Content uploaded by Duncan Mckinnon
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Duncan Mckinnon on Sep 20, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
ZOOMORPHIC EFFIGY PENDANTS: AN EXAMINATION OF
STYLE, MEDIUM, AND DISTRIBUTION IN THE CADDO AREA
DUNCAN P. MCKINNON
University of Central Arkansas, Conway, USA
Caddo zoomorphic effigy pendants were crafted from a wide variety of raw material, such as freshwater mussel
shell, Busycon perversum (whelk) marine shell, animal bone, and various types of soft stone. They have been docu-
mented at contemporaneous Late Caddo (A.D. –) sites along the Red River in northeast Texas, southwest
Arkansas, and northwest Louisiana; the Black Bayou, Big Cypress Bayou, and upper Sabine River basins in north-
east Texas; the Ouachita River in south-central Arkansas; and the Arkansas River in central Arkansas and eastern
Oklahoma. This paper describes the development of a comprehensive corpus that investigates stylistic groups,
differential raw material or medium utilized, and the spatial distribution of zoomorphic effigy pendants throughout
the Caddo area. Results reveal north-south heterogeneity, suggesting the presence of broader traditional cultural
narratives associated with a complex idea that is manifest regionally in distinct stylistic forms and linked to
Caddo beliefs concerning Beneath World themes. Additionally, this stylistic and spatial analysis offers an additional
dataset to further explore social, political, and economic linkages among and between contemporary Caddo groups
around A.D. .
KEYWORDS:Caddo, Pendants, Shell, Spatial Distribution
INTRODUCTION
An examination of artistic design and symbolic
expression offers an investigative path to explore
relationships, interactions, and broadly shared
cultural narratives within and between prehistoric
southeastern Native American groups (King ;
Lankford et al. ; Reilly and Garber ). An
evaluation of the artistic form and design of elabo-
rately crafted objects can reveal subtle nuances in
regional expressions of cultural traditions
because they are expressed in a variety of different
mediums and representational forms. Such an
evaluation can provide a beginning framework
toward an elucidation of cultural traditions and
an ability to “reconstruct the socio-cultural
reality”tied to the function and meaning associ-
ated with certain objects (Coote and Shelton
:). Although expressions may vary across
space and time, they, and the artists who
embody these expressions, often subscribe to a
common theme that is likely representative of
broader traditional cultural narratives (Layton
:). This is the case with the artistic tradition
composed of symbolically powerful objects crafted
by ancestors of the Caddo Indians that lived
throughout a vast area in what is today southwest
Arkansas, northwest Louisiana, east Texas, and
eastern Oklahoma (Figure ).
The general cultural characteristics that define
the Caddo people who occupied the four-state
area from at least as early as ca. A.D. and as
late as the early nineteenth century (in some
locations) include a sedentary settlement pattern
of dispersed farmsteads, a subsistence economy
of horticultural and agricultural pursuits based
on domesticated plants, a complex socio-political
system manifest primarily as heterarchical net-
works of mound centers, and a mortuary
program centered around the differential treat-
ment of the dead (Perttula ). The Caddo cul-
tural tradition evolved out of several different
Woodland period traditions (see Schambach
a) throughout the Trans-Mississippi South –
a term that is used to describe a diverse biogeogra-
phical zone from the southern Ozarks down
toward the west Gulf Coastal Plain (Pearson and
DuCote ; Schambach ). Perttula
(:–), using a set of distinct cultural, social,
and political characteristics, delineates a ,
square kilometer region as the Caddo Archaeolo-
gical Area within the borders of the Trans-
Mississippi South (see Figure ). The Caddo
Archaeological Area is generally divided into
© Southeastern Archaeological Conference
DOI: ./Y. Southeastern Archaeology , Vol. No. ,–
three subareas, although not all Caddo archaeolo-
gists agree with these divisions or the cultural
affiliations of the aboriginal peoples that lived
there: Northern Caddo (Arkansas River basin,
South Canadian basin, and Western Ozark High-
lands), Western Caddo (Western Gulf Coastal
Plain and Ouachita Mountains), and Central
Caddo (Red and Ouachita River basins). While
these subareas are all constituents of the larger
Caddo Archaeological Area, each subarea con-
tains regional variations in cultural expression
that are distinctive within the cultural framework
of Caddo traditions and heritage (see Girard
et al. ; McKinnon ; Perttula ;
Perttula et al. ; Sullivan and McKinnon
).
The socio-political, economic, and ideological
systems that define the Caddo archaeological tra-
dition, although “Southeastern”in overall charac-
ter, are different in several distinctive ways and
constitute a relatively independent evolution of
cultural continuity and change from Mississippian
FIGURE . The Caddo Area and the distribution of sites discussed in this paper. Relevant archaeological phase areas ca. A.D.
are shaded.
ZOOMORPHIC EFFIGY PENDANTS
Southeastern Archaeology , Vol. No. ,–
traditions (Perttula ,a; Smith ). In
particular, ancestors of Caddo Indians are
known for their distinctive artistic pottery tra-
dition (Early ; Perttula ; Townsend and
Walker ). This artistic tradition emphasized
the use of a complex suite of abstract designs,
though certainly meaningful and symbolic (see
Lankford ), that were more geometric in
expression compared to the more figural represen-
tational motifs prevalent east of the Caddo area
(Cherry ; Knight ; Walker ).
While a geometric artistic tradition associated
with Caddo ceramics is prominent, several
examples have been documented where vessels
were created with more figural characteristics,
often constructed or engraved with zoomorphic
representations of amphibian, avian, or mammal
forms (Dowd ; Gadus ; Hammerstedt
and Cox ; Hart and Perttula ; Hathcock
; Jackson ). In a few cases, these zoo-
morphic representational forms and designs are
not limited to ceramic vessels and were crafted
using other artistic mediums, such as shell, bone,
and soft stone (Jackson ; Todd ; Webb
and Dodd ; Weber ).
Among the corpus of non-ceramic Caddo rep-
resentational art are zoomorphic effigy pendants.
From archaeological examples, it is known that
these effigy pendants were either combined
together and worn as an elaborate necklace (Kay
; Moore ; Perttula et al. ; Webb
) or worn as a single pendant centerpiece,
sometimes associated with other adornments
(usually shell beads) that were also worn around
the neck (Moore ; Webb ; Weber
). The Caddo zoomorphic pendants were
crafted from a wide variety of raw material, such
as freshwater mussel shell, Busycon perversum
(whelk) marine shell, animal bone, and various
types of soft stone. The diverse stylistic represen-
tations of these pendants, differences in medium,
and the spatial distribution of their attributes
offers an opportunity to examine intraregional
artistic traditions within the Caddo area that
were likely integrated into broader traditional nar-
ratives shared and decipherable across the larger
cultural landscape. While the pendants represent
a broad set of shared traditions and beliefs
linked to Caddo cultural themes, these material
objects are the artistic expression and embodiment
of individual artists. Thus, an examination of
differential expressions of artistic style can shed
light on artistic traditions between Caddo groups
that were somewhat geographically isolated
(often related to natural ecological boundaries,
such as rivers and mountain ranges). Their analy-
sis can also hint at the variability in esoteric
knowledge at the individual level that may have
been shared between individuals and intra-social
groups (Penney :).
The work presented herein builds upon pre-
vious examinations of zoomorphic pendants
within the corpus of symbolic Caddo art. For
example, Todd () considers Caddo zoo-
morphic effigy pendants as possible naturalistic
representations of locusts and cicadas. He
suggests a cultural meaning linked to a frame-
work of Caddo beliefs concerning the bio-
transformative nature of locusts and cicadas and
the distinct audible sound that the living insects
make as they emerge from below the earth in
late summer during their symbolic journey from
the Beneath World into the Middle World.
Additionally, Todd (:) suggests that the
audible late summer emerging event is related to
seasonal renewals tied to agricultural production,
as this event is coincident with ripening corn
and the annual renewal ceremonies associated
with the harvest of corn (Dalton ; Gilmore
; Hudson ;Swanton). Dowd
() includes zoomorphic effigy pendants in
her analysis of Caddo amphibian and reptilian
imagery and their associated symbolism and
meaning as part of the larger Southeastern Cere-
monial Complex (Galloway ; Knight ;
Knight et al. ; Millan ; Reilly and
Garber ; Waring and Holder ). In her
analysis, she links the pendants to a variable
series of symbolically charged objects that rep-
resent the material manifestations of Beneath
World powers and interactions with the spiritual,
natural, and daily social environment (Dowd
:). Using a combination of ethnohistori-
cal and archaeological data, she suggests that
the use of amphibian and reptilian images in
Caddo art represents tangible expressions of
supernatural members who inhabit the Beneath
World and are imbued with power that connects
both the natural and supernatural realms (Dowd
:). More recently, a preliminary examin-
ation of the Caddo pendants by a group of
researchers at the Texas State University
Iconography Workshop (Mary Beth Trubitt,
Duncan McKinnon, Eloise Gadus, Julie Holt,
John Kelly, and Eric Singleton) has led to an
evaluation of the pendants as part of a series of
objects associated with broad cultural themes
linked to thematic and mythic representations
MCKINNON
Southeastern Archaeology , Vol. No. ,–
of turtles, specifically alligator snapping turtles
and their characteristic diamond-shaped
plastrons.
In various identifications and analyses, the
carved and engraved designs that define the zoo-
morphic pendants have been interpreted as rep-
resentational forms associated with locusts,
grasshoppers, salamanders, lizards, cicadas, or
turtles. Additionally, some elders of the Caddo
Nation have considered the pendants to represent
beavers with their characteristic tails (Dowd
:). While interpretations differ, it is impor-
tant to emphasize that all of these possible rep-
resentations or naturalistic linkages are likely
associated with the Beneath World and the trans-
formative ability of these beings in both the
natural and supernatural world to navigate
between multiple realms within the structured
three-tired cosmology of southeastern Native
American groups (Brown ; Dowd ;
Hudson ; Reilly ).
Finally, the presence of these highly elaborate
representational pendants across the broad
Caddo area is limited to only a handful of sites
(n=) and found as funerary offerings buried
with specific high-status individuals at most of
those sites. It has been suggested that this rarity
indicates that the zoomorphic pendants were
socially powerful symbols worn by elite individ-
uals with access to exotic marine shell raw
material and represent a marker or indication of
an ascribed status among individuals within a
community (Perttula et al. :; Trubowitz
:).
This paper proceeds from these initial analyses
toward a development of a comprehensive corpus
that investigates stylistic groups, differential raw
material or medium utilized, and the spatial distri-
bution of Caddo zoomorphic effigy pendants. The
purpose of such an evaluation allows for an exam-
ination of a specific Caddo artifact style that is
linked and integrated into a distinctive set of
broad cultural themes and how differential stylistic
expressions are evident across the Caddo cultural
landscape. Additionally, this stylistic and spatial
analysis of the pendants offers an additional
dataset to further explore social, political, and econ-
omic linkages among and between contemporary
Caddo groups that existed in the Caddo Archaeolo-
gical Area around A.D. .
PENDANT GEOGRAPHY AND SITE CORPUS
The current corpus of Caddo zoomorphic pen-
dants contains examples of carved effigy pen-
dants documented in various literature sources
from sites throughout the Caddo area (see
Figure and Table ). The majority of the pen-
dants are associated with Late Caddo period (ca.
A.D. –) occupations. At sites where tem-
poral information is not fully defined, associated
artifacts (primarily ceramic types) also suggest a
Late Caddo component. The sites are located
along or in close proximity to significant rivers
and tributaries: the Red River in northeast Texas,
southwest Arkansas, and northwest Louisiana;
the Black Bayou, Big Cypress Bayou, and upper
Sabine River basins in northeast Texas; the
Ouachita River in south-central Arkansas; and
the Arkansas River in central Arkansas and
eastern Oklahoma.
RED RIVER SITES
Originating in the southern plains of the Texas
Panhandle, the Red River meanders east where it
defines the border between Texas and Oklahoma.
It continues into southwest Arkansas where it
turns abruptly south and is part of a distinctive
ecological and archaeological landscape known
as the Great Bend region (Schambach b).
The Red River meander belt drainage is one of
the largest drainage basins of the western Missis-
sippi sub-basins (Guccione ) and was cer-
tainly an important cultural conduit of exchange
linking Caddo communities that were spread
along the Red River and its tributaries during
Haley (ca. A.D. –) and Belcher,
Texarkana, and McCurtain (ca. A.D. –
) phase times.
Foster (LA). The Foster site is a multi-
mound site located along the east side of the Red
River (see Figure ). Recent levee revetment miti-
gations identified at least eight off-mound struc-
tures and three burials with accompanying grave
goods that demonstrate an intensive Belcher
phase occupation (Buchner et al. ). Clarence
B. Moore first recorded the site where he exca-
vated into three mounds and removed at least
Late Caddo ceramic vessels, a variety of
conch shell cups, clay pipes, shell gorgets, copper-
covered ear spools, large chipped stone blades, and
decorated and undecorated shell pendants (Moore
:; Weinstein et al. :). A single
burial (Burial ) contained an elaborate set of
mortuary items, including shell pendants
ZOOMORPHIC EFFIGY PENDANTS
Southeastern Archaeology , Vol. No. ,–
TABLE .EFFIGY PENDANTS IN CORPUS
Site name Site Region Phase Number Group Material Citation
Carden
Bottoms
YE Arkansas
River
AWhelk
columella
Lemley files; Gilcrease
Museum
Page LO Arkansas
River
AMussel
shell
Vogel (:); AAS
SF LO
C.T. Coley TT East Texas:
Big Cypress
Titus BWhelk
columella
Jackson (:) and
Thurmond ()
Clements CS East Texas:
Black Bayou
BWhelk
columella
Jackson (:,Plate
,b-c)
Clements CS East Texas:
Black Bayou
BWhelk shell
wall
Perttula et al.
(:–,
Figure )
Winterbauer WDEast Texas:
Sabine
Titus BMussel
shell
Jackson (:,Plate
,a) and Perttula
()
Hedges HS Ouachita
River
Social Hill AStone,
siltstone
AAS SF HS
Myers HS Ouachita
River
Social Hill AStone,
green slate
Weber (:–)
Battle Place HE Red River ABone Harrington (:–
,–,Figure )
Belcher CD Red River Belcher AWhelk shell
wall
Webb (:,
Figure b)
Belcher CD Red River Belcher AWhelk shell
wall
Webb (:,
Figure c-g)
Belcher CD Red River Belcher AWhelk
columella
Webb (:,
Figure h)
Belcher CD Red River Belcher BWhelk
columella
Webb (:,
Figure b)
Belcher CD Red River Belcher BWhelk
columella
Webb (:,
Figure )
Belcher CD Red River Belcher BWhelk
columella
Webb (:,
Figure m)
Belcher CD Red River Belcher BWhelk
columella
Webb (:,
Figure i)
Cedar Grove LA Red River Belcher BWhelk shell
wall
Kay (:,
Figure –)
Foster LA Red River Belcher AStone,
limestone
Moore (:,
Figure )
Foster LA Red River Belcher AWhelk shell
wall
Moore (:,
Figure )
Foster LA Red River Belcher BWhelk
columella
Moore (:)
Friday LA Red River Belcher AStone,
green slate
Moore (:,
Figure )
Joe Russell LA Red River Belcher BWhelk
columella
Perino (:,
Figure )
McLelland BO Red River Belcher BWhelk
columella
Kelley ()
Continued
MCKINNON
Southeastern Archaeology , Vol. No. ,–
positioned near the head. Three of these are carved
shell effigy pendants, each containing a grooved
hole through the “head”for suspension (Moore
:Figure ). Seven pendants are simply
described as having “rude line decorations”
(Moore :). Although Moore does not
illustrate the arrangement of the pendants,
their position near the head suggests that the set
was likely part of a necklace. An additional
pendant, also found near the neck of Burial ,is
described as a “lizard”effigy that was carved
from limestone, coated with badly carbonated
sheet-copper, and with a perforation for suspen-
sion (Moore :Figure ).
Friday (LA). The Friday site is a multi-
mound site located a few kilometers south of the
Foster site (see Figure ). The site originally con-
tained at least four mounds (Mounds A-D) when
Moore visited the site in (Hoffman
:). Moore concentrated his excavation
efforts on the summits of Mounds A, C, and D,
since his visit was during “unfavorable [flood] con-
ditions,”forcing him and his team of explorers to
visit the mounds in boats (Moore :). The
primary mound of investigation was Mound D,
where a total of six burials were identified, includ-
ing a side-by-side child (Burial ) and adult (Burial
) (Moore :). The child burial (Burial )
contained a green slate pendant that resembles “a
lizard in outline”and was positioned at the neck
with two suspension holes in the location of the
“eyes”(Moore :,Figure ). Since
Moore’s explorations, river meandering has inun-
dated and destroyed most of the site, including
the four mounds. The ceramic vessels collected by
Moore document the presence of a Belcher phase
component (Hoffman :).
Joe Russell (LA). The Joe Russell site is part
of a group of sites known archaeologically as
the Spirit Lake Complex (Schambach b;
McKinnon a). The site is located on the back-
swamp portions of the Spirit Lake oxbow and is
one of the many non-mounded farmsteads that
were spread out along the Red River floodplain
(see Figure ). Surface investigations document
shell-tempered decorated ceramic sherds indicative
of a Late Caddo (Belcher or Texarkana phase)
component (Perttula et al. ; Arkansas Arche-
ological Survey, Fayetteville, Arkansas [AAS], Site
file [SF] LA). In , a single necklace of four
shell pendants was found across the breast of a
burial (Perino :Figure ). The pendants
were later illustrated and described as lizards
with an engraved diamond design (Perino
:).
Cedar Grove (LA). The Cedar Grove site is
also a non-mounded farmstead within the Spirit
Lake Complex (Schambach b; Trubowitz
). The site is located a few kilometers from
the Joe Russell site on the east side of the Red
River (see Figure ). Cedar Grove was partially
excavated as part of a levee revetment project
where at least one and possibly three circular
structures were identified along with an “aborigi-
nal cemetery”containing a single dog and
human burials (Trubowitz :). Burial
(Burial Group C) was a possible male juvenile
aged – years of age with a necklace composed
of five carved whelk shell effigy pendants
(Trubowitz :Figures –). The ceramic
chronology for the site indicates a primary
Belcher phase occupation overall, but with Burial
Group C specifically associated with an early
Chakanina phase (A.D. –) occupation
(Trubowitz :).
Battle Place (HE).Eightyearsafter
Moore’s southwest Arkansas explorations,
Mark R. Harrington continued explorations of
Caddo mound sites, including a site he calls the
“MoundonBattlePlace”(Harrington ).
The exact location and associated cultural chron-
ology of the site is not known, although it has
been suggested that what remains of the Battle
Place site is likely site HE (McKinnon
)attheconfluence of the Little and Red
rivers (see Figure ). Harrington and his crew
spent several days testing and found what he
described as general village refuse and a “really
unusual”lizard-shaped bone effigy (Harrington
:–,–). The pendant is long
TABLE .CONTINUED
Site name Site Region Phase Number Group Material Citation
Sam
Kaufman
RR Red River McCurtain AWhelk
columella
Harris (:, Plate
,No. )
Sam
Kaufman
RR Red River McCurtain BMussel
shell
Harris (:,Plate
,No. )
ZOOMORPHIC EFFIGY PENDANTS
Southeastern Archaeology , Vol. No. ,–
with four “appendages”and a carved hole in the
top for suspension (Harrington :Figure ).
Sam Kaufman (RR). The Sam Kaufman
site (also known as Sam Coffman, Roitsch, and
Kaufman-Williams) is a multi-mound site located
in Red River County, Texas (see Figure ). The
site has had numerous investigations that docu-
ment the presence of a substantial Late Caddo
McCurtain phase component (Cobb ;
Derrick et al. ; Harris ,; Harris
and Wilson ; Harris et al. ; Huff ;
Perttula ). In , R. King Harris reported
on his excavation of burials throughout the
village area that suggests widespread regional
trade and interaction with neighboring groups
(Harris ). For example, with Burial was a
cache of points made from novaculite found in
south-central Arkansas (see Lemley ; Scarr
; Trubitt ); with Burial were pendants
and beads of turquoise from further west in New
Mexico or perhaps northeast toward the Ouachita
Mountains (see Early ; Jurney and Young
); and with Burial were several historic
blue glass beads similar to those that have been
found in east Texas Caddo sites (see Avery
). Found with Burial was a single marine
shell columella pendant that is described as an
“insect effigy”(Harris :Plate ,No. ). Harris
also illustrates a “grasshopper or locust”engraved
mussel shell effigy pendant but does not indicate in
which burial (or otherwise) it was located or
provide any descriptive details beyond the illus-
tration (Harris :Plate ,No. ).
Belcher Mounds (CD). The Belcher
Mounds site is a small but important ceremonial
mound site located in Caddo Parish, Louisiana
(see Figure ). The effigy pendants from Belcher
represent the largest and most varied collection
of pendants from any site in the corpus. Webb
() discusses his excavation of six overlapping
rectangular and circular structures located within
a conjoined mound (Mounds A and B) and two
overlapping circular structures on an elevated
area immediately north of the mound. Buried
within the floors of several of the structures were
burial pits containing single and multi-adult and
child burials with a large assortment of elaborate
burial items. Several different styles of zoomorphic
effigy pendants were found within five of the
burial pits. Burial Pit contained an adult male
and female, with a child between them, along
with ceramic vessels and numerous shell
objects. The male had shell wrist bracelets and a
necklace containing highly polished shell
effigy pendants (Webb :Figures b and
). Burial Pit was a single child burial with
six ceramic vessels, a bone awl, several shell frag-
ments, and two shell effigy pendants at the neck
(Webb :Figure i). Burial Pit contained
seven burials with ceramic vessels, nine projec-
tile points, one celt, a sandstone hone, shell
beads and three pearl beads, and several shell
ornaments, cups, and unworked shells (Webb
:–). Burial within Burial Pit had a
necklace of small beads with a single long
shell effigy pendant (Webb :Figures h and
). Burial within Burial Pit had a cluster
of “shell ornaments”located close to the left
shoulder, including one with a diamond-shaped
design (Webb :Figure m). Burial Pit
contained an adult female, an infant, and two
child burials with few burial items. A single shell
effigy pendant was found on the neck of one
child and a set of five shell effigy pendants was at
the neck of the infant (Webb :Figures b-g
and ). Lastly, Burial Pit contained a single
adult male with an ornate necklace of effigy
pendants (Webb :Figures and ). The
burials containing the shell pendants are Belcher
phase with Burial Pit associated with Belcher
IV (late Belcher phase) and others to Belcher III
(early Belcher phase) (Webb :; see also
Kelley ).
McLelland (BO). The McLelland site is
located in Bossier Parish, Louisiana (see
Figure ). Along with the Cedar Grove and Joe
Russell sites, the McLelland site represents a Late
Caddo farmstead along the Red River (Kelley
). Two circular structures were excavated
along with several midden deposits. Structure
contained three subfloor burials: an infant
(Burial ), an adult female (Burial ), and a
young adult (Burial ), whereas Structure con-
tained only a single adult burial (Burial ).
Found in a midden deposit within Structure
was the fragment of a single columella marine
shell effigy pendant. The pendant is well worn
yet has the distinctive design and overall form of
other zoomorphic pendants in the corpus (Kelley
:Figure a).
ARKANSAS RIVER SITES
The headwaters of the Arkansas River originate
several hundred kilometers from the Caddo area
and flows eastward across the southern Plains
and into Oklahoma and Arkansas, where it
drains into the Mississippi River in southeast
MCKINNON
Southeastern Archaeology , Vol. No. ,–
Arkansas. The Arkansas River Valley cuts a path
through central Arkansas where it delineates the
distinctive physiographic areas of the Ozark Moun-
tain and Central Mississippi Valley to the northand
northeast and the Ouachita Mountain, Gulf
Coastal Plain, and Lower Mississippi Valley areas
to the south and southwest (Brown ;Early
; Kidder ; Rolingson ). Arkansas
River sites included in this corpus are situated
within what has been culturally delineated as the
Northern Caddo area (Perttula :).
The
Northern Caddo area likely represents a complex
region of three culturally distinct groups based on
differences in “house types, subsistence techniques,
storage techniques, mortuary ceremonialism,
burial patterns, social organization, art styles,
mound types, and pottery”(Schambach :).
Carden Bottoms (YE). The Carden
Bottoms locale is situated along the southern side
of the Arkansas River in central Arkansas and is
known for the thousands of ceramic vessels that
were looted from the area throughout the early
twentieth century (Harrington ). Recent
research at several sites in the area is focused on
establishing a set of archaeological data that can
be used to contextualize the looted artifacts and
their unknown provenience in order to evaluate
community identity, social organization, and
interaction throughout the Carden Bottoms
locale (Sabo et al. ; Stewart-Abernathy
; Walker ). Judge Harry Lemley, as
part of his explorations throughout Arkansas in
the s and s, recorded a shell effigy
pendant found in the Carden Bottoms vicinity in
Yell County (Thomas Gilcrease Museum [TGM],
Accession Number [AS] –C). The exact
site location and any associated intra-site context
(burial vs. midden) are not known.
Page Site (LO). The Page site is located
along the Petit Jean River and has at least two
mounds (Vogel ,). Little investigation
has been conducted at the site beyond avocational
excavations (AAS, SF LO). In the s, col-
lector Joe Bell Winters described and sketched a
“mussel shell pendant”that was found with one
burial in the mound (AAS, SF LO). A single
shell-tempered bottle, provisionally classified as
Keno Trailed (Vogel :; Vogel :),
was also found with the burial and indicates a
Late Caddo component (see Schambach and
Miller ).
OUACHITA RIVER SITES
The headwaters of the Ouachita River originate in
the uplands of the Ouachita Mountains in western
Arkansas where the river continues south into
Louisiana and drains into the Gulf of Mexico.
The Ouachita River drainage is an ecologically
productive integration of upland terraces with
narrow floodplains that offered a distinctive
physiographic set of varied environments for
human habitation with a broad and diverse level
of resource availability (Early :–;
Williams :). Lowlands are defined by
diverse river tributaries, bayou, and backswamp
environments that support wetland and forest sub-
sistence resources, whereas mountainous uplands
are defined by the availability of an assortment
of raw materials, including novaculite and chert
outcrops, and quartz, turquoise, and copper
fissure deposits (Early :–). Zoomorphic
effigy pendants have been found at two Late
Caddo Social Hill (ca. A.D. –) phase
sites within the Ouachita River valley (see Early
).
Hedges (HS). The Hedges site is located
in Hot Spring County on the east bank of the
Ouachita River (see Figure ). The most promi-
nent feature is a large mound with a history of
excavations by local diggers (Early ). In a
cemetery south of the mound, Hoy and Wilton
Furr –local diggers who dug at several sites
throughout the area –excavated a series of
burials in the early s. In particular were two
burials situated a few centimeters apart (Burial
m and n) that contained several crafted
objects, such as a celt, two decorated copper ear
spools, two Blakely Engraved bottles, and an
effigy pendant found with Burial n. A copper
gorget, chert projectile point, and a small clay
pipe were found with Burial m. The effigy
pendant is constructed from siltstone and is dis-
tinctive in style from those found elsewhere in
the Caddo area (AAS Photo Log [PL] HSU –
). The pendant has a triangular-shaped head,
four protruding “toe”appendages, and an
elongated tail. A suspension hole is pierced
through the neck. The dorsal surface has a raised
circular design that resembles the raised design
on the copper ear spools also found with Burial
n. Recent radiocarbon results document a
Social Hill phase component at the site (Trubitt
).
Myers (HS). The Myers site is also located in
Hot Spring County on the east bank of an old
ZOOMORPHIC EFFIGY PENDANTS
Southeastern Archaeology , Vol. No. ,–
channel of the Ouachita River. The site contained
at least one mound (Harwell Hudnall Mound),
possibly more, and is situated about km south
of the Hedges site at the confluence of the Caddo
and Ouachita rivers (see Figure ). In , the
Furr Brothers (the same local diggers at the
Hedges site) excavated a burial containing three
adult individuals (Weber ). Buried with
those individuals were seven ceramic vessels
(including a Friendship Engraved var. Cook
bowl and two Blakely Engraved bottles) and a
Red River var. Haley clay pipe (see Hoffman
). Also found with the burial was a green-
gray slate “lizard effigy”located at the neck of
one of the individuals (Weber ; AAS PL
HSU –). The style and shape is strikingly
similar to the Hedges pendant in that it has a
triangular-shaped head, four protruding “toe”
appendages, an elongated tail, and a pierced sus-
pension hole at the neck. It does not contain the
raised circular design on the dorsal surface.
Instead, a long tail is raised and extends along
the back.
BLACK BAYOU,BIG CYPRESS BAYOU,AND UPPER SABINE
RIVER SITES
Black Bayou originates in Cass County, Texas,
and flows southeast into Caddo Parish, Louisi-
ana, where it forms the man-made Black Bayou
Lake and ultimately joins the Red River north of
Shreveport, Louisiana. Along this path, several
Red River tributaries feed into Black Bayou that
offer a waterway linkage to the Belcher Mounds
site. Big Cypress Bayou is part of a series of inte-
grated creeks, ponds, and wetland bayous that
originate well upstream and northwest of Caddo
Lake (Dahmer ). These bayous flow into
Caddo Lake and into Black Bayou on the
eastern edge of the lake. The Sabine River orig-
inates in Hunt County, Texas and flows southeast
and south through a changing landscape of black-
land prairie, post oak savannah, and pineywoods,
with bald cypress bayous, where it ultimately
drains into the Gulf Coast. Throughout the
Black Bayou, Big Cypress, and upper Sabine
River drainages are numerous Caddo archaeo-
logical sites demonstrating a long history of occu-
pations along these navigable waterways (Nelson
and Turner ;Perttula,b). Along
the Black Bayou, Big Cypress, and upper Sabine
River basins, pendants have been documented
from the Clements, Winterbauer, and C.T. Coley
sites. In all but the one example from the
Winterbauer site, the pendants are almost identi-
cal in style and form to those identified at sites
within the Red River Great Bend region.
Clements (CS). The Clements site is located
in Cass County along Black Bayou and was occu-
pied by Nasoni Caddo groups from the late seven-
teenth century into the early eighteenth century
(Dickinson ; Jackson ; Perttula et al.
).
A total of shell pendants from the site
resemble the numerous pendants found in the
Red River region (Perttula et al. :Figure ;
Jackson :Plate b-d). In particular, the
Clements pendants are nearly identical to those
that were part of the large funerary necklaces
buried with certain individuals at the Belcher site
(Webb ). Fifteen of the pendants were exca-
vated in the late nineteenth century by a local land-
owner and have only recently been documented
(Gonzalez et al. ; Perttula et al. ). In
addition, Jackson (:–) documented
three other pendants from the site in his summary
on east Texas shell artifacts as excavated from a
midden located at the edge of a cemetery. Perttula
et al. (:) propose that the pendants found
at the Clements site were not locally made but
were acquired via trade with neighboring groups.
The confluence of Black Bayou at the Red River
is near the Belcher site. This geographic relation-
ship along with identical presentation in style and
design suggests exchange and interaction with
Belcher phase Red River groups.
Winterbauer (WD). The Winterbauer site is a
Titus phase (ca. A.D. –) site located in
Wood County, Texas along a tributary of the
Sabine River. A single pendant carved from
mussel shell was found in a midden (Jackson
:; Perttula ). While the form is different
as a result of the pendant being carved from mussel
shell, the design is almost identical to those found at
the Clements site and those found along the Red
River (Jackson :Plate a; Perttula ).
C.T. Coley (TT). The C.T. Coley site is also
a Titus phase site and is situated along the upper
Big Cypress Creek in Titus County, Texas. In the
early s, the landowner acquired a collection
of Titus phase ceramic vessels, five shell
beads, and a single zoomorphic shell pendant vir-
tually identical to those found at Belcher Mounds.
The pendant had been plowed up in a cemetery
area (Thurmond :).
MCKINNON
Southeastern Archaeology , Vol. No. ,–
SUMMARY OF PENDANT CORPUS
The majority of pendants have been found at sites
along the Red River (n=; percent). At Red
River sites, the Belcher site in Louisiana has the
largest collection of shell pendants (n=;
percent). In northeast Texas, the Clements site
contains the second largest (n=; percent)
collection. Importantly, effigy pendant style and
design found at Belcher and Clements is nearly
identical, further emphasizing the existence of
cultural connections between east Texas groups
and Red River groups (see McKinnon ).
Additionally, nearly all the pendants are from
mortuary contexts (n=; percent), with
three child burials and an infant at Belcher, a
single child burial at Friday, and a young juvenile
adult at Cedar Grove. Others are associated
with adult burials. In some cases only “burial”
or “cemetery”is identified in the literature. Six
of the pendants were found within middens at
the McLelland, Battle Place, Clements, and
Winterbauer sites.
EXAMINATION OF THE ZOOMORPHIC PENDANTS
Webb () is the first to propose two stylistic
categories associated with the zoomorphic pen-
dants found at the Belcher site. His first group
(Group )isdefined as “an animal with wider
body, definite feet with toe markings, eye mark-
ings or perforations, but without
parallelogram-and-dot engravings”(Webb
:). The Group pendants were crafted
from a variety of raw material, including marine
shell, mussel shell, stone, and bone (see Table ).
Additionally, Webb suggested that the Group
pendants are more similar in appearance to amphi-
bians with “blunt tails, stubby legs with broad feet,
and broad, triangular head”(Webb :).
His second group (Group )isdefined as long,
slender pendants that were cut from conch colu-
mella marine shell. The extremities are represented
with small notches and a well-defined and perfo-
rated neck segment “almost always bearing the
double parallelogram-and-dot markings”(Webb
:). The heads are more rounded than tri-
angular with a flat-top and eye representations.
The body is engraved with double
parallelogram-and-dot markings (Webb
:).
Recent research by Dowd () includes a dis-
cussion and further elaboration on zoomorphic
effigy pendant style and classification. Group A
(Webb’s Group ) includes pendants with
discernable feet and triangle heads (Dowd
:). Group B (Webb’s Group ) are pen-
dants with rounded heads and body markings of
an engraved dot within a diamond in the center
of the body. The centered diamond is almost
always within a second engraved diamond
(Dowd :). Some of the Group B pendants
have notched stylized feet in the same location as
the discernable feet in Group A (Dowd :).
PENDANT STYLE
The effigy pendants are categorized using the
classificatory framework published by Dowd
(Groups A and B). Each group is further subdi-
vided based on distinctive stylistic attributes. At
present, classification is assigned based on pub-
lished photographs and available images. Where
resolution of the original image does not allow
for an unequivocal classification, assignments are
tentative and warrant further evaluation.
Group A. Group Ais based on the existing
definition established by Webb () and Dowd
(). The effigies have a wider body, discernable
feet, triangular heads, and in most examples there
are two eye markings or perforations (Figure ).
Engravings are minor, usually as notches that
likely represent stylized feet. In terms of depic-
tions, it has been argued that Group Apendants
are more salamander-like in form with stubby legs,
broad feet, and a broad, triangular head. Most
Group Apendants are expressed in plan view
looking “down”or from above. A single Group
Apendant from the Belcher site is in profile
(Webb :Figure e).
Group A. Pendants assigned to Group A
contain the distinctive long tails but are crafted
with a more slender design that differs from the
wider body representations in Group A
(Figure ). The Group Apendants have a more
rounded head, with a single eye perforation that
differs in most cases from the more triangular
head in Group A. In terms of naturalistic depic-
tions, it has been suggested that they are more
grasshopper-like in representation.
Group A. Group Acontains three pendants
from the Belcher site (Webb :Figure h, n,
o). They are included in the corpus since they are
long and slender in style and sufficiently resemble
the overall form of those in Group A. They are
distinctive in that the “body”is more slender, seg-
mented, and they lack the single eye perforation.
Group B. Group Bis based on the existing
definition established by Webb () and Dowd
ZOOMORPHIC EFFIGY PENDANTS
Southeastern Archaeology , Vol. No. ,–
(). Of the entire pendant corpus, Group Bis
the best represented with pendants, including
from Belcher and from Clements. They are
slender pendants with an engraved pattern of con-
centric parallelograms or diamonds, usually with a
dot in the center (Figure ). The upper portion, or
“head,”is typically rounded with perforations or
“eyes”just below the top of the head. In terms of
naturalistic depictions, it has been suggested that
Group Bpendants represent a cicada, with the
possibility of the concentric diamond element
representing the folded wings resting on the
body. A more recent consideration is based on
possible naturalistic connections related to the
FIGURE . Examples of pendants that define style Group A(Myers adapted from AASHSU –; Hedges adapted from
AASHSU –; Foster adapted from Moore (:Figure ); Friday adapted from Moore (:Figure ); Belcher
adapted from Webb (:Figure b)).
FIGURE . Examples of pendants that define style Group A
(Foster adapted from Moore (:Figure ); Battle Farm
adapted from Harrington (:Figure ); Carden
Bottoms adapted from AASDSCN_)).
FIGURE . Examples of pendants the define style Group B
(Clements adapted from Perttula et al. (:Figure );
Belcher adapted from Webb (:Figure ); Cedar
Grove adapted from Kay (:Figure –)).
MCKINNON
Southeastern Archaeology , Vol. No. ,–
nested diamond shape with dot found on the
plastron of alligator snapping turtles (see Ernst
et al. ).
Group B. Group Bhas a total of pendants.
At the Belcher site, two Group Bpendants were
found together as part of a necklace (Figure b).
The Belcher pendants are similar in that they
contain a concentric diamond with a central dot
yet lack any notching that might represent legs.
A third pendant from the Belcher site is dissimilar
in form but has the concentric diamond-with-dot
motif (Figure a). The varied use of the diamond
motif suggests an application of pars pro toto,or
part taken of the whole, where portions of a
design motif serve to maintain symbolic continuity
and meaning within a larger and familiar set of
cultural narratives that is communicated and
transferred in “the most rudimentary of ways or
minima of signals”(Faris :). Seven pen-
dants are from the Foster site. Moore (:)
does not illustrate them yet they are included in
Group Bbased on being described as containing
“rudimentary line decoration.”
Group B. The single pendant in this subgroup
comes from the Sam Kaufman site and is described
as an insect effigy mussel shell pendant (Harris
:Plate ,No. ). It is similar in overall shape
with the Group B styles, but with possibly more
pronounced feet and lacking a tail section protru-
sion. It is not known if it is engraved, although it
does contain a perforated “eye”toward the top.
The low quality of the original figure does not
allow for any additional observations.
PENDANT MEDIUM
In terms of raw material or artistic medium uti-
lized, shell is the most dominant with (
percent) crafted from either the split columella or
the wall of a marine whelk shell. The high
number of marine shell examples suggests that
those buried with the pendants maintained a
level of social status associated with restricted
access to exotic and prized objects that were
retrieved some distance from the Caddo area.
Moreover, the high number of marine shell pen-
dants in the corpus suggests that marine shell
was the preferred medium with the pendants them-
selves important objects associated with maintain-
ing and harnessing some level of social or
cosmological power or significance associated
with the watery Beneath World (see Dowd ).
In several instances, individuals that were buried
with shell pendants also had a cache of other
exotic items crafted from raw materials. For
example, at the Foster site Moore (:–
) describes a single adult burial (Burial )as
“well provided”with an elaborate set of crafted
mortuary items placed near the head. These
items included neatly arranged copper-covered
bone pins, a small shell “drinking”cup, a small
“chisel-shaped”ceremonial axe, a “globular
bead”of marble, a smoothed and perforated unde-
corated marine shell pendant, shell “ear plugs,”
and a “pin-shaped”ornament of shell. Burial
also contained the highest diversity of zoomorphic
shell pendants: two Group Ashell pendants, a
single Group Astone pendant, and seven
Group Bshell pendants.
Additional uses of shell include freshwater
mussel shell. There are three examples of the use
of mussel shell instead of marine whelk shell (see
Table ). These may represent “replicas”con-
structed from a local and more accessible raw
material as part of the “reproducing of powerful
knowledge as a vital part of a cosmogony”(Isaac
:). In particular is a single pendant from
the Winterbauer site (Jackson :Plate a).
The pendant form and engraved diamond design
is identical to other pendants within the Group B
style, yet it is crafted from freshwater mussel
FIGURE . Pendants that define style Group B(Belcher
pendant (a) adapted from Webb (:Figure m);
pendant (b) Webb (:Figure i)). Note: pendants (b)
are not to scale.
ZOOMORPHIC EFFIGY PENDANTS
Southeastern Archaeology , Vol. No. ,–
shell rather than the more exotic marine whelk
shell. It is also interesting to note that the Winter-
bauer pendant was found within a midden rather
than as part of an elaborate cache of objects
associated with a burial. However, the two
additional mussel shell pendants from Page
(Group A) and Sam Kaufman (Group B) were
found with burials.
Other less utilized mediums include stone and
bone. A total of five pendants of the broader
Group A style were constructed from stone and a
single pendant was made using animal bone.
One pendant each of Group Astyle from the
Myers and Friday sites were made from green
slate. At the Foster and Hedges sites, there are
two examples of the use of limestone or soapstone.
The single bone pendant was found at the Battle
farm site in Hempstead County (Harrington
). The non-shell forms all fall within stylistic
Group A and lack the concentric diamond-with-
dot motif.
PENDANT DISTRIBUTION
Distributional analysis of the pendants demon-
strates that they have been found at sites across
the Caddo area south of the Arkansas River and
north of the Sabine River in northeast Texas
(Figure ). Most of the sites contain less than six
pendants and in many cases only a single
pendant has been identified. Exceptions are the
Belcher (n=), Clements (n=), and Foster (n
=) sites. The northern extent of the zoomorphic
pendants includes the Page and Carden Bottoms
sites along the Arkansas River in the Northern
Caddo area. The Winterbauer site along a tribu-
tary of the Sabine River represents the southwest
extent of the pendant distribution into east Texas
and the McLelland site along the Red River rep-
resents the southern extent of the pendant distri-
bution into Louisiana.
When differences in pendant style are examined
across space, an interesting north-south heterogen-
eity is apparent (Figure ). Style Group A pendants
are found at sites in the northern part of the Caddo
area whereas style Group B pendants are associ-
ated with sites in the south. Belcher phase sites
(Joe Russell and Cedar Grove) in the Great Bend
Red River region (part of the Spirit Lake
Complex), Belcher phase sites further downriver
(Belcher and McLelland), contemporaneous Titus
phase sites (Winterbauer and C.T. Coley) along
the Big Cypress and Upper Sabine in east Texas,
and a single later seventeenth- to early eighteenth-
century (ca. –) occupation site (Clem-
ents) along the Black Bayou in east Texas
contain a majority of, if not exclusively, Group B
style pendants. Except for the single freshwater
mussel shell pendant from McLelland the pen-
dants from the southern sites are all made from
marine whelk. In contrast, sites to the north of
the Spirit Lake Complex along the Ouachita and
Arkansas rivers have only Group A style pendants
with a greater diversity of raw material used,
including soft stone, bone, and whelk and mussel
shell.
Three sites, all situated along the Red River,
contain both Group A and Group B pendants:
the Sam Kaufman site upriver in east Texas, the
Foster site situated along the Great Bend in Arkan-
sas, and the Belcher site located several kilometers
downriver in Louisiana (see Figure ). All three of
these sites are multi-mound sites interpreted as
civic-ceremonial centers where broad-scale social
interaction and trade flourished (Buchner et al.
; Perttula ; Webb ). Furthermore,
the Sam Kaufman, Foster, and Belcher sites rep-
resent contemporaneous multi-mound centers
that are fairly evenly spaced along the Red River.
These centers may represent distinctive commu-
nities loosely affiliated by marriage and kinship
relations which were socially and politically inte-
grated into a heterarchical network of mound
centers involved in broad interregional trade and
interaction (Perttula a:). The presence of
zoomorphic effigy pendants from both stylistic
groups further demonstrates long distance inter-
actions at these sites with neighboring groups
along the Red River and with communities along
the Ouachita and Arkansas rivers and into east
Texas.
CONCLUSIONS
Using the established framework of zoomorphic
style, medium, and distributional attributes offers
“a fruitful starting-point for [an] explication of [a
society’s] worldview”(Coote and Shelton
:) that can be tied to the manifestation of
social, political, and economical behaviors in the
Caddo area. Style can be thought of in terms of
social cohesion expressed across space and time
as “an indicator of a reconstructed period of time
when a single idea, a very complicated specific
idea, was being put into material form”(Weber
:). The north-south stylistic delineation
between Group A and Group B effigy represen-
tations suggests the presence of broader traditional
MCKINNON
Southeastern Archaeology , Vol. No. ,–
cultural narratives associated with a complex idea
that is manifest regionally in distinct stylistic forms
that are linked to Caddo beliefs concerning
Beneath World themes (Dowd ). To the
north, representations that are more salamander
or grasshopper (Group A) in naturalistic form
dominate. To the south, representations that are
more cicada or locust (Group B) in naturalistic
form dominate. These themes are linked broadly
to groups throughout the Southeast, but are dis-
tinctive in Caddo expression and elaboration
during later Caddo periods (Girard et al.
:).
FIGURE . Quantity distribution of pendants. The sites of Belcher, Clements, and Foster contain the highest number of
pendants.
ZOOMORPHIC EFFIGY PENDANTS
Southeastern Archaeology , Vol. No. ,–
Distinct regional expressions between the
Northern, Western, and Central Caddo subareas
have been explored in other contexts. For
example, in an analysis of Caddo architecture
Perttula () explores the architectural tradition
of extended entranceways and how the tradition is
manifest differentially as three distinct patterns
tied to regional adaptations of Caddo beliefs and
site-specific decisions on the orientation of struc-
tures with extended entranceways. The architec-
tural form of extended entranceways represents a
broad unity in Caddo beliefs, practices, and
material culture with regional differences in
entranceway orientation suggestive of “a diverse
set of Caddo beliefs regarding mortuary rituals
and cosmological symbolism”(Perttula :).
FIGURE . Distribution of style Groups A and B. Sites containing both Group A and B are Sam Kaufman, Foster, and Belcher.
MCKINNON
Southeastern Archaeology , Vol. No. ,–
Sullivan and McKinnon () evaluate processes
of mound construction at the Collins site, a multi-
mound site located in the Western Ozark High-
lands in the Northern Caddo area. Their analysis
suggests the presence of a charnel house structure
associated with a distinctive mortuary ritual cycle
(Sullivan and McKinnon :). This distinc-
tive mortuary ritual has been documented else-
where in the Ozark Highlands (see Kay and Sabo
; Perttula ) and may also define a mortu-
ary tradition integrated into broader concepts con-
cerning life and death symbolism and as a distinct
elaboration from those Caddo groups farther
south.
In terms of political behaviors, the overall rarity
of pendants across such a large area hints at the
importance of symbolism associated with social
status and prestige. The marine whelk shell and
the exquisite necklaces they constitute were
sourced from the Gulf Coast through either
direct or indirect trade and regional exchange.
Access to a limited resource suggests that the pen-
dants were imbued with political importance and
is certainly demonstrative of a social hierarchy
tied to the differential access of a prized cultural
and political resource. More specifically, the abun-
dance of zoomorphic pendants and their proposed
linkages to transformative supernatural Beneath
World beings may demonstrate the importance
of the Belcher site as an ideological center of eso-
teric information complete with the political and
priestly retainers of this symbolic narrative along
with the artists to visually express this narrative.
Could the finely crafted and similarly executed
Group B pendants made from whelk shell
bearing the distinctive diamond-with-dot motif
represent a geographic identifier of the Belcher
site? Perhaps these objects serve as a badge or loca-
tive of an important political and civic-ceremonial
location in both the living realm of the natural
world as well as the integrated supernatural
realm of the Below World where certain cer-
emonies associated with transformational pro-
cesses were specific to the Belcher site. Such an
assertion is clearly supposition, yet warrants con-
sideration given that a defining characteristic of
Caddo groups throughout the Caddo area was
the maintenance of a complex socio-political
system manifest primarily as heterarchical net-
works of mound centers.
Lastly, certain economic behaviors can be
inferred from the distribution of the zoomorphic
effigy pendants. One such economic exchange
can be suggested between the Belcher and
Clements sites, the latter containing pendants
that are identical to those found at Belcher.
Archaeological evidence argues that the pendants
at the Clements site were not made locally but
were acquired through trade from groups who
had access to Gulf Coast marine shell (Perttula
et al. :). The high number of Group B pen-
dants found at Belcher suggests that these pen-
dants were crafted at Belcher and then traded
with neighboring groups, including Clements.
This trade suggests not only economic interactions
between these two locales but the possibility of a
shared inter-regional narrative tied to these
objects. A second social and economic exchange
is a proposed relationship between Belcher and
Foster and the number of pendants and other
“specific elements of the [Southeastern] ceremonial
complex”found at these two sites (Webb
:–). Along with the Sam Kaufman
site, Belcher and Foster are the only examples
where multiple pendant styles (Groups A and B)
have been documented in the Caddo area (see
Figure ), pointing to the possibility that these
locales were economic “hubs”of socio-economic
importance with contemporaneous groups
throughout the Northern, Western, and Central
Caddo areas.
While differing in naturalistic representations,
the transformative nature of these locust, grass-
hopper, salamander, lizard, or cicada represen-
tations in the natural world links them to
common symbolic themes and social behaviors
that are integrated into a three-tied cosmology
where the pendants depict representations of the
Beneath World themes that connect both the
natural and supernatural realms (Dowd
:). Whatever the specific meaning associ-
ated with the Group A and Group B stylistic differ-
ences and their differential distribution across the
landscape, the objects likely have representational
elements at a number of cultural levels (Layton
:) that are expressed spatially in a variety
of material, architectural, and symbolic forms
(see Perttula ; McKinnon ,b).
What is known is that these objects and the
images they portray “provide us with [a] sort of
picture writing that gives clues as to the use of
some ceremonial objects”(Perino :) and
their importance in Caddo society.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Drs. Timothy K. Perttula, Mary Beth Trubitt, Scott W. Ham-
merstedt, and two anonymous reviewers read an earlier
ZOOMORPHIC EFFIGY PENDANTS
Southeastern Archaeology , Vol. No. ,–
version of this paper and provided valuable comments and
suggestions. Thanks to Mary Beth Trubitt and Vanessa
Hanvey at the Arkansas Archeological Survey for pulling
together a packet of information on pendants from the
Hedges and Myers sites. Thanks to Tim Perttula for per-
mission to use the Clements line drawing and the Arkansas
Archeological Survey for permission to use the Myers,
Hedges, Cedar Grove, and Carden Bottoms images. An orig-
inal version of this paper was presented at the th Caddo
Conference in Natchitoches, Louisiana.
NOTES
The Arkansas River is also host to the enigmatic Spiro site
known for its one-of-a-kind assortment of elaborately
crafted objects. While zoomorphic effigy representations
have been found at the site (see Hamilton :Plate
B, ,A), they are not included in the corpus
because of uncertainties in provenience, the earlier tem-
poral association, and the vastly dissimilar representations.
It should be noted that the Clements site (CS) in Texas
is distinguishable from the Clement site (MC)in
McCurtain County, Oklahoma (see Bell and Baerreis
; Hammerstedt et al. ; Regnier et al. ).
REFERENCES CITED
Avery, George
Seed Bead Color Patterns from Colonial Period Sites
in Texas and Louisiana. Journal of Northeast Texas
Archaeology :–.
Bell, Robert E., and David A. Baerreis
A Survey of Oklahoma Archaeology. Bulletin of the
Texas Archeological and Paleontological Society :–
.
Brown, Ian W.
Prehistory of the Gulf Coast Plain After B.C. In
Handbook of North American Indians, Southeast, Vol.
, edited by R. B. Fogelson, pp. –.
Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Brown, James A.
The Archaeology of Ancient Religion in the Eastern
Woodlands. Annual Review of Anthropology :–
.
Buchner, C. Andrew, Karla Oesch, Neal H. Lopinot, Gina
S. Powell, Chester P. Walker, J. Rocco de Gregory, Nicholas
P. Herrmann, and Susan L. Scott
Archaeological Data Recovery at Foster Place
(LA) and Site LA for the Red River Levee
Rehabilitation Project (Item A-), Lafayette County,
Arkansas. Pan-American Consultants, Inc. Submitted to
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg District,
Contract WEQ--D-. Copies available from
Pan-American Consultants, Inc., Memphis, Tennessee.
Cherry, James F.
The Headpots of Northeast Arkansas and Southern
Pemiscot County, Missouri. University of Arkansas
Press, Fayetteville.
Cobb, Herschel
A Burial at the Sam Kaufman Site. The Record
():–.
Coote, Jeremy, and Anthony Shelton
Introduction. In Anthropology, Art, and Aesthetics,
edited by Jeremy Coote and Anthony Shelton, pp. –
. Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Dahmer, Fred
Caddo was …: A Short History of Caddo Lake.
University of Texas Press, Austin.
Dalton, Jesse Otis
Continuities of Tradition within the Apalachicola-
Creek Ceremonial and Ritual Arena. Unpublished
Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology. Texas
State University-San Marcos, San Marcos.
Derrick, Sharon M., Gail R. Colby, and D. Gentry Steele
Analysis of Human Remains from the Arnold Roitsch
Site (RR). In Collected Papers from Past Texas
Archeological Society Field Schools, edited by Timothy
K. Perttula, pp. –. Special Publication No. .
Texas Archeological Society, San Antonio.
Dickinson, Samuel D.
Certain Vessels from the Clements Place, An Historic
Caddo Site. Bulletin of the Texas Archeological and
Paleontological Society :–.
Dowd, Elsbeth Linn
Amphibian and Reptilian Imagery in Caddo Art.
Southeastern Archaeology ():–.
Early, Ann M.
Winter Archeology, the Hedges Site, HS.Field
Notes: Newsletter of the Arkansas Archeological
Society :–.
Turquoise Beads from the Standridge Site, MN.
The Arkansas Archeologist :–.
Caddoan Settlement Systems in the Ouachita
River Valley. In Arkansas Archeology in Review,
edited by Neal L. Trubowitz and Marvin D. Jeter, pp.
–. Research Series No. .Arkansas
Archeological Survey, Fayetteville.
Standridge: Caddoan Settlement in a Mountain
Environment. Research Series No. . Arkansas
Archeological Survey, Fayetteville.
The Social Hill Phase. Field Notes: Newsletter of the
Arkansas Archeological Society :–.
Prehistory of the Western Interior After B.C. In
Handbook of North American Indians, Southeast, Vol.
, edited by R. B. Fogelson, pp. –.
Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Form and Structure in Prehistoric Caddo Pottery
Design. In The Archaeology of the Caddo, edited by
Timothy K. Perttula, and Chester P. Walker, pp. –
. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.
Ernst, Carl H., Roger W. Barbour, and Jeffrey E. Lovich
Turtles of the United States and Canada. Smithsonian
Institution Press, Washington, D.C.
Faris, James C.
From Form to Content in the Structural Study of
Aesthetic Systems. In Structure and Cognition in Art,
edited by Dorothy K. Washburn, pp. –.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Gadus, Eloise F.
Twisted Serpents and Fierce Birds: Structural
Variation in Caddo Engraved Ceramic Bottle Motifs.
MCKINNON
Southeastern Archaeology , Vol. No. ,–
Bulletin of the Texas Archeological Society :–
.
Galloway, Patricia K. (editor)
Southeastern Ceremonial Complex: Artifacts and
Analysis. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.
Gilmore, Kathleen
Early European-Indian Ceremonies on the Red
River. Journal of Northeast Texas Archaeology
:–.
Girard, Jeffrey S., Timothy K. Perttula, and Mary Beth Trubitt
Caddo Connections: Cultural Interactions Within
and Beyond the Caddo World. Rowman & Littlefield,
Lanham, Maryland.
Gonzalez, Bobby, Robert Cast, Timothy K. Perttula, and
Bo Nelson
A Rediscovering of Caddo Heritage: The W.T. Scott
Collection at the American Museum of Natural History
and other Caddo Collections from Arkansas and
Louisiana. Historic Preservation Program, Caddo
Nation of Oklahoma, Binger.
Guccione, Margaret J.
Impact of the Alluvial Style on the Geoarcheology of
Stream Valleys. Geomorphology :–.
Hamilton, Henry W.
The Spiro Mound. Missouri Archaeologist :–
.
Hammerstedt, Scott W., and Jim Cox
Animal Imagery on Two Artifacts from Eastern
Oklahoma. Oklahoma Anthropological Society Bulletin
:–.
Hammerstedt, Scott W., Amanda L. Regnier, and Patrick
C. Livingood
Geophysical and Archaeological Investigations at the
Clement Site, A Caddo Mound Complex in Southeastern
Oklahoma. Southeastern Archaeology ():–.
Harrington, Mark R.
Certain Caddo Sites in Arkansas. Indian Notes and
Monographs, Miscellaneous Series No. . Museum of
the American Indian, Heye Foundation, New York.
A Pot-Hunter’s Paradise. Indian Notes and
Monographs, Vol. , No. , pp. –. Museum of the
American Indian, Heye Foundation, New York.
Harris, R. King
An Unusual Stone Pipe from the Sam Kaufman Site.
The Record ():.
The Sam Kaufman Site, Red River County,
Texas. Bulletin of the Texas Archeological Society
:–.
Harris, R. King, Mr. Joe Perkins, and Mrs. Joe Perkins
Burials ,,, and , The Sam Kaufman Site
B.The Record ():–.
Harris, R. King, and Lester Wilson
Burial , The Sam Kaufman Site (B–). The
Record ():–.
Hart, John P., and Timothy K. Perttula
The Washington Square Mound Site and a
Southeastern Ceremonial Complex Style Zone among
the Caddo of Northeastern Texas. Midcontinental
Journal of Archaeology ():–.
Hathcock, Roy
Caddo Effigy Pottery from Arkansas. Central States
Archaeological Journal l():–.
Hoffman, Michael
Ceramic Pipe Style Chronology Along the Red River
Drainage in Southwestern Arkansas. The Arkansas
Archeologist ():–.
Archaeological and Historical Assessment of the Red
River Basin in Arkansas. In Archeological and Historical
Resources of the Red River Basin, edited by Hester A.
Davis, pp. –. Research Series No. . Arkansas
Archeological Survey, Fayetteville.
Hudson, Charles
The Southeastern Indians. University of Tennessee
Press, Knoxville, Tennessee.
Huff, M. E., Jr
Burial , The Sam Kaufman Site. The Record
():.
Isaac, Gwyneira
Whose Idea Was This? Replicas, Museums and the
Reproduction of Knowledge. Current Anthropology
():–.
Jackson, A.T.
Ornaments of the East Texas Indians. Bulletin of the
Texas Archeological and Paleontological Society:–.
Jurney, David H., and William Young
Southwestern Pottery and Turquoise in Northeastern
Texas. Caddo Archeology Journal :–.
Kay, Marvin
Late Caddo Subtractive Technology in the Red River
Basin. In Cedar Grove: An Interdisciplinary
Investigation of a Late Caddo Farmstead in the Red
River Valley, edited by Neal L. Trubowitz, pp. –
. Research Series No. . Arkansas Archeological
Survey, Fayetteville.
Kay, Marvin, and George Sabo III
Mortuary Ritual and Winter Solstice Imagery of the
Harlan-Style Charnel House. Southeastern Archaeology
:–.
Kelley, David B. (editor)
Two Caddoan Farmsteads in the Red River Valley.
Research Series No. . Arkansas Archeological
Survey, Fayetteville.
Kelley, David B.
The Belcher Phase: Sixteenth- and
Seventeenth-Century Caddo Occupation of the Red
River Valley in Northwest Louisiana and Southwest
Arkansas. In The Archaeology of the Caddo, edited by
Timothy K. Perttula and Chester P. Walker, pp. –
. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.
Kidder, Tristam R.
Prehistory of the Lower Mississippi Valley After
B.C. In Handbook of North American Indians,
Southeast, Vol. , edited by R. B. Fogelson, pp. –
. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC.
King, Adam (editor)
Southeastern Ceremonial Complex: Chronology,
Content, Contest. University of Alabama Press,
Tuscaloosa.
ZOOMORPHIC EFFIGY PENDANTS
Southeastern Archaeology , Vol. No. ,–
Knight, Vernon James, Jr
Farewell to the Southeastern Ceremonial Complex.
Southeastern Archaeology ():–.
Iconographic Method in New World Prehistory.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Knight, Vernon J. Jr., James A. Brown, and George
E. Lankford
On the Subject Matter of Southeastern Ceremonial
Complex Art. Southeastern Archaeology :–.
Lankford, George E.
Weeding Out the Noded. The Arkansas Archeologist
:–.
Lankford, George E., F. Kent Reilly III, and James F. Garber
Visualizing the Sacred: Cosmic Visions, Regionalism,
and the Art of the Mississippian World. University of
Texas Press, Austin.
Layton, Robert
The Anthropology of Art. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.
Lemley, Harry J.
Prehistoric Novaculite Quarries of Arkansas. Bulletin
of the Texas Archeological and Paleontological Society
:–.
McKinnon, Duncan P.
Foster Trailed-Incised: A GIS-Based Analysis of
Caddo Ceramic Distribution. Caddo Archeology
Journal :–.
M. R. Harrington: The Pendant and the Lost Mound
in Hempstead County. Caddo Archeology Journal
:–.
a Battle Mound: Exploring Space, Place, and History
of a Red River Caddo Community in Southwest
Arkansas. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department
of Anthropology, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville.
b Landscape as a Ritual Object: Exploring Some
Thoughts on Organized Space in the Great Bend
Region in Southwestern Arkansas. Caddo Archeology
Journal :–.
Millan, Brett J.
The Southeastern Ceremonial Complex: The
Evolution of a Concept. Unpublished Master’s thesis,
Interdisciplinary Studies. University of Texas-Pan
American, Edinburg.
Moore, Clarence B.
Some Aboriginal Sites on the Red River. Journal of
Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia :–.
Nelson, Bo, and Mike Turner
Middle Caddoan Sites in the Cypress Creek Drainage
Basin. Journal of Northeast Texas Archaeology :–.
Pearson, Charles E., and Gregory J. DuCote
Cultural Resources Survey of Four Proposed
Construction Projects Along the Red River in
Southwestern Arkansas. Coastal Environments, Inc.,
Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Submitted to the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, New Orleans District. Copies avail-
able from Coastal Environments, Inc., Baton Rouge.
Penney, David W.
The Archaeology of Aesthetics. In Hero, Hawk, and
Open Hand, edited by Richard F. Townsend, pp. –
. Yale University Press, New Haven.
Perino, Gregory
Shells and Their Use by the Indians. Central States
Archaeological Journal :–.
Perttula, Timothy K.
“The Caddo Nation”: Archaeological & Ethnohistoric
Perspectives. University of Texas Press, Austin.
The Prehistoric and Caddoan Archeology of the
Northeast Texas Pineywoods. In The Prehistory of
Texas, edited by Timothy K. Perttula, pp. –.
Texas A&M University, College Station.
The Archeology of the Roitsch Site (RR), an Early
to Historic Caddo Period Village on the Red River in
Northeast Texas. In Collected Papers from Past Texas
Archeological Society Summer Field Schools,editedby
Timothy K. Perttula, pp. –. Special Publication
No. . Texas Archeological Society, San Antonio.
Extended Entranceway Structures in the Caddo
Archaeological Area. Southeastern Archaeology :–.
a The Archaeology of the Caddo in Southwest
Arkansas, Northwest Louisiana, Eastern Oklahoma,
and East Texas: An Introduction to the Volume. In The
Archaeology of the Caddo, edited by Timothy K.
Perttula and Chester P. Walker, pp. –. University of
Nebraska Press, Lincoln.
b The Character of Fifteenth- to Seventeenth-Century
Caddo Communities in the Big Cypress Creek Basin of
Northeast Texas. In The Archaeology of the Caddo,
edited by Timothy K. Perttula and Chester P. Walker,
pp. –. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.
Caddo Ceramics in East Texas. Bulletin of the Texas
Archeological Society :–.
The L.L. Winterbauer Site (WD), Wood County,
Texas. Journal of Northeast Texas Archaeology :–.
Perttula, Timothy K., Bo Nelson, Robert L. Cast, and
Bobby Gonzalez
The Clements Site (CS): A Late th to Early
th-Century Nasoni Caddo Settlement and Cemetery.
Anthropological Papers No. . American Museum of
Natural History, New York.
Perttula, Timothy K., Mary Beth Trubitt, and Jeffrey S. Girard
The Use of Shell-Tempered Pottery in the Caddo Area
of the Southeastern United States. Southeastern
Archaeology ():–.
Regnier, Amanda L., Patrick C. Livingood, and Scott
W. Hammerstedt
The End of the WPA in Oklahoma: The Clement and
McDonald Sites. In Shovel Ready: Archaeology and
Roosevelt’sNewDealforAmerica,editedbyBernard
K. Means, pp. –. University of Alabama Press,
Tuscaloosa.
Reilly, F. Kent, III
People of Earth, People of Sky: Visualizing the Sacred in
Native American Art of the Mississippian Period. In Hero,
Hawk, and Open Hand, edited by Richard F. Townsend,
pp. –. Yale University Press, New Haven.
Reilly, F. Kent, III, and James F. Garber (editors)
Ancient Objects and Sacred Realms: Interpretations
of Mississippian Iconography. University of Texas
Press, Austin.
MCKINNON
Southeastern Archaeology , Vol. No. ,–
Rolingson, Martha Ann
Prehistory of the Central Mississippi Valley and the
Ozarks After B.C. In Handbook of North American
Indians, Southeast,Vol.,editedbyR.B.Fogelson,
pp. –. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC.
Sabo, George, III, Jami Lockhart, Jerry Hilliard,
Jared Pebworth, Michael Evans, Leslie Walker,
Larry Porter, Aden Jenkins, and Duncan P. McKinnon
Prehistoric House Architecture in the Carden
Bottoms, Arkansas. Paper presented at the rd Caddo
Conference, Ft. Smith, Arkansas. Manuscript on file at the
Arkansas Archeological Survey, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
Scarr, Kristin D.
Trace Element Studies of the Arkansas Novaculite.
Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of
Anthropology, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville.
Schambach, Frank F.
a An Outline of Fourche Maline Culture in Southwest
Arkansas. In Arkansas Archeology in Review, edited by
Neal L. Trubowitz and Marvin D. Jeter, pp. –.
Research Series No. . Arkansas Archeological
Survey, Fayetteville.
b The Archeology of the Great Bend Region in
Arkansas. In Contributions to the Archeology of the
Great Bend Region, edited by Frank F. Schambach,
pp. –. Research Series No. . Arkansas
Archeological Survey, Fayetteville.
The “Northern Caddoan Area”was not Caddoan.
Caddoan Archeology Newsletter ():–.
Pre-Caddoan Cultures in the Trans-Mississippi
South: A Beginning Sequence. Research Series No. .
Arkansas Archeological Survey, Fayetteville.
Schambach, Frank F., and John E. Miller
A Description and Analysis of the Ceramics. In Cedar
Grove: An Interdisciplinary Investigation of a Late
Caddo Farmstead in the Red River Valley, edited by
Neal L. Trubowitz, pp. –. Research Series .
Arkansas Archeological Survey, Fayetteville.
Smith, Bruce D. (editor)
The Mississippian Emergence. Smithsonian
Institution, Washington, D.C.
Stewart-Abernathy, Leslie “Skip”
Archeology at Carden Bottom, , or, in Search of
the People of Cayas. Field Notes: Newsletter of the
Arkansas Archeological Society :–.
Sullivan, Stephanie M., and Duncan P. McKinnon
The Collins Site (WA): Exploring Architectural
Variation in the Western Ozark Highlands.
Southeastern Archaeology :–.
Swanton, John Reed
Source Material on the History and Ethnology of the
Caddo Indians. Bulletin . Bureau of American
Ethnology, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Thurmond, John Peter
Archeology of the Cypress Creek Drainage Basin,
Northeastern Texas and Northwestern Louisiana. Studies
in Archeology . Texas Archeological Research
Laboratory, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin,
Texas.
Todd, Jesse
Insect Effigy Pendants. Caddoan Archaeology
():–.
Townsend, Richard F., and Chester P. Walker
The Ancient Art of Caddo Ceramics. In Hero, Hawk,
and Open Hand, edited by Richard F. Townsend, pp.
–. Yale University Press, New Haven.
Trubitt, Mary Beth
Mapping a Novaculite Quarry. Caddoan Archeology
Journal :–.
A Fresh Look at the Hedges Site. Field Notes:
Newsletter of the Arkansas Archeological Society
:–.
Trubowitz, Neal L. (editor)
Cedar Grove: An Interdisciplinary Investigation of a
Late Caddo Farmstead in the Red River Valley. Research
Series No. . Arkansas Archeological Survey, Fayetteville.
Vogel, Gregory
A View from the Bottomlands: Late Prehistoric
Mound Centers and Their Relationship to the
Landscape in the Northern Caddo Area. Unpublished
Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology,
University of Arkansas, Fayetteville.
The Page Site and Mound Preservation in the
Northern Caddo Area: Multiple Approaches to
Understanding and Preserving the Prehistoric Past.
Polymath: An Interdisciplinary Arts & Sciences Journal
():–.
Walker, Chester P.
Prehistoric Art of the Central Mississippi Valley. In
Hero, Hawk, and Open Hand, edited by Richard
F. Townsend, pp. –. Yale University Press, New
Haven.
Walker, Leslie
Liminal River: Art, Agency and Cultural
Transformation Along the Protohistoric Arkansas
River. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of
Anthropology, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville.
Waring, Antonio J. Jr, and Preston Holder
A Prehistoric Ceremonial Complex in the Southeastern
United States. American Anthropologist :–.
Webb, Clarence H.
The Belcher Mound, a Stratified Caddoan Site in
Caddo Parish, Louisiana. Memoirs No. . Society for
American Archaeology, Salt Lake City, Utah.
Webb, Clarence H., and Monroe Dodd Jr.
Bone “Gorges”from a Caddoan Mound Burial.
American Antiquity ():–.
Weber, J. Cynthia
“Lizard”Effigy Pendants. Field Notes: Newsletter of
the Arkansas Archeological Society :–.
Weinstein, Richard A., David B. Kelley, and Joe W. Saunders
(editors)
The Louisiana and Arkansas Expeditions of Clarence
Bloomfield Moore. Classics in Southeastern
Archaeology. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Williams, G. Ishmael, Jr
Features and Dating. In Caddoan Saltmakers in the
Ouachita Valley, edited by Ann M. Early, pp. –.
Research Series No. . Arkansas Archeological
Survey, Fayetteville.
ZOOMORPHIC EFFIGY PENDANTS
Southeastern Archaeology , Vol. No. ,–
CopyrightofSoutheasternArchaeologyisthepropertyofSoutheasternArchaeological
Conferenceanditscontentmaynotbecopiedoremailedtomultiplesitesorpostedtoa
listservwithoutthecopyrightholder'sexpresswrittenpermission.However,usersmayprint,
download,oremailarticlesforindividualuse.
