Ax Fragment

Monolithic Ax Fragment – 34Lf40/1578 (written by Laurel Lamb)

It is clear that this artifact is some type of weapon.  However, due to severe fragmentation, it is somewhat difficult to interpret exactly what kind of weapon it is.  Originally excavated by the Works Progress Administration from the Great Mortuary in Craig Mound the artifact was first identified simply as a mace, while James Brown (1996:480) classifies it as a monolithic ax-form mace fragment.

34Lf40/1578
34Lf40/1578

The broken edges on all four sides of the artifact support this theory because the ax-forms have separate blades and shafts, while the blades and shafts of a regular mace are combined.  The longest and least fragmented edge protruding from the main body of the artifact was probably the blade, while one of the other fragmented edges was the shaft used to hold the ax.  This exemplifies instances when there is not much left of an artifact, so artifact comparisons and imagination are needed to complete what little is left.  This ax is either made of greenstone or shale (Brown 1996:480).  It is six inches long and four inches wide from the inside curve to the blade.

Since major portions of this artifact are missing, it is difficult to establish how much this artifact was used.  The more worn parts of the ax are, the higher chance they were used for utilitarian purposes, while a less worn ax would indicate a more special function.  It would be easy to assume this ax fragment had a primarily utilitarian function, but there were few axes found at Craig Mound that had much wear on them.  Brown (1996:477) also notes the axes’ “delicateness of form and the exotic of soft material.” Their lack of wear, exoticness of material, and their location in Craig Mound, a site full of high-status burial materials, tells another story of a more symbolic and ceremonial function for this ax.

One possible ceremonial aspect of monolithic axes at Spiro might have centered around political power and warfare.  Successes in warfare were a source of great honor and prestige for Mississippian cultures.  Since weaponry would be needed to achieve such ambitions, a special emphasis was most likely placed on extravagant, exotic symbolic weaponry.  This weaponry would not have necessarily been used in battle, but on special occasions (Sievert 2011:97

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s