Bear's Journey and the Study of Ritual in Archaeology

Abstract

This paper considers the archaeological study of ritual and explores the interrelationships that exist between ideologically meaningful accounts of ritual and the material representations of ritual practice that remain for archaeological evaluation. Specifically, the paper addresses the development and antiquity of the Midewiwin ritual, a ceremonial complex that is known historically throughout the Great Lakes region. The serendipitous discovery of a linkage between the Mide origin tale of Bear's Journey and the layout of the Late Prehistoric earthwork enclosures of northern Michigan provides an opportunity to document how a ritual system is represented in the archaeological record and to evaluate how the understanding of the archaeology is altered by having access to the meaning underpinning the ritual performance. The research provides unambiguous evidence for the prehistoric antiquity of the Mide ceremony and illustrates the contribution archaeology can make to understanding the long-term processes of ritual practice and change.

Geospatial modeling approach to monument construction using Michigan from A.D. 1000–1600 as a case study

“…We have argued for the regional ceremonial importance of enclosures previously (5,39). Some recent research emphasizes the importance of enclosures as locally embedded features, noting that, although they may share a circular form, they each have their own distinct layout and material signatures, reducing prospects that they had broader regional orientations (30,35).…”

“…We have argued that, within this context, dual needs arose to (i) maximize and extend the use life of local resources and (ii) increase interaction with other communities occupying different territories and resource bases (5,39,43,44). As introduced above, we have suggested that the construction of mounds filled local needs and that the construction of enclosures filled more regional ones.…”

“…They were first assumed to be fortifications, but work across northern and southern located enclosures has shown this to be an insufficient explanation. Today, instead, many agree that enclosures were special use, sacred spaces, but whether these were local or regional in nature is debated (30,(34)(35)(36)(37)(38)(39).…”

“…A.D. 1000-1600) saw the co-occurrence of these two types of earthen constructions. A variety of perspectives has been developed about these constructions, and debate continues, particularly about the nature of enclosures (30,35,38,39). A striking aspect of the research on mounds and enclosures is that, despite being shared features across Michigan's foragerfisher-horticulturalists during Late Precontact, they are not typically investigated in conjunction with each other.…”

The Archaeology of Regions: From Discrete Analytical Toolkit to Ubiquitous Spatial Perspective

“…As identified by their spatial locations and stratigraphic details, these unusual constructions of decomposed and burned cow dung, soils, and material culture are interpreted as not just enormous middens but instead as products of episodic ritual practice that visually reinforced sociosymbolic meanings; only analysis at a regional scale could identify this pattern. In south-central Ohio, Bernardini's (2004) examination of Hopewell earthworks distinguishes the ''referential meaning'' of individual monuments from their ''experiential meaning,'' suggesting that the earthworks were part of a single regional landscape maintained through ceremonial action rather than the separate creations of autonomous villages (see also Howey and O'Shea 2006). Massive ditches found in southern Benin, West Africa also take on new meaning when examined through the lens of landscape archaeology (Norman and Kelly 2004).…”