Southeastern Ceremonial Complex: Chronology, Content, Contest

Southeastern Ceremonial Complex

A Dan Josselyn Memorial Publication

Southeastern Ceremonial Complex

Chronology, Content, Context

EDITED BY ADAM KING

THE UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA 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

ISBN-13: 978-0-8173-8136-3 (electronic)

This book is dedicated to my wife, Jennifer, who has taught me

where undertakings like this fit into my life.

Contents

List of Illustrations

Acknowledgments

1. The Southeastern Ceremonial Complex: From Cult to Complex

Adam King

2. Prolegomena for the Analysis of the Southeastern Ceremonial Complex

Jon Muller

3. Chronological Implications of the Bellows-Shaped Apron

James A. Brown

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

5. Shell Gorgets, Time, and the Southeastern Ceremonial Complex in Southeastern Tennessee

Lynne P. Sullivan

6. Mound C and the Southeastern Ceremonial Complex in the History of the Etowah Site

Adam King

7. Connections Between the Etowah and Lake Jackson Chiefdoms: Patterns in the Iconographic and Material Evidence

John F. Scarry

8. An Assessment of Moundville Engraved Cult Designs from Potsherds

Vernon James Knight, Jr.

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

10. Mississippian Shell Gorgets in Regional Perspective

David J. Hally

11. Sex and the Southern Cult

Susan M. Alt and Timothy R. Pauketat

12. Whither SECC?

Adam King

References Cited

Contributors

Index

Illustrations

Figures

2.1.    Bilobed arrow

2.2.    Spiro gorget and a detail of the raccoon motif, LeFlore County, Oklahoma

2.3.    Small Lick Creek gorget from the Fred Lewis Farm, Carter County, Tennessee

2.4.    Hightower anthropomorphic gorget from Tennessee

2.5.    A figure from Mud Glyph Cave, Tennessee, and the Castalian Springs gorget

2.6.    Madison County, Illinois, gorget in the Eddyville style

2.7.    Arachnomorphic gorget from the Crable site, Fulton County, Illinois

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

2.10.  Transitional" herpetomorphic gorget from Etowah site, Bartow County, Georgia, circa A.D. 1550

2.11.  Citico style gorget, Williams Island, Hamilton County, Tennessee, circa A.D. 1600–1700

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

3.1.    Transformational series of sacred scalp images taken from shell engravings of the Classic Braden and three temporal phases of the Craig style

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 accompanying styles of the human head: Craig C style, Late Braden style, Hemphill style

3.3.    The sacred scalp materialized as various styles of gorgets of the circular frontlet type: Craig C style, Hemphill style, Hightower style

4.1.    Map of the Cahokia site with central Cahokia and Mound 34 delineated

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

4.4.    A 1950 contour map produced by UMMA of Mound 34 showing test pit locations

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

4.7.    Schematic profile and plan maps of Mound 34 showing Perino’s 1956 excavations

4.8.    Plan map of the Washington University excavations in Mound 34 from 1998 to 2005

4.9.    Illustration of the negative-painted platter recovered from Perino’s refuse trench

4.10.  Washington University’s profile map of Perino’s west wall showing Feature 3

4.11.  Profile map from Washington University’s exposure of Perino’s east wall

4.12.  Photograph of marine shell cache recovered by Washington University from Mound 34

4.13.  Profile map from Washington University’s exposure of UMMA’s Test Pit 3

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

4.15.  Contour map of the Ramey Plaza area

5.1.    Kneberg’s 1959 gorget seriation shown with Brain and Phillips’s proposed dates

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

5.3.    Plan of the Davis site showing the location of the mound in relation to the WPA excavations in the village area

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

5.5.    Plan of the Hixon site showing the location of the mound in relation to the WPA excavations in the village area

5.6.    Composite profile of the mound at the Hixon site showing the main mound stages and various identified floors within these stages

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

5.8.    Plan of the Dallas site showing the location of the mound in relation to the WPA excavations in the village area

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

8.5.    An example of the trophy theme at Moundville

8.6.    Comparison of theme frequencies in the sherd sample and whole vessel sample

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

9.2.    Headsman theme marine shell gorget, Mound C, Etowah site, Bartow County, Georgia

9.3.    Sword-form flint biface, Humphreys County, Tennessee

9.4.    Raptor talon effigy flint biface, Humphreys County, Tennessee

10.1.    Gorget styles referred to in the text

10.2.    Gorget style sequence and chronology proposed by Brain and Phillips

10.3.    Revised gorget style sequence and chronology

10.4.    Distribution of known sites with shell gorgets

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

10.9.    Distribution of sites with Lick Creek style gorgets

10.10.  Distribution of sites with Cox fenestrated and Cox nonfenestrated style gorgets

10.11.  Distribution of sites with Nashville I style gorgets

10.12.  Distribution of sites with Pine Island style gorgets

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

10.16.  Distribution of sites with Ruffner, Younge, Lenoir, and Tibbee Creek style gorgets

10.17.  Distribution of sites with Citico, Carters Quarter, Brakebill, and Lick Creek style gorgets

10.18.  Distribution of sites with Ruffner and Dunning style gorgets

10.19.  Distribution of sites with Hixon, Big Toco, and Dunning style gorgets

10.20.  Distribution of sites with Younge, Eddyville, and McAdams style gorgets

10.21.  Distribution of sites with Spaghetti, Nashville II, and Lick Creek style gorgets

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

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

11.2.    Red flint clay figurines: feminine characteristics on specimen from the Sponemann site, masculine characteristics on specimen from the Shiloh site, Tennessee

11.3.    The gendered distribution of Cahokia flint clay figurines

11.4.    Joyce Wike in Seattle, Washington, in October 2000

Tables

1.1.    Muller’s Horizons of the Southern Cult

3.1.    Radiocarbon Dates for the Scalp Motif

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

8.2.    Comparison of Theme Frequencies by Mound, from the Sherd Data

8.3.    Frequency of Themes by Phase

9.1.    Corpus of Anthropomorphic Hightower Style Marine Shell Gorgets—Mortal Combat and Headsman Themes

9.2.    Anthropomorphic Hightower Style Marine Shell Gorgets—Mortal Combat and Headsman Themes (Motifs)

9.3.    Corpus of Duck River Sword-Form Bifaces

10.1.    Seriation of Gorget Styles from Grave Lot Associations

10.2.    Frequency of Gorget Burials Relative to Number of Burials at Select Sites

10.3.    Distances Across Shell Gorget Style Core Areas and Distances to Outlier Sites

10.4.    Temporal Associations of Gorget Themes in the Eastern Tennessee–Northern Georgia Area

10.5.    Gorget Styles Occurring in Non-Mound Contexts and Occurring with Female and Subadult Burials

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.

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 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, 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 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).

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 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 Mississippian 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 SECC because it implies a level of stylistic and thematic unity that did not exist. In fact, he argues that