I do not mean to be condescending by calling Effigy Mounds piles of dirt - I merely wish to point out how trivial or common they are, in that sense. It is only through their symbolism that they gain such historical, social, archeological, and (to Native Americans) spiritual importance.
These mounds developed out of the older tradition of burial mounds, which were of spiritual significance to the Indians. As we know from pottery and modern Native American knowledge and folklore, their traditional belief systems were structured by the duality of overworld and underworld - the underworld being seperated into water and land. The creatures represented by effigy mounds clearly represent the beings from these different spiritual realms. Not only are they similar to the images found on pottery, their geographical distribution corresponds to features of the landscape (more water-creature mounds are found in areas abundant with lakes and rivers).
I find it most curious how in this case, the symbols are much easier to identify than the beliefs that accompanied them. That is not always the case, as we discussed when looking for symbols in Scientology. Current study on Effigy Mounds suspects that the mounds were places for social gatherings and rituals, and were created to create harmony in the world. I would love to know how Indians thought they created harmony. Did the spirits see the mounds and understand them as a call for action? Did the mounds actually create spirits or turn into spirits? Were they only a reminder for the Natives, with the actual effects being brought about by the accompanying rituals? These types of questions are probably the most difficult to answer archeologically, but some beliefs of this sort very likely existed.
I agree that it is interesting that the symbols in the religion surrounding the Indian mounds themselves are more easily identifiable than the beliefs accompanying them, however it seems to me that the nature of the situation is very different with scientology and could be one of the causes of this difference. For instance, Indian mounds are a symbol of an extinct religion, at least to our knowledge. Scientology on the other hand is a religion that is still alive and kicking. We are looking back at the evidence left of the Native American mound builder’s religion rather than looking at a current religion and therefore the ideology of the mound builder’s religion is less accessible than the ideology of Scientology. The symbols of Scientology might be more obvious in the future if the religion ever dies out and the symbols are all that’s left.
ReplyDeleteI agree first and foremost with your comment about understanding the significance of the mounds, and how it is interesting that we understand the mounds as symbols but not their underlying meaning. Would there be a possibility that over time, the Native Americans would have forgotten the symbolism of their mounds? I feel that in today's society, many people forget the good intent that many world religions originally subscribed to and instead turn to using religion as simply a means of controlling others. This is a convoluted way of expressing my personal feelings that perhaps if we did know the original intent of the natives, we would be likely to skew their symbolism to suit our own opinions and biases.
ReplyDelete