Marson, Alanna

English

Western Libraries OJS

Dolls, Demons, or Dice? An Inquiry of the Savage Site Figurines

Scholarship@Western

Totem: The University of Western Ontario Journal ofAnthropologyVolume 15 | Issue 1 Article 66-15-2011Dolls, Demons, or Dice? An Inquiry of the SavageSite FigurinesAlanna MarsonThe University of Western OntarioFollow this and additional works at: http://ir.lib.uwo.ca/totemPart of the Archaeological Anthropology CommonsThis Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship@Western. It has been accepted for inclusion in Totem: The University of WesternOntario Journal of Anthropology by an authorized administrator of Scholarship@Western. For more information, please contact kmarsha1@uwo.ca.Recommended CitationMarson, Alanna (2007) "Dolls, Demons, or Dice? An Inquiry of the Savage Site Figurines," Totem: The University of Western OntarioJournal of Anthropology: Vol. 15: Iss. 1, Article 6.Available at: http://ir.lib.uwo.ca/totem/vol15/iss1/6Dolls, Demons, or Dice? An Inquiry of the Savage Site FigurinesKeywordsSavage Site, southwestern Ontario, figurinesCreative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0License.This article is available in Totem: The University of Western Ontario Journal of Anthropology: http://ir.lib.uwo.ca/totem/vol15/iss1/6Dolls, Demons, or Dice?An Inquiry of the Savage SiteFigurinesIntroductionDolls, demons, or dice? This wasthe question asked in Carl R. Murphy's1986 article discussing figurines found atthe Savage Site in Southwestern Ontario.Though the article was identified as anintroduction, Murphy never followed itwith ~ published work further analyzingthe sIte or the questionable artifacts.Entitled "Dolls, demons or dice: Anintroduction to the Savage Site figurines,"Murphy's brief account outlined threepossibilities for the figurines' purpose.Due to the lack of a convincing answeror a follow up from Murphy, this paperwill attempt to advance Murphy'sideas concerning the Savage Sitefigurines. To successfully examine thisproblem, this paper will first describethe figurines, as well as the site and thepeople who occupied it.Anthropological and ethnographicalsources will then be used to furtherdevelop the figurines possibletreatment as children's dolls, mysticamulets, and game pieces. A critiqueof Murphy's vague and unconcludedargument will be included. This studywill continue and possibly answerMurphy's twenty-year-old question:dolls, demons, or dice?FigurinesThe subject of this study is anassemblage of anthropomorphicceramic figurines recovered from theSavage Site. These include bothpositively identified figurines andprobable figurines. The identifiedfigurines consist of one completeartifact, two heads, one torso, and sixdetached leg pieces, for a total of atleast five distinct figurines (Murphy1986: 38). However, Fraser (2001:51),who completed the only thoroughpublished analysis of the Savage Sitedisagreed and suggested that ther~were eight separate figurines, based ona total collection of twenty-fourfigurine appendages. Though the sizeof the fragmented figurines cannot bedetermined, they did not vary muchfrom the complete piece, which stands4.5cm tall. Murphy stated that thetorso and legs of the figurines seem tobe standardized, and that variances areevident in the heads of the figurines. Itis important in this study to note thatthe figurines discussed display facialTOTEM vol 15 2006-2007Copyright © 2007 TOTEM: The UWO Journal of AnthropologyMarson: Dolls, Demons, or Dice?Produced by The Berkeley Electronic Press, 2007features, comprised of eyes, noses, andmouths. Wintemberg (1936) reported theonly two other documented ceramicfigurines found in prehistoric Iroquoiansettlements in Ontario, which were foundon the Roebuck Prehistoric Village Site.These artifacts and Wintemberg's analysiswill be examined during this study.Murphy (1986:30) stated that "a definitestyle or type of figurine was being formedfor a single, or perhaps a number, ofrelated purposes." This analysis of theSavage Site figurines will attempt toassess this purpose.The Savage SiteBackground to the archaeologicalsite and its occupants is essential to thisstudy, as evidence from similar peoplesand sites were used in Murphy's argumentand will be implemented here. The SavageSite was given the alpha-numericidentification of AdHm-29. It is located inHoward Township, northeast of Chatham,Ontario. The small site lies just south ofthe Thames River, and contained one longhouse and one midden (Murphy 1986: 38)and dates to 1350 A.D. (Fraser 2001: 11).The site was home to late MiddleIroquoian people, and reflects influencesfrom the Western Basin Tradition WolfPhase. However, Fraser (2001: 11)disputed this identification, andchronologically placed the site within theSpringwell Phase. These conditions justifythe Savage Site's comparison toethnographical studies of later lroquoiansand archaeological studies of 14th or 15thcentury southern Great Lakes occupants.Dolls?Murphy proposed that the SavageSite figurines were children's toys andgave evidence to support and discredit thispossibility. Both archaeological contextand ethnographic evidence are appliedwithin his argument. Murphy(1986:38) suggested that the context inwhich the complete figurine was foundis probably the most important clue forinterpreting the function of thefigurines. To elaborate, the completefigurine was found in directassociation with a poorly made smallceramic pot. Murphy does not discussthe other contexts in which figurinepieces were found, besides saying thattwo figurine heads were excavatedfrom the midden and did not lead toany further correlations. The pot andthe figurine both displayed a thingranite temper and a yellow-browntint. Traditionally, crudely shaped potswere thought of as children's toys thatwere made by juveniles as a way ofbecoming knowledgeable of thetechnologies of pottery making(Murphy 1986: 38-39). Though onemight consider that this context wascoincidental, Murphy (1986: 39)countered this argument by stating thatthe pot and figurine's "similaritybetween paste and temper does makesuch an assumption unlikely." Thisstatement signifies a direct connectionbetween the figurine and the pot.Murphy uses this relationship tosuggest that the figurines may havebeen dolls, as they were discoveredwith other children's toys. The onepiece of evidence that countered thepossibility that the Savage Sitefigurines were dolls is the lack ofcomparable artifacts elsewhere(Murphy 1986: 39). Murphy's articledoes reasonably suggest a relationshipbetween the Savage Site figurines andSavage Site children. However, he, aswell as other documented evidence,reveals more clues for and against this, function.TOTEM vol IS 2006·2007Copyright © 2007 TOTEM: The UWO Journal of AnthropologyTotem: The University of Western Ontario Journal of Anthropology, Vol. 15 [2007], Iss. 1, Art. 6http://ir.lib.uwo.ca/totem/vol15/iss1/6Other published sources can beconsulted in order to address the questionof whether or not the Savage Site figurineswere dolls. First, Fraser (2001:51)thoroughly documented the Savage Site,but never confirmed or even suggested afunction for the figurines. However, shedid state that the complete figurine wasfound in association with juvenile vesselsherds. Fraser discussed both adult andjuvenile vessels, but she failed to commenton the criteria by which the vessels andsherds were classified. Despite this lack indefinition, Fraser's statement more fullyconcludes that the figurines were toys, asthey were physically associated withchildren's possessions. In contrast,Speck's views were briefly consulted inMurphy's article. Speck noted thatethnographic examples of Iroquoian dollswere made of corn husks (Speck 1945).This was supported by Mogelon (1994:43)when he stated that "For centuries,Iroquois children have played with dollsmade of corn husks." The reviewedethnographic material did not point toceramics as the material for children'sdolls. More importantly, Mogelon(1994:43) revealed that these dolls werealways faceless, which allowed thechildren to imagine the doll to have anyface they may desire. Mogelon (1994:43)also hypothesized that dolls remainfaceless because to put a face on a dollwould be to give the doll a spirit or soul.Iroquoians believe that it is possible for adoll with a face to become a living being,who would feel hurt if treated unfairly bya child. Given that Iroquoians believedthat to give a doll a face is to give it life, itis somewhat improbable that the facedfigurines were dolls.The analysis of figurines found atthe Roebuck Site is important to consider.Wintemberg (1936:66) placed the twofigurines found at this site in the sectionChildren's Toys and Amusements,stating the small earthenware figurineswere probably toys. Although notfound in association with juvenile pots,Wintemberg (1936:66) observed theexistence of "small pottery vessels ...[that] were probably made by childrenin imitation of their elders and used astoys." The existence of similar objectsat each site advances theirclassification of the figurines as toys.However, upon examination of theillustrations of the Roebuck Sitefigurines, it was evident that they hadfull faces (Wintemberg 1936:160-161). Clearly, the interpretation of thefigurines with faces as dolls is notsupported by the previously discussedbelief that Iroquoian children did notplay with faced dolls. ThoughWintemberg identified the RoebuckSite figurines as dolls, this may not becorrect. The examination ofethnographic and archaeologicalsources have revealed ideas to supportSavage Site figurines as dolls, butother evidence more successfullysuggests this function unlikely.Demons?In this study, as in Murphy'sarticle, the term demons relates to thefigurines having any supernaturalfunction. While there is evidence fromIroquoian archaeological andethnographic studies of bone andantler figurines having a supernaturalpurpose, the evidence for ceramicfigurines having a supernaturalpurpose is less compelling. Forexample, Ritchie (1954) discovered anumber of organic figurines that werefound in the burials of children. Theyappeared to have been worn around theneck of the child. Similarly, Parker(1920) noted that the ancestors ofTOTEM vol 15 2006-2007Copyright © 2007 TOTEM: The UWO Journal of AnthropologyMarson: Dolls, Demons, or Dice?Produced by The Berkeley Electronic Press, 2007modern Seneca Iroquois used carvedimages of the human figure, which theynamed after a witch, as protection fromevil actions of an illustrated entity.Carpenter (1942: 111) suggested that thehistorical bone and antler figurines heexamined "served as pendants on thenecklaces of children, and that theyformed a part of the religious worship ofthe Iroquois." Wintemberg (1936: 72-73)referred to the previous suggestion of thefigurines as pendants (??) when he gave asecond possible function of the ceramicfigurines found at the Roebuck Site. Healso listed them under Objects ofSuperstition and Religion, and suggestedtheir possible involvement in witchcraft.The Iroquoian belief that faces placed on afigure may give it a spirit or soul is animportant consideration in this argument(Mogelon 1994: 43). Since all of thefigurines in question have faces, they allhave the possibility of being viewed as aliving being. Assigning human qualities tofigurines with faces can be thought of asimbuing the figurines with a supernaturalfunction.The comparison of the ceramicfigurines found at the Savage Site and theRoebuck Site, to the various studiesdiscussed above may not be adequate. Thesources that conclude that bone and antlerfigurines that were found in the burials ofchildren of the later Iroquois seem tojustify their consideration. However, theform, material, manufacture, and contextof the Savage Site and Roebuck figurinesvary greatly from these other figurines.When reviewing Ritchie's (1954) study, itis evident that the figurines he discussedare very dissimilar from the Savage Sitefigurines. However, they are very similarto the figurines Carpenter (1942: 106)discussed. Carpenter's figurines all havetheir arms across their bodies with theirhands covering their sex organs and theirlegs and feet together. Their heads areoval or circular, and meet a short neck.In contrast, the Savage Site figurinesare bipedal (Murphy 1986: 40). Mostimportantly, Carpenter's (1942) andRitchie's (1954) figurines were notfound in association with children'sburials, nor do they have the evidentfunction of being worn as a pendant.Though the Savage Site figurines andthe supernatural figurines do sharesome characteristics, the definingcharacteristics of the latter figurines,including their form, context, andmanufacture, are not present in theSavage Site specimens.Or Dice?In this part of Murphy's study,he refers to the possibility that theSavage Site figurines were a feature ofthe Iroquoian Bowl Game, which issimilar to the game of "Dice" (Murphy1986: 41). The game is a very oldpastime, and is considered by theIroquois to have been introduced bythe Creator (Speck 1955: 82). Itconsists of shaking two-sided stonesinto a bowl, with players scoringpoints when all the stones, or all butone of the stones, end up showing thesame coloured side. Counters are usedto keep score, and one wins bycollecting all of the counters used inthe game (Blau 1967: 35). Variationsof the game involve using differentamounts of counters or stones, usingdifferent types of counters, or playingthe game for different reasons (Blau1967: 35- 49). It is important to notethe different reasons for playing theBowl Game. These includeentertainment, religious rites, to curethe sick, as an activity during a wake,and as a form of witchcraft (Blau1967: 35- 42). Historical accounts linkTOTEM vollS 2006-2007Copyright © 2007 TOTEM: The lJ\XIOJournal of AnthropologyTotem: The University of Western Ontario Journal of Anthropology, Vol. 15 [2007], Iss. 1, Art. 6http://ir.lib.uwo.ca/totem/vol15/iss1/6human figurines to some variations of thegame; as such, the Savage Site figurinesmay have been involved in the BowlGame.Evidence of Bowl Game stonessignify that the game was likely played inOntario prior to contact with Europeans;this becomes significant in the discussionbelow (Murphy 1986: 42). Murphy(1986:41-42) suggested that the figurinesmay have been used as counters. However,Blau (1967) gave other possibilities for thefigurines' purpose within the Bowl Game.First, other items such as sticks and beansare commonly counters; when the game isbeing performed as witchcraft, countersinclude short and long pegs, and smallreplicas of animals, female figures, malegenitalia, and logs (Blau 1967: 37).Similarly, when the game is being playedto cure the sick, sometimes specialcounters or figures are made. The countersmay be used in the game, and both itemsmay be broken or given to the invalid atthe game's conclusion (Blau 1967: 37).Figurines may also be employed assources of power during the Bowl Game,with the winner receiving the betterfigurine as a type of trophy (Blau 1967:42). Ceramic figurines are suggested toplaya role in the Iroquoian Bowl Game bytaking on the function of both counter,sacrificial item, and trophy.The association of Savage Sitefigurines with the Bowl Game is notconclusive. First, Murphy revealed aquestionable morphological similaritybetween historic Bowl Game counters(Murphy 1986: 41) and the Savage Siteand Roebuck Site ceramic figurines(Murphy 1986: 40- 41). The review of thismaterial reveals that the figurines formsdisplay only a weak similarity. Secondly,Culin (1907: 111) completed an extensivestudy of the Bowl Game and does notmention any figurine association; instead,he merely stated that beans were oftenused as counters. Speck's brief accountof the game also noted that only beanswere counters (Speck 1955: 82).Thirdly, it is necessary to accentuateBlau' s analysis of the post-contactBowl Game. In one form of the game,he mentions the figurines' function asbeing a source of power, which isgiven to the winner. However, it isimportant to note that another figurineis also given to the loser. In thisvariation, one figurine displayscharacteristics of a Native person,whereas the other figurine displayscharacteristics of a White man; theNative figurine goes to the winner(Blau 1967: 42). Though the BowlGame is present in both pre-contactand post-contact Ontario, this evokesthe idea that figurine involvement inthe game may not have existed untilthe presence of Europeans. Given thatthe Savage Site figurines are dated toAD 1350, their use as figurines in theIroquoian Bowl Game is questionable.ConclusionMurphy asked the question, "dolls,demons, or dice?" He answered it bystating that it was probable "that [thefigurines] were intended to perform orparticipate in some type of ritual magicactivity" (Murphy 1986: 42- 43). Healso states that any of the historicalfigurine uses may apply to the SavageSite figurines (Murphy 1986: 42).Initially, the present study strived tofinally answer the question. While thisresearch might not be able to concludethe debate, after reviewingethnographical and anthropologicalworks concerning Iroquoian dolls andbeliefs, it is evident that the use of theSavage Site figures as dolls isextremely improbable because they areTOTEM vollS 2006-2007Copyright © 2007 TOTEM: The CWO Journal of AnthropologyMarson: Dolls, Demons, or Dice?Produced by The Berkeley Electronic Press, 2007faced. Works concerning supernaturalfunctions of Iroquoian anthropomorphicfigurines do not reveal any directcomparisons to the Savage Site'sfigurine's characteristics. Iroquoiansupernatural figurines do not share a form,material, manufacture, or founding contextwith the Savage Site figurines. Finally,human figurine involvement in theIroquoian Bowl Game is not known untilafter Iroquoian contact with Europeans,which post-dates the Savage Site. Murphyraised a good question, and provided threepossible answers. However, this studyindicates the possibility that none of theseanswers are correct.Works CitedBlau, Harold. 1967. Notes on theOnondaga Bowl Game. InIroquois culture, history, andprehistory, ed. E. Tooker, 35- 49.Albany: The University of theState of New York, StateEducation Department, New YorkState Museum and ScienceService.Carpenter, Edmund. 1942. Iroquoianfigurines. American Antiquity8(1): 105-113.Culin, Stewart. 1907. Games of theNorth American Indians.Washington: Smithsonian Institute.Fraser, Meredith. 2001. Lengthylonghouses, eccentric ceramics,and other quandaries: Anexploration of identity at theSavage Site. London, Ontario: TheUniversity of Western Ontario.Moge1on, Alex. 1994. The people ofmany faces: Masks, myths, andceremonies of the Iroquois.Lakefield, Ontario: WaapoonePublishing and Promotion.Murphy, Carl R. 1986. Dolls,demons, or dice: Anintroduction to the Savage Sitefigurines. In Studies inSouthwestern OntarioArchaeology, ed. W. A. Fox,38- 43. London, Ontario:London Chapter of the OntarioArchaeological Society Inc.Parker, Arthur C. 1920. Thearchaeological history of NewYork, Part 1. New York: NewYork State Museum Bulletin.Ritchie, William A. 1954. DutchHollow, an early historicperiod Seneca site inLivingston County, New York.Albany: New Yark StateArchaeological Association.Speck, Frank Gou1dsmith. 1955. TheIroquois: A study in culturalevolution, 2nd Edition.Bloomfield Hills, Michigan:Cranbrook Institute of Science.Wintemberg, W. J. 1936.Roebuck prehistoric villagesit e, G€e1D1't)i, II eOntario. Ottawa: NationalMuseum of Canada.TOTEM vol 152006·2007Copyright © 2007 TOTEM: The UWO Journal of AnthropologyTotem: The University of Western Ontario Journal of Anthropology, Vol. 15 [2007], Iss. 1, Art. 6http://ir.lib.uwo.ca/totem/vol15/iss1/6

https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1030&amp;context=totem

Dolls, Demons, or Dice? An Inquiry of the Savage Site Figurines

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Western Libraries OJS

Scholarship@Western