In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

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...

Share