A Bobcat Burial and Other Reported Intentional Animal Burials from Illinois Hopewell Mounds. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology, Vol. 40 No. 3, Fall, 2015, 282–301

A Bobcat Burial and Other ReportedIntentional Animal Burials from IllinoisHopewell MoundsAngela R. Perri

Department of Human Evolution, Max Planck Institute for EvolutionaryAnthropology, Germany

Terrance J. Martin

Research and Collections Center, Illinois State Museum, USA

Kenneth B. Farnsworth

Illinois State Archaeological Survey, University of Illinois, USA

The Elizabeth site is a bluff-top mortuary mound group constructed andprimarily used during Hopewellian (Middle Woodland) times. Recent reanaly-sis of nonhuman skeletal remains from the site reveals that an intentionalburial previously identified as a dog (Canis familiaris) is actually an immaturebobcat (Lynx rufus). As a result of this discovery, we reevaluated eight otherpurported animal burials from Illinois Middle Woodland mounds, includingseven dogs and a roseate spoonbill (Platalea ajaja). The dogs all appear tobe intrusive or unrelated burial events, but both the bobcat and the roseatespoonbill were definite Hopewellian mortuary interments. The roseate spoon-bill was decapitated and placed beside a double human burial. But the bobcatwas a separate, human-like interment wearing a necklace of shell beads andeffigy bear canine teeth (Figures 1 and 2). To our knowledge, this is the onlydecorated wild cat burial in the archaeological record. It provides compellingevidence for a complex relationship between felids and humans in the prehis-toric Americas, including possible taming.

keywords Illinois Hopewell, Middle Woodland, animal burial, bobcat, Lynxrufus

The Elizabeth site (11PK512) is a multicomponent (Archaic, Middle Woodland,Late Woodland) bluff-top mortuary area on the western side of the Illinois River

midcontinental journal of archaeology, Vol. 40 No. 3, Fall, 2015, 282–301

© Midwest Archaeological Conference Inc 2015 DOI 10.1179/2327427115Y.0000000007

in Pike County, Illinois, that was excavated by the Center for American Archaeologyand Northwestern University Archaeological field schools between 1979 and 1985.Mitigation of the site was necessitated by the planned construction of the Central

figure 1. Computer-aided photographic re-creation of what the Elizabeth Mound 7 juvenilebobcat might have looked in life. (Bobcat image adapted by Ken Farnsworth from a RichardStacks National Park Service poster photograph).

A BOBCAT BURIAL AND OTHER REPORTED INTENTIONAL ANIMAL BURIALS 283

Illinois Expressway (FAP 408 Project), which currently comprises the route of Inter-state 72 through west-central Illinois (Charles, Leigh, and Buikstra 1988). The Eli-zabeth site is composed of 14 mounds of varying sizes, the largest of which is Mound7. ElizabethMound 7 has six easily identifiable intrusive LateWoodland burials andseven intrusive nonmortuary Late Woodland pit features but is otherwise a single-component, uniquely Hopewellian (Middle Woodland) mortuary facility (Leighet al. 1988:66–84). Ten calibrated 14C dates from bone and charcoal at Elizabethmounds indicate a date range of A.D. 25–79 for the Hopewellian mortuary activi-ties, placing them in the first third of the Middle Woodland Hopewellian periodin the lower valley (Farnsworth and Atwell 2015).

figure 2. Gibson Mound 3 log-tomb excavation showing Burials 17 and 18 with a headlessroseate spoonbill placed beside them on the tomb floor. Inset photo illustrates the colorfulplumage of the roseate spoonbill in life. (Excavation image courtesy of Upper MississippiValley Archaeological Research Foundation, Perino photo archives).

284 ANGELA R. PERRI ET AL.

figure 3. The Elizabeth mound group with detail of the Mound 7 Middle Woodland mortu-ary features and bobcat burial (Burial 22). (Adapted from Charles, Leigh, and Buikstra 1988:Figures 1.4 and 5.22).

A BOBCAT BURIAL AND OTHER REPORTED INTENTIONAL ANIMAL BURIALS 285

Mound 7 is the largest Middle Woodland mound in the Elizabeth group and islocated to the northwest of all others (Figure 3). The circular earthwork was approxi-mately 28 m in diameter and 2.5 m deep at its center (Leigh et al. 1988:66). Themound included a central subfloor pit that was used to initiate and sanctify themound site and the mortuary rituals carried out there. This central pit contained aninfant burial, three Cassis marine-shell vessels, a box turtle (Terrapene sp.) shellbowl, and 20 highly decorated Havana and Hopewell ceramic vessels (Leigh et al.1988:72; Morgan 1988:120–154). Following the initial sanctifying ritual, the mortu-ary program used at Mound 7 was one in which bodies passed through the central logtomb before being interred at the base of the tomb ramps. Except for the infant burialin the central tomb, all other burials were placed in a ring 8–12 m from the center ofthe central tomb (Bullington 1988:224) (see Figure 3).The Mound 7 burials consisted of ‘30 human skeletons and one canid skeleton

(Burial 22),’ within 22 burial features (Leigh et al. 1988:77). Excluding the intrusiveLate Woodland burials, there were 23 Middle Woodland human burials in 16graves. The human burials contained adult males and females, along with juvenilesand infants. The burial contexts included (a) burials in pits excavated into the sub-mound soil, (b) burials on or within the clay crescent on the western side of themound, (c) burials within the ramp extension, and (d) burials in ‘capping fill or…in pits dug from the final surface of the mound [intrusive Late Woodland]’ (Leighet al. 1988:77; emphasis ours). Burial 22 (‘a canid skeleton’) was one of sevenburials that had been placed in the ramp extension and occurred on the southeasternpart of the ring (see Figure 3). Similar to the human burials from the ramp extension,Burial 22 was an articulated individual for which ‘the skeletal evidence tends tosupport the hypothesis that the burials were placed within a ring on a number ofoccasions, with specific location being dependent upon stage of [mound] construc-tion at the time of burial’ (Bullington 1988:225). The burial did not appear to rep-resent the ritual sacrifice of an animal but instead paralleled the mortuary treatmentof humans from the mound, with care taken to position the remains and to includegrave goods (cf. Perri 2015).

Juvenile bobcat burial

During an analysis of prehistoric canid burials curated at the Illinois State Museum(Perri 2013), the senior author reexamined Burial 22 and determined the remainswere not those of a juvenile dog (cf. Leigh and Morey 1988) but of a juvenilefelid. Further analysis of the remains revealed approximately 250 skeletal elements(weighing a total of 162.3 g), including unfused long bone and vertebral epiphyses,along with fragments of fragile bones such as ribs and vertebrae. Examination of allelements failed to reveal any signs of butchery, skinning, or trauma or evidence ofanimal scavenging. The only taphonomic alteration was root etching on several ofthe long bones (cf. Binford 1981:50; Lyman 1994:375–377). Because of the delicateskeletal features of immature animals, the anterior portion of the cranium (i.e., nasalbones, anterior portion of the maxillae, incisive bones, and the anterior portions ofboth mandibles) did not survive burial intact.

286 ANGELA R. PERRI ET AL.

The identity of the skeleton as a juvenile bobcat (Lynx rufus)1 is indicated byseveral diagnostic features that were verified against modern reference skeletal speci-mens in the Illinois State Museum zoological collection. The zygomatic process ofthe frontal bone is a pronounced, sharply pointed, posterior extension from theeye orbit on juvenile felids (Figure 4), whereas in juvenile canids this is merely aslightly rounded protuberance. The cheek teeth exhibit distinctive carnassals (shear-ing teeth) in both the maxillae and mandibles. The Burial 22 maxillae have in placethe deciduous third premolars and the erupting permanent third premolars(Figure 5). The small three-rooted deciduous fourth premolars were present butdid not remain in place after excavation given their precarious position above theerupting permanent third premolars. Each mandible had in-place deciduous thirdand fourth premolars anterior to the erupting permanent first molar (Figure 6). Post-cranial skeletal features are also consistent with bobcat, including the distinctivetarsal bones, metapodials, and terminal phalanges. Skeletal elements were also com-pared against other possible felids, including Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis),cougar (Puma concolor), and domestic cat (Felis catus), to further confirm thebobcat identification.The biological age of the Burial 22 bobcat was estimated by comparing it to a

modern bobcat individual in the Illinois State Museum zoological collection. Anearly identical match in terms of size, stages of tooth eruption (see Figure 6), andepiphyseal closures (Figure 7) was made to a juvenile bobcat found in southern Illi-nois in November 1976. With mating occurring between February and April, fol-lowed by a gestation period of approximately 62 days (Hoffmeister 1989:313),the southern Illinois reference skeleton—and by comparison, the Burial 22

figure 4. Dorsal view of Elizabeth Mound 7 Burial 22 bobcat cranium (right) compared tomodern juvenile bobcat reference specimen (left). (Photograph by Doug Carr, Illinois StateMuseum).

A BOBCAT BURIAL AND OTHER REPORTED INTENTIONAL ANIMAL BURIALS 287

individual—would have been between four and seven months old when it died. Thisis consistent with a 160- to 212-day-old (=5.3 to 7.1 months) estimate described byCrowe (1975:179) for stage 4 in his bobcat tooth placement schedule. Although twolitters per year are possible, birth dates for bobcats usually occur between Marchand September, with April to May being most typical (McCord and Cardoza1982:735). We suggest that the bobcat juvenile from Burial 22 may have died andbeen buried sometime between August and December.Except for the Elizabeth Mound 7 bobcat, no felid burials of any kind have ever

been excavated from Illinois Hopewellian mounds or Middle Woodland habitationsites. More generally, intentional felid burials are not reported from the Americasuntil after the arrival of domesticated cats (Felis catus) from Europe (see Blicket al. 2006; Reitz and McEwan 1995), and intentional, individual burials of wildcats are unknown from anywhere in the archaeological record. However, we havedocumented (Farnsworth et al. 2015) nine instances (at eight sites) of decorativelymodified cut–ground–drilled cougar (Puma concolor) mandibles and maxillaedeposited as symbolic artifacts with human burials in Illinois Hopewellianmounds. By contrast, no decoratively modified bobcat mandibles or maxillaehave ever been found with Hopewellian burials in Illinois mounds. Occasionally,isolated bone fragments of felids and fragments of modified felid mandible ormaxilla artifacts are also recovered from Middle Woodland habitation site

figure 5. Elizabeth Mound 7 Burial 22 bobcat maxilla (left) compared to modern juvenilebobcat reference specimen (right) showing identical stage of tooth eruption. (Photographby Doug Carr, Illinois State Museum).

288 ANGELA R. PERRI ET AL.

figure 6. Elizabeth Mound 7 Burial 22 bobcat mandible (right side, posterior portion) withpermanent first molar erupting behind the deciduous third and fourth premolars. (Photo-graph by Doug Carr, Illinois State Museum).

figure 7. (a) Elizabeth Mound 7 Burial 22 bobcat right humerus, without proximal epiphy-sis (right), compared to modern juvenile bobcat reference specimen (left) showing identicaldevelopmental stages of open proximal and distal epiphyses; (b) Elizabeth Mound 7 Burial22 bobcat left femur (right) compared to modern juvenile bobcat reference specimen (left)showing identical stages of open proximal and distal epiphyses. (Photograph by DougCarr, Illinois State Museum).

A BOBCAT BURIAL AND OTHER REPORTED INTENTIONAL ANIMAL BURIALS 289

middens. A single modified bobcat mandible fragment from a multicomponent habi-tation site with a substantialMiddle Woodland occupation (the Snyders site [Parma-lee 1972]) is the only such ornament identified from Illinois that may date toHopewellian times (Farnsworth et al. 2015).

Associated grave goods

The only available plan-view photograph taken during the excavation that exposedBurial 22 indicates that the fully articulated animal was placed on its left side with itshead oriented northeast (Figure 8) and was not associated with any human remains.Burial pits were not observed for any of the burials (human or felid) on the rampextension. Two carved bone pendants and four shell beads were found posteriorto the front legs and positioned in the area of the animal’s chest in an arrangementthat suggested to the excavators a necklace or collar (Charles, Leigh, and Albertson1988:165; Leigh and Morey 1988:281), with an in situ excavation photographshowing the alignment of drilled holes in the pendants (see Figure 8). Seven of the16 human burial features also include one or more (usually many) diagnostic Hope-wellian artifacts. These include shell beads, like the bobcat burial, as well as 27 earlyHavana and Hopewell pottery vessels, three marine-shell vessels, an effigy platformpipe and three plain-bowl platform pipes, and a cut-and-ground coyote mandible.Included on the bobcat’s necklace (Figures 8 and 9) was a pair of effigy carnivore

canine teeth that were carved from mammal bone. Each has a swollen or gentlyrounded convex surface and a flattened concave surface. In Figure 9, the effigytooth on the left measures 48.3 mm long, 13.7 mm wide, and 2.9 mm thick, withthe perforation at the base of the ‘root’ that is 3.0 mm in diameter. Root etchingis present on the rounded surface. Its mirror image on the right is 47.8 mm long,13.5 mm wide, and 3.0 mm thick, with the perforation measuring 2.6 mm in diam-eter. The bulbous outline is more reminiscent of a black bear (Ursus americanus)canine than a canine from a canid or felid. The Elizabeth Mound 7 bobcat and adomesticated dog from the habitation site of Dickson Camp (Fulton County) (Cant-well 1980:484) are the only two Illinois Hopewellian animals known to have beenburied with bear-canine or bear canine-effigy pendants.Also on the necklace were four irregular barrel-shaped pieces of shell, which were

perforated to form beads. These range in length from 7.4 to 10.5 mm, in width from5.5 to 9.6 mm, with perforations varying from 2.0 to 4.5 mm in diameter. Threeshell beads have an opaque texture that suggests fragments of marine shell,whereas the fourth bead (second bead from the left; see Figure 9) has an iridescentluster characteristic of freshwater mussel shell. Such shell beads and bear canine/bear canine-effigy pendants are among the most commonly occurring forms ofgrave goods from Illinois Hopewellian human burials.

Dog burials in Illinois Hopewellian Mounds

The discovery of the Elizabeth Mound 7 bobcat burial, originally misidentified as adomestic dog, prompted our reevaluation of all reported possible Middle Woodland

290 ANGELA R. PERRI ET AL.

Hopewellian dog burials in Illinois mounds. From our reevaluation of the archaeo-logical literature and the skeletons themselves, all reported Middle Woodland dogburials in Illinois Hopewellian mounds are either not dogs (Elizabeth Mound 7)or are not confidently dated toMiddle Woodland contexts (see below). Direct radio-carbon dating of the dog skeletons themselves, if available, may set this issue to rest,

figure 8. Excavation photographs of Burial 22 in situ, with a close-up photo of the chestarea showing its shell-bead and bear canine-effigy pendant necklace.

A BOBCAT BURIAL AND OTHER REPORTED INTENTIONAL ANIMAL BURIALS 291

but current indications are that dog burials do not occur in Illinois Hopewellianmounds.

Klunk Mound 11, Burial 66 [11C4]This dog burial intruded into the pitted apex of a mound located on the westernbluffs of the Illinois River valley in Calhoun County (Perino 1968:95), apparentlyafter the primary mound was capped, ending its initial Hopewellian mortuary func-tion. The pit intersected and disturbed a human skeleton (Burial 68) at the top of theprimary mound. Subsequently, a secondary-mound structure was built over theprimary mound (wider, but about the same height as the primary mound), so thedog burial may date to this second mound-building event. Several secondary-moundhuman burials also intruded into the primary mound. Limestone slabs, mussel shells,and Anculosa (now Leptoxis) shell beads accompanying these burials suggest theywere of Late Woodland age. Much later, a heavily fired area intruded into the orig-inal ground surface in the mound; it contained the remains of a barrel, hoops, and abroken whisky jug, perhaps related to an alleged still operation (Perino 1968:96–97), so the dog burial may even date to historic times. In any case, there is no sub-stantial evidence the dog was interred as part of Hopewellian Middle Woodlandritual.

figure 9. Shell beads and effigy bear canines found with Burial 22. (Photograph by KenFarnsworth).

292 ANGELA R. PERRI ET AL.

Morton Mound 14 [11F1]Cantwell’s (1980:487) discussion of the uncertain context for the Morton Mound14 dog burial on the western bluffs of the Illinois River valley in Fulton County effec-tively eliminates it from consideration as aMiddleWoodland burial feature. ThoughCole and Deuel (1937) reported the dog burial, there is no clear cultural associationfor either the dog or nearby human burials in the mound. Since the mound is multi-component, any cultural assignment for the dog burial is speculative.

Steuben Mound 1 [11MA213]Located on the western bluffs of the Illinois River valley in Marshall County,Steuben Mound 1 was a complex multistage structure covering three small adjacentprimary mounds that capped subfloor Middle Woodland (Hopewellian) burial pitsand a small secondary mound between two of the primary mounds that covered agroup of 10 bundled burials on a small mounded-earth platform. The dog burialwas located ‘two and one-half feet beneath the surface of Mound 1, in the gulfbetween the primary mound over [subfloor burial] Pits A and B and the secondarymound which covered the large bundle burial group’ (Morse 1963:88; emphasisours). This comment clearly indicates that the dog burial represents the onlymound interment in a third burial episode that postdates the Middle Woodland sub-floor burial pits and the post-Hopewellian bundle burial episode. The dog couldthus have been buried at any time from the Late Woodland to the historic Euro-American period.

Frederick Mound 1 [11SC11]Located on the western bluffs of the Illinois River valley in Schuyler County, Freder-ick Mound 1 was rapidly salvaged by amateurs who kept no notes, charts, or photo-graphs and kept only certain artifacts (Perkins 1965:72). Several bundle burials withno artifacts were found near a group of extended Middle Woodland burials withHopewellian artifacts. The amateur excavators of the mound reported to Perkinsthat ‘the skeletons of several animals which in gross appearance resembled dogs’were found among the bundle burials (Perkins 1965:74). Obviously, however,since the mortuary context was so shattered and the bones were not saved, any poss-ible Middle Woodland dog burial association is dubious. Complicating mattersfurther, a Late Woodland/Mississippian habitation area is also located in theimmediate vicinity of the mound.

Ray Cemetery Mound 2, Burials 10–12 [11BR104]The Ray site is located on the southern bluffs of the La Moine River valley in BrownCounty, just above its juncture with the Illinois Valley. Nearly 90 burials were exca-vated from along the crest of a long, narrow (approx. 6–11m wide) bluff-top ridgeoverlooking the Ray village site. About 25 percent of the burials were located underor adjacent to five to six possible low mounds. Diagnostic artifacts found with someof the burials (and in the village midden below) indicate that the site was used, prob-ably intermittently, from the late Middle Woodland to the later Bluff culture (LateWoodland), ca. A.D. 100–900. The burial practices evident in the cemetery (and

A BOBCAT BURIAL AND OTHER REPORTED INTENTIONAL ANIMAL BURIALS 293

the majority of artifacts recovered from both areas) date to the Late Woodland(Jersey Bluff) period (ca. A.D. 800–900).A bluff-top group burial of a young adult female, small child, and neonatal infant

contained 43 miscellaneous Canis sp. fragments, including those from the skulls,long bones, scapulae, and vertebrae, from a minimum number of three individuals(Martin 2014). According to Flotow’s (2006:50) published report on the site exca-vations, the canine bones were thought to have been the remains of a single dog.Flotow (2006) also indicated that a second dog burial was recovered at the site,with an adult male burial. This second burial was not specifically identified in hisreport, but the field map of Mound 2 Burial 7 (adult male) shows its location tobe about one meter from an area labeled ‘Dog? Remains,’ composed of four smallteeth and crumbling bone (Hanning and Hanning 1975).In light of the predominantly Late Woodland character of the Ray Cemetery, and

the fact that mixed bundled human and canid remains have been recovered in otherregional Late Woodland contexts—including Elizabeth Mound 12 (Charles, Leigh,and Albertson 1988:271–272) and perhaps the FrederickMound 1 bundled human/canid context summarized above—we conclude that the Ray canid remains likelydate to the Late Woodland period.

John Swartz Mound 4 [11PK6]Considering the sparse and conflicting field-note information available for this unre-ported Foundation for Illinois Archeology 1975–1978 salvage excavation, Bulling-ton’s (1988:233) mention of a possible dog burial from Swartz Mound 4 isperplexing. Her only comment about it is that ‘its precise context is difficult to recon-struct from the available field notes.’ Atwell (1985) does not mention a dog burial inher short overview summary of the project, but both her report and a cursory over-view of the collections and notes by Farnsworth in the early 1990s indicate that bothMiddle Woodland and Late Woodland burials are present in the mound. The onlycanid remains we have confirmed from SwartzMound 4 consist of a cut-and-groundmandible artifact (likely a coyote) found in the Middle Woodland tomb (Farnsworthet al. 2015).

Kamp Mound 9 [11C12]Kamp Mound 9 is a single-component Hopewellian mound built on an IllinoisRiver floodplain terrace in Calhoun County, directly capping a Middle Woodlandoccupation area (Struever 1960). Bullington (1988:233) mentions a possible Hope-wellian dog burial from the mound and passingly refers to it as ‘a bundled dogburial…recovered from the floor of the central tomb.’ However, the excavatorhimself makes no mention of a dog burial in the tomb. Struever did indicate thatseveral fires were burned on the prepared ground surface prior to log-tomb con-struction. Near these burned areas several clusters of animal-bone fragmentswere found. According to Parmalee’s (1960) zooarchaeological analysis for thesite, these pretomb faunal remains included unmodified turtle-shell fragments,large-mammal bone fragments, and fragments of a probable butchered dog,including an articulated section of seven vertebrae, a ‘badly broken’ skull, a left

294 ANGELA R. PERRI ET AL.

mandible, a partial pelvis, one femur, fragments of one humerus, and portions ofboth scapulae.In summary, we cannot confirm that any of the seven dog burials recorded in

the literature as having been buried in Hopewellian mounds actually date toMiddle Woodland times. To the extent that bluff-top mounds represent part ofa ‘stairway’ to Middle Woodland afterlife, this route to eternal existence wasapparently not accessible to domesticated dogs. By contrast, intentional dogburials have been found at most studied Middle Woodland habitation siteswith substantial occupations, especially in the heavily occupied Illinois Valleydrainage. This subject is well summarized by Cantwell (1980) and will not be rea-nalyzed here. Cantwell’s study included dog burials from 10 Illinois Valley habi-tation sites with substantial Middle Woodland occupations. At nine of these sites,one to three Middle Woodland dog burials were discovered. At the tenth site(Apple Creek), seven dog burials were discovered, but the site also includes alarge Late Woodland occupation, and many of the dog burials may date to theearly Late Woodland period (Weaver or White Hall phase) (Parmalee et al.1972). Like the Elizabeth site bobcat burial, many of the dog burials fromMiddle Woodland habitation sites included grave goods (e.g., drilled bear-caninependants, copper beads, red ochre) (Cantwell 1980:490–491). Cantwell alsonoted that the pattern of dog burials in Middle Woodland habitation sites waslargely localized in the lower and central Illinois Valley area and may not occurin habitation sites of other contemporary groups.This localized special treatment of domesticated dogs might represent an

increased level of animal affinity for Illinois Hopewellian people that may haveextended to the attempted taming of other animals, including bobcats, resulting inthe Elizabeth site bobcat burial. Yet, Illinois Hopewell burial mounds almostnever include animal burials of any kind. The Elizabeth Mound 7 bobcat representsthe only individually buried animal known. The only other exception is the headlessbody of a roseate spoonbill (Platalea ajaja) interred with a double human burial in abluff-top Hopewellian tomb overlooking the Illinois River about 40 km down-stream from Elizabeth Mound 7.

Decapitated roseate spoonbill from an Illinois Hopewell Mound

Gregory Perino’s 1969 discovery of the headless skeleton of a roseate spoonbillwithin a log tomb in Gibson Mound 3 (Calhoun County) has been widely reportedby him and others (Parmalee and Perino 1970, 1971; Perino 2006; Seeman 2007).The body of this dramatically pink-feathered spoon-billed bird was lying alongsidetwo Hopewellian human burials (Burials 17 and 18: an adult male and a youngchild) within the central log-tomb structure (Perino 2006:420–426). A fragmentof a ‘finger-like’ cut-mica figure was found near its feet (Figure 2). Perino believedthe colorful bird was interred as part of the grave goods for the human burialsand did not give it its own burial number. There are occasional historic records ofspoonbill sightings in both west-central and southern Illinois, so Perino and Parma-lee concluded that the animal was likely collected locally and that it ‘may have

A BOBCAT BURIAL AND OTHER REPORTED INTENTIONAL ANIMAL BURIALS 295

represented simply a thing of beauty…or a ceremonial object or hunting trophy’(1970:256). Seeman (2007:179) later noted that dominant Hopewellian icono-graphic themes include ‘human and animal connection, ancestors, and worldrenewal.’ He pointed out a possible connection between the decapitated roseatespoonbill in an Illinois Hopewell mortuary context and the detached and ‘scalped’red-headed woodpecker crania from an Ohio Hopewell mortuary context (seeSeeman 1988:569), indicating that ‘actual juxtapositions of animals and humansshow perceived relationships.’

Discussion

Wild cats have had long and multifaceted commensal and domestic relationshipswith humans through time (see Faure and Kitchener 2009). It is unclear whetherthe decorated burial of a bobcat juvenile at ElizabethMound 7 represents an isolatedoccurrence of an orphaned or captured animal or is the result of a more complexrelationship between the Hopewell people and bobcats. In other parts of theworld, an early commensal relationship between wild cats and ancient agricultural-ists has been postulated, suggesting wild cats’ attraction to agricultural pests (e.g.,rodents) would have been advantageous to farmers (Hu et al. 2014). Early evidencefor associations between small wild cats and humans dates to the early Holocene (ca.11,000 B.P.) in Cyprus (Vigne et al. 2012), with the earliest human–cat coburial alsobeing found in this region and dating to around the same time (ca. 9500 B.P.) (Vigneet al. 2004). Early evidence for human social interaction with cats also comes froman agricultural village in China (ca. 5300 B.P.) (Hu et al. 2014) and from the NearEast (ca. 8700–5100 B.P.) (Linseele et al. 2007, 2008; Petzsch 1973; Zeuner 1958),where the ancestor of our modern domestic cat, the Near Eastern wild cat (Felis sil-vestris lybica), originated.Aside from the human–cat coburial in Cyprus, a swamp cat (Felis chaus) and

probable domesticated cats (Felis cf. silvestris) have been found buried in a Predy-nastic (ca. 3800–3600 B.C.) human cemetery in Egypt, along with a menagerie ofother wild and domestic animals, probably the result of religious rituals or sacrifice(Linseele et al. 2007, 2008; Van Neer et al. 2014). The complete burials of twopumas (Puma concolor) and a jaguar (Panthera onca) were recovered from theMoon Pyramid in Teotihuacan (ca. A.D. 1–550), but again they were ritual offerings(Sugiyama et al. 2013).With the exception of the headless roseate spoonbill from Gibson Mound 3,

animals are not buried with humans in Illinois Hopewell mounds, suggesting the Eli-zabethMound 7 bobcat burial is not the result of customary ritual offerings or sacri-fice. Given this, the Elizabeth bobcat represents the only known example of awild cat being carefully buried alone in a human-like manner, with associatedgrave goods, specifically a necklace, which suggests the animal held a specialplace in the lives of residents at the site. This represents an important shift in thinkingabout North American felids, from the wild to the residential sphere. Domesticateddogs had been present in the region since the Archaic period and were commonlyburied at Middle Woodland habitation sites (Cantwell 1980), so the concept of

296 ANGELA R. PERRI ET AL.

tamed carnivores/predators would not have been unfamiliar to the Hopewell. Cur-iously, the complete bobcat burial is the only occurrence of Middle Woodland felidsfrom the Elizabeth site or the nearby Napoleon Hollow site (Leigh andMorey 1988;Styles and Purdue 1986). Though various modified (cut–ground–drilled) canid,felid, and ursid mandibles are found at Illinois Hopewell mortuary sites (see Farns-worth et al. 2015), none of these include modified bobcat mandibles, which areunknown from any Hopewellian mortuary contexts. Likewise, the seven smaller(nonwolf) Canis sp. modified mandibles known from Hopewellian burial contexts(see Farnsworth et al. 2015) can almost certainly be assigned to coyote (Canislatrans), as Hopewellian dogs are distinguishable by their very small size (Parmaleeet al. 1972:48). The absence of modified dog mandibles from Hopewell mortuarycontexts suggests these adornments were derived only from wild predators. There-fore, the further absence of bobcat mandibles with human burials indicatesbobcats may have been considered within the Hopewellian residential sphere, allud-ing to a close relationship between them and humans. Moreover, the discovery oftwo Hopewell artifacts, an effigy pipe (Squier and Davis 1848:242–246) and aceramic figurine (Converse 1993), that depict combined human–bobcat imagery(see Farnsworth et al. 2015) supports the hypothesis that the relationship betweenhumans and wild cats was more familiar than a human versus predator connection.Although no native felids are thought to have been domesticated in the Americas,

many were likely tamed throughout pre-Columbian Central and South America,including the jaguarundi (Herpailurus yagouaroundi), the Geoffroy’s cat (Oncifelisgeoffroyi), and the ocelot (Leopardus pardalis) (Faure and Kitchener 2009). Bobcatsare smaller wild cats (about twice the size of a domestic cat) with soft coats that arespotted from birth and attractive to humans. Due to their reduced size and focus onsmall prey, bobcats pose no threat to humans. The Lynx genus is thought to be oneof the most responsive to taming, being ‘easily hand-reared and amenable to humancompany’ (Faure and Kitchener 2009:222), though this is dependent on handling atan early age. Bobcat kittens remain in the den for their first month of life, but it isalso during this first month that they must be captured and handled, for after thisage taming becomes challenging (Van Wormer 1964). Kittens are nursed for twoto three months, after which the next few months are important to their acquisitionof essential hunting skills. During this period, in which they grow rapidly, meat isprovided by their mother while they accompany her on hunts. Juveniles are depen-dent on their mothers until about seven months of age, after which they begin to reg-ularly venture out on their own (Sunquist and Sunquist 2002).Given the buried bobcat’s estimated age of four to seven months, it is likely that

the mother was killed (either naturally or by human hunters) and the juvenileorphaned before it had become independent. If the Elizabeth bobcat was in facttamed, this suggests it was taken directly from the den before one month of age.As the major factor in bobcat kitten mortality is food availability, it is likely thedeath of the animal was the result of separation from the mother during a criticalfeeding period, leading to malnutrition and/or starvation. This is also suggestedby the lack of perimortem trauma on the skeleton, pointing to a natural cause ofdeath. Of course, other possible causes of death include illness, exposure, poisoning,drowning, or other circumstances that may not leave traces on the remains.

A BOBCAT BURIAL AND OTHER REPORTED INTENTIONAL ANIMAL BURIALS 297

Nevertheless, the bobcat appears to have survived long enough for the inhabitants ofthe Elizabeth site to form an attachment that merited an elaborate burial in a sacredmound: the first and only of its kind known. The inclusion of grave goods commonlyfound in human burials, which have been strung into an apparent necklace (seeFigure 1), further alludes to a close bond. Elizabeth Mound 7 Burial 22 is theonly decorated wild cat burial known from the prehistoric archaeological record.Though the burial of an individual bobcat is not evidence for domestication, the Eli-zabeth Mound 7 bobcat burial enhances our understanding of the relationshipbetween prehistoric people and wild cats, revealing strong evidence for the tamingof at least some early felids in the Americas.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Illinois State Museum photographer Doug Carr for the photo-graphs of the bobcat specimens and associated artifacts and Illinois State Archaeo-logical Survey production manager Sarah Boyer for her assistance in preparing ourmanuscript and final figures for review and publication. Our research was supportedby the R. Bruce McMillan Museum Internship at the Illinois State Museum and theSociety for American Archaeology’s Dienje Kenyon Fellowship (received by Perri).The Elizabeth mounds archaeological collection is curated at the Illinois StateMuseum in Springfield. The submission draft of our study benefited from reviewcomments by John Walthall, Michael Wiant, MCJA editor Thomas Emerson, andan anonymous reviewer. We are grateful for their thoughtful observations on themanuscript.

Notes on contributors

Angela R. Perri is a postdoctoral research fellow in the Department of Human Evol-ution at Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology (Leipzig, Germany)and a research associate at the Illinois State Museum. Her research focuses onenvironmental archaeology, including paleoecology, human–animal social relation-ships, human–predator interactions, and domestication.Correspondence to: Angela Perri, Department of Human Evolution, Max Planck

Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Deutscher Platz 6, Leipzig, Germany04103. Email: [email protected] J. Martin (Ph.D., Michigan State University) is curator and chair of

anthropology at the Illinois State Museum. His primary research interest is zooarch-aeology, especially focusing on late prehistoric and early historic sites in theMidwestand Upper Great Lakes regions. He was also a codirector of the New PhiladelphiaArchaeological Project (2004–2011) in Pike County, Illinois.Correspondence to: Terrance J. Martin, Illinois State Museum, Research and Col-

lections Center, 1011 East Ash Street, Springfield, IL 62703-3500, USA. Email:[email protected] B. Farnsworth (M.A., University of Michigan) is a senior archaeological

research coordinator with the Illinois State Archaeological Survey at the Prairie

298 ANGELA R. PERRI ET AL.

Research Institute at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. He has beenconducting research in the Illinois River valley since 1968, where his principalresearch interests have focused on prehistoric settlement patterns, interregionalinteractions, and patterns of mortuary ritual from Late Archaic to Late Woodlandtimes.Correspondence to: Kenneth B. Farnsworth, Illinois State Archaeological Survey,

Springfield Research Lab, Illinois State Museum Research and Collections Center,1011 East Ash Street, Springfield, IL 62703-3500, USA. Email: [email protected]

References CitedAtwell, Karen A. (1985) John Swartz Mound 4. Manuscript on file, Illinois State Museum, Research and

Collections Center, Springfield.

Binford, Lewis R. (1981) Bones: Ancient Men and Modern Myths. Academic, New York.

Blick, Jeffrey P., Amber Creighton, and Betsy Murphy (2006) Report on the 2006 Archaeological Investigations

at the North Storr’s Lake Site (SS-4), San Salvador, Bahamas: Stratigraphic Excavations and the Role of the

Sea Turtle in Lucayan Subsistence. Report presented to the Gerace Research Center, San Salvador, Bahamas.

Bullington, Jill (1988) Middle Woodland Mound Structure: Social Implications and Regional Context. In The

Archaic and Woodland Cemeteries at the Elizabeth Site in the Lower Illinois Valley, edited by Douglas K.

Charles, Steven R. Leigh, and Jane E. Buikstra, pp. 218–241. Kampsville Archeological Center, Research

Series 7. Center for American Archeology, Kampsville, IL.

Cantwell, Anne-Marie (1980) Middle Woodland Dog Ceremonialism in Illinois. The Wisconsin Archeologist

61:480–496.

Charles, Douglas K., Steven R. Leigh, and Donald G. Albertson (1988) Burial Descriptions. In The Archaic and

Woodland Cemeteries at the Elizabeth Site in the Lower Illinois Valley, edited by Douglas K. Charles, Steven

R. Leigh, and Jane E. Buikstra, pp. 247–274. Kampsville Archeological Center, Research Series 7. Center for

American Archeology, Kampsville, IL.

Charles, Douglas K., Steven R. Leigh, and Jane E. Buikstra (1988) The Archaic andWoodland Cemeteries at the

Elizabeth Site in the Lower Illinois Valley. Kampsville Archeological Center, Research Series 7. Center for

American Archeology, Kampsville, Illinois.

Cole, Fay-Cooper, and Thorne Deuel (1937) Rediscovering Illinois. Archaeological Explorations in and around

Fulton County. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Converse, Robert N. (1993) Hopewell Ceramic Figurines. Ohio Archaeologist 43(4):25–27.

Crowe, Douglas M. (1975) Aspects of Ageing, Growth, and Reproduction of Bobcats fromWyoming. Journal of

Mammalogy 56:177–198.

Farnsworth, Kenneth B., and Karen A. Atwell (2015) Excavations at the Blue Island and Naples-Russell

Mounds and Related Hopewellian Sites in the Lower Illinois Valley. Illinois State Archaeological Survey,

Prairie Research Institute, Technical Report 160. University of Illinois, Urbana.

Farnsworth, Kenneth B., Terrance J. Martin, and Angela R. Perri (2015) Canid and Felid Artifacts: Predator

Symbolism in Illinois Hopewell. Illinois State Archaeological Survey, Prairie Research Institute, Studies in

Archaeological Material Culture 3. University of Illinois, Urbana, in press.

Faure, Eric, and Andrew C. Kitchener (2009) An Archaeological and Historical Review of the Relationships

between Felids and People. Anthrozoos: A Multidisciplinary Journal of the Interactions of People &

Animals 22(3):221–238.

Flotow, Mark (2006) The Archaeological, Osteological, and Paleodemographical Analysis of the Ray Site: A

Biocultural Perspective. Rediscovery 5:1–116.

Hanning, Glen, and Mary Hanning (1975) Field notes and maps, on file at Upper Mississippi Valley

Archaeological Research Foundation, Dr. Lawrence Conrad, Director, Macomb, IL.

A BOBCAT BURIAL AND OTHER REPORTED INTENTIONAL ANIMAL BURIALS 299

Hoffmeister, Donald F. (1989) Mammals of Illinois. University of Illinois Press, Urbana.

Hu, Yaowu, Songmei Hu, Weilin Wang, Xiaohong Wu, Fiona B. Marshall, Xianglong Chen, Liangliang Hou,

and Changsui Wang (2014) Earliest Evidence for Commensal Processes of Cat Domestication. Proceedings

of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 111:116–120.

Leigh, Steven R., Charles K. Douglas, and Donald G. Albertson (1988) Middle Woodland Component. In The

Archaic and Woodland Cemeteries at the Elizabeth Site in the Lower Illinois Valley, edited by Douglas K.

Charles, Steven R. Leigh, and Jane E. Buikstra, pp. 247–274. Center for American Archeology Research

Series, Vol. 7. Kampsville Archeological Center, Kampsville, IL.

Leigh, Steven R., and Darcey F. Morey (1988) Fauna from Mounds 6 and 7. In The Archaic and Woodland

Cemeteries at the Elizabeth Site in the Lower Illinois Valley, edited by Douglas K. Charles, Steven R.

Leigh, and Jane E. Buikstra, pp. 275–281. Center for American Archeology Research Series, Vol. 7.

Kampsville Archeological Center, Kampsville, IL.

Linseele, Veerle, Wim Van Neer, and Stan Hendrickx (2007) Evidence for Early Cat Taming in Egypt. Journal of

Archaeological Science 34:2081–2090.

Linseele, Veerle, WimVanNeer, and Stan Hendrickx (2008) Early Cat Taming in Egypt: A Correction. Journal of

Archaeological Science 35:2672–2673.

Lyman, R. Lee (1994) Vertebrate Taphonomy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

McCord, Chet M., and James E. Cardoza (1982) Bobcat and Lynx; Felis rufus and F. lynx. InWild Mammals of

North America: Biology, Management, and Economics, edited by Joseph A. Chapman and George A.

Feldhamer, pp. 728–766. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.

Martin, Terrance J. (2014) Ray Site (11BR104) Canis sp. Remains from ‘2–11’. Faunal analysis report, on file,

Illinois State Museum, Research and Collections Center, Springfield.

Morgan, David T. (1988) Ceramics at the Elizabeth Site. In The Archaic and Woodland Cemeteries at the

Elizabeth Site in the Lower Illinois Valley, edited by Douglas K. Charles, Steven R. Leigh, and Jane E.

Buikstra, pp. 120–154. Kampsville Archeological Center Research Series 7. Center for American

Archeology, Kampsville, IL.

Morse, Dan F. (1963) The Steuben Village and Mounds. A Multicomponent Late Hopewell Site in Illinois.

Museum of Anthropology, Anthropological Papers 21. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Parmalee, Paul W. (1960) Faunal Remains, Kamp Mound Group, 1958–1959 Seasons. In The Kamp Mound

Group and a Hopewell Mortuary Complex in the Lower Illinois Valley, by Stuart Struever, Appendix 1,

Table 1, pp. 174–179. Unpublished master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, Northwestern University,

Evanston, IL.

Parmalee, Paul W. (1972) Analysis Notes and Draft Manuscript on the Snyders Site Faunal Analysis. Manuscript

and notes on file, Anthropology Section, Illinois State Museum, Springfield.

Parmalee, Paul W., and Gregory Perino (1970) A Prehistoric Archaeological Record of the Roseate Spoonbill in

Illinois. Transactions of the Illinois State Academy of Science 63 (3):254–258.

Parmalee, Paul W., and Gregory Perino (1971) A Prehistoric Archaeological Record of the Roseate Spoonbill in

Illinois. Central States Archaeological Journal 18:80–85.

Parmalee, Paul W., Andreas A. Paloumpis, and Nancy Wilson (1972) Animals Utilized by Woodland Peoples

Occupying the Apple Creek Site, Illinois. Reports of Investigations 23, Illinois State Museum, Springfield.

Perino, Gregory (1968) The Pete Klunk Mound Group, Calhoun County, Illinois. In Hopewell and Woodland

Site Archaeology in Illinois, edited by James A. Brown, pp. 9–118. Illinois Archaeological Survey Bulletin 6,

Urbana.

Perino, Gregory (2006) The 1969 Gibson Mounds Excavations, Calhoun County, Illinois. In Illinois Hopewell

and Late Woodland Mounds. The Excavations of Gregory Perino 1950–1975, edited by Kenneth B.

Farnsworth and Michael D. Wiant, pp. 397–453. Illinois State Archaeological Survey, Prairie Research

Institute, Studies in Archaeology 4, University of Illinois, Urbana.

Perkins, RaymondW. (1965) The Frederick Site. InMiddleWoodland Sites in Illinois, edited by James A. Brown,

pp. 68–94. Illinois Archaeological Survey Bulletin 6, Urbana.

300 ANGELA R. PERRI ET AL.

Perri, Angela R. (2013) Global Hunting Adaptations to Early Holocene Temperate Forests: Intentional Dog

Burials as Evidence of Hunting Strategies. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Archaeology,

Durham University, Durham, UK.

Perri, Angela R. (2015) A Typology of Dog Deposition in Archaeological Contexts. In Bones in a Landscape,

Papers in Memory of Tony Legge, edited by P. Rowley-Conwy, P. Halstead, and D. Serjeanstson, Oxbow

Books, Oxford, UK.

Petzsch, H. (1973) Zur Problematik der primärdomestikation der Hauskatze (Felis silvestris “familiaris”). In

Domestikationsforschung und Geschichte der Haustiere, edited by János Matolcsi, pp. 109–114.

Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest.

Reitz, Elizabeth J., and Bonnie G. McEwan (1995) Animals, Environment, and the Spanish Diet at Puerto Real.

In Puerto Real: The Archaeology of a Sixteenth-Century Spanish Town in Hispaniola, edited by K. Deagan,

pp. 287–334. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Seeman, Mark F. (1988) Ohio Hopewell Trophy Skull Artifacts as Evidence for Competition in Middle

Woodland Societies Circa 50 B.C–A.D. 350. American Antiquity 53:565–577.

Seeman, Mark F. (2007) Predatory War and Hopewell Trophies. In The Taking and Displaying of Human Body

Parts as Trophies by Amerindians, edited by Richard J. Chacon and David H. Dye, pp. 167–189. Springer

Science, New York.

Squier, Ephraim G., and Edwin H. Davis (1848) Ancient Monuments of the Mississippi Valley. Comprising the

Results of Original Surveys and Explorations. Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge 1. Smithsonian

Institution, Washington, D.C.

Struever, Stuart (1960) The Kamp Mound Group and a Hopewell Mortuary Complex in the Lower Illinois

Valley. Unpublished master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.

Styles, Bonnie, and James Purdue (1986) Middle Woodland Faunal Exploitation. In Woodland Period

Occupation of the Napoleon Hollow Site in the Illinois Valley, edited by Michael Wiant and Charles

McGimsey, pp. 513–526. Kampsville Archaeological Center Research Series Vol. 6. Center for American

Archaeology, Kampsville, IL.

Sugiyama, Nawa, Raúl Valadez, Gilberto Pérez, Bernardo Rodríguez, and Fabiola Torres (2013) Animal

Management, Preparation and Sacrifice: Reconstructing Burial 6 at the Moon Pyramid, Teotihuacan,

México. Anthropozoologica 48:467–485.

Sunquist, Mel, and Fiona Sunquist (2002) Wild Cats of the World. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Van Neer, Wim, Veerle Linseele, Renée Friedman, and Bea De Cupere (2014) More Evidence for Cat Taming at

the Predynastic Elite Cemetery of Hierakonpolis (Upper Egypt). Journal of Archaeological Science 45:103–

111.

Van Wormer, Joe (1964) The World of the Bobcat. J. B. Lippincott, Philadelphia.

Vigne, Jean-Denis, François Briois, Antoine Zazzo, George Willcox, Thomas Cucchi, Stéphanie Thiébault,

Isabelle Carrère, Yodrik Franel, Régis Touquet, Chloé Martin, Christophe Moreau, Clothilde Comby, and

Jean Guilaine (2012) First Wave of Cultivators Spread to Cyprus at Least 10,600 y Ago. Proceedings of

the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 109:8445–8449.

Vigne, Jean-Denis, Jean Guilaine, Karyne Debue, Laurent Haye, and Patrice Gérard (2004) Early Taming of the

Cat in Cyprus. Science 304:259–259.

Zeuner, Frederik E. (1958) Dog and Cat in the Neolithic of Jericho. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 90:52–55.

Note1Although the Integrated Taxonomic Information

System (ITIS, http://www.itis.gov) currently lists

Lynx as the valid genus for the bobcat, some consider

Lynx to instead be a subgenus of Felis (Felis lynx

rufus).

A BOBCAT BURIAL AND OTHER REPORTED INTENTIONAL ANIMAL BURIALS 301