Ohio archæological and historical quarterly . Fig. 21. Plan of mica crescentafter Squier & Davis. The entire length of the crescent from horn to horn couldnot have been less than twenty feet, and its greatest widthfive. The clay floor of this mound was but a few inches inthickness; a small shaft, c. was sunk three feet below it, butit disclosed only a mass of coarse ferruginous sand. Theearth composing the mound was incredibly compact, render-ing excavation exceedingly slow and laborious. Two activemen were employed more than a week in making theexcavation here indicated. It is not absolutely
Ohio archæological and historical quarterly . Fig. 21. Plan of mica crescentafter Squier & Davis. The entire length of the crescent from horn to horn couldnot have been less than twenty feet, and its greatest widthfive. The clay floor of this mound was but a few inches inthickness; a small shaft, c. was sunk three feet below it, butit disclosed only a mass of coarse ferruginous sand. Theearth composing the mound was incredibly compact, render-ing excavation exceedingly slow and laborious. Two activemen were employed more than a week in making theexcavation here indicated. It is not absolutely certain thatthe mound was raised over the simple deposit above men-tioned, and it may yet be subjected to a more rigid investi-gation. Although this mound is classed as a mound of sacrifice, itpresents some features peculiar to itself. Were we to yield tothe temptation to speculation which the presence of the micacrescent holds out, we might conclude that the mound-buildersworshiped the moon, and that this mound was dedicated, with. Fig. 22. A full cross section view of the shaft made by Squier & Daviswhen they examined the mound.
Size: 1819px × 1374px
Photo credit: © The Reading Room / Alamy / Afripics
License: Licensed
Model Released: No
Keywords: ., book, bookcentury1800, booksubjectarchaeology, booksubjecthistory
