An Ohio Alligator:
misidentified biological model of an effigy mound

by Chad Arment

"About four miles distant, and overlooking these works, is placed, upon the summit of a high hill, a gigantic effigy of some animal, probably the alligator."

That's the record of Squire and Davis (1847), as they provide the description of one of Ohio's large (though uncommon) animal effigy mounds. The effigy is found in Licking County (Raccoon Creek valley). A study in 1995 suggested a creation date of approximately 500 years ago, but I haven't seen the actual study or any recent reports.

It has been the source of some small debate over what it actually portrays. Seen from above, it shows a quadruped with proportionally large feet, a proportionally small head, and a long curled tail. A "platform" extends from its belly. Archaeologists are fairly certain, however, that it isn't meant to represent an alligator.

While the debate appears to be agreed that it is a mammal, and suggestions include a squirrel, raccoon, oppossum, or panther, there have been suggestions that it is a lizard effigy.

The only in-depth opinion is by Romain (1992) who believed it to be an opossum effigy. He suggested that the builders may have held in awe the unusual reproductive biology of the animal, its prehensile tail, and its nocturnal nature.

I don't agree with this suggestion, and will offer support for another idea which has been proposed in the past. I believe the effigy is that of a mountain lion, or panther.

First, to clear the field of competition:

The effigy is clearly mammalian. The lizards in Ohio (skinks and fence lizards) show little similarity to the effigy. Keep in mind that the early inhabitants of Ohio were skilled in artistry and in knowledge of natural history. The various pipes and carvings that have been found attest to an intimate knowledge of Ohio's wildlife. The lizards have too short of legs and very small feet. The same goes for the salamanders in Ohio.

Squirrels and raccoons are unlikely candidates. Again, the feet are a primary consideration. The shape of the tail just doesn't have a "bushy" quality to it.

Romain presented an interesting argument, and it is true that the platform coming out of the belly may lead one to suspect the opossum's pouch is being indicated, but I strongly disagree with the idea that the opossum is going to be held in awe by anyone, let alone a people who must have been very familiar with the beast.

Mountain lions were once a key predator in Ohio's forests. I think the following gives better support for the biological model of this earthwork.

• The mound fits the basic morphology of a cougar. Small head, large feet, long tail.
• The cougar had a high status among the past inhabitants of Ohio. This is attested by the fact that it appears in many carvings, and its bones, claws, and teeths were turned into necklaces and other artifacts. For example, the Central Ohio Valley Archaeological Society uses the image of a shell gorget found in Newtown, Ohio, as their insignia. The shell is carved into a very accurate image of a mountain lion.
• A petroglyph from Mason County, WV, showed the side view of a panther. It showed a clear image with a small head, large paws, and long curved tail. Unfortunately, the petroglyph was stolen, but is pictured in an issue of Ohio Archaeologist.

It would be imprudent to suggest that the mountain lion was some sort of totemic animal to the moundbuilders. Virtually nothing is really known about them. But it would seem more fitting for them to hold in respect a major predator than a scavenger. An interesting comparison: the mound is situated on a summit, just as the Adams County serpent mound is located. It's been suggested that the serpent mound served as a "protector" against water spirits. I don't know if the alligator mound is located near water - haven't had opportunity to visit it yet, but would be interesting to find out.

What about the platform? Studies at the Adams County serpent mound have shown that that effigy also had a platform or altar attached. Romain suggests that there are astronomical alignments to the alligator mound, which would support the idea that the mound's platform was used for ceremonial purposes according to celestial and seasonal events.

So, I suggest that Panther Mound be the appropriate name for this earthwork. I'm always interested in hearing other suggestions or further support for (or against) the idea.

From Squier and Davis (1848)

Literature:

Anonymous. (Nov. 29) 1995. Mound may be only 500 years old. Dayton Daily News, Dayton, OH. 4B.

Romain, W.F. 1992. More astronomical alignments at Hopewell sites in Ohio. Ohio Archaeologist 42(1): 38-47.

Squier, E.G., and E.H. Davis. 1847. Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge: Vol. 1. Ancient Monuments of the Mississippi Valley comprising the results of extensive original surveys and explorations. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Inst.

Stallings, R. 1981. The Alligator Effigy Mound. Ohio Archaeologist 31(1): 13-15.

Sweeney, J.D. 1995. Stolen petroglyph. Ohio Archaeologist 45(2): 48.

Joe Knapp's The "Alligator" Mound -- A Hopewell Effigy

Back to Earthworks