Talk:Mississippian culture

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, which collaborates on Native American, First Nations, and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
???	This article has not yet been rated on the assessment scale.
Suggested article edit guidelines: To help us prioritise our workload, and in readiness for Wikipedia:1.0, we need to assess our articles for Quality. If this article is Unassessed, please assess it. See the Article Classification for instructions. If you disagree with a rating, you can change it or discuss it at Article Classification. Before assessing this article, be sure to check the existing Archive of assessments made under the previous system (used until July 2006), and feel free to help in migrating the existing comments besides from adding your own evaluation. After assessing this article's quality, please make sure it to add it to the Lists at Article Classification, following the grading scheme detailed there.
Please rate this article and leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

I find it misleading to speak of the "Middle Mississippian Period," since Middle Mississippian usually refers to what this article in general is calling Mississippian. The word "middle" refers to geography, not time. MM is contrasted with Upper Mississippian (e.g., Oneota, Ft. Ancient) and Lower Mississippian (e.g., the Jaketown site) in the professional literature.

-Well, since I just heard (a professional) and others misusing Middle Mississippian that way three days ago at the Southeastern Archaeological Conference, I would conclude that you are overestimating the amount of professional agreement going on... On the other hand, I agree that the terms would be better (more clearly) used as you describe.

summary- (brief debate on validity of Middle Mississippian as a temporal term instead of a geographic term)

why summarize -- are you trying to save space?? Others can learn something from your debate, and talk pages do spark new ideas. I'm strongly in favor of keeping comments available for review. WBardwin 06:41, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, just summarized because I used a professional's personal name in our conversation and I decided it was better left out.TriNotch 06:50, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I guess that's a problem with southern archaeologists. I certainly haven't seen or heard it used that way by people working in the Middle Mississippian area. (I'm an Oneota scholar, but my firsst work was at Cahokia almost a half century ago.)

I worked at Cahokia in 2000-2001, but I moved further southeast after that. I think I've figured out who you are, but I expect you don't know me. I'm too new to the field.TriNotch 06:50, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] metallurgy

What does the article mean by saying M had no metallurgy? The Wik definition of metallurgy is almost certainly not what is meant. If what is meant is working of metal, then the statement is blatantly wrong. Probably what is meant is smelting or some-thing along those lines, which is generally accepted by professionals.Kdammers 07:23, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. Well, I was trying to get at the limitations of M metal working, which as far as I know included drilling, beating, maybe riveting techniques, and nothing else. I used the wiki link to indicate, as per the Wik definition, that they did not use "casting, forging, rolling, extrusion, sintering, machining and fabrication." How about a change to something like, "Mississippians could work metals, but were not familiar with the techniques of modern metallurgy?" Or do you have a better suggestion? Feel free to make the change. TriNotch 10:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

It's getting there: it's not misleading now. But it could still be better. Let's see what we can comeup with.

[edit] Contact with Europeans

This section was recently chopped due to an asserted POV problem- I reverted this because it seemed to me that except for a few words (which I removed), most of that section was NPOV (i.e. historically documented fact), just uncited. Perhaps some more help with citations would be useful for this article? Oh, also, Rjensen, your edits are appreciated, but the use of the terms "civilization" and "fragments" both have connotations which are inappropriate in this context. "Civilization" implies A. a level of sophistication comparable to the classic civilizations of the Old World, B. that anyone else is "uncivilized," and C. a degree of political unity which is undemonstrated for Mississippian peoples. As for "fragments", that has a negative connotation, implying that modern day Native Americans are somehow a diminished remnant, rather than a successfully adapted and continuing cultural tradition. Please express any dissent, and note that this article does need both expansion and improved citation. TriNotch 06:18, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

almost all known sites are dated before 1492 -- I can't think of any major ones after 1500. That means there is not much evidence of Columbian Exchange impact--the does not make clear the multiple views on the subject and is therefore POV. As for "fragments", I'm afraid that's about all you have comparing the post 1500 cultures in the areas. Which tribe most closely resembles the Mississippeans? we can start there. Rjensen 06:31, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, just added a little direct citation and such to make things seem more clear. In terms of sites and tribes resembling the Mississippians, I am beginning to wonder if we misunderstand one another. Correct me if I'm wrong, but how about the two capitals of the Hasinai/Caddo? Echota of the Cherokee? The Grand Village of the Natchez? Nanih Waiya of the Choctaw, construction of which continued into the historic period? The historic Cherokee mound center of Coweeta Creek? The Coosa chiefdom? The Lady of Cofitachequi? Arguably, the Powhatan Confederacy encountered by the first inhabitants of Jamestown was an eastern coastal cultural relative of the Mississippians. I would say any and all of these are essentially Mississippian chiefdom centers in the historic period. If your contention is that no serious European contact is involved with any obvious Mississippian chiefdom, I would agree- exactly because of the series of political collapses that occurred following the introduction of European diseases. Are you suggesting that the historic Native Americans are not demonstrably related to the Mississippians? Because I wouldn't say that any one tribe most resembles the Mississippians- I would say they all do, in this region. Distinct cultural traditions appear to have demonstrable continuity from the prehistoric into the historic era.

I am worried that I have become confused about your POV assertion. Maybe you could write the other perspective so that we can present an NPOV article. TriNotch 06:55, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Your newest edit seems to demonstrate that you don't agree that the historic Native Americans (Here I'm thinking of the Natchez, Choctaw, Chickasaw, Cherokee, and Creek, to name the most obviously related groups) are the cultural descendents of the Mississippians. Why not? TriNotch 06:59, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Descendants ok, but "cultural" is problematic. They seem strikingly different. Why they changes I don't know--but of course the Cherokee in particular (and Creek/Seminole) are famous for undergoing very dramatic cultural changes since 1540. The Mississipp1an sites have very few European cultural artifacts (two small items at Parkin) and the Cherokee sites have very few Mississipp1an artifacts, which I take as suggesting little interaction. Rjensen 07:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, all right. I'm willing to agree that your most recent edit works for me. I will thus surrender the disagreement for the moment. Oddly, I think the article originally agreed with you that most of the Mississippian cultures never had contact with Europeans, except indirectly by way of disease, so I'm not sure why we started talking about that.

However, there IS demonstrable cultural continuity from the Mississippian cultures right up to modern tribes- although you are right that they've undergone some really significant changes, like any culture does in 500 years. The Creeks, for example, seem to have used the same community layouts from around 1200 AD to the 19th century (according to John Swanton). I think the question is not really whether historic Native Americans are culturally related to Mississippians, because that is a certainty. The question is when we stop calling it "Mississippian." Is it when they stop building mounds? Is it when they stop having hierarchical chiefdoms and start having tribal confederacies? Is it when Europeans show up? Is it when the pottery styles change? Is it when epidemic diseases reduce the population? Since all of these things happened at different times and different places, the term "Mississippian" is somewhat arbitrary. On the other hand, maybe you and I just disagree on what constitutes "cultural relatedness." Another comment; your Questia references are good (I like those books), but since they are published books, I don't think you need to mention the website at all. TriNotch 07:31, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

One more thing- The DeSoto/Parkin thing really should probably go in the DeSoto article. The mention of DeSoto in this article should probably be brief. TriNotch 07:31, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, removed the Questia links, and rephrased a couple of things. Let me know if you think this is not an improvement. TriNotch 07:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

it's an improvement but leave the Questia as it shows a very valuable table of contents that users will otherwise miss. Let me add that the Natchez, in my opinion, displayed what we are looking for but do not find in other tribes as heritage of Miss. culture. Rjensen 07:53, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Agree, but suggest that the questia links be placed in the external links section. I hope you're right about the Natchez, because an awful lot of people have derived direct-historical analogies based on them. Personally, I'm not sure, since they were so different from all the other tribes. It just seems improbable that the Natchez would preserve things that NO OTHER tribe did. Hmm. But that's a whole different article. TriNotch 07:59, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Questia is directly related to the book in question. As for Natchez, they certainly look different, compared to all the other SE tribes--it's just as if they were a last remnant of Mis. culture. I want some better evidence of cultural links between Mis. and the other tribes and I do not see them. For an encyclopedia we alert readers there's not much evidence there. Rjensen 08:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mississippians are not known to have had...

I reverted this edit "Mississippians are not known to have had a writing system, extractive metallurgy, stone architecture" because I think it is better to state forcefully, based on available data, that they did not have those things. Saying that we don't know is kind of like saying "The Italian Renaissance is not known to have had cellular phones." The possibility that they had them is sufficiently remote as to be irrelevant. As always, I invite discussion, but I do not see the value of the change. TriNotch 23:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

In many cases, the traces we have of written languages of the past are so scant, we are lucky to have them at all. If the Western Apache cultural tradition ends, it seems likely that people of the future will not know that they do, in fact, have an indigenous writing system because of its nature. Before 1986, nobody would've even guessed that the Epi-Olmec had a writing system.

It seems much more absurd to suggest that the Italian Rennaissance had cellular phones than to suggest that the Mississipians had a writing system(s).

The Western Apache indigenous "writing system" is only about 80 years old, is only used for ritual purposes, and occurred in the context of intense European contact, so I don't see it as a useful counter-example. Might as well talk about the Cherokee syllabary (which would be more culturally relevant anyway). I used the cellular phone example to give a comparable time difference in cultural development- the temporal gap between the Italian Renaissance and the cell phone is about the same amount of time as the gap between the Middle Mississippian and the existence of ANY demonstrable writing system in use by any culture north of Mexico. I do clearly exaggerate, but the point is important: If there were no native writing systems before the Mississippians, and no native writing systems until 300 years after the Mississippians, why would we suggest a native writing system for the Mississippians? It is a cultural fallacy brought about by our collective esteem of the written word to assume that literacy was either desireable or probable in Native North American cultures before European contact. As for the Epi-Olmec, I agree- but even before we knew they had a writing system, we knew they had a vast corpus of flat-surface standardized iconography. For the Mississippians, we have a decidedly limited body of such work that we could propose as the predecessor of a writing system.

For the record, I consider the writing system to be possibly the most likely of the three things listed based on present evidence (none of them are likely). Stone architecture and metallurgy (meaning, I am careful to point out, the techniques of smelting and forging available to the Inka or the Spanish at the same time) seem even more remote from any recognizable Mississippian or Eastern North American Native American practices. TriNotch 07:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

That's not entirely true. There are various writing systems that were known to have been used or claimed to have been used that long ago. Also, it really depends on how broad your definition of "writing system" is. Would you include the markings used on calendar sticks by the Pima and Papago? Certainly, they can record history unambiguously, and very accurately at that, to the point of being able to record a car accident (the most recent known calendar stick example I've seen, from some time in the 80s). On the other hand, the system is/was used only in a limited context. Then there are the examples of Lakota writing system, which supposedly represents language, but has only been recorded in a limited capacity and is not known to have existed pre-contact, although it shows no real influence from European systems (it is customarily written in a spiral originating at the center; it is a sort of relational logography not used anywhere else; etc). There are a few other systems like this, however the validity of most of them is not certain. Some Cree claim that the Cree syllabary originated pre-contact and was not, in fact, invented by Evans. To support this claim, they ask if there are any parallels between the method of conveying vowels in that system, and any system in use in Europe at the time, or ever. Some Cherokees also claim that Sequoyah did not invent the Cherokee syllabary, he was merely passing it on. The syllabary they are referring to is not the modern Cherokee syllabar, but rather the one originally used by Sequoyah, which doesn't look like any other writing system (it was replaced by the current one due to the printing press). Also, it seems quite possible that the great lakes syllabary existed pre-contact.

Another problem is the materials used. Many Middle Eastern cultures used stone, clay, or metal, so their writings were relatively well-preserved. On the other hand, the Lakota used animal hides, and thus the only modern records we have of their writing system that are likely to survive into the next century are tracings from outsiders or from the time just before its extinction when some people began to write it on paper. Other cultures have been known to write on leaves or wood (pre-contact Philippine literacy used sticks, Shan literacy used palm leaves, Rapanui literacy used mostly driftwood).

• I am still not happy about the inclusion of metallurgy. Let's come up with a better wording! Kdammers 09:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

We could add a line to Cultural Traits that says "10. Mississippian peoples could work native copper, silver, and iron deposits into ornaments and basic tools using percussion and drilling techniques, but did not practice smelting or forging." Would that be better? Also, would you find this sentence factually correct? TriNotch 07:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, actually that might not work, since it isn't a diagnostic cultural trait of Mississippians versus Woodland period peoples- so it shouldn't go on that particular list. Maybe my new sentence should just follow the list, but come before the "no writing system or stone architecture" sentence.TriNotch 07:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I've reworded this section again- does this sound better to everyone? TriNotch 03:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

ΝΝ

Actually that statement isn't entirely accurate, as numerous artifacts (mostly copper axes, celts,beads pins ets.) recovered from Cahokia and other Missisipian sites show conclusive evidence of heated forging, although it is true that the Missisipians did not smelt metals from ore. 08:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)