The Sun Serpents

Author(s): John R. White

Source: Archaeology , November/December 1987, Vol. 40, No. 6 (November/December
1987), pp. 52-57
Published by: Archaeological Institute of America

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/41731967

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Archaeological Institute of America is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and

extend access to Archaeology

This content downloaded from

52.43.93.60 on Mon, 11 Dec 2023 21:52:46 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 The ,l,c
^ ,l,c
fP Sun
Serpents
by John R. White

enthusiasts have heard of

Most enthusiasts Stonehenge, archaeology have andand
Stonehenge, and heard of
of the the
travel of claims
for its use as an astronomical device.
Many people have seen or read about
the medicine wheels of Big Horn,
Wyoming, or Sun River, Montana, the
Casa Riconada in Chaco Canyon,
New Mexico, or the problematic "sun
daggers" at Fajada Butte.
All of these prehistoric sites attest
to some degree to the scientific
abilities and astronomical insights
of our Native American forebears.
And they are all subjects of a relatively
new field of study called archaeo-
astronomy. Born principally out of the
disciplines of archaeology and as-
tronomy, it entails the study of the
indigenous written and unwritten
record relating to the practice of as-
tronomy in the ancient world.
While we fully expect to find incip-
ient astronomers among the high
civilizations, such as the Maya or
Aztecs of Mexico, our expectations
are naturally somewhat diminished
when the folk of North America
leave less "spectacular" cultural evi-
dence of their passing. The archaeo-
logically unexpected occurred in 1982,
when the first of two prehistoric
serpent effigies was uncovered in a field
located on a floodplain below, and tacular-and there are other astro- Ancient, a vast earthwork which sits
within shadow of, monumental Fort nomical sites, but as yet no effigiesatop a promontory overlooking the
Ancient in Warren County, south- constructed for primarily astro- Little Miami River, was constructed
western Ohio. Extensive research nomical purposes. by the Hopewell Indians more than
and observations made over the fol- 2,000 years ago. The earthen banks of
A full appreciation of the so-called
lowing five years led to the inescapableKern effigies and their cultural andthe monument follow the irregular
conclusion that these effigies were chronological position depends on anedge of the promontory which is di-
more than mere ground drawings. understanding of the archaeologicalsected over most of its perimeter
They were, in fact, markers used to fabric of which they are an integralby deep ravines.
determine accurately the summer and thread. The sites lie on the west
winter solstices. As effigies utilized floodplain of the Little Miami River, 8:40 a.m. EST: First strike of the
in astronomical reckoning they are and are less than 500 yards north winter solstice sun , on December 21.
unique in North America. There are of and below the North Lookout of the (Inset): 6:54 a.m. EDT: First strike
other effigies- some quite spec- South Fort of Fort Ancient. Fort of the summer solstice sun , June 22.

52 Archaeology

This content downloaded from

52.43.93.60 on Mon, 11 Dec 2023 21:52:46 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 November/December 1987 53

This content downloaded from

52.43.93.60 on Mon, 11 Dec 2023 21:52:46 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Monumental construction entailed based on the cultivation of maize, has provided the bulk of information
the building of linear earthen em- beans, and squash and was supple- relevant to the internal settlement
bankments up to seven meters high mented by hunting and fishing. patterns of Anderson sites.
and 21 meters wide and covering a Within the broader Fort Ancient
ground distance of 5.7 kilometers. aspect, six localized variations are
These constructed earthen banks run identified. These are called Baum, A^^rk began on the Kern effigy
along the crest of a figure-eight- Feurt, Anderson, Madisonville, in 1981 after sevèral suspiciously po-
shaped bluff to form a large northern Bladwin, and Brush Creek after the sitioned limestone flagstones were
enclosure (North Fort) which is sepa- revealed in the sidewall of a test pit
sites at which they were first defined.
rated from a large southern exposure The Anderson focus refers to a group dug earlier by Essenpreis. In one of
(South Fort) by a narrow, elongated of Fort Ancient sites demonstrating those marvelous coincidences that
middle corridor (Middle Fort). The a significant degree of similarity and happen just often enough to make us
earthen walls encircle a total area dating between A.D. 1100 and 1450. shake our heads in grateful disbelief,
of more than 126 acres, or about 30 Until now, 15 sites have been assigned Essenpreis' test unit touched the
city blocks. More than 72 passages to the Anderson focus. Although very tip of a rock cluster buried
interrupt the embankments, includ- Anderson Village originally provided almost one meter below the surface.
ing three major "gateways." Numer- the base line inventory for establish- The test pit was only one of two
ous pavements, stone circles, moats, ment of this phase, the recent and placed randomly in a 20-acre field! In
and 11 oval or lunate mounds are more extensive work carried out by 1981 excavations began that would
located within the enclosure. Jay Heilman of the University of Iowa go on for the next five summers and
Despite the magnitude of its archi-at the Incinerator site near Dayton in their course would reveal two large
tectural proportions, Fort Ancient
has attracted few serious scholars over
the years. Archaeologist Patricia
Essenpreis of the University of Florida
is a notable exception. Essenpreis
is responsible for a good portion of the
new data on this site. Her studies
have led her to argue convincingly
that Fort Ancient is a misnomer for
a site more likely built for ceremonial
purposes than as a bulwark.
But if Fort Ancient, the place, was
misnamed because of an early preoc-
cupation with its ramparts, Fort An-
cient, the cultural manifestation,
suffered a similar fate for a different
reason. Early researchers Warren
Moorehead ( 1887) and William Mills
( 1908) mistook the Indian inhabi-
tants of a site- Anderson Village-
in the adjacent Little Miami Valley
as the builders of the Fort Ancient
earthworks and thereby erroneously
termed them "Fort Ancient Indians."
Of course they were not the builders-
the earlier Hopewell were- but the
compounded misnomer remained.
Today Fort Ancient- the cultural
manifestation, not the site- is the
term applied to the archaeological cul-
ture that developed in the Middle
Ohio Valley between A.D. 950 and
1750. Fort Ancient's economy was

(Above) Pro/ï/e trench , cut across effigy ,

gave insights into its original width .
Difference between straight northern edge
and irregular southern edge is apparent .

(Right) Reconstructed segment of

Effigy 1 . The original would have looked
like this in cross-section.

54 Archaeology

This content downloaded from

52.43.93.60 on Mon, 11 Dec 2023 21:52:46 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
prehistoric snake effigies which had regularity and force over the origi- to its recognition. The "tail" con-
been buried for more than seven nally higher rock feature. sisted of nine large, flat flagstones laid
centuries. At a distance of 19 meters from contiguously in a single file; the
By the end of the 1981 season, the its eastern point of discovery the clus- resemblance to a snake's rattle was un-
limestone cluster (it was too early ter, which previously had measured canny. We had our effigy.
to call it anything more specific) mea- nearly two meters wide, narrowed to To gain insights into the more pre-
sured 2.96 meters in length and ob- a uniform one meter in width. At cise original shape of the effigy, a
viously continued in a westerly direc- this same point the cluster began to cross-section was made perpendicular
tion. At the close of 1982, the cluster curve subtly in a northerly direction to the main trunk and parallel to
was uncovered to a length of more relative to the trunk. Although it was the flood currents which would have
than 23.5 meters and still was not clear that the large cluster was an- traversed it. All of the rocks from
completely exposed. We noted alongthropogenic in origin, we were puzzled the section trench were weighed,
its entire length a clear distinction about its function. No explanation counted and set aside. It was clear
between the straight, unbroken north-seemed to fit. As a ground drawing or in profile that the original effigy mea-
ern (upstream) edge and the ir- effigy it was meaningless- at least sured 1.8 meters at its widest point.
regular, undulating and broken south- to its observers in 1982. The main body of the serpent con-
ern (downstream) edge. Evidence Early in the 1983 season, the rock sisted of multi-layered and tightly
indicated that this disparity was cluster was completely exposed to stacked limestone flags, while the
caused by the centuries of disruptivea total length of 26.79 meters. It was stones on the flood-rafted southern,
floodwaters which, after the site was the uncovering of the final 2.49 or downstream, edge were unlayered,
abandoned, passed with considerablemeters of the rock alignment that ledisolated, and randomly located.
To determine the original height of the
effigy, the stones taken from the
section trench were stacked as tightly
as possible within the confines of a
rectangle one meter wide (the trench
width) by 1.8 meters long (the de-
termined width of the original effigy).
The resulting concentration reached
a height of 55 centimeters- the origi-
nal height of the effigy before being
continually raked with disruptive
floodwaters.
During excavation of the section
trench two specimens were collected
for radiometric dating (C-14) by the
Smithsonian Radio-Carbon Labora-
tory. The first specimen was dated at
530 ± 95 or A.D. 1420 ± 95 years;
the second and earlier sample at 765±
80 or A.D. 1185 ± 80 years- a text-
book date for Fort Ancient occupation
in the area. Finding a large serpent
effigy -or any kind for that matter- in
connection with the Fort Ancient
peoples was unique- they were not
heretofore known to have con-
structed such things- but not earth-
shaking outside of certain academic
circles. However, the Kern effigy had
much more to teach us.
Observations made at the outset
of the 1983 season led to the
hypothesis that the effigy may have

(Above) Uncovering the serpent's tail ,

showing nine large flagstones laid
side-by-side and decreasing in size.

(Left) Looking north along Effigy 2 as

it was uncovered.

November/December 1987 55

This content downloaded from

52.43.93.60 on Mon, 11 Dec 2023 21:52:46 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
served a more specific function than would, on only a very limited number
erly direction along the effigy's tail.
as a simple ground drawing. The un- of days centered on June 21, be in di- At 7 :40 it reached the tip of the tail
canny relationship between the rect alignment with the rising sun . and proceeded to withdraw (shorten)
morning sun's location, shadow direc- An eight-meter-high gnomon pole rapidly back toward the base of the
tions, and the serpent's alignment (the raised portion of a sundial that gnomon. In effect, the plan view
demanded closer examination. After casts the shadow) was erected at of the serpent represented a plot of the
careful analysis, we theorized that rising sun during its first 38 minutes
the head (eastern end ) of, and in a direct
the Kern effigy may have been built 66°30' azimuth, or alignment, with after striking the valley floor.
to serve as an astronomical marker the serpent. On June 22, 1983, at In the last 1,000 years, the 23°30'
for determining the summer solstice 6:54 a.m. EDT the new summer sun precessional angle of the earth's axis
and thereby initiating a series breached a low spot in the Fort has undergone little change. The po-
of seasonally related rituals and Ancient ridge opposite the site. At sition of the summer (and winter)
ceremonies. 7:02, the gnomon pole shadow was solstice sun would be the same today
We formulated three operationally cast the length of the effigy and par- as it was in the twelfth or thirteenth
independent hypotheses and applied allel to its center line. As the sun century when the effigy/sun marker
them to the site findings. First, if the rose over the next 38 minutes, the was constructed. Any slight varia-
effigy had solstitial relevance it shadow moved inexorably in a west- tion would be undetected by naked-

56 Archaeology

This content downloaded from

52.43.93.60 on Mon, 11 Dec 2023 21:52:46 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Archaeology students expose Ancient sits has only one well-defined
2 appears to be more evenly dis-
Effigy 1 to its full extent. gap in it. The Kern effigy is situ- turbed over both of its long edges.
ated on the floodplain with respectEffigy
to 2 was not as densely com-
this gap in such a way that the first
pacted as Effigy 1. The major dif-
eye, line-of-sight observations. flash of the summer solstice sun (atference between the two effigies,
The second hypothesis concerns 6:54 a.m. EDT) occurs in the center however, was in their azimuthal direc-
the practicality of constructing such of the gap, and is in direct alignment
tions or the bearing of their align-
a solar device. If the Kern effigy were with a gnomon erected at the east-ments off of north. Effigy 1, with its
a summer solstice marker, it should ern terminus of the effigy. azimuth of 66°30', lines up with sur-
relate archaeologically to a group who , Third, there is the effigy's oppor-prising precision with the summer sol-
quite independently of the effigy tune location with respect to nearby stice sunrise; Effigy 2 is aligned at
itself, provide evidence of placing a sig- Anderson Village. Anderson Village, an azimuth of 129°30'. We wondered
nificant emphasis on the sun. While first excavated in 1887, is the typeif the second serpent might have its
the exact degree of impact that the site for the Anderson phase of theown astronomical significance. On De-
Mississippian groups had in the ul- Fort Ancient aspect and is located cember 21, 1985, surveying equip-
less than 500 meters across the river ment was set up over the centerline
timate development of the Fort An-
cient culture is debatable, it is and upstream from the Kern effigy. at the northern end of Effigy 2 and
settled that it was at least sizable and, The occupation dates for Anderson preparations made to record the first
certainly by A.D. 1200, well Village are consistent with the ef- strike of the winter solstice sun. At
established. Everything we know figy dates (a.D. 1200) and the effigy's8:40:22 a.m. EST the sun crested the
about this cultural system points presumed function suits the agricul- Fort Ancient ridge southeast of the
not to a normal interest in the sun but tural, ceremonial, and religious needssite and stood in perfect alignment
a major preoccupation with it. of these people. Lastly, the recti- with the effigy.
lineal rather than more common ser- In standard scientific methodol-
Mississippian priests greeted the ris-
ing sun with prayers and sacrifices pentine plan view shape of the Kern ogy, hypotheses developed on one
and kept lit eternal fires representing effigy might well be explained by the set of data are tested on another inde-
it. The Great Sun, their leader, was greater cultural need for an accurate pendent set. Usually this is not pos-
the sun incarnate. The influence of shadow marker than for a more real- sible in prehistory where each set is
this heliolatrous Mississippian cul-istic snake. unique, but the Kern effigies offered
ture, taken together with the Fort An- a rare opportunity. We were able to
cient maize agricultural subsistence evaluate how each hypothesis fit
pattern in which knowledge of plant- C/oncern that the 20-acre field might the recovered evidence from Effigy 1
contain other evidence of Fort An- and then look for a pattern consis-
ing and harvesting was such an inte-
gral part, would make the cient occupation led to the digging of tency in a structurally similar site.
construction and use of a solstitial a series of test pits. In 1983, a second Here was a case in which a strong
marker wholly consistent and logical.linear cluster of limestone flagstones relationship between a summer solar
Finally, if the Kern effigy were was discovered 157 meters east of the phenomenon and an archaeological
a solstice marker, we might expect Kern effigy. The earlier discovered site ( Effigy 1 ) was used to predict-
there to be other independent phys- serpent was named Kern Effigy 1, and verify- a similar relationship
ical considerations, i.e., geological, and the 1983 discovery, Kern Effigy between the winter sun and a second
positional, and attitudinal, for its 2. By the close of the 1985 field sea- archaeological site (Effigy 2).
specific placement. There was ample son, Effigy 2 was entirely exposed to A final note regarding the use of a
support for this hypothesis. First, a length of 46.9 meters. snake effigy as a marker symbol.
there is the effigy's location with re- Comparisons between Effigy 2 The serpent maintains an important
spect to the North Lookout of the and Effigy 1 were inevitable. Effigy position in the mythology of many
South Fort of Fort Ancient. The 2 is almost twice as long, slightly nar- eastern Native American groups.
marker is located about 400 meters rower (1.41 meters to 1.80 meters), Among the Shawnee, a Native
northwest of, and more than 60 me- and much lower in original height (20 American group arguably descended
ters below, the Lookout which itself centimeters to 55 centimeters). from the Fort Ancient people who
sits on a promontory of the South The flagstones are similar in both. constructed the effigy, the snake is
Fort and offers an unobstructed Whereas Effigy 1 shows maximum seen as the symbolic separator and
view up the Little Miami Valley fordisturbance along its southern (down- guardian of the seasons. What better
several kilometers. In perfect posi- stream) edge and very little along choice for a solstice marker than a
tion with respect to the Lookout, it its northern (upstream) edge, Effigy snake? □
isn't difficult to imagine an early
Fort Ancient priest looking down

. #
upon the effigy marker below and
pronouncing the commencement of the
various solar-initiated activities.
Second, there is the position of the
effigy in relation to the gap in the
steep ridge opposite the site. The oth-
erwise impressive and unbroken
skyline formed by the steep ( 70
meters high) ridge on which Fort

November/December 1987 57

This content downloaded from

52.43.93.60 on Mon, 11 Dec 2023 21:52:46 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms