Rank at Cahokia

A Different Look at the

Mississippian Culture and Cahokia

The following was part of an ASB238 (North American Archaeology) class discussion on the Mississippian Culture of the Southeast United States. While this discourse included more input than that presented here, this discussion will help you ponder about the role of Chiefdoms and Chiefs.

It is interesting to note that rank is a crucial aspect of the Mississippian culture. Clearly, there are indications that rank played an important part in the societal structure at places like Cahokia and Moundville. What is intriguing is that living Cherokee appear to be relatively egalitarian in their approach to governance. In the autobiography of Wilma Mankiller, you see a picture of a society that cares for each other, more of a tribal mindset. This raises the question of how rank actually was viewed. In anthropology, there is something known as a cargo - an obligation held by leadership. It would not surprise me that Mississippian leaders held a deep sense of obligation toward their people. The idea of obligation relates to the use of rank for the good of the whole rather than for the self.

writer: Stan English (MCC)
date: Thursday, April 25, 1996
subject: Definition of Mississippian Tradition
The Mississippian Tradition was an adaptation from the Eastern Woodlands people that appeared around 800-90000 AD and lasted up to and past contact with the Europeans. Geographically it extended throughout a good portion of the Mississippi drainage basin covering a huge area of the Midwest and south. Six major geographic area groupings have been identified. The area extended from Lake Michigan in the northwest, to south of Lake Erie in the northeast, into Oklahoma and west Texas in the southwest, down to the Gulf of Mexico and into Georgia and the Carolinas in the southeast.

The Mississippian Tradition was not a political or cultural monolith, but instead was hundreds of small communities, a number of larger communities and a few large "cities" which exhibited a large variety of local adaptations to a diverse resource base. Long distance exchange brought a level of cultural continuity to the entire area and there was some common religious tradition.

The culturally similar settlements developed on the flood plains of the river valleys to take advantage of the easily cultivated soils and the concentration of fish and game. They grew crops, some on ridges and terraced areas away from the danger of recurring floods, and exploited fish and water fowl (Approx. 50%+ of their total protein), game such as deer, pigs and turkey, nuts, fruits and berries as well as native seed plants. Maize and beans were introduced and extensively utilized and were mainly responsible for the creation of food surpluses which permitted the growth of an elite ruler class, larger communities and a more complex society.

Generally speaking the household was the primary production unit and was self-sufficient. Communities of kin groups helped each other in time of need. Their economy was based on reciprocity and exchange, with an elaborate exchange network linking hundreds of communities. Everyone was involved in food production and there were no full-time traders or artisans. Within separate communities over time an elite group came to the forefront, as a local "Big Man", and oversaw the stockpiling of food surpluses and the balancing of the distribution of foods and raw materials. These developed into local chiefdoms.

Most people lived in small communities and farmsteads with a number of larger population centers and some very large cities such as Cahokia and Moundville developed. The larger population centers and communities had a more or less standardized layout that included platform mounds arranged an open plaza, capped with temples and houses of the elite with the non-elite living in thatched houses clustered near by. Warfare was not uncommon and the population centers and cities were fortified. Cahokia, which was at the height of its power between 1050 and 1250 (approximately the same time span as since our Declaration of Independence) had a population of up to 30,000 people, the largest prehistoric population center north of Mexico.

The following is taken from an Autobiography of Wilma Mankiller - former Chief of the Cherokee Nation.

A tale from our oral tradition suggests that there was once an ancient hereditary society called the Ani-Kutani. This society kept to itself a great deal of sacred knowledge, and controlled the spiritual functions of the tribe. This group eventually became too omnipotent and abused its sacred powers. Then, as the story goes, the people rebelled against its members and overthrew them. But for as long as we can tell, there was no central ruling clan or society. Our people lived in autonomous villages scattered over their southeastern domain. There is some evidence that each town had a war chief and a peace chief, sometimes called a Red Chief and a White Chief, charged respectively with the external and internal affairs of government. each chief had a council of advisors.

writer: Kathy Peterson (MCC)
date: Friday, April 26, 1996
subject: Mississippian culture
The Mississippian culture can be described as a vast multi-dimensional society based on agriculture and trade. Most of their villages and settlements were situated on rivers, making trade easier as well as having easy access to fishing. The soil found within the floodplains was very fertile, making farming an important endeavor to these people. The Mississippians even eradicated natural vegetation on the choicest areas of land so they could grow their maize, beans and squash. They also relied on wild plant foods; particularly nuts that could be harvested in the fall.

Most Mississippian communities were probably grouped into larger political and social units or tribes, which would include clans and low and high ranking families. These were low-level chiefdoms with an emerging elite class. This elite status may have been passed from one generation to the next, meaning a child would have to be "born into" status, rather than having to prove himself first, or earn any recognition.

The Mesoamerican world seems to be associated in some way with the development of the Southern Cult. It appears that motifs from Mississippian sites are very much like those from central Mexico.

I am not sure that the Mississippian is a true chiefdom. In light of what Wilma Mankiller says, it appears that a sodality created the elite structure within the Mississippian. Archaeologists have always interpreted the Mayan social organization to have been a ranked society analogous to chiefdom and organized around City-States such as Copan, Tikal, etc. At the time of the collapse of the Classic Maya, there is a change in society that is marked by the disappearance of the "Forest Kings". At Copan, for example, the Mayan population decreases but around 60% of the Copan population remains after the "collapse". The living Maya seems very much as a people not unlike what Wilma Mankiller describes of the Cherokee. The egalitarian, spiritual, and general cultural framework of the present day Maya does not fit well with a society that once was structured and hierarchical.

Could this all stem from a definitional problem of the anthropological "chiefdom"? In Hopi social terms, the Katchina sodalities become central players in the political organization of Hopi villages. These sodalities are inherited through family lines. In the Mississippian, it could have been an analogous sodality organization that grabbed control and began to "run" Mississippian culture. The concept of "divine lords of cities" in the Mayan context does not seem that far from what could have happened in the Mississippian.

It is not implausible that with the rediscovery of maize agriculture and a new religious integration through the Southern Cult that the Mississippian society also adopted information about social control and political organization. These ties may seem far-fetched but it can explain even the Mississippian use of warfare on a "seasonal basis" in light of ritual warfare from the Mayan perspective.

In Hopi social terms, the Katchina sodalities become central players in the political organization of Hopi villages. These sodalities are inherited through family lines. In the Mississippian, it could have been an analogous sodality organization that grabbed control and began to "run" Mississippian culture. The concept of "divine lords of cities" in the Mayan context does not seem that far from what could have happened in the Mississippian.

It is not implausible that with the rediscovery of maize agriculture and a new religious integration through the Southern Cult that the Mississippian society also adopted information about social control and political organization. These ties may seem far-fetched but it can explain even the Mississippian use of warfare on a "seasonal basis" in light of ritual warfare from the Mayan perspective.

I do not see the changes that Mankiller postulates as devolutions. Rather they may represent one attempt to organize society that eventually proved ineffective. The development of confederacies out of what was the Mississippian may represent a different way to organize - not a directional or evolutional change but one that society adopted to attempt to find a satisfactory social and political organization.

writer: Brent Kober (Mcc)
date: Friday, April 26, 1996
subject: Royalty
Why, at its height would such a large-scale society as Cahokia start to diminish? If in fact chiefs or leaders were being chosen by blood this would allow the effort toward becoming chief not to be as strenuous. In fact it would give the chiefs the out right possibility to become fat and lazy. Everyone knows what happens to lazy rich people. They easily get bored and no matter how much they spend or what strange hobbies they pick up they are never satisfied. They need more and more and eventually the little people that do their bidding overthrow them. We can see this in Egypt where the Pharaohs were set aside while the aristocrats ran the empire because the people realized that the greedy Pharaohs had no power anymore. Is it possible that the chiefs of Cahokia suffered the same sort of mutiny?

Did the Mayan leaders, chosen by blood, also resort to their well known sacrificial practices only to satisfy their usefulness?

Ethnohistory provides some grounds by which to judge scale. Let me quote from three sources that give some insights.

(1) The cacique (leader) was at home, in a piazza. Before his dwelling on a high place, was spread a mat for him, upon which two cushions were places, one above the other, to which he went and sat down, his men placing themselves around, some way removed, so that an open circle was formed about him, the Indians of the highest rank being nearest his person. One of them shaded him from the sun with a circular umbrella, spread wide, and the size of a target, with a small stem, and having a deer-skin extended over cross-sticks, quartered with red and white, which at a distance made it look like taffeta, the colors were so very perfect. It formed the standard of the Chief, which he carried into battle. His appearance was full of dignity: he was tall of person, muscular, lean and symmetrical. He was the suzerain of many territories, and of numerous people, being equally feared by his vassals and neighboring nations (16th Century account by the Gentleman of Alvas).

(2) they have no words to express despotic power, arbitrary kings, oppressed or obedient subjects. The power of their chiefs is empty sound. They can only persuade or dissuade the people either by the force of good nature and clear reasoning or coloring things so as to suit their prevailing passions (18th century observations by James Adair).

(3) the burials constituting the group associated with the final construction phase of Mound C have been interpreted as representing a descent group set apart from other such groups in the society in that they are accorded a particular mortuary treatment. The suggestion is that they control trade in certain exotic materials and the objects that are used by them to express and validate their social position. It is also suggested that this social position is inherited. Therefore within the total society there existed stratification and within the descent group there was internal ranking (Lewis Larson on the social dimensions of the mortuary ritual at Etowah, a large 15th century ceremonial center in northwestern Georgia).

Finally, let me share the analysis results of over 2,000 burials examined from the site of Moundville in Alabama. Approximately 5% of the population was buried with copper and stone items associated with the Southern Cult. These individuals were buried near the larger mounds at Moundville. There were two classes of adult males associated with this group. The first contained copper axes and the remains of infants and skulls in the grave fill. The second had engraved or plain stone palettes and paint pigments. The mortuary evidence for the remaining 95% of the population was divided by sex and age and showed no marked differentiation other than what stemmed from achieved status (artisans etc.)

The Mayan model of kingship may help us understand the ramifications of Mississippian leadership. It is my understanding that Mayan kings were hereditary and formed an elite part of the Mayan social structure. However, if we look at ethnohistory and ethnographic evidence of the Maya, we find a society that has a relatively low level of hierarchy and remains basically egalitarian. Officials have roles to play that fulfill obligations to the larger society - what anthropologists would identify as "cargo".

This suggests to me that Mayan kings may have functioned in a way to satisfy the needs of the larger society. Their role was to bring rain, satisfy the spiritual needs of the people, and bring glory to their city (through warfare).

This is not too unlike the picture we are seeing of the Mississippian elite. It is likely that to explain the rediscovery of maize agriculture and the advent of the southern cult one must look at the possible interaction with peoples to the south. This does not necessarily mean the Maya, but some other Mesoamerican group that was influenced by the political developments that are regional to Mesoamerica. Contact would entail trade of material goods along with ideas - including new notions of political/religious organization.

writer: Adrienne Ambrose (Mcc)
date: Wednesday, May 01, 1996
subject: Mississippian cultures and it's leaders
Brent had a very good point. When the Pharaohs of Egypt started dying before their tombs and pyramids were completed, the common people at the bottom started to become disenchanted with the idea of these leader's being gods and goddess, thus the civilization with the increasing pressure from Romans killed the civilization. Could not the same happen, that overthrowing of the elite that Mankiller stated in her book. The only problem is that when De Soto came and was looting and pillaging the cities, the leaders were great, men and woman alike, and were greatly honored, one great leader even being saying to De Soto that he was the son of the Sun, just and Mayan and Aztecian civilizations believed their leader's and chiefs to be. The sole purpose of these higher elite in the society is to contact the gods and pay a religious role. Such as the Mayan with the blood letting of the elite. In the blood rituals, they sent the blood to the gods in order to contact them. Could the Mississippian society just be over taxed and worked trying to keep these leaders in the grand style they were used to, and thus eventually the society disappearing when the people and the culture just gave up and the burden to difficult to continue?

De Soto truly had a hand in the matter with the culture and the leaders and the society disappearing. But then have not all great cultures died and disappear because of war, disease and the little man saying he has had enough of this?

writer: Kathy Peterson (MCC)
date: Wednesday, May 15, 1996
subject: Mound Builders
Looking back over what we have talked about with regard to the Moundbuilders, its remarkable to look back at the beginning of archaeology in North America and see the changes that have taken place in 150 years.

Many of the amateur mound diggers of the 1820's hoped to find an Egyptian hieroglyph or some Israelite artifact that would finally identify this mysterious race. Caleb Atwater, an Ohio postmaster, had surveyed dozens of mounds in the Ohio River Valley. Atwater refused to believe that the mounds had been built by Indians, but rather theorized that shepherds and farmers from India had crossed the Bering Strait, built the mounds, and then moved on to Mexico and South America.

Many writers turned out dozens of fantasies about the Mound builders. They must have been "white people of great skill and intelligence" who had battled savages all over the region now known as the Midwest.

However, beginning in 1845, Ephraim Squier and Dr. Edwin Davis excavated more than 200 mounds. Squier catalogued dozens of clay vessels and stone pipes shaped like birds and other animals. He even identified the shores of Lake Superior as the source of copper for the spears, knives and axes found in the mounds. But he also refused to believe that the mounds could have been built by Indians..."hunters averse to labor."

Finally, in 1882 when Cyrus Thomas began his extensive surveys and excavations throughout the Midwest he was quickly convinced that the mounds weren't built by a 'separate race,' but rather by the ancestors of modern Indian populations. I believe that not only did this change the way of thinking of other scientists and students of North American prehistory, but also set a new course for modern archeology today.