Updated August 29, 1999
By
John P. Staeck
Assistant Professor
of Anthropology
Liberal
Arts-Social and Behavioral Sciences-Anthropology
IC
2071b
College of DuPage
425 22nd Street
Glen Ellyn, IL 60137-6599
USA
Tel.: 630 942-2022
staeck@cdnet.cod.edu
John Staeck's Academic Page at the College of DuPage
John Staeck's Personal Web Page
Paper to be presented at the symposium: "Prehistoric Communication: The first wheels, roads, metals, and monumental architecture" of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Society of American Archaeology, Friday, March 27, 1998, Seattle Washington, USA. Copy Right John Staeck 1998© All rights reserved.
Abstract
The Effigy Mound tradition
thrived in the US Upper Midwest between approximately 300 and
1300 AD. During this time an estimated 10,000+ mounds were
constructed, some to contain burials, others to contain
dedicatory hearths and symbolic offerings, and still others to
contain, apparently, nothing at all. Their communicative and
symbolic aspects of the construction and display are discussed in
the context of emerging salient identities and socio-political
groups. The production of effigy mounds served multiple purposes,
at least some of which are closely related to public displays of
generosity and prestige which were made to establish both social
identities and social-political clout.
Introduction
This paper discusses communicative and sociopolitical behaviors attributable to the Effigy Mound Tradition of the Upper Midwest of the United States. Between approximately 200 and 1300 AD groups of people built between 10,000 and perhaps 25,000 low earthen mounds in a variety of shapes (Petersen .n.d.). The distribution of these mounds centers on southern and central Wisconsin with mounds groups also occurring in southeastern Minnesota, northeastern Iowa, and across northern Illinois. In this region these mounds represent the first large-scale manifestation of identifiable monuments and what may be the first regularized evidence for identity marking and status differentiation (Rowe 1956; Hurley 1975, 1986).
The simplest of the mound forms associated with this building tradition is a low, conical mound. These mounds were sometimes built into linear compositions and appear at sites associated both with materials normally associated with effigy mounds as well as at sites, such as Diamond Bluff and Aztalan, associated with the sociopolitically more complex Mississippian populations of the Midwest.
Most effigy mounds, however, take the form of animals, including, apparently, spirit animals such as the so-called "water spirit." Typical mound forms are identified today as...
And
More rare figures exist, though, and include intaglios, or mound outlines, and at least one of these intaglios is in human form. Additional "problematic" or unidentified mound shapes also exist (Hurley 1975, 1986).
While such mounds are typically low, few exceeding approximately 2 meters in height in antiquity, some are extraordinarily long. The "Ghost Eagle" effigy mound adjacent to Muscoda, Wisconsin, for instance, is estimated to have had a wing span of nearly 1/4 of a mile in antiquity. Most known mounds, however, are a more modest 5 to 15 meters across their maximum dimensions.
Of some potential significance, however, is the fact that some of these mounds are grouped together in localized themes. The "marching bear" theme on the south unit of Effigy Mounds National Monument in northeastern Iowa is among the most famous of these. Additional grouping occur throughout the Effigy Mound region, however, and several themes appear adjacent to or in close proximity of one another. Again, the examples from Effigy Mounds National Monument are among the best preserved of such groupings but clusters of mounds are documented from across the region.
In terms of their relevance to the current session, the contents of effigy mounds is very telling - though sadly we lack the vocabulary to fully interpret what we are being told. First, many, though not all, mounds contain what might be argued to be a dedicatory hearth. Occasionally this hearth is positioned in the approximate location where the heart would be, were the effigy to represent a real animal, though no study has yet to be conducted to determine the percentage and significance of this positioning. Some form of fire ritual, however, does appear to be common to mound construction and/or use.
Second, some, but again not all, mounds contain burials. Interestingly, there is a great deal of variation in the positioning of human remains within these mounds and an even greater variation in the material that accompanies the deceased. Both males and females are encountered in mounds as are both extended and flexed burials. In some cases bundle burials are also encountered, leading some researchers to suggest that some individuals who died and were first interred elsewhere were subsequently excavated and re-interred in mounds. Most graves yielded relatively few material remains, though often the remains that are present include items of personal adornment such as copper beads and similar small objects. In a few cases, such as the interment of a female from the Beloit Mound group, more elaborate material remains accompany the deceased. In this case the woman was buried with a great number of copper ornaments and bone paraphanalia leading the excavators to dub here the "princess." In all cases, though, the material remains associated with human interments seems to reflect items of a personal nature with the apparent relative wealth of the buried individuals varying greatly. Interestingly, where contemporary non-mound burials are encountered there is typically little or no copper associated with interment and there is little evidence for status differentiation among those buried. It may well be that the inclusion of a burial ina mound may in and of itself be a status marker, though clearly mounds were frequently built for purposes other than the burial of the deceased.
Archaeologists have traditionally
assigned the construction of such mounds to an ephemeral
clustering of Woodland peoples. Although some researchers have
assumed the presence of a single mound-building cultural unit,
others have expressed the opinion that effigy mounds were
constructed by an unknown number of loosely-connected, roughly
contemporaneous populations whose members shared similar values.
More recently the latter view has held sway and seems to be a
workable model for sociopolitical units. The values commonly
accepted for these units are those attributed to the groups of
Native Americans who were encountered in the region by Europeans
early in the 17th century and who were, generally
speaking, egalitarian hunters and gatherers. Archaeologists have
seemed to reinforce this notion by focusing discussions of
sociopolitical complexity in the region upon populations
associated with the Mississippian chiefdoms and polities
centering around sites such as Cahokia in the adjacent region of
southern Illinois (Staeck 1994, 1996a).
Critique
The summary presented here clearly does not do justice the myriad of subtle differences in interpretive models for human actions in the Upper Midwest during the late prehistoric era. However, the summary does present the general outlook that the people who built the effigy mounds were somewhat notably less sociopolitically complex than their Mississippian neighbors and perhaps even the Upper Mississippian peoples who came to dominate the Upper Midwest after about 1300 AD. As I have argued elsewhere (Staeck 1994, 1996a), such positions are potentially weak and, at the very least, do not do help to interpret the nature of effigy mound construction nor do they contribute to an understanding of ethnogenesis or sociopolitical dynamics during the late prehistoric era.
Specifically, archaeologists currently lack a powerful interpretive model accounting for effigy mound construction and the accompanying social dynamics. Currently, two general interpretations exist for the development of effigy mounds and their functions.
Beginning with Radin (1911, 1923) during the first decade of this century, some researchers have suggested that the mounds represent territorial makers for clans belonging to one or more known historical populations, most notably the Ho-Chunk (Winnebago) and the Menominee. Although such interpretations went out of favor with the publication of articles suggesting there was no correlation between mound shape and clan identity, Hall (1993) has recently re-interpreted the extant data and has argued for a strong correlation between Ho-Chunk clan names and effigy mound shapes. Hence, this model is still viable although in modified form.
Mallam (1980), however, has argued that the shape of the mounds is less important than the act of construction. According to Mallam's arguments, mounds were constructed in the late spring as populations that were dispersed over the winter began to aggregate for the summer. The construction of the mounds served as a group integration exercise and represents a strong, though not necessarily incorrect, functionalist perspective.
A third avenue of research has also
provided insights into mound construction and related behaviors.
Ethnohistoric and ethnographic research among the Ho-Chunk has
also revealed a strong claim of authorship and purpose for the
mounds (Radin 1911, 1923). Unfortunately for archaeologists and
ethnographers alike, however, the Ho-Chunk consider the purpose
of mound construction to be sacred knowledge that is not to be
shared with outsiders. Unfortunately for all concerned is the
opinion that has developed among some archaeologists that this
unwillingess to share such information represents a lack of real
knowledge about the mounds and, further, that any claim to being
the descendants of the mound builders is dubious (cf. McKern
1929, 1930). Research by Staeck (1994, 1996a, 1996b) and Hall
(1993), however, suggests that such an extreme position is both
unwarranted and detrimental to all concerned.
Interpretation
This background and the preceding critique beg the questions of what effigy mounds really do and what interpretations we can make of these mounds. First, it is clear that although effigy mounds are among the least studied and the lowest theoretical profile constructions in North America, their purposes are nonetheless exceptionally complex. Consequently we would do well to return to our own theoretical biases and increase the scope with which approach this issue. An notable sidebar to this reformation is the reduction in weight assigned to logical positivism in this first stage of re-analysis.
We can generate three broad categories
of function for effigy mounds and their construction. Following
Binford (1962) and others we will define these as technomic,
sociotechnic, and ideotechnic.
Of importance here is the notion that these categories are not mutually exclusive and the postulation that different members of the same community might view mounds and mound construction differently. Numerous reasons for these expectations exist, the most persuasive of which rest in the theories of symbolic signaling.
Turning first to Wobst's (1977) seminal discussion of identity signaling, it is necessary to consider who is sending what signals to whom. Wobst's model suggests that identity signals function most efficiently when they are targeted toward people who are not individual familiar with the signaling individual or group but who share a common lexicon and intimate knowledge of communication within that lexicon. (Importantly, the term lexicon here refers to a knowledge of symbols which in turn provides the ability to decode a visual signal.) The reasoning for this is that anyone who is intimately familiar with the signaling individual or group already possesses the knowledge that the transmitters wish known. Consequently, there is no need to create elaborate images to construct and reinforce identity between such groups.
Likewise, there is little predictable effect to transmitting symbolic messages so far afield so that the recipients have no way to decode the intent. Once created, however, symbols will continue to transmit some form of meaning through time and space so long as those symbols endure. How such messages are interpreted, however, is more subject to the knowledge and perspectives of the recipients than to the intent of the senders unless the recipients have a method for contextualizing the information. It is in this position that archaeologists often find themselves and it from this point that the current paper departs.
We are left, then, with targeting symbols toward individuals and groups who have sufficient lexical knowledge of the symbolizing individual or group to decode the information that is transmitted. Such decoding, however, will also be subject to the unique perspectives of those who receive the transmitted signal and, in the process, meaning may be altered.
This system is further complicated by unknown intent of the signalers. As has been discussed heatedly in the literature, signals may be active or passive, or they may be emblemic or assertive (e.g. Wiessner 19xx; Sackett 19xx, 19xx; Conkey and Hastorf 19xx). Indeed, as the accompanying illustration demonstrates, the range of symbols may fall into one of four general zones with variation occurring on both axes (Staeck 1994). In this case we are left with trying to decode both the intent of the effigy mound builders and with the interpretations of these events and products on the part of those who encountered them.
Turning first to the technomic aspects of effigy mounds we can accept the second postulation, that is that the mounds do at some level sometimes do mark the resting place of the dead. This articulates well with claims of territoriality, as would Hall's revitalized correlation of mound shape with at least Ho-Chunk clan identity. If, as postulated by Staeck (1994), these clans represent formally loosely-defined autonomous groups that were linked together during the late prehistoric era as a consequence of increasing population pressure and competition for resources, than the development and construction of effigy mounds may serve as statements of ownership or, at least, territorial. The question would be to whom were these messages sent, for it seems that these same autonomous groups account for the bulk, if not the entirety, of the population in the region. In retrospect the mounds might then reflect signals sent between these groups as both claims to land use and as statements of shared belonging. Again, however, there needs to be some null option for the recipients of these messages. In other words, there must be an "other" that does not share this characteristic of mound building and the belief system that it imparts. To date that other remains unidentifiable, though the timing of the collapse of Hopewell-influenced people in the region and the immigration of Algonquian-speaking peoples (assuming the mounds are associated at least in part with the Siouan-speaking Ho-Chunk) provide two possible categories of other.
Somewhat surprisingly the sociotechnic functions of mound building may be easier to model than the technomic functions outlined above. Since mound building is a group activity there is likely some element of group integration that occurs. If Hall is correct and the mounds do correlate to social units such as clans, then construction of mounds may very well serve as integration activities for members of a clan that find themselves dispersed for portions of the year. Moreover, behaviors that might accompany mound construction, such as feasting, may be equally important. Staeck (1996a), for instance, has argued that mound construction may be linked to aggrandizing activities, that is to alliance building and statements of prestige led by aggressive individuals (see Hayden 1995; Arnold 19xx). In this case the mounds are but part of a sophisticated system of interactions which serve to create interrelations among contemporaneous and autonomous groups.
If we now turn to the ideotechnic categories we again find ourselves in need of good contextual data. Fortunately, we have good ethnographic information for groups such as the Ho-Chunk, Menominee, and Potowatami that serves us well. First, mounds are invariably sacred places, meeting many of the criteria set aside for shrines. Second, mounds do symbolically connect their contents to ideological constructs portrayed by the mound shapes as well as to the earth and sky. Note that mounds are made of earth and project into the air, thus elevating themselves and their contents into the sky (Levi-Strauss 1968; Staeck 1994). This duality is reflected strongly reflected in the clan and moeity structures of groups such as the Ho-Chunk, who have clans, one in each moiety, that reflect what we might label mythical or spiritual creatures (Thunderer and Water Spirit). Further, in the oral traditions of the Ho-Chunk these spirits are implacable adversaries, sometimes violently so, and in no case do they co-exist without representing opposite poles of identity. I should add that these poles do not always equate to good or bad, right or wrong, merely to diametrically opposed categories of being such as earth and sky (Staeck 1994).
Finally, and regardless of the accuracy of the potential meanings of the mounds, the mounds themselves become part of the symbolic landscape of the region. Significantly, the construction of mound groups and the previously mentioned mound themes is almost invariably associated with the proximity of water. No major mound groups exist far away from either navigable rivers or lakes, and most mound groups are located on bluff tops or steep slopes. The largest mound groups exist adjacent to waterways which were main arteries for transportation and commerce during the late prehistoric era. For example, Effigy Mounds National Monuments and the surrounding mounds overlook the Mississippi River around its confluence with the Wisconsin River. The Ghost Eagle mound and its adjacent ring of mounds are along the Wisconsin River while the Beloit mound group overlooks the Rock River.
Putting it All Together
While such positioning is currently the study of a GIS study centering on 9 counties, 6 in Wisconsin and 3 in Iowa, some statements may be postulated as possibilities.
First, the effigy mounds function at the synchronic level, that is at the time of construction and active maintenance, and the diachronic level, that is over the entire time span during which effigy mounds conveyed a decipherable meaning and even longer. At the former level the construction of the mounds likely served several purposes, some of which may have been more important for some members participating in the events than for others. Feasting, aggrandizement, community and/or lineage integration, and perhaps world renewal or parallel rituals are all possible functions, perhaps all working at the same time through the events associated with mound construction. The action of mound construction, especially in the form of adding to an already existing composition, may also have made statements of group power, ancestry, and alliances.
Across time the mounds may have come to serve purposes for which they were originally not intended but for which they were ideally suited. The presence of mounds across a defined region may have served to legitimize the claim to that region by the peoples living there. Further, the shared notion of what the mounds mean or meant may have also formed one axis around which sociopolitical aggregation may have taken place. In the case of the Ho-Chunk, for example, the tradition of having built mounds may have served as a common social point around which loosely organized bands or other social units, perhaps linked by intermarriage, began to aggregate in response to increasing regional pressures. Such pressures may have been external, in the form of immigration from the central Great Lakes region, or may have been related to increased population growth locally.
In either event, the strong signaling potential of effigy mounds may have served to help link the aggregating population together. Such symbolic activities, and hence the traditions deriving from them, may have been either active, that is have been consciously discussed and deliberately utilized, or passive, that is may have been a byproduct of the aggregation process. Similarly, the symbolic activities may also have oscillated between assertive operations, in which the mounds were used to project an active sociopolitical or ideological identity to outsiders, and emblemic, in which the mounds were interpreted as identity markers by those passing through the region.
Without doubt, however, there is a
strong likelihood that the effigy mounds served many purposes key
to the development of the late prehistoric populations and
identities in the Upper Midwest. We, as the distant recipients of
the messages sent across time and space by the effigy mound
builders, are left to try to piece together the origins and
meanings associated with these monuments. After more than 2
centuries of speculation, research, and modeling, we are left
with the need to question all that we have done to date. It is
not so much that much of this work is bad or wrong, merely that
much of this work developed under paradigms which sought to find
single causes for issues that were too complex for us to
understand at the time. In hindsight it may not be that the
meaning of the mounds has baffled us but that the meaning of our
own questions have escaped us.