Do the effigy mound builders of wisconsin/midwest follow the definition made by Geertz? The effigy mounds could certainly be called symbols, it is quite clear they represent the spirits and animals from the upper, middle and lower worlds (not unlike the paleolithic cave art). While it is hard for archeologists to discover facts about what early native americans believed, there are some things known that make the effigy mound builders seem to go along with Geertz's definition.

We do know that the mounds were honorific towards the earth, water and air animals/spirits. The water spirits were known to be vengeful upon the native american's canoes so they would build mounds to honor them. But more than that, the mounds were meant to show the harmony between the different forms of nature and humans.

By believing these mounds could improve their lives or at least show what they believe in, the native americans were following Geertz's definition. What's interesting is that I don't think this belief system could fit in all definitions of religion which commonly use a 'higher power' as the main definition of belief. Native American's seemed to believe in the harmony of nature, and less in the power of an unknown deity. I suppose water spirits could be described as a higher power, but I think that these spirits were more of a explanation of why boats sink- similar to the concept of myths we discussed in class today.