The Warren County, Ohio, Serpent Mound

Gone, but not forgotten

by Chad Arment

When someone mentions the Great Serpent Mound of Ohio, one naturally pictures that fabulous effigy found along a riverbank in Adams County. But, that may not have been the only serpent effigy mound created by Amerindians in Ohio. Warren County is found in southwest Ohio, below Montgomery and Greene Counties, between Dayton and Cincinnati. Along with a number of various earthworks and conical mounds found in this region, there appears to have been a large effigy-like mound that closely resembles a snake.

While known to the locals for years beforehand (and probably first described in print as a serpent mound by a Dr. Scoville for a Cincinnati newspaper, though the article hasn't been found), this mound (occasionally known as the "Kingsnake Mound") was described in detail to the public by George Frederick Wright in an article from the Sept.-Oct. 1908 issue of "The Records of the Past" published in Washington, D.C. That article was reprinted in the Ohio Archaeological and Historical Quarterly, January 1909. He writes:

"The newly discovered serpent mound is in Warren County, Ohio, and hence may be called the Warren County Serpent Mound, as the other is called the Adams County Serpent Mound. The mound is situated in the valley of the Little Miami river opposite Stubbs Station, about half way between Morrow and South Lebanon adjoining the farm of the Baker family, who have been residents in the locality for over a hundred years. The valley of the Little Miami between Morrow and South Lebanon is pre-glacial and fully one mile in width, but like all similar valleys in southern Ohio, has been filled up to a great depth with gravel washed in by the floods of the melting ice at the close of the glacial period. The present stream has eroded a channel through this glacial gravel to a depth of about 50 feet, leaving a gravel terrace of about that height through a considerable distance. The deposits, however, are not all of equal heights but generally stretch out at a somewhat lower level in beautiful fields adapted for cultivation.

"The serpent is upon one of the highest portions of this elevated terrace with its head facing the river which is here flowing past it on the northeast. But, owing to the encroachments of the river on the gravel terrace, the head itself has been washed away and we have therefore only the neck and body of the serpent remaining for direct examination. Following this, however, from the edge of the bluff it can be distinctly traced in a mound about 3 feet high and from 10 to 15 feet wide in a southwest direction bearing gradually away from the edge of the bluff for a distance of about 500 feet when a convolution is made toward the southeast for a distance of about 100 feet which returns upon itself and then again bends in the same direction for about the same distance and returns nearly to the original line, from which it proceeds with minor curves less distinctly visible to an indefinite distance along the slope of the hill. Now that the bushes are cleared away and when the grass is cut (as it was during a recent visit which the writer made in the company of E.O. Randall, Secretary of the Ohio Society, and Dr. Hough, of Lebanon), the outlines are perfectly distinct and no one seeing them can fail to recognize an artificial product lie that in Adams County, representing a serpent in active motion."

Wright gained permission to give the results of an examination of the mound in 1892 by Dr. M.C. Metz (who had worked with F.W. Putnam on other earthworks) and Harlan I. Smith of the American Museum of Natural History. A cross-section of the mound "revealed a layer of large lime and flat river stones, 20 feet wide, placed on the level surface, and the earth embankment was built over it. The greater part of this earthwork was in the woodland, well preserved large trees growing on the top and slopes of the embankment." The total length of the serpent was about 1300 feet. It was situated where "if the timber were all cleared away the elevated terrace upon which the serpent is situated would be visible for miles around, indeed no more conspicuous situation could be imagined."

Was this indeed a true serpent mound, however? Not everyone agreed. In fact, Metz and Smith strongly disagreed with each other. Metz thought that it was, while Smith held that it wasn't, as the apparent tail and head did not have a stone core. Some held that the mound was a double "V" or a "W" geometric form. Apparently, an individual, Thomas Gordon King, wrote an article in 1892 stating that he did not believe it was a serpent effigy, but I haven't been able to find the article or where it was published. In fact, the first mention of these earthworks was by Col. Charles Whittlesey when he described the Stubbs earthworks in 1839 and published in 1851 "Descriptions of Ancient Works in Ohio," where he depicts the mound as a double-V-shaped embankment.

In 1933, the issue became clouded when Senator John Holden was able to provide the political clout needed to start on the restoration of the ancient earthworks of the Little Miami through the Works Project Administration. In 1934, contended some, workers using bulldozers and graders pushed up mounds of dirt into the form of a serpent, destroying a Hopewell star mound to create the head. When a Cincinnati newspaper revealed this in 1964, the Ohio Indian Relic Collectors Society faced the challenge head-on. They countered that the newspaper relied upon faulty reports and biased opinions of certain curators. R. Baby (1962), curator of archaeology at the Ohio Historical Society was one who stated "I cannot accept the Stubbs earthworks as a Serpent Mound" and "I certainly would not be a party to perpetrating a hoax on the citizens of the State of Ohio."

The OIRCS attempted in the early 1950's to purchase the mound. At one time, the owner of the land had offered the property to the society for $10,000. They were unable to come up with the funds, and eventually public interest faded. The mound was sold in 1961. Recurring doubts on the effigy's authenticity and the financial interests of a gravel company led to the mound's demise. It is now, apparently, a gravel pit.

Unfortunately, it will be almost impossible to resolve the issue now. While we have both maps and photographs of the serpent, the maps may not have been accurately surveyed (as some contend) and the photographs were taken after the WPA project restoration.

I'll just point out a couple of things. If the WPA project did even a generally accurate restoration (they were basically filling in some "holes") the serpent was not perfectly symmetrical to create double "V"'s. One "loop" is distinctly smaller than the other. Also, if the the mound was merely an embankment, why such an odd shape? Especially when it is set apart from the other earthworks in the area? Of course, noone ever rediscovered the circle/rectangle earthworks, so I can't stress that too much because the argument is based on circumstantial evidence.

While the original "head" was never seen, I've not seen mention that the tail was not apparent. From the "serpent" map, we see distinct curls in the tail reminiscent of the Adams County effigy. In 1922, P. Kientz (1951) visited the site and found "the tail coiled" and "were low yet distinct." J. Holden (1951) confirmed this, noting that a Sunday picnic was held at the mound in 1898, and "the coils of the tail were distinct and that the convolution leading to the tail could be discerned even though it had been worn down greatly." This almost certainly is indicative of a true effigy.

After writing most of this, I came across White's (1996) excellent review of the case. White describes the various rivalries and arguments that went on "behind the scenes" throughout this whole period. (White does not find the effigy argument compelling.)

It's a moot point now. The mound is gone (I've not visited the site yet, but am fairly certain this is true), so any speculations must remain as such.

Personally, I wonder if technology might not be able to provide some answers. When satellite imagery was examined for the Adams County, OH, Great Serpent Mound, it was found that at one time the mound used to have attachments that have been referred to as "wings." Could the same technology be used to determine the true configuration of the past? Maybe not, but might be worth a try.

The Old Maps of the Warren County (OH) Serpent Mound

The Aerial Photos of the Waren County (OH) Serpent Mound

Fig. 1 - this drawing comes from Kientz and McPherson (1954) generally. A copy of this tracing pre-published is found in the Warren County Historical Society Museum. All images pictured herein have to the best of my knowledge become public domain.

Literature:

Anonymous. 1951. Price tag put on Warren County mound. Dayton Daily News (December 2) 1A.

Baby, R.S. 1962. Statement (The Stubbs Earthworks). (Currently in the Warren County Historical Society Museum.)

Bogan, D. 1994. Warren county had its own serpent mound. Sunday Western Star (January 22): 7B.

Genheimer, R.A. 1997. Stubbs Cluster: Hopewellian site dynamics at a forgotten Little Miami River Valley settlement. in Ohio Hopewell Community Organization. ed. by Dancey, W.S., and P.J. Pachero. Kent, OH: Kent State Univ. Press.

Holden, J. 1951. Correspondance to Dr. Leon Kramer. (Currently in the Warren County Historical Society Museum.)

Keys, J. 1971. Gravel company gobbled on-of-a-kind mound. The Western Star (March 31): 4A.

Kientz, P. 1951. Correspondance/Statement. (Currently in the Warren County Historical Society Museum.)

Kientz, P., and H.R. McPherson. 1954. The Warren County Serpent Mound. Ohio Indian Relic Collectors Society, Ohio Archaeologist Special Number.

Thomas, B. 1964. Warren serpent mound WPA job? Cincinnati Enquirer.

Whittlesey, C. 1851. Descriptions of Ancient Works in Ohio. Contributions to Knowledge 3(7), Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

White, J.R. 1996. The Stubbs Earthwork: serpent effigy or simple embankment. North American Archaeologist 17(3): 203-237.

Wright, G.F. 1909. A new serpent mound in Ohio. OH Arch. Hist. Quart. Vol. XVIII (No. 1): 1-12.

Back to Earthworks