Identifying Turtle Shell Rattles in the Archaeological Record of the Southeastern United States
AbstractThe construction of rattles from turtle (Testudines) shells is an important consideration when distinguishing between food and non-food uses of archaeological turtle remains. However, the identification of turtle shell rattles in prehistoric contexts can be quite challenging. Equifinality is a major problem for being able to distinguish rattles from food refuse, particularly when a carapace is not burnt or modified. In addition, diversity, abundance, and distribution of Chelonian taxa varies throughout the southeastern United States, creating differential access for indigenous groups. Thus, multiple lines of evidence are needed from archaeological, ethnographic, and ethnohistoric records to successfully argue for the production and use of turtle shell rattles in the prehistoric southeastern United States. In this article, we present examples of turtle shell rattles in the southeastern United States to highlight their function and use by indigenous groups, the construction process, and several common characteristics, or an object trait list, that can aid in the identification of fragmentary turtle shell rattle remains. Proper identification of turtle remains is important for interpreting faunal remains and may be of interest to indigenous groups claiming cultural items under the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA).
Adair, J. 1775. The History of the American Indians. Edward and Charles Dilly, London, United Kingdom.
Brown, A. 2011. An Exploration of Turtle Shell Rattle Manufacture in the Mississippian Period. Anthropology Senior Thesis, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Middle Tennessee State University, Murfreesboro, TN. DOI:10.13140/RG.2.1.2675.5921.
Dodd, C. K. 2002. North American Box Turtles: A Natural History. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, OK.
Fradkin, A. 1990. Cherokee Folk Zoology: The Animal World Native American People (1700–1838). Garland Publishing, New Haven, CT.
Howard, J. H. 1968. The Southeastern Ceremonial Complex and Its Interpretation. Missouri Archaeological Society, Memoir 6, Columbia, MO.
Jackson, J. B., and V. L. Levine. 2002. Singing for Garfish: Music and Woodland Communities in Eastern Oklahoma. Ethnomusicology 46:284–306. DOI:10.2307/852783.
Lewis, T., and M. Kneberg. 1970. Hiwassee Island: An Archaeological Account of Four Tennessee Indian Peoples. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville, TN.
Lyman, R. L. 2004. The Concept of Equifinality in Taphonomy. Journal of Taphonomy 2:15–26.
Parker, A. C. 1909. Secret Medicine Societies of the Seneca. American Anthropologist 11:161–185. DOI:10.1525/aa.1909.11.2.02a00010.
Rodning, C. B., and D. G. Moore. 2010. South Appalachian Mississippian and Protohistoric Mortuary Practices in Southwestern North Carolina. Southeastern Archaeology 29:80–100. DOI:10.1179/sea.2010.29.1.006.
Rodning, C. B., and A. M. VanDerwarker. 2002. Revisiting Coweeta Creek: Reconstructing Ancient Cherokee Lifeways in Southwestern North Carolina. Southeastern Archaeology 21:1–9.
Speck, F. G. 1911. Ceremonial Songs of the Creek and Yuchi Indians. University of Pennsylvania, The Museum of Anthropological Publications, Vol. 1, No. 1. University Museum, Philadelphia, PA.
Turtle Extinctions Working Group [A. G. J. Rhodin, S. Thomson, G. Georgalis, H. V. Karl, I. G. Danilov, A. Takahashi, M. S. de la Fuente, J. R. Bourque, M. Delfino, R. Bour, J. B. Iverson, H. B. Shaffer, and P. P. van Dijk]. 2015. Turtles and Tortoises of the World During the Rise and Global Spread of Humanity: First Checklist and Review of Extinct Pleistocene and Holocene Chelonians. In Conservation Biology of Freshwater Turtles and Tortoises: A Compilation Project of the IUCN/SSC Tortoise and Freshwater Turtle Specialist Group. Chelonian Research Monographs 5(8):000e.1–66, edited by A. G. J. Rhodin, P. C. H. Pritchard, P. P. van Dijk, R. A. Saumure, K. A. Buhlmann, J. B. Iverson, and R. A. Mittermeier. DOI:10.3854/crm.5.000e.fossil.checklist.v1.2015.
VanDerwarker, A. M., and K. R. Detwiler. 2000. Plant and Animal Subsistence at the Coweeta Creek Site (31MA34), Macon County, North Carolina. North Carolina Archaeology 49:59–77.
Voegelin, E. W. 1942. Shawnee Musical Instruments. American Anthropologist 44:463–475. DOI:10.1525/aa.1942.44.3.02a00110.
Copyright (c) 2017 Andrew Gillreath-Brown, Tanya M. Peres
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain ownership of the copyright for their content and grant Ethnobiology Letters (the “Journal”) and the Society of Ethnobiology right of first publication. Authors and the Journal agree that Ethnobiology Letters will publish the article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International Public License (CC BY-NC 4.0), which permits others to use, distribute, and reproduce the work non-commercially, provided the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal are properly cited.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
For any reuse or redistribution of a work, users must make clear the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International Public License (CC BY-NC 4.0).
In publishing with Ethnobiology Letters corresponding authors certify that they are authorized by their co-authors to enter into these arrangements. They warrant, on behalf of themselves and their co-authors, that the content is original, has not been formally published, is not under consideration, and does not infringe any existing copyright or any other third party rights. They further warrant that the material contains no matter that is scandalous, obscene, libelous, or otherwise contrary to the law.
Corresponding authors will be given an opportunity to read and correct edited proofs, but if they fail to return such corrections by the date set by the editors, production and publication may proceed without the authors’ approval of the edited proofs.