AKT. 22 HOPEWELL POTTERY FROM LOUISIANA SETZLER 7 



have never been reported from the North. Even though the direc- 

 tion of spread is not entirely clear, there seems to be an adequate 

 basis for some correlation based on pottery alone. Tlie study made 

 later in this paper would seem to show that in comparison with 

 other ceramic ornamentation in the Southeast the Hopewell style 

 of decoration is not so outstanding nor so highly developed as it is 

 when contrasted with the pottery from other cultures in the upper 

 Mississippi Valley. 



If the pottery from Mounds 4 and 8 in the Marksville works is 

 sufficiently similar to be considered related to the northern Hopewell 

 type, we should compare other artifacts as well as the construction 

 of Mounds 4 and 8 with typical Ohio Hopewell sites. 



Turning to Mr. Fowke's report, we gain a picture of the Marks- 

 ville site, together Avith the burial customs practiced by the builders 

 of Mound 4.« 



The most strildng resemblances are the use of bark-lined graves 

 and the circular earthworks. The typical form of burial in the 

 Ohio Hopewell mounds, however, consisted of placing the bodies 

 on well-prepared earth platforms and surrounding the rectangular 

 graves with parallel logs two or three tiers high. One might inter- 

 pret the platform of clay found in Mound 4 as analogous to the well- 

 prepared burial platforms among the Ohio Hopewell. The intru- 

 sive burials, described by Fowke, seem out of place among the more 

 general Hopewell characteristics. 



From Fowke's description of Mound 8,^ we find such characteristics 

 as bark-lined graves and possibly cremated human burials, which are 

 also found in the Ohio Hopewell mounds. Graves dug beneath the 

 original level of the mound, however, while not typical in Ohio ex- 

 cept in the Adena culture,^ have been found in mounds belonging to 

 the Wisconsin ^ and Illinois variants of the Ohio Hopewell. 



Mounds 4 and 8 lacked artifacts made from obsidian, mica, and 

 copper so common in the northern mounds. Then, too, other fea- 

 tures, such as tortoise shells, pearls, conch shells, ear spools, head 

 ornaments, ceremonial skulls, crematory basins, colored and plain 

 textiles, carved animal bones, and effigy pipes, which are not found 

 in all the Hopewell mounds but in the majority of them, were not 

 found at Marksville.i<* 



Fowke, G., 44th Ann. Rep. Bur. .\mer. Ethnol., pp. 411-422, 1928. 



''Ibid., pp. 423-^24. 



* Greenman, E. P., Excavation of the Coon mound and an analysis of the Adena cul- 

 ture. Ohio Arch, and Hist. Quart., vol. 41, no. 3, pp. 411-502, 1932. 



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

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



^0 For a detailed study of Ohio Hopewell artifacts, see Shetrone, H. C, and Greenman, 

 E. F., Explorations of the Seip group of prehistoric earthworks. Ohio Arch, and Hist. 

 Quart., vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 400-509, 1931. 



