Fake effigy mounds in Ohio

By Chad Arment

There are a number of mounds which at one time or another have been suggested to be animal effigy mounds, but which under further analysis have turned out not to be true effigies. A few of these are known from Ohio.

Keep in mind this passage about effigy mounds from Fowke (1902): "While an expert zoologist would probably hesitate at identifying and classifying the various forms, other persons, with greater courage and a more delicate appreciation of similitudes, have had no difficulty in discovering the human figure as well as that of many quadrupeds and birds. Some can even name the particular varieties represented, although the resemblances are, as a rule, no more striking than may be observed in the clouds of a summer sunset."

Tapir Mound

The Tremper earthworks, Scioto County, were originally thought to contain an animal effigy, a mammalian quadruped with a longish nose. Some suggested that it might represent the South American tapir. (Why that rather than a bear? Fowke mentions that there is supposedly a bear effigy mound on the Kentucky side of the Portsmouth works.) Anyway, this mound has been examined more recently and is no longer thought to represent an animal effigy. Rather, the shape of the mound is thought to be the result of multiple conical mounds being built adjacent to each other. (I've misplaced the paper in which this was discussed, but will add that info when I find it.)

From Squier and Davis (1848)

The Bird Mound and the Fish Mound

The Fish Mound in northwestern Adams County is apparently a conical mound that has eroded in a fish-like or teardrop shape. It's on private property, however, and has not been examined thoroughly by archaeologists. The so-called Bird Mound found near Rocky Fork Lake, Highland Co., may also be the result of mound erosion. It has been surveyed by James Marshall, but has not been studied from an archaeological standpoint to the best of my knowledge.

Fort Hill

Marshall (1995) has stated that Fort Hill (Highland Co., OH) is actually an animal effigy mound. Since that declaration, I've not seen any actual evidence for such a claim. I disagree with the idea for several reasons, but primarily because an animal effigy in most cases clearly has a biological model. In other words, it actually and clearly represents an animal. The Adams County serpent mound clearly represents a serpent. The "alligator mound" clearly represents an animal. Is this principle supported by Fort Hill? As you can see by this early map, any resemblence to a true biological model is negligible and can probably be shown to be due to geographic and geological constraints. I suggest that anyone can "see" what they wish to see in this outline, but archaeology is not a Rorshack Test. It is too subjective to place effigy status on any irregularly shaped earthwork which gives an individual the impression of an "animal." Until evidence clearly shows otherwise, this earthwork should not be labeled an animal effigy mound.

From Squier and Davis (1848)

Stubbs Earthwork - Serpent Effigy or not?

This may also be a "fake" or misdescribed mound. See my article.

Citations

Fowke, G. 1902. Archaeological history of Ohio. Columbus, OH: Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Society.

Marshall, J. 1995. Astronomical alignments claimed to exist on the eastern North American prehistoric earthworks and the evidence and arguments against them. Ohio Archaeologist 45(1): 4-16.

Back to Earthworks