As Long As the River Flows: Burial Mounds and Four Mile Creek

This topic submitted by Grace Schneider, Erica Govich, and Maureen Kiley ( spunkfullyyours@hotmail.com ) on 4/29/03. [ Rivers Team: Grace Schneider, Erica Govich, and Maureen Kiley-Section: Garrison/Green]

As Long As The River Flows:
Burial Mounds and Four Mile Creek

By: Grace Schneider, Erica Govich, and Maureen Kiley
Introduction

We decided to do our semester long research project on the interdisciplinary aspects of the Adena and Hopewell burial mounds and their relation to the bodies of water that are prominent in our Southwestern Ohio region. We felt that this was a worthy topic to explore because of the interest that all three of us have in the archaic Adena and Hopewell cultures and the burial mounds that they have left behind, as well as, the availability of the numerous mounds that lie in the Southwestern Ohio area. We studied the cultural significance that these mounds have with the Adena and Hopewell cultures that created them hundreds of years ago, the different uses of the mounds, and the objects that were buried within the mounds themselves, as well as, the cultural connections that the Adena and Hopewell had with the water that flowed around their settlements. We have also focused on the social factors that are present in the reasoning behind the Adena and Hopewell cultureÕs decisions to put the mounds near bodies of water, for reasons of defense, socialization, or travel. We researched different aspects of legislation that protect, or do not protect, these present-day mounds from destruction or human interaction. Lastly, we looked at the mounds from a scientific perspective by researching the process of excavation on a burial mound, along with the different materials that were used to create each layer of the mound. We also carried out measurements of the dimensions of the Hueston Woods Burial Mound, and determined the distance between the mound and Four Mile Creek.
We have hypothesized that the mounds do hold a coherent relationship to the bodies of water that are located near them. We have supported this hypothesis through various methods of cultural, social and scientific research which demonstrates the ways in which the Adena and Hopewell cultures relied on these sources of water in their mound building societies.

Relevance of Research
We began our study by researching the ancient Adena and Hopewell cultures and we found a great wealth of knowledge concerning both of the civilizations. ÒNo remins of prehistoric man in the eastern United States have excited the imagination and interest of laymen and scientists alike more than the great burial mounds and earthworks now known to belong to the Adena and the Hopewell cultures in the Ohio ValleyÓ (Dragoo 3). Thus, there has been much archeological and documentary research done on these two cultures, and the remnants and artifacts that they have left behind.
ÒOf the early Mound Builders it was the Adena people who dominated the Ohio Valley from about 1000 BCEÓ (Dragoo 3). It was in this time that the Adena developed the first extensive burial cult, built the first substantial homes, made some of the earliest ceramics, and practiced agriculture. They lived in a rich and productive environment until around 200 BCE when they came in contact with the Hopewell people. The two cultures merged peacefully together, to equally strengthen their cultures against warring tribes in the area, and to increase their population. The result of this merger is known as the Hopewell culture, and this merged culture Òreceived so much attention by early archeologists that the presence and separate identity of the Adena was masked for many years. The eventual discovery and study of the Adena came as an outgrowth of the investigations of the HopewellÓ (Dragoo 3).
There were different uses and types of mounds that the Adena and Hopewell civilizations created, including defensive enclosures, spiritual mounds, sacrificial mounds, dwelling platforms, sporting events and burial mounds. Each of these mounds had a different meaning or use to the culture that created it, although often the same mound could be utilized for a number of uses. The defensive enclosures were usually strongholds that were a way of preventing attacks from the local offensive tribes in the area. The spiritual mounds usually contained an altar within them and often surrounded the houses of the priests. They were a sacred area to the Adena and Hopewell cultures, and a place where great ritual and magic happened. The sacrificial mounds rose high up from the ground, and were where the priests would make their sacrifices to the gods. There was often a great fire pit at the top of the mound, and individuals from the village would gather around the mound at the time of the sacrifice and watch the priest, high above, do the bidding of the gods. The dwelling platforms were usually supported an officialÕs or a high priestÕs house to keep it elevated in the time of a flood from a nearby river. The sporting event mounds were often composed of a number of platforms in which the athletes could compete in ancient games and be watched from the people of the surrounding village. The final mound that we researched was the burial mound. This is the type of mound that is located in Hueston Woods.
ÒBurial mounds are the most prominent and excavated mounds in the Ohio Valley. They are sacred and hallowed and only reserved for the most important members of the Adena and Hopewell communitiesÓ (MacLean 39). The objects that were found in these burial mounds have varied from region to region, and were mostly objects that the individual who was buried within the mound would come across in his/her daily life. Many of these objects included Òpieces of clothing, agricultural tools, pottery, animal bones, jewelry, weapons, smoking pipes, sculptures and arrowheadsÓ amongst other things (MacLean 61).
The main concept in our hypothesis deals with the fact that we believe that burial mounds were located near waterways for a variety of cultural, scientific, and social reasons. We know that the mounds Òprincipally occur near large streamsÓ because of the immense collection of maps that we have studied which show the burial mounds always located near bodies of water (MacLean 41). Culturally, these reasons could include religious or mythological beliefs. An example of this would be that fact that many of the mounds that we have come across happen to be located on the east side of a river, the side that the sun rises on. We hypothesize that the mounds may have been built on the east side of the river for religious and mythological connections that the culture had with the rising sun, however, we have been unable to find resources to prove or disprove this idea since the Adena and Hopewell left no written history. Furthermore, the location of mounds near waterways is linked to the fact that the gods of water in the Adena and Hopewell pantheons were very powerful, and usually had control over thunder, lightening, and rain, which was essential to an agricultural community. Socially, the Adena and Hopewell cultures would prefer to create their mounds and civilizations near waterways because they used these waterways as highway systems to maneuver throughout the region for many reasons including trading purposes, fishing or hunting reasons, to create peace between other tribes, or to observe the actions of their adversaries. The river systems could be used in protecting their village from attacks by using the water as a barrier from the boats of other tribes when the Adena and Hopewell sent out their own boats to block the opponentÕs entry. Furthermore, the water systems could also be used as a form of attack, as scouting out the territory along the riverbank was quicker and quieter than land movement, and after the discovery of enemy location it was easy to move into a land attack from a nearby location.
For centuries Anthropologists have debated whether the Adena and Hopewell clans can be labeled as ÒNative Americans.Ó They are Native Americans in the sense that they are native to America, but many scholars believe that the race is too prehistoric to claim that label. ÒBecause the Indian with whom the white people first came into contact with in the Ohio Valley knew nothing of the origin of the burial mounds, it was believed that the Indians could not have built these structuresÓ (Dragoo 3). However, there are also other scientists who believe that the people we now know as Native Americans descended from the Adena and Hopewell cultures, Òimproved methods of excavation and dating and the evidence of physical anthropology have demonstrated the Indian ancestry of the Mound BuildersÓ (Dragoo 5). Because no primary written sources remain in the Adena or HopewellÕs own language, we do not have first hand evidence whether or not they were indeed native to America, or whether they became the people that we label ÒNative AmericansÓ to present-day. However, it is known that the sacred burial mounds which are located throughout the United States can be attributed to the Adena and Hopewell cultures; the Mound Builders.
The Adena and Hopewell cultures built burial mounds to cherish their ancestors who had departed into the spirit realm. Usually only the most respected and important community members were allowed to be buried in these mounds. This can be attributed to the fact that the immense physical labor and assertion which it took to create one of these mounds, made it impossible to bury everyone in this grand and ornate style. The mounds were a way in which these civilizations could pay a long lasting tribute to their deceased ancestors that would be around thousands of years after their own cultures had vanished. They were a way of achieving immortality in a sense, and preserving their artwork, physical bodies and everyday ways of life and they were placed back into the earth, to become one with the earth goddess who originally bore them.
The different types of mounds found throughout North America take many different shapes and uses. Three of the most prominent shapes which we studied were the effigy mound, platform mound, and the conical mound. An effigy mound is Òan earthwork in the general shape of an animal (e.g. a snake, bird, etc.)Ó (Alibris 2003). The example of an effigy mound we studied was the Serpent Mound, the Òlargest serpent effigy in the world,Ó which is located here in Ohio along the Òeast bluff of Brush CreekÓ in Adams County (Greenman 1). The creation of effigy mounds often demonstrates the importance of an animal in their spiritual and cultural beliefs (Greenman 2). The Serpent Mound is linked to our research as it is located very close to Brush Creek and because it has been attributed to the works of the Adena culture (similarly the Heuston Woods Mound has been attributed to the Adena and Hopewell cultures without distinction as no excavation has been performed) and thus demonstrates the link of mounds created by this culture to spiritual ceremonies and symbolism (Greenman 1).

Sketch of Serpent Mound and its proximity to Brush Creek (Silverberg 251)

A platform mound is shaped similarly to a step pyramid with different levels of flattened-platform areas. The example of a platform mound which we studied was the Cahokia mound. The top platform was used for ceremonial practices, such as sacrifices, while the lower terraces were believed to have held dwellings of upper ranking officials and priests (Shertrone 345). Although the Cahokia Mound is located in Illinois rather than Ohio and is attributed to the Cahokia culture rather than the Adena or Hopewell people, it relates to our research as the mound is located just on the bank of the Mississippi River. Furthermore, the study of the Cahokia Mound helped us to understand the different uses of the platform mound and how they were related to location near a waterway.

Photograph of Cahokia Mound located on the east bank of the Mississippi River (Shetrone)

The third and most relevant mound shape which we studied was that of a conical mound. The conical mound resembles a hill or dome in shape and is the shape of the Heuston Woods Mound which we measured. The example of a conical mound which we studied, other than the Heuston Woods Mound, was Fort Ancient. Fort Ancient is located on the east bank of the Little Miami in Warren County, Ohio (Morgan 5). It was originally believed that the mounds that constitute Fort Ancient were arranged in a manner that the inhabitants utilized as a fort against enemy attacks, however, more recent analyzation has disproved this theory. The mounds were used for burial and sporting events though, and the groups that inhabited the area did live amongst the mounds (Morgan 7-9). The mounds are attributed to the Hopewell culture, but there is evidence that after the Hopewell people left the area another Indian tribe Òdistinct in its culture from the Hopewell peopleÓ lived among the mounds (Morgan 10). Fort Ancient thus relates to our research because it is situated along the banks of a river, it is of the same conical form as the Heuston Woods Mound, it was utilized as a burial mound (which it is believed Heuston Woods Mound is also), and because it was created by the Hopewell culture (similarly the Heuston Woods Mound has been attributed to both the Adena and Hopewell without clear distinction since no excavation has been performed).

Photograph of Fort Ancient (Morgan 4)

In recent years mounds such as Serpent Mound, the Cahokia Mound, and Fort Ancient have been the focus of legislative protection and preservation throughout the nation. Regulations concerning mounds and other native structures were first enacted in 1990; a very recent date considering the historical and cultural significance of the mounds throughout American history. It was until November 16, 1990 that these sacred mounds remained unprotected and vulnerable to agricultural destruction and unorthodox excavation procedures. The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 was one of the first forms of legislation to provide protection of Native American graves. This act encompasses the protection of burial mounds as Public Law 101-601 states that mounds are grave sites and thus equally receive protection from desecration (Park Net National Park Service 2003).
The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) details the rights of possession of remains stating that the excavated materials and objects found and taken from the grave sites are all legally under the custody of the native tribesÕ kinsmen and/or descendants. This includes all funerary, and sacred, or cultural objects exhumed from the mounds, including the objects which had been taken non-consensually and placed in museums and showcases (Park Net National Park Service 2003). NAGPRA is currently the only standing federal law that protects Native American grave sites in archaeological contexts. However, it does not permanently protect some sites, due to a stipulation in the law allowing for further excavation in places where Òpreservation is not possibleÓ (Indian Burial and Sacred Grounds Watch 2003). NAGPRA argues that preservation allows for so many loopholes that protection is no longer the issue. Therefore, individual cases are reviewed and the necessity of excavation is up to the discretion of the reviewer. Another section of the law allows for monetary compensation to be given to the aggrieved party or parties who might be in want of their ancestorÕs possessions or remains. However, this monetary compensation is really devaluing the worth or these native grave sites by implying that money will change the years that Native American rights to these remains have been overlooked. Furthermore, this legislation seems lacking as violation of provisions stated in NAGPRA only mandates a Class B Misdemeanor, the equivalent of public obscenity or petty theft, only warranting a fine not exceeding $2,000, or a jail confinement term not to exceed 180 days (World Wide Legal Information Association 1996). This minimal punishment for defacing historical landmarks dating back centuries and often created by cultures no longer in existence thus seems to further devalue the historical and cultural importance of these mounds in American history.
Not all states provide for the protection of mound sites and burial mounds, though, and often those which have not enacted specific laws concerning Native American grave sites simply utilize the state agricultural and historic preservation laws to cover mound protection. Ohio is one of the states that has created legislation protecting mounds and currently protects 106 mounds, including the Hueston Woods Mound, located within the state borders. The section on desecration found in the Ohio Revised Code prohibits any person from purposely defacing or damaging any Òhistorical or commemorative marker, structure, Indian mound or earthwork, cemetery, thing or site of great historical or archaeological interest.Ó (Indian Burial and Sacred Grounds Watch 2003) As the federal Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, the Ohio code stipulates desecration as a Class B Misdemeanor, again only the equivalent of public obscenity or petty theft, and warranting a fine not exceeding $2,000, or a jail confinement term not to exceed 180 days (World Wide Legal Information Association 1996). Thus, although Ohio is progressive in the number of mounds it recognizes and protects it still has not stipulated a less minimal penalty than the federal legislation concerning the desecration of these sacred monuments.
Our research is thus relevant to cultural, scientific, and social aspects of study. We have analyzed the cultural aspects of the Adena and Hopewell People who created these mounds, the scientific aspect of the physical shapes and functions of the mounds, as well as, the social uses of the mounds during ancient times and social protection of the mounds today. The detailed and factual style of our research would not lend our project to the production of a childrenÕs book or a performance, however, we do believe that our research could be utilized as a literary or archeological journal beyond this course.

Materials and Methods
Due to the sacred status of the mound and unavailability of testing materials, the only method of scientific measurement we were able to utilize was the measurement of the moundÕs dimensions. Two methods were used to measure the mound: ÔpacingÕ and laser measurement. Circumference of the mound was found by Ôpacing,Õ walking heel-to-toe, around the edge of the mound and counting steps, after which the shoe of the ÔpacerÕ was measured in inches and the shoe-length multiplied by the number of steps taken. This process was repeated three times after which the mean of the results was calculated by adding all three trial measurements and dividing by three. Next, the standard deviation of the three resulting dimensions was also figured using the equation:
SD = √ { sum f(xi Ð x)^2 / (n-1) },
where f = the number of data items (or alternatively, weighted value of the data items) in the group,
xi = the data value,
x = the arithmetic mean of the data items, and
n = the number of data items for all groups. In other words, n = sum(f) (Reid 1997).
The width of the mound was measured using a laser-measuring tool which targets a point and then gives the distance from the point of the device to the Ôtarget point.Õ Width was measured three times from each side of the mound (front, back, left, and right) to the center, and then the mean of each measurement (front to center, back to center, left to center, and right to center) was calculated as described above. The standard deviation was calculated for these measurements, again using the equation listed above. The means of the measurements were then added to get the diameters of the mound from the front to back and left to right (front to center was added to back to center, and right to center was added to left to center). The height of the mound was also measured using the laser-measuring tool at each of the four sides (front, back, left, and right), after which the mean height was calculated by adding the four mean measurements and dividing by four. Lastly, the standard deviation was calculated for these four height measurements, again utilizing the above listed equation. We believe our utilization of standard deviation proves that our measurements are Ôstatistically sound.Õ We believe that the repetition of measurements for each dimension, the calculation of the mean, and the calculation of the standard deviation prove that our experimental design was unbiased and statistically sound. We were unable to measure the distance from the mound to the creek because there is private property which prohibits trespassers between the mound and Four Mile Creek. However, we were able to compare aerial maps and printed maps and estimate the scaled distance separating the mound and the creek.
Our method of social and cultural research consisted of interviews with local historians and archivists, research of texts and maps at King Library, the Havinghurst Special Collections Library, MiamiÕs Government Information and Law Library Department, and Layne Library, as well as, online research of legislation and cultural practices. Through text and online resources we studied how mounds were built, what they were composed of, what they were used for, what they could signify, where they were located in the greatest numbers, the culture of the Adena and Hopewell people, and current local and federal legislation which protects mounds from desecration. We also utilized many different local maps which depicted the exact location of mounds throughout Butler County and studied examples of the most well-known mounds, such as Serpent Mound, Fort Ancient, and Cahokia Mound. The only method of research which we believe could have provided us with more cultural information would have been an actual excavation of the Hueston Woods Park Mound, however, this was not an option as we are not trained as archeologists.
An excavation is defined as Òdigging below the soil disturbed by plowing (ca 8 to 10 inches) by hand or with mechanical equipment with the purpose of recovering artifacts, human remains, or burial objectsÓ (KyOPA 2003). Throughout history many burial mounds throughout the country have been torn apart and looted by those trying to find artifacts to sell for monetary gain to Òmuseums, scientific institutions, and relic huntersÓ (Silverberg 161). Sometimes when artifacts were found in an area Òa regular mining fever at once broke out and spread so rapidly that in some instances as many as twenty-five or thirty men, women, and children could be seen digging for pottery in one field at the same timeÓ (Silverberg 161). Legislation guarding these sacred areas has since been passed, though, and now it is regulated so that excavations are only to be completed by or under the guidance of an archaeologist, an Òindividual who has a graduate degree in anthropology or archaeology and at least one (1) year of full-time professional experience in archaeological research; at least four (4) months of supervised field and analytic experience in general North American archaeology; and a demonstrated ability to carry research to completion,Ó so that artifacts will be handled and preserved appropriately when unearthed (KyOPA 2003). And despite the disorderly form excavations took throughout much of the 19th century, during the 20th century Òarchaeologists developed, precise, detailed methods of excavation and statistical sampling (mathematical ways of answering questions using relatively small amounts of data)Ó (Fagan 2003). Many excavations in the 19th century were rushed and disorderly as archeologists searched for Òspectacular art works and buried treasureÓ (Fagan 2002), however, some of the excavations of this century took on a much more scientific and ordered method, as demonstrated in the excavation of Mound City by Squier and Davis in 1847 (Silverberg 123). This excavation was very careful to damage the mounds no more than necessary, with most of the mounds excavated with the ÒSquier-Davis TechniqueÓ which consisted of Òdriving shafts through them [the mounds] from their summitsÓ in order to study the stratification of the mound (Silverberg 123 Ð 124). An excerpt from the highly detailed reports from the excavation of Mound City demonstrates the complex and ordered layers of a burial mound:
ÒThe 1st layer Ð a layer of coarse gravel and pebbles, which appeared to have been taken from deep pits surrounding the enclosure, or from the bank of the river. This layer was one foot in thickness. The 2nd layer Ð a depth of two feet, the earth was homogeneous, though slightly mottled, as if taken up and deposited in small loads, from different localities. In one place appeared a deposit of dark-colored surface loam, and by its side, or covering it, there was a mass of the clayey soil from a greater depth. The outlines of these various deposits could be distinctly traced. The 3rd layer Ð a thin and even layer of fine sand, a little over an inch in thickness. The 4th layer Ð a deposit of earth, as above [2nd layer], eighteen inches in depth. The 5th layer Ð another stratum of sand, somewhat thinner than the one above mentioned [3rd layer]. The 6th layer Ð another deposit of earth, one foot thickÉthe 7th layer Ð a third stratum of sandÉthe 8th layer Ð still another layer of earth, a few inches in thicknessÉ and the 9th layer Ð an altar, or basin, of burned clay.Ó (Silverberg 124).

Sketch of the stratification of a conical mound undergoing excavation (Silverberg 99)

This excerpt thus demonstrates how the location near a river was beneficial as gravel and clay was used from the riverbed to create different layers of the mound and the enclosed altar, as well as, what a ÔscienceÕ the creation of mounds was for these ancient cultures. More analysis of the excavations of mounds also gives archeologists insight into the beliefs of the people who built them, as many included a sacrificial altar where evidence of fire is found, along with a ÔmapÕ of the cultureÕs social stratification, as those of higher rank were place in the innermost regions of the mounds while those of lower social status were buried around the outer areas of the mound. Thus, an excavation of the mound would have brought us a wealth of knowledge about the culture that built the Hueston Woods Mound but is an endeavor we are neither trained or equipped for, and would have required much longer than one semester to perform, along with legal permission.
Results

Observing the Hueston Woods Mound led us to believe that the site was picked for many cultural, social, and scientific reasons. Through analyzation of aerial and printed maps we found the mound was located less than half a mile away from Four Mile Creek, and left relatively unchanged by modern human activities. The mound was spared from being plowed under by agriculturally oriented landowners, and has not been excavated by local Ôtreasure huntersÕ or archaeologists. Measurements taken in 1890 by J.P. McLean show that the mound was eight feet high, by thirty-three feet in diameter (206). Our measurements from this year show only a minimal change in the diameter and height of the mound since McLeanÕs study. Today the mound is seven and one-half feet tall with a diameter of twenty-nine feet across in the longest direction and twenty-four feet across in the shortest direction.

Photograph of the Heuston Woods Mound as it is today.

We created the below included graph to demonstrate the relationship of the measurements from 1890 to the measurements that we calculated for the Hueston Woods Mound this year. It shows a slight decline in both areas, height and diameter, which we hypothesize to be due to erosion of the soil over the years.

Relationship between 1890 dimensions and 2003 dimensions of Heuston Woods Burial Mound

The Hueston Woods Mound now stands largely unguarded and appears to receive poor maintenance. The only barrier which is intended to keep people off the sacred ground which forms the outer layer of the mound is a fence that is falling down and broken in many places, leaving the mound unprotected and easily accessible by humans and large animals. A path makes its way straight across the middle of the mound (see above included photo of Heuston Woods Mound) which appears to be the result of people walking on it. We hypothesize that the path is from human activities because the mound is incredibly overgrown with underbrush and many large trees growing out of it. Thus, the fairly straight path cutting through the otherwise excessive green foliage seems to be evidence of humans walking across the top of the mound.
The Hueston Woods Mound appears to be Ôout of sight and out of mindÕ for those managing the keeping of the park grounds. The mound is not marked anywhere on the Hueston Woods maps and no information was available about the dimensions or history of the mound from the park offices. The ÔeconomicÕ concerns of todayÕs American culture seem to overshadow the historical significance of the mound as Hueston Woods is mainly composed of camp sites which attract visitors the most with the attractions of Acton Lake, camping areas, and nature trails. The moundÕs historical and cultural significance has fallen by the wayside as Heuston Woods busies itself with attracting campers. Furthermore, the lack of information seems to draw less attention, as well as the mound has not been excavated so the exact origins of the mound are still only hypothesized and there is no museum or display where visitors can see artifacts which the mound might contain. Clearly, the mound is not a naturally occurring phenomenon; however the lack of information or advertisement by the park staff makes visitors more likely to visit the park for recreational purposes rather than visitation of the burial mound.

Measurements taken from the site this year gave use these statistics:

á Height:
7.5 ft.
8.0 ft. x= 7.50 SD= .50
7.0 ft.
á Length Measured From the Left Side:
14.50 ft.
13.75 ft. x= 14.333 SD= .517
14.75 ft.
á Length Measured From the Front:
12.25 ft.
11.75 ft. x= 12.1666 SD= .382
12.50 ft.
á Length Measured From the Right Side:
14.75 ft.
14.50 ft. x= 14.75 SD= .25
15.00 ft.
á Length Measured From the Back:
12.75 ft.
12.25 ft. x= 12.666 SD= .378
13.00 ft.

The below listed tables explain how we got the standard deviation of our measurements of the mound. The equation: √(sum(xi Ð x) / (n Ð 1)) was used to find the standard deviation for each set of measurements, where xi equals ea

Next Article
Previous Article
Return to the Topic Menu