Talk:Southeastern Ceremonial Complex
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Complete re-write September 2008
I recently did a complete re-write of this page, with lots of citations, motifs, new imagery, and a map. I still want to add a few more things, such as the "Mothman" figure related to the Birdman, and the celestial imagery associated with the Great Serpent imagery, specifically from Moundville artifacts. Anythoughts from anyone about how it's looking so far?Heironymous Rowe (talk) 23:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
- I just added a new section concerning some of the new theories concerning the S.E.C.C. and proposals for the re-naming to M.A.C.C. or M.I.I.C. and tables showing some of the new explanations of the timeline for the S.E.C.C. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 05:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Traditional Name Southern Death Cult
The traditional name of this culture (or at least part of it) is the Southern Death Cult.
What did that name refer to (a more limited region?), and who decided to replace it with Southeastern Ceremonial Complex?
Are we sure Southeastern Ceremonial Complex is the leading name to be found in the literature -- and not someone's current opinion of what is politically correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 05:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- Read the section of the article where it talks about the name and theory, this has been the accepted name for a long time, altho some people are in favor of a newer, more accurately descriptive name. Changing it to make it easier to find The Cult or SOuthern Death Cult prolly wouldn't be a good idea. Alto the older variants of the name are a lot more METAL! Heironymous Rowe (talk) 05:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Questionable Images and Tone
The illustration "Illustration of a warrior holding a ceremonial flint mace/war club and a severed head" seems to be a white-looking guy holding the severed head of a guy from a New Wave band. Is it a pop culture interpretation, or something appropriate for a scientific context?
The illustration "Piasa painted on a cliff in Alton, Illinois" appears to be freshly painted, with modern 3D shadowing -- and yet it is presented without comment as if an authentic cultural relic.
In general the article is leaning towards an unscientific "New Age practitioner" viewpoint, revealing to us the powerful and important spiritual significant of the culture, rather than an objective scientific presentation appropriate for Wikipedia.
For example: "A variation of the Cross in Circle Motif, it symbolized the Under World in all of it's creative, generative power."
This should be "A variation of the Cross in Circle Motif, symbolizing the creative, generative power of the underworld" -- if that has actually been scientifically established, and is not someone's interpretation based on a tarot card reading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 05:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- The Piasa is a modern repainting, the original is no longer there, I believe the cliff was quarried for stone in the past. As for the other illustration, it is a dig painting I did based on accroutrements from several S.E.C.C. shell gorgets, which are also represented. Changing the wording on the Swastika in Circle motif description to that sounds fine to me if you think it sounds too "new agey", because I am far from being that, nor do I want this article to sound that way . All of the motifs and descriptions are taken from "Ancient Objects and Sacred Realms", and altho the title sounds iffy, it's not new agey either. It's a series of essays from praticioners of the U of Texas Austin series of conferences about the S.E.C.C. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 05:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
The interpretations listed are highly speculative and do not agree with interpretations held by Southeastern tribes. Take this article with a massive grain of salt! -Uyvsdi (talk) 00:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)Uyvsdi