Death, Decay and Reconstruction: An osteological analysis of Effigy Mound material from Wisconsin 9781841710938, 9781407352367

Table of contents :
Front Cover
Title Page
Copyright
Abstract
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Figures
List of Graphs
List of Tables
Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION
Chapter 2. HISTORICAL REVIEW OF EFFIGY MOUND
Chapter 3. HISTORY OF THE SAMPLE
Chapter 4. METHODOLOGY
Chapter 5. DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE
Chapter 6. DISPOSAL TYPES AND MOUND FORM
Chapter 7. PALEOPATHOLOGICAL PROFILE
Chapter 8. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
REFERENCES CITED
Appendix. CATALOGUE OF EFFIGY MOUND SKELETAL COLLECTION AT THE MILWAUKEE PUBLIC MUSEUM

Citation preview

BAR S894 2000

Death, Decay and Reconstruction

RUTH DEATH, DECAY AND RECONSTRUCTION

An osteological analysis of Effigy Mound material from Wisconsin

Christine Ella Ruth

BAR International Series 894 B A R

2000

Death, Decay and Reconstruction An osteological analysis of Effigy Mound material from Wisconsin

Christine Ella Ruth

BAR International Series 894 2000

Published in 2016 by BAR Publishing, Oxford BAR International Series 894 Death, Decay and Reconstruction © C E Ruth and the Publisher 2000 The author's moral rights under the 1988 UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act are hereby expressly asserted. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be copied, reproduced, stored, sold, distributed, scanned, saved in any form of digital format or transmitted in any form digitally, without the written permission of the Publisher.

ISBN 9781841710938 paperback ISBN 9781407352367 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781841710938 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library BAR Publishing is the trading name of British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd. British Archaeological Reports was first incorporated in 1974 to publish the BAR Series, International and British. In 1992 Hadrian Books Ltd became part of the BAR group. This volume was originally published by Archaeopress in conjunction with British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd / Hadrian Books Ltd, the Series principal publisher, in 2000. This present volume is published by BAR Publishing, 2016.

BAR

PUBLISHING BAR titles are available from:

E MAIL P HONE F AX

BAR Publishing 122 Banbury Rd, Oxford, OX2 7BP, UK [email protected] +44 (0)1865 310431 +44 (0)1865 316916 www.barpublishing.com

ABSTRACT

The Effigy Mound Culture of Wisconsin, (approximately A.O. 650-1200) was a culture of semi-nomadic hunters and gatherers whose geographical center of distribution was focused in southeastern Wisconsin. The Effigy Mound Culture is primarily characterized by the construction of large numbers of conical, linear and effigy mounds, most of which contain burials. This analysis is based on a collection of skeletal material, obtained from twenty sites in thirteen counties that was determined to be Effigy Mound by the Milwaukee Public Museum. A comprehensive osteological analysis of 402 individuals was performed including determination of the minimum number of individuals, sex, age at death, racial affinity and evidence of trauma and pathology. This information was used to construct a demographic profile of the mound populations as well as a paleopathological profile of individuals in those populations. An extensive analysis of this material resulted in a body of bioarchaeological data which can be applied to answer archaeological questions of biological distance, social organization and for cross-cultural comparison with other groups at the same level of social complexity.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract ...................................................................................................................

i

Table of Contents ..................................................................................................

ii

Figures ..................................................................................................................

iv

Graphs ...................................................................................................................

vi

Tables ....................................................................................................................

vi

Chapter 1: Introduction Project Summary ..................................................................................................

1

Background ..........................................................................................................

2

Plan of Work .........................................................................................................

2

NAGPRA Climate .................................................................................................

5

Outline of the Study ..............................................................................................

6

Chapter 2: Historical Review of Effigy Mound Research Historical Review ..................................................................................................

7

Current Interpretations of Effigy Mound Classification ........................................ 13 Chapter 3: History of the Sample History of the Milwaukee Public Museum ........................................................... 15 Site Descriptions ................................................................................................

16

Chapter 4: Methodology Background ........................................................................................................

31

Nature of the Sample ..........................................................................................

31

Methods of Ageing ..............................................................................................

32

Methods of Sexing ..............................................................................................

34

Racial Affinity ......................................................................................................

34

Metric Analysis ...................................................................................................

34

ii

Chapter 5: Demographic Profile Introduction .........................................................................................................

35

Chapter 6: Disposal Types and Mound Form Disposal Types ...................................................................................................

43

Mound Form .......................................................................................................

44

Chapter 7: Paleopathological Profile History of Paleopathology ...................................................................................

47

Paleopathological Profile ....................................................................................

47

Discussion and Analysis .....................................................................................

64

Chapter 8: Discussion and Conclusions Overview ............................................................................................................

67

Problems Encountered .......................................................................................

68

Discussion ..........................................................................................................

68

Future Areas of Research ..................................................................................

70

References Cited .................................................................................................

72

Appendix: Catalogue of Effigy Mound skeletal collection at the Milwaukee Public Museum ........................................................

77

iii

FIGURES

1. Geographical Distribution of the Effigy Mound Culture .................................................... 8 2. Diagram of Popular Effigy Mound Forms ......................................................................... 9 3. Madisonware, cord-impressed pottery ........................................................................... 10 4. Madisonware, cord-impressed pottery ........................................................................... 10 5. Examples of Effigy Mound side-notched, triangular points ............................................. 11 6. Map of Wisconsin indicating county boundaries ........................................................... 16 7. Site map of the Heller Property, Calumet County .......................................................... 17 8. Site map of the Polander Mound Group, Crawford County ........................................... 17 9. Site map of the Kolterman Mound Group, Dodge County ............................................. 18 10. Site map of the Nitschke Mound Group, Dodge County ................................................ 19 11. Site map of the Utley Mound Group I, Green Lake County ........................................... 20 12. Site map of the Utley Mound Group II, Green Lake County .......................................... 21 13. Site map of the Kratz Creek Mound Group, Marquette County ..................................... 21 14. Site map of the Mcclaughry Mound Group I, Marquette County ................................... 22 15. Site map of the McClaughry Mound Group 11,Marquette County .................................. 22 16. Site map of the Neale Mound Group, Marquette County ............................................... 23 17. Site map of the Kakwatch Mound Group, Menominee Reservation .............................. 25 18. Site map of the Nakutis Mound Group, Menominee Reservation ................................. 26 19. Site map of the Kletzien Mound Group, Sheboygan County ......................................... 27 20. Site map of the Trowbridge Mound Group, Trempeleau County ................................... 28 21. Site map of Lizard Mound State Park, Washington County .......................................... 29 22. Site map of the Big Bend Mound Group, Waukesha County ........................................ 29 23. Site map of the Ross Mound Group, Wood County ...................................................... 30 24. Dental eruption and formation chart .............................................................................. 33 25. Example of a flexed burial ............................................................................................. 43 26. Example of a bundle burial ............................................................................................

44

27. Menominee Reservation-Kakwatch Mound Group, Catalog #30160 ............................ 49 28. Marquette County-Kratz Creek Mound Group, Catalog #41227 ................................... 50 29. Menominee Reservation-Five Islands, Catalog #30120 ................................................ 52 30. Sheboygan County-Cloisonne Mound Group, Catalog #32530 .................................... 52 31. Marquette County-Kratz Creek Mound Group, Catalog #32864 ................................... 53 32. Marquette County-Kratz Creek Mound Group, Catalog #32864 ................................... 54 33. Grant County-Raisbeck Mound Group, Catalog #39047 ............................................... 55 34. Grant County-Raisbeck Mound Group, Catalog #39051 ............................................... 56 35. Marquette County-Kratz Creek Mound Group, Catalog #39507 ................................... 57 36. Marquette County-Kratz Creek Mound Group, Catalog #39507 ................................... 58 37. Waukesha County-Big Bend Mound Group, Catalog #42959 ....................................... 58 38. Waukesha County-Big Bend Mound Group, Catalog #42960 ....................................... 59 39. Marquette County-Mcclaughry Mound Group, Catalog #29666 ................................... 59 40. Crawford County-Polander Mound Group, Catalog #35683 .......................................... 59 41. Waukesha County-Big Bend Mound Group, Catalog #42955 ....................................... 60 42. Marquette County-Mcclaughry Mound Group, Catalog #29687 ................................... 61 43. Crawford County-Polander Mound Group, Catalog #35695 .......................................... 61 44. Marquette County-Kratz Creek Mound Group, Catalog #41508 ................................... 62 45. Marquette County-Kratz Creek Mound Group, Catalog #46529 ................................... 62 46. Crawford County-Polander Mound Group, Catalog #35699 .......................................... 63 47. Crawford County-Polander Mound Group, Catalog #35699 .......................................... 63 48. Grant County-Raisbeck Mound Group, Catalog #38939 ............................................... 64

V

GRAPHS

1. Distribution of Sex for Big Bend, Five Islands, Fox Lake and Kakwatch ....................... 37 2. Distribution of Sex for Kletzien, Kolterman, Kratz Creek and Mcclaughry .................... 38 3. Distribution of Sex for Nakutis, Neale, Near Five Islands and Nitschke ........................ 38 4. Distribution of Sex for Polander, Raisbeck, Ravinia Park and Ross ............................. 39 5. Distribution of Sex for Trowbridge and Utley .................................................................

39

6. Distribution of Age for Big Bend, Five Islands, Fox Lake and Heller ............................. 40 7. Distribution of Age for Kakwatch, Kletzien, Kolterman and Kratz Creek ....................... 40 8. Distribution of Age for Lizard Mound, Mcclaughry, Nakutis and Neale ......................... 41 9. Distribution of Age for Near Five Islands, Nitschke, Polander and Raisbeck ................ 41 10. Distribution of Age for Ravinia Park, Ross, Trowbridge and Utley ................................ 42 11. Distribution of Mound Form by Site ................................................................................

46

12. Distribution of Pathology by Group ................................................................................

48

13. Distribution of Pathology by Sex ....................................................................................

66

TABLES

1. Distribution of Wisconsin Effigy Mound Skeletal Material Housed at the Milwaukee Public Museum ..................................................................................

4

2. Number of Individuals in Each Developmental Age Group ........................................... 36 3. Number and Percentage of Each Mound Form at Each Site ........................................ 45 4. Distribution of Pathological Conditions ..........................................................................

vi

48

Death,

and Reconstruction

Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION Project Summary The primary goal of this project was to complete a comprehensive osteological analysis of a skeletal collection of the Effigy Mound Culture in order to contribute to the relatively scanty literature and knowledge of these pre-contact Native people. Since the Effigy Mound Culture is found mainly in southern Wisconsin, a significant proportion of the skeletal material excavated from these sites is housed at the Milwaukee Public Museum (MPM). According to William Green, state archaeologist of Iowa, the MPM collection is the largest and most complete group of Effigy Mound skeletal material in the world (personal communication to Ann McMullen, March 1998). Therefore, the project provided a rare and unique opportunity to study the demography and osteological characteristics of a selected population belonging to this culture. The goals of this project were threefold: I. Comprehensive osteological analysis. A thorough analysis of the skeletal material was conducted including a detailed inventory of the remains as well as an assessment of sex, age at death, population affinity and other biological attributes such as evidence of trauma and pathology. A minimum number of individuals (MNI) was determined for each site as well as for each individual burial. This information has allowed me to construct a demographic profile of those buried in the mounds. 2. Assessment of disposal types. Three primary forms of interment were identified for this material: primary, secondary and cremations. Analysis determined the ratio of primary to secondary burials. The material was also examined for evidence of a correlation between disposal type and age or sex-were men, women and children equally represented in each of the disposal types? 3. Paleopathological profile. An assessment of the pathological conditions present in this collection was completed including identification and discussion of each pathology noted. Information gained from this analysis may determine if the collection follows a pattern of either congenital or stress-related conditions.

Hypotheses to be Tested: Based on these goals, I have formulated certain expectations about the type of information the data should yield. Given the nature of the material, analysis will be limited and these hypotheses will not be formally tested or evaluated through statistical methods. 1. Men, women and children are equally represented in each of the three disposal types present in this collection. 2. The pattern of pathology present in this collection will represent a clear pattern of either congenital or stress related disorders. Hunter-gatherer groups should display a significantly different pattern of pathology than those of a more sedentary, agricultural group (Ortner and Putscharl981; Ubelaker 1978). 3. The demographic profile and pathological patterns of this collection of Effigy Mound material - when compared to similar profiles of other societies of varying levels - may indicate the relative level of social complexity of the Effigy Mound people. While a great deal of research has focused on the archaeology of the Effigy Mound Culture (Goldstein 1995; Hurley 1970, 1975; Lapham 1855; Locke 1840; Mallam 1976; McKern 1925; Rowe 1956; Squier and Davis 1848; Stout 1911; R. Taylor 1838; S. Taylor 1842; Thomas 1894; West 1907), the minimal analysis of skeletal remains has resulted in very little bioarchaeological data being available. When analyses were conducted they consisted of burial type and description of any associated funerary objects without detailed descriptions of the remains themselves. Without a thorough understanding of the skeletal material it is difficult to discern any trends or patterns among the remains. An extensive osteological analysis of this material with a corresponding demographic profile will provide data which may be used to pose archaeological questions of biological distance and social organization in the future, although these questions are well beyond the scope of the present project. Since the passage of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) into law in 1990, a severe time constraint has been put on the analysis ofN ative American skeletal material. It is imperative that these collections be documented and

Christine Fis Ruth

analyzed before they are repatriated or the information that these bones may yield about the Effigy Mound Culture will be lost forever.

have been largely ignored. Effigy Mound research has traditionally focused on determining the nature and function of the mounds themselves (Hurley 1975, 1986; Mallam 1976; Rowe 1956; Skinner 1932; Stout 1911; Thomas 1894). Several authors have developed trait lists for the Effigy Mound Culture which outline specific mound patterns or associated features (Goldstein 1995; Mallam 1976; McKern and Ritzenthaler 1949; Rowe 1956).

The completed analysis was significant in several ways. Little bioarchaeological research has been conducted on egalitarian, hunter-gatherer groups and specifically the Effigy Mound Culture (Fisher 1950; Goldstein 1995; Sullivan 1990). Using the data from this study, the hypotheses set forth in the landmark works on Effigy Mound can be re-examined in the future to see if the skeletal evidence supports the findings. This information may also be useful for cross-cultural comparisons with other egalitarian groups. Since the skeletal evidence of Effigy Mound has been neglected for so many decades, I hope that this project will stimulate an interest in this area and facilitate more research.

While this is valuable information that has contributed to our understanding of the Effigy Mound people, more research needs to focus on examination of the skeletal material. The skeletal material provides the only link to uncovering information about community and religious life since there is no archaeological evidence to confirm the existence of any permanent Effigy Mound settlements. Habitation sites associated with Effigy Mound, including mound and nonmound sites, may not be recognizable due to the transient nature of Effigy Mound life (Rowe 1956: 51). This further complicates the issue since archaeologists have no systematic way of deciding where to look for Effigy Mound habitation sites. In addition, there is evidence to support the idea that habitation sites may have been used as fill for the mounds themselves, thereby destroying any archaeological evidence for permanent settlements (Rowe 1956:72). This lack of Effigy Mound habitation sites has contributed significantly to the dearth of knowledge of this culture.

Background The Effigy Mound Culture of Wisconsin, dated to approximately A.D. 650-1200, was a culture of semi-nomadic hunters and gatherers whose geographical distribution extended from southeastern Wisconsin west and south into other adjoining areas including northern Illinois, northeastern Iowa and eastern Minnesota (Goldstein 1995). Effigy Mound is primarily recognized for the construction oflarge numbers of conical, linear and effigy mounds, most of which contain burials. Popular forms for the effigy mounds included turtles, bears, panthers, deer and various birds (Goldstein 1995). Very little information is known about Effigy Mound due to several important factors. Most of the Effigy Mound sites in Wisconsin were excavated before the advent of modern archaeological methods made possible more advanced investigative techniques and accurate dating methods, especially flotation for organic remains which can help reconstruct diet and radiocarbon dating for more accurate chronologies. Therefore, studies today must rely on what little evidence remains from those early excavations, mainly the human skeletal remains, associated artifacts and sparse field notes.

Plan of Work The work reported here relies on a comprehensive osteological analysis of the skeletal material determined to be culturally affiliated with Effigy Mound at the Milwaukee Public Museum. According to the guidelines set forth by NAGPRA, extensive inventories and research on all the museum's collections, including the Effigy Mound material, have been completed in order to assist efforts at determining cultural affiliation and for repatriation to tribes. Determination of cultural affiliation attempts to prove that a group is directly ancestral to the human remains in question. This is accomplished through examination of a multitude of sources and data including the published literature for the site in question, archaeological field notes and excavation photos, as well as reports, publications and evaluations of sites by the State Archaeologist's Office.

In addition, what skeletal material is available is usually fragmentary and in a fair to poor state of preservation. Merbs ( 1966) has suggested that fragmentary remains can still yield useful bioarchaeological information. Although accurate assessments of age and sex are not hampered by incomplete remains, morphometric analysis is severely limited in such cases. Inaccurate excavation notes also present a problem since disposal types and age and sex estimates were not reliable, resulting in limited demographic information.

Dr. Ann McMullen, Curator of North American Ethnology for the MPM, has identified particular collections as associated with the Effigy Mound Culture. As a physical anthropologist with limited formal training or background in archaeology, I relied on the determinations made by Dr. McMullen for NAGPRA compliance. If further evidence showed that any part of the sample should not be considered Effigy Mound, it was removed from the analysis; and conversely, if we found evidence that an affiliated site was overlooked it was added to the sample.

Despite the fact that the skeletal remains of the Effigy Mound Culture in this collection are extensive, only limited systematic analysis of the skeletal material had previously been undertaken. Most of the excavations took place during 19201940, at a time when the focus of anthropology was on the classification and typology of artifacts, chronological distinctions and taxonomy of cultures (Musil 1982). Due to this theoretical viewpoint, the skeletal remains of this culture

Only a limited amount of the skeletal evidence from the Effigy Mound Culture housed at the Milwaukee Public Museum has 2

Death,

ever been systematically analyzed (Fisher 1950; Goldstein 1995; Sullivan 1990). The collection at the Milwaukee Public Museum provides a unique opportunity to examine Effigy Mound material since so much of it is housed together. This analysis synthesized the archaeological field notes and excavation photos from the original investigators of the sites. Since most were excavated during the normative phase of archaeological research, there is very little detail regarding the skeletal remains. Furthermore, the excavators were not trained physical anthropologists and evidently had only a rudimentary knowledge of osteology. Their information is highly accurate with regard to disposal type and number of individuals in each burial but very poor for estimates of age and sex. This study contributes to the limited amount of bioarchaeological analysis that has been undertaken for the Effigy Mound Culture to date (Glenn 1974; Merbs 1966; Melbye 1969; Myster and O'Connell 1997; Sullivan 1985, 1990). It should either support or refute many of the accepted views of Effigy Mound mortuary practices. Most of the classic approaches to mortuary analysis (Binford 1979; Brown 1971; Saxe 1970) concentrate on linking each specific disposal type, burial form and associated objects to the status of the individual during life. Unfortunately, these hypotheses only work for societies with complex levels of social organization that exhibit clearly defined social hierarchies. Mortuary analysis of egalitarian, hunter-gatherer groups are not included in these early works. Due to the lack of research in this area, it is very difficult to elucidate the social organization from the mortuary practices of prehistoric egalitarian peoples. Finally, given the recent concerns regarding repatriation and the proper handling of Native American human remains and funerary objects, the skeletal analysis was limited in its scope. No invasive procedures, such as histological analysis, were performed since they are strongly discouraged by Wisconsin Native American groups. The Effigy Mound Culture falls into an unusual category under NAGPRA: the skeletal remains and associated funerary objects can be recognized as belonging to the Effigy Mound Culture but are considered "culturally unidentifiable" under the law since no direct link with a present-day Native American group can be established. Fortunately, from the viewpoint of this and future research, these human remains are unlikely to be repatriated quickly under NAGPRA, which has provided me with an extended period in which to further examine and analyze the collection. The Effigy Mound material housed at the MPM comes from twenty sites located in thirteen counties. The distribution of the material is representative of the area occupied by the Effigy Mound Culture in Wisconsin. A preliminary analysis was conducted by the author from August 1997-December 1997 as part ofMPM's NAGPRA inventory of Native American human remains. A detailed inventory of all the remains was completed as well as assessments of age, sex, racial affinity, trauma and pathology. A minimum number of individuals (MNI) was determined for both the site and each individual burial. A specific breakdown by county and site is included in the analysis (Table 1). An MNI of 402 individuals was calculated for the entire Effigy Mound collection housed at the MPM.

and Reconstruction

I used five categories to designate age in my preliminary analysis: 1) Adult: over 21 years of age; 2) Young adult: 1821 years of age; 3) Juvenile: 1-17 years of age; 4) Infant: under one year of age; 5) Foetal: neonatal material. Age assessments were based on the following criteria: dental eruption and development, occlusal surface wear of the teeth, epiphyseal closure of the long bones and cranial suture closure. Depending on the amount and type of skeletal material present, each individual was assessed and placed in one of the five developmental age groups outlined above. Sex was based on assessments of the skull and pelvis when available. Due to the scarcity of complete skeletons, numerous individuals were designated as sex unknown. Racial affinity had already been determined for most of the collection due to its excavation from prehistoric Native American sites. However, during my preliminary analysis, I verified this information for each individual where enough skeletal material was available to make an accurate assessment.For this analysis we will assume that it is correct for those individuals where the remains were too fragmentary to verify them as being of Native American ancestry. No morphometric analysis - including assessments of biological distance - was completed for this collection due to the fragmentary nature of the remains. Measures ofbiological distance are traditionally based on facial and dental measurements which require complete specimens as well as excellent preservation. In addition, a large sample is needed which can accurately reflect the morphology of the original population. Ube laker ( 1989) has suggested a minimum of 100 adult individuals as an acceptable sample size for measuring biological distance. Although the total MNI of this aggregate collection far exceeds this number, it does not contain the complete crania and mandibles of 100 adults. Therefore, conclusions drawn from this sample would not be accurate with regard to ancestry, disqualifying them from inclusion in the analysis, so I have chosen to focus this analysis on other questions. Men, women and children are all represented in the collection, so age and sex do not seem to have been prerequisites for burial in mounds. This sample size is large enough to see if a statistical correlation between age and/or sex emerges for those buried in the mounds. However, the sample size is too small to suggest whether or not the mounds acted as cemeteries or repositories for the dead of an entire community since only a few individuals are buried in each mound. Several authors (Rowe 1956; Goldstein 1995) have suggested that time of death - in terms of seasonality - played a key role in determining not only who was buried in the mounds but also the disposal type employed. According to their reasoning, the mounds acted as seasonal aggregation centers and those individuals who died most recently were buried as primary, flexed interments while those who died during the previous winter months - when the ground was too hard to dig a grave - were allowed to decompose above ground. The bones of these individuals were then bundled and brought to the mounds for secondary burial. This seems like an unlikely scenario since it implies that each individual who died during the winter was brought to the mounds for burial. There is not enough

Christine Fis Ruth

County

Site

Codification Number

Minimum Number of Individuals (MNI)

Calumet

Heller Property

47-CT-25

1

Crawford

Polander

47-CR-39

31

Kolterman

47-DO-155

2

Nitschke

47-DO-27

54

Fox Lake

47-DO-189

1

Raisbeck

47-GT-112

36

Utley

47-GL-63

1

Kratz Creek

47-MQ-39

153

Mcclaughry

47-MQ-38

44

Neale

47-MQ-49

3

5 Islands

47-ME-11/33

3

Kakwatch

47-ME-6

9

Nakutis

47-ME-5

5

Near 5 Islands

47-ME-12

7

Milwaukee

Ravinia Park

47-Ml-83

1

Sheboygan

Kletzien

47-SB-61

13

Trempeleau

Trowbridge

47-TR-28/66

16

Washington

Lizard Mound

47-WT-01

1

Waukesha

Big Bend

47-WK-196

19

Ross Mound

47-WO-16

2

Dodge

Grant Green Lake Marquette

Menominee

Wood TOTAL

-----

20

402

Table 1: Distribution of Wisconsin Effigy Mound Skeletal Material Housed at the Milwaukee Public Museum

skeletal material to account for that many individuals. However, this distribution of disposal types may suggest a religious ceremony linked to the burials of individuals in the mounds such as the Feast of the Dead practiced by other prehistoric Native American groups which will be discussed in further detail in Chapter Six.

burials are secondary, that is, the individual died in another location, was defleshed or left exposed to naturally decompose and the disarticulated bones were then bundled and brought to the mound for burial. Not all individuals in a society would have been transported long distances for burial in a mound, so such burials must have been singled out for special treatment for some reason. Evidence of activities associated with secondary burials should be evident on the skeletal remains in the form of diagnostic cuts and grooves caused by defleshing.

Three forms of interment have been identified for the Effigy Mound material: primary flexed; secondary bundle burials; and cremations. Each form has also been found as both single and multiple burials. Several authors have reported that males and females are equally represented in each of the disposal types (Hurley 1975; Rowe 1956); I tested this hypothesis against the MPM skeletal material. Rowe (1956) and Mallam (1976) estimated that primary and secondary burials occurred in fairly equal numbers with each accounting for about 33% of burials. However, my analysis suggests that there is a much higher occurrence of secondary burials than has been previously recognized. From my preliminary analysis of the skeletal material, I believe that the majority of the mound

Examination of the skeletal material for such indicators was undertaken following the procedures and guidelines outlined by Tim White (1992). Postmortem modifications to the material should be evident in the form of cut marks without visible signs of healing, suggesting dismemberment prior to burial. Fortunately, excavation photos are available for many of the mounds which allows for confirmation of burial type. In contrast, primary burials in which the individual is buried immediately after death - in the flesh and fully articulated 4

Death,

and Reconstruction

NAGPRA Climate

are also found in these mounds. Cremations are present as well, but I find it puzzling why a group of semi-sedentary individuals would take the time to perform two separate forms of mortuary treatment on one individual. Based on the excavation photos and trauma to the skeletal material, I attempted to determine the number of primary versus secondary burials and correlate each disposal type with both age and sex.

Since the passage ofNAGPRA into law in 1990, federal law requires that all federal agencies and non-federal institutions receiving federal funding - including universities, museums and medical schools - which possess collections of Native American, Alaskan Native or Native Hawaiian skeletal material must inventory these collections and make this information available to the federal government, Native American tribes, Alaskan Native Villages and Native Hawaiian organizations and consult with tribes about their cultural and affiliated remains. This law allows modem Native groups to request the skeletal remains of their ancestors for reburial. The goal of the NAGPRA statute is to inventory all Native American skeletal material in collections throughout the United States and provide access to information about them to Native Americans with an eye toward repatriation.

In addition to the lack of general bioarchaeological data for the Effigy Mound Culture, pathological descriptions are also lacking from most site reports for this collection. Osteologists are unable to determine the frequency of any pathological conditions without a systematic analysis and frequency distribution for each condition. Therefore, this analysis included a thorough paleopathological assessment of each pathological condition present. During my preliminary analysis, I noticed numerous examples of pathology involving the vertebrae and long bones. The etiology of these conditions ranges from pathological lesions, infection and arthritis to stress-related injuries. Involvement of the vertebrae at such high levels suggests pathology due to one of two causes: congenital defects or stress as a result of occupational or subsistence strategies. After a more detailed examination, I may be able to determine which explanation accounts for the majority of the pathologies present. An abundance oftraumarelated pathologies indicates the presence of external forces acting on the skeleton which could be the result of cultural behavior, including interpersonal conflict, warfare or practices linked to subsistence. Hunter-gatherer groups should display a significantly different pattern of pathology than those of a more sedentary, agricultural group (Ortner 1981:55). In addition, information about possible stresses present in the Effigy Mound Culture were also examined. Since no invasive procedures are allowed for this material the focus was on those indicators of subsistence stress severe enough to leave a mark on the skeleton. These may include dental caries and porotic hyperostosis, which suggests at least a moderate intake of carbohydrates in the diet, Harris lines on the long bones indicating periods of stress or malnutrition as the bone formed, and linear enamel hypoplasia (LEH) which appear as lines or grooves running transversely across teeth as another indicator of dietary stress or interrupted growth (Ubelaker 1978; White 1991).

Under the law, trained physical anthropologists must make determinations about skeletal material, and consistent and accurate identification of Native American skeletal material is essential to NAGPRA inventories. Skeletal analysis, in addition to determining racial affinity, may also tell anthropologists if the skeletons represent a closely related group. Although this type of detailed relationship requires analysis beyond racial typologies in the examination of specific anomalies unique to each group to measure biological distance, it does provide information about whether or not the individuals belong to the same group and thus should be buried together. In this case, skeletal analysis would also benefit Native Americans by helping to determine biological relationships that could help support their claims for repatriation. One of the biggest concerns in physical anthropology and archaeology today is that when claims are made for skeletal material by Native American groups it is difficult to determine if the group claiming them is a direct descendant. By extracting DNA from ancient bone and comparing it to DNA from living populations, anthropologists could determine how closely the two groups are related and if the skeletal material should be repatriated to them. Unfortunately, no invasive procedures could be performed in this analysis since these techniques are generally discouraged by Native American groups. In addition, comparison of biological information from the skeletal analysis with contemporary populations could also provide clues and yield useful information about diseases in the past that are still plaguing modem populations.

With regard to other cultural factors, two skulls may display evidence of cranial deformation. This would be highly significant since there are no known examples of this skeletal modification associated with the Effigy Mound Culture. Examples of cranial deformation have been documented on every continent except Australia (Ortner and Putschar 1981:90). The two specimens from the MPM collection are characterized as lambdoidal deformation which is restricted to the upper portion of the occipital. It is not clear whether this type of alteration is unintentional or is the result of cultural behavior such as cradle-boarding (Ubelaker 1978: 68). The presence of such a feature may lend credence to the notion that Effigy Mound was not an indigenous development in Wisconsin but rather arose as the result of contact with cultures outside of Wisconsin (Rowe 1956:77).

Even before the passage ofNAGPRA, museums nationwide were attempting to deal with Native American issues. With the growing concern about repatriation, the American Association of Museums (AAM) formed a committee in 1987 to develop museum policy regarding Native American cultural objects and human skeletal remains with particular emphasis on sensitivity to Native American concerns (Ubelaker 1989). The committee outlined considerations for dealing with repatriation issues which they decided should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. This policy argued that the reason for repatriation must outweigh the scientific value of the objects or remains to the museum. In addition, tribes must 5

Christine Fis Ruth

provide documentation that proves they are descendants of the group in question. With the passage ofNAGPRA, these issues are no longer a matter of choice but rather ordered by law.

reburial would severely limit the amount of research they could conduct. One of the most recent tests of the NAGPRA legislation and its validity is the on-going case surrounding the "Kennewick Man" remains in Washington State (Preston 1997). Several physical anthropologists have argued that the skeleton found, even though it dated to approximately 9,300 years ago, displays "Caucasoid" morphological features. They claim that just because a skeleton was found in North America that postdates 11,500 years ago does not automatically make it Native American (Preston 1997). The Army Corps of Engineers confiscated the skeleton before any extensive osteological analyses could be conducted and the Umatilla Indians have claimed it for repatriation under NAGPRA. Several physical anthropologists, including Douglas Ubelaker, are suing the Army Corps of Engineers for possession of the skeleton. In fact, an amendment to NAGPRA has recently been proposed due to the controversy surrounding Kennewick Man. Known as H.R. 2893, it has three major objectives: to lengthen the period for scientific study of repatriated objects to remove the stipulation that culturally unaffiliated items be repatriated if the only evidence of ancestry is common land use, and to clarify NAGPRA's position regarding recent accidental discoveries of Native American objects and human remains (Lovis, Kintigh and Craib 1998). Cases like this may become more frequent and, depending on their outcome, may alter the course of future legislation regarding human skeletal remains and perhaps redefine NAGPRA as well.

There is no question that all human skeletal remains should always be treated with dignity and respect. However, since the passage ofNAGPRA, there has been considerable debate among cultural anthropologists and archaeologists regarding the validity of repatriation. Two of the strongest and most vocal opponents against the repatriation and reburial of human skeletal remains have been Douglas Ubelaker (1989) and Christy Turner ( 1986). As physical anthropologists, both argue that the amount of scientific information that will be lost with the reburial of the majority of the nation's skeletal collections is overwhelming. NAGPRA deadlines have forced physical anthropologists to analyze and document large collections of human skeletal remains in a short period of time, leading to both errors and loss of information (Turner 1986). In addition, for analyses to be thorough and correct, a second researcher should examine the same material and make assessments since his/her expertise may detect something the previous researcher missed. Long-term curation is needed because the collections are so vast that if the material is to be documented in detail, decades will be needed to complete the analyses, but unfortunately reburial does not allow for any of these measures to be taken. Turner and Ubelaker are both highly vocal about their positions and Turner even goes so far to say that "no living culture, religion, interest group or biological population has any moral or legal right to the exclusive use or regulation of ancient human skeletons since all humans are members of a single species ...in other words, ancient human skeletons belong to everyone" (1986: 1). He validates this argument by stating that "the knowledge about worldwide genetic prehistory is so inadequate that very few if any living populations ...can demonstrate their genetic link to prehistoric skeletal populations" (ibid). This problem is further compounded by the fact that the Native American groups will seldom allow any invasive procedures to conduct this type of testing. Ubelaker and others argue that the amount of information about past cultures gained from human skeletal remains is essential and without it there will be huge gaps in our knowledge of prehistory. This information ranges from the physical appearance of individuals to mortuary practices, diet, social stratification and dynamics, activity patterns and paleopathology (Ubelaker 1989). According to data compiled by Lovejoy (1982), skeletal biology represents the largest subdiscipline within physical anthropology and is growing every year with paleopathology and forensics close behind. This indicates that physical anthropologists are primarily interested in human skeletal remains and repatriation and

Outline of the Study This introductory chapter has outlined the general background and problems associated with this study. Chapter Two will present an historical review of Effigy Mound research to the present date as well as current interpretations of its classification within the Late Woodland period. Chapter Three discusses the history of the sample being used in the study including the background of the Milwaukee Public Museum and the history, location and excavation of each of the thirteen sites that comprise the sample. Methodological issues and concerns are covered in Chapter Four. Chapter Five is the demographic profile. Chapter Six discusses the disposal types and mound forms present in this collection. A paleopathological profile derived from the data at MPM is located in Chapter Seven, including photographs of each specimen and a discussion of the major trends and patterns. Chapter Eight discusses the analysis and conclusions drawn from this study.

6

Death,

and Reconstruction

Chapter 2

HISTORICAL REVIEW OF EFFIGY MOUND While the Effigy Mound database is sketchy with regards to osteological material and subsistence practices, the archaeology of the culture is more complete. Most of the Effigy Mound sites in Wisconsin were excavated long before modem archaeology made possible more advanced techniques and accurate dating methods, especially flotation for the retrieval of organic remains which can help reconstruct diet and radiocarbon dating for more accurate chronologies. Therefore, studies must rely on what little evidence remains from those early excavations, namely the human skeletal remains, associated artifacts and sparse field notes. The biggest problem in Effigy Mound research is the relative scarcity of material culture associated with the mounds (Myster and O'Connell 1997). Myster and O'Connell (1997) have argued that the bioarchaeological analysis of the human remains associated with the Effigy Mound Culture and other early occupants of Wisconsin should be a priority since the knowledge it can contribute to archaeological studies is significant and may soon be hampered by repatriation efforts.

Historical Review The Effigy Mound Culture of Wisconsin, dated to approximately AD 650-1200, was a culture of semi-nomadic hunters and gatherers whose geographical center of distribution was focused in southeastern Wisconsin but extends to other adjoining areas including northern Illinois, northeastern Iowa and eastern Minnesota (Figure 1) (Goldstein 1995). Effigy Mound is characterized by the construction of large numbers of conical, linear and animal effigy mounds, most of which contain burials (Goldstein 1995; Petersen 1979). Popular forms for the effigy mounds include turtles, bears, panthers, deer and various birds (Figure 2) (Goldstein 1995). Effigy Mound is classified as belonging to the Woodland period, specifically Late Woodland in Wisconsin. Its presence is signified by several distinctive traits including effigy mounds, Madison-ware ceramics of several different varieties (Figures 3 and 4) and small triangular points, both notched and unnotched (Figure 5) (McKern and Ritzenthaler 1949). Of the sixty-three Late Woodland sites with human remains known in Wisconsin, twenty-six have been classified as Effigy Mound (Myster and O'Connell 1997: 256).

Numerous theories have been put forth to explain the nature and function of the effigy mounds, within the context of Effigy Mound Culture. The original theories attributed the mounds to a lost race of non-Indian mound builders (Squier and Davis 1848). Later theories moved away from this notion toward a more accurate assessment of mounds attributing them to the ancestors of the present-day Indians for which they symbolized totems in a clan structural system (Taylor 1838; Peet 1898; Stout 1911). This was followed by speculations that the effigy mounds represented a more localized cultural development within a larger regional tradition (McKem 1928, 1930; Rowe 1956). In more recent times, the effigy mounds have been viewed as an integrative social and economic mechanism within a specific cultural and ecological environment (Mallam 1976). Our understanding of the original function and purpose of the mounds still remains unclear. It is not the intent of this chapter to resolve this debate or to present a new theory that will explain the construction of the mounds. Instead, this chapter provides an historical review of previous Effigy Mound research and discusses current interpretations of the Effigy Mound Culture. It is the goal of this chapter to illustrate how different researchers have attempted to document and interpret the mounds through time.

One important consideration is that archaeological sites identified as belonging to the Effigy Mound Culture may not have been inhabited by biologically similar or culturally identical individuals. The construction of similar mound shapes and the use of similar points and pottery does not constitute a culture from the point of view of many researchers. Jones (1997:12) has suggested that using archaeology, particularly material culture, to reconstruct the cultural identity of a group may be misleading. Effigy Mound Culture may be more of a contemporary construction than an ancient one and should be reassessed as new information becomes available. These individuals may have been part of a larger regional group that displayed minor variations in their material culture. Given the expansive time range of Effigy Mound and the lack of habitation sites and secure site dates, looking for patterns among these remains may prove to be difficult. Therefore, the data Thave collected may prove useful to archaeologists in the future to answer such questions. 7

Christine Fis Ruth

WISCONSIN

IOWA ILLINOIS

Figure 1: Geographical Distribution of the Effigy Mound Culture (adapted from Goldstein 1981)

B

Death,

Effigy mound shapes (a) concial (b) linear (c) panther (d) eagle (e) water fowl

(j) bird (g) bear (h) buffalo (i) turtle (j) lizard

Turtle effigy mound, Lake Koshkonong

Figure 2: Diagram of Popular Effigy Mound Forms (adapted from Goldstein and Ritzenthaler 1985) 9

and Reconstruction

Christine Fis Ruth

Figure 3: Madisonware, cord-impressed pottery (MPM Anthropology Section photo files)

Figure 4: Madisonware, cord-impressed pottery (MPM Anthropology Section photo files) 10

Death,

and Reconstruction

Figure 5: Examples of Effigy Mound side-notched, triangular points (MPM Anthropology Section photo files)

Hurley (197 5) organized previous Effigy Mound research into three major time periods: 1836-1919, 1919-1956 and 19561972. Each of these time periods represents a distinct approach to the study and analysis of Effigy Mound Culture consistent with the prevailing archaeological theory and approaches of the time. Research conducted prior to 1920 consisted primarily of the initial recognition and description of the effigy mounds (Lapham 1855; Locke 1840; Peet 1895; Squier and Davis 1848; Stout 1911; R. Taylor 1838; S. Taylor 1842; Thomas 1894; West 1907). The development ofa more handson approach during the second period resulted in continued survey of mounds but also initiated mound excavation and habitation site survey. After 1956, with a significant proportion of the mounds mapped and surveyed and many excavated,

researchers turned to more complex questions of cultural diversity and dynamics within the Effigy Mound Culture. For the purposes of this review, a simple chronological sequence of events will be utilized. The individual credited with publishing the first account of an Effigy Mound survey was Richard Taylor in 1838. In an article in the American Journal of Science and Art, he provided the earliest descriptions and illustrations of the effigy mounds in Dane County, Wisconsin. Taylor described the effigy mounds as "rude representations and outlines of certain animals and even the human figure" (1838:2). This statement is most likely the first written account of animal-shaped mounds. Through limited survey and excavation of the

Christine Fis Ruth

mounds he ascertained that both conical and effigy mounds contained roughly equal amounts of bone distributed throughout the mound fill. From the handful of burials found, he noted that the bodies and/or bones were originally placed on the surface of the ground and the mound erected over them. There was no evidence of any intrusive burials added to the mound fill after the mound was completed.

Their research provided no new information and was simply a review of the work completed up to that point. Squier and Davis viewed the Indians as wandering savages who were never sedentary long enough to erect monuments of such magnitude and argued that since present-day Indians did not erect mounds of this type, ancient Indian tribes could not be responsible for building them. They argued for the great antiquity of the mounds but provided no direct evidence to substantiate this claim and believed a different "race" was responsible for the mounds in Ohio as opposed to those in Wisconsin. Squier and Davis were also interested in determining the geographical boundaries of the Effigy Mound Culture. The Mound Builder myth increased in popularity and acceptance with the publication of this work (Petersen 1979).

In addition to documentation of the mounds, Taylor also attempted to identify the builders of the mounds. Despite the popularity of the "mound builder myth" at this time Taylor correctly deduced that the ancestors of contemporary Indian groups were responsible for their construction. He argued that just because recent groups oflndians did not construct mounds or recall their ancestors doing so did not eliminate the possibility that they were the builders. He demonstrated the mobile nature of the Indians by stating that "Indian traditions concerning these mounds, especially as the last occupiers of the soil were but comparatively in recent possession" (1838: 12) and went on to say that because successive tribes occupied the region, current groups were not reliable indicators of the history of the area. Taylor believed the original purpose of the mounds was as totem or clan symbols in which each tribe distinguished itself from others by claiming a representative totem animal. According to Taylor's interpretation, when an individual died, a mound was erected in their honor in the form of the animal which symbolized his/her tribe.

In 1881 the Bureau of Ethnology, later to become the Bureau of American Ethnology of the Smithsonian Institution, under the direction of John Wesley Powell, created a division of mound exploration. Powell believed that the perpetuation of the mound builder myth was a major deterrent in discovering the truth about who built the mounds and prevented researchers from depicting the Indians in an historically accurate manner. Cyrus Thomas was appointed to head the mound exploration division and his main assignment was to discover the true identity of the mound builders. Even though this was the main directive from the Smithsonian, Thomas hoped to accomplish several of his own goals. Primarily, he wanted to eliminate the use of Squier and Davis's classification scheme which was based on no actual survey or excavation and divided the mounds arbitrarily. To accomplish this, Thomas hoped to complete a comprehensive survey and description of the mounds which would allow for a more accurate classification system. In addition, Thomas wanted to determine the geographical range of each different class of mound as well as gain some insight into the actual construction process of the mounds. In his thorough survey he reported on numerous mound groups in Wisconsin including those from Barron, Crawford, Dane, Grant, Rock, Sheboygan and Vernon counties. Thomas compiled the results of his years of excavation and survey into the 1894 Report on the Mound Explorations of the Bureau of Ethnology.

John Locke (1840) made an important contribution to the Effigy Mound survey by being the first individual to systematically measure the mounds. He did not appear to be interested in the history or origin of the mounds as much as their documentation. Even at this time, in the mid 1800s, many mounds had already suffered severe destruction. Locke was concerned that if researchers did not accurately measure and document the mounds they would be obliterated entirely. The mounds were still unknown to most people at this time since the only other published documentation was Richard Taylor's (1838). Locke wanted to spark interest in the mounds to encourage detailed surveys and excavations to help preserve the mounds for the future. Crude but thorough measurements were taken of the effigy mounds which involved placing a stake in each of several designated anatomical regions of the animal form (shoulder, hip, head, etc.) and measuring the resulting triangles.

Thomas vehemently opposed the conclusions set forth by Squier and Davis, arguing that they were based solely on conjecture and limited evidence and jumped to too many conclusions regarding the classification of the mounds. He completely rejected the notion of the mound builder myth attributing the building of the mounds to the Indians. He also noted that there was no evidence to support the idea of the great antiquity of the mounds.

At about the same time, Stephen Taylor (1842) was also studying the mounds in the southwestern portion ofWisconsin, and was one of the first researchers to attempt to find a link between the mounds and their environment. Like Locke he introduced more scientific methods into his work, including an analysis of soil types (Petersen 1979).

In 1855, Increase A. Lapham, on behalf of the American Antiquarian Society, published his Antiquities of Wisconsin which was the result of his wide scale survey of the mound groups in Wisconsin. Lapham was especially interested in those mounds that were being destroyed by farming and development. In 1907 George West wrote "The Indian Authorship of Wisconsin Antiquities", which was published in the Wisconsin Archaeologist. While not contributing much significant new information on the topic, he did provide a review of the literature concerning the identity of the mound

In 1848, Squier and Davis published their Ancient Monuments of the Mississippi Valley in which they attempted to outline and defend the mound builder myth. They assigned each mound to a group (sepulchral, temple, etc) and delineated a classification scheme. It is interesting to note that Squier and Davis relied on the surveys of Richard Taylor (1838), Locke (1840) and Stephen Taylor (1842) for all of their information. 12

Death,

builders. In 1911 Stout published Prehistoric Earthworks in Wisconsin in which he discussed effigy mounds as well as other earthen structures throughout the state. The work provides the distribution of each of these forms as well as drawings and illustrations. Stephen Peet, a minister and editor of the American Antiquarian and Oriental Journal ( 1895) was the first researcher to provide a map of an effigy mound group outside Wisconsin. Peet identified over forty different species of birds and animals represented in the effigy forms and noted that certain animal shapes were clustered in certain parts of the state. Several researchers including Petersen (1979) noted that Peet often manipulated his data to fit his theories so the information he presented may not be reliable. In 1925, W. C. McKern, curator of the Department of Anthropology at the Milwaukee Public Museum, began an extensive state-wide survey of effigy mounds in Wisconsin. Since it would have been too time consuming to examine every mound in the state, McKern suggested a sampling strategy based on recovering excavation data from within a broad band extending from the eastern to the western borders of Wisconsin. He argued that the cultural diversity present in these mounds should be representative of all the mounds in the state. McKern hoped to move beyond descriptions of the mounds to answer questions about the diversity of the people who built the mounds in Wisconsin. After two decades of research, McKern and his colleague Robert Ritzenthaler developed a trait list for the Effigy Mound Culture which outlined specific patterns and descriptions from stone artifacts to burial customs, pottery styles and subsistence strategies (McKern and Ritzenthaler 1949). Numerous individuals, including David Baerreis (1949), have questioned the validity of the trait list since it is geared towards finding similarities among groups and minimizes the differences. Since it is often the small differences that signify the influence or presence of another culture, many believed that this was a dangerous approach to classifying sites as belonging to the Effigy Mound Culture.

Current Interpretations of Effigy Mound Classification

and Reconstruction

of the Effigy Mound culture including habitation, economic life, pottery and ceremonial life. The focus of his analysis was the Raisbeck Mound Group in Grant County which was originally excavated by McKern. Rowe used McKern's unpublished data to compare the effigy mound traits with other groups in the area and attempted to develop typologies and chronologies which would help tie them culturally to other groups in the area. In 1975, William Hurley published a revised version of his 1970 dissertation in An Analysis of Effigy Mound Complexes in Wisconsin.Hurley provided an historical review of previous effigy mound research which compiled and synthesized data from the previous I 00 years. The analysis was based on the data from excavations at the Bigelow and Sanders sites in west-central Wisconsin and involved the identification and interpretation of the material culture of these two sites. The analysis included site occupation, burial customs, and settlement patterns. Hurley attempted to delineate the cultural components of Effigy Mound based on material culture. From this data, Hurley divided Effigy Mound into three separate time periods: early, middle and late. Hurley ignored mound form, location and distribution and focused solely on material culture, especially textiles as preserved on pottery. In 1976 Clark Mallam published the Iowa Effigy Mound Manifestation which attempted to develop an interpretive model of Effigy Mound cultural dynamics based on Iowa mound groups. Mallam was one of the first researchers to suggest that the mounds acted as seasonal aggregation centers in which groups comprised of several related families met and dispersed according to the seasonal availability ofresources. Twenty years earlier, Rowe (1956: 90) suggested similar patterns among the Effigy Mound Culture in which groups would cyclically return to mound groups in the search for food. Goldstein ( 1995) discusses the mounds as landscape markers, not in the traditional sense as maps but rather as indicators of the location of resources. She suggests that the mounds are "symbolic representations of both form and space to the people who built and used the mounds" ( 1995:118). Goldstein also summarized the basic features of the Effigy Mound Culture:

Studies published after 1930 often represent analyses of the Effigy Mound Culture rather than being simple site descriptions and surveys. The major works include Goldstein (1995); Hurley (1970, 1975); Mallam (1976); and Rowe (1956) The birth of radiocarbon dating in the 1950s brought new issues to the foreground of Effigy Mound research and archaeology as a whole. This new technology allowed researchers to place Effigy Mound chronologically within the Late Woodland period. Other issues were popular as well, including what the mounds might reveal about the belief systems, social organization and lifestyle of the Effigy Mound people.

4. There are a variety of techniques used to construct the mounds but it appears that they are usually constructed at one time, not in stages.

In 1956, Rowe published The Effigy Mound Culture of Wisconsin which attempted to provide a general description

5. Mounds usually contain one or more of the following features: a fireplace or altar usually located near a burial,

1. Mounds are usually about 2 meters in height but may vary in length from 20-50 meters and may be as large as 100 meters. 2. Mounds generally occur in groups ranging from 3-100. 3. There is no clear pattern to the distribution and orientation of the mounds and conical, linear and effigy mounds are often present together in the same mound group.

Christine Fis Ruth

a cist (a small feature with a concave bottom and vertical walls of clay) and burials.

reconstruct the origin of these groups through a biological distance study and test the idea that Oneota developed from a local Middle to Late Woodland origin. Glenn noted a muscularity and robusticity in the Effigy Mound crania not present in the Oneota material suggesting that the Oneota and Effigy Mound Cultures have separate origins. Sullivan (1990) analyzed the skeletal material from the Raisbeck and Nitschke mound groups in Wisconsin in order to determine the biological effects of contact of Middle Mississippian groups on Late Woodland groups. Sullivan compared levels of trauma, pathology and mortality profiles in Middle Mississippian, Archaic, Oneota and the two Effigy Mound sites, specifically looking for the incidence of dental caries and their relation to their diet and subsistence practices. Sullivan noted that the Effigy Mound material exhibited levels of caries (32%) intermediate between those ofhunter-gatherer groups (9.52%) and agriculturalists (61.5%). High levels of carious lesions in conjunction with the presence of porotic hyperostosis indicate a subsistence strategy based on maize consumption. While maize agriculture is not traditionally associated with the Effigy Mound Culture, Tiffany (1974) has recovered both maize and wild rice from the Brogley Rockshelter in southwestern Wisconsin. The lack of maize and caries from most Effigy Mound sites, however, indicates a form of food production other than intensive agriculture. Benchley et al. ( 1998) have contributed a significant volume which summarizes the archaeological and bioarchaeological research conducted in Iowa, Minnesota and Wisconsin and discusses the history of each region from the Paleoindian period through contact.

6. Three primary forms of interment have been noted for effigy mounds: primary flexed, bundle reburials and cremations. All three forms have been found as both single and multiple burials. 7. Not every mound may include a burial and those that do contain the remains of only a few individuals. 8. Individuals of all ages and both sexes are represented by the burials. 9. Grave goods are a rare occurrence in effigy mound burials and usually include utilitarian items such as pipes or pottery. 10. The placement of the burials within the effigy form does not appear to be random and is usually located near the heart or head of the animal. The time of origin and existence of the Effigy Mound Culture has been debated for many years. Hurley argues that Effigy Mound is a local development in southern Wisconsin during the Late Woodland which emerged from an unknown Middle Woodland culture. Thus, he argues for an earlier origin of A.D. 300 and a persistence to contact in 1642. Benn (1979), Salkin (1987), andMallam (1976) agree with the early origin date but argue that the Effigy Mound Culture probably had already begun to disband by 1300. Gibbon believes that Effigy Mound was transformed into Oneota about A.D. 9001100.

Despite the fact that archaeologists and other researchers have been studying effigy mounds for 160 years, we still know relatively little about the Effigy Mound Culture. There is no general agreement on the nature and function of the mounds themselves, either. The data presented here will contribute to the small amount ofbioarchaeological data available for the Effigy Mound Culture and may be applied in the future to archaeological questions still unanswered.

More recently, several researchers have tackled bioarchaeological questions associated with the Effigy Mound Culture. Glenn (1974) conducted a physical anthropological study comparing skeletal remains of the Oneota with eighteen Effigy Mound individuals from seven different sites. Through comparisons of cranial size and shape, Glenn attempted to

14

Death,

and Reconstruction

Chapter3 HISTORY OF THE SAMPLE Reservation and Ravinia Park in Shorewood and added significantly to the MPM's ethnographic collection. Before coming to the Milwaukee Public Museum, Skinner was employed at the Heye Museum in New York City and returned there in 1924. During a field expedition the following year, Skinner was killed in an accident.

History of the Milwaukee Public Museum The Milwaukee Public Museum was founded in 1882 as a public museum of natural history with a staff of two people and 20,000 objects donated by the Natural History Society of Wisconsin (Lurie 1983). Originally located in the central public library, the museum moved to its current location at 800 West Wells Street in 1962. Over the last century, the museum has grown to become one of the four largest natural history museums in the United States with a collection of over 6.1 million specimens representing anthropology, botany, geology, history and zoology (Ann McMullen, personal communication). The museum maintains a library of over 125,000 volumes and has 21 curatorial staff who conduct research throughout the world. In 1996 the MPM underwent major renovation and expansion and is now part of a museum complex which includes the Milwaukee Public Museum, Discovery World (a museum of science and technology) and the Humphrey IMAX Dome Theatre.

W.C. McKern replaced Skinner as Curator of Anthropology in January 1925 and remained in the position until 1943 when he became director of the museum. His long tenure represents the heyday of the museum's archaeological collecting phase. McKern was responsible for numerous excavations throughout the state including those at Cloisonne, McClaughry, Neale, Nitschke, Polander, Trowbridge and Utley. McKern also continued Barrett's tradition of ethnographic work with the Wisconsin Indians. McKern was concerned with getting the museum back on track after the Depression and initiated several new programs to assist these efforts. In 1944 he initiated a membership organization called the Friends of the Museum (FOM) which he hoped would attract patrons and benefactors to the museum and in 1954 he replaced the MPM Bulletins with Publication in Anthropology (Lurie 1983).

The Department of Anthropology at the Milwaukee Public Museum was fortunate throughout its history to have four curators whose long tenure and active field research allowed the department to accumulate impressive collections of archaeologicalmaterials. S.A.Barrett was the first Anthropology curator from 1909-1921 and later became director of the museum with a term that lasted from 1920-1940. Barrett conducted a variety of archaeological investigations during his term including those at Five Islands, Kakwatch and Kratz Creek. Barrett also encouraged field work in distant places and was particularly interested in the photographic documentation of excavations and fieldwork. In the 1920s he launched the publication of a new monograph series, the MPM Yearbook. Unlike the MPM Bulletin, which was written in a highly technical style aimed at professionals working in the field, the Yearbook was designed to reach a much broader audience of readers. It was designed to keep people in the community abreast of the museum's activities and research through a more popular colloquial language and style.

Robert Ritzenthaler took over as curator in 1943 and remained until 1972. Ritzenthaler is considered to be the founding father of the Anthropology Department at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee (ibid). While UWM was still an extension division, Ritzenthaler taught several anthropology classes there during 1946-1947. The classes were so popular that they created a full-time anthropology position in the sociology department. In 1956 the extension division merged with the State Teachers College to become the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee and a separate Anthropology Department was formed. Since 1972 several individuals have occupied the position of curator in the anthropology department at MPM. The position was divided into an archaeology and an ethnographic section, each with its own curator. From 1972-1994 Nancie Lurie was curator ofNorth American ethnology. During this same period Thomas Kehoe was curator of the North American archaeology section of the department. Since 1994 Ann McMullen has held this position. It has reverted to the former position in which both archaeology and ethnology are covered by one individual.

Alanson B. Skinner was hired as an assistant in the Anthropology Department in 1920 and was promoted to curator in 1921 where he remained until 1924. In his short tenure, Skinner excavated several sites on the Menominee 15

Christine Fis Ruth

lrd Cliff Ouppcw.1 l~rntion

l~s· L Croiz Ch.ipprwA ~UGI\

. I .,._

,v-,i:&S

i------~

---◄•

'1 . •

~11-00N

•• '

:·:7

--~---~ /

------.

•oMJs-••.

..

'//

Wiscotttin Win~

10 C

,,,

;!iii-LA-. -,-.,-Cf-t[ _ _;-,-11-(-tN_f'.,.,:--IIOCA __ .l-_..,.;__,L..:..a,~~'"="-"\

Figure 6: Map of Wisconsin indicating county boundaries (adapted from the Great Lakes Inter-Tribal Council)

SITE DESCRIPTIONS

Crawford County-Polander Mound Group (47-CR-39)

(Figure 6)

Location: The site is located on a terrace and hill slope on the north side of Polander Hollow about 100-200 yards inside the mouth of the hollow (Figure 8).

Calumet County-Heller Property (4 7-CT-25)

Location: Ed Heller property near Stockbridge, lot #17 on the east side of Lake Winnebago (Figure 7)

Excavated by: WC. McKem (1929) and Cyrus Thomas (prior to 1889)

Excavated by: Increase A. Lapham (1851)

Publications: McKem (1931); Thomas (1894)

Publications: Lapham (1855)

The Polander Mound Group was originally described and excavated by Thomas ( 1894) in his report for the Bureau of Ethnology. McKem decided to excavate those mounds that had been neglected or overlooked by Thomas. The mound

The location of this mound group is impossible to pinpoint from the contradictory information given. The burial found on this property came from a turtle mound. 16

Death, Decay and Reconstruction '..r:--· ·... ,._,;_. ···•.,.

Al"CCIIIE~T W(IDIRilK~

E.~~!~'F~ ,J;i~~i:f ~~;~::}t;;:: ..;;·~... ,f~t:~W;f ~.J;{~~?~~;\,::,::_• -'

c