DRAFT

Serpent Mound

A Nomination for inscription on the UNESCO World Heritage List

DRAFT

Table of Contents List of Figures and Tables Executive Summary 1. Identification of the Property 1.a Country 1.b State, Province or Region 1.c Name of Property 1.d Geographical Coordinates to the Nearest Second

1.e Maps Showing Boundaries and Management of the Nominated Property 1.f Area of Nominated Property Introduction 2. Description and History of Property 2.a Description of the Property 2.b History and Development of the Property 3. Justification for Inscription on the World Heritage List 3.a Criteria Under Which Inscription is Proposed 3.b Statement of Outstanding Universal Value 3.c Comparative Analysis 3.d Integrity and Authenticity 4. State of Conservation Factors Affecting the Property 4.a Present State of Conservation of the Property 4.b Factors Affecting the Property 4.b (i) Development Pressures 4.b (ii) Environmental Pressures 4.b (iii) Natural Disaster and Risk Preparedness 4.b (iv) Visitor/Tourism Pressures 4.b (v) Number of Inhabitants within the Property and the Buffer Zone 5. Protection and Management 5.a Ownership 5.b Protective Designations 5.c Implementation of Protective Measures 5.d Existing Plans 5.e Monument Management Plan

DRAFT 5.f Sources of Levels of Finance 5.g Expertise and Training 5.h Visitor Facilities and Statistics 5.i Property Promotion and Presentation 5.j Staffing Levels 6. Monitoring 6.a Key Indicators for Measuring State of Conservation 6.b Administrative Arrangements for Monitoring Property 6.c Results of Previous Reporting Exercises 7. Documentation 7.a Photographs, Slides and Other Audiovisual Materials 7.b Texts Relating to Protective Designation and Management Plans 7.c Form and Date of Most Recent Records of Inventory of Property 7.d Locations of Inventory, Records and Archives 7.e Reference List 8. Contact Information of Responsible Authorities 8.a Preparers 8.b Official Local Institution/Agency 8.c Other Local Institutions 8.d Official Web Address 9. Signature on Behalf of State Party Glossary

DRAFT Executive Summary Serpent Mound State Memorial encompasses the monumental Serpent Mound as well as three small burial mounds, archaeological remains of ancient villages, and landscape features that likely were significant to the builders of Serpent Mound. This serpent effigy is the largest documented surviving example of a prehistoric effigy mound, or biomorphic geoglyph, in the world. Radiocarbon dates obtained for the effigy, combined with stylistic analyses of the iconography, indicate Serpent Mound was built by the Fort Ancient culture at approximately 1120 CE. Serpent Mound is a striking reflection of the indigenous belief system of the Native American peoples of the Fort Ancient culture, which flourished in this region during the Mississippian/Late Prehistoric period, circa 900-1650 CE. These people used monumental serpent effigies constructed of stone and earth as well as "woodhenges" to serve as solar calendars that structured the year for the planting and harvesting of domesticated crops, principally maize, and the various ceremonies that accompanied the key dates in the seasonal cycle (Lepper 2005). Serpent Mound represents the Great Serpent of the Beneath World, a potent supernatural being whose aid could be solicited for a variety of purposes. The depiction of the Serpent in the form of a massive, naturalistic geoglyph designed to mark the passage of the seasons, epitomizes the attempts of the indigenous people of the Ohio Valley to integrate their lives with the cosmos in much the same way as peoples in places as distant as the World Heritage sites of Cahokia Mounds, Chaco Canyon, Copan, and even Stonehenge. Therefore, Serpent Mound has outstanding universal value as a monumental geoglyph embodying fundamental cosmological principles of an indigenous ancient American Indian culture.

DRAFT 1. Identification of the Property 1.a Country United States of America 1.b State, Province or Region State of Ohio 1.c Name of Property Serpent Mound State Memorial 1.d Geographical Coordinates to the Nearest Second The center point for the geographic coordinates is: N 39º 1' 27" W 83º 25' 47" 1.e Maps Showing Boundaries and Management of the Nominated Property (See Figure ) 1.f Area of Nominated Property Serpent Mound State Memorial encompasses an area of 21.9 ha (54 acres). The property boundary corresponds to the property acquired by the Peabody Museum and now owned by the Ohio Historical Society. It includes the effigy mound, three burial mounds, and much of the surrounding land, including the entirety of the prominent bluff on which the effigy is situated is included. These boundaries provide a reasonable buffer for preserving the effigy mound in its environmental context.

DRAFT Introduction Serpent Mound, located in Adams County, Ohio, is the largest documented surviving example of a prehistoric effigy mound in the world. It is a sinuous earthen embankment 411 meters long, including an oval embankment at one end, which has been interpreted variously as the serpent's eye, part of its head, or a secondary object, such as an egg, grasped in the serpent's open jaws. The effigy ranges from 1.2 to 1.5 meters in height and from 6 to 7.6 meters in width. Radiocarbon dates obtained from samples from the effigy, combined with stylistic analyses of the iconography, indicate Serpent Mound was built by the Fort Ancient Culture about the year 1120 CE. This state memorial also preserves three Native American burial mounds as well as evidence of contemporary habitation sites. An effigy mound is a type of geoglyph sometimes referred to as a biomorphic geoglyph. Such geoglyphs, in the form of animal or human effigy mounds, intaglios, or patterned arrangements of stones, are known from sites all over the world. The Lines and Geoglyphs of Nasca and Pampas de Jumana is, so far, the only such site to be inscribed on the World Heritage List. Serpent Mound is exceptional in terms of its scale, degree of preservation, iconic naturalism, and association with indigenous Native American oral traditions that cast light on its meaning. Moreover, Serpent Mound, as well as the other effigy mounds of eastern North America, differs from many of the other documented geoglyphs in being formed as a built-up mound rather than being delineated by excavation into the ground surface.

DRAFT 2. Description and History of Property 2.a Description of the Property Serpent Mound State Memorial encompasses the monumental Serpent Mound as well as other mounds, archaeological remains, and landscape features that likely were determinative in the ancient builders' selection of this location as the site for the construction of Serpent Mound. This serpent effigy is the largest documented surviving example of a prehistoric effigy mound in the world. It is a sinuous earthen embankment 435 meters long, including a 36 by 18 m oval embankment at the northwest end. The oval has been interpreted variously as the serpent's eye, part of its head, or a secondary object, such as an egg, grasped in the serpent's open jaws. The effigy ranges from 1.2 to 1.5 m in height and from 6 to 7.6 m in width. Radiocarbon dates obtained for the effigy, combined with stylistic analyses of the iconography, indicate Serpent Mound was built by the Fort Ancient culture at approximately1120 CE. Serpent Mound is situated on a ridge, which is a part of a geologically ancient meteoric impact crater approximately 8 km in diameter. Natural rock formations at the end of this finger-like ridge are suggestive of a snake's head, which may have provided the inspiration for the idea to build the serpent effigy along the top of this ridge. Serpent Mound State Memorial also preserves three Native American burial mounds as well as evidence of contemporary habitation sites of the builders of both the Serpent and the burial mounds. One of the burial mounds is an "Elliptical mound," attributable to the Fort Ancient culture, circa 1000 – 1650 CE, and the other two burial mounds are simple conical mounds attributable to the earlier Adena culture, circa 800 BCE – 100 CE. The habitation remains include a major Fort Ancient village overlying a smaller Adena occupation. 2.b History and Development of the Property The most recent and best evidence (including two radiocarbon dates and iconographic comparisons) indicates that Serpent Mound was built by the Fort Ancient culture, circa 1000-1650 CE (Fletcher et al. 1996; Lepper and Frolking 2003), although traditionally it had been argued that it was built by the earlier Adena culture, circa 800 BCE – 100 CE (Greenman 1934; Webb and Snow 1945). Certainly, the Adena culture identified this area as culturally significant and constructed two burial mounds in the area. Finally, other authors have asserted that Serpent Mound was built by the Hopewell culture, circa 100 BCE – 400 CE (Converse 1979; Romain 2000). There is no corroborating archaeological evidence for a Hopewell component at the site. During the period of occupation by the Fort Ancient culture, the area south of the effigy was occupied by a village. In addition, a burial mound referred to as the "Elliptical Mound" continued the tradition of using the area for mortuary ceremonialism. The serpent effigy, however, unlike many of the effigy mounds of the Upper Midwest and the Serpent Mound of Ontario, was not used for human burials. Instead, it appears to have

DRAFT served as a physical representation of a powerful supernatural being to which supplicants may have presented offerings for such things as healing or success in hunting. Serpent Mound was first documented in 1848 by Ephraim Squier and Edwin Davis in Ancient Monuments of the Mississippi Valley, the first publication of the Smithsonian Institution. At this time, the mound was virtually pristine with the exception of one documented act of looting. Squier and Davis (1848:97) reported that a "circular elevation of large stones much burned" once had existed within the oval enclosure, but it had "been thrown down and scattered" by a vandal. In 1859, a tornado passed over the site uprooting the trees growing on the mound. Subsequently, the landowner cultivated the site, including Serpent Mound itself, for a few seasons. Later, the mound and the surrounding area were used for livestock grazing. Frederic Ward Putnam, of Harvard University's Peabody Museum, first visited Serpent Mound in 1883. His photographs indicate the mound had been reduced in height from 4-5 ft (1-1.5 m) to 2-3 ft (0.6-0.9 m), but the outlines were intact and clearly discernable. When he returned to Serpent Mound in 1886, Putnam found that looters had dug several holes in the embankment that had been left unfilled. Putnam was instrumental in raising funds to purchase the property and, in 1887, the Peabody Museum acquired the site (Lepper 2001b). From 1887 to 1889, Putnam conducted systematic investigations of portions of the effigy, the adjacent burial mounds, and parts of the surrounding landscape (Putnam 1890). After concluding his research, he carefully restored the mounds. The Peabody Museum converted the property into a public park and operated it as such until 1900, when it was deeded to the Ohio Archaeological and Historical Society (now the Ohio Historical Society). In 1908, an observation tower was built and during the 1930’s a museum and other visitor facilities were added. Between 1990 and 1992, the Ohio Historical Society conducted a series of excavations along a proposed waterline. This projected line extended near the small conical burial mound located south of the effigy mound and across the area identified by Putnam as the village site. A number of features were uncovered most of which yielded ceramics and flint tools assignable to the Fort Ancient culture. These results also indicated that a great deal of the subsurface archeology at the site remained intact beneath a shallow layer of cultivated soil. In 1991, avocational archeologists Robert Fletcher and Terry Cameron, assisted by professional archeologists Bradley Lepper, Dee Anne Wymer, and William Pickard undertook a limited excavation of one of Putnam's old trenches in order to obtain charcoal samples to use in radiocarbon dating (Fletcher et al. 1992). This investigation resulted in radiocarbon dates that suggest the effigy mound was built between 990 and 850 years BP (cal 995 to 1265 CE). Serpent Mound was a place of ancient ceremony. Based on ethnohistoric analogies, the ceremonies conducted here may have included offerings of thanksgiving or offerings made to elicit favors from the great serpent spirit, known as Mishebeshu by the Ojibwa

DRAFT Indians (Lepper 1998, Lepper and Frolking 2003). The general area also was used for habitation and for burial of the dead by at least two distinct cultures. From the time of European settlement to 1887, the site was private property and used for a short time as agricultural land. Serpent Mound became the earliest site in the western hemisphere to be preserved as an archeological park in 1887 when the Peabody Museum of Harvard University purchased it (Putnam 1886; Lepper 2001b). Today, Serpent Mound State Memorial continues to be an archeological preserve used for public education and research.

DRAFT 3. Justification for Inscription on the World Heritage List Serpent Mound is nominated as a cultural heritage site with a cultural landscape under criteria (i), (iii), and (iv). 3.a Criteria Under Which Inscription is Proposed i. represents a masterpiece of human creative genius; According to David Hurst Thomas (2000:106), the curator of anthropology at the American Museum of Natural History and a founding trustee of the National Museum of the American Indian, Serpent Mound is "pure art. It amazes. It has power." The "power" evoked by Serpent Mound partly is due to its immense scale. Serpent Mound is 435 meters long. It is the largest well-preserved prehistoric effigy mound in the world (Table 1). As an aesthetically striking, monumental, sculptural rendering of a serpent, Serpent Mound represents a masterpiece of human creative genius. The precise meaning of the effigy for its builders may no longer be fully recoverable, but the iconography is consistent with the spiritual importance of serpents in the art and religious beliefs of Native Americans in the Mississippian/Late Prehistoric and historic periods in eastern North America (Fletcher et al. 1996; Lankford 2007). These iconographic parallels are supported by the radiocarbon dates of between 990 and 850 years BP obtained for the effigy (Fletcher et al. 1996). The placement of the serpent effigy along a ridge composed of bedrock outcroppings that bear a strong resemble to a serpent's head reveal another aspect of the artistic power evoked by Serpent Mound. According to Lucy Lippard, this is an instance of "a meaningful land form eventually being refined by sculptural or architectural techniques" (1983:222). This emergence of culturally significant forms from natural features has been an important aspect of ritually-inspired indigenous art since the Paleolithic period in Europe (Whitley 2009:205) and there are numerous examples at the World Heritage site of Altamira Cave. In the words of Jean Clottes and David Lewis-Williams, the Paleolithic artists "transformed the given into the created" (quoted in Whitley 2009:71) and this evocative phrase applies with equal force to the Serpent Mound. John Hancock, Director of the Center for the Electronic Reconstruction of Historical and Archaeological Sites at the University of Cincinnati, has written the following:

"At Serpent Mound, one of the things I find most remarkable is the relationship with the adjacent cliff, which has its own obvious 'undulations' and 'head' when viewed from the riverbank, suggesting the designers were affected by what was already there. This would be consistent with sacred places in other cultures I’m familiar with (I’m most familiar with the Greeks), the location is already understood as sacred mainly by virtue of the natural phenomena that are there, and religious practices were already tied to the place because of those phenomena and in some way interpreting those forces (Delphi most famously, but most others as well). Later architectural interventions were only increasingly precise re-

DRAFT presentations of, or overlays upon, the original sacred idea. My other 'architectural' observations about the Serpent are more general, about its use of the undulating curved saddle-shaped hilltop, which underscores the 'slithering' conception of a snake, and of course the looping coils, which I think are especially well-captured in the attached image."

The head of the Serpent is aligned to the setting sun on the Summer Solstice. Moreover, each of the three coils of the serpent's body appears to be aligned respectively to the Summer solstice sunrise, the Equinox sunrise, and the Winter Solstice sunrise (Hardman and Hardman 1987; cf. Romain 1987 and Fletcher and Cameron 1988). Therefore, the earthwork could have served as a solar calendar or, perhaps it simply embodied the sun by incorporating the entire solar cycle in its design. The orientation to the sun is consistent with Mississippian/Late Prehistoric architecture, such as the woodhenges at Cahokia Mounds World Heritage Site and the SunWatch Site in western Ohio, as well as the Kern stone serpent effigies located in southwestern Ohio (Goss 1988; White 1987a, 1987b; Wittry 1969, 1980). The scale of Serpent Mound coupled with its elegant design and the way it seems to be derived from the landscape it inhabits are unprecedented in other geoglyphs. Monumental earthworks on the scale of Serpent Mound ceased to be built in North America after about 1200-1400 CE, although serpents continued to figure prominently in the iconography of historic Native American tribes in the region, reflecting some degree of cultural continuity (Lankford 2007). Anthony Aveni, in Between the Lines (University of Texas, 2000), an analysis of the geoglyphs of Peru, suggests that Serpent Mound and the effigy mounds of the Upper Midwest may have been built to represent constellations. In the case of Serpent Mound, the outline of the serpent has been claimed to correspond to Ursa Major. On the other hand, George Lankford (2007) observes that many Native American cultures associated the Great Serpent with the constellation Scorpio and the bright red star Antares was regarded as the serpent's eye. Serpent Mound has an oval earthwork located at its head. This oval often has been interpreted as an egg clutched in the serpent's jaws. For Lankford, the oval represents the red, twinkling eye and this interpretation is consistent with Mississippian representations of serpents on shell-engravings (Fletcher et al. 1996:136-138). Today, Serpent Mound is a continuing source of inspiration for artists. Andy Goldsworthy, Michael Heizer, Barnett Newman, and Robert Smithson have based some of their work on Ohio's ancient earthworks, including this gigantic effigy mound. In particular, Michael Heizer's composition "Effigy Tumuli" (Illinois, USA), created in 1985, includes a serpent effigy that measures 630 meters in length. iii. bear a unique or at least exceptional testimony to a cultural tradition or to a civilization which is living or which has disappeared;

DRAFT In his essay "The Great Serpent in Eastern North America," George Lankford, an emeritus professor of folklore at Lyon College in Arkansas, observed that the Great Serpent was "a universally known figure in the Eastern Woodlands for many centuries" (2007:109). It appeared "not only in myth, but also in graphic designs, both prehistoric and historic" (2007:109). It was "the guardian of the waters and, by extension, all that is beneath the surface of the earth" (2007:116). The Great Serpent was a source of enormous spiritual power that people could invoke to aid them in hunting and in curing illnesses. Although it was primarily a creature of the Beneath World, it sometimes could appear in various guises in our world and in the overarching Above World. Serpent Mound is a striking reflection of the indigenous belief system of the Native American peoples of the Fort Ancient culture, which flourished during the Mississippian/Late Prehistoric period, circa 900-1650 CE. There appear to be strong connections between the belief systems of the Fort Ancient culture and those of the partially contemporaneous Late Woodland Period (700-1200 CE) Effigy Mound culture in the Upper Midwest, so, although geographically disparate, Serpent Mound and the many animal effigy mounds in the Upper Mississippi Valley can be linked together by a common set of cosmological principles. Only one other definite earthen animal effigy mound was built in Ohio. The so-called "Alligator Mound" also has yielded radiocarbon dates that place it within the Fort Ancient cultural period (Lepper and Frolking 2003). It does not much resemble an alligator, but it does bear similarities to numerous "panther" effigy mounds in the Upper Midwest that have been argued to be alternative manifestations of the Beneath World spirit known to the Ojibwa as Mishebeshu. Several smaller linear stone mounds, argued by some to represent serpent effigies, also were constructed by the Fort Ancient culture in southern Ohio and neighboring Kentucky (Sanders 1991; White 1987a. 1987b). Serpent Mound appears to encode several astronomical alignments in the orientation of its head and coils. The head points to the azimuth of the setting sun on the summer solstice and its coils appear to be aligned with the summer solstice sunrise, the equinox sunrise, and the winter solstice sunrise (Hardman and Hardman 1987). At least two of the better studied stone serpent effigies (Kern effigy #1 and #2 in Warren County, Ohio) also are aligned to the rising and setting of the sun on significant "hinges" of the solar cycle. The importance of solar aligned monuments is repeated at numerous other sites of this era, including the approximately contemporary woodhenges at the SunWatch Village site in western Ohio and at the Cahokia Mounds World Heritage Site in Illinois (Heilman and Hoefer 1981; Wittry 1980). In addition to the ritual significance of such alignments, there is an obvious practical significance for cultures that practiced agriculture. The solar calendar was important for determining the most propitious dates for planting and harvesting crops as well as for demonstrating the esoteric knowledge of political-religious elites (Smith 1992; O'Brien and McHugh 1987). The practice of aligning monumental architecture to cosmological rhythms is illustrated at many World Heritage sites around the world including Cahokia Mound, Stonehenge,

DRAFT the Archaeological Park and Ruins of Quirigua, El Tajin, the Lines and Geoglyphs of Nasca and Pampas de Jumana, and Uxmal. The cultures that erected each of these astronomically-aligned monuments had their own reasons for doing so, but rarely were their interests simply calendrical and practical. More often, the builders were sacralizing their architectural spaces by aligning them with astronomical phenomena that are believed to be manifestations of the divine. iv. be an outstanding example of a type of building, architectural or technological ensemble or landscape which illustrates (a) significant stage(s) in human history; By virtue of its vast scale, its degree of preservation, and its iconic naturalism, Serpent Mound is the foremost expression of effigy mound building in North America. Perhaps inspired by the more numerous, but spatially separate, effigy mounds of the Upper Midwest, its form, positioning, and alignments represent a unique integration of cosmological beliefs, monumental sculpture and landscape design. As an iconic geoglyph, it is comparable to the finest animal effigies at the Lines and Geoglyphs of Nasca and Pampas de Jumana World Heritage site. The construction techniques relating to effigy mound building are different from those employed by the builders of the Nasca geoglyphs who employed a subtractive technique of raking, or hoeing, dark colored sediments aside to reveal the lighter colored (less weathered) material underneath. Effigy mounds are fully three dimensional and were built using an additive process in which earth was excavated from nearby borrow pits and transported to the chosen location in baskets where it was piled into the desired shapes. The Serpent Mound effigy is the feature that qualifies the property for the World Heritage List. The scale of Serpent Mound dwarfs all other securely documented effigy mounds and is larger than any documented prehistoric geoglyph in the world (Table 1). According to Lenzendorf (2000:23), the largest known effigy mound in the Mississippi River valley was "originally a quarter-mile-long image of a bird in flight." At approximately 400 meters, this would have been nearly as long as Serpent Mound, but the imprecision of the measurement and the vagueness of the reference make this an unsubstantiated claim. Birmingham and Eisenberg state that the Mendota State Hospital Mound Group contained "some of the finest and largest effigy mounds preserved anywhere" (2000:197), but individually these do not compare with Serpent Mound. One of the bird effigies, for example, has a wingspan of 190 meters – less than half the length of Serpent Mound. The largest known geoglyph in the world, Australia's "Marree Man" (or "Stuart's Giant") intaglio is 4.2 km long, but it has been judged to be a recent creation that utilized earth-moving equipment in its construction. Likewise, Michael Heizer's 630-meter-long serpent effigy mound is a work of modern art.

The astronomical alignments incorporated into the structure of Serpent Mound reveal the sophisticated astronomical knowledge of the effigy mound's builders. It also is a reflection of the worldwide tendency to link sacred architecture with cosmic rhythms. It

DRAFT functions, on the one hand, as a calendrical device and allows ceremonies appropriate to a given place to be keyed to astronomically significant events, which define critical "hinges" in time. On the other hand, it allows the architecture to reflect the sacredness of the heavens by expressing those cosmic rhythms in its form and structure. These dual aspects of calendar and shrine are found at a number of ancient sites around the world, including the World Heritage sites of Stonehenge, Quirigua, El Tajin, Lines and Geoglyphs of Nasca and Pampas de Jumana, Uxmal, Chaco Culture, and Cahokia Mounds. Finally, Serpent Mound and the other effigy mounds of eastern North America also are significant to the extent that they embody the cosmology and religious beliefs of a widespread Pre-Columbian culture. Ethnographic research among several Native American tribes, most notably the Winnebago (Ho-Chunk), Ojibwa, Ottawa, and many others, have established that the effigy mounds relate to supernatural beings, or "other than human persons," of the Above World, the Middle World, and the Below World. Ohio's Serpent Mound and "Alligator" Mound as well as the numerous "panther" mounds of the Upper Midwest, represent various manifestations of Mishebeshu, or the chief spirit of the Below World. The bird effigies of the Upper Midwest represent the Thunderers, or Thunderbirds, of the Above World, while the bear and bison effigies are said to represent the Middle World (Birmingham and Eisenberg 2000:113-125; Lankford 2007). The set of cosmological beliefs embodied in Serpent Mound was widespread throughout North America and is found represented in a variety of artistic media, from petroglyphs and ceramic forms to symbolic notations on birch bark scrolls, dating from as early as 600 BCE to as late as the recent historic era. 3.b Statement of Outstanding Universal Value Serpent Mound has outstanding universal value as a monumental geoglyph embodying fundamental cosmological principles of an indigenous ancient American Indian culture. Serpent Mound represents the acme of prehistoric effigy mound-building in North America. It has become an icon of indigenous cultural achievements in this region, principally because of its enormous scale and its remarkably naturalistic quality that makes it immediately recognizable as a representation of a serpent. Whatever else it may have represented to its ancient builders, modern observers readily can identify it as a snake. The serpent as a biomorphic geoglyph is widespread in the Americas (Table 3) and as a feature of the iconography of Mississippian/Late Prehistoric/Historic American Indian art and cosmology the Great Serpent is a well-known spiritual being. The physical environmental setting of Serpent Mound preserves much of the ambience of its aboriginal setting and, moreover, preserves the underlying bedrock outcrop that may have suggested the immanent presence of the serpent spirit to the builders of the effigy.

DRAFT The depiction of the Serpent in the form of a massive, naturalistic geoglyph designed to mark the passage of the seasons, epitomizes the attempts of the indigenous people of the Ohio Valley to integrate their lives with the cosmos in much the same way as peoples in places as distant as the World Heritage sites of Cahokia Mounds, Chaco Canyon, Copan, and even Stonehenge. 3.c Comparative Analysis Ohio's Serpent Mound is one of the most recognizable icons of prehistoric America. Monumental geoglyphs, such as the Lines and Geoglyphs of Nasca and Pampas de Jumana World Heritage site, are known to exist throughout the world, but, as the following comparisons illustrate, Serpent Mound is exceptional in terms of scale, artistic execution, construction technique, and the integration of iconography, cosmology, and landscape. Biomorphic geoglyphs in Eastern North America In the valley of the upper Mississippi River, there is concentration of biomorphic geoglyphs sculpted between about 650 and 1300 CE, which are attributed to the Late Woodland Effigy Mound culture. The bulk of the effigies are located in Wisconsin (Birmingham and Eisenberg 2000) and northeastern Iowa (Green et al. 2001). Others are in southeastern Minnesota and northern Illinois (Boris 1984). Various authors have suggested that there were originally ten to twenty thousand mounds built in the shapes of birds, bears, panthers, humans, and other creatures. Like the South American geoglyphs, these usually occurred in clusters that may represent deliberate compositions. Many of the effigies contain burials and small conical burial mounds often are associated with the mound groups. According to Mallam (1976), the effigy mound complexes were "multipurpose integrative mechanisms which functioned to articulate the cultural activities of a variety of hunting and gathering groups" (1976:40). David Smith, historian of the Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska, asserted the effigy mounds were "symbols of families such as the bear and thunder clan" and that the mound complexes were "places of worship" (Lenzendorf 2000:23-24). The largest known effigy mound in this region is a bird effigy mound in Wisconsin with "…what appears to be a quarter-mile wingspan" (Birmingham and Eisenberg 2000:7). It has been leveled by plowing, but reportedly still is visible as a "soil shadow" in aerial photographs (Birmingham and Eisenberg 2000:7). Several of the surviving Midwestern effigy mounds are well preserved and maintain a high level of authenticity. In particular, Effigy Mounds National Monument, which includes more than 200 mounds of which 31 are effigies, would be a viable candidate for a serial nomination with Ohio's Serpent Mound.

DRAFT The Serpent Mound at Rice Lake, Ontario, Canada , also known as the Otonabee Serpent Mound, is distinctive from the effigy mounds of the Upper Mississippi Valley as well as from Ohio's Serpent Mound. Located near Peterborough in southern Ontario, it is 59 meters long. Like the Midwestern effigy mounds it is a burial mound, but unlike the other effigies, it was built by the Middle Woodland period Port Peninsula culture, circa 700 BCE to 700 CE. An average of three radiocarbons dates obtained from features within the mound indicate it was built in 124 CE (Johnston 1968:72). A major portion of the head of the effigy as well as a section of the tail, has been excavated (Johnston 1968), but the unexcavated portions of the mound are well preserved and the site retains a high degree of authenticity. It would be a viable candidate for a serial nomination with Ohio's Serpent Mound. In the eastern and southeastern United States, there are a number of linear features made from stone that have been interpreted as serpent effigies. They vary somewhat is size, but the largest are around 190 meters in length (Sanders 1991; Holstein 2008:8). In addition to the two Kern serpent effigies in Ohio (White 1987), there are similar stone serpent effigies documented in Alabama (Holstein 2007), Georgia (Holstein 2007, 2008), Kentucky (Sanders 1991), and West Virginia (Kelly 1979; Wilkins 1981). In some cases, they are associated with conical stone mounds (Holstein 2007:8; Kelly 1979:1). The ages of most of these features are undetermined, but the Kern effigies have been determined to belong to the Fort Ancient culture (White 1987). Wilkins (1981) described a linear stone feature in Logan County, West Virginia with some interesting similarities to Serpent Mound. It was 41 meters long and 6 to 7 meters wide composed of sandstone cobbles and aligned "roughly in a north-south direction" (1981:1). The "head" of the serpent was an "oval ring of stones" about three-and-a-half meters in diameter. No artifacts or datable material was found in association with the mound, so its age and cultural affiliation are not known. The Skeleton Mountain Snake Effigy is long, low stone wall, or pavement, that runs for 59.7 meters along the western edge of Skeleton Mountain in Calhoun County, Alabama (Holstein 2007). It is presumed to be a Native American structure built to "commemorate the earth's natural wonders, deceased loved ones, or other event that was considered special to the people who constructed them" (Holstein 2007:7). Native American representatives that visited the site "were in agreement as to the ceremonial and spiritual sacredness of the site" (Holstein 2007:1). There are several sites in this region that could be considered for inclusion in a serial nomination with Serpent Mound. Among these are Effigy Mounds National Monument, Iowa, USA, Serpent Mound, Keene, Ontario, Canada (National Historic Site of Canada). In Georgia, Kelly (1979) described a stone serpent mound more than 90 m in length that was associated with 50 small stone mounds. It appears to be in a remarkable state of preservation, but no further details were provided. Holstein (2007:8) also refers to a 191 meter long serpentine wall that follows the crest of Sand Mountain in Catoosa County. It is associated with 5 stone mounds (Holstein 2007:8).

DRAFT There are more than 390 animal effigy mounds documented in Iowa (see Green et al. 2001: Table 4). Most of these are relatively small and poorly preserved. One of the most significant known sites is the Sny Magill Mound Group (13CT18). This is the largest remaining mound group in Iowa. It includes two bird effigies, three bear effigies, and more than 85 conical mounds. Alligator Mound (33LI5) is an effigy mound located in Licking County, Ohio. The mound is 61 meters long and 1.5 to 2 meters high. It is located on the top of a bluff overlooking the Raccoon Creek valley. The mound itself is well preserved, but the integrity of the surrounding landscape has been compromised by an extensive residential development. Birmingham and Eisenberg (2000:109) estimate that originally there were between 2,000 and 3,000 effigy mounds in Wisconsin. Most of these represented bears, birds, and panthers (or water spirits). Two of the most important preserved sites are the Mendota State Hospital Mound Group and the Washington County Island Effigy Mound District. Birmingham and Eisenberg state that the Mendota State Hospital Mound Group contained "some of the finest and largest effigy mounds preserved anywhere" (2000:197), including a bird effigy, which they claim is the "largest existing effigy mound in the Midwest" at 190 m in length. The Washington County Island Effigy Mound District (also known as Lizard Mounds County Park) preserves 29 of an original 60 mounds. The park includes two bird and panther effigies. Biomorphic geoglyphs in Western North America The other biomorphic geoglyphs in eastern North America have the potential to have influenced, if earlier, or been influenced by, if later, the builders of Serpent Mound. Similar kinds of effigies also are known from western North America. Regardless of whether these geoglyphs bear any historical relationship to Serpent Mound, they bear examination for the insights they might provide into how the various societies that created them incorporated these effigies into their physical and spiritual landscapes. Davis and Winslow (1965:8) differentiated between "rock alignments" and "gravel effigies," but noted they occurred throughout the arid regions of the west "from Canada to Baja California." They compared the "symbol vocabularies" of these petroforms to those found in petroglyphs and pictographs and concluded that the "same design components are found it both art forms" (1965:8). Numerous serpent effigies have been documented west of the Mississippi River, including petroforms from Minnesota (Dudzik 1995; Williamson 1897), South Dakota (Helmick 1897), and Nevada (McDonald 2008); and intaglios from Arizona, California, Nevada, and Kansas (Johnson 1985; Mallam 1985).

DRAFT Williamson (1897) recalled seeing several stone serpent effigies built by the Dakota Indians during his youth in Minnesota. He estimates that the largest were between 15 and 30 meters in length. According to Williamson (1897:151), the Dakotas erected the mounds as part of the ceremonies associated with the "Wahaw feasts" and they did not appear to have been "worshipped after this feast." In Rice County, Kansas, there is a 49 meter long intaglio excavated to a depth of 8 to 25 centimeters below the surface (Mallam 1985). Although utilizing a distinctively different construction technique, the serpent intaglio bears some striking similarities to the Ohio Serpent Mound. It appears to represent a serpent in the act of uncoiling and the "head" is marked by a V-shaped embankment partially surrounding an oval elevation. Moreover, the sunset on the summer solstice is aligned to the westerly "jaw" of the serpent (Mallam 1985:19). The age and cultural affiliation of the intaglio has not been determined and its current degree of preservation is not recorded. In the southwestern United States, biomorphic geoglyphs that included rattlesnake effigies are common along the lower Colorado and Gila Rivers of southwestern Arizona and southern California. Johnson (1985) has documented about 200 intaglios including images of humans, animals, and abstract designs. In addition to rattlesnakes, the animals depicted include horse, lizard, thunderbird, fish and quail. According to Johnson, they were made in the late prehistoric and early historic periods, circa 1-1550 CE, and he notes a "fair correspondence" between the iconography of the geoglyphs and the myths of local Native American tribes (1985:39). Two intaglio sites are listed on the National Register of Historic Places: the Ha-ak Va-ak Intaglio Site (Sacaton Intaglio), Pinal County and the Ripley Intaglios, La Paz County. Serpents are the most common zoomorphic figures among the intaglios (1985:12). The longest is a "worm-like" form 186 m long. The most naturalistic is approximately 50 meters long, but it has been judged to be modern. The largest anthropomorphic figure measures 52 by 40 m (Johnson 1985:10). The Mound of the Serpent at Paquimé in Chihuahua, Mexico was built between 1250 and 1450 CE. It is 113 meters long and just over a meter in height. It is a linear structure made from earth and stone covered in plaster. It has no obvious serpentine curves, yet it clearly seems to be a serpent effigy. It is aligned along a true north-to-south axis (Lekson 2008:211). The Mound of the Cross is another effigy mound at Paquimé that is strikingly similar to Ohio's Tarlton Cross Mound (Lepper and Frolking 2003). It also is aligned to the north (Lekson 2008:210). Biomorphic geoglyphs outside of North America Biomorphic geoglyphs also occur in contexts outside of North America. As the distance between these effigies increases, the likelihood that there is any sort of historical relationship between them decreases. Nevertheless, considering the geoglyphs on a

DRAFT global scale offers the potential to gain insight into the class of monumental landscape art. In Peru, the Lines and Geoglyphs of Nasca and Pampas de Jumana World Heritage site is perhaps the most famous set of geoglyphs in the world. It includes representations of a variety of animals as well as more abstract geometric designs. Birds are the most frequently depicted animal, but fish, lizards, a monkey, a spider, and a fox are also known. Some of these same creatures figure prominently on the painted ceramics of the Early Intermediate Period (100 BCE – 500 CE), so many of the animal geoglyphs may belong to the same era. Various explanations have been offered for the Nasca geoglyphs – from their use as astronomical instruments to George Kubler's suggestion, elaborated recently by Reinhard (1992) and Aveni (2000), that they define ritual pathways. Wilson argued that similar and approximately contemporary ground drawings on the north coast of Peru are "… depictions of animals that have been an integral part of Andean religious systems…" (1988:801). He suggested they were "…constructed as part of elaborate ritual ceremonies related to agricultural fertility…" (Wilson 1988:795). There are more than 5,000 geoglyphs etched into the Atacama Desert in Chile. One of the largest is the so-called "Atacama Giant," a human effigy 115 m long (Clarkson 1999:86). The majority were built between 600 and 1500 CE, but Briones-M. links it with rock art traditions that began much earlier and continued into the historic era (Briones-M. 2006). The Uffington Horse is a 110 meter long intaglio cut into the slope of a prominent hill in southern England. It is probably the oldest of the English hill-figures dating to between 1300 – 600 BCE. Little is known about its purpose, but mortuary ceremonialism in the immediate vicinity of the site preceded its construction and continued after its presence transformed this English hillside into something more than a cemetery (Miles 1999: 42). The Cerne Abbas Giant is more problematic. This hill figure is 55 m long and there is no consensus regarding the age of this dramatically-posed hill-figure. Some authorities relate the giant's impressive phallus to fertility rituals, but his threateningly raised club suggests this interpretation might be incomplete.

The Serpent Mound at Loch Nell in Scotland is a serpent effigy 91 meters long and 6 meters high. The head is formed by a circular rock cairn. In 1871, The Antiquary reported that John Phene had conducted excavations into the cairn located at the head of the effigy and found "a megalithic chamber, in which was a quantity of charcoal and burned earth and charred nut shells, a flint instrument beautifully and minutely serrated at the edge, and burned bones" (1871:179). The same article asserted that this effigy "corresponds almost entirely" with Ohio's Serpent Mound: "The altar towards the head in each case agrees" (1871:179). Matthews (1896, 1901a, 1901b) described numerous geoglyphs produced by the aboriginal groups of Australia, including serpent effigies constructed in various media,

DRAFT including raised earthen figures and alignments of rock. Most are between 5 and 15 meters in length. The longest aboriginal geoglyph observed by Matthews was a 40 m (130 ft) long "serpent-like monster called the kurrea" (1901a:339). The largest Australian geoglyph also is the largest known geoglyph in the world. Known as the "Marree Man," or "Stuart's Giant," it is 4.2 km long with a circumference of 15–28 km. Little is known of its origin and meaning, but since it likely was created in the 20th century, it can be considered as a modern work of landscape art comparable to Michael Heizer's Effigy Tumuli. Conclusion Geoglyphs, in the form of animal or human effigy mounds or intaglios, are known from sites all over the world. The Lines and Geoglyphs of Nasca and Pampas de Jumana is, so far, the only such site to be inscribed on the World Heritage List. Although geoglyphs are not explicitly discussed in the recent UNESCO document Prehistory and World Heritage: a thematic initiative, it may be useful to consider geoglyphs within the context of "Rock Art" properties, which are one of three thematic categories of prehistoric heritage sites mentioned. The authors observe that Rock Art properties "demonstrate evidence for the transmission of human conceptual thoughts and beliefs through art and graphic representations by societies through time" (UNESCO 2009:11). Geoglyphs, as monumental works of sculptural art, reflect the same evidence of ancient "thoughts and beliefs" as rock art; and, moreover, the values used in the evaluation of rock art sites could apply equally well to geoglyphs. The authors of the UNESCO report refer to the arts' exemplary value, the aesthetic quality of the art, its rarity, its spatial distribution and quantity, the relationship of the artistic tradition "up to contemporary times" that applies to the art, the state of preservation of the art, and the quality of the physical environment in which the art is situated (UNESCO 2009:12). Serpent Mound is exceptional in terms of its scale, degree of preservation, iconic naturalism, and association with indigenous Native American oral traditions that cast light on its meaning. Moreover, Serpent Mound, as well as the other effigy mounds of eastern North America, differs from many of the other documented geoglyphs in being formed as a built-up mound rather than being delineated by the excavation of an outline (Table 1). Serpent Mound is most closely associated, in both space and time, with the effigy mounds of the Upper Midwestern United States. Serpent Mound, however, is larger and more isolated than those effigies of the upper Mississippi Valley. Moreover, many of the Midwestern effigy mounds were used for the internment of human remains, whereas Serpent Mound was not. Nevertheless, as Serpent Mound was partially contemporary with the effigy mounds of the Upper Mississippi Valley and as no insurmountable geographic boundaries separate these areas, it is not out of the question to suggest that there is some historical connection between them as well as perhaps with the other roughly contemporary geoglyphs in eastern North America.

DRAFT In the context of a detailed analysis of the cultural affiliation of the effigy mounds of upper Mississippi valley, Green and Zimmerman concluded that "oral tradition and traditional history are difficult both to access and to assess in terms of validity" (2001:279). They reported the views of Winnebago historian David Smith that the effigy mounds were "sacred to all Siouan speakers…as both burial sites and ritual areas" (2001:280). They quoted Dawn Makes Strong Moves as asserting that most of the Ho-Chunks that she interviewed "regarded all mounds as monuments (for lack of a better word) to spirits" (2001:280). Staeck (1998) reviewed the Effigy Mound Tradition of the Upper Midwest Unites States and concluded, based on ethnographic information from the Ho-Chunk, Menominee, and Potowatami tribes, that "mounds are invariably sacred places" and that they "symbolically connect their contents to ideological constructs portrayed by the mound shapes as well as to the earth and sky" (1998:6). Unspecified "Native American representatives" informed Harry Holstein that the Skeleton Mountain Snake Effigy possessed "ceremonial and spiritual sacredness" (Holstein 2007:1). Robert Thrower, identified in a newspaper article as the "cultural authority director for the Poarch Band of Creek Indians in Alabama," described the snake effigy and similar structures as "prayers in stone" (Whisenhunt 2009). Therefore, it can be affirmed with some confidence that the Midwestern effigy mounds and Ohio's Serpent Mound depict animals, or animal spirits, that figure powerfully in the cosmology of the historically indigenous peoples of the Eastern Woodlands (Birmingham and Eisenberg 2000; Lankford 2007; Lepper and Frolking 2003). Although there are no known serpent effigies in the Upper Mississippi River valley, there are numerous panther effigies similar, in many respects, to Ohio's "Alligator" Mound. These are interpreted as varying manifestations of the chief spirit of the Below World known to the Ojibwa as Mishebeshu. Therefore, the majority of effigy mounds in eastern North America cohere as monumental representations of supernatural beings. These effigies were used as shrines or places of ceremony dedicated to the particular supernatural being. The antiquity of Canada's Otonabee Serpent Mound, if it is indeed a serpent effigy, suggests that this artistic tradition may have deep roots in this region. But the great age of this effigy makes it extremely difficult to link it reliably to Native American oral traditions (Mason 2008). David Boyle (1897:20-21) wrote that the Mississaugas (a branch of the Anishinaabe First Nation) that lived in the vicinity of the Otonabee Serpent Mound in Ontario believed that it "had been thrown up as a means of defence [sic] against the Mohawks." Since this interpretation is not supported by archaeological or historical evidence, it may reflect either a deliberate dissimulation to keep sacred knowledge from the European-Americans, or it may be an example of a folkloristic explanation offered to account for the mound's otherwise inexplicable presence. _____________________________

DRAFT 3.d Integrity and Authenticity Serpent Mound retains its original design, materials, workmanship and much of its original setting. This has been demonstrated by limited archeological testing of the embankment walls during the 19th and 20th centuries (Putnam 1890; Fletcher et al. 1996). The integrity of Serpent Mound was somewhat diminished by 19th century cultivation, looting, and limited archeological excavations. Putnam, however, only excavated a few trenches across the mound and the 1991 excavations were limited to reopening a portion one of Putnam's original trenches (Putnam 1890; Fletcher et al. 1992). Putman restored the effigy with meticulous care and it demonstrably preserves a significant core of intact deposits. Therefore, while the integrity has been somewhat compromised in a few portions of the embankment, it has been maintained to a high degree overall. A comparison of modern aerial photographs of Serpent Mound with the earliest known map of the effigy (Squier and Davis 1848: 96) confirms the general accuracy of the restorations. Limited excavations conducted in 1991 demonstrate the accuracy of the restoration in at least one location (Fletcher et al. 1992). These investigations allow us to estimate that as much as 50-70% of the mound structure is original. The restoration of the mound in the 19th century primarily involved scraping up material from the adjacent ground surface. Thus the material added to the mound consisted, in the main, of earth that had originally been a part of the effigy, but which, after the relatively brief period of cultivation, had eroded from its sides. Today, the restorations not only serve the educational purpose of presenting the effigy as it originally appeared, but also help to preserve the intact core of the mound. Serpent Mound is preserved within its original landscape context on the top of a bluff projecting into the valley of Ohio Brush Creek. The surrounding countryside is rural forest and farm fields with little development to adversely affect the viewscape. Serpent Mound retains its integrity in terms of the setting, original design, materials, and workmanship. The only intrusions of discordant elements to the setting are those facilities built to provide visitor access and site interpretation (museum, park manager residence, park roads, picnic shelter) and these are situated well away from the effigy, with the exception of a metal viewing tower installed by the Ohio Historical Society in 1908 to allow visitors to obtain an "aerial" view of the mound and more clearly appreciate its form. Although we cannot know with certainty how Serpent Mound was maintained and presented in antiquity, it is likely that the surface and surrounding areas were covered in prairie grass, which would have been burned off periodically so the effigy could be distinguished. This strategy is not practical in its current setting, but careful mowing results in a presentation that may not be too different from what ancient Native

DRAFT Americans experienced several weeks following the intentional burning of the covering prairie grass.

DRAFT 4. State of Conservation Factors Affecting the Property 4.a Present State of Conservation of the Property The present state of the property is excellent. Erosion is monitored and controlled by keeping visitors from walking on the effigy. The terms of the gift of the site from Harvard University to the Ohio Historical Society require that the Society provide "perpetual care" for the property. All work undertaken at the site by the Society meets the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Historic Preservation Projects. The property is large enough to provide a suitable setting for the effigy. Moreover, the Ohio Historical Society will undertake a master plan to determine if additional land needs to be acquired to provide adequate protection for the site from incompatible development. Are there any recent or forthcoming planned major repair projects? Are there any major repairs needed to buildings or structures that have not been planned or financed? None planned for cultural resource. Improvements are planned for visitor facilities, including restrooms and museum. 4.b Factors Affecting the Property 4.b (i) Development Pressures At this time, there are no development pressures; however, there is no local zoning to prevent future development. Surrounding properties currently are used for agriculture or single-family homes on small parcels (+ 4 ha). 4.b (ii) Environmental Pressures 4.b (iii) Natural Disaster and Risk Preparedness 4.b (iv) Visitor/Tourism Pressures Current visitation is about 18,600 annually, which the site is able to accommodate easily. Visitation in the past was much higher when there were no charges for parking and picnicking was very popular and even with these larger numbers of visitors, there was no adverse effect on the mound. It is anticipated that substantial increases could be accommodated without negatively impacting the site. 4.b (v) Number of Inhabitants within the Property and the Buffer Zone

DRAFT 5. Protection and Management 5.a Ownership Ohio Historical Society 1982 Velma Avenue Columbus, OH 43211 The Ohio Historical Society, a 501(c)3 corporation, is by law the State's partner in providing history services to the public. Deed restrictions require that the site be open without charge to the public. Parking fees are charged. The grounds and visitor facilities are open on an established schedule. The park is closed on Thanksgiving, Christmas, & New Year's Day. 5.b Protective Designations State Law: Ohio Revised Code, Section 2927.11 (A)(3) prohibits a person, without privilege to do so, from purposely defacing, damaging, polluting, or otherwise physically mistreating any historical or commemorative marker, or any structure, Indian mound or earthwork, cemetery, thing, or site of great historical or archeological interest. (B) Declares that whoever violates this section is guilty of desecration, which in the case of subsection (A)(3) is a misdemeanor of the second degree. Deed Restriction: Deed from Harvard University to Ohio Archaeological and Historical Society, 6 October 1900, requires perpetual care. State Law: Ohio Revised Code, Section 149.30, requires that the Ohio Historical Society maintain and operate a system of state memorials (including properties owned by OHS) and requires legislative approval for the transfer or sale of Society property if the State has a "financial interest" in the property. National Historic Landmark 5.c Implementation of Protective Measures Resources at current levels are adequate for the long term care of the cultural resource. Current levels of funding limit public access and the care of visitor facilities. 5.d Existing Plans 5.e Monument Management Plan At the present time, no management plan is in place; however, funds were appropriated in December 2006 to create a master plan and a historic site management plan for the site. It is scheduled to be completed by 30 June 2011.

DRAFT The site is managed by the Ohio Historical Society, which was founded in 1885 as the Ohio Archaeological and Historical Society, to help protect the mounds and earthworks in the State. In 1891, state law assigned the Society the responsibility of managing the site for the benefit of the public. The Society follows the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Historic Preservation Projects in its work at the site. 5.f Sources of Levels of Finance 5.g Expertise and Training 5.h Visitor Facilities and Statistics 5.i Property Promotion and Presentation 5.j Staffing Levels

DRAFT 6. Monitoring 6.a Key Indicators for Measuring State of Conservation 6.b Administrative Arrangements for Monitoring Property 6.c Results of Previous Reporting Exercises

DRAFT 7. Documentation 7.a Photographs, Slides and Other Audiovisual Materials

Location map showing the locations of Serpent Mound in Ohio Map showing the location of the Serpent Mound in Ohio Ownership/proposed boundary map of Serpent Mound Squier and Davis map of Serpent Mound Holmes map of Serpent Mound Map from The Century magazine CERHAS image of Serpent Mound Aerial photograph of Serpent Mound Diagram of solar alignments at Serpent Mound Profiles of excavations at Serpent Mound Photograph of conical mound Illustration of artifacts excavated from conical mound Photograph of elliptical mound Illustration of artifacts from elliptical mound Photographs of visitor facilities at Serpent Mound

7.b Texts Relating to Protective Designation and Management Plans 7.c Form and Date of Most Recent Records of Inventory of Property 7.d Locations of Inventory, Records and Archives

DRAFT 7.e Reference List Antiquary 1871 Ancient serpent worship in the West. The Antiquary 1:179. Aveni, A. 2000 Between the Lines: the mystery of the giant ground drawings of ancient Nasca, Peru. University of Texas Press, Austin. Birmingham, Robert A. and Leslie E. Eisenberg 2000 Indian mounds of Wisconsin. University of Wisconsin Press, Masison. Boris, Carol A.

1984 Effigy mounds in northern Illinois: an analysis of an endangered cultural resource. Unpublished Master of Arts thesis, Department of Anthropology, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, Illinois.

Boyle, David

1897 Archaeological Report. In Annual Archaeological Report 1896-97, being part of the Appendix to the Report of the Minister of Education, Ontario, pp. 1-96. Toronto, Canada.

Briones-M., Luis

2006 The geoglyphs of the north Chilean desert: an archaeological and artistic perspective. Antiquity 80:9-24.

Converse, Robert N. 1979 Editor's page. Ohio Archaeologist 29(2):3. Davis, Emma Lou and Sylvia Winslow

1965 Giant ground figures of the prehistoric deserts. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 109(1):8-21.

Dudzik, Mark J.

1995 Visions in stone: the rock art of Minnesota. Minnesota Archaeologist 54:99-108.

Fletcher, Robert and Terry Cameron

1988 Serpent Mound: a new look at an old snake-in-the-grass. Ohio Archaeologist 38(1):55-61.

Fletcher, Robert, Terry Cameron, Bradley T. Lepper, Dee Anne Wymer, & William Pickard

1996 Serpent Mound: a Fort Ancient icon? Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 21(1)105-143.

DRAFT Glotzhober, Robert C. and Bradley T. Lepper

1994 Serpent Mound: Ohio's enigmatic effigy mound. Ohio Historical Society, Columbus.

Goss, Arthur F.

1988 Astronomical alignments at the Incinerator site. In A History of 17 years of excavation and reconstruction: a chronicle of 12th century human values and the built environment, Volume 1, edited by James M. Heilman, Malinda C. Lileas, and Christopher A. Turnbow, pp. 314-335. Dayton Museum of Natural History, Dayton, Ohio.

Green, William, Larry J. Zimmerman, Robin M. Lillie, Dawn Makes Strong Move, and Dawn Sly-Terpstra

2001 Effigy Mounds National Monument, Cultural Affiliation Report. Research Papers, Volume 26, Number 3, Office of the State Archaeologist and American Indian Studies Program, University of Iowa, Iowa City. [Available online at http://www.larryjzimmerman.com/effigy/Report.pdf].

Greenman, Emerson F. 1934 Guide to Serpent Mound. Ohio Historical Society, Columbus. Hardman, Clark, Jr. and Margorie H. Hardman

1987 The Great Serpent and the Sun. Ohio Archaeologist 37(3):34-40. Heilman, James N. and Roger R. Hoefer

1981 Possible astronomical alignments in a Fort Ancient settlement at the Incinerator site in Dayton, Ohio. In Archaeoastronomy in the Americas, edited by Ray A. Williamson, pp. 157-171. Ballena Press, Los Altos, California.

Helmick, John M.

1897 Stone Mounds and Serpent of Hughes County, South Dakota. Proceedings of the Davenport Academy of Natural Sciences 6: 170-171.

Holmes, William H. 1886 A sketch of the Great Serpent Mound. Science 8:624-628. Holstein, Harry O.

2007 Preliminary investigations at the Skeleton Mountain Snake Effigy site, 1CA157, Calhoun County, Alabama. Archaeological Resource Laboratory, Jacksonville State University, Alabama.

Johnson, B.

1985 Earth figures of the Lower Colorado and Gila River deserts: a functional analysis. Arizona Archaeologist 20.

Johnston, Richard B.

DRAFT 1968 The archaeology of the Serpent Mounds site. Occasional Paper 10, Art and Archaeology, Royal Ontario Museum, University of Toronto.

Kelly, A. R.

1979 Hopewellian studies in American Archaeology: Hopewell after Twenty Years. In Hopewell Archaeology: The Chillicothe Conference, edited by David S. Brose and N'omi Greber, pp. 1-2. Kent State University Press, Kent, Ohio.

Lankford, George E.

2007 The Great Serpent in Eastern North America. In Ancient Objects and Sacred Realms: interpretations of Mississippian iconography, edited by F. Kent Reilly III and James F. Garber, pp. 107-135. University of Texas Press, Austin.

Lekson, Stephen H.

2008 A History of the ancient Southwest. School for Advanced Research Press, Santa Fe, New Mexico.

Lenzonderf, D.

2000 Effigy mounds: a guide to Effigy Mounds National Monument. Eastern National, Fort Washington, Pennsylvania.

Lepper, Bradley T.

1998 Great Serpent. Timeline 15(5):30-45.

2001a Ohio's Alligator. Timeline 18(2):18-25.

2001b Legends of Archaeology: Saving the Serpent. American Archaeology 5(1):11-13. 2005 Ohio Archaeology: an illustrated chronicle of Ohio's ancient American Indian cultures. Orange Frazer Press, Wilmington, Ohio.

Lepper, Bradley T. and Tod A. Frolking

2003 Alligator Mound: geoarchaeological and iconographical interpretations of a Late Prehistoric effigy mound in central Ohio, USA. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 13 (2):147-167.

Lippard, Lucy R. 1983 Overlay: contemporary art and the art of prehistory. Pantheon, New York. Mallam, R. C.

1976 The Iowa effigy mound manifestation: an interpretive model. Report 9, Office of the State Archaeologist, University of Iowa, Iowa City.

1985 Site of the Serpent: A prehistoric life metaphor in south central Kansas. Occasional Papers of the Cornonado-Quivira Museum, No. 1.

DRAFT Mason, Ronald

2008 Inconstant Companions: Archaeology and North American Indian Oral Traditions. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Matthews, R. H.

1896 Australian ground and tree drawings. American Anthropologist 9:33-49. 1901a Initiation ceremonies of the Wiradjuri tribes. American Anthropologist 3:337-341. 1901b The Burbung of the Wiadthuri tribes. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Queensland 16:85-88.

MacLean, J. P. 1885 The Serpent Mound. American Antiquarian and Oriental Journal 7:44-47. McDonald, Stephanie

2008 Geology of ancient sacred sites, northern Pancake Range, central Nevada. Paper presented at the Geological Society of America, joint meeting of the Cordilleran Section and Rocky Mountain Sections, Las Vegas, Nevada.

Miles, D.

1999 The Uffington Horse and its antiquity. In The Cerne Giant: an antiquity on trial, edited by T. Darvill, K. Barker, B. Bender, and R. Hutton, pp. 39-43. Bournemouth University, School of Conservation Sciences, Occasional Paper 5.

O'Brien, Patricia J. and William P. McHugh

1987 Mississippian solstice shrines and a Cahokian calendar: an hypothesis based on ethnohistory and archaeology. North American Archaeologist 8(3):227-247.

Putnam, Frederic Ward

1886 Serpent Mound Saved. Ohio Archaeological and Historical Quarterly 1:187-190.

1890 The Serpent Mound of Ohio. The Century 39:871-888. Reinhard, J.

1992 Interpreting the Nazca lines. In The Ancient Americas: art from sacred landscapes, edited by R. F. Townsend, pp. 290-301. Art Institute of Chicago.

Romain, William F. 1987 Serpent Mound revisited. Ohio Archaeologist 37(4):4-10. 1988 Geometry at the Serpent Mound. Ohio Archaeologist 38(1):50-54.

DRAFT 2000 Mysteries of the Hopewell: astronomers, geometers, and magicians of the Eastern Woodlands. University of Akron Press, Akron.

Sanders, Sara L.

1991 The Stone Serpent Mound of Boyd County, Kentucky, an investigation of a stone effigy structure. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 16(2):272-284.

Smith, Bruce D.

1992 Mississippian elites and solar alignments: a reflection of managerial necessity, or levers of social inequality? In Lords of the Southeast: social inequality and the Native elites of southeastern North America, edited by Alex W. Baker and Timothy R. Pauketat, pp. 11-33. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association, Number 3.

Squier, Ephraim and Edwin Davis

1848 Ancient monuments of the Mississippi Valley. Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge, Volume 1. Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C.

Staeck, John P.

1998 Mounds, monuments, and the politics of power: dimensions of effigy mound function. Paper presented at the Society for American Archaeology's Annual Meeting, Seattle, Washington.

Thomas, David Hurst 2000 Exploring Native North America. Oxford University Press, Oxford. UNESCO

2009 Prehistory and World Heritage: a thematic initiative. UNESCO, Paris, France.

Webb, William S. and Charles E. Snow

1945 The Adena People. Publications of the Department of Anthropology and Archaeology, Volume 6. University of Kentucky, Lexington.

Whisenhunt, Dan

2009 Sacred sites or something else? Structures not unique to Oxford, but questions remains over origins. The Anniston Star, 24 August 2009.

Whitley, David S.

2009 Cave paintings and the human spirit: the origin of creativity and belief. Prometheus Books, Amherst, New York.

White, John R.

1987a The Kern Effigy: evidence for a prehistoric Fort Ancient Summer Solstice marker. North American Archaeologist 7:137-165.

DRAFT 1987b Kern Effigy #2: a Fort Ancient Winter Solstice marker? Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 12:225-242.

Williamson, A. W. 1897 The serpent effigy in Minnesota. American Antiquarian 19:151-154. Willoughby, Charles C.

1919 The Serpent Mound of Adams County, Ohio. American Anthropologist 21:153-163.

Wilson, David J.

1988 Desert ground drawings in the lower Santa valley, north coast of Peru. American Antiquity 53(4):794-804.

Wittry, Warren L.

1969 The American Woodhenge. In Explorations into Cahokia Archaeology, edited by Melvin L. Fowler, pp. 43-48. 1980 Cahokia Woodhenge update. Archaeoastronomy 3(1):12-14.

Wright, G. Frederick

1885 The Serpent Mound of Ohio. Bibliotheca Sacra 42:572.

DRAFT 8. Contact Information of Responsible Authorities 8.a Preparers Name: Bradley T. Lepper, PhD Title: Curator of Archaeology Address: Ohio Historical Society, 1982 Velma Ave City, State/Territory, Zip Code: Columbus, OH 43211 Telephone: (614) 297-2642 Fax: 614-297-2455 E-mail and/or website: blepper@ohiohistory.org; www.ohiohistory.org 8.b Official Local Institution/Agency Name: Burt Logan Title: Executive Director, Ohio Historical Society Address: 1982 Velma Ave. City, State/Territory, Zip Code: Columbus, OH 43211 Telephone: 614-297-2350 Cellular phone: Fax: 614-297-2352 E-mail and/or website: blogan@ohiohistory.org; www.ohiohistory.org 8.c Other Local Institutions 8.d Offical Web Address

DRAFT 9. Signature on Behalf of State Party

DRAFT Glossary

Adena Culture

The Adena culture, circa 800 BCE – 100 CE, refers to the prehistoric American Indian

peoples that lived in southern Ohio and neighboring regions of West Virginia, Kentucky,

and Indiana during the Early Woodland Period. They were the first people in this region

to settle down in small villages, cultivate crops, use pottery vessels, acquire exotic raw

materials, such as copper and marine shell, to make ornaments and jewelry, and bury

their honored dead in conical burial mounds.

Biomorphic geoglyph

A biomorphic geoglyph is a large representation of an animal or human built by

mounding earth and/or stone into the desired shape or by cutting or etching a design into

the surface of the ground.

Burial Mound

A burial mound is a mound of artificially deposited earth that incorporates one or more

human burials. Burial mounds were made in a variety of shapes and sizes by different

cultures.

Effigy Mound

An effigy mound is a mound of artificially deposited earth built in the shape of an animal

or a human. An effigy mound also can be a burial mound.

DRAFT Fort Ancient Culture

The Fort Ancient culture, circa 1000 – 1650 CE, thrived in southern Ohio and northern

Kentucky. Villages were made up of a number of circular or rectangular houses

surrounding an open plaza. The Fort Ancient people continued to build small burial

mounds, but gradually shifted to burials in a cemetery area with no mounds.

Geoglyph

A geoglyph is a large iconic symbol built by mounding earth and/or stone into the desired

shape or by cutting or etching a design into the surface of the ground.

Hopewell Culture

The Hopewell culture, circa 100 BCE – 400 CE, is an ancient American Indian

civilization that arose in Ohio and other parts of eastern North America during the Middle

Woodland Period, perhaps as early as 100 BC. It is characterized by gigantic mounds and

earthen enclosures in a variety of shapes, magnificent works of art crafted from raw

materials brought to Ohio from great distances, and particular styles of stone tools and

pottery unique to this time and region. The Hopewell culture developed from the

preceding Adena culture, but the Hopewell culture built much larger earthworks and

greatly expanded the area from which it obtained exotic raw materials, such as shells

from the Gulf of Mexico, copper from the Great Lakes region, mica from the Carolinas,

and obsidian from the Rocky Mountains. The archaeologist N'omi Greber refers to the

rise of the Hopewell culture as an "explosion" of art, ritual, and ceremonial architecture.

DRAFT Petroform A petroform is a large iconic symbol built by placing cobbles and/or small

boulders into lines that form the desired shape.