Effigy Mounds and Geertz

I’m on the fence about the effigy mounds being reflections of a “system of symbols”, as mentioned in the Geertz definition. However, I feel like certain aspects of the mounds, and how they have been created can have a connection. The effigy mounds are considered by some to be representations of the same belief systems that were visible on the pottery. To me, I feel like the things throughout the pottery relates to the Geertz definition because even then they had an “ideology” about an upper world and a lower world, and Earth simply being in the middle. In a religious context, it’s like a heaven and a hell.

Part of me agrees with Lynne Goldstein when she suggests that the mounds could be resource maps, however, part of me believes that the Effigy mounds were built as a system of symbols. The reason I say this is because Mallam has a very good point. There are three different groups of mounds; Earth, air, and water, and those are the things that humans as a civilization rely upon for survival. I understand that they may have had to figure that out when they first built the mounds, but how could they have known that the later generations would adapt to needing the same things. Also, as Mallam states, it seems like they realized that the Earth, air, and water aspects of their lives had to in a sense work together to maintain the appropriate means of living conditions.

Also, in a recent study it showed that whenever the predominate “class of mound” was present, the complimentary or opposing “class” was somewhere in relation to it. That to me can relate to Geertz’s definition because it can act as an order or existence, in a way. Like, without the air and water, the Earth wouldn’t have a means for survival. The Earth being depicted in the middle of figure 5.6 to me means that the Earth was reliable on the sky and water back then, as it is now.