Book REVIEWS Signs of Power: The Rise of Cultural Complexity in the Southeast. Edited by Jon L Gibson and Philip J. Carr. 2004. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. xv + 315 pages, figures, illustrations, tables, bibliography, index. $65 (cloth). JON C. ENDONINO Department of Anthropology, Box 117305 University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611 Signs of Power: The Rise of Cultural Complexity in the Southeast tackles head-on the slippery and contentious issue of complexity among Archaic hunter-gatherers. Mounds loom large in this volume and most chapters address them directly or use them as an entry point into broader discussions of social complexity. A clear dichotomy can be seen in the approaches taken by the contributors and the interpretations made by them, reflecting theoretical trends in the archaeological profession for more than two decades. But this not necessarily a bad thing since informed and constructive debate is healthy. Contributor viewpoints and approaches are sometimes complementary, sometimes contradictory, but each brings their own unique perspective and datasets to bear. For some, Archaic societies are just what they have been presumed to be all along; simple foraging societies characterized by residential mobility, few material possessions, and egalitarian social relations. Others find evidence for the emergence of complex socialities in the form of intentionally constructed monuments, inter- and intraregional interaction and trade, and the arrangement and use of space at mound sites. Researchers in the first camp view the hunter-gatherer populations as lacking the characteristics expected for organiza- tionally complex groups and make compelling arguments to support their positions, Nancy White (Chapter 2) evaluates the evidence for cultural complexity among the Late Archaic fisher- hunter-gatherers along the Apalachicola,-Lower Chattahoochee River Valley in northwest Florida and Southern Georgia and Alabama but finds none. For White, complexity among these groups is unlikely and evidence for hierarchy, intentional mound building, and inequality are wanting. Mounds, when present, are comprised principally of shell and other food remains and nothing about them, or the behaviors that created them, suggests to her anything other than egalitarian hunter- gatherers who wished to keep their feet, food, and firewood dry. Similarly, George Crothers (Chapter 5) considers the organiza- tional variability of populations living along the Green River in Kentucky and explores why they did not construct earthen mounds like those found in the lower Mississippi Valley. He assumes that Green River and Lower Mississippi River Valley populations are characterized by a foraging mode of produc- tion, a theoretical posture effectively precluding the possibility of social organization necessary for planned and conscious mound construction. Green River shell “mounds” are not considered purposefully constructed monuments, but un- planned, gradual accumulations of subsistence remains and, possibly, places of rituals and feasting. Complexity was not present and, from his perspective, was not necessary for these midden mounds to form. Saunders (Chapter 9) examines the Middle Archaic Watson Break, Frenchman’s Bend, and Plum Creek Archaic sites in northeast Louisiana for evidence for social inequality using criteria generally cited for later Wood- land and Mississippian societies. Possible evidence suggestive of inequality included the semi-annual occupation at Watson Break and Frenchmen’s bend and the presence of structures at Frenchmen’s Bend, otherwise these data are lacking. He concludes that the builders of the mounds and mound com- plexes had egalitarian social relations and that mound building was a local expression of shared regional concepts. While these contributors are more skeptical of complexity among Archaic period societies in their respective areas, others are more optimistic. Russo, Clark, and Sassaman and Heckenberger, take posi- tions greatly divergent from those of White, Crothers, and Saunders and argue for complexity among Southeastern hunter- gatherers. Michael Russo (Chapter 3) addresses complexity and the emergence of transegalitarian social formations among the makers of shell rings along the Atlantic coast of Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina. Utilizing social space theory to examine the shape of shell rings, coupled with feasting theory, Russo finds compelling evidence for the emergence of complex behavior among the shell rings through the accumulation of more shell at certain locations within shell rings, Russo acknowledges the lack of evidence for complexity like that found in later Woodland and Mississippian cultures, but maintains that it may have manifested differently among Archaic groups. Russo’s chapter stands out as one of the best in this volume. His use of social theory and rigorously col- lected data are used effectively to make a strong and compelling argument. Chapters by Clark and Sassaman and Heckenberger explore the geometry and symbolism in the layout of Archaic mound groups. Clark’s chapter (Chapter 10) explores patterns in the layout and design of several mound groups and sees intentional planning, evidence of simple tools for measurement and, most provocatively, what he believes was a standard unit of measure- ment with a deep history shared by groups inhabiting locales in North, Central, and South America. Clark did not intend to put these ideas forth as the final word, but as proposals that need testing. Sassaman and Heckenberger (Chapter 11) address complexity manifest through symbolism, namely geometric arrangements of mound groups in northeast Louisiana. Site plans for several Middle Archaic mound complexes are examined and regularities in their layout, placement, and VOL. 59(3-4) THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER 2006