USA > Ohio > Hamilton County > Madisonville > Indian Village Site and Cemetery Near Madisonville, Ohio > Part 24
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46 | Part 47 | Part 48 | Part 49 | Part 50 | Part 51 | Part 52 | Part 53 | Part 54 | Part 55 | Part 56 | Part 57 | Part 58 | Part 59
As to pictographs, we only know that the painting of large square shouldered human figures on the walls of caves was a typi- cal, and apparently an exclusive Basket-maker practice. We have never been able to identify any pecked pictographs as of Basket- maker origin.
Conclusions. Before entering into any discussion of the place of the Basket-makers in the general scheme of Southwestern archae- ology, it must first be demonstrated that their culture is really a distinct one. If this cannot be done, if the so-called Basket-maker remains from Grand Gulch and the Kayenta region are to be con- sidered as only a specialized local phase of the widespread Pueblo- Cliff-dweller civilization, then they naturally cease to have any chronological or morphological interest. The authors, however, feel sure that such is not the case; a summary of the evidence follows.
The cliff-houses and pueblos of this region are stone-built dwell- ings of coursed masonry, laid up with adobe mortar; the rooms are rectangular. Corn of several varieties was cultivated, as well as beans and cotton; the turkey was domesticated. Of the minor arts, the most important was pottery making. Equally character- istic are: twilled yucca leaf sandals, twilled rush matting, and twilled ring-baskets, cotton loom cloth, turkey-feather string, and the bow and arrow. These objects, together with pottery, make up nine-tenths of any collection from the cliff-houses. Turning to the graves, we find that Cliff-dweller skulls were always artificially
114
BASKET-MAKER CAVES
flattened at the back, and that the bodies, accompanied by gener- ous offerings of pottery, were interred in individual graves, usually in the open.
The Basket-makers, on the other hand, certainly built no houses of coursed masonry; they may, in fact, have possessed no more permanent dwellings than do the Navajo of today. Their corn was of a single, rather primitive, variety; they were ignorant, apparently, of beans and cotton, nor did they domesticate the turkey. They made no pottery worthy of the name (or if they did, it never found its way into the graves), and all the other character- istic Cliff-dweller specimens mentioned above are conspicuous by their absence. They are replaced, however, by such equally characteristic Basket-maker products as the square-toed sandal, the twined-woven bag, and the atlatl. The heads of the Basket- makers were never artificially deformed. The graves, instead of being in the open, were cists excavated in the hard-pan or the sandy fill of caves, and from two or three to ten or more bodies were placed in each cist. Mortuary offerings were numerous and varied, but the one invariable gift to the dead was coiled basketry.
In the above summaries only the leading traits of the two cul- tures are catalogued. A more detailed comparison in tabular form has been published elsewhere,1 but enough is here presented to show the essential differences between them, particularly when it is considered that all finds of each class have always run true to form: pottery, for example, and deformed skulls have never ap- peared in Basket-maker graves; the rubbish of cliff-houses has never given evidence of the manufacture of, for instance, twined- woven bags or the atlatl.
We may now take up the question of age. Here again we are on firm ground. The Basket-makers definitely antedated the Pueblo- Cliff-dweller people. This was stated long ago by the Wetherills and McLloyd and Graham,2 and was proved to us by the super- position of Cliff-dweller remains upon Basket-maker burials in Sunflower Cave. Even without this clear stratigraphic evidence, the case was reasonably certain, for in several of the other sites investigated we found cliff-house pots or sherds in surface-sand overlying Basket-maker burials but never in the graves themselves. Furthermore, during the 1915 work in Sunflower Cave there was
1 Kidder-Guernsey, 1919, p. 204. * Pepper, 1902.
115
OF NORTHEASTERN ARIZONA
taken from the cliff-house rubbish a square-toed Basket-maker sandal.1
We have proved, to our own satisfaction at least, that the Basket-makers were a people culturally distinct from the Cliff- dwellers; and also that they antedated the latter. At this point definite knowledge ceases; and to the very important questions of the origin of the Basket-maker culture, and of its relation to that of the Cliff-dwellers, we can supply only conjectural answers.
As to origin, it may be said that several traits, such as corn growing and the use of the atlatl, point toward Mexico. The peculiar curved, grooved hand-club, and the method of hair- dressing were both features of the somewhat Mexicanized Maya culture of late prehistoric and early historic times in Yucatan. Furthermore, the only archaeological finds which remind one of the Basket-makers have come from the Coahuila caves in northern Mexico, and from the Tularosa caves in southern New Mexico. The latter sites lie roughly half way between the Kayenta region and Coahuila. Just how much weight should be attached to these bits of evidence we do not know, but it seems to us certain that germs of the culture worked northward from the Mexican high- lands in very early times.
Although the question of their origin is obscure, we know at least that the Basket-makers were living in the lower San Juan country prior to the opening of the Pueblo-Cliff-dweller period. As to the relations of the cultures two hypotheses suggest them- selves: first, that the Basket-makers were a distinct people who were crowded out of the region by the arrival of their more highly developed successors; second, that they were the direct ancestors of the latter.
If the first hypothesis be correct we need not postulate any great time interval between the two cultures; as one came in, the other was destroyed or moved away. If, on the other hand, we believe that the one developed from the other, we must be prepared to allow a very considerable time for the transition, for there are many radical differences between the cultures; and we have so far
1 This illustrates an important principle of archaeological evidence, vis .: Given two cul- tures, A and B, in the same area; if A objects are found in B sites, but B objects never in A sites, A may be safely considered older than B. The sporadiq finding of Basket-maker products in cliff-houses may be expected in the future, particularly as it is probable that the frequent spolia- tion of Basket-maker burials was the work of the Cliff-dwellers.
-
116
BASKET-MAKER CAVES
sought in vain for any trait running from the one to the other through an unbroken logical and surely demonstrable evolution. While there are missing links in every such chain, it is possible that in this case some of them may yet be supplied by the hitherto little- known "pre-pueblo" or "slab-house" sites that archaeologists are beginning to uncover in various parts of the Southwest. All such sites hitherto examined have, however, been found in the open and so have yielded no specimens of a perishable nature; hence they have provided us with no evidence as to basketry, sandals, food products or wood-working, the very phases of material culture with which we are most familiar in the case of the Basket-makers and which we therefore most need for comparative and develop- mental studies. A rigorous search should accordingly be made for " pre-pueblo " habitations and graves in locations where they may be expected to be found protected from moisture. If such are dis- covered, it should be an easy matter, in view of our accurate knowledge of both the Basket-makers and the developed Cliff- dwellers, to determine definitely whether or not the " pre-pueblo " people were culturally intermediate between them.
To return to the first hypothesis, namely, that the Basket- makers were crowded out of the region by the Cliff-dwellers, and settled somewhere along its edges. We have examined collections from many modern southwestern tribes who possess cultures of about the same grade as that of the Basket-makers, in the hope that we might find some evidence of their descent from the ancient people. Nothing definite could, however, be established, although similarities in basketry, rabbit-nets, and hair ornaments were noticed in the Paiute collections; and, among the Mohave material, in the form and weave of twined bags and in the practice of plug- ging with wood the quills of feathers. Too much significance, how- ever, must not be placed upon similarities such as the above, for the remarkable state of preservation of the Basket-maker material makes it appear so much like a collection from an existing tribe that it is particularly easy to fall into the way of drawing techno- logical comparisons between it and modern articles, losing sight of the fact that the Basket-maker products are really of great antiquity and that the Paiute, Mohave, and other collections are things of yesterday. Where similarities occur, therefore, their significance as showing direct connection is open to question; the
117
OF NORTHEASTERN ARIZONA
long time interval has permitted the working of too many as yet unassayable factors of culture-growth and transmission.
It may seem to the reader that we have been unduly cautious in our failure to draw any definite conclusions. The work, however, is just beginning, and it is our desire to do no more than record for other students the evidence so far accumulated, and to present the few speculations as to its meaning which we have allowed ourselves to indulge in.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
ALLEN, GLOVER M.
1920. Dogs of the American Aborigines. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, vol. Ixiii, no. 9. Cambridge, 1920.
CATLIN, GEORGE.
1842. Letters and Notes on the Manners, Customs and Condition of the North American Indians. New York, 1842.
CUMMINGS, BYRON.
1910. The Ancient Inhabitants of the San Juan Valley. Bulletin of the University of Utah, 2nd Archaeological number, vol. 3, pt. 2. Salt Lake City, 1910.
CUSHING, FRANK HAMILTON.
1886. A Study of Pueblo Pottery as Illustrative of Zuñi Culture Growth. Fourth Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, pp. 467-521. Wash- ington, 1886.
1895. The Arrow. American Anthropologist, vol. viii, no. 4, pp. 307- 349. Washington, 1895.
GREGORY, HERBERT E.
1916. The Navajo Country. United States Geological Survey, Water- supply Paper, no. 380. Washington, 1916.
HEYE, GEORGE H.
1919. Certain Aboriginal Pottery from Southern California. Indian Notes and Monographs; Museum of the American Indian, Heye Foundation, vol. vii, no. 1. New York, 1919.
HOFFMAN, WALTER JAMES.
1896. The Menomini Indians. Fourteenth Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology, pp. 1-328. Washington, 1896.
HOLMES, W. H.
1919. Handbook of Aboriginal American Antiquities. Part I, Intro- ductory. The Lithic Industries. Bulletin 60, Bureau of American Ethnology. Washington, 1919.
HOOTON, E. A. and WILLOUGHBY, C. C.
1920. Indian Village Site and Cemetery near Madisonville, Ohio. Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnol- ogy, Harvard University, vol. viii, no. 1. Cambridge, 1920.
119
120
BIBLIOGRAPHY
HOUGH, WALTER.
1914. Culture of the Ancient Pueblos of the Upper Gila River Region, New Mexico and Arizona. Bulletin 87, U. S. National Museum. Washington, 1914.
1919. The Hopi Indian Collections in the United States National Mu- seum. Proceedings of the U. S. National Museum, vol. 54, pp. 235-296. Washington, 1919.
KIDDER, A. V. and GUERNSEY, S. J.
1919. Archaeological Explorations in Northeastern Arizona. Bulletin 65, Bureau of American Ethnology. Washington, 1919.
KROEBER, A. L.
1908. Ethnology of the Gros Ventre. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History, vol. i, pt. 4. New York, 1908.
LUMHOLTZ, CARL.
1903. Unknown Mexico. London, 1903.
MASON, OTIS TUFTON.
1904. Aboriginal American Basketry, Studies in a Textile Art without Machinery. Annual Report of the U. S. National Museum for 1902, pp. 171-548. Washington, 1904.
MORRIS, EARL H.
1919. The Aztec Ruin. Anthropological Papers of the American Mu- seum of Natural History, vol. xxvi, pt. 1. New York, 1919.
1919, a. Preliminary Account of the Antiquities of the Region between the Mancos and La Plata Rivers in Southwestern Colorado. Thirty- third Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology, pp. 155-206. Washington, 1919.
NORDENSKIÖLD, GUSTAV.
1893. The Cliff-Dwellers of the Mesa Verde. Translated by D. Lloyd Morgan. Stockholm, 1893.
PARSONS, ELSIE CLEWS.
1918. War God Shrines of Laguna and Zuñi. American Anthropologist, n. s. vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 381-405. Lancaster, Pa., 1918.
PEPPER, GEORGE H.
1902. The Ancient Basket Makers of Southeastern Utah. American Museum Journal, vol. ii, no. 4, suppl. New York, 1902.
1905. The Throwing Stick of a Prehistoric People of the Southwest. International Congress of Americanists, 13th Session, New York, 1902, pp. 107-130. Easton, Pa., 1905.
POPE, SAXTON T.
1918. Yahi Archery. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology, vol. 13, no. 3. Berkeley, 1918.
121
BIBLIOGRAPHY
POWELL, J. W.
1875. Exploration of the Colorado River of the West and its Tributaries. Explored in 1869, 1870, 1871, and 1872. Washington, 1875.
PRUDDEN, T. MITCHELL.
1897. An Elder Brother to the Cliff-Dweller. Harper's Monthly Magazine for June, 1897, pp. 56-63. New York, 1897. 1903. The Prehistoric Ruins of the San Juan Watershed in Utah, Arizona, Colorado, and New Mexico. American Anthropologist, n.s., vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 224-288. Lancaster, Pa., 1903.
1907. On the Great American Plateau. New York, 1907.
RAU, CHARLES.
1876. The Archaeological Collection of the U. S. National Museum. Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge, no. 287. vol. xxii, Washington, 1876.
SAUNDERS, CHARLES FRANCIS.
1912. The Indians of the Terraced Houses. New York, 1912.
SCHELLHAS, PAUL.
1904. Comparative Studies in the Field of Maya Antiquities. Bulletin 28, Bureau of American Ethnology. Washington, 1904.
WATERMAN, T. T.
1918. The Yana Indians. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology, vol. xiii, no. 2. Berkeley, 1918.
PRINTED AT THE HARVARD UNIVERSITY PRESS CAMBRIDGE, MASS., U. S. A.
PAPERS OF THE PEABODY MUSEUM OF AMERICAN ARCHAEOLOGY AND ETHNOLOGY, HARVARD UNIVERSITY
VOL. VIII. - No. 3
THE TURNER GROUP OF EARTHWORKS HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
BY CHARLES C. WILLOUGHBY
WITH NOTES ON THE SKELETAL REMAINS BY EARNEST A. HOOTON
TWENTY-SEVEN PLATES AND FORTY-SEVEN ILLUSTRATIONS IN THE TEXT
CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS, U. S. A. PUBLISHED BY THE MUSEUM 1922
913.7 H+33
COPYRIGHT, 1922 BY THE PEABODY MUSEUM OF AMERICAN ARCHAEOLOGY AND ETHNOLOGY, HARVARD UNIVERSITY
TO THE MEMORY OF FREDERICK WARD PUTNAM 1899-1915
PIONEER OF SYSTEMATIC MOUND EXPLORATION IN OHIO, UNDER WHOSE DIRECTION THE WORK DESCRIBED IN THIS PAPER WAS CONDUCTED
£
NOTE
IN 1882, Mr. Michael Turner, on whose estate the group of earthworks described in the following paper was situated, gave the Peabody Museum of Harvard University the ex- clusive right of exploration. Previous to this date, the larger of the two tumuli within the elevated circle was known locally as the Whittlesey mound, in honor of the archae- ologist who briefly described a portion of these remains in a paper published in 1850. Professor Putnam made arrange- ments with Dr. Charles L. Metz of Madisonville, to carry on the exploration, which was begun in May, 1882, and was continued as funds and time would permit, until the autumn of 1891. Little was done subsequent to this date. Mr. Volk explored several graves in 1905, and final work on mound 15 was completed in 1908. In the third volume of the Reports of the Peabody Museum, Professor Putnam has given brief notices of the investigations as they progressed, and has also called attention to some of the more important discoveries.
CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS March 1, 1922
CONTENTS
THE WORKS IN GENERAL
PAGE
Neighboring Groups .
1
General Description of the Turner Group
2
Embankment of the Great Enclosure
6
Elevated Circle
13
BURIAL PLACES WITHIN THE GREAT ENCLOSURE
General Description 14
Graves Excavated by F. W. Putnam, 1886 15
Graves Excavated by C. L. Metz, 1886 20
Graves Excavated by M. H. Saville, 1889-90
21
Graves Excavated by E. Volk, 1905
25
THE MOUNDS AND THEIR CONTENTS
Mound 1
28
Mound 2
32
Mound 3
33
Mound
62
Mound 5 74
Mound 6
75
Mound 7
77
Mound &
78
Mound
79
Mound 10
80
Mound 11
80
Mound 12
80
Mound 13
85
Mound 14
85
Mound 15
86
Mounds West of the Elevated Circle
87
ARTIFACTS IN GENERAL
Stone Implements
88
Textile Fabrics
89
Pottery
90
General Summary
CONCLUSION
95
vii
viii
CONTENTS
THE SKELETAL REMAINS
Collection in General 99
Cranial Deformation 101
Cranial Vault, Measurements and Indices 102
Cranial Arcs and Circumferences 104
Cranial Capacity
104
Thickness of Left Parietal above Temporo-parietal Suture
105
Minimum Frontal Diameter 105
Facial, Nasal, and Orbital Measurements and Indices 105
External Palatal Index (Maxillo-alveolar) 106
Alveolar Index (Gnathic Index)
107
Lower Jaw 107
Frontal Region
107
Sagittal Region
108
Temporal Region
110
Occipital Region
110
Sutures
111
Parietal Foramina
113
Mastoids
113
Supraorbital Ridges
114
Facial Region
114
Teeth
118
Palate
120
Skull Base
120
Mandible
121
Miscellaneous and Pathological
124
Bones in General
125
Femur
125
Tibia
128
Other Long Bones
129
Vertebrae
129
Pelvis
129
Summary
130
THE TURNER GROUP OF EARTHWORKS HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
THE WORKS IN GENERAL
Neighboring Groups. The Turner Group of Earthworks is situated in Anderson Township, Hamilton County, Ohio, upon the left bank of the Little Miami River, about eight miles from its junction with the Ohio River. The valley of the Little Miami is one of the richest archaeological fields in the state. Mounds and other earthworks dot its surface. Within a comparatively short distance from the Turner Group are numerous mounds and small enclosures, which apparently have no direct connection with this group.
Some two or three miles to the northeast are the extensive Milford Works, comprising parallel embankments and enclosures of varying forms, together with a number of mounds. A mile or two to the north, across the Little Miami River, lie the Camden Works, consisting of a square and circular enclosure with connect- ing embankments. Several mounds belong to this group. The Milford and Camden Works were surveyed many years ago by General Lytle of Cincinnati. The plans were reproduced by Squier and Davis, who describe them briefly.1 A few less impor- tant detached works, in the form of circles, parallelograms, and parallel embankments, lie not far distant.
Superficially, there is little resemblance between the Turner, Milford, and Camden Works. It is probable, however, that the purpose served was the same. In each of these neighboring groups, a lesser enclosure of circular form is connected with a greater enclosure by parallel embankments. In two instances, the lesser enclosure is situated upon an elevated terrace as though for additional security. It is probable that the larger enclosure contained the habitations and certain ceremonial buildings. The
1 E. G. Squier and E. H. Davis, Ancient Monuments of the Mississippi Valley, Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge, Vol. I, plate xxxiv, Nos. 1 and 2a.
1
2
TURNER GROUP OF EARTHWORKS
smaller enclosure may have been for defensive purposes, or per- haps was the site of the council house or principal public structure.
General Description of the Turner Group. The first account of these works is by T. C. Day in an article entitled The Antiquities of the Miami Valley, published in the Monthly Chronicle for No- vember, 1839. This description refers principally to the elevated circle and graded way, and is quoted by Dr. Metz in his Prehis- toric Monuments of the Little Miami Valley:1
It is situated on a ridge of land that juts out from the third bottom of the Little Miami. . Its probable height is 40 feet, and its length about a quarter of a mile before it expands out and forms the third alluvial bottom. About 150 yards from the extreme point of this ridge, the ancient workmen have cut a ditch directly through it. It is 30 feet in depth, its length, a semi- circular curve, is 500 feet, and its width at the top is 80 feet, having a level base of 40 feet.
At the time of its formation, it was probably cut to the base of the ridge, but the washing of the rains has filled it up to its present height. Forty feet from the western [northern] side of the ditch is placed the low circular wall of the fort, which describes in its circumference an area of about 4 acres. The wall is probably 3 feet in mean height, and is composed of the usual brick clay, occasionally intermixed with small flat river stones. It keeps at an exact distance from the top of the ditch, but approaches nearer to the edge of the ridge. The form of the fort is a perfect circle, and is 200 yards in diameter. Its western [northern] side is defended with a ditch, cut through the ridge in the same manner as the one on the eastern [southern] side. Its width and depth are the same, but its length is greater by 200 feet, as the ridge is that much wider than where the other is cut through. The wall of the fort keeps exactly the same distance from the top of this ditch as of the other, viz., 40 feet. Its curve is exactly the opposite of that of the other, so as to form two segments of a circle. At the southeastern side of the fort there is an opening in the wall 36 yards wide; and opposite this opening is one of the most marked features of this wonderful monument. A causeway extends out from the ridge about 300 feet in length, and 100 feet in width, with a gradual descent to the alluvial bottom at its base.
The material of its construction is evidently a portion of the earth exca- vated from the ditches. Its easy ascent and breadth would induce the belief that it was formed to facilitate the entrance of some ponderous vehicle or machines into the fort. To defend this entrance they raised a mound of earth 7 feet high, 40 wide, and 75 long. It is placed about 100 feet from the mouth of the causeway, and is so situated that its garrison could sweep it to its base. The whole area of the fort, the wall, and causeway are covered with large forest trees, but there is not a tree growing in either of the ditches, and there are but a few low underbrush on their side.
1 Journal of the Cincinnati Society of Natural History, Vol. I, No.3, 1878.
3
HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
The next account is by Charles Whittlesey and was published by the Smithsonian Institution in 1850. It includes a description of the elevated circle, the graded way, a portion of the great en- closure, and some of the mounds. At that time the elevated circle and graded way were covered with a mixed growth of hard wood. This is said to have been removed in 1856. The lumber was cut from portions of the great enclosure about 1816, and the ground first plowed by Benjamin Marriott in 1825.1 At the time of Whittlesey's brief survey, the mounds and embankments of the great enclosure had probably been reduced somewhat by cul- tivation, but the elevated circle and graded way had not been plowed. The following account by Whittlesey, together with his plan (figure 1), is reproduced through the courtesy of the Smith- sonian Institution : 2
Among the curious structures of the mound-builders, there are none more difficult to explain than this. On a detached ridge, composed of limestone gravel, covered with a clay loam, is a low wall, averaging 2 feet high, and 15 feet broad, nearly in the form of a circle; although its north and south diameter is about 25 feet the longer. The average diameter of the circle is 470 feet. The flat ridge on which figure A is situated, is about 25 feet higher than the adjacent plain, which is from 25 to 35 feet above the Little Miami River. Outside of the circular figure, there is a space from 20 to 30 feet wide, on the natural surface of the ground. On the two opposite sides of the circle, where it occupies the height of the ridge, is an external ditch, or excavation, enclosing about half the figure. It is from 70 to 85 feet broad at the top, and from 12 to 18 feet deep. The bottom of this trench is not smooth, and is from 7 to 10 feet higher than the adjacent plain. Its sides are as steep as the gravel and earth will lie. On the east, in the direction c, g, is an embankment or grade, extending by a gradual slope, from the enclosure A to the plain. It is 168 feet wide at the neck, where it joins A, and has, at the edges, raised side-walls, like those made for pavements in cities, with a drain or gutter inside. The space between the side-ways is rounded like a turnpike, as represented in the section d, e. Its length is 600 feet, and the side-ways are connected with a low and now almost obliterated wall, turning outwards each way at i, i. Some distance to the northeast is another traceable fragment, f, f; and this may, with i, i, have been portions of a large ellipse, now destroyed by time and cultivation.
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.