Soliciting Archaeo-Roadtrip Advice

If I’m to believe the internet, most of Americans associate the decreasing temperatures and fiery leaves of autumn with one thing — pumpkin spice lattes. I (and hopefully you too!) have something else in mind… SEAC, of course!

The Southeastern Archaeological Conference convenes in Baton Rouge November 7-11, and if past years are any indication, the mix of cutting edge scholarship, provocative theoretical inquiry, and wicked dance moves will not fail to impress.

This year, a group of students from UM have (insanely) opted to drive from Ann Arbor to Louisiana, minimally a distance of 1100 miles. We’ve added a day on either end of the meeting to allow us to visit some archaeological sites along the way. So my question for you is: if you had two days to drive through the mid-south, what sites would you go see? At the moment, we’re considering Poverty Point and Moundville (one on the way there and one on the way back), but that’s not set in stone, and we’re willing to make time to include some more must-see locations.

Any advice would be heartily appreciated!

Roadtrip!

A post on posts

Per usual, Meg really got me thinking with her post on ceremonialism, bears, and postholes at the Feltus site. Though I can’t speak much to the issue of bears (except to say that they are awesome), I have thought some about postholes with unique and seemingly purposeful fill. Like Meg, I’ve spent the last few years working at a Woodland period ceremonial aggregation site – in my case, the Garden Creek site (31Hw2 and 8) in western North Carolina. This site was first systematically investigated in the 1960s by Bennie Keel, and has more recently been subjected to geophysical survey and targeted investigation as past of my dissertation research.

During both of these phases of research, archaeologists identified postholes that appeared to be specially backfilled. Under Mound No. 2, Bennie (1976) noted a series of 29 postholes uniquely filled with a combination of dark colored midden soil and white coarse sand. These posts demarcated a single structure measuring 20 x 19.5 feet. Of the (at least) six structures below the mound (Wright in press), this was the only one whose posts received such special treatment.

Structure 1 below Garden Creek Mound No. 2, outlined by white circles. Photo courtesy of UNC-RLA.

Even more complicated post-post removal activities were associated with Garden Creeks Enclosure 1, a small, sub-rectangular ditch enclosure that may (or may not) have once been complemented by an earthen embankment (Wright 2012). The original ditch, which measured about a meter deep and nearly two meters wide at the top, appears to have been purposefully filled in with earth and refuse. Once it was completely backfilled, a line of large posts was erected through the middle of the former ditch. At some later date, these posts were pulled up, and then their holes were carefully filled with small to medium-sized river cobbles.  As a result, we only recognized these features as postholes once all the surrounding sediment was removed, when we were left with a line of tightly packed columns of rocks!

Line of postholes filled with river cobbles, going through the ditch of Garden Creek Enclosure 1.

Meanwhile, a small (2×3 m) excavation unit inside the enclosure revealed a complicated scatter of more than 30 postholes. Several of these included fragments of sheet mica at their base – again, something that appears to have been purposefully put there after a post was removed (or maybe, before a post was inserted, and then left there after it was removed).

The reasons why these posts were removed and these postholes so distinctively backfilled have yet to be thoroughly investigated. Recently, it was suggested to me that the river cobbles in the ditch’s postholes might have something to do with land/water symbolism that has been proposed as an important design principle at other Woodland enclosures (Whyte, personal communication). More generally, it’s my hunch (which Meg addresses in her comment to her 10/8 post) that these posts represent some sort of ritual closure event (Heitman 2007). In this scenario, the ceremonially significant features (posts, screen, structures, etc.) that produced these postholes would have been as temporary as the ritually motivated aggregations of people at these sites. Plausibly, they were re-erected and re-dismantled as the site was re-visited.

Close up of a rock filled posthole in the enclosure ditch, at the base of the second zone of ditch fill. It continued several more centimeters into the bottom-most zone of ditch fill.

I am really intrigued by Meg’s idea about a need to close down potentially dangerous trans-worldly portals; that seems to sit well with the idea of some of these singular poles served as “axis mundi” (Brown 2006; Kimball et al. 2010). I wonder if a similar case could be made for multi-post features, or if something else was at work. In these latter cases, a life history approach to entire architectural components (i.e., the mound and submound deposits as a whole, the original enclosure ditch/backfilled ditch/post outline as a whole) may offer a productive line of inquiry. The Garden Creek data set suggests that the ceremonies associated with these constructions changed dramatically over time. However, these alterations were not random; they depended on the features that were there before. Mound No. 2 didn’t go just anywhere – it went over the specially filled posts of Structure 1. Same goes for the rock filled posts, which conform far too closely to the outline of the ditch to be a matter of coincidence.

Meg, any sense of the timing of the postholes you encountered at Feltus? Did they all get pulled and backfilled in one go, or could it have been a staggered set of events? Does anyone else know where else such posts have been encountered? Is this just a Woodland thin, or is there an Archaic precedent or Mississippian/ historic incarnation as well? What other takes do you have on these features?

 

References

Brown, James A. 2006   The Shamanic element in the Hopewell Period ritual. In Recreating Hopewell, edited by Douglas K. Charles and Jane E. Buikstra, pp. 475-488. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Heitman, Carrie C. 2007   Houses Great and Small: Re-evaluating the Construction of Hierarchy in Chaco Canyon, NM, A.D. 850-1180. In The Durable House: Architecture, Ancestors and Origins, edited by Robin Beck. 22nd Annual Visiting Scholar Conference, Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL.

Keel, Bennie  1976   Cherokee Archaeology. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.

Kimball, L.R., T.R. Whyte, and G. Crites  2010   The Biltmore and Hopewellian Mound Use in the Southern Appalachians.  Southeastern Archaeology 29(1):44-58.

Knight, Vernon James, Jr.  2001   Feasting and the Emergence of Platform Mound Ceremonialism in Eastern North America. In Feasts: Archaeological and Ethnographic Perspectives on Food, Politics, and Power, edited by Michael Dietler and Brian Hayden, pp. 239-254. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

Wright, Alice P.  In press Under the Mound: The Early Life History of the Garden Creek Mound No. 2 Site. In Early and Middle Woodland Landscapes of the Southeast, edited by Alice P. Wright and Edward R. Henry. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Wright, Alice P.  2012   “Artifacts Writ Large”: Ditch Enclosures and Middle Woodland Interaction in Southern Appalachia. 77th annual meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Memphis, TN.

Bear Ceremonialism at Feltus

NOTE: This post is a summary of ongoing research being conducted to understand the potential meanings of bear at the Feltus site.  Any suggestions of sources you have to expand this research would be greatly appreciated.  The post is excerpted from a manuscript in preparation; please do not cite without permission of the author.

During the Coles Creek period (AD 700—1200), people constructed four large earthen mounds at the Feltus site in Jefferson County, Mississippi.  Before, during, and after the construction of these earthworks, Feltus served as a location for ritual gatherings characterized by communal feasts.  As a part of the ceremonies associated with these feasts, standing posts were repeatedly set, pulled, and re-set.  Archaeological investigations of these posts and related deposits have produced an astonishing amount of bear bone.  Because of their association with ritual gatherings and the seemingly special treatment of their remains, it is hypothesized that bears were particularly important to the people who gathered at Feltus.  This research strives to understand the origins and meaning of these beliefs and activities by exploring the breadth and depth of bear ceremonialism in North America and beyond.

Archaeology at the Feltus Mounds

Four field seasons totaling nine months of fieldwork have been completed at Feltus since 2006.  Ceramics and radiocarbon dates show three distinct phases of occupation (Figure 1).  During the initial occupation of Feltus, Coles Creek people repeatedly set, pulled, and re-set large, standing posts in the southern end of the plaza.  Though the exact use of these posts remains elusive, their unusual depositional process and artifactual contents indicate that they were ceremonial in function.  After the post was inserted, each posthole was packed with ash; the artifacts associated with this ash (e.g., tobacco pipes and bear bone) imply that it was likely a meaningful substance.  Each post was then removed and the post mold packed with clean brown clay (Figure 2).  Near these posts, Coles Creek people dug three large pits, which they rapidly filled with ceramics and food remains (including bear bone which is rare or absent in many prehistoric faunal assemblages).  The exceptional size of the vessels and sheer abundance of food remains suggest that a large-scale eating event, or feast, took place at Feltus between AD 700 and 800.

Figure 1: Radiocarbon dates from Feltus showing three distinct phases of occupation.


Figure 2: Example profile of large, ash-lined post in the central plaza.

After a hiatus of nearly a century, another feast occurred at the north end of the plaza, leaving behind a large midden.  Again, this trash deposit contained an astonishing amount of bear bone.  Moreover, an ash-lined post much like the ones in the south plaza was uncovered (Figures 3 and 4).  It too was pulled and immediately after, the first stage of Mound A was built atop its empty hole.  Once it began, moundbuilding became the primary focus of activity at Feltus from AD 900 to 1000.  Although most mound construction ceased around AD 1000, the south plaza continued to be utilized until AD 1150.  During this time, additional large posts were set and pulled in a continuation of the ritual activity that took place there during Feltus’s early occupation.

Figure 3: Deer pelvis, bear calcaneous, and ceramic pipe from a large post.

   

Figure 4: Hollow, ash-lined post hole under Mound A.

Bear Symbolism around the World

Archaeologists often focus on animals’ utilitarian and economic roles; however, the bear remains at Feltus beg a more symbolic interpretation.  Since Paleolithic times, bears have been potent ritual symbols for peoples throughout Eurasia and North America (Black 1998:343).  While stories always change based on context, the meaning of bear has stayed remarkably constant (Bieder 2006:172). “Many preagriculturalists saw the bear as a person, albeit a different-from-human person who possessed immense spiritual power” (Bieder 2006:163).  This is likely because they share a great number of physical (e.g., bipedal gait, reproduction, binocular vision) and behavioral (e.g., omnivory, maternal relationship) traits with humans.  Bears cry tears, they spank their children when they’re bad, they construct a dwelling, they eat the same foods in roughly the same proportions as humans—and even share our voracious sweet tooth (Hallowell 1926:148-152; Shepard and Sanders 1998:xi).  Thus, as human-like animals, bears are thought to have the ability to link the human and spirit worlds; they are thus commonly seen as kin, as healers, and as food providers.

Bear as kin.  Perhaps because of the similarities mentioned above, many traditional origin myths claim descent from bears.  Bears are often referred to as “grandmother”, “brother”, or “cousin” out of respect for that kinship (Hallowell 1926:43-49; Shepard and Sanders 1998:88-89).  Even if direct descent is not claimed, humans often share family relationships with bears.  In one common story, a woman marries a bear and gives birth to twins (Figure 5).  When her brothers find them, the bear allows himself to be killed to save the cubs.  Before she and her children return with her brothers to be part her family, the woman conducts ceremonies to bring the bear back to life (Bieder 2005:56; 2006;168; Rockwell 1991:116-121).

 

Figure 5: Contemporary native artists depict bear-human kin relationships.

Bear as healers.  Bear doctors are common in many Native cultures (Bieder 2006:170; Rockwell 1991:2, 64-67); bears are often depicted on pipes used in ceremonies (Figure 6), or healers wear bear skin (Shepard and Sanders 1985:99-103) (Figure 7).  Most directly, this is because humans learned traditional medicine from watching bears self-medicate with gathered plants, many of which are now known by names including the word “bear” (Rockwell 1991:77).  Furthermore, bears are seen as having life-renewing ability, perhaps because their hibernation is seen as a yearly pattern of death and rebirth (Bieder 2006:171; Rockwell 1991:5).  These abilities are further highlighted in the marriage story told above and the hunting stories described below.

Figure 6: Hopewell period stone pipe depicting a bear.

Figure 7: A 1908 Catlin photograph of an Arikara healer in bear skin.

Bears as food providers.  Bears are important game animals throughout their territory.  That said, groups that hunt them see bears as very different from other prey.  They are seen as giving themselves willingly to hunters because they do not cease to exist if treated appropriately after death (i.e., they are immediately reborn) (Black 1998:346; Rockwell 1991:26-27).  It is imperative for hunters to follow all prescriptions about respectful treatment because bear spirits are thought to control all game animals and thus the success of subsequent hunts (Bieder 2006:164; Rockwell 1991:27).  Some such rituals include killing the animal using only the most primitive tools (Hallowell 1926:34-35), pleading forgiveness upon death, making offerings of tobacco, consuming the meat at ceremonial feasts, and being attentive to the treatment of the blood and bones of the animal (Hallowell 1926:63-66) (Figure 8).  In addition to providing themselves and other game as meat, bears guided humans in the collection of edible plants.  Finally, stories often depict bears as producing food from their very bodies by rubbing their stomachs and producing nuts and berries or extracting grease from their fat without being harmed (Bider 2006:171; Loucks 1985:228, 238; Mooney 1900:327-329; Rockwell 1991:71-72).

Figure 8: An 1856 engraving of Indians bear hunting with spears and dogs.

Bear Ceremonialism at Feltus

Strong recurring themes connect the various roles played by bears and they may all stem from a small number of original stories (Black 1998:345l Hallowell 1926:153-157).  The iteration of bear as food provider fits the evidence from Feltus particularly well.  Foremost, Feltus is a site of feasting and the consumption of bear appears to have been more prevalent there than most prehistoric sites (as evidenced by bear bone in trash deposits).  The rituals connected with these feasts are echoed in many of stories uncovered by this research: (1) pipes are consistently found in association with bear remains at Feltus suggesting tobacco smoking rituals like those in the literature; (2) fire, indicated by the ash lining the Feltus post holes, is essential to traditional postmortem prescriptions for bear blood and bones; (3) tall, standing posts like those in the southern plaza and under Mound A are used to protect the bones of slain bears in recorded ceremonies (Figure 9).  Together these material remains—feasting debris including bear bone, ceramic pipes, and ash-lined post holes—align remarkably well with the traditional bear ceremonialism throughout Eurasia and North America. These findings not only help us to understand the origins and meaning of the activities taking place at Feltus, but also expand our understanding of the geographic and temporal extent of bear ceremonialism.

Figure 9: Cree bear pole decorated with offerings.

Note: Bears often serve the role of spirit guide and bridge this world with the other world.  This is a topic that will be discussed in more depth in a SEAC paper to be presented in Baton Rouge… stay tuned!

Works Cited

Bieder, Robert E. (2005) Bear. Reaktion Books, London.

Bieder, Robert E. (2006) “The Imagined Bear,” Current Writing, 18(1):163-173.

Black, Lydia T. (1998) “Bear in Human Imagination and in Ritual,” Ursus, Vol. 10:343-347.

Hallowell, Irving. (1926) “Bear Ceremonialism in the Northern Hemisphere,” American Anthropologist, 28(1):1-175.

Loucks, Georgina. (1985) “The Girl and the Bear Facts: A Cross-Cultural Comparison,” The Canadian Journal of Native Studies, 5(2):218-239.

Mooney, James. (1900) Myths of the Cherokee. 19th Annual Reports, Bureau of American Ethnology.

Rockwell, David. (1991) Giving Voice to Bear: North American Indian Rituals, Myths, and Images of the Bear. Roberts Rhinehart Publishers, Niwot, Colorado.

Shepard, Paul and Barry Sanders. (1985) The Sacred Paw: The Bear in Nature, Myth, and Literature. Viking Penguin Inc., New York.