Religious and Symbolic Significance of Various Animal Representations

Blog Question #2: Were the animal-shaped mounds of Wisconsin different from the animal representations in Lascaux Cave or the animals in the name of sport clubs (i.e. Chicago Bears)? What might be the religious significance of these representations of animals, thinking in terms of our own definition of religion?


Although the artistic media are different, the animal-shaped effigy mounds of Wisconsin and the cave paintings of Lascaux share many common traits with modern animal symbolism. First and foremost, a symbol is simply one thing used to represent another thing. The Lascaux cave paintings, the mounds of Wisconsin, and even the modern-day animal symbols of sports teams have undeniable symbolic meaning, but the religious significance of these things are somewhat more evasive.

Before I examine the similarities and differences between various animal representations, I should make my position on the importance of symbols known. I don’t think it is the nature of the symbol itself that is most significant, but rather the interpretations and uses of the symbol. For example, focusing on the physical differences between a peace symbol printed on a shirt and a similar symbol on a belt buckle will not be as revealing as an examination of what the symbol has meant to different people over the last half-century. It is the interpretations and uses of the symbol that are most important.

The cave paintings of Lascaux and the mounds of Wisconsin are a representation of the culture and environment that their creators were a part of. More importantly, both Native Americans and Paleolithic individuals in France both perceived their world in such a way that they decided to express their thoughts in a symbolic form. These thoughts and their expressions, directly or not, are a byproduct of the religious perspectives that influenced these individuals’ perceptions of the world (lenses). These symbolic animal representations may have not been worship objects, but they were certainly influenced by the beliefs of the people who created them. Specifically, both the painters at Lascaux and the creators of the Native American eathenworks sought to express their perceptions of the natural world, specifically the animals that were an important part of their lives, in a symbolic manner. This symbolic interpretation and explanation of one’s existence is an essential part of any religious system. Although the animal symbols of sports teams don’t carry the same religious weight as the upperworld/lowerworld symbolism of the Native Americans (Birmingham 89, 108) or the paintings found in the Shaft of the Dead Man, the sports symbols can still inspire strong feelings in people and the symbols certainly have significant meaning. For example, the sports logos of the Atlanta braves (Chief Wahoo) was strongly protested by individuals who felt that the symbol was racist. Although symbols aren’t always specifically religious, they are interpretations of experience and they do carry connotations that can inspire intense feeling. If Geertz is correct in saying that religion is a “system of symbols”, then perhaps these cave paintings, animal-shaped effigy mounds, and even some sports symbols have deep-seated meaning/religious importance to some people.