Ancient Animals
Exploring the Significance of Mississippian
Effigies in the Southeast
Nathaniel P. Horne
Table of Contents
1
I.
Abstract --3
II.
Introduction--4
A. Design--6
B. Behind the Design--7
C. Animals--9
D. Classification--10
i. Appendages--12
ii. Figurines--13
E. Context --15
i. Warren Wilson Site--15
ii. Berry Site--15
iii. Late Woodland Period--16
iv. Mississippian Period--17
F. Analysis--18
G. Purpose--19
III.
Review of Literature--20
IV.
Methods--28
V.
Results--31
VI.
Conclusion (significance of study)--37
VII.
Images--40
VIII.
Works Cited--51
I. Abstract
2
In the field of archaeology, effigies are clay or stone artifacts that portray animals
or people. Effigies are important to study because they are categorized in a group of
artifacts that are known to provide insight into the cultures that created them.
My
objective with this research is to compare effigies from two Southeastern prehistoric
archaeological sites, the Berry Site and the Warren Wilson Site. Using stylistic and
comparative analysis, I have designed a study that uses a research design based on an
original instrument of classification to record the similarities and differences between
effigy pieces found at the Warren Wilson site and the Berry site, and that addresses any
cultural significance that may be reflected in the artifacts.
There is a significant difference in the effigies from the two sites. The Warren
Wilson Site effigies are a combination of zoomorphic animal head appendages, partial
figurines and fragments, while the Berry site has far fewer clearly zoomorphic effigies.
The Southeastern Ceremonial Complex puts the Appalachian Summit and Western
Foothills regions on a similar cultural plane for the Mississippian period, therefore one
possible difference in the effigies is an issue of the artifacts provenience in relation to
what units were excavated.
II. Introduction
3
This past summer at the Berry Site field school, our crew uncovered two
intricate soapstone effigy pieces while removing subsoil at the site of Fort San Juan in
Morganton, NC. Both of the pieces were zoomorphic. The first piece appeared to be the
head of what looked like a bear with a neck, revealing that the piece had probably once
been part of a larger object. The other piece was an animal with four distinct legs and a
torso, but no head. The two front legs were bent at the knee, giving the piece movement,
possibly a running deer. These artifacts were skillfully crafted with very distinctive
animalistic features. I was intrigued by the artistic nature of the artifacts and by what
they might mean. With access to the Warren Wilson archaeology lab and the UNC
archaeology lab, I realized I could continue to learn about effigies by contrasting effigies
from the Berry Site with effigies from the Warren Wilson site to try to better understand
their significance.
Animals are portrayed everywhere, and even today we humans are affected by
and effect animals more than we think. Animals have a long history in stories, myths and
lore. Stories are important to humans. In American Wildlife in Symbol and Story, Jay
Mechling and Angus Gillespie write, “to think like a human being is to think in terms of
stories, to think in terms of coherent sequences and patterns of elements” (Mechling,
Gillespie 1987: 2).
To interpret a thing or a person or even an event requires one to find the story
behind that thing, person or event that makes sense. In his 1964 essay, “Animal
Categories and Verbal Abuse”, Edmund Leach establishes research for those in pursuit
of an idea he presents as “why animals are good to think” (Leach 1964). Concerned with
4
Radcliff-Brown’s problem of the “ritual value” of animal categories, Leach developed his
own theory of taboo, using the correlations between the self, family, possessions and
animals to determine that the human relationship to animals allows us to define and make
statements about our relationships to everything else.
Native American societies were very aware of their natural surroundings and gave
meaning and significance to their entire environment, both living and inanimate. These
living entities came to hold significant spiritual power for indigenous peoples. As
testament to that power, humans began producing clay and stone effigies.
Effigies may be complete figurines or partial appendages to larger objects like
pipes or vessels. Some effigies reflect a realistic style while others are created in a more
ambiguous fashion. Certain zoomorphic figures are thought to reflect cultural beliefs
(Waring and Holder 1945: 18). These cultural beliefs are based on naturalistic and
supernatural themes. Prehistoric groups in the Southeast practiced rituals and ceremonies
that were embodied by these naturalistic and supernatural themes. My research compares
effigies from two Southeastern prehistoric sites, the Berry Site and the Warren Wilson
Site, to find patterns that may reveal culturally significant elements of the effigies.
The symbols represented by effigies can be directly connected to ideas of religion,
ritual, and social construction. To give just a couple examples of Native American use of
effigies, we can look to Owl effigies at Poverty Point (Gibson 2001) or pre-Columbian
ceramic design studies in Peru (Gonzalez 2000) to provide insightful looks into ways in
5
which cultures choose to represent themselves and interpret the world that surrounds
them. Through the study of effigies iconography and symbolism, we learn about cultural
construction and societal development of indigenous peoples. Specific symbols can
relate to larger ideas concerning cultures, such as certain animals like the owl or the bear
representing hunting prowess. To find symbolism in artifacts, archaeologists must first
be able to identify the artifact.
A. Design
The design of clay figurines is more diverse than the effigy appendages that are
mostly uniform and portray Canid species (of the Canidae Family (dog)). Images of
birds, especially aquatic birds, seem to be the most common amongst Late Woodland and
Early Mississippian effigy figurines. However, an array of animals is represented
through effigies, and archaeologists pay close attention to each animal and what specific
characteristics the creator chose to include.
Since one effigy found this past summer at the Berry site is believe to possibly
represent a deer, I may be useful to discuss one deer effigy figurine found at the Fish
Lake site, a Patrick phase (Early Mississippian) site in Illinois. The figurine consists of a
head with an extremely long snout and a large elongated ear. The head is situated on a
thick neck, which connects it to an ovoid-shaped torso. The dorsal side of the torso is
flattened and the ventral side is convex. Four pierced narrow cavities penetrate the
ventral side of the torso. Two cavities appear on the lateral sides of the superior torso,
and the remaining two cavities are present on the lateral sides of the lower torso. The
6
presence of cavities on the figurine indicates that twigs or perhaps bone were placed into
these cavities to symbolize the limbs of the creature. No indication of a tail was found.
The absence of a tail may indicate that the figurine represents a deer-like disguised
human, perhaps a shaman (Zelin 2010: 712).
This description of the deer figurine is an excellent example of how
archaeologists describe an artifact in a site report. Deer were the most commonly
exploited animal within the American Bottom—they were among the largest animals
available in the area and thus provided more calories and protein than most other animals
(Zimmermann-Holt 1996). Deer were also important sources of bone and antler for tools,
as well as for clothing and other needs (Brown 1992: 19; Hudson 1976). Perhaps the
effigy reflects this importance.
B. Behind the Design
When exploring prehistoric effigies, it is crucial to understanding the meaning
behind the design. Animal mythology was a very important aspect of prehistoric
societies. Animals were believed to hold spiritual power and this power could be attained
through rituals or ceremonies. However, a diverse group of animals have been
represented through artifacts, both in the Ceremonial complex and outside of it. It is
likely that animals represented in effigies had more than one meaning. Hudson (1970)
suggests that the animals portrayed in Southeastern art were not animals that were
regularly hunted, but instead were animals that were feared and admired. ZimmermannHolt (1996) argues against the previous statement, saying that based on faunal materials
and zoomorphic artifacts collected from numerous sites in the American Bottom, she
7
believes that some animals portrayed in prehistoric art were indeed eaten. Using Native
American mythology and ethnographical records as well as faunal data recovered from
sites, the archaeologists can conjecture what these effigies and the animals depicted
possibly meant to people from the Late Woodland and Mississippian periods.
Mythic traditions and a heritage of hundreds of cultures of Native peoples who
inhabited the continent in prehistoric times serve as a usable medium for understanding
prehistoric life. Andrews (2002) states that for Native Americans every animal and every
aspect of hits environment had a powerful meaning manifested in the spiritual realm.
The Cherokee refer to mythological animals as human spirits that can think, speak, and
act like humans (Mooney 1900: 231).
The primary significance of zoomorphic, anthropomorphic and hybrid effigies lies
in native mythology. One aspect of Native American mythology that has been
thoroughly explored and does provide an important insight into animal roles in
prehistoric cultures is the idea of indigenous peoples believing in cosmological realms.
Based on ethnographic sources, “American folk taxonomic practice classifies animals
into three cosmological realms: the Upper World (Sky World) associated with birds; This
World, or Earth, usually associated with man and four-footed animals; and the
Underworld, or Water World, usually associated with snakes, lizards, frogs, and fish”
(Fradkin 1990; Hudson 1976; Mooney 1900). Animals that could live in this world and
in either the Upper World or Underworld are seen as messengers between these worlds
8
(Emerson 2003). These cosmological classifications are crucial to understanding what
the animals meant to the prehistoric peoples portraying them in their artwork.
C. Animals
After reading a number of southeastern Native American creation stories and
myths, Dogs, Coyotes and Birds comprise a small portion of a core group of animals that
re-appear in southeastern stories and are reflected in the iconographic and ornamental
cultural material. However, certain animals seem to be more prevalent in artifact
representations in the Southeast.
Evidence of special treatment of dogs has been found at certain Woodland and
Mississippian sites in the form of dog burials, while some ethnographers describe some
Native American groups using dogs for hunting, hauling, guarding, and herding
(Schwartz 1997). Since dogs are such a common animal, it might seem like dogs would
not be considered as important to prehistoric groups, however research shows that dogs
were loved and admired just as much as some people love and admire their dogs today.
Dogs are remarkable animals because they are sensitive to the cultural attributes of
people and have an ability to adapt to people’s needs (Morey:2006). In fact, dogs were
the only domestic animals present in the majority of Native American groups before
contact (Schwartz 1997: 2). Since “Canid” is an important classification for effigy
motifs, it is important to have a brief understanding of how indigenous groups viewed
dogs. Dogs played key roles in Native American mythology, creation stories often
9
describe humans and dogs possessing nearly identical attributes, and some praise people
origins to mating between humans and dogs (Fradkin 1990; Schwartz 1997).
Coyotes are not too far from dogs, but natives differentiated between these two
animals and a brief description of their meaning is worth mentioning. The Coyote:
complex, contradictory, and colorful figure that exists in many Native American cultural
traditions (Andrews 2002:160; Bastian and Mitchell 2004: 76-83; Kroeber 2004: 77-90;
Schwartz 1997: 22; Taylor 1994). In Native American myth, the coyote occasionally
assumes the role of the compassionate culture hero. Stories of several tribes reveal that
the coyote brought the first fire, arranged the seasons, introduced death to prevent
overpopulation, and taught humans how to make bows and arrows (Andrews 2002: 160).
Birds are common images in the art of the Late Woodland and Mississippian
periods. Southeastern Indians believed that birds are the most important creatures
because the have wings and are closest to the heavens of the Upper World and can be
messengers between the Sky and the Earth (Hudson 1976: 128). Based on faunal date
from Late Woodland and Mississippian sites in the southeast, it is suggested that
Woodland and Mississippian peoples used owls for ritual rather than subsistence
purposes. Owls were considered mysterious and dreaded creatures and were believed to
have special powers because of their ability to see in the dark (Brown 1992: 37). Owl
remains are rarely found at Late Woodland or Mississippian sites, but when they are, they
are almost always discovered in ritualized contexts and represented by inedible portions,
such as wing bones or legs/claws (Aftandilian: 2007). Aquatic birds, like ducks and
10
geese, appear in Native American mythology as helldivers or Earth Divers and can
connect the Earth with the Underworld (Emerson 2003; Hudson 1976: 140). Bird forms
have also been noted as the shape of earthen mounds and earthworks as well ((Emerson
2003; Hudson 1976: 140).
One of the most important aspects of effigy study to understand, not only for
background research but also for new research, is how different types of effigies can be
differentiated from one another. Having clear distinctions in effigy typology has been
crucial for data analysis.
D. Classification
Through studying site reports dealing with effigies of Late Woodland and
Mississippian period origins, I have determined two broad classifications to begin
assigning effigies with a specific type: zoomorphic and anthropomorphic. Zoomorphic
refers to effigies that represent some type of animal form. Anthropomorphic effigies
represent either human form or a cross between human and animal.
For effigies that fall into the ceremonial complex, the animal-human form is
more common and falls into the complex motif of “god-animal being”. A second,
slightly narrower classification for effigies that is also very important is the difference
between effigy figurines and effigy appendages. Effigy appendages are effigies that were
manufactured to be part of something else, usually a vessel or a pipe (Koldehoff and
Galloy 2005). After these broader distinctions are made, archaeologists can then get more
11
specific in their classification of the effigies using ideas generated by the ceremonial
complex, prehistoric mythology, and animal representation and site context.
i. Appendages
Canid (dog-like) effigy appendages are the most common effigy appendages
found in late Woodland and Early Mississippian period sites, exhibiting elongated snouts,
conical-shaped ears, two pierced cavities symbolizing eyes. The snouts and ears of some
effigies are less pronounced and the eye cavities are not always present.
The exterior of the majority of the appendages are plain, although some of them
are entirely cordmarked or have cordmarkings covering their posterior surface (maybe
symbolizing fur) (Koldehoff and Galloy 2005; Maher 1991; Ozuk 1987). Many
archaeologists have noted that in finding effigy appendages, whether intact or not, the
animals are facing the sky, or have a “vertical orientation”. A number of site reports have
mentioned this, however there is not much in terms of documented research indicating
what this may mean. It may just simply relate to the aforementioned idea that effigy
appendages hold more spiritual and ceremonial importance, so the animals are facing the
sky to represent some connection to another world or to some spiritual or mythological
power.
ii. Figurines
12
Effigy figurines are effigies that were designed to stand alone, not attached to
anything. Commonly, effigy figurines found have been made in a crude fashion from untempered clay (Zelin 210: 708). The majority of effigy figurines are made from untempered clay, while effigy appendages are made from clay but also stone (Koldehoff
and Galloy 2005). The majority of effigy appendages are grog tempered, meaning
crushed fired pottery that is additionally added to unfired clay (Galloy 2005). So, untempered clay can be associated with effigy figurines, while tempered clay can be
associated with effigy appendages. This could possibly relate to the idea that effigy
appendages held more spiritual and or ceremonial importance, since the manufacturers
obviously put more time into making them.
There are two subtypes of effigy figurines created that are based on
manufacturing techniques. The first subtype is clay figurines that were formed around
twigs, reeds, or possibly bones, or had these materials attached to the figurines (Galloy
2005). The second subtype that can be distinguished are figurines that were made from
lumps of clay, with no other materials involved. The majority of these “lump” figurines
are zoomorphic, portraying both animal and bird creatures, however the presence of
possible anthropomorphic figurines has also been noted (Maher 1991; Ozuk 1987).
While effigy appendages are believed to hold spiritual and ceremonial meaning,
effigy figurines are believed to be quite the opposite. Using the same concepts of
understanding the importance of the artifacts through the study of their manufacture that
was used for the appendages, archaeologists believe that because of their simple form and
the lack of specialized skill required to make them, effigy figurines were probably little
13
more than children’s toys or hunter’s talismans. This idea was mentioned earlier in the
paper, that hunters would carry little figurines of the animals they intended to hunt simply
for good luck or safe passage. “Late Woodland figurines were not “monofunctional” but
rather served numerous function, such as dolls, fertility aids, initiation items, and magical
objects”(Galloy 2005).
While archaeologists have used this idea of manufacturing techniques to
differentiate between effigy appendages and effigy figurines, the design of the effigies is
an even more focused classification that uses concepts of mythology and iconography to
interpret what the effigies were intended to represent.
E. Context
In order to begin understanding what effigy pieces represent in terms of
symbolism, culture and functionality, we must first understand their context. Effigies
come in many forms and have been represented by indigenous cultures in a number of
different ways. The context for this research is the Warren Wilson site in Swannanoa,
NC and the Berry Site in Morganton, NC.
i. The Warren Wilson Site
The Warren Wilson site is located on the Warren Wilson College Campus in
Swannanoa, North Carolina, along the banks of the Swannanoa River, in a geographic
zone known as the Appalachian Summit (Davis:1999). The Warren Wilson site is a
stratified site with intermittent Native American occupation zones dating from as early as
5000 B.C. to around A.D. 1500. The site saw occupation from the Archaic through the
14
Mississippian period (Davis: 1999). It is best known for the remains of a two-acre Pisgah
phase culture village, home to ancestors of the Cherokee Indians.
ii. The Berry Site
The Berry site, located just outside of Morganton, NC, along Upper Creek in an
area known as the Western Foothills (Davis: 1999), was occupied from about AD 1400 to
1600. Although best known for the occupation of the native town of Joara and the
Spanish Fort San Juan, the Berry site saw occupation from the Late Archaic through the
contact period, with cultures representing the Otarre, Swannanoa, Badin, Late Conestee,
McDowell and Burke phases. The prehistoric peoples occupying the Berry site are
thought to be the ancient ancestors of the Catawba Tribe. It is also important to
understand the chronology of the periods of occupation as well as the defining
characteristics of those periods.
iii. Woodland-Late Woodland Period
The Appalachian Summit and the Western Foothills of North Carolina were
occupied by indigenous peoples of the Late Conestee Phase of the Late Woodland Period,
ranging from 800 to 1000 AD. The Woodland period tribes are recognized primarily for
pottery production, semi-sedentary villages, and horticulture1. By the end of the
Woodland period, indigenous groups had true systems of agriculture developed, growing
the three staple crops of corn, beans and squash. This newly perfected system of
15
agriculture is what supported the rise of large, complex societies during the Mississippian
Period. Swannanoa pottery defined as Early Cord Marked and Early Fabric Marked is
common to the Woodland Period of the Appalachian Summit while other ceramic
finishes are believed to be a consequence of increased cultural interaction with Piedmont
region tribes (Dickens:11).
A few sites of the Middle and Late Woodland Conestee Phase have revealed
assemblages of artifacts from cultures outside of the Conestee Phase, indicating the
possibility of increased trade and interaction between different groups. At the Garden
Creek Site, a Middle Woodland Period site in Canton, NC, Hopewellian derived
assemblages of artifacts were found with material from the Conestee occupation during
the excavation of mound No.2 (Dickens:12). Hopewellian refers to the native tradition
that was shared by the indigenous peoples thriving along the rivers of the northeastern
and midwestern United States from around 200 BC to 400 AD. Not one single society or
culture, Hopewell was a widely dispersed populations connected through trade routes.
These routes carried cultural material from the Southeast US to Canada, including finely
crafted art and exotic materials. Amongst the Hopewellian material found in mound
No.2 at the Garden Creek Site was copper beads, sheet copper, triangular knives as well
as human and animal figurines (Dickens:12). This discovery of Hopewellian material not
only evokes questions concerning the established chronology of Southeastern phases but
also shows that cultural material from a much larger and earlier tradition may have
influenced the iconography and style found in the material production of smaller bands.
iv. Mississippian Period
16
The Mississippian period ranged from 1000 to 1650 AD. For archaeologists, this
period is best characterized by rectilinear complicated stamped pottery, nucleated-village
settlement patterns, Maize agriculture and stratified social structure (Dickens:13). New
cultural phases emerged in North Carolina, followingthe Late Conestee phase. Pisgah is
the Mississippian cultural phase for the Appalachian Summit, leading into the Qualla
phase before contact with Europeans. McDowell is the Mississippian cultural phase for
the Western Foothills, leading into the Burke phase before contact. Mississippian period
societies were more structured, and even the smaller villages had mounds , secondary
ceremonial structures and a central plaza area (Dickens:14).
F. Analysis
This analysis explores the manufacturing techniques, symbolism, design and
iconography of effigies. Themes of social structure and organization can also be found in
the study of effigies by using quantitative data analysis techniques established by
archaeologists from previous effigy studies. Galloy and Koldhoffs research report on
effigies in the East St. Louis concluded that effigies may be complete figurines or partial
appendages to larger objects like pipes or vessels. The majority of effigy figurines are
made from un-tempered clay, while effigy appendages are made from clay but also stone
(Koldehoff and Galloy 2005). The coding form has been designed to find similarities and
differences between effigies from the two sites using a variety of established thematic
and characteristic artifact analysis methods. Variations amongst the effigies have
presented themselves as variables of typology, design, manufacturing technique
17
(including materials used), and whether or not the effigy was part of a pipe, vessel, or
stood alone as a figurine.
G. Purpose
The purpose of this research is to discover the similarities and differences
between effigy pieces found at the Warren Wilson site and the Berry site, and to
understand any cultural significance that may be reflected in the artifacts. Effigies are
important to study because they are categorized in a group of artifacts that are known to
provide a true insight into the cultures that created them. For example, clay effigies of
zoomorphic and anthropomorphic designs are frequently recovered from Mississippian
period sites across the American Bottom are believed to reflect a shift to a more
sedentary lifestyle during the Late Woodland and Early Mississippian periods (Arnold
2006; Galloy 2004; Holley and Ringberg 2001).
Effigies are a part of the Southeastern
Ceremonial Complex, a social structure identified by archaeologists in the southeastern
United States that is comprised of artifacts that display iconography and symbolism of
prehistoric groups.
Although effigy pieces are not usually found in abundance on archaeological
sites, they are one of the most telling artifacts that allow archaeologists and cultural
anthropologists alike to view how prehistoric peoples viewed themselves and the world
18
around them. The research in this paper compares and contrasts effigy pieces found at the
Warren Wilson archaeological site and the Berry archaeological site in order to find any
physical or artistic differences to understand if the iconography of effigies can reveal
insight into Native American symbolism and mythology.
III. Review of Literature
The most common effigies found in the Southeastern United States are pipe
effigies. Different prehistoric periods of time have seen different styles of pipes,
however these pipes have always represented important ceremonial and ritualistic aspects
of Native American culture. During the Early Woodland period in the Southeast, tubular
pipes dominated archaeologists pipe collections, progressing to platform pipes during the
Middle Woodland period. During the Late Woodland and Mississippian periods,
collections were dominated by elbow, figurine and effigy pipes (Rafferty and Mann 2004).
The Warren Wilson site is located in Swannanoa, North Carolina, along the banks
of the Swannanoa River, in a geographic zone known as the Appalachian Summit.
Native Americans occupied the site from 5000 BC to AD 1500, with the most prominent
occupation, taking place during what is known as the Pisgah phase (Dickens 1976).
The first cultural period seen by the Warren Wilson site was the Early Woodland
Period, lasting from 1000 to 300 B.C. This period of time, also known as the Swannanoa
Phase, has provided archaeologists with cultural remains primarily consisting of cord
19
marked and fabric-stamped ceramic pieces (Dickens 1976: 11). During the Middle and Late
Woodland Periods in the Appalachian Summit, there was an increase of cultural diversity
that was stimulated by ideas from outside the region (Dickens 1976: 8). Although the
Piedmont regions of North Carolina saw continuity and gradual change, the Appalachian
Summit was a mixing pot of influences from more established cultures from other parts
of the state as well as Tennessee.
The Berry site is located just outside of Morganton, NC, along Upper Creek in an
area known as the Western Foothills, occupied from about AD 1400 to 1600. The Berry
Site saw occupation from the Late Archaic through the contact period, with cultures
representing the Otarre, Swannanoa, Badin, Late Conestee, McDowell and Burke phases
(Moore 2002: 60 ).
The Berry site is especially interesting to archaeologists because of the
existence of Spanish remains. The Berry site was visited by two Spanish exploratory
expeditions, one by Hernando de Soto in 1540 and one by Juan Pardo in 1567. Pardo’s
expedition ended up staying at the Berry site and building a fort, which remained for one
year until Native Americans burned the structures and killed the Spanish soldiers in 1568.
Much of the Native American cultural material found at the Berry site is of the Burke
series (Moore 2002: 60), with soapstone temper and curvilinear complicated stamped, plain,
and burnished ceramic surface treatments. It is also believed that the indigenous peoples
living at the Berry site are the ancient descendants of the Catawba Tribe.
Art and iconography have always played crucial roles in providing historians,
anthropologists and archaeologists with ideas concerning what indigenous peoples held
20
as important factors in the makeup of their societies. For societies that had no written
language, art was the main way in which they represented all ideas, whether economic,
religious, political or social.
A study of prehistoric culture and society portrayed through art, symbolism and
iconography is Jon L. Gibson’s work at Poverty Point, an archaic period site located
along the lower Mississippi River floodplain in northeastern Louisiana. In his book The
Ancient Mounds of Poverty Point: Place of Rings, Gibson attempts to answer the
questions of how Poverty Point came to be, what it represents, and uses analysis of
cultural remains to explain the sites economic, social, cultural, and ceremonial meanings.
One of the most important factors Gibson discusses is how Poverty Point’s large size,
with a domestic-economic support territory of 700 sq. miles (Gibson 2001), influenced the
way the aforementioned ideas were shaped. Similar to large sites like Cahokia, Poverty
Point produced a vast amount of artifacts, features, and earthworks including mounds,
effigy mounds and rings.
Poverty Point also played a large role in exchange and trade, which Gibson
believed was crucial to the social development of the Poverty Point culture. Gibson
explains that if Poverty Point had not engaged in exchange, brought people from far away
together and had not been economically ambitious, then the earthworks would not have
been built and symbolic markers (effigies, etc.) would not have been made. In their
book, Early Pottery: Technology, Function, Style, and Interaction in the Lower Southeast,
Rebecca Saunders and Christopher Hays explain that even small bands of indigenous
peoples that had little or no extra regional trade or interaction still portrayed ties to other
groups through their pottery style and design (Saunders and Hays 2004).
Gibson writes, “If
21
Poverty Point had taken less pride in itself and been less aware of its identity, there would
have been little need for ideographic reminders, either” (Gibson 2001: 183).
Mississippian period social construction at the Warren Wilson Site and the Berry Site in
relation to Gibson’s ideas of social identity could explain why more effigies began to be
produced moving out of the Woodland Period.
For prehistoric tribes, different animals meant different things. What they meant
depended either on a story or a story yet to unfold, such as a successful hunt, a victory
over an enemy, a bountiful harvest or a badly needed rain. . Jon Gibson of Poverty point
explains that different sizes of effigy owls suggest different species: Great Horned,
Barred or Screech Owl. Each species represented different powers and values in the lore
of Southern indigenous peoples (Gibson 2001). Gibson also suggests that although the owl
effigies and pendants were not identical, they were technically and stylistically similar,
enough so to suggest that only a few people made them and they all knew the same
stories behind them (Gibson 2001).
Archaeologists believe that during the Mississippian period in the Southeastern
United States, a ceremonial complex existed within indigenous prehistoric groups in the
southeastern United States, commonly referred to as the Southeastern Ceremonial
Complex or the Burial Cult. This complex, or cult, is based on artifacts that represent
ceremonial and ritualistic practices. These artifacts are characterized by specific motifs
that archaeologists have identified, analyzed and concluded to be representative of the
complex. These motifs were established by archaeologists using the following criteria:
A.) Each is sufficiently specialized as to preclude casual delineation. B.) That each,
22
from its appearance in association with other motifs and elements of the complex, is
unquestionably part of the complex. C.) Each motif carried sufficient ceremonial
significance to be used alone on cult objects” (Waring and Holder 1945: 3). This
ceremonial complex includes artifacts ranging from gorgets, celts and hair emblems to
stone discs, monolithic axes and ear spools. Effigy figurines, appendages and pipes are
also included in this list. The ceremonial complex of the southeast is important because it
is a analysis of symbolic and iconographic cultural material with the intention of
understanding what the artifacts actually meant to the people who manufactured them.
Larger sites in the southeast are especially good for producing large quantities of
cultural material that reflect this ceremonial complex. “Since the archaeological
investigations of the sites at Etowah and Moundville, it has been apparent that there
exists in the southeastern United States a complex of specific motifs and ceremonial
objects” (Waring and Holder 1945: 1). These larger sites yielded a large amount of
artifacts that were never analyzed with the complex in mind, until recently established
chronological sequences were established and archaeologists began to see connections
between symbolic material found at larger sites and smaller sites throughout the
southeast. The complex can be seen in material found in North Carolina, Georgia,
Alabama, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Florida, and Arkansas (Waring and Holder 1945: 12).
Most archaeologists believe that the motifs and ceremonial objects appear as a
cult complex in association with platform mounds; that the complex is found virtually
intact over a wide geographic area (Knight 1986: 679). If effigies are included in this
complex, than there may exist many similarities between pieces found from different
sites.
23
The specific selected motifs for the southeastern ceremonial complex are the
cross, sun circles, bi-lobed arrows, the forked eye, the open eye, the barred oval, the hand
and eye and death motifs (Knight 1986: 675). These motifs are attributed to as well as
paraphernalia of “God-Animal Beings”. These God-Animal Beings are important figures
in the mythology of southeastern groups, and being as there was no written language,
these mythical beings were a large part of the prehistoric culture. The forms of these
beings represent the complex, and are found carved, etched and stamped into artifacts
found throughout the southeast. Effigies are one of the most obvious examples of this
cultural complex.
The God-Animal Beings are analyzed by archaeologists and coded into two
categories: naturalistic and anthropomorphized (Knight 1986: 677). When dealing with
effigies, this coding system can and will be used. The God-Animal Beings are: Birds
(naturalistic and anthropomorphized), the Rattlesnake (naturalistic and
anthropomorphized), the Cat (always naturalistic) and Humans (most of these figures
probably represent completely anthropomorphized animal beings) (Waring and Holder
1945: 26). Some of the figures seem to have antlers, and some archaeologists have
suggested that deer should be included in the list. This is of interest as one of the Berry
Site effigy pieces may represent a deer.
A group of ceremonial objects is associated with the motifs and god-animal
beings of the ceremonial complex. Two preceding groups of characteristics from figures
engraved or embossed on the surfaces of these ceremonial objects have been defined:
costume and paraphernalia (Knight 1986: 682). It has been determined that due to the
craftsmanship, material and associations, these objects truly were intended for ceremonial
24
purposes. Effigy pipes, figurines and appendages are artifacts associated with the
complex. Cat effigy pipes are common within the complex and are found regularly found
at Moundville and along the lower Mississippi (Knight 1986: 677). Squatting human and
human pipe bowl figurines are also common within the complex. Other types of effigies,
which seem to be related to the complex, include copulating humans and frogs and the
human head pipes of the Georgia type.
Elements of the ceremonial complex appear primarily with burials, presumably
those of important individuals. Archaeologists believe that these burials contain
important individuals because the cultural material found in the burials correlates with the
characteristics of the complex. “When burials are found in which the individuals have
been interred wearing the same ornaments and clothing and with the same paraphernalia
which one sees on representations of the god-animal beings, some type of godimpersonation is certainly indicated” (Waring and Holder 1945: 21). Since effigies are
included in the ceremonial objects of this ceremonial complex, it can be determined that
effigies can be artifacts that reveal a lot about prehistoric cultures of the southeast and
how they perceived themselves and the world around them.
Effigies have been found in large quantities at some Late Woodland and
Mississippian period sites. Clay effigies of zoomorphic and anthropomorphic designs are
frequently recovered from Mississippian period sites across the American Bottom
(Arnold 2006; Galloy 2004; Holley and Ringberg 2001).
Archaeologists have included their effigy findings in site reports, using not only specific
physical characteristics but also Native American mythology as well to help them classify
and sort their findings.
25
A. Effigies and Settlement Patterns
Since effigies are culturally revealing artifacts, they can tell archaeologists a lot
about the occupation of a specific site. Effigies are commonly found in large settlements
accompanied with structures and evidence for intensive occupation. Clay effigies are
believed to reflect a shift to a more sedentary lifestyle during the Late Woodland and
Early Mississippian periods (Arnold 2006; Holley and Ringberg 2001). Some
archaeologists believe that effigies can also reveal the individual roles of certain
individuals who may have played direct roles in either the manufacturing and or
implementation of effigies in ritual, ceremonial and everyday life of prehistoric groups.
In terms of settlements, this can also refer to the use of individual features and
their relationship to effigies. Since the function of effigies can be possibly related to
shamans and shamanistic activities, Binford (1970) and Kuttruff (1974) made the
assertions that Late Woodland and Early Mississippian figurines were related to the
storage function of pits, to ensure “preservation and protection of pit contents” (Bindford,
Kuttruff). This may show that effigies, though commonly found at larger sites, required
special consideration, even when they were being disposed of.
Site reports from larger Late Woodland and Early Mississippian sites indicate that
although effigies were found dispersed across entire sites, they were mostly recovered
from pit features. The majority of pit features that have produced effigies have been deep
bell or cylindrical shaped pits that were primarily used for storage purposes and
secondarily for trash disposal (Zelin 2010: 711). It has also been noted through site
reports that most effigies were found broken in the pits, which relates to the idea
26
mentioned earlier in the paper that certain effigy pieces were intentionally broken before
they were discarded, as to release the inner spirit or power that they were believed to
hold.
IV. Methods
To record the typology, design, manufacturing technique (including materials
used), and whether or not the effigy was part of a pipe, vessel, or stood alone as a
figurine, each individual artifact was measured and weighed. This data was recorded
using calipers that measured in millimeter increments, and an electric scale that weighed
in grams. Once the artifact was weighed and measured, the material was recorded onto
this EAI form:
Accession # Form
Type
Design Material Height (mm) Width 1 Width Weight Position (notes)
2
(G)
My methods were used to create this “Effigy Analysis Instrument” (EAI) that
facilitated the descriptive analysis of the artifacts. By creating this instrument, every
physical attribute of the artifacts was recorded in a fashion that worked for data
comparison. The EAI has spaces to compare larger groups of defining physical and
theoretical characteristics as well as height, width and weight, and I added a section at the
27
end for notes. This notes section was crucial because there were a lot of characteristics I
had to describe that I could not simply recorded like the numeric data.
Obviously, the artifacts were the population that I am sampled. There were 99 effigy
artifacts from the Berry Site and 43 effigy artifacts from the Warren Wilson Site, making
142 artifacts in total.
The next five sub-sections are included to define the classification titles used in the
data analysis.
A. Form
Form determines whether the effigy is a figurine, an appendage, a fragment, or
something else. In terms of form, roughly half of the Warren Wilson Site effigies are
appendages and the other half figurines. At the Berry Site, the majority of the effigies are
fragments. The best way to pick out an appendage is to look for a portion that has been
broken. The majority of the effigy appendages from the Warren Wilson site are
zoomorphic heads that have been removed from something else at the neck.
B. Type
Type refers to what life-like qualities the effigy has. Animals are zoomorphic in
type, humans are anthropomorphic, and more abstract pieces with zoomorphic or
anthropomorphic qualities are called hybrids. A few of the pieces I analyzed were simply
decorative bits of fired clay, but these pieces are not important to this study. While
analyzing the Berry Site material, I began using N/A (not applicable) in the type section
quite frequently. It is extremely difficult to figure out whether a small clay fragment is
28
anthropomorphic or zoomorphic. Since the majority of the Berry Site effigies are
fragments, N/A was used often.
C. Design
For the design section, I was trying to figure out what specific animals were
represented in the zoomorphic effigies. For more obscure or abstract effigies, I put a
small note of what the artifact’s general shape is. After I analyzed the effigies from both
sites, I had found pieces designed to represent Deer, Bear, Canid (Dog), Turkey, Fish,
Human, Bird, Fox and a number of abstract beings as well.
D. Material
Material simply refers to what the effigies were made out of. The majority of
artifacts from both sites were made from types of tempered clay. Some were darker in
color, while some had more of a red hue. The two soapstone effigies from 2012 at the
Berry Site were the only ones of that material.
E. Height/Weight
Every effigy was weighed with a digital scale. The height refers to the distance in
between the two furthest points on the effigy. I initially attempted to find the diameter of
the effigies, but I decided taking two different width measurements would be easier and
more efficient.
V. Results
A. Berry Site
29
The first group of artifacts to be analyzed was the effigies from the Berry Site.
There are 99 artifacts from Berry labeled as effigies kept in the archaeology lab at
Warren Wilson College in Swannanoa, NC. The artifacts are sorted by the year in which
they were found. The artifacts come from excavations at the Berry Site that took place in
1986, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2012, 2011 and 2012. Out of all 99
effigies found during these excavations, only three could be listed as having zoomorphic
qualities. There were no hybrid or anthropomorphic designs on any of the artifacts.
The two most notable effigies from the Berry Site were found in 2012. Effigy
A074-56 is a soapstone animal figurine with four legs and a torso. Since this piece has
four legs, it was unlikely that it was attached to a larger object, therefore making it a
figurine.
There is a broken section where the neck ends and the head would have been,
as well as a broken section at the end to suggest a tail. The most intriguing aspect of this
piece is its suggestion of movement. The two front legs of the figurine are bent at the
knee, with the hind legs sticking straight out, making the animal look like it is running.
From the shape of the torso and legs, plus the running/pouncing forward movement
conveyed by the positioning of the figure, this piece is quite possibly supposed to
represent a deer. (Image 1)
The second notable effigy, A074-159, is similar to many of the zoomorphic
appendages from the Warren Wilson Site. The effigy is a soapstone animal head with
bumps for ears, grooved (not drilled or punctated) eyes, a slit for a mouth, and an
elongated snout with a raised bump at the end. The head also has a neck, which is broken
at the bottom, suggesting that the piece was attached to something larger. While this
30
piece is obviously zoomorphic in type, the design is a little more mystifying. The animal
has similar qualities to that off a dog or a bear. Both dogs and bears are common in
Mississippian period art and iconography. For my personal research, I have this artifact
labeled as Canid (of the dog family)/Bear. (Image 2)
B. The Warren Wilson Site
There are 43 effigies on record in the lab at UNC that were found at the Warren
Wilson site during excavation. 23 of the effigies met the criteria to be labeled as
Appendages in the section of the coding sheet labeled “Form”. These effigies were
primarily zoomorphic in “Type”. Most of these appendages were in the form of animal
heads with clearly defined necks, which had been broken at the bottom. These broken
necks were a clear indicator that these animal heads were originally connected to a larger
piece. There is no real evidence that can reveal what the animal heads may have been
attached to. Since 42 out of the 43 effigies were constructed out of clay, it is probable
that many of these animal head appendages were attached to larger clay vessels of some
sort.
There is one animal design that appears consistently in the Warren Wilson
material that is worth discussing. There is a representation of either a bear or a dog like
animal in many of the clay appendage effigies, very similar to the design of the soapstone
animal head found this past summer at the Berry Site (A074-159). These animal heads
have two eyes, the most common design for eye either being convex (puffed out) or
punctated circles. Effigy A2094-190 (image 3) is an almost replica of the soapstone head
31
from the Berry Site. This piece has small nub-like ears, an elongated snout and a small,
faded mouth. The head has a neck, which is broken at the bottom making it classified as
an appendage. Effigies A2094-1606/1541a/1881/123 are all very similar to this design as
well (Images 4-7).
Looking back on Marion Schwartz’s 1997 publication A History of Dogs
in the Early Americas, it would seem that the animal represented in the soapstone head
from Berry Site and the re-occurring animal design amongst appendages from the Warren
Wilson site could quite possible be a dog. Although dogs are common creatures with no
real mythical background represented in prehistoric creation stories or in iconography
from the Ceremonial Complex, Schwartz reports that dogs were loved and admired by
prehistoric peoples just as much as people love and admire their dogs today. Schwartz’s
research discovers that evidence of special treatment of dogs has been found at certain
Woodland and Mississippian sites in the form of Dog burials, while some ethnographers
describe some Native American groups using dogs from hunting, hauling, guarding, and
herding (Schwartz 1997). Dogs were also most likely the only domesticated animal
Woodland and Mississippian groups of the Southeast had.
C. Fragments
Ten of the Warren Wilson effigies take the form of “Fragments”. They are small
pieces that more than often possess no revealing qualities of any kind. Three of the ten
“Frags” from the Warren Wilson material are similar in shape to the “Frags” from the
Berry Site material, which make up about 95% of the Berry Site effigies. In his book
Catawba Valley Mississippian: Ceramics, Chronology, and Catawba Indians, David G.
32
Moore recounts the “Non-vessel ceramic artifacts” found during the first 1986
excavations of the Berry Site. Moore writes, “Five fired-clay (effigy) pieces are
identified as possible effigy fragments. None, however, exhibits any identifying
characteristics and it is possible that some of these may represent fired clay coils (Moore:
242).”
After analyzing the Berry Site effigies, it is now apparent that the large majority
of the artifacts, from the 1986 excavations through 2012, labeled as “effigies” are only
fragments that posses no true identifying characteristics and may also represent fired clay
coils. Most of these fragments are what I came to call “Tooth Shaped”. I defined this
shape as a measure of “Design” on the coding form since that is what the pieces appeared
to look like. I defined this “Tooth Shaped” design a relatively short way through
analyzing the Berry Site effigies as they were becoming the obviously dominant “Form”
of artifact. Image 8 depicts some common “Tooth Shaped” fragments from the Berry
Site.
D. Figurines
In contrast to the form of Appendages are Figurines. From the Warren Wilson
Site, seven of the effigies were clearly designed to stand alone as figurines. Only one of
the seven figurines had an intact head revealing a long beak-like nose, which I defined as
a zoomorphic bird figurine. The other six figurines were much more abstract in design
than any of the other 37 effigies. Effigy figurine A2094-3996 (Image 9) had multiple
drilled holes that extended the entire width of the artifact, so that you could look clear
through the piece. The piece had the suggestion of a main torso or body, where the
33
artifact was the thickest, with points extending off the main body that seemed to represent
legs or wings of some type. Every figurine was similar in this sense; they all possessed
zoomorphic traits crossed with abstract elements of design. Effigy figurines A2094-216
and A2094-9136 (Images 10-11) are quite similar pieces that depict much clearer
zoomorphic design and less abstract design. Both pieces appear as torsos with broken
appendages, indicating that they once had legs, a head and even a tail.
Three effigies from the Warren Wilson Site can be classified by “Type” as
anthropomorphic. These artifacts display human characteristics in their design. Effigies
A2094-6918/2 and A2241-279 (Images 12-13) were almost identical in design, made
from clay, portraying heads with a face on both sides of the artifact. These faces were
given unmistakably human features in their creation, with lips, noses, mouths, scratch
marks around the face for design and what appears to be some sort of hair or headdress.
Steven Davis, head of the Archaeology Department at UNC believes these two pieces to
be basket handles rather than figurines or appendages. At the base of both artifacts there
are turned out edges, almost like the rim of a vessel. Davis believes these edges represent
the point where the fibers from the basket were lashed around the effigy to hold it in
place as the handle.
The third anthropomorphic effigy, A2225-1009 (Image 14), takes the form of a
fragment, possibly a figurine fragment. The artifact is clay and the design portrays the
bottom half of an animal, broken at the waist, with the suggestion of two missing legs.
While this artifact could quite possibly be another animal making it zoomorphic, the
34
piece seems to have more human qualities than the other zoomorphic figurines in the
collection.
One common prehistoric effigy design in the Southeast is that of birds. There are
six effigies that were excavated at the Warren Wilson site that fall into the bird category.
Effigy A2310-3208 (Image 15) was originally labeled “Turkey Effigy excavated and put
on record. This artifact is a clay appendage, a head with a neck that is broken at the
bottom. The piece has a drilled hole for the eye that goes through both sides of the head,
making the eyes positioned on the side rather than the front. The Turkey head has an
open mouth, carved out like a sliver. On the top of the head is a jagged design, like a
serrated edge, that gives the effect of plumage or head feathers. The nose is pulled out to
give the effect of a beak.
The most exciting artifact in terms of design is effigy A2310-4607 (Images 1618). The animal represented appears to be either a Fox or possibly a dog. The pointy
ears make the piece more foxlike, while more of the Canid looking artifacts have small,
nubby ears. One characteristic of the artifact that is interesting is that the animal seems to
have a personality that is portrayed through the expression on its face. Although part of
the nose is missing, the animal appears to be smiling or have an almost mischievous grin.
This artifact is composed of clay and is classified on the coding form as an appendage, as
it appears to have a neck that is broken at the bottom, similar to many of the other animal
head appendages.
35
VI. Conclusion
In conclusion, I can now say that there is a difference between effigies from the
Warren Wilson site and the Berry Site. Only two of the 99 Berry Site effigies have a
clear, zoomorphic design, while 3/4ths of the 43 Warren Wilson site effigies have a clear
design. The most common animals reflected in the Warren Wilson site effigies are bears,
dogs and birds. There are also a couple of anthropomorphic pieces. For the Berry site,
there are only two animals reflected in the effigies, a possible deer and a possible bear or
dog. The two most notable patterns that emerged were the “tooth” shaped fragments of
the Berry site material and the bear/dog like animal that reoccurred amongst the Warren
Wilson site zoomorphic appendages. Both of the Berry site effigies are zoomorphic and
represent both appendages and figurines, but there are only the two artifacts to look at.
After analyzing and recording all the effigies from both the Berry Site and the
Warren Wilson site, there are a few ideas that could possibly explain the obvious
differences between the two collections. As mentioned briefly in the methods section in
regards to validity, it is possible that excavations at the Berry Site only found clusters of
coils because excavations were limited to certain areas. While the area believed to
contain Fort San Juan has been excavated extensively, the end of the field closer to the
mound and moving towards the indigenous town of Joara itself has not been excavated as
intensively. Maybe prehistoric peoples were producing less ceremonial cultural material
near the fort, and the primary production of effigies and other artifacts that fit into the
36
Southeastern Ceremonial Complex was at the other end of the field, in the indigenous
village that had no European structures.
Another possibility as to why the collections are different is that the different sites
saw occupations representing different time periods. Since the Berry site saw occupation
through the Contact period, maybe there was an influence on the production of
ceremonial artifacts in response to the occupation of the site by foreigners. It could also
be possible that the Spanish soldiers at the Berry site may have destroyed artifacts that
reflected indigenous spiritual beliefs. It could also be possible that the Berry site was
actually a larger production center for effigies, but we have only found fragments through
excavation and not as many intact pieces like the ones that have been found at the Warren
Wilson site.
I believe that to answer the question of why the difference exists between effigies
from the two sites, an archaeologist would have to begin looking at provenience and the
in situ location of each individual effigy. By knowing the location of the artifact, the
archaeologist could then understand that artifact’s relationship to other artifacts, to
features, and to the rest of the site as a whole. In this way, one might be able to discover
more patterns amongst the locations of the effigies on the site. If it appears that effigies
are being found in one specific part of the site, then that is a revealing characteristic for
that particular site. Or, if there is a utter absence of effigies in locations believed to be
associated with ceremonial practices, such as mounds or central plaza areas, than that is a
revealing characteristic as well.
37
IMAGES
(Artifacts are found using the accession #)
1.
A074-56
2.
38
A074-159
3.
A2094-190
39
4.
A2094-1606
5.
A2094-1541
40
6.
A2094-1881
7.
A2095-123
41
8.
A008-536/438-A042-208
9.
A2094-3996
42
10.
A2094-216
11.
A2094-9336
43
12.
A2094-6918-2(1) Front facing
A2094-6918-2(2) Back facing
44
13.
A2241-279(1) Front facing
A2241-279(2) Back facing
45
14.
A2225-1009
15.
A2310-3208
46
16.
A2310-4607(1)
17.
A2310-4607(3)
47
18.
A2310-4607(4)
48
WORKS CITED
Aftandilian, Dave
2007 Animals, Agriculture, and Religion Among Native Americans in Precontact Illinois:
an Interdisciplinary Analysis of Perception and Representation. Unpuplished Ph.D
dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Chicago, Chicago.
A.J. Waring Jr, and Preston Holder
1954 A Prehistoric Ceremonial Complex in the Southeastern United States.
American Anthropologist: New Series, Vol. 47, No. 1 (Jan. - Mar., 1945), pp. 1-34.
Andrews, Ted
2002 Animal-Speak: The spiritual and Magical Powers of Creatures Great and Small.
Llewellyn Publications, St. Paul.
Arnold, Kelly
2006 Southern Illinois Ceramic Figurines: A Temporal Investigation. Illinois Antiquity.
41(4):3-8.
Beck, J. A., and David G Moore
2002 The Burke Phase: A Mississippian Frontier In The North Carolina Foothills.
Southeastern Archaeology, 21(2), 192.
Beck Jr., and Rob Beck
2006 Identifying Fort San Juan: A Sixteenth-Century Spanish Occupation At The Berry
Site, North Carolina. Southeastern Archaeology, 25(1), 65.
Binford, Lewis R., with Sally R. Binford, Robert C. Whallon, and Margaret A. Hardin
1970 Archaeology at Hatchery West. Memoirs No. 24. Society for American
Archaeology, Washington, D.C.
Boles, S. L.
2010 The Lewis Figurine From the Southern American Bottom. Illinois Archaeology:
Journal of The Illinois Archaeology Survey, 22(2), 464-472.
Brown, Joseph E.
1992 Animals of the Soul: Sacred Animals of Oglala Sioux. Element, Rockport.
Dickens, Roy S.
1976 Cherokee Prehistory: The Pisgah Phase in the Appalachian Summit Region.
University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
49
Davis, Stephen Jr.
1999. The Archaeology of North Carolina. Electronic document,
http://rla.unc.edu/ArchaeoNC/index.html, accessed September 15th.
Faulkner, C. H., and J.F. Simek,
1996 1st Unnamed Cave: A Mississippian Period Cave Art Site in East Tennessee, USA.
Antiquity, 70(270), 774.
Fortier, Andrew
2010 The Fish Lake Site: Investigations within a Late Woodland, Patrick Phase
Settlement Locality in the American Bottom. Manuscript on file in the possession of
Illinois Transportation Archaeological Research Program, University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign.
Fradkin, Arlene
1990 Cherokee Folk Zoology: The Animal World of a Native American People, 17001838. Garland Publishing, New York.
Galloy, Joseph M.
2002 Late Woodland Effigy Vessels from the American Bottom. Illinois Antiquity
39(3):10-13.
Galloy, Joseph M
2004 Late Woodland Effigy Vessels From The American Bottom. Illinois Antiquity 39,
no. 3: 10-13. Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost
Gibson, L. Jon
2001 The Ancient Mounds of Poverty Point: Place of Rings. Gainesville: University
Press of Florida.
Gillespie, K. Angus and Jay Mechling
1987 American Wildlife in Symbol and Story. Knoxville: The University of Tennessee
Press.
Holley, George R., with Kathryn E. Parker, Elizabeth M. Scot, Alan J. Brown, Harold
W. Watters, Jr., and Donald L. Booth.
2001 The James Faust #1 Site (S-776). In The Faust South Locality, Scott Joint-Use
Archaeological Project. Vol. I. Office of Contract Archaeology, Southern Illinois
University, Edwardsville.
Hudson, Charles
1976 The Southeastern Indians. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.
50
Hultkrantz, Ake
1981 Belief and Worship in Native North America, edited by Christopher Vecsey.
Syracuse Univeristy Press, Syracuse.
Kelly, Lucretia S.
1992 The Role of Animals in Mississippian Society. Paper presented at the 58th Annual
Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, St. Louis, Missouri, April 14-18.
Kroeber, Karl.
2002 Native American Storytelling: A Reader of Myths and Legends. Blackwell
Publishing, Malden, Massachusetts.
Koldehoff, Brad, and Joseph M. Galloy
2002 Late Woodland Land Use in the American Bottom: An East St. Louis Perspective.
Research Reports No. 89. Illionois Transportation Archaeological Research Program,
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Kuttruff, Carl
1969 Lower Kasaskia River Valley Archaeology, 1967 and 1968 Seasons. Southern
Illinois University Museum, Carbondale.
Knight, Vernon James Jr.
1986 The Institutional Organization of Mississippian Religion. American Antiquity , Vol.
51, No. 4, pp. 675-687. Published by: Society for American Archaeology.
Leach, R. Edmund
1964 Anthropological Aspects of Language: Animal Categories and Verbal Abuse.
Cambridge: MIT Press.
Maher, Thomas O.
1990 In The Sponemann Site: The Formative Emergent Mississippian Sponemann Phase
Occupations, by Andrew C. Fortier, Thomas O. Maher, and Joyce A. Williams, pp. 157330. American Bottom Archaeology FAI-270 Site Reports Vol. 23. University of Illinois
Press, Urbana.
Mooney, James
1900 Myths of the Cherokee. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Moore, David G.
2002 Catawba Valley Mississippian: Ceramics, Chronology, and Catawba Indians.
University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa.
Moore, M. C., Beitburg, with E.Smith, K. E., and M. Trubitt
51
2006 One Hundred Years Of Archaeology At Gordontown: A Fortified Mississippian
Town.
Morey, Darcy F.
2002 Burying Key Evidence: The Social Bond between Dogs and People. Journal of
Archaeological Science 33(2):158-175.
O'Brien, M. J., and C. Kuttruff
2012 THE 1974-75 Excavations At Mound Bottom, A Palisaded Mississippian Center In
Cheatham County.
Ozuk, Steven J.
1987 Patrick Phase Ceramics. In the Range Site: Archaic Through Late Woodland
Occupations, by John E. Kelly, Andrew C. Fortier, Steven J. Ozuk, and Joyce A.
Williams, pp. 230-304. American Bottom Archaeology FAI-270 Site Reports Vol. 20
University of Illinois Press, Urbana.
Pauketat, Timothy R.
2001 A New Tradition in Archaeology. In the Archaeology of Traditions: Agency and
History Before and After Columbus, edited by Timothy R. Pauketat, pp. 1-16. University
Press of Florida, Gainesville.
Rafferty, M. Sean, and Rob Mann
2004 Smoking and Culture: The Archaeology of Tobacco Pipes in Eastern North
America. Knoxville: The University of Tennessee Press.
Read, A. Kay, and Jason J. Gonzalez
2000 Handbook of Mesoamerican Mythology. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO, Inc.
Rodning, Christopher B.
2012 Late Preshistoric And Protohistoric Shell Gorgets From Southwestern North
Carolina. Southeastern Archaeology 31, no. 1: 33-56. Academic Search Complete,
EBSCOhost
Rodning, C. B., and David G. Moore
2010 South Appalachian Mississippian and Protohistoric Mortuary Practices in
Southwestern North Carolina. Southeastern Archaeology, 29(1), 80-100.
Saunders, Rebecca, and Christopher T. Hayes
2004 Early Pottery: Technology, Function, Style, and Interaction in the Lower Southeast.
Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
52
Schwartz, Marion
1997 A History of Dogs in the Early Americas. Yale University Press, New Haven and
London.
Steponaitis, Vincas P., and III, David T. Dockery
2011 Mississippian Effigy Pipes And The Glendon Limestone. American Antiquity 76,
no. 2: 345-354.
Warren Wilson College.
2007. Warren Wilson Archaeological Site. Electronic document, http://warrenwilson.edu/academics/catalog, accessed September 20th.
Warren Wilson College.
2012. About the Berry Site. Electronic document, http://warrenwilson.edu/~arch/berrysite, accessed September 20th.
Wood, Marion
1992 The Arctic. In Native American Myths and Legens, edited by Colin F. Taylor, pp.
110-123. Smithmark, New York.
Yancey, Miranda, and Brad Koldehoff
2010 Rolling Icons: Engraved Cahokia-Style Chunkey Stones. Illinois Archaeology:
Journal Of The Illinois Archaeology Survey 22, no. 2: 491-501. Academic Search
Complete
Zelin, A.
2010 Zoomorphic Effigies From The Fish Lake Site. Illinois Archaeology: Journal of
The Illinois Archaeology Survey, 22(2), 705-725.
Zimmermann-Holt, Julie
1996 Beyond Optimization: Alternative Ways of Examining Animal Exploration. World
Archaeology 28:89-109.
“Animals are nothing but the forms of our virtues and vices, wanderings before
our eyes, the visible phantoms of our souls”
(Hugo-Mechling, Gillespie 1987:1).
53