sign in sign up
<<
Home , Antler, Cherokee clans, Chota (Cherokee town), Dallas Phase, Overhill Cherokee, Tanasi

Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 20 (2018) 888–895

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jasrep

The magic of improbable appendages: antler objects in the archaeological record of the American South T ⁎ Tanya M. Peresa, , Heidi Altmanb a Department of Anthropology, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306, United States b Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Southern University, P.O. Box 8051, Carroll Building, Rm. 1003, Statesboro, GA 30460, United States

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: In the American South white-tailed deer remains are recovered in abundance from late prehistoric archae- Ethnozooarchaeology ological sites and have been used to identify numerous social and cultural phenomena including status based amulet differences in food consumption, feasting, inter-site transport of foodstuffs, and regional variation in subsistence Antler strategies. Meat, marrow, , antler, and hide were important physical contributions of deer to the daily lives Velvet of southeastern native peoples. However, deer also play(ed) an important role in self-identity and social structure (Deer clan). In this paper we bring together multiple lines of evidence to offer a nuanced interpretation of white- Deer tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) antler objects recovered from Native American archaeological sites in the pre- European Southeastern United States in the traditional homelands of the of the American South. We review the importance of the culturally appropriate interactions with deer as taught in deer hunting lore and taboos recorded in ethnographic and ethnohistoric sources. With this understanding, we then identify the ma- terial manifestations of deer hunting amulets from several archaeological sites in our study area. Ultimately our study of antler objects shows that combining indigenous knowledge with material studies gives us new insights into how humans perceived and interacted with the animals that lived in their shared environment, and fosters new interpretations of material culture.

1. Introduction relationships between humans and animals that move us beyond sub- sistence-only based interpretations. Past human-animal relationships At least since Hallowell's (1960) ethnographic work among the are most effectively studied through an ethnozooarchaeological lens. Ojibwe, anthropologists have noted that some indigenous hunting We bring together multiple lines of evidence to offer a nuanced inter- groups perceive animals as other-than-human persons. The construction pretation of white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) antler objects of these non-human animals as people who have agency, morals, and recovered from Mississippian and Early Historic period sites that are responsibilities forces anthropologists to look beyond the human-an- situated in the traditional homelands of the Cherokee Indians of the imal boundary to understand that culture and nature are not mutually American South. Ultimately our study of antler objects shows that exclusive domains of knowing the world (Choyke, 2010; Overton and combining indigenous knowledge with material studies gives us new Hamilakis, 2013; Russell, 2012). In these relationships, interactions insights into how humans perceived and interacted with the animals between humans and animals were mediated by socially proscribed that lived in their shared environment, and fosters new interpretations actions, thoughts, and material culture. These interactions, when con- of material culture. ducted properly according to culturally-specific beliefs, allowed for the Numerous anthropological studies have focused on hunting groups, agency of the animals to be validated, and in turn resulted in hunting both in the past and present. These studies explore the themes of food success for the human. While many of the actions and thoughts of sharing and exchange, the symbolic nature of human-animal relations, hunters do not survive in the archaeological record, the material culture sexual division of labor, social and political structure, and the use of associated with hunting success often does preserve, especially in the hunting magic, among others (Jones O'Day et al., 2004). Typically the form of hunting amulets (Hill, 2011). Data generated from archae- study of human-animal relations is based on either a functionalist ological excavations in conjunction with ethnographic and linguistic ecological approach - where animals exist and are classified in terms of records can be analyzed for patterns in the artifact data to uncover the their caloric input to human diets, or on a symbolic approach - where

⁎ Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (T.M. Peres), [email protected] (H. Altman). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2017.10.028 Received 30 April 2017; Received in revised form 20 October 2017; Accepted 22 October 2017 Available online 15 November 2017 2352-409X/ © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. T.M. Peres, H. Altman Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 20 (2018) 888–895 animals are seen as a mirror, reflecting the structure of human societies systems (Altman, 2006; Hudson, 1978; Pluckhahn and Ethridge, 2006). (Ewonus, 2011; Overton and Hamilakis, 2013; Shanklin, 1985). Moving These aspects of traditional culture incorporate the same sets of native beyond this dichotomous approach, we see that in many societies, the animals across time and in similar ecological settings. However, at relationships between animals and humans intersect at numerous present most research on the late pre-European contact Mississippian points, so that they are intertwined with one another. Nadasdy (2007) period depends heavily on material culture interpretations of native argues that the ways in which humans interact with animals is not only people's intent, relationships, and experience by modern archaeologists. symbolic or based on the caloric needs of the former, but rather is a set Our goal is to show that animal remains recovered from Native of real social relations full of obligations and reciprocity. His under- American archaeological sites in the pre-European Southeastern United standing of these relationships is based on the premise that animals are States, while in many cases are evidence of past foods eaten, offer in- people in as much as humans are people, as evidenced by his work with sight into the social world inhabited by indigenous humans and animals the Kluane First Nation in the southwest Yukon (Nadasdy, 2007). in the past, and that parts of this worldview persist into the present. We Many of the existing studies focused on hunting groups who did not illustrate the importance of hunting amulets to Cherokee hunters across practice agriculture as a subsistence strategy, which is unlike the time as evidenced by accounts of hunting formulas and deer hunting Mississippian period peoples included in our study. We contend that lore and taboos in the ethnographic and ethnohistoric records. With this these studies are still relevant as the indigenous peoples of the understanding, we then identify the material manifestations of deer Mississippian through early Historic periods did not have domesticated hunting amulets from several archaeological sites in our study area. animals (other than dogs, and possibly turkeys - see Peres and Ledford, 2016), and thus hunting native animals was a critical part of their 2. Anikituwah ‘People of Kituwah’ and Anikahwi ‘Deer People’ subsistence regime. Numerous native taxa are represented in zooarch- aeological species lists, but none are as ubiquitous as the white-tailed James Mooney (1902) and others have documented the traditional deer (Odocoileus virginianus)(Bogan, 1976, 1980, 1983, 1987; Bogan Cherokee region as consisting of the contiguous modern states of Ap- et al., 1986; Dickens, 1976; Evans and Smith, 1988; Holm, 1993, 1994; palachian Georgia, , North Carolina, , Kentucky, Rundquist, 1979. It is accepted that most of the deer remains in ar- and . Although the Cherokees have been known to chaeological sites are byproducts of food processing and consumption. outsiders by various names, and even though archaeology distinguishes Our intent in this paper is to show that certain artifact attributes and pre-contact peoples from contemporary peoples, we see this region as recovery contexts should signal to archaeologists that some animal re- the past and present home of the Anikituwah, the people of Kituwah. mains, and in this case some deer antler pieces, were deposited at sites Kituwah is the Mother Town of the Cherokees and a site of deep for other non-food purposes. Considering the vital role deer played in spiritual significance (see Fig. 1). Its location in North Carolina puts it at indigenous life, we argue that their relationship to humans was as a the epicenter of the emergence of Cherokee culture and we trace the counterpart, or other-than-human person. The attribution of person- beliefs and practices of the Kituwah people as a connecting thread over hood to animals affords them the ability to think, speak, and act with time. This work is unique among other Mississippian archaeological intention, in other words ‘personhood’ equals ‘agency’. Other-than- projects in that the Cherokee people are culturally and linguistically human persons were not objects to be manipulated or acted on, but distinct from their neighbors and we look to demonstrate that dis- rather persons that demanded and deserved respectful interaction. As tinctness by documenting the cultural contexts for the faunal materials. detailed below, prey animals were understood to give themselves to Archaeological projects that document the many Mississippian period Cherokee hunters. Hunters understood this and acted accordingly communities that populated the Cherokee homeland provide a basis for through proper (ritual) verbal and physical treatment of the prey's body building connections among the histories and ethnographies that have and spirit after death - how it was transported and butchered, the been written about Cherokee communities. manner in which remains were disposed of, offerings, and the words Cherokee social structure is clan based with membership de- spoken to and about the animal. If hunters did not maintain their side of termined by matriline, meaning a person's clanship is the same as her/ the relationship they would be punished spiritually (personal mis- his mother's. Today is comprised of seven clans: Long fortune until the hunter atoned for the wrongdoing) or physically (the Hair, Blue, , Wild Potato, Deer, Bird, and Paint. Members re- hunter and/or his family suffer from sickness, bad luck, or death). In presenting each of the seven clans resided in every Cherokee town. this way humans and animals were dependent on one another as part of are matrilineally exogamous but ideally a person mar- a complex network of physical, social, and spiritual relationships (the ries out of their father's clan as well. The observance of clan rules is human-animal web), often of considerable time depth. Parts of these becoming less and less common, however, people still recognize the relationships are expressed through material objects - the purview of significance of clans. Perhaps the most significant clan rule still ob- the archaeologist. Other parts exist only in names or stories - recorded served by some is the exogamy rule, since its violation was traditionally in ethnohistoric documents and by cultural and linguistic anthro- thought to be tantamount to incest. pologists. In addition to the clan rules, animals play a central role in the social In this paper we take an ethnozooarchaeological approach to study and cosmological life of Cherokee people, even in the contemporary the sustained physical, social, and spiritual relationships between an- era. Cherokee people are known to have had a wealth of beliefs about cient and modern Cherokee and the most common prey animal, white- animals and their relationships to humans as documented by Payne and tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus). We combine multiple lines of evi- Butrick (2010), Mooney (1902), Mooney and Olbrechts (1932), Speck dence, including material objects, archaeological contexts, Western and Broom (1951), Fradkin (1990), Altman (2006), and Altman and science biological literature, ethnohistoric documents, ethnographies of Belt (2008, 2012). In each of these ethnographic sources, we witness the Cherokee, and linguistic data, to more fully understand the re- the web of life in which Cherokee people see themselves enmeshed. lationship between humans and deer. We limit the archaeological focus Animals, like deer, exist in both this world and in a preceding spirit of our study to the late prehistoric Mississippian period (1000 CE- world in which: European contact) and to sites located in the traditional Cherokee they had chiefs, councils, and townhouses, mingled with humankind homeland of the American South, comprised of the contiguous regions upon terms of perfect equality and spoke the same language. In of Appalachian Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, some unexplained manner they finally left this lower world and Kentucky, Tennessee and Alabama (after Mooney, 1902)(Fig. 1). The ascended to Galun'lati, the world above, where they still exist. The ethnohistoric, ethnographic, and linguistic records of the Southeast removal was not simultaneous, but each animal chose his own time. indicate that elements of the human-animal web have persisted into the The animals that we know, small in size and poor in intellect, came present through oral histories, sacred stories, and native science

889 T.M. Peres, H. Altman Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 20 (2018) 888–895

Fig. 1. Traditional Cherokee homelands of the American South, with sites mentioned in text.

upon the earth later, and are not the descendants of the mythic them in the trail. animals, but only weak imitations. (Mooney, 1902: 250) (Mooney, 1902: 231) Thus, the health and well-being of hunters hinges upon their re- Cherokee speakers report that humans are anomalous in the world, spectful use of the resource. and that they must always work to find duyukdv'i, or the right way of It is no accident that one of the primary culture heros in Cherokee being, and this includes especially their relationships with animals. The cosmology is Kana'ti. Kana'ti the Hunter is the husband of Selu, the Corn formulas for medicine, hunting, and fishing all include animal agents Mother. The marriage of hunting to agriculture is a central feature of who have many possible qualities and can enact a variety of outcomes. Cherokee subsistence during the Mississippian period and even into the In the Southeastern United States, ahwi, the Cherokee word for deer, twentieth century. In the myth Mooney recorded about the origin of were a necessary source of nourishment for the body and mind. deer we learn that the reason Cherokee have to hunt for deer now is Mooney (1902) presents a variety of other stories and beliefs about that the Thunder Boys (the sons of Kana'ti and Selu) have let all the deer in Cherokee culture and cosmology. For example, Little Deer animals loose from Kana'ti's pen. Later we learn the origins of the deer provided hunters with a procedure to follow in hunting, and the penalty songs of the Cherokee: to hunters for not obeying was significant. From Myths of the Cher- After Kana'ti's boys had let the deer out from the cave where their okees: father used to keep them, the hunters tramped about in the woods The Deer next held a council under their chief, the Little Deer, and for a long time without finding any game, so that the people were after some talk decided to send rheumatism to every hunter who very hungry. At last they heard that the Thunder Boys were now should kill one of them unless he took care to ask their pardon for living in the far west, beyond the sun door, and that if they were sent the offense. They sent notice of their decision to the nearest settle- for they could bring back the game. So they sent messengers for ment of Indians and told them at the same time what to do when them, and the boys came and sat down in the middle of the town- necessity forced them to kill one of the Deer tribe. Now, whenever house and began to sing. At the first song there was a roaring sound the hunter shoots a Deer, the Little Deer, who is swift as the wind like a strong wind in the northwest, and it grew louder and nearer as and can not be wounded, runs quickly up to the spot and, bending the boys sang on, until at the seventh song a whole herd of deer, led over the blood-stains, asks the spirit of the Deer if it has heard the by a large buck, came out from the woods. The boys had told the prayer of the hunter for pardon. If the reply be “Yes,” all is well, and people to be ready with their bows and arrows, and when the song the Little Deer goes on his way; but if the reply be “No,” he follows was ended and all the deer were close around the townhouse, the on the trail of the hunter, guided by the drops of blood on the hunters shot into them and killed as many as they needed before the ground, until he arrives at his cabin in the settlement, when the herd could get back into the timber. Then the Thunder Boys went Little Deer enters invisibly and strikes the hunter with rheumatism, back to the Darkening land, but before they left they taught the so that he becomes at once a helpless cripple. No hunter who has people the seven songs with which to call up the deer. It all hap- regard for his health ever fails to ask pardon of the Deer for killing it, pened so long ago that the songs are now forgotten—all but two, although some hunters who have not learned the prayer may try to which the hunters still sing whenever they go after deer. turn aside the Little Deer from his pursuit by building a fire behind (Mooney, 1902: 248)

890 T.M. Peres, H. Altman Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 20 (2018) 888–895

human persons” and their unique physiological properties traditionally made it a highly sought after object cross-culturally.

3. Deer antler - improbable appendages

“The antlers of deer are so improbable that if they had not evolved in the first place they would never have been conceived even in the wildest fantasies of the most imaginative biologists.” (Gross, 1983:1) Deer antlers fascinate humans because they are anomalous in the animal kingdom (along with horns), are potent symbols of male virility and sexuality, and can be fully regenerated. Antlers are an appendage that originates from a pedicle, or attachment point, on the frontal bone of the skull. They begin as cartilage and grow from the tip (not the base) branching outward as they get bigger, but remaining a symmetrical pair. During this growing phase, antlers are covered with “velvet,” the term used for the specialized vascular skin that encases them, and are noted to be physically hot to the touch (Gross, 1983). Once antler growth slows or ceases, the velvet is shed and the bare antlers are ex- posed (Kierdorf et al., 2009). The bare antler is robust cortical bone surrounding a trabecular (spongy) filled center. The cortical bone ex- Fig. 2. A white male white-tailed deer. terior is extremely durable and resistant to breaks, even during the most intense combat sessions. Antlers are shed annually and are the only mammalian bone structures to regenerate completely, and do so on an annual basis (Kierdorf et al., 2009; Rolf and Enderle, 1999). Deer an- Deer, other-than-human persons, had a great deal of power and tlers are a secondary sexual characteristic of males, and believed to control over the lives of their counterpart hunters, as described by have evolved first as a weapon for combat during the rutting season and Mooney (1902: 263) (Fig. 2). have since become important for visual display to establish social The Little Deer keeps constant protecting watch over his subjects, hierarchies, especially between males (Clutton-Brock et al., 1982; and sees well to it that not one is ever killed in wantonness. When a Gross, 1983). deer is shot by the hunter the Little Deer knows it at once and is The unique properties of antler - that they are robust and break instantly at the spot. Bending low his head he asks of the blood resistant, shed and regenerated annually, and are hot to the touch - stains upon the ground if they have heard—i. e., if the hunter has places them in a category different from other deer . The see- asked pardon for the life that he has taken. If the formulistic prayer mingly magical nature of the growth and replacement of antler make it has been made, all is well, because the necessary sacrifice has been ripe for identification as material appropriate for ceremonial or ritual atoned for; but if otherwise, the Little Deer tracks the hunter to his objects. house by the blood drops along the trail, and, unseen and un- Globally, traditional societies have imbued antler with magical and suspected, puts into his body the spirit of rheumatism that shall rack medicinal properties. The value of antler to ancient Chinese folk med- him with aches and pains from that time henceforth. As seen at rare icine is thought to be the cause, in whole or in part, for the extinction of intervals—perhaps once in a long lifetime—the Little Deer is pure the wild Pere David's deer (Elaphurus davidianus) in the historic period white and about the size of a small dog, has branching antlers, and is (Sowerby, 1954). Since the original source of antler no longer exists, always in company with a large herd of deer. the sika (Cervus nippon) became a suitable replacement, and has come under domestic production in China (McCullough et al., 2009). In- The importance of the deer to Cherokee life is evidenced by the digenous groups across the North American continent use the antlers name given to places and people. Anikahwi, ‘Deer People’, is one of the and/or velvet from local deer species for medicinal purposes. For the seven clans of the Cherokee. Historically, members of the Deer Clan Cherokee, the velvet, or down, had the power to bring the hunter good were considered fast runners as they were imbued with qualities pos- luck. This belief was so strong that even the non-native deerskin traders sessed by deer, such as quickness of foot. They were typically chosen as kept them (and antlers) for hunting luck (Mooney, 1902). community messengers to deliver information between villages We now turn to the material manifestations of the magical proper- (, 2008). Deer clan members were also skilled hunters, ties of deer antler. The occurrence of deer antler objects in the showing respect and care for the animals they depended on for suste- Mississippian period archaeological record of the traditional Cherokee nance (Cherokee Nation, 2008). homeland attests to this importance. The Cowee Mound and Village site, from the Cherokee word Anikahwiyi, ‘Place of the Deer People’, is the largest of four flat-topped mound sites in the upper Little Valley near Franklin, 4. Mississippian period zooarchaeology in the Cherokee homeland North Carolina (see Fig. 1). Cowee was an important ceremonial and political center in the pre-contact period and persisted as an important The animal component of the archaeological record of the Cherokee center of trade between Cherokee and Europeans prior to the American homeland is primarily known from technical reports, site monographs, Revolution. Considered one of the seven mother towns of the Cherokee, and unpublished dissertations (Bogan, 1976, 1980; Evans and Smith, Cowee is owned and managed by the Eastern Band of the Cherokee. 1988; Holm, 1993, 1994; Rundquist, 1979). For our current analysis While deer are obviously central characters in Cherokee cosmology and interpretation of deer, we limit our dataset to four sites dating to and key to particular aspects of Cherokee social identity, our under- the Middle to Late Mississippian through Early Historic periods standing of the significance of deer is further amplified by examining (1100–1790 CE) from and . the biological literature concerning deer antler. Antlers are also the These sites were chosen on the basis of data availability, association most charismatic feature of deer as both animals and “other-than- with ancestral Cherokees, and context of the excavated samples. Ex- cavations at these sites yielded deer remains from a variety of contexts,

891 T.M. Peres, H. Altman Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 20 (2018) 888–895 including: middens, mounds, structural features, and human burials. that can be looked for in the zooarchaeological record. For example, the Most of the excavations took place as part of large cultural resource ethnohistoric documents record the use of deer cloaks for hunting management projects carried out by the Authority in disguises. According to Frank Speck, who documented life on the the 1970s and 1980s using the standardized recovery methods at that in the 1940s, time (1/4-inch screening, some water-screening). The exception is Hi- Traditionally, wooden decoy masks were used by the Cherokee in wassee Island. This site was excavated from 1937 to 1939 by archae- hunting the buffalo, bear, and deer. The hunter who went on an ologists with the and the Works Progress Ad- individual excursion used the appropriate mask. As a means of ministration, when it was the standard to hand-collect recognizable or ceremonial approach to the animal he would, before departing, modified bones and shells without screening. wear the mask in a dance; and on the hunt would carry the mask and Deer were an important part of the diet for the Cherokee and their the skin of the animal. As soon as he located his game he would ancestors, as evidenced in the archaeofaunal record. This holds true place the mask over his face and the skin over his back to serve as a even after the introduction of domesticated animals by the Europeans. disguise, it is said, to enable him to approach the animal without Bogan (1976) examined a large (n = 33,385) faunal assemblage from arousing suspicion. He would keep himself, of course, on a line the - village site (40MR2-40MR62) in Monroe County, against the wind so that the animal would not become alarmed by Tennessee, to determine which animals were eaten by the Cherokee in human scent. eastern Tennessee (known as the ), the relative im- (Speck and Broom, 1951: 85) portance of these animals to the diet, and how the introduction of European domesticates changed the Cherokee diet. His findings in- Speck and Broom (1951: 28) describes the deer mask-making tra- dicate that deer, bear (Ursus americanus), and turkey (Meleagris gallo- dition learned by medicine person and cultural traditionalist Will West pavo) were the most important native fauna in the diet of the Overhill Long, and maintained in the Big Cove community by saying: Cherokee at Chota, with little or infrequent inclusion of European-in- Will's tradition was acquired in his youth from an aged cousin, troduced domesticated animals in the diet (Bogan, 1976). Charley Lossie, and like the tradition of other Big Cove mask-ma- Since many previous analyses were focused on general subsistence kers, seems to have been handed down within a select group. patterns at the site level, the data were aggregated by taxon (i.e., all Lossie's deer masks are said to have been characterized by attached deer parts are counted up together for the entire site), and generally all deer antlers. The only example of a mask which seems to pertain to deer remains were considered to be food residues by the original re- an earlier period is the specimen illustrated by Olbrechts.[...] This searchers. However, when we look at faunal data presented in other was an heirloom acquired by West Long from another Big Cove fa- areas of the report – and this might include photographs of modified mily, and old informants agree that this mask was not made by bone or antler, text descriptions, or mortuary inclusions from burial Lossie or later craftsmen but must pertain to a still earlier period in descriptions and photographs – we are able to pull together a more the life of the Big Cove community. Thus the mask-making tradition holistic view of deer use in daily and spiritual life. of the Big Cove appears to be the work of a small group of ritual The importance of deer as a source of raw material is recorded in leaders, and can be traced back far enough to be certain that it is not numerous ethnohistoric accounts of daily and ceremonial life, in- the result of recent innovation. Allen West Long, the only present- cluding: antlers used as arrows (though the antlers were called horns by day mask-maker, is West Long's successor. the Europeans); glue made from boiled deer antler and sinew; deer sinew used to fasten arrow points to arrow shafts; deer skins with head In the report of test excavations at , the investigators note in and feet still attached to be used as “deer cloaks” for hunting disguises; the artifact descriptions one such artifact as “One larger section of an- deer hides for clothing, and deer hides and hair fashioned into balls for tler was recovered still attached to a portion of the skull. This may have the stickball game (Cherokee Nation, 2017). There is at least one known once been a portion of a headdress” (Evans and Smith, 1988: 25). ethnographic example of balls made from deer hide from the Qualla The ethnohistoric sources mention antler arrow points, though do Boundary (in North Carolina) in the collections of the Peabody Mu- not describe their morphology in any detail. When looking at published seum. The description of the object notes that it is lightweight and reports from archaeological site investigations, objects identified as likely stuffed with deer fur (Peabody Museum, 2013). Some of these antler arrow points are sometimes recovered and often included in the uses preserve in the archaeological record and are easily observed, sections of modified bone and antler. In our sample, 51 antler points while others, like glue, sinew, and hides, do not survive. In this paper (either arrow or spear) are recorded from four Mississippian period sites we focus on the use of deer antler for hunting amulets, the archae- (Table 1). In the late Mississippian occupation at Hiwassee Island, nine ological evidence for them, and the importance of these objects for antler points were recovered. The contemporaneous site of understanding how indigenous beliefs about animals persist and en- yielded 35 antler points, Warren Wilson yielded four, and Citico yielded dure. three antler points (Fig. 3). Interestingly, all 51 antler points were re- covered from mortuary contexts. The special powers assigned to deer antler are known from the 5. The ethnohistoric context for hunting tools in the ethnographic record. Mooney (1902: 263) recounts learning about the archaeological record power that Little Deer, chief of the deer clan, could impart on worthy hunters (as detailed above). The importance of antler as a hunting Deer were such an essential part of the Cherokee world that we see implement and a hunting amulet is also recorded in ethnographic them mentioned again and again in a variety of ethnographic contexts

Table 1 Occurrence of antler points at Late Mississippian period sites.

Site Archaeological period Object description Artifact type Count Context Reference

Warren Wilson Late Mississippian Antler tips Points 4 Mortuary Dickens, 1976 Toqua Late Mississippian Antler tips Points 35 Mortuary Bogan, 1987 Hiwassee Island Late Mississippian Antler tips Points 9 Mortuary Lewis and Lewis, 1984 Citico Late Mississippian Points 3 Unknown Bogan, 1983 Total 51

892 T.M. Peres, H. Altman Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 20 (2018) 888–895

Fig. 4. Example of antler objects interpreted as hunting amulets, recovered from the Warren Wilson Site. (After Dickens, 1976: Plate 51).

Fig. 3. Sample of the antler points from the Toqua Site. from at least three sites in our sample (Table 2). At the Warren Wilson (Modified from Polhemus, 1987: Fig. 11.18). site, four such objects were recovered from mortuary contexts (Dickens, 1976: Plate 51). All four are distal tine pieces that were scored and documents. snapped off from the main beam body. Beyond the score/snap marks, fi Even though shot by- the master hunter, he comes to life again, these lack evidence of any other type of modi cation or use-wear. Si- being immortal, but the fortunate huntsman who can thus make milar specimens were recovered from mortuary contexts at Toqua prize of his antlers has in them an unfailing talisman that brings him (n = 4) and one from a burial at Citico, though they are interpreted as fl success in the chase forever after. The smallest portion of one of intknapping tools, despite the near-absence of use-wear. That there fi those horns of the Little Deer, when properly consecrated, attracts are so few of these speci c objects, especially compared to antler the deer to the hunter, and when exposed from the wrapping dazes points, attests to their uniqueness and power. them so that they forget to run and thus become an easy prey. [...] it is a dangerous prize when not treated with proper respect, and 6. Summary and conclusions is—or was—kept always in a secret place away from the house to guard against sacrilegious handling. Somewhat similar talismanic Based on decades of faunal analyses from thousands of mid- power attached to the down from the young antler of the deer, when Holocene archaeological sites, physical deer were the most important properly consecrated. So firm was the belief that it had influence terrestrial animals in terms of meat, hides, antler, marrow, bone for raw over “anything about a deer” that eighty and a hundred years ago material, and ornamentation. Their remains comprise the majority of even white traders used to bargain with the Indians for such charms the vertebrate taxa at many pre-European Contact period archae- in order to increase their store of deerskins by drawing the trade to ological sites in the southeastern US. However, their importance in the themselves. The faith in the existence of the miraculous Little Deer is lives of indigenous people was not limited to food. The qualities and almost as strong and universal to-day among the older Cherokee as characteristics that deer possessed were used by humans to classify and is the belief in a future life. structure social and political systems. By studying the ethnohistoric, (Mooney, 1902: 264) ethnographic, and linguistic records of modern and historic peoples The fact that Mooney recorded this story about the use of antler as a living in the traditional Cherokee heartland of East Tennessee, Western hunting amulet shows the significance of these items to the Cherokee. North Carolina, and Northern Georgia, we can trace the importance of Their presence in the archaeological record would then seem to be, if this animal in indigenous lifeways through time into the archaeological not abundant, at least detectable. Mooney does not give us a description past. Trends in architectural style or ceramic design may come and go, of an actual antler amulet. However, based on our knowledge of the but ideas and beliefs surrounding one of the most important animals to artifactual record and the Cherokee beliefs about deer and antlers, we indigenous lifeways formed over centuries and arguably millennia, and suggest antler hunting amulets can be identified as antler pieces that were not altered in an instant (in this case, upon European contact). were scored and snapped off from the main beam, lacked other evi- Interestingly, when one examines Cherokee beliefs, practices and dence of use-wear such as might be seen from pressure flaking, and stories around were recovered from non-domestic features (Fig. 4). Often these objects deer, it is clear that deer were afforded the status of other-than- are interpreted as generic flintknapping tools or pressure flakers. human persons. In this role, deer as persons demanded that humans However, white-tailed deer antler recovered archaeologically as arti- interact with them out of respect and equality. They gave themselves to facts and as demonstrated by modern flintknappers, that are used in hunters, which required the hunters to say prayers, sing songs, and cut pressure flaking exhibit dramatic blunting of the distal tips, and a rough out and discard a specific part of the hindquarter. If the hunter did not surface that is caused by incidental removal of micro-flakes of antler perform these rituals, Little Deer would punish the hunter by putting during the pressure flaking process (Fig. 5). the spirit of rheumatism in his body. The most powerful parts of the Using these criteria, we propose that these artifacts were recovered deer - the antlers - worked as amulets for the worthy and had to be

893 T.M. Peres, H. Altman Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 20 (2018) 888–895

Fig. 5. Modern white-tailed deer antler tine used for pressure flaking flint/chert. Inset is detail of wear to the apical tip.

Table 2 Occurrence of antler hunting amulets at Late Mississippian period sites.

Site Archaeological period Object description Artifact type Count Context Reference

Warren Wilson Late Mississippian Distal antler tine pieces, scored and snapped Hunting amulet 4 Mortuary Dickens, 1976 Toqua Late Mississippian Antler tine pieces, scored and snapped Hunting amulet 4 Mortuary Bogan, 1987 Citico Late Mississippian Antler, no modification Hunting amulet 1 Mortuary Bogan, 1983 Total 9

treated with care in life, and then, we argue deposited or buried with Anthropological Society. Newfound Press, University of Tennessee, Knoxville. the hunter after death. With this information we revisited published Bogan, Arthur E., 1976. A Zooarchaeological Analysis of Vertebrate Remains from Chota- Tanasi, A Historic Cherokee Village in East Tennessee. Master's Thesis. Department reports of antler objects recovered from archaeological sites in our of Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville. study area. Some of the antler objects were originally identified as Bogan, Arthur E., 1980. A Comparison of Late Prehistoric Dallas and Overhill Cherokee arrow tips - identifications with which we agree. Other antler objects Subsistence Strategies in the Valley. PhD Dissertation. fi fl Department of Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville. were identi ed as intknapping objects by the original excavators or Bogan, Arthur E., 1983. Faunal remains from the historic Cherokee occupation at Citico analysts. Upon further inspection of these objects using a ethno- (40MR7), Monroe County, Tennessee. Tennessee Anthropologist 8 (1), 28–49. zooarchaeological approach and working from the stance that the Bogan, Arthur E., 1987. Chapter II. Faunal analysis: a comparison of Dallas and Overhill human-animal relationship was more than animals as food, we identi- Cherokee subsistence strategies. With additional bone and shell artifact analyses by R.R. Polhemus. Vol. 2. pages 971–1111. In: Polhemus, Richard R. (Ed.), The Toqua fied a number of hunting amulets recovered from burial contexts in the Site: A late Mississippian Town. University of Tennessee Department of late prehistoric archaeological record of the Cherokee homelands. Anthropology Reports of Investigation No. 41 and Tennessee Valley Authority Publications in Anthropology No. 44. Bogan, Arthur E., LaValley, L., Schroedl, Gerald F., 1986. Faunal remains. In: Schroedl, Acknowledgments G.F. (Ed.), Overhill Cherokee Archaeology at Chota-Tanasee. University of Tennessee, Department of Anthropology Report of Investigations No. 38 and Tennessee Valley – We conceived of this research as part of a larger ethnozooarch- Authority Publications in Anthropology No. 42, pp. 469 514. Cherokee Nation, 2008. White-tailed deer. In: Cherokee Ethnobiology, Electronic docu- aeology of Cherokee and ancestral Cherokee archaeological sites project ment. https://cherokee.org/Portals/0/Documents/2013/01/31819White-tailed_ we began in 2010. This paper is based on an earlier version presented as deer.pdf, Accessed date: 13 April 2017. part of the session “Bones and Society: Integrating Zooarchaeology and Cherokee Nation, 2017. Stickball (a ne jo di). Electronic document. http://www. ” cherokee.org/About-The-Nation/Culture/General/Stickball-a-ne-jo-di, Accessed Social Archaeology at the World Archaeological Congress 8th inter- date: 15 April 2017. national conference in Kyoto. We thank Christian Gates St-Pierre, Alice Choyke, Alice M., 2010. The bone is the beast: animal amulets and ornaments in power Choyke, and Salima Ikram for organizing that session and editing this and magic Anthropological Approaches to Zooarchaeology: Complexity, Colonialism, and Animal Transformations. Oxbow Books, Oxford, pp. 197–209. special volume of JASR. We acknowledge the assistance of the Clutton-Brock, Tim H., Guinness, Fiona E., Albon, Steve D., 1982. : Behavior and Tennessee Division of Archaeology, especially Mike Moore for access to Ecology of Two Sexes. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. samples and data and Aaron Deter-Wolf for his assistance with Fig. 5; Dickens Jr., Roy S., 1976. Cherokee Prehistory: The in the Appalachian and Peres's colleagues at Florida State University, especially the ad- Summit Region. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville. Evans, E. Raymond, Smith, Gerald, 1988. Test excavations at Citico (40HA65), Hamilton ministrative and logistical support of Malinda Carlisle, Rochelle Mar- County, Tennessee. In: Report Prepared for Tennessee American Water Company, rinan, and Geoffrey Thomas. Chattanooga, Tennessee. Ewonus, Paul A., 2011. Social zooarchaeology of a northwest coast house. The Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology 6 (1), 72–97. Funding Fradkin, Arlene, 1990. Cherokee Folk Zoology: The Animal World of a Native People. Garland Publishers, pp. 1700–1838. This research did not receive any specific grant from funding Gross, Richard J., 1983. Deer Antlers: Regeneration, Function, and Evolution. Academic fi Press, New York. agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-pro t sectors. Hallowell, A. Irving, 1960. Ojibwa ontology, behavior and world view. In: Culture in History: Essays in Honor of Paul Radin, Stanley Diamon. Columbia University Press. References Hill, Erica, 2011. Animals as agents: hunting ritual and relational ontologies in prehistoric Alaska and Chukotka. Camb. Archaeol. J. 21 (3), 407–426. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1017/S0959774311000448. Altman, Heidi, 2006. Eastern Cherokee Fishing. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Holm, Mary Ann, 1993. Faunal remains, Edgar Rogers Site. In: Ward, H.T., Davis Jr.R.P.S. Altman, Heidi, Belt, Tom, 2008. Reading History: Through a Cherokee (Eds.), Indian Communities on the North Carolina Piedmont, A.D. 1000 to 1700. Lens. Native South 1 (1) Lincoln, University of Nebraska Press, pp. 78–90. Research Labs of Archaeology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, pp. 48–50 Altman, Heidi, Belt, Tom, 2012. Moving around the room: , worldview Monograph No. 2. and memory. In: The Proceedings of the 44th Annual Meeting of the Southern Holm, Mary Ann, 1994. Continuity and Change: The Zooarchaeology of Aboriginal Sites

894 T.M. Peres, H. Altman Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 20 (2018) 888–895

in the North Carolina Piedmont. PhD Dissertation. Department of Anthropology, Lincoln. University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Peabody Museum, 2013. Animal Effigy & Bone Artifacts from Tennessee, North Carolina, Hudson, Charles, 1978. The Southeastern Indians. University of Tennessee Press, and Georgia at the Peabody Museum. Curation, Peabody Museum of Archaeology & Knoxville. Ethnology, Harvard University, Cambridge. www.peabody.harvard.edu. Jones O'Day, Sharyn, Van Neer, Wim, Ervynck, Anton, 2004. Behaviour behind bones: the Peres, Tanya M., Ledford, Kelly L., 2016. Archaeological correlates of population man- zooarchaeology of ritual, religion, status and identity. In: Proceedings of the 9th agement of the eastern wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo silvestris) with a case study Conference of the International Council of Archaeozoology. Oxbow Books, Oxford. from the American South. J. Archaeol. Sci. Rep. 10, 547–556. http://dx.doi.org/10. Kierdorf, Uwe, Li, Chunyi, Price, Joanna S., 2009. Improbable appendages: deer antler 1016/j.jasrep.2016.11.014. renewal as a unique case of mammalian regeneration. Semin. Cell Dev. Biol. 20 (5), Pluckhahn, Thomas J., Ethridge, Robbie (Eds.), 2006. Light on the Path: The 535–542. doi.org/10.1016/j.semcdb.2008.11.011. Anthropology and History of the Southeastern Indians. University of Alabama Press, Lewis, Thomas M., Lewis, Madeline Kneberg, 1984. Hiwassee Island: An Archaeological Tuscaloosa. Account of Four Tennessee Indian Peoples. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville. Polhemus, Richard, 1987. The Toqua Site — 40MR6. vol. 1–2 Tennessee Valley McCullough, Dale R., Kaji, Koichi, Takatsuki, Seiki, 2009. : Biology and Authority, Knoxville. Management of Native and Introduced Populations. Springer Press, New York. Rolf, Hans J., Enderle, Alfred, 1999. Hard fallow deer antler: a living bone till antler Mooney, James, 1902. Myths of the Cherokee. In: Extract from the Nineteenth Annual casting? Anat. Rec. 255, 69–77. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097- Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology. U.S. Government Printing Office, 0185(19990501)255:1<69::AID-AR8>3.0.CO;2-R/. Washington, D.C.. Rundquist, Jeannette, 1979. Analysis of the Flora and Fauna Remains From Proto-Historic Mooney, James, Olbrechts, Frans, 1932. The swimmer manuscript: cherokee sacred for- North Carolina Cherokee Indian Sites. PhD Dissertation. Department of Zoology, mulas and medical prescriptions. In: Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of American North Carolina State University, Raleigh. Ethnology, Bulletin 99. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.. Russell, Nerissa, 2012. Social Zooarchaeology: Humans and Animals in Prehistory. Nadasdy, Paul, 2007. The gift in the animal: the ontology of hunting and human-animal Cambridge University Press, New York. sociality. Am. Ethnol. 34 (1), 25–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/ae.2007.34.1.25. Shanklin, Eugenia, 1985. Sustenance and symbol: anthropological studies of domes- Overton, Nick J., Hamilakis, Yannis, 2013. A manifesto for a social zooarchaeology. ticated animals. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 14, 375–403. Swans and other beings in the mesolithic. Archaeological Dialogues 20 (2), 111–136. Sowerby, Arthur, 1954. The range of father David's deer. Animal Kingdom 57, 83–85. Payne, John Howard, Butrick, Daniel Sabin, 2010. In: Anderson, William L., Brown, Jane Speck, Frank G., Broom, Leonard, 1951. (with Will West Long). Cherokee Dance and L., Rogers, Anne F. (Eds.), The Payne-Butrick Papers. University of Nebraska Press, Drama. The Civilization of the American Indian Series. University of California Press.

895