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  The post is excerpted from a manuscript in preparation; please do not cite without permission of the author.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. 19^th 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.

Change you can believe in? — Pilgrimage as an event

Newark Earthwarks from Squier and Davis (1848)

Southeastern archaeologists are second to none when it comes to identifying continuity and change in the archaeological record. By carefully documenting material culture variability, generations of culture historians have isolated regionally and temporally specific cultural traditions that have served as a basis for relatively dating sites and for recognizing interactions between them. The importance of identifying such changes (or lack of changes) can’t be overstated, but, now that these culture history frameworks are fairly well established, we can start to ask not just what happened in the past, but how and why it happened.

One of the ways that archaeologists have been tackling “how” and “why” questions is through the concept of “the event,” which appears to have gained some traction in the Southeast as evidenced by a symposium dedicated to “the enigma of the event” at SEAC in 2011. [Full disclosure here: my advisor is Rob Beck, a major proponent of event theory. We talk about “the event” a lot. Just figured readers should be aware of any resulting biases.]  Derived from the work of sociologist William Sewell, Jr.,  “eventful archaeology” considers how particular episodes of crisis (i.e., events) lead to disconnects between resources (the capacity to command actual/material things or people) and schemas (generalizable, overlapping rules that guide and are guided by the allocation of resources, and that enact and reproduce social life). Because resources and schemas together constitute social structures, their disarticulation is a big deal, with the potential to critically undermine existing forms of social, political, economic, and ideological organization. Since this sort of disjunction can’t be tolerated for long without a social breakdown, events encourage social actors to creatively articulate resources and schemas in new ways, resulting in potentially profound changes in social structure.

Though I admit to rolling my eyes if I hear the words “resources and schema” too often, in general, I find an eventful approach to change in the archaeological record pretty compelling.  In my mind, it recognizes the constraints and opportunities afforded by social structures while still leaving room for agency. Moreover, the materiality of the articulations between resources and schema render events well suited to identification and interpretation by archaeologists.  The concept also is flexible enough to address many different kinds of events, from encounters with foreigners to the adoption of novel subsistence practices (e.g., Beck et al. 2007; Beck and Brown 2012).

One kind of event that I find myself considering these days is pilgrimage. Though it’s not a one-to-one match, Victor Turner’s description of the social dynamics involved in pilgrimage do, I think, resonate well with Sewell’s approach to events. Specifically, Turner stresses “the opposition between social life as it is lived in localized, relatively stable, structured systems of social relations – such as village, town, neighborhood, family, etc. – and the total process of pilgrimage” (1973:192). As I read it, this opposition might be characterized as an “event” in which the everyday articulation resources and schema go out the window, and become rearticulated to suit the pilgrimage experience. Turner elaborates (193-194) that the “direct, immediate, and total confrontation of human identities” during pilgrimage drives “the need to mobilize and organize resources to keep the members of a group alive and thriving and the necessity for social control among those members in pursuance of these and other collective goals.” What I’m left wondering is: what (if any) of the re-articulations between resources and schema that take hold in the context of a pilgrimage persist once the pilgrimage is over?  Can the “event” experienced by pilgrims lead to change in broader social structures, and if so, how?

Objectively speaking, I’m not sure… but my hunch is that yes, pilgrimage can have far-reaching effects on social structures. Consider, for example, the Middle Woodland Hopewell episode. Bradley Lepper (2004, 2006) has suggested that the Newark earthworks in Ohio do, in fact, represent a Hopewell pilgrimage center, given the labor pool necessary to construct its monuments, its diverse assemblage of exotic artifacts, and the presence of the so-called Great Hopewell Road extending out past the site. If pilgrims were in fact visiting Newark, where did they come from, for what reasons, and what happened after the pilgrimage was over? Did they take anything – objects, ideas, spouses, information – back home with them? If so, how were these incorporated (or not) into local social structures? We already know that Hopewell material culture (e.g., exotic raw materials, particular artifact types, certain forms of ceremonial architecture) is widely distributed across the Eastern Woodlands. Perhaps some of this spread results from the movement of pilgrims to and from Hopewell pilgrimage centers, rather than or in addition to the movement of Midwestern Hopewell travelers across the continent. This latter position has dominated the literature on Hopewell interaction for many years, and while it is certainly applicable to some cases (e.g., all that obsidian), I think it’s worth considering how other sorts of events may have contributed to social or religious change during the Middle Woodland period, particularly outside the Hopewell core.

At this point, I’m curious as to how to evaluate this idea against archaeological evidence. Turner’s recommendation that socio-cultural anthropologists study pilgrimage by first mapping total “ritual topographies” of pilgrimage centers, waystations, shrines, origin points, and trails. For better or worse, this seems out of reach for archaeologists, but there have got to be other options. If there are any thoughts on this front, or other comments, I would really like to hear them!

In particular – Maggie! You guys have been working on pilgrimage with regards to Poverty Point, yeah? How’s all that going?

Last, some references:

Beck, Robin A., Jr., Douglas J. Bolender, James A. Brown, Timothy K. Earle (2007)  Eventful Archaeology: The Place of Space in Structural Transformation. Current Anthropology 48(6):833-860.

Beck, Robin A., Jr., and James A. Brown (2012) Political Economy and the Routinization of Religious Movements: A View from the Eastern Woodlands. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association 21(1):72-88.

Lepper, Bradley T. (2004)  The Newark Earthworks: monumental geometry and astronomy at a Hopewellian pilgrimage center. In Hero, Hawk, and Open Hand: American Indian art of the ancient Midwest and South, edited by Richard V. Townsend and Robert V. Sharp, pp. 72-81. The Art Institute of Chicago and Yale University Press, New Haven.

Lepper, Bradley T. (2004)  The Newark Earthworks: monumental geometry and astronomy at a  2006. The Great Hopewell Road and the role of the pilgrimage in the Hopewell Interaction sphere. In Recreating Hopewell, edited by D. K. Charles and J. E. Buikstra, pp. 122-133, University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Turner, Victor (1973) The Center out There: Pilgrim’s Goal. History of Religions 12(3): 191-230.