Talk:Mississippian stone statuary

Expansions

There are still a few things I'd like to add to this article, but don't have access to certain materials, mostly photos.

• A.) "Sandy statue" - Was used on a postage stamp, now on display in a museum in Knoxville. A photo of it and its mate would be nice. Or photos of any of the Middle Tennessee statues, as I have none and none are available at Commons.
• B.) Angel Mounds statue-On display at the museum on the grounds of the mound site, located right on the edge of Evansville, Indiana.
• C.) The 2 wooden statues-one is on display at the Smithsonian, not sure of the whereabouts of the other, but a good photo of at least one would do nicely.
• D.) Quote-I want to add a quote to this section Mississippian stone statuary#History concerning sightings of statues or "idols" in temple settings,I know I've seen quotes from de Soto narratives, or similar early spanish explorers of Southeast, but can't remember where and am having trouble finding them.
• E.) Flint clay statues-Photos of any other of this variety would be nice, 3 or 4 are described in article, but have no photo. Also, would like to add more examples to this section Mississippian stone statuary#Lone examples, but this is all I've found so far, but know there are more. Would like to add more locations to map. Heiro 15:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

This article is really interesting. I'm guessing it may get a lot of hits in DYK Victuallers (talk) 10:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm hoping so as well.Heiro 13:03, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Too many "aspects"

Interesting article. In trying to do a little tidying up I wanted to rewrite this sentence: "The stone statues found seem to represent different aspects from each of these 3 major aspects of Mississippian religious life" but was afraid of distorting the meaning. Would this be OK: "The stone statues found seem to portray each of these 3 major aspects of Mississippian religious life"? Cheers, Awien (talk) 23:19, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I clarified it while keeping the proper meaning, thanks! Heiro 03:15, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Stone?

It also seems clear to me following up the refs that some of these statues were modelled in clay, not carved in stone. Awien (talk) 23:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

If you are referring to the red flint clay statues, they were not "modeled" but carved. The flint clay is a very hard, stone like substance, see here [1] where it is described as stone by Emerson. The other variety from the Tennessee Cumberland regions also came in ceramic and wooden versions, but that is mentioned in the text, all versions specifically described and so far illustrated are stone. Heiro 02:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

If this is the passage you are referring to:

In this research, we used a combination of X-ray diffraction, sequential acid dissolution, and inductively coupled plasma analyses to establish the source of the raw material used in the manufacture of the red figurines and pipes that epitomize the Cahokian-style. Our research demonstrates that these objects were made of locally available flint clays.

Emerson doesn't actually refer to the clay as stone, nor does he say carved, he says manufactured and made. (In the abstract, I can't see the full article).

I agree though that these objects seem to be widely referred to as stone, but note also that there are ceramics that are referred to as ironstone. Puzzling.

Anyway, my curiosity is piqued, and I hope to do more research. Cheers, Awien (talk) 00:24, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Emerson definitely refers to them as "stone" and "carved", see Cahokia and the Archaeology of Power|author=Thomas E. Emerson|page=195-237|date=1997|isbn=0-8173-0888-1, for carved specifically page 199 referring to the Sponemann figurine. If you can find a reference anywhere that refers to them as "modelled" from flint clay, be my guest. Heiro 06:29, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Also see "Speaking with the Ancestors-Mississippian Stone Statuary of the Tennessee-Cumberland region|author=Kevin E. Smith|coauthors=James V. Miller|isbn=978-0-8173-5465-7|publisher=University of Alabama Press|date=2009", pg 14 described as "red stone", page 15 "carved from flint clay", "Cahokia style stone images" and "Cahokia style carvings", page 17 "carved from stones other than Missouri flint clay", pg 32 "red stone figurines". Heiro

And in the abstract, its specifically stated "Among the most specatuclar of the Cahokian elite artifacts were STONE PIPES AND FIGURINES made from a distinctive RED STONE previously identified as Arkansas bauxite. In this research, we used a combination of X-ray diffraction, sequential acid dissolution, and inductivley coupled plasma analyses to establish the source of the raw material used in the manufacture of the red figurines and pipes that epitomize the Cahokian-style. Our research demonstrates that these objects were made locally of available flint-clays." Heiro 06:52, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

And these are from the online sources I used for the article, in the reference list, This pipe is made of flint clay, a microcrystalline clay rock, the same material used to make the Birger figurine [2], Stone effigy pipe from the Craig Mound at Spiro. It has been called "Big Boy" and "Resting Warrior," [3], There, he found the site’s most famous artifact, a large stone pipe carved in the shape of a kneeling man. [4]. This gives a pretty good chemical description of what flint clay actually is, with descriptions of its "rock" like qualities and its resistenace to being slaked with water. Heiro 15:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

[Back to the left, can't count the colons any more] OK, thanks for this. It's the last ref that made it clear: clay is plastic, but flint clay isn't, and so can be carved. I'm glad it's unique in this respect (not to mention being oddly named), at least my question wasn't stupid. Thinking about trying to better clarify in the article, but am rushing out of the door now . . . Ciao! Awien (talk) 11:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Mississippian stone statuary. 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/20100712191549/http://www.itarp.illinois.edu/atam/research/pima/rev%20siena.pdf to http://www.itarp.illinois.edu/atam/research/pima/rev%20siena.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100901203312/http://americanarchaeologist.com/archives/1132 to http://americanarchaeologist.com/archives/1132
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110205175306/http://www.tourhardincounty.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=113&Itemid=85 to http://www.tourhardincounty.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=113&Itemid=85
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.isas.illinois.edu/atam/research/pima/analysisreport1.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.bnd.com/2010/07/20/1335048/its-mind-blowing.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:23, 2 February 2018 (UTC)