Wallis the Materiality of Signs

This article considers how meaning is con-stituted through material culture by theprocess of signification. For much of the

history of anthropological archaeology, archaeo-logical interpretations of the meaning of materialculture, particularly symbolism and ideology,have been hamstrung by a reliance on the modelof Saussurean linguistics, which takes signs ascoded messages (Preucel and Bauer 2001). If, asa Saussurean perspective suggests, material cul-ture is the instantiation of preexisting immaterialideas and discourse, then archaeologists are facedwith the difficult task of inferring the cognitiveprocesses, underlying structural schema, andimmaterial discursive practices (i.e., language)that are somewhat arbitrarily manifested in mate-

rial form. This view of material culture not onlymakes meaning an intractable topic for archaeol-ogists but is also a poor approximation of the waysmeaning is made. As an alternative, archaeologistshave recently explored the utility of conceptsdrawn from Charles Sanders Peirce’s semiotic inunderstanding how meaning is constituted (Bauer2002; Joyce 2007, 2008; Knappett 2005; Lele2006; Preucel 2006; Preucel and Bauer 2001).The Peircean semiotic alternative posits signs

as the constitutive matter of meaning rather thanthe mere expression of meanings previouslyformed. As Webb Keane (2005) argues through aperspective informed by Peircean semiotics, “signsare not the garb of meaning.” Indeed, the Peirceanperspective embraces the historicity of material

THE MATERIALITY OF SIGNS: ENCHAINMENT AND ANIMACY INWOODLAND SOUTHEASTERN NORTH AMERICAN POTTERY

Neill J. Wallis

Archaeological examinations of symbolic meaning often have been hampered by the Saussurean concept of signs as codedmessages of preexisting meanings. The arbitrary and imprecise manner by which meaning is represented in material cul-ture according to Saussure tends to stymie archaeological investigations of symbolism. As an alternative, archaeologistsrecently have drawn on Peirce’s semiotic to investigate how materiality is bound to the creation of meanings through theprocess of signification. This study examines how the symbolism expressed in pottery of the Middle Woodland period south-eastern United States, Swift Creek Complicated Stamped and Weeden Island effigy vessels, might be better explained asicons and indexes that were enlisted to have particular social effects. Examining the semiotic potentials of these objectshelps explain their apparent uses and the significance of alternative representations of the same subjects.

En repetidas ocasiones los estudios arqueológicos sobre el significado de símbolos han sido obstaculizados por el conceptoSaussureano que define los signos como mensajes codificados con un significado preexistente. De acuerdo con Saussure, lamanera arbitraria e imprecisa por la cual cierto significado se encuentra representado en la cultura material tiende a blo-quear las investigaciones arqueológicas que estudian objetos simbólicos. Como alternativa los arqueólogos han comenzadoa basarse en la semiótica de Peirce, con el fin de investigar de qué manera la materialidad está ligada a la creación de sig-nificados a través del proceso de creación de signos o significación. En este estudio se examinaron piezas de alfarería del suroriente de los Estados Unidos, provenientes del periodo medio Woodland, de los complejos estampados Swift Creek y esfin-ges representadas en vasijas Weeden Island. El objetivo es demostrar que los símbolos expresados en dichas piezas podríanser interpretados como iconos e índices que fueron establecidos para efectos sociales particulares. Por medio de la investi-gación del potencial semiótico de estos especímenes es posible explicar sus presuntos usos, así como la significación de repre-sentaciones alternativas de los mismos objetos.

Neill J. Wallis � Florida Museum of Natural History, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611([email protected])

American Antiquity 78(2), 2013, pp. 207–226Copyright © 2013 by the Society for American Archaeology

207

Del

iver

ed b

y ht

tp://

saa.

met

apre

ss.c

om

Soci

ety

for

Am

eric

an A

rcha

eolo

gy -

Ful

l Acc

ess

(289

-07-

305)

IP

Add

ress

: 201

.52.

149.

229

W

edne

sday

, May

08,

201

3 12

:46:

00 P

M

208 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 78, No. 2, 2013

signs as deeply entwined in social and historicalprocesses. Not only are things good to think with,but also they have effects in the world and entail-ments that shape future possibilities. Rather thanfocusing on material things as coded messages ofthe social that can be deciphered by archaeologists,Peirce’s model of the sign is a productive frame-work for considering what things do in the worldby detailing how they become meaningful andeffective through specific qualities and relation-ships. Nothing in the world stands alone; every-thing makes reference to something else in anendless succession of associations (Knappett2002). While material things have manifold qual-ities that have the potential to become significant,the meanings of things can be revealed by inves-tigating how the semiotic status of things is trans-formed across historical processes (Keane 2003).For archaeologists, this might best be accom-plished by comparing the semiotic potentials ofthings and the evidence of which qualities of thingswere enlisted to have effects in the world. The dis-tinctive material qualities of a thing lend procliv-ities toward particular kinds of signification, butonly in engagement through social practice is oneor more of these latent potentials realized. Becausematerial qualities are drawn upon and highlightedin historically specific ways that may shift throughtime and space, and because significance can beevaluated in terms of measurable effects in thematerial world, archaeology is well positioned tostudy the process of signification.This work pursues a case study in semiosis that

investigates two types of Late Middle Woodland(ca. A.D. 200–600) pottery in the Lower Southeastof North America: Swift Creek ComplicatedStamped and Weeden Island effigy vessels. Thesepottery types are partially coterminous and foundtogether on the same sites, but traditionally they areconsidered divergent in terms of form and function,with the former “secular” and the latter “sacred”(e.g., Sears 1973). This dichotomy has ledresearchers to pursue explanations for why partic-ular subjects were depicted among the sacred Wee-den Island effigies and what their symbolicmeaning may have been in mortuary and other cer-emonial contexts (Milanich et al. 1997:163–184).However, many Swift Creek Complicated Stampedvessels seem to depict the same subjects, but withdifferent techniques of representation.

Rather than focusing on what subjects aredepicted in these earthenware forms and whythese particular subjects were important symbol-ically, this work focuses on how these forms wererepresented, their consequent semiotic potentials,and the particular qualities of objects that appearto have been highlighted in specific contexts toachieve certain effects. In particular, this studydraws on Peirce’s well-known concepts of icon(resemblance) and index (evidence of contact orproximity) to investigate earthenware vessels assigns. The different methods of manufacture andresultant divergent semiotic potentials of eachtype of vessel provided alternative opportunitiesfor action. While both vessel types were simulta-neously icon and index, Swift Creek ComplicatedStamped vessels were especially effective index-ical signs, while Weeden Island effigies empha-sized iconic qualities. These semiotic potentialswere evidently exploited by people as technolo-gies of enchainment and animacy, respectively.Through a comparison of the styles and contextsof Swift Creek Complicated Stamped and Wee-den Island effigy vessels, this study considers theagency of these material forms and the consider-able tension and tactical challenges evident intheir frequent juxtaposition.

The Archaeology of MeaningThe study of meaning within disciplines through-out the humanities and social sciences has beenprofoundly influenced by the work of Ferdinandde Saussure. One of Saussure’s “most durablelegacies” (Irvine 1989:248) is the notion that thesign exists apart from the material world (Keane2005:183). According to this ontological frame-work, either ideas are relegated to epiphenomenadeemed irrelevant to the real, concrete materialworld or material forms are reflections and expres-sions of prior immaterial meanings (Keane2005:182–183). Both perspectives have beenentrenched in archaeological research and haveproved particularly problematic for a disciplinefocused on the study of material culture. Follow-ing Hawkes’s (1954) “ladder of inference,” manymaterialists and processualists have maintainedthat ideas and symbolic meanings are significantlymore difficult to deduce from archaeological con-texts than from the more fundamental realms of

Del

iver

ed b

y ht

tp://

saa.

met

apre

ss.c

om

Soci

ety

for

Am

eric

an A

rcha

eolo

gy -

Ful

l Acc

ess

(289

-07-

305)

IP

Add

ress

: 201

.52.

149.

229

W

edne

sday

, May

08,

201

3 12

:46:

00 P

M

economics, society, and politics, which are seenas more closely related to material culture.According to such a perspective, the culturallyembedded (and presumably culturally relative)meanings and significance attached to particularthings, places, events, or practices (and “behav-iors”) elude archaeologists because the creationand perpetuation of symbolism constitute a cog-nitive or discursive process that is only superfi-cially and imperfectly reflected in the materialworld. Alternatively, archaeologists and anthro-pologists more directly informed by structuralismfollow the premise that material culture reflectscognitive organizational categories, which allowmeanings to be understood through the identifi-cation of underlying rules, codes, generativegrammars, and symmetries (e.g., Washburn 1995;Washburn and Crowe 1988; Wobst 1977).Opposing materialist and structuralist perspec-

tives are practice-centered approaches that takemateriality as the mutually constituting dialecticof people and things (e.g., DeMarrais et al. 2004;Meskell 2004, 2005; Miller, ed. 2005; Thomas1999). At their core drawing on the ideas of Bour-dieu (1977, 1984) and Giddens (1984), many post-structuralist and postprocessual archaeologiesrecognize material culture as implicated in ongo-ing processes whereby meanings are continuallycreated through the engagement of subjects andobjects with one another in specific contexts.Along these lines, some archaeologists considermaterial culture, drawing on Derrida (1976, 1978),as a text to be read or, following Ricoeur (1971,1974, 1976), as enmeshed in the production ofmeaning through discourse (e.g., Hodder 1986,1988; Tilley 1991). These directions bring intofocus the contextual processes by which meaningis constituted, the multiplicity of meaning, and ahermeneutic that acknowledges the fundamentalrole of the subject in the apprehension and creationof meaning, enabling considerations of materialsymbols and metaphors (e.g., Tilley 1999).While these approaches have moved toward

engaging meaning as a historically and contextu-ally situated process that is perpetually in a stateof becoming, Saussure’s radical separation of thesign from materiality continues to be influential(Bauer 2002:41; Keane 2003, 2005; Miller 2005).Much of this separation in anthropology has par-alleled a Durkheimian “tyranny of the subject,”

the tendency to reify the social as the real sourceof meaning that is reflected, but not constituted,in various institutions, practices, or material things(Miller 2005). More generally, this position fol-lows a long-lived depth ontology in which themeaning of things is conceived as hidden behindor underneath the “superficial” guise of material-ity (Miller 2005, 2009). But as long as signs areviewed as coded messages, as the “garb of mean-ing” that must be “stripped bare” (Keane2005:184) or uncovered by archaeologists (Bauer2002:41), the historicity and futurity of thingscannot be fully considered.Peirce’s model of the sign presents a much

more productive alternative for archaeologicalinvestigations of meaning. Rather than seeingthem as codes for immaterial meanings, Peirceconceived of signs as constituted through thematerial world of causation and contingency,where signification in material form often insti-gates and transforms possibilities for action andinterpretation (Keane 2005). Accordingly, there isno meaning outside of material consequences, andthe material properties of things are necessarilydrawn upon in the process of constituting andtransforming systems of meaning. This frame-work circumvents the “tyranny of the subject”and the pervasive depth ontology and may allowarchaeologists a clearer path toward understand-ing the process by which meaning is made.

The Peircean SemioticPreucel and Bauer (2001:93) argue that a prag-matic archaeology based on Peirce’s semiotic pre-sents a system of logical reasoning that allows forsimultaneous ontological unity and theoretical(interpretive) disunity. Indeed, they argue, semi-otics can offer a common language through whichto compare the logic of contrasting interpretiveapproaches in archaeology. As Preucel says,“Semiotics does not advocate a particular theo-retical perspective beyond pragmatism, the the-sis that for ideas to be meaningful they must haveeffects in the world” (2006:248). Putting asidethese vast unifying potentials for the purposes ofthis study, there are several specific aspects of thePeircean model that appear especially importantfor archaeological considerations of materiality.First, the triadic relation among Sign, Object, and

Wallis] THE MATERIALITY OF SIGNS 209

Del

iver

ed b

y ht

tp://

saa.

met

apre

ss.c

om

Soci

ety

for

Am

eric

an A

rcha

eolo

gy -

Ful

l Acc

ess

(289

-07-

305)

IP

Add

ress

: 201

.52.

149.

229

W

edne

sday

, May

08,

201

3 12

:46:

00 P

M

Interpretant suggests that signs are contingentupon our experiences of them and enables a self-reflexive analytical perspective (Preucel andBauer 2001). Second, signs generate other signs,lending historicity to the process of signification,which involves contingency, sociability, andstruggle (Keane 2003:413). Third, Peirce’s modelexhaustively outlines the complex range of pos-sible relationships among signs, interpretants, andobjects. Though Peirce described 10 possibleclasses of signs based on the triadic sign rela-tionship (Preucel 2006:57–59), the widely dis-cussed general set of icon, index, and symbol initself provides a powerful basis for the analysisof material culture. The analytic relationshipbetween sign and object can be characterized asiconic through resemblance, indexical throughcausal or proximal linkages, or symbolic through“arbitrary” conventions. Icon and index, in par-ticular, are useful signs to consider in archaeo-logical investigations of meaning, because theyare based on logical–causal relations that are notentirely arbitrary. This is not to say that any objectis inherently an icon or an index— these meaningsrequire a degree of cultural knowledge— but thesequalities are directly related to an object’s mate-rial form. Moreover, in the material world, theiconic and indexical are more common forms ofsignification than the symbolic, which runscounter to a vast archaeological literature focusedon symbolism (Knappett 2002).An icon makes reference through resemblance,

a perception of similarity. Familiar examples arepainted portraits in the likeness of a person orcomputer desktop icons that are designed toresemble common functions (e.g., the print iconresembles a printer). An index makes referencethrough evidence of causation or proximity.Smoke is an index of fire, just as a weather vaneis an index of wind. Indexes can also be “perfor-mative” and reference through contiguity ratherthan cause (Sonesson 1989:53). Demonstrativepronouns and acts of pointing fingers are exam-ples (Knappett 2002:103). Symbols are definedby convention, making them arbitrary in a cross-cultural sense. Language is the chief example. Asingle object or idea is symbolized by differentwords. It is agreed upon through convention bygroups of people speaking the same language,rather than something intrinsic about the animal,

that it is called Canis lupus familiaris, “dog,”“chien,” or “perro.” Onomatopoeias are excep-tions (e.g., the “buzz” of a bee). Material thingscan be symbolic also, as a wedding ring symbol-izes marriage or a red octagon symbolizes “stop.”No material thing is ever purely icon, index, or

symbol. In fact, many material things act simulta-neously in multiple modes of signification. Knap-pett (2002) has clearly outlined the contours ofcommon intersections of iconicity and indexical-ity in material things. He notes that the photographis the key example discussed by Peirce (1955:106):it is at once iconic in its perceived similarity to itsobject of representation and indexical in the trans-formation of a light-sensitive surface by wave-lengths that are reflected from the object or scene.This fusion of icon and index is fairly common inthe production of objects but also in their con-sumption as well. So it is, in Knappett’s (2002)example, that a coffee mug can become associatedwith an individual through repeated use. The vis-ible traces of stains are indexes of many repeatedcups of coffee that could indicate a long period ofuse linked to seniority. The frequent proximity ofthe mug to an individual (another form of index)could, in some instances, lead to the mug beingseen as an icon of the person who uses it. Clearresemblance is not a requirement of iconicity.Indeed, the image of a coffee cup is often used asan icon of coffee itself.Although things produce manifold signs, one

aspect of a thing, one quality that emphasizes a par-ticular relationship, can predominate in a givencontext or situation (Lele 2006). A painted hand-print on a cave wall is simultaneously an icon ofa hand and an index of the hand (and perhaps per-son) that left the mark and could be a symbol ofany number of things (e.g., artistic ingenuity, abo-riginal Australia, or humanity). Which of theserelationships pertains is dependent on context andconvention. Most importantly, things always con-tain qualities in excess of those that are employedin a given context of signification, but these“latent” aspects are nonetheless there, ready to bedrawn upon in a different situation. Webb Keane(2003, 2005) has focused on the importance ofcopresence in the qualities in things, what he terms“bundling.” Qualities of things are necessarilybound to other qualities in their material instanti-ation. For instance, redness (a Peircean “first”)


Del

iver

ed b

y ht

tp://

saa.

met

apre

ss.c

om

Soci

ety

for

Am

eric

an A

rcha

eolo

gy -

Ful

l Acc

ess

(289

-07-

305)

IP

Add

ress

: 201

.52.

149.

229

W

edne

sday

, May

08,

201

3 12

:46:

00 P

M

must be manifested in some form, such as an apple(a Peircean “second”), which also necessarilycomes with other available qualities (“roundness”or “sweetness”). Any of numerous qualities arepotentially available to become important factorsin social life, but only in some contexts will anyof them become relevant (Keane 2005:188).Archaeologists can therefore get at meaning byexamining how the semiotic status of things istransformed across contexts and through histori-cal processes: in other words, how the qualities ofthings are employed in practice and how particu-lar qualities of things can move from the“unmarked” background of human experience tothe “marked” foreground of significance (Keane2010). Such an approach holds similarities togenealogies of objects and genealogies of practiceexplored by archaeologists in some recent studies(e.g., Gosden 2005; Pauketat and Alt 2005).

Swift Creek Vessels as IndexesSwift Creek Complicated Stamped pottery wasproduced from about A.D. 100 to A.D. 800 orlater, primarily throughout Georgia, northernFlorida, and eastern Alabama (Stephenson et al.2002; Williams and Elliot 1998; Figure 1). Thestamped designs that define the pottery type wereproduced by impressing carved wooden paddlesinto the wet clay before drying and firing the ves-sels. The “complicated” designs, which includecurvilinear and rectilinear elements, follow a long-lived tradition in the Eastern Woodlands of NorthAmerica of impressing wooden paddle carvingsinto the surface of unfired vessels, but these werepreviously “simple” parallel or crosshatched linesor “checks” (Chase 1998:49). In fact, in manyareas complicated stamping seems to have sim-ply replaced Deptford check stamping on the samevessel forms (Sears 1952:103). The impressionsof carvings on Swift Creek Complicated Stampedvessels seem to depict zoomorphic, anthropo-morphic, and cosmological themes and other moreabstract and stylized images (Snow 1998). Theskill evident in these carvings is likely indicativeof a robust tradition of woodworking that wentwell beyond the manufacture of small paddles(Williams and Elliott 1998).The technique for impressing designs into ves-

sels was variable. While overstamping and

smoothing of designs are common, other vesselsexhibit nearly complete impressions of paddlesthat are unadulterated (Broyles 1968:54; Snow1998:72). Several shapes and sizes of vessels havebeen defined, but generally most Swift CreekComplicated Stamped vessels were fairly ubiq-uitous everyday cooking wares (Hally et al. 2009;Wallis 2011; Williams and Elliot 1998). The dis-tribution of the pottery type is unremarkable— itis not restricted to particular contexts but, rather,is found almost everywhere, from burial moundsto village trash heaps. Yet there is abundant evi-dence that the vessels, or the wooden paddles thatwere used to manufacture them, were frequentlytransported between sites, sometimes significantdistances (Snow 1998; Snow and Stephenson1998; Stoltman and Snow 1998). More than justevidence of people’s travels and interaction, insome places the transport of complicated stampedcooking vessels was an important part of mortu-ary-related ceremony (Wallis 2011). These ves-sels were intentionally broken and placed inmounds individually or scattered across moundsurfaces.On the Atlantic coast, vessels from villages on

the Altamaha River, Georgia, were delivered toburial mounds on the St. Johns River, Florida,more than 100 km to the south. Although severalpottery types have been subjected to materialsanalysis, vessels identified as nonlocal are over-whelmingly complicated stamped, indicating thatthe stamped designs held special significance. Ihave argued that the significance of the paddlestamps was in their capacity as indexes, connect-ing each wooden paddle to earthenware vesselsthrough direct and unmistakable evidence of con-tact (Wallis 2011). Complicated stamped vesselsquite clearly indexed the wooden paddles that cre-ated their surface treatments, so clearly, in fact,that archaeologists can identify the impression ofa unique wooden paddle shared among disparateassemblages of complicated stamped vessels. Thisphysical connection was a “maker’s mark” thatlinked multiple vessels stamped with the samewooden paddle and potentially with the personwho used the paddle in vessel manufacture, theperson who carved the paddle, and the subjectthat was made manifest in the carving.There are more subtle indexes at work as well,

such as histories of possession and use that accu-


Del

iver

ed b

y ht

tp://

saa.

met

apre

ss.c

om

Soci

ety

for

Am

eric

an A

rcha

eolo

gy -

Ful

l Acc

ess

(289

-07-

305)

IP

Add

ress

: 201

.52.

149.

229

W

edne

sday

, May

08,

201

3 12

:46:

00 P

M

mulated on wooden paddles and earthenware ves-sels. As the surface of a wooden paddle was worndown and developed cracks through repeatedimpact on vessel surfaces, these telltale signs wereindelibly recorded in the fired clay of vessels. Inaddition, vessels accumulated soot, cracks, mendholes, and abrasions through repeated use andtransport. This accumulative effect that tends togather associations with events, persons, andplaces, termed “enchainment” by Marilyn Strath-ern (1988), often serves to create particular rela-

tionships through the calculated movement andpositioning of people and things (Chapman 2000).In fact, objects with extensive biographies thatcarry wide-ranging indexical links often becomepart of strategies to distribute personhood, as inthe classic examples of the Melanesian kula ring(e.g., Gell 1998; Malinowski 1922; Mauss 1970).Exchanged kula arm shells and necklaces are notconventional symbols that represent a renownedperson; rather, these objects are indexes thatembody the age, influence, and power of a per-


Figure 1. Traditional extent of Swift Creek (dotted line) and Weeden Island (solid line) archaeological cultures (adaptedfrom Milanich 2002; Stephenson et al. 2002) and locations of sites mentioned in the text: (1) Block-Sterns; (2) Bristol; (3)Burnt Mill Creek; (4) Carrabelle; (5) Fairchilds Landing; (6) Green Point; (7) Hall; (8) Hare Hammock; (9) Hartsfield;(10) Kolomoki; (11) Laughton’s Bayou; (12) Marsh Island; (13) McKeithen; (14) Mound Field; (15) Palmetto Island; (16)Pierce; (17) Swift Creek; (18) Tucker; (19) Warrior River; (20) Weeden Island.

Del

iver

ed b

y ht

tp://

saa.

met

apre

ss.c

om

Soci

ety

for

Am

eric

an A

rcha

eolo

gy -

Ful

l Acc

ess

(289

-07-

305)

IP

Add

ress

: 201

.52.

149.

229

W

edne

sday

, May

08,

201

3 12

:46:

00 P

M

son through the accumulation of networks of con-nections with persons and places (Gell 1998:231).In particular, a “distributed object,” defined by

Alfred Gell (1998:221) as an image with manyspatially separated manifestations across the land-scape, each with a unique microhistory, is anextremely effective tool for distributing person-hood. Gell (1998) applies this concept to various“sets” of objects that seem to reference oneanother through their physical connection, fromthose as tightly bound as a set of dinnerware chinato those as loosely integrated and multiauthoredas the entire corpus of Marquesan art. But thebest-defined distributed objects are most impor-

tant as particular kinds of indexes that facilitatespatial and temporal extensions of personhood(e.g., Joyce 2008). Swift Creek ComplicatedStamped vessels sharing a unique paddle designconstituted a distributed object as they broadcasta single image that was able to accumulate diver-gent biographies simultaneously in multipleplaces (Figure 2). Just as a paddle stamp todaygives archaeologists a reference to other siteswhere the same carved paddle was used to impressvessels, so too in the past did a complicatedstamped vessel give presence to an expansive net-work of connections. These indexical potentialsevidently became “marked” with significance, at


Figure 2. A “paddle match”—vessels stamped with the same carved paddle: (a) design reconstruction by Amanda O’Dell;sherds from (b) Carrabelle, (c) Block-Sterns, and (d) Hartsfield.D

eliv

ered

by

http

://sa

a.m

etap

ress

.com

So

ciet

y fo

r A

mer

ican

Arc

haeo

logy

- F

ull A

cces

s (2

89-0

7-30

5)

IP A

ddre

ss: 2

01.5

2.14

9.22

9

Wed

nesd

ay, M

ay 0

8, 2

013

12:4

6:00

PM

least in some regions, as the vessels were circu-lated and deposited in very particular places, suchas burial mounds. The indexical qualities of com-plicated stamped vessels as distributed objectscan explain their patterns of movement, ratherthan their being merely the de facto refuse of peo-ple engaged in various “social” practices such asexchange, marriage, or mortuary ceremony. Thetransport of complicated stamped vessels to bur-ial mounds was a particularly salient act that dis-tributed personhood and constituted social fieldsin the context of mortuary ceremony, at least onthe Atlantic coast (Wallis 2011). This model isbeing tested further by a materials analysis ofassemblages from sites across much of the LowerSoutheast.

Swift Creek SemiosisThe style of Swift Creek carvings may support thenotion that stamped vessels distributed person-hood. The designs seem to be rendered by splitrepresentation, similar to the famous examplesrecorded by Boas (1955) and Lévi-Strauss (1963)on the Northwest Coast of North America andamong the Maori (Figure 3). Split representationrenders three-dimensional objects in two dimen-sions by figuratively cutting them into parts andspreading them onto a flat surface. The effect isto display all parts of an object at once, whichoften results in what appear to be two conjoiningprofiles or multiple copies of an image, thoughthere are much more complicated configurations.The intent is to create a “backless” image— no sideof the subject need be imagined because everyaspect is made eminently present. Ethnographi-cally, this technique is only used when a designis not representational but, rather, constitutive(Gell 1998:191). For the Kwakiutl, for example,

the use of split representation in decorating a con-tainer can be “viewed as the imposition on a recep-tacle or container of the whole animal or creaturedepicted, as though the artist had stretched the skinof the animal over the object” (Pollock 1995:589).Thus, the use of split representation often denotesthat a particular image is not merely a picture ofan animal; rather, the image lends an identity toan object to become the animal with the appro-priate agentive qualities.Masks, in particular, are very commonly

depicted in ethnographic split representation, asthey are strongly linked to identity and person-hood. Importantly, though masks may nominallyrepresent various animals, more specifically theyare often signs of transformation that take thehuman head as a point of departure (Gell 1975:301;Pollock 1995:585). That is to say, animal masksfrequently do not reference animals per se but,rather, a human who has become an animal orspirit. In semiotic terms, masks are at once iconic,in that they resemble their object, and indexical,in that they are evidence of the same transforma-tive process that they imbue upon the wearer.The designs on Swift Creek Complicated

Stamped pottery are usefully viewed from theperspective of split representation, which alsocorresponds to what we know of the manufactureand distribution of vessels. Many of the designsseem to depict creatures and often, the faces ofcreatures (Figure 4). The so-called masks, in par-ticular, appear to be stylized to the extent that theyare not easily identified (by archaeologists) as ref-erencing a particular species, perhaps indicatingthat they depict transformational figures ratherthan actual animals. In all cases, whether it wasthe body or face of a creature or a so-called cos-mological figure that was rendered by split rep-resentation, earthenware vessels seem to have


Figure 3. Examples of split representation in Tsimshian (center) and Haida designs (Boas 1955:Figures 222–223, 226).

Del

iver

ed b

y ht

tp://

saa.

met

apre

ss.c

om

Soci

ety

for

Am

eric

an A

rcha

eolo

gy -

Ful

l Acc

ess

(289

-07-

305)

IP

Add

ress

: 201

.52.

149.

229

W

edne

sday

, May

08,

201

3 12

:46:

00 P

M

been given the “skin” of the animal or entitythrough stamping the carved designs on surfaces(Pollock 1995:589). Through this skin, a vesselwas transformed into an agentive subject or“actant” (Latour 2005), its ability to have effectsenhanced by the transformation evident in thestylized masks that are so common in Swift Creekdesigns and the widespread movement of vessels(or at least the designs) across the Lower South-east and beyond. Paddles created indexes of trans-formation, potentially converting commondomestic cooking vessels into agentive beings.Simultaneously, many designs were icons oftransformation, depicting the process of shiftinganimal-like and human-like forms.

Weeden Island Vessels as IconsWeeden Island period pottery assemblages con-tain late Swift Creek Complicated Stamped pot-tery as well as punctated, incised, and plain typesthat include stylized designs and animal effigyvessels (Milanich 2002:354). The distribution ofthe Weeden Island series overlaps with the distri-bution of complicated stamping but extends far-ther south (Figure 1). Except in northwest Florida,the punctated and incised vessels were reservedprimarily for ceremony and mound burial— theirfrequency is low in habitation contexts (Milanich

2002). While punctated and incised surface treat-ments often seem to depict birds, and perhaps“cosmological” designs, the most striking repre-sentations, and the ones that have received themost attention by archaeologists and antiquarians,are the effigy vessels. Effigies are found nearlyexclusively in burial mounds. Rendered in threedimensions are entire vessels that approximatethe shape of animals and bowls or jars that takemore customary shapes but have modeled adornoheads. In Milanich and colleagues’ (1997) tabu-lation of effigy vessels from McKeithen,Kolomoki, and other sites, 72 of 100 are birds,with unidentified crested birds, owls, roseatespoonbills, and vultures figuring most promi-nently. Other animals are far less numerous butinclude dogs, deer, opossums, mountain lions,bobcats, rattlesnakes, fish, and, most commonly,humans. Weeden Island effigy vessels were oftenburied together in mounds in east-side caches inwhat may have been spectacular ceremonial dis-plays (Sears 1973).The high level of craftsmanship evident in

Weeden Island “sacred” wares recovered frommortuary contexts led Sears (1956) to infer a classof artisans who specialized in pottery production.In fact, effigy vessels from various sites across theLower Southeast are similar enough to suggestthat they could have been made by the same group


Figure 4. Faces or “mask” design reconstructions based on pottery from Florida and Georgia sites (all images by FrankieSnow [1998], except bottom right, by Amanda O’Dell).

Del

iver

ed b

y ht

tp://

saa.

met

apre

ss.c

om

Soci

ety

for

Am

eric

an A

rcha

eolo

gy -

Ful

l Acc

ess

(289

-07-

305)

IP

Add

ress

: 201

.52.

149.

229

W

edne

sday

, May

08,

201

3 12

:46:

00 P

M

of artisans, perhaps based at large ceremonial cen-ters such as Kolomoki in southwestern Georgia.A recent petrographic analysis of Weeden Islandseries vessels indicates that many of the sacredwares in north Florida mounds, including effigyvessels, may indeed have been made from clayresources available near Kolomoki; however, oth-ers have local pastes (Pluckhahn and Cordell2011). Many Weeden Island effigy vessels buriedin mounds across the Lower Southeast thereforeindexed the places and persons of their manufac-ture at Kolomoki. However, compared with SwiftCreek Complicated Stamped vessels, WeedenIsland effigy vessels lacked the semiotic poten-tial to effectively enchain multiple objects, places,and people through clear evidence of contact.Compared with their Swift Creek counterparts,effigies were (and are) primarily icons that madereference through mimesis, looking similar to ani-mals or persons. This study traces the divergentpotentials and uses of these two pottery types toargue that the contrast was of great consequenceand constituted competing social tactics for sacredauthority and power. In effect, both types of ves-sels were signs for the same objects (in semioticterms) and were viewed as comprising similarbeings, but through alternative relations betweensign and object that acted in very different ways.

Similarities in Swift Creek and Weeden Island Forms

A comparison of Swift Creek and Weeden Islandiconography supports this argument in tworespects. First, there are “transitional forms” in theproduction of iconography that reveal some ofthe shared logic of signification in both compli-cated stamping and three-dimensional effigy ves-sels. Second, the comparison shows quite clearlythat many of the same subjects are depicted in bothtypes of pottery. Thus, the forms are iconicallyequivalent in many cases. These comparisonsdemonstrate that while both complicated stamp-ing and effigies were signs for the same objects(in semiotic terms) and viewed as constitutingsome of the same subjects, “meaning” wasachieved by very different means and had diver-gent effects.Regarding the logic of signification, a contin-

uum in the relationship of Weeden Island imageryand earthenware vessels links them to Swift CreekComplicated Stamped designs (Figure 5). Froma two-dimensional perspective, some WeedenIsland conventionally shaped bowls and jars haveincised and punctated designs or flattened moldedfaces that mimic the principles of split represen-tation seen in Swift Creek designs. Other vessels


Figure 5. Weeden Island series vessels as birds: (a) Weeden Island Incised vessel and drawing of incising, mound nearCrooked Island (Moore 1918:551–552); (b) Weeden Island bowl with two bird heads, mound at Bristol (Moore1903:478); (c) Weeden Island bowl effigy with partial bird body, mound near Mound Field (Moore 1902:312); (d) birdeffigy, Tucker Mound (Moore 1902:260).

Del

iver

ed b

y ht

tp://

saa.

met

apre

ss.c

om

Soci

ety

for

Am

eric

an A

rcha

eolo

gy -

Ful

l Acc

ess

(289

-07-

305)

IP

Add

ress

: 201

.52.

149.

229

W

edne

sday

, May

08,

201

3 12

:46:

00 P

M

have three-dimensional effigy heads that areaffixed to otherwise conventional vessel forms.Finally, there are three-dimensional effigies inwhich the entire vessel takes the form of an ani-mal rather than conforming to the usual shape ofa bowl and jar. These categories are merely arbi-trary points along a continuum. For instance, somevessels show only partial alteration of traditionaljar forms to vaguely approximate the shape of ananimal or human body (Figure 6).This continuum reveals the logic of Weeden

Island iconography and its connection to SwiftCreek Complicated Stamped designs. We see inthis continuum the process by which earthenwarevessels become agentive subjects— in this caseanimals and persons— through a limited reper-toire of iconic imagery. In the first instance, headsand other body parts are figuratively wrappedaround the vessel through split representation; inthe second instance, a three-dimensional head orbody is affixed onto a vessel; and in the third case,a fully three-dimensional anatomically “correct”body emerges. In all cases, these signs constitutedbeings rather than merely representing pictures ofthem. Taking the most common theme of birds,the icons on the vessels signify a bird regardlessof whether the vessel takes the form of a bird ormerely has a bird head affixed or incised on it.They are all equivalent in terms of constitutingbirds through synecdoche, indexing a whole beingwith just one part.Taking account of the continuum of represen-

tation in Weeden Island art described above, thereare perhaps more similarities to Swift Creek Com-plicated Stamped designs than is commonly

assumed. Comparison of the three most commonrepresentations shared by both traditions shouldsuffice to demonstrate the common themes andexplore their semiotic divergences. These threethemes are the so-called cosmological designs(Snow 1998), whole bodies or heads of animalsor humans, and animal or human faces.Beginning with the simplest and most obvious

parallel, one type of Weeden Island series vesselnot normally considered an “effigy” includes mul-tiple compartment trays that frequently contain acentral compartment and four lobes or conjoinedbowls (Figure 7). Paralleling the symmetry ofthese vessels are Swift Creek carvings that showfour nearly identical elements, often ovals, whichsurround a central element that is usually circu-lar. These “cosmological designs,” which Snow(1998) argues may denote the four directions ofnative cosmologies, are arguably two-dimensionalversions of three-dimensional Weeden Island mul-ticompartment vessels and vice versa. The SwiftCreek renditions can be seen essentially as planviews of the three-dimensional Weeden Islandvessels. Supporting this idea are Weeden IslandIncised and the closely related Crystal RiverZoned Red vessels that show the same technique,but in incising (Figure 8).The second common theme includes animal

and human bodies or heads. As noted previously,the spectrum of continuity among Weeden Islandeffigy vessels, between heads affixed to other-wise simple bowls and vessels whose form isentirely dictated by the shape of those organisms,seems to show that they are all equivalent. In fact,a simple head adorno is a synecdoche. No matterthe number of body parts depicted, each vesselwas transformed into that animal or person ratherthan merely representing a picture of one. Repre-sentations of whole bodies and only the heads oforganisms both have their counterparts in SwiftCreek designs (Figure 9). For example, there areseveral instances of whole bodies of birds foundin the impressions of Swift Creek carvings andfrequent depictions of bird heads. Notably, birdheads (and in some cases, bodies) nearly alwaysappear paired, likely because they are rendered bysplit representation, in which both sides of thehead are displayed at once. Paired bird heads alsoseem to represent the eyes of Swift Creek “mask”designs, implicating them in complex metonymic


Figure 6. Weeden Island Incised jar, mound nearShoemaker Landing: left, low-relief face and incised body;right, drawing of incising (Moore 1907:439–441).

Del

iver

ed b

y ht

tp://

saa.

met

apre

ss.c

om

Soci

ety

for

Am

eric

an A

rcha

eolo

gy -

Ful

l Acc

ess

(289

-07-

305)

IP

Add

ress

: 201

.52.

149.

229

W

edne

sday

, May

08,

201

3 12

:46:

00 P

M

relationships that should be expected to charac-terize transformational forms.Again, there are forms rendered in incising that

parallel the structure of Swift Creek ComplicatedStamped designs. When birds appear in two-dimensional incised designs, they routinely appearin pairs, sometimes with the same rotational sym-metry that we see in Swift Creek renditions (Fig-ure 10). Moreover, the same play of tropes, inwhich bird heads seem to represent the eyes offaces, is also found in Crystal River incised exam-ples. These correspondences indicate not just a

similarity of subject but uniformity in the logic ofrepresentation. More precisely, these images ren-der earthenware vessels as subjects through thesame device, split representation, by draping acultural “skin” onto them.The molded animal heads and whole effigy

vessels, which are primarily birds, constitute thethree dimensions that are implied by split repre-sentation in the Swift Creek Complicated Stampedand Weeden Island Incised forms. Intermediateforms between two and three dimensions alsoshow the pervasiveness of split representation.


Figure 7. Weeden Island multicompartment vessels: (a) mound near West Bay Post Office (Moore 1902:138); (b) HallMound (Moore 1902:298); (c) mound at Marsh Island (Moore 1902:279). “Cosmological” designs in Swift Creek designreconstructions: (d) Palmetto Island (Wallis and O’Dell 2011); (e–f) southern Georgia (Snow 1998:76).

Figure 8. “Cosmological” designs in Weeden Island Incised vessels: (a) Hall Mound (Moore 1902:286); (b) Pierce MoundA (Moore 1902:226).

Del

iver

ed b

y ht

tp://

saa.

met

apre

ss.c

om

Soci

ety

for

Am

eric

an A

rcha

eolo

gy -

Ful

l Acc

ess

(289

-07-

305)

IP

Add

ress

: 201

.52.

149.

229

W

edne

sday

, May

08,

201

3 12

:46:

00 P

M

When bird heads are not fully three-dimensionalbut, instead, “flattened” onto the surface of ves-sels, they are nearly always paired, just like theincised and complicated stamped designs. As Gell(1998:192) has shown in Marquesan art, this sem-blance of duplication is actually a method of low-relief carving that renders the subject “backless,”so that both sides are represented at once. Two birdheads on a single Weeden Island vessel achievethis effect, and they occur most often in low relief.Fully three-dimensional forms, in which the ves-sel shape mimics the form of an animal, almostalways have a clearly defined head and tail. Onerare exception, two bird heads sharing a singlebody, may prove the rule— this remains a back-less design in which both sides of the bird may beviewed at once (Figure 11).Finally, the third major common category

includes the faces of animals and humans. In Wee-den Island effigies we may be able to distinguishbetween faces and heads. Heads tend to be fullythree-dimensional and typically more generic thanfaces, which are comparatively low-relief butexhibit more details of expression and identity.Interestingly, detailed faces are fairly rare in Wee-den Island iconography and mostly occur inhuman form (Figure 12). More common in Wee-

den Island effigies are whole bodies of animals orhumans that do not emphasize the particular char-acter of faces. In keeping with the iconic empha-sis of Weeden Island effigies, detailed faces canbe positively identified as humans and are almostalways attached to a human body, unlike the verycommon Swift Creek “mask” designs that depictanimallike and humanlike faces that may be tran-sitional forms.In sum, many Weeden Island effigy vessels

seem to be the three-dimensional versions of manyof the same subjects depicted in two-dimensionalSwift Creek designs. The Swift Creek renditionsof all of these themes are more “stylized” thantheir Weeden Island counterparts, but similaritiesin the structures of “transitional” forms indicatetheir general equivalence. The play of tropes evi-dent in Swift Creek forms may depict transfor-mations not shown in most Weeden Island vessels,and this is part of their power as signs, as iconsof transformation.

DiscussionSwift Creek complicated stamping emphasizedindexical qualities through clear evidence of con-tact with persons and places. Weeden Island effi-


Figure 9. Bird imagery in Swift Creek design reconstruc-tions: (a) bird heads as the eyes of a “mask,” southernGeorgia (Snow 1998:68); (b) “two woodpeckers,” south-ern Georgia (Snow 1998:94); (c) bird heads, FairchildsLanding (Broyles 1968:Plate 5); (d) “bird in flight,” south-ern Georgia (Broyles 1968:Plate 5; also see Snow 1998:64).

Figure 10. Split representation and bird head tropes. Birdheads as eyes of “masks”: (a) Swift Creek, LowerOcmulgee Valley (Snow 1998:63); (b) Weeden IslandIncised, mound near Green Point (Moore 1902:255). Birdheads: (c) Weeden Island Incised, mound near CrookedIsland (Moore 1918:551); (d–e) Swift Creek, LowerOcmulgee Valley (Snow 1998:68).

Del

iver

ed b

y ht

tp://

saa.

met

apre

ss.c

om

Soci

ety

for

Am

eric

an A

rcha

eolo

gy -

Ful

l Acc

ess

(289

-07-

305)

IP

Add

ress

: 201

.52.

149.

229

W

edne

sday

, May

08,

201

3 12

:46:

00 P

M

gies emphasized the iconic by creating realisticversions of human and animal figures. Both typesof object were powerful as signs that were con-stitutive of various beings, but in different and dis-tinctive ways. As Keane notes, one of the mostimportant differences between an icon and anindex is the sort of inference they will support:“An icon tells us something about the qualities ofits object but not whether that object actuallyexists. An index affirms the actual existence of itsobject, but not what, exactly, that object is”(2005:190). That is, an icon can resemble anobject that does not exist (such as a painting of adragon), while an index confirms a cause but notthe identity of the object (such as the footprint ofan unidentified animal). Without inherent instruc-tions, making sense of an index therefore ofteninvolves ad hoc hypotheses, called abductions(Gell 1998:222–231). Abduction involves postu-lating causes or intentions that are most likely toexplain a given effect “such that what we actuallydo perceive has the character it does” (Keane2006:200). In this way, “natural” events such asa torn cloth or poor harvest can be interpreted as

resulting from the intentions of agents, both per-sons and nonpersons (Keane 2003:417). Butindexes do not only presume some prior cause;they can also have entailments that connect topossible futures or pasts that may be imagined toalready exist.As described above, the extraordinary indexi-

cal capacities of complicated stamping allowedvessels to simultaneously instantiate an image inmultiple places, and this process of enchainmentallowed vessels to be experienced as much morethan cooking containers. The extensive networksof persons and histories that were constituted bywidespread movement and physical signs of dis-tant connection made complicated stamped ves-sels potent material for mortuary ceremonies, andthey were carried long distances for this purpose.But this was not the complicated stamped vessel’sonly source of significance. Through overstamp-ing and smoothing, the designs imparted ontocomplicated stamped vessels were partiallyobscured and when combined with the intricacyof many of the registered carvings, were poten-tial apotropaic devices. Apotropaic patterns are


Figure 11. Weeden Island effigy vessel from the larger mound near Burnt Mill Creek (Moore 1902:144).

Del

iver

ed b

y ht

tp://

saa.

met

apre

ss.c

om

Soci

ety

for

Am

eric

an A

rcha

eolo

gy -

Ful

l Acc

ess

(289

-07-

305)

IP

Add

ress

: 201

.52.

149.

229

W

edne

sday

, May

08,

201

3 12

:46:

00 P

M

“demon-traps” that can compel spirits to becomefascinated by intricacy or sheer multiplicity (Gell1998:84). Spirits become so engrossed in study-ing a design, such as a maze, that they are dis-tracted from their sinister plans. Swift CreekComplicated Stamped vessels certainly exhibitthese mystifying qualities, as anyone attemptingto reconstruct the designs knows well. What mayhave been a protective device in the spirit world,appropriate for protection in mortuary contexts,would also have had social effects among livingpersons. Just as the intricate carvings on the prow-boards of kula canoes may be designed to spell-bind exchange partners in order to gain favorableexchanges (Gell 1992), Swift Creek ComplicatedStamped vessels may have mystified throughintricacy and a degree of concealment of the ref-erenced object. They were thus powerful social

tools in negotiating the complexities of gatheringsat mortuary mounds.In contrast, Weeden Island effigies gave up

some of the indexical capacities of complicatedstamping for three-dimensional forms, which mayhave been experienced as more corporally realis-tic, and more clearly emphasized the phenome-nological potential for personhood, recentlytermed “object animacy” (Brown and Walker2008; Zedeño 2009). Indeed, the abduction of per-sonhood (Gell 1998:222–231) that was developedthrough interactions with these objects may havebeen enhanced by emphasizing realism and theiconic, thus leaving less to the imagination. Usingartwork that looked as though it could “come tolife,” as in a wax museum, may have helped tomore easily create experiences where these objectswere seen to act. As a consequence, however, Wee-


Figure 12. Examples of detailed faces in Weeden Island iconography: (a) Hall Mound (Moore 1902:303); (b) Hall Mound(Moore 1902:295); (c) Mound B, Laughton’s Bayou (Moore 1902:191); (d) larger mound near Hare Hammock (Moore1902:201); (e) smaller mound near Burnt Mill Creek (Moore 1902:148); (f) Mound A Warrior River (Moore 1902:332).

Del

iver

ed b

y ht

tp://

saa.

met

apre

ss.c

om

Soci

ety

for

Am

eric

an A

rcha

eolo

gy -

Ful

l Acc

ess

(289

-07-

305)

IP

Add

ress

: 201

.52.

149.

229

W

edne

sday

, May

08,

201

3 12

:46:

00 P

M

den Island effigies may have lost the enchantingqualities of mystification that pertained to SwiftCreek Complicated Stamped vessels, compellingthe observer to discern what it is, exactly, that leftobservable evidence of contact.The contexts of these apparent differences in

the manufacture and use of signs are significant.The differences may relate to contemporaneousand competing social and political tactics relatedto mortuary ceremonialism, rather than a chrono-logical shift. Although the earliest adoption ofSwift Creek Complicated Stamped pottery isunquestionably earlier than the first effigy vessels,perhaps by more than two centuries (Milanich2002; Stephenson et al. 2002), widespread use ofzoomorphic and anthropomorphic forms in SwiftCreek designs is more likely contemporaneous— they appear most common in Late Swift Creek,ca. after A.D. 400 (Wallis 2011). We have seenthat Swift Creek designs, while depicting the samegeneral themes, are more “stylized” and may por-tray transformational figures as opposed to thenaturalistic forms of Weeden Island iconography.What is more, the manufacture and function of thetwo pottery types were quite different. Swift CreekComplicated Stamped pottery was made domes-tically by large portions of the population andused widely as cooking vessels in domestic con-texts. Weeden Island effigies may have been madeby specialists and were used only in ceremonialcontexts (Milanich et al. 1997; Pluckhahn andCordell 2011). This study has outlined how bothtypes of pottery were conceived as constitutingsome of the same subjects, but through alterna-tive relations between sign and object.These alternative relations are not subtle, and

we may view them as embedded within contestedfields of knowledge and social power. On the onehand, Swift Creek designs were subject to con-tinual symbolic play. Distributed Swift CreekComplicated Stamped vessels made indexicallinks to various villages and persons that allowedmundane cookware to be transformed into cere-monial material. These vessels may have becometools of negotiation meant to intimidate and mys-tify (Wallis 2011). While particular designs mayhave been guarded, clearly the production of carv-ings and stamped vessels was decentralized,which allowed for regular competition amongthose who employed them as social tools/

weapons. On the other hand, Weeden Island effi-gies were confined to the sacred realm, madeindexical links only to major political centers likeKolomoki, were apparently made by a small seg-ment of the population (e.g., “specialists”), andwere thereby distanced from the cosmopolitanand quotidian roots of mortuary ceremonial mate-rials that were manifested in Swift Creek Com-plicated Stamped pottery. In other words,complicated stamped vessels bridged quotidianand sacred realms and brought together disparatevillages (or their representatives) in ceremonialinteractions, while effigies helped construct asacred realm that was clearly divorced from vil-lage life and probably large portions of the pop-ulation. Thus, the differences in semioticpossibilities evident in these pottery types paral-lel changes in their accessibility and potentialpower. While the process of enchainment that wasfacilitated by domestic-made Swift Creek Com-plicated Stamped vessels could have been affectedand leveraged by many potential political play-ers, Weeden Island effigies were the domain ofspecialized ritual knowledge controlled by asmaller segment of the population.It is perhaps no coincidence that archaeolo-

gists have noted more attributes of rank (e.g.,accoutrements and extended burials) among“Swift Creek” burials compared with “WeedenIsland” burials (Brose and Percy 1974; Willey1949). While this may describe a temporal trend,chronological refinements may also show con-temporaneous differences in rank related to thedifferential abundance of complicated stampedpottery and effigy vessels in burial mounds.Mounds containing abundant Swift Creek Com-plicated Stamped pottery tend to be constructedby continuous use, gradually gaining size throughmany decades or centuries of adding humanremains, artifacts, and new mantles of earth (Sears1962, 1973; Willey 1949). In contrast, moundscontaining a higher proportion of other WeedenIsland wares (such as Weeden Island Incised, Wee-den Island Punctated, and Weeden Island ZonedRed), effigy vessels, and less complicatedstamped pottery tend to be “patterned” (Sears1962:13). These mounds were constructed morequickly, often in a single event, and frequentlycontain pottery caches on their peripheries (oftenon the east side), sometimes with pathways “lit-


Del

iver

ed b

y ht

tp://

saa.

met

apre

ss.c

om

Soci

ety

for

Am

eric

an A

rcha

eolo

gy -

Ful

l Acc

ess

(289

-07-

305)

IP

Add

ress

: 201

.52.

149.

229

W

edne

sday

, May

08,

201

3 12

:46:

00 P

M

erally paved with potsherds” leading toward themound center (Willey 1949:405). These patternedmounds seem only to have become common nearKolomoki within northwest Florida, southeastAlabama, and southwest Georgia, rather than inall areas where Weeden Island pottery is found.Through their indexical capabilities, Swift

Creek Complicated Stamped vessels could be usedto negotiate and legitimate political power, and,indeed, the ritual exchange of these vessels mayhave been part of reciprocal obligations that weredeveloped among allied lineages. In fact, SwiftCreek vessels were often deposited in moundsthrough repeated events that allowed many oppor-tunities for action. Apparently, the political playsof certain individuals resulted in a degree ofachieved status. In contrast, Weeden Island effi-gies may have been part of a strategy to divorcesacred authority from social and political prac-tices. A communal ethic is evident in the greaternumber of disarticulated bundle burials and cre-mations, as well as singular events in which cachesof vessels, including effigies, were depositedtogether, not directly associated with humanremains. Monumental construction projects at siteslike Kolomoki provided distinctive ceremonialspaces that were partitioned from village life. AsPluckhahn (2010) has argued, this compartmen-talization of sacred and secular realms may haveserved to restrain status and authority and therebyease social tensions. More specifically, we can seethat Weeden Island effigies were part of practicesthat accentuated ostentatious spectacle and per-formance and simultaneously removed possibili-ties of political maneuvering by constricting thescale of material indexes. Behind the guise of reli-gion, this move toward sacred/secular divisionsmay have actually bolstered a few individuals’political power by sequestering it in the sacredrealm, following Dwyer’s (1996) observation thatsegregation of the invisible world of spirits and thevisible world of the living tends to be accentuatedas social complexity increases. Weeden Islandeffigy vessels were an important part of this reli-gious segregation, whereby a group of religiousspecialists seems to have conscripted the produc-tion and distribution of sacred paraphernaliatoward the advancement of their own interests.An important distinction must be made between

the symbolism of the iconography preserved on

pottery and the icons and indexes that were enlistedto achieve particular social and political effects.As described above, there is little to indicate thatthe conventions of symbolic meaning in SwiftCreek Complicated Stamped and Weeden Islandeffigy vessels were divergent— these pottery typessimply employ alternative techniques for render-ing many of the same concepts and beings. Thesymbolic meanings of these images, perhapsinvoking cosmological models, liminal animalssuch as water birds, humans, or nonhuman persons,were conventions that could be preserved acrosschanges in the production, use, and distribution ofvessels that altered the process of signification. Inthis sense, the producers of Swift Creek Compli-cated Stamped pottery and Weeden Island effigieswere working with the same repertoire of symbolicmeanings but employing their semiotic potentialsin contradictory ways. In particular, the centralizedand specialized production of Weeden Island effi-gies could have been an abjuration by a smallgroup of religious specialists of the politicalmaneuvering made possible by the indexicalcapacities of renderings on Swift Creek Compli-cated Stamped vessels. By inventing a new man-ifestation of these symbols with alternative modesof signification, emergent spiritual leaders couldshift and circumscribe the politics of representa-tion in mortuary contexts. In places where effigieswere displayed and buried, complicated stampedvessels continued to be enlisted as importantindexes, but their effects may have been dimin-ished by the new dimension of significance intro-duced by effigies.

ConclusionDrawing on concepts from Peircean semiotics,this study has explored how a practice-centeredapproach to meaning can move effectively beyondprevious investigations of Swift Creek and Wee-den Island iconography as symbols. Such a per-spective brings focus not only to the potentialcapacities of objects as signs but also to the wayobjects were used, which is critical to under-standing how they were active as signs. In the caseof Swift Creek Complicated Stamped vessels andWeeden Island effigies, the objects of signs seemto have been fairly similar, but the relationsbetween sign and object were clearly different.


Del

iver

ed b

y ht

tp://

saa.

met

apre

ss.c

om

Soci

ety

for

Am

eric

an A

rcha

eolo

gy -

Ful

l Acc

ess

(289

-07-

305)

IP

Add

ress

: 201

.52.

149.

229

W

edne

sday

, May

08,

201

3 12

:46:

00 P

M

Swift Creek Complicated Stamped vessels werevillage wares that were sometimes conscriptedinto mortuary ceremonies, and their powerderived from their ability to make tangible con-nections between villages (and villagers) and mor-tuary loci. In contrast, Weeden Island effigieselided these organic village connections and cir-cumscribed indexical connections so that theywere limited to pottery specialists and major cer-emonial centers. Furthermore, effigies empha-sized the iconic as part of dramatic religiousperformances that were clearly divorced fromdaily life. This segregation of “sacred” and “sec-ular” realms may correspond with other attemptsto ease the growing tensions of increasing socialcomplexity (Pluckhahn 2010).This analysis has not addressed directly the

question of why particular animals or personswere chosen as the objects of signs— for exam-ple, why did vultures or ducks become symbolsin mortuary contexts? Such questions often havebeen tackled in archaeology by drawing on struc-tural, symbolic, and cognitive anthropologies thatare founded upon Saussurean semiology. In tak-ing on the codes and rules of symbolic (i.e., con-ventional) meaning that are seen as inherent tomaterial culture, these approaches have failed toaddress social practice (Preucel 2006:3). While weshould not ignore symbol and metaphor, an alter-native to the investigation of meaning begins withthe premise that signs are created through people’sengagement with each other and the object world.Using Peirce’s concepts of icon, index, and sym-bol, we can investigate the historical processes bywhich meaning is continually created. A semioticapproach therefore succeeds where purely sym-bolic approaches fail, by interrogating the per-formative contexts in which the meaning oficonography is constituted. Ideology and sym-bolism undoubtedly were implicated in majorchanges in Woodland period Southeastern NorthAmerica, such as increasingly large and aggre-gated villages, the proliferation of burial moundceremonialism and long-distance exchange, andescalating social and political inequality (Ander-son and Mainfort 2002). By interrogating thesemiotic potentials of material objects and asso-ciated social practices, this study moves toward amore precise understanding of what things wereenlisted to do and how they became significant.

Acknowledgments. A portion of this article was presented inthe symposium “Ceremonial Spheres of the Eastern Wood-lands,” organized by Scot Keith and Martin Byers at the 2012Society for American Archaeology meeting in Memphis. Ithank the organizers, contributors, and discussants for stimu-lating some of the thoughts that led to this article. This articlebenefited also from the thoughtful comments of Chris Rodningand anonymous reviewers. Sincere thanks go to Paula AndreaViveros Bedoya for translating the abstract into Spanish.Frankie Snow graciously gave permission to publish his SwiftCreek design reconstructions. I am also indebted to AmandaO’Dell for her diligence in reconstructing hundreds of designsfrom the Gulf Coast and beyond, thereby providing signifi-cantly more material to ponder. O’Dell’s Swift Creek designreconstructions were supported in part by National ScienceFoundation grant #BCS-1111397. Any errors are my own.

References CitedAnderson, David G., and Robert C. Mainfort, Jr.2002 An Introduction to Woodland Archaeology of the South-east. In The Woodland Southeast, edited by David G. An-derson and Robert C. Mainfort, Jr., pp. 1–19. Universityof Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Bauer, Alexander A.2002 Is What You See All You Get? Recognizing Meaningin Archaeology. Journal of Social Archaeology 2:37–52.

Boas, Franz1955 Primitive Art. Dover, New York.

Bourdieu, Pierre1977 Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge Univer-sity Press, Cambridge.

1984 Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste.Translated by Richard Nice. Harvard University Press, Cam-bridge.

Brose, David S., and George W. Percy1974 An Outline of Weeden Island Ceremonial Activitiesin N.W. Florida. Paper presented at the 37th Annual Meet-ing of the Society for American Archaeology, Washington,D.C.

Brown, Linda A., and William H. Walker2008 Prologue: Archaeology, Animism and Non-HumanAgents. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory15:297–299.

Broyles, Bettye J.1968 Reconstructed Designs from Swift Creek ComplicatedStamped Sherds. Southeastern Archaeological ConferenceBulletin 8:49–74.

Chapman, John2000 Tension at Funerals: Social Practices and the Subversionof Community Structure in Later Hungarian Prehistory. InAgency in Archaeology, edited by Maria-Anne Dobres andJohn Robb, pp. 169–195. Routledge, New York.

Chase, David W.1998 Swift Creek: Lineage and Diffusion. In A World En-graved: Archaeology of the Swift Creek Culture, edited byMark Williams and Daniel T. Elliott, pp. 48–60. Univer-sity of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

DeMarrais, Elizabeth, Chris Gosden, and Colin Renfrew2004 Introduction. In Rethinking Materiality: The En-gagement of Mind with the Material World, edited by Eliz-abeth DeMarrais, Chris Gosden, and Colin Renfrew, pp.1–7. McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cam-bridge.


Del

iver

ed b

y ht

tp://

saa.

met

apre

ss.c

om

Soci

ety

for

Am

eric

an A

rcha

eolo

gy -

Ful

l Acc

ess

(289

-07-

305)

IP

Add

ress

: 201

.52.

149.

229

W

edne

sday

, May

08,

201

3 12

:46:

00 P

M

Derrida, Jacques1976 Of Grammatology. Johns Hopkins University Press,Baltimore.

1978 Writing and Difference. University of Chicago Press,Chicago.

Dwyer, Peter D.1996 The Invention of Nature. In Redefining Nature: Ecol-ogy, Culture and Domestication, edited by Roy Ellen andKatsuyoshi Fukui, pp. 157–186. Berg, Oxford.

Gell, Alfred1975 Metamorphosis of the Cassowaries. Athlone, London.1992 The Technology of Enchantment and the Enchantmentof Technology. In Anthropology, Art and Aesthetics, edit-ed by Jeremy Coote and Anthony Shelton, pp. 40–67.Clarendon, Oxford.

1998 Art and Agency: An Anthropological Theory. Claren-don, Oxford.

Giddens, Anthony1984 The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory ofStructuration. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Gosden, Chris2005 What Do Objects Want? Journal of ArchaeologicalMethod and Theory 12:193–211.

Hally, David J., Emily Beahm, Sarah Berg, Dan Bigman, Car-ol Colaninno, Ben Steere, Karen Smith, and FrankieSnow

2009 Characterization of Swift Creek Vessel Assemblages.Paper presented at the 66th Annual Meeting of the South-eastern Archaeological Conference, Mobile.

Hawkes, Christopher1954 Archaeological Theory and Method: Some Suggestionsfrom the Old World. American Anthropologist 56:155–168.

Hodder, Ian1986 Reading the Past. Cambridge University Press, Cam-bridge.

1988 Material Culture Texts and Social Change: A TheoreticalDiscussion and Some Archaeological Examples. Pro-ceedings of the Prehistoric Society 54:67–75.

Irvine, Judith T.1989 When Talk Isn’t Cheap: Language and PoliticalEconomy. American Ethnologist 16:248–267.

Joyce, Rosemary A.2007 Figurines, Meaning, and Meaning-Making in EarlyMesoamerica. In Image and Imagination: A Global Pre-history of Figurative Representation, edited by Colin Ren-frew and Iain Morley, pp. 107–116. McDonald Institute forArchaeological Research, Cambridge.

2008 Practice in and as Deposition. In Memory Work: Ar-chaeologies of Material Practices, edited by Barbara J. Millsand William H. Walker, pp. 25–39. School for AdvancedResearch Press, Santa Fe, New Mexico.

Keane, Webb2003 Semiotics and the Social Analysis of Material Things.Language and Communication 23:409–425.

2005 Signs Are Not the Garb of Meaning: On the SocialAnalysis of Material Things. In Materiality: Politics,History, and Culture, edited by Daniel Miller, pp. 182–205.Duke University Press, Durham.

2006 Subjects and Objects. In Handbook of Material Cul-ture, edited by Christopher Tilley, Webb Keane, SusanneKuchler, Michael Rowlands, and Patricia Spyer, pp.197–202. Sage, London.

2010 Marked, Absent, Habitual: Approaches to Neolithic Re-ligion in Çatalhöyük. In Religion in the Emergence of Civ-ilization: Çatalhöyük as a Case Study, edited by Ian Hod-der, pp. 187–219. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Knappett, Carl2002 Photographs, Skeuomorphs and Marionettes: SomeThoughts on Mind, Agency and Object. Journal of Mate-rial Culture 7:91–117.

2005 Thinking Through Material Culture: An Interdisci-plinary Perspective. University of Pennsylvania Press,Philadelphia.

Latour, Bruno2005 Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Net-work-Theory. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Lele, Veerendra P.2006 Material Habits, Identity, Semeiotic. Journal of SocialArchaeology 6:48–70.

Lévi-Strauss, Claude1963 Structural Anthropology. Basic Books, New York.

Malinowski, Bronislaw1922 Argonauts of the Western Pacific. Routledge, London.

Mauss, Marcel1970 [1925] The Gift: Forms and Functions of Exchangein Archaic Societies. Translated by Ian Cunnison. Cohenand West Ltd., London.

Meskell, Lynn2004 Object Worlds in Ancient Egypt: Material BiographiesPast and Present. Berg, New York.

Meskell, Lynn (editor)2005 Archaeologies of Materiality. Blackwell, Malden, Mass-achusetts.

Milanich, Jerald T.2002 Weeden Island Cultures. In The Woodland Southeast,edited by David G. Anderson and Robert C. Mainfort, Jr.,pp. 352–372. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Milanich, Jerald T., Ann S. Cordell, Vernon J. Knight, Jr., Tim-othy A. Kohler, and Brenda J. Sigler-Lavelle

1997 Archaeology of Northern Florida, A.D. 200–900: TheMcKeithen Weeden Island Culture. University Press of Flori-da, Gainesville.

Miller, Daniel2005 Materiality: An Introduction. In Materiality, edited byDaniel Miller, pp. 1–50. Duke University Press, Durham.

2009 Stuff. Polity, Cambridge.Miller, Daniel (editor)2005 Materiality. Duke University Press, Durham.

Moore, Clarence Bloomfield1902 Certain Aboriginal Remains of the Northwest Flori-da Coast, Part II. Journal of the Academy of Natural Sci-ences of Philadelphia 12:127–355.

1903 Certain Aboriginal Mounds of the Florida Central West-Coast. P. C. Stockhausen, Philadelphia.

1907 Moundville Revisited, Crystal River Revisited,Mounds of the Lower Chattachoochee and Lower FlintRivers, Notes on the Ten Thousand Islands, Florida. Jour-nal of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia8:337–476.

1918 The Northwestern Florida Coast Revisited. Journal ofthe Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia16:515–579.

Pauketat, Timothy R., and Susan M. Alt2005 Agency in a Postmold? Physicality and the Archaeologyof Culture-Making. Journal of Archaeological Method andTheory 12:213–236.

Peirce, Charles S.1955 Logic as Semiotic: The Theory of Signs. InPhilosophicWritings of Peirce, edited by Justus Buchler, pp. 98–119.Dover, New York.

Pluckhahn, Thomas J.2010 The Sacred and the Secular Revisited: The Essential


Del

iver

ed b

y ht

tp://

saa.

met

apre

ss.c

om

Soci

ety

for

Am

eric

an A

rcha

eolo

gy -

Ful

l Acc

ess

(289

-07-

305)

IP

Add

ress

: 201

.52.

149.

229

W

edne

sday

, May

08,

201

3 12

:46:

00 P

M

Tensions of Early Village Societies in the Southeastern U.S.In Becoming Villagers: Comparing Early Village Societies,edited by Matthew Brandy and Jake Fox, pp. 100–118. Uni-versity of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Pluckhahn, Thomas J., and Ann S. Cordell2011 Paste Characterization of Weeden Island Potteryfrom Kolomoki and Its Implications for Specialized Pro-duction. Southeastern Archaeology 30:288–310.

Pollock, Donald1995 Masks and the Semiotics of Identity. Journal of the Roy-al Anthropological Institute 1:581–597.

Preucel, Robert W.2006 Archaeological Semiotics. Blackwell, Malden, Mass-achusetts.

Preucel, Robert W., and Alexander A. Bauer2001 Archaeological Pragmatics. Norwegian Archaeolog-ical Review 34:85–96.

Ricoeur, Paul1971 The Model of Text: Meaningful Action Considered asText. Social Research 38:529–562.

1974 The Conflict of Interpretations: Essays in Hermeneu-tics. Northwestern University Press, Evanston.

1976 Interpretation Theory: Discourse and the Surplus ofMeaning. Texas Christian University, Fort Worth.

Sears, William H.1952 Ceramic Development in the South AppalachianProvince. American Antiquity 18:101–110.

1956 Excavations at Kolomoki: Final Report. University ofGeorgia Press, Athens.

1962 The Hopewellian Affiliations of Certain Sites on theGulf Coast of Florida. American Antiquity 28:5–18.

1973 The Sacred and the Secular in Prehistoric Ceramics.In Variations in Anthropology: Essays in Honor of John Mc-Gregor, edited by Donald Lathrap and Jody Douglas, pp.31–42. Illinois Archaeological Survey, Urbana.

Snow, Frankie1998 Swift Creek Design Investigations: The HartfordCase. In A World Engraved: Archaeology of the Swift CreekCulture, edited by Mark Williams and Daniel T. Elliott, pp.61–98. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Snow, Frankie, and Keith Stephenson1998 Swift Creek Designs: A Tool for Monitoring Interac-tion. In A World Engraved: Archaeology of the Swift CreekCulture, edited by Mark Williams and Daniel T. Elliott, pp.99–111. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Sonesson, Goran1989 Pictorial Concepts: Inquiries into the Semiotic Her-itage and Its Relevance for the Analysis of the Visual World.Lund University Press, Lund.

Stephenson, Keith, Judith A. Bense, and Frankie Snow2002 Aspects of Deptford and Swift Creek on the South At-lantic and Gulf Coastal Plains. In The Woodland Southeast,edited by David G. Anderson and Robert C. Mainfort, Jr.,pp. 318–351. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Stoltman, James B., and Frankie Snow1998 Cultural Interaction Within Swift Creek Society:People, Pots, and Paddles. In A World Engraved: Archae-

ology of the Swift Creek Culture, edited by Mark Williamsand Daniel T. Elliott, pp. 130–153. University of AlabamaPress, Tuscaloosa.

Strathern, Marilyn1988 The Gender of the Gift: Problems with Women andProblems with Society in Melanesia. University of CaliforniaPress, Berkeley.

Thomas, Julian1999 An Economy of Substances in Earlier NeolithicBritain. In Material Symbols: Culture and Economy in Pre-history, edited by John E. Robb, pp. 70–89. Center for Ar-chaeological Investigations Occasional Paper No. 26.Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.

Tilley, Christopher1991 Material Culture and Text: The Art of Ambiguity. Rout-ledge, London.

1999 Metaphor and Material Culture. Blackwell, Oxford.Wallis, Neill J.2011 The Swift Creek Gift: Vessel Exchange on the AtlanticCoast. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Wallis, Neill J., and Amanda O’Dell2011 Swift Creek Paddle Designs from the Florida GulfCoast: Patterns and Prospects. Florida Anthropologist64:187–205.

Washburn, Dorothy K.1995 Style, Perception, and Geometry. In Style, Society, andPerson: Archaeological and Ethnological Perspectives, edit-ed by Christopher Carr and Jill E. Neitzel, pp. 101–122.Plenum, New York.

Washburn, Dorothy K., and Donald W. Crowe1988 Symmetries of Culture: Theory and Practice of PlanePattern Analysis. University of Washington Press, Seattle.

Willey, Gordon R.1949 Archeology of the Florida Gulf Coast. Smithsonian Mis-cellaneous Collections Vol. 113. Smithsonian Institution,Washington, D.C.

Williams, Mark, and Daniel T. Elliott1998 Swift Creek Research: History and Observations. InA World Engraved: Archaeology of the Swift Creek Culture,edited by Mark Williams and Daniel T. Elliott, pp. 1–11.University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Wobst, H. Martin1977 Stylistic Behavior and Information Exchange. In Pa-pers for the Director: Research Essays in Honor of JamesB. Griffin, edited by Charles E. Cleland, pp. 317–342. An-thropological Papers No. 61. Museum of Anthropology, Uni-versity of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Zedeño, Maria Nieves2009 Animating by Association: Index Objects and Rela-tional Taxonomies. Cambridge Archaeological Journal19:407–417.

Submitted August 7, 2012; Revised November 19, 2012;Accepted November 19, 2012.

226 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 78, No. 2, 2013]

Del

iver

ed b

y ht

tp://

saa.

met

apre

ss.c

om

Soci

ety

for

Am

eric

an A

rcha

eolo

gy -

Ful

l Acc

ess

(289

-07-

305)

IP

Add

ress

: 201

.52.

149.

229

W

edne

sday

, May

08,

201

3 12

:46:

00 P

M

Documents

Wallis the Materiality of Signs