Indian Mounds ofWisconsin Written by Robert A. Birmingham and Leslie E. Eisenberg. The University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, Wisconsin, 2000. 222 pp, Includes bibliographical references and index. $18.95 Paperback. $45.00...... Cloth Library Edition Reviewed by Thomas C. Pleger University of Wisconsin-Fox Valley

building was carried out by a number of prehistoric 1f{aving taught Wisconsin Archaeology as an upper cultures over a considerable amount of time that likely division course within the University of Wisconsin represented at least several thousand years. System since 1993, I am always quite excited to read The authors start their summary of the prehistory new publications focusing on Wisconsin's prehistory. of our region with a brief overview of "Wisconsin Indian Mounds of Wisconsin is a well-written and Before the Mound Builders: The Paleo-Indian and up-to-date synthesis of the development of Native Archaic Traditions." Paleo-Indians were the rust to American cultures in the area we now call Wisconsin. enter our region at the end of the Pleistocene approxi­ Bob Birmingham is the State Archaeologist for mately 12000-13000 years ago. They were egalitarian Wisconsin and Leslie Eisenberg, a forensic anthro­ nomadic hunters ofterrestrial megafuana. Paleo-Indian pologist, is the Coordinator for the state 's Burial Sites life ways were gradually replaced during the early Program. Both of the authors are employed by the State Holocene with a more diversified subsistence economy Historical Society of Wisconsin and are actively that included hunting of terrestrial fauna, fishing, and engaged in local archaeology. They have collaborated the collection of wild plants. These cultural practicc ~, on this book to provide the reader with an overview of along with the burial of the dead in natural, non­ 12,000 years ofhuman occupation with an emphasis on man-made knolls, collectively define the Archaic mound building cultures of the last 2,000 years. tradition. Additionally, Archaic Indians began to manu­ The authors begin with a historical overview ofthe facture, use and trade copper artifacts. As trade in­ mysteries that have surrounded the many mounds that creased by the 1st millelUlium BC, Indian culture:; dot the landscape of Eastern North America. In the became more complex in terms ofsocial organization. latter half of the 19th Century, scholars as well as lay Burials from this time often included high-status people heavily debated the authorship of these artifacts made specifically for mortuary rituals. During earthworks that varied widely in shape and size. Due in the second half of the first millennium BC, Indian part to the ethnocentric views of 19th century, and cultures began to build mounds, manufacrure pottery scholars that saw Native Americans cultures as containers, and experiment with the growing ofplants, "primitive" in relation to Old World cultures, few although not all at once. These patterns collectively credited the ancestors ofmodern day Indian tribes with define the Woodland tradition. During the Woodland the capability of producing such monumental works. tradition, a number of mound-building cultures flou­ In 1855 the Smithsonian Institution published The rished in Wisconsin, including the Hopewell and Effigy Antiquities ofWisconsin, as Surveyed and Described by Mound Cultures. The Woodland tradition is divided by Increase Lapham. This work brought recognition to archaeologists into Early, Middle and Late stages. The Wisconsin not only because it documented the presence book presents a summary of the mound building of earthworks like those known elsewhere in eastern cultures associated with each stage of the Woodland North America, but also because it showed that Wis­ tradition. consin had a unique mound building episode that The authors point out that early mound construc­ included the construction of mounds in the shapes of tion (500 BC- AD 500) in Wisconsin was primaril animal effigies. By the late 1800s, professional associated with the burial of the dead and may have archaeologists had demonstrated that, contrary to popu­ also been a ceremonial activity that strengthened social lar myth, Native Americans had indeed built the ties within family-kin groups and larger tribal corporate mounds. groupings. Mound building began during the Early Archaeologists also recognized that mound Woodland stage and by Middle Woodland times (100 BC-AD 500), mound building cultures in Wisconsin

40 1'1 © \\"'scollsill Geographical Society, 2002. were participating in a larger cultural pattern referred mound forms can be grouped into the above-mentioned to as Hopewell. Hopewell Culture mounds were built cosmological categories. Therefore, the authors argue in Wisconsin along major river systems and are that the mounds represent a material link between an particularly concentrated along rivers, lakes and ancient ideological belief system and that of historic streams. These mounds are usually conical in form and Indians. contain sub-floor tomb burials with elaborate artifacts Although this is a plausible explanation, at present made from materials that were imported from as far it is very difficult to test scientifically. This is mainly away as the Plains and the Gulf Coast. The authors due to the fact that we do not know how far back in point out that Hopewellian peoples appear to have lived time modern Indian belief systems can be reliably in societies where there were noticeable differences in traced. Most archaeologists would agree that it is much social inequality. Those of higher status were buried in easier to trace a people back in time by comparing mounds. By AD 500, this elaborate episode of mound stylistic similarities in material culture (artifacts such as construction and trade faded from the landscape. stone tools, ceramics, dwellings, etc.) than to compare During the succeeding Late Woodland stage, a similarities in ideology (religion, beliefs, etc.).So far, new mound building culture developed in Wisconsin. professional archaeologists have not been able to Between AD 700 and AD 1200, thousands of mounds establish indisputable material links between Effigy were built within the southern two thirds ofWisconsin, Mound Culture and any single modern Indian tribe. northern Illinois, northeastern Iowa, and eastern However, the authors do make a valuable contribution Minnesota. The greatest concentration ofthese mounds to the interpretation of effigy mounds by suggesting an occurs in Wisconsin. They were often built in groups or alternative explanation to the meanings of the mounds chains and in the forms ofavian, terrestrial and aquatic than those traditionally held by contemporary archaeo­ shaped animals along with small conical mounds, linear logists. Although we do not know the entire role that mounds, and occasionally anthropomorphic forms. these mounds played in prehistoric societies, we do These mounds often contain burials. Archaeolo­ know that Effigy Mound Culture ended by approxi­ gists refer collectively to the builders of these ani­ mately AD 1200. This may have been in part due to the mal-shaped mounds as Effigy Mound Culture. For development ofnew cultural patterns influenced by the nearly a century and a half, archaeologists have at­ arrival of new peoples from the south. tempted to explain the purpose of these mounds. By AD 900, a new cultural pattern was present in Archaeologists have interpreted effigy mounds as Wisconsin. The Mississippian Tradition is defined by totemic lineage markers, territorial markers, and even the archaeological appearance of shell-tempered astronomical markers. Additionally, archaeologists ceramics, intensive agricultural villages and the have sought to establish direct cultural connections construction of temple mounds. Aztalan State Park, between prehistoric effigy mound builders and specific Wisconsin's largest prehistoric community, is inter­ modern historic Indian tribes. preted as a Middle Mississippian-related village. This The authors add a relatively new approach to the site is related to the massive Mississippian site of interpretation of effigy mounds. Like previous re­ Cahokia near present day St. Louis. The authors indi­ searchers, they believe that effigy mounds functioned cate that these communities were headed by a ruling in part as burial places, ceremonial centers, and terri­ chiefly elite and that the presence of Mississippian torial markers. However, Birmingham and Eisenberg people in Wisconsin between AD 900 and AD 1250 go one step further by interpreting the meaning of the may be due to the development ofa trading system that mound forms. They suggest that effigy mounds can be included Wisconsin's local Late Woodland inhabitants. viewed as maps to prehistoric ideological systems. The For reasons not yet completely understood, Mississip­ authors focus on the cosmology or world view of pian cultural practices also declined by AD 1250. historic Indian peoples, particularly the Ho-Chlillk The period ofAD 1250 to the arrival ofEuropeans (Winnebago). Much of their data is derived from the in the 17th century saw little in the way of mound oral testimony of Indian informants that was collected building activities in Wisconsin. Some cultures by historians, archaeologists, and ethnographers. continued to hunt and gather while others such as the In this view, the authors recognize that some Great Oneota practiced intensive corn, beans, and squash Lakes historic Indian peoples viewed their world as agriculture supplemented with hunting and gathering. being comprised of two tiers of life and ofsupernatural The authors discuss the possible relationships betwcen forces. According to the authors, this view includes an these late prehistoric cultures and modern Indian tribes. upper-world consisting of sky or avian life forces and They also discuss the impact ofEuropean diseases, and a lower-world represented by terrestrial life forms and the technologies, economies and religions on indige­ water spirit creatures. The authors believe that effigy ,BOUS cultures.

41 Binningham and Eisenberg conclude with a It will appeal to the student of North American discussion of the laws that protect mounds and other prehistory as well as to the general public. I intend to types of archaeological sites in Wisconsin. TIley em­ add Indian Mounds ofWisconsin to my list of readings phasize the need for preserving these nonrenewable for my Wisconsin Archaeology course. cultural resources for future Wisconsinites. Addition­ ally, the authors recognize the importance of increased Recommended Readings collaboration between public, professional archaeo­ logists, and Native American communities. Finally, the Birmingham, Robert A., Carol I. Mason and James B. book contains a bibliographic notes section, a Stoltman (editors). 1997. " Wisconsin Archaeo­ bibliography, and a detailed appendix of selected logy." (Special Issue) Wisconsin Archeologist, 78 mound sites located on public lands in Wisconsin that Nos. 1-2. can be visited by the reader. . Mason, Carol 1. 1988. Introduction to Wisconsin In­ Overall, this is a well-written summary of the rich dians· PrehistolY to Statehood. Sheffield Press, prehistoric archaeological record of Wisconsin, with Salem, WI. particularly good coverage ofmound building cultures

Dr. Thomas C. Pleger is Associate Campus Dean and Assistant Professor of Anthropology and Archaeology at the University of Wisconsin-Fox Valley. At the time this review was being published, he was also president of the Wisconsin Archaeological Survey (the membership ofprofessional archaeologists in Wisconsin). His research interests include the archaeology of northeastern Wisconsin, particularly of the Old Copper and Red Ocher complexes. He received his B.S. from UW-La Crosse in 1991 , and his M.A and Ph.D. in Anthropology from UW -Madison in 1993 and 1998 respectively. As part of his Ph.D. program, he minored in Geography. He has taught at UW-Madison, UW-La Crosse, UW-Marinette, Lawrence University and UW-Fox Valley. He may be reached at [email protected].

~ 42