202 BULLETIN 18 3, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM 



or less adequately .^^ The resemblances between certain features of this 

 comparatively advanced complex and the Renner site, however, are 

 worth noting. 



In the past ten years several lists of elements considered diagnostic 

 of Ohio or northern Hopewell have appeared (Shetrone and Green- 

 man, 1931, p. 506; McKern, 1931a, p. 235; Greenman, 1938, p. 332; 

 Setzler, 1940, p. 260). All are heavily weighted on the side of cere- 

 monial elements and burial practices, almost none of which can be du- 

 plicated at Eenner. Instead of relying on these various summary lists, I 

 have used the original published reports on materials from three rep- 

 resentative mound groups. These are the Hopewell and Seip sites in 

 Ross County and the Turner group in Hamilton County. It is ex- 

 tremely doubtful that the addition of other site inventories would 

 add materially to the number of similarities with Renner. 



Probably the most striking and significant resemblances between the 

 western Missouri and the Ohio materials occur in the pottery complex. 

 It is not easy to visualize the exact nature of the remains from the 

 Ohio sites because, among other lacks, no adequate analysis of Hope- 

 well sherd collections has yet appeared. In the early reports of 

 mound excavation, scant attention was accorded the bits of earthen- 

 ware encountered throughout the fill or in proximity to the burials ; or, 

 where comment was made, they were divided merely into crude or 

 ^'utility" and artistic or "ceremonial" ware. This division rested 

 apparently on the technologic or artistic quality of the respective types 

 rather than on a demonstrable functional difference. The presence of 

 at least two distinct wares in Hopewell sites in Ohio seems to have been 

 recognized almost from the very beginning of exploration, when Squier 

 and Davis (1848, p. 189) at Mound City recovered vessels decorated 

 in alternate-area style and others which were "heavy and coarse, both 

 in material and workmanship." The latter were thought to be of com- 

 paratively modern mxanufacture, though both types apparently came 

 from the same tumuli. 



The "utility" ware as represented by about two-thirds of the sherds 

 from the Turner group (Willoughby and Hooton, 1922, p. 90) is a 

 crude grit-tempered cord-roughened pottery. Vessels are characteris- 

 ticallj'^ elongate vertically with decoration, if present at all, found as 

 nodes or punctate elements on the rim below the lip. Fewer details 

 are available for most other sites, but at Seip No. 1 "utility" ware com- 

 prised somewhat less than a third of all sherds recovered. Typically 

 these ( Shetrone and Greenman, 1931, p. 437) bore a "barklike rough- 

 ening [cord-roughening ?] which on Algonkian pottery is usually 

 called 'fabric marking.' " For the Hopewell group we have virtually 

 nothing concerning "utility" pottery beyond Moorehead's remark that 

 a cooking pot was of the "ordinary village site type and carries no 



" See Shetrone, 1930, and references therein ; also Setzler, 1940, and references. 



