gorgets may well have been the emblems of rank and status often postulated. However, it is interesting that the emergent Native American states of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries did not use these kinds of items to indicate their position in a rank hierarchy. Even the medals distributed by Europeans seem to have been more personal than institutional in their meaning and display. Particularly by protohistoric times, many items may have simply been amulets to protect their bearer, at the last instance in death itself. Each class of SECC artifacts requires its own analysis and arguments for social significance. Ethnographic comparison, particularly when tightly controlled in historical and comparative terms, may be of great value in forming better-warranted hypotheses about semantic content in these material symbols, but it is no substitute for an actual analysis of the themes and motifs themselves. Historic parallels may inform, but they do not interpret.
Note 1. I apologize for the poor quality of this photograph. When I visited the collection, the gorgets were sealed in a case and I had to photograph them through the glass. However, the worn appearance of this specimen is not a result of a blurred photograph (compare the drawings in Brain and Phillips 1996:369).
3 Chronological Implications of the Bellows-Shaped Apron James A. Brown
Rarely has the Southeastern Ceremonial Complex (SECC) been treated as anything other than an undifferentiated entity with change through time having little place. Repeated attempts to create temporal distinctions have not gained widespread acceptance. As a consequence, the subject has failed to assume its rightful place as a historical subject. Without that historical dimension the SECC cannot be party to any interactive relationship with social, political, religious, or economic developments. It remains where Waring and Holder (1945) stuck it—as merely reactive (Brain and Phillips 1996:400–402). Consequently, we are deprived of any insight into ideological content underlying those developments. A major source of precious information thereby becomes lost to a more comprehensive perspective to developments outside of the confines of the SECC subject matter. The thesis of this chapter is that credible segmentation of the continuum of SECC motifs already exists if one is willing to look beyond the evidence provided by the grave lots of the “Big Three” contributors—Etowah, Moundville, and Spiro (Brown and Kelly 2000; Muller 1989). Instead of relying primarily upon the list of grave objects and their iconography from these sites as enshrined by Waring and Holder (1945), a more fruitful approach has been to define the SECC through theme, style, and iconography (Brown and Kelly 2000; Reilly 2004). The following contribution owes its genesis to Phil Phillips’s recognition that the scalp motif in the Craig style system undergoes a transformation from the “bellows-shaped” to the “carrot-shaped.” That is, the long-haired scalp with a rectangular frontlet was transformed into an oblong conventionalization centered on a circular frontlet. By generalizing this sequence to other style traditions, a style horizon can be recognized that runs across regions. This horizon emerged around a.d. 1300 with the sacred scalp taking on the form with the distinctive circular headdress frontlet. The shifts in political economy envisioned as activating this new imagery is a subject taken up for consideration elsewhere (Brown n.d.).
Chronological Implications of the Bellows-Shaped Apron
39
Background Not long after Waring and Holder advanced their compressed-time position, others argued for some temporal unpacking. Waring (1968a) himself sought to provide a precursor in an attempt to tie the complex to Muskogean cult bringer myths he thought related to the beginning of the Mississippian period. His solution was to allocate specific types of artifacts to a formative period without tying them intrinsically to the classic SECC types (Waring 1968b). Madeline Kneberg (1959) was the first to advance a sequence of specific types of engraved shell gorgets. Her series, limited though it was to eastern Tennessee gorgets, was constructed from the stratigraphic sequence of grave lots found primarily at the Hixon site. Although strongly criticized by Brain and Phillips (1996), a reexamination of the sequence by Lynn Sullivan (2001) has confirmed Kneberg’s thesis, although it necessitated correcting stratigraphic assignment errors and tying 14C-dated strata to the revised sequence. Muller (1989) returned to the task by employing his general sense of site contexts to advance an all-inclusive chronology. Brain and Phillips (1996) responded to Waring, Kneberg, and Muller by falling back on arguments based upon patterns of artifact co-associations, rather liberally conceived. They advocated a chronology of limited time depth that pulled the core of the SECC primarily into the fifteenth century. Strong reasons already exist suggesting that SECC content has a background extending deeply in time. Radiometrically dated objects, grave lots, mound stage layers, and rock art demonstrate 500 years of historically related image making (Brown and Kelly 2000; Brown and Rogers 1999; Diaz-Granados et al. 2001; King 2001a, 2003; Knight and Steponaitis 1998; Sullivan 2001; Williams and Goggin 1956). Chronologically controlled images and designs at Cahokia alone demonstrate a continuous use of diagnostic stylistic treatments over a period in excess of 200 years (Brown and Kelly 2000). This radiocarbon-dated record argues for a long duration for SECC themes and iconography—far beyond the confines of the grave lots record at the Big Three sites. Lastly, certain distinctive icons, such as the eye-in-hand, are present in pre-Mississippian contexts (Willey 1948), thereby begging the question of what transpired between the time these images first appeared and their reincarnation later. All told, numerous indications point to a content of long duration and one not confined to the grave goods at the Big Three sites. The problem remains as to how to integrate the various records that are available.
The Bellows-Shaped Apron as the Birdman’s Sacred Scalp The bellows-shaped apron is no mere item of costume. It is a scalp, albeit a sacred scalp that in most respects is identical to the hair and headdress of the birdman figure itself. It features the distinctive rectangular frontlet and, in some examples,
40
Brown
most notably the Rogan plates from Etowah, it also includes the long braid that is a part of the headdress. Good colored illustrations of the copper repoussé Rogan plates reveal the beads in the hair locks of the central birdman figure to be the same as those surrounding the rectangular element near the top of the so-called apron (King 2004:150; Kopper 1986:166). In addition, the particular kind of abstract brickwork fill within the frontlet on the figures in the Rogan plates appears on the corresponding rectangular element (Phillips’s so-called flap) of the Moorehead plate, likewise from the Etowah site (Phillips and Brown 1978:Figures 243, 244, 245). All of these details reinforce the conclusion that the bellows-shaped apron is none other than a scalp. Its subsequent transformation into a free-floating oblong scalp object makes this conclusion all the more convincing. The sacred scalp with a rectangular frontlet is detailed with such completeness (headdress and a full head of hair) as to leave little doubt what the image refers to. Imagery shows headdress frontlets in the center of the head, with human hair, and separate hair locks on which shell beads are strung. Frequently, details in the handling of the bellows-shaped piece make more sense as long hair, which by length and symmetrical cut imply human hair at that. The literature, however, sticks to the descriptive level while assuming it is an item of costumery. Howard (1968:39) implied a utilitarian function by calling it a pouch or sporran. Under the name of aprons of various kinds it has received comments from many students of prehistoric American artwork (Duffield 1964:18; Howard 1968:39; Moorehead 1932:Figure 40; Phillips and Brown 1978:98–100, 147–148; Spinden 1913; Waring 1968a:41; Waring and Holder 1945). Whatever the label, the apron constituted a primary trait for the original complex out of consideration of the importance the Rogan plates had in defining core traits. Whatever remains in doubt should be dispelled by the archaeological presence of parts of both forms of the sacred scalp. Frontlets are represented physically by both rectangular and circular plaques of about the correct size for an item attached to the belt—that is, a breadth about half to a third of the diameter of an adult’s waist, close enough to the proportions commonly depicted. The rectangular wooden plaques and a circular bone disc from the Craig mound at Spiro are approximately the same size, ranging from 15.0 cm long to 16.5 cm in diameter (Brown 1996:550–553). In the case of the oblong leatherback and the copper plate, a much smaller overall size is indicated (Brown 1996:554). Both are around 22 cm long, something on the order of half the projected size of the scalp objects to which the wooden plaques belong. At the late end of the sequence the oblong scalp form with a circular frontlet has been afflicted with far fewer identity problems. Charles Hudson (1976) first proposed to identify the “oblong gorget of copper” of Waring and Holder (1945) as none other than a scalp. He saw it essentially as a “scalloped circle with a tearshaped protuberance” resembling “scalps attached to circular frames with the hair flowing down” (Hudson 1976:251). In my view the resemblance of the oblong
Chronological Implications of the Bellows-Shaped Apron
41
frame to a scalp stretcher can only be thought of as a secondary point of identification (at best) because the pointed circular device is primarily a development of the frontlet, which is often found as an independent object in its own right. Although Hudson saw a resemblance that is probably derivative, nonetheless his observation has converged with that of Phillips’s progression from a bellows-shaped to a carrot-shaped image.1
Taphonomy and Chronology The time-honored approach to the construction of a chronology is to look to stratigraphic succession or sequence-ordered objects. But in the case of SECC content material two problems stand in the way. First of all, the best-dated in situ contexts at Etowah and Moundville belong to the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries and do not shed much light on developments in the preceding centuries. Spiro has the peculiarity of having the bulk of its record placed in a single late massive ossuary that tells us little directly about the primary context of the SECC at that site (Brown 1996; Phillips and Brown 1978). Thus, whatever stylistic development has been detected in this collection essentially floated in a time frame antedating the context of deposition in the Great Mortuary, established by radiocarbon dating as belonging to the early part of the fifteenth century (Brown 1996; Brown and Rogers 1999). Only two isolated graves, cited below, contribute much to this picture. Consequently, the contexts of deposition at the Big Three sites are of little help in anchoring any sequence chronologically. Cahokia is one of the sites that can be informative of early development with its early pre-1200 history of Braden engraving on ceramic surfaces (Brown and Kelly 2000). The Early Mississippian period (a.d. 1000–1200) is not represented by major occupations at Etowah and Moundville. Instead, this portion of the sequence is supplied by Cahokia and sites in the St. Louis region (Brown and Kelly 2000; Diaz-Granados et al. 2001).
The Stylistic Series as a Historical Sequence American archaeology has greatly underutilized the insights that a temporally ordered series of stylistically coherent images provides about contemporary social, economic, and ideological developments. This underutilization stands in stark contrast to the commonplace use that art historians make of the interconnections between social and religious developments and iconographic changes and transformations with or without the aid of texts (Kubler 1970). For the most part archaeologists have rested content upon converting any such series into a statement about cultural continuity (Willey 1973). Given the unsystematic ways in which archaeologists analyze iconography, its use in southeastern archaeology has a long way to go.
42
Brown
In contrast, customary practice in archaeology favors typological operations, no matter how much the concept of style is invoked (Muller 1997a). As long as iconic types are the focus of study, the historical clues contained in the changes that particular styles undergo through time will remain untapped. The shift in focus to style histories entails a control for the integrity of style by necessity, lest any patterning that might emerge be confounded with extraneous variability introduced from differing style traditions. Jon Muller’s (1966b, 1979) pioneering efforts to explore Mississippian period art styles as consciously constructed entities have alerted us to the conventions of representation specific to each of these styles. Even where imagery has been confined to mythical rattlesnakes he found that the generative procedures used by different engraving traditions created visually distinct productions. Thus the success of any conclusions drawn from a temporally ordered sequence of images depends on firm control over style. Jon Muller (1989) has demonstrated that a number of regional styles coexisted. These styles are subject to identification by a series of grammatical rules more than they are by subject matter. Most of these styles incorporate a multitude of images. A stylistic study of the engraved shell cups and gorgets from the Spiro site by Phil Phillips and his team led to the identification of key signature characteristics for two distinct styles, the Braden and Craig “schools.” Phillips also discovered credible indicators of directional change in the Craig style, in particular, by his masterful sequence ordering of shell cup motifs. I argued that the manner in which Braden A shell cups, Eddyville shell gorgets, Etowah coppers, and Cahokia redstone figural sculptures were handled was sufficiently similar to justify combining these within a Classic Braden style (Brown 1989, 2004a, 2007a; Brown and Kelly 2000). Phillips’s Braden B became Late Braden. Phillips’s Braden C, however, remains resistant to reassignment. Although examples of specific styles are widely distributed in the Southeast, we know that styles have distinct homelands through three sources of information (Brown 2004a; Muller 1999). The homeland of one style—Lick Creek—is revealed by the presence of incompletely fabricated shell gorgets at the Toqua site in eastern Tennessee (Polhemus 1987). Second, distinct styles represented in shell cups and gorgets are regionally rooted by the homeland of the same styles on ceramics of known proveniences (Brown 1989). Third, fall-off distributions of particular styles have centroids that point to specific sources of origin (Muller 1995, 1997b, 1999).
The Stylistic Organization of the Spiro Corpus of Imagery The sequence discovered by the Spiro shell engraving project was made possible by the transformation of the scalp imagery over time (Phillips and Brown 1978, 1984). Phil Phillips and Eliza McFadden (Phillips and Brown 1978) discovered that depictions of the bellows-shaped apron could be arranged in a continuous series of images with the classical “long-haired” form at one end and a free-floating
Chronological Implications of the Bellows-Shaped Apron
43
“carrot shape” on the other. At the beginning of their research it was not at all obvious which end was the earlier. But little doubt was expressed as to the implication that the sequence was a temporal one. The stages this development took testify to gradual substitution of component elements suggesting a steady change through time. Too many other parallel alterations in theme, motif, and mode of execution were involved to allow the serious contemplation of anything other than a systematic stylistic change over time. Observations of parallel changes followed. In the realm of magical imagery, the serpent staff had its own sequential series. The undulating, serpentine, unforked form is present in Craig B; in Craig C the staffs are less undulant and about half are forked (Phillips and Brown 1984:6:xiii). Thus, serpent staffs became, by degrees, forked poles. Four different connections were modeled to formalize the possibilities. These were labeled Hypotheses A through D. The direction of change was established by additional evidence. First, a consideration of overall method in which images were deployed revealed that two styles (or what Phillips conservatively called schools) dominated the 1,000-piece Spiro collection, Craig and Braden.2 One end of the Craig series clearly resembled one end of the corresponding Braden style series. The other end of the Craig series diverged from Braden in so many different respects as to lead to the conclusion that the entire Craig sequence was initially derived from one end of the Braden series. This clue established the beginning in what was called Craig A. Since the entire “scalp sequence” was contained in the Craig style, this meant that the classical long-hair form of the bellows-shaped apron was the earlier of the two scalp images. While the transformation of motifs was greatly instrumental in the sequential ordering of the Craig style, temporal order was confirmed by the pattern of shell reuse. Some Braden style cups were used as raw material for Craig style gorgets— not the reverse, significantly. Externally engraved surfaces of marine shell cups were recycled into gorgets by salvaging the shell body to engrave the inner surface. All of the cup source material was decorated in the Braden style, with Craig A derived solely from Classic Braden and Craig B from both Classic Braden and Late Braden (Phillips and Brown 1978). All lines of internal stylistic evidence were best resolved by Phillips’s Hypothesis D, which modeled the stylistic relationships between the two main schools or styles of engraving represented in the Spiro collection. It delineated an independent transformational sequence for each of the styles. A characteristic of the Braden style was that it was deployed on shell surfaces with little regard to limitations residing in either the shape or the form of the shell’s physical surface. The series of Classic Braden to Late Braden starts with a picturelike quality of figural depiction, which is transformed into a highly abstract one (Braden C) in which few objects can be identified. In contrast, the Craig style not only took advantage of these properties but also consciously exploited shell surfaces and protuberances for sculptural effect. In
Figure 3.1. Transformational series of sacred scalp images taken from shell engravings of the Classic Braden and three temporal phases of the Craig style (adapted from Phillips and Brown 1978:Figures 130, 131, 132, 133).
Chronological Implications of the Bellows-Shaped Apron
45
its mature developmental phase (Craig C) images were subordinated to the axial structures of these surfaces. Roughly parallel to the Braden sequence, the Craig A, B, and C sequence goes from fine attention to figural detail to progressively coarser and bolder executions in which the figures become blocky. Out of this transformation emerged an attention to the “architectural” effect lacking entirely theretofore (in earlier Craig and in Braden altogether). This conceptual independence is a point in favor of the integrity of the Craig sequence. But, in order to account for the logical iconographic and stylistic sources for Craig A it is necessary to invoke Classic Braden as its logical precursor (Phillips and Brown 1984:6:xvi). An internal stylistic sequence is represented by Classic Braden leading to Craig A and the latter leading to Craig B, which leads finally to Craig C. Thus the Classic Braden, Craig A, Craig B, to Craig C series makes up a transformational sequence (Figure 3.1).
The Scalp Image Sequence The curious “apronlike image” invariably suspended from the belt of the birdman has been referred to variously as “heart-shaped” (Spinden 1913:244), “bellowsshaped” (Phillips and Brown 1978:98), or simply “fringed” (Waring and Holder 1945:15). Phillips described the early, archetypical form we called the “long-haired” type of bellow-shaped apron in the following words: “Characteristic of this type are the long close-spaced lines suggestive of hair, upon strands of which beads are strung in a manner not unlike that of the beaded fore- and side-locks that are such pervasive features in Spiro shell engravings. In most cases these beaded strands hang down from, and over, the rectangular ‘flap’ ” (Phillips and Brown 1978:99). In Craig A, finely delineated vertical lines portray flowing hair attached to the scalp, complete with separately falling bangs. A rectangular frontlet occupies the forehead position. Beads are always indicated as either attached to this frontlet frame or suspended from individual hair locks. In Craig B, the rendering of the bellows-shaped hair outline is more conventionalized and tends toward a less pointed and more pear shape, but nonetheless the basic form of rectangular frontlet and bellows-shaped outline endures (Figure 3.1). Hair is reduced to short lines running concentrically around the border. The beads and scalp are free from previous constraints on depiction. With Craig C, a distinctly oblong (carrot-shaped) scalp outline makes its appearance (Figure 3.2). The rectangular frontlet has been replaced by a circular disc. In this phase two cups and one gorget retain the rectangular frontlet,3 indicating the changeover to have taken place after other elements of the Craig C style were in place. This carrot-shaped scalp now appears independently as an element detached from the human body. Although the shape and simplicity of the carrot-shaped appendage of Craig C engraved shell might suggest otherwise, details continue to conform to the scalp image (Phillips and Brown 1978:98–101, 149, Figure 133). These include hairiness and what appears to
46
Brown
Figure 3.2. Depictions of the sacred scalp of the circular frontlet type in three regional styles of engraving on stone, pottery, and marine shell. Accompanying styles of the human head are shown above. Craig C style, head from cup 310.1, scalp from cup 281 (adapted from Phillips and Brown 1984); Late Braden style, head and scalp from the Wilbanks axe (adapted from Waring 1968c:Figure 17); Hemphill style, skull and scalp from a Moundville Engraved vessel (adapted from Moore 1905a:Figure 147).
be a simplification of the bellows-shaped apron (Phillips and Brown 1978:Figure 132). The carrot-shaped motif is found as an appendage of a “serpent-staff,” hands, and a mace-form club head (Phillips and Brown 1978:Figure 133). These carrotshaped objects are indicated as hairy in the same way as the large ponytail hairdos of the Craig C period. With the transition from the rectangular to the circular disc frontlet an inner bordering line appears that becomes thereafter a consistent defining attribute. The flowing hair suspended from the frontlet has been conventionalized into a “bordered V-shape” (Figure 3.3, left). Since the carrot-shape object engraved on marine shell is none other than the oblong gorget in another media, we can justifiably
Chronological Implications of the Bellows-Shaped Apron
47
Figure 3.3. The sacred scalp materialized as various styles of gorgets of the circular frontlet type: Craig C style, marine shell (engraved and fenestrated), Spiro site (Craig Mound), Great Mortuary, Spiro phase, 16.35 cm long (adapted from Brown 1996:Figure 2-134j); Hemphill style, red slate (engraved and fenestrated), Moundville site (Mound D), Moundville III phase, 9.8 cm long (adapted from Steponaitis and Knight 2004:Figure 14); Hightower style, sheet copper (repoussé and fenestrated), Etowah site (Mound C), Moorehead Burial 76, Early Wilbanks phase, 16.5 cm long (adapted from Byers 1962:Figure 12 and Willoughby 1932:Figure 23). (The not-to-scale drawings are the author’s interpretations of photographic images.)
conclude that the oblong gorget is a transformation of the earlier bellows-shaped apron. What Waring and Holder represented as two separate images were simply temporally separate versions of the same type of object. In sum, the scalp image started out as a heart-shaped or bellows-shaped device with a rectangular frontlet and was transformed later into an oblong form with a circular frontlet.
Long-Haired Scalps with Rectangular Frontlets From a variety of indirect evidence the beginning of the sacred scalp sequence appears to be anchored firmly in the period between a.d. 1200 and 1300 (Table 3.1). Examples of the Classic Braden style have radiocarbon dates that corroborate a thirteenth-century age. At Spiro, a copper repoussé plate that came from a redeposited grave lot, B122, in the Craig Mound bore a long-nosed god maskette on
850 ± 65 b.p. (Beta-31103)
Spiro B122 (Spiro III)
1050–1090 (.17)1120–1260 (.83)
1160–1274 (1.00)
1200–1400 (1.00)
1300–1320 (.22)1340–1395 (.78)
1030–1480 (1.00)
1s
1030–1270
1151–1286 (.74)
1160–1450 (1.00)
1290–1400 (1.00)
800–present
2s
Dates according to OxCal v. 2:18 conversions. Sources of 14C assays: Cahokia (Crane and Grif¤n 1959); Etowah (King 2001a:73, King 2003); Spiro (Brown 1996; Brown and Rogers 1999). a Excluding the sample taken on shell beads (M-543).
830 ± 65 b.p. (Beta-31101)
Spiro 51 (Spiro III)
av. 688 ± 100 b.p.
av. 635 ± 35 b.p.
Etowah Mound B Orange Layer
a
670 ± 200 b.p. (M-635)
Cahokia Mound 34
Etowah Mound C average
Assay Age
Site/Provenience
Table 3.1. Radiocarbon Dates for the Scalp Motif
Chronological Implications of the Bellows-Shaped Apron
49
a typical warrior-in-profile image of the supposed “decapitated” type, thus indicating a temporal overlap of this time-sensitive ear ornament type with refined repoussé treatment of sheet copper (Phillips and Brown 1978:190). An AMS date of 850 ± 65 b.p. (Beta-31103) was determined on associated plant fiber, cordage, and hide (Brown 1996:160; Brown and Rogers 1999). A two-sigma range spans a.d. 1040–1290. The earlier long-nosed god horizon had a currency that started by the end of the tenth century (Diaz-Granados et al. 2001). Other instances of the heart-shaped apron in the case of the Eddyville and Douglas gorgets are not readily datable. The Magnum copper plates likewise have not been dated. Additional corroboration comes from an old radiocarbon date on charcoal associated with shell cup fragments bearing diagnostic Classic Braden engraving from Cahokia Mound 34 (Phillips and Brown 1978). These fragments were discovered in a Moorehead phase context that spans the period between a.d. 1200 and 1275 (Brown and Kelly 2000). Although Brain and Phillips (1996) have tried to argue for a significantly later dating, the radiocarbon date and all artifacts contemporary with the mound deposits associated with these fragments belong to the Moorehead phase (a.d. 1200–1275). In seven years of excavation devoted to reexamining Perino’s trench, nothing belonging to later periods has been found (see Kelly, this volume). In the Hamilton-Chapman Stack set of copper plates from the Spiro Great Mortuary, Hamilton and associates (1974) isolated an unusual plate that is none other than a bellows-shaped apron but one clearly incorporating useful details when it comes to confirming the sequence of forms. It is a pear-shaped copper plate measuring 22.7 × 15 cm and having closely spaced perforations running around the perimeter of a well-defined border. Although the piece lacks the distinctive rectangle, it had two rows of “fishlike” devices pendant along the top and base of such a rectangle that readily suggest some of the conventionalized barrelshaped beads on frayed side-locks. The closely spaced perforations along the edge can be found on another Spiro object that may be part of a scalp object. It resembles to a remarkable degree in size and shape the aforementioned pear-shaped copper plate. A rawhide costume backing of oblong shape from Spiro grave lot B51 has the distinctive edge perforations 15 mm apart. It is at least 22.2 cm long and may have been 24.0 cm long and 14.2 cm wide when complete (Brown 1996:554, Plate 2-114a). An AMS date from the same provenience calibrates to the 1200s (Brown 1996; Brown and Rogers 1999). All told, the Classic Braden and Craig A and B images have supplied instances of the long-haired scalp with rectangular frontlets.
Scalps with Circular Frontlets Three regional styles, Braden, Craig, and Hemphill, provide instances of the circular frontlet with its distinctive tapering ovoid border enclosing a disc-shaped
50
Brown
frontlet. A Late Braden style example is to be found in the image scratched onto the handle of the monolithic axe said to have come from the Wilbanks site (Dye 2004a:Figure 29; Phillips and Brown 1978:193; Waring 1968c). The rendering of the human heads, in particular their “snarling mouths,” is diagnostic (Brown 2007a; Phillips and Brown 1978). The frontlet bears a five-pointed star. Here we see the top and side tufts found occasionally on the Moundville type depiction of the oblong gorget (Figure 3.2). The axe was supposed to have been taken from a stone box grave, which, if true, would tie this grave to the Early Wilbanks phase (a.d. 1250–1325), the one period at Etowah when such stone slab grave enclosures are present (King 2003). Craig C style examples are documented by the many instances of the carrotshaped appendage (Phillips and Brown 1978). Most important, a shell gorget of this style has the distinctive circular frontlet and modified V-shaped hair conventionalization (Brown 1996:Figure 2-134j; Brown and Hamilton 1965:18; Phillips and Brown 1984:Plate 138A). The evident source was the Spiro Great Mortuary, and Phillips’s assignment is to Craig C (Figure 3.3). Aside from the outline shape, the central perforation in the gorget cross matches the dot placed in the center of the engraved image. The Hemphill style of the sacred scalp is supplied in great numbers from the site of Moundville (Steponaitis and Knight 2004). While these objects have been long known as the “oblong gorget,” they are the artifactual analogue to the carrotshaped scalp image. Elongated copper gorgets from Moundville and elongated slate gorgets from other sites combine the central disc motif (cross-in-circle or six-pointed star) at the top end of a broad, V-shaped band that closely resembles the scalp motif depicted in Craig C images. A drawing on a bottle of Moundville Engraved, var. Hemphill (vessel NR9/M5; Steponaitis 1983:346) repeats this Vshaped element with multiple parallel lines (Moore 1905a:Figures 146, 147). Tufts at the top and along both sides add a hairy attribute to this conventionalized image (Figure 3.2). This gorget form becomes the basis for new elaborative details. In certain cases the central disc is repeated serially from top to bottom. The copper gorget from Burial 164 located south of Mound D integrates an eye-in-hand motif into the lower end of the scalp V (Moore 1907:Figures 100, 101; Steponaitis and Knight 2004:Figures 14 and 15). A number of variations in the disc form are present from Moundville in the cruciform/swastika form (Moore 1905a:Figures 32, 38, and 41 and 1907:Figures 102–105), the six-pointed star form (Moore 1905a:Figure 102, 1907:Figure 100— an eight-pointed one too [Moore 1905a:Figure 43]), or a combination of the two (Moore 1905a:Figure 147). Last for consideration is the distinctive copper oblong gorget with multiple frontlets strung within the oblong border (Brain and Phillips 1996:142; Byers 1962; Moorehead 1932:Figure 23). Of the three styles cited here this variant of the circular frontlet scalp fits best with the Hemphill style, although the whirlwind or
Chronological Implications of the Bellows-Shaped Apron
51
swastika-like treatment of the interior crosses suggests the Hightower and Nashville styles as well (Muller 1989). Significantly, its presence as a grave offering in an Early Wilbanks grave provides a sound chronological fix.
Circular Frontlet Horizon (ca. a.d. 1300–1450) The time frame for the circular frontlet horizon is clarified by consideration of the chronology of the SECC-bearing deposits at the Big Three sites. Etowah’s famous Mound C with its elaborate mortuary furnishings is divided roughly into three constructional phases, the first two belonging to King’s Early Wilbanks phase (a.d. 1250–1325) and the final mantle to the Late Wilbanks (a.d. 1325–1375) (King 2001a, 2003). King was able to distinguish the latter by the appearance of exotics, such as Rudder Comb Incised, Pisgah-like complicated stamped, and distinctive rim attributes associated with Pisgah Complicated Stamped. Around a.d. 1375 the site was abandoned before early Lamar period pottery appears (King 2001a:74). When Etowah was reoccupied during the Brewster phase around a.d. 1450, the Lamar horizon was already well developed (Hally 1994). Larson (1993) has argued for a sixteenth-century age for the Wilbanks phase on the basis of stylistic connections between a bird head pin of tortoise shell from a grave and similar pins in Spanish gold from sites in Florida. Adam King (2003), on the other hand, has run radiocarbon dates on samples from the period. In light of these dates I would judge the aforementioned stylistic differences as having less authority as an argument for contemporaneity. The similarities and differences between the two bird head pins are difficult to assess when we have only two examples on which to form a judgment. The age of the Moundville images is documented primary by engraved pottery because the graves producing the gorgets proper were excavated with little regard for archaeological context. Many have come from the rich set of graves excavated by Clarence B. Moore (1905a, 1907), but the body of engraved pottery accumulated from better-documented contexts excavated since the 1930s has supplied more useful evidence (Peebles 1987). Three periods, Moundville I, II, III, were defined by sequence-ordered grave lots (Steponaitis 1983). Outside of the Mound C and D locations, age is assignable only through the grave-lot presence of particular time-sensitive artifact attributes (Steponaitis 1983). Subsequent fieldwork has extended this sequence to the mound stages themselves (Knight and Steponaitis 1998). Material that Waring and Holder (1945) classified as belonging to the SECC has been divided between the second and third of these periods (Peebles 1987). The circular frontlet treatment of the scalp motif is present in the Moundville II–III transition (ca. a.d. 1400) and is subsequently well represented on pottery in Moundville III graves as well. For instance, the engraved vessel NR9/ M5, cited above, belongs to a variety of Moundville Engraved that spans the Moundville II and III periods (Steponaitis 1983:318). More specifically, it pos-
52
Brown
sesses a simple base on a sub-globular bottle that is a Moundville III vessel form (Steponaitis 1983:117). The Craig C style talon engraved on the exterior surface of a Poteau Plain bottle from Owl Cave has an age set by the inception of this black, slip-surfaced ceramic type in Spiro III (Brown 1989:Figure 9). Hence the execution of this talon could have taken place as early as a Spiro III time line (ca. a.d. 1250) and as late as Spiro IV. The upper limit is hard to place because of the rarity of ceramic engraving in the Craig style. The duration of the Moundville scalp form is clouded by problematical dating. Although most evidence would not argue for persistence after a.d. 1500, there is the puzzling instance of the bottle from the Menard-Wallace site in eastern Arkansas. This vessel of Avenue Polychrome bears a series of red five-pointed stars representing frontlets within a band of white that delimits in the intervening unpainted area the pendant V diagnostic of the Moundville scalp (Ford 1961:179; Levenson 1991:587; Moore 1908:Plate 13). The problem lies with Jim Ford’s (1961) assignment to the late seventeenth century on the strength of graves in the same cemetery belonging to the period of European contact. Although this age is indirectly supported by Middle Historic trade goods found with nearby graves, the absence of any associated European grave goods in Moore’s (1908) report throws the matter of the age of this specific grave lot open for reassignment to an earlier fourteenth or fifteenth century.
Intersite Correspondences The contemporaneity of Moundville II (a.d. 1250–1400) with the Early Wilbanks phase at Etowah is reinforced by many correspondences (Knight 1997). Some key Moundville grave goods are very similar to ones belonging to the Early Wilbanks phase graves from Etowah Mound C. A richly furnished Moundville grave, Burial 37 (Moore 1905a:Figure 41) from Mound C has yielded an oblong gorget together with a flat copper axe head and a copper feather ornament, both of which have correspondences with nearly identical objects at Etowah and Spiro. Mound D has yielded four gorgets from as many burials (Burials 65, 132, 148, and 164, Moore 1907:Figures 100, 102–104). All told, intersite correspondences consist of an oblong gorget in each (Moore 1907:Figures 100–102; Moorehead 1932:Figure 23), a circular copper gorget with swastika-like crosses from each (Moore 1905a:Figure 134; Moorehead 1932:Figure 22), a feather copper ornament from each (Moore 1905a:Figure 45; Thomas 1894:306), and a key-sided mace hair ornament from Moundville (Moore 1905a:Figure 105) and a mace head ornament or ornaments from Etowah (Moorehead 1932:Figure 18). In addition to these correspondences, the broadly similar monolithic axes, the elongate bifaces of Dover chert with slightly expanded heads (“sword-form”), and the copper axe heads are objects held in common (Moore 1905a; Moorehead 1932).
Chronological Implications of the Bellows-Shaped Apron
53
Graves of the following Moundville III period are much less richly furnished although they have yielded most of the famous Moundville engraved pottery with motifs exemplifying SECC themes. Steponaitis (1991; Peebles 1987) has documented the lack of copper artifacts in the third-period graves. A number of artifactual correspondences exist between the Spiro grave lots and those from Etowah and Moundville (putting aside those Spiro items known only from the Great Mortuary, such as the Dover bifaces and the monolithic axes). Two, in particular, are important because they come from primary grave-lot contexts. One of these is a particular type of stone earspool lacking a central perforation and having figural decoration cut in relief on the outer face. This kind of ear ornament, which is present exclusively in the North Caddoan area during the Norman phase, is known from the contemporary Wilbanks site (Early and Late Wilbanks phases) of north Georgia as well (Brown 1996, 2004b; Sears 1958:163, Plate 45 #4). The balance of the specific cross ties to Etowah and Moundville come from the Great Mortuary, which unfortunately is a secondary accumulation recycled from primary contexts created sometime after a.d. 1400 and long after both the Wilbanks and Moundville II phases (Brown 1996). There are a large number of artifact correspondences, including monolithic axes, Dover bifaces with enlarged heads (“swords”), copper feather ornaments, fragments of falcon warrior copper plates, copper axe heads, an oblong gorget in engraved shell, a Hightower style shell gorget, and phalange (or “spool-shaped”) shell beads (Brown 1996; Hamilton et al. 1974; Phillips and Brown 1978). Originally, these objects probably belonged to the Spiro III period roughly contemporary with the Moundville II and Wilbanks phases (Brown and Kelly 2000). These cross ties between opposite ends of the greater Southeast testify to chronological coordination between these far-flung areas. Now that the chronological correlation of the major sources of SECC material has become established it is essential to establish the age of the basic corpus of images and objects that documents the socially and politically telling changes that are argued to have taken place during the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries.
The Etowah Contradiction The foregoing analysis of scalp image change brings this discussion to the cooccurrence of the early and later forms in the same middle-layer stratum of Mound C at Etowah, dating to the Early Wilbanks phase. The three birdman plates (Rogan 1, Rogan 2, Moorehead) in sheet copper were interred contemporaneously with the sheet copper oblong gorget with multiple roundels. The bellowsshaped apron displayed on the birdman images belongs to an earlier form of the copper oblong gorget. They do not belong together if the temporal sequencing thesis of this essay holds true. Of the two, the earlier has to be a carryover from
54
Brown
a period before the oblong scalp form developed. The question that arises next is, is there any internal evidence favoring this heirloom thesis for the Rogan plates? Ready confirmation can be found in the contrast between the conspicuousness of the mace brandished over the head of the birdmen with the Rogan style scalps and the absence of stone mace implements in any of the Wilbanks phase grave lots— or for that matter in contemporary Moundville II deposits. The mace-form copper badges have to be regarded as clearly derivative from functional maces, considering their hypertrophic form and the common deployment of the key cutout on one side of the mace. Maces may have been conventionalized weapons much later than their currency. But they are not the emblematic warrior’s invariant weapon. The Douglas gorget shows that an axe can be used instead. The implication herein is that this gorget belongs to the thirteenth century as well.
Additional Remarks Jon Muller (1989) has advanced a sequence of artifact types. However, use of images to inform the sequence of artifacts can be out of sync with grave-lot evidence. For instance, the copper plate imagery from the Etowah Mound C graves would imply the active use of maces. But the grave lots there contain solely the long “sword-like” bifaces that are likely to be a later version of the mace-form club. The appearance of key-sided mace ornaments also gives the false impression that versions in wood and stone were current as well. The Craig C images from Spiro that feature the circular frontlet scalp form are roughly contemporary with (or possibly slightly earlier than) the forms at Moundville and the Wilbanks phases at Etowah. A corroboration of this temporal equivalence is the absence of the mace in Craig C imagery and the presence of the woodpecker in warrior belts that Phillips regarded as a representation of the woodpecker-headed wooden axes with copper blades. Comparable copper celts or axe heads are found in Moundville II graves. From this set of correspondences we can hypothesize an early (pre–a.d. 1300) prevalence of the polished stone mace and a post–a.d. 1300 heyday for the monolithic axe. As physical objects neither item is found with the other in primary grave lots. Only in the Great Mortuary deposit of the Craig Mound at Spiro, which has been judged to be a mixed deposit on many other grounds, have the two objects been found together archaeologically. The Craig stylistic sequence points to additional chronological separations. One of these is the mace, and here I exclude the key-sided mace emblem badge that is clearly derivative and later in time. Maces are present in Craig A images, but when one moves into Craig B, new weaponry takes their place. Only one questionable mace, one arrow mace, and one axe are present in Craig B. With the final Craig C phase, maces are entirely absent. Axes replace maces, and where the detail suffices, these are woodpecker axes. The homologous set for weaponry is clearly
Chronological Implications of the Bellows-Shaped Apron
55
a mace followed by an axe—and a fancy one at that. It is significant that monolithic axes are important finds in Wilbanks and Moundville II phases.
Conclusions Reassessment of the sacred scalp, in light of what we have learned from the archaeology of Spiro and from a study of the corpus of engraved shell art from Spiro, leads to an unpacking of the SECC into several temporally distinct entities by demonstrating that some of its objects and motifs are not contemporary. Although Muller (1989) foresaw a chronological segregation of SECC elements, he did not envision the shift in iconography that is indicated by the chronological reorganization of key records of the SECC. The style-sequence perspective explained above opens up new avenues both for exploring the social context of a clearly ideological set of images and for developing a time frame for the complex. As another benefit, the identification of secular changes in artifact and symbol form helps identify asynchronous assemblages. It forces us to focus on how the depositional context has been created. Each of these promised avenues of understanding allows us to approach the archaeology of the large and small sites in terms of history, rather than material culture for a natural history. To make good on this promise, a renewed effort has to be placed on dating as many of the key iconographic documents as possible. More important, the change in a stylistically controlled image—that of the sacred scalp—stands not simply as a proxy for history but the very demonstration of change demolishes the set idea that the SECC is composed of a set of timeless traits. What this perspective opens up is the possibility of documenting changes in forms of representation that reveal unacknowledged dimensions in meaning. The principle here is that when a single conceptual category such as the scalp motif undergoes transformation from something tied to costume to a freely combining emblem then in the early decades of the fourteenth century, major social and political changes have taken place as well. The notion that the SECC comprised a fixed set of timeless traits is clearly obsolete.
Acknowledgments This is an expanded version of a paper delivered at the 57th Annual Meeting of the Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Ocmulgee National Park, Macon, Georgia, November 9–11, 2000. Figure 3.1 was adapted from Philip Phillips and James A. Brown, Pre-Columbian Shell Engravings from the Craig Mound at Spiro, Oklahoma, Vol. 1, Peabody Museum Press, copyright 1975 by the President and Fellows of Harvard College. Figure 3.2 was adapted from Philip Phillips and James A. Brown, Pre-Columbian Shell Engravings from the Craig Mound at Spiro, Oklahoma, Vol. 6, Peabody Museum Press, copyright 1983 by the President and
56
Brown
Fellows of Harvard College, and from Stephen Williams, editor, The Waring Papers: The Collected Works of Antonio J. Waring, Jr., Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 58, copyright 1977 by the President and Fellows of Harvard College.
Notes 1. Note that the scalp stretcher association may be derived from a head of hair. The scalp stretched in a frame could have been intended to mimic a sacred head of hair. 2. At the close of the shell engraving project Phil Phillips counted 274 cups, 50 gorgets, fragments to a minimum of an additional 560 cups and 105 gorgets, and 31 additional whole or fragmentary artifacts (Phillips and Brown 1984:6:xi). 3. 304E, 291, and 338C.
4 Mound 34 The Context for the Early Evidence of the Southeastern Ceremonial Complex at Cahokia John E. Kelly, James A. Brown, Jenna M. Hamlin, Lucretia S. Kelly, Laura Kozuch, Kathryn Parker, and Julieann Van Nest
Commonplace emphasis on the burial record of the three big sites in the Southeastern Ceremonial Complex (SECC)—Etowah, Moundville, and Spiro—has the unfortunate effect of deflecting attention from the nonmortuary contexts that relate to the complex and perhaps even frame its expression. What is lost by this emphasis on the mortuary domain can be expressed in part by posing a couple of questions. If the “ceremonial” in the Southeastern Ceremonial Complex had as much to do with propitiating practices as it did with dressing for status, then votive offerings and a range of activity traces should be part and parcel of the complex. If the motifs had more than some abstract, nonmaterial reference, then the solar motifs and the imagery about falcons, snakes, and other animals should have nonmortuary contexts. While these contexts may not be easily recognized, that does not rule out the existence of such analogues. It is the task of analysis to argue for the connections between the mortuary and nonmortuary manifestations. There is a historical issue here as well. As long as the complex rests upon mortuary contexts, then documentation of the antecedents begs for a comparable preceding record. Such a record is absent at Cahokia and perhaps elsewhere for reasons having to do with sampling in the context of altered disposal practices through time. The SECC thereby becomes perched in time awaiting the disclosures about its earlier history that a convenient document might reveal. Meanwhile, an abundant record from potentially relevant contexts exists. Plazas, mound summit structures, refuse pits filled with feasting debris, and mound architecture await analysis. These and other contexts have the potential to enlighten us on a more complete history of the ceremonialism that is highly relevant to the mortuary disposal of finely crafted objects, if not central to the understanding of this tomb source record. The radiocarbon-dated age of Mound 34 at Cahokia and the age of its associ-
58
Kelly et al.
ated ceramics and lithics indicate a construction date around a.d. 1200. In a recently completed comprehensive study of engraved shell gorgets documented for the Mississippian period, Brain and Phillips (1996) concluded that none of their gorgets date earlier than a.d. 1400. Furthermore, they revert to the thesis that this iconographic system was largely influenced by the initial impact of European contacts. In the case of Cahokia, which was abandoned as a Mississippian mound center by a.d. 1400, their conclusion was made possible by challenging directly the published contexts and radiometric date (Griffin 1960) for the engraved shell fragments from Mound 34 (Perino 1959; Phillips and Brown 1978). If we were to accept their view, we would have to conclude that the canonical imagery enshrined in the term Southeastern Ceremonial Complex was totally absent from the social and political promotion of elites and the development of craft specialization at Cahokia, one of the largest population aggregations known in the precontact Southeast (Muller 1997b). This is an old perspective enshrined in the benchmark study of Waring and Holder (1945), but it has been repeatedly challenged. Waring and Holder articulated an argument that the SECC was a kind of cultural veneer or “cult” superimposed upon independent traditions shortly before European contact. In this scenario, the introduction of the SECC was largely independent of social, cultural, and political changes taking place during the Mississippian period. In contrast, James B. Griffin (1966) long argued that the SECC was an expression of elite southeastern culture during this period (Brown 1976a; Griffin 1952a, 1961; Knight 1986). His thesis placed greater importance on the beginnings of the SECC as signifying the emergence of elite control of supernatural forces in an increasingly hierarchical social environment. Thus the emergence of the SECC as a codified, canonical, iconographic system is related intimately to the rise of hierarchical societies. Likewise, its breakup follows the decline of such societies.
The Social and Cultural Context at Cahokia Cahokia, which is spread over a maximal extent of 14 km2, has a dynamic history some 400 years in duration between a.d. 1000 and 1400 (Figures 4.1 and 4.2). The first major event at the site was its sudden emergence as a ritual center around a.d. 1050, which Pauketat (1993a) refers to as the “Big Bang.” The next major change took place around a.d. 1200, the beginning of the Moorehead phase and approximately halfway through the site’s history, when there was a shift from a focus upon monumental platform mound construction to the erection of the central interior palisade (Figure 4.3). This regularly bastioned wall, rebuilt three times, enclosed at least 174 ha of the central precinct including Monks Mound and the Grand Plaza. The construction of this wall was a major investment of time and energy and represents a significant event in the social and political history of Cahokia.
Mound 34: Early Evidence of the SECC at Cahokia
59
Figure 4.1. Map of the Cahokia site with central Cahokia and Mound 34 delineated.
Although the site had undergone occupational shrinkage and population decline, the larger picture behind these changes is subject to widely different readings. This transformation has been tied to the beginning of the site’s decline (Emerson 1997a; Mehrer 1995; Milner 1990, 1998; Pauketat 1994), although others (Saitta 1994; Trubitt 1996) have begun to question the basis for this interpretation. Considering the events that were taking place at Cahokia during the Moorehead phase, the question immediately arises as to why well-defined canonical versions of the SECC appeared at this time and not during the “Stirling phase climax.” A long history of representational depictions preceded the Moorehead phase (Brown and Kelly 2000). What were the factors that played into this development, particularly since it is accompanied by continued, if not increased, craft production in marine shell, native copper, and other materials? What changes were taking place economically, socially, and politically? Did these changes enhance central authority or were they challenging such authority? While the archaeology of Mound 34 will not answer these questions directly, much needed information has been provided on ideological development, craft working, and ritual activity during the Moorehead phase that has, until now, been largely absent.
History of Site Investigation Mound 34, approximately 400 m east of Monks Mound, lies as an inconspicuous rise at the north end of a line of mounds defining the western edge of the Moorehead phase Ramey Plaza. Although Mound 34 was mapped and numbered by Patrick in the decade after the Civil War, no measurements were provided.1 The
60
Kelly et al.
Figure 4.2. Chronology for Cahokia and the American Bottom region.
earliest measurements of Mound 34 by McAdams in 1882 indicate a height of 10 feet, as does Thomas’s 1894 plat. While various other maps (see Fowler 1997) depict this mound, no other descriptions exist before 1950. Mound 34 appears on several of Warren King Moorehead’s (1922, 1923, and 1929) maps, which were basically reproductions of Patrick’s original maps. In the 1920s Moorehead excavated into several mounds adjacent to Mound 34, including the large James Ramey
Figure 4.3. Map of central Cahokia showing the location of the Palisade, Mound 34, and the Ramey Plaza during the Moorehead phase.
62
Kelly et al.
Figure 4.4. A 1950 contour map produced by UMMA of Mound 34 showing test pit locations.
Mound and the conjoined Temple Mound. It does appear that a collection of surface materials was obtained from Mound 34, however (Kelly et al. 1996). In 1950, the Central Mississippi Valley Archaeological Survey (CMVAS), initiated by James B. Griffin and Albert C. Spaulding of the University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology (UMMA), conducted excavations into Mound 34 (Figure 4.4). Their work at Cahokia was part of a larger project initiated in 1949 that extended from St. Louis south to southeast Missouri. Their map of Mound 34 indicates that it was oval in plan with a rounded, asymmetrical shape. The dimensions were approximately 30 m east–west by 25 m north–south. The height, at the time of their work, was approximately 3 m, with the apex to the east of center. Griffin and Spaulding (1951) confined their single-season project to three 5-by10-foot stratigraphic test units in the north and northeast faces of Mound 34 with the expectation that a stratigraphic sequence would reveal finer divisions in the Old Village and Trappist sequence. The results were disappointing. The tabulation of over 25,571 sherds from their excavations indicated virtually no difference in the ceramic type frequency or distribution throughout their excavations. Their interpretation of the profiles of Mound 34 documents a pre-mound midden capped by
Mound 34: Early Evidence of the SECC at Cahokia
63
a flood deposit (Figure 4.5). They noted differences in the overlying mound fill, although the excavations were not sufficiently extensive to establish an interpretative basis for those differences. Perhaps their most significant find was two fragments of an engraved marine shell cup (Figure 4.6a) from the mound fill in Test Pit 3, located on the mound’s northeast face. These fragments, later conjoined, represent the first discovery of engraved shell cup remains from Cahokia. Also present were fragments of a repoussé copper plate (Brown and Kelly 2000). In 1956, Gregory Perino (n.d.) excavated Mound 34 for the Gilcrease Museum of Tulsa, Oklahoma, with the expectation of discovering additional fine-crafted objects. Sometime before this, the tenant farmer had removed approximately onehalf meter of the mound’s summit. Perino dug a 20-by-30-m block excavation with a 3.6-m-wide trench extending 12 m south from the southeast corner (Figure 4.7). The block excavation occupied roughly the northwest quarter of the mound. These extensive excavations revealed a complex constructional history on top of a significant pre-mound occupation. Perino discovered additional engraved shell fragments (Figure 4.6b–n) in a linear bed of charcoal he called “ceremonial fires.” This deposit lay on the terrace at its junction with the core mound near his eastern profile wall. Our 1999 and 2000 investigations of Mound 34 (Figure 4.8) revealed undocumented excavations to the south of Perino’s excavation block, presumably undertaken after Perino backfilled and departed. At least the top meter of his south wall was destroyed by a sloping cut that generally followed the trajectory of his west wall for approximately 11 m to the south before tapering up to the surface. During the 1971 Cahokia Ceramic conference, the Mound 34 materials, along with data from other areas of Cahokia, formed the basis for the definition of the Stirling phase, circa a.d. 1100–1200 (corrected) (Fowler and Hall 1975:Table 1, 11). More recently, Fowler (1989, 1997) indicated that the seven radiocarbon assays obtained on materials associated with the Mound 34 complex bracketed the period from a.d. 1000 to 1400, with most of the dates for the mound clearly falling in Fowler’s Era IIC, a.d. 1150–1300 (uncorrected). This period corresponds to the Moorehead phase in Robert Hall’s (1989) calibrated chronology. In the study of the engraved shell corpus from the Spiro site, Phillips (Phillips and Brown 1978) explicitly brought the Mound 34 fragments and their associated 14C date into a consideration of the age of the classic expression of the SECC. These fragments exemplified the Akron grid motif that is diagnostic of Classic Braden shell engraving, and this attribution provides a direct connection to the SECC benchmark Rogan copper plates from Etowah’s Mound C. Both are now considered as exemplifying the Classic Braden style (Brown 2001b, 2004a). Subsequent reevaluation by Brain and Phillips, in their 1996 compendium on engraved shell gorgets, placed the Mound 34 materials at the later end of the statistical distribution of the 14C date in the Sand Prairie phase from circa a.d. 1275 to
Figure 4.5. UMMA 1950 profile maps of Test Pits 1–3.
Mound 34: Early Evidence of the SECC at Cahokia
65
Figure 4.6. Engraved shell recovered from Mound 34 excavations by UMMA (a) and by Perino for the Gilcrease Museum (b–n).
1500. This rejection of the integrity and dating of the Mound 34 data prompted a thorough review by the senior authors of SECC artifacts and their associations from Cahokia and its environs (Brown and Kelly 2000). A substantial collection of rims and decorated ceramics was recovered by Perino (n.d.) from sub-mound features and from primary mound fill. Examination of these artifacts at the Gilcrease Museum by John Kelly demonstrated that the sub-mound structures date to the Stirling and Moorehead phases, as presently known. The refuse trench excavated by Perino contained Wells Broad Trailed plate
66
Kelly et al.
Figure 4.7. Schematic profile and plan maps of Mound 34 showing Perino’s 1956 excavations.
rims with trailed line decoration diagnostic of the Moorehead phase (Fowler and Hall 1975; Holley 1989; Kelly 2001). The collections contain no materials that can be related to periods in the Cahokian chronology postdating 1250 (Brown and Kelly 1997). The refuse trench also contained many reconstructable sherds of an elaborate negative-painted platter (Figure 4.9) that provides enlightening evidence for the breadth of SECC connections. A unique white-on-black, block-lined motif was painted on both the interior and exterior surfaces of the platter. This motif, called the Davis Rectangle, is as important to the motif repertoire of Braden A shell engraving as the Akron grid. With the reexamination of the Mound 34 artifacts at the UMMA and Perino’s notes and collections at the Gilcrease Institute, Brown and Kelly (2000) surveyed the known evidence for all imagery on pottery and other media at Cahokia. That information indicated a long history of image making at the site. Furthermore, significant connections to the SECC were identified that were even earlier than
Mound 34: Early Evidence of the SECC at Cahokia
67
Figure 4.8. Plan map of the Washington University excavations in Mound 34 from 1998 to 2005.
the Moorehead phase. However, only by the Moorehead phase was evidence available for forms of representation that closely resembled shell engraving. Dated specimens suggest that the combinations of elements and the forms of representation enshrined in clearly elite-related marine shell and copper repoussé only appear during the thirteenth century. Because of this intriguing information, the senior authors initiated a reinvestigation of Mound 34. In June 1998 a pilot project was directed by John Kelly and James Brown to relocate the Gilcrease excavations, with particular attention to Perino’s south profile wall. Perino’s schematic profile of the south wall illustrates the junction of the west terrace with the main platform mound where the “ceremonial fire” deposit that contained the engraved shell fragments and other items was located. Relocation and high-precision 14C dating of the “ceremonial fire” de-
68
Kelly et al.
Figure 4.9. Illustration of the negative-painted platter recovered from Perino’s refuse trench (Washington University Feature 3).
posit was critical to any reexamination of the use and deposit of these items. It was, thus, important that this portion of the wall be relocated and examined in greater detail. Field schools from Washington University, Northwestern University, and the University of Missouri at St. Louis with important volunteer help conducted investigations during the summer and fall months from 1998 to 2005. The project was initiated and supervised by the senior authors with junior author Jenna Hamlin as field and laboratory supervisor during the period from 1998 to 2000. This chapter provides an interim report on observations made during this time.
Summary of the 1998 to 2005 Mound 34 Investigations Our overall goals throughout the investigations have been to (1) relocate the earlier 1950s excavations, (2) identify the “ceremonial fires” from which the engraved shell and other ritual items came, (3) locate the refuse trench described by Perino, and (4) locate the copper workshops (Figure 4.8). At the outset we focused our
Mound 34: Early Evidence of the SECC at Cahokia
69
attention on locating the south profile wall of the Gilcrease excavations where the “ceremonial fires” had been identified by Perino. Although not identified until 2000, the southwest corner of the Gilcrease excavations were located, along with a small section of the wall near its base. As noted earlier the upper portion of the profile wall had been removed. Subsequent seasons focused on the west and east walls of the Perino excavations and the trench that extended to the south of the main excavation block. The west wall was identified in 1999 (Figure 4.10) and the east profile in 2002 (Figure 4.11). The refuse trench identified by Perino was also partially defined in 1999. The two copper workshops that Perino identified beneath Mound 34 have been the focus of our work in 2003 and 2005. During the 2001 season we located the University of Michigan’s Test Pit 3 and in 2004 we located the southeast corner of Test Pit 2. To date, 132 m2 of Mound 34 have been exposed to varying depths. It is estimated this represents over 100 m3 of backfill and mound fill. The investigations to date have established the location of the southwest corner of the Gilcrease excavations along with 7 m of the east profile wall and 13 m of the west profile wall. The 2005 excavations resulted in the identification of a 1-m segment of the north–south trench’s west wall. During the 1999, 2000, and 2005 excavations portions of the Gilcrease refuse trench were also identified and excavated. Throughout the excavations portions of a number of structures, pits, post pits, and a small cache of shells have been identified and mapped. None of these at this time can be matched to the Gilcrease plan map. Although nearly a dozen pieces of worked copper have been recovered from the Perino backdirt, we have been unsuccessful in relocating the copper workshops. Analysis of the material indicates that the ceramics are derived from deposits representative of much of the Cahokia sequence from Emergent Mississippian into early Moorehead, with the Stirling phase the primary component present. The only identifiable Moorehead phase materials were a few narrow-rimmed Wells Broad Trailed plates and Cahokia Cordmarked, var. Perino sherds.
Present Understanding of Mound Architecture and Associated Activities Our efforts filter the reports by Griffin and by Perino through the evidence compiled by the current excavations to relocate and to confirm the stratigraphy of Perino. Perino documented the basic sequence of construction, although his identification was limited by the archaeological understanding of the 1950s. Since then, a great deal of knowledge of feature morphology and feature function has been accumulated as a result of decades of intensive field investigation and analysis at Cahokia. In addition, the mound profiles recorded between 1998 and 2005 provided detailed stratigraphic information regarding the construction of Mound 34.
70
Kelly et al.
Figure 4.10. Washington University’s profile map of Perino’s west wall showing Feature 3.
Pre-mound landscape. The UMMA excavations identified a pre-mound village based on what they thought was a one-and-a-half-foot midden and associated wall trenches in Test Pit 2. Buckles and Griffin (n.d.) questioned whether this was indeed a midden. Six years later, Perino excavated a large area immediately north of the mound and under the northern edges. On his schematic plan map of the area excavated, he documented at least 10 wall-trench structures, two hearths within
Mound 34: Early Evidence of the SECC at Cahokia
71
Figure 4.11. Profile map from Washington University’s exposure of Perino’s east wall.
two houses, 12 refuse pits, and three corncob caches. Our excavations have identified parts of 12 wall-trench houses. Four of these could be parts of the structures defined by Perino. The wall trenches of four houses in Michigan’s Test Pit 2 have been relocated. Three of the latter houses may be part of a large structure with a central hearth rebuilt twice. If the hearth is centrally located, this building could be as large as 10 by 6 m. In addition to the houses, we have also identified a number of pit features. Two of these pits have produced Moorehead phase ceramics (Hamlin 2004). Although no post pits were recognized by Perino, a post pit was identified in 2005 just north of Feature 3 and may have been part of the ritual activities associated with the latter feature. Three other unusual features were described and excavated. The first was a deposit of charcoal described by Perino (n.d.:7) as having been “below the prepared floor in the trench dug through the center of mound 34”; it was “a long charcoal mound piled to a height of eighteen inches, and a width of four feet. It began near a wall trench under the approximate center of the mound and it has continued southward for fifteen feet parallel with the wall trench. How much farther the charcoal mound continues we dont [sic] know as work had to be abandoned however it is safe to assume that it would continue as long as the wall trench and that the mound is composed of charcoal gathered from a burnt house.”
72
Kelly et al.
The second unusual feature documented by Perino consists of two areas on the sub-mound living surface in an area impregnated with copper fragments. These areas also included several copper-stained posts and Perino noted that the ground surface turned green upon exposure to the air. He interpreted these areas as copper workshops. In 1999, the presence of copper working was confirmed by the recovery of two raw copper nuggets from screening Perino’s backfill. Since then several additional pieces of worked copper have been collected from the excavation of Perino’s backdirt. The third feature was a large, east–west oriented pit characterized by Perino as a “refuse trench.” He described this refuse trench as a 50-foot-long, 20-footwide, and 3-foot-deep excavation (15 m by 6 m and .90 m deep). Perino (n.d.:2) documented “more than fifty pieces, awls, needles, and worked bone pieces . . . including a few projectile points and a drilled shark’s tooth. Pottery fragments were all of the Old Village culture except several that are foreign to Cahokia . . . The predominating vessel type in the trench was plates. There were many, all of the Ramey Incised rim, both narrow and broadly decorated. Nearly a dozen efigy [sic] duck heads were found, some red, others black, body sherds were not as numerous.” Our 1999, 2000, and 2005 excavations (Figure 4.8) relocated the western end of this refuse trench (designated Feature 3) and verified the width (6 m) and depth (.9 m) of this unique feature. We had assumed that this pit had been fully explored; however, a significant part remained intact. In the top 50 cm of Feature 3 lenses of charcoal and ash left unexcavated by Perino were discovered. The pit was also lined by a thin (0.5–1.0 cm) black clay. The original pit was probably excavated for borrow, and there were indications of the area having been previously excavated, with it superimposed on an area designated as Feature 4 on the north and a similar area to the south. Placement of a marine shell cache (Figure 4.12) within a meter of the south edge of the refuse trench may have been part of the rituals associated with lining the pit and the dedication of the initial mound. The filling of the refuse trench coincided with the creation of the initial platform. This pit is significant for several reasons. First, it contained an enormous quantity of animal remains, especially deer. This faunal assemblage bears what we now recognize as the telltale signature of feasting (L. Kelly 2001a, 2001c). A rough inventory of the unscreened fauna collection by Parmalee (1957, 1975) disclosed this “pre-mound deposit” was composed primarily (90 percent) of deer. Furthermore, Parmalee (1975:153) stated that “excavations at Mound 34 yielded a large quantity of bird elements and, as part of this avian complex, there were numerous wing bones of hawks and eagles in the sample.” Corncobs from the refuse pit were analyzed by Hugh Cutler and Leonard Blake (1969) and were restudied in an honors thesis supervised by Gayle Fritz (Keller 1995). The average row number for the 15 cobs measured by Keller was 12, with a majority (60 percent) of the cobs having 12 or 14 rows. An uncorrected radiocarbon assay of a.d. 1152 ± 200 (M-33) was obtained on charcoal from this pre-mound deposit.
Mound 34: Early Evidence of the SECC at Cahokia
73
Figure 4.12. Photograph of marine shell cache recovered by Washington University from Mound 34.
The refuse pit excavated by Perino also contained drilled shark’s teeth and numerous decorated plates including the previously mentioned negative-painted platter with a Classic Braden block-lined motif. The repertoire of ritual activities whose material remains were deposited at this location prior to mound construction provides crucial evidence for our understanding of the contexts in which SECC objects were displayed and consumed at Cahokia. Initially, a low mound was constructed over a landscape truncated by borrowing activity. In his notes Spaulding (n.d.) interpreted this low platform as a village deposit, while Buckles and Griffin (n.d.:4) entertained the possibility that this deposit was a mound on the basis of its elevation from the surrounding terrain. It is estimated that minimally 30 to 50 cm of the original ground surface was removed, presumably to construct the mounds that defined the newly constituted Ramey Plaza outside the palisade. It is also clear that the plaza, a sunken surface to the southeast of Mound 34, was created by the removal of over 2 m of earth. Two more borrow areas have been documented to the east. One is east of Mound 28 and south of Mound 27 (Koldehoff et al. 2000), and the second small borrow area was identified by us between two of the Edwards Mounds, 24 and 25. Perino also documented a large borrow area to the north of Mound 34, exposed after two flash floods in the 1940s and 1950s. The excavation and filling of these areas all date to the Moorehead phase and, thus, reinforce the extensive modifica-
74
Kelly et al.
tion of the natural landscape in an effort to create what we can regard as a landscape that reflects the cosmos. Stratiform Platform In the second season, our excavations uncovered the basal sections of the mound as it would have appeared in a portion of Perino’s west wall profile. Here Van Nest (2001) found that basal mound deposits comprise 50–70 cm of well-stratified layers of dark-colored (organic- and charcoal-rich) silt loams containing abundant artifactual remains. These “stratiform” deposits lie immediately above a premound Bt soil horizon developed into river alluvium, and although the layers occupy the same vertical position that the pre-mound A (and E) soil horizons would have occupied (prior to their removal), several lines of evidence show that the stratiform deposits have an anthropogenic origin as mound fill brought in from elsewhere and deliberately emplaced as layers. First, the soil matrix of the layers in the stratiform fill is strongly effervescent, reacting readily to dilute hydrochloric acid. Laboratory analyses of calcite and dolomite (another common carbonate mineral that is less soluble and more stable than calcite) showed that the stratiform layers contain as much as five times the amount of calcite as in other mound fill units and the alluvial units beneath the mound. Although there are calcareous alluvial silt loam deposits in the vicinity of Mound 34 (below leached soil profiles), initial results suggest that they are comparatively dolomite-rich, probably reflecting their ultimate source as loess redeposited in fans in the Mound 34 area. It seems likely that the excess carbonates in the stratiform deposits were derived from soil/diagenetic alteration of carbonate-rich archaeological remains, such as shell, limestone rock, wood ash, and so on. Alteration would have occurred mainly at the place from which the mound fill was quarried. Second, collectively the stratiform layers form a laterally extensive deposit, and within the deposit itself the boundaries between individual layers are very clear on both the upper and lower surfaces. There were no obvious indications of bioturbation, the crucial initial step in soil formation accompanying surface exposure. Third, the artifacts contained with the deposit are matrix-supported, that is, there is no indication that artifactual items have been sorted by gravity in any way. Fourth, silt makes up a significant fraction of the fine-grained sediment in the deposit, yet there were none of the soft-sediment deformation features one might expect to see were the layers beds of geological origin (i.e., sedimented from a column of water). These observations suggest that the unit comprised of stratiform fills was emplaced relatively rapidly as a single structural unit and that the layering is a part of the overall architectural plan. In striking contrast, the stratiform fills were then subsequently overlain by very different, loaded fills of another mound unit. No structures have been identified on the summit of the platform made from stratiform fills, although a house basin was identified in Perino’s south profile wall
Mound 34: Early Evidence of the SECC at Cahokia
75
that extends below the base and appears to have been excavated into the platform. Perino (n.d.:3) interpreted the mound as having been built around the house. A portion of a large hearth was located in 2002 just above the platform base along Perino’s reexcavated east profile wall. Also, a large post pit was identified during the 2002 season and partially excavated. Excavations in the next two field seasons determined that the post pit had been inserted into the stratiform platform as the platform was being constructed (Figure 4.11) and then removed before the stratiform deposit was completed. While the surface of the insertion and extraction ramps is clear, we could not trace this surface beyond the post pit, suggesting that this event was short-lived. It appears from the following evidence that ritual activities were continually occurring as the platform was being constructed. Colluvial Cap A thin (10–20 cm) layer of wash over the initial mound is evident, capped by a lighter matrix of basket-loaded silt from the terrace deposit and the darker midden fills of the primary mound. The upper surface of this colluvial deposit is very abrupt, as though it may have been intentionally truncated prior to the addition of other deposits. According to Buckles and Griffin (n.d.), Spaulding suggested that this layer of wash was a flood deposit. The thickness of this deposit varies throughout, with the thickest (>20 cm) area in our southernmost units. This suggests a higher-elevation source to the south and east representing the primary mound. The aforementioned stratiform deposits thus reflect an initial platform surrounding the primary mound. Perino’s south profile reinforces this observation with an early, west-facing slope in his profile. Primary Mound Perino’s work revealed the north end of a primary mound, about 30 m2 at its junction with the stratiform deposit. Test pit profiles from the University of Michigan work indicated a relatively dark mound fill capping the 30- to 70-cm-thick stratiform deposit. Perino (n.d.) noted that the undisturbed mound fill is significantly different from the very dark grey-brown silty loam nearer the summit of the mound. The high density of material was noted by both the UMMA team and Perino. Presumably, the fill to create this mound was derived from the borrow pit to the north, once an area of intense residential occupation. The only units in which we observed the primary mound were in Perino’s reexcavated east profile and UMMA’s reexcavated Test Pit 3. In the latter unit, a north–south ridge was created parallel to the east wall of the primary mound (Figure 4.13). This ridge served as a berm and fills were placed between it and the primary mound. Concurrent with this infilling episode, lighter-colored fills were deposited to the east on the outside of the ridge to create the eastern terrace. This ridge was not present in Perino’s east wall, which did, however, expose the north slope of the primary mound.
76
Kelly et al.
Figure 4.13. Profile map from Washington University’s exposure of UMMA’s Test Pit 3 (southwest profile).
Perino recorded at least two mound-building stages in his south profile wall. In addition, Perino (n.d.:1) noted that “twelve inched [sic] from the top was a large floor, near its center occurred a fire basin forty-two inches in diameter, and six inches deep. Several large post holes were found more than thirty-six inches deep into the mound fill.” A photograph (Figure 4.14) of the south profile illustrates a series of what appear to be burned posts that extend below the plow zone. This reinforces Perino’s (n.d.) assertion that a structure was present on the mound summit. It was this building that was burned and deposited over the edge of the platform mound onto the terrace. Terrace Variable deposits of light-colored silts were added to the primary mound slopes, creating a terrace. Plowing not only disturbed the top 20–25 cm of this deposit but also obliterated the uneven vertical junction between the primary mound and the terrace. At a lower elevation, this platform-like terrace was constructed so that it was narrow on the north side and very broad on the west. The UMMA also encountered the eastern element of the terrace, and the profile of Perino’s north–south trench indicates that the terrace extended along the south face of the primary mound. No features were evident in either of the 1950s excavations;
Figure 4.14. Perino’s south wall excavations in Mound 34. Top photograph shows the height of Mound 34 with Dan Morse, six feet, three inches tall, as scale; bottom photograph shows close up of the burned posts from a building at the top of the mound (photographs courtesy of Dan Morse).
78
Kelly et al.
however, a wide (30 cm) and deep (60 cm) wall trench was evident in Perino’s west profile. Our map of Perino’s reexcavated west profile shows a sloped deposit that may reflect a small mound constructed on the terrace. The material density was low and reflects the deposit source, that is, sterile, siltier sediments presumably derived from the borrow area to the north. Ritual Deposits On the eastern, northern, and western sides, Perino identified rich, artifact-laden deposits of charcoal banked upon the primary mound and spread along the borders of the flanking terrace. It is these deliberately created, linear charcoal deposits that Perino called “ceremonial fires.” This was the context from which engraved marine shell cup fragments were recovered on two separate occasions, first by the University of Michigan team on the east end and later along the north terrace by the more extensive work of Perino. Perino described this deposit: [T]he most interesting feature of mound 34, is evidences of ceremonial fires found at the juncture of the terraces with the mound. After addition of the western terrace ceremonies were held. Burnt areas on the sand attest to that, then big fires were made on the level sand against the rising wall of the mound. Here ashes and charcoal cover a burnt area for a width of six feet. Regularly spaced thining [sic] of charcoal in places, indicate [sic] a series of fires rather than one big fire. In the charcoal and ashes in the north end, were many fragments of a large conch shell vessel. Most of which were not burned. Other items were, one drilled shark’s tooth, which was burned, one flint sharktooth, in perfect shape, not burned, one rim fragment of a wooden bowl, charred, one fragment of a spud, burnt, one antler arrowhead, burnt, many charred cane fragments the size of an arrow shaft, aight [sic] triangular arrow heads, one of which is serrated and base notched, all burnt, seven slug pearls drilled, one barrel bead, one flat bead, and copper oxide where copper covered wood objects had burned. In the ashes near the south end of the fire these artifacts were recovered as well as a large amount of charcoal for future C-14 dating. Several small unworked conchs, fragments of a medium sized conch shell vessel[,] fragments of two novaculite spuds, burnt fragments of one spade, burnt, two burnt arrowheads, one is two notched, one is three notched, one fine Alba barbed arrowhead, of jasper, fragments of a wooden bead copper covered, fragments of a wooden arrowhead two notched, base drilled, and copper covered, and four disc and barrel type beads. Red ochre occured [sic] in the ashes and appears to have been added during the fire. The platform or terrace along the north wall is considerably narrower, appearing to have been about ten feet wide. This too had been built of clear sand and the juncture could readily be distinguished. It appears to have been only as long as the
Mound 34: Early Evidence of the SECC at Cahokia
79
north side of mound 34. The fires like those described, was [sic] centered with the original mound, and built against the north wall. They were six to eight feet wide and less than twenty feet in length. Charcoal was not as profuse and from all indications these were fires of smaller proportions, to those of the west terrace. Artifacts were also rare, being composed mostly of many fragments of finely engraved conch shells which were found throughout the length of the fire, four small tubular copper beads and six barrel type beads, also six disc beads [Perino n.d.:3–4]. Charcoal recovered from this deposit was dated to a.d. 1280 ± 200 (M-635), uncorrected. On the basis of our excavations at the juncture of this deposit with the north and east mound faces, we argue that the deposit represents not an in situ burning but rather the charred remains of a mound-top building and its contents. Flotation samples from three separate areas of intensive burning along the east side of the mound revealed mixed hardwoods and significant admixtures of eastern red cedar ( Juniperus virginiana) and bald cypress (Taxodium distichum), two wood types having special significance in Mississippian ceremony (Lopinot 1991; Porter 1974). The burning was a deliberate ritual act. Although quantities of other materials are not great, the richness and diversity of objects, both local and exotic, testify to the depth and scope of craft production that accompanies the appearance of Classic Braden expressions of the SECC in the Moorehead phase (Brown 2001b). Final Mantle Intact, formally constructed fire pits were discovered high in the existing primary mound (Feature 1) and terrace (Feature 2), testifying to the feasibility of dating use surfaces within the primary mound and the terrace.
Materials Recovered Large collections of artifacts have been recovered from Mound 34 as a result of the UMMA project, Perino’s large-scale excavations, and our 1998–2002 investigation of this rather inconspicuous mound. The senior authors have examined these collections at the Gilcrease Museum in Tulsa, Oklahoma, and at the UMMA in Ann Arbor. In addition, excavation documentation and previous analyses have been reviewed. A number of exotic and specialty items were recovered by screening Perino’s backfill during the 1998–2005 excavation of Mound 34. Among these are engraved marine shell fragments, shell disc beads, a burned and perforated shark’s tooth, native raw copper nuggets and pieces, and nearly 100 triangular, notched, and serrated Cahokian projectile points. Perino, who did not use screens, overlooked these and a startling density of other items. Preservation is exceptional at Mound
80
Kelly et al.
34, allowing recovery of copious amounts of ceramics with calcite-based temper (primarily shell) and faunal and botanical remains including fish scales, shell debris, thatching, corn, and other seeds. Analysis of the pottery assemblage excavated from Mound 34 indicates that the ceramics are derived from deposits representative of much of the Cahokia sequence from Emergent Mississippian into early Moorehead, with the Moorehead phase the primary component present. The Mound 34 ceramic assemblage (Hamlin 2000, 2001a, 2004) includes Moorehead phase horizon markers and diagnostics such as Wells Broad Trailed plates and Cahokia Cordmarked, var. Perino jars. We recovered two Ramey-type rims from our sampling of Feature 3, the large refuse trench first documented and excavated by Perino. A black-slipped Ramey Incised jar rim conforms to the Moorehead phase version of this ceramic type (Hamlin 2001b). Feature 3 also contained a rim sherd from a black-slipped bowl with Ramey-like motifs excised into the exterior and interior surfaces. Similar rim sherds were recovered during the UMMA excavation of Mound 34. Another, smaller, borrow area, designated Feature 5, located several meters north of Feature 3, contained the shattered remains of a large portion of a brown-slipped, fineware beaker. Of particular interest are the ceramic sherds decorated with SECC motifs and imagery from our excavation of Mound 34. We recovered fragments of vessels decorated with sun-circle designs and the ladder and blocked-line motifs. One body sherd has the image of a human head, possibly depicting a decapitated individual, scratched into the red-slipped surface. Similar Braden style imagery was applied to a perforated ceramic disc recovered from the East Palisade excavations directly west of the James Ramey Mound (Brown 1989; Brown and Kelly 2000). The disc is decorated with four (decapitated?) human heads engraved into the grey-slipped surface. A rim sherd from a shell cup effigy bowl was found during W. K. Moorehead’s excavation of the Edwards Mounds, the series of mounds forming the northern boundary of the Ramey Plaza (Hamlin 2004). In addition, the famed scroll beaker, decorated with the blocked-line motif, was recovered during the East Stockade excavations, located between Monks Mound and the Ramey Plaza (Brown and Kelly 2000). The Mound 34 lithic assemblage includes several dozen projectile points or point fragments, in addition to a large collection of general lithic debris. Heavily burned biface fragments that may be the remains of Ramey knives were also discovered. An array of minerals is present, including hematite, galena, quartz, mica, ochre (both red and yellow), calcite, and copper (Kelly and Brown 2000, 2001). Very few hoe flakes and little evidence of the microdrill industry were recovered. Paul Parmalee identified the faunal remains from Perino’s 1956 excavation of Mound 34 (Parmalee 1957). Lucretia Kelly’s (2001b) review of Parmalee’s identi-
Mound 34: Early Evidence of the SECC at Cahokia
81
fications emphasizes the distinctiveness of Mound 34 and the Ramey Plaza faunal sample that includes more than 6,000 pieces of deer bone and rare animals. Kelly (2001b:4) suggests that this may indicate communal feasting and the ritual use of some bird and mammal species. The bird species, in particular, differentiate this area from any other part of Cahokia or the American Bottom. The Mound 34 faunal collection has more bird species than most Cahokia assemblages—in fact, twice as many species (L. Kelly 2001b). Nearly three-quarters of the bird remains from the 1956 excavations of Mound 34 are waterfowl. While it is typical for waterfowl to dominate Cahokia bird assemblages, the Mound 34 collection has an unusual amount of swan remains; these make up just over 20 percent of the bird assemblage. A high percentage of swan remains, specifically trumpeter swan (Cygnus buccinator), was also recovered from feasting debris in sub–Mound 51. While a single wing element was associated with sub–Mound 51, nearly one-half of the Mound 34 swan remains are wing bones. The Mound 34 bird assemblage also includes nine bird species (great blue heron, swallow-tailed kite, red-shouldered hawk, rough-legged hawk, golden eagle, kestrel, Carolina parakeet, great-horned owl, and ivory-billed woodpecker) that are not reported from any other area of Cahokia. When collections from the Ramey Plaza area (East Stockade, Ramey Tract, James Ramey Mound) are also considered, an additional 16 bird species are unique to this locale (pied-billed grebe, white pelican, common egret, American bittern, Cooper’s hawk, marsh hawk, long billed curlew, woodcock, whimbrel, upland plover, sanderling, barn owl, screech owl, barred owl, short-eared owl, and raven). Very few of these species would have been food items. Rather, the bones, bills, feathers, wings, and even “scalps” from these birds may have been used for ornamentation or as ritual paraphernalia. For example, Lucretia Kelly (2001b:7) points out that ethnographically and “symbolically, woodpeckers with red heads represent war because their heads give the appearance of someone who has been scalped.” In addition, the remains of raptors such as hawks and eagles are concentrated in the Mound 34 assemblage. Raptor imagery in the form of falcon dancers, the forked eye, and the birdman is common warrior symbolism and these SECC motifs may have had more than a symbolic manifestation at Mound 34. Additional fragments of swan bone, as well as bird bone worked into needles and awls, were found during our excavation of Mound 34 (L. Kelly 2000, 2001a). In 1999, we recovered the distal end of a deer femur with black lines painted on it. As this decorated bone is incomplete, the entire design cannot be determined. This find is unique at Cahokia but painted bones from other areas of the United States (e.g., Texas, Oklahoma, Great Basin) are considered “ritual objects, communication devices, or ornamental regalia” (Turpin [1996:263] in L. Kelly 2001b:10). Our excavations of Mound 34 produced a relatively large assemblage of shell artifacts (Kozuch 2000, 2001a). Finished products such as disc beads, a shell hoe,
82
Kelly et al.
and the previously mentioned shell cup fragments were recovered. The majority of the shell assemblage is composed of shell-working debris, unfinished disc beads, and identifiable shell fragments such as columellas. A significant part of Mound 34’s shell assemblage is a stack of shells, designated Feature 10. This cache included six marine shells—two hawk wing conchs (Strombus cf. raninus) laid over four lightning whelks (Busycon sinistrum)—and one valve of a plain pocketbook (Lampsilis cardium) freshwater bivalve beneath one of the lightning whelks in the southwest part of the deposit (Kelly and Brown 2001:25–26; Kozuch 2001b). Similar to a larger shell cache from beneath the Mitchell mortuary mound, some of the whorls of the whelk shells were removed (Howland 1877; Winters 1974). Many of the botanical remains from the 1998–2002 excavations of Mound 34 mound fill are typical of the Moorehead phase agriculturally based economy (Parker 2000, 2001). However, there were significant differences in the botanical contents of generalized mound fill and those associated with unique deposits such as the Feature 3 refuse trench and the ceremonial fires. Corn, the Mississippian staple food, was ubiquitous in all areas of Mound 34, although notably scarce in samples from the ceremonial fires (one fragment) and abundant only in remains from Feature 3. Flotation samples from Feature 3 produced, along with corn, a highly diverse mix of seeds, intact thatching (some blackened but unburned), grass stems, and wood. Wood included oak, hickory, and willow/poplar, as well as small amounts of the two Mississippian specialty woods, red cedar and bald cypress. This association of wood taxa, thatching, and stems strongly suggests burned structural materials. It is particularly significant that two wood types, red cedar and bald cypress, central to Mississippian ceremony were part of the burned building. Seeds from Feature 3 included starchy cultigens but were primarily wild grasses, especially barnyard grass (Echinochloa muricata), as well as panic grass (Panicum ssp.) and others. The seeds of these grasses, while edible, are more likely linked to the proliferation of grass culms and thatching in the Feature 3 deposit. A single tobacco seed was also recovered from this refuse trench. Red cedar and bald cypress did not occur in generalized mound fill but were strongly represented in wood from ceremonial fires and less prominently in Feature 3 and several other sub-mound features. Macrobotanical materials from UMMA’s Test Pit 3, stored at the UMMA, were examined and identified. All of the remains were carbonized and had been collected by hand during the 1950 Mound 34 testing. They consisted primarily of burned wood from various deciduous tree taxa including hickory, white oak subgroup, cottonwood/willow, and elm/hackberry, as well as the two Mississippian specialty woods, eastern red cedar and bald cypress. Other materials consisted of two nodal fragments from stems of giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea) and three maize cob fragments. In addition, one box held a small, fragile section of fiber matting, measuring 2.2 cm long, 2.1 cm wide, and 0.5 cm thick, that had been vitrified by exposure to intense heat.
Mound 34: Early Evidence of the SECC at Cahokia
83
Figure 4.15. Contour map of the Ramey Plaza area.
Discussion Mound 34 lies at the north end of a line of large mounds that form the western edge of the Ramey Plaza (Figure 4.15). Current data suggest that this plaza complex was created during the Moorehead phase. The rebuilt Ramey Plaza moundand-plaza complex is second in size only to the Grand Plaza at Cahokia. The Moorehead phase date for the sub-mound activities and mound construction of Mound 34 is based on John Kelly’s examination of collections from excavations by Moorehead in the 1920s and Perino’s work in the 1940s and 1950s. The salvage excavations of the Schmidt mound (No. 31) in 1959 by Joseph Caldwell produced materials from the mound fill that would minimally place this mound in the Stirling phase, with a late, Sand Prairie phase, cap (Sullivan 1998). The Schmidt mound may have originally been one of the eastern mounds associated with the initial Ramey Plaza and then served as a symbolic element that tied the two plazas together historically. More recent work to the west of Mound 25 and the area around Mound 28 (Koldehoff et al. 2000) reinforces the Moorehead phase context of this whole complex. The Ramey Plaza is a unique cultural landscape. It is relatively large within Cahokia and ranks high with respect to the sizes of other Mississippian mound centers throughout the Mississippian world in the thirteenth and fourteenth
84
Kelly et al.
centuries. Its rapid creation and its relatively short history reinforce its distinctiveness. The Ramey Plaza is one of three major construction events that define Cahokia during the early part of the Moorehead phase and thus expands our understanding of this complex beyond the ceramic sherds used in its definition as a taxonomic unit. The other two major construction events are the creation of the central palisade that defines central Cahokia and the massive capping of many mounds to create monuments dedicated to corporate groups whose roles have been redefined. Trubitt (2000) argues that many of the changes reflect a major shift in the strategy employed by the elite from that of a corporation strategy to that of a network strategy emphasizing individual aggrandizement. The various practices that entered into the construction of this mound-andplaza complex situated on the east side of Cahokia are only beginning to be understood. Mound 34 is certainly the best-documented element in this ritual arena. Although it is by no means the largest in the group, this mound is important both for its position in this landscape and for the manner in which it came into being. If Native American communities are indeed a reflection of the cosmos, then the Ramey Plaza is certainly one as well. Even before Mound 34 was created, the piece of landscape on which it stood was significant. It was a residential area up to and into the beginning of the Moorehead phase before being truncated and the earth carried away to create the other mounds bounding the Ramey Plaza. First, the activities that produced the copperworking evidence must have occurred on this truncated surface. Second, immediately before the initial construction of the mound, a trench, Feature 3, was excavated that was filled with elaborate serving dishes—plates, platters, and bowls. These serving vessels and their accompanying food remains suggest communal feasting. The profuse appearance of bones of specific avian species, especially raptors, points to performance rituals. The connection to SECC art is played out in the blocked-line motif on both surfaces of the rare shell-tempered platter (Brown and Kelly 2000) and in the prominence of raptors in the avian fauna. The ritual contexts of this pit are further implied by the black clay lining to Feature 3 that plausibly invokes rituals associated with the earth diver myth (Hall 1997). Third, the placement of the stack of seven shells (a sacred number among Siouan-speaking peoples; Hall 1989:269–270) near the refuse pit edge and close to the hypothetical centerline of the mound has the ring of a votive offering or at least an ongoing negotiation with the cosmos. The arrangement as a stack within the mouth of the large freshwater mussel shell recalls the process of creation within a multilayered universe (Hall 1997; Reilly 2004). This symbolism fits with the alternating layering of dark and light-colored mound stages that followed the planting of the stack of shells. The placement, arrangement, and selection of molluscan species together simply reinforces the deliberately ritualized aspect to this cache. The subjects deployed on the whelk shell cup surfaces reference either directly
Mound 34: Early Evidence of the SECC at Cahokia
85
or indirectly the basic mythic theme of human regeneration after eventual death (Brown 2004a; Hall 1997). The central figure of Morning Star in this theme is portrayed archaeologically as the birdman and as the spirit Red Horn among the Ho Chunk (Winnebago) of recent times (Brown 2007b; Dieterle 2005; Hall 1989, 1997). The Mississippian period Morning Star is embodied by the falcon and in the use of arrows as a metaphor for human regeneration (Brown and Dye 2006). The presence of raptorial bird remains and numerous finely made arrow points fits the imagery employed to represent Morning Star. Historically, whelk shell cups were often employed in the service of the “black drink,” an important part of ritual purification (Hudson 1979) in many ceremonies including the Creek busk (Fairbanks 1979) and those associated with warfare (Merrill 1979), the ball game (Merrill 1979), and occasionally death. The black drink was generally consumed by males, particularly those of high status (Hudson 1979). The cups, however, may have been made by postmenopausal females (Kozuch 1998). Mound 34 is also proximate to the mortuary mounds defining the northern margins of the Ramey Plaza. Thus death is close. At the northwest corner of the plaza, Mound 34 is aligned with the summer solstice sunset, certainly a harbinger of the setting of the sun. The mound’s position with respect to death was balanced by its position to the west of an opening in the eastern margin of the plaza. As the sun rises in the spring and fall, the large fires that lit the hearths on the mound summit could have provided a source of new life in a daily—and annually—repeated cycle.
Conclusions The archaeology of Mound 34 has an important place in shaping our knowledge concerning the social processes taking place at Cahokia. For example, excavations on two occasions have produced fragments of engraved marine shell cups that conform to the Classic Braden style, a style more completely delineated from the Spiro site collections (Phillips and Brown 1978). Not only is Mound 34 the earliest dated context for cups of this style, but the presence of Braden style imagery at Cahokia documents the appearance of the canonical form of Braden and Braden-like representations more broadly throughout the Eastern Prairies (Brown and Kelly 2000). The accumulated record from Mound 34 at Cahokia stands as both an exemplar of the potential of a nonmortuary record to our understanding of the SECC and a challenge to one of the stated positions with respect to both the age and the format of the SECC. This study emphasizes aspects of Mound 34 archaeology that articulate with some of the SECC’s core attributes, albeit from a nonmortuary context. For one, examples of Classic Braden artwork were recovered from Mound 34. Fragments of burned and shattered marine shell cups engraved in the Classic Braden style were found associated with structures within the mound.
86
Kelly et al.
Large fragments of a ceramic platter decorated in the same style were recovered from a sub-mound refuse pit. Second, a stack of marine shells and a copper-stained surface were found beneath the mound on a scraped and cleaned preparatory surface. These features were separated by a large refuse pit filled with ceramics, animal bone including raptor elements, and other remains that have been connected with feasting. The art style, the ritual use of marine shell and copper in intimate association with feasting, and the disposal of raptorial birds touch on important aspects identified with the SECC. Beaten copper and carved and engraved marine shell are central raw materials used to represent important SECC themes and to materialize key ritual activities. The particular art style found at Mound 34 also characterizes most of the famous SECC objects, including the Rogan plates and one of the two styles found at the Spiro site. The birdman is a central theme represented on these and other copper plates, and the presence of raptorial bone elements constitutes a legitimate extension of this symbolism in bird parts themselves. The record for Mound 34 has even broader implications than simply a tie-in with the content of the SECC. The construction of the initial stage of the mound as a stratiform deposit implies a prolonged accumulation of scattered and broadcast soil rather than a perfunctory deposit of discrete material. Whereas the discrete or “basket load” method fits the conception of a mound as having a foundation on which to erect a sacred or civic structure, the broadcast technique does not since this ritualized action is complete in itself and conceptually divorced from the necessity of being preparatory for anything to follow. This resulting picture provided by the stratiform deposit goes a long way toward integrating the earthmoving activity of mound building into a broader ritualized action connected with feasting on the one hand and the use of SECC symbolism on the other. Instead of segregating SECC art as exotically intrusive, the Mound 34 associations underscore the strong logical connections to more commonplace ritual activities of earth moving and feasting. Mound 34 hints at a complex ritual world of the Mississippian period that has yet to be explored. As James B. Griffin (1952a:105) advised many years ago, the SECC is basically “the artistic expression of the socio-religious pattern of Mississippian culture.” Mound 34 archaeology provides a pleasing reaffirmation of the bridge between art and religious pattern.
Acknowledgments We would like to thank the following institutions, organizations, and individuals who have assisted in the recent investigations at Mound 34. The following provided financial support in the way of grants and funding: Cahokia Mounds Museum Society (1998–2002), the Illinois Association for the Advancement of Archaeology, Illinois Archaeological Society, the Midwest Archaeological Center of the National Park Service, and Southern Illinois University at Edwardsville.
Mound 34: Early Evidence of the SECC at Cahokia
87
The Gilcrease Institute of Tulsa, Oklahoma, the Illinois State Museum, and the University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology and Bender Historical provided access to artifacts, notes, and photographs necessary for understanding the history of investigations at Mound 34. To Dan and Phyllis A. Morse, who have been kind enough to provide us with photos, slides, notes, and memories from 50 years ago, a special thank you. The labor for the current work was the product of students from Washington University’s University College, Dr. Tim Baumann and his students from the University of Missouri at St. Louis (2000), and Dr. James A. Brown and his students from Northwestern University (2000). Volunteers from the Cahokia Archaeological Society, the Cahokia Mounds Museum Society, and Scoutmaster Bill Meister and his many Boy Scouts were instrumental throughout the past eight years of work, and we direct particular gratitude to the hard work of, especially, Larry Kinsella, James Mertz, Robin Machiran, Susanna Bailey, Ronda Sackett, and Henry Holt. Special thanks to the Powell Archaeological Research Center for use of the Fingerhut House and the support of Dr. Mark Esarey, Bill Iseminger, and the Cahokia Mounds State Historic Site staff. This chapter is dedicated to the early efforts and memory of Gregory Perino and Drs. James B. Griffin and Albert Spaulding for the foundation they laid in their investigations. Greg Perino was kind enough to respond to the numerous questions the senior author had.
Note 1. Apparently Patrick maintained notes on the mounds, which his widow had in her possession when Moorehead (1923:43–44) visited her in 1921 or 1922. The present whereabouts of those notes is not known.
5 Shell Gorgets, Time, and the Southeastern Ceremonial Complex in Southeastern Tennessee Lynne P. Sullivan
Engraved marine shell gorgets are one of the most common types of Southeastern Ceremonial Complex (SECC) items found in eastern Tennessee. Their relatively prolific occurrence in this region prompted Madeline Kneberg to develop a typology and chronology that she published in 1959 (Figure 5.1). Much of Kneberg’s seriation was based on the stratigraphic positioning of gorgets in the mound at the Hixon site, near Chattanooga (Lewis et al. 1995). Radiocarbon dating was new at the time of Kneberg’s publication, so she did not have absolute dates for her chronology. Instead, Kneberg correlated the gorgets with the then-presumed span of Mississippian complexes, that is, from a.d. 1000 to a.d. 1750. While it now is accepted that the eighteenth-century date is too late, a recent challenge to Kneberg’s seriation comes from Brain and Phillips (1996), who propose that shell gorgets all postdate a.d. 1400 (see Figure 5.1). This interpretation ignores many of the well-documented developments during the Mississippian period in eastern Tennessee (Kimball 1985; Lewis and Kneberg 1946; Polhemus 1987; Schroedl et al. 1985; Schroedl et al. 1990; Sullivan 1989, 1995) and does not rest on examination of primary data. Since Kneberg’s work, archaeological understanding of the Mississippian period in eastern Tennessee has been refined through new fieldwork, absolute dating, and reworking of older collections. The Hixon site and its sequence of gorgets now can be placed more precisely in time. Important to the Hixon site’s temporal placement are two nearby sites, Davis and Dallas. A number of years ago, Marvin Smith (1988) suggested that the Dallas, Hixon, and Davis sites appeared to represent “a continuum of occupation in a small region.” He observed: “Both Davis and Hixon had Hiwassee Island components, but Hixon appears to have lasted later . . . Hixon was eclipsed by the Dallas site later in the Dallas phase. The priority of Hixon over Dallas is clearly reflected by the shell gorget chronology developed by Kneberg. The presence of southern cult materials, particularly native
Figure 5.1. Kneberg’s 1959 gorget seriation shown with Brain and Phillips’s (1996) proposed dates (after Brain and Phillips 1996:238).
90
Sullivan
copper and a monolithic axe from Hixon suggest the residence of particularly powerful chiefs” (Smith 1988:188). We now can use data other than the gorgets to substantiate Smith’s notion that Davis, Hixon, and Dallas represent a sequence of occupation. Changes in the pottery, architecture, and burial practices are consistent with serial use of these sites between circa a.d. 1100 and 1450. Several radiocarbon dates now are available to support this interpretation. Viewed together, data from these three sites establish the temporal parameters of shell gorgets in the Upper Tennessee Valley. The sequence of use of these sites has much to tell us, not only about the gorgets but also about settlement patterns, population distributions, and sociopolitical developments in this region throughout the Mississippian period. I first will discuss primary data from the three sites in the context of Mississippian period chronology in eastern Tennessee and then turn to broader questions.
The Sites and Their Context The Dallas, Hixon, and Davis sites all were north of present-day Chattanooga on the banks of the Tennessee River (Figure 5.2). Dallas and Davis were about a mile and a half apart on the east side of the river, while Hixon lay between them on the west bank. The three sites were excavated in the 1930s as part of the WPA projects done before flooding of the Tennessee Valley Authority’s Chickamauga Reservoir. The regional chronology established by New Deal–era archaeologists (Lewis and Kneberg 1946) was significantly altered during the 1970s as a result of new work with Hamilton burial mounds (Schroedl 1973, 1978; Schroedl et al. 1990) and through definition of the Martin Farm phase (Schroedl et al. 1985; Schroedl et al. 1990). The temporal context for the chronology also was established via numerous absolute dates, mostly from extensive excavations that were done in the Little Tennessee River valley before flooding of the TVA’s Tellico Reservoir (Lengyel et al. 1999; Polhemus 1987; Schroedl et al. 1990). Hamilton mounds, once thought to be exclusively Late Woodland occurrences, were found by Schroedl (1973, 1978; Schroedl et al. 1990), through radiocarbon assays, to date between a.d. 700 and 1200. This finding solved a major riddle of the WPA-era chronology, namely, where were the burials for Hiwassee Island phase villages? Hamilton now is regarded mainly as a mortuary complex associated with Late Woodland through Early Mississippian time periods. The Martin Farm phase (a.d. 900–1100) also bridges the Woodland and Mississippian periods. Martin Farm ceramics include a blend of the earlier limestone-tempered wares with shell-tempered ones, and in addition to burial mounds, substructure mounds are documented for Martin Farm sites, as are Mississippian style—mainly wall-trench—structures. The succeeding Hiwassee Island phase (a.d. 1100–1300) is characterized by what would be regarded as a full complement of Mississippian attributes: pre-
Figure 5.2. Location of the Davis (40HA2), Hixon (40HA3), Dallas (40HA1), and selected other sites along the Tennessee River before flooding of the TVA’s Chickamauga Reservoir. Inset shows relationship of detailed river segment to present-day Chattanooga.
92
Sullivan
dominantly shell-tempered pottery, including globular jars with loop handles, and a very small amount of decorated pottery, including red slipping, incising, and effigy modeling. While these pottery attributes begin at this time, they cannot be considered exclusively “diagnostic” because they also occur later. Hiwassee Island buildings mostly are wall-trench structures, but single-post construction also was used. By the end of the phase, burial practices had changed from use of burial mounds to pit burials with interments in a flexed position. The late Mississippian Dallas phase dates from a.d. 1300 to 1600 (Kimball 1985; Lengyel et al. 1999; Polhemus 1987; Schroedl et al. 1990). During this time, strap handles on pottery became more predominate than loops, and the amount of decorated pottery increased. Incising and effigy modeling became most frequent after a.d. 1400. Wall trenches virtually disappeared except as doorways for singlepost structures, and burials were mostly primary inhumations in pits both in substructure mounds and in village contexts. A separate late Mississippian/protohist oric complex, the Mouse Creek phase along the lower Hiwassee River, has similar attributes except that the majority of burials are extended rather than flexed, and there is considerably less cord-marked pottery than in Dallas assemblages (Lewis et al. 1995; Sullivan 1986, 1987, 1995). The currently accepted chronology thus divides the Mississippian period into the Martin Farm, Hiwassee Island, and Dallas plus Mouse Creek phases. There are readily recognizable changes in pottery, architecture, and burial practices throughout the Mississippian period. General trends in pottery attributes are from predominately limestone tempered to shell tempered, from loop handles to strap handles, and toward an increasing amount of decorative treatments that include incising, effigy modeling, lugs, nodes, and appliqué fillets. Trends in architecture and in burial practices are from wall-trench to single-post construction buildings and from accretional burial mounds to pit burials. These changes occur over a period of 600 years, between the tenth and the beginning of the sixteenth centuries. As I discuss the Davis, Hixon, and Dallas sites, I will highlight the evidence for their placements within this chronology. The Davis Site (40HA2) The Davis site is the earliest in the sequence. This site included one large platform mound and several acres of adjacent midden (Figure 5.3). The midden averaged nearly a foot in depth, but only a small area of this midden was excavated by the WPA crew and it produced little evidence of an associated village. The patterns of two very small structures were found just north of the mound. These, a few scattered pits, and one burial make up the “village” features. The ceramics from Davis are consistent with an Early Mississippian context. Of the 6,601 sherds, 5,237 (79 percent) are limestone tempered; 300 (5 percent) are sand tempered, and 1,064 (16 percent) are shell tempered. The sand-tempered and some limestone-tempered sherds are attributable to a Woodland component prec-
Shell Gorgets, Time, and the SECC in Southeastern Tennessee
93
Figure 5.3. Plan of the Davis site showing the location of the mound (Unit 6) in relation to the WPA excavations in the “village” area (Unit 4). Features 8 and 11 are the patterns of very small buildings. The three stippled areas are pit features (from Lewis et al. 1995:Figure 25.3). Courtesy of the University of Tennessee Press.
edent to the mound, as is evidenced by stamped wares and conoidal, footed vessels. Others, including those with incised designs and from globular jars, suggest a Martin Farm component also underlay the mound. Of the 14 shell-tempered handles from the site, 12 are loops and only two are straps. Very little decoration is present on the shell-tempered pottery. Decorations include three each Hiwassee red-filmed and complicated-stamped sherds, four sherds with appliqué fillets, and three blank-faced hooded bottles (Lewis et al. 1995:Table 25.4). Wall-trench structures occur throughout the Davis mound, which also is consistent with an Early Mississippian time frame. The mound began as two small platforms of unequal height (Figure 5.4). Architectural remains on these levels were not well preserved, and thin deposits of sand covering the summits suggest a period of abandonment. Wood charcoal from a hearth just above the primary mound level yielded a calibrated radiocarbon age of a.d. 1160 (Table 5.1), corresponding with the early portion of the Hiwassee Island phase. The second construction stage united the two platforms into a single large mound, topped by a very large circular building of wall-trench construction on the north end. Two rectangular buildings subsequently were erected on the mound’s southern end. These may have been contemporary with the rotunda. The larger building was of wall-trench construction, and the smaller of single-post but small-pole construction. Another poorly preserved rotunda superimposed the larger rectangular building. These rotundas are similar to structures on Mound A at the Hiwassee Island site (40MG31). No burials are associated with any mound construction stage, and only one
94
Sullivan
Figure 5.4. North–south profile of the mound at the Davis site showing the initial two platforms (“primary” and “secondary”) and subsequent filling and capping of these to form a single mound (“tertiary” and “quaternary”). Feature 10 is a large rotunda and Feature 11 is a large rectangular building (from Lewis et al. 1995:Figure 25.4). Courtesy of the University of Tennessee Press.
was found in the limited excavations of the surrounding midden. This absence is consistent with use of the Davis mound before the thirteenth century when burial (Hamilton) mounds were used. Seven burials were placed in the Davis site mound subsequent to its last use as a structure platform. These burials were devoid of artifacts except for one celt each with two adults and nearly 1,000 shell beads with one juvenile. Other than beads, the range of shell artifacts from Davis is quite limited. Nine knobbed pins and two mask gorgets were recovered from undifferentiated midden deposits, as were nine shell hoes and scrapers. Working in nearby north Georgia, Hally (1996) found that the average use life of a platform mound summit is about 15 to 20 years. Using the dated layer in the mound as a reference and allowing the same time span for the periods of apparent abandonment, we can estimate that mound construction at the Davis site occurred from about a.d. 1120 to 1200, the early part of the Hiwassee Island phase. The pottery, architecture, and lack of inclusive mound burials all are consistent with the radiometric date. The burials that intrude the mound obviously belong to a later occupation, but the associated artifacts are not diagnostic. The two gorgets, both masks, found at the site are not associated with mound use and cannot be placed in a temporal context based on their provenience. Other SECC items are absent from this site. The Hixon Site (40HA3) The next site in the sequence is Hixon. It also included one platform mound and, like Davis, showed little evidence of a village (Figure 5.5). Two palisade lines were
b
B-127867
B-128660
B-128375
B-127866
Lab #
540 ± 60 b.p.
560 ± 30 b.p.
810 ± 50 b.p.
900 ± 50 b.p.
Conventional Range a (2 sigma)
a.d. 1300–1450
a.d. 1310–1360 a.d. 1385–1425
a.d. 1155–1285
a.d. 1020–1250
Cal. Date (2 sigma)
b
M. Stuiver et al. 1998. Dendrochronology Sample 35; Feature 14 was a clay-lined hearth just above the primary mound. c Burial 1HA49 cover. d Dendrochronology Sample 720; Burial 8HA118 cover. e Dendrochronology Sample 44; part of Feature 7, a burned structure.
a
Feature 4
e
Village Stratum 2
Dallas
Dallas
Mound Floor O
Hixon
d
Mound Feature 14
Davis
c
Provenience
Site
Table 5.1. Radiocarbon Dates from the Davis, Hixon, and Dallas Sites
95%
95%
95%
95%
Probability
a.d. 1410
a.d. 1405
a.d. 1235
a.d. 1160
Intercept
Wood charcoal
Wood
Wood
Wood charcoal
Material
96
Sullivan
present and a few structures were discovered adjacent to the mound, but these very small buildings do not appear to be dwellings. The site was situated next to the Tennessee River and overbank erosion may have obliterated the village deposits. The excavators reported the presence of erosional gullies and that relic hunters were attracted to the site because of exposed burials on the surface. The ceramic assemblage at Hixon fits with a later Hiwassee Island through early Dallas phase context. In regard to tempering, the pottery from Hixon is the reverse of the Davis site: of 6,696 sherds, 835 (12 percent) are limestone tempered, 5,798 (87 percent) are shell tempered, and 63 (1 percent) are sand tempered or grit tempered. The shell-tempered assemblage is much more diverse than the Davis assemblage in terms of decoration and vessel forms. Lugs, nodes, appliqués, and notches are common embellishments, and there are 12 incised, punctated, or effigy modeled sherds— decorations (other than the hooded bottles) that did not occur on the shell-tempered pottery at Davis. Contrary to a statement made by Brain and Phillips (1996), there are 10 red-filmed sherds, one red-on-buff vessel, and nine red-on-buff sherds from Hixon. There also are three negative-painted vessels and one sherd. As at Davis, loop handles predominate, with 25 of the 32 recovered handles being loops rather than straps (Lewis et al. 1995:Table 24.5). Architecture in the Hixon mound shows a transition from wall-trench to single-post construction. Precedent to the mound was a complex of four buildings, all rectangular and of wall-trench construction and surrounded by one of the palisades. The mound itself included many discrete floors identified in each of four major construction stages (Figure 5.6). The lowest stage was called Level C by the excavators and Level B2 by Kneberg. This level supported three walltrench structures: a very large, rectangular building with a raised clay platform, and two smaller, square buildings. The elevations of these buildings all are different, indicating either that the mound had terraces at this point in time or that the buildings were not contemporary. Three superimposed, similar-sized buildings were discovered in the next construction stage, called B or B1. The largest of these was a wall-trench structure. Below it was a single-post structure. The third building was a wall-trench structure that contained two superimposed prepared floors. Above this stage, the mound fill was severely eroded and was covered with a thin layer of sand, indicating an episode of abandonment. All buildings above this level were of single-post construction. The architecture thus also is consistent with a transition from the Hiwassee Island to the Dallas phase. The stratigraphic relationships of the buildings in the upper levels are complex and it is not possible to determine with confidence whether any of the buildings were contemporary. A ramp led to the mound summit during these two latest stages, the lower of which is called level A2 and the higher A1. The mound summit was disturbed by plowing, but evidence remained of a single structure with a circular hearth. Burials were found throughout the mound, although some later interments
Figure 5.5. Plan of the Hixon site showing the location of the mound (Unit 1) in relation to the WPA excavations in the “village” area (Units 2 and 3). The patterns of two palisade lines, several small rectangular buildings (Features 11, 12, 14, and 31), and one circular building (Feature 13) are shown (from Lewis et al. 1995:Figure 24.3). Courtesy of the University of Tennessee Press.
Figure 5.6. Composite profile of the mound at the Hixon site showing the main mound stages and various identified floors within these stages. Features 46, 69, and 76 are rectangular, wall-trench buildings (from Lewis et al. 1995:Figure 24.6). Courtesy of the University of Tennessee Press.
Shell Gorgets, Time, and the SECC in Southeastern Tennessee
99
probably were made into the side slopes of earlier constructions, and the graves of four historic period infants, in coffins with iron nails and brass hardware, intruded the mound summit. The consistent co-occurrence of numerous burials with small-pole and wall-trench structures in the lower levels of the Hixon mound argues for dating of these levels to the thirteenth century, the latter portion of the Hiwassee Island phase. This is the time period when the use of burial mounds ceased but is before single-post (as opposed to the smaller diameter pole) structures became the norm. Burials in the upper mound levels occurred within and next to single-post buildings typical of the Dallas phase. The sand layer between construction stages B and A2 appears to represent a period of disuse at the juncture of these two phases. The shell gorgets in Kneberg’s (1959) seriation all were associated with mound burials. In reviewing the original records, I discovered errors in her assignment of burials to stratigraphic contexts. These mistakes are not surprising since the Hixon mound was excavated using vertical slicing rather than the horizontal stripping techniques later used at the Hiwassee Island mound. As a result, vertical proveniences often are difficult to interpret. The corrected arrangement is shown in Figure 5.7. The corrections do not substantively change her seriation. A radiocarbon assay on a wooden grave covering from Burial 49 interred in Floor O of mound stage B1 does, however, contradict notions of the gorgets all dating post– a.d. 1400. This wood sample yielded a calibrated date of a.d. 1235 (Table 5.1) placing this mound level squarely in the Hiwassee Island phase. Burial 95, also interred in Floor O, contained an engraved shell gorget with a turkey cock motif. This association links the Hixon mound gorget sequence to absolute time. Using this date as a reference and Hally’s estimated 15- to 20-year use span of mound summits, we can estimate the duration of mound construction. Thus, counting down from Floor O, construction of the Hixon mound began just before a.d. 1200. Counting up and allowing for the probably brief period of abandonment, we can estimate that mound construction ceased in the mid-fourteenth century. These estimates are consistent with the pottery assemblage and the architecture that point to a late Hiwassee Island through early Dallas phase context for the Hixon mound and its sequence of gorgets. Other SECC objects in the Hixon mound, including numerous copper items, shell cups, and a monolithic axe also can be fit into this time frame. Copper artifacts are found beginning in Level B2, Floor R through just below Level A1, Floor H. The monolithic axe also is provenienced to just below Level A1, Floor H. Shell cups originate from Level A1, Floors G and I, Level B1, Floors L and P, Level B2, Floor R, and the premound Level C. The Dallas Site (40HA1) The Dallas site, the type-site for the Dallas phase, represents the only clear evidence of a nucleated settlement enclosed by a palisade in this cluster of sites
Figure 5.7. Corrected sequence of gorgets in the Hixon mound in relation to the radiometric and extrapolated beginning and ending dates for the mound’s construction (after Brain and Phillips 1996:238).
Shell Gorgets, Time, and the SECC in Southeastern Tennessee
101
(Figure 5.8). Two Dallas occupations of differing times and duration were identified in an area of stratified deposits near the mound. Stratum 1, the plow zone, and the underlying undisturbed layer, Stratum 2, contained the remains of the later occupation, while Stratum 3, the lowest deposit, contained the earlier. WPA workers assigned structures and some burials to these separate occupations. The mound, palisade, and majority of the village structures were associated with the later occupation. Nearly all of the buildings assigned to this last occupation were burned, suggesting that the village burned and was abandoned. Pottery from the Dallas site includes 26,779 sherds, of which the vast majority (20,577 or 77 percent) are shell tempered and make up the most varied assemblage in terms of decoration and vessel form of the three sites. Numerous incised and effigy modeled motifs are present, as are fillets, notches, nodes, punctates, and an assortment of lugs. The assemblage also includes 11 red-filmed sherds and one vessel, two red-on-buff sherds, and two negative-painted bottles. Strap handles number 116, with only 24 loop handles. Limestone-tempered sherds make up 23 percent (n = 6,192) of the Dallas site assemblage and the 10 grit-tempered sherds less than 1 percent (Lewis et al. 1995:Table 23.11). No wall-trench structures were found at the Dallas site. The mound sequence at Dallas begins with only one building, precedent to the first mound level. Two elaborate, superimposed building patterns were found in the mound. The most complete had an embankment around the walls, a raised clay bench with evidence of partitions and entranceways, and a central puddled clay hearth (Figure 5.9). A third structure with a raised clay bench was discovered in the south-central portion of the site near the riverbank. This structure apparently was an early feature of the site, as it lay under two other buildings. Most structures at the site were of the single-post variety, and two of 25 had discernible house basins. A charcoal sample from the burned superstructure of a dwelling in Stratum 2, House 7-7, yielded a calibrated date of a.d. 1410 (Table 5.1). This building at the north end of the village was one that burned at the end of the village’s occupation. Twenty-eight of the 290 excavated burials were in the mound; the rest were in the village. Another radiocarbon assay, on wood from a grave cover for a burial, produced a calibrated date of a.d. 1405 (Table 5.1). This burial also was inclusive in Stratum 2, the later occupation of the site. Shell gorgets were associated with several burials at the Dallas site. Six burials with gorgets can be assigned to the later occupation and two to the earlier (Figure 5.10). The dated burned structure and the grave cover provide an early fifteenth-century context for the later occupation, so presumably the earlier occupation dates to the late fourteenth century, as the architecture does not indicate a lengthy time differential. The later gorget styles include triskeles, masks, rattlesnakes, and “spaghetti” figures. The earlier styles are circular crosses and triskeles, corresponding to the upper levels of the Hixon mound. The Dallas site occupa-
Figure 5.8. Plan of the Dallas site showing the location of the mound (Unit 8) in relation to the WPA excavations in the village area (Unit 7). The patterns of the palisade line and numerous single-post, square buildings with central hearths (both circular and square) are shown, as are the locations of numerous clay hearths for which associated building patterns could not be discerned (from Lewis et al. 1995:Figure 23.3). Courtesy of the University of Tennessee Press.
Shell Gorgets, Time, and the SECC in Southeastern Tennessee
103
Figure 5.9. Remains of House 14-8 in the mound at the Dallas site (from Lewis et al. 1995: Figure 23.8). Courtesy of the University of Tennessee Press. Photograph in the collections of the Frank H. McClung Museum, photograph no. Ha1(a).
tion thus can be bracketed between a.d. 1350 and 1450, squarely in the phase that bears its name.
Temporal Context of the SECC in Southeastern Tennessee The sequence of major use of the Davis, Hixon, and Dallas sites is thus as follows: Davis, a.d. 1100–1200; Hixon, a.d. 1200–1350; and Dallas, a.d. 1350–1450. These date ranges imply that the three mounds were not used simultaneously as building substructures, but I do not mean to suggest that these three sites were used continuously throughout the proposed periods of use. In fact, there is some evidence for periods of disuse in the mound stratigraphy at both Davis and Hixon. The occupations associated with gorgets at these sites are concentrated in the thirteenth through early fifteenth centuries. Kneberg’s (1959) suggested time span for the gorget sequence certainly is too long, but the late twelfth/early thirteenth– century beginning date that fits the archaeological contexts of these artifacts is much earlier than the fifteenth-century date proposed by Brain and Phillips (1996). The dating I suggest is based on stratigraphic contexts, is consistent with well-documented changes in pottery, architecture, and burial practices during the Mississippian period in the Upper Tennessee Valley, and is supported by absolute dates. The early fifteenth-century radiometric dating for the later occupation at
Figure 5.10. Stratigraphic relationships of shell gorgets from the Dallas site.
Shell Gorgets, Time, and the SECC in Southeastern Tennessee
105
Dallas is slightly earlier than the mid-fifteenth-century date Muller (1997b:370– 378) suggests for the scalloped triskele and Lick Creek style rattlesnake gorgets that are associated with this occupation. The sequence of use of the Davis, Hixon, and Dallas sites also brackets the SECC. The Davis site has no gorgets or SECC artifacts associated with the mound; it predates these items. In contrast, the Hixon mound contains many SECC items, including copper headdresses and copper-covered ear plugs, a monolithic axe, and shell cups, as well as the large number of gorgets. This site obviously was occupied at the height of use of such objects. Far fewer SECC objects were found at the Dallas site than at Hixon. This site postdates the bulk of these materials. The sequence of these three sites thus demonstrates that in eastern Tennessee, dating for the majority of SECC objects is between a.d. 1200 and 1400, corresponding to the use span of the Hixon mound.
Regional Trends and Relationships The sequence of the Davis, Hixon, and Dallas sites also shows us a pattern of shifts in centers of power and population in the Chickamauga area throughout late prehistory. Developments at these sites cannot, of course, be viewed in isolation from other sites in the region. The Woodland–Mississippian transition in eastern Tennessee is characterized by Schroedl et al. (1990) as a period of semisedentary populations who used a combination of burial and platform mounds, while developing economies more dependent upon maize horticulture and more complex social systems to manage the resulting economic demands. The large buildings on the Davis mound summits indicate use of the site for public functions, and many activities obviously took place around the mound, as evidenced by the extensive midden. A large resident population is not indicated at Davis since the village tests produced no evidence of residential buildings, but this absence is not incongruent with a model of sociopolitical change and fluid settlement patterns as suggested by Schroedl et al. (1990). Episodes of mound abandonment also are compatible with such a model. The Davis site likely represents a local ceremonial center associated with a dispersed population. Small Hiwassee Island settlements, including farmsteads (Chapman 1990) and villages without platform mounds (Sullivan 1989), are known throughout the region, and there are numerous Hamilton burial mounds in the Davis site vicinity (Lewis et al. 1995). A pattern of small community centers associated with very localized populations and loosely integrated polities may characterize this early period. Some centers seem to have expanded at the expense of others, perhaps due to competition among leaders. For example, the Hiwassee Island site, 20 miles upriver, began attracting a large resident population at this time (Lewis and Kneberg 1946), while the Davis site fell into disuse. By a.d. 1200, a number of local centers were well established and burial
106
Sullivan
mounds were no longer used. Sites with relatively large populations and impressive platform mounds are known for this time, as exemplified by the Hiwassee Island site. Smaller villages without mounds also are known, as are farmsteads. It is at this time that the Hixon site comes into the picture. Even before the platform mound was built at Hixon, there was a public structure with resident officials or attendants, and these buildings were protected or screened by a palisade. Dramatic changes in mortuary practices incorporated richly accompanied individuals buried in the substructure mound with SECC regalia. Hixon became a dominant site in the Chickamauga Basin during the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. One or more well-integrated polities existed in the Chickamauga Basin at this time, each including a local center with resident elites and outlying sites. The now destroyed Citico site (Hatch 1976b), 15 miles downriver, may represent another such center. By the time Hixon declined and the Dallas site was occupied, there were yet more organizational changes. The amount and variety of SECC artifacts decreased, and before the Hixon mound was abandoned, there was a shift to only one building on the mound summit. This pattern continued at Dallas and may represent either a scaling back to more localized, village leadership or a consolidation of power. In either case, perhaps unrest between rival villages led to the eventual burning of the Dallas site. SECC items are part of much broader patterns of long-term societal developments within southeastern Tennessee and relate to interactions of this area with surrounding regions. The elaborate artifacts of the SECC also are only a small part of the even more elaborate and complex archaeological record that we must use, carefully and critically, to understand these long-term cultural developments. As we begin to dissect the sequences of other mound sites and clusters in the Upper Tennessee Valley, perhaps we will find similar patterns of use, abandonment, and organizational shifts. And, as chronologies are unraveled for other parts of the Southeast, perhaps we will be able to see trends and patterns in broad-enough perspective to understand the development of the SECC and fathom its origins and significance.
6 Mound C and the Southeastern Ceremonial Complex in the History of the Etowah Site Adam King
As discussed in the introduction to this volume, the publication in 1996 of Shell Gorgets: Styles of the Late Prehistoric and Protohistoric Southeast by Brain and Phillips renewed an old debate as to the dating of the creation and use of Southeastern Ceremonial Complex (SECC) materials and iconography. The initial notion of the Southern Cult, most clearly articulated by Waring and Holder (1945), was that it was a religious cult that swept quickly across the Southeast late in the prehistoric or even early historic period. As more SECC material was unearthed, the contexts of use and creation became more clearly understood, and as radiocarbon dating came into wider use it became clear that the bulk of the SECC material was made and used between the thirteenth and fifteenth centuries. This placement of the SECC largely as a Middle Mississippian period phenomenon has been widely accepted for decades (Brown 1976a; Muller 1989). However, there have been some notable holdouts (Larson 1993; Williams and Brain 1983) that argue that the original conception is closer to the actual dating. The arguments put forth in Shell Gorgets represent by far the most extensive and farreaching articulation of this perspective. In it Brain and Phillips draw on objects and excavation data from sites across the Midwest and Southeast to make their case. One of the linchpins in this case is the Etowah site (Figure 6.1) and its amazing record of SECC materials found in elite burial contexts in Mound C. One of the criticisms laid at the feet of Brain and Phillips is that they used primary excavation data from a wide variety of sites but with little input from the people who know those data best—the original excavators and others intimately familiar with them. This was not the case with Etowah, as it is clear that many of Larson’s interpretations were consulted. However, the work I have done recently indicates that a more thorough look at the archaeology of Etowah’s Mound C leads to conclusions different from those reached by Brain and Phillips, both on the dating of the SECC and on interpretations about burial activities in Etowah’s Mound C. In this chapter, I will
108
King
Figure 6.1. Plan map of the Etowah site.
review my reconstruction of the burial and construction sequence of Etowah’s Mound C and discuss its implications for understanding the internal chronology of the mound. I then discuss the dating of Mound C construction and mortuary activities as revealed by radiocarbon dating. Finally, I place the dating of Mound C into the larger history of Etowah and explore what the mound and its contents can tell us about Etowah’s ascent to regional prominence.
Construction and Burial Sequence of Mound C If it seems odd that there might be disagreements over the construction and burial record of Mound C, a brief consideration of the mound’s excavation history will explain why. Mound C was completely excavated over the course of three separate investigations spanning the period from 1884 to 1961. The first of these was conducted by John P. Rogan while working as an agent of Cyrus Thomas in 1884. According to Brain and Phillips (1996), Rogan’s excavations focused on a small area on the summit of Mound C about 9 m in diameter and reached about 3 m below the summit surface. Rogan’s field methods were quite unsystematic by cur-
Mound C and the SECC in the History of the Etowah Site
109
rent standards. Only a very general description exists of the excavation, and only slightly more detailed discussions of the 11 burials found are available. The second investigation of Mound C took place between 1925 and 1927, when Warren K. Moorehead (Brain and Phillips 1996; Moorehead, ed. 1932) conducted more extensive excavations on Mound C. Moorehead also concentrated largely on the summits of the mound, although he excavated a portion of the mound flank and base on the southeastern corner as well. Some 110 additional burials were recorded by Moorehead’s crews. The final set of excavations was conducted by Lewis H. Larson, Jr., who began in 1954 on the remnant left by Moorehead. Those investigations continued until 1961 (Brain and Phillips 1996; King 1996; Larson 1971, 1989, 1993). Since Rogan and Moorehead had removed almost all of the mound summits, Larson’s excavations focused on the remaining flanks. To the surprise of many, Larson’s crews recorded an additional 244 burials, mostly ringing individual mound stages along the margins and base of the mound. Larson’s recording and recovery techniques were by far the best of the three investigators. Despite the quality of the work done by Larson, it has proven difficult to combine the results of the three excavations. This is largely because of the varying quality of the recording and recovery techniques used by the early excavators. As a result, no full description of the burial and construction history of Mound C has been published. Both Larson (1971) and Brain and Phillips (1996) have offered brief reconstructions of the Mound C sequence, but neither effort was intended to be a systematic and complete description of that sequence. My recent work (King 1996, 2003) builds on those efforts and draws extensively on Larson’s unpublished notes and maps. There is yet room for more work and differing interpretations, but nonetheless what follows is a more complete picture of Mound C than heretofore has been offered. The inhabitants of Etowah built Mound C in seven construction stages. With the exception of the final stage, each construction effort had burials placed into its flanks, its summit, or along its margins, and it appears that the majority also were surrounded by palisade lines. What follows is a description of the sequence of events that resulted in the final configuration of Mound C. As supporting evidence, I have included four profiles and a single plan map drawn during Larson’s excavations. For reasons that are not clear, the plan map, which is actually a composite of individual plans drawn over several seasons, appears to be incomplete and does not always agree with the details in the profiles. The first construction stage was created by the piling up of a small sand and clay “mound,” which was then covered by a larger clay stratum with sand inclusions. According to the excavators, these fills were mixed with midden debris, presumably from other parts of the Etowah site. Although Moorehead’s excavations had removed the summits of Mound C, even down to the earliest stage, Lar-
110
King
Figure 6.2. The 1956 profile, west side of Mound C.
son’s crews did record what appeared to be part of a wall trench on a small portion of the first summit that had escaped disturbance (Larson 1971). This piece of evidence suggests that the builders of Mound C placed a structure on its first summit. Figure 6.2 contains three profiles and a plan map from a trench excavated into the western side of Mound C in 1956. In prior seasons, higher construction stages had been removed, so this figure contains details only about Stages 1 through 3. All of the strata visible in the profile belong to Stages 2 and 3, but Burials 71 and 72 and Palisades 1–3 originate below the strata of Stages 2 and 3, indicating their association with Stage 1. Apparently, areas along the periphery and possibly the flanks of the first construction stage were used as a repository for graves. In addition, these burials and the associated mound were enclosed by a series of three wall-trench palisade lines (wall trenches 1–3 in Figure 6.2). Data from several profiles suggest that the soils of Stage 1 eventually were covered by a layer of sand, followed by a stratum of clay (dark brown in Figure 6.2) representing the fills of Stage 2. Like Stage 1, Stage 2 was surrounded by a pali-
Mound C and the SECC in the History of the Etowah Site
111
sade line (wall trench 3 in Figure 6.2) and was used as a repository for elite burials (Burials 69 and 70 in Figure 6.2). Because Moorehead removed any evidence of the summit associated with Stage 2, it is impossible to know whether it also supported a structure. Larson’s notes do indicate that his crews found evidence for a ramp that had been built along the eastern side of Mound C as part of this construction stage. After the passage of some amount of time, the clay of Stage 2 was covered by two successive strata (brown lensed and heavily lensed grey in Figure 6.2), which represent the construction effort associated with Stage 3. At the base of this new stage the builders erected a new palisade, and, although not shown in Figure 6.2, again the new surface was used as the final resting place for honored dead. As with Stage 2, it is impossible to know whether the summit of Stage 3 supported buildings. Sometime after the construction of the palisade at the base of Stage 3, a new set of construction and mortuary activities (Stage 4) took place on the northern side of Mound C. The inhabitants of the site placed a log tomb (Burial 57) near the center of the northern flank of the mound just over a meter outside of the existing palisade (Figures 6.3 and 6.4). This feature is unique, not only because of its location along the outer margins of the mound but also because its form, a log-lined pit, is new to Mound C. In this log tomb excavators found the remains of an individual accompanied by an array of grave goods reminiscent of those found by Rogan on the summit of the mound. The list of burial goods includes a shell gorget, eight conch shell cups, five or six embossed copper plates, two copper celts, a pair of copper-covered ear discs, a copper bead, and numerous shell beads. According to Larson’s field notes, the individual was buried wearing a headdress composed of copper ornaments, a garment embroidered with pearls, a feather robe, and a collar of shell beads. Over this tomb the mound builders piled clay, creating a small, rectangular terrace (shaded area over Burial 57 in Figure 6.3). This new addition to the mound was incorporated into the existing palisade line by the construction of a singleset post line on the northern side of the mound (Figure 6.4). Subsequently another log tomb, Burial 47, was excavated through this palisade line, and another palisade line, this time made in a wall trench, was erected to accommodate Burial 47. Finally, a large, shallow burial pit (unnumbered burial in Figure 6.4) was dug through this wall-trench palisade, and in it was placed the remains of seven people. At the time of its excavation, the bone was so poorly preserved that Larson (1971:64) described it as appearing to be a “thin layer of paper mache.” Eventually more clay was added to this terrace, creating an even larger terrace that entombed the mass grave and Burials 57 and 47. After Stage 4 was added, the mound builders erected a larger, rectangular wall-trench palisade that enclosed the entire mound (cane wall in Figure 6.4,
Figure 6.3. Mound C profile showing Burials 57 and 38.
Mound C and the SECC in the History of the Etowah Site
113
Figure 6.4. Partial Mound C plan map (adapted from Larson 1971:60).
wall trench in Figure 6.5). According to Larson’s notes, this palisade, unlike the earlier ones, had a narrow and shallow trench that was filled with hundreds of small poles or cane, creating a fence around the mound. Larson discovered that this trench and the small postholes were not filled with washed materials from the mound surface, as might be expected if it had been in place for a period of time. Instead these were filled and covered with the soils of the final construction stages of Mound C. This prompted Larson to suggest that the rectangular fence around the mound had not been in use long and in fact may have been some kind of screen whose function was to obscure activities associated with the building of the final construction stages.
Figure 6.5. Mound C profile showing stratigraphy of Stages 5, 6, and 7.
Mound C and the SECC in the History of the Etowah Site
115
Work began on Stage 5 with the addition of a layer of sand to much of the mound surface (alternatively yellow, orange, grey, or light). Over this stratum, the builders placed a layer of dark red or brown clay (Figure 6.5), representing the fill of Stage 5. As before, burials were placed into the flanks of this mound stage and, although it is not clear given available evidence, a single-set post palisade may have also surrounded it. Sometime after this palisade was erected, the builders placed a large log tomb burial (Burial 38) just to the north of it (see Figures 6.3 and 6.4). In this tomb were the remains of five individuals, each accompanied by a copper celt and a pair of copper-covered ear discs. Four of the individuals were buried wearing elaborate headdresses composed of small sheet copper ornaments, hawk skins, and feathers (Larson 1971). The fifth person apparently had no headdress but was accompanied by a scalloped and engraved stone palette and a shell gorget. Over this multiple burial the builders piled yellow clay to a height of one and a half meters (Stage 6), effectively creating another small mound extension or terrace just to the north of Stage 4 (the smaller hatched area over Burial 38 in Figure 6.3). This new terrace was enclosed with a single-set post palisade line (Figure 6.4), which, although it is unclear, may have encircled the entire mound. This same clay stratum was also placed along the lower margins of the rest of the mound (see Figure 6.5), extending as much as one and a half meters up the slope. Eventually, the terrace over Burial 38 and other burials along the base of the mound were again covered by a new construction effort (Stage 7), this time consisting of dark red and/or grey clay (Figure 6.5). After this addition, the entire mound was once again surrounded by a single-set palisade line (Figure 6.4). As with earlier stages, the summits of Stages 5, 6, and 7 had been completely removed before Larson began his excavations, so it is unclear whether each supported a structure. The ramp on the mound’s eastern side does appear to have been retained and augmented during these construction stages. Sometime after the final mantles of clay were deposited, a unique set of mortuary activities took place at Mound C. On the eastern side of the mound at the base of the ramp the inhabitants of the site placed a large log tomb (Burial 15). This burial contained the famous painted marble statues. Also included in the tomb were parts of the dismembered remains of four individuals. In addition to the scattered skeletal material the pit also contained stone and clay pipe bowls, shell beads, copper-covered ear discs, antler projectile points, and fragments of sheet copper hair ornaments. As Larson (1971:65) described it, “The floor of the tomb presented a picture of complete disarray. The stone effigies were broken, apparently accidentally, as a consequence of dropping one upon the other as they were being placed in the tomb. The other objects and parts of bodies were scattered over the floor of the tomb without any obvious design.” Stratigraphically just above Burial 15, and, according to Larson (1971), probably just shortly after it was completed, Burial 1 was deposited. Burial 1 was ac-
116
King
tually a midden-like smear of human bone and other objects that extended down part of the ramp of Mound C and covered Burial 15. Among the objects found in this deposit were a stone palette, shell beads, copper-covered ear discs, a pipe bowl fragment, antler projectile points, pieces of ceramic vessels, and whelk and oyster shell. As in Burial 15, the human remains in Burial 1 consisted of scattered portions of at least four individuals, possibly even the same people that were represented in Burial 15. The deposition of Burial 1 marks the end of the mortuary and construction activities carried out at Mound C.
Phase Assignments for Mound C Construction Stages There is little debate that it appears all of Mound C was likely constructed over the course of a century or less. There also is no debate that most of the locally produced diagnostic ceramic vessels buried with individuals in Mound C can be assigned to the Wilbanks phase of the Etowah River valley (Brain and Phillips 1996; King 1996). At about the same time that Brain and Phillips were publishing their volume, I was developing a revised ceramic sequence for the Etowah site that includes the subdivision of the Wilbanks phase into Early and Late Wilbanks phases (Table 6.1). When the distribution of diagnostic ceramic types and decorative attributes is examined in sherd collections made by Larson’s stratigraphic excavations, it is possible to assign individual construction stages to particular ceramic phases in the local sequence. Table 6.2 contains a list of the Mound C fill contexts from which ceramic samples were drawn for analysis. Although I did not examine all of the pottery collections recovered during the Mound C excavations, I did attempt to include multiple collections from each of the mound’s burial and construction phases. Although some collections could be associated with individual construction stages, most included pottery from more than one stage. Table 6.2 also contains frequencies of sherds from the ceramic periods represented in each context. The final two columns indicate the presence of Late Etowah and Late Wilbanks phase diagnostics. Most of the collections recovered from mound stratigraphy are small. Therefore, it was possible to identify the presence of Etowah, Savannah (Wilbanks), or Lamar period pottery, but unless specific diagnostics were present, it was not always possible to distinguish between Early and Late Etowah or Wilbanks phase collections. Those strata below the mound and within the lowest layers of the mound did contain large enough sherd collections to determine that they date to the Early Etowah phase (King 1996:81–86). In fact, the midden used to construct the first stage of the mound is also Early Etowah phase. Therefore, I assume that, in the absence of Late Etowah diagnostics, all Etowah period pottery from these mound contexts dates to the Early Etowah phase. Similarly, in the absence of Late Wil-
Mound C and the SECC in the History of the Etowah Site
117
Table 6.1. Etowah Site Phase Sequence Date
Period
Regional Period Designation
Phase
a.d. 1475–1550
Late Mississippian
Lamar
Brewster
a.d. 1375–1475
Late Mississippian
Lamar
Unoccupied
a.d. 1325–1375
Middle Mississippian
Savannah
Late Wilbanks
a.d. 1250–1325
Middle Mississippian
Savannah
Early Wilbanks
a.d. 1200–1250
Middle Mississippian
Savannah
Unoccupied
a.d. 1100–1200
Early Mississippian
Etowah
Late Etowah
a.d. 1000–1100
Early Mississippian
Etowah
Early Etowah
banks diagnostics, I assume that all Wilbanks contexts date to the Early Wilbanks phase. It is important to remember that soils used to build the mound could have come from anywhere on the site or elsewhere and could contain pottery from contexts that are contemporary with or earlier than the construction phase itself. I expect that some pottery contemporary with the use of individual stages eventually accumulated to some degree on the slopes of exposed surfaces and at the base of the mound. However, except in areas on the summit or on slopes where trash was regularly dumped, I do not expect that accumulation to be very dense. Therefore, an exposed mound surface and its associated construction fill could contain a collection of earlier pottery only or could be a collection that consists primarily of earlier types but also contains a small minority of contemporary sherds. Given this, I assume that if enough collections are examined, sherds that are contemporary with each construction effort will be identified. As Table 6.2 shows, all of the pottery from pre-mound levels belongs to the Etowah period. The lack of Late Etowah phase diagnostics indicates that the deposits immediately underlying Mound C date to the Early Etowah phase. The collections from Stage 1 are almost entirely Etowah period also, but they do contain Late Etowah phase diagnostic sherds. In addition, a very small number of Wilbanks sherds were recovered, suggesting that Stage 1 dates to one of the Wilbanks phases. The collections from Stages 2 through 4 also contain a mix of Etowah and Wilbanks sherds, although the latter are more common than in Stage 1 collections. As with Stage 1, the presence of the Wilbanks pottery argues for an Early or Late Wilbanks phase assignment for Stages 2–4. Since Late Wilbanks diagnostics do not appear until Stage 4 (a Late Wilbanks phase rim), Stages 1, 2, and 3 were probably built during the Early Wilbanks phase and Stage 4 was constructed during the Late Wilbanks phase.
118
King
Table 6.2. Ceramic Collections from Selected Mound C Strata Stage Pre-mound
% Etowah 100
% Wilbanks
% Lamar
Total Sherds
Late Etowah
0
0
100
0.5
0
625
Yes
93
7
0
391
Yes
40
60
0
15
2
89
11
0
474
Yes
2-3
64
36
0
841
Yes
3
51
49
0
150
Yes
0
100
0
5
1
99.5
1-2 1-3
3-4 4
24
76
0
185
5
41
47
12
17
6
0
100
0
2
7
30
60
10
113
5-7
34
58
8
1,581
Late Wilbanks
Yes Yes Yes Yes
Yes
The collections from Stages 5 through 7 contain a mix of Etowah, Wilbanks, and, in some cases, Lamar pottery. Wilbanks sherds are the most common and Late Wilbanks diagnostics appear fairly regularly. The presence of the Lamar period sherds in these fills suggests that the associated stages may date to the Brewster phase. Instead of containing Brewster phase pots, however, those burials with ceramic vessels that were assigned to Stages 5–7 contain only Wilbanks diagnostics (see Brain and Phillips 1996; King 1996). In addition, one of those burials had a vessel form (tall neck jar) that is found in the Late Wilbanks phase. These data argue for a Late Wilbanks phase assignment for Stages 5–7.
The Dating of Mound C Construction and Use As noted above, there is no debate about the fact that Mound C was built and used entirely during the Wilbanks phases. What is debated, however, is the exact dating of those phases. David Hally has long argued, mainly on the basis of regional patterns of ceramic decorative change and a limited number of radiocarbon assays, that the Wilbanks phases belong to the Middle Mississippian period and date to circa a.d. 1300 (Hally and Langford 1988; Hally and Rudolph 1986). Using the form and decorative style of some nonceramic artifacts found associated with Wilbanks pottery in Etowah’s Mound C, authors like Larson (1993) and Brain and
Mound C and the SECC in the History of the Etowah Site
119
Phillips (1996) have argued for dates approaching the sixteenth century. Following the standard practice of American archaeologists, I have attempted to resolve this disagreement through radiocarbon dating. Recent Dates from Mound B Contexts Table 6.3 presents a series of four dates I obtained on carbon samples from Kelly’s excavations on the west side of Mound B (King 2001a). The first date in the series was obtained on soot removed from the surface of an Early Wilbanks sherd recovered from a midden associated with a rectangular building (Structure 1) excavated by Kelly. The remaining three dates were obtained from samples recovered from two features (Features 64A and 64B) excavated by Kelly on a small platform, called the Orange Layer, adjacent to Mound B. These features contained very dense concentrations of charred botanicals, especially corncobs (see Bonhage-Freund 2005 for a complete species list). My analysis of pottery from Kelly’s excavations indicates that his Orange Layer was positioned in the middle of the Wilbanks deposits next to Mound B. Beneath the Orange Layer only Early Wilbanks phase pottery was recovered, while the middens found on and above it contained only Late Wilbanks phase pottery. Logically, Features 64A and 64B were probably made sometime during the Late Wilbanks phase and possibly near the beginning of the phase. Clearly the date obtained from the Early Wilbanks sherd is too early and the sample may have been contaminated with older carbon either while still part of the archaeological record or while in the curated collection. The three dates from the Late Wilbanks contexts span the late thirteen through early fifteenth century. According to the chi-square test included in the CALIB 4.3 package, the dates from Features 64A and 64B can be treated, with a 95-percent confidence level, as samples taken from the same population. Therefore, they can be averaged to create a more accurate estimate of the true date. That average falls within the middle of the fourteenth century. As I have discussed elsewhere (King 1997, 2001a:74, 2003:149–151), I use these dates to place the Late Wilbanks phase between a.d. 1325 and 1375. Keeping in mind the absence of any evidence for an early Savannah period occupation at Etowah or in the Etowah Valley (Hally and Langford 1988; King 1996, 2001a; Southerlin 1993), I argue that the Early Wilbanks phase dates between approximately a.d. 1250 and 1325. The Mound C Radiocarbon Series With these more recent dates in mind, I would like to turn to a consideration of the older dates obtained by Larson from his Mound C excavations (Table 6.4).
a
Structure 1
Feature 64A
Feature 64A
Feature 64B
Features 64A&B
Beta-145488
Beta-67942
Beta-67943
Beta-67944
Average
Charred corn
Wood charcoal
Charred corn
Soot
Material
Estimated correction factor from Stuiver and Polach 1977.
Provenience
Lab Code
340
680
480
1540
C yrs b.p.
14
Table 6.3. Radiocarbon Dates from Wilbanks Contexts
50
70
70
50
STD
1322–1422 1297–1395
1304, 1367, 1384
1276–1393
1244–1299
430–597
1 STD
1403
1296
–11.6
–25 ± 2.5 a
1282
536
Intercept (Cal) a.d.
–9.3
–24.4
Correction
1286–1405
1298–1439
1214–1418
1164–1395
410–637
2 STD
Mound C and the SECC in the History of the Etowah Site
121
At first glance, it appears that the Mound C radiocarbon series has little to offer in the way of information about the dating of Mound C. Because the dates were obtained early in the history of the radiocarbon dating method, their standard deviations effectively span the entire Mississippian period. However, by paying some attention to context and correcting, calibrating, and averaging those dates it is possible to narrow that range down to a more interpretable level. Beginning with a consideration of context, one of the seven dates (M-1064) can be excluded for my purposes here because it was not run on a sample from Mound C. Feature 19 was a large midden-filled pit not unlike Kelly’s saucers that was recorded by Larson beneath Mound C. Pottery collections from the feature show that it dates to the Early Etowah phase (King 1996:280). Using my reconstruction of the Mound C construction history, the rest of the dates obtained by Larson were run on samples from Late Wilbanks phase contexts. When the relative stratigraphic position of the features dated is compared to the dates returned, it becomes apparent that there is little internal integrity to those dates. For example, Burial 57 is the earliest of the contexts and it returned one of the earliest and one of the latest dates. Similarly, Burials 38, 155, and 164 are all roughly contemporary, but the dates from two of the three are over a hundred years earlier. Given these problems, it may be best to consider these dates as a series drawn from the same general context and ignore the details of their relative placement in Mound C. When this series is tested for statistically significant differences (chi-square test, 95-percent confidence), none are found. This indicates that all of the dates can be treated as probabilistic estimates of the same population parameter and therefore can be averaged to produce a more precise estimate of that parameter. When calibrated, that average returns a result that falls in the middle of the thirteenth century and overlaps nicely with the date range of the Wilbanks phases determined by the more recent Mound B dates. Although the total number of dates is comparatively small, the consistency between the Mound B and Mound C series clearly presents a strong argument for placing the Wilbanks phase and the construction of Mound C in the period from a.d. 1250 to 1375. It is worthy of note that this is consistent with the current dating of the Middle Mississippian period and the SECC across the rest of the Southeast.
Some Observations of Chronological Significance In addition to presenting a different perspective on the overall dating of Mound C, my more recent work also leads to some specific interpretations about the chronological placement of particular artifact and burial types that run counter to ideas put forth by Brain and Phillips. These have important implications for understanding the internal chronology of Mound C and the broader chronology
Mixed
Charcoal
Charred wood
Charcoal
Charred vegetal
Shell beads
Wood
Wood
Material
850
450
670
225
500
910
725
C yrs b.p.
14
150
200
200
150
250
200
200
STD
–25 ± 2.5
–25 ± 2.5
–25 ± 2.5
–10 ± 2
0±2
–20 ± 2
–20 ± 2
Correction
a
1324, 1350, 1389
1212
1441
1297
1437
1438
1023
1225, 1226, 1243
Intercept (Cal) a.d.
1293–1416
1020–1292
1300–1654
1164–1437
1315–1634
1261–1662
783–1260
1020–1392
1 STD
1266–1444
889–1410
1192–1953
982–1648
1265–1947
1005–1950
654–1397
781–1469
2 STD
b
Correction factors estimated using Stuiver and Polach 1977. Reservoir correction factor –5 ± 20 from Stuiver and Braziunas 1993. c Average of corrected dates, calibrated using mixed marine and atmospheric data set, assuming 16.7% marine carbon with a reservoir correction factor –5 ± 20 from Stuiver and Braziunas 1993.
a
M-1064
Mound C
Feature 19
M-1062
Average
Burial 164
M-1061
c
Mantle 2
Burial 155
M-1060
Burial 57
Burial 57
M-542
b
Burial 38
M-402
M-543
Provenience
Lab Code
Table 6.4. Mound C Radiocarbon Series
Mound C and the SECC in the History of the Etowah Site
123
of the SECC. Understanding the issues at hand hinges on some key differences in the ways Brain and Phillips grouped burials in Mound C. In his classic article, Larson (1971) divided the burials he had excavated around the flanks of the mound into Final Mantle and Pre-final Mantle groupings. When Larson’s plan map is viewed (Figure 6.6), it is easy to see how these distinctions were derived. The outer ring of burials equates with the former and the inner ring with the latter. Based on my examination of pottery from construction fills, Larson’s Final Mantle burials belong to Stages 5–7 and date to the Late Wilbanks phase. The Pre-final Mantle burials belong to Stages 1–3 and date to the Early Wilbanks phase. Things get messy, however, when the burials excavated by Rogan and Moorehead are added to the picture (Figure 6.7). Remember that all of Rogan’s burials and most of Moorehead’s were excavated from Mound C summits. In their treatment of Mound C, Brain and Phillips (1996:166) attempted to unite Larson’s map with the work done by Rogan and Moorehead. Because of the recording methods used by the latter two excavators, this was not a simple task and their results are not without problems (see King 2005). The difficulties really begin when one attempts to assign the summit burials to one of Larson’s two groupings. This is because Rogan and Moorehead left behind little stratigraphic information, making it difficult to connect individual burials to specific strata uncovered by Larson. Citing the generally high numbers of elaborate artifacts in the summit burials, Brain and Phillips (1996:168) argued that most of those summit burials probably were contemporary with Larson’s Final Mantle or the Late Wilbanks construction stages of the mound. Building on this initial inference, Brain and Phillips then generate a whole series of arguments concerning chronological relationships between artifacts and burials within Mound C. There are several reasons to believe that this initial inference is not correct, making the arguments based on it suspect as well. First, on stratigraphic grounds, it seems more likely that the summit burials belong entirely to the Pre-final Mantle or Early Wilbanks phase grouping. Those burials were encountered by both Rogan and Moorehead at least 3 to 4 m below the final summit surface. On the basis of the stratigraphic record uncovered by Larson, it appears that the building effort associated with Stages 5–7 expanded the mound laterally more than vertically, so the likelihood that the final construction stage added 3 to 4 m to the mound’s height is low. Therefore, if the summit burials date to the Late Wilbanks phase, then they were consistently excavated through at least 3 m of fill. While such deeply placed burials are not unheard of, it strikes me that creating the complex arrangements of human remains, burial artifacts, and limestone slabs would have been made excessively difficult at such depths. Perhaps more compelling evidence that the summit burials date to the Early Wilbanks phase comes from burial form. When Larson’s burials, which ring the flanks of the mound only, are considered alone a pattern in burial form emerges.
Figure 6.6. Plan map of Mound C features excavated by Larson (after King 2005).
Figure 6.7. Composite feature map from all Mound C excavations (after King 2005).
126
King
In the Early Wilbanks phase (Pre-final Mantle) ring of burials, graves take the form of either simple pits or stone slab–lined pits. In the Late Wilbanks phase (Final Mantle) ring of burials, graves are either simple pits or log lined. Although Brain and Phillips (1996:168) chose to dismiss this as a true chronological distinction, I take it as a fairly clear indication that the stone slab burials are a form found only in the Early Wilbanks phase and that log-lined pits replace them in the Late Wilbanks phase. On the summit of the mound, both Rogan and Moorehead encountered numerous stone-lined graves but none that were log lined. This seems to constitute a reasonable case that the burials placed into the summits of Mound C date to the Early Wilbanks phase. This inference directly undermines efforts made by Brain and Phillips to assign artifact types and gorget “styles”1 to construction phases of the mound. Most important, it changes the phase assignments for the gorget types on which Brain and Phillips’s arguments are based. When the distribution of shell gorgets is considered using the chronological assignment outlined above, it becomes apparent that all but four of the 33 gorgets found in the mound were buried in Early Wilbanks graves (King 2005). Two of the four exhibited the anthropomorphic theme in the Hightower style (Big Toco to Brain and Phillips) and one was done in the Cartersville style (Muller 1989), while the fourth was an excised cross theme of an unassigned style (Younge style to Brain and Phillips). In making the case that Mound C and the SECC goods found in it date closer to the coming of de Soto than most archaeologists think, Brain and Phillips (1996:172) use particular gorgets to imply a close chronological link between Mound C and de Soto period deposits in village areas at the site. They do this by first citing the recovery in the village area east of Mound A of a Hightower style gorget with an anthropomorphic theme (their Big Toco style). This gorget style is the most common in Mound C burials. While there is clearly a de Soto period occupation of the village area east of Mound A, there are also just as clearly components dating to the Late Etowah through Late Wilbanks phases (King 1996). Not so conveniently, the gorget in question was not excavated from a controlled context by an archaeologist but instead is in the possession of a local collector who reports that it was found east of Mound A. Without the means to assign the gorget to a phase directly, it seems more parsimonious to assume that it was found in a context contemporary with the gorgets recovered from Mound C—the Early Wilbanks phase—than to place it in a de Soto period context. As further evidence of the chronological closeness of Mound C and the Brewster phase (de Soto period) village, Brain and Phillips cite the recovery of rattlesnake theme gorgets both in the east village deposits and in Mound C contexts. The gorgets cited as coming from the de Soto period village were recovered by Moorehead and span the range of the rattlesnake theme from the fairly simple Lick Creek to the more complex Citico styles defined by Muller (1966b). The provenience information on the two gorgets reportedly from Mound C is much
Mound C and the SECC in the History of the Etowah Site
127
cloudier. One is part of the same collection referenced above and reportedly was found near Mound C after a flood. Moorehead (ed. 1932) confirms that floods throughout the latter part of the nineteenth century washed burial artifacts from Mound C, so it is possible that this gorget actually washed from a Mound C context. However, Moorehead also found de Soto period village deposits west of Mound C, on the downriver side of the mound, that were likely also impacted by the flooding. The second gorget cited is part of a collection housed at the Smithsonian Institution’s Museum Support Center and attributed to Dr. Roland Steiner. Steiner was an amateur archaeologist who acquired a collection of Etowah site artifacts in the late 1880s to early 1890s and donated them to the U.S. National Museum in the late 1890s (King 1996:76). The gorget in question is attributed to a provenience labeled “Excavation no. 2 grave, Md. C.” This label implies that the gorget was recovered from a burial excavated at Mound C. In the publication of his work at Etowah, Moorehead (1932:78) was adamant that Steiner had never dug at Etowah but rather purchased his Etowah collection from the site’s owner. Interestingly, the other artifacts reportedly found in this same grave included a stone blade, copper, and a palette—just the kinds of material that might be expected from a Mound C burial. No other Lick Creek style gorgets were found in any Mound C contexts at Etowah, and throughout eastern Tennessee the Lick Creek style is found in contexts that postdate the use of artifact forms like the long, exquisitely made blades and copper-laden headdresses found at Etowah (Muller 1989). Without it being absolutely clear that the gorget came from a closed Mound C context that included the other artifacts mentioned above, it seems risky at best to imply that the artifacts in the set are chronologically linked. Mound C is an extremely complex creation and there is still a great deal to be learned about its internal chronology. However, new observations about the mound’s construction history and the placement of burials within it make it clear that many of the internal chronological distinctions made by Brain and Phillips are suspect at best. In addition it seems apparent that their implication of a chronological overlap between Mound C and the Brewster phase village at Etowah should also be viewed with suspicion. The argument supporting their suggestion suffers from two flaws. First, it ignores the presence of Early and Late Wilbanks phase components in the east village and a Brewster phase occupation west of Mound C. Second, it asks the reader to rely on a small number of artifacts from questionable proveniences to overturn chronological distinctions made on a preponderance of evidence.
A Brief Construction History of Mound C On the basis of the above discussions, it is possible not just to reconstruct the burial and construction sequence of Mound C but also to place it firmly in time.
128
King
Construction began on Mound C during the Early Wilbanks phase (a.d. 1250– 1325), when sand and clay, intermixed with Early Etowah (a.d. 1000–1100) midden, were used to create Stage 1. After this stage was completed, burials were placed at its base and into its flanks and summit, a building was placed on its summit, and the entire feature was surrounded by a wall-trench palisade that was rebuilt three times. Construction continued during the Early Wilbanks phase with the completion of Stages 2 and 3. In both cases, as had occurred in Stage 1, a new covering was placed on the mound, it was used as a repository for the dead, and it was surrounded by a palisade line. During the Early Wilbanks phase, it seems apparent that the dead were placed either in simple pits or in graves lined with stone slabs. The impressive burials recorded by Rogan and most of those later documented by Moorehead were placed into the summits of the first three stages of Mound C. The inner ring of burials recorded by Larson at the base of the mound also dates to this phase. It is no doubt meaningful that all but two of the shell gorgets recovered from Mound C were found in these Early Wilbanks phase burials. Stage 4 was the first to be constructed during the Late Wilbanks phase, and it consisted of a small terrace placed along the northern flank of the mound. Unlike any previous construction effort, Stage 4 was apparently built to cover four burials, including the elaborate Burial 57. Construction continued during the Late Wilbanks with the addition of Stages 5, 6, and 7. Following the familiar pattern, each stage had mortuary activities associated with it and each was enclosed within a palisade line. Stage 6, like Stage 4, consisted of a small terrace constructed to cover a particularly elaborate burial (Burial 38). During the Late Wilbanks phase, it appears that some changes took place both in the choices of burial form and in their location within the mound. Summit burials were abandoned and possibly replaced by the location of particularly elaborate graves under small lobes on the north side of Mound C. The rest of the Late Wilbanks graves were recorded in the single ring surrounding the last stages of the mound. Larson uncovered most of these, but Moorehead excavated several on the southeastern corner of Mound C as well. In addition, loglined pits replaced the stone-lined graves of the Early Wilbanks. Very few shell gorgets were found in these Late Wilbanks burials, but they did contain most of the stone blades and all of the stone and copper celts and stone palettes recovered from the mound. After Stage 7 was completed, but still during the Late Wilbanks phase, a unique set of mortuary activities took place at Mound C. The first of these was the placement of Burial 15 at the base of Mound C’s ramp. This burial contained a pair of marble statues that had been broken during interment, along with incomplete remains of several people and a variety of burial items that had been scattered on the floor of the pit. Just above this burial and continuing up the ramp was a scat-
Mound C and the SECC in the History of the Etowah Site
129
ter of human remains and elaborate burial items that Larson identified as Burial 1. With the placement of Burial 1, all mortuary and construction activities ceased at Mound C. A few Brewster phase sherds were recovered from the upper levels of Mound C’s construction fills, however, indicating that the inhabitants of the site did visit the mound area during the sixteenth century.
Mound C and the History of Etowah Despite the efforts of Brain and Phillips to argue that Mound C was built and used after the fourteenth century, the preponderance of evidence clearly points to a construction history spanning the end of the thirteenth to the latter decades of the fourteenth century. As I have argued elsewhere (King 2001b, 2003), this is an important time in the history of Etowah as a chiefdom center, and the appearance of SECC materials at the site says some very interesting things about Etowah and its rise to regional prominence. Etowah first became a chiefdom capital around a.d. 1000. At that time, Etowah was a relatively modest site with one and possibly two small mounds flanking a small plaza adjacent to a residential zone. While the site and its two mounds grew in the succeeding centuries, the site remained comparatively modest and existed as one of three simple chiefdom capitals in the Etowah River valley. Sometime after a.d. 1200 Etowah and its surroundings were abandoned. The reasons for this remain to be determined, but this abandonment was not longlived. By a.d. 1250–1300 people had returned to Etowah. With its reoccupation during the Early Wilbanks phase, Etowah experienced an explosion of monumental construction. Available evidence suggests that most of the 19-m-tall Mound A was built during this phase, while Mound B was nearly tripled in size as well. Most important, construction began on Mound C as the first three stages were built. Associated with the Early Wilbanks stages of Mound C excavators found a variety of materials associated with the SECC, including the famous Rogan copper plates executed in the Classic Braden style and the Hightower style engraved shell gorgets. As people returned to the Etowah site in the Early Wilbanks phase, they also returned to the Etowah Valley. The mound construction that began at Etowah was mirrored in its immediate vicinity by the appearance of as many as five singlemound sites within a few kilometers of the site. Clearly Etowah had quickly become a center of population and power. Through the fourteenth century, Etowah’s ascent continued. During the Late Wilbanks phase, labor efforts shifted from building big mounds to formalizing the Etowah site layout and creating fortifications. While final stages were added to Mounds A, B, and C, builders at Etowah converted a large residential zone east
130
King
of Mound A into a clay-paved plaza. They also connected a series of borrow pits with a wide ditch that encircled the site and had a substantial palisade with bastions on its inner edge (Larson 1972). As described above, SECC items and honored dead continued to be buried in Mound C. Essentially, with the reoccupation of Etowah during the Early Wilbanks phase, the people who returned to the site created a new chiefdom, complete with a social ranking system and material symbols reflecting that ranking structure. This reoccupation brought with it fundamental changes in Etowah society. The appearance of Mound C and the interment of SECC goods with many of its occupants clearly show that ranking systems became more defined and overtly materialized. I (King 2003) have argued also that ranking systems and decision making became more centered on individuals, in contrast to the more communal cast of Etowah society in previous periods. This change is illustrated through architecture, mortuary treatment, and symbolism. Before a.d. 1250 across northern Georgia there is little to no use of material symbols as indicators of individual ranking. In addition, large buildings appear that likely hosted group ritual and decision making at sites like Etowah (King 2003; Larson 1971), Hiwassee Island (Lewis and Kneberg 1946), and Dallas (Nash et al. 1995). By the Early Wilbanks phase (a.d. 1250–1325), there is ample evidence that nonlocal and elaborate symbols were used as markers of elevated social position. Although a large public building (Kelly’s Structure 3, see King 2001a) designed for group actions was present adjacent to Etowah’s Mound B, it was placed on a mound summit extension and enclosed within a small palisade wall, suggesting that the public functions it hosted had become less public. By the Late Wilbanks phase, this building was replaced by one (Kelly’s Structure 4) whose public space was even smaller and less clearly designed for group functions (King 2001a). During this same period, symbolism in the region goes through some important changes as well. Before a.d. 1200, there is not a great deal of representational art to be found. The themes present include various centering motifs such as the cross-in-circle. By a.d. 1200, the Hightower gorget style (see Muller 1989) appears in the region, and its primary theme is the turkey cock. Lankford (1987, 2004) has argued that this theme depicts a general conception of the three realms of the Mississippian cosmos viewed from the side. Both themes appeal to universal concepts like the structure of the cosmos and people’s place in it. After a.d. 1250, new themes enter the region, with the most common one being the birdman. The birdman first appears on copper plates found buried in a small number of Early Wilbanks phase burials in Mound C. At about the same time that the birdman copper plates appear at Etowah, the engravers of the Hightower style begin making gorgets depicting the birdman theme as well. Brown (2004a, 2007b; Brown and Kelly 2000) has made the case that the birdman is connected
Mound C and the SECC in the History of the Etowah Site
131
thematically to a supernatural recorded among Siouan speakers of the upper Midwest known as Morning Star, He-Who-Wears-Human-Heads-As-Earrings, or Red Horn. In the various narratives including this individual, he reveals himself to be a great warrior associated with the Above or Sky World who fights battles in supernatural realms on behalf of people. He also is associated with the power of reincarnation and generally with the triumph of life over death and day over night. Unlike the dominant themes of the pre-1250 era, the birdman and associated symbols (bilobed arrow, falcon imagery, arrow and mace symbol badges) appeal to the history and power of an individual and therefore mark a shift to individualistic themes in the symbolism of northern Georgia. These shifts in the nature of Mississippian chiefdoms were ushered in by the people who reestablished Etowah. As I have argued elsewhere, it seems clear that the birdman served as a supernatural charter for that new social order. Interestingly, that charter and the decorative style that carried it to Etowah are foreign to northern Georgia and, for that matter, the interior Southeast. The earliest examples of the birdman at Etowah, the famous copper plates recovered by Rogan, are decorated in the Classic Braden style, whose place of origin is the American Bottom and likely Cahokia (see Brown 2004a, this volume; Brown and Kelly 2000). Not only are those plates executed in a foreign style, but, according to the Braden style chronology (Brown 2004a, this volume; Brown and Kelly 2000), they were antiques by the time they were buried in Mound C. This leads to the tantalizing and somewhat controversial inference that foreign and ancient narratives and ritual themes chartered the ideological underpinnings of the polity centered at Etowah when it was at its most powerful. Those same foreign beliefs, when introduced into northern Georgia, helped to transform the political and social landscape of the region. This, of course, leads to other interesting questions. How did the Classic Braden plates and the ideology they inspired get to Etowah? Was it just plates that traveled or did people come with them? Brown (2004a:119) has weighed in on these questions, arguing, “This appearance of Midwestern iconography in the South is too selective to be the product of ordinary trade. [The objects] suggest the appearance of a specific cult, because these precious objects contain too much power to be treated as objects of ordinary trade.” He (Brown 2004a:120) further cites the prominent role that the cult bringer plays in Muskogean narratives (see also Waring 1968a), ultimately suggesting that people brought the birdman to Etowah from Cahokia. In raising the cult bringer as the mechanism that brought the birdman out of Cahokia, Brown takes us full circle in the interpretation of the origins and spread of Mississippian and the SECC. Some of the earliest ideas on how the Southern Cult and Mississippian culture spread from their points of origin rely on just such a mechanism. The data and interpretations that lead us to similar inferences now
132
King
are much more robust and the interpretations we can make now are much more complex and nuanced. Regardless, it is once again appropriate to consider the role of Cahokia, America’s first great chiefdom, in developments throughout the Mississippian world.
Conclusions As Waring and Holder (1945) recognized long ago, the assemblage recovered from Etowah’s Mound C holds many keys to understanding the SECC generally. Given the diversity of artifact forms and artistic styles found in Mound C, dating its construction and use goes a long way toward placing key artifact forms and styles of the SECC in time. Despite the efforts of Brain and Phillips to argue that Mound C was built and used after the fourteenth century, the preponderance of evidence clearly points to a construction history spanning the end of the thirteenth to the latter decades of the fourteenth century. Given that Mound C is a sealed context without the problem of later intrusions, the logical extension of the dating of Mound C is that the SECC-related material such as the Classic Braden style copper plates and Hightower style gorgets were made before the end of the fourteenth century as well. When viewed within the context of the history of Etowah as a political center, the dating of Mound C places its construction at a pivotal time in the site’s history. Mound C was constructed entirely during the Early and Late Wilbanks phases (a.d. 1250–1375). This represents a reoccupation of the site after a brief period of abandonment and is the time when Etowah made its quick ascent to regional political dominance. With the reoccupation and rise to power came fundamental changes in the way ranking was structured and materialized and decisions were made in the Etowah polity. It seems apparent that the birdman theme executed in the Classic Braden style represented a supernatural charter for this new social order. Most interestingly, the theme and the associated style were both ancient and foreign to Etowah and likely came out of the American Bottom before a.d. 1200.
Acknowledgments Thanks to Lew Larson for opening his office and his files to me and for sharing the Mound C data that form the basis for this study. The radiocarbon dates reported were funded by the Savannah River Archaeological Research Program of the South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology. I owe a special debt of thanks to George Wingard and Farrah Brown for their hard work and flexibility in drafting the figures.
Mound C and the SECC in the History of the Etowah Site
133
Note 1. As noted in the introduction to this volume, Muller (1997a) argues that the styles identified by Brain and Phillips are actually thematic types and not styles defined on the basis of a systematic study of the rules governing the representation of images. As a result, where possible I cite the styles defined by Muller (1966b, 1989) and Phillips and Brown (1978).
7 Connections Between the Etowah and Lake Jackson Chiefdoms Patterns in the Iconographic and Material Evidence John F. Scarry The society whose political center was the Etowah site was one of the largest and arguably one of the most complex and influential of the Mississippian polities of the lower Southeast. The Etowah site itself is among the largest of Mississippian political centers on a number of important scales (viz. Payne 1994a). In size, it exceeds the vast majority of Mississippian centers (Payne 1994a). It is large in terms of numbers of mounds and the volume of those earthworks. Certainly, the big mound at Etowah was unsurpassed outside the American Bottom. The extent of habitation and the density of domestic debris also place Etowah among the larger Mississippian centers. Finally, the polity that included the Etowah site was also large, although not inordinately so in its geographic extent (Hally 1993). The Etowah polity included a number of subordinate centers and residential sites (Hally 1991; King 2001b, 2003; Southerlin 1990). This hierarchical settlement pattern points to a multitiered political hierarchy and associated complexity: to a complex chiefdom (sensu Wright 1984). Not only was the local area structured in a fashion that was more complex (in a hierarchical sense) than that seen in most Mississippian polities, but some have suggested that the political sway of the leaders of Etowah extended beyond the limits of the Etowah River valley to encompass groups in other valleys. Thus, Adam King (and others) has suggested that the Etowah site was not just the political center of a complex chiefdom but that at least some of the rulers of Etowah were paramount chiefs who had influence over the chiefs of other groups (King 1999). The rulers and other elites of the Etowah chiefdom were wealthy in material terms. Excavations at Etowah by John Rogan (Thomas 1894), Warren Moorehead (1925, 1927, 1932; Moorehead, ed. 1932), and Lewis Larson (Kelly and Larson 1957; King 1991, 1996, 2001a; Larson 1954, 1971, 1989) have demonstrated that the elites of Etowah possessed material things that were not available to commoners in their society and that they possessed some of those things in great quantities, even when compared to the elites of other Mississippian chiefdoms. Many
Connections Between the Etowah and Lake Jackson Chiefdoms
135
of these things were manufactured of raw materials obtained from considerable distances outside the bounds of the Etowah chiefdom (e.g., marine shell, galena, and possibly copper). Many of them also required significant investments of labor in their manufacture (e.g., repoussé copper plates, shell beads, and engraved shell gorgets). To the extent that rarity, difficulty in procurement, and labor contribute to value, we could argue that these things represented wealth. The presence of many exotic artifacts (or artifacts manufactured of exotic raw materials) at Etowah provides evidence that the elites of that place had connections that extended beyond the limits of their domain. In fact, these artifacts and similar things found at other Mississippian centers well removed from Etowah point to interactions between local elites and the rulers of other Mississippian chiefdoms. I would suggest that the evidence also points to the influence of the rulers of Etowah on the elites of other societies. Much of the evidence of elite interactions recovered from the Etowah site consists of artifacts that form the material corpus of what has been variously termed the Southern Cult or the Southeastern Ceremonial Complex (SECC) (Brown 1976a, 1997; Galloway 1989; Waring and Holder 1945). These include engraved shell gorgets, repoussé copper plates, and repoussé copper ornaments and headdresses found in widely scattered Mississippian centers across the Eastern Woodlands. They also include symbolic weapons of chipped and ground stone or copper. The SECC (and the artifacts and iconography that form its material expression) has been viewed in a number of different ways. Traditionally, we have seen it as, at least in part, a material reflection of the belief systems and religious rituals of the Mississippian peoples (Hall 1989; Knight 1981, 1986). We have also looked at the artifacts as items involved in exchange networks linking the elites of various Mississippian societies (Brown 1976a; Muller 1989). More recently, archaeologists have viewed the complex as discursive practice linked to the construction of elite identities and Mississippian social structure (Scarry 1999; Scarry and Maxham 2002). In truth, I suspect that, as Jon Muller (1989:26) has argued, it was all of these and more and that what it was varied from time to time and place to place in the prehistoric Southeast. While most of the evidence of intersocietal interaction recovered from Etowah points to links between the political elite of Etowah and foreign nobility, we also see evidence of interaction in less glamorous forms such as ceramic tobacco pipes and stone axes. It is important to recognize that the elaborate material symbols associated with interactions between political elites are not the only evidence of interaction seen at Etowah, nor are links among political elites the only forms of interaction that could have affected the people of Etowah. The significance of other linkages, especially those that may have involved commoners, should not be overlooked. Shared material culture (both symbolically charged items associated with elites
136
Scarry
Figure 7.1. Etowah and Lake Jackson in the Mississippian Southeast.
and quotidian items associated with nonelite members of society) provides the direct evidence of social linkages between people in different societies. Analyses of the artifacts and their contexts, associated iconography, and broad-scale patterns in their distribution can tell us much about those linkages. However, consideration of things that were not shared and where there were and where there were not linkages is also essential for any real understanding of the social dynamics of the Mississippian societies.
Evidence of Linkages Between Etowah and Lake Jackson The Lake Jackson phase chiefdom in northwest Florida, the forerunner of the historic period Apalachee, was one of the societies linked to the Etowah polity (Payne and Scarry 1998; Scarry 1990a, 1990b, 1992, 1994, 1996) (Figure 7.1). In fact, some of the clearest evidence for interactions of the Etowah elites with members of other chiefdoms is seen in materials recovered from the Lake Jackson site, the political center of the Lake Jackson phase polity ( Jones 1982, 1994; Payne 1994b). The evidence of this interaction consists not of general stylistic resemblances in material goods found at the two sites but of shared material symbols with complex, detailed iconographic similarities. There are even artifacts from the two sites that were, in all likelihood, made by the same individual (Leader 1988a, 1988b). Most of the artifacts that indicate the existence of links between the Etowah and the Lake Jackson polities were things recovered from graves in Mound C at Etowah and in Mound 3 at Lake Jackson. These include a variety of display goods:
Connections Between the Etowah and Lake Jackson Chiefdoms
137
plain and repoussé copper plates, engraved shell gorgets, elements of elaborate costumes (beaded garments, bracelets and necklaces, pendants, and crowns), tobacco pipes, and both real and symbolic weapons. The Shared Material Culture of Etowah and Lake Jackson Excavations at Etowah over the past century have yielded a large corpus of material culture. This includes both mundane artifacts linked to the daily activities of the inhabitants of the site and exotic items whose distribution suggests they were associated only with the social and political elites of the polity. These latter items provide us with much of our information on the nature of political organization in the Etowah chiefdom and of links between individuals at Etowah and people in other Mississippian societies, including Lake Jackson. Looking at the material indications of ties between Etowah and Lake Jackson, I identify four material culture categories. First, there are exotic display goods, some of which bear elaborate iconographic representations. Second, there are elements of the costumes of the dead themselves. Third, there are items such as cups and pipes that may have been used in ritual acts.1 Finally, there are mundane, utilitarian artifacts such as domestic pottery. Elite Display Goods (Prestige Goods). The display goods found at both Etowah and Lake Jackson provide strong evidence of links between the two. Some of the evidence points to links in the form of shared ideologies, while other evidence points to direct exchange events between individuals from the two societies. The inventory of display goods at the two sites includes plain and repoussé copper plates, engraved shell gorgets, functional weapons, and symbolic (nonfunctional) weapons. In the late nineteenth century, John Rogan excavated portions of Mound C at Etowah and found numerous elite graves containing rich grave goods. Among those grave goods were repoussé copper plates depicting elaborately costumed beings. One of these plates is shown in Figure 7.2. Warren K. Moorehead and Lewis Larson recovered other copper plates from Etowah during their excavations of additional burials in Mound C (Larson 1971, 1989; Willoughby 1932), but the Rogan plates are the best known and provide some of the most informative evidence of the nature of the links between the elites of Etowah and Lake Jackson. In the mid-1970s, B. Calvin Jones of the Florida Bureau of Archaeological Research conducted emergency salvage excavations in Mound 3 at the Lake Jackson site ( Jones 1982, 1994). During the course of his work, Jones investigated a set of graves that had been dug into the summits of several of the mound construction stages. Several of the graves contained elaborate repoussé plates, including two that depict elaborately costumed beings like those in the Rogan plates ( Jones 1982: Figures 6 and 7) (Figure 7.3). The plate found with Burial 7 is particularly suggestive of links to Etowah. It is strikingly similar in the details of the depiction and in execution to the Rogan plates. The plate found with Burial 16 at Lake Jackson
138
Scarry
Figure 7.2. Repoussé copper plate from Etowah excavated by John P. Rogan.
( Jones 1982:Figure 7) also shares many elements with the Etowah plates although it is less similar than the Burial 7 plate. The two Rogan plates (Figure 7.4) are remarkably similar. It seems apparent that they depict the same individual. When the Lake Jackson plate from Burial 7 is compared with the two Rogan plates, the similarities in details of posture, costume, and associated items are obvious (Figure 7.4). The figure in the plates is posed in the same highly stylized posture. The limbs are positioned similarly on all plates. The head faces the raised hand. The shoulders are in frontal (or dorsal) view, while the torso is seen in profile and shows definite breasts (or pectorals) and a prominent abdomen.2 The raised hands hold a mace form like the chipped stone maces found in several Mississippian sites (e.g., the Duck River cache). The opposite hand is held low and, in the two Rogan plates, holds a head. In the Lake Jackson plate, this portion of the plate is damaged, but Jones thought he could discern a head and placed
Figure 7.3. Repoussé copper plates from Lake Jackson.
Figure 7.4. Comparison of the plates from Etowah and Lake Jackson.
140
Scarry
one in his reconstruction ( Jones 1982:Figure 6b). All the figures have prominent mouths and lips surrounded by a forked motif and a beaded forelock. In addition to posture and physical characteristics, the figures also have many common elements of costume. They all wear a necklace of massive beads with a large pendant (usually interpreted as a Busycon shell). All three have a large discshaped ornament on the ear. They each wear a broad belt (that I assume was beaded) around the waist and similar bands around each leg just below the knee and around the wrists. Descending from the belt are what appear to be a fringed sash and an element that has been described as a bellows-shaped apron. The beings are wearing cloaks in the shape of wings (or, alternatively, they have wings). All three of the figures are depicted with complex headdresses that include a bilobed arrow element. The figure on the plate from Burial 16 at Lake Jackson shares many features with the other three. It wears the same costume, with the bellows-shaped apron, the belt with the fringed sash, and the fanned tail-like element. It has a necklace of massive beads with a large pendant. It has a beaded forelock and is wearing a large circular ornament on its ear with a line of pendant beads. And it, too, is wearing a winged cloak or is a winged being. Like the beings on the two Rogan plates, it has a rectangular headdress element with a central Akron grid motif and beaded bands about the upper arms and wrists. Despite these dramatic similarities, the two plates from Lake Jackson differ in several respects from the Rogan plates. The figure on the Burial 7 plate has a long, coiled proboscis like that of a moth or butterfly that is not evident in the other three plates. Both of the Lake Jackson figures have concentric semicircles on their shoulders (the Burial 7 figure has one set on each shoulder and the Burial 16 plate has two sets on its shoulder and one set on its elbow). The Rogan plates do not have these markings. The Burial 7 plate lacks the rectangular headdress element with the Akron grid motif. Instead, it has a circular element with a petaloid margin and a central ogee. The figure on the Burial 16 plate appears to have painted or tattooed designs on its legs and torso that are not present on the other three plates. This figure also differs from the other three in other ways. The pose is different. The figure faces away from the raised arm holding a club. The club is not the mace form seen in the Rogan plates and the plate from Burial 7. Rather, it appears to be reminiscent of some of the monolithic axes found in Alabama, Georgia, and Tennessee (including examples from Etowah).3 Finally, this figure does not have the beaded band on its lower leg that is seen on the other three figures. Nevertheless, despite these differences, I think that there are undeniable similarities in the plates, similarities that point to connections between Etowah and Lake Jackson. We can also see iconographic links between Etowah and Lake Jackson in the shell gorgets recovered from the two sites. There are only three gorgets from Lake Jackson (Figure 7.5), and they belong to Muller’s Williams Island style (Muller 1989:20, 1991). This style is most common on Mississippian sites in central Ala-
Connections Between the Etowah and Lake Jackson Chiefdoms
141
Figure 7.5. Shell gorgets from Lake Jackson.
bama, but examples do occur in western Alabama (e.g., Moundville), in southeastern Tennessee (e.g., Dallas), and in the Etowah area, and there is one example from a site in Jackson County, Florida, circa 100 km west of Lake Jackson (Wheeler 2001). Numerous shell gorgets have been recovered from the Etowah site. While the majority of the Etowah gorgets are in styles other than Williams Island, there is at least one example of a Williams Island style gorget recovered from the village area at Etowah (Brain and Phillips 1996:422). In addition, there are multiple examples of Hixon and Hightower style gorgets from Etowah (Brain and Phillips 1996:418–419). Muller (1991) suggests that the Hightower style may have been the progenitor of the Williams Island style gorgets, and he thinks it is probable that the Hixon and Williams Island styles are related since they differ in theme but are otherwise similar in execution. Like the repoussé plates, the Williams Island style gorgets appear to be depictions of widely recognized images. And, like the repoussé plates, they were probably summarizing symbols with a host of entailments. Many of the individuals buried in Mound C and in Mound 3 were interred with actual or symbolic weapons such as stone and copper celts. The potentially functional celts were made using “greenstone” or copper.4 Most of the stone celts are oval in cross-section and have tapering polls. The copper celts are laterally flattened and have squared butt ends. However, there are also examples from both Etowah and Lake Jackson of stone celts with a very different shape. These have wide, flaring, curved bits and flattened cross-sections. There are also nonfunctional (or at least nonutilitarian) celts of limestone of similar shape to these stone celts that were recovered from both Etowah (Moorehead 1932:Figure 50) and Lake Jackson (Figure 7.6). These are unquestionably similar to each other and different in shape from the majority of the functional stone and copper celts. While they
142
Scarry
Figure 7.6. Limestone celts from Etowah and Lake Jackson.
could not have functioned as tools for working wood or digging or as weapons, the limestone celts would have been highly visible objects when manipulated by their owners in public venues. Elite Costume at Etowah and Lake Jackson. There are many similarities in the apparel of individuals buried in Mound C and in Mound 3. Perhaps the most striking of these are copper and feather crowns. The copper elements in these headdresses included flame- or plume-shaped forms, arrowhead-shaped forms, and mace-shaped forms (see, e.g., Larson 1959:Figure 1). Jones (1982:Table 2) found a set of 12 or 13 of these ornaments neatly stacked in Burial K9 at Lake Jackson (Figure 7.7). Rogan found a similar set of 14 ornaments during his excavations in Mound C (Willoughby 1932:Figure 18), Moorehead recovered a set of 10 from Grave 6a in Mound C (Willoughby 1932:Figure 17), and Larson found an elaborate headdress comprising both mace elements and flamelike or plumelike elements placed at the feet of the individual buried in Grave 67 (Larson 1959: Figure 3). These crowns form compelling evidence of linkages between the elites of Etowah and Lake Jackson. The mace elements do not simply resemble each other; the Lake Jackson specimens were made on the same form as some of those from Etowah (Leader 1991). Jones also recovered examples of arrowhead-shaped (Burials K1, K2, and K3) and plumelike specimens (Burial K2) from Lake Jackson ( Jones 1994:Table 2). The arrowhead forms at Lake Jackson are similar to those on the headdress Larson found with Burial 38 in Mound C (Larson 1959:Figure 2).
Connections Between the Etowah and Lake Jackson Chiefdoms
143
Figure 7.7. Repoussé copper elements from Lake Jackson headdress.
By far the most common artifacts from both Mound C and Mound 3 are shell and pearl beads. Some individuals had thousands of beads. Many individuals interred in the two mounds were accompanied by substantial quantities of beads. Some were wearing beaded arm or leg bands and others wore clothing with beaded cuffs and/or hems. Larson recovered massive columella shell beads from 15 different graves in Mound C (Burials 1, 15, 20, 25, 28, 32, 38, 44, 48, 57, 59, 67, 70, 100, and 111), and Jones found similar necklaces in Mound 3 (e.g., Burial 7). These
144
Scarry
necklaces are clearly like those depicted on the repoussé copper plates. Individuals at both sites also possessed univalve pendants. Ritual Paraphernalia at Etowah and Lake Jackson. In both Mound C and Mound 3, ceramic tobacco pipes accompanied some individuals. In addition, there was a sub-mound deposit containing several ceramic pipes beneath Mound 6 at Lake Jackson. At both sites there was a wide array of forms that these pipes took. However, there were particular forms that were shared between the two sites. The clearest examples of these are Dallas style bubble pipes. Jeffrey Brain (personal communication 1984) suggested that the Lake Jackson examples recovered from Burial 1 actually originated in the Tennessee Valley or the Etowah area. Individuals at both Etowah and Lake Jackson were buried with various pigments and with palettes upon which pigments had been ground. The pigments included galena, kaolin, red and yellow ocher, and graphite. Larson recovered several elaborate stone palettes from graves in Mound C and Jones found fragments of palettes in Mound 3. Distinctions in the Material Cultures of Etowah and Lake Jackson Many of the material things found at Etowah have also been found at Lake Jackson, but others have not. Many of the material things found at Lake Jackson have counterparts at Etowah, but some do not. The aspects of material culture that were not shared can tell much about the interactions between the peoples of the two societies. Distinctions in Display Goods. There are some important differences in the display goods found at Etowah and Lake Jackson. For the most part, these differences involve things that were found at Etowah but not at Lake Jackson. Among the most famous of the artifacts recovered from Etowah are several chipped stone swords and monolithic ground stone axes (e.g., Moorehead 1932:Figures 39 and 52a). None of the burials from Lake Jackson contained such symbolic weaponry. However, these items were not common at Etowah (occurring in only a couple of burials). Given the disparity in the number of elite graves excavated at the two sites, I do not think we should be surprised that rare items such as these might not be present in the much smaller assemblage from Lake Jackson. Nevertheless, some people at Etowah possessed them and no one at Lake Jackson did. The graves at Etowah have yielded a much wider range of gorget styles and depictions than is seen in the three gorgets from Lake Jackson. In the Etowah gorget assemblage there are multiple examples of humanoid depictions in the Hightower style and multiple examples of spider and paired turkey motifs in the Hixon style (e.g., those Larson excavated from Grave 6 in Mound C). None of these motifs is seen at Lake Jackson (although again it must be remembered that only three gorgets were recovered from Mound 3). Distinctions in Elite Costume. Again, while there are numerous and compelling similarities and indications of links between Etowah and Lake Jackson that
Connections Between the Etowah and Lake Jackson Chiefdoms
145
can be seen in elite costume, there are also some important differences. As is true for display goods, we see more things at Etowah that are absent at Lake Jackson than vice versa. Several individuals at Etowah had bilobed arrow headdresses like those depicted on the Rogan plates. Rogan excavated one during his work in Mound C (Willoughby 1932:Figure 20a) and Moorehead recovered several from his excavations, including two or three from Grave 49 (Willoughby 1932:43, Figures 20b and 21b). Larson recovered five additional specimens from Burials 12, 28, 45, 109, and 110 (see Byers 1962:Figure 5). Rogan recovered a roachlike copper headdress from the grave containing the two Rogan plates (Willoughby 1932:43, Figure 19). Larson found a copper-covered wooden mask headdress with Burial 79. No headdresses like these were recognized in the materials recovered from Mound 3 at Lake Jackson. While most of the differences between Etowah and Lake Jackson involve items that are present in the Etowah assemblage but missing from the Lake Jackson assemblage, there are some exceptions. One of the Lake Jackson individuals (Burial 2) was buried with shark teeth that were probably attached to the individual’s garments. Distinctions in Ritual Paraphernalia. The two societies do not appear to have shared other ritual paraphernalia such as pottery vessels associated with feasting or black drink ceremonialism (although there is indication that black drink ceremonialism was present in both societies). The serving vessels (e.g., ceramic bowls) in the Etowah and Lake Jackson ceramic assemblages are typologically distinct and do not resemble each other in manufacture, morphology, or decorative style. The Etowah assemblage lacks the Andrews Decorated beakers found at Lake Jackson. The Lake Jackson assemblage lacks the negative-painted bottles found at Etowah. Several examples of shell cups have been recovered from Etowah. Surprisingly, Jones found only one example in his excavations of Mound 3 although a couple of shell cups were recovered prior to Jones’s excavations. Over the years, excavations at Etowah have yielded a number of stone figurines (e.g., Willoughby 1932:Figures 3 and 4). These figurines, all recovered from Mound C, have no equivalents at Lake Jackson. It is possible that there were wooden representations at Mound 3, but there were definitely no stone statues. This is a significant difference in the symbolic systems and in the practical aspects of the claims asserted by those symbolic systems. The difference may also reflect very real differences in the organization of religious practices in the two societies (Knight 1981, 1986). Distinctions in Mundane Material Culture. If the elite material cultures of Etowah and Lake Jackson share many elements, the same cannot be said of the more mundane material culture assemblages from the two societies. Utilitarian ceramics from the two are quite distinct in manufacture and decoration. The Wilbanks phase ceramic assemblage from Etowah is characterized by grit tempering,
146
Scarry
complicated stamping of cooking and storage vessels, and boldly incised carinated bowls (Hally and Langford 1988). The Lake Jackson phase assemblage is predominately grog tempered; cooking and storage jars are either plain or decorated with incised arcades (Cool Branch Incised) or horizontal lines (Lake Jackson Incised). Furthermore, ceramics from one society are either extremely rare or absent from the other. Domestic architecture also differs between the two societies. Domestic structures in the Lake Jackson chiefdom were round buildings constructed of singleset posts. Houses at Etowah were rectangular wall-trench constructions. The patterning of residential sites away from the political center was also different. In the Lake Jackson chiefdom the dominant pattern is one of dispersed communities comprising scattered homesteads, while in the Etowah polity there were villages of clustered households. Distinctions in Mortuary Practices Between Etowah and Lake Jackson. While there are undeniable similarities between the material cultures of mortuary practice at Etowah and Lake Jackson, the differences in actual practice are striking and have great importance. Those differences point to fundamental distinctions in the ways the peoples of the two societies viewed themselves and their elite rulers and in the ways that they legitimated leadership and constructed authority. Mound C at Etowah contained over 250 graves. Some of those graves contained the bodies of more than one individual. The graves appear to have been clustered into loose groups. Clearly, the mortuary practices that produced Mound C involved many people (in roles that went beyond simply supplying the labor to construct the mound or serving as audience for ritual performances). Mound 3 at Lake Jackson contained approximately two dozen graves (an order of magnitude fewer than Mound C). All of the Mound 3 graves were single interments. There is no evidence that the graves were grouped into clusters. Burial in Mound C was open to many more people than was the case for Mound 3. It is tempting to argue that burial in Mound C was open to all members of a set of (possibly) elite kin groups, while burial in Mound 3 was restricted to the holders of chiefly office (and not their families). Mortuary practices at Etowah separated a large set of people (or kin groups) from others (presumably commoners who were buried in cemeteries in the village area), while material symbols and ritual paraphernalia served to mark distinctions among the people buried in the mound. Mortuary practices at Lake Jackson, on the other hand, separated a much smaller set of office holders from all others. This is a profound difference. Interpreting the Evidence from Etowah and Lake Jackson Etowah and Lake Jackson shared many things: material symbols of elite office, elite costumes, and summarizing symbols of authority and office. The people of both societies constructed mounds as repositories for the noble dead (and as platforms for special buildings). They had similar subsistence economies and political
Connections Between the Etowah and Lake Jackson Chiefdoms
147
structures. (Of course, these widespread patterns do not necessarily demonstrate connections between the two societies.) The material similarities seen between Etowah and Lake Jackson are abundant and striking. The differences are also obvious, and they are just as important for our understanding of social structure and the construction of authority in the two societies and of the nature of links between members of the two societies. The patterns of similarities and differences point to several things. First, the links between Etowah and Lake Jackson appear to have been confined to the ritual sphere and did not extend into the realm of domestic life. They involved a small number of people who belonged to the political elites rather than all members of the societies or a representative cross-section of either population. In particular, the links do not appear to have involved significant interactions between commoners of the two societies. Second, the links involved a limited sharing of material symbols and iconography. What appear in both sites are images that relate to the Upper World and reflect the common origin of some part of the mythos of the two peoples. Also there are symbols found at other Mississippian centers (such as images of the Uktena winged serpent) that are absent from both Etowah and Lake Jackson, again suggesting a close linkage between the two. However, other aspects of the belief systems do not seem to have been shared (or at least they were not marked by material items common to both societies). Thus, there are numerous depictions of spiders and paired birds in the Etowah assemblage, but these motifs are absent in the Lake Jackson assemblage. Third, Etowah was the source of much of the SECC paraphernalia found at Lake Jackson. The material symbols found at both sites represent a subset of the material symbols found at Etowah but the great majority of the symbols found at Lake Jackson. That Etowah was the source is also suggested by the presence of tools for making repoussé copper artifacts at Etowah (and their apparent absence from Lake Jackson) (Leader 1988a, 1988b). Finally Hurst and Larson (1958) argue, on the basis of trace element analyses, that the source of the copper at Etowah was local (at least to the southern Appalachians), a fact that, again, points to an Etowan source for the copper artifacts. Lake Jackson was rich, but with a limited range of goods. If the elites of Lake Jackson were at the end of a down-the-line exchange network, we would expect a more impoverished assemblage (and richer assemblages at intermediate points on the exchange route). Thus, the links between the elites of Etowah and Lake Jackson appear to have been direct. That is, members of one society traveled to and met with members of the other. Given the distribution and origin of most of the artifacts, I suspect that the travelers were probably from Lake Jackson. Fourth, Lake Jackson’s ties to the Mississippian world appear largely restricted to Etowah. That is, we see very little iconographic or material evidence at Lake Jackson that could not have come from Etowah. The exceptions to this are the
148
Scarry
Williams Island gorgets from Lake Jackson. The center of their distribution appears to be in central Alabama, and there is a Williams Island gorget from Moundville that Clarence B. Moore excavated from a Moundville III burial in the cemetery area south of Mound D (Brain and Phillips 1996:299–300; Moore 1907:396, Figures 94 and 95, 1996:204). However, there are also examples from Etowah, and there is no iconographic evidence (e.g., eye-in-hand or winged-serpent motifs) from Lake Jackson of direct links to Moundville or other Mississippian centers beyond Etowah. This suggests that the links between the two centers (Etowah and Lake Jackson) were more important than the links either had to other centers. Finally, as material things were exchanged between members of the Etowah and Lake Jackson societies, they were in turn used by and linked to individuals. The deposition of these artifacts in Mound C or Mound 3 effectively removed them from active use or at least from use as markers associated with living individuals. This practice required the ongoing acquisition of material symbols by living claimants to authority or those who wished to claim authority in the future. This, in turn, necessitated the continuation of links between the elites of Lake Jackson and Etowah.
Conclusions There are many shared elements of material culture and iconography at Etowah and Lake Jackson. There are also clear similarities in the ways those items and iconography were used. I believe that regardless of their culturally specific meanings (that we may never be able to decipher), they had similar discursive meanings (that we can discern). The artifacts and iconographic images contributed to the identification of select individuals and groups within the Etowah and Lake Jackson societies. In particular, they marked individuals with political authority. I suggest that they contributed to a doxic (sensu Bourdieu 1977:164–169) understanding of the source of that authority, a source rooted in the supernatural and in access to the “Upper World.” In turn, that doxa provided resources that the elites of Etowah and Lake Jackson used to construct their authority (sensu Lincoln 1994)—that is, the general acceptance of their claim to the ability to make authoritative communications—and ultimately their hegemony—a social ascendancy not based on coercive power. The linkages between Etowah and Lake Jackson offer valuable insights into these two Mississippian societies. They provide clues about social and political structure and about the construction of the institutions that formed those structures. They provide clues about the nature of elite identities and about the practices and agency through which the elites of the two societies were able to construct and maintain their authority. If Etowah was the source of many of the items found at Lake Jackson (including shell gorgets), the elites of Lake Jackson must have had something to of-
Connections Between the Etowah and Lake Jackson Chiefdoms
149
fer the people of Etowah. I have suggested that what the Lake Jackson elite had was some measure of control over the entry of resources (particularly marine shell) from Florida into the Mississippian world. The presence of Mississippian iconography and ceramic styles in peninsular Florida may reflect connections between Lake Jackson and the peoples of the south and suggest how the Lake Jackson elites might have obtained marine shell from those people. At a more general level, the evidence for interactions between the people of Etowah and Lake Jackson tells us something about the formation of the Mississippian world, an emergent structure that encompassed not just these two societies. The investigation of the interaction and how it contributed to the shaping of local histories, long-term regional histories, and broad geographic patterning also offers us a tremendous opportunity to examine the construction of ethnicity, the creation of authority, and the institutionalization of social inequality in the apparent absence of economic or coercive power.
Acknowledgments I want to thank Adam King for inviting me to participate in the symposium that led to this publication, for sharing some of his ideas about Etowah with me, and, not least, providing me with a copy of the NAGPRA report on the mortuary collections from Etowah. The late Calvin Jones was responsible for the salvaging of Mound 3 at Lake Jackson; without his work, we would not be able to talk about the connections between that site and Etowah. Many of my ideas about the meaning of the iconography of the Etowah and Lake Jackson plates came out of a series of meetings focused on the iconography of the Mississippian peoples organized by Kent Reilly. I am indebted to Vernon James Knight, Jr., for his discussions of the interpretations developed at those meetings. I also want to thank my wife, Margaret Scarry, for being the always understanding and supportive sounding board (and for occasionally doing the dishes even when it was my turn). Last, I want to thank two anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments on ways to improve this essay. Of course, none of these people bears any responsibility for the misinterpretations or errors contained herein.
Notes 1. In the discussion that follows, I discuss these and similar items under the heading Ritual Paraphernalia. In doing so, I do not intend to make the assertion that we know what these items were used for or that their use involved ritual in the strict sense or that other items did not function in ritual contexts. 2. Catherine Brown (1982) and Ruth Trocolli (2002) have pointed to these features and suggested that they may indicate that the figure is female rather than male (as is traditionally assumed for these figures and the people with whom they were associated). I agree
150
Scarry
with Trocolli that we cannot ignore the fact that women held important roles (including the highest chiefly offices) in Mississippian society (viz. Scarry 1999). The Burial 7 individual at Lake Jackson was female. However, I would hesitate to assign either sex or gender to these figures or to assume that they possess what are “best described as female breasts” (Trocolli 2002:182). The physical characteristics Brown and Trocolli point to are also suggestive of a middle-aged human male with a diet that provides ample calories. I think that it is entirely possible that the being depicted in the plates was not human and that human sex (male-female) and gender (e.g., man-woman) categories may not apply in this case (a suggestion that Jim Knight has made). 3. The Burial 16 plate is not as well preserved as the other plates I have been describing here. Furthermore, it was clearly curated and had been repaired numerous times after its manufacture. The riveted patches applied during those repairs further obscure the design. It is possible that what we have interpreted as a club was actually a sword and that there was a bilobed arrow headdress. 4. The stone celts from Lake Jackson have been described as being made of greenstone, but their petrological composition and the source of the raw material from which they were made have not been determined. I do not mean to imply that the Lake Jackson stone celts were made of Hillabie Formation greenstone, although it is clear that they were made from a nonlocal raw material of metamorphic origin that presumably derived from the Piedmont region and Hillabie greenstone would not be an unreasonable raw material.
8 An Assessment of Moundville Engraved “Cult” Designs from Potsherds Vernon James Knight, Jr.
When Clarence Moore published the first portfolios of Moundville art in 1905 and 1907, he drew attention to the numerous engraved pottery vessels from burials as sources of representational designs. Other major centers of Mississippian cultic art, Etowah, Lake Jackson, and Spiro, share much on a thematic level but lack Moundville’s strong emphasis on the medium of engraved pottery. Approximately 150 whole or restorable Mississippian pottery vessels with engraved representational designs are on record from the Black Warrior Valley, most residing either in the collections of the National Museum of the American Indian or in the Alabama Museum of Natural History (Steponaitis 1983). Despite the size of the corpus, only a fraction has been published (e.g., Fundaburke and Foreman 1957; Futato and Knight 1986; Mellown 1976; Moore 1905a, 1907; Steponaitis 1983). Unlike the attention historically paid to Mississippian shell gorgets, shell cups, and statuary, this pottery has attracted virtually no systematic study as art. Waring and Holder (1945), in their classic formulation of the Southeastern Ceremonial Complex, excluded engraved art on pottery from their catalog of ritual objects, although they did attend to Moundville engraved designs in their study of the motifs and “god-animal representations” belonging to the complex. Subsequently both Steve Wimberly (1954, 1956) and Douglas McKenzie (1964) used Moundville engraved pottery to evaluate Moundville’s specific contribution to the Southeastern Ceremonial Complex as that concept was envisioned by Waring and Holder. McKenzie also made observations regarding the mutual association of motifs at the Moundville site. But it was Steponaitis (1983:58–63, 129, 345–346, 349–350) who gave us the most useful listing to date, cross-indexing a roster of 22 specific representational motifs with Moundville vessels seriated by subphase. And it was Steponaitis (1983:317–318) who gave this pottery a name: Moundville Engraved, var. Hemphill. In regard to comparative stylistic and iconographic dimensions of this art, Phillips and Brown (1978) presented a few help-
152
Knight
ful but tentative impressions based upon the imagery published in Moore’s volumes. In the past several years, taking our inspiration from Phillips and Brown’s masterful work with Spiro shell engraving, we have slowly begun to expand our understandings of style and iconography at Moundville (Gillies 1998; Lacefield 1995; Schatte 1997, 1998).
Themes The main point of this chapter is to suggest the value of Moundville Engraved, var. Hemphill potsherds as sources of stylistic, iconographic, and chronological information in addition to the corpus of whole vessels. First I think it is necessary to outline a classification of the Hemphill designs by their thematic content and to comment on some of the possibilities and problems involved in trying to identify the designs using potsherds. I use the term theme to refer to conventional subject matter at the level of the composition. Given this usage, we may begin with what I believe to be an important point, namely, that the important themes in Hemphill art are very few in number. Close to 90 percent of the known designs are variations on only five themes: the winged serpent, the crested bird, the raptor, center symbols and bands, and trophies. Let us begin with the three zoomorphic supernaturals. Winged Serpent Moundville winged serpents have U-shaped serpent bodies with upturned heads that are antlered, plumed, or bare (Figure 8.1). One wing is shown in side view. The wing has an anterior wing bar decorated with concentric circles, distinguished from rearward trailing feathers that usually do not overlap and that are decorated with concentric semicircles. Optional wing features include a vertical crosshatched bar and covert feathers shown behind the anterior wing bar. Because of the relative complexity of the design, winged serpent sherds are rather easily recognized. Sherds are commonly found with portions of snake bodies and, on occasion, a head or a rattle. However, the most frequently recognizable elements on sherds are wing components: feathers and/or portions of the anterior wing bar. Unfortunately, sherds that show only wing components present an important problem. Whole vessels in the collections that show the raptor theme with its wings in profile share virtually the same wing form as the more common winged serpent. Until we possess a better understanding of the stylistic and iconographic dimensions of the raptor theme, we are not in a position to distinguish serpent from raptor by wing form alone. We are therefore forced to code sherds exhibiting wing components only as “serpent or raptor,” knowing that the majority of these are almost certainly from winged serpent vessels given the relative numerical dominance of that theme. Schatte (1997) developed a useful seriation of Hemphill style winged serpents,
Assessment of Moundville Engraved “Cult” Designs from Potsherds
153
Figure 8.1. A Moundville winged serpent (drawing by Hyla Lacefield).
revealing an evolution from relatively complex and homogeneous designs to relatively less competent and heterogeneous depictions. In a series of forthcoming publications George Lankford (2007a, 2007b) will make a case that Moundville’s winged serpent is bound up with a larger iconographic complex including the other major Hemphill themes. It would be inappropriate to anticipate the details of Lankford’s important contributions here. Suffice it to say that Lankford presents evidence that this and other major Hemphill subjects are astronomical references, related to beliefs about the passage of the soul after death. Crested Bird Moundville crested birds are shown either in the round or, more commonly, knotted together in pairs around a central medallion (Figure 8.2). The lateral fanlike elements are the tails, which may display a center symbol; the wings, when shown, are drafted as single feathers that jut out between the tails and heads at the semicardinal positions. The heads possess generally serpentine necks, and the straight open bill may contain a beaded forelock motif in the position of the tongue. There are also designs that show paired tails and a center medallion but neither heads nor wings. An analysis by Lacefield (1995) shows that these paired tails make up a distinctive stylistic group. For the time being we can consider this paired tails subgroup as a pars pro toto derivation of the crested bird theme. We cannot be completely sure, though, since fan-shaped bird tails of this form are also found in the rarer raptor theme, and the paired tails subset sometimes includes a radial fingers motif that provides an iconographic link with the center symbols and bands concept. Moreover, fan-shaped bird tails sometimes appear as an independent motif, suggesting that in some contexts they may carry an iconographic significance apart from the whole bird, whichever bird that is.
154
Knight
Figure 8.2. A Moundville crested bird (reproduced from Moore 1905a:Figure 9).
For the purposes of sherd analysis, most of the crested bird designs are sufficiently complex to make the theme readily recognizable. Neck, head, and beak parts are found, but more common are sherds showing portions of banded tails and tail feathers. Thanks to Lacefield’s stylistic analysis we can even distinguish among these sherds those whose tail feathers derive from the headless, paired tails designs. But the tail feathers give us yet another classification problem similar to that of snake wings, and again it is the raptor that muddies the waters. As just stated, on occasion the raptor theme presents us with a tail that looks much like that of the crested birds. As an arbitrary solution, sherds that show this general tail form, for our purposes, are assigned to the crested bird theme on the basis of their much greater frequency among the whole vessels. This solution introduces a conscious bias but I do not think it is of much importance statistically. Lankford’s forthcoming studies, already mentioned, will have much to say about the iconography of the crested bird, to which I am pleased to defer. Raptor The bird in question, which we might be tempted to call merely an eagle, is without much doubt another supernatural. Like the other supernaturals it may be based upon a composite of natural prototypes, but the aquiline features clearly predominate. Its profile head features a banded neck, a hooked beak, a humped, protruding tongue, a forked eye surround, and a jagged crest of feathers to the rear (Figure 8.3). Sometimes talons are shown in addition to the wings and tail.
Assessment of Moundville Engraved “Cult” Designs from Potsherds
155
Figure 8.3. A Moundville raptor (drawing by Hyla Lacefield).
With reference to the widespread Mississippian theme of birdman (Phillips and Brown 1978; Strong 1989), it is intriguing that these Moundville raptors never show any hint of a human aspect. Birdman is evidently a concept foreign to Moundville art.1 We have already intimated that the raptor is a most troublesome theme iconographically. In fact we are forced to admit that, at least at the outer margins, it does not hold together very well at all, because it is potentially conflated, or conflatable, not only with both of the other supernaturals but also with the trophy theme, as we shall discuss in a moment. The iconography of this bird is therefore much in need of further study. The theme is not a common one to begin with among the whole vessels, and sherds carrying the theme are perhaps difficult to recognize because of the stylistic simplicity with which the head is normally rendered. Schatte (1998) has called attention to the small subset of raptor-headed subjects that have prominent snake attributes, such as serpentine bodies and sometimes even rattles. This serpent-raptor concept, which Schatte calls the “pseudo-raptor,” is evidently one of fairly long duration, since the series can be shown to evolve stylistically in much the same manner as the winged serpents. Schatte demonstrates a phyletic sequence beginning in Moundville II with rather straightforward raptors possessing “snaky” attributes, becoming much more like winged serpents moving into the Moundville III phase, and ultimately completely converging with the winged serpent theme. Schatte feels that this ultimate submerging of raptors within the more dominant winged serpent theme signals an increasing irrelevance of raptors per se in Moundville III times. Once again, Lankford’s forthcoming work will have a great deal to add concerning the iconography of this puzzling bird.
156
Knight
Figure 8.4. Some variations on the center symbols and bands theme. A, C, and D are reproduced from Moore (1905a:Figures 54 and 144, 1907:Figure 7). B is a design designated as Moundville Engraved, var. Cypress by Steponaitis (reproduced from Steponaitis 1983: Figure 18).
Center Symbols and Bands I introduce the theme of center symbols and bands to draw together several geometric-looking designs that I think have a common cosmological referent. They all feature circular medallions incorporating a variety of motifs that appear to act as center symbols: cross-and-circle, concentric circles, swastika, radial T-bar, and dimple (Figure 8.4). Sometimes the open mouth of a bottle substitutes for one of the center symbols. Radiating out from these are straight ribbonlike bands with zoned decoration, which may or may not link up with additional center symbols in larger compositions. Additional motifs may radiate outward from the medallions, commonly the “radial fingers” motif. In this theme I am including compositions that Steponaitis (1983:314–315) classified as “three fingers” and “windmill,” as well as an uncommon design that merited its own type-variety name: Moundville Engraved, var. Cypress. The latter incorporates the bands and center symbols as a framing device enclosing pairs of rayed spirals, a motif not otherwise seen in this theme. Recognition of sherds belonging to these designs is straightforward with one exception: one sometimes encounters sherds that show fingertips only, which forces a decision. Do the fingertips radiate outward from a circular device, or do they belong to hands, in the latter case pertaining to the trophy theme? The diagnostic clue reveals itself in differing styles of fingertips associated with the different themes, as judged from the whole vessel sample. Thus fingertips showing clear-cut arc-shaped fingernails or finger joints drafted as straight lines occur ex-
Assessment of Moundville Engraved “Cult” Designs from Potsherds
157
Figure 8.5. An example of the trophy theme at Moundville (reproduced from Moore 1905a: Figure 147).
clusively with hands, while fingertips enclosing small open circles is a common style associated with radial fingers but not with hands. Plain fingertips showing none of these treatments unfortunately appear on both hands and radial fingers and therefore such sherds cannot be assigned to one theme or the other. Trophies The validity of a trophy theme is not readily apparent until one examines vessels as compositions, particularly those vessels showing the hand, forearm bone, skull, and scalp motifs. One finds on certain vessels a pairing of hands and forearm bones; on others, forearm bones and skulls; on others, hands and skulls; on still others, hands and scalps; and so on (Figure 8.5). In these associations may be perceived a definite cluster of motifs, in which a common reference to death is apparent. Moreover, there are hints of malevolence that suggest there is more to this theme than a benign reverence for ancestral bones. One such hint is the prominence of the scalp motif. This is a rather literal depiction of a scalp stretched on a hoop with a shank of hair hanging behind (Hudson 1976:250–252; Steponaitis 1983:62). Another such hint is the recognition that the Moundville skull motif itself tends to include a scalloped convention on the rear of the head suggestive of a scalp cut mark. It is to call attention to these suggestions of violence and trophy taking that the theme is named. Most of the hands in question bear an eyelike emblem on the palm in a combination customarily referred to as the hand and eye, although it is worth pointing out that neither the eyes of Hemphill zoomorphs nor those of skulls are shown in a comparable style. As noted earlier, raptors make an intrusion here that once again clouds the definition of our raptor theme. On a few vessels, pendant hands are shown alternating with disembodied raptor heads, as though the raptor heads were being shown as another kind of trophy, and perhaps that is part of the message. On sherds, it is the convention for hair and the scalloping of the hoop on
158
Knight
the scalp motif that make that motif readily recognizable. The “eye” design and the base of the hand tend to be recognizable as well, as do the lobed ends of forearm bones. It has proven extraordinarily uncommon to discern a skull in the sherd material, and there are none at all in the present sample.
Characteristics of the Sherd Sample Having made a quick run-through of the dominant Hemphill themes, it is now desirable to give some details about the sherd sample. The sherds used in this study all come from what we have loosely called the Mound Project, which I directed at the Moundville site between 1989 and 1998. The main goals of this project were to contribute to a construction chronology for the mounds and to investigate variability in summit architecture and use. All of the sherds are from mound excavations, specifically from Moundville II and Early Moundville III phase contexts in five mounds, Mounds Q, R, E, F, and G. Many specimens are from midden and feature fill contexts that have both well-established phase assignments and multiple radiocarbon dates. These excavations produced 381 sherds classified as Moundville Engraved, var. Hemphill. Of these, 186 have identifiable subject matter, further reduced by a process of matching and fitting to a minimum number of vessels (MNV) equal to 132. A disproportionate number are from thick flank middens on the north slopes of Mounds Q (MNV = 56) and G (MNV = 25) and largescale summit excavations on Mound E (MNV = 44); flank testing in Mounds R (MNV = 1) and F (MNV = 6) only produced a few examples. Specimens of each of the major themes and a few of the minor ones are present, plus in many cases we have identified more specific motifs.
Frequencies of Themes and Motifs A first step in the analysis of the sherd data is simply to sum the totals by theme and motif and thus to figure their relative proportions in the sample (Table 8.1). We find that all but 12 of these 105 cases (89 percent) are classifiable as belonging to one of our five predominant themes. If we were to include those sherds showing only serpent or raptor wing components, this proportion would rise to 91 percent. The most frequent theme is the winged serpent, followed in rank order by the crested bird, center symbols and bands, trophy, and raptor themes. The remaining 12 cases bear representational motifs that are also relatively uncommon on whole vessels.
Comparison with the Whole Vessels It will be of interest to see how these thematic frequencies stack up against the frequencies of the same themes among the whole vessels. Using Steponaitis’s data
Assessment of Moundville Engraved “Cult” Designs from Potsherds
159
Table 8.1. Frequency of Themes and Motifs: Sherd Data, Mounds Q, R, E, F, and G Theme
Motif
Subtotal
MNV
Percent
Winged serpent
32
.30
Crested bird
28
.27
18
.17
13
.12
2
.02
12
.11
Center symbols/bands Radial ¤ngers
10
Swastika
4
Radial T-bar
3
Concentric circles
1
Trophy Scalp
7
Hand/eye
4
Hand/forearm bone
2
Raptor Other
Total
Paired tails
5
Insect wing?
2
Swastika
1
Rayed circle
1
Rayed spiral
1
Feather
1
Bird tails
1 105
Sherds showing only a serpent or raptor wing (n = 27) have been omitted. MNV = Minimum number of vessels.
(with a certain amount of translation to our categories) gives us the following comparison (Figure 8.6). There seem to be some real differences between the two samples, of which most are perhaps attributable to built-in biases and the difficulty of diagnosing particular themes from sherd material. This is almost certainly the case with our residual category (Other), which accounts for 16 percent of the whole vessels but only 7 percent of the sherd sample. It seems obvious, for example, that uncommon or unique designs would be difficult to recognize on sherds. The outstanding difference among the remainder of the categories, however, is the relative primacy of the trophy theme among the whole vessels, where it ranks first in order of frequency as opposed to fourth in the sherd sample. Except for this difference, the rank order of the primary themes between the two
160
Knight
Figure 8.6. Comparison of theme frequencies in the sherd sample and whole vessel sample.
samples is the same. Although the various motifs that make up the trophy theme are, as a rule, executed using simpler stylistic conventions than the other themes (much less use of crosshatching, for example), and while this might account for some difficulty in recognizing these designs on sherds, I am not convinced that this difficulty is an adequate explanation for the difference between the two samples. If so, we must conclude that vessels bearing the trophy theme are overrepresented among burials against the standard of their occurrence in mound-related middens.
Frequency Comparisons Among Mounds The sherd sample comes from mounds that lie at various points around Moundville’s central plaza. According to our present working model (Knight 1998), these mounds were connected to different kin-based groups in Moundville society. In view of this model, it would be of exceptional interest if there were systematic differences in the representational art from different mounds. Our sherd data can be used to explore such a notion. The samples from Mounds Q, E, and G have sufficient quantities of Hemphill sherds to examine relative proportions of themes by mound (Table 8.2). The first thing to notice about the resulting breakdown of thematic material by mound is the complete lack of exclusivity; that is, the full range of themes is found in all three mounds. (One can excuse the absence of raptors in the Mound G sample as
Assessment of Moundville Engraved “Cult” Designs from Potsherds
161
Table 8.2. Comparison of Theme Frequencies by Mound, from the Sherd Data Theme
Mound Q
Mound E
Mound G
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
18
.41
10
.30
1
.05
Crested bird
9
.20
11
.33
6
.29
Center symbols and bands
6
.14
2
.06
9
.43
Trophy
6
.14
3
.09
4
.19
Raptor
1
.02
1
.03
0
.00
Other
4
.09
6
.18
1
.05
Total
44
Winged serpent
33
21
an artifact of sample size.) But there are, nonetheless, differences that stand out as potentially significant. In this sample the winged serpent theme is only nominally represented in Mound G, whereas it is one of the most important themes at the other two mounds. And as for Mound G, if we can trust the smaller sample, the center symbols and bands theme seems to be a specialty, occurring over three times more frequently than in Mounds Q or E. What are we to make of these differences? We could test these numbers for their departure from randomness, but there is an intervening consideration. Namely, there is a diachronic dimension that needs to be taken into account. The specific archaeological contexts excavated in each of the three mounds differ in their chronology, and if frequencies of themes change through time, this chronological variation might, in part, account for differences among mound assemblages.
Chronology The chronological dimension can be addressed using our sherd sample. Of the total MNV in the sample, 73 can be assigned with confidence to a radiocarbondated context. For present purposes we can collapse these into two phases: Moundville II (a.d. 1260–1400) and Moundville III (a.d. 1400–1520), bearing in mind that the time range represented by the sample is actually much more restricted than this. The majority of specimens in the Moundville II phase group come from contexts that more specifically date to circa a.d. 1350–1400. Similarly, all of the Moundville III specimens are from contexts that date to circa a.d. 1400–1450. The 59 datable vessels yielding identifiable themes sort out as given in Table 8.3. These cell values are small, which recommends caution, but the trends are clear. The winged serpent theme shows a strong increase in relative frequency from Moundville II to Moundville III. Clearly, the theme became much more common after circa a.d. 1400 than it previously had been. Both the crested bird and the
162
Knight
Table 8.3. Frequency of Themes by Phase Theme
Winged serpent Crested bird Center symbols and bands
Moundville II
Moundville III
Count
%
Count
%
3
.13
15
.43
11
.46
9
.26
6
.25
5
.14
Trophy
2
.08
3
.09
Other
2
.08
3
.09
Total
24
35
center symbols and bands themes show a corresponding decline in frequency over the same period. This is shown graphically in Figure 8.7. We are now in a better position to evaluate differences in the frequency of themes among Mounds Q, E, and G. Our most productive deposits dating to the Moundville III phase were encountered on Mounds Q and E. These are, as one would predict, the mounds in which the winged serpent theme is dominant. The Mound G deposits, in contrast, disproportionately yielded more Moundville II phase material, and this is where we observe the strongest showing of the center symbols and bands theme (the crested bird data are a little more ambiguous). We can conclude that the currency of themes on engraved vessels was generally in flux at Moundville over the Moundville II–III transition and that this evolution (toward snakes, away from birds, and so on) is correlated with the proportions of themes occurring in different mound assemblages. However, the magnitude of this shift may not be sufficiently great to account for the virtual absence of the winged serpent theme in Mound G nor for the elevated importance of the center symbols and bands theme. Controlling for time, there may yet be some differences in the relative importance of themes across localities of use at Moundville.
Conclusions I hope to have demonstrated the value of provenienced sherd collections in addressing questions concerning Mississippian representational art. Although I have restricted the discussion to engraved pottery, such analyses certainly could be expanded to include incised pottery, which at Moundville also carries some representational art, and to include the painted wares as well (cf. Hilgeman 1991). From our analysis of sherds bearing identifiable Hemphill designs from excavated mound contexts at the Moundville site, we can summarize our findings as follows. First, among the five predominating themes in Hemphill art (winged serpent,
Assessment of Moundville Engraved “Cult” Designs from Potsherds
163
Figure 8.7. Comparison of theme frequencies by phase, from the sherd data.
crested bird, raptor, center symbols and bands, trophy), there are both similarities and differences in their relative proportions in two data sets: the sherds from mound deposits and the whole vessels from burials. The primary difference lies in the predominance of the trophy theme among whole vessels included in burials. The trophy theme is one that appears to be far less common in the sherd sample. The conventional meanings connected with the trophy theme may have been favored in certain circumstances of mortuary ritual. Further analysis of the vessel sample from burials with this idea in mind might reveal additional correlations. Second, particular mounds, and the social groups that used them, do not seem to have any exclusive connection with particular themes. The full range of dominant themes is found in spatially dispersed contexts across the Moundville site. Engraved vessels, probably manufactured by a small number of potters in residence at Moundville (Welch 1991:139–147), appear to have circulated widely in various social contexts at the ceremonial center. Indeed such vessels are occasionally found at outlying centers and farmsteads within the Black Warrior Valley as well. However, there may be thematic preferences exhibited among vessels used and broken in the different mound contexts. If so, this may have to do with differences in the currency of rituals in different places demanding specific designs. Given our present lack of knowledge about how vessels bearing these designs were used, there is no way to assess the latter notion. My point concerning circulation of vessels attributable to individuals or workshops brings up the matter of style, which has not been emphasized in this chap-
164
Knight
ter but which should be of obvious relevance. Our beginning efforts to identify and to work with stylistic clusters and stylistic change in this art (Lacefield 1995; Schatte 1997, 1998) promise to yield insights into the meanings of the art and social forms that produced it, especially to the extent that we can tie stylistic clusters to specific domestic, mound-related, and mortuary contexts, on different time levels, in the Moundville system. In this manner we can begin to appreciate the degree to which the uses of Mississippian art were responsive to local ritual and political dynamics in contrast to broadly and uniformly distributed pan-southern cults.
Acknowledgments The original version of this contribution was presented at a symposium held in honor of Mr. L. B. Jones at the Fifty-Second Annual Meeting of the Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Knoxville, Tennessee, in November 1995. Much of this chapter is informed by the work of my graduate students Hyla Lacefield, Kevin Schatte, and Judith Gillies, to whom I am grateful for their insights. They are not to be held responsible for any errors or lapses of judgment on my part.
Note 1. Compared with the bird forms that populate Spiro shell engravings, Moundville raptors appear to be more closely related to the eaglelike representations than to those with a more falconoid aspect. At Spiro, the aquiline forms as a group tend to be shown as decapitated heads (Phillips and Brown 1978:Plates 177–181), again seemingly unconnected with the birdman theme.
9 Hightower Anthropomorphic Marine Shell Gorgets and Duck River Sword-Form Flint Bifaces Middle Mississippian Ritual Regalia in the Southern Appalachians Shawn Marceaux and David H. Dye Illustrative combat scenes emphasizing the ritual use of symbolic weaponry by humanlike figures depicted on the medium of marine shell gorgets have long been recognized by archaeologists in the southeastern United States (Waring and Holder 1945). Recently the case has been made that these representations do not portray quotidian or “mundane” events as much as they illustrate the activities of otherworldly deities (Knight et al. 2001). Exotic, sociotechnic flint blades, along with other elements of ritual regalia, indicate not only elite connections to otherworldly supernaturals but also perhaps chiefly reenactment of mythic sagas. Symbolic objects such as exotic weaponry formalized chiefly institutions (Earle 1997:174) and their roles in mythic narratives are believed to be key to chartering personal status and military activities in chiefly societies. For example, symbolic weaponry may be incorporated in the enactment and performance of elite sagas that serve to substantiate corporate group rights and “reinforce a message aimed at large masses” (Earle 1997:155). In this chapter we examine the archaeological contexts of anthropomorphic marine shell gorgets and chipped stone biface blades and conduct a design analysis of the engraved shell gorgets in order to model the use of symbolic weaponry as one component of Mississippian elite behavior. From studies of early contact period sacred narratives it seems clear that Mississippian myths validated and legitimized the crucial structures of social and political life for ruling elites and served as both political charter and legitimizing ideology for aristocratic behavior (Keyes 1993, 1994). Sacred foundational myths underpinned rituals and chartered key social positions, providing a blueprint for human social and moral order as the reflection of supernatural, celestial, or primordial worlds. The mythical past generally is conceived as a primeval reality or celestial model, the pattern and foundation of present-day life, that provided in-
166
Marceaux and Dye
centive and justification for the correct performance of rituals, moral action, and sacred acts (Malinowski 1936:13). Paradigmatic myths recount mortal combat between protagonist humanlike supernatural primordial heroes and their antagonist giant or monster adversaries (Eliade 1991:37), illustrating how special powers and awards may be bestowed upon human supplicants by supernaturals through the deadly contest of life and death combat. The actions and deeds of these deified supernaturals, illustrated through symbolic figural objects and dramatized in performances of mythical narratives, are potent means for negotiating status and power relationships. In sacred mythical dramas elites can act out their roles as exclusive intermediaries between their human communities and the supernatural world. Elite representation as deities is often portrayed on symbolic objects, such as human figural marine shell gorgets, which are ideal means to endow and signify individual social position, ritual office, and political power: “Ceremonial paraphernalia or status symbols are often paraded or displayed in ritual contexts, and because these objects can contain coded information they may also serve as mechanisms for narrative representations. Complex iconographic systems combine the immediacy of performance with the visual impact of often familiar objects and icons to communicate directly with a large audience. The use of these interdependent means of materialization strengthens the overall message and creates a vivid experience of the ideology” (DeMarrais et al. 1996:18). Elite impersonation, imitation, and reenactment of celestial or primordial events with the aid of symbolic objects as props memorializes the times when supernatural beings gave special powers to human ancestors. Aristocratic rulers and their line of descendants serve as custodians of these earned or awarded powers. Elite impersonators of primordial acts often symbolically leave the human world to encounter supernaturals to receive additional powers. In mythic narratives supernaturals often respond to human supplication for divine aid by granting powers and ritual objects for the performance of ceremonies. The nobility are then seen as receivers, conservers, and transmitters of supernatural powers that vitalize, protect, and perpetuate a community’s social, political, and religious life. Chiefly aristocratic behavior, based on shared beliefs in their superiority and sanctity, is founded on the creation and maintenance of links with the mythic world, the original and primary source of supernatural powers. Elites alone can maintain the vital connections between the present and the primordial state or mythical time. As the incarnations of ancestors, founders, heroes, and supernaturals, chiefly elites had a double existence both as humans and as spirit beings, often acting as metaphorical equivalents of original supernatural beings who grant powers to humans. Irving Goldman’s description of the relationship between inheritance, supernatural power, and the right to represent an ancestral or supernatural being may bear striking resemblance to Mississippian mythic chartering principles:
Hightower Anthropomorphic Gorgets and Duck River Sword-Form Bifaces
167
The powers from the line derive from the ancestral founders, each of whom is apparently considered as reincarnated in the life of the contemporary bearer of his name. Thus each new generation reconstitutes on earth that primordial state when the founders were just moving out of their nonhuman and nonearthly realms. This primordial state, like that of birth, invokes the great powers of emergence, of transformation, and of initiation. To be connected through lineage with the Beginnings is to be in touch with the generative powers of birth, more fundamentally with the original sources of human creation. Thus the inheritance of names of a lineage is no mere social transmission of membership, it is rather a ritual process . . . that serves to maintain and periodically to strengthen the links between present generations and their earlier formative state. Since each notable person is always in some respect an embodiment of a mythological founder, the entire genealogical network of a community is always a living representation of the beings who existed, or who preexisted in mythological times [Goldman 1975:25–27]. The iconographic portrayal on symbolic objects of humanlike supernatural figures who brandish long, chipped flint bifaces and display combat trophies may depict components or segments of Mississippian mythic narratives. The interment of flaked stone symbols with the elite dead suggests that Mississippian chiefs or priests used these ritual tools to reenact the deeds and actions of supernaturals who bestow sacred powers to those qualified to receive them. The headsman and mortal combat themes of Middle Mississippian Hightower anthropomorphic-style marine shell gorgets, for example, may depict portions of such narrative myths. These figural representations and commemorations of ritual combat and trophy taking have provoked commentary and discussion over the past 120 years (Brain and Phillips 1996:44–50; Holmes 1883, 1884:301; King 2003:126; Kneberg 1959:9– 13; Kneberg and Lewis 1952:42–46; Lewis and Whiteford 1995b:163–164; MacCurdy 1913:411–414, Figure 77; Marceaux 2003; Muller 1966b:175–178, 1986a:67– 70, 1989:20, 1997a, 1999; Phillips and Brown 1978:184–185, 1984; Strong 1989; Thomas 1894:379–388; Thruston 1897:337–340; Waring 1968a:40–47; Waring and Holder 1945; Willoughby 1932:57; Wilson 1896:884), but only recently have scholars noted that the action depicted on the marine shell gorgets references scenes of an otherworldly or archetypal reality, specifically the celestial realm, rather than ritual, quotidian activities (Knight et al. 2001:129). The combat weapons portrayed on the shell gorgets, however, appear in the archaeological record as condensed wealth and tokens of value, possessed by people of high rank used for display as a sign of wealth, dignity, and social position. Malinowski describes the use of hypertrophic weapons among New Guinea societies: “In the case of stone implements, these become so well-finished, so large, so thin and streaked and well-polished, that they are too good to be used technically, too
168
Marceaux and Dye
big even to be carried as everyday ornaments, though they might still be placed in specially beautiful handles and carried by a man of rank during a ceremony” (Malinowski 1934:193). Hypertrophic ornaments and weapons displayed as tokens of wealth and status were often considered heirlooms and were attached to specific lineages. Upon death the “departed spirit then carries the spiritual essence of the tokens into the other world and offers them to the keeper of the spirits’ road” (Malinowski 1934:196). Ritual sociotechnic combat weapons are widespread in Middle Mississippian times as part of a prestige goods exchange system, used for displaying social status, conferring political power, and providing military authority to those who owned and manipulated them (Brown 1996:469–488; Van Horne 1993:75). Elite personages were buried with these hypertrophic weapons and their use in the afterlife may have been significant. The goods had symbolic value in life and in death. The spatial placement of prestige goods in relation with the body as part of the mortuary program may have had symbolic value. Two types of ritual combat weapons are engraved on Hightower anthropomorphic-style marine shell gorgets: Duck River sword-form flint bifaces and raptor talon effigy flint bifaces. Both biface types are documented in Middle Mississippian contexts throughout much of the Mississippian world. Duck River sword-form bifaces (Brain and Phillips 1996; Brehm 1981; Brown 1996:473–474; Cox 1985:76–77; Dickens 1982:45, 68; Dockstader 1985; Hudson 1985:35; Kneberg 1952; Marceaux 2003:48–65; Moorehead 1932; Peacock 1954; Thruston 1897:Plate XIVA), in particular, are well documented at Upper Tennessee Valley and Upper Coosa Valley sites in the southern Appalachians (Brain and Phillips 1996; King 2003:68, 70; Kneberg 1959:9; Larson 1971:67, 1993:178–179; Sullivan 2001).
Hightower Anthropomorphic-Style Marine Shell Gorgets Brain and Phillips (1996:44–50) use the term Big Toco style to refer to the set of gorgets under consideration in this chapter. On the basis of concerns with their stylistic analysis (Muller 1997a), we prefer to use the prior designation “Hightower anthropomorphic style” as defined by Muller (1986a:67–70, 1989:20), while retaining Brain and Phillips’s (1996:44–50) Big Toco style themes as a means of further defining the corpus. The Hightower anthropomorphic style had been previously called “Mound C tentative style” (Muller 1966b:175–178; Phillips and Brown 1978:184). The Hightower anthropomorphic marine shell gorget style is characterized by “competent, almost naturalistic, depictions of human figures, single or dual, in ritualistic costumes and postures” engraved, excised, pitted, and fenestrated on the circular cutouts of the outer whorls of marine conchs (Brain and Phillips 1996:44). The Hightower anthropomorphic style “compares favorably with the best human figural representation in the Southeast, regardless of media” (Brain and Phillips 1996:44). Brain and Phillips group their sample of 28 Big Toco (Hightower
Hightower Anthropomorphic Gorgets and Duck River Sword-Form Bifaces
169
anthropomorphic) style marine shell gorgets in four figural themes: buddha, headsman, morning star, and mortal combat. In this chapter we examine 13 mortal combat and headsman theme gorgets, which exhibit the iconographic portrayal of flint bifaces wielded by humanlike figures (Table 9.1). The home of mortal combat and headsman themes of the Hightower anthropomorphic style is the Southern Appalachian region of the Upper Tennessee and Upper Coosa valleys. In the Upper Tennessee Valley these gorgets are found in mortuary contexts during the Late Hiwassee Island (a.d. 1200–1300) and Early Dallas (a.d. 1300–1400) phases (Sullivan 2001) at the Fain’s Island site, Hixon site, Talassee site, Toqua site, and an unidentified site in Marion County, Tennessee. In the Upper Coosa Valley human figural Hightower shell gorgets have been found at Mound C at the Etowah site in Early Wilbanks phase contexts (a.d. 1250–1325). The Hightower anthropomorphic shell gorget style does not occur in the succeeding Lamar period (King 2003:132). Therefore, the gorgets for the two areas can be bracketed temporally between approximately a.d. 1250 and 1350. It is important to be aware of the dates of probable manufacture, perhaps around a.d. 1250, versus the dates of deposition, a.d. 1250 to 1350, for the two Hightower gorget themes. Four examples of mortal combat scenes are illustrated on marine shell gorgets, two from Etowah (E13 and E219) and two from the Upper Tennessee Valley Fain’s Island (FI17) and Hixon sites (H10) (Figure 9.1). These four reasonably intact shell gorgets portray good representations depicting two figures in mortal altercation. On the basis of marine shell gorget scenes and archaeologically documented elite ritual regalia, the accouterments portrayed on mortal combat scene gorgets can be described with some accuracy and detail (Table 9.2). In the sample of gorgets under consideration the two humanlike figures threaten their mirror-image adversaries by brandishing long, sword-form flint bifaces in the air, while holding raptor talon effigy flint bifaces at the articulation of the mandible with the cranium, perhaps suggesting impending agnathic decapitation. Knotted hair braids hang from the back of the head, while two marine shell beads are attached to undeflected forelocks. The headdress is formed by binding a threetine deer antler rack to the head with a raccoon-hindquarter pelt. The humanlike figure’s ears are decorated with ear discs, perhaps copper-covered wooden discs. Conch shell columella pendants form the centerpiece of a single-strand necklace of large marine shell beads. Wide, undecorated belts with knotted sashes support breechclouts decorated with roundels, perhaps copper or mica, and partial, concentric radial T-bar motifs. Arms and legs bear bands of marine shell beads. Raptor talons often replace human feet on the figural gorgets. Other regalia associated with the figures may serve as locatives for the observed action. Falconoid forked mouth surrounds; raptor wings, tails, and talons; petaloids on raptor wing and tail coverts; scallop-embellished raptor wing primaries; and raptor beaks place the activity in the celestial realm, marking the figures as supernaturals, ancestors, or exemplary mythic warrior heroes. The second theme, headsman, depicts the act of trophy taking by a human-
Tenn-Mi-X5
Tenn-MO-Tq28
Toqua
Hixon
Tenn-Bt-T6
Tenn-Hm-H10
Hixon
Talassee
Tenn-Hm-H5
Fain’s Island
Marion Co.
Ga-Brt-E219
Tenn-Je-FI17
Etowah
b
From Brain and Phillips 1996. Excavated by Warren K. Moorehead. c Excavated by John P. Rogan. d Excavated by Lewis H. Larson, Jr. e Excavated by J. W. Emmert.
a
Ga-Brt-E12
Etowah
Ga-Brt-E13
Ga-Brt-E11
Etowah
Ga-Brt-E216
Ga-Brt-E10
Etowah
Ga-Brt-E8
Etowah
Etowah
Etowah
Identi¤cation a Number
Site
Mound A
Unknown
Unknown
Mound Stage A2
Mound Stage B1
Unknown
Mound C
Mound C
East Village?
Mound C
Mound C
Mound C
Mound C
Provenience
Dallas
Unknown
Unknown
Early Dallas
Late Hiwassee Island
Unknown
Early Wilbanks
Early/Late Wilbanks
Unknown
Early Wilbanks
Late Wilbanks
Early Wilbanks
Early Wilbanks
Chronological Af¤liation
d
b
Burial 18
Burial 58
Burial 68
b
e
Burial K5
d
b
Unknown
Burial 137
Burial 27
Burial g
c
Burial 37
Burial
Headsman
Headsman
Headsman
Mortal combat
Headsman
Mortal combat
Mortal combat
Headsman
Mortal combat
Headsman
Headsman
Headsman
Headsman
Theme
Table 9.1. Corpus of Anthropomorphic Hightower Style Marine Shell Gorgets—Mortal Combat and Headsman Themes
Hightower Anthropomorphic Gorgets and Duck River Sword-Form Bifaces
171
Figure 9.1. Mortal combat theme marine shell gorget, Hixon site, Hamilton County, Tennessee. Photograph courtesy of Frank H. McClung Museum, University of Tennessee.
like figure. Five gorgets from Etowah (E8, E10, E11, E12, E216) and one each from Hixon (H5), Talassee (T6), Toqua (Tq28), and an unidentified site in Marion County, Tennessee (X5) illustrate generally complete examples of the headsman theme (Figure 9.2). Accoutered in ritual regalia in much the same way as the participants in the mortal combat scene, these figures depart from the mortal combat theme in depicting a lone heroic warrior holding a Duck River sword-form flint biface in one hand while grasping in the other hand either a human head trophy by the hair bun at the back of the head or a forked-tail mothra (see Knight and Franke 2007) by the proboscis. In one example (E8) the human hand holding the trophy is replaced by raptor talons, another critical detail indicating the individual being portrayed is a supernatural in the temporary guise of human form. In another example (E10), the Duck River sword-form biface appears to be replaced by a spatulate-shaped, mace-form war club. Differences can be seen in the two shell gorget themes. In the appearance of the opposed figures of the mortal combat theme, both figures have bent knees, but the headsman theme figures appear as if they are running. In one example (Tq28) a small animal, possibly a raccoon, with barred teeth forms part of the raccoonhindquarters pelt headdress element. Unlike the mortal combat figures that lack mouth or eye surrounds, the headsmen have falconoid forked mouth surrounds and sometimes a long meandering tongue. If the gorgets form a sequence, as we suspect they do, the forked mouth surround on the headsman gorgets may indicate the changing status of a supernatural. After mortal combat, war honors may have been earned or won through trophy taking. Retrieving a kinsman’s severed head or sacrificing someone may also change one’s status as well as bring about new rituals and powers. For ex-
a
X NO X X
Human hands
Knotted hair braids
Knotted sash
Leg bands
NO MD
X
Ear discs
Human feet
X
Deer antler headdress
Forked mouth surround
NO NO
Decapitated head with agnathic facial line
Concentric radial T-bar
Decapitated head
X X
Columella pendant
X X
Breechclout mica discs
Beaded forelock
Breechclout
X X
Arm bands
NO
E13
X
X
X
X
NO
NO
X
X
NO
NO
X
X
X
X
X
X
NO
H10
X
X
X
X
NO
MD
X
MD
NO
NO
MD
X
X
X
MD
X
MD
FI17
Mortal Combat
Agnathic facial line
Motifs
X
X
NO
X
NO
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
NO
E8
X
X
NO
X
X
X
X
MD
NO
X
NO
X
X
X
X
X
NO
E10
X
X
X
X
NO
X
X
X
NO
NO
X
X
X
X
X
X
NO
E11
X
X
NO
X
NO
NO
X
X
NO
NO
NO
X
X
X
X
X
X
E12
MD
X
NO
MD
MD
X
X
X
MD
MD
MD
X
X
X
X
X
NO
E216
T6
X
X
MD
MD
NO
X
MD
MD
MD
MD
X
X
X
X
MD
MD
NO
Headsman
X
X
X
X
MD
X
X
X
MD
MD
NO
X
X
X
X
X
NO
H5
X
X
MD
X
MD
X
X
X
MD
MD
MD
X
X
X
MD
X
NO
X5
X
X
NO
X
MD
X
X
X
NO
NO
X
X
X
X
X
X
NO
Tq28
Table 9.2. Anthropomorphic Hightower Style Marine Shell Gorgets—Mortal Combat and Headsman Themes (Motifs)
MD
Raptor wings
X
Waistband X
X
X
X
NO
X
X
NO
X
X
X
X
NO
NO
X
X
X
X
NO
X
X
NO
X
X
MD
X
NO
MD
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
NO
X
X
X
X
X
NO
X
X
X
X
Y
X
NO
NO
NO
X
MD
X
NO
NO
X
X
X
X
X
X
NO
NO
X
X
X
X
X
NO
X
X
X
X
X
X
NO
NO
X
X
X
X
X
NO
NO
X
X
X
X
MD
X
MD
MD
MD
MD
X
MD
MD
X
X
MD
X
X
X
MD
MD
X
X
MD
X
MD
MD
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
NO
MD
MD
X
X
X
MD
X = Motif present; NO = motif absent; MD = missing data (area of gorget either missing or too indistinct for analysis). a The fourth mortal combat gorget is excluded due to lack of data.
MD
Sword-form biface
Petaloids on wings
X X
Shell bead necklace
NO
Raptor talon-form biface MD
X
Raptor talon hand
Running ¤gure
NO
Raptor talon feet
Raptor wings
MD MD
Raptor tail
X
NO
Mothra
Raccoon hindquarters
NO
Meandering tongue
X
X
X
MD
X
X
X
NO
MD
MD
X
X
X
MD
X
X
X
X
X
X
NO
MD
MD
X
X
X
X
NO
174
Marceaux and Dye
Figure 9.2. Headsman theme marine shell gorget, Mound C, Etowah site, Bartow County, Georgia. Photograph by David H. Dye.
ample, in the Red Horn hero myth cycle the two sons of the celestial warrior Red Horn, a thunderer, retrieve their father’s decapitated head and return to earth where they bring their father back to life (Radin 1948). In the Morning Star myth the celestial heroic warrior and thunderer Morning Star charters human sacrifice by immolating Evening Star’s daughter and establishing a model for future offerings to him (Hall 1997:38–41). He then returns to the night sky as a star. These humanlike figural gorgets are part of a Mississippian international style of art that focused on elite symbolism depicted on exotic prestige goods (King 2003; Muller 1999). Brain and Phillips (1996:49) believe that many, if not all, of these gorgets may have been manufactured at Etowah workshops. For example, gorgets E11, E12, E216, and Tq28 share sufficient similarities to have been created in one workshop, while E13, E219, and FI17 may have been crafted in another. The manufacture and distribution of the two human figural Hightower gorget themes appear to date to the beginning of the political consolidation of Etowah around a.d. 1250 (King 2001b, 2003), suggesting that the initial rise of the Etowah polity may have been predicated in part on the ability of elites to craft an emergent international style of prestige goods that depicted mythic events that chartered political relations, military objectives, and elite power (King 2003:70). Elite status may have been legitimized by this emerging international style based on symbolic objects and rituals associated with celestial supernaturals that became a regionally shared political charter either for force or alliance. Helms (1993:169) notes that “natural power had to be domesticated or transformed for social benefit by rituals invoking ancestral protections and by other stratagems (alliances, gift exchange, diffusion of royal regalia) that brought this external arena within the bounds of moral order. The political effectiveness of a chief depended greatly on his abilities to work toward this end. His efforts included extending gifts of crafted things, believed to be literal embodiments of ancestral substance, to notables of adjacent populations.” The corpus of finely crafted gorgets used in the present analysis consists of 13
Hightower Anthropomorphic Gorgets and Duck River Sword-Form Bifaces
175
Figure 9.3. Sword-form flint biface, Humphreys County, Tennessee. Photograph by David H. Dye.
Hightower anthropomorphic-style marine shell gorgets representing the mortal combat and headsman themes. Six gorgets are from the Upper Tennessee Valley, while seven are from Etowah. Of these latter seven, at least six are from Mound C, and probably all were found in burial context.
Duck River Sword-Form Flint Bifaces Two types of Duck River chipped stone bifaces are depicted on the Hightower anthropomorphic-style marine shell gorgets. One type is the “Duck River Sword,” a long, thin sword-form flint biface with rounded, pointed, or multiple triangular points (Brown 1976b:158; Perino 1985:108) (Figure 9.3). The other type is the raptor talon effigy biface (Figure 9.4). Both biface types have been found in archaeological contexts in the mid-South and appear to have been knapped from flint similar to examples mined from the Dover quarries in Stewart County, Tennessee (Gramly 1992). Some of the best-known examples of these two forms are represented in the Duck River cache, discovered at the Link Farm site in 1894 in Humphreys County, Tennessee (Dye 2002). The cache contains multiple swordform bifaces and raptor talon effigy bifaces in addition to other flaked stone symbols (Brehm 1981). The corpus used in this analysis consists of 15 Duck River sword-form bifaces found in mortuary context (Table 9.3). In the Upper Tennessee Valley five examples of Duck River sword-form Dover flint bifaces were recovered from Late Hiwassee Island or Early Dallas phase contexts at the Hixon site. The stratigraphic position of the burials and accompanying blades suggests they were interred between a.d. 1200 and 1350 (Neitzel and Jennings 1995:410–414). Lewis and White-
176
Marceaux and Dye
Figure 9.4. Raptor talon effigy flint biface, Humphreys County, Tennessee. Photograph by David H. Dye.
ford (1995a:133–134) refer to the sword-form bifaces from the Upper Tennessee Valley as Dallas ceremonial knives. The Duck River sword-form bifaces, on the basis of the stratigraphic sequence at Etowah, seem to occur throughout the Wilbanks phase (a.d. 1250–1375). The bifaces, where information is available, are associated exclusively with males, with one exception. These individuals are associated with great wealth, exalted status, and high political office. Duck River swords are generally found in pairs, suggesting that the raptor talon effigy form may have been replaced by the use of two swords by this time. This pattern appears to have been common practice as at least four burials (60, 76 or 74, 109, and 111), and possibly five (49, 50), have two swords each at Etowah.
Design Analysis Our primary interest in this study of engraved Hightower anthropomorphic marine shell gorget iconography is the portrayal of Duck River flint bifaces in the context of ritual combat. The unit of analysis therefore is the composition of
Hightower Anthropomorphic Gorgets and Duck River Sword-Form Bifaces
177
Table 9.3. Corpus of Duck River Sword-Form Bifaces Site
Identi¤cation a Number
Provenience
Burial
Chronological Af¤liation
Etowah
Ga-Brt-E93
Mound C
Burial 49 b
b
Etowah
Ga-Brt-E60
Mound C
Burial 1
Etowah
Ga-Brt-E177
Mound C
Burial 60
Late Wilbanks Early Wilbanks
c
Late Wilbanks
Etowah
Ga-Brt-E178
Mound C
Burial 109
c
Etowah
Ga-Brt-E179
Mound C
Burial 111
c
Late Wilbanks
c
Late Wilbanks
Etowah
Ga-Brt-E181
Mound C
Burial 109
Etowah
Ga-Brt-E182
Mound C
Burial 60
c
Late Wilbanks
Late Wilbanks
c
Late Wilbanks
Etowah
Ga-Brt-E183
Mound C
Burial 74
Etowah
Ga-Brt-E184
Mound C
Burial 111 b
Late Wilbanks
b
Early Wilbanks
b
Early Wilbanks
Etowah
Ga-Brt-E206
Mound C
Burial 50
Etowah
Ga-Brt-E207
Mound C
Burial 76
Etowah
Ga-Brt-E208
c
Late Wilbanks
Mound C
Burial 76
Hixon
Mound Floor I
Burial 55
Early Dallas
Hixon
Mound Floor L
Burial 73
Late Hiwassee Island/ Early Dallas
Hixon
Mound Floor P
Burial 89
Late Hiwassee Island
a
From Brain and Phillips 1996. Excavated by Warren K. Moorehead. c Excavated by Lewis H. Larson, Jr. b
the scene in which the human figures are positioned. The sample consists of 13 of the 15 gorgets discussed above. Three gorgets (E219, S292, S880) were excluded because they were either too fragmentary or the image quality was unsuitable for analysis. Identification numbers, photographs, archaeological context, descriptions, and analytical terms such as style, motif, theme, salient element, form, and structure may be found in Brain and Phillips (1996). Style refers to general subject categories that are determined by structure, form, and theme (see Muller 1979). Motifs are a “simple organization of forms” (Phillips and Brown 1978:105) representing the smallest unit of repeating recognizable figures. Motifs represent the most basic element of structure. Salient elements are “those formal elements of the design which collectively define the theme” (Schatte 1997:36). In this study the five defining salient elements of the theme are (1) regalia, (2) stance, (3) anthropomorphic features, (4) trophy representations, and (5) flaked stone symbol representations. In the engraved shell gorget corpus a humanlike figure always holds the flaked stone symbol; iconographic representation of combat weaponry does not occur
178
Marceaux and Dye
as isolated, nonassociated, or individual elements. Every humanlike figure is attired in some form of regalia, the first salient element. Regalia is the most elaborate and diverse of the salient elements and can be defined as any motif that represents a decoration or ornament that functions as part of the figure’s apparel. A list of icons or motifs considered regalia for the head includes three-tine deer antler headdress with raccoon-hindquarters pelt bindings, small snarling creature as a headdress element, knotted hair braid, beaded forelock, ear discs, and forked mouth surround (headsman theme only). The body is accoutered with a columella pendant attached to a conch shell bead necklace, raptor tails with petaloids, raptor wing primaries with scallop markings and covert petaloids, and breechclout with partial concentric radial T-bar motifs, and roundels, perhaps mica discs. Arms and legs are decorated with either beaded bands of marine shell beads or pearls. A knotted sash hangs from a wide, undecorated belt. A raptor talon effigy biface (mortal combat only) and a sword-form flint biface are held in the hands. Raptor talon feet replace human feet in most examples. The stance of the humanlike figures is important because it may indicate the type of activity depicted on the gorget. Stance can be defined as the overall posture or expression articulated by the humanlike figure. There are two stances represented in the corpus: standing with one leg slightly bent and the other deeply bent, in the case of the mortal combat figures, and running, exemplified by both knees deeply bent, in the case of the headsman figures. The stance or overall posture, articulated by the humanlike figures through upraised arms and bent knees, signals movement and action, as if the figures were in mid-step. In every example of mortal combat and headsman themes, both legs are raised and/or bent at the knee. This suggested motion may represent movement such as running or dancing, a critical part of the mythic narrative. The stance helps the observer visualize the dramatic actions being performed by the humanlike figures, while the raptor imagery, petaloids, and roundels place the action in the celestial realm. Another observation is the opposition of the flaked stone symbol and the trophy representation. The trophies, whether the decapitated head or split-tail mothra, perform a significant role in the composition of the gorget scene. The trophies are important elements in the ritual or mythic scene. Their substitution for one another suggests they are somehow equivalent or comparable and that the specific mythic motif in the ritual is not complete without the presence of a trophy representation. Supporting this point, only one figure gorget (H5) does not contain the trophy representation and it appears to be an anomaly in both design and conceptualization (Brain and Phillips 1996:47). Anthropomorphic features include those motifs that appear associated with a humanlike form but deviate from the normal conditions or features of humans. While figures brandishing weaponry appear to be human, virtually all representations contain distinctly nonhuman characteristics, including raptor wings, tails, talons, and beaks, and meandering tongues. Talons often replace human hands and feet, perhaps denoting supernatural affiliation.
Hightower Anthropomorphic Gorgets and Duck River Sword-Form Bifaces
179
Trophy representations in the form of decapitated humanlike heads or forkedtail mothra occur on each example in the headsman corpus but are absent in the mortal combat theme, suggesting a sequence in the two themes: mortal combat preceding the headsman theme. Trophy representations are icons or motifs grasped by raptor talons and displayed opposite the human hand holding a Duck River sword-form biface. The placement and context of this salient element makes it an important component of the image. Human hands always grasp flint swords and mothra trophies, while raptor talons grasp the one human head trophy. Forkedtail mothra appear three times (E11, E12, and Tq28), while decapitated heads are represented twice (E8 and E10). Shell gorgets with missing elements appear to have had decapitated heads, rather than mothra. Arguably, the most important point made by the trophy representation is the context in which they appear. If one views the gorget bilaterally, the trophy representation and flaked stone symbol always occur opposite each other. They both assume similar positions in the scene or event represented. While the humanlike figure is the central image, the trophy representation grasped by a raptor talon and the flaked stone symbol held by a human hand dominate the upper-middle quarter of the composition. The only solitary running/dancing figure example without a trophy representation is gorget H5. The anomaly of this gorget has been noted above (see also Brain and Phillips 1996:47). The final and most important salient element is the Duck River sword-form biface, the common defining characteristic of the corpus. It can be defined as a motif or icon that resembles or replicates the shape of Duck River flaked stone symbols found in archaeological contexts in the mid-South, especially the southern Appalachians. Duck River sword-form biface representation in iconographic form is rare outside the Hightower anthropomorphic style— one exception is a Craig C gorget (Brain and Phillips 1996:59; Brown 1996:470; Phillips and Brown 1984: Plate 336). These birdman figures more commonly wield hafted axes or war clubs (maces). The significance of the flaked stone symbol icons can be found in the context in which they are placed. The Duck River sword-form bifaces are always raised above the shoulder in a manner that emphasizes display and combat, while the talon form communicates agnathic decapitation to the viewer. The manufacturers of the mortal combat gorgets purposefully chose to place the flaked stone symbols in a smiting position, perhaps based on observed rituals incorporating human sacrifice and/or reenactments of supernaturals locked in mortal combat. In the mortal combat theme the raptor talon–form biface appears at the juncture of the mandible and the cranium of the opposing individual, suggesting impending agnathic decapitation. Agnathic crania have been recovered archaeologically in contexts suggesting trophy-taking behavior (Childress and Wharey 1996; Nash 1972) and are illustrated iconographically as trophy heads incorporated as headdress elements (Burnett 1945:Plate 74; Hamilton et al. 1974:Figure 70; Phillips and Brown 1978:146, Plates 2, 17, Figure 106). Arguably, the main point of the flaked stone
180
Marceaux and Dye
symbol representations, the sword-form and raptor talon–form bifaces, is to portray the actions of otherworldly or supernatural characters in their quests and adventures, which include threats, intimidation, smiting scenes, displays of competence, quests for power, and trophy taking in combat-related activities, including human sacrifice or the retrieval of kin as an act of reviving the dead.
Corresponding Regalia Many elites were buried with elements of the regalia depicted on the marine shell gorgets, including headdresses, beaded bands, mineral pigments, and mica or copper cutouts. Duck River bifaces, both raptor talon–form and sword-form blades, are part of complex sets of clothing, symbols, and regalia elements that suggest that elites “impersonated” or relived mythic stories/events as part of the authority structure that differentiated, mobilized, and deployed social labor, suggesting that elite power derived in part from their association with the cosmos (Wolf 1999:274). In this analysis of engraved humanlike figural representations on Hightower anthropomorphic marine shell gorgets, we suggest that Duck River bifaces functioned as flaked stone symbols (Meadows 2001) incorporated as highly distinctive regalia used in ritual activities by Mississippian elites. The consistency in the representation of salient elements and the congruence of details in engraved shell gorget iconography and elite-associated mortuary objects provide convincing evidence that sword-form combat weaponry represents one component of an array of ritual accouterments used in specific rituals based on mythic narratives. The salient elements of the shell gorgets, including regalia, stance, anthropomorphic features, trophies, and flaked stone symbol representations, suggest a “portrait” of ritual activity based on mythic scenes of the celestial realm as understood and conceptualized by Mississippian elites. Regardless of whether the characters in the “scenes” are depictions of actual performers or “otherworldly” mythic figures, these representations have explicit regalia accompanying the gorget figures that have been recovered in archaeological contexts. Larson (1971:67) notes, for example, that the consistent repetition of mortuary regalia at Etowah’s Mound C suggests some sort of “uniform” worn by the Etowah elite. Of the iconographic elements depicted on the shell gorgets, several categories of material remains would be expected to be associated with the burials, if the gorget scenes were duplicated in ritual dramas by Mississippian elites and if the elites were buried with the regalia. The elite ritual paraphernalia in the mortuary program should include ornaments made from marine shell (columella pendants, beaded arm and leg bands, beaded forelock, shell bead necklaces), copper (symbol badges or circular discs), mica (cutouts), wood (copper-covered wooden ear discs), chipped stone (raptor talon–form and sword-form bifaces), mineral pigments (paints for mouth surrounds and breechclouts), and faunal elements (three-
Hightower Anthropomorphic Gorgets and Duck River Sword-Form Bifaces
181
tine deer antler racks and raccoon pelts). Each of these categories, with the exception of the faunal elements, is represented in the archaeological record, but interpretation is difficult due to the lack of published drawings of burials indicating the placement of specific items and postdepositional disturbance and movement of the grave goods from their original position. Marine shell artifacts are found with virtually all burials in the sample in some form, especially beads that duplicate the placement on the arms and legs in the shell gorget figures. It is more difficult to determine whether large shell beads were used for specific regalia such as beaded forelocks and necklaces, as large numbers of beads were recovered but not specified as to exact location on the burial. Columella pendants were not found, with the exception of the questionable fragments associated with Burial 109 from Etowah, but columella pendants are regularly associated with Mound C burials that possess combat weapons—not, however, with those accompanied by sword-form bifaces (Craig 1996; Larson 1971). Copper artifacts in many different forms are commonly associated with the burials that include sword-form bifaces, but these generally were confined to headdress elements. Artifacts made from copper that would reflect ritual accouterments based on the shell gorget scenes may be included in the unspecified fragments that decorate breechclouts. Copper-covered wooden ear discs, although not common, do occur in some examples and seem to duplicate those depicted on shell gorgets. Mica discs, crosses, and doughnut-shaped fragments also may have decorated the breechclouts of the shell gorget figures. The discs and crosses are believed to have been components of headdresses, but they may have been used on breechclouts as well. Chipped stone sword-form bifaces were associated with all burials, being a defining element in the sample selection. Unfortunately, the raptor talon effigy form was not found in the sample. The inclusion of two swords with the majority of the burials may signal the use of sword-form bifaces in the place of the talon bifaces, indicating that the gorgets illustrating the talon bifaces were created at a time when talon bifaces were in vogue but that by the time the swords were interred, they were no longer available or in style. Mineral pigments for mouth surrounds, and perhaps breechclout designs, have been recovered from the burials, including red pigments, probably hematite. Faunal elements, especially the prominent deer antlers, are not evident. On the other hand, what have been interpreted as “deer antlers” may not be deer antlers. The human figures on Craig C shell cups exhibit the same motif, but instead of resting on the head, they are issuing from the mouth (Phillips and Brown 1984:Plates 314–322). Items found in the burials that are not seen in the shell gorget scenes include headdresses (sheet-copper embossed plumes, plates, bilobed arrows), copper oblong pendants, monolithic and copper axes, chunkey stones, pipes, and rattles. The absence of these elements may be the result of many factors, including changes
182
Marceaux and Dye
in ritual regalia from the time the shell gorgets were manufactured to the time the burials with blades were interred. For example, oblong copper pendants and monolithic axes postdate the early to mid-thirteenth century, when the shell gorgets in question were manufactured (Brown and Kelly 2000:479). The “uniform” of elite individuals varies depending on the gender and status of the interred person. Individuals buried with Hightower anthropomorphic gorgets, typically females and subadults, are buried with great wealth in the form of large numbers of shell goods. Shell beads functioned throughout eastern North America as wealth indicators (Brown 1976b, 1996:575–590; Prentice 1987; Trubitt 1996). While possessing substantial wealth, these individuals, with the notable exception of Hixon Burial 68, generally lack the markers of high social rank such as regalia manufactured from copper, mica, hypertrophic weaponry, and pearl beads. Individuals buried with Duck River sword-form bifaces, on the other hand, usually males, are buried not only with wealth in the form of pearls and symbolic shell objects but also with regalia and ritual accouterments that incorporate skilled crafted goods: copper axes, bilobed arrows, pendants, plates, and rattles; mica discs and crosses; tortoise-shell strips and pins; and ground stone pipes, monolithic axes, celts, chunkey stones, and palettes; pigments; and chipped stone (Duck River bifaces). The gorgets and the sword-form bifaces would have to be contemporary at the time of gorget manufacture, although the bifaces seem to predate the gorgets. While the sword-form bifaces date as early as a.d. 1200, the gorgets were manufactured no earlier than a.d. 1250. As time passed, the further the burial was from the time of gorget manufacture, the more likely there would be divergence between mortuary regalia and the regalia assemblage engraved on the shell gorgets and perhaps used as a model for regalia for some period of time. Some burials were interred 50 to 100 years after the model for ritual attire was encapsulated in iconographic form. As time passed we would expect less coherence with the gorget model as rituals and customs changed. All of the shell gorgets and flaked stone symbols for which contextual evidence is available occur in restricted mortuary contexts, generally mounds or other restricted elite burial areas. Three burials found in these contexts contain prestige goods, and they often represent the most elaborate interments found within the polity. They appear to represent chiefly elites or those who attained exalted status through inherited and achieved rank. Warfare-related activities undoubtedly provided one such avenue for further elevation in rank through achieved honors. Though this study has concentrated on lithic and shell artifacts, other combatrelated images and forms occur in the Etowah Mound C mortuary assemblage. Schultz et al. (2001) have examined the hypertrophic weaponry, including copperheaded and monolithic axes. At Mound C each intercardinal burial cluster contained one or two individuals buried with a sociotechnic combat artifact (Schultz et al. 2001:4). This suggests that throughout the Wilbanks phases, warfare-related
Hightower Anthropomorphic Gorgets and Duck River Sword-Form Bifaces
183
activities and associated rituals played a crucial role in the achievement and maintenance of social status. Institutionalized ascribed and achieved social ranking was a critical component of Etowah’s social and political structure (Blakely 1995; King 2003:71).
Conclusion Evidence from this study suggests the primary function of flaked stone symbols of combat was their use in ritual contexts. Aristocratic authority was based to some degree on “the association of elite status with the symbols and implements of combat” (Schultz et al. 2001). Chiefly elites used symbolic wealth objects, such as combat-related flaked stone symbols, to legitimize, maintain, and expand social status. Through display and manipulation of hypertrophic weaponry in ritual, these items became symbols for structural power based on ritual and ideology (Wolf 1999). Acquisition, possession, and distribution of hypertrophic combat weapons were important activities among elites. The collection and subsequent use of nonlocal materials bestowed power and extraordinary advantage to the person responsible for their acquisition (Helms 1993). Ethnographic accounts suggest that individuals who held power maintained and enforced hierarchal relationships. Variations in social and political strategies were employed in order to maintain these relationships. Warfare, and its accompanying rituals, worked to stabilize a polity and its population by building a strong sense of group cohesion and solidarity. On the other hand, unsuccessful warfare and ritual may lead to the destabilization of power and social relationships. Arguably, the Mississippian Southeast bore witness to these cycles of stabilizing and destabilizing power arrangements among competing polities (Anderson 1994). There are specific differences in the flaked stone symbols and their iconographic representations. Although Etowah and Hixon contain both flaked stone symbols and marine shell gorgets with flaked stone representations, the artifacts never appear together in the same burial. Shell gorgets and flaked stone symbols also tend to be affiliated with different genders. Burials with marine shell gorgets that are identified in regard to gender are female. Flaked stone symbols, on the other hand, are found predominantly associated with male burials, suggesting that important distinctions were made in their use and eventual deposition. Both artifact types, whether used in combat-related ritual, displayed as proof of prowess in warfare, or featuring the figures and events of allegorical myths, played an important role in ritual activities. In addition, the fact that hypertrophic weaponry was interred with the Mississippian elite dead suggests that combat was an integral part of the soul’s movement from This World along the Path of Souls to its final repose in the realm of the dead (Dye 2004b). We hypothesize that certain rituals were based on the reenactment and dramatization of mythic sagas or narratives by chiefs/warrior priests. Thus, the in-
184
Marceaux and Dye
dividuals portrayed in scenes of combat should be seen as supernatural beings rather than humans in ritual pose. Chiefly elites appear to have reenacted archetypal creation dramas while dressed in the personae of celestial supernatural heroes. We further suggest that matriclans owned marine shell gorgets that bestowed upon them specific rights and responsibilities, granting male members the rights to perform or portray specific portions or segments of mythic narratives. Those individuals charged with or permitted to act out the mythic heroic dramas, upon their demise, may have been interred with the appropriate regalia that represented the mythic figures they impersonated in life, providing close correspondence between the material culture of ritual accouterments seen in the figural marine shell gorgets and the regalia interred with the elite dead, including Duck River swordform and raptor effigy bifaces. Corporate segments may have had the right to perform specific portions of rituals based on gorget ownership that in turn chartered elite activities. Ownership of bifaces by ritual specialists based on their clan membership and its ownership of gorgets may have been coupled with achievement of rank or position in secret societies through honors earned through combat. Gorgets in this sense may denote corporate rights of females to perform a portion of a mythic narrative and of males to own sword-form bifaces to be used as ritual tools. These thematic episodes appear to be part of a series of sequential scenes, acts, or tableaux represented not only in engraved marine shell but also in humanlike figural copper repoussé plates, statues, pipes, and pottery (Reilly 2004). The themes depict mortal altercation and trophy taking in the context of mythic epics or narrative sagas. We have in mind such prose epics as the Red Horn and Morning Star hero cycles wherein supernatural celestial protagonists, often appearing in temporary humanlike form, engage their adversarial antagonists in mortal combat on behalf of human supplicants. Upon a successful contest they return with combat trophies that endow them with renewed powers, supernatural gifts, success in warfare, new rituals, and ceremonial paraphernalia (Radin 1948:130– 131). These heroic adventures may have chartered human sacrifice and trophytaking behavior by Mississippian warrior priests or chiefs. In this interpretation the headsman theme gorgets appear to follow mortal combat gorgets as a series of scenes in a ritual dramatic cycle with the return of a heroic figure brandishing weapons of combat and exhibiting a decapitated head or other trophy for all to see. The combat weaponry found as burial accompaniments of Mississippian elites may suggest ritual impersonation or reenactment of mythic scenes was an important and integral component of elite political, ritual, and martial behavior.
10 Mississippian Shell Gorgets in Regional Perspective David J. Hally
Engraved shell gorgets are probably the most common element in the material inventory of the Southeastern Ceremonial Complex (SECC). They probably have the widest distribution in time and space as well. Not surprisingly, they have received considerable attention over the years from southeastern archaeologists. There have been attempts to date them (Brain and Phillips 1996; Kneberg 1959; Muller 1989; Smith 1989; Waring 1968d), interpret the subjects engraved on their surfaces (Knight et al. 2001; Smith and Smith 1989; Strong 1989; Waring 1968d), and identify the structural rules that guided the craftspeople who created them (Brown 1989; Muller 1966b, 1979; Phillips and Brown 1978). Relatively little research has focused on the spatial distribution of gorgets or the mechanisms by which they were moved across large distances (see, however, Muller 1997b). This is to be expected, given the considerable effort required to compile a database sufficiently large and comprehensive to permit meaningful observations of spatial distributions. This situation has been remedied to a great extent by Brain and Phillips’s recently published monograph, Shell Gorgets: Styles of the Late Prehistoric and Protohistoric Southeast (1996), which brings together information on the form, stratigraphic context, and geographic distribution of a large number of shell gorgets. Brain and Phillips use this information to construct a gorget chronology and to date the SECC, but they essentially ignore the vast wealth of spatial data they have accumulated. My purpose in this chapter is to do what they chose not to do: to identify patterns in the geographical and temporal distribution of gorgets and to understand the exchange mechanisms that gave rise to the observed distributions. I will begin with a brief review of Brain and Phillips’s research and findings. I will then propose a sequence and chronology for several of the gorget styles described in their book. Several spatial and temporal patterns that are evident in the
186
Hally
data published by Brain and Phillips will then be described, and I will conclude with suggestions for the exchange mechanisms that underlie these patterns.
The Brain and Phillips Study In their monograph, Brain and Phillips present descriptive information on more than 1,000 shell gorgets from over 130 sites scattered across the midwestern and southeastern United States. Most of the gorgets are assigned to one of 49 styles and 12 genres recognized by the authors (Figure 10.1). Genres are “general subject categories” (Brain and Phillips 1996:5) such as bird, spider, and geometric that provide a framework within which to present the styles. Each style is defined by a distinctive set of formal characteristics (overall gorget shape and the design elements that are combined to form motifs and themes), manufacturing techniques (engraving, drilling, cutting, and so on), and the structural relationships between elements and motifs in a design. Brain and Phillips distinguish between the iconographic content or subject matter portrayed on a gorget and the style or “system of rules” (Brain and Phillips 1996:6) that craftspeople followed in executing that subject matter. Muller (1966b, 1989) and Phillips and Brown (1978) make a similar distinction in their work with engraved shell cups and gorgets, but it is clear that their definition of style differs from that of Brain and Phillips. For them, style consists of a body of rules, a grammar, that guides the craftsperson in his or her execution of a gorget’s subject matter. In their view, different subjects or themes can be portrayed in the same style and a single subject can be portrayed in more than one style. Muller’s (1997b) Eddyville style, for example, includes gorgets portraying both spiders and human figures. Since the structural rules guiding a craftsperson may be subtle and complex and may exist in part in his or her subconscious, styles are difficult to accurately copy. This means that gorgets assignable to a single style were probably manufactured by a single individual or small group of individuals who learned the style from the same source. Brain and Phillips’s concept of style differs in at least two ways. They appear to place more emphasis on the “objective formal and technical attributes” (Brain and Phillips 1996:6) of a design and less on the structural rules that spell out how those attributes are to be combined to create the design. More important, I think, is their inclusion of iconographic content in the criteria used to distinguish some of their 49 styles. This is most clearly illustrated by the fact that gorgets with different subject matter that Muller identifies as being portrayed in a single style (e.g., Eddyville style spider and human figure gorgets) are assigned to different styles (Eddyville and McAdams) by Brain and Phillips. Some of the gorget styles recognized by Brain and Phillips can be used to identify craftspersons who adhered to a single structural grammar. It seems likely, however, that Brain and Phillips chose to include iconography among the de-
Figure 10.1. Gorget styles referred to in the text (see acknowledgments for sources). (Continued on the next page)
Figure 10.1. Continued
Mississippian Shell Gorgets in Regional Perspective
189
fining attributes of their gorget styles in order to further their goal of revealing the temporal distribution of gorget styles and ultimately the chronological age of the SECC (Brain and Phillips 1996:6, 395). Reliance on iconographic content allows the authors to place a larger percentage of the gorgets in their collection in style categories than would have been possible with the kind of structural analysis preferred by Muller and Phillips and Brown. It is also the case that by combining stylistic and iconographic criteria, the authors are able to create a larger number of style categories and thus perhaps a larger number of datable gorgets. Some investigators (Muller 1997b:371) may question the validity of Brain and Phillips’s gorget analysis on the grounds that it is not purely stylistic in character. The fact remains, however, that the large corpus of gorget data compiled by Brain and Phillips is organized according to their style categories. Any attempt to investigate the spatial and temporal distribution of the gorgets in their collection must use their style categories.
Gorget Style Chronology Figure 10.2 summarizes the sequence and chronology of gorget styles proposed by Brain and Phillips. The figure is based on comments made by the authors on pages 395–397 in which they assign 10 styles and genres to blocks of time designated “terminal prehistoric,” “early protohistoric,” “middle protohistoric,” and “late protohistoric.” Brain and Phillips constructed their sequence of styles and genres by analyzing grave lots and what they call “homogeneous burial associations” (HBAs). The former is defined as “the contents of a single grave, specifically those objects accompanying the burial of one or more individuals that can be reasonably interpreted as a single depositional event” (Brain and Phillips 1996:129). An HBA refers to “multiple graves in a well-defined archaeological context—such as a mound stage or a mortuary structure—that exhibit similar modes of burial treatment and comparable categories of grave goods that include some typological replication” (Brain and Phillips 1996:129). HBAs are assumed to represent time periods of sufficiently short duration that the associated items can be considered to be “reasonably contemporary” (Brain and Phillips 1996:129). Brain and Phillips provide no precise dates for their four time periods other than the statements that no gorgets “were deposited in a context before the fifteenth century” (Brain and Phillips 1996:396) and “the various styles of masks are all middle protohistoric or later (with survivals into the eighteenth and even nineteenth century on the Plains)” (Brain and Phillips 1996:395). Using these hints and assuming that they would have placed the prehistoric/protohistoric divide around a.d. 1550 when the first Spanish expeditions penetrated the interior Southeast, I have assigned dates to the periods as shown in Figure 10.2. Brain and Phillips identify 34 grave lots from 18 sites that contain two or more gorgets of different styles and a single gorget from Meigs County, Tennessee,
190
Hally
Figure 10.2. Gorget style sequence and chronology proposed by Brain and Phillips.
with different styles on its convex and concave surfaces (Brain and Phillips 1996: Table 21). They appear to have relied heavily on these in developing their gorget sequence. They identify chronologically significant HBAs in a 226-page review of the archaeological contexts in which gorgets and other SECC items have been found. HBAs appear to be utilized primarily for placing the gorget sequence in a chronological framework. Nowhere in the volume, however, do the authors describe in a concise, systematic manner the evidence for their proposed sequence and chronology. As a result, it is difficult for the reader to evaluate the evidence and reasoning they used in constructing them. Because of this shortcoming and because of my interest in understanding the geographical distribution of gorget-producing sites and documenting the occurrence of gorgets in non-mound contexts, I reviewed the original published sources for most of the sites that Brain and Phillips included in their review. In so doing, I was able to add four grave lots and a two-sided gorget to those listed in their Table 21. These are Burial 6 from Garden Creek (R. P. Stephen Davis, personal communication 2000; Dickens 1976), Burial 207 from Fain’s Island, Burial 16 and an unidentified burial from Little Egypt, and a gorget from Rolf Lee in West Virginia (Hoffman 1997) with a Citico style rattlesnake on one face and a mask on the other. The grave lots from Fain’s Island and the unidentified burial from Little Egypt were known to Brain and Phillips (1996:195, 213) but were not included in Table 21. Little Egypt Burial 16 is described in an unpublished report (Hally 1980: Table 31). I also found that four grave lots included in Table 21—Burials 13 and 49 at Toqua, Burials 195/196 at Thompson, and an unidentified burial at Cox— do
Mississippian Shell Gorgets in Regional Perspective
191
not have strong evidence for gorget associations and I have excluded them from my analysis. The revised set of grave lots and two-sided gorgets is presented in Table 10.1. The reader should note that the sites producing these grave lots and gorgets occur exclusively in the Tennessee, Cumberland, Alabama, Savannah, and Upper Ohio river drainages. The gorget sequence derived from these data, therefore, is valid only for those areas. Most gorget styles and genres that occur primarily or exclusively along the Illinois and Lower Ohio rivers and the Mississippi River and its western tributaries and along the south Atlantic and Gulf coasts cannot be placed in the sequence except by means of stylistic cross dating. The grave lots and two-sided gorgets listed in Table 10.1 have been ordered by a seriation of co-occurring styles and genres. The seriation suggests that styles and genres can be assigned to four largely discrete groups. Group 1 contains Hixon, Big Toco, Orton, Dunning, and Ruffner styles as well as specimens of the crib, bird, spider, and cruciform genres that cannot be assigned to a specific style. Group 2 contains Pine Island, Oktibbeha, Cox Mound, Nashville I, and Springs styles as well as unassigned specimens of the annular, cruciform, and triskele genres. Group 3 contains Nashville II, Spaghetti, Warren Wilson, Lick Creek, and Brakebill styles. The fourth group contains Taskigi, Buffalo, Chickamauga, and Citico styles and unassigned specimens of the rattlesnake and mask genre. A small number of grave lots contain combinations of gorget styles that do not conform to this seriation. These include Burial 241 from Toqua with a spider and a Lick Creek gorget; Burial 34 from Castalian Springs with an Eddyville gorget, two Cox Mound gorgets, and two Springs gorgets; Burial 207 at Fain’s Island with a Brakebill and a Buffalo gorget; Burial 69 at Hixon with a Ruffner and a Nashville I gorget; Burial 90 from 30 Acre Field with a Hixon and a Spaghetti-related gorget; and the Meigs County gorget with Spaghetti and Chickamauga style images on its two faces. The spider gorget from Toqua Burial 241 has what Brain and Phillips (1996:113) call an “ophidian band of concentric circles and pitted panels,” an element that is characteristic of the Nashville I and II styles. Since we cannot say with certainty that spider motifs were depicted only in Group 1 gorgets, it is reasonable to assign this particular gorget to either Group 2 or Group 3. In the latter case, it would be contemporaneous with the Lick Creek style. The supposedly noncontemporaneous gorget styles in Hixon Burial 69 (Ruffner and Nashville I), Castalian Springs Burial 34 (Eddyville, Cox Mound, and Springs), and Fain’s Island Burial 207 (Brakebill and Buffalo) come from sequential style groups: Groups 1 and 2, 1 and 2, and 3 and 4, respectively. They do not pose a problem for the seriation. If the development of gorget styles through time was a continuous process, we should expect some overlap between successive style groups. The Meigs County gorget presents a different challenge to the gorget style se-
Table 10.1. Seriation of Gorget Styles from Grave Lot Associations Site
Crib
Bird
Beaverdam Burial 48 Hixon Burial 58 Hixon Burial 68 Hixon Burial 45 Etowah Burial 6 Hixon Burial 52 Talassee Burial 116 Talassee Burial 113 Hixon Burial 72 Citico Burial ? Etowah Burial 210 Etowah Burial 201 Mulberry Creek Burial 119 Rudder Burial 16 Rudder Burial 20 Thompson Burial 132 Hixon Burial 69 Rutherford Burial 54 Gray’s Farm Burial 4 Castalian Springs Burial 34 Gray’s Farm Burial 24 Dallas Burial 136 30 Acre Field Burial 90
Crib
Bird Hixon Hixon Hixon Hixon Hixon Hixon Hixon Hixon Hixon
Human
Spider
Cruciform
Spider Spider Orton Orton Orton
Cruciform
Annular
Big Toco Big Toco
Dunning Cruciform Ruffner Pine Island Pine island Pine Island Oktibbeha Oktibbeha Oktibbeha Cruciform Ruffner
Annular
Cox Mound Cox Mound
Cox Mound Cox Mound Cox Mound Cox Mound
Eddyville
Hixon
Little Egypt Burial ? Toqua Burial 241 Garden Creek Burial 6
Cox Mound
Spider
Warren Wilson Burial 5 Fain’s Island Burial 207 Taskigi Burial 96 Taskigi Burial 93 Taskigi Burial 91 Citico Burial 23 Little Egypt Burial 16 Meigs County Rolf Lee ?
All references are to Brain and Phillips (1996:Table 21) unless otherwise noted.
Triskele
Spaghetti
Geometric
Warren Wilson
Rattlesnake
Mask
Plain
References
Plain
Triskele
Triskele Nashville I Nashville I Nashville I Springs Triskele Nashville II
Plain
Spaghetti Spaghettirelated
Nashville II
Brakebill
Brain and Phillips 1996:195n
Lick Creek Lick Creek
Spaghetti
Warren Wilson
Lick Creek Brakebill
Taskigi related Taskigi Taskigi related
R. P. S. Davis, personal communication 2000
Buffalo
Brain and Phillips 1996:213
Buffalo Rattlesnake Rattlesnake Rattlesnake
Spaghetti Citico
Plain Chickamauga McBee Chickamauga Mask
Hally 1980:Table 31
Hoffman 1997: Figure 54
194
Hally
riation in Table 10.1. The overall shape of the gorget is that of a mask and its convex surface bears a Chickamauga style face. The concave surface, on the other hand, bears a Spaghetti style figure. Because the design field for the Spaghetti figure “conforms to the mask shape” of the gorget, Brain and Phillips (1996:77) argue that the gorget was decorated on both sides simultaneously. Not only does the grave lot evidence indicate that these two styles belong in different style groups but also, as discussed below, Chickamauga style gorgets are probably a relatively late form of mask gorget in Group 4. The Meigs County gorget is one of three gorgets that Brain and Phillips (1996:63–65) identify as differing from the “classic version” of the Spaghetti style. Fenestrations are replaced by drill holes, and the gorgets are cut from the lower portion of the Busycon shell, giving them a masklike shape. Given these characteristics, two alternative interpretations can be offered for the Meigs County gorget that are compatible with the seriation in Table 10.1. It may represent a late variant of the Spaghetti style that overlaps in time with the Chickamauga style or it is an heirloom that was reworked into a Chickamauga style gorget. The Hixon and Spaghetti gorgets from 30 Acre Field Burial 90 belong to Groups 1 and 3, respectively. Given the temporal gap implied by their style group assignments, they are clearly not overlapping styles. Nor is there stylistic evidence that would allow us to reassign either of them to a different style group. The best explanation for them is that the Hixon style gorget was an heirloom, kept in use for perhaps 50 years before being interred with Burial 90. Grave lot associations are one of the most important sources of evidence we have for sequencing shell gorget styles. To be valid as evidence, however, grave lots must contain only gorgets that were manufactured at approximately the same time. If some gorgets were passed down over several generations or used for long periods of time before being placed in a burial, then grave lots may cause us to identify styles as contemporary when in reality they were not. Based on the evidence compiled in Table 10.1, heirlooming appears to have occurred, but it does not seem to have been common. Only one grave lot out of 34 cases combines styles in a way that is indicative of heirlooming. Brain and Phillips were motivated to demonstrate that the manufacture and use of engraved shell gorgets spanned only a few hundred years between a.d. 1400 and 1700. In their analysis of grave lot, HBA, and other archaeological contexts, they tended to emphasize temporal overlap of styles and to ignore the phase chronologies that other archaeologists have established in various locations across the Southeast. The general lack of grave lot associations that span two or more of the style groups proposed here, however, strongly suggests that the latter are largely separated in time. Archaeologists working in northern Georgia over the past 70 years have developed a number of finely divided ceramic phase sequences (Caldwell 1957; Fair-
Mississippian Shell Gorgets in Regional Perspective
195
Figure 10.3. Revised gorget style sequence and chronology.
banks 1950; Hally 1979; King 2003; Sears 1958; Wauchope 1948; Williams and Shapiro 1996). Stylistic crossties allow these local sequences to be combined into a single pan–northern Georgia period sequence (Hally 1996; Hally and Langford 1988). A substantial number of radiocarbon dates are now available for the region, and most are sufficiently consistent with one another to allow the periods to be dated rather precisely. Stylistic crossties also allow ceramically defined phases and phase sequences in adjacent portions of Alabama, Tennessee, and the Carolinas to be tied into the northern Georgia sequence with some degree of precision. All of the gorget styles in the four groups have spatial distributions that extend into this region. Many examples of these styles were recovered from archaeological contexts that allow them to be reliably assigned to a specific period in the northern Georgia sequence. These contexts include mound construction stages that can be reliably assigned to a particular phase/period; single-component, short-occupancy sites; and multicomponent sites where component affiliation can be determined for specific gorgets with some reliability. The contextual evidence supports the style seriation in Table 10.1, allows us to refine the sequence implied by that seriation, and allows us to assign dates to the sequence (Figure 10.3). The Beaverdam Creek site provides the earliest, reliably dated, stratigraphic context for shell gorgets. Three gorgets— one Hixon style, one Bennett-like crib,
196
Hally
and one bird of unidentified style—accompanied burials stratigraphically associated with the pre-mound midden and the earliest mound construction stage (Rudolph and Hally 1985). Beaverdam Creek was occupied during the Early Savannah period and has yielded three MASCA (Museum Applied Science Center for Archaeology) calibrated radiocarbon dates ranging between a.d. 1200 and 1250. Two sites in eastern Tennessee have yielded Bennett style gorgets that also appear to be quite early. Moore (1915:348) reports one from a burial in the Bennett Mound that also contained a Hiwassee Island Red-on-Buff bowl. Burial 96 at Hixon was located in or below the pre-mound occupation zone that underlay a Hiwassee Island culture mound stage (Lewis et al. 1995:407–408). Hiwassee Island culture predates Dallas culture, which is the context in which most Group 1 gorget styles occur. Eight gorget styles and genres—Hixon, Big Toco, Moorehead, spider, annular, Russell, Pine Island, and triskele—are represented in burials from the pre-final mantle construction stage of Mound C, Etowah (Brain and Phillips 1996; King 2003). Four styles—Hixon, Big Toco, Cartersville, and Younge—are represented in final mantel burials. Gorgets in the Hixon and Big Toco styles are found in both stratigraphic contexts. The final mantle presumably was added to Mound C immediately following the abandonment of the pre-final mantle mound stage, and burials may have begun to accumulate in it soon afterward. We can expect, therefore, that some gorget styles would be found in both contexts. The Mound C gorget assemblage resembles fairly closely that which makes up Group 1 in the grave lot seriation. Both include Hixon and Big Toco styles and a number of cruciform styles. The Pine Island, annular, and triskele forms from Mound C, however, are assigned to Group 2 in the style seriation. Again, I see no problem with this since there should be some temporal overlap in gorget styles from successive style groups. King (2003) assigns the pre-final mantle to the Early Wilbanks phase (a.d. 1250–1325) and the final mantle to the Late Wilbanks phase (a.d. 1325–1375). None of the gorget styles in Groups 2 and 3 have been found in stratigraphic contexts that can be tied into the northern Georgia ceramic sequence. Moorehead (Brain and Phillips 1996:195) found two Nashville II and two Brakebill style gorgets in burials at the Little Egypt site. In all probability, they date to the Early Lamar Little Egypt phase (a.d. 1350–1450), but without stratigraphic or ceramic evidence, this cannot be confirmed. On the basis of stylistic criteria alone, Brain and Phillips argue that Lick Creek, Brakebill, Carters Quarter, and Citico styles form a single evolutionary sequence within the rattlesnake genre. There is no stratigraphic or ceramic evidence that shows Lick Creek and Brakebill styles to be earlier than the other two. There is, however, strong evidence that Carters Quarter and Citico style gorgets date to the mid-sixteenth century and that they do not occur with Lick Creek and Brakebill
Mississippian Shell Gorgets in Regional Perspective
197
styles. Citico style gorgets, occurring in eight burials at King, are the only rattlesnake form represented in over 200 burials. Iron artifacts present in some burials indicate the short Barnett phase occupation at the site dates to the time of the mid-sixteenth-century de Soto and/or Luna expeditions. The Little Egypt site was probably occupied continuously from early in the fifteenth century through at least the first half of the sixteenth century. Lick Creek, Brakebill, Carters Quarter, and Citico gorgets have all been found at the site (Brain and Phillips 1996:195– 198), but the only burials that can be assigned to a component were Barnett phase burials and they contained Citico style gorgets (Hally 1979, 1980). Presumably the other styles date to early portions of the site’s occupation. Brain and Phillips do not argue that Buffalo, Chickamauga, and McBee style mask gorgets form a single evolutionary development, but they do suggest that McBee gorgets are later than the other styles. Five burials at King had mask gorgets, and all are Chickamauga style. The longer-occupied Little Egypt site has yielded all three mask styles, including a Chickamauga and a McBee gorget in one grave lot. Figure 10.3 summarizes the sequential and chronological evidence discussed above. The sequence of styles and genres does not differ significantly from that proposed by Brain and Phillips (compare Figure 10.2). Chronologically, however, the two schemes are quite different. The sequence favored here is probably 100 years or so longer but, more important, it begins at least 150 years earlier at approximately a.d. 1250 and is largely finished by a.d. 1600. Muller (1989) has proposed a chronology of similar age and duration, although lacking in the refinement of the present scheme.
Spatial and Temporal Distribution of Gorgets The geographical distribution of shell gorgets that are included in the Brain and Phillips inventory is illustrated in Figure 10.4. The map also includes several sites with shell gorgets that are not listed by Brain and Phillips. These are Point Washington on the Gulf coast of Florida (Moore 1901); Bradley Place, Pecan Point, and Rhoades in the Eastern Lowlands of Arkansas (Moore 1911); Grove’s Creek on the Georgia coast (E. Garrison, personal communication 2003); Mann and Murphy on the Lower Ohio River (C. Munson, personal communication 2000); and 15 Fort Ancient sites in Ohio and West Virginia (Drooker 1997; Hoffman 1997). Information on most of these sites is either unpublished or was published subsequent to Brain and Phillips’s book, while the gorgets from the Florida and Arkansas sites are known only from Moore’s published descriptions. As is quite evident, sites with shell gorgets are unevenly distributed across the Southeast. They are most heavily concentrated in the Upper Tennessee River drainage. Lesser concentrations occur in the Lower and Middle Cumberland river
198
Hally
Figure 10.4. Distribution of known sites with shell gorgets.
valleys, the Middle Tennessee River valley in northern Alabama, the Upper Coosa drainage in northwestern Georgia, the Upper Ohio River valley, the junction of the Coosa and Tallapoosa rivers in Alabama, the Eastern Lowlands of Arkansas, and the Central Illinois Valley. The South Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plains, the Gulf Coast, the Lower Mississippi Valley below Memphis, and the Lower Arkansas River valley appear to be largely devoid of sites yielding gorgets. Other regions such as the Piedmont of Georgia and the Carolinas, the Georgia coast, the Lower Ohio Valley, the Upper Mississippi Valley, and the Red River valley have sites with gorgets, but not in large numbers. The important question to be addressed is whether the distribution of known shell gorget–producing sites and locations accurately reflects the distribution of shell gorget use or whether it is biased by factors such as aboriginal mortuary practices and intensity of burial excavation and reporting. Gorgets may have been in common use in a society but seldom interred with the dead. This situation would be difficult to identify in the archaeological record without extensive excavation of occupation surfaces and refuse deposits. Indeed, one of the few sites I am aware of where gorgets are known only from nonburial contexts, Angel, is one of the most extensively excavated Mississippian sites in the eastern United States. The possibility that mortuary practices may affect the frequency with which shell gorgets
Mississippian Shell Gorgets in Regional Perspective
199
are represented at sites cannot be ignored, but for practical reasons we must assume that it is not a significant factor. The relative frequency of burials with gorgets varies from as low as .06 percent to as high as 11 percent on sites with large burial collections but seldom exceeds 6 percent (Table 10.2). This being the case, the more burials excavated and reported from a site, the greater the chance that gorgets, if present, will be found. This effect will vary depending upon how common gorget use was in a particular society, and this may vary in a region through time. In those cases in which burials were excavated primarily by pothunters, there is the added factor that gorget recovery may go unreported or inaccurately reported. In the final analysis, however, the frequency of excavated burials at a site often can be estimated from published or unpublished sources, and this figure in comparison with the number of burials reported to have gorgets can then be used to estimate how common gorget use was at that site. Burials have been excavated in large quantities from a number of sites in the Middle and Upper Tennessee river valleys, the Upper Coosa River drainage, and the Middle Cumberland River valley (Table 10.2). With the exception of the Mouse Creek phase sites (Rymer, Ledford Island, and Mouse Creeks) in eastern Tennessee, these sites yielded on average about one gorget per 20 burials. Review of the published data on frequency of excavated burials and burials with gorgets across the Southeast indicates that a similar ratio of burials to gorgets occurs in the Carolina and Georgia Piedmont and in the Upper Coastal Plain of Alabama and Mississippi (Table 10.2). Gorgets were evidently in common use in these regions but are poorly represented in the Brain and Phillips sample due to the small number of excavated and reported burials. Brain and Phillips list very few sites with shell gorgets in the Lower Coastal Plain and Coastal zone of Georgia and the Carolinas. The ratio of gorgets to burials is quite low at these sites, indicating that gorgets were not in common use in the region. There is even less evidence for gorget use in the Lower Coastal Plain and Coastal zone of northwestern Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana. Large numbers of burials have been excavated and looted at sites like Bottle Creek in Alabama and Fort Walton in Florida (Ian Brown, personal communication 2000; Moore 1901, 1903, 1905b), but only Point Washington (Moore 1901) and Lake Jackson (Brain and Phillips 1996) have yielded gorgets. In these areas, the available distribution data appear to accurately reflect the level of gorget use. Large numbers of burials have been excavated and looted from many sites located in the Mississippi alluvial valley and its tributaries below the mouth of the Ohio River (Brown 1926; Marvin Jeter, personal communication 2000; Lemley and Dickinson 1937; Jeff Mitchem, personal communication 2000; Moore 1908, 1909, 1910, 1911; Phillips et al. 1951). Without exception, these sites have yielded few or no gorgets. We may conclude, therefore, that the Brain and Phillips distribution data also accurately reflect the level of gorget use in this region. Even the
AL—Tennessee R.
AL—Coosa R.
AL—Coosa R.
AL—Tallapoosa R.
AL—Tallapoosa R.
AL—Black Warrior R.
AR—Mississippi R.
AR—Mississippi R.
AR—Mississippi R.
AR—Mississippi R.
Polecat Creek
Taskigi
30 Acre Field
Charlotte Thompson
Moundvillea
Upper Nodena
Bradley Place
Pecan Point
Rose Mound
Long Island
Law
AL—Tennessee R.
AL—Tennessee R.
Bellefonte
AL—Tennessee R.
AL—Tennessee R.
Sublet Ferry
Cox
Rudder
AL—Tennessee R.
AL—Tennessee R.
Little Bear Creek
207
349
181
1,755
2,689
Many
111
1,500+
35+
74
300+
9+
28
81
139
27
102
83
AL—Tennessee R.
AL—Tennessee R.
Hobbs Island
# of Burials
Region/Drainage
Koger’s Island
Site
2
3
2
1
12
27
4
20+
15
3
8
1
3
5
6
2
1
3
# Burials with Gorgets
1
0.9
1
0.06
0.4
4
4
11
6
4
7
1
4
% Burials with Gorgets
1,500+
35+
300+
Looted Burials
Table 10.2. Frequency of Gorget Burials Relative to Number of Burials at Select Sites
Moore 1910
Moore 1911
Moore 1911
Morse 1973
V. J. Knight, personal communication 2003
Moore 1909
Brain and Phillips 1996:291
Brain and Phillips 1996:293–295
Brain and Phillips 1996:289–290
Webb and Wilder 1951
Webb and Wilder 1951
Webb and Wilder 1951
Webb and Wilder 1951
Webb and Wilder 1951
Moore 1915; Webb and Wilder 1951
Webb and DeJarnette 1948
Webb 1939:85–89
Webb 1939:85–89
References
GA—Coosa R.
GA—Coosa R.
GA—Coosa R.
GA—Coosa R.
GA—Coosa R.
Little Egypt
Thompson
King
Leake
Etowah
IL—Illinois R.
IL—Illinois R.
IL—Illinois R.
IL—Illinois R.
IN—Lower Ohio R.
Norris Farm 36 Cemetery
Emmons Cemetery
Brown County Ossuary
Murphy
Continued on the next page
GA—Coast
Bourbon Field
Crable
265
GA—Coast
GA—Coast
Irene
Hollywood
Creighton Island
9+
GA—Piedmont
GA—Coastal Plain
Stallings Island
62
57
350
83
264
300+
192
262
84
47
GA—Piedmont
GA—Piedmont
Beaverdam Creek
49
75
244
27
211
Many
59
Many
22
65
42
Chauga
GA—Piedmont
FL—Gulf Coast
Point Washington
GA—Piedmont
FL—Gulf Coastal Plain
Lake Jackson
Lamar
AR—Mississippi R.
Rhoades
Nacoochee
AR—Mississippi R.
Turkey Island
1
Several
2
4
25
1
3
5
1?
1
2
1 (3?)
2
4
19
2
13
8
5
Several
3
1
1
2
2
2
0.5
1
2
1
4
6
4
5
8
7
6
8
14
2
2
300+
Many
65
C. Munson, personal communication 2000
Conrad 1991
Conrad 1991; Brain and Phillips 1996
Santure and Esarey 1990
Morse 1969
Moore 1897
Moore 1897
Caldwell and McCann 1941
Brain and Phillips 1996:191–193
Cla®in 1931
Rudolph and Hally 1985
Kelly and Neitzel 1961
Smith 1973
Brain and Phillips 1996:193–195
Brain and Phillips 1996; King 2003
Hally 1990
Hally 2006
Brain and Phillips 1996:425
Hally 1979, 1980
Moore 1901
Wheeler 2001
Moore 1911
Moore 1910
279 112
NC—Piedmont
NC—Piedmont
NC—Blue Ridge
TN—Tennessee R.
TN—Tennessee R.
TN—Tennessee R.
TN—Tennessee R.
TN—Tennessee R.
Coweta Creek
Dallas
Hixon
Sale Creek
Thompson
Hiwassee Island
188
Many
108
83
27
35
216
218+
Many
Several
Warren Wilson
Saint Marys
Garden Creek
MO—Mississippi R.
Rolling Hills
33 31
MO—Mississippi R.
MS—Tombigbee R.
Tibbee Creek
NC—Piedmont
MS—Tombigbee R.
Kellog
17 26
Town Creek
MS—Tombigbee R.
Belcher
208
301
28
# of Burials
Campbell
KY—Cumberland R.
LA—Red R.
Williams
KY—Upper Ohio R.
KY—Upper Ohio R.
Fox Farm
IN—Lower Ohio R.
Mann
Hardin
Region/Drainage
Site
Table 10.2. Continued
8
7
2
13
16
7
6
2
2
5
8
1
1
3
1
1
4+
14
1
# Burials with Gorgets
4
2
11
6
8
22
6
1
3
9
4
6
5
4
% Burials with Gorgets
218+
Many
Looted Burials
Lewis and Kneberg 1946
Brain and Phillips 1996:262
Sullivan 1995
Sullivan 1995
Sullivan 1995
C. Rodning, personal communication 2000
Dickens 1976
Dickens 1976
Coe 1995
O’Brien and Holland 1994
Brain and Phillips 1996:274–275
Atkinson 1979
Blitz 1993
Blitz 1993
Webb 1959
Webb and Funkhouser 1929
Smith 1910
Hanson 1966:161
C. Munson, personal communication 2000
References
W V—Upper Ohio R.
W V—Upper Ohio R.
W V—Upper Ohio R.
Orchard
Rolf Lee
3 Mile Creek
8
Many
300+
60+
100+
1
19
6
6
8
15
8
6
15
25
16
1
3
2
12
2
71
6
8
3
0.6
2
0.4
300+
60+
Hoffman 1997
Hoffman 1997
Hoffman 1997
Hoffman 1997
Hoffman 1997
Krieger 1946
Brain and Phillips 1996:253–254
Brain and Phillips 1996
Brain and Phillips 1996
Brain and Phillips 1996:203–206
Polhemus 1987
Sullivan 1995
Sullivan 1995
Sullivan 1995
Of 505 Moundville site burials seriated by Steponaitis (1998:Table 2.8), 89 percent date to Moundville II or later. Applying this percentage to the total number of recorded burials at the site (3,029) gives an estimate of 2,689 burials that are late enough to potentially have had gorgets.
a
562
W V—Upper Ohio R.
W V—Upper Ohio R.
Buffalo
TX—Red R.
Sanders
Marmet
21
TN—Cumberland R.
Castalian Springs
198 107
TN—Cumberland R.
TN—Cumberland R.
Rutherford’s Farm
Many
511
166
170
462
Gray’s Farm
TN—Tennessee R.
TN—Tennessee R.
TN—Tennessee R.
Mouse Creeks
Lick Creek Mound
TN—Tennessee R.
Rymer
Toqua
TN—Tennessee R.
Ledford Island
204
Hally
gorget-producing sites clustered in the Eastern Lowlands of Arkansas have a very low gorget to burial ratio. These sites, furthermore, yield only mask gorgets, suggesting that gorget use was restricted to the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. Gorgets are reported by Brain and Phillips from only a few locations in the Mississippi Valley above the mouth of the Ohio River. Although one site, Saint Marys, has yielded several gorgets, there is no information available on the ratio of gorgets to burials. Mound sites are common along the river, at least below the mouth of the Illinois River, but few have had professional excavation of any magnitude and those that have generally predate a.d. 1300, when shell gorget use becomes common (Milner 1998). In the Central Illinois Valley, where large numbers of burials have been excavated and reported by professionals and nonprofessionals, gorgets occur in significant numbers.1 Gorget-to-burial ratios cannot be calculated for these latter sites, but the relatively large number of gorgets and sites yielding them indicates that gorget use was common in the area. In all likelihood, the general paucity of sites with gorgets along the Illinois section of the Mississippi River and its tributaries is due to lack of burial excavation and reporting. The possible abandonment of the region after a.d. 1400 (Butler 1991; Milner 1998; Price and Price 1990; Williams 1990), however, also may be a contributing factor. Brain and Phillips list only a handful of sites in the Lower Ohio Valley as yielding shell gorgets and none along the middle section of the river. Substantial numbers of burials dating to the late thirteenth and fourteenth centuries (Clay 1997; Muller 1986b) have been excavated at a few sites—Wickliffe, Kincaid, and Angel—but gorgets are virtually unrepresented among the grave furnishings. The two gorget fragments from Angel, in fact, were recovered from a mound summit surface (Black 1967). Mask gorgets are reported from sixteenth-century CabornWelborn phase sites located around the mouth of the Wabash River (C. Munson, personal communication 2000). Except possibly for this protohistoric phase, shell gorgets appear not to have been commonly used in the Lower Ohio Valley, a situation reflected in the site distribution data. On the basis of the information reviewed above, we may conclude that the site distribution illustrated in Figure 10.4 is, with only a few exceptions, a fairly accurate representation of variation in the intensity of shell gorget use across the eastern United States. One exception is the Upper Tennessee River drainage, where gorgets may be “overrepresented” as a result of extensive burial excavation associated with reservoir salvage projects. Other exceptions include the Piedmont of Georgia and the Carolinas and the Upper Mississippi Valley. Gorgets are underrepresented in these regions because relatively small numbers of burials have been excavated and reported. Finally, the fact that the large number of sites with gorgets in the Upper Ohio drainage and in the Eastern Lowlands of Arkansas date almost entirely to a brief interval at the end of the aboriginal period should serve
Mississippian Shell Gorgets in Regional Perspective
205
Table 10.3. Distances Across Shell Gorget Style Core Areas and Distances to Outlier Sites Gorget Style
Maximum Core Dimension (km)
Outlier Distances (km)
Big Toco
260
482, 790
Hixon
270
196, 240
McAdams
290
175-205
Ruffner
330
140
Cox (fenestrated)
245
105
Cox (nonfenestrated)
225
184
Spaghetti
350
185, 204, 400
Nashville I
180
467
Nashville II
255
133, 231, 285
Lick Creek
265
205
Carters Quarter
245
155–340
Citico
495
129–425
Buffalo
260
273, 432, 625
Chickamauga
295
197, 567
as a warning that gorget use in many parts of the eastern United States may be of only short duration.
Spatial and Temporal Distribution Patterns of Gorget Styles Analysis of gorget style data presented in Brain and Phillips reveals a number of interesting spatial and temporal patterns. To begin with, most styles that are represented at five or more sites have a spatial distribution that is characterized by a spatial concentration of sites in one area—what I will call the “core area”—and a small number of “outlier” sites that are located at some distance from the core area. The linear distance separating the most widely spaced sites within core areas is fairly consistent, ranging for the most part between approximately 200 and 350 km (Table 10.3). Outliers may occur as much as 800 km from the core, but most distances are around 200 km. Figures 10.5 to 10.9 illustrate this pattern for the Big Toco, Hixon, Ruffner, McAdams, and Lick Creek styles. Core and outlier distributions probably result from different kinds of human interaction networks, a matter that will be addressed in the last section of this chapter. A few gorget styles have spatial distributions that may not conform to this core-outlier pattern. Cox Mound style gorgets occur in approximately equal num-
Figure 10.5. Distribution of sites with Big Toco style gorgets.
Figure 10.6. Distribution of sites with Hixon style gorgets.
Figure 10.7. Distribution of sites with Ruffner style gorgets.
Figure 10.8. Distribution of sites with McAdams style gorgets.
208
Hally
Figure 10.9. Distribution of sites with Lick Creek style gorgets.
bers and density on the Cumberland and Tennessee rivers (Figure 10.10). The maximum distance across the entire distribution (excluding Wickliffe at the confluence of the Ohio and Mississippi rivers) is 335 km. This is not significantly larger than most other core areas, but the distance between the concentrations on the two rivers (approximately 160 km) is large compared with distances separating sites in other core areas. Almost all of the gorgets along the Cumberland River are fenestrated, while most along the Tennessee River are not. On the basis of this stylistic difference, I am inclined to identify two core areas, each characterized by a different gorget style. Nashville I style gorgets have a somewhat similar distribution. Most specimens are distributed along the Middle and Lower Cumberland rivers, but a second, smaller group of sites is located on the Upper Tennessee River approximately 150 km to the southeast (Figure 10.11). The latter could all be outliers, but the fact that the closely related Nashville II style has its core area along the same stretch of the Upper Tennessee River suggests that the situation is more complex than this. Some Late Mississippian gorget styles diverge from the core-outlier pattern in having well-defined core areas and a second smaller cluster of sites located at some distance. These are discussed below as representing a distinct distribution pattern.
Figure 10.10. Distribution of sites with Cox fenestrated and Cox nonfenestrated style gorgets.
Figure 10.11. Distribution of sites with Nashville I style gorgets.
210
Hally
Figure 10.12. Distribution of sites with Pine Island style gorgets.
The Pine Island gorget style deviates from the core-outlier pattern in a different way (Figure 10.12). It is the most widely distributed style, occurring over most of the study area, and it lacks an obvious core area. As the number of documented finds increases, a core may emerge in either the Middle Tennessee River or around the confluence of the Ohio and Mississippi rivers. A second pattern involves gorget styles that belong to a single genre and have nonoverlapping core area distributions. Examples include the Big Toco and Eddyville styles depicting human figures (Figure 10.13); the Hixon and the Pearce and Jackson styles depicting turkeys (Figure 10.14); the McAdams and the Rudder and Ortner styles depicting spiders (Figure 10.15); and the Younge, Lenoir, Tibbee Creek, and Ruffner styles depicting crosses within circles (Figure 10.16). I cannot establish with certainty that these genre-related styles are contemporary in all cases, but stylistic similarities suggest that many are. To the extent that they are contemporary, their nonoverlapping distributions suggest that they were involved in different interaction networks. A third pattern involves two or more styles of a single genre having similar core area distributions. The clearest example of this is the distribution of the Lick Creek, Brakebill, Carters Quarter, and Citico styles of the rattlesnake genre (Figure 10.17). A reasonable argument can be made on stylistic grounds that the
Figure 10.13. Distribution of sites with Big Toco and Eddyville style gorgets.
Figure 10.14. Distribution of sites with Hixon, Jackson, and Pearce style gorgets.
Figure 10.15. Distribution of sites with Ortner, McAdams, and Rudder style gorgets.
Figure 10.16. Distribution of sites with Ruffner, Younge, Lenoir, and Tibbee Creek style gorgets.
Mississippian Shell Gorgets in Regional Perspective
213
Figure 10.17. Distribution of sites with Citico, Carters Quarter, Brakebill, and Lick Creek style gorgets.
different rattlesnake styles are not contemporary but represent instead succeeding variants of a single iconographic and stylistic tradition (Brain and Phillips 1996:83–96). The fact that their core areas are spatially coincident suggests that they were part of a single, long-lasting interaction network. The Ruffner and Dunning styles of the cruciform genre (Figure 10.18) may represent another example of this phenomenon. Their distributions, however, overlap only partially and there are too few recorded sites with these styles to be certain we know what their core areas look like. A fourth pattern involves contemporary gorget styles that belong to different genres but have similar core area distributions. Examples include the Hixon, Big Toco, and Dunning styles during the Late Savannah period (Figure 10.19); the Eddy ville, McAdams, and Younge styles, dating to the same period (Figure 10.20); the Spaghetti, Nashville II, and Lick Creek styles during the Early Lamar period (Figure 10.21); and the Citico and Chickamauga styles during the Middle Lamar period (Figure 10.22). These contemporary gorget styles were probably circulating within the same interaction networks. The temporal distributions of genres suggest a fifth pattern. In terms of icono-
Figure 10.18. Distribution of sites with Ruffner and Dunning style gorgets.
Figure 10.19. Distribution of sites with Hixon, Big Toco, and Dunning style gorgets.
Mississippian Shell Gorgets in Regional Perspective
215
Figure 10.20. Distribution of sites with Younge, Eddyville, and McAdams style gorgets.
graphic content, the genres recognized by Brain and Phillips fall into three broad categories: human, animal, and abstract or non-naturalistic. The human category includes the human figural and mask genres; the animal category includes the bird, spider, and rattlesnake genres; and the abstract category includes the crib, cruciform, geometric, triskele, and annular genres. As we saw above, contemporary gorget styles from all of these categories appear to have circulated together within at least some interaction networks. In the eastern Tennessee–northern Georgia area, where we have the best chronological control, this pattern persists throughout almost the entire time when shell gorgets are in use (Table 10.4). Only in the Middle Lamar period does it appear to break down and then only in the abstract category. This pattern is probably represented in the Midwest during the fourteenth century by Eddyville, McAdams, and Younge style gorgets, but it ceases in the fifteenth century when shell gorgets evidently cease being manufactured in that area. There appears to be more design variability in the abstract category than in the human and animal categories. When more data on design variation within themes and more accurate dating of styles become available, it may be necessary to subdi-
216
Hally
Figure 10.21. Distribution of sites with Spaghetti, Nashville II, and Lick Creek style gorgets.
vide this category.2 I like the idea of there being four categories (one human, one animal, and two abstract) that would bring this conceptual realm into line with the larger structure of southeastern cosmology (Hudson 1976). Regardless of how this question is resolved, I think the temporal and spatial distributions of gorget styles indicate that there is some deeper symbolic structure underlying the welter of genres identified by Brain and Phillips. The final pattern evident in the spatial distributions of gorgets concerns single styles that have multiple areas of concentration or core areas. It is based on data compiled by Brain and Phillips as well as by Hoffman (1997) and myself. Citico style gorgets have their greatest spatial concentration in the Upper Tennessee and Upper Coosa river valleys (Figure 10.23). A second, smaller concentration of sites, however, occurs in the Upper Ohio River valley (Brain and Phillips 1996:97; Hoffman 1997). The two concentrations are separated by approximately 300 km, but a group of outlier sites is situated midway between them in the area where Virginia, Tennessee, and North Carolina come together. Buffalo style gorgets have their main concentration in the Upper Tennessee River valley, but smaller concentrations of sites also occur in the Upper Ohio
Figure 10.22. Distribution of sites with Citico and Chickamauga style gorgets.
Table 10.4. Temporal Associations of Gorget Themes in the Eastern Tennessee– Northern Georgia Area Human Theme
Animal Theme
Middle Lamar
Chickamauga
Carters Quarter and Citico
?
Early/Middle Lamar
Buffalo
Brakebill and Carters Quarter
?
Early Lamar
Spaghetti
Lick Creek
Nashville II Warren Wilson
Late Savannah
Big Toco
Hixon Orton
Ruffner Dunning
Abstract Theme
218
Hally
Figure 10.23. Distribution of sites with Citico style gorgets.
River valley and in eastern Arkansas (Figure 10.24) (Brain and Phillips 1996:76; Hoffman 1997). The Tennessee–Lower Mississippi Valley connection is also evident in the distribution of Chickamauga and McBee mask gorgets (Figure 10.25). These two styles probably are slightly later than the Buffalo style but are at least partially contemporaneous with each other. The gorgets from Rhoades and Pecan Point in Arkansas (Moore 1911) and Campbell in Missouri (O’Brien and Holland 1994) are described as being small in size and are thus more likely to be McBee style. I can think of no reason these styles should have spatial distributions suggestive of two or three different core areas. They do date to the postcontact period, however, and it may be that their widespread production and use relates to the demographic and political disruption caused by the arrival of Europeans.
Interpretation of Gorget Style Distributions Shell gorgets are almost always found in burials. We may infer from this association that shell gorgets were considered appropriate burial furniture for at least
Mississippian Shell Gorgets in Regional Perspective
219
Figure 10.24. Distribution of sites with Buffalo style gorgets.
some segments of Mississippian society. Because of their frequent placement in the chest area of the deceased and physical association with shell beads, we also can infer that gorgets were commonly suspended on necklaces placed around the neck of the deceased.3 Unfortunately, burial context does not tell us much about how gorgets were used prior to interment. Most archaeologists would agree, however, that gorgets were probably worn as items of costume by the people with whom they were interred—at least on special occasions if not on a daily basis. The broad spatial distribution of many gorget styles and evidence (Brain and Phillips 1996:8) that some styles were made by relatively few craftspeople suggests that gorgets also were exchanged between individuals. Exchanges may have taken place as gifts or payments of one kind or another between producer and consumer, between consumers, or even between producers. The question of who used shell gorgets is important because it relates directly to the question of who had control over their production and distribution, and we need to know this if we are to succeed in making sense out of the distribution of gorgets in space and time. If only elite had access to gorgets,4 then it is likely that they also controlled their production and distribution. If most members of society
220
Hally
Figure 10.25. Distribution of sites with Chickamauga, McBee, and unidentified mask style gorgets.
had access to gorgets, it is still possible for elite to have controlled their production and distribution, but it is also possible that nonelite had such control. Brain and Phillips (1996:400–401) believe that gorgets were controlled by and available to only a small, elite segment of society through the period of classic SECC (a.d. 1400–1540, according to their chronology). This changed in the protohistoric period when gorgets of the rattlesnake and mask genre became available to a wider range of individuals. Knight (1997:246) concurs that elite initially had exclusive access to gorgets, but he argues that the “communalization” of Cult symbolism and nonelite access to shell gorgets occurred earlier, by the beginning of the fifteenth century. The archaeological basis for this position is obvious. Shell gorgets from late thirteenth- and fourteenth-century sites such as Etowah, Spiro, Lake Jackson, and Hixon tend to be found only with individuals identifiable as elite—that is, individuals buried in mounds and accompanied by other forms of exotic artifacts. Later gorget styles, on the other hand, tend to be interred frequently with women and children as well as men and in village cemeteries as well as mounds. The situation, however, is not this simple. In some cases—for example, Spiro and Lake Jackson— only mound contexts have been excavated. In other cases—Early
Mississippian Shell Gorgets in Regional Perspective
221
and Middle Mississippian sites such as Etowah and Hixon—archaeologists have not been able to find where most nonelite were buried. In either case, we have no evidence for whether nonelite individuals were buried with gorgets or not (see also Muller 1997b:374). Table 10.5 lists the occurrence of gorgets of different styles in burials from nonmound contexts. With one possible exception, these burials were located in habitation areas. Given the number of individuals interred in these areas, the kinds of artifacts accompanying them, and the habitation context itself, we can be fairly certain that these burials do not represent elite individuals as defined here. The exception, Norris Farm 36 cemetery (Brain and Phillips’s Morton site) in the Central Illinois River valley, is a cluster of 264 burials that is spatially separated from any habitation area. It was also covered by a thin deposit of fill suggesting that the burials were originally beneath a low artificial mound (Santure and Esarey 1990). Large cemeteries occur in nonhabitation zones at a number of late Mississippian sites in the area (Conrad 1991) and presumably represent the common form of interment for local communities. Lack of professional excavation prevents us from knowing whether earth mantles were common features of these cemeteries. It seems unlikely, however, that Norris Farm 36 cemetery differed from them significantly either in form or function. Gorget styles dating to the fourteenth-century climax period of the SECC have been found in nonelite burials at six sites: Little Bear Creek, Sublet Ferry, Bellefonte, Etowah, Crable, and Norris Farm 36 cemetery (Table 10.5). The late fourteenth–early fifteenth-century Cox Mound, Nashville I, and Oktibbeha styles have been reported from nonelite contexts at seven sites: Little Bear Creek, Cox, Sublet Ferry, Hiwassee Island, Gray’s Farm, Rutherford’s Farm, and Kellog. At two of these sites, Cox and Hiwassee Island, gorgets were interred with infants and adult females, respectively. The late fifteenth-century Nashville II, Spaghetti, Lick Creek, and Brakebill styles have been reported from nonelite contexts at seven sites: Cox, Dallas, Toqua, Etowah, Polecat Creek, Warren Wilson, and Moundville. Subadults were interred with Nashville II gorgets at the Dallas site, Lick Creek gorgets at the Dallas and Warren Wilson sites, and Warren Wilson gorgets at the Warren Wilson site. Sixteenth-century mask and rattlesnake gorgets are represented in non-mound contexts at 17 sites: Dallas, Sale Creek, Ledford Island, Rymer, Mouse Creeks, Toqua, Little Egypt, King, Leake, Etowah, Polecat Creek, Buffalo, Clover, Marmet, Orchard, Rolf Lee, and Hardin. They commonly occur with individuals of all ages and both sexes. It is clear from the above that gorgets do occur in non-mound (presumably nonelite) burials as early as the first half of the fourteenth century. We must also recognize, however, the possibility that nonelite access to shell gorgets increased significantly through time, especially in the sixteenth century. How were gorgets produced and distributed and who controlled these processes? Some gorgets are so similar in style and execution that they appear to have
Table 10.5. Gorget Styles Occurring in Non-Mound Contexts and Occurring with Female and Subadult Burials
Burials
Burials with Gorgets
Village Burials
Site
Region/Drainage
Koger’s Island Little Bear Creek
AL—Tennessee R. AL—Tennessee R.
102 27
1 2
102 27
Cox
AL—Tennessee R.
139
6
123
Sublet Ferry Bellefonte Law Dallas
AL—Tennessee R. AL—Tennessee R. AL—Tennessee R. TN—Tennessee R.
28 9+ 74 279
3 1 3 16
Hixon
TN—Tennessee R.
112
Sale Creek
TN—Tennessee R.
Hiwassee Island Ledford Island Rymer Mouse Creeks Toqua
Mound Burials
Village Burials with Gorgets 1 2
16
6
28 9+ 74 118
161
3 1 3 5
13
21
91
1
108
2
63
45
2
TN—Tennessee R. TN—Tennessee R. TN—Tennessee R. TN—Tennessee R. TN—Tennessee R.
188 462 170 166 511
8 2 3 1 16
176 462 170 166 279
12
232
2+ 2 3 1 8
Gray’s Farm
TN—Cumberland R.
198
15
49
149
5
Rutherford’s Farm Little Egypt
TN—Cumberland R. GA—Coosa R.
107 59
6 5
107
6 4
King
GA—Coosa R.
211
13
211
13
Leake Etowah
GA—Coosa R. GA—Coosa R.
27 244
3 19
27 ?
244
3 14
Polecat Creek
AL—Coosa R.
35+
15
35+
32
15
Chauga
GA—Piedmont
62
1 (3?)
9
53
1
Mound Burials with Gorgets
Sex
Age
Village Styles
Mound Styles
Cox Pine Island, Oktibbeha 1 ch, 1 adol 2 adult
11
3f
12
6f
1m 2+
4f
7 inf, 6 ch, 3 adult 2 inf, 4 ch, 6 adult
1 ch, 1 adult 3 ch
8
10
1 1 f, 2m
4 inf, 1 adult 6 ch, 1 adol, 3 adult
Plain
1m
1 ch, 2 adult
2 Nashville II, 2 triskele, 1 human ¤gure, 2 plain, 1 Lick Creek, 3 u.d. 7 Hixon, 1 spider, 3 Big Toco, 1 Nashville I, 1 Orton, 1 Ruffner, 1 Bennett, 2 cruciform, 2 plain
2 Chickamauga Mask, 4 Nashville I Citico, mask Rattlesnake, 2 plain Rattlesnake 4 Brakebill, Lick Creek, Chickamauga, cruciform, crib 2 Cox, Nashville I, triskele, u.d. Cox, 5 Nashville I Buffalo, 3 Chickamauga, McBee, Citico 7 Citico, rattlesnake, Chickamauga, 4 mask 2 Citico, McBee Big Toco, Spaghetti, 3 Brakeville, 3 Carters Quarter, 5 Citico, 1 Lick Creek
13
3
2 Cox, 2 Nashville II, Taskigi, annular? Hixon (stylized), Cox, bird Ruffner Pine Island 3 Nashville II, 1 Spaghetti, 2 Buffalo
9 Citico, Taskigi, spaghetti, mask, 3 u.d. Brakebill
Continued on the next page
References Webb 1939 Webb and DeJarnette 1948 Moore 1915; Webb and Wilder 1951 Webb and Wilder 1951 Webb and Wilder 1951 Webb and Wilder 1951 Sullivan 1995
Kneberg 1959; Sullivan 1995
Sullivan 1995 Mask
Hixon, spider, Ruffner, Warren Wilson, Buffalo, 11 Lick Creek, u.d. 9 Nashville I, Cox
Citico
Sullivan 1995 Sullivan 1995 Sullivan 1995 Sullivan 1995 Polhemus 1987
Brain and Phillips 1996 Brain and Phillips 1996 Hally 1979, 1980 Hally 2006
8 Hixon, 14 Big Toco, 2 Cartersville, 3 Pine Island, Moorehead, Younge, Russell, triskele, spider
Hally 1990 Brain and Phillips 1996
Brain and Phillips 1996 2 triskele
Kelly and Neitzel 1961
Table 10.5. Continued Burials with Gorgets
Village Burials
Mound Burials
Village Burials with Gorgets
Site
Region/Drainage
Burials
Beaverdam Creek
GA—Piedmont
47
2
Irene
GA—Coast
265
5
1
Town Creek
NC—Piedmont
216
2
2
Warren Wilson
NC—Piedmont
35
3
Garden Creek
NC—Piedmont
27
6
Coweta Creek
NC—Blue Ridge
83
7
49
Buffalo
WV—Upper Ohio R.
562
8
562
Clover Marmet Man Orchard Rolf Lee
WV—Upper Ohio R. WV—Upper Ohio R. W V—Upper Ohio R. WV—Upper Ohio R. W V—Upper Ohio R.
Somers Southside 3 Mile Creek Hardin
10
37
35
3
27
34
4
8
300+ Many
1 6 1 6 19
WV—Upper Ohio R. W V—Upper Ohio R. W V—Upper Ohio R. KY—Upper Ohio R.
8 301
1 2 1 9
Moundville
AL—Black Warrior R.
3,050
3
Kellog
MS—Tombigbee R.
33
3
33
3
Tibbee Creek
MS—Tombigbee R.
31
1
31
1
Saint Marys Crable
MO—Mississippi R. IL—Illinois R.
Many 300+
8 23?
Many 300+
8 23
Norris Farm 36 Cemetery
IL—Illinois R.
264
4
Vandeventer
IL—Illinois R.
60+
Many
1 6 1 6 19
60+
1 2 1 9
301
3
264
Many
Several
Mound Burials with Gorgets
Sex
Age
2
1m
4
2f
1 ch, 1 adult 2 ch, 2 adult 1 ch, 1 adult 3 inf
1f
6
1f
3
2 m, 3f
3 ch, 1 adol, 1 adult 3 ch, 3 adult 2 ch, 5 adult
1 ch, 1 adult
4
1f
1 inf, 1 ch, 1 adult
Village Styles
Unknown
Mound Styles
References
Crib, bird, Hixon
Rudolph and Hally 1985
Unknown
Caldwell and McCann 1941 Coe 1995
2 Pine Island 3 Lick Creek, 2 Warren Wilson Lick Creek, spaghetti, rattlesnake Mask
Brakebill, Buffalo, mask, 5 plain Citico 2 Buffalo, Citico, 3 plain Spider Citico, 2 McBee, 3 plain 6 Buffalo, 2 Chickamauga, 4 mask, 4 Citico, rattlesnake, spider, 2 plain Russell 2 plain Plain Citico, 2 rattlesnake, cruciform, bird, 2 Buffalo, 7 mask Spaghetti, Tibbee Creek, human ¤gural Oktibbeha, Pine Island, 2 u.d. Tibbee Creek
Buffalo, Chickamauga, Carters Quarter
R. P. S. Davis, personal communication 2000; Dickens 1976 Dickens 1976
C. Rodning and R. P. S. Davis, personal communications 2000 Hoffman 1997 Hoffman 1997 Hoffman 1997 Hoffman 1997 Hoffman 1997 Hoffman 1997
Hoffman 1997 Hoffman 1997 Hoffman 1997 Hanson 1966
Brain and Phillips 1996; Moore 1905a, 1907 Blitz 1993; Brain and Phillips 1996 Blitz 1993; Brain and Phillips 1996 Brain and Phillips 1996 Brain and Phillips 1996
5 McAdams, Crable, 3 Pine Island, 7 annular, bird, 3 cruciform, 3 plain McAdams, 3 annular
Santure and Esarey 1990
Annular, cruciform
Conrad 1991
226
Hally
been made by a single “master craftsman” or in a single “workshop” (Brain and Phillips 1996:8). The occurrence of such gorgets at multiple sites within core areas is clear evidence that at least in some cases gorgets were moved from one community to another. Within most styles, on the other hand, there is sufficient variability in style and execution that we can be sure a number of different individuals were involved in gorget manufacture (Muller 1997b:375–378). This raises the possibility that some gorget styles were produced in more than one community. The existence of “master craftsmen” and “workshops” is compatible with the proposition that the production and distribution of gorgets were controlled by elite members of society. The likelihood, however, that some styles were manufactured by several individuals, perhaps living in different communities, tends to weaken the argument for elite control. Ultimately, this question can only be settled with more well-documented burials from a greater variety of site contexts spanning the entire thirteenth through sixteenth centuries. The core-outlier pattern is the most basic of the six spatiotemporal distribution patterns described above. It is the most commonly observed pattern, and the other patterns are neither identifiable nor intelligible without it. It is critical, then, that we identify the cultural processes that give rise to it. Brain and Phillips (1996:398–401) believe that the broad geographical distribution of most gorget styles is the result of exchange among elite living in different communities and polities. They apparently base this belief on the association of early gorget styles with mound burials, on the distances separating many sites where gorgets have been found, and on their observation that some gorget styles were produced by a small number of craftspeople working in one location or workshop (Brain and Phillips 1996:8). The number of craftspeople producing gorgets and the size of the area over which they were spread are important variables related to the mechanism whereby gorget styles became widely distributed across the Southeast. A few craftspeople working in a single community are more readily controlled by elite individuals, and long-distance exchange is more likely to be the mechanism by which the gorgets become widely distributed in space. Unfortunately, these are questions that can be resolved only with larger samples of well-documented gorgets and by additional detailed style analyses of the type pioneered by Muller (1966b, 1979) and Phillips and Brown (1978). At this point, two observations can be made concerning the core-outlier pattern. First, the core areas of all gorget styles are so large that each would have encompassed the territory of several chiefdom polities, even those as large as Moundville and Cahokia (Hally 1993). Second, different mechanisms were probably responsible for the movement of gorgets within core areas and beyond to outlier locations. The implications of the first observation are that gorgets circulated not only within chiefdoms but frequently between them as well. Likewise, gorgets of a
Mississippian Shell Gorgets in Regional Perspective
227
single style may have been produced in more than one chiefdom. I can think of at least three mechanisms that might result in such multipolity distributions: (1) alliance and tribute exchanges between the elite of neighboring polities, (2) prestigemotivated exchanges between nonelite individuals in different communities and polities, and (3) residence shifts of individuals at the time of marriage or for other reasons and residence shifts of whole communities at the time individual chiefdoms collapse or are established (Hally 1999). I can think of only one factor, however, that might have imposed some uniformity or limit on the size of the area or the number of chiefdoms involved in these kinds of interactions: the existence of paramount chiefdoms. The mid-sixteenthcentury Spanish expeditions in the Southeast encountered several of these multichiefdom polities (Hudson 1994). Some, such as Coosa and Cofitechecki, appear to have covered areas comparable in size to gorget style core areas. We do not know much about the institutional nature of these polities, but we can expect that a variety of social, political, and economic interactions would have been facilitated, if not encouraged, within their territorial limits. It follows that shell gorgets and the knowledge needed to create them would have moved and been shared more easily within the realm of a paramount chiefdom than beyond. Socially prominent individuals were more likely to be involved in such interactions, but they need not have been the political elite. The temporal distributions of gorget styles may also have been affected by the existence of paramount chiefdoms. Shell gorget styles and iconography exhibit a certain amount of discontinuity through time. Human portrayals shift from the naturalistic Big Toco and Eddyville types to the surreal spaghetti form and ultimately to the human face mask. Turkeys and spiders are succeeded by woodpeckers and ultimately rattlesnakes. Abstract themes may have gone through similar kinds of changes, but the evidence for this is not firm at the present time. These kinds of iconographic discontinuities as well as the more purely stylistic shifts evident in the gorget data could have resulted from the rise and fall of paramount chiefdoms and the consequent opening and closing of associated interaction networks. This, of course, implies that each paramountcy had its own set of gorget styles and themes and that these functioned, at least in part, as symbols of the polity’s existence and identity. The strongest evidence against this interpretation is that most core area distributions appear to be located in the same place, the Upper Tennessee and Coosa river drainages of eastern Tennessee, northwestern Georgia, and northeastern Alabama (Figure 10.26). Of the 19 gorget styles represented by five or more sites in the Brain and Phillips inventory, 12 are centered in eastern Tennessee while only seven are located elsewhere. Paramount chiefdoms probably developed at various times in most regions of the Southeast and should not be significantly more common in one area than another. It is quite possible that the abundance of core areas in eastern Tennessee is due
228
Hally
Figure 10.26. Distribution of gorget style core areas. Thickest line represents eastern Tennessee core areas; lines of intermediate thickness represent core areas of other gorget styles occurring in five or more sites; thinnest lines represent core areas of gorget styles occurring at fewer than five sites.
to the large number of burials that have been excavated in that region in conjunction with TVA reservoir projects. Twenty of the 25 gorget styles that are represented by four sites or fewer in the Brain and Phillips inventory are located primarily outside of the Upper Tennessee and Coosa river drainages (Figure 10.26). As more examples of these styles are recorded, we may find that core areas for many will also fall outside eastern Tennessee. Gorget outliers must be the result of a different type of interaction. They occur frequently as single specimens at great distances from the core area, and the intervening spaces are usually devoid of other occurrences of the style. I propose that outliers are the result of a direct transfer between the provider and recipient, involving travel by one or the other or by individuals specializing as long-distance traders (Brain and Phillips 1996:400; Schambach 1989). Providers and recipients probably occupied positions of leadership in their own societies or were attempting to acquire such. For the recipients, exotic gorgets could have served as symbols of their social importance and political connections and perhaps of their supernatural knowledge and power (Helms 1979). This explanation could be partially tested by analyzing the mortuary context
Mississippian Shell Gorgets in Regional Perspective
229
in which burials with outlier gorgets occur. Presumably they were elite individuals and would have been interred in special mortuary facilities such as mounds and would have been accompanied by other exotic grave goods. Unlike burials in the core area, there should be few or no interments occurring in habitation areas or village cemeteries. The core area–outlier distinction should provide insight into the history of gorget use throughout the Midwest and Southeast. Core areas were presumably where gorgets were produced and commonly used. Some regions were core areas throughout much of the Middle and Late Mississippian periods, while other regions were core areas for relatively brief periods of time. The Cumberland River drainage was a core area through the fifteenth century. The Upper Tennessee and Coosa river drainages were core areas into the seventeenth century. The Upper Mississippi River valley and the Ohio River confluence area were not core areas after a.d. 1400, and there is little evidence that individuals in this region were receiving gorgets from far away after this date. Finally, the Upper Ohio River drainage and eastern Arkansas appear to become core areas for the first time in the sixteenth century.
Conclusions At the beginning of this chapter, I pointed out differences in the way gorget styles have been defined by Brain and Phillips (1996) and by Muller (1966b, 1989) and Phillips and Brown (1978), the difference revolving around whether iconography is considered in the definition of gorget styles. Both approaches are valid, but each provides different insights into shell gorget production, distribution, and use in time and space. Gorget styles, defined as sets of structural rules that guide the creation of gorget designs, allow us to identify the production of a limited number of craftspeople who presumably worked in one location (such as a single community) and at one point in time. They are useful for demonstrating contemporaneity between gorgets that depict the same or a number of different themes. They also are useful for identifying in a general fashion where particular gorgets were made and for demonstrating that some gorgets were transported great distances between their points of origin and interment. To the extent that gorget styles are the product of small numbers of craftspeople, they also have implications for the degree to which gorget production and distribution were controlled by political leaders. The limitations of style analysis of the kind practiced by Muller and Phillips and Brown are that it is time consuming and not widely pursued. As a result, relatively few gorget styles representing only about half of the gorgets inventoried by Brain and Phillips have been formally defined in the archaeological literature. Muller (1966b), for example, has defined only six styles. The approach taken by Brain and Phillips, in contrast, has allowed a large
230
Hally
number of distinctive gorget “styles” to be recognized and defined. While their approach plays down stylistic links between gorgets portraying different themes, it is probably at least as good as the stylistic approach of Muller and Phillips and Brown at distinguishing spatially and temporally distinct kinds of gorgets. I do not think it is appropriate to label as styles the gorget categories that Brain and Phillips define. Their definitions are too dependent on criteria other than style. I suggest that the categories be considered to be artifact “types” and that their definitions be broadened to explicitly include a greater variety of physical criteria, including technique of execution, overall size and shape, iconographic content, style, and even individual design elements. As Brain and Phillips appear to have done, gorget types can be distinguished using any combination of such characteristics. The goal is to distinguish types that have distinctive distributions in space and time and to use them in analyses of the kind I have attempted here. By recognizing that style is just one of many criteria that can be used to define gorget types it is possible to disassociate the two more completely and pursue research focusing on one or the other. Analysis of gorget style, or for that matter analysis of the meaning of gorget imagery, can be carried out in conjunction with or independently of distributional studies. Utilizing primarily data contained in Brain and Phillips’s 1996 monograph, I have identified several spatial and temporal patterns in the distributions of Mississippian shell gorgets. Together these indicate that two distinct sociopolitical processes may have been involved in the movement of shell gorgets between communities, polities, and regions and that gorget types depicting two or more general themes—human figures, animals, and various abstract designs—tended to circulate within the same interaction networks. These patterns and my attempts to explain them are, of course, only as good as the data upon which they are based. Given that the archaeological context of many gorgets is unreliable, that many gorget types are represented by relatively few specimens, and that most types are poorly dated, it is likely that some observations are wrong or will need to be modified. Nevertheless, it does seem to me that our understanding of Mississippian shell gorgets and the SECC in general will advance only if we approach them from a regional perspective. The distribution data presented in the Brain and Phillips monograph present an opportunity to look at gorgets from this perspective—an opportunity that is too good to pass up. I hope that the present analysis will stimulate other archaeologists to look more closely at the spatial and temporal distribution of gorgets. We need to add to and refine the gorget database, and we need to exploit it.
Acknowledgments A number of individuals have provided me with critical information on matters such as site location, gorget distribution, and gorget style identification. They in-
Mississippian Shell Gorgets in Regional Perspective
231
clude Robert Brooks, R. P. Stephen Davis, Jr., Lela Donat, Duane Esarey, Corinne Fletcher, Erv Garrison, Patricia Gilman, Marvin Jeter, Jay Johnson, Adam King, Vernon Knight, Jeffrey Mitchem, Cheryl Munson, Chris Rodning, Sissel Schroeder, and Paul Webb. I appreciate their assistance and hope that I am able to return the favor some day. Victor Thompson spent many hours helping me convert the gorget distribution maps from an ancient Atlas GIS program to a format that could be printed. That favor will be more difficult to repay in full. Figure 10.1 was compiled using illustrations from Richard Polhemus, The Toqua Site: A Late Mississippian Dallas Phase Town (1987), Department of Anthropology, University of Tennessee; Madeline Kneberg, “Engraved Shell Gorgets and Their Associations” (1959), Tennessee Archaeological Society; Philip Phillips and James A. Brown, Pre-Columbian Shell Engravings from the Craig Mound at Spiro, Oklahoma, part 1, paperback edition, Peabody Museum Press, copyright 1978 by the President and Fellows of Harvard College; Philip Phillips and James A. Brown, Pre-Columbian Shell Engravings from the Craig Mound at Spiro, Oklahoma, part 2, paperback edition, Peabody Museum Press, copyright 1984 by the President and Fellows of Harvard College; and Jeffrey P. Brain and Philip Phillips, Shell Gorgets: Styles of the Late Prehistoric and Protohistoric Southeast, Peabody Museum Press, copyright 1996 by the President and Fellows of Harvard College.
Notes 1. Brain and Phillips (1996:108) identify a McAdams style gorget from a site (Ill-FuAL1) on Anderson Lake in Fulton County, Illinois. According to Duane Esarey (personal communication 2003) this gorget was actually looted from the Crable site. Since no other gorgets are known from the Anderson Lake area, I have not included site Ill-Fu-AL1 in the present gorget distribution analysis. 2. I doubt, however, that any such refinement will result in the identification of abstract style gorgets that date to the Middle and Late Lamar periods. There are a great many burials known from these periods that have mask and rattlesnake gorgets, but none are known that have abstract style gorgets. The latter seem to have ceased being used. 3. We tend to think of gorgets being suspended on necklaces of marine shell beads, as depicted in Lewis and Kneberg (1946:Plates 102, 103, and 105). Mortuary data from the King site (9FL5), however, indicate that the two artifact types do not constitute a single costume item. Of the 40 burials with either marine shell beads (27 burials) or gorgets (13 burials), only four had both (Hally 2006). 4. For the purpose of this chapter, I define elite as those individuals in Mississippian polities who held positions of political leadership, their close genealogical relatives, and those individuals who through genealogical or descent group ties could make some claim to positions of political leadership. I use the term nonelite to refer to all other members of society, including individuals who may have had high social status and considerable wealth and influence in a community.
11 Sex and the Southern Cult Susan M. Alt and Timothy R. Pauketat
Recent theories of gender and sexuality go beyond the mere location of men or women in the past and extend to investigating the sites of cultural construction where people lived and continuously produced gender identities and sexual practices, among other things ( Joyce 2000). These theories do not “give primacy to sexed difference” as if the categories and practices of people were fixed and static (Meskell 2000:21). Instead, they understand the bodies, bodily movements, and experiences (including sexual acts) of people in the past to have re-produced cultures in material, spatial, temporal, and corporeal dimensions. Gender and sexuality were inextricably bound up in the process, in a recursive, ever-changing manner. Ancient American Indian peoples, namely the “Mississippians,” did not all possess the same gender categories or sexual practices any more than they shared an unchanging worldview, iconography, or cosmology. So, across-the-board assertions that some iconographic motif or another represents a woman, a man, or another gender should be questioned on the basis that all such depictions were themselves active projections or constructions of individuals, identities, and cosmologies. Likewise, stating that one Mississippian gender or another did or did not do something—say, use menstrual huts— erroneously assumes that Mississippian cultural identities and “primitive” gender relations were static and homogeneous (note that second-wave feminist interpretations are as guilty of this as nonfeminist ones [e.g., Galloway 1997; Koehler 1997; Trocolli 1999, 2002]). While assertions of shared Mississippian norms and static gender roles are inappropriate, there clearly were historical relationships between people in North America that help explain the pan-eastern patterns we call Mississippian. In addition, we suspect that gender and sexuality were important in the history of Mississippianization, especially given their relationship to political centralization and inequality in other parts of the world (see Gailey 1987; Silverblatt 1987; Weiner 1976). But how do we adequately analyze gender and sexuality in an area lacking
Sex and the Southern Cult
233
written records and absent the graphic depictions seen in other parts of the world (e.g., Hegmon and Trevathan 1996; Hill 2000)? For starters, our archaeology needs to be more sensitive to the idea that, at many different sites, ancient people—biological males and females— created unique local cultures, political-religious cults, centralized polities, and a varied transregional ethnoscape that archaeologists have long glossed as the Southeastern Ceremonial Complex (SECC) or, more loosely, the Southern Cult. The central processes of historical change, from our vantage point, were not purely political and economic and the SECC symbolism was not merely the legitimating icons of politicos. Gender and sexuality were subsumed in Mississippian practices and representational art in ways that we have yet to effectively unpack. To illustrate, we review a few of the ways in which the lived experiences of people in one locality may have been causally related to the gender identities, sexualities, and broader political-religious practices commonly associated with many later Mississippian peoples elsewhere. For present purposes, we seek only to illustrate such causal relationships in a preliminary fashion. Our archaeology begins where, it could be said, the founding men, women, and children of the original SECC converged—at Cahokia. We present some preliminary observations of one of the historically unprecedented and singularly important ridge-top mortuary mounds at Cahokia: the unpublished excavation of the Wilson or “Junkyard” Mound made by Preston Holder and Joyce Wike. Our archaeology ends with some thoughts about the dispersion of the gendered and sexual imagery in inanimate Cahokian objects that, presumably, were animated in key localities across the American midcontinent and mid-South in order to tell some variant of a story about, among other things, sex and the Southern Cult. Our conclusion is that early Cahokia’s “public theater”—involving ridgetop mortuary spectacles, Ramey Incised pots, chunkey games, and carved redstone figurines— contributed greatly to the gendered identities and sexual practices of later people.
Preston Holder, Joyce Wike, and the Wilson Mound After the infamous looting of the Spiro site in 1933–1935, archaeologists began to formulate ideas concerning the phenomenon that led to the burial of the hoard of sumptuary objects and associated iconography that also appeared to have been spread across southeastern North America. Antonio Waring and Preston Holder’s (1945) formulation of the “Southeastern Ceremonial Complex” drew on the thenpopular notion that a political-religious movement—a “Southern Cult”—had swept the peoples of the trans-Mississippi South and the Coastal Plain prior to the arrival of Hernando de Soto. Later, Waring (1968a) and others increasingly emphasized the whole political-religious complex of Muskogean-speaking people, particularly warriors, while Holder (1968:76), ever the historical anthropologist,
234
Alt and Pauketat
stressed that our explanations of this putatively southern phenomenon “must not overlook the horticultural groups of the eastern Plains.” Despite Holder’s concern with the transregional historicity of the SECC, he, Waring, and others (caught up in the functionalism of the time) turned to explanations of what was increasingly (mis)perceived as an ideological system or a shared worldview (e.g., papers in Galloway 1989; cf. Knight et al. 2001). This is especially obvious in terms of the lack of considerations of gender and sexuality in certain experiential realms that were rich in the imagery of sex, fertility, and reproduction: gaming and the production and use of Ramey Incised pots and redstone figurines.1 It is even more graphically apparent in the ridge-top mortuary mounds known from the greater Cahokia region. As it turns out, Preston Holder himself had organized the salvage excavation of just one such mound in October 1954. In this endeavor, he was not alone. Holder had married Joyce Wike and the couple had moved to the University of Buffalo before either had received their doctoral degrees from Columbia University in 1950 and 1951. In 1952, Holder accepted an offer to teach at Washington University in St. Louis. There, Holder engaged in a series of salvage archaeological excavations. The greater St. Louis metropolitan area was experiencing the effects of the economic boom of the early 1950s, and housing subdivisions and businesses were being thrown up everywhere, encroaching on the Cahokia site itself. This greatly concerned Holder, who attempted to raise funds and the awareness of the St. Louis community. But raising funds proved difficult, limiting his plans and excavation approach. Nevertheless, Preston Holder conducted several important excavations and encouraged a number of avocational archaeologists, most notably Leonard Blake and Nelson Reed (see Pauketat 1993b; Pool 1989). Among the most important yet least well known of these excavations was his work at the Wilson Mound, also called the “Junkyard Mound” (11SCoJ), situated midway between the central Cahokia mound group and the East St. Louis site. In retrospect, it seems likely that the Wilson Mound was one of perhaps a dozen “ridge-top” mounds in the greater Cahokia region, so far unknown from any other place in eastern North America (Pauketat 2004). In the Cahokia region, ridge-top mounds seem to have been the special mortuary tombs of the region’s most important dead. Melvin Fowler (1997) identifies up to eight of these at Cahokia proper, not counting the Wilson Mound. There were at least three more elsewhere in the region located in St. Louis, East St. Louis, and Mitchell. The most famous of the Cahokia ridge-top mounds, and the second-largest mound in the region until it was destroyed in 1930, was the Powell Mound located 1,400 m northeast of Wilson. As far as we know, these unprecedented mortuary tombs date only between a.d. 1050 and 1275.2 All ridge-top mounds are distinctive in appearance, having an elongate ridgeline summit rather than a flat top. Elsewhere, Pauketat (1994) has argued that the effect of the ridge-top shape may have been to evoke the hipped roof of a Missis-
Sex and the Southern Cult
235
sippian pole-and-thatch building, perhaps making the mound an earthen charnel house of sorts. These tumuli were initially platform mounds but were converted into mortuary facilities (this is known to be the case at Mound 72, Powell Mound, and Rattlesnake Mound at Cahokia, at the Cemetery Mound in East St. Louis, and at the Wilson Mound). Minimally, the mortuary facilities involved elongate pits or mound summits in or on which scores of individual remains—bundled burials, piled bones, and extended inhumations—were laid out in rows. Of course, little of this was understood in 1954, when Preston Holder received word of the ongoing destruction of the Wilson Mound and the human remains exposed there. It seems that the Wilson Mound had been partially bulldozed in September 1954, with a substantial portion of the mound leveled to allow for the construction of a motel. A visit to the site was enough to convince Holder to undertake salvage excavations. Based on extant notes at the University of Michigan, we know that Holder arrived to find a partially bulldozed mound with exposed human remains and features, including a slightly damaged mortuary feature associated with an earlier flat surface within the mound. Over a discontinuous series of weeks during late 1954 and early 1955, Holder, Wike, and local volunteers excavated the remains of a large mortuary feature, a burned sub-mound building, an L-shaped feature (probably another structure, with at least seven human adult and adolescent crania on its floor), three or four other pits or post pits (with some associated human remains), and two pre-mound Late Woodland Patrick phase pits (notes on file, University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology [UMMA]). Near the edge of one of the pits was one burial of an “old man” by himself that Holder thought “most important” (see Appendix). The central mortuary feature of the Wilson Mound was dubbed “Burial Complex #3” and, as mapped incrementally by Holder, Wike, and the others, contained portions of at least 176 human individuals (map on file, UMMA [see also Milner 1984:Figure 5, 2004:Figure 85]). Most of the human remains were interred as what Jerome Rose (1999) would later call “pile burials.” In the Wilson Mound, pile burials consisted of long bones and crania interred in heaps. Holder thought that the separate piles had been wrapped in fabric, some consisting of varying numbers of long bones, crania, vertebral columns, and so on. All of these were, in turn, packed together in a single rectangular mortuary feature some 4.3 by 5.5 m across. Associated with this central mortuary were also five apparent “primary” inhumations (three women and two children), a dog, and several (two to seven) infant inhumations. Buried with or laid over the many pile burials were marine whelk shells, hundreds of shell disc beads, a Cahokia style chunkey stone, a bear-tooth pendant, and four or five copper-covered bone earspools. Earlier references to Holder’s Wilson Mound discovery assumed that it might date from the Lohmann phase, like Mound 72 (Milner 1984; Pauketat 1994:84
236
Alt and Pauketat
[based on the pottery now known to be associated with the sub-mound or early mound features in Holder’s excavations]). However, Holder reports “sharpshouldered Powell Plain” potsherds from upper Burial Complex #3 contexts and at least one everted-lip Moorehead phase rim sherd from post–Burial Complex #3 contexts (notes on file, UMMA). In addition, Holder recovered one whole, smashed black-slipped spur-handled beaker (a.k.a. “bean pot”) and some “sharpshouldered” sherds from the fill immediately above the Burial Complex #3 feature (Holder’s field book #1, page 20). At Cahokia, this particular beaker vessel form is usually associated with the Stirling or Moorehead phase (Holley 1989; Pauketat 1998). Given this, it is worthy of note that Pauketat (1993b:148n) has associated unfinished, smashed-whorl shell beads like those in Burial Complex #3 with the Moorehead phase (see Milner 1998:Figure 7.2). Thus, we believe that the Burial Complex #3 most likely dates to the twelfth or early thirteenth century. Holder summarized his findings in a letter that followed the delivery of some of the Wilson Mound human remains to the Smithsonian Institution, excerpted here: A few years ago a motel operator razed a small mound in the Cahokia site. I got permission to pick up the pieces after the bulldozer had done its dirty work. Turned out that he had removed the upper two levels of a three-stage temple mound leaving the lower sections of the second buildingstage [and the first] intact in some areas. We explored these lower levels and the “village” underneath. Found lots of charcoal, matting, amorphous “pits” like [Arthur R.] Kelly found in the Powell mound, pottery, a “house” outline with [sic] contained pots and charred vegetal material. But most of all we found burials. This was all clearly a temple mound in all of its stages. But on the flank of the first mound, clearly all buried at once within a very short space of time (a few days or so), we found more than 40 burials all neatly arranged in a space 18´ × 18´ and in one level. The second mound building stage followed immediately after. In addition to 5 primary (e.g., articulated) burials there were 40 some “secondary” burials of from three to six individuals each with the long bones neatly bundled and the skulls carefully piled at one end. From the neatness I assume the long bones had been wrapped in some hide or cloth sheet. In a couple of cases we found hundreds of disc Busycon beads in a context that made it look as though the bones had been wrapped in a beaded sheet of some sort. We also found many whole “unworked” Busycon shells laid with the burials as furniture. Also what seem to be “kits” of partly worked and finished beads. Otherwise very little offerings. There was a somewhat gruesome detail of two women laid out side by side either as primary or ligatured burials; I suspect the former since one of them had a nearly full term fetus in situ in the abdominal region and the
Sex and the Southern Cult
237
other had the articulated skeleton of a very young child laid between her legs with the head near her pubic regions. Both of these individuals had had the legs severed at the knee; the lower legs then being carefully laid on top of the matching femurs with the proximal end of the tibia-fibula near the head of the femur. In one case the patellas remained with the tibia-fibula, in the other at least one was found “attached” to the distal end of the femur. In one case (the lady with the child between her legs) the skull had been removed and was resting in the curve of the left arm near the region of the heart; in this case it seemed pretty clear that the rib-cage had been broken and portions of several ribs were missing near where the skull rested. The lady with the fetus had a small dog in association near her knee. . . . There were also a surprising number of articulated skeletons of young children laid on top of some of the bundles (only one to a bundle though) [Holder to T. D. Stewart, August 19, 1957]. A note by Holder on the back of a photograph states that he considered the two female burials as a “double mutilated burial” of mothers and children who, along with the other primary burials and infants were “probably all sacrificed as part of [a] dedicatory burial prior to new mound construction” (Figure 11.1). Holder’s later notes indicate, and Joyce Wike recalled, that “the lady with the foetus”— identified as “Primary #1—had most certainly died, or was executed, during childbirth (see Appendix). The fetus was in utero (head down in the birth canal) and the female’s finger and toe bones were tightly “clenched” and “contorted,” as if drawn up in a cramped position in a moment of great pain. Her cranium was crushed but Holder was uncertain whether this occurred at the time of burial or as a result of burial. On her smashed skull were “2 copper covered bone earspools [each] with [a] central shell decoration” (Holder, field book #1, page 31). There was hematite under her torso. The head of the second female corpse, identified as “Primary #2,” had apparently been removed and placed under her arm within the space where her left thoracic cavity—including the rib bones—had been partially removed. Her hands were also clenched and contorted (Holder, field book #1, page 61). There was a “hole” in the “left scapula” of the Primary #2 skeleton that Holder thought looked “pre-interment” (Holder, field book #1, page 61).3 An infant was laid atop the body, and another articulated child skeleton (“Primary #3”) and piled bones were buried alongside Primary #2 (Figure 11.1). Without the details above, one might interpret the entire Burial Complex #3 merely as an emptied-out charnel house made up of deceased “members” of one group who were “for the most part treated similarly” (Milner 2004:129). Certainly, Holder recognized that most pile burials in the Wilson Mound might have been derived from such mortuary temples. He also understood that the entire central mortuary feature had been laid out at once in a location that had seen previous
238
Alt and Pauketat
Figure 11.1 Details of possible primary female and child sacrifices (#1–#3) in Burial Complex #3, Wilson Mound, Cahokia (based on field drawings by Preston Holder, 1954–1955).
mortuary ritual. Finally, he recognized the stratigraphic evidence that the Burial Complex #3 mortuary feature was sealed by another mound stage and, ultimately, by more than a meter of “gumbo” clay mound fill that, presumably, finished off the entire ritual-construction sequence. However, Preston Holder and Joyce Wike also understood the potential significance of the primary interments with respect to some commemorative rite. Moreover, he believed that the two females, fetus, infant, child, and dog might have been central interments, although he wondered why there was no primary male interment in Burial Complex #3 (see Appendix). He also was uncertain why the corpses of the two women might have been mutilated after one or both had died at the moment of childbirth.
Other Ridge-Top Mortuary Mounds Compared Given these previously unreported details, we may more fully appreciate the findings from other ridge-top mounds in the greater Cahokia region. Sketchy details are known from the now-destroyed ridge-top mounds at the St. Louis, East St. Louis, and Mitchell sites, where mass burials were sometimes segregated by the skeleton size (probably sex) and interred with copper ear ornaments, shell beads, beaded fabric or capes, and objects in likely medicine bundles (see Kelly 1994; Pauketat 2005; Winters 1974). In the Rattlesnake (or Harding) Mound at the southern end of Cahokia, workers for Warren K. Moorehead found a chunkey stone amidst rows of pile burials. The bones were stacked atop an earlier plat-
Sex and the Southern Cult
239
form and subsequently covered by an impressive ridge-top gumbo cap (Moorehead 2000; Pauketat and Barker 2000). Similarly, A. R. Kelly and P. F. Titterington found two mortuary features atop an earlier buried flat summit of Cahokia’s Powell Mound as it was being destroyed in 1930 (notes on file, University of Illinois; see also Ahler and DePuydt 1987). Apparently, the two groups of bodies may have been located at opposite ends of the early-stage platform mound. At least one burial involved a bead-studded garment, wrap, blanket, or cape and another had copper-covered ear ornaments. Melvin Fowler and his associates (1999) discovered a similar but more complex series of burials in Mound 72. A dozen years after Holder and Wike’s excavations, Fowler discovered the remains of some 265 people buried in a series of more than a dozen elaborate Lohmann (and early Stirling?) phase mortuaries (a.d. 1050–1100). The Mound 72 dead were often laid out in pairs, in paired groups, or in two directions or layers in pits, on the ground, or atop early-stage earthen platforms. Apparently, the first mortuary event that kicked off the entire series was the dismantling of a charnel house and the deposition of bundled and pile burials and extended inhumations atop its former location (Fowler et al. 1999; Rose 1999). The famous central “beaded burial”—two men on a falcon-shaped bead cape—was made at this time or slightly later. Two groups of bodies were laid out on the ground surface nearby and buried with two clusters of chunkey stones, two or three likely copper-covered chunkey sticks, beads, and two groups of arrows (pointing east and west). At the opposite end of the mound, a commemorative pit containing shell beads and chipped-stone arrowheads may have been dug and filled at the same time. Slightly later, the first of four pits full of sacrificed women was buried. This pit was filled with 22 women arranged in two layers. The later pits contained the skeletons of 19, 24, and 53 females, always in two layers. There were other mortuary pits in this mound, one of the last having an upper layer of 15 men, women, and children and a lower layer of 39 men and women violently executed on the spot (Rose 1999). Perhaps the L-shaped feature that Holder encountered in the Wilson Mound was a dismantled charnel house like the initial Mound 72 building. Holder might also have overlooked evidence of a building floor beneath the 4.3-×-5.5-m mortuary feature. Perhaps similar dismantling and bone piling sequences also characterized the Rattlesnake and Powell mounds, if not all ridge-top tumuli. But more significant is the disposition of the bodies of biological males and females. While both categories appear associated with honored, dishonored, or sacrificial contexts in Mound 72, there are also clear groupings of men or women only, most notably in the female sacrificial pits. Robert Hall (1997, 2000) has argued that the Mound 72 female sacrifices were related to the retelling of the Corn Mother story, Green Corn ceremonialism, and the Morning Star sacrifice. Indeed, the sorting of male and female bodies, the dualism within or between mortuary features, the chunkey game pieces, and the
240
Alt and Pauketat
beads and beaded capes might all relate to aspects of a Cahokian creation story, retold through mortuary rites that doubled as political legitimation for the living (Pauketat 2005:206). Whatever the original source of such a cultural narrative, the Cahokians had clearly altered it, associated it with mass sacrifice, and gendered it in ways that were unprecedented in scale if not character. Given this, we suspect that the Cahokians were actively mobilizing cosmology and gender in the service of a legitimating political narrative. In the Wilson Mound case, of course, we might be witnessing something slightly unlike that in the other ridge-top mound mortuary events. Possibly the two women were highstatus individuals, perhaps even leaders comparable to the two men of the beaded burial in Mound 72. Contrariwise, the primary interments in the Wilson Mound might have been victims of the ceremonious elimination by one faction of another faction’s ability to produce heirs to high office. However, one group’s elimination or de-legitimation would be the de facto legitimation of another. And to have the desired effect, legitimation or de-legitimation rituals presumably could not have been hidden but, perhaps, were memorialized with a visually prominent earthen mound.
Corporeal and Sexual Dimensions of Public Performance With the added information of executed women and children in the Wilson Mound, Porubcan’s (2000) observation about the seeming “theatrical” character of Mound 72 mortuary events takes on added relevance. Elsewhere, Kehoe (2002) and Emerson and Pauketat (2002) have expressed the opinion that much of the early Cahokian experience was public and theatrical. Certainly, the sheer scale of the central grounds of Cahokia, with its 19-ha Grand Plaza, means that massive theatrical spectacles and public gatherings of many human bodies—alive and dead—were possible (sensu Moore 1996; e.g., Pauketat et al. 2002). The size of the audience who observed the possible execution or mutilation of the women and children in the Wilson Mound is unknown. However, reasons to suspect that the Burial Complex #3 mortuary event was a public affair include the prominence of the location (on the bank of an oxbow lake between the Cahokia and East St. Louis mound groups), the energy invested in the event, and the likely number of living relatives who presumably survived those interred in Burial Complex #3. It is possible that the entire Wilson Mound mortuary event was a theatrical termination ritual in which an entire kin group, perhaps heirs to high office, was symbolically—if rather violently—retired.4 There was, of course, a series of finely crafted artifacts—including Ramey Incised pots, Cahokia style chunkey stones, and red flint clay figurines—that could be interpreted separately in terms of prestige goods exchange or craft goods production. However, within the greater Cahokia region, we now think that certain cultural objects, such as these, are better regarded as “inalienable” objects
Sex and the Southern Cult
241
(those that could not be dissociated from their meanings, owner biographies, or places of origin; see Weiner 1994). Other such inalienable objects or qualities include pigment stones, color, and paint at Cahokia (perhaps used to make body paint or dye for clothing; see Emerson and Pauketat 2002). The high densities of spindle whorls at upland villages may also indicate the surplus production of fabric to clothe bodies in public arenas (Alt 1999). It is worthy of note that not only is fabric among the most important and “inalienable” of wealth objects among people in complex societies around the world (Weiner 1994) but also elaborate shell-studded garments were among the primary offerings—besides bodies— in the Wilson Mound, Mound 72, the Powell Mound, the East St. Louis Mound, and the St. Louis Mound. Bodies— clothed or painted, dead or alive— emanated identities (e.g., Loren 2001). Many such objects or qualities, including the Ramey pots, chunkey stones, and carved figurines, represented a significant labor investment not unlike public works (Emerson et al. 2002, 2003; Pauketat 1997, 2004; Pauketat and Emerson 1991). Moreover, there are hints in the sub–Mound 51 feasting pit that such craft goods may have been made during public celebrations (Pauketat et al. 2002). Almost certainly, the Ramey Incised pots, chunkey stones, and figurines (some of which are smoking pipes) were used during public rites, in plazas and atop flattopped pyramids. Finally, all three things could be understood as the materialization of a particular creation story that was told by (and legitimated) Cahokians (Pauketat 2005). Ramey Incised Pots Ramey Incised jars, with their distinctive thin walls, burnished surfaces, incised or carved decoration, and angled shoulders, were probably made for use in public rituals, serving particularly in Cahokian feasts. Notably, such pots have been argued to embody the ritual negotiation of people and the supernatural (Emerson 1989; Pauketat and Emerson 1991). Owing to their likely central manufacture and their presumed public use, that human-supernatural negotiation also would have legitimized the political realities of twelfth-century greater Cahokia (Emerson 1989; Pauketat and Emerson 1991). The typically quadripartitioned rim design field and component Ramey motifs have been thought evocative of both upper world and earthly supernatural forces. As Pauketat and Emerson (1991) argue, this meant that acts of making and using the pot itself were highly meaningful experiences. The meaningful parts of the pot included the area outside and above the vessel (upper world), the near horizontal and quadripartitioned rim design field (a portal), and the interior contents inside the dark-slipped container body (the earthly or lower world). Thus, the act of using the pot, of accessing the contents by passing through the constricted and meaning-laden design field, would have constructed one’s relationship to the cosmos and to Cahokia.
242
Alt and Pauketat
Taking a lead from historic-era eastern Plains creation stories, we might wonder whether there was a sexual dimension to the cosmological act of moving into the earthly underworld interior from the upper world above. The creation stories of various Siouan- and Caddoan-speaking peoples involved sexual relations between masculine sky-world beings or powers and the forces of the night, the earth, or the netherworld (see Hall 1997). The Ramey pot might have encapsulated just such stories. This is especially important to the extent that the act of using a centrally made pot in public might have conflated religious beliefs with politics and sexual practice regardless of the gender of the maker or user. In other words, we suspect that the experience of the Ramey Incised pot may also have actively defined sex as an inherently religious and political act, and vice versa (Pauketat and Emerson 1991). As these vessels were distributed far and wide across the midcontinent, such sexed meanings would also have been broadcast out of Cahokia. Chunkey, Cahokia Style So too might the Cahokia style chunkey stones have sexed the cosmological and political associations of Cahokia’s public culture. To explain, let us look briefly at the history of their production and use. The earliest chunkey stones are known to originate in southwestern Illinois and perhaps contiguous portions of eastern Missouri sometime around a.d. 600. At the Range site, some 60 percent of the stones are found in or near the courtyards of house clusters (along with smoking pipes; see Kelly et al. 1987). Apparently, these were the possessions of kin groups at ordinary villages (Pauketat 2004). This changed at a.d. 1050. Warren DeBoer (1993) argues that the chunkey game was co-opted by the Cahokian elite as part of the centralization of Lohmann phase Cahokia, as exemplified in the two groups buried in Mound 72. After that time, many Cahokia style chunkey stones— distinctively thin and flattened biconcave stones with wide, sharp-edged cups—appear to have been made from colorful Yankeetown orthoquartzites available from southern Illinois and eastern Missouri (Brad Koldehoff, personal communication 2002; see also Perino 1971). Elsewhere, Pauketat (2004) has inferred that many of the Cahokia style stones found from Mississippi to South Dakota may have been made at Cahokia. At Cahokia proper, the original chunkey game may have been a high-stakes contest between political factions or rival families. In any case, DeBoer (1993) suggests that an analogy of its cosmological significance among later historic Indian groups should be considered when interpreting the late eleventh- and twelfthcentury game. That is, playing chunkey in a plaza—like using a Ramey Incised pot in public—may have projected or affirmed a cosmological principle through an emotional and physical public event. A chunkey disc rolling across a plaza has been likened to the movement of the solar disc across the sky. Indeed, while some pre-Mississippian chunkey stones were incised with crosses, at least one Cahokia style chunkey stone was engraved with an eye motif of the sort also seen in cer-
Sex and the Southern Cult
243
tain Ramey, “thunderer,” or sky-deity iconography (see Koldehoff and KasslyKane 1995). While we do not know who played chunkey at Cahokia and we cannot be sure of the gendered referents of the chunkey sticks and circular stones, there was at contact a widespread association of masculine and feminine imagery with variations of the chunkey and hoop-and-pole games. The hoop was a feminine symbol, the pole a masculine one (Culin 1992). Whether or not pre-Mississippian chunkey stones and sticks were gendered, the public usurpation of this formerly village-level game by Cahokians might have provided the contexts for the projection and politicization of sexual relations through the game in ways previously not possible (see also Pauketat 2005). That is, the game’s potential sexual dimension might have infused the gaming experience with the same kinds of referents as the Ramey Incised pots. Like Ramey Incised pots, Pauketat (2004, 2005) now argues, Cahokia style stones were distributed out of Cahokia. He argues that such a distribution would have been part of Cahokia’s transregional retelling of its version of the creation story. Thus, like that of Ramey Incised pots, the chunkey game’s sexual dimension would have been an all-important undercurrent in playing the game. Presumably, there were historical effects on the gender identities and sexual practices of any foreigners who played the Cahokian chunkey game elsewhere. Red Flint Clay Figurines The possible effects are perhaps best considered in terms of the carved flint clay statuettes and figurine pipes. The red flint clay statuettes and figurine pipes found around greater Cahokia and at distant sites across the Midwest and mid-South— from Wisconsin to Oklahoma, Louisiana, and Alabama—have been definitively linked to a raw material near St. Louis and, hence, to greater Cahokian artisans (Emerson and Hughes 2000; Emerson et al. 2002, 2003). Thus, the chunkey player, warrior, shaman, hero figure, goddess, crop, and earth monster imagery of these finely sculpted figurines represent Cahokians or embody Cahokian ideas. For this reason and because of their far-flung distribution, the fact that sexual characteristics and genitalia are often prominently featured in the carvings is highly significant (Figure 11.2). Originally, Emerson (1982, 1997a, 1997b) proposed that the several feminine representations found at and around Cahokia emphasized the significance of fertility in Cahokian ideology. With the recent findings, however, he now proposes that masculine or third-gender themes were originally well represented at Cahokia as well (Emerson 2003; Emerson et al. 2003). What is truly interesting, then, is the transregional distribution of Cahokian flint clay figurines (Figure 11.3).5 That is, almost all feminine characteristics are found on objects that never left the greater Cahokia region. On the other hand, most of the warrior, chunkey player, culture hero, and shaman statuettes were either exported by Cahokians or were ac-
244
Alt and Pauketat
Figure 11.2. Red flint clay figurines: left, feminine characteristics on specimen from the Sponemann site (used with permission of the Illinois Transportation Archaeological Research Program); right, masculine characteristics on specimen from the Shiloh site, Tennessee.
quired by non-Cahokians—particularly southerners—after falling into disuse at Cahokia. In other words, the masculine images are most commonly found outside greater Cahokia, while the feminine ones are found inside greater Cahokia. Here, we suspect, is evidence that gender and sexuality were understood as a potent dimension of the object’s meaning. Accordingly, the Cahokians or the distant others who acquired these objects seem to have been selecting for or against one or the other gendered representation for some reason. In so doing, they were actively manipulating gendered and sexed notions, perhaps quite knowingly for political effect.
Discussion and Conclusions What we mean to suggest by highlighting the transregional distribution pattern of three sorts of highly charged Cahokian ritual goods is this: the genealogies of cultural practices (including those that comprised Cahokian theatrical rituals) and the biographies of objects (including the things originally associated with those rituals) are potentially of great historical significance in explaining both regional and pan-eastern cultural developments. At the regional scale, the bodies and objects involved in the impressive public ceremonies of Cahokia created a distinctly gendered and stratified “Cahokian Ceremonial Complex.” They did this by drawing together and integrating the various strands of traditions from around the midcontinent into a potent Cahokian ideology or socioreligious “cult” (Emerson 1989; Knight 1997; Pauketat 2004). We suspect that both its huge size and precocious formation meant that early Cahokia played a disproportionately greater role in transregional history than did the people of smaller and later polities in the eastern United States. Of course, the implications of the theatrical character of Cahokia’s public
Figure 11.3. The gendered distribution of Cahokia flint clay figurines (based on data from Emerson et al. 2002, 2003).
246
Alt and Pauketat
events for explaining the Mississippianization of other peoples across the midcontinent and South are contingent on the scale and historical priority that we recognize for Cahokia itself. In addition, it must be recognized that all other peoples also constructed their cultures in much the same way as Cahokians. Each Mississippian complex was the creation of local people and each complex necessarily possessed its own divergent cultural history. But then again, these later Mississippians could draw from the integrated set of Cahokian things in constructing their Mississippian realities, and that made all the difference, particularly with respect to gender and sexuality. We suspect that the Cahokian objects in foreign lands—particularly given the suggestion of gendered imagery selection evident in the spatial patterning of redstone carvings—point to the politicizations of gender and the sexual dimension of cosmologies as inextricable features of the Mississippianization process. This gendered and sexed construction produced what we know today in the aggregate as the SECC, a set of symbolic themes and icons that are frequently cited as “shared” by all Mississippians. However, noting this shared quality is simply begging the question. We need to explain what sharing entailed in historical terms. Such an explanation begins by recognizing how different early Mississippianism was: the terminal Late Woodland people of the central Mississippi Valley did not re-present life and death, masculinity and femininity, or power and fertility through grand spectacles (see Pauketat 2004). Doubtless, there were gendered culinary practices, village chunkey games, and ritual events prior to the mid-eleventh century. However, the Cahokian practices were clearly of a different order. Thus, we argue that there is no theoretical or empirical reason to assume that the gendered dualism so evident in the ridge-top mounds sacrificial burials—and so shocking to the pregnant Joyce Wike (Appendix)—was merely an expression of extant pre-Mississippian cultural traditions. There is also no reason to assume that Cahokians (and the other complexes within the former SECC) were gendered just like historically known native peoples. In fact, we prefer to turn the explanatory arrows around and build an archaeology based on the analysis of the contexts of human bodies, gendered representations, and associated living debris that will help explain the histories of those later peoples. Contemporary theories of practice and corporeality suggest that we look to the creative moments of grand political theater for the invention of this unprecedented phenomenon. A corporeal economy of the sort we believe defined Cahokia would have had profound effects on local people who would have witnessed the events, known the executed women, played the chunkey games, smoked from the carved stone pipes, or experienced the meaning-laden Ramey pots. Here, we merely identify, as deserving of further investigation, an overlooked aspect of the Mississippianization process that culminated in American Indian peoples known to history. As attested by the old excavations of Preston Holder and Joyce Wike
Sex and the Southern Cult
247
into the Wilson Mound, the founding figures of the original SECC have much more to tell us about the remarkable women and men who created that complex history.
Epilogue Much later in time, of course, dualistic practices were associated with some of the possible descendants of Cahokia or its various early Mississippian contemporaries. Fowler (1999; Young and Fowler 2000) and Hall (1991, 1997) have previously reviewed the cosmological and practical divisions made by Dhegiha Siouan– speaking peoples of the eastern Plains, especially the Osage. As Holder (1968) implied, there are likely direct historical connections between the Osage of the seventeenth-century Missouri territory and the Cahokians of the eleventh and twelfth centuries. Similar arguments have been made or implied by others about Dhegiha and Chiwere Siouan–speaking peoples who occupied the Midwest prior to the late Mississippian period and who subsequently migrated westward and southward (see Brotherston 1992; Duncan and Diaz-Granados 2000; Gartner 1996; Griffin 1936, 1960). Among the Dhegiha Siouan groups, the Osage reportedly perceived the cosmos in terms of two divisions, a vertical upper world and lower world division and an east–west, red–black, life and death division (Bailey 1995). Dualism carried over into other supernatural beliefs, hero legends, social organizations, ritual practices, and gender. For instance, masculine powers typically occupied the realm of the sky and the east, while feminine powers occupied the earthly realm and the west. Dualism also carried over into settlement plan and political order. Fowler (1999:185) states that, among the historic Osage, an “east-to-west line divided the community. The clans associated with the Sky segment lived north of this line, while the Earth People clans were lined up to the south of the central axis.” These same kin groups were responsible for keeping and using specific religious objects and for supplying the personnel for political office. Interestingly, Osage towns were led by two chiefs, not one, a fact that befuddled the first EuropeanAmericans who attempted to negotiate treaties and trade agreements (Rollings 1992). Of course, the gendered associations of the early Cahokians and the historic Osage were neither static nor uniform in practice. Gender roles were not necessarily fixed to the degree often assumed by archaeologists. American Indian peoples recognized multiple genders and transgendered individuals (e.g., Callender and Kochems 1983; Lang 1998). Depending on context, women might do or might be expected to do what men did, and vice versa. For instance, Osage women might dress and dance like their male counterparts for certain occasions (Koehler 1997; Niethammer 1977:174). In the final analysis, personality charac-
248
Alt and Pauketat
Figure 11.4. Joyce Wike in Seattle, Washington, in October 2000.
teristics or kinship relationships may have taken precedence over perceived gender roles in filling political offices or ritual duties (Trocolli 1999, 2002; e.g., Niethammer 1977:146).
Acknowledgments We are grateful to Adam King for including this study in the present volume. We thank the University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology for access to Preston Holder’s records and notes and are greatly indebted to Joyce Wike for her willingness to discuss the details of this and other experiences with Preston Holder during a three-day interview with the junior author in October 2000. An additional debt of gratitude is owed the Illinois Transportation Archaeological Research Program, which provided the photo of the Sponemann figurine in Figure 11.2, left. Finally, the chapter benefited from the comments of Thomas Emerson and two anonymous reviewers, which helped sharpen the essay’s focus. We take final responsibility for shortcomings in the presentation and interpretations.
Appendix Excerpt from a conversation between Joyce Wike and Tim Pauketat, October 15, 2000, Seattle, Washington (see Figure 11.4) TP: You mentioned something in the letter . . . I don’t want to forget to ask you because I had never heard it before, and it was about one of the various excava-
Sex and the Southern Cult
249
tions [of Preston Holder] around St. Louis, the “Junkyard” mound. And you mentioned that there were two sacrificed women in it. And I read that and I thought, “I had never heard that before.” JW: See, you’ll love this story. I was seven months pregnant with Theresa. And I was not going to, but Preston, see, he not only didn’t have anybody, he never had anybody as good as me on fine work, you know, because he had trained me. He said, “You have got to help me because I’ve got nobody.” This was in April or something [1955]. And the students were on holiday. It was the end of the term. Nobody was around at the Missouri Historical Society and there was a time limit on it. This was salvage archaeology. The only thing good about it was that the motel didn’t have to do anything. That was going to be their parking lot. But at some point they had to fill it, you know, when they built the motel. And the main highway was—this is in East St. Louis—going . . . TP: Yeah, yeah, I know where it is. JW: God! With fumes blowing over. So, okay, this is the kind of thing that happens, see I’m working down and he said, “I’ve got two primaries—I think it’s three primaries.” He said, “you just gotta help me.” I said, “Okay.” Here I am so pregnant and I’m trying to do this, and like I can’t remember this well now I just remember that, I’m going down an arm, get the wrist but, there’s no hand! Then I go up where, I think, where the head was, I think the head was like in . . . the head was under the arm, you know. There were no . . . I can’t remember if there were no feet. That was one woman. TP: It’s on that map I guess, right? JW: And this was the worst. There was another woman . . . I’d never heard of this . . . we finally found some documents for this. If somebody is injured by a blow to their head, you know, that you can have a spasm, like go down this arm and the hand was this [gesture showing deformed hands]. The bone, it wasn’t flat, there were like, claws; each side, and the feet! TP: The feet were curled up like that too? JW: Yeah. Distorted. This M.D. [medical doctor] said that it could be from a blow to the head that killed the person; to have that particular spasm. Now, I can’t remember, this was also while, here I am pregnant and I’m going down and here’s a fetus! Now, I didn’t really, I could . . . I blocked on this. But Preston said this person was killed during the birth. The fetus was between the . . . was too low. But now I didn’t go that far but imagine this: I thought what is this child
250
Alt and Pauketat
[ Joyce’s]—prenatal—in for? God! This stuff was terrible and, all right at the moment I can’t remember if there were three or two of these women. All these sacrifices, what in the hell. . . . But anyway, now, it seems to me that he did not find there, you know, what he should have found, the male primary, and I don’t think he found it. He didn’t find the, I mean, the theory would be that that’s why the mound was built. So, these women were sacrificed, they piled all the bones on, right? They put up the mound, right? TP: Yeah. JW: But I don’t think he got the male primary! We just got these females.
Notes 1. Even today, most archaeologists would ask about function but not experience. “What were the social-integrative functions of the chunkey game or the Ramey pot?” is the wrong question and one that presupposes somebody—an elite strategizer usually—intentionally integrated a population in a preplanned fashion (and without history and unintended consequences getting in the way). 2. The closest possible precedent might be the pre-Mississippian Coles Creek component at the Lake George site in Mississippi. On the surface of Mound C, the bodies of males and females were sometimes found associated with multiple infants, killed in apparent sacrificial rites (Kidder 1998; Williams and Brain 1983). 3. In a later note, Holder added that a single copper-covered bone earspool had been placed inside (or otherwise ended up) in her lingual cavity, and he wondered if it had been placed in her mouth at the time of death or burial (but then, in an earlier note, he had identified this as associated with Primary #1). 4. This possibility is consistent with the suspected factionalism of the late 1100s and 1200s (Pauketat 1992). A theatrical mortuary event or execution, of course, might also have eliminated ambiguities over succession to high office in the minds of any audience. 5. Of course, attempts to segregate the sexual characteristics of sculpture are fraught with peril. Gender ambiguity or transgendered imagery may have been the intent of certain carvings. Shamans, for instance, may be portrayed with sexual characteristics of the opposite sex. Figure 11.3 is at best tentative.
12 Whither SECC? Adam King
We return to the question of the dating of the Southeastern Ceremonial Complex (SECC). The authors in this volume have shown that many of the major sites, important styles, and key artifact forms associated with the SECC do not all date to the period between a.d. 1450 and 1650. While elaborate and finely crafted materials (Muller’s Attenuated Cult and Post-Southern Cult horizons) were made during this later period, the styles and artifact forms that first inspired ideas about Warrior Cults and Buzzard Cults, what Muller (1989) called the Classic Cult, largely predate this period and actually fall into the a.d. 1250–1400 date range. Still other materials (Muller’s Developmental Cult) that served as the precursors to the later horizons were made even earlier. I hope that enough evidence has been presented in this volume to put to rest the question of whether SECC goods were made throughout the Mississippian period or just during the last few centuries of the period. However, this by no means ends all questions of chronology regarding the SECC. Refinements on style, theme, and form chronologies will always produce refined understandings of the contexts of creation and use of SECC goods. And that is what really matters. Chronology is important but simply only as a means to fuller and more informed interpretations of the past. The authors in this volume took pains to explore how an improved understanding of chronology can help our interpretations of the SECC and Mississippian societies. What should be clear is that there is a long way to go still in the study of the SECC, not only in continuing to explore chronology but also in wringing every bit of interpretive value we can out of the information we already have.
A Different View of the SECC This brings up a messy issue. If we are to get as much interpretive mileage from the SECC as possible, then we must have some idea of what it is. When Waring
252
King
and Holder (1945) wrote about the Southern Cult, they were referring largely to the same symbolic package that Knight et al. (2001) recently argued should be called the SECC and that Muller (1989) earlier called the Classic Cult. That package does not include all art of the Mississippian period but rather is restricted to motifs and imagery stylistically or iconographically related to the Classic Braden style—in other words, the imagery found on embossed copper plates like those found by Rogan at Etowah and on some of the Braden engraved shell cups found at Spiro. From this perspective, not all imagery, themes, and styles are necessarily part of the SECC. While this perspective is consistent with the origins of the SECC, it is at odds with more recent conceptions, as captured in Muller’s (1989) overview of the SECC in the Cottonlandia volume. In that article Muller (1989:13) acknowledged that “archaeologists have too often treated all elaborate art materials from the late prehistoric Southeast as being ‘Southern Cult,’ a tendency that has both broadened the term and made it less useful for any practical purpose.” Muller grudgingly maintains the SECC moniker (see his chapter in this volume also) but demonstrates the diversity of styles, themes, and motifs incorporated within it by discussing horizons of the SECC. Those horizons can roughly be lumped into two groups. One group contains a sequence that traces the history of the Southern Cult (roughly what Knight et al. call the SECC): Developmental Cult, Southern Cult, and Attenuated Cult. The other group of horizons includes styles and themes that are not necessarily historically related to the “true” Southern Cult (Muller’s words, 1989:17): post–Southern Cult and historic times. There is a tension in Muller’s article between the restricted nature of the original concept of the Southern Cult and the more general term that SECC has become. For Muller, lumping unrelated imagery with materials historically related to the Cult creates a false picture of stylistic and thematic unity across all Mississippian art. It also creates an analytical category, the SECC, that is too broad and poorly defined to be useful. Hence Knight et al.’s (2001) effort to “rein in” the concept and make it useful to a meaningful study of the past. Even in Muller’s current contribution in this volume, there is a clear preference for using “Southern Cult” or “SECC” to refer to that original, classic conception harkened back to by Knight et al. (2001). These definitional problems have led Jim Knight (2006) to suggest that it is time to do away with the SECC as a concept altogether, largely for the same reasons Muller is uncomfortable with the SECC’s broader meaning. While I am sympathetic to arguments like Knight’s, I believe we are stuck with the SECC or some other general term, despite its inherent problems. Perhaps a new concept to replace SECC would accomplish the same intellectual housecleaning that Knight argues we need. I see the merits of Reilly’s (2004) “MACC” and Muller’s (this volume) “SIN,” but for the moment I am content to stick with the term that is so deeply entrenched in the literature—Southeastern Ceremonial Complex.
Whither SECC?
253
Most scholars thinking about the general nature of the SECC likely agree that it is not a single complex of images, art styles, or themes, nor was there a single, unified use for the materials carrying those images. Therefore, if we are to use “SECC” as some kind of umbrella term, then other concepts are needed that capture and conceptualize the variation in the SECC in a meaningful way. Style seems to be the most appropriate unit to use in conceptualizing the SECC. Artistic styles, when conceived of as the formal qualities of design, can be defined in time and space empirically and their origins and transformations can be traced, as can their historical connections to other styles. In other words, styles can be empirically based units that can be studied in time and space. In attempting to redefine the SECC, Knight et al. (2001) relied on the art style as the systematically defined unit on which to hang their conception of the SECC. As Muller discusses in this volume, style refers to learned, clearly understood, and repeatedly applied sets of rules about what is depicted and how it is represented. These rules are developed within a specific social context, formally taught through extensive training, and applied in workshop settings. As such, not only can styles be identified in time and space and associated with a place of origin, but also they can be associated with a social group and social context. Unlike the motif or even the theme, a style has not only a clear and traceable history but also an intimate connection to particular societies. Style is an empirical unit with a clear social meaning. At times certain particular styles, generally driven by the social milieu and the social group associated, have long-lasting and far-reaching impacts. Muller’s use of horizon has a deep history in American archaeology and presents a useful way to conceptualize this phenomenon. The horizons must be defined in the same way that Knight et al. (2001) attempt to redefine the SECC. That is, they have to capture a historical sequence of related styles, themes, and motifs. Approached in this way, Knight et al. (2001) have already defined one of the horizons of the SECC. It is associated with the history of the Braden style school from its inception in the Early Mississippian period in the American Bottom to its eventual branching and proliferation into the fifteenth century. Following Muller and keeping true to the original genesis of the concept, this might be called the Southern Cult horizon. We know a good deal about this horizon, but in exploring it evidence for others has come dimly into focus. Jim Brown, Vin Steponaitis, and other members of the Texas State SECC working group have suggested that an earlier horizon predating the Southern Cult horizon might have focused on centering symbols and the “New Fire” well known from the historically described Green Corn ceremony. Brown has suggested this might be called the Bennett horizon. There is to date no originating style identified nor is there a clear understanding of the complex of motifs and themes that might make up such a horizon. Not every well-defined style gave rise to a horizon or even was related histori-
254
King
cally to one. For example, the style sequence of eastern Tennessee, which includes the Hightower, Lick Creek, and Citico styles, was not connected stylistically to the Braden-inspired Southern Cult horizon and only the Hightower style was even marginally influenced thematically. Therefore, the SECC is likely ultimately to be made up of regional sequences of styles that are periodically intersected and influenced by influential style horizons. Where and when horizons emerged will tell us a great deal about the importance of regional interactions and the historical impact of the styles, themes, and social groups involved. For example, it is becoming ever more clear that Braden and its offshoots influenced the styles and content of representational art across the East for several centuries (see Brown 2004a). Its association with Cahokia adds another dimension to the importance of that site in the transformation of the southeastern and midwestern landscapes after a.d. 1200. Viewed from this perspective, the SECC becomes a series of decorative styles with particular motifs, themes, and even artifact forms associated. The history of the SECC becomes a history of the development of various styles, their iconographic and stylistic intersections, and most important their connections to the social.
Whither SECC? Approaching the SECC from the perspective of style makes it possible to study the concept using socially meaningful units that can be studied systematically. This approach does not diminish the interpretive value of the SECC; it still has the potential to help us understand, among other things, the structure of social ranking systems, the nature of Mississippian beliefs and their connection to society and politics, regional exchange, and craft production and its relationship to ranking and social control. As I stated above, this is what is really important about the SECC. In this final section, I will discuss three directions for future SECC studies. Style and Style Geography If, as I advocate, style is the basic unit of the SECC, then we need to do a great deal more work on systematically defining styles. Those definitions must come following the approaches used by Muller (1966b) and Phillips and Brown (1978). The formal rules of styles must be discovered and then the motifs and themes associated with the styles can be understood. Just as important as uncovering the rules of particular styles is determining their geographies. Understanding the place of origin of styles is critical to tracing their histories through space and also to understanding the reach of regional interactions. Distributional studies, like Hally’s contribution to this volume, can help unravel style geographies. However, some styles may be so widely distributed and
Whither SECC?
255
their concentrations skewed by historical circumstances that distributions might be misleading. This appears to have been the case with the Classic Braden style (originally Braden A in Phillips and Brown 1978). The greatest concentration of Classic Braden artwork has been found at Spiro in Oklahoma, leading Phillips and Brown (1978) to speculate that the style developed there. However, more recent work by Brown and colleagues (Brown and Kelly 2000; Kelly et al. this volume) has shown that the place of origin of Classic Braden was likely the American Bottom. The keys to this argument are the identification of Classic Braden imagery in and around the American Bottom on local pottery and nonportable objects (Brown 1989; Brown and Kelly 2000). Those nonportable objects are a series of caves in eastern Missouri that contain imagery that stylistically and thematically belongs to the Braden school (Diaz-Granados and Duncan 2000). Meaning The imagery and artifact forms of the SECC not only convey information about decorative style, they also carry meaning. Muller’s point (this volume) that attempting to interpret meaning is a tricky business is well taken. However, simply because it is fraught with difficulties does not mean that deciphering meaning is impossible or unworthy of attempting. The Texas State SECC working group has focused for over a decade on bringing meaning into Mississippian imagery. I am certainly biased because I am part of that group, but I think the effort has produced some success. This success is particularly well captured in a series of articles in the recently published Hero, Hawk, and Open Hand volume, including contributions by Reilly (2004), Brown (2004a), and Lankford (2004), as well as in the upcoming Ancient Objects and Sacred Realms: Interpretations of Mississippian Iconography volume (Reilly and Garber 2007). The key is to start with culturally appropriate sacred narratives—in this case, those collected from the Southeast and Midwest. The test of the usefulness of the interpretations produced is whether they lead to other inferences that are internally consistent and also consistent with the sacred narratives. Combining meaning with the contexts of use will lead us to more culturally specific, complex, and nuanced understandings of the SECC. An example of this comes from the embossed copper objects recovered from Etowah’s Mound C (see King 2005). The most famous of these are the Rogan plates depicting the birdman theme, which served as decorative elements in headdresses. It has long been assumed that these headdress plates were badges of high status and political office. In the past, the birdman had been interpreted to be some real or mythological being who was a great warrior. This was inferred from his association with symbols presumed to have overt military references such as birds of prey and weaponry like the mace. Brown (2004a, 2007b; Brown and Dye 2006; Brown and Kelly 2000) and Diaz-Granados and Duncan (2000) have argued that the birdman is likely a
256
King
supernatural with the same kind of thematic associations as Morning Star, Red Horn, or He-Who-Wears-Human-Heads-As-Earrings featured in various sacred narratives of the Midwest and eastern Plains. While great warriors, these characters fought in wars of the supernatural on behalf of humanity. In addition, they also were associated with fertility and rebirth. In other words, the birdman does not just represent a great warrior but instead represents a supernatural hero who fought to help humans and represents the triumph of life over death. This more layered understanding of the birdman makes it clear why he might have been the perfect supernatural to charter a line of chiefs at Etowah. A more detailed look at Mound C shows that there were other headdresses found in its burial record (see King 2005) that contained plates depicting raptors, the ogee, or the piasa, while still others were decorated with smaller embossed copper pieces in the shape of raptor parts (talons, wings, crest), arrows, maces, and the bilobed arrow. In fact, within the 100-year span of the use of Mound C, 35 burials representing 39 people contained copper headdress ornaments. While some of these (raptors, bilobed arrows, and maces) may make reference to the birdman thematic unit, others have different meanings. The ogee was a motif that represented a portal through which supernaturals, people, and power could pass from one realm of the cosmos to another (Reilly 2004). As such it seems to make reference to an ability to make use of those portals and therefore access the supernatural. The piasa is a being of the Beneath World and sometimes referred to as the lord of death (Lankford 2004). While the Beneath World may have been a place of chaos and death, it was also a place of power associated with the fertility of the earth and the beginning of the path that spirits of the dead took (Lankford 2004). Given the number of headdresses represented in Mound C and the diversity of meanings associated with them, it is clear that those headdresses were not simply badges of office and status. The fact that some of the “headdresses” were found essentially bundled at the feet of grave occupants or somewhere else in the grave suggests a more complicated interpretation of their function. It is possible that the headdresses and copper ornaments were part of sacred bundles that chartered certain status positions or granted rights to perform certain songs, dances, or rituals just as did sacred bundles described in the ethnographies of native people throughout North America. It is entirely likely, then, that the path to power and prominence at Etowah during the Wilbanks phases was intimately tied to the sacred and that different individuals and corporate groups owned different sources of power. By adding meaning to our understanding of the context of use of SECC materials, it becomes possible to begin to address questions like these: Were the images and their associated meanings used to build or legitimize status, signify the possession of religious equipment (songs, bundles, rights to dances, and so on), or symbolize rights to political offices? Were they sources of group or communal
Whither SECC?
257
forms of status and identity? Answering these questions will be critical to more fully understanding the SECC and its social contexts. Contexts of Production Another key to really understanding the SECC and its place in Mississippian societies lies in exploring the organization of production of SECC goods. It is apparent that the imagery included in the SECC was the product of well-defined artistic styles that were products of established workshops. The question remains as to where those workshops might have been and who staffed them. For a long time it has been presumed that elites either made or at least at some level controlled the production of SECC materials. Given that the things first used to define the Southern Cult were found in elite burial contexts at sites like Etowah and Spiro, this makes good sense. It is also largely supported by the small amount of evidence available. The amount of evidence speaking to where SECC goods were produced in the Southeast is quite small. In places like Mesoamerica, craft producers were not elites themselves but were attached to elite households. In Panama (Helms 1979), elites learned craft production as a means of displaying control over the supernatural and as a source of power. At Moundville, Knight and Steponaitis (1998) report finding evidence for copper working on mound summits at the site and Welch (1991:137–149) summarizes evidence for specialized pottery production near Mound P. In this volume, Kelly and colleagues search for more details on the copper workshop Perino recorded at Cahokia’s Mound 34. These data suggest that, at least at Moundville and Cahokia, the production of some kinds of materials that may be associated with the SECC took place in elite contexts. There is equally little information on who was producing those materials. At Etowah, Leader (1988b) found copper-working tools (embossers and templates) and scraps of worked copper in Mound C graves, including Burial 15, which contained the marble statues and also may have contained the contents of summit structures. These data suggest that, at least at Etowah, copper working may have been an elite activity. It should be left as an empirical question to be answered for each location of production as to who does the producing and in what contexts. It is possible to envision a circumstance in which a nicely decorated object in its original cultural context was not made as an indicator of elite status or source of elite power but when transferred to another cultural context takes on those meanings. Answers to the questions about who made SECC materials and where they were made are likely to vary from site to site and period to period. The degree to which elites participated in or at least sponsored the creation of SECC goods indicates the relative importance of crafting and the manipulation of finished products in particular social contexts. To the extent that elites are not involved, it leaves open the possibility that some SECC materials were created for purposes other
258
King
than to signify elevated social status, to identify political office holders, or to reproduce social power.
In the End The Southeastern Ceremonial Complex is a venerable concept and, to the extent that it refers to artistic styles, motifs, and symbolic themes, it is and must remain an important part of Mississippian studies. To fully exploit the SECC’s potential for creating a more detailed understanding of Mississippian societies, we must not only have a clear idea of who made those materials, where they were made, and how they were used—we must also understand when they were made. Brain and Phillips argued, against the accumulated wisdom and radiocarbon data of many decades, that SECC materials were made largely between a.d. 1450 and 1650. It is clear to the authors in this volume that their time frame is too restrictive. In being restrictive, they limit and misplace the interpretive power of the SECC. Placed in its proper chronological context, the SECC has the potential to help us explore exchange, ranking systems, style, workshops and craft production, the meaning and function of art, religion, and the intersection of all of these with social structure, politics, and power in all Mississippian societies.
References Cited
Ahler, Steven A., and P. J. DePuydt 1987 A Report on the 1931 Powell Mound Excavations, Madison County, Illinois. Reports of Investigations, No. 43. Illinois State Museum, Springfield. Alt, Susan M. 1999 Spindle Whorls and Fiber Production at Early Cahokian Settlements. Southeastern Archaeology 18:124–133. Anderson, David G. 1994 The Savannah River Chiefdoms: Political Change in the Late Prehistoric Southeast. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Atkinson, James R. 1979 A Historic Contact Indian Settlement in Oktibbeha County, Mississippi. Journal of Alabama Archaeology 25(1):61–82. Bailey, Garrick A. 1995 The Osage and the Invisible World: From the Works of Francis La Flesche. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman. Bennett, John W. 1944 Middle American Influences on Cultures of the Southeastern United States. Acta Americana 2(1-2):25–50. Black, Glenn A. 1967 Angel Site: An Archaeological, Historical, and Ethnological Study. Indiana Historical Society, Indianapolis. Blakely, Robert L. 1995 Social Organization at Etowah: A Reconsideration of Paleodemographic and Paleonutritional Evidence. Southeastern Archaeology 14(1):46–59. Blitz, John H. 1993 Ancient Chiefdoms of the Tombigbee. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Bonhage-Freund, Mary Theresa 2005 An Experimental Approach to the Analysis of Two Maize Cob-Filled Features from Etowah (9BR1). Early Georgia 33(2):131–141. Bourdieu, Pierre 1977 Outline of a Theory of Practice. Translated by R. Nice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Brain, Jeffrey P., and Philip Phillips 1996 Shell Gorgets: Styles of the Late Prehistoric and Protohistoric Southeast. Peabody Museum Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Brehm, H. C. 1981 The History of the Duck River Cache. Miscellaneous Paper No. 6. Tennessee Anthropological Association, Knoxville.
260
References Cited
Brew, John O. 1946 The Uses and Abuses of Taxonomy. In Archaeology of Alkali Ridge, Southeastern Utah, pp. 44–66. Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology 21. Cambridge, Massachusetts. Brotherston, Gordon 1992 Book of the Fourth World. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Brown, Calvin 1926 Archaeology of Mississippi. Mississippi Geological Survey, University. Brown, Catherine 1982 On the Gender of the Winged Being on Mississippian Period Copper Plates. Tennessee Anthropologist 7:1–8. Brown, James A. 1966 Spiro Studies, vol. 2: The Graves and Their Contents. Second Annual Report of Caddoan Archaeology—Spiro Focus Research, Part 2. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman. 1971 The Dimensions of Status in the Burials at Spiro. In Approaches to the Social Dimensions of Mortuary Practices, edited by J. A. Brown, pp. 92–112. Memoir 25. Society for American Archaeology, Washington, D.C. 1976a The Southern Cult Reconsidered. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 1:115–135. 1976b Spiro Studies, vol. 4: The Artifacts. University of Oklahoma Research Institute, Norman. 1989 On Style Divisions of the Southeastern Ceremonial Complex: A Revisionist Perspective. In Southeastern Ceremonial Complex: Artifacts and Analysis, edited by P. Galloway, pp. 183–204. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln. 1996 The Spiro Ceremonial Center: The Archaeology of Arkansas Valley Caddoan Culture in Eastern Oklahoma. 2 vols. Memoirs of the Museum of Anthropology No. 29. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. 1997 The Archaeology of Ancient Religion in the Eastern Woodlands. Annual Review of Anthropology 26:465–485. 2001a Forty Years of the Southeastern Ceremonial Complex. In Histories of Southeastern Archaeology, edited by S. Tushingham, J. Hill, and C. H. McNutt, pp. 26– 34. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. 2001b The Invention of an Art Style as an Instrument of Elite Control in the Mississippian Southeast. Paper presented at the 58th Annual Meeting, Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Chattanooga, Tennessee. 2004a The Cahokian Expression: Creating Court and Cult. In Hero, Hawk, and Open Hand: American Indian Art of the Ancient Midwest and South, edited by R. Townsend and R. V. Sharp, pp. 104–123. Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut. 2004b Exchange and Interaction to A.D. 1500. In Southeast, edited by R. D. Fogelson, pp. 677–685. Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 14, William Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 2007a Sequencing the Braden Style within Mississippian Period Art and Iconography. In Ancient Objects and Sacred Realms: Interpretations of Mississippian Iconography, edited by F. K. Reilly III and J. F. Garber, pp. 213–245. University of Texas Press, Austin. 2007b On the Identity of the Birdman within Mississippian Period Art and Iconog-
References Cited
261
raphy. In Ancient Objects and Sacred Realms: Interpretations of Mississippian Iconography, edited by F. K. Reilly III and J. F. Garber, pp. 56–106. University of Texas Press, Austin. n.d. From Costume to Emblem: Mississippian Period Political Development from an Iconographic Perspective. Unpublished manuscript. Brown, James A. (editor) 1971 Approaches to the Social Dimensions of Mortuary Practices. Memoir 25. Society for American Archaeology, Washington, D.C. Brown, James A., and David H. Dye 2006 Severed Heads and Sacred Scalplocks: Mississippian Iconographic Trophies. In The Taking and Displaying of Human Trophies by Amerindians, edited by R. J. Chacon and D. H. Dye. Submitted for review. Brown, James A., and Henry W. Hamilton 1965 Spiro and Mississippian Antiquities from the McDannald Collection. Museum of Fine Arts, Houston. Brown, James A., and John Kelly 1997 The Context of Davis Rectangle Motifs at Cahokia. Paper presented at the 56th Annual Meeting of the Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Baton Rouge, Louisiana. 2000 Cahokia and the Southeastern Ceremonial Complex. In Mounds, Modoc, and Mesoamerica: Papers in Honor of Melvin L. Fowler, edited by S. R. Ahler, pp. 469– 510. Scientific Papers 28. Illinois State Museum, Springfield. Brown, James A., and J. Daniel Rogers 1999 AMS Dates on Artifacts of the Southeastern Ceremonial Complex at Spiro. Southeastern Archaeology 18:134–141. Buckles, William G., and James B. Griffin n.d. Summary of Analysis of the Distribution of Ceramics Recovered from the 1950 Excavations at Cahokia. Manuscript on file at the University of Michigan, Museum of Anthropology. Burnett, E. K. 1945 The Spiro Mound Collection in the Museum. Contributions of the Museum of the American Indian, Heye Foundation 14:9–47. Butler, Brian M. 1991 Kincaid Revisited: The Mississippian Sequence in the Lower Ohio Valley. In Cahokia and the Hinterlands: Middle Mississippian Cultures of the Midwest, edited by T. E. Emerson and R. B. Lewis, pp. 264–273. University of Illinois Press, Urbana. Byers, Douglas S. 1962 The Restoration and Preservation of Some Objects from Etowah. American Antiquity 28:206–216. Caldwell, Joseph R. 1957 Survey and Excavation in the Allatoona Reservoir, Northern Georgia. Manuscript on file, Department of Anthropology, University of Georgia, Athens. Caldwell, Joseph R., and Catherine McCann 1941 Irene Mound Site, Chatham County, Georgia. University of Georgia Press, Athens. Callender, Charles, and Lee M. Kochems 1983 The North American Berdache. Current Anthropology 24:443–470.
262
References Cited
Carr, Christopher 1985 For Concordance in Archaeological Analysis. Waveland Press, Prospect Heights, Illinois. Chapman, Jefferson 1990 The Kimberly-Clark Site and Site 40LD207. Tennessee Anthropological Association Miscellaneous Paper No. 14, University of Tennessee, Department of Anthropology, Report of Investigations No. 51, University of Tennessee, Frank H. McClung Museum Occasional Paper No.8. Knoxville. Childress, Mitchell R., and Camille Wharey 1996 Unit 4 Mound Excavations at the Chucalissa Site, 1960–1970. In Mounds, Embankments, and Ceremonialism in the Mid-South, edited by R. C. Mainfort and R. Walling, pp. 64–77. Arkansas Archeological Survey Research Series 46. Arkansas Archeological Survey, Fayetteville. Claflin, William H., Jr. 1931 The Stalling’s Island Mound, Columbia County, Georgia. Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 14, No. 1. Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Clarke, David L. 1968 Analytical Archaeology. Methuen, London. Clay, R. Berle 1997 The Mississippian Succession on the Lower Ohio. Southeastern Archaeology 16:16–32. Coe, Joffre L. 1995 Town Creek Indian Mound. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill. Conrad, Lawrence A. 1991 The Middle Mississippian Cultures of the Central Illinois River Valley. In Cahokia and Its Hinterland, edited by T. E. Emerson and R. B. Lewis, pp. 119–156. University of Illinois Press, Urbana. Cox, Stephen D. 1985 Catalogue. In Art and Artisans of Prehistoric Middle Tennessee: The Gates P. Thruston Collection of Vanderbilt University Held in Trust by the Tennessee State Museum, edited by S. D. Cox, pp. 65–163. Tennessee State Museum, Nashville. Craig, William B., Jr. 1996 Georgia Department of Natural Resources Human Remains Report, Vols. I and II, Etowah Site, Bartow County, Georgia, Mound C, Parts I and II. Parks, Recreation, and Historic Sites Division, Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Atlanta. Crane, H. R., and J. B. Griffin 1959 University of Michigan Radiocarbon Dates, IV. Radiocarbon 1:173–198. Culin, Stewart 1992 Games of the North American Indians University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln. Originally published 1907, n.p. Cutler, Hugh C., and Leonard W. Blake 1969 Corn from Cahokia Sites. In Explorations into Cahokia Archaeology, pp. 122–136. Bulletin 7. Illinois Archaeological Survey, Urbana. DeBoer, Warren R. 1993 Like a Rolling Stone: The Chunkey Game and Political Organization in Eastern North America. Southeastern Archaeology 12:83–92.
References Cited
263
DeMarrais, Elizabeth, Luis J. Castillo, and Timothy Earle 1996 Ideology, Materialization, and Power Strategies. Current Anthropology 37(1):15–31. Diaz-Granados, Carol, and James R. Duncan 2000 The Petroglyphs and Pictographs of Missouri. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Diaz-Granados, Carol, Marvin W. Rowe, Marian Hyman, James R. Duncan, and John R. Southon 2001 AMS Radiocarbon Dates for Charcoal from Three Missouri Pictographs and Their Associated Iconography. American Antiquity 66(3):481–492. Dickens, Roy S., Jr. 1976 Cherokee Prehistory: The Pisgah Phase in the Appalachian Summit Region. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville. 1982 Of Sky and Earth: Art of the Early Southeastern Indians. Georgia Department of Archives and History, Atlanta. Dieterle, Richard L. 2005 The Redhorn Cycle. In The Encyclopedia of Hotcâk (Winnebago) Mythology, compiled and edited by R. L. Dieterle. Electronic document, http:// hotcakencyclopedia.com/ho.RedhornCycle.html Dockstader, Frederick J. 1985 The Thruston Collection Re-Viewed. In Art and Artisans of Prehistoric Middle Tennessee: The Gates P. Thruston Collection of Vanderbilt University Held in Trust by the Tennessee State Museum, edited by S. D. Cox, pp. 37–58. Tennessee State Museum, Nashville. Drooker, Penelope B. 1997 The View from Madisonville: Protohistoric Western Fort Ancient Interaction Patterns. Memoir No. 31. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Duffield, Lathiel F. 1964 Engraved Shells from the Craig Mound at Spiro, LeFlore County, Oklahoma. Memoirs No. 1. Oklahoma Anthropological Society, Norman. Duncan, James R., and Carol Diaz-Granados 2000 Of Masks and Myths. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 25:1–26. Dunnell, R. C. 1978 Style and Function: A Fundamental Dichotomy. American Antiquity 43:192–202. Dye, David H. 2002 The 1936 University of Tennessee WPA-TVA Excavations at the Link Farm Site (40HS6), Humphreys County, Tennessee. Paper presented at the 59th Annual Meeting of the Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Biloxi, Mississippi. 2004a Art, Ritual, and Chiefly Warfare in the Mississippian World. In Hero, Hawk, and Open Hand: American Indian Art of the Ancient Midwest and South, edited by R. Townsend and R. V. Sharp, pp. 190–205. Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut. 2004b Crown-Form Maces and Duck River Sword-Form Maces: Mississippian Hypertrophic Weaponry and the Path of Souls. Paper presented at the 69th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Montreal. Earle, Timothy 1997 How Chiefs Come to Power: The Political Economy in Prehistory. Stanford University Press, Stanford.
264
References Cited
Eliade, Mircea 1991 The Myth of the Eternal Return: Cosmos and History. Princeton University Press, Princeton. Emerson, Thomas E. 1982 Mississippian Stone Images in Illinois. Circular 6. Illinois Archaeological Survey, Urbana. 1989 Water, Serpents, and the Underworld: An Exploration into Cahokia Symbolism. In Southeastern Ceremonial Complex: Artifacts and Analysis, edited by P. Galloway, pp. 45–92. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln. 1997a Cahokia and the Archaeology of Power. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. 1997b Cahokian Elite Ideology and the Mississippian Cosmos. In Cahokia: Domination and Ideology in the Mississippian World, edited by T. R. Pauketat and T. E. Emerson, pp. 190–228. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln. 2003 Materializing Cahokia Shamans. Southeastern Archaeology 22:135–154. Emerson, Thomas E., and Randall E. Hughes 2000 Figurines, Flint Clay Sourcing, the Ozark Highlands, and Cahokian Acquisition. American Antiquity 65:79–101. Emerson, Thomas E., Randall E. Hughes, Mary R. Hynes, and Sarah U. Wisseman 2002 Implications of Sourcing Cahokia-Style Flintclay Figures in the American Bottom and the Upper Mississippi River Valley. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 27:309–338. 2003 The Sourcing and Interpretation of Cahokia-Style Figurines in the TransMississippi South and Southeast. American Antiquity 68(2):287–313. Emerson, Thomas E., and Timothy R. Pauketat 2002 Embodying Power and Resistance at Cahokia. In The Dynamics of Power, edited by M. O’Donovan, pp. 105–125. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Occasional Paper No. 30. Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. Fairbanks, Charles H. 1950 A Preliminary Segregation of Etowah, Savannah, and Lamar. American Antiquity 49:10–34. 1979 The Function of Black Drink Among the Creeks. In Black Drink: A Native American Tea, edited by C. M. Hudson, pp. 120–149. University of Georgia Press, Athens. Faulkner, Charles H. (editor) 1986 The Prehistoric Native American Art of Mud Glyph Cave. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville. Ford, James A. 1954 The Type Concept Revisited. American Anthropologist 56:42–54. 1961 Menard Site: The Quapaw Village of Osotouy on the Arkansas River. Anthropological Papers, Vol. 48, Pt. 2. American Museum of Natural History, New York. Ford, James A., and Gordon R. Willey 1941 An Interpretation of the Prehistory of the Eastern United States. American Anthropologist 43:325–363. Fowler, Melvin L. 1989 The Cahokia Atlas: A Historical Atlas of Cahokia Archaeology. Studies in Illinois Archaeology No. 6. Illinois Historic Preservation Agency, Springfield.
References Cited
265
The Cahokia Atlas: A Historical Atlas of Cahokia Archaeology, rev. ed. Studies in Archaeology, No. 2. Illinois Transportation Archaeological Research Program, University of Illinois, Urbana. 1999 Who Were These People? In The Mound 72 Area: Dedicated and Sacred Space in Early Cahokia, edited by M. L. Fowler, J. Rose, B. Vander Leest, and S. A. Ahler, pp. 183–189. Reports of Investigations, No. 54. Illinois State Museum, Springfield. Fowler, Melvin L., and Robert L. Hall 1975 Archaeological Phases at Cahokia. In Perspectives in Cahokia Archaeology, edited by J. A. Brown, pp. 1–14. Bulletin 10. Illinois Archaeological Survey, Urbana. Fowler, Melvin L., Jerome Rose, Barbara Vander Leest, and Steven A. Ahler 1999 The Mound 72 Area: Dedicated and Sacred Space in Early Cahokia. Reports of Investigations, No. 54. Illinois State Museum, Springfield. Fundaburk, Emma L., and M. D. Foreman 1957 Sun Circles and Human Hands: The Southeastern Indians Art and Industry. Privately published, Luverne, Alabama. Futato, Eugene M., and Vernon J. Knight, Jr. 1986 Ten Thousand Years of Alabama Prehistory: A Pictorial Résumé. Bulletin 8. Alabama State Museum of Natural History, Tuscaloosa. Gailey, Christine Ward 1987 Kinship to Kingship: Gender Hierarchy and State Formation in the Tongan Islands. University of Texas Press, Austin. Galloway, Patricia K. 1989 Introduction. In Southeastern Ceremonial Complex: Artifacts and Analysis, edited by P. Galloway, pp. 1–7. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln. 1995 Choctaw Genesis: 1500–1700. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln. 1997 Where Have All the Menstrual Huts Gone? The Invisibility of Menstrual Seclusion in the Late Prehistoric Southeast. In Women in Prehistory: North America and Mesoamerica, edited by C. Claassen and R. A. Joyce, pp. 47–62. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia. Galloway, Patricia K. (editor) 1989 Southeastern Ceremonial Complex: Artifacts and Analysis. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln. Gardin, Jean-Claude 1958 Four Codes for the Description of Artifacts: Archaeological Implications of an Ethnographic Analysis. American Anthropologist 60:335–357. 1967 Methods for the Descriptive Analysis of Archaeological Materials. American Antiquity 32(1):13–30. 1980 Archaeological Constructs: An Aspect of Theoretical Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Gartner, William G. 1996 Archaeoastronomy as Sacred Geography. The Wisconsin Archaeologist 77:128–150. Gillies, Judith L. 1998 A Preliminary Study of Moundville Hemphill Representational Engraved Ceramic Art Style. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa. 1997
266
References Cited
Goldman, Irving 1975 The Mouth of Heaven: An Introduction to Kwakiutl Religious Thought. John Wiley and Sons, New York. Gorodzov, V. A. 1933 The Typological Method in Archaeology. American Anthropologist 35:95–102. Gramly, Richard M. 1992 Prehistoric Lithic Industry at Dover, Tennessee. Persimmon Press, New York. Griffin, James B. 1936 The Archaeological Remains of the Chiwere Sioux. American Antiquity 2:180–181. 1944 The De Luna Expedition and the “Buzzard Cult” in the Southeast. Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences 34:299–303. 1952a An Interpretation of the Place of Spiro in Southeastern Prehistory. Missouri Archaeologist 14:89–106. 1952b Culture Periods in Eastern United States Archaeology. In Archeology of Eastern United States, edited by J. B. Griffin, pp. 352–364. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. 1960 A Hypothesis for the Prehistory of the Winnebago. In Culture in History: Essays in Honor of Paul Radin, edited by S. A. Diamond, pp. 809–865. Columbia University Press, New York. 1961 Relationships Between the Caddoan Area and the Mississippi Valley. Bulletin of the Texas Archaeological Society 31:27–51. 1966 Mesoamerica and the Eastern United States in Prehistoric Times. In Archaeological Frontiers and External Connections, edited by G. Eckholm, G. Willey, and R. Wauchope, pp. 111–131. Handbook of Middle American Indians, Vol. 4. University of Texas Press, Austin. Griffin, James B., and Albert C. Spaulding 1951 The Central Mississippi Valley Archaeological Survey, Season 1950, A Preliminary Report. Journal of the Illinois State Archaeological Society 1(3):74–81, 84. Hall, Robert L. 1989 The Cultural Background of Mississippian Symbolism. In Southeastern Ceremonial Complex: Artifacts and Analysis, edited by P. Galloway, pp. 239–278. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln. 1991 Cahokia Identity and Interaction Models of Cahokia Mississippian. In Cahokia and the Hinterlands: Middle Mississippian Cultures of the Midwest, edited by T. E. Emerson and R. B. Lewis, pp. 3–34. University of Illinois Press, Urbana. 1997 An Archaeology of the Soul: North American Indian Belief and Ritual. University of Illinois Press, Urbana. 2000 Sacrificed Foursomes and Green Corn Ceremonialism. In Mounds, Modoc, and Mesoamerica: Papers in Honor of Melvin L. Fowler, edited by S. R. Ahler, pp. 245– 253. Scientific Papers 28. Illinois State Museum, Springfield. Hally, David J. 1979 Archaeological Investigation of the Little Egypt Site (9MU102), Murray County, Georgia, 1969 Season. Laboratory of Archaeology Series, Report No. 18. University of Georgia, Athens. 1980 Archaeological Investigation of the Little Egypt Site (9Mu102), Murray County, Georgia, 1970–72 Seasons. Department of Anthropology, University of Georgia.
References Cited
267
Manuscript on file, Southeast Archeological Center, U.S. National Park Service, Tallahassee, Florida. 1990 Original unpublished field notes from the 1988–1990 field seasons at the Leake site, Bartow Co., Georgia. Manuscript on file in the Department of Anthropology, University of Georgia, Athens. 1991 Site Survey in the Etowah Valley of Northwestern Georgia. LAMAR Briefs 18:4. 1993 The Territorial Size of Mississippian Chiefdoms. In Archaeology of Eastern North America: Papers in Honor of Stephen Williams, edited by J. B. Stoltman, pp. 143– 168. Archaeological Report No. 25. Mississippi Department of Archives and History, Jackson. 1994 An Overview of Lamar Culture. In Ocmulgee Archaeology, 1936–1986, edited by D. J. Hally, pp. 144–174. University of Georgia Press, Athens. 1996 Platform-Mound Construction and the Instability of Mississippian Chiefdoms. In Political Structure and Change in the Prehistoric Southeastern United States, edited by J. F. Scarry, pp. 92–127. University of Florida Press, Gainesville. 1999 The Settlement Pattern of Mississippian Chiefdoms in Northern Georgia. In Settlement Pattern Studies in the Americas: Fifty Years Since Viru, edited by B. R. Billman and G. M. Feinman, pp. 96–115. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. 2006 A Pretty Town Hard by the River: The Social Archaeology of a Late Mississippian Town in Northwestern Georgia. Manuscript on file in the Department of Anthropology, University of Georgia, Athens. Hally, David J., and James B. Langford, Jr. 1988 Mississippi Period Archaeology of the Georgia Valley and Ridge Province. Laboratory of Archaeology Series, Report 25. University of Georgia, Athens. Hally, David J., and J. Rudolph 1986 Mississippian Period Archaeology of the Georgia Piedmont. Laboratory of Archaeology Series, Report 24. University of Georgia, Athens. Hamilton, Henry W., Jean T. Hamilton, and Eleanor F. Chapman 1974 Spiro Mound Copper. Memoir 11. Missouri Archaeological Society, Columbia. Hamlin, Jenna M. 2000 1999 Ceramic Analysis. In Report of 1999 Field Excavations to Locate the Gilcrease/ Perino Excavations into Mound 34, by John E. Kelly and James A. Brown. Report prepared for the Cahokia Mound Museum Society, Collinsville, Illinois. 2001a Mound 34 2000 Ceramic Analysis. In Report of 2000 Field Excavations to Locate the Gilcrease/Perino Excavations into Mound 34, by John E. Kelly and James A. Brown. Report prepared for the Cahokia Mound Museum Society, Collinsville, Illinois. 2001b Moorehead Phase Ramey Incised Pottery in the Cahokia Area. Paper presented at the 58th Annual Meeting of the Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Chattanooga, Tennessee. 2004 Sociopolitical Significance of Moorehead Phase Ceramic Dataset Variation in the Cahokia Area. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Washington University, St. Louis. Hanson, Lee H., Jr. 1966 The Hardin Village Site. Studies in Anthropology No. 4. University of Kentucky Press, Lexington.
268
References Cited
Hatch, James W. 1974 Social Dimensions of Dallas Mortuary Patterns. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, Pennsylvania State University, University Park. 1976a The Citico Site: A Synthesis. Tennessee Anthropologist 1:74–103. 1976b Status in Death: Principles of Ranking in Dallas Culture Mortuary Remains. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Pennsylvania State University, University Park. Hegmon, Michelle, and Wenda R. Trevathan 1996 Gender, Anatomical Knowledge, and Pottery Production: Implications of an Anatomically Unusual Birth Depicted on Mimbres Pottery from Southwestern New Mexico. American Antiquity 61:747–754. Helms, Mary W. 1979 Ancient Panama: Chiefs in Search of Power. University of Texas Press, Austin. 1993 Craft and the Kingly Ideal: Art, Trade, and Power. University of Texas Press, Austin. Hilgeman, Sherri 1991 Angel Negative Painted Design Structure. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 16:3–33. Hill, Erica 2000 The Embodied Sacrifice. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 10:317–326. Hoffman, Darla S. 1997 From the Southeast to Fort Ancient: A Survey of Shell Gorgets in West Virginia. West Virginia Archaeologist 49(1-2):1–40. Holder, Preston 1968 Comment in “Brief of Symposium on the ‘Southern Cult.’” In The Waring Papers: The Collected Works of Antonio J. Waring, edited by S. Williams, pp. 72–77. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology 58. Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Holley, George R. 1989 The Archaeology of the Cahokia Mounds ICT-II: Ceramics. Illinois Cultural Resources Study 2. Illinois Historic Preservation Agency, Springfield. Holmes, William H. 1883 Art in Shell of the Ancient Americans. Second Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, 1880–1881, pp. 185–305. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 1884 Illustrated Catalogue of a Portion of the Collection Made by the Bureau of Ethnology During the Field Season of 1881. Third Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, 1881–1882, pp. 427–510. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 1903 Shell Ornaments from Kentucky and Mexico. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections 45, pp. 97–99. Washington, D.C. Howard, James H. 1968 The Southeastern Ceremonial Complex and Its Interpretation. Memoir 6. Missouri Archaeological Society, Columbia. Howland, Henry R. 1877 Recent Archaeological Discoveries in the American Bottom. Buffalo Society of Natural Sciences Bulletin 3:204–211. Hudson, Charles 1976 Southeastern Indians. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.
References Cited
269
Introduction. In Black Drink: A Native American Tea, edited by C. M. Hudson, pp. 1–9. University of Georgia Press, Athens. 1985 Iconography of the Thruston Collection. In Art and Artisans of Prehistoric Middle Tennessee: The Gates P. Thruston Collection of Vanderbilt University Held in Trust by the Tennessee State Museum, edited by S. D. Cox, pp. 19–36. Tennessee State Museum, Nashville. 1994 The Social Context of the Chiefdom of Ichisi. In Ocmulgee Archaeology, 1936– 1986, edited by D. J. Hally, pp. 175–180. University of Georgia Press, Athens. Hurst, Vernon Jr., and Lewis H. Larson, Jr. 1958 On the Source of Copper at the Etowah Site, Georgia. American Antiquity 24:177–181. Jones, B. Calvin 1982 Southern Cult Manifestations at the Lake Jackson Site, Leon County, Florida: Salvage Excavation of Mound 3. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 7:3–44. 1994 The Lake Jackson Mound Complex (8LE1): Stability and Change in Fort Walton Culture. The Florida Anthropologist 47:120–146. Joyce, Rosemary A. 2000 Gender and Power in Prehispanic Mesoamerica. University of Texas Press, Austin. Kehoe, Alice B. 2002 Theaters of Power. In The Dynamics of Power, edited by M. O’Donovan, pp. 259–272. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Occasional Paper No. 30. Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. Keller, Kenneth 1995 Investigations of Corn from Cahokia: Madison and St. Clair Counties. Senior Honors thesis, Department of Anthropology, Washington University, St. Louis. Kelly, Arthur R., and Lewis H. Larson, Jr. 1957 Explorations at the Etowah Indian Mounds near Cartersville, Georgia: Seasons 1954, 1955, 1956. Archaeology 10(1):39–48. Kelly, Arthur R., and Robert S. Neitzel 1961 The Chauga Site in Oconee County, South Carolina. Laboratory of Archaeology Series, Report No. 3. University of Georgia, Athens. Kelly, John E. 1994 The Archaeology of the East St. Louis Mound Center: Past and Present. Illinois Archaeology 6:1–58. 2001 The Historical and Distributional Significance of Wells Incised Plates. Paper presented at the 58th Annual Meeting of the Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Chattanooga, Tennessee. Kelly, John E., and James A. Brown 2000 Report of 1999 Field Excavations to Locate the Gilcrease/Perino Excavations into Mound 34. Report prepared for the Cahokia Mound Museum Society, Collinsville, Illinois. 2001 Report of 2000 Field Excavations to Locate the Gilcrease/Perino Excavations into Mound 34. Report prepared for the Cahokia Mound Museum Society, Collinsville, Illinois. Kelly, John E., Andrew C. Fortier, Steven J. Ozuk, and Joyce A. Williams 1987 The Range Site: Archaic Through Late Woodland Occupations (11-S-47). American 1979
270
References Cited
Bottom Archaeology, FAI-270 Site Reports, Vol. 16. University of Illinois Press, Urbana. Kelly, John E., Kenneth Keller, and Jennifer Fee 1996 The Role and Significance of the 1921 Moorehead Excavations at Cahokia. Draft report submitted to the Cahokia Mounds Museum Society, Collinsville, Illinois. Central Mississippi Valley Archaeological Research Institute, Columbia, Missouri. Kelly, Lucretia S. 2000 Preliminary Accounting of Faunal Remains from Feature 3, Mound 34 at Cahokia. In Report of 1999 Field Excavations to Locate the Gilcrease/Perino Excavations into Mound 34, by John E. Kelly and James A. Brown. Report prepared for the Cahokia Mound Museum Society, Collinsville, Illinois. 2001a A Case of Ritual Feasting at the Cahokia Site. In Feasts: Archaeological and Ethnographic Perspectives on Food, Politics, and Power, edited by M. Dietler and B. Hayden. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. 2001b Report of Faunal Remains Recovered from Mound 34, Cahokia Site 2000. In Report of 2000 Field Excavations to Locate the Gilcrease/Perino Excavations into Mound 34, by J. E. Kelly and J. A. Brown. Report prepared for the Cahokia Mound Museum Society, Collinsville, Illinois. 2001c The Potential Significance of Faunal Remains from Mound 34 at Cahokia. Paper presented at the 58th Annual Meeting of the Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Chattanooga, Tennessee. Keyes, John G. 1993 Change in the Mythology of the Southeastern Indians. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Georgia, Athens. 1994 Myth and Social History in the Early Southeast. In Perspectives on the Southeast: Linguistics, Archaeology, and Ethnohistory, edited by P. B. Kwachka, pp. 106–115. University of Georgia Press, Athens. Kidder, Tristram R. 1998 Mississippi Period Mound Groups and Communities in the Lower Mississippi Valley. In Mississippian Towns and Sacred Spaces: Searching for an Architectural Grammar, edited by R. B. Lewis and C. Stout, pp. 123–150. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Kimball, Larry R. (editor) 1985 The 1977 Archaeological Survey: An Overall Assessment of the Archaeological Resources of the Tellico Reservoir. Report of Investigations No. 40, Department of Anthropology, University of Tennessee, and TVA Publications in Anthropology No. 39, Knoxville. King, Adam 1991 What’s New (or Old) from Etowah. LAMAR Briefs 18:9–12. 1996 Tracing Organizational Change in Mississippian Chiefdoms of the Etowah River Valley, Georgia. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Pennsylvania State University, University Park. 1997 A New Perspective on the Mississippian Ceramic Sequence of the Etowah River Valley. Early Georgia 24(2):36–61. 1999 De Soto’s Itaba and the Nature of Sixteenth Century Paramount Chiefdoms. Southeastern Archaeology 18:110–123.
References Cited
271
2001a Excavations at Mound B, Etowah: 1954–1958. Laboratory of Archaeology Series, Report No. 37. University of Georgia, Athens. 2001b Long-Term Histories of Mississippian Centers: The Developmental Sequence of Etowah and Its Comparison to Moundville and Cahokia. Southeastern Archaeology 20(1):1–17. 2002 Creek Chiefdoms at the Temporal Edge of the Mississippian World. Southeastern Archaeology 21(2):221–226. 2003 Etowah: The Political History of a Chiefdom Capital. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. 2004 Power and the Sacred: Mound C and the Etowah Chiefdom. In Hero, Hawk, and Open Hand: American Indian Art of the Ancient Midwest and South, edited by R. Townsend and R. V. Sharp, pp. 150–165. Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut. 2005 Deciphering Etowah’s Mound C: The Construction History and Mortuary Record of a Mississippian Burial Mound. Southeastern Archaeology 23(2):153–165. Kneberg, Madeline 1952 The Tennessee Area. In Archeology of Eastern United States, edited by J. B. Griffin, pp. 226–238. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. 1959 Engraved Shell Gorgets and Their Associations. Tennessee Archaeologist 15(1):1–39. Kneberg, Madeline, and Thomas M. N. Lewis 1952 Comparison of Certain Mexican and Tennessee Shell Ornaments. Tennessee Archaeologist 8(2):42–46. Knight, Vernon James, Jr. 1981 Mississippian Ritual. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville. 1986 The Institutional Organization of Mississippian Religion. American Antiquity 51:675–687. 1997 Some Developmental Parallels Between Cahokia and Moundville. In Cahokia: Domination and Ideology in the Mississippian World, edited by T. R. Pauketat and T. E. Emerson, pp. 227–249. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln. 1998 Moundville as a Diagrammatic Ceremonial Center. In Archaeology of the Moundville Chiefdom, edited by V. J. Knight, Jr., and V. P. Steponaitis, pp. 44–62. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. 2006 Farewell to the Southeastern Ceremonial Complex. Southeastern Archaeology 25(1):1–5. Knight, Vernon James, Jr., James A. Brown, and George E. Lankford 2001 On the Subject Matter of Southeastern Ceremonial Complex Art. Southeastern Archaeology 20:129–153. Knight, Vernon James, Jr., and Judith A. Franke 1997 Identification of a Moth/Butterfly Supernatural in Mississippian Art. Paper presented at the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Nashville, Tennessee. 2007 Identification of a Moth/Butterfly Supernatural in Mississippian Art. In Ancient Objects and Sacred Realms: Interpretations of Mississippian Iconography, edited by F. K. Reilly III and J. F. Garber, pp. 136–151. University of Texas Press, Austin.
272
References Cited
Knight, James Vernon, Jr., and Vincas P. Steponaitis (editors) 1998 Archaeology of the Moundville Chiefdom. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. Koehler, Lyle 1997 Earth Mothers, Warriors, Horticulturalists, Artists, and Chiefs: Women Among the Mississippian and Mississippian-Oneota Peoples, AD 1000–1750. In Women in Prehistory: North America and Mesoamerica, edited by C. Claassen and R. A. Joyce, pp. 211–226. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia. Koldehoff, Brad, and Elizabeth A. Kassly-Kane 1995 An Engraved Cahokia Discoidal from the Uplands of St. Clair County, Illinois. Illinois Antiquity 30(1):4–7. Koldehoff, Brad, Charles O. Witty, and Mike Kolb 2000 Recent Investigations in the Vicinity of Mounds 27 and 28 at Cahokia: The Yale Avenue Borrow Pit. Illinois Archaeology 12:199–217. Kopper, Philip 1986 The Smithsonian Book of North American Indians. Smithsonian Books, Washington, D.C. Kozuch, Laura 1998 Marine Shells from Mississippian Archaeological Sites. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville. 2000 Marine Shell. In Report of 1999 Field Excavations to Locate the Gilcrease/Perino Excavations into Mound 34, by John E. Kelly and James A. Brown. Report prepared for the Cahokia Mound Museum Society, Collinsville, Illinois. 2001a Marine Shell from the 2000 Excavations at Mound 34. In Report of 2000 Field Excavations to Locate the Gilcrease/Perino Excavations into Mound 34, by John E. Kelly and James A. Brown. Report prepared for the Cahokia Mound Museum Society, Collinsville, Illinois. 2001b Marine Shell Use During the Moorehead Phase. Paper presented at the 58th Annual Meeting of the Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Chattanooga, Tennessee. Krieger, Alex D. 1945 An Inquiry into Supposed Mexican Influence on a Prehistoric Cult in the Southern United States. American Anthropologist 47:483–515. 1946 Cultural Complexes and Chronology in Northern Texas. University of Texas Publications No. 4640. Austin. Kubler, George 1970 Period, Style, and Meaning in Ancient American Art. New Literary History 1:127–144. Lacefield, Hyla L. 1995 A Preliminary Study of Moundville Engraved Pottery. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa. Lang, Sabine 1998 Men as Women, Women as Men: Changing Gender in Native American Cultures. University of Texas Press, Austin. Lankford, George E. 1987 Native American Legends: Southeastern Legends—Tales from the Natchez, Caddo,
References Cited
273
Biloxi, Chickasaw, and Other Nations. August House Publishing, Little Rock, Arkansas. 2004 World on a String: Some Cosmological Components of the Southeastern Ceremonial Complex. In Hero, Hawk, and Open Hand: American Indian Art of the Ancient Midwest and South, edited by R. Townsend and R. V. Sharp, pp. 206– 217. Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut. 2007a The Great Serpent in Eastern North America. In Ancient Objects and Sacred Realms: Interpretations of Mississippian Iconography, edited by F. K. Reilly III and J. F. Garber, pp. 107–135. University of Texas Press, Austin. 2007b The “Path of Souls”: Some Death Imagery in the Southeastern Ceremonial Complex. In Ancient Objects and Sacred Realms: Interpretations of Mississippian Iconography, edited by F. K. Reilly III and J. F. Garber, pp. 174–212. University of Texas Press, Austin. 2007c Some Cosmological Motifs in the Southeastern Ceremonial Complex. In Ancient Objects and Sacred Realms: Interpretations of Mississippian Iconography, edited by F. K. Reilly III and J. F. Garber, 8–38. University of Texas Press, Austin. Larson, Lewis H., Jr. 1954 Georgia Historical Commission Excavations at the Etowah Site, Summer 1954. Early Georgia 1(3):18–22. 1959 A Mississippian Headdress from Etowah, Georgia. American Antiquity 25:109–112. 1971 Archaeological Implications of Social Stratification at the Etowah Site, Georgia. In Approaches to the Social Dimensions of Mortuary Practices, edited by J. A. Brown, pp. 58–67. Memoir 25. Society for American Archaeology, Washington, D.C. 1972 Functional Considerations of Warfare in the Southeast During the Mississippi Period. American Antiquity 37:383–392. 1989 The Etowah Site. In Southeastern Ceremonial Complex: Artifacts and Analysis, edited by P. Galloway, pp. 133–141. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln. 1993 An Examination of the Significance of a Tortoise-Shell Pin from the Etowah Site. In Archaeology of Eastern North America: Papers in Honor of Stephen Williams, edited by J. B. Stoltman, pp. 169–185. Archaeological Report No. 25. Mississippi Department of Archives and History, Jackson. Leader, Jonathan M. 1988a The Lake Jackson Site (8Le1): A Discussion of Trade and Metalworking at a North Florida Mississippian Period Site. Paper presented at the 45th Annual Southeastern Archaeological Conference, New Orleans. 1988b Technological Continuities and Specialization in Prehistoric Metalwork in the Eastern United States. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville. 1991 Lake Jackson Metal: Manufacture and Trade in a Florida Mississippian Period Site. Paper presented at the 48th Annual Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Jackson, Mississippi. Lemley, Harry J., and S. D. Dickinson 1937 Archaeological Investigations on Bayou Macon in Arkansas. Texas Archaeological and Paleontological Society Bulletin 9:21–39. Lengyel, Stacey N., Jeffery L. Eighmy, and Lynne P. Sullivan 1999 On the Potential of Archaeomagnetic Dating in the Midcontinent Region of North America: Toqua Site Results. Southeastern Archaeology 18(2):156–171.
274
References Cited
Levenson, Jay A. (editor) 1991 Circa 1492: Art in the Age of Exploration. Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut. Lewis, Madeline D. K., and Andrew H. Whiteford 1995a Stone Industry. In The Prehistory of the Chickamauga Basin in Tennessee, vol. 1, compiled and edited by T. M. N. Lewis, M. K. Lewis, and L. P. Sullivan, pp. 129–150. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville. 1995b Shell Industry. In The Prehistory of the Chickamauga Basin in Tennessee, vol. 1, compiled and edited by T. M. N. Lewis, M. K. Lewis, and L. P. Sullivan, pp. 160–171. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville. Lewis, Thomas M. N., and Madeline Kneberg 1946 Hiwassee Island: An Archaeological Account of Four Tennessee Indian Peoples. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville. Lewis, Thomas M. N., Madeline Kneberg Lewis, and Lynne P. Sullivan (compilers and editors) 1995 The Prehistory of the Chickamauga Basin in Tennessee. 2 vols. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville. Lincoln, Bruce 1994 Authority: Construction and Corrosion. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Lopinot, Neal H. 1991 Archaeobotanical Remains. In The Archaeology of the Cahokia Mounds ICT-II: Biological Remains, by Neal H. Lopinot, Lucretia S. Kelly, George R. Milner, and Richard Paine, pp. 1–268. Illinois Cultural Resources Study No. 13. Illinois Historic Preservation Agency, Springfield. Loren, Diana DiPaolo 2001 Manipulating Bodies and Emerging Traditions at the Los Adaes Presidio. In The Archaeology of Traditions: Agency and History before and after Columbus, edited by T. R. Pauketat, pp. 58–76. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. MacCurdy, George G. 1913 Shell Gorgets from Missouri. American Anthropologist 15(3):395–414. McDonald, S. E. 1950 The Crable Site, Fulton County, Illinois. Journal of the Illinois State Archaeological Society 7-4:16–18. McKenzie, Douglas H. 1964 The Moundville Phase and Its Position in Southeastern Prehistory. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Harvard University, Cambridge. Malinowski, Bronislaw 1934 Stone Implements in Eastern New Guinea. In Essays Presented to C. G. Seligman, edited by E. E. Evans Pritchard, Raymond Firth, Bronislaw Malinowski, and Isaac Schapera, pp. 189–196. Kegan Paul, Trench, Truber, London. 1936 The Foundations of Faith and Morals. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Marceaux, Paul S. J. 2003 Flaked Stone Symbols: Time, Space and Function in the Southeastern United States. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Memphis, Memphis.
References Cited
275
Mason, J. Alden 1937 Further Remarks on the Precolumbian Relationships Between the United States and Mexico. Bulletin of the Texas Archaeological and Paleontological Society 9: 120–129. Meadows, Richard K., Jr. 2001 Crafting K’awil: A Comparative Analysis of Maya Symbolic Flaked Stone Assemblages from Three Sites in Northern Belize. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Texas, Austin. Mehrer, Mark W. 1995 Cahokia’s Countryside: Household Archaeology, Settlement Patterns, and Social Power. Northern Illinois University Press, DeKalb. Mellown, Robert O. 1976 The Art of the Alabama Indians. University of Alabama Art Gallery, Tuscaloosa. Merrill, William L. 1979 The Beloved Tree: Ilex vomitoria Among the Indians of the Southeast and Adjacent Regions. In Black Drink: A Native American Tea, edited by C. M. Hudson, pp. 40–82. University of Georgia Press, Athens. Meskell, Lynn M. 2000 Writing the Body in Archaeology. In Reading the Body: Representations and Remains in the Archaeological Record, edited by A. E. Rautman, pp. 13–21. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia. Milner, George R. 1984 Social and Temporal Implications of Variation Among American Bottom Mississippian Cemeteries. American Antiquity 49:468–488. 1990 The Late Prehistoric Cahokia Cultural System of the Mississippi River Valley: Foundations, Florescence, and Fragmentation. Journal of World Prehistory 4(1):1–43. 1998 The Cahokia Chiefdom: The Archaeology of a Mississippian Society. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. 2004 The Moundbuilders: Ancient Peoples of Eastern North America. Thames and Hudson, London. Moore, Clarence B. 1897 Certain Aboriginal Mounds of the Georgia Coast. Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia 11(1):4–138. 1901 Certain Aboriginal Remains of the Northwest Florida Coast, Pt. 1. Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia 11(4):419–497. 1903 Certain Aboriginal Remains of the Apalachicola River. Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia 12(3):440–492. 1905a Certain Aboriginal Remains of the Black Warrior River. Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia 13(2):125–244. 1905b Certain Aboriginal Remains of Mobile Bay and Mississippi Sound. Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia 13(2):279–297. 1907 Moundville Revisited. Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, second series, 13(3):337–405. 1908 Certain Mounds of Arkansas and Mississippi. Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, second series, 13(4):481–605.
276
References Cited
Antiquities of the Ouachita Valley. Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia 14(1):6–170. 1910 Antiquities of the St. Francis, White, and Black Rivers, Arkansas. Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia 14(2):254–362. 1911 Some Aboriginal Sites on Mississippi River. Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia 14(3):366–476. 1915 Aboriginal Sites on Tennessee River. Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia 16(4):169–428. 1996 Moundville Revisited. In The Moundville Expeditions of Clarence Bloomfield Moore, edited by V. J. Knight, Jr., pp. 143–213. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Moore, J. D. 1996 The Archaeology of Plazas and the Proxemics of Ritual. American Anthropologist 98:789–802. Moorehead, Warren K. 1922 The Cahokia Mounds: A Preliminary Report. University of Illinois Bulletin 19(35). 1923 The Cahokia Mounds: Part I, A Report of Progress by Warren K. Moorehead, and Part II, Some Geological Aspects by Morris M. Leighton. University of Illinois Bulletin 21(6). 1925 Explorations of the Etowah Mounds. Phillips Academy Bulletin 20:24–30. 1927 Explorations of the Etowah Mounds. Science 65:185. 1929 The Cahokia Mounds: Part I, Explorations of 1922, 1923, 1924, and 1927 in the Cahokia Mounds. University of Illinois Bulletin 26(4):7–106. 1932 Description of Excavations, Mound C, First Season. In Etowah Papers, edited by W. K. Moorehead, pp. 68–87. Department of Archaeology Publication 3. Phillips Academy, Andover. (Reprinted 1979 by Charley D. Drake, Union City, Georgia.) 2000 The Cahokia Mounds, edited by J. E. Kelly. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Moorehead, Warren K. (editor) 1932 Etowah Papers. Department of Archaeology Publication 3. Phillips Academy, Andover. (Reprinted 1979 by Charley D. Drake, Union City, Georgia.) Morse, Dan F. 1960 The Southern Cult, The Crable Site, Fulton County, Illinois. Central States Archaeological Journal 7-4:124–134. 1969 Ancient Disease in the Midwest. Reports of Investigations, No. 15. Illinois State Museum, Springfield. 1973 Nodena: An Account of 75 Years of Archeological Investigation in Southeast Mississippi County, Arkansas. Research Series No. 4. Arkansas Archeological Survey, Fayetteville. Muller, Jon 1966a Archaeological Analysis of Art Styles. Tennessee Archaeologist 22(1):25–39. 1966b An Experimental Theory of Stylistic Analysis. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Harvard University, Cambridge. 1971 Review of The Southeastern Ceremonial Complex and Its Interpretation, by James H. Howard. American Anthropologist 72(1):182–183. 1909
References Cited
277
Structural Studies of Art Styles. In The Visual Arts: Plastic and Graphic, edited by J. M. Cordwell, pp. 139–211. Mouton, The Hague. 1986a Serpents and Dancers: Art of the Mud Glyph Cave. In The Prehistoric Native American Art of Mud Glyph Cave, edited by C. H. Faulkner, pp. 36–80. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville. 1986b Archaeology of the Lower Ohio River Valley. Academic Press, New York. 1989 The Southern Cult. In Southeastern Ceremonial Complex: Artifacts and Analysis, edited by P. Galloway, pp. 11–26. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln. 1991 Prolegomena to the Study of Lake Jackson Styles and Symbolism. Paper presented at the 48th Annual Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Jackson, Mississippi. 1995 Regional Interaction in the Later Southeast. In Native American Interactions: Multiscalar Analyses and Interpretations in the Eastern Woodlands, edited by M. S. Nassaney and K. E. Sassaman, pp. 317–340. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville. 1997a Review of Shell Gorgets: Styles of the Late Prehistoric and Protohistoric Southeast, by J. P. Brain and P. Phillips. Southeastern Archaeology 16(2):176–178. 1997b Mississippian Political Economy. New York: Plenum Press. 1999 Southeastern Interaction and Integration. In Great Towns and Regional Polities in the Prehistoric American Southwest and Southeast, edited by J. E. Neitzel, pp. 143– 158. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Myer, W. E. 1894 An Old Shawnee Town in Tennessee. The Archaeologist 2:6–13. Nash, Charles 1972 Chucalissa: Excavations and Burials Through 1963. Occasional Papers No. 6. Anthropological Research Center, University of Memphis, Memphis. Nash, Charles H., Robert S. Neitzel, and Jesse D. Jennings 1995 The Dallas Site. In The Prehistory of the Chickamauga Basin in Tennessee, vol. 2, compiled and edited by T. M. N. Lewis, M. K. Lewis, and L. P. Sullivan, pp. 305– 371. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville. Neitzel, Robert S., and Jesse D. Jennings 1995 The Hixon Site. In The Prehistory of the Chickamauga Basin in Tennessee, vol. 2, compiled and edited by T. M. N. Lewis, M. K. Lewis, and L. P. Sullivan, pp. 372– 418. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville. Niethammer, Carolyn 1977 Daughters of the Earth: The Lives and Legends of American Indian Women. Collier Books, New York. Nuttall, Zelia 1932 Comparisons Between Etowan, Mexican and Mayan Designs. In Etowah Papers, edited by W. K. Moorehead, pp. 166–171. Department of Archaeology Publication 3. Phillips Academy, Andover. O’Brien, Michael J., and Thomas D. Holland 1994 Campbell. In Cat Monsters and Head Pots: The Archaeology of Missouri’s Pemiscot Bayou, edited by M. J. O’Brien, pp. 195–260. University of Missouri Press, Columbia. Parker, Kathryn 2000 Plant Remains from 1999 Excavations into Mound 34, Cahokia. In Report of 1979
278
References Cited
1999 Field Excavations to Locate the Gilcrease/Perino Excavations into Mound 34, by John E. Kelly and James A. Brown. Report prepared for the Cahokia Mound Museum Society, Collinsville, Illinois. 2001 Plant Remains from 2000 Excavations into Mound 34, Cahokia. In Report of 2000 Field Excavations to Locate the Gilcrease/Perino Excavations into Mound 34, by John E. Kelly and James A. Brown. Report prepared for the Cahokia Mound Museum Society, Collinsville, Illinois. Parmalee, Paul 1957 Vertebrate Remains from the Cahokia Site, Illinois. Transactions of the Illinois Academy of Science 50:235–242. 1975 A General Survey of the Vertebrate Fauna from Cahokia. In Perspectives in Cahokia Archaeology, edited by J. A. Brown, pp. 137–155. Bulletin 10. Illinois Archaeological Survey, Urbana. Pauketat, Timothy R. 1992 The Reign and Ruin of the Lords of Cahokia: A Dialectic of Dominance. In Lords of the Southeast: Social Inequality and the Native Elites of Southeastern North America, edited by A. W. Barker and T. R. Pauketat, pp. 31–51. Archeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association, 3. American Anthropological Association, Arlington, Virginia. 1993a Big Bang in the Bottom: Political Consolidation and Mississippianism at Cahokia. Paper presented at the 58th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, St. Louis. 1993b Temples for Cahokia Lords: Preston Holder’s 1955–1956 Excavations of Mound. Memoir No. 26. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. 1994 The Ascent of Chiefs: Cahokia and Mississippian Politics in Native North America. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. 1997 Specialization, Political Symbols, and the Crafty Elite of Cahokia. Southeastern Archaeology 16:1–15. 1998 The Archaeology of Downtown Cahokia: The Tract 15A and Dunham Tract Excavations. Illinois Transportation Archaeological Research Program, Research Reports 1. University of Illinois, Urbana. 2004 Ancient Cahokia and the Mississippians. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 2005 The Forgotten History of the Mississippians. In North American Archaeology, edited by T. Pauketat and D. Loren, pp. 187–211. Blackwell, Oxford. Pauketat, Timothy R., and Alex W. Barker 2000 Mounds 65 and 66 at Cahokia: Additional Details of the 1927 Excavations. In Mounds, Modoc, and Mesoamerica: Papers in Honor of Melvin L. Fowler, edited by S. R. Ahler, pp. 125–140. Scientific Papers 28. Illinois State Museum, Springfield. Pauketat, Timothy R., and Thomas E. Emerson 1991 The Ideology of Authority and the Power of the Pot. American Anthropologist 93:919–941. Pauketat, Timothy R., Lucretia S. Kelly, Gayle J. Fritz, Neal H. Lopinot, Scott Elias, and Eve Hargrave 2002 The Residues of Feasting and Public Ritual at Early Cahokia. American Antiquity 67:257–279.
References Cited
279
Payne, Claudine 1994a Mississippian Capitals: An Archaeological Investigation of Precolumbian Political Structure. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville. 1994b Fifty Years of Archaeological Research at the Lake Jackson Site. The Florida Anthropologist 47:107–119. Payne, Claudine, and John F. Scarry 1998 Town Structure at the Edge of the Mississippian World. In Mississippian Towns and Sacred Places: Searching for an Architectural Grammar, edited by R. B. Lewis and C. Stout, pp. 22–48. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Peacock, Charles K. 1954 Duck River Cache. J. B. Graham, Tuscaloosa. Peebles, Christopher S. 1971 Moundville and Surrounding Sites: Some Structural Considerations of Mortuary Practices II. In Approaches to the Social Dimensions of Mortuary Practices, edited by J. A. Brown, pp. 68–91. Memoir 25. Society for American Archaeology, Washington, D.C. 1987 Moundville from 1000 to 1500 AD as Seen from 1840 to 1985 AD. In Chiefdoms in the Americas, edited by R. D. Drennan and C. A. Uribe, pp. 21–41. University Press of America, Lanham, Maryland. Peebles, Christopher S., and Susan Kus 1977 Some Archaeological Correlates of Ranked Societies. American Antiquity 42: 421–448. Perino, Gregory 1959 Recent Information from Cahokia and Its Satellites. Central States Archaeological Journal 6:130–138. 1971 The Mississippian Component at the Schild Site (No. 4), Greene County, Illinois. In Mississippian Site Archaeology in Illinois: 1. Bulletin 8. Illinois Archaeological Survey, Urbana. 1985 Selected Preforms, Points and Knives of the American Indians, vol. 1. Points and Barbs Press, Idabel, Oklahoma. n.d. Mound 34. Manuscript on file at the University of Michigan, Museum of Anthropology, Ann Arbor. Phillips, Philip 1940 Middle American Influences on the Archaeology of the Southeastern United States. In The Maya and Their Neighbors, edited by C. L. Hay, R. L. Linton, S. K. Lothrop, H. L. Shapiro, and G. C. Vaillant, pp. 349–367. Appleton-Century, New York. Phillips, Philip, and James A. Brown 1978 Pre-Columbian Shell Engravings from the Craig Mound at Spiro, Oklahoma, Pt. 1. Paperback ed. Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, Cambridge. 1984 Pre-Columbian Shell Engravings from the Craig Mound at Spiro, Oklahoma, Pt. 2. Paperback ed. Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, Cambridge. Phillips, Philip, James A. Ford, and James B. Griffin 1951 Archaeological Survey in the Lower Mississippi Alluvial Valley, 1940–1947. Papers
280
References Cited
of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 25. Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Phillips, Philip, and Gordon R. Willey 1953 Method and Theory in American Archaeology: An Operational Basis for Culture-Historical Integration. American Anthropologist 55:615–633. Polhemus, Richard R. 1987 The Toqua Site: A Late Mississippian Dallas Phase Town. Report of Investigations No. 41, Department of Anthropology, University of Tennessee, and Publications in Anthropology, No. 44, Tennessee Valley Authority, Knoxville. Pool, Kelly J. 1989 A History of Amateur Archaeology in the St. Louis Area. The Missouri Archaeologist 50. Porter, James W. 1974 Cahokia Archaeology as Viewed from the Mitchell Site: A Satellite Community. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Wisconsin, Madison. Porubcan, Paula J. 2000 Human and Nonhuman Surplus Display at Mound 72, Cahokia. In Mounds, Modoc, and Mesoamerica: Papers in Honor of Melvin L. Fowler, edited by S. R. Ahler, pp. 207–225. Scientific Papers 28. Illinois State Museum, Springfield. Prentice, Guy 1987 Marine Shells as Wealth Items in Mississippian Societies. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 12(2):193–223. Price, James E., and Cynthia R. Price 1990 Protohistoric/Early Historic Manifestations in Southeastern Missouri. In Towns and Temples Along the Mississippi, edited by D. H. Dye and C. A. Cox, pp. 59– 68. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Radin, Paul 1948 Winnebago Hero Cycles: A Study in Aboriginal Literature. Memoir 1. Indiana University Publications in Anthropology and Linguistics, Bloomington. Reilly, F. Kent III 2004 People of Earth, People of Sky: Visualizing the Sacred in Native American Art of the Mississippian Period. In Hero, Hawk, and Open Hand: American Indian Art of the Ancient Midwest and South, edited by R. Townsend and R. V. Sharp, pp. 124–137. Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut. 2007 The Petaloid Motif: A Celestial Symbolic Locative in the Shell Art of Spiro. In Ancient Objects and Sacred Realms: Interpretations of Mississippian Iconography, edited by F. K. Reilly III and J. F. Garber, 39–55. University of Texas Press, Austin. Reilly, F. Kent, and James Garber (editors) 2007 Ancient Objects and Sacred Realms: Interpretations of Mississippian Iconography. University of Texas Press, Austin. Rollings, Willard H. 1992 The Osage: An Ethnohistorical Study of Hegemony on the Prairie-Plains. University of Missouri Press, Columbia. Rose, Jerome C. 1999 Mortuary Data and Analysis. In The Mound 72 Area: Dedicated and Sacred Space
References Cited
281
in Early Cahokia, by M. L. Fowler, J. Rose, B. Vander Leest, and S. R. Ahler, pp. 63–82. Reports of Investigations, No. 54. Illinois State Museum, Springfield. Rudolph, James L., and David J. Hally 1985 Archaeological Investigations of the Beaverdam Creek Site (9EB85), Elbert County, Georgia. Russell Papers. Interagency Archeological Service, U.S. National Park Service, Atlanta. Sagan, Carl 1980 Cosmos. Random House, New York. Saitta, Dean J. 1994 Agency, Class, and Archaeological Interpretation. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 13:201–227. Santure, Sharron, and Duane Esarey 1990 Analysis of Artifacts from the Oneota Mortuary Component. In Archaeological Investigations at the Morton Village and Norris Farms 36 Cemetery, edited by S. Santure, A. D. Harn, and D. Esarey. Reports of Investigations, No. 45. Illinois State Museum, Springfield. Scarry, John F. 1990a Mississippian Emergence in the Fort Walton Area: The Evolution of the Cayson and Lake Jackson Phases. In The Mississippian Emergence, edited by B. D. Smith, pp. 227–250. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. 1990b The Rise, Transformation, and Fall of Apalachee: A Case Study of Political Change in a Chiefly Society. In Lamar Archaeology, edited by M. Williams and G. Shapiro, pp. 175–186. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. 1992 Political Offices and Political Structure: Ethnohistoric and Archaeological Perspectives on the Native Lords of Apalachee. In Lords of the Southeast: Social Inequality and the Native Elites of Southeastern North America, edited by A. Barker and T. Pauketat, pp. 163–183. Archeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association 3. American Anthropological Association, Arlington, Virginia. 1994 The Apalachee Chiefdom: A Mississippian Society on the Fringe of the Mississippian World. In The Forgotten Centuries: Indians and Europeans in the American South, 1521–1704, edited by C. M. Hudson and C. C. Tesser, pp. 156–178. University of Georgia Press, Athens. 1996 Stability and Change in the Apalachee Chiefdom. In Political Structure and Change in the Prehistoric Southeastern United States, edited by J. F. Scarry, pp. 192– 227. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. 1999 Elite Identities in Apalachee Province: The Construction of Identity and Cultural Change in a Mississippian Polity. In Material Symbols: Culture and Economy in Prehistory, edited by J. Robb, pp. 342–361. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Occasional Paper No. 26. Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. Scarry, John F., and Mintcy D. Maxham 2002 Elite Actors in the Protohistoric: Elite Identities and Interaction with Europeans in the Apalachee and Powhatan Chiefdoms. In Between Contacts and Colonies: Archaeological Perspectives on the Protohistoric Southeast, edited by C. B. Wesson and M. A. Rees, pp. 142–169. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
282
References Cited
Schambach, Frank 1989 The Archaeology of Oklahoma. Quarterly Review of Archaeology 9(4):5–9. Schatte, Kevin E. 1997 Stylistic Analysis of the Winged Serpent at Moundville. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa. 1998 Identification of Some Thematic Variation in the Iconography of Moundville, Alabama. Journal of the Steward Anthropological Society 26(1-2):113–127. Schroedl, Gerald F. 1973 Radiocarbon Dates from Three Burial Mounds at the McDonald Site in East Tennessee. Tennessee Archaeologist 29:3–11. 1978 Excavations of the Leuty and McDonald Site Mounds. Report of Investigations No. 22. Department of Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville. Schroedl, Gerald F., C. Clifford Boyd, Jr., and R. P. Stephen Davis, Jr. 1990 Explaining Mississippian Origins in East Tennessee. In The Mississippian Emergence, edited by B. D. Smith, pp. 175–196. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. Schroedl, Gerald F., R. P. Stephen Davis, Jr., and C. Clifford Boyd, Jr. 1985 Archaeological Contexts and Assemblages at Martin Farm. Report of Investigations No. 39. Department of Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville. Schultz, T. Clay, David H. Dye, and Chet Walker 2001 The Ritual Accouterments of Warfare at Etowah. Paper presented at the 66th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, New Orleans. Sears, William H. 1958 The Wilbanks Site (9Ck-5), Georgia. In River Basin Surveys Paper No. 12, pp. 129– 194. Bulletin 169. Bureau of American Ethnology, Washington, D.C. Silverblatt, Irene 1987 Moon, Sun and Witches: Gender Ideologies and Class in Inca and Colonial Peru. Princeton University Press, Princeton. Smith, Hale G. 1951 The Crable Site, Fulton County, Illinois. Anthropological Papers No. 7. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. 1973 Analysis of the Lamar Site (9BI7) Materials at the Southeastern Archaeological Center. Unpublished report submitted to the Southeast Archaeological Center, National Park Service, Tallahassee, Florida. Smith, Harlan I. 1910 The Prehistoric Ethnology of a Kentucky Site. Anthropological Papers, Vol. 6, Pt. 6. American Museum of Natural History, New York. Smith, Marvin T. 1988 Mississippian Settlement in Eastern Tennessee: The View from the Chickamauga Reservoir. Paper presented at the Southeastern Archaeological Conference, New Orleans. 1989 Early Historic Period Vestiges of the Southern Cult. In Southeastern Ceremonial Complex: Artifacts and Analysis, edited by P. Galloway, pp. 142–146. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln. Smith, Marvin T., and Julie Barnes Smith 1989 Engraved Shell Masks in North America. Southeastern Archaeology 8:9–18. Southerlin, Bobby G.
References Cited
283
Etowah Valley Survey. LAMAR Briefs 16:1. Mississippian Settlement Patterns in the Etowah River Valley near Cartersville, Bartow County, Georgia. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Georgia, Athens. Spaulding, Albert C. 1953 Statistical Techniques for the Discovery of Artifact Types. American Antiquity 18:305–313. n.d. Notes on file, University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology, Ann Arbor. Spinden, Herbert J. 1913 A Study of Maya Art. Memoirs of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology, 6. Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts. 1931 Indian Symbolism. In Introduction to American Indian Art, to Accompany the First Exhibition of American Indian Art Selected Entirely with Consideration of Esthetic Value, edited by O. Lafarge, H. J. Spinden, and F. Webb Hodge, pp. 9–27. Exposition of Indian Tribal Arts, Inc., New York. Steponaitis, Vincas P. 1983 Ceramics, Chronology, and Community Patterns: An Archaeological Study at Moundville. Academic Press, New York. 1991 Contrasting Patterns of Mississippian Development. In Chiefdoms: Power, Economy, and Ideology, edited by T. Earle, pp. 193–228. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 1998 Population Trends at Moundville. In Archaeology of the Moundville Chiefdom, edited by V. J. Knight, Jr., and V. P. Steponaitis, pp. 26–43. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. Steponaitis, Vincas P., and Vernon J. Knight, Jr. 2004 Moundville Art in Historical and Social Context. In Hero, Hawk, and Open Hand: American Indian Art of the Ancient Midwest and South, edited by R. Townsend and R. V. Sharp, pp. 166–181. Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut. Strong, John A. 1989 The Mississippian Bird-Man Theme in Cross-Cultural Perspective. In Southeastern Ceremonial Complex, Artifacts and Analysis, edited by P. Galloway, pp. 211– 223. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln. Stuiver, Minze, and T. F. Braziunas 1993 Modeling Atmospheric 14C Influences and 14C Ages of Marine Samples Back to 10,000 BC. Radiocarbon 35:137–189. Stuiver, Minze, and H. A. Polach 1977 Discussion: Reporting of 14C Data. Radiocarbon 19:355–363. Stuiver, Minze, Paula J. Reimer, Edouard Bard, J. Warren Beck, G. S. Burr, Konrad A. Hughen, Bernd Kromer, Gerry McCormac, Johannes van der Plicht, and Marco Spurk 1998 INTCAL98 Radiocarbon Age Calibration, 24,000-0 cal BP. Radiocarbon 40(3): 1041–1083. Sullivan, Lynne P. 1986 The Late Mississippian Village: Community and Society of the Mouse Creek Phase in Southeastern Tennessee. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville. 1987 The Mouse Creek Phase Household. Southeastern Archaeology 6(1):16–29. 1990 1993
284
1989
References Cited
Cultural Change and Continuity in the Late Woodland and Mississippian Occupations of the Mouse Creek Site. Tennessee Anthropologist 14(1):33–63. 1995 Mississippian Household and Community Organization in Eastern Tennessee. In Mississippian Communities and Households, edited by J. D. Rogers and B. D. Smith, pp. 99–123. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. 1998 Mound 31: The Schmidt Mound. Paper presented at the Cahokia Archaeological Conference, “Platforms of Power: Mound Form and Function at Cahokia,” John E. Kelly and Timothy R. Pauketat, organizers. Cahokia Mounds State Historic site, Collinsville, Illinois. 2001 Dates for Shell Gorgets and the Southeastern Ceremonial Complex in the Chickamauga Basin of Southeastern Tennessee. Research Notes No. 19. McClung Museum, University of Tennessee, Knoxville. Thomas, Cyrus 1894 Report on the Mound Explorations of the Bureau of Ethnology. Twelfth Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, 1890–91. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Thruston, Gates P. 1897 The Antiquities of Tennessee and the Adjacent States. Robert Clarke, Cincinnati. Trocolli, Ruth 1999 Women Leaders in Native North American Societies: Invisible Women of Power. In Manifesting Power: Gender and the Interpretation of Power in Archaeology, edited by T. L. Sweely, pp. 49–61. Routledge, London. 2002 Mississippian Chiefs: Women and Men of Power. In The Dynamics of Power, edited by M. O’Donovan, pp. 168–187. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Occasional Paper No. 30. Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. Trubitt, Mary Beth 1996 Household Status, Marine Shell Bead Production, and the Development of Cahokia in the Mississippian Period. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois. 2000 Mound Building and Prestige Goods Exchange: Changing Strategies in the Cahokia Chiefdom. American Antiquity 65(4):669–690. Turner, Victor 1967 The Forest of Symbols: Aspects of Ndembu Ritual. Cornell University Press, Ithaca. 1975 Revelation and Divination in Ndembu Ritual. Cornell University Press, Ithaca. Van Horne, Wayne W. 1993 The Warclub: Weapon and Symbol in the Southeastern Indian Societies. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Georgia, Athens. Van Nest, Julieann 2001 Geoarchaeological Analysis of a Soil Column from the West Wall (Perino) Profile, 2000 Excavations at Cahokia Mound 34. Report prepared for Central Mississippi Valley Archaeological Research Institute, Fairmont City, Illinois. Waring, Antonio J., Jr. 1945 The De Luna Expedition and Southeastern Ceremonial. American Antiquity 11(1):57–58. 1948 Brief of Symposium on the Southern Cult. American Antiquity 14(2):151–155.
References Cited
285
The Southern Cult and Muskhogean Ceremonial. In The Waring Papers: The Collected Works of Antonio J. Waring, Jr., edited by S. Williams, pp. 30–69. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology 58. Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts. 1968b Summary of the 1954 Moundville Meeting. In The Waring Papers: The Collected Works of Antonio J. Waring, Jr., edited by S. Williams, pp. 90–92. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology 58. Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts. 1968c An Engraved Monolithic Axe from Georgia. In The Waring Papers: The Collected Works of Antonio J. Waring, Jr., edited by S. Williams, pp. 78–80. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology 58. Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts. 1968d The Striped Pole and Terrace Motif. In The Waring Papers: The Collected Works of Antonio J. Waring, Jr., edited by S. Williams, pp. 87–89. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology 58. Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Waring, Antonio J., Jr., and Preston Holder 1945 A Prehistoric Ceremonial Complex in the Southeastern United States. American Anthropologist 47(1):1–34. Wauchope, Robert W. 1948 The Ceramic Sequence in the Etowah Drainage, Northwest Georgia. American Antiquity 47:1–34. Webb, Clarence H. 1959 The Belcher Mound: A Stratified Caddoan Site in Caddo Parish, Louisiana. Memoir 16. Society for American Archaeology, Salt Lake City. Webb, William S. 1939 An Archaeological Survey of Wheeler Basin on the Tennessee River in Northern Alabama. Bulletin 122, Bureau of American Ethnology. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Webb, William S., and David L. DeJarnette 1948 Little Bear Creek Site CTo8, Colbert County, Alabama. Museum Paper No. 26, Geological Survey of Alabama, Alabama Museum of Natural History. University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa. Webb, William S., and W. D. Funkhouser 1929 The Williams Site in Christian County, Kentucky. Reports in Archaeology and Anthropology, No. 1. Department of Anthropology and Archaeology, University of Kentucky, Lexington. Webb, William S., and Charles G. Wilder 1951 An Archaeological Survey of Guntersville Basin on the Tennessee River in Northern Alabama. University of Kentucky Press, Lexington. Weiner, Annette 1976 Women of Value, Men of Renown: New Perspectives in Trobriand Exchange. University of Texas Press, Austin. 1994 Inalienable Possessions: The Paradox of Keeping While Giving Away. University of California Press, Berkeley. Welch, Paul D. 1991 Moundville’s Economy. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. 1968a
286
References Cited
Wheeler, Ryan J. 2001 Williams Island Shell Gorgets from Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 54:67–74. Willey, Gordon R. 1948 A Prototype for the Southern Cult. American Antiquity 13(4):328–330. 1973 Mesoamerican Art and Iconography and the Integrity of the Mesoamerican Ideological System. In The Iconology of Middle American Sculpture, edited by D. T. Easby, Jr., pp. 153–162. Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. Willey, Gordon R., and Philip Phillips 1958 Method and Theory in American Archaeology. University of Chicago, Chicago. Williams, Mark, and Gary Shapiro 1996 Mississippian Political Dynamics in the Oconee Valley, Georgia. In Political Structure and Change in the Prehistoric Southeastern United States, edited by J. F. Scarry, pp. 128–149. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Williams, Stephen 1968 Editor’s Introduction: Part I. In The Waring Papers: The Collected Works of Antonio J. Waring, Jr., edited by S. Williams, pp. 5–8. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology 58. Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts. 1990 The Vacant Quarter and Other Late Events in the Lower Valley. In Towns and Temples Along the Mississippi, edited by D. H. Dye and C. A. Cox, pp. 170–180. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Williams, Stephen, and Jeffrey P. Brain 1983 Excavations at the Lake George Site, Yazoo County, Mississippi, 1958–1960. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology 74. Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Williams, Stephen, and John M. Goggin 1956 The Long Nosed God Mask in Eastern United States. The Missouri Archaeologist 18(3). Willoughby, Charles C. 1932 Notes on the History and Symbolism of the Muskhogeans and the People of Etowah. In Etowah Papers, edited by W. K. Moorehead, pp. 7–67. Department of Archaeology Publication 3. Phillips Academy, Andover. (Reprinted 1979 by Charley D. Drake, Union City, Georgia.) Wilson, Thomas 1896 The Swastika: The Earliest Known Symbol and Its Migrations, with Observations on the Migration of Certain Industries in Prehistoric Times. Annual Report for 1894, pp. 757–1011. U.S. National Museum, Washington, D.C. Wimberly, Steven B. 1954 The Southern Cult at Moundville. Unpublished manuscript prepared for the 11th Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Moundville, Alabama. 1956 A Review of Moundville Pottery. Southeastern Archaeological Conference Newsletter 5(1):17–20. Winters, Howard D. 1974 Some Unusual Grave Goods from a Mississippian Burial Mound. Indian Notes 10(2):34–36. Museum of the American Indian, Heye Foundation, New York. Wobst, M. H. 1977 Stylistic Behavior and Information Exchange. In For the Director: Research Es-
References Cited
287
says in Honor of James B. Griffin, edited by C. E. Cleland, pp. 317–342. Anthropological Papers, No. 61. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Wolf, Eric R. 1999 Envisioning Power: Ideologies of Dominance and Crisis. University of California Press, Berkeley. Wright, Henry T. 1984 Prestate Political Formations. In On the Evolution of Complex Societies: Essays in Honor of Harry Hoijer 1982, edited by T. K. Earle, pp. 41–77. Undena, Malibu, California. Young, Bilone W., and Melvin L. Fowler 2000 Cahokia: The Great Native American Metropolis. University of Illinois Press, Urbana.
Contributors
Susan M. Alt is an Archaeologist and Assistant Professor of Anthropology at Indiana University, Bloomington. Her research focuses on understanding the intersection of diversity, social processes, and community formation in Mississippian societies of the Cahokia region. Recent publications include: “The Power of Diversity: The Roles of Migration and Hybridity in Culture Change in Leadership and Polity in Mississippian Society,” in Leadership and Polity in Mississippian Society, edited by B. M. Butler and P. D. Welch, Occasional Paper 33, Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale (2006): 289–308; and “Agency in a Postmold? Physicality and the Archaeology of CultureMaking in Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory” with T. Pauketat, in Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 12, no. 3 (September 2005): 213–237. James A. Brown is a Professor of Anthropology at Northwestern University. His research has centered on the archaeology of small-scale societies and on the prehistory of eastern North America with particular emphasis on certain problems such as the evolution of sedentary life, the determination of social organizational features of ancient societies through mortuary analysis, the economics of longdistance exchange, and the social and ideological dimensions of chiefdom level cultures. Time periods that have been the focus of his research have been primarily the Archaic, Middle Woodland, and Mississippian. Recent interest involves a comparative study of ritual and mortuary practices of mound-building peoples of the Mississippi River watershed, and most recently particular interest has been on the iconography of the Mississippian Period. This work has drawn upon my experience at Cahokia, Spiro, and other sites. David H. Dye is an Associate Professor of Archaeology in the Earth Sciences Department at the University of Memphis. He received his doctorate in anthropology from Washington University in St. Louis in 1980. Dr. Dye’s recent work has focused on the archaeology of warfare in the Eastern Woodlands. He is coeditor with Cheryl Anne Cox of Towns and Temples Along the Mississippi (University of Alabama Press, 1990). David J. Hally is Professor of Anthropology in the Department of Anthropology at the University of Georgia. His research focuses on the Mississippian cultures
290
Contributors
of northern Georgia and adjacent portions of neighboring states. Specific interests range across the socio-political spectrum from households and communities to regional scale relationships between chiefdom polities. Jenna M. Hamlin is the Archaeology Laboratory Director for Tierra Right of Way Services in Tucson, Arizona. Her dissertation research focused on intra- and intersite ceramic assemblage variation, particularly during the Mississippian Period Moorehead phase in the Cahokia area. John E. Kelly is a senior lecturer in Archaeology in the Department of Anthropology at Washington University in St. Louis. His current research focuses on the organization of late pre-Columbian communities in Eastern North America and the role of ritual in understanding how these societies are organized and interact. Lucretia S. Kelly is a research associate in the Department of Anthropology, Washington University-St. Louis. She received a B.A in Anthropology from Beloit College and an M. A. and Ph.D. in anthropology from Washington UniversitySt. Louis. She has been conducting zooarchaeological research in the midcontinent, particularly in the American Bottom and at the Cahokia site for the past thirty years. She has contributed to a number of publications. Of particular interest is “A Case of Ritual Feasting at the Cahokia Site,” in Feasts: Archaeological and Ethnographic Perspectives on Food, Politics, and Power, edited by Michael Dietler and Brian Hayden (Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D. C., 2001: 334–368); and “The Residues of Feasting and Public Ritual at Early Cahokia,” with T. R. Pauketat, G. J. Fritz, N. H. Lopinot, S. Elias, and E. Hargrave, in American Antiquity 67, no. 2 (2002): 257–279. Adam King is an archaeologist with the Savannah River Archaeological Research Program, a division of the South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology at the University of South Carolina. His research focuses on the structure of ancient political systems, art and iconography, and the emergence of social ranking. He has spent the last fifteen years exploring the archaeological record of Mississippian chiefdoms in the Etowah River valley of Georgia and the Savannah River valley on the Georgia-South Carolina border. His recent book Etowah: The Political History of A Chiefdom Capital was published by the University of Alabama Press in 2003. Vernon James Knight, Jr. is a Professor of Anthropology at the University of Alabama. His research interests include the interface between ethnohistory and archaeology, social archaeology, and the iconography of preliterate complex societies. He works in the Eastern United States and the Greater Antilles.
Contributors
291
Laura Kozuch is Curator at the Illinois Transportation Archaeological Research Program. She received her Ph.D. from the University of Florida in 1998. She spent 12 years at the Florida Museum of Natural History in Gainesville working on faunal remains of all types. She then spent four years traveling and evaluating curation facilities nationwide for the Corps of Engineers based in St. Louis. Her M.A. degree focused on archaeological shark remains, and her Ph.D. dissertation was on the marine shell species that were used for ornamental and ceremonial artifact manufacture among Mississippians. Her work on sharks and shells has continued, and she is currently looking into columella bead replication. She is also keenly interested in improving storage conditions and ensuring the continued use of archaeological collections. Shawn Marceaux is a graduate student working on his doctorate in the Department of Anthropology at the University of Texas at Austin. He received his M.A. in Anthropology at the University of Memphis in 2003. His current research focuses on the archaeology and archives of Protohistoric period Caddo groups in east Texas. Jon Muller received his B.A. from the University of Kansas in 1963 and his Ph.D. from Harvard University in 1967. He is Professor Emeritus at Southern Illinois University Carbondale. He is the author of Archaeology of the Lower Ohio River Valley (1986) and Mississippian Political Economy (1997). The latter book won the 1999 Society for American Archaeology Book Award. Kathryn E. Parker is a consulting paleoethnobotanist who has been affiliated since 1988 with Great Lakes Ecosystems, based in Indian River, Michigan. Most of her research has dealt with prehistoric human-plant relationships in the Midwest of continental North America. Her primary interests are alternative plant exploitation and land use strategies followed by late prehistoric populations of the southern and southwestern Illinois and Great Lakes region. Timothy R. Pauketat is an archaeologist and Professor of Anthropology at the University of Illinois in Urbana-Champaign. His research focuses on the relationship of ancient identities, cultural practices, and politics in the pre-Columbian Mississippi valley, especially as it involves Cahokia. His recent books include Ancient Cahokia and the Mississippians (Cambridge University Press, 2004), North American Archaeology co-edited with D. Loren (Blackwell Press, 2005), and the forthcoming Chiefdoms and Other Archaeological Delusions (AltaMira Press). John F. Scarry is an adjunct Associate Professor of Anthropology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a Research Associate in the Research Laboratories of Archaeology at UNC. His interests focus on the political struc-
292
Contributors
ture of Mississippian societies (particularly those of the Lower Southeast), the construction of identities and authority in Mississippian societies, and the interactions between Mississippian peoples and Europeans in the Colonial era. He has conducted research in the Apalachicola River Valley, on the Lake Jackson phase near Tallahassee, and on the West Jefferson and Moundville I phases in the Black Warrior Valley. Lynne P. Sullivan is Curator of Archaeology at the Frank H. McClung Museum and Research Associate Professor in the Department of Anthropology at the University of Tennessee. Her research interests focus on the late prehistory of the Upper Tennessee Valley. Julieann Van Nest is a senior scientist (Geology, Geoarchaeology) at the New York State Museum. Her main focus is on advancing the routine integration of the earth sciences into archaeology, with special interests in North American mounds and earthworks, postglacial landscape evolution, and soil biomantles at archaeological sites.
Index
Above World, 10, 131 agnathic decapitations: archaeological evidence of, 179; depictions of, 169, 179 Akron grid motif, 9, 66, 140 American Bottom: birdman theme and, 131– 132; Classic Braden imagery in, 255; rock art of, 10; Southern Cult horizon and, 253 AMS date, 49 analysis: process of, 18; structural versus iconographic, 189; thematic versus stylistic, 30 anthropomorphic theme: Cartersville style, 126; Hightower style, 126. See also Hightower anthropomorphic style apparel: breechclouts, 169, 178, 181; falconshaped bead cape, 239; feather robe, 111; pearl embroidered garment, 111; rawhide custom backing, 49 apron: evolution of, 41; function of, 40; imagery of, 41; as primary trait, 40; Rogan plates and, 40 arrow and mace symbol badges, 131 arrows, 239 art history methodology, 6, 10, 36, 41 artifact co-association, 39 artifact distribution and social linkage, 136 Attenuated Cult, 252 axes: monolithic, 50, 52, 90, 99, 144, 182; stone, 52, 53, 135, 179 bands, 169 beads: copper covered, 239; pearl, 143, 182. See also shell beads Beaverdam Creek site, 195, 196 bellows-shaped apron: birdman and, 39–40; description of, 39–40, 45; “long-haired” type of, 45; plates with, 49; as scalp, 40; simplification over time of, 45; style sequencing of, 42–43
Beneath World, 256 Bennett Horizon, 253 bifaces: elongated Dover chert, 52, 53. See also Duck River sword-form flint bifaces, raptor talon effigy biface and; raptor talon effigy bifaces Big Toco style. See Hightower anthropomorphic style bilobed arrow motif: belief system and, 22; birdman theme and, 131; chronology of, 22; as horizon marker, 21; identification of, 22; as key Braden motif, 10; longnosed god symbolism and, 9 bird head pins: Spanish gold, 51; tortoise shell, 51 birdman theme: bellows-shaped apron and, 39–40, 45; context of, 255–256; Etowah and, 131, 256; Hightower anthropomorphic style and, 130, 179; history of, 130, 131; importance of, 131–132; as key Braden motif, 9–10; meaning of, 255–256; Midwestern iconography and, 131; Morning Star and, 85; Moundville and, 155; plates with, 53; Siouan-speaking peoples and, 130 “black drink,” 85 Black Warrior Valley, 151, 163 blades, 5, 127, 128 Blake, Leonard, 72, 234 block-lined motif, 73, 84 bottles: Avenue Polychrome, 52; black, slip surfaced, 52; globular, with loop handles, 92; Poteau Plain, 52; sub-globular, 52 Braden: Cahokia and, 41; cave art and, 255; characteristics of, 42, 43; Craig and, 43, 45; evolution of, 43; geography of, 10; Siouan-speaking peoples and, 10; Southern Cult horizon and, 253, 254; Spiro and, 6
294 Braden A, 37 Braden B. See Late Braden phrase Braden C, 42, 43 Brain, Jeffrey, 144 Brain and Phillips: accuracy of data and, 199; classification approach of, 229; contribution of, 12–13, 174, 230; critiques of, 12–13, 27–30, 107, 258; Etowah Mound C chronology and, 127; gorget dating and, 88; gorget distribution and, 204; gorget iconography, study of, and, 186–187; gorget inventory and, 228; gorgets, nonelite access to, 220; gorget study groups of, 189–190; homogenous burial association, use of, 189–190; homogenous burial association and, 34; Kneberg’s seriation and, 39; primary data and, 88; reworking of SECC chronology by, 1, 49, 63, 65, 118–119, 196; summit burial chronology and, 123, 126; terminology of, 177; use of “style” by, 185, 230; Waring and Holder, 58 Brain and Phillips, gorget stylistic chronology: European impact and, 58; gorget style overlap and, 194; groups, description of, 191; non-conforming gorgets of, 191, 194; revision of, 190–191; spatial distributions and, 185 Brewster phase, 51, 126, 127, 129 Brown, James A.: birdman theme, orgins of, and, 131, 255–256; Classic Braden and, 12; Craig style and, 10; pre-Southern Cult horizon and, 253; SECC, formation of, 5; SECC, style geography of, and, 8 Burial Complex #3 (Cahokia): construction history of, 238; contents of, 235–236; pile burials, 235; primary interments of, 237, 238, 240; secondary interments of, 238 burial forms: bundled burials, 239; extended inhumations, 239; log-lined pits, 126, 128; pile burials, 235, 237, 239; pit burials, 92; post pits, 235; simple pits, 126, 128; stoneslab lined pits, 50, 126, 128 burial goods: meaning of, 168; use of in dating, 52 burial lots, 39, 52; sequence ordering of, 51; use of in dating, 51 burial practices, 90; flexed position, 92
Index burials: of children, 99, 236–237; of women, 236–237 Buzzard Cults, 251 Caddoan-speaking peoples, 10 Cahokia: architecture of, 58; Braden and, 9, 10, 254; excavations of, 59–60, 61–68; faction elimination in, 240; flint clay statues of, 12; Grand Plaza of, 58, 240 history of, 57–59;; influence of, on SECC, 37; James Ramey Mound of, 60, 62; Mississippian culture and, 131–132; Monks Mound and, 58; Mound 34 of, 257; Osage and, 247; palisades of, 58; platform mounds and, 58; population decline of, 59; representational depictions and, 59; SECC, early development of, and, 41; SECC and, 131– 132; Siouan-speaking people and, 247; Temple Mound of, 62. See also human sacrifice; Wilson Mound (Cahokia) Cahokia, Mound 34: 1998 to 2005 excavations of, 68–69; architecture of, 66, 69– 76, 78; borrow areas and, 73; botanical remains, 82; calcite content of, 74; ceramics and, 80; ceramics of, 62, 71, 72; “ceremonial fire” of, 63, 66, 68–69; colluvial cap, 75; construction history of, 63, 69; copper workshops and, 68–69, 72; description of, 59–60, 62; engraved shell cups and, 78; excavations of, 62–63, 66; faunal assemblage of, 72, 80, 80–81; feasting, evidence of, on, 85; final mantle, 79; flotation samples of, 79, 82; geography of, 59; historic maps of, 59–60, 62, 69, 70, 78; lithic assemblage of, 80; midden and, 70; midden of, 62; pre-mound landscape of, 70–74; prestige goods and, 79; primary mound, 75; radiocarbon dating, 72, 79; Ramey Plaza of, 73, 81, 83; re-examination of ceramics of, 65, 66; re-examination of imagery of, 66; ritual activities and, 73; ritual deposits and, 78– 79; shell artifacts of, 81–82; shell cups and, 63; soil matrix of, 74, 75, 76; stratiform platform, 73; structures of, 70–71, 76; terraces of, 63, 76, 78; wall-trench in, 78 Cahokian creation story: human sacrifice and, 240; mortuary features of, 240
Index Cahokian gender identity: archaeology of, 244; important aspects of, 244; influence of, on SECC, 246 Cahokian inconography, 9 Cahokia ridge-top mounds: chronology of, 234; description of, 234–235; elongated pits of, 235; geography of, 234; grave goods of, 238; gumbo cap of, 238, 239; multiple interments in, 235; Powell Mound, 234, 239; Rattlesnake (or Harding) Mound, 238. See also Mound 72 (Cahokia); Wilson Mound (Cahokia) Carr, Christopher, 17 carrot shaped appendage, 50 carrot shaped motif, 46 cave art, 255 celestial realm and elites, 180 celts: copper, 111, 115, 128, 141; as elite burial goods, 182; sociotechnic, 5; stone, 128, 141 centering motifs, 130 centering symbols, 253 center symbols and bands theme: chronology of, 162; description of, 156; distribution of, 160–161; frequency of, 158; importance of, 162 central disk motif, 50 Central Mississippi Valley Archaeological Survey, 62 ceramics: black-slipped spur-handled beaker, 236; Brewster phase, 118; Cahokia Cordmarked, var. Perino, 80; Cahokia’s Mound 34 and, 71; cord-marked, 92; Dallas phase and, 92; Dallas site and, 101; Early Etowah phase, 116, 117; Early Wilbanks phase, 116, 117; effigy modeling and, 92; engraved, 10, 51; of Etowah, 146; Etowah and, 116; everted-lip Moorehead phase rim and, 236; Hiwassee Island phase and, 92; Hixon site and, 99; incised, 92; of Lake Jackson, 145; Lamar phase, 116, 118; Late Etowah phase, 116; Late Wilbanks phase, 116, 117, 118; limestone-tempered, 90; Martin Farm phase and, 90; Moundville Engraved, var. Cypress, 156; Mouse Creek phase and, 92; myth reenactments and, 184; negative-painted platter, 66, 73; pan-northern Georgia period sequence of, 194–195; red-slipping, 92; Sa-
295 vannah (Wilbanks) phase, 116; “sharpshouldered” sherds, 236; shell-tempered, 84, 90, 92; sherds, 116; style of, 8; suncircle design and, 80; tall neck jar vessel form, 118; utilitarian, 145; Wells Broad Trailed plates, 65, 80; Wilbanks phase, 117, 118. See also Moundville Engraved, var. Hemphill; Ramey Incised ceremonial maces, 5 charnel house, 235, 237, 239 Cherokee, 23, 24, 32 childbirth, death during, 237 chronology construction, problems with, 41 chunkey game: elites and, 242; exportation of, 243; eye motif and, 242; gender and, 243; geography of, 242; history of, 242; pieces of, 239; Ramey Incised ceramics and, 242–243; sticks, 239; stone production and, 242; stones of, 238, 239, 240, 241 circle with cross motif, 9 Circular Frontlet Horizon, 51–52 Citico site, 106 Citico style, 32, 36, 126, 254 Clarke, David L., 17 Classic Braden, 129; as Braden A, 255; Craig A and, 43; definition of, 42; diagnostic engraving from Cahokia, 49; radiocarbon dating and, 47; Rogan plates and, 131, 132, 252; scalps, long-haired with rectangular frontlets and, 49; SECC horizons and, 12 Classic Cults, 251 collar of shell beads, 111 columella pendant: as burial goods, 181; Etowah’s Mound C, 181; weaponry and, 181 concentric circles motif, 156 construction: single-post, 92; wall-trench, 92 copper: embossed, 256; working of at Etowah, 257 copper artifacts, 181 cosmological motifs, 10 Cottonlandia Conference, 1, 7, 252 Cox site, 190 Crable site, 28–30 Craig, 6, 38; Braden and, 43, 45; characteristics of, 42; directional change of, 42; geography of, 10
296 Craig A, 49 Craig B, 43, 49 Craig C, 50; images of, 54 Craig mound, 40 Craig style, 43–45 creation stories: of the Caddoan-speaking peoples, 242; of the Plains people, 242; sexual aspects of, 242; of the Siouanspeaking peoples, 242 Creek, 4, 23, 36 crested bird theme: chronology of, 161–162; description of, 153; distribution of, 160– 161; frequency of, 158; iconography of, 153; importance of, 162; paired tails and, 153, 154; radial fingers motif and, 153; raptor theme versus, 153, 154 cross and circle motif, 156 cross-circle motif, 50; importance of, 21–22; as marker, 36 cross motif, 21–22 cruciform/swastika form, 50 culture-history approach, 19 Cutler, Hugh, 72 Dallas phase: architecture of, 92; burial forms of, 92; ceramics of, 92; chronology of, 92; construction types of, 92 Dallas site, 89; architecture of, 101; burials at, 101; ceramics of, 101; chronology of, 90; description of, 90, 99, 101; geography of, 90; palisades of, 99; phases of, 90; plow zone and, 101; power struggles in, 105; radiocarbon dating, 101; settlement pattern of, 105–106 dating, 33 dating methods: ceramic chronologies, 13; crossdating with European materials, 4; diagnostic ceramics, 117; radiocarbon dating, 5, 13, 89, 90, 258; sequence ordering of grave lots, 51; stratigraphic dating, 89; stratigraphy, 4 Davis Rectangle motif, 9, 66 Davis site, 89; abandonment of, 93; burial goods of, 94; ceramics of, 92–93; chronology of, 90, 92, 93–94; description of, 90, 92; geography of, 90; gorgets and, 105; midden of, 92, 94, 105; mound construction stages of, 93–94; mound structures of, 93; phases of, 90; platform
Index mound of, 92; power struggles in, 105; radiocarbon dating of, 93; settlement pattern of, 105–106 death, representations of, 153, 157 death imagery, 10 DeBoer, Warren, 242 decapitated head, 178, 179; headdresses and, 179 depositional context, 55 de Soto, Hernando, 233 Developmental Cult, 252 Developmental Cults, 251 Diaz-Granados, Carol, 10, 255 dimple motif, 156 direct-historical method, 16 doxa, 148 Duck River cache, contents of, 175 Duck River sword-form flint bifaces, 167, 168, 169; as burial goods, 175–176, 181; chronology of, 175–176; context of on gorget, 179; description of types, 175; geography of, 175–176, 179; importance of, 179; meaning of, 176; raptor talon effigy biface and, 176; raw material of, 176; ritual combat and, 176; sword form bifaces, 175–176 Duncan, James R., 10, 255 “eagle warrior cult,” 2 eagle warrior motif, 25 Early Dallas phase, 169, 175 Early Mississippian, 9, 10, 41, 90, 253 Early Moundville III phase, 158 Early Wilbanks phase, 50–51, 119, 126, 128, 130, 169 ear ornaments: ear discs, 111, 115, 116, 169, 178; earspools, 53, 238; human-head earrings, 10; Norman phase, 53; North Caddoan, 53 Eastern Woodlands, 16 Eddyville style, 20, 26, 37 Eddyville style gorgets: human figures and, 186; McAdams and, 186; spider and, 28, 186 edge perforations, 49 element, meaning of, 23 elite burial goods and celestial realm, 167 elite burials: chronology of, 182; gender and, 182; grave goods of, 182; regalia miss-
Index ing, reasons for, 182; social status markers and, 182 elites: in archaeological record, 180–181; behavior of, 166; Cahokia, 257; celestial realm and, 180; construction of authority by, 148; as craftsmen, 174; as custodians of power, 166; double existence of, 166; of Etowah, 148; gender and, 182; gorget ownership and, 219; as incarnations of dieties, 166; of Lake Jackson, 148; Mesoamerica and, 257; Mississippian culture and, 165; Mississippian perception of, 166; Moundville and, 257; myth reenactments and, 165, 180, 184; nonlocal materials and, 183; Panama and, 257; production of material and, 257; representation as dieties by, 166; ritual regalia and, 165, 180; supernaturals and, 165; symbolic weaponry, 183. See also elite burials Emerson, Thomas E., 9, 243 engraved shell gorgets, 1, 6, 12–13, 42, 185; meaning of, 185; as prestige goods, 137; SECC and, 185; stratigraphic context of, 185; structural rules of, 185; types of, 39 essentialists, 16 ethnography: application of, 23, 37; problems using, 19, 23; use of, 165, 183, 242, 247 Etowah, 2, 13, 38, 41, 52, 129, 171, 183, 257; abandonment of, 129, 132; architecture of, 130, 146; burial forms and, 121; Cahokia influence on, 131; ceramic sequence revised, 116; ceramics of, 146; as chiefdom capital, 129; Citico style and, 32; description of, 134; Early Wilbanks phase and, 129, 130; elite burial goods of, 146; fortification construction of, 129; grave lots of, 32; Hightower style, 25, 33; history of, 129; iconographic links with Lake Jackson and, 140; iconography of, 9; ideological underpinnings of, 131; influence of, 135; influence on, 135; kin group burials and, 146; Knoxville style and, 32; Late Wilbanks phase and, 130; Lick Creek style and, 32; local copper deposits and, 147; as manufacturing center of SECC, 147; mortuary practices of, 146; Moundville and, 52–53; Moundville versus, 151; outside influence on, 131; palisades of, 130; plaza of, 129; as political
297 center, 132; prestige goods of, 137, 145; ranking system of, 130; re-establishment of, 131; regional dominance by, 129; rise to power of, 132; ritual regalia of, 145; settlement pattern of, 134, 146; social network with Lake Jackson, 147; Spiro and, 52–53; stone-slab lined pits, 50; transitional styles in, 30–34. See also Etowah, Mound A; Etowah, Mound B; Etowah, Mound C Etowah chiefs as paramount chiefs, 134 Etowah elites: influence on other Mississippian elites, 134–135; materially wealthy, 134; rare goods and, 134–135 Etowah material culture, Lake Jackson and, 137–138, 140–144 Etowah polity: chiefdom and, 134; description of, 134; Mississippian polity versus, 134; as political center, 134; political hierarchy and, 134 Etowah, Mound A, 126, 129, 130 Etowah, Mound B: construction of, 129; Early Wilbanks ceramics and, 119; Etowah’s Mound C and, 121; midden debris and, 119; radiocarbon dating and, 119; structures on, 119 Etowah, Mound C, 169, 180, 255; birdman theme and, 130; Brewster phase (de Soto phase), 126; burial activity in, 109–111, 115, 118, 123, 128, 130, 256; burial forms of, 123, 126, 128; burial goods in, 111, 115, 116, 127, 128; cane wall surrounding, 111– 113; ceramics redeposition, 117–118; chronology of, 116, 132; construction history of, 109–116, 128, 129, 132; construction phases of, 123; diagnostic artifact attributes and, 51; diagnostic ceramics and, 116, 117; early ceramics and, 117; Early Wilbanks phase and, 128, 132; Eddyville style and, 33; elite burials in, 107, 111, 137; Etowah’s Mound B and, 121; excavation history of, 108–109; final mantle construction stage of, 196; flood impact on, 127; gorgets and, 127, 196; internal chronology of, 121, 127; Lake Jackson and, 136; Late Wilbanks phase and, 128, 132; log tombs of, 109, 111, 115; midden debris and, 109, 116, 117; palisades of, 110–115, 128; phase assignments for construction
298 stages of, 116–118; pre-final mantle construction stage of, 196; radiocarbon dating and, 121; ramp of, 115, 116, 128; Rogan plates and, 129; SECC and, 129, 130, 132; structures on, 110, 111, 115; summit burials in, 123, 126; summit of, 128; terraces of, 111, 115, 128; wall-trench in, 110–115, 128; weaponry and, 141 European material, 4, 36, 52 Europeans, contact with, 3 excised cross theme, 126 eye-in-hand motif, 39, 50, 149 Fain’s Island site, 169, 190 falcon element, 6, 131, 239 falcon warrior, 53 fancy goods, 21, 36, 37 fertility, 243, 256 figural relief, 53 figurines: carved, 241; human figural and, 184; Mississippi Valley stone, 9; red flint clay, 240, 243–244; redstone, 42, 234 Final Mantle burial group (Etowah): burial forms of, 123; construction phases of, 123 flake stone symbol, 179, 183 Ford, James A., 2, 3, 17, 52 forelock, 169 forked motif, 140 Fowler, Melvin, 63, 234, 239, 247 Fritz, Gayle, 72 frontlets, 40, 46 functionalism, 234 Garden Creek site, 190 Gardin, Jean-Claude, 17 gender and sexuality, 233, 242, 244 gender identities, 232, 247 Goldman, Irving, 166 gorget, shell: chronology of, 89; engraved, 135; symbolic weaponry, 165. See also Hightower anthropomorphic style gorget gorget distribution: chronology and, 210; core area-outlier patterns and, 205, 208, 210, 213, 215–216, 218; elites and, 226, 227; European contact and, 218; excavation technique and, 199, 204; genre and, 210, 213; geographic, 197–205, 219, 227,
Index 229; gorget style and, 205, 208; gorget use and, 199, 204; interaction networks and, 210, 213, 215, 226, 227; Late Mississippian style and, 208; looting and, 199; mortuary practice and, 198–199; paramount chiefdoms and, 227; period and, 213, 215; Pine Island style and, 210; single genre styles and, 210; site abandonment and, 204; style and, 230; style overlap and, 210, 213; symbolic structures and, 216; temporal, 197–205, 227, 229 gorgets: acquisition of, 219, 228; as burial goods, 101, 218–219; categories of, 215; central disk motif and, 50; central perforation and, 50; children and, 220, 221; chronology of, 194; circular copper with swastika, 52; circular cross motif, 101; circular frontlet and, 50; classification of, 229; control of, 219, 226, 229; craftsmen of, 186, 219; Craig C description of, 50; Davis site and, 105; Douglas style, 49, 54; Eddyville style, 26, 42, 49; as elite burial goods, 220, 229; elites and, 219, 226, 229; of elongated copper, 50; of elongated slate, 50; engraved shell, 135; of Etowah, 141; Etowah phase assignment by type, 126; Etowah’s Mound C and, 111, 127, 128; Etowah’s Mound C assemblage, 196; Etowah workshops and, 174; function of, 37; future research goals and, 228–229, 230; gender and, 220, 221; genres of, 191; geography of, 191; herpetomorphic style and, 35; Hightower style, 130, 132; Hightower style shell, 53, 129; iconography of, 186; late dating of, 34; Lick Creek style, 127; mask motif, 94, 101; mask theme and, 196; meaning of, 219; Moundville, 50; multiple frontlets and, 50; non-elite access to, 220–221; non-mortuary deposition of, 198, 204; oblong, 50, 52, 53; of oblong copper, 50; outlier sites and, 226; ownership of, 219; paired turkey, 144; paramount chiefdoms and, 227; production of, 219, 221, 226, 227, 229; raccoon motif and, 22; rattlesnake genre and, 196–197; rattlesnake motif and, 30, 101; rattlesnake theme and, 126–127; seriation of, 89; social status, 228; spaghetti figure
Index motif, 101; spider, 144; spider motif, 33; spider motif and, 28; structural rules of, 186; styles of, 186, 191; temporal parameters of, 90; triskeles motif, 101; “turkey cock” motif and, 33; Uktena, scales of, and, 25; use of, 219; V-shaped hair and, 50; William Island style, 140, 148. See also scalp, oblong with circular frontlet gorget sequence: Beaverdam Creek site, 195; dating of, 195–196; mound construction stages and, 195; overlap in, 196; radiocarbon dating, 196 gorget stylistic chronology: pan-northern Georgia period ceramic sequence and, 195; radiocarbon dating, 195 gorget time periods (Brain and Phillips): “early, middle, and late protohistoric,” 189; “terminal prehistoric,” 189 gorget variation: Etowah and, 144; Lake Jackson and, 144 Great Mortuary, 41, 49, 50, 53 great serpent theme, 10 Green Corn ceremony, 253 Griffin, James B., 3, 4, 62, 85 hair ornaments, copper, 115 Hall, Robert L., 9, 10, 23 Hally, David, 118, 254 Hamilton burial mounds, 90, 105 Hamilton-Chapman Stack: plate with bellows-shaped apron and, 49 hand and eye motif, 157 Hatch, James W., 5 headdresses: bilobed arrow, 145; copper, roachlike, 145; copper covered wooden mask, 145; copper ornaments of, 256; decapitated head and, 179; decorations of, 142; Etowah’s Mound C and, 111; meaning of, 255, 256; as prestige goods, 135; raccoon pelt and, 169, 178 headsman theme: chronology of, 179; description of, 171; meaning of, 184; mortal combat theme versus, 171; trophy taking and, 169, 171 heirloom goods, 28–30, 131, 168, 194 Helms, Mary W., 174 He-Who-Wears-Human-Heads-As-Earrings, 131, 256
299 Hightower anthropomorphic style: buddha theme of, 169; Etowah and, 144; Lake Jackson and, 144; morning star theme of, 169. See also headsman theme; mortal combat theme Hightower anthropomorphic style gorget: anthropomorphic features of, 178, 180; bifaces and, 168; characteristics of, 168; dating of, 174; design analysis of, 177; flake stone representation of, 179, 180; gender and, 183; regalia of, 177, 180; stance of, 178, 180; themes of, 167; trophy representation of, 179, 180 Hightower style, 25, 37, 129, 130, 141, 254 historical documents, problems using, 23 Hiwassee Island phase: architecture of, 92; burial forms of, 92; ceramics of, 92; chronology of, 90; description of, 90; village of, 90 Hixon site: abandonment of, 96, 99; architecture of, 96; burials at, 96, 99; ceramics of, 99; chronology of, 90, 96, 99; description of, 90, 94, 96, 99; Duck River sword-form flint bifaces and, 175; flaked stone symbols and, 183; geography of, 90; Hightower anthropomorphic style, 169; mound construction stages of, 96, 99; palisades of, 96; phases of, 90; plow zone and, 96; power struggles in, 105; radiocarbon dating, 99; settlement pattern of, 105–106; terraces of, 96 Hixon style, 33, 39 Holder, Preston: Osage and Cahokia, 247; personal history of, 234; transregional historicity of the SECC and, 233–234; Wilson Mound and, 235, 236–237 homogeneous burial association (HBA), 33, 189, 194 Hopewell period, 9 horizons, 36; importance in studying, 254. See also specific horizons Howard, James H., 4, 40 Huastecan cultures influence, 3 Hudson, Charles, 40 human sacrifice: archaeological evidence of, 237; Cahokia creation story, 240; of children, 240; Corn Mother stories and, 239; faction elimination and, 240;
300 Green Corn, 239; material culture and, 239–240; Morning Star, 239; myth reenactments and, 184; social status and, 171; “theatrical” character of, 240; of women, 239 hypertrophic weaponry: elite burials with, 168, 182; meaning of, 168; symbolic value of, 168 iconography: archaeological analysis of, 41; bifaces and, 169; discontinuity of, 227; locatives in, 10; meaning of, 148; Mississippian myth and, 167; political authority and, 148; social linkage and, 136; of supernatural figures, 167 inalienable objects, 240–241 instrumentalist, 17 interpretations: circular logic and, 23; conjectural, 22; context of, 26; objectivity of, 24; prejudgement and, 25; revisions of, 26; of symbolic content, 26 Jones, Calvin B., 137, 142 Kehoe, Alice B., 240 Kelly, A. R., 10, 119, 239 Kelly, Lucretia, 80–81 Kincaid site, 37 King, Adam, 51, 134, 196 Kneberg, Madeline, 39, 88, 99, 103 Knight, Vernon James, Jr., 12, 220, 252, 253, 257 knobbed pins, 94 knotted hair braids, 169, 178 Knoxville style, 32 Krieger, Alex D., 4 Lacefield, Hyla, 153, 154 Lake Jackson: architecture of, 146; ceramics of, 145; control over marine shell by, 148; elite burial goods of, 146; elites of, 147; iconographic links with Etowah and, 140; material culture and, 137–138, 140–144; mortuary practices of, 146; Moundville versus, 151; non-Etowan influence on, 148, 149; prestige goods of, 137, 145; ritual regalia of, 145; settlement pattern of, 146; social network with Etowah, 147; weaponry and, 141
Index Lake Jackson plate, 140 Lamar horizon, 51 Lankford, George, 10, 130, 153, 154, 156, 255 Larson, Lewis H., Jr: burials groupings by, 123; Etowah’s Mound C and, 109, 115, 121, 128, 129, 180; excavations of, 111, 113, 134, 137, 142; SECC chronology and, 13; Wilbanks phase dating and, 51, 118 Late Braden phase, 43, 50 Late Etowah phase, 126 Late Hiwassee Island phase, 169, 175 Late Wilbanks phase, 51, 119, 126, 128 Late Woodlands, 90 Lick Creek style, 32, 36, 126, 127, 254 Link Farm site, 175 Little Egypt site, 190 Lohmann phase, 235 long-nosed god symbolism, 9 Luna expedition, 4 mace head ornament, 52 maces, 54, 171, 179 Martin Farm phase: ceramics of, 90; chronology of, 90; construction style of, 90; excavations of, 90; substructure mounds and, 90 mask motif, 190 material culture: cultural development, 244, 246; distribution of, 244, 246; elites and, 135; Etowah influence and, 135; exchange networks and, 135; gender and sexuality and, 244; social structure and, 135; value of, 135 matriclan and gorget ownership, 184 McFadden, Eliza, 42 McKenzie, Douglas, 151 meandering tongues, 178 Menard-Wallace site, 52 Mesoamerican influence on SECC, 2, 4, 36 messianic or revitalization movement model, 4 midden, 158 Middle Historic, 52 Middle Mississippian, 3, 9, 107 Middle Woodlands, 16, 36 Mississippian: burials, 92; ceramics, 92; clans, 7; complexes, 89; construction of, 92; cults, 7; influence on SECC, 4
Index Mississippian art, 12, 16, 162, 164, 252; standardization of, 42 Mississippian myth: communication of, 166; function of, 165–166 Mississippian period: beliefs during, 254; imagery and meaning of, 255; phases of, 92; SECC and, 251 Mississippian power networks, 5, 6 Mississippian priesthood, 7 Mississippi Valley, 10 Moore, Clarence B., 148, 151, 152 Moorehead, Warren K.: Cahokian excavations of, 60; Etowan excavations of, 109, 123, 126–128, 134, 137, 142 Moorehead phase, 49 Moorehead plates, 40 Morning Star, 85, 131, 184, 256 mortal combat theme: chronology of, 169, 179; description of, 169; geography of, 169; headman theme versus, 169; locatives of celestial realm and, 169; meaning of, 184; ritual regalia and, 169 mortuary practices, 106, 163, 198–199 mortuary treatment studies, 5 moth, nocturnal, 25 mothra, 171, 178, 179 motif: analysis and meaning of, 19; identification of, 38; meaning of, 23; name selection of, 18; segmentation of, 38; styles and, 254 Mound 72 (Cahokia): burial forms of, 239; commemorative pit and, 239; description of, 239; female sacrificial pits of, 239; grave goods of, 239; human sacrifice and, 239 Mound C tentative style. See Hightower anthropomorphic style Mound E (Moundville), 160–161, 162 Mound G (Moundville), 160–161, 162 Mound Project, 158 Mound Q (Moundville), 160–161, 162 mounds, 221, 240 mound stage layers, 39 Moundville: burial activity at, 151; chronology of, 51; construction history of, 158; copper working and, 257; “eagle warrior complex” and, 2; Early Mississippian and, 41; engraved pottery vessels of, 151; Etowah and, 52–53; Etowah versus, 151;
301 grave lots of, 51; iconography of, 9; kinbased groups of, 160, 163; Lake Jackson versus, 151; Mound P, 257; plaza of, 160; scalp, Hemphill sacred, 50; social rankings and, 5; Spiro and, 52–53; Spiro versus, 151; summit architecture of, 158; summit use of, 158. See also Mound E; Mound G; Mound Q Moundville Engraved, var. Hemphill: Black Warrior Valley and, 151; chronology of, 51–52, 161; classification of, 152; frequency of, 159; Hemphill sacred scalp and, 50; identification of, 152–156, 159– 160; lack of research on, 151; Moundville II and, 50–51; Moundville III and, 50–51; Moundville sherd collection of, 158; radiocarbon dating of, 161; seriation of, 151; style and, 163; theme frequency and, 163 Moundville III phase, 52, 53, 161–162 Moundville II phase, 52, 158, 161–162 Moundville periods: chronology of, 51; SECC and, 51; transitions between, 51 Moundville skull motif, 157 Mouse Creek phase, 92; burial forms of, 92; ceramics of, 92 mouth surround: falconoid forked, 169; pigments for, 181; supernaturals, status of, 171 Mud Glyph Cave, 26, 28 Muller, Jon, 7, 12, 13, 42, 55, 126, 251–254; artifact sequencing, 54; gorget style sequence and, 196; SECC, definition of and, 135; structural analysis of gorgets, 189; use of “style” by, 186 Muskogean-speaking peoples: influence of, 4, 10, 39; political-religious complex of, 233 mythological beings, prehistoric analogues of, 10 myth reenactments: in archaeological record, 180–181; gender and, 183; gorget ownership and, 183 necklaces: with columella pendant, 169, 178; columella pendants and, 143; shell, 140 New Deal-era archaeologists, 90 “New Fire,” 253 non-mortuary contexts, importance of, 57
302 Norris Farm 36 cemetery: description of, 221; excavation technique and, 221 ogee, 256 oral history, 255 Orange Layer: midden debris and, 119; radiocarbon dating, 119; Wilbanks phase, 119 Osage dualism, 247 oyster shell, 116 painted marble statues, 115 paired birds motif, 147 palettes, 182; stone, 116, 127, 128 palisades, 58 paramount chiefdoms, 227 Parmalee, Paul, 72 Path of Souls, 10, 183 Pauketat, Timothy R., 234, 243 Pauketat and Emerson, 240, 242 Peebles and Kus, 5 Perino, Gregory, 257; Cahokian excavations of, 63, 67; copper workshops and, 69; excavations of, 74–76; excavation techniques of, 79; refuse pit and, 68–69, 72, 73; trench and, 49 petaloids, 178 Phillips, Philip: Hypothesis A of, 43; Hypothesis B of, 43; Hypothesis C of, 43; Hypothesis D of, 43; Spiro gorget assemblages, dating of, 63 Phillips and Brown: Spiro shell engraving, 151–152; structural analysis of gorgets, 189; use of “style” by, 186 piasa, 256 pigments, 182 pigment stones, 241 pipe, 184 pipe bowls, 115, 116, 182 pipes: ceramic, 135; ceramic bubble pipes, 144 Pisgah Complicated stamp, 51 Pisgah-like complicated stamp, 51 plates, 182; bellows-shaped apron, 49; birdman motif, 53; copper, 130; copper falcon warrior, 53; copper repousse, 47, 184; embossed copper, 111; Magnum copper, 49; as prestige goods, 137; repousse copper, 135, 138 platform mounds, 92, 235
Index political economy and motif transformation, 38 politics and: gender and sexuality and, 242; religion and, 242 Porubcan, 240 post-Southern Cult, 252 Pre-final Mantle burial group (Etowah): burial forms of, 123; construction phases of, 123 prehistoric communities: as multiethnic communities, 23–24; in state of flux, 23–24 pre-Southern Cult horizon, 253 prestige goods: elite symbolism and, 174; rise of Etowah polity, 174; spread of Etowah influence, 174. See also inalienable objects projectile points: antler, 115, 116; Cahokian, 79 Quapaw, 24 raccoon motif, 19, 22 radial fingers motif, 156 radial T-bar motif, 156 radiocarbon dating, 39, 41, 47, 51, 57–58, 72, 79, 107, 118, 119–121, 158, 161 Ramey Incised, 9, 234, 240; Cahokian creation story, 241; Cahokian politics and, 241; Cahokia’s Mound 34 and, 72, 80; description of, 241; meaning of, 241; sex and, 242; symbolism of, 241 Ramey knife, 80 rank system: achieved rank and, 182; inherited rank and, 182; warfare and, 182–183 raptor elements, 169, 171, 178, 256 raptor talon effigy bifaces, 168, 169, 179, 181 raptor theme: description of, 154–155; frequency of, 158; iconography of, 155; identification of, 155; serpent-raptor concept, 155; winged serpents theme and, 154 rattles, 182 rattlesnake motif, 30, 190 rattlesnake style, 35 rattlesnake theme, 32, 126 raw materials: copper, 79, 169, 182; dover chert, 52; hematite, 237; mica, 169, 182; minerals, 80; tortoise-shell, 182 rebirth, 256 rectangular element, 40 Red Horn, 85, 131, 184, 256
Index Reed, Nelson, 234 regalia, 171 regalia of gorget in archaeological record, 180–181 Reilly, Kent, 10, 252, 255 religion: gender and sexuality and, 242; politics and, 242 religious revival model, 3 repoussé copper, 8, 10, 12 reunification model, 3 reworking of material culture, 43 ritualism/supernatural creatures model, 4 rock art, 39; American Bottom and, 10 Rogan, John: excavations of, 134, 137, 142 Rogan, John P.: excavations of, 108–109, 123, 128 Rogan plates, 6, 40, 131, 252, 255; description of, 138, 140 Rolf Lee site, 190 Rose, Jerome, 235 roundels, 178, 181 Rudder Comb incised, 51 running/dancing figure element, 178, 179 sacred narratives, 255 Sagan, Carl, 24 Saltville, 36 San Marcos, 10 Savannah period, 119 scalp, Hemphill sacred: Craig C images and, 50; description of, 50 scalp, Moundville, 52 scalp, oblong with circular frontlet, 40–41 scalp, sacred, 55 scalp, sacred with rectangular frontlet, 40 scalp imagery: long haired with rectangular frontlet, 47; sequence of, 45–47; stylistic organization of, 42 scalp motif, 157–158 scalp with circular frontlet: Braden, 50; Craig, 50; description of, 49–50; Hemphill style, 50–51 Schatte, Kevin E., 152–153, 155 SECC, 4, 255; Braden and, 10; chronology of, 16, 20–21, 26, 30, 36, 38, 55, 107, 251, 258; cult style derivatives, 30, 37; cultural underpinnings of, 9; dating of, 11– 14; definition of, 38, 258; description of, 254; early history of, 58; elites and, 257;
303 emblems of power of, 37; false cult classification, 30; future research direction of, 254–257; geography of, 8–9, 11–12; history of, 233, 234; horizon groups of, 252; iconography of, 10, 38, 55; ideological content of, 38; interpretive value of, 254– 257; localized style of, 37; Mississippian society and, 257; mortuary versus nonmortuary manifestations of, 57; motifs and themes of, 21; nature of, 253; product of well-defined styles, 257; as sharing network, 21; stylistic range of, 20; thematic unity of, 10; themes of, 38; use of materials during, 256 SECC goods: creation of, 251; as elite status marker, 257–258; significance of, 257–258; use of, 251 SECC horizons: Classic Braden and, 12; SECC thematic unity and, 12 serpent-raptor concept: evolution of, 155; identification of, 156–157; Moundville II and, 155; Moundville III and, 155; trophy theme and, 156 serpent staff, 43, 46 sexuality, development of, 232 shark teeth, 73, 145 shell beads: as burial goods, 94, 143, 181, 238; depictions of, on gorgets, 169; Etowah’s Mound C and, 111, 115, 116; phalange, 53 shell cups, 85; Braden A, 42; Cahokia’s Mound 34 and, 63; conch, 111; Craig C, 181; engraved, 12, 42, 186, 252; engraved shell, 78; Etowah and, 145; Hixon mound and, 99; Lake Jackson and, 145; motif seriation and, 42 shell engravings, 6, 8 Siouan-speaking peoples, 84; Braden and, 10; influence on SECC of, 131; narratives of, 131 Sky World, 131 Smith, Marvin, 89 snarling mouth, 50 social development and iconographic changes, 41 social position, markers of, 130 social ranking model, 5 social ranking systems, 254 Society of American Archaeology, 1947 meeting, 3
304 Southeast artistic style, 6 Southeastern Archaeological Conference, 1954 meeting, 5 Southern Cult, 252 Southern Cult Horizon, 8, 253 Southern Cult trait list, 2, 19 Spaulding, Albert C., 17; Central Mississippi Valley Archaeological Survey and, 62 Spaulding-Ford debate, 17 spider motif, 28, 33, 147 spider theme, 36 Spinden, 2 Spiro, 2, 3, 22, 38, 40–43, 47, 50, 52, 54, 252, 255, 257; Etowah and, 52–53; iconography of, 9; looting of, 233; mortuary treatment studies, 5; Moundville and, 52–53; Moundville versus, 151; shell engravings at, 6, 10; war captain of, 6 Spiro III, 52 Spiro IV, 52 Spiro shell engraving project, 42 star: eight points, 50; five point, 50, 52; six point, 50 statues: marble, 128 Steiner, Roland Dr., 127 Steponaitis, Vin, 53, 158–159, 253, 257; Moundville Engraved, var. Cypress, 156; SECC motif listing of, 151 stratigraphic dating, 176 style: analysis of, 19; as basic unit of SECC, 254; coexistence of, 42; culture and, 19; evolutionary development and, 19, 43; function of, 19; geographies of, 254–255; geography, 8; gorget designs and, 229; grammatical rules of, 42; history of, 42; identification of, 42; impact of engraving tradition on, 42; motifs and, 19–20, 254; receipt of, 19; themes and, 254; training in production of, 257; transformation of, through uninformed copying, 36 style-sequence perspective, 55 stylistic evolution, 35–36 Sullivan, Lynn, 39 swastika motif, 52, 156 symbolic weaponary: elite behavior and, 165; function of, 165; meaning of, 167; value of, 167 symbolic weaponry: elite burials and, 144;
Index Etowah and, 144; Lake Jackson and, 144; as prestige goods, 135 symbols, 23 Talassee site, 169, 171; Hixon style and, 33 talon motif, 52 T-bar motifs, 169, 178 terminology: “Classic Cult,” 252; “cult,” 3, 4, 5, 12, 16–17; “function,” 16; “genres,” 186; “Hightower anthropomorphic style,” 168; “horizon,” 253; “MACC,” 252; “Mississippian,” 20; “motifs,” 18, 177; “salient elements,” 177; Southeastern Ceremonial Complex (SECC), 7–8, 252, 253; Southeastern Interchange Network (SIN), 16, 252; “Southern Cult,” 18, 252; “style,” 15– 16, 177, 186, 229, 230, 253; “style” versus “type,” 13; “theme,” 19, 152; “type,” 17 terraces: Cahokia’s Mound 34 and, 63 Texas State SECC working group, 253, 255 theme, 19, 163, 254 This World, 183 Thompson site, 190 three fingers motif, 156 Titterington, P. F., 239 Toqua site, 169, 171, 190 trophies: depiction of, on gorgets, 178 trophy retrieval, meaning of, 174, 180 trophy taking, social status and, 171 trophy theme: description of, 157; distribution of, 160–161; frequency of, 158, 163; importance of, 162, 163; justification for, 157; raptor theme and, 157; violence depicted in, 157; whole vessel and, 159–160 “turkey cock” theme, 33, 36, 99, 130 TVA, 90 type and element, 18 Uktena, 147 Uktena, scales of, 25 Upper World, 148 Van Nest, Julieann, 74 warfare, social importance of, 183 Waring, Antonio, 2–3, 4, 19, 21, 38, 39, 40, 47, 51, 107, 132, 233–234, 251–252 Waring and Holder: Brain and Phillips, 38, 58; Etowah’s Mound C and, 132;
Index fancy goods and, 21; scalp images and, 47; SECC, formation of, 2–3, 107, 252; SECC formulation of, 151; thematic list of, 19 Warrior Cults, 2, 251 warrior-in-profile image, 49 weaponry: images of, 256; as prestige goods, 137 Welch, 257 whelk shell, 84–85, 116, 238 whirlwind/swastika treatment: as Early Wilbanks grave offering, 50–51; Hightower style and, 50–51; Nashville style and, 50–51 Wike, Joyce: human sacrifice and, 246; personal history of, 234; Wilson Mound and, 235, 237 Wilbanks phase, 119, 256; chronology of, 51, 118; division of, 116; Middle Mississippian and, 118; Moundville II and, 53; Spiro III and, 53 Wilbanks site, 50, 53
305 Willey, Gordon R., 2, 3, 21 Williams, Stephen, 2 Willoughby, Charles C., 3 Wilson Mound (Cahokia): body mutilation, 237–238; burial activity in, 235; chronology of, 235; excavation of, 233, 235; gendered burials and, 237; history of, 235; Late Woodland Patrick phase, 235; structures of, 235. See also Burial Complex #3 Wimberly, Steve, 151 windmill motif, 156 winged serpent motif, 149 winged serpents theme: chronology of, 161; description of, 152; distribution of in Moundville mounds, 160–162; frequency of, 158; importance of, 162; meaning of, 153; raptor theme versus, 152; seriation of, 152–153 wing element: identification problems with, 25–26; nocturnal moth, 25–26 world renewal theme, 9 worldview, prehistoric, 21
