Possible Representation of Mexican Chihuahua Breed on Dog Effigy Pots from Georgia?By Gary C. Daniels © February 4, 2012, Revised 2/7/ & 2/11/12 LostWorlds.org

In this paper I propose that three dog effigy pots excavated in Georgia in the 1930s at the Bull Creek Site (9ME1) and one from the Neisler Mound site represent the Chihuahua breed, a native dog of Mexico. I also propose that the tribe most likely associated with these pots were the Kasihta/Cussetta whose migration legends strongly suggest an origin in west Mexico, likely the state of Colima which is also known for similar dog effigy pots. I will also argue that the Kasihta raised Chihuahuas for food which they fattened up for this purpose as depicted by the pots. I will also show how this explains the early Spanish eye-witness accounts of Indians eating “little dogs” which previously had been conjectured to be a reference to oppossums instead of dogs. Finally, I will show that despite all the conjecture and theories of possible Old World influence on the origin of the Chihuahua, it is purely a New World dog that dates back at least to 100 AD in Mexico.

In 1937 archaeologists unearthed three dog effigy pots from the Bull Creek site in Muscogee County, Georgia. The final report on the site only devoted a few paragraphs to the discussion of these pots. The first discussion stated:“Bottles from the Bull Creek site consist entirely of mortuary vessels. Water bottles similar to the category shown by Scarry...should be expected at the site. Perhaps this omission is the result of sampling error or misidentification of vessel types.

This category includes three bottles commonly known as the Bull Creek cemetery dog pots. Figure 156 shows the three vessels and three examples of similar vessels from other sites in the region. The three vessels from Bull Creek and the one vessel from Neisler Mound are considered the only known examples of this one type of

negative painted dog effigy vessel (Schnell 1990:67). Selected measurements for the three vessels are shown in Table 9. The vessels will be examined further in the following section which deals with examination of Bull Creek pottery types.”1

The dog pots were next discussed in the pottery types section of the report:

“Negative Painted Wares relate to painted water bottles at Bull Creek. There are a few references to fragments of painted pottery found in the general midden of the cemetery area excavations (Lester 1937:54), but these sherds were not relocated in our examination of the collections. Schnell does identify on sherd from Kelly’s collection.

The dog pots from Bull Creek included two varieties of painting. The two vessels from Burials 3 and 7 exhibited red spiral designs on a buff background. The third exhibited a black pattern on a reddish background. A third vessel is most similar to a dog pot recovered from Neisler Mound (see Figure 156). All three designs on the Bull Creek dog pots are quite similar running scroll patterns superficially comparable to the rarely encountered Pinellas Incised vessel design category L (Figure 161-L).In 1979 the Bull Creek negative painted pottery was given the type name Nashville Negative Painted variety Columbus and was considered a local copy of similar vessels from the northwest (Williams 1979). More recently Scarry

gave the Bull Creek pots a new type status as Columbus Negative Painted variety Columbus (Scarry 1985:213).

Scarry defined Columbus Negative Painted to include all sand-tempered vessels with indirect (negative) painting in the Fort Walton area, as a distinct type from the shell-tempered Nashville Negative Painted wares. Scarry noted that the ware has thus far been found only in Rood and Bull Creek phase contexts. Variety Caly was recommended for the negative painted vessels from Cemochechobee, which differ in vessel for and painted design.

Schnell has noted on several occasions that only four examples of the Bull Creek varieties of negative painted dog pots are known to exist (Schnell 1990:69). This conclusion has been reaffirmed through communications of both Schnell and the senior author with individuals knowledgeable of the antiquities market in the region. The recovery of three-fourths of theknown examples of this vessel form from a single site, Bull Creek, does represent a unique occurrence.”2

Description of Burials with Dog Pots

The dog pots were found in three separate burials at the Bull Creek site: burials 3, 7 & 16. Descriptions of the three burials from the report are as follows:

Burial # 3“May 27-June 2. At a depth of approximately 5’, an effigy pot was found in the shape of a dog- painted ware. The pot is unbroken and is an exceptional piece of ware. The “dog” is complete, with eyes, nose, ears, four feet and short stubby tail. The pot is part of the furniture with a burial, found just below the pot. The body is face downward, and have only found one arm.

June 2-8. Continued excavation on burial # 3, working down to remainder of skeleton. Sherds occur in allof fill element down to burial and some small pieces right in place with skeleton. Body is laying on the left side, head pointing South- contracted type of flexed burial- knees drawn up almost under the chin, with the pot resting between knees and chin. The hands are between the lower leg bones, right hand about 3 1/2” below the knee-cap and the left hand about 10” above the head.”3

Burial # 7“June 30th to July 3rd. Burial #7 has with it another of the dog effigy painted pots. This pot however, is rather badly broken, the neck being found down on the pot itself, and the head and three of the feet broken off- all parts are in place though, and the vessel can be restored to its original shape. From all

appearances the pot is an exact duplicate of the one found with burial #3. There is also a small greenstone discoidal stone as burial furniture; the stone is perfectly smooth and round, about 1 1/2” in diameter and about 5/8” thick, in the middle. Removed the pot after taking photos because of danger of theft. Greenstone celt with Burial #5 having been stolen. Location and description of burial later (after further troweling).

Burial #7 is of contracted, flexed type bones, in very poor state of preservation; body laying on left side, oriented N-S, with head to south. Skull has been crushed and remaining bones consist of sections of tibiae, femora and uppoer arm bones. Appears that hands went between the legs as in other burials but all trace of bones gone.”4

“Burial #7 is in a very poor state of preservation, nothing remaining except small section of fibula of right arm, sections of both femur and fragments of tibia. From appearances it seems that body was laying on left side,oriented SE-NW, head to S.E. and in all probability the hands went between the legs; only small section of ? and radius of right arm found. 78” below surface 47” in tan sand.

July 27 to 30. July 27 Moved skeleton from M&M Bank. July 28 to 30 Troweled out burials exposed and began cleaning excavations. Found a dog-effigy type 7” S. sta. 4-15L5, 32” E. 70” below surface, 36” deep in tansand. Pot is slightly different fromother two in that neck design is slightly different, neck being higher and smaller. Body of pot painted red with black design. Vessel in perfect state of preservation except that end of dog’s tail broken off and oneleg loose, but in place. The legs are slightly longer and place at a slightly different angle.”5

Burial # 16“Burial #16 consists of a few fragments of tibia and femora, bones are scattered over a large area and is really the remains of two bodies; general orientation is south southwest and north northeast. Burial furniture consists of the 3rd effigy dog vessel. 36” below occupation level.”6

Breed Analysis of the Dog Effigy Pots

No attempt was made by the archaeologists to analyze the breed of dog represented by the dog pots. The first such attempt was made in my paper “West Mexico Cultural Traditions at Mississippian Period Sites in Georgia” which stated that the breed of dog that most closely fits that represented by the Bull Creek dog pots is the Chihuahua.7 In this paper I again propose that the breed of dog most consistent with the features of these dog pots is the Mexican Chihuahua.

According to the American Kennel Club breed standard for the Chihuahua, the dogs should have:

“A well rounded "apple dome" skull, with or without molera. Expression – Saucy. Eyes - Full, round, but not protruding, balanced, set well apart... Ears – Large, erect type ears, held more upright when alert, but flaring to the sides at a 45 degree angle when in repose, giving breadth between the ears. Stop – Well defined. When viewed in profile, it forms a near 90 degree angle where muzzle joins skull. Muzzle – Moderately short, slightly pointed. Cheeks and jaws lean...Tail – Moderately long, carried sickle either up or out, or in a loop over the back with tip just touching the back.”8

The Bull Creek dog effigy pot’s upturned snout, bulbous “apple dome” forehead, erect ears and erect, curved tail are all consistent with the Chihuahua breed.

Dog Effigy Pot from Bull Creek Site (Courtesy Columbus Museum)

Modern-day Chihuahua for comparison (Courtesy Wikipedia)

Origins of Dog Effigy Pots & Chihuahuas

According to Jessica Zimmer in her master’s thesis Native Americans’ Treatment of Dogs in Prehistoric and Historic Florida dog effigy pots have only been found in the Midwest and Southeast and no dog effigy pots like those found at Bull Creek have been found in Florida. She concludes:

“Florida groups may not have had dog effigy vessels because they did not have the same religious and spiritual beliefs as groups in the Midwest and Southeast. Florida groups do not appear to have viewed dogs as guardians for the dead or guides to the underworld. They may have refused to accept or make dog vessels because they did not want to assign dogs the role of caretakers for the dead….The lack of dog effigy vessels shows that Florida groups actively resisted an artistic and mortuary tradition that was popular

with groups surrounding them for almost 1000 years. Future research may provide more definitive reasons why Florida groups did not make or use dog effigy vessels.”9

This provides strong proof that these pots did not originate in Florida and then travel north up the Chattahoochee River to Bull Creek. The presence of dog effigy pots north and west of Bull Creek suggests they originated in those locations.

Additionally, Chihuahuas are not a native dog of Georgia. All modern Chihuahuas are said to be descended from ancestors first discovered running around the ruins of Casas Grandes, (also known as Paquime) in Chihuahua, Mexico thus the origin of their name. Casas Grandes is 1600 miles west of Columbus, Georgia and also featured pots with dog effigy adornos. These pots appear to represent the Deer Head variety of Chihuahua, the largest of the Chihuahua breed having a head-shape like that of a deer, hence the name.

Casas Grandes Dog Pot (side view) Casas Grandes Dog Pot featuring Deer Chihuahua

Deer Head Chihuahua

Interestingly, Casas Grande was violently attacked and destroyed and its residents massacred around 1340 AD.10 The Bull Creek dog effigy pots date to around 1325 AD and later. Casas Grandes was known for its long range trade networks. Did some of its traders or leaders escape the massacre and disappear into the southeastern U.S.?

Casas Grandes is believed to have been either influenced or created by people from west Mexico. Interestingly, similar dog pots were found in the state of Colima in west Mexico which represented the Techichi breed from which most researchers believe the Chihuahua was derived. Both the Colima dog pots and Georgia dog pots were mentioned in Susan C. Power’s book Early Art of the Southeastern Indians: Feathered Serpents & Winged Beings. In this book she noted:

“Dog effigy water bottles have been found at the Lamar sites of Bull Creek near Columbus, at the Nacoochee Mound and Cemochechobee, and at the Neisler site on the Flint River, all in Georgia. The ‘dog pots’ are similar to sculptural ceramic vessels from Tlatilco, Mexico (1200 B.C.), and the Chorrera Culture from Ecuador (500 B.C.); to the Mexican Colima dogs (beginning 300 B.C.); as well as to other vessels from Teotihuacan and the Veracruz region of the Toltec, both in Mexico (Schwartz 1997, 130-32). According to Marion Schwartz, ‘There are striking similarities in the pose and expressiveness of the dogs across time and space and between cultures,’ suggesting the trade of dogs may have been the reason; for example, small dogs found in Florida burials may have been imported from the Caribbean (80, 132).”11

The Colima dog effigy pots were buried as grave goods as part of the west Mexico shaft tomb tradition. These pots are thought to represent the Techichi breed. The Techichi, now extinct, was a small, mute dog that was fattened up to eat12. The pots show the “fattened up” version of these dogs. As just noted, the Techichi is the breed from which the Chihuahua is derived although they were larger than modern Chihuahuas with different cranial features such as a longer snout and lacked the “apple dome” skull.

Colima Dog Pot Colima Dog Pot with spout

Origins and History of Chihuahuas in Mexico

The earliest evidence for the presence of Chihuahuas in Mexico comes from wheeled “toys” found throughout Mesoamerica that appear to depict both Deer Head and Apple Head Chihuahuas. The earliest example dates to 100-200 A.D. and clearly represents the Apple Head Chihuahua and was found at the Tres Zapotes site in Veracruz, Mexico. The dog is shown wearing an elaborate headdress.13

Wheeled toy representing “apple head” Chihuahua from Tres Zapotes, Veracruz dated ca. 100-200 AD.

Another “toy” representation of a Chihuahua was also found in Veracruz this time dating to between 600-800 AD. This version was created in the Remojadas style. This figure is referred to as a deer or dog effigy but is most likely a representation of a Chihuahua. (The presence of what appears to be canine teeth in the available photos further supports the dog interpretation since most deer do not have canines.) It is currently in the collection of the American Museum of Natural History.14

Wheeled toy representing Chihuahua (Courtesy Wikipedia)

Another view of the wheeled Chihuahua

More such wheeled dog toys were unearthed in Coumatlan, Michoacan on the southeast shore of Lake Chapala.15 The toys were found in fragments with several

Fragments of wheeled toys representing dogs. Figure E’s upturned snout is consistent with the Chihuahua breed.

dog heads among the remains. The upturned snout of one of dog heads is suggestive of the Chihuahua breed as seen in earlier examples. No date was given for the time period in which it was manufactured.

Other examples can be found in El Salvador and Panama showing the widespread distribution of these wheeled dog effigies. According to Ekhom’s “Wheeled Toys from Mexico” : “The available examples of wheeled toys indicate a fairly extensive distribution of the trait both in space and in time.”16 Whether the Chihuahua was as widely distributed as the toys is unknown but it’s ancestor, the Techichi, certainly shared a wide distribution area. According to the Southern California Academy of Sciences:

“Techichi remains have been identified from sites in the southwestern United States, the Yucatan area of Mexico, and northwestern South America (Allen 1920). This variety of dog was encountered by early explorers and others who reported seeing small dogs of fox-like appearance. They were light-limbed, of rather slender proportions, with narrow delicate heads, fine muzzles, erect ears, and well developed tails, which may have been close-haired. Colors were reported as black, black and white, and brownish. The widespread temporal and geographic range of the Techichi testifies to its popularity as a companion or food item of pre-Columbian Indians.” 17

Thus it is likely the Chihuahua was equally well represented across Central and South America.

Chihuahuas Associations with Death

All of the dog effigy pots in Georgia have been found as burial objects which suggests these dogs held special importance in death rituals. The same appears to be true with the Techichi since the dog effigy pots in west Mexico were all grave goods in the west Mexico shaft tomb tradition. The Lange Foundation notes:“there are remains at some pyramids and other pointers to the early existence of the Techichi at Chichen Itza in Yucatan. The Techichi was a religious necessity among the ancient Toltec tribes and later among the Aztecs. Archaeologists have found the remains of this breed in human graves in Mexico and in parts of the United States.”18

The burial of dogs or dog effigies with humans appears to be a widespread phenomenon. One such burial was found at La Brea in California. According to the Southern California Academy of Sciences:

“The presence of this aboriginal dog near the remains of La Brea Woman is considered significant. Driver (1969) lists domestic dogs among animals sacrificed by most New World Indians at the death of their owners to propitiate the supernatural. Domestic dog burials of pre-Columbian age are relatively rare in the United States, and most are reported in the southwest (Allen 1920; Lawrence 1944; Olsen 1968, 1972). Allen (1920) reports the Greenland Eskimo custom of placing the head of a dog in a

human burial to guide the deceased to the Land of Souls because "a dog can find its way everywhere," and a similar custom among the Yucatan Mayas, the dog to carry its master's soul across the "Chicunauhapan" or nine-fold flowing stream. Burial of dogs with humans, probably for similar supernatural reasons, is documented in California (Bean and Smith 1978; Elsasser 1978b; Lapena 1978). Bean and Smith (1978) report the island Gabrielino custom of burying a dog over the body, and there is some indication this was also an island Chumash practice (Phil C. Orr, pers. comm. 1971).”19

Accounts of Chihuahuas in Georgia

In addition to the dog effigy pots from the Bull Creek and Neisler sites, historical eye-witness accounts of Chihuahuas or Techichis in Georgia exist in the journal entries of Spaniards that were part of the Hernando de Soto expedition. This expedition travelled through Georgia in the 1530s. In several entries the Spanish mentioned that Georgia tribes raised “little dogs” to eat which they kept very fat for that purpose. The Spaniards noted the dogs were quite tasty. Like the Techichi, the Spanish also noted that this dog could not bark.20 Later historians thought the Spanish accounts could have referred to opossums instead of dogs.21 Yet the eye-witness descriptions of these “little dogs” along with the dog effigy pots from Bull Creek seem to confirm they were Chihuahuas.

Tribal Identity of Bull Creek Site & Kasihta Migration LegendThe Bull Creek site is located

along the Chattahoochee River in southwest Georgia in an area once inhabited by the Cusseetas or Kasihta band of Lower Creek Indians. A town by the name of Cusseta still exists nearby in honor of this tribe. The Kasihta were considered one of the four “mother towns” of the Creek Nation. As argued in my paper “West Mexico Cultural Traditions at Mississippian Period Sites in Georgia” the Kasihta migration legend supports an origin in west Mexico, likely Colima.22 Coincidentally, on the 1755 John Mitchell map of Georgia a tribe called the Culloomas are indicated to have lived in the area of the Bull Creek site along the Chattahoochee River just north of the Cusseetas.

More Evidence for a West Mexico Origin?

As previously noted, similar dog effigy pots have been noted as part of the elaborate shaft tomb tradition of West Mexico including the area of Colima. This same tradition was also found in the nearby state of Jalisco:

“The cemeteries are located also on the margins of the basin but at an elevation higher than that of the habitation sites. The cemeteries generally contain one of several artificial mounds with shaft-tombs and pit burials located under and around them. The shaft-tombs are usually spaced apart in rows….The artifacts from San Marcos fall into two groups with respect to both site location and style. The first group is composed of one clay vessel, one hollow anthropomorphic figure and one hollow two-headed dog. These artifacts were found in a site located on the outskirts of the pueblo of San Marcos, about 300 meters north of the road that goes from San Marcos to La Puerta del Coche, Jalisco. Here in a pasture next to the ruins of an old adobe house is a low mound that contained four separate burials. Human bones were encountered at a depth of about a meter in four tombs that extended in a row across the western side of the mound. One of the earth tombs contained the funerary objects mentioned above, and another, without tomb furniture, was covered with stone slabs.”23

The description of the cemetery in Jalisco is quite similar to the Nacoochee site in north Georgia at the headwaters of the Chattahoochee River. The Nacoochee site also featured a dog effigy pot in a burial located in a grave covered with stone slabs similar to the Jalisco site. Also like the Jalisco site, the Nachoochee site features an artificial mound.

The shaft tombs often included “bodies [that] show evidence of skull deformation.”24 A skull featuring cranial deformation was also found in burial #14 at the Bull Creek site. The report notes: “Skull has peculiar indentation on back of occipital, unnatural deformation...Skull is also enlarged on right side, being slightly misshapen.”25 (Referred to as “Old Man” on burial chart on page A-28 of the report.)

This type of cranial deformation usually resulted from being strapped to a cradle board in infancy. This practice was used among the elites to show their high status. Interestingly, the Caddo in Louisiana practiced this type of cranial deformation in addition to constructing shaft tombs.26 Thus they may represent a point west of Georgia where these west Mexico cultural traditions took hold before filtering into Georgia as I argue in my paper “West Mexico Cultural Traditions at Mississippian Period Sites in Georgia.”

Other Details from Dog Effigy Sites in Georgia That Support a Mexican Origin

The pot includes a swirling design painted on its surface that suggests it was associated with the Creek Indian Wind Clan. Creek tradition holds that the Wind Clan was the most ancient clan among the tribe and the “aristocracy of all the clans.”27 This symbol was also associated with Ehecatl-Quetzalcoatl, the god of wind, in Mexico. This spiral symbol can be seen on many pots from Casas Grandes:

Spiral design on Bull Creek dog effigy pot Casas Grandes pot with similar spiral design.

A pipe unearthed from the Bull Creek site also has features found on artifacts in Mexico. It features the portrait of an apparently important person wearing a distinctive headdress. The headdress includes a band around its bottom featuring circled dots or circumpunct designs identical to those seen on the headdress of the Mexican deity Tlaloc.

Pipe from Bull Creek site with distinctive headdress featuring circled-dots or circumpuncts and possible rattlesnake rattles centered on front and back

Tlaloc statue from Mexico with same distinctive headdress featuring circumpuncts (Courtesy Wikipedia.)

Artifacts from the Nacoochee site also are suggestive of a west Mexico origin. For example, parts of earthenware pipe rims shown ornamentation in the form of birds that appear to include representations of the scarlet macaw. Similar representations can be found on pots from Casas Grandes.

Earthenware pipe rim ornaments from Nacoochee site featuring macaws or Carolina parakeet

Casas Grandes pot with scarlet macaw head adornos.

In the book Archaeological Survey in the Lower Mississippi Alluvial Valley, 1940-1947 the authors make note in the section “Distribution of some Mississippi Vessel Shapes and Features” how many of the vessel types and designs have their closest equivalent in Casas Grandes28 thus this is more evidence to support their argument.

Conclusions

The dog pots excavated from the Bull Creek and Neisler sites in southwest Georgia likely represent the Chihuahua breed, a native dog of Mexico, probably derived from the Techichi breed. The dog pots in Georgia are similar to those from Colima in west Mexico and both were used as grave goods in their respective locations. The Kasihta tribe are the likely producers of these Georgia dog pots and their migration legends strongly suggest an origin in west Mexico, likely Colima, which is supported by evidence from old maps of Georgia which indicated that a tribe named Colooma lived near the Bull Creek site in 1755.

There is also an unexpected outcome of this research: the resolution of the origins of the Chihuahua. There has been considerable conjecture about how the Chihuahua breed was derived from the Techichi. Many theories argue that the Chihuahua is a modern breed created after the arrival of Europeans which resulted from a cross between a Techichi with dogs from China or Europe to achieve the modern toy-size Chihuahua. Yet the appearance of these Chihuahua effigies in Mexico by 100 AD and the dog effigy

pots in Georgia by 1325 AD seems to refute those claims and suggests the Chihuahua has purely New World origins.

References Cited

1 Ledbetter, Richard J. The Bull Creek Site, 9ME1, Muscogee County, Georgia. Georgia Department of Transportation. 1997: pp. 189-190. Accessed online 4 February 2012 at <http://dlgmaint.galib.uga.edu/cgi-bin/govdimag.cgi?page=196&path=1997/ga/t700_pe5/m1/1997/b8.con>.

2 Ledbetter, Richard J. The Bull Creek Site, 9ME1, Muscogee County, Georgia. Georgia Department of Transportation. 1997: pp. 189-190. Accessed online 4 February 2012 at <http://dlgmaint.galib.uga.edu/cgi-bin/govdimag.cgi?page=207&path=1997/ga/t700_pe5/m1/1997/b8.con>.

3 Ledbetter, Richard J. The Bull Creek Site, 9ME1, Muscogee County, Georgia. Georgia Department of Transportation. 1997: p. A-6. Accessed online 4 February 2012 at <http://dlgmaint.galib.uga.edu/cgi-bin/govdimag.cgi?page=241&path=1997/ga/t700_pe5/m1/1997/b8.con>.

4 Ledbetter, Richard J. The Bull Creek Site, 9ME1, Muscogee County, Georgia. Georgia Department of Transportation. 1997: p. A-8. Accessed online 4 February 2012 at <http://dlgmaint.galib.uga.edu/cgi-bin/govdimag.cgi?page=243&path=1997/ga/t700_pe5/m1/1997/b8.con>.

5 Ledbetter, Richard J. The Bull Creek Site, 9ME1, Muscogee County, Georgia. Georgia Department of Transportation. 1997: p. A-10. Accessed online 4 February 2012 at <http://dlgmaint.galib.uga.edu/cgi-bin/govdimag.cgi?page=245&path=1997/ga/t700_pe5/m1/1997/b8.con>.

6 Ledbetter, Richard J. The Bull Creek Site, 9ME1, Muscogee County, Georgia. Georgia Department of Transportation. 1997: p. A-13. Accessed online 4 February 2012 at <http://dlgmaint.galib.uga.edu/cgi-bin/govdimag.cgi?page=248&path=1997/ga/t700_pe5/m1/1997/b8.con>.

7 Daniels, Gary C. “Possible West Mexico Cultural Traditions at Mississippian Period Sites in Georgia.” LostWorlds.org. Accessed online at <http://lostworlds.org/muskogee-creek-indians-west-mexico/>.

8 “AKC Meet the Breeds: Chihuahua.” American Kennel Club. Accessed online 4 February 2012 at <http://www.akc.org/breeds/chihuahua/>.

9 Zimmer, Jessica. Native Americansʼ Treatment of Dogs in Prehistoric and Historic Florida. Unpublished Masterʼs Thesis, Florida State University. 2007: p.68. Accessed online 7 February 2012 at <http://etd.lib.fsu.edu/theses/available/etd-04052007-202554/unrestricted/editedfullthesismarch.pdf>.

10 Phillips, David A. “The End of Casas Grandes.” The Legacy of Charles C. Di Peso Symposium. Society for American Archaeology. Accessed online 8 February 2012 at <http://www.unm.edu/~dap/End-of-Casas-Grandes.pdf>.

11 Power, Susan C. Early art of the southeastern indians: feathered serpents & winged beings. University of Georgia Press. 2004: pp.179-80. Accessed online 7 February 2012 at <http://books.google.com/books?id=JcEp9_6TPtMC&lpg=PA179&ots=Lm9Wye5BLi&dq=nacoochee%20mound%20dog%20pot&pg=PA179#v=onepage&q=nacoochee%20mound%20dog%20pot&f=false>.

12 “Techichi.” Encyclopaedia Britannica. 2010. Encyclopaedia Britannica Online. 21 Sep 2010 < http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/585352/Techichi>

13 Ekholm, Gordon F. “Wheeled Toys in Mexico.” American Antiquity. 1946, 11(4):222-228.. Accessed online 11 February 2012 at <http://www.precolumbianwheels.com/WHEELED%20TOYS%20IN%20MEXICO.pdf>.

14 Accessed online 11 February 2012 at <http://anthro.amnh.org/anthropology/databases/common/image_dup.cfm?database=MIXDATA&catno=30.2/%209734&site=P>.

15 Lister, Robert H. “Additional Evidence of Wheeled Toys in Mexico.” American Antiquity. 12(3):184-185. Accessed online 11 February 2012 at <http://www.precolumbianwheels.com/Additional%20Evidence%20of%20Wheeled%20Toys%20in%20Mexico.pdf>.

16 Ekholm, Gordon F. “Wheeled Toys in Mexico.” American Antiquity. 1946, 11(4):222-228.. Accessed online 11 February 2012 at <http://www.precolumbianwheels.com/WHEELED%20TOYS%20IN%20MEXICO.pdf>.

17 Reynolds, Richard. “Domestic Dog Associated with Human Remains at Rancho La Brea.” Bull. Southern California Acad. Sci. 84(2), 1985, pp. 76-85. Accessed online 4 February 2012 at <http://cluster.biodiversitylibrary.org/b/bulletin8402sout/bulletin8402sout.pdf>.

18 Lange, Gillian. “Chihuahuas: The truth about this misunderstood breed.” Lange Foundation. Accessed online 4 February 2012 at <http://www.langefoundation.com/index/Chihuahuas.html>.

19 Reynolds, Richard. “Domestic Dog Associated with Human Remains at Rancho La Brea.” Bull. Southern California Acad. Sci. 84(2), 1985, pp. 76-85. Accessed online 4 February 2012 at <http://cluster.biodiversitylibrary.org/b/bulletin8402sout/bulletin8402sout.pdf>.

20 Knight, Vernon T. The De Soto Chronicles, Vol. 1. University of Alabama Press.

21 Hudson, Charles. Knights of Spain, Warriors of the Sun. University of Georgia Press, 1997.

22 Daniels, Gary C. “Possible West Mexico Cultural Traditions at Mississippian Period Sites in Georgia.” LostWorlds.org. Accessed online at <http://lostworlds.org/muskogee-creek-indians-west-mexico/>.

23 Long, Stanley V. “Funerary Objects from San Marcos, Jalisco, Mexico.” Journal de la Société des Américanistes. Vol. 56, No. 2, 1967: pp.522-523. Accessed online 10 February 2012 at <http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/jsa_0037-9174_1967_num_56_2_2307>.

24 Maestri, Nicoletta.”El Openo, Michoacan (Mexico).” Archaeology.About.com. Accessed online 10 February 2012 at <http://archaeology.about.com/od/eterms/a/El_Openo.htm>.

25 Ledbetter, Richard J. The Bull Creek Site, 9ME1, Muscogee County, Georgia. Georgia Department of Transportation. 1997: p. A-9. Accessed online 4 February 2012 at <http://dlgmaint.galib.uga.edu/cgi-bin/govdimag.cgi?page=244&path=1997/ga/t700_pe5/m1/1997/b8.con>

26 “Caddo Indians.” CaddoHistory.com. Accessed online 10 February 2012 at <http://www.caddohistory.com/caddo_indians.html>.

27 “Creek Indian Legends: How the clans came to be.” IndianLegend.com. Accessed 17 January 2011 at <http://www.indianlegend.com/creek/creek_001.htm”>

28 Phillips, Ford, Griffin, & Williams. “Distribution of some Mississippi vessel shapes and features.” Archaeological survey in the Lower Mississippi Alluvial Valley, 1940-1947. Accessed online 11 February 2012 at <http://books.google.com/books?id=_ReOns1MYPcC&lpg=PA170&ots=sJrkZRSWWz&dq=huasteca%20connection%20to%20casas%20grandes&pg=PA157#v=onepage&q=huasteca%20connection%20to%20casas%20grandes&f=false>.