Linguistic Archaeology?

This is one of those entries where comments would really be appreciated, since this has been a major part of my research of late, and it would be nice to have feedback as to whether this all makes sense or not:

As many of you know, I have been working on the Biloxi language and trying to piece together some history based on linguistic evidence. While there is no known written history of the Biloxi nation before the European invasion, I believe there are clues to ancient Biloxi culture and society buried within the remains of its vocabulary.

It is currently my contention that Biloxi settlements, like many others of the Southeast, likely contained great earthen mound structures, some in the shape of large flat-topped pyramids and others smaller, rectangular or circular. These large pyramidal structures rose like mountains of monumental grandeur above the surrounding forests, rivers, and streams. While, to my knowledge, there are as yet no actual archaeological remains traceable to ancient Biloxi society, I invoke linguistic evidence to postulate the former existence of such structures.



The word for ‘stairway’ in Biloxi is asis(i)tu, which, broken into its component parts, is a- ‘place of’, si ‘step,’ reduplicated to represent plurality, and –tu, another plural marker that, together with reduplicated si, emphasizes a great number of steps or stairs, suggesting perhaps a long stairway such as those ascending the sides of large pyramids and mound structures (think of those in Cahokia or Mayan ruins). Upon the flattened summits of these structures would probably have perched a cabin with a grass roof, usually the residence of a high-ranking noble or elite. The tallest of these pyramids bespoke the superior status of its lofty occupant, called, in Biloxi, Yaaxitąąyą, ‘The Great Sacred One.’1 Adjacent to the largest pyramidal structures was at least one large open space, or plaza, in which the masses would congregate for an optimal viewing of the great king’s speeches or other ceremonies and rituals. (Biloxi narratives also refer to the king being elevated perhaps on a mound, platform, or chair above the masses.)

Biloxi vocabulary suggests a certain amount of societal stratification consistent with a predominantly agricultural economy. An agrarian economy usually leads to the creation of a class of elites and nobles, and this was quite apparent among Southeast Amerindian nations, many of which were of the "Mississippian Moundbuilder" cultures. Biloxi vocabulary indicates a certain amount of power-sharing by other ąyaaxi, or lesser nobles, and ixi 2, their deputies and assistants. Biloxi nobility likely legitimized their superior “sacred” status through the practice of what has been called shamanism 3. Their connection to the supernatural realm would have legitimized their decision-making by the process of communing with sacred spirits or ancestors. Such communing with the Otherworld as a means of justifying their actions would have been a powerful tool for keeping law and order. After all, shamans could shapeshift into were-animals, and the possible penalty for stepping out of line could be death by a noble ripping one to shreds in the form of a were-wolf or were-eagle or other type of powerful transformed being (at least that’s how it would be perceived by the masses, the belief probably being instilled in the citizenry from childhood). Such connections to the Otherworld would also serve to maintain an element of mystery around the activities and behaviors of those in the highest offices, thereby legitimizing their power by their special sacred knowledge and connections to spiritual realms that could either help, or injure, an individual or an entire community. ('Shaman-king' rulership shares probable parallels with the ancient Olmec and Mayan civilizations. Cultural similarities and possible influence and trade between the ancient Southeast and Mesoamerican [Olmec, Maya, Aztec] civilizations is still being debated.)

Notes:

1. Literally, (ą)yaa + xi + tąą + yą = person-sacred-big-DEF
2. Literally, i + xi = commitative (with)-sacred (one) = 'one who works with the sacred one(s)' (deputy)
3. As I've stated before, "shamanism" and "shaman" are terms that spawn hot debate among anthropologists, because these terms originated with the Tungus of Siberia, who do not share many of the traits found in Native American spiritual practices, especially those involving priest-kingship or shaman-kingship. (We should also not rule out the possibility of females holding the reigns of shamanic power. The ruler of Cofitachequi, believed to have been a Muskogean settlement in what is now Georgia, was a woman (queen) carried on a litter upon the shoulders of her male subordinates. This was documented by de Soto.)

Biloxi shaman-kings*?

As I’ve been working on my ethnographic sketch of the Biloxi nation to eventually accompany the Biloxi dictionary as my thesis, I’ve been synthesizing the works of various authors over the past century, pulling together some of the bits and pieces that have been written. Also, while in Washington DC to do research at the National Anthropological Archives this past summer, I ordered copies of all of Albert Gatschet’s notes, which finally arrived the other day. Gatschet was the first linguist to do fieldwork on Biloxi in 1886, and he determined that it was indeed a Siouan language, not Muskogean as previously assumed.

During my research, I’m finding mounting, primarily linguistic, clues as to the political make-up of pre-contact Biloxis. The Southeastern Ceremonial Complex (SECC), which incorporates many of the peoples and cultures traditionally associated with Mississippian or "mound-building" cultures, of which Biloxis were apparently a part, was largely agricultural and, as has happened to many agricultural economies through history, became socially non-egalitarian and stratified, including an elite class of ruling nobles. (This was nowhere better represented in the SECC than by Biloxis’ neighbors, Natchez, whose society was divided into an elite ruling nobility carried around on litters who referred to the "common" folks as "Stinkards.") There is mounting evidence that these ruling nobles were also members of an elite priesthood, which makes them quite similar to what we've learned about Mayan societies of ancient Mesoamerica. There is some linguistic evidence that Biloxis may have shared a similar system of nobles vs. commoners.

The evidence? In Gatschet’s materials, there is a term yaaxi (also ąyaaxi), literally 'mysterious' or 'sacred' person, which Gatschet states meant ‘conjurer’ but was also sometimes used for ‘chief.’ Traditional Native American shamans, usually referred to as medicine men or women, could be either beneficent healers of the sick and injured, or they could be malevolent "sorcerers" or "witches" who could cause illness or injury with the help of evil spirits. The term ‘conjurer’ of course is usually associated with the malevolent sorcerer. It thus appears in the data that Biloxi conjurer = chief. In Biloxi oral tradition, there is also reference to their chief being seated in an elevated position, perhaps on a raised chair, platform, or throne. Thus, I think it seems reasonable to hypothesize a Biloxi "shaman-king" who was not only ruler of his people but also the head healer and sorcerer.

As stated before, this would put the Biloxi chief in line with what anthropologists are learning of other SECC societies AND with ancient Mesoamerican societies. Imagine the power wielded by these kings, who could control their citizenry through its manipulation of its citizenry's fear of the unknown spirit world that the chief could control, and who, in line with typical shamanism, could "transform" into powerful animal spirits such as a panther (or jaguar in Mesoamerica) or a raptorial bird such as the eagle. What better way to "earn" the respect, obedience, and worship of your populace!

Anyway, this is what I've come up with through my research so far.

UPDATE: Please be aware that I employ the term "shaman-king" loosely as it is still very much debated as to whether the priests or sorcerers of Native America, or anywhere outside of Siberia where the term shaman originated (a Tungus term), should be called "shamans". They technically do not fit the specifications of the term as applied in Siberia. My colleague and friend, Alice Beck Kehoe, is adamantly opposed to this term being employed by anthropologists outside of the confines of Siberia.