Talk:Mississippian culture

message: 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)
:::The term "Middle" is in no way used exclusively for geographical designations (e.g. Middle Kingdom of Egypt, Middle kingdoms of India). In almost every chronology for any region there is a time span designated the "middle" period. Please do not push your individual usage of words on Wikipedia readers. ♆ CUSH ♆ 08:04, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: OK, guys, now that introductions are done, perhaps you could expand the article a bit, for the benefit of us for whom this will be the only source of information on Mississippian Culture :) --bonzi (talk) 08:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Middle Mississippian Period

message: Wondering about the addition of another site? How is "chiefdom" being defined? There is a site near Tallahassee, Florida, called Lake Jackson Mounds Archaeological State Park. According to the Florida Online Park Guide; "The park site was part of what is now known as the Southeastern Ceremonial Complex."
Unfortunately, the online information related to this site seems to leave a lot to be desired. It does appear, however, that the Lake Jackson site is an important one.
I'm not sure if this section of the article is listing "known sites" or only ones considered "chiefdoms"; thats why I asked how is the term being defined. Your thoughts?
--Derek Spalla (talk) 12:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Known Mississippian Chiefdoms? 

message: An editor has recently deleted "copper age" as a category to which this article's subject belongs.  The term is applicable in that worked copper has certainly been found at Middle Mississippian <e.g., see "World Systems Theory, Core Periphery Interactions and Elite Economic Exchange in Mississippian Societies," JWSR 2 (10) 1996  by Robert J. Jeske> (and Upper Mississippian) sites, but the TERM "copper age" is not generally used by archaeologists working in North America. Kdammers 04:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See my comment above re metallurgy. The true Copper, Bronze, and Iron Ages never reached the Americas until the coming of the Europeans. Virgil H. Soule (talk) 13:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  copper age 

message: There has been an edit and revert for the approximate starting date of Mississippian culture (900 vs. 800).  Let's have a discussion here rather just editing back and forth.
As a start: 
The Logan Museum URL  says: "Around 700 CE a new tradition known as the Mississippian was forming in the area of northeastern Arkansas and southeastern Missouri."
Golden Ink (I don't know who they are): "Kolomoki Mounds (Blakely, Georgia) is considered to be one of the few transitional sites between the Hopewell Culture and the Mississippian Culture that prevailed from 800AD to 1600 AD." (ngeorgia.com/history/moundbuilders.html )
En. Brit. online:  "the last major prehistoric cultural development in North America, lasting from about AD 700 to the time of the arrival of the first European explorers"
Does any-one have a good recent journal article or book?
Kdammers 02:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Initial date 

message: I just noticed a tag requesting a map to help describe the subject. I can make one relative easily, thought I would ask for some thougts first tho. Should I include just one area, i.e. all mississippian culture, or break it up in middle mississippian, fort ancient, plaquemine, appalachian mississippian, etc.? Any one wanna put 2 cents in now before I do the work?Heironymous Rowe (talk) 23:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The BBB Motor Site (11-MS-595) is a real site in the Cahokia area. It has just never interested an editor enough on wikipedia to research and create an article about it. See this publication if you are interested in it. Heiro 17:22, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Or this one. - the abstract doesn't mention it, but something else I saw suggests it looks at some of the artefacts from it. Doug Weller talk 17:27, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: This article, Mississippian stone statuary, discusses some of the artifacts discovered there. The site deserves it's own article, but I've never had access to information to write about it without purchasing books. And, I've also admittedly never had enough interest to go out of my way to do it. But I'd love it if someone ever did get around to doing it. Heiro 17:36, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Map

message: I can't find any references for the site labeled "BBB Motors" on the map. Is this a real site, or possibly a typo?  Alki (talk) 17:12, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The BBB Motor Site (11-MS-595) is a real site in the Cahokia area. It has just never interested an editor enough on wikipedia to research and create an article about it. See this publication if you are interested in it. Heiro 17:22, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Or this one. - the abstract doesn't mention it, but something else I saw suggests it looks at some of the artefacts from it. Doug Weller talk 17:27, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: This article, Mississippian stone statuary, discusses some of the artifacts discovered there. The site deserves it's own article, but I've never had access to information to write about it without purchasing books. And, I've also admittedly never had enough interest to go out of my way to do it. But I'd love it if someone ever did get around to doing it. Heiro 17:36, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: BBB Motor Site

message: Do we know what language they spoke, or at least what language group they belonged to (if they were an isolate)? This information is important not only for identifing the culture but determining if there's a genetic relationship with surrounding cultures and should be added to the article.24.190.34.219 (talk) 02:47, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Many differant language groups were involved with Mississippian culture, including but not limited to Choctaw, Creek and other Muskogean languages, Natchez, Tunica, Cherokee, various Siouan groups, Caddoan groups, and others. There was no one language, it was not one monolithic culture or empire. See the infobox template at the bottom of the article page for links to languages and sites. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 03:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Info for language / language group? 

message: Has anyone in the literature suggested that the mounds were perhaps built as flood refuges? It should be noted that  mounds are located on the Mississippi and Ohio River flood plains, which in that era would be inundated just about every spring. Villagers would have been displaced and their houses destroyed on a predictable, annual basis. Were the M sites still occupied when the Europeans arrived? Virgil H. Soule (talk) 13:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mounds as flood refuges 

message: If someone could please take a photo of one of the fluorite carvings, would be much appreciated.  I have surfed on this a fair amount and there is mention of fluorite carvings, but I can't find images on the net.  Will be a little research to locate where the specimens are also.  TCO (talk) 18:43, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  request photo (s) of fluorite carvings 

message: This article had a BCE/CE dating system until this undiscussed, unilateral edit  by anonymous IP User 109.148.171.10 on September 23rd. The recent edits restore the previously establishing dating system. -Uyvsdi (talk) 06:09, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice catch. ♆ CUSH ♆ 07:56, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The dating system is incorrect as it is. It should be AD 500, not 500 AD. Either use 500 CE or AD 500, stop reverting it back to being incorrect. Chafinsky (talk) 16:27, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted it to BCE/CE, which is what it was before. The only thing that remains with "AD" is the title of an article in a reference, which stays exactly as it is titled on the website. -Uyvsdi (talk) 18:25, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

text: That's wrong, WP:ERA says "AD may appear before or after a year (AD 106, 106 AD); the other abbreviations appear after (106 CE, 3700 BCE, 3700 BC)." Dougweller (talk) 18:07, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct, I didn't realize both were acceptable.Chafinsky (talk) 21:44, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem. Dougweller (talk) 09:36, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dating system 

message: I've started a requested move at Talk:Mississippian#Requested move that may affect this article, editors are invited to participate.--Cúchullain t/c 19:08, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:RM|Requested move]] at [[Talk:Mississippian]] 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mississippian culture. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081006185053/http://www.cahokiamounds.com/cahokia.html to http://www.cahokiamounds.com/cahokia.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:09, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Template:Mound Builders
Per WP:NAVBOX where it discusses what is and is not desired for a box, specifically: 
*"Navigation templates located in the top-right corner of articles (sometimes called a "sidebar" or "part of a series" template) should be treated with special attention, because they are so prominently displayed to readers. The collection of articles in a sidebar template should be fairly tightly related, and the template should meet most or all of the preceding guidelines. If the articles are not tightly related, a footer template (located at the bottom of the article) may be more appropriate."
*I don't think a box using deprecated terminology based on an archaic and flawed understanding of these disparate cultures (and not explaining anywhere that it is archaic, flawed, and deprecated by professionals in the field) should be placed so prominently on this or the any of these articles. Archaeologists and historians did not "coin the term", it is a leftover from the 1800s when many thought the "mound builders" were one great civilization, and on top of that they thought they were Romans or Celts or Phoenicians or Egyptians, etc. Archaeologists and historians rarely use the term. Use of and promotion of this term perpetuates a flawed thinking  about who these different cultures were and how they related to each other (and arguably one charged with racial connotations because of the aforementioned history of the term "mound builders").
*The this navbox duplicates material already found in navboxes at the bottom of every page it was added it to. 
I have removed it from the articles. Per WP:NAVBOX : "The use of navigation templates is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include navboxes, and which to include, is often suggested by WikiProjects, but is ultimately determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article.......If a disagreement should arise, please centralize discussion at the article talk page, not that of the template (which may be watchlisted mostly only by template coders".
*So, per WP:BRD, it was added, I reverted, I would ask any interested parties to now discuss it's inclusion here. 
(Just for clarity, a discussion was started with the template maker here User talk:Mangokeylime#Mound Builders box, but I felt this discussion could use a wider inclusion of other interested editors of these articles and since this is probably the most watched one, I figured this was the best place to start)Heiro 06:18, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mound Builders navbox 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mississippian culture. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120314154656/http://www.southeasternarchaeology.org/PDF/bulletins/SEAC%20Bulletin%2018.pdf to http://www.southeasternarchaeology.org/PDF/bulletins/SEAC%20Bulletin%2018.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:21, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018) 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:28, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: Regarding this edit reversion, a short note that I made the edit from Eastern Woodlands to Americas as part of a much larger process of cleaning up edits another user had made changing instances of "eastern United States" to "Eastern Woodlands", and other similar edits. (Many of the changes were on articles that had nothing to do with indigenous cultures, and Eastern Woodlands currently redirects to Indigenous peoples of the Eastern Woodlands.) If we want to specify in that sentence that it's just referring to those societies that are discussed in the article, and not focus on the extensive impacts of Europeans/settlement on all/other western hemisphere indigenous societies, that seems fine too. —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 18:50, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: "it's just referring to those societies that are discussed in the article, and not focus on the extensive impacts of Europeans/settlement on all/other western hemisphere indigenous societies, that seems fine too." I think it should refer to the societies and region discussed inn the article. Heiro 20:23, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eastern US vs. Eastern Woodlands 

message: Describing De Soto's rampage around what is now the southern US as exploration is as outrageous and misleading as describing date rape as dating. He invaded numerous native american cities, held their leaders hostage or killed them, raped and looted, enslaved, mistreated, abused, and killed time after time. This isn't contested.174.130.70.61 (talk) 17:06, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  De Soto 

message: The Mississippian Culture is usually described as exactly that—a culture. While it is certainly possible, it requires some searching to find it referred to as a civilization. I think that the opening sentence would be best referring to it as a culture (or society to avoid redundance). There are simply more sources, trustworthy or otherwise, that call it a culture as opposed to a civilization. Historical Cartograph (talk) 17:59, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. When major researchers of Cahokia and Mississippian culture like Timothy Pauketat , institutions like the Smithsonian , Dr. Edwin Barnhart  (who studies the Maya and should know if the Mississippians were a "civilization" or not) , and the official website for Cahokia  uses the term, I think it is safe for us to use it as well. Heiro 18:31, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, you may be misunderstanding what "culture" in this sense means, please see Archaeological culture. Heiro 00:55, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Culture or Civilization 

message: — Assignment last updated by Sak201 (talk) 13:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: ARCN 111 Archaeology of the Americas