THE MARTIN M ND

AN EXTENSION OF THE HOPEWELL INTERACTION SPHERE INTO THE ",

Pc WALHONDING VALLEY OF EASTERN OHIO 970.6 MOR by Wayne A. Mortine and Doug Randles i i \ ! I

000 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

A GIFT FROM Wayne A. Martine and Doug Randles

COSHOCTON 0 :I PUBLIC LIBRARY 1 o tolll olillolillolillolll[olillolillolillolillo! 111 0 111(0111\0100 I THE MARTIN MOUND

AN EXTENSION OF THE HOPEWELL INTERACTION SPHERE

INTO THE WALHONDING VALLEY OF EASTERN OHIO

by

Wayne A. Mortine and Doug Randles

Occasional Papers in

Muskingum Valley Archaeology

No. 10

Jeff Carskadden and James Morton, editors

THE MUSKINGUM VALLEY ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY

Copyright @ 1978 852387 Preface

The 1960s mark J for the most part) the end of the "antiquarian period" in archaeological research in Ohio. Olaf Prufer's excavation of the McGraw site in the Scioto Valley in 1963 (Prufer, 1965) represented the break­ through in Middle Woodland studies and ended a long period of stagnation and dependence on early twentieth century site excavations and reports. In addition to numerous 19th century descriptions of the Newark and Marietta earthworks, research into eastern Ohio Hopewell has been limited to William C. Mills' excavation of the Hazlett Mound on Flint Ridge shortly before 1921 (Mills, 1921), Shetrone's excavation of the Eagle Mound at Newark in 1928 (Shetrone, 1930), and Raymond Baby's descriptions of Hopewellian copper objects from the Rutledge Mound (Baby, 1961) in Lick~ng County and the Rollins-Ford Mound (Baby, 1962) in Muskingum County. More recent work in­ cludes our own reports in the Ohio Archaeologist on surface sites along the Licking River in the Dillon Reservoir area of western Muskingum County (Carskadden, 1970; Donaldson and Carskadden, 1973), along the Muskingum River near Zanesville (Carskadden, 1972), in the Wills Creek drainage area of northeastern Muskingum County (Carskadden, 1973)1 and Jack Bernhardt's survey of Hopewellian open sites in the Newark area (Bernhardt, 1976). In 1973 Wayne Mortine tested the Middle Woodland Barlow Site along the Tus­ carawas River, a major tributary of the Muskingum (Mortine, 1974). Recently Jan Whitman (1977) has reported on the excavation of a significant Middle Woodland site, the Kohl Mound, also along the Tuscarawas River. In the Muskingum Valley proper the Muskingum Valley Archaeological Survey has been excavating a Hopewellian mound group (5 mounds) and an associated open site near Zanesville. Reports on the first two mounds excavated have been published (Foraker, 1975; Morton, 1977). The remaining mounds and open site will be discussed in a future edition of "Occasional Papers". James Murphy is also currently surveying Middle Woodland components in the upper Licking Valley and his report will be included in "Occasional Papers".

With the exception of the reports by Mills, Shetrone, and Baby, most of the data on Muskingum Valley Hopewell in "modern" archaeological literature has been pUblished in the last eight years. This lack of earli­ er research on Hopewell in this area is in spite of the fact that one of the most extensive of Hopewellian ceremonial complexes -- the Newark Earth­ works -- lies at the head of the Licking River at Newark, and an equally impressive Hopewellian mound group -- the Marietta Earthworks -- lies at the mouth of the Muskingum. Flint Ridge, another important archaeological feature particularly significant in Middle Woodland times, is located be­ tween Newark and Zanesville. Therefore, Wayne Mortine and Doug Randles' excavation of the Martin Mound is important in that it not only substan­ tiates a major occurrence of classic Hopewellian traits in an area once thought to be out of the mainstream of Hopewellian development but also provides the first account of Hopewell occupation in the Walhonding Valley. It thus represents a significant step in understanding the Hopewell phenom­ enon in this portion of eastern Ohio.

Jeff Carskadden and James Morton

January, 1978 Map of southeastern Ohio showing location of the Martin Mound, Coshocton County, in relation to certain major Hopewellian ceremonial centers. Report No. 10

THE MARTIN MOUN])

AN EXTENSION OF THE HOPEWELL INTERAC TION SPHERE

INTO THE WALHONDING VALLEY OF EASTERN OHIO

by

Wayne A. Mortine and Doug Randles

The Martin Mound is located in Bethlehem Township, Coshocton County, Ohio. It is situated on the edge of the second or highest terrace on the north side of the Walhonding River p 800 feet above sea level. The nearly circular mound is 50 feet in diameter and only two feet high. The surface of the terrace undulates with slight swales and rises. The mound lies on one of the highest of these rises; a depression on the east side makes the mound appear to be about five feet high if viewed from that direction. The river bottoms at this point are one mile wide and the mound is equi­ distant between the range of hills on either side of the valley. A meander takes the main channel of the river 0.4 mile south of the site, curving along the base of the steep-sided hills. Skirting these hills for a little over a mile in a generally eastern direction, the river again meanders south, then turns sharply and runs north to its confluence with a major tributary, Killbuck Creek. From this juncture the Walhonding flows east to join the Tuscarawas River at Co shocton and form the Muskingum River. The Martin site is 1.6 miles west of the mouth of Killbuck Creek. The village of Warsaw is 1.7 miles west of the site along State Route 36.

The Martin Mound was first explored in the summer of 1931 by Edwin N. Ferdon who at the time was a recent high school graduate. With the help of a younger brother and some boy scouts, he started a trench toward the center of the mound. The size and direction of the trench was expanded as features were uncovered. Visitors to the site at the time of the dig remember trenches that formed a cross-like configuration on an east-west p north-south line with the intersection of the trenches being at what was considered the center of the mound.

In July, 1975, the farm on which the mound lay, consisting of fields and buildings on both sides of State Route 36, was sold. The property passed through a series of ownership changes; with the mound ending in the possession of Mr. and Mrs. Charles Martin, Route #1, Warsaw, Ohio. They were unaware of the prehistoric earthwork on their land until the authors asked for and received permission to conduct an archaeological salvage operation. Our objective was to determine whether any new knowledge could be gained from the site. We were spurred on by the information that the parcel of land would soon be subdivided for a small housing development. This meant that the mound would be completely destroyed. After informing the Ohio Historical Society of the situation, we were told that there were no funds or personnel available at the time to assist us, and we were advised to proceed with our efforts to preserve any information we could before the mound was leveled. Initially, it was thOUght that two weeks would be sufficient to complete the project, but the preliminary work was

-1­ 0 ;--.. 0 ':1:j I:: f-J. ::s at! c+. ~ f-' '--" 0 ::r J--3 f-J' Ii 0 f-J. ::sill ~~ gs CD W f-J. 0 ::sp. 0 f-J. Ul 0 ::r ill 0 c+ 0 CD S- Ul ::s c+ ::r f-' CD \..r\ f-' 0 0 ill c+ fP. f-J. ~ ::s0 ::s at! 0 f-' H) CD ;--.. ::rc+ WCD 0 ill f-' W CD Ii c+ f-J. f-' ::s ::sf-J' ~ ::r0 I:: p.::s u f-' tJj CD ;:l c+ f-J' ::r f-' f-' '--"CD ::rCD CD ;:l J--3 0 S ::rUl f-J. Cd

0 0 ::rUl 0 0 ?' ,:.. c+ I 0 c. ::s " 'So t '"' \ "'­v ,d .7­ ~ . .._,~,- ... so productive that two seasons of part-time field work were expended in the excavationE The work proceeded from July, 1975, to late August, 1976, with inclement weather being the only reason for a pause in our efforts. To protect the privacy of the landowners and to provide more control at the site, the authors performed nearly all the field work personally.

Our first endeavor to gain background information on the site was to contact the original excavator, Mr. Ferdon, who is currently associate director of the Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona, Tucsono After several inquiries we were successful in obtaining his addresse We wrote a letter introducing ourselves and asked for any information or advice he could give us on the project. His info:rmative reply of June 11,_ 1975, is printed below:

Dear Mr. Mortine:

You must be a born optimist to think that I might be of any real help recalling the results of my very first trial-and­ error excavation: I conducted that dig in the summer of 1931 just after graduating from high school. I had gotten really turned on about archaeology my final year in high school and, having read Spetrone's The Mound Builders from cover to cover, I decided I should try my hand at excavating to see if I really enjoyed the work. I chose that parti­ cular mound to dig because the farmer that owned it was systematically plowing it down to make a pasture, and, since he planned to flatten the area, he agreed that I might as well do a little digging before he destroyed it. Now, from your letter, I gather that he never completed his plans a

That summer I directed a Boy Scout camp and after the camp was over I talked my kid brother and a couple of other scouts into joining me in the dige We set up a small camp near the mound and went to work. As I recall, I started a trench into one side of the mound and after hitting u pay dirtU we expanded the trench essentially to the middle of the mound. Never having seen a professional excavation I can assure you that oy my present-day standards the dig was a heck of a mess. Probably the only thing that saved it from being a total loss to archaeologists was that Shetrone, then with the Ohio state Museum, sent his assistant, Dr. Emerson Greenman, out to view the dig and make a few notes on what we were finding,

My memory of what we recovered from that mound is really pretty vague, probably the result of a self-induced mental block after I later learned what not to do on an excavation: I do recall that we uncovered a cremation basin, a secondary burial, and one extended burial. This latter my sister Pat and I put together on a plyboard, using my mother's kitchen as our bone lab. It didn't bother my mother, but it certainly did shock the local milk man when he made his morning delivery. That particular skeleton was turned over to the Johnson­ Humrickhouse Museum, along with the artifacts we recovered. Unfortunately, the only artifacts that I recall vividly were

-3­ two copper ear spools which, I believe, we recovered with the secondary burial. Some projectile points were also uncovered, but how many and what type I could not possibly tell you. We also found a very few fragments of pottery which Greenman wanted for examination.

My hunch is that you might find a better record of what we found by going through the 1931 summer issues of the Coshocton newspaper as they wrote up the dig, as did one of the news­ papers in Columbus.

I rather suspect that our very unprofessional excavation of the mound never got deep enough to reach base level. Q,ui te probably if you rq,n a broadside and kept moving the face in­ wards you would easily pick up the disturbed area of our excavation. I regret that I am unable to furnish the kind of information you were probably hoping for, but 44 years is a heck of a long time back and I have traveled many a mUddy trail since that first crude effort to determine if anthro= pology was to be my chosen field. It was, along with geo­ graphic exploration, and hopefully some of the work I have produced along the way has made up for that miserable attempt at self-education. I might add that the following year I took my motorcycle out to New Mexico and enrolled in a summer archaeological field school then being conducted by Dr. Edgar L. Hewett, then director of the School of American Research. I ended up working for the School and Museum of New Mexico as their latin American specialist for 22 years before coming down here to my present position.

SincBrely yours,

Edwin N. Ferdon, Jr.

Our next step, upon learning the precise year of the excavation (1931) was to search the microfilm files of back issues of the Coshocton Tribune at the Coshocton Public Library. Three references to the excavation were found. The first was in the July, 26, 1931, Sunday edition; a very lengthy account with many comments by local authorities. L.C. Shaw of West Lafayette speculated that the mound might be the grave of Chief Eagle Feather, a local historic Indian. Another commentator suggested that the site might be a burial ground of the Delaware Indians. Mrs. Harry Cope, wife of an Indian relic collector from Columbus, who visited the site, declared that one point found was the finest of its type she had ever seen. Unfortunately, it was not stated what type it was, merely that it had been broken by a pick during the excavation. The article stated that the farm belonged to a Joseph Stewart who had given permission to excavate. The young men taking part in the work were Edwin Ferdon, Coshocton; Russell Strome, Warsaw; Lester Williams, Mt. Vernon; George Rose and Jack Anderson of Coshocton. According to the newspaper report,

The two skeletons were found on their backs, their heads are pointed south and their feet north • Although the second one discovered appears to be slightly twisted, the first as far as

-4­ can be determined from the part uncovered Saturday night is laying perfectly straight. A trench was started by the scouts at the south side of the mound. This had been dug at a depth of five feet until the center was reached. Here the first skeleton was discovered. Another trench was started on the north side of the mound and it was in this one that the second skeleton was found just north of the first. Another trench which is intended to cross from west to east through the mound was started Saturday afternoon. Nothing with exception of a few pieces of flint had been discovered in this trench last night.

The second article appeared in the August 2, 1931, Sunday edition of the Coshocton Tribune:

Scouts continue excavation work at Indian mound. The bones of what is believed to have been a baby, and a third skeleton have been uncovered by Boy Scouts who are excavating the mound­ builders grave located on the Coshocton-Warsaw road it was learned Saturday. The mound and its contents have been identi­ fied as belonging to the mound-builder period by Dr. Emerson Greenman of the Ohio State University Museum, who claims that the skeletons which have been unearthed are between J,OOO and 10,000 years old. Although none of the skeletons have yet been placed on display at the Johnson-Humerickhouse Museum here, scouts who are doing the excavation work plan to exhibit at least one of them in the near future. The third skeleton unearthed was found to be the most perfect of the three, and it is hoped by the youths who are excavating that it will be I>Ossible to remove the remains of what was once a mound-builder without changing the position of any of the bones. It is b~ lieved to be the remains of an adult. The pearl necklace found abJut the neck of the skeleton unearthed was identified as such by Dr. Greenman. He said the pearls were secured from mussels and oysters which had been deposited in the streams of this section by the glacier which once passed over.

The third article appeared August 21, 1931, in the same paper:

Articles found in Indian Mound now at Museum. Most of the artifacts uncovered at the Indian Mound on the Coshocton- Warsaw road have now been placed on display at the Johnson­ Humerickhouse Museum here, Mrs. L.M. Anderson, curator, announced today. The excavation work was done by local boy scouts, and three weeks were re~uired to complete the job. The scouts were first interested in the mound by L.C. Shaw, West Lafayette. They dug several days, however, before striking the first of three skeletons that were unearthed. Shaw stated the mound was at one time 25 to 30 feet high, but it had been lowered considerably from being plowed over the years. Two male skele­ tons, a female skeleton, and a bundle burial were uncovered by the scouts·, Dr. Emerson Greenman of the Ohio state Univer­ sity Museum viewed the find and gave his opinion that the skele­ tons are those of Mound-Builders. who lived here from 3,000 to la, 000 years ago. Wi th the bundle burial remains were found

-5­ copper earrings and other artifacts of that metal. A small piece of mica was also found there. A pearl necklace, greatly deteriorated by age, was found about the neck of one of the male skeletons. Other artifacts found included arrowheads, a skinning knife, flint coming from Flint Ridge between Newark and Zanesville, two fire bowls, small animal bones and bits of pottery. The female was found to be covered with a bark shroud. One of the complete skeletons is now being prepared for display at the museum, but another week probably will be required before it will be ready. At the present, a skull and all the small artifacts found in the mound are· being displayed in the show­ case at the museum.

By 1975, the mound and even the mound discoveries had been generally forgotten. There were some local historians and amateur archaeologists who were vaguely familiar with the location. The senior author, through an unusual set of circumstances, had been aware of the mound near Warsaw for almost 40 years. As a grade school student he attended Sycamore School which is located on the same lot as the JOhnson-Humerickhouse Museum, and used to visit the museum frequently. At this time (circa 1938), the skeletons and artifacts from the 1931 excavation were on display in an enclosed glass case with captions giving data and location where found. After moving to Warsaw in 1942,one of Mortine's first acts was to locate the mound. The remnant of the mound was clearly visible from the road. At this time the field was used for pasture as it has been since the 1931 dig. Moving from Warsaw in 1952, Mortine returned often to visit friends and family who lived in the area. Periodic stops at the museum in Coshocton were made whenever possible. On one return visit after a longer than usuql interval, it was noticed that the skeletal material was missing. When asked what had happened, the museum personnel stated that the bones had disintegrated and had been dis­ posed of. Today, the only known artifacts donated by Mr. Ferdon remaining at the museum are two copper earspools (Fig. 3).

The 1975-76 Excavation

Having gathered the foregoing background information on the mound, we began our own excavation. We started a trench on the south side of the mound with a backhoe in order to provide a face from which we could work north toward the center. This trench was to be 20 feet long on an east­ west line and 5 feet wide. It was as far away from the center of the mound as was thOUght necessary to avoid disturbing any mound features. The oper­ ator of the machine first removed the sod and plow zone; then the process of deepening the trench began. The work had hardly begun when human bones were uncovered, and an immediate halt was called. From that point forward only hand tools were used in the excavation. The single exception was the use of a bulldozer to backfill the site. Throughout the excavation we worked in five-foot squares, taking them down until we reached sterile subsoil. Three features, two of which contained burials, were found in this initial trench. Our later investigations proved that all three of these features and the two burials were immediately outside the house pattern (Fig. 2). The burials and features will be described in the order they were excavated.

Feature 1: This feature was a circular pit three feet across and extending 1 foot 11 inches below the mound floor. It was filled with large river

-6­ • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

1931 EXCAVATION • .... - -­ .... • I \ I : • I I ,. I • I • , I / • \ • "­ / ...... ;rF-12 • ,r \ , ,. ... ­ _.. • • • OF-IO • • OF-6 • (;;7 N • • • • • 8 • I 5 Feet 8

(Fig. 2) Floor plan of the Martin Mound, Coshocton County, Ohio, showing post hole pattern of the charnel house, sub-floor features, burials, and burnt areas (dotted lines). cobbles. dark soil and scattered human bones. The top of this feature had been disturbed by the backhoe, but it appeared that a bundle of bones had been laid on top of the core of stones, perhaps on a perishable material, and that over a period of time they had sifted downward.

Burial 1: The badly deteriorated skeletal remains in Feature 1 consisted of two femora. two fibulae, two humeri, several bones from the feet and hands, two vertebrae, nine teeth, and scapula, sternum, and one skull frag­ ment. This skull fragment showed signs of color change and checking indica­ tive of intense heat. It was the only bone in this feature that exhibited any indication that it might have been part of a cremation. The size and ruggedness of the bones suggest an adult male. One of the teeth was a third molar, a sign of maturity as these teeth do" not appear until after the eight­ eenth birthday. The sternum was completely ossified, another sign of an adult. These remains probably represent a single individual.

An important find in this feature was a broken rim section of a cord­ marked Middle Woodland pot (Fig. 4). It was found at the base of the pit. The sherd, probably from a McGraw Cordmarked vessel, was grit tempered with slightly smoothed cordmarking to within 2 cm of the lip. There was some flattening of the lip. This sherd measured 0.7 cm thick.

Feature 2: This feature was located in our original trench and was partially disturbed by the backhoe. The dimensions of this feature were so vague that even careful trowelling provided little information about its outline. Since there were no great color differences or stones, all that could be deter­ mined is that it was circular with an approximate diameter of three feet and extended 2 feet 1 inch below the mound floor.

Burial 2: An isolated human skull (Fig. 5) was found in Feature 2. It lay on the occiput with the face up. The chin pointed westward, with six cer­ vical vertebrae lying under the skull and protruding beyond the lower mandi­ ble. The vertebrae were in anatomical order indicating an in-flesh burial. The weight of the overlying soil had caused some flattening of the skull. Two rib fragments and two small phalanges were found a few inches south of the skull. The analysis of the skull was done by Suzanne Lime, museum technologist at the Ohio Historical Society, Columbus, Ohio. Her report (Dec, 8, 1975) follows:

Age: Aging depends on the appearance of the third molars in the maxilla. Third molars appear anywhere between 17-25 years of age. Since the third molars have not appeared on the mandible, I would hypothesize the age to be closer to 17-20. However, third molar eruption is very erratic. The bone was too fragmented to use suture closure of the skull for aging purposes.

Sex: Female. Although the skeletal material is fragmented, the thickness of the skull and the size of the vertebrae are small and delicate, as in a female. The mastoid processes (protrusion behind the ear) and the occipital protrusion are also small and delicate.

The reason for the removal and burial of the head and neck of this young female is not readily apparent. Research into Hopewell cremation practices show that these people did dismember the remains just before they cremated

-8­ their dead in the flesh (Baby, 1954: 4). Perhaps the rest of the body was cremated and deposited elsewhere, or perhaps a "trophy skull" is indicated.

Feature 3: Feature 3 was a circular pit, 2 feet 6 inches in diameter, and 2 feet 5-inches deep. _It contained dark soil, flecks of charcoal, 18 pieces of plain, grit tempered pottery, three stemmed points, one small ovate blank, two broken preforms, one hammerstone, one drill and one stone celt (Fig. 6). While stemmed points have been found on Hopewellian sites (Prufer, 1965), these three points appear to be typical Adena artifacts. All flint artifacts found in Feature 3 were made from local Upper Mercer flint •.

As we finished cleaning and straightening the opening trench we began to uncover a pattern of vertical postholes. They were on the north side of the trench in a straight east-west line, and indicated that the mound had covered a screen or house structure. The postholes consisted of dark soil, broken and whole river cobbles, flecks of charcoal, flint chips and other materials common to village midden. The first evidence of Feature 4 was found six inches north of the postholes or inside of what later proved to be the house pattern (Fig. 7). Feature 4, containing Burial 3, and Feature 5, containing Burial 4, were actually combined, apparently involving a complex ceremonial burial of a young individual 10-13 years of age. The body had been placed in a prepared basin below the floor of the charnel house. An area of the house floor nine feet east-west and six feet north-south above the burial had been marked by a ring of SYmmetrical river cobbles. Inside this ring there was a dark,fourteen inch thick lens of earth that had been SUbjected to heat. The center of .this burnt area over the burial was re­ moved and replaced, first with a thin two inch layer of pebbles and then with a twelve inch layer of river cobbles. The dark soil contained many artifacts that appeared to have been placed there deliberately. Lastly, part of the ring of stones on the east side of the ring was removed and a "trophy skull" and a ceremonial pottery vessel were emplaced.

Feature 4: This feature was a prepared clay burial basin measuring 3 feet 2 inches-by 6 feet. The basin extended 24 inches below the floor of the mortuary house. The long axis of the basin was oriented in an east-west line. There was approximately 6 inches of mound fill over the top of the feature.

Burial]: An extended sub-adult lay in Feature 4 with the head towards the east. The skull lay on the left side, facing south, with the chin touching the left shoulder. The bones were well enough preserved to allow complete restoration. Analysis of the skull indicated the age of the individual at death to be 10-13 years. Suzanne Lime (Sept. 21, 1976) comments: "Six and one half to 11 years is the period of loss of deciduous teeth and replace­ ment by permanent teeth. At 12 years the second permanent (12 year molars) teeth appear. The skull has canines and premolars in the upper jaw that have not been replaced yet by permanent teeth. Coupled with the fact that all 12 year molars have erupted, I would place the age somewhere between 10­ 13 years. I can find no cause of death or any anomalies on the skull."

Two large stones had been intentionally placed above the pelvic bones and lumbar vertebrae of this young individual (Fig. 8). The larger stone, a granitic glacial erratic, weighed 76 pounds and measured 9 by 10 by 14 inChes. This stone also extended over the right hand. The smaller stone was of a dense sandstone and weighed 9 pounds. Tightly adhering to the

-9­ forehead was a small, two-hole copper gorget (Fig. 9). When it was removed, the imprint of the gorget was plainly visible on the skull as a result of the chemical action of the copper salts. The holes in the gorget had been punched rather than drilled. A plain platform pipe made from a fine-grained sandstone had been placed three inches from the forehead. There was an old break on the drilled stem that would indicate the artifact may have been in­ tentionally or ceremonially broken (Fig •. 11). Interestingly, the pipe was not placed at the bottom of the burial basin but several inches above the bottom at about the same level as the middJ,e of the skull. This might in­ dicate that the burial was partially covered before placement of the pipe or that a small mound of earth had been made to support the pipe.

At this point in the excavation the large stones were removed from over the skeleton. Lying in the open right hand was a two-hole, black, fine­ grained slate gorget. Two tally marks were notched into one end of the arti­ fact (Fig. 10). Also covered by the stone and lying near the right wrist was a cut maxilla of a young beaver (identified by Donn Davids of the Natural History Department of the Ohio Historical Society -- Fig. 12). The next significant find in the feature was a cache (Fig. 13) found 10 inches from the right knee, at the north edge of the burial basin. The cache included eight drilled bear canines (Fig. 14 & 15). The four smaller teeth were drilled with two adjacent countersunk holes on one side. This type of drilling was probably designed to hold some type of setting (copper or pearls). The four larger canines were countersunk once on one side. One of the teeth had a small hollow copper hemisphere inserted into the counter­ sunk hole. The copper had stained the tooth around the drilling. On the reverse side of the four large teeth were four drillings. Two were counter­ sunk.

There were also forty-two split bird bone awls in this cache, laid very close together, fan-like, with the tips all in the same direction. In one instance the fan-shaped arrangement of the awls had been sandwiched be­ tween sandstone abraders (Fig. 16). Minerals in the soil had cemented the awls to one another, the abraders and the flint bladelets (Fig. 17).

Six sandstone abrading stones or tablets occurred in the cache. Five are rectangular, the sixth is rounded on the corners. They do not exhibit the long shallow grooves on the back commonly found on such artifacts. It is thOUght that these tablets were used to sharpen or hone the awls, which may have been employed in tattooing ceremonies (Otto, 1975). These tablets are a common Late Adena trait and Dragoo (1963: 102) notes that they are "conspicuously absent" in collections from Hopewell mounds. He does note, however, that a thin rectangular tablet associated with some bone awls occurred at Seip Mound, and a similar tablet was found near the head of a burial in Hopewell Mound D near Zanesville (Carskadden, pers. comm.). In addition, Whitman (1977) has recently reported a "thin sandstone grooved tablet" in the Kohl Mound in the Tuscarawas Valley.

Twenty-six Hopewellian parallel-sided thin unifacial blades (bladelets) were found in this cache, Nineteen are made from multicolored Flint Ridge material; the other seven are made from a gray flint from the nearby Upper Mercer flint quarries. All the bladelets are well made and show little or no evidence of use. Only three or four different cores were used to produce these artifacts, jUdging from the colors of the bladelets (Fig. 18).

-10­ One fresh water mussel shell was included in the cache. It may have been used as a spoon or shallow dish, though this specimen showed no parti­ cular modifications.

Directly across -from the cache at the left knee, lying flat on the base of the burial basin, a corner notched point of Upper Mercer flint was found (Fig. 19). A similar point was found in the soil above the burial.

The last artifact directly associated with this burial was a small piece of copper in the shape of a fishhook (Fig. 20). It was found when the soil around the skull was being washed. The skull had' been taken from the feature with the soil around it, as was the rest of the skeleton. A green stain in the shape of this object was found on the left side of the skull above the external auditory opening. There' is little question that this had been its location in association with the burial. The shape of the artifact suggests that it might indeed have been used as a fishhook. However~ its location in relation to the skull suggests that it might have been used as a hair pin or other type of hair or ear adornment (Fig. 21).

Many artifacts were found in the fired area above the burial. They were concentrated in the northern part where it appeared they had been placed as burial offerings (Fig. 22). There were approximately thirty small copper beads, many of them fused together (in one case in two strands) making an accurate count impossible (Fig. 2J). Also found wer~ calcined fragments of a turtle shell~ inclUding one piece with a small perforation. Twenty- two small animal canines drilled at the root end were included in this offer­ ing. All of these canine teeth showed checking and color changes that in­ dicate burning. 'I'rtfO bird bones were probably intended to be used in the manufacture of tubular beads. There were also three fragmented tubular bird bone beads and three that were nearly complete. Four imitation bear canines made from split bones were uncovered. These artifacts had two adjacent holes drilled in the same fashion as the real bear canines in the first cache. At the root end a hole was drilled for stringing. A curved line was incised into the imitation teeth to represent the separation be­ tween the root and the crown (Fig. 24).

The other offerings in the fired area include six fresh water mussel shells that were found stacked one on top of another. There was a thin layer of soil between the shells, but no evidence of any other substance. An antler tine flint working tool, a long slender bone pin or skewer incised around the top p and a deer bone awl complete the list of these items. There were two rim sections and seventy-one body sherds of plain grit tempered pottery scattered through the feature. One of the rim sections was collared. The thickness of the sherds ranged from 6 to 9 mm. There was one grit tem­ pered sherd that was decorated with rocker stamping. It measured 4 mm thick and was the only piece of this type of pottery found in the excava­ tion.

Feature 2: This feature was an interruption in the eastern portion of the ring of river cobbles surrounding the fired area over the inhumation of the sub-adult. It was a small shallow ovate basin, 6 inChes deep~ J6 inches east-west by 18 inches north-south. The stones that were taken from the break in the ring were laid in a small pile on the house floor, eight inches to the northeast. In the midst of these rocks was a sandstone cupstone with two cups or pits. We do not believe the cupstone was a part of the circle,

-11­ but that it was used for some other purpose when it was covered by the cobbles (Fig. 25). There were three other cupstones found in the course of the excavations.

Burial 4: A "trophy skull" was placed in Feature 5, on its left side with the face-towards the east. There were two cervical vertebrae next to the skull suggesting that this was an in-flesh burial. Conclusions on the age and sex of this skull follow (Suzanne Lime, Sept. 21, 1976):

Age: 18-24 years. I found the 3rd molars (the ones with the fused roots) which erupt at appro'ximately 18 years. However, the eruption of this tooth is erratic and can happen at a later age. Suture closure is hard" to discern in this particular skull because of the poor preservation, but I believe the coronal suture is in the beginning stages of closure which starts at age 24. The skull was so badly deteriorated it is hard to def­ initely determine sex, but I would say it is probably male. I may be biased also as most trophy skulls are male.

Associated with this trophy skull was a ceremonial pottery vessel. It is grit tempered and cordmarked with tetrapodal supports. The neck and rim sections are plain. The height is greater than 14 ems; maximum width of the rim 9.2 ems (Fig. 26). The pot was just north of the skull, on its side, with the rim nearly touching the mandible. With the exception of two or three pieces, complete restoration was possible.

Feature 6: Feature 6 was a deep circular pit two feet in diameter located in the line of the east wall of the house pattern. The feature extended into the house. It also covered most of one of the post molds. The post, however, had probably been driven into the fill of the earlier pit (Fig. 27). Ceramics found in this feature include 172 body sherds and three rim sections representing a single vessel. It is a massive, plain, grit temper­ ed utilitarian ware ranging from 1 em thick at the rim to 1.3 em thick at the body (Fig. 28). At the bottom of the pit a broken Late Adena stemmed point was found. One small flint ovate and a large flint scraper were also found in the feature (Fig. 29).

Feature 7: A vaguely delineated pit filled with dark soil was located out­ side the southeast corner of the house pattern, 12 inches south of Feature 6. Nothing was found to indicate the use of this pit.

Feature 8: A circular, sub-floor burial pit four feet in diameter and 12 to 14 inches deep was located just to the north of the trophy skull in Feature 5 and 14 inches inside the eastern wall of the house pattern.

Burial j: A cremation deposit was located at the base of Feature 8. The deposit was 5-1/2 inches thick, 18 inches wide and 28 inches long. The cre­ ma tion deposit was overlaid with 2 to 3 inches of soil. The remaining 5 to 6 inches of the feature was filled or capped with a layer of river cobbles. The pit did not reveal any evidence of firing or being used in the actual cremation. The placement of the remains was very neat and compact indicating the body had been cremated elsewhere and then carefully gathered up and re­ deposited in the burial pit. (Ferdon recalled uncovering a crematory basin in the 1931 excavation). The fragmented bones ranged from completely incin­

-12­ erated with deep checking to incomplete or merely smoke stained. Pieces of the skull show the same damaging effects of what must have been an intense fire. The largest recognizable bone fragments were parts of two lumbar ver­ tebrae. Their size indicates an adult. We believe this was the inhumation of a single individual. Baby (1954: 4), commenting on Hopewell cremations] states: "The probably major steps of this burial custom appear to be as follows: the deceased was removed to a sacred structure or 'fenced' area and the body dismembered. The torso and disarticulated segments were then placed in a clay basin and cremated. Interment of calcined remains was made on the floor of the structure and enclosed by small stone or log tombs. /I Three flint blanks or bifaces of local flints were found with the cremation; two were complete and one broken. The broken preform was lying on the top of the cremation. The other two were found in the fill above the burial (Fig. 30). Some fragments of fresh water mussel shells were found with the bones. Feature 9: Feature 9 was a circular pit approximately two feet in diameter and 2-1/2 feet deep. It was partially under the fired area and ring of stones associated with Feature 4. The fill of the feature consisted of t typical village midden, that is, small bone fragments, numerous flint chips, flecks of charcoal, pieces of shel~and a small flint hammerstone. This was apparently a refuse pit that pre-dated the erection of the charnel house.

Feature 10: A circular pit one foot in diameter located in the line of the eastern wall of the house pattern, this feature was just to the north and closely associated with Feature 6. They were both situated in the three foot space between the two post molds. The feature contained 80 pot sherds of plain grit tempered pottery, two rim sections of plain grit tempered pottery, one fresh water mussel shell, bone fragments, flint chips, and on the bottom of the pit a medium size celt made from a fine-grained igneous rock (Fig. 32). This type of celt has been reported from a number of Adena sites (Converse, 1966: 124). One of the rims is so similar to the rim sec­ tions from Feature 6 that we believe they are part of the same vessel. If this is true, it would strongly suggest that the two pits were in use at the same time.

Feature 11: Another circular pit occurred outside the house pattern. It was three feet in diameter and was located outside the south wall. This was the last feature we uncovered in the area surrounding the mound. The pit contained deer bones, flint chips, 15 pot sherds of plain grit tempered pottery and other typical village midden.

Feature 12: A poorly defined burial basin extending slightly below the floor of the charnel house, this feature was located in the southwestern quarter of the house. Little can be said about this feature except that a shallow basin had been scooped out of the floor. It was not lined or marked with the river cobbles we found associated with other burials.

Burial 6: An extended burial lay in Feature 12; the head was toward the east and the legs toward the west. The body was bent slightly at the waist and the head was turned on the left side with the jaw resting on the left shoulder. The bones were badly deteriorated. We were unable to find any trace of the bones of the right leg and could trace the bones of the left only to the knee. The left arm was folded at the elbow toward the head (Fig. 33). Suzanne Lime comments (pers. comm. Nov. 19, 1976) that the small

-13­ and delicate characteristics of the skull, the less rugged mastoid process, the robustness of the nuchal crest, the faintly defined temporal ridge, and small teeth are wi thin the female range. Concerning the age of the individ­ ual, Lime states that the saggital, coronal, and lambdoidal sutures were com­ pletely fused, suggesting an age of late 40's or older. She also notes that there was no evidence of disease or cause of death. After being placed in the basin) the body had been encased in a layer of clay. This clay deposit filled the basin and was hard enough to maketrowelling difficult (Fig. 34).

Feature 1]: A rectangular sub-floor burial basin, four feet north-south by three feet east-west, and 1-1/2 feet deep, was located just inside the west wall of the charnel house. Over the feature)after the intermen~a small mound of river cobbles had been erected. The stones extended beyond the basin covering some of the floor surface. The dimensions of the mound of stones were eight feet north-south by six feet east-west (Fig. 35).

Burial 1: A tightly flexed burial lying on the right side occurred in Fea­ ture 13. The bones, with the exception of the skull, were in a poor state of preservation, According to Lime, the moderately protruding brow ridges, the large and ridged mastoid process, bowed outward zygomatic arches, and the ridged and protruding nuchal ridge are all male characteristics. The coronal, saggital, and lambdmidal sutures are closed, suggesting an indi­ vidual in his late 40's or older. Heavy wear of teeth indicate advanced age, Lime also notes a small lesion on the interior coronal suture; how­ ever, there is not enough evidence to indicate what caused it. While there were no artifacts found with this burial) there had been ceremonial activity on the surrounding charnel house floor. There were three areas where burn­ ing had occurred; one such area was almost completely covered by the mound of stones. The other two burnt areas were between and closely related to features 12 and 13. The fired areas appeared to have been cleaned after the activities had been completed, but enough residue remained that we could trace their outlines. Fragments of mica occurred in the two burnt areas south of Burial 7. One copper bead was found in the stones of the miniature mound (Fig. 36). In the soil at the southern edge of the stone mound was a cache of ten bifacial flint blades (Fig. 37). Five were found in a small compact space almost touching each other. The remaining five were slightly to the west. It appears that the top of the area containing the cache had been disturbed by the tip of a plow. Nine of the blades are made from local Coshocton County Upper Mercer flints. The tenth one which is the largest of the group is made of Flint Ridge material. All the blades are thin, well made, and conform to the description given for Hopewell cache blades (Con­ verse, 1973: 60). We can not be certain whether or not the stone cairn had been covered with a mantel of earth as a last act of the burial ceremony, but in any case, we have in effect a low mound within the charnel house presumably built while the structure was still standing.

At this point in our investigation we had reached the edge of Ferdon's 1931 trench. The bulldozer was used to reduce the previously disturbed por­ tion of the mound to surrounding ground level. We used the power equipment to peel the sod and dirt in the areas where we expected to find the remaining sections of the wall of the charnel house. We succeeded in locating the west wall and p because of the uniform spacing of the posts, were able to find the entire house pattern. It was nearly square, with rounded corners and consis­ ted of 41 single vertical posts. The posts were approximately 36 inches apart, Measurements of the pattern at the widest points are: length 30-1/2

-14­ feet north-south, width 26 feet east-west (Fig. 38). There were four in­ terior posts, at least two of which were located in such a way as to suggest central roof supports. This structure lacks the double side walls and "H" central support post pattern of "classic" Hopewell house patterns from south­ ern Ohio. However, a number of house patterns uncovered at Mound City, presumably an early Hopewell site, had single side walls (Baby, 1977).

We excavated the post holes to their base. At the bottom of a post mold in the northwest corner of the house there was a copper crescent that had been pierced three times near the convex side at the center (Fig. 39 and 40). We are unable to offer any explanation for the location of this arti­ fact. However, a rectangular banded slate gorget was recovered from a post hole under Mound D, a Hopewellian site near Zanesville on th~ Muskingum River (Carskadden, pers. comm.). A copper crescent of similar size was found by Mills in an exploration of the Seip Mound (Mills, 1909). The en­ trance to the Martin Mound structure appears to have been at the approxi­ mate center of the east wall. There are two post holes just off the line of the wall apparently in a position to form a gateway or screen. Seven sherds of Montgomery Incised pottery were found in a midden area just out­ side the house pattern and three more sherds occurred in one of the wall post molds near the suspected entrance (Fig. 41). This type of pottery has been found at Late Adena sites in Indiana, Kentucky, West Virginia and

Ohio. In Ohio 1 at the Buckmeyer Site in northern Perry County, in the Mus­ kingum drainage, a pit containing sherds of this type was dated at 25 B.C. Another date of 235 B.C. was obtained from the same site (Bush 1 1975: 11).

Summary

Salvage operation on a mound that had been partially excavated 44 years before has resulted in the uncovering of a subrectangular post pattern of a Hopewell charnel house. Our two year investigation showed the mound was not centered over the post pattern. The position of the mound had not been displaced by plowing to any degree since the time of the 1931 dig. The trenching by Ferdon and his youthful helpers was essentially in the center of the mound, causing them to miss a large portion of the house pattern and enclosed burials. Our decision to start on the south side and work north toward the middle was fortunate, for we encountered the un­ disturbed half of the structure almost as soon as we began to excavate.

The Martin Mound covered nine inhumations inside the post pattern of the charnel house and two burials on the outside perimeter of the structure. All the burials and features in the undisturbed portion of the mound were on or below the mound floor. There was no evidence of construction stages that would have occurred if the mound had been erected over a long period of time. This is in agreement with observations from other Hopewellian mounds. For example, Fischer (1974: 54) states that Hopewell mounds " ••. primarily appear to have been constructed in a single phase~ with numerous burials deposited on the mound floor, and only occasional intrusions and fill inclusions. 19 This is in contrast to the accretional nature of some Adena mounds.

The burial practices seen in the Martin Mound represent, at least to a minor degree, a deviation from the typical Hopewellian burial mode. Ex­ tended burial in subfloor pits ("unelaborated pits"), according to Fischer

~15- (1974: 48) represents only 5.5 %of the total Hopewellian burials recorded (2.5 %of early Hopewell and 13.9 %of late Hopewell) . Disarticulated burial, as in Burial 1, is the mode for only 0.5 %of known Hopewell burials. The flexed burial is a minor method of interment from a number of sites, accord­ ing to Fischer. He notes that redeposited cremation is the most common method of burial in Hopewell, 71.2 %of the total reported burials (78.6 % of early Hopewell and 46.0 %of late Hopewell burials). The "classic" log tomb burial (31.1 %of the total known burials; 37.2 %of early Hopewell and 12.9 %of late Hopewell burials) was not noted at the Martin site. So-called "trophy skulls" have been reported from a number of Hopewell sites. Trophy skulls often have a polished appearance indicating they had been treasured relics or heirlooms which were handled for'a long period of time. At the Martin Mound the two isolated skulls still had the cervical vertebrae at­ tached in anatomical order. This means that the skulls and at least part of the necks were removed from the bodies and buried while flesh and muscle were still attached. Perhaps a human sacrifice involving decapitation is represented.

The fact that there is a wide variation seen in the burial modes at this site is typical of Hopewell. Fischer states (1974: 309-310):

Hopewell burial practices are more varied (than Adena) and greater individual differentiation is evident .•• Of those persons interred in mounds, there is a great disparity in the degree of grave elaboration and in the ~uantity of accompany­ ing funerary gifts. A single Hopewell mound may contain multi­ ple burials in a single simple grave and individual inhumations in carefully constructed tombs. Hopewell burial gifts consist primarily of socio-technic materials. A few individuals were buried with ~uantities of intricately crafted ornaments and ritual paraphernalia. In general, evidence of differential burial treatment increases from Early Adena to Late Adena times, but in this regard, the Hopewellians appear to have been much less egalitarian than even the Late Adena people.

However varied the burial practices are within a single Hopewell site, they show certain general conformities to an overall Hopewell ideology. Struever (1964: 88) believes that the Hopewell Interaction Sphere involved not only the trade and transportation of raw materials and stylistic concepts, but also involved "dissemination of ideological rationalization for the use of these goods .11 He goes on to state, however, that "considerable local rein­ terpretation of diagnostic Hopewell artifact forms and ideological concepts

(as reflected chiefly in the structure of burial) occurred." As StrueverJ Prufer, and others have suggested, "Hopewellian" is an overlay of certain religious concepts upon otherwise basic local Woodland cultures.

Chronological Placement

The remarks of Greenman (1931) to the local newspaper placing the anti­ ~uity of the Martin Mound at 3,000 to 10,000 years are, by today's standards, far too old. Forty years of field work and the advent of radiocarbon dating have given present-day archaeologists a better chronology of Ohio's prehis­ toric people. Fischer (1974: 12) and others, for example, have divided Ohio Hopewell into roughly "early", cao 200 B.C. to A.D. 150, and "late", ca. A.D. 150 to A.D. 550, on the basis of these C-14 dates. No charcoal samples attri­ buted with assurance to the Hopewell component are available for dating from

-16­ the Martin Mound, though bone samples will be submitted once a more detailed analysis of the skeletal material is completed. Yet, some inference can be made on the site's antiquity based on artifacts, other traits, and compara­ tive data from elsewhere. For example, Fischer (p.317) feels that there was a spread of Hopewellian settlements from the major centers in the Scioto­ Paint Creek area of southern Ohio into marginal areas such as the upper Mus­ kingum Valley between A.D. 100 and 200. Fischer believes this is due to population pressures in the core area of southern 9hio at this time. This may simply be, however, as others have suggested, the result of "differen­ tial Hopewellization" in the hinterland areas, that is, the adoption of Hopewellian Interaction Sphere traits at a later time or to a lesser degree the farther one goes from the major centers, rather than an actual movement of peoples. The Newark Earthworks have not been radiocarbon dated, though recent field work in that area by Jack Bernhardt and Jim Murphy may provide an indication of when Hopewellian development began in that region. Prufer has guess dated the Newark works, as well as the Marietta Earthworks, as late Hopewell (Prufer, 1968: 148). Finally, the Hopewellian mound group near Zanesville has recently been dated at A.D. 300 (Morton, 1977).

One of the few artifact traits which can be dated on the basis of style might be the platform pipe from Burial 3 at the Martin Mound. This form is similar to Seeman's "Bedford" Hopewellian pipe style which he places at approximately A.D. 50 to A.D. 150 (Seeman, 1977). These dates are in line with Fischer's estimates for Hopewellian occupation in the area. In con­ trast to these arguments is the radiocarbon date of 130 B.C. from the Kohl mound in the Tuscarawas Valley (Whitman, 1977) which -- assuming the re­ liability of the date -- may indicate an earlier influx of Hopewellian traits into the area than previously thought.

That the Martin Mound was probably constructed before A.D. 300 is indicated by the occurrence of Interaction Sphere goods, which, with the exception of irregular sheets of mica and a copper "dagger", are absent in the Hopewellian mounds farther down the Muskingum in the Zanesville area. These Interaction Sphere or exotic ceremonial items are listed in Table I, and are compared to traits from other Hopewellian sites in eastern Ohio. Apparently, fewer goods were coming into the valley at the time the Zanes­ ville sites were occupied. Shovel~shaped, pentagonal, and anchor-like pendants found at the Hopewell mounds in the Zanesville area are absent at the Martin site.

Ceramics might also be used as an indicator of the time of the mound construction. A total of 372 pottery sherds, plus one complete vessel, were found in the features in the course of excavating the mound. Prufer has grouped Middle Woodland ceramics into two broad categories: 1) the Scioto Series (McGraw Plain and McGraw Cordmarked), those vessels, for the most part utilitarian, made by the local indigeneous groups throughout southern Ohio during Middle Woodland times; 2) those vessels associated with the Hopewell Interaction Sphere, that is, vessels of a ceremonial nature such as rocker and simple stamped pots. Ceramics definitely associated with Hopewellian features at the Martin site include the smoothed-over cord­ marked McGraw Cordmarked rim from Feature 1, and the 73 plain grit tempered sherds from Feature 4 (McGraw Plain? -- two vessels), and one rocker stamped sherd also from Feature 4. Associated with the trophy skull in Feature 5 was the cordmarked tetrapodal vessel, which could be described as a combin­

-17­ a tion of McGra'w Cordmarked and "Southeastern Series" elements (the tet­ rapods). The Southeastern Series ceramics occur on classic Hopewellian sites in the Scioto Valley. Similar sized tetrapodal mortuary vessels have been recovered from Mound City near Chillicothe (Prufer, 1968: 53, plate 11, a and b), though the surface treatment on one of these vessels included simple stamping and the other had zoned incised bird designs. Rocker stamping, which apparently spans the complete chronological range of Hopewell, is not unknown from the Muskingum drainage, and has been noted at Riker (Whitman, 1975), and from a Hopewell site near Zanesville. Simple stamping, absent at Martin's, also occurs at Riker, and has been found on Hopewellian ceramics from rock shelters near Flint Ridge in Muskingum County (Carskadden, pers. comms), and from the 11arietta area at the mouth of the Muskingum River (Mayer-Dakes, 1955)0

Prufer states that McGraw Plain pottery generally is more fre~uent on early Hopewell sites, whereas McGraw Oordmarked is the dominant of the two types in Late Hopewel19 The greater occurrence of McGraw Plain at the Martin Mound, albeit only two vessels compared to one, is suggestive of a relatively early to middle Hopewell occupation, especially consjdering that the ceramics frDm Hopewell village sites associated with the mound group near Zanesville (A.Ds 300 ) are exclusively cordmarkede

There does appear to be a distinct Adena component at the site, rep­ resented in the subfloor features #3, #6, #10 and possibly #110 The house wall may have been built over Feature 6! The Adena Plain pottery from these features, a Late Adena ware, is actually ~uite indistinguishable from what we have called McGraw Plain from Feature 40 As Prufer notes (1965), McGraw Plain is simply a carry-over of the Early Woodland ceramic tradition into Middle Woodland times a The occurrence of diagnostic Adena stone artifacts, as well as the Montgomery Incised sherds, a distinctive Late Adena ceramic type, are more reliable indicators of a Late Adena component at the site, The Adena features are also distinctive in that they are filled with refuse -- flint chips, sherds, animal bones -- and do not appear to be of a ceremon­ ial naturee

It is not known to what extent the Martin Mound related to other Middle Woodland sites along the Walhonding Rivero A survey of the valley by Hubert and Mitchell (1972) and others have produced mainly Plano and Archaic sites; The present authors are aware of one site 1fithin a mile of the Martin Mound that has yielded cores and a few Hopewellian prDjectile pointsg The nearest major Hopewellian occupation 1 outside the Newark area, is along the Muskin­ gum River in Muskingum County~ Occupation here consists of isolated river terrace mounds (the Tri-Valley and Smock mounds, Table I)~ two mound groups (Foraker, 1975; Morton, 1977; Carskadden, persa comma) and a few Hopewell farmsteads (Carskadden, 1972). Martine has reported on a Middle Woodland open site along the Tuscarawas River (the Barlow Site, Mortine, 1974) , and Jan Whi tman in her Kohl Mound report (1977) has noted that a number of other Middle Woodland open sites occur in the Tuscarawas Valley, including a compo­ nent at Rikere

As pointed out in the preface, the ~Rrtin site represents the first

Hopewellian component to be reported on fr-om the Walhonding Valley Q The occurrence of uclassicH Interaction Sphere items suggests that the valley was not out of the w~instream of Hopewellian development =- rather~ it was participating fUl~YI The Adena component is equally important since it rep­

-18­ I resents one of the few such open Adena habitation sites excavated in the ~ Muskingum drainage of eastern Ohio. The implications of the Martin Mound should become even more apparent once data on other Muskingum Valley Adena and Hopewell sites are published in future editions of "Occasional Papers".

References

Baby, Raymond S. 1954 Hopewell Cremation Practices. Ohio Historical Society Papers in Archaeology 1, Columbus.

1961 A Uni~ue Hopewellian Breastplate. Ohio Archaeologist 11 (1): 13-15.

1962 Prehistoric Hand Prints. Echoes 1 (2). The Ohio Historical Society.

Baby, Raymond S. and Suzanne M. Langlois 1977 Prehistoric Architecture: A Study of House Types in the Ohio Valley. Echoes 16 (2). The Ohio Historical Society.

Bernhardt, Jack E. 1976 A Preliminary Survey of Middle Woodland Prehistory in Licking County, Ohio. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 46 (1-2): 39-54.

Bush, Deborah E. 1975 A Ceramic Analysis of the Late Adena Buckmeyer Site, Perry Co., Ohio. The Michigan Archaeologist 21 (1): 9-23.

\ Carskadden, Jeff ( 1970 A Middle Woodland Site, Dillon Reservoir, Muskingum County, Ohio. Ohio Archaeologist 20 (4): 255-256.

1972 An Analysis of Blades from Three Hopewellian Sites in Muskingum County, Ohio. Ohio Archaeologist 22 (2): 8-10.

1973 Adena-Hopewell Transition and the Problem of Regionalism in the Wills Creek Valley. Ohio Archaeologist 23 (3): 26-27.

Converse, Robert N. 1966 Ohio Stone Tools. Ohio Archaeologist 16 (4).

1973 Ohio Flint Types. The Archaeological SOCiety of Ohio, Columbus.

Donaldson, Gerald, and Jeff Carskadden 1973 A MUlticomponent Archaic-Hopewell Site, Dillon Reservoir, Muskingum County, Ohio. Ohio Archaeologist 23 (1): 13-15. ;. Dragoo, Don W. ~ 1963 Mounds for the Dead: An Analysis of the Adena Culture. Annals of r Carnegie Museum, VoL 37, Pittsburgh.

-19­ Fischer, Fred William 1974 Early and Middle Woodland Settlement, Subsistence and Population in the Central Ohio Valley. Unpublished Ph.D'c Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Washington University, Saint Louis, Missouri.

Fora.ker, Linda 1975 .Excavation of a Hopewell Mound in the Muskingum Valley. Ohio Archaeologist 25 (1): 10-14.

Hubert 1 O.K., and J.LI Mitchell 1972 Preliminary Report: The Walhonding Sites, Coshocton County, Ohio. Ohio Archaeologist 22 (3)= 6-10m

Mayer-Oakes, William J.

1955 Notes on Selected Potsherds from the Sayre Collection, Marietta i Ohio; The West Virginia Archeologist, No.7.

Mills, William C;

1909 Exploration of the Seip Mound I Ohio Archaeological and Historical Quarterly 18: 269~321e

1921 Flint Ridge; Ohio Archaeological and Historical Quarterly 30: 91-161.

Mortine, Wayne A{I 1974 The Barlow Site: An Initial Report, Ohio Archaeologist 24 (2)= 8-9.

Morton, John 1977 Excavations of Mound B~ a Hopewellian Site in the Muskingum Valley. Ohio Archaeologist 27 (l)s 22-24.

Otto, Martha 1975 A New Engraved Adena Tablet~ Ohio Archaeologist 25 (2): 31-36.

Prufer, Olaf H,

1965 The McGraw Site, ~ Study in Hopewellian Dynamics a The Cleveland Museum of Natural History;

1968 Ohio Hopewell Ceramics, an Analysis of the Extant Collections. Anthropological Papers No. 33, Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan 9 Ann Arbors

Seeman, Mark F Il 1977 Stylistic Variation in Middle Woodland Pipe Styles~ the Chronolo­ gical Implications~ Mid-Continental Journal of Archaeology 2 (l)g 47=-66~

Shetrone, Henry Clyde 1930 The Mound-Builders. Dt Appleton-Century Company~ New York;

Struever, Stuart 1964 The Hopewell Interaction Sphere in Riverine-Western Great Lakes

-20­ Culture History. In: Hopewellian Studies. J.R. Caldwell and R.L. Hall, Eds. Illinois State Museum, Scientific Papers 12 (3): 85-106. Springfield.

Whitman, Janice K. 1975 An Analysis of the Ceramics from Riker Site, Tuscarawas County? Ohio. Unpublished MA Thesis, Department of Sociology and Anthro­ pology, Kent State University.

1977 Kohl Mound, a Hopewellian Mound in Tuscarawas County. Ohio Archaeol­ ogist 27 (3): 4-8.

-21­ ~ 0 ~ r=r., Q) rl ~ ill Ii -< ~ 0 ~ rr:l ~ ~ cO ~ Q) eM rei rd rei rei rei eM Ii rl Ii :r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ..c: ~ r-i eM ~ ~ ~ § ~ f...l 0 f...l 0 0 0 0 ~ sg p:; E-i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

References 1 2 3 4 5 6 4 4 4

Copper reel-shaped gorget X Copper ear spool X X Copper bead X X Copper panpipe X Copper "dagger" X Copper celt X Copper rectangular gorget X Copper "fishhook" X Columella beads X Cut wolf jaw X Cut beaver maxilla X Skull oowl X Stone abraders X X X X Cache of bladelets X X Ground hematite X X Mica sheets X X X X X Pentagonal slate pendant 'X Shovel-shaped pendant X Anchor-shaped pendant X Rectangular slate gorget X X X X X X Cannel coal gorgets XX X Cache of Flint Ridge chippage X X Cache of projectile points X X X X Cache of bifacial blades X '-Trophyskull" X Platform pipe X Burial pot X Imitation bear canines X Bear canines X Pearls X Bone awls X Perforated turtle carapace X Perforated small mammal canines X Bird bone beads X

(Table 1) Comparison of traits from Hopewellian mounds in the Muskingum drainage of eastern Ohio a References: 1 (Whitman, 1977), 2 (Mills, 1921), 3 (Baby, 1962), 4 (Carskadden, pers. comrnQ) , 5 (Fo:raker, 1975), ·6 (Morton, 1977)0

-22­ f

I ~ (Fig. 3) Copper earspools found in the 1931 excavation. Ferdon recalls l that one of them still had a small fragment of twisted fiber around its core r (pers. comm. 1976). The earspools are now part of the collection at the Johnson-Humerickhouse Museum, Coshocton, Ohio. I t r/,

(Fig. 4) Rim sherd from a Hopewellian McGraw Cordmarked vessel, found with bundle burial in Feature 1. (Fig. 5) Isolated "trophy skull" from Feature 2. Note cervical vertebra-e protruding beyond lower mandible.

(Fig. 6) Artifacts from Feature J, an Adena refuse pit on the outside perimeter of the house pattern. I I. !

"

(Fig. 7) Looking east, this figure shows the opening trench on the south face of the mound and the first evidence of the sub-floor burial basin, Feature 4.··

(Fig. 8) Shows larger of two stones found over pelvic region of sub-adult in Feature 4. Note layer of river cobbles over burial. Looking north. Fig. 9) Arrow is pointing toward copper ornament found on forehead of sub­ adult in Feature 4. Outline and stain caused by the copper salts can also be seen on the forehead below the ornament. Platform pipe can also be seen.

(Fig. 10) Artifacts associated with sub-adult in Feature 4: top, Hopewell platform pipe; center, copper ornament found on forehead, 2.5 cm by 1.5 cm; bottom, two-hole slate gorget found in right hand. (Fig. 11) Sandstone Hopewell platform pipe, dimensions 9.7 em long and 3.8 em high. Found with sub-adult in Feature, 4. Note old break on stem.

(Fig. 12) Cut beaver maxilla found at right wrist of sub-adult in Feature 4. (Fig. 13) Ceremonial cache found at right knee of sub-adult in Feature 4. Position of artifacts simulated for photo.

(Fig. 14) Bear canines from cache, Feature 4. (Fig. 15) Bear canines from cache, Feature 4. Third canine from left, bottom row, shows hollow copper hemisphere.

(Fig. 16) Bone awls and sandstone abraders, part of ceremonial cache. Broken abrader measures 7.9 em by 3.4 em. (Fig. 17) Shows awls cemented to one of the sandstone abraders and to the flint bladelets.

(Fig. 18) Hopewell flint bladelets,part of ceremonial cache. longest is 6.1 cm by 1.3 cm. (Fig. 19) Projectile point on left was found by the left knee of the sub-adult in Feature 4. Point on right was found in the pit fill above the burial. 1 f I t ~

I! I I ~ i i I

, .

(Fig. 20) Copper objects found with sub-adult in Feature 4. (Fig. 21) View of the left side of the skull of,the sub-adult from Feature 4 showing stain caused by the copper fishhook-shaped artifact above the external auditory opening.

Fig. 22) Looking north. Dark burnt area over Feature 4 and .remnants of river cobbles can be seen in photo. Rule is resting on the:...bottom of the sub-floor burial basin, Feature 4. (Fig. 23) Copper beads, drilled canines, bird bone beads, and mica from the burnt area above the burial in Feature 4.

(Fig. 24) Imitation bear canines, made from split mammalian long bones. Found in burnt area above the burial in Feature 4. The complete specimen is 8.4 cm long by 2 Cm wide. (Fig. 25) Looking east. Part of the ring of symmetrical river cobbles that enclosed the burnt area over the sub-adult. The sub-floor burial basin, Feature 4, is in the right foreground. The restored Hopewell ceremonial tetrapodal vessel can be seen in the interruption of the ring of stones with the "trophy skull" 'in Feature 5. At the top of the photo directly in front of the marker is where the stones taken from the ring were laid. It I

I j (Fig. 26) Restored Hopewell tetrapodal vessel found with "trophy skull" in Feature 5. The dimensions are height 14-15 em, diameter at the lip i 9.2 em. The tetrapods measure 1.5 em high. t f I (Fig. 27) :Woking north. Feature 6 is in center of photo.

(Fig. 28) Rim sherds from Feature 6. ------

(Fig. 29) Artifacts found in Feature 6.

(Fig. 30) Artifacts foUnd with crernation in Feature 8. (Fig. 31) Looking north. In the approximate center of the photo is the cap of river cobbles that was over the cremation in Feature 8. In the middle of the excavated face of the mound running horizontally can be seen the dark streak that represents the living or activity surface of the charnel house. On the extreme left of the photo are remnants of the ring of stones over Feature 4. Five feet to the right of the cremation is Feature 10, the twelve-inch dark strip extending downward from the house floor. Feature 10 marked the eastern edge of the house pattern.

(Fig. 32) Artifacts from Feature 10. (Fig. 33) Looking north. Burial 6 in Feature 12.

(Fig. )4) Looking north. Photo shows outline of the 1931 excavation narrowly missing the skull of Burial 6. A Conner's Dairy half-pint milk bottle, left by Ferdon's crew, was found in this portion of the old excavation. (Fig. 35) Looking north. Mound of stones on the inside of the house pattern covering Burial 7, Feature 13.

(Fig. 36) Copper bead found in the small stone mound and fragments of mica from nearby burnt areas. (Fig. 37) Cache of Hopewell bifacial blades found in association with the small stone mound. The largest blade is 10.8 cm long by 4.1 cm wide.

(Fig. 38) Looking south. Post pattern of Hopewell charnel house found under the Martin Mound. Wooden stakes show position of post molds. (Fig. 39) Looking north. Copper crescent found in post mold on the north­ west corner of Hopewell charnel house.

(Fig. 40) Close-up of copper crescent found in post mold. Dimensions, 7-1/2 inches long by 1-3/4 inches wide. (Fig. 41) Fragments of Late Adena Montgomery Incised pottery found on the east side of the charnel house near suspected entrance.