4 PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM vol. 82 



POTTERY FROM RECOGNIZED HOPEWELL SITES 



In order to determine the dominant characteristics of Hopewell 

 pottery, Table 1 has been made to show the decorated vessels and 

 sherds illustrated and described in various publications ^ dealing 

 with the excavation of mounds in the upper Mississippi Valley re- 

 puted to have been built by Indians possessing the Hopewell culture. 

 Four Hopewell pottery vessels from Ohio are illustrated on Plate 7. 

 The table should indicate the outstanding characteristics of the pot- 

 tery illustrated from these sites. If we allow for the incompleteness 

 of the table, due to the fact that only the vessels and sherds that have 

 been illustrated are considered, it seems obvious that the most out- 

 standing feature of the decoration on the upper Mississippi Hope- 

 well vessels and sherds is that the decoration on 31 have bands of 

 various dimensions outlined with deeply incised grooves, the areas 

 between or outside these grooves roughened uniformly either by 

 roulette, zigzag, punctate, or cord marks. Nineteen of the illus- 

 trations show that the area just below the rim — in the case of jars — 

 has been decorated with incised cross-hatched lines and an encir- 

 cling line of bisected cones. The dominant tempering material is 

 grit, the one exception being a vessel from the Mound City group 

 described by Mills as having shell tempering. The forms vary : 12 

 bowls, 11 jars, and 2 vases. There are five examples of supporting 

 feet. Seven jars are shaped with four lobes — the predominant 

 style — one with six, and one with three. No vessels or sherds are 

 illustrated or described with handles. Twelve have round, seven 

 pointed, and five flat bases. No applied pigment is used for 

 decoration. 



How do the vessels and potsherds from Mounds 4 and 8 in the 

 Marksville works compare with these? With regard to the decora- 

 tion, 9 of the 12 restored vessels have bands outlined with deeply 



^ 1. Turner group of earthworks : Willoughby, C. C. Papers Peabody Mus. Amer. Arch, 

 and Ethnol., Harvard Univ., vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 1-98, 1922. 



2. HopfiweU Mound group of Ohio : Moorehead, ^ . K., Field Mus. Nat. Hist. Publ 



Anthrop., vol. 6, no. 5, pp. 75-178, 1922; Mills, W. C, and Shetrone, H. C, Cer 

 tain mounds and village sites in Ohio, vol. 4, pt. 4, pp. 79—305, 1926. 



3. Mound City group : Mills, W. C, Certain mounds and village sites in Ohio, vol. 3 



pt. 4, pp. 245-400, 1922 ; Squier, B. G., and Davi.s, E. H., Ancient monuments of 

 the Mississippi Valley, Smithsonian Contr. to Knowl., vol. 1, pp. 187-190, pi. 46 

 1848. 



4. Tremper mound : Mills, W. C, Certain mounds and village sites in Ohio, vol. 2, pt. 3 



pp. 105-240, 1917. 



5. Edwin Harness mound : Mills, W. C, Ohio Arch, and Hist. Quart., vol. 16, no. 2 



pp. 113-193, 1907. 



6. Seip Mound No. 1 : Shetrone, H. C, and Greenman, E. F., Ohio Arch, and Hist 



Quart., vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 343-509, 1931. 



7. Seip Mound No. 2 : Mills, W. C, Ohio Arch, and Hist. Quart., vol. 18, no. 3, pp 



269-321, 1909. 



8. Wisconsin variant of the Hopewell culture: McKern, W. C, Bull. Public Mus. City 



of Milwaukee, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 185-328, 1931. 



