Effigy Mounds of Eastern North America

**Serpent Mound**

**A Nomination for the Tentative List of**

**the World Heritage Program**

**March 2007**

**Revised June 2007**

![](media/image1.png){width="6.0625in" height="3.4166666666666665in"}

Ohio Historical Society

1982 Velma Avenue

Columbus, Ohio 43211

![](media/image2.jpeg){width="1.625in" height="1.3243055555555556in"}

**OMB Control #:   1024-0250**

> **Exp. Date:**           08/31/2009 \
>  

**APPLICATION FOR INCLUSION OF A PROPERTY**

**IN THE U.S. WORLD HERITAGE TENTATIVE LIST** 

Effigy Mounds of Eastern North America: Serpent Mound

**Prerequisite 1 - Legal Requirements:** 

**A.  National Significance:** 

Has the property been formally determined to be nationally significant
for its cultural values, natural values, or both (in other words, has it
been formally designated as a National Historic Landmark, a National
Natural Landmark, or as a Federal reserve of national importance, such
as a National Park, National Monument, or National Wildlife Refuge)?  If
not, are there on-going processes to achieve any of the above
designations and what is their status?  *(Listing in the National
Register of Historic Places is [not]{.underline} equivalent to National
Historic Landmark status.)* \
 

YES:  \_\_\_\_\_[X]{.underline}\_\_\_\_  NO:  \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ 

Comment: Serpent Mound is a National Historic Landmark. \
 

**B.  Owner Concurrence:** 

Are all the property owners aware of this proposal for the inclusion of
the property in the U.S. Tentative List and do all of the property
owners agree that it should be considered?  If any agreement is
uncertain or tentative, or if the ownership situation is disputed,
otherwise complicated, or unclear, please explain the issues briefly. 

YES:  \_\_\_\_[X]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_  NO:  \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ 

Comment: The Board of the Ohio Historical Society has approved the
submission of the nomination. \
 

**C.  Willingness to Discuss Protective Measures:** 

If the property is nominated to the World Heritage List, it will be
necessary for all of the property owners to work with the Department of
the Interior to document fully existing measures to protect the property
and possibly to devise such additional measures as may be necessary to
protect the property in perpetuity.  Are all the property owners willing
to enter into such discussions? 

YES:  \_\_\_\_[X]{.underline}\_\_\_\_  NO:  \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ 

Comment:\
 

**D.  Scheduling:** 

If you wish a property to be nominated to the World Heritage List in a
particular year during the period 2009-2019, please indicate the
reason(s) why and the earliest year in which you feel it will be
possible to meet all requirements for nomination*.   (Please review this
entire **Questionnaire** before finally answering this question.)* 

Preferred Year:  \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ 

Reasons: \
 

**Prerequisite 2 - Specific Requirements for Nomination of Certain Types
of Properties:** 

**E.  Serial (multi-component) Properties:** 

If you are proposing a nomination that includes separate components that
could be submitted separately over several years, do you believe that
the first property proposed would qualify to be placed on the World
Heritage List in its own right?   

*Explanation:  There will be a very limited number of sites nominated
over the next decade.  Owners of similar properties likely will be
encouraged to work together to present joint proposals for serial
nominations.  An example would be a proposal to nominate several
properties designed by the same architect.  It is critical to note that
the first property presented in a serial nomination must qualify for
listing in its own right.* 

YES:  \_\_\_[X]{.underline}\_\_\_  NO:  \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ 

Comment:

Other sites that could be considered for inclusion in this serial
nomination are as follows:

Effigy Mounds National Monument, Iowa, USA

Serpent Mound, Keene, Ontario, Canada (National Historic Site of Canada)

There are other potential additions to the serial nomination that would
require evaluation as National Historic Landmarks prior to their
consideration for the World Heritage List. Possible additional
properties are:

**Iowa**: There are more than 390 animal effigy mounds documented in
Iowa (see Green et al. 2001: Table 4). Most of these are relatively
small and poorly preserved. One of the most significant known sites is
the Sny Magill Mound Group (13CT18). This is the largest remaining mound
group in Iowa. It includes two bird effigies, three bear effigies, and
more than 85 conical mounds.

**Ohio**: Alligator Mound (33LI5) is an effigy mound located in Licking
County, Ohio. The mound is 61 meters long and 1.5 to 2 meters high. It
is located on the top of a bluff overlooking the Raccoon Creek valley.

**Wisconsin**: Birmingham and Eisenberg (2000:109) estimate that
originally there were between 2,000 and 3,000 effigy mounds in
Wisconsin. Most of these represented bears, birds, and panthers (or
water spirits). Two of the most important preserved sites are the
Mendota State Hospital Mound Group and the Washington County Island
Effigy Mound District. Birmingham and Eisenberg state that the Mendota
State Hospital Mound Group contained \"some of the finest and largest
effigy mounds preserved anywhere\" (2000:197). The Washington County
Island Effigy Mound District (also known as Lizard Mounds County Park)
preserves 29 of an original 60 mounds. The park includes three effigies,
two birds and a panther.

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ 

**F.  Serial (multi-component) Properties:** 

Are you proposing this property as an extension of or a new component to
an existing World Heritage Site? 

YES:  \_\_\_\_\_\_\_          NO  \_\_[X]{.underline}\_\_\_ 

Name of Existing Site:

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ \
 \
 **Prerequisite 3 - Other Requirements:** \
 

**G.  Support of Stakeholders** 

In addition to owners, please list other stakeholders and interested
parties who support the property's proposed inclusion in the Tentative
List.  Also note any known to be opposed. 

*Explanation:  The purpose of the Tentative List is to propose candidate
properties that are likely to be successfully nominated during the next
decade.  It is clear that a consensus among stakeholders will be helpful
in nominating a site and later in securing its proper protection.  Thus,
only properties that enjoy strong, preferably unanimous, support from
stakeholders will be recommended for inclusion in the U.S. Tentative
List. *  

*In addition to owners, stakeholders primarily include:* 

*\--Governors, Members of Congress and State legislators who represent
the area where the property is located,*

*\--the highest local elected official, or official body, unless there
is none,*

*\--Native Americans, American Indian tribes, or other groups and
individuals who possess legally recognized claims or privileges in the
area or at the site being proposed (e.g., life tenancy or hunting and
fishing rights),*

*\--organizations established to advocate for protection and appropriate
use of the property proposed for nomination.* 

*If definitive information is not available at the time you filled out
this Questionnaire, please so indicate. *  

Supporters: Rep. Jean Schmidt; Senators Voinovich and Brown; Ohio House
and Senate; Governor of Ohio; Board of Trustees of the Ohio Historical
Society; Adams County Commissioners; Native American Indian Center
(Columbus, Ohio); Archaeological Conservancy; Archaeological Society of
Ohio; Ohio Archaeological Council; Adams County Convention and Visitors
Bureau. Endorsements are attached as Appendix 4. Letters of support from
the public are incorporated in Appendix 5 which is bound separately.

Public meetings were held in several locations around Ohio. Universal
support was expressed from all attendees. Prior to the meetings, various
means were used to encourage participation.

Opponents: None identified

Comment: Other stakeholders have been contacted, such as
Federally-recognized Indian Tribes with historic ties to Ohio, but they
have not commented. 

 

**Information Requested about Applicant Properties** 

**(The numbers of the sections and subsections below are in the same
order as and correspond to sections of the World Heritage Committee's
official [Format]{.underline} used for the nomination of  World Heritage
Sites.  This is to allow easy reference to and comparison of the
material.)**  \
 

**1.  IDENTIFICATION OF THE PROPERTY OR PROPERTIES** \
 

**1.a.  Country:** 

If it is intended that the suggested nomination will include any
properties in countries other than the United States, please note the
countries here.  

*Explanation:  Please note that the United States can nominate only
property under U.S. jurisdiction. You are not expected to contact other
governments and owners abroad, although you may do so if you wish.   
Each national government must nominate its own sites, although the
United States will consider forwarding your suggestion  to another
government for that government to consider as a joint nomination with
the United States. *

Names of countries: United States of America 

**1.b.  State, Province or Region:** 

In what State(s) and/or Territories is the property located?  Also note
the locality and give a street address if one is available. 

Serpent Mound State Memorial, 3850 S.R. 73, Peebles, OH, 45660 (Bratton
Township, Adams County, Ohio)

**1.c.  Names of Property:** 

What is the preferred or proposed name of the property or properties
proposed for nomination?  If the site has multiple names, explain why
you chose the primary choice or choices.  (*The name should not exceed
200 characters, including spaces and punctuation.)* \
 

Serpent Mound

***Popular and Historic names*** 

What are any popular or historic names by which the property is also
known? 

The Great Serpent Mound 

***Naming of serial (multiple component) properties and transboundary
sites*. **

**         **  

Try to choose brief descriptive names.  In the case of serial
nominations, give an overall name to the group (e.g., *Baroque Churches
of the Philippines*).   (*Give the names of the individual components in
a table that you insert under **1f.)*** 

Group or Transboundary Name:

Effigy Mounds of Eastern North America

***Other names or site numbers*** 

*Explanation:  If a site has multiple names, explain why you chose the
primary choice or choices.  If the site has no common name or is known
only by a number or set of numbers, please explain.*  

Serpent Mound is the name most often used. The site is also identified
in the Ohio Archaeological Inventory by its number - 33-AD-1.

>  

**1.d.-e.  Location, boundaries, and key features of the nominated
property**  

Include with this **Application** sketch maps or other small maps,
preferably letter-size, that show: 

\- the location of the property

\- the boundaries of any zones of special legal protection

\- the position of major natural features and/or individual buildings
and structures

\- any open spaces (squares, plazas) and other major spatial
relationships (the space between buildings may at times be more
important than the buildings) 

Please provide here a list of the maps that you have included. \
 \
 \
Map showing the location of the Serpent Mound in Ohio

Ownership boundary map of Serpent Mound

 

**1.f.   Area of nominated property (ha.)** 

*Explanation:  State the approximate area proposed in hectares (1
hectare=2.471   acres).  Give corresponding acre equivalents in
parentheses.  Insert just below this question a table for serial
nominations that shows the names and addresses of the component parts,
regions (if different for different components), and areas.* 

21.9 ha (54 acres) Ohio Historical Society ownership

**2.  DESCRIPTION AND HISTORY OF THE PROPERTY** \
 

**2.a.  Description of the Property **

**       ** (select the one following category that best fits the
property)

###### Cultural property

 Briefly describe the property and list its major components.  A summary
in a few paragraphs or pages should be all that is required. 

*Explanation:  This section can describe significant buildings, their
architectural style, date of construction, materials, etc. It can also
describe the setting such as gardens, parks, associated vistas. Other
tangible geographic, cultural, historic, archeological, artistic,
architectural, and/or associative values may also merit inclusion.  *  

[Background]{.underline}

Serpent Mound State Memorial encompasses the monumental Serpent Mound.
This serpent effigy is the largest documented surviving example of a
prehistoric effigy mound in the world. It is a sinuous earthen
embankment 411 meters long, including a 37 by 18m oval embankment at the
northwest end. The oval has been interpreted variously as the serpent\'s
eye, part of its head, or a secondary object, such as an egg, grasped in
the serpent\'s open jaws. The effigy ranges from 1.2 to 1.5 m in height
and from 6 to 7.6 m in width. Radiocarbon dates obtained from samples
from the effigy, combined with stylistic analyses of the iconography,
indicate Serpent Mound was built by the Fort Ancient Culture at
approximately AD 1120.

Serpent Mound is situated on a ridge, which is a part of a geologically
ancient meteoric impact crater approximately 8 km in diameter. Natural
rock formations at the end of this finger-like ridge are suggestive of a
snake\'s head, which may have provided the inspiration for the idea to
build the serpent effigy along the top of this ridge. According to Lucy
Lippard, this is an instance of \"a meaningful land form eventually
being refined by sculptural or architectural techniques\" (1983:222).
This emergence of artistic forms from natural features has been a
feature of ritually-inspired indigenous art since the Paleolithic
period, There are numerous examples at the World Heritage site of
Altamira Cave.

The state memorial also preserves three Native American burial mounds as
well as evidence of contemporary habitation sites of the builders of
both the Serpent and the burial mounds. One of the burial mounds is an
\"Elliptical mound,\" also attributable to the Fort Ancient culture (AD
1000 - 1650). The other two burial mounds are simple conical mounds
attributable to the earlier Adena culture (800 BC -- AD 100). The
habitation remains include a major Fort Ancient village overlying a
smaller Adena occupation.

Which features or aspects of the property do you believe qualify it for
the World Heritage List?  

[Scale]{.underline}

The Serpent Mound effigy, as the largest and most aesthetically refined
surviving prehistoric effigy mound in the world, is the feature that
qualifies the property for the World Heritage List. The scale of Serpent
Mound dwarfs all other securely documented effigy mounds and is larger
than most of the geoglyphs in the world. According to Lenzendorf
(2000:23), the largest known effigy mound in the Mississippi River
valley was \"originally a quarter-mile-long image of a bird in flight.\"
This would have been nearly as long as Serpent Mound, but the
imprecision of the measurement and the vagueness of the reference make
this an unsubstantiated claim. Birmingham and Eisenberg state that the
Mendota State Hospital Mound Group contained \"some of the finest and
largest effigy mounds preserved anywhere\" (2000:197), but these do not
compare with Serpent Mound[. The largest of the bird effigies,
for]{.mark} example, has a wingspan of 190 meters -- less than half the
length of Serpent Mound.

The Chilean \"Atacama Giant\" human effigy is only 115 meters long. One
of the largest of the Nasca biomorphic geoglyphs, a cormorant with a
long neck and exaggeratedly long bill, is 640 meters long, but more than
half of this length is the simple, straight line of the bill. The
largest known geoglyph in the world, Australia\'s \"Marree Man\" (or
\"Stuart\'s Giant\") intaglio is 4.2 km long, but it has been judged to
be a recent creation that utilized earth-moving equipment in its
construction. Likewise, Michael Heizer\'s 630-meter-long serpent effigy
mound is a work of modern art.

[Astronomy]{.underline}

The astronomical alignments incorporated into the structure of Serpent
Mound indicate the sophisticated astronomical knowledge of the effigy
mound\'s builders. It also is a reflection of the worldwide tendency to
link sacred architecture with cosmic rhythms. It functions, on the one
hand, as a calendrical device and allows ceremonies appropriate to a
given place to be keyed to astronomically significant events, which
define critical \"hinges\" in time. On the other hand, it allows the
architecture to reflect the sacredness of the heavens by expressing
those cosmic rhythms in its form and structure. These dual aspects of
calendar and shrine are found at a number of ancient sites around the
world, including the World Heritage sites of Stonehenge, Quirigua, El
Tajin, Lines and Geoglyphs of Nasca and Pampas de Jumana, Uxmal, and
Cahokia.

[Oral traditions]{.underline}

The effigy mounds of eastern North America also are significant to the
extent that they embody the cosmology and religious beliefs of a
widespread Pre-Columbian culture. Ethnographic research among several
Native American tribes, most notably the Winnebago (Ho-Chunk), Ojibwa,
Ottawa, and many others, have established that the effigy mounds relate
to supernatural beings, or \"other than human persons,\" of the Above
World, the Middle World, and the Below World. Ohio\'s Serpent Mound and
\"Alligator\" Mound as well as the numerous \"panther\" mounds of the
Upper Midwest, represent various manifestations of \"Mishebeshu,\" or
the chief spirit of the Below World. The bird effigies of the Upper
Midwest represent the Thunderers, or Thunderbirds, of the Above World,
while the bear and bison effigies represent the Middle World (Birmingham
and Eisenberg 2000:113-125; Lankford 2007).

The set of cosmological beliefs embodied in these effigy mounds was
widespread throughout North America and is found represented in a
variety of artistic media, from petroglyphs and ceramic forms to
symbolic notations on birch bark scrolls, dating from as early as 600 BC
to as late as the recent historic era.

[Ancillary features]{.underline}

The associated burial mounds are important ancillary structures, but
would not by themselves warrant a World Heritage designation. In
addition, there is evidence at the site of an Adena habitation area with
an associated cemetery and an overlying, and more extensive, Late
Prehistoric village site. Excavations conducted by the Ohio Historical
Society preparatory to the installation of a water line at the site in
1990 and 1991 found numerous intact features containing many artifacts
associated with the Late Prehistoric period Fort Ancient culture. So, in
addition to the evidence for the ceremonial use of the landscape
embodied in the Fort Ancient effigy mound and nearby burial mound and
the Adena burial mounds and cemetery, there is complementary evidence of
the lifeways of the peoples who built the mounds preserved at the site.

What are the important present or proposed uses of the property and how
do they compare with the traditional or historic uses of it?  

Archeological data indicate the site was used for special ceremonies
associated with the monumental serpent effigy. Based on ethnohistoric
analogies, these ceremonies may have included offerings of thanksgiving
or offerings made to elicit favors from the great serpent spirit, known
as \"Mishebeshu\" by the Ojibwa Indians. The general area also was used
for habitation and for burial of the dead.

From the time of European settlement to 1887, the site was private
property and used for a short time as agricultural land. In 1887 Serpent
Mound became the earliest site in the western hemisphere to be preserved
as an archeological park when the Peabody Museum of Harvard University
purchased it. Today, Serpent Mound State Memorial continues to be an
archeological preserve used for public education and research.

 

**2.b.  History and Development of the Property**

**Cultural property**

When was the site built or first occupied and how did it arrive at its
present form and condition?   If it has undergone significant changes in
use or physical alterations, include an explanation.  

*Explanation:  If the property was built in stages or if there have been
major changes, demolitions, abandonment and reoccupation, or rebuilding
since completion, briefly summarize these events.  For archeological
sites, the names of archeologists and dates of their work should also be
noted, especially if the site is regarded as important in the history of
archeology as well as for its intrinsic merits.* 

The most recent and best evidence (including two radiocarbon dates and
iconographic comparisons) indicates that Serpent Mound was built by the
Fort Ancient culture ([AD]{.smallcaps} 1000-1650), although some
authorities argue that it was built by the earlier Adena culture (800
[BC]{.smallcaps} -- [AD]{.smallcaps} 100) and at least one author argues
that it was built by the Hopewell culture (100 BC -- AD 400). Certainly,
the Adena culture identified this area as culturally significant,
constructing two burial mounds in the immediate vicinity.

During the period of occupation by the Fort Ancient culture, the area
south of the effigy was used as a habitation area. In addition, the
burial mound referred to as the \"Elliptical Mound\" continued the
tradition of using the area for mortuary ceremonialism. The serpent
effigy, however, unlike many of the effigy mounds of the Upper Midwest
and the Serpent Mound of Ontario, was not used for human burials.
Instead, it appears to have served as a physical representation of a
powerful supernatural being to which supplicants may have presented
offerings for such things as healing or success in hunting.

Serpent Mound was first documented in 1848 by Ephraim Squier and Edwin
Davis in *Ancient Monuments of the Mississippi Valley*, the first
publication of the Smithsonian Institution. At this time, the mound was
virtually pristine with the exception of one act of looting. Squier and
Davis reported that a \"circular elevation of large stones much burned\"
once had existed within the oval enclosure, but it had \"been thrown
down and scattered\" by a vandal. In 1859, a tornado passed over the
site uprooting the trees growing on the mound. Subsequently, the
landowner cultivated the site, including Serpent Mound, for a few
seasons. Later, the mound and the surrounding area were used for
livestock grazing. Frederic Ward Putnam, of Harvard University\'s
Peabody Museum, first visited Serpent Mound in 1883. His photographs
indicate the mound had been reduced in height from 4-5 ft (1-1.5 m) to
2-3 ft (0.6-0.9 m), but the base of the mound was intact and clearly
discernable.

When he returned to Serpent Mound in 1886, Putnam found that looters had
dug several holes in the effigy and left them unfilled. Putnam was
instrumental in raising funds to purchase the property and, in 1887, the
Peabody Museum acquired the site. From 1887 to 1889, Putnam conducted
systematic investigations of portions of the effigy, the adjacent burial
mounds, and parts of the surrounding landscape. After concluding his
research, he carefully restored the mounds.

The Peabody Museum converted the property into a public park and
operated it as such until 1900, when it was deeded to the Ohio
Archaeological and Historical Society (now the Ohio Historical Society).
In 1908, an observation tower was built and during the 1930's a museum
and other visitor facilities were added.

Between 1990 and 1992, the Ohio Historical Society conducted a series of
excavations along a proposed waterline. This projected line extended
near the small conical burial mound located south of the effigy mound
and across the area identified by Putnam as the village site. A number
of features were uncovered most of which yielded ceramics and flint
tools assignable to the Fort Ancient culture. These results also
indicated that a great deal of the subsurface archeology at the site
remained intact beneath a shallow layer of cultivated soil.

In 1991, avocational archeologists Robert Fletcher and Terry Cameron,
assisted by professional archeologists Bradley Lepper, Dee Anne Wymer,
and William Pickard undertook a limited excavation of one of Putnam\'s
old trenches in order to obtain charcoal samples to use in radiocarbon
dating. This investigation resulted in radiocarbon dates that indicate
the effigy mound was built between 990 and 850 years BP (cal
[ad]{.smallcaps} 995 and 1265).

**2.c.  Boundary Selection** 

Propose a boundary for the property and explain why you chose it.  Is
the boundary reasonable on logical grounds, such as if it conforms to
topography or landforms or (for natural areas) to the range of wildlife
or (for cultural properties) to any historical boundary or defining
structures (such as walls)? 

The boundary corresponds to the property acquired by the Peabody Museum
and now owned by the Ohio Historical Society. It encompasses the effigy
mound, the burial mounds, the habitation sites, and much of the
surrounding land. The entirety of the prominent bluff on which the
effigy is situated is included. These boundaries provide a reasonable
buffer for preserving the effigy mound in its environmental context.

Are all the elements and features that are related to the site's
significance included inside the proposed boundaries? 

*Explanation:  Careful analysis should be undertaken to insure that the
proposal embraces the internationally significant resources and excludes
most, if not all, unrelated buildings, structures and features.* 

YES:  \_\_\_\_[X]{.underline}\_\_\_\_  NO:  \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ 

If no, please explain:  

Are there any enclaves or inholdings within the property and, if so, do
they contain uses or potential uses contrary to the conservation or
preservation of the site as a whole? 

YES:  \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_  NO:  \_\_\_[X]{.underline}\_\_\_\_ 

If yes, please explain: \
 

**3. JUSTIFICATION FOR INSCRIPTION IN THE WORLD HERITAGE LIST**  

**3.a.  Criteria under which inscription is proposed**  

From the World Heritage criteria listed below, identify each criterion
that you believe applies to your property and briefly state why you
believe each criterion you have selected is applicable.  

*Explanation: You may find the discussion under this heading in
"Appendix A" to the **Guide to the U.S. World Heritage Program** to be
helpful in completing this section.  Please refer to a paper copy or
follow the hyperlink. *  

*To be included on the World Heritage List, a site must be of
outstanding universal value and meet at least one of these ten selection
criteria in a global context:* 

i.  *represent a masterpiece of human creative genius;*

> \_\_[X]{.underline}\_\_  This criterion applies to the property I am
> proposing 
>
> Reason:
>
> Serpent Mound is the largest prehistoric effigy mound in the world. As
> an artistically striking, monumental, sculptural rendering of a
> serpent, Serpent Mound represents a masterpiece of human creative
> genius. The iconography is consistent with the importance of serpents
> in the art and religious beliefs of the Mississippian/Late Prehistoric
> period in eastern North America.
>
> The head of the Serpent is aligned to the setting sun on the Summer
> Solstice. Moreover, each of the three coils of the serpent\'s body
> appears to be aligned respectively to the Summer solstice sunrise, the
> Equinox sunrise, and the Winter Solstice sunrise. The orientation to
> the sun also is consistent with Mississippian/Late Prehistoric
> architecture, such as the woodhenges at Cahokia Mounds World Heritage
> Site and the SunWatch Village Site in western Ohio.
>
> The scale and elegance of Serpent Mound are unprecedented. Monumental
> earthworks on this scale ceased to be built after about AD 1200-1400,
> although the iconography of serpents continued to be important to
> historic Native American tribes in the region, reflecting some degree
> of cultural continuity.
>
> Anthony Aveni, in *Between the Lines* (University of Texas, 2000), an
> analysis of the geoglyphs of Peru, suggests that Serpent Mound and the
> effigy mounds of the Upper Midwest may have been built to represent
> constellations. In the case of Serpent Mound, the outline of the
> serpent has been claimed to correspond to Ursa Major. On the other
> hand, George Lankford (2007) observes that many Native American
> cultures associated the constellation Scorpio with the Great Serpent
> and the bright red star Antares is its eye. Serpent Mound has an oval
> earthwork located at its head. This oval often has been interpreted as
> an egg clutched in the serpent\'s jaws. For Lankford, the oval
> represents the red, twinkling eye.
>
> Today, Serpent Mound is a continuing source of inspiration. Modern
> artists, such as Barnett Newman, Robert Smithson, Michael Heizer, and
> Andy Goldsworthy, have based some of their work on Ohio\'s ancient
> earthworks, including this gigantic effigy mound. In particular,
> Michael Heizer\'s composition \"Effigy Tumuli\" (Illinois, USA),
> created in 1985, includes a serpent effigy that measures 630 meters in
> length.

ii. *exhibit an important interchange of human values, over a span of
    time or within a cultural area of the world, on developments in
    architecture or technology, monumental arts, town-planning or
    landscape design;*

> \_\_\_\_  This criterion applies to the property I am proposing 
>
> Reason:  

iii. *bear a unique or at least exceptional testimony to a cultural
     tradition or to a civilization which is living or which has
     disappeared;*

> \_\_[X]{.underline}\_\_  This criterion applies to the property I am
> proposing 
>
> Reason:
>
> In his essay \"The Great Serpent in Eastern North America,\" George
> Lankford, an emeritus professor of folklore at Lyon College in
> Arkansas, observes that the Great Serpent was \"a universally known
> figure in the Eastern Woodlands for many centuries\" (2007:109). It
> appeared \"not only in myth, but also in graphic designs, both
> prehistoric and historic\" (2007:109). It was \"the guardian of the
> waters and, by extension, all that is beneath the surface of the
> earth\" (2007:116). The Great Serpent was a source of enormous
> spiritual power that people could invoke to aid them in hunting and in
> curing illnesses. Although it was primarily a creature of the Beneath
> World, it sometimes could appear in various guises in our world and in
> the overarching Above World.
>
> Serpent Mound is the site that best reflects the indigenous belief
> system of Native American peoples of the Fort Ancient culture, which
> flourished during the Mississippian/Late Prehistoric period (circa AD
> 900-1650). This bears a strong resemblance to the belief system of the
> partially contemporaneous Late Woodland Period (AD 700-1200) Effigy
> Mound culture in the Upper Midwest, so these geographically disparate
> mounds can be linked together under a common set of cosmological
> principles and iconographic representations.
>
> Only one other earthen animal effigy mound was built in Ohio
> (Alligator Mound) and it also dates to the Fort Ancient cultural
> period. It does not much resemble an alligator, but it does bear
> similarities to numerous \"panther\" effigy mounds in the Upper
> Midwest that have been argued to be alternative manifestations of the
> Beneath World spirit known to the Ojibwa as \"Mishebeshu.\" Several
> smaller linear stone mounds, argued by some to represent serpent
> effigies, also were constructed by the Fort Ancient culture in
> southern Ohio and neighboring Kentucky.
>
> Serpent Mound appears to encode several astronomical alignments in the
> orientation of its head and coils. The head points to the azimuth of
> the setting sun on the summer solstice and its coils appear to be
> aligned with the summer solstice sunrise, the equinox sunrise, and the
> winter solstice sunrise. At least two of the better studied stone
> serpent effigies (Kern effigy #1 and #2 in Warren County, Ohio) also
> are aligned to the rising and setting of the sun on significant
> \"hinges\" (or \"standstills\") of the solar cycle. The importance of
> solar aligned monuments is repeated at numerous other sites of this
> era, including the approximately contemporary woodhenges at the
> SunWatch Village site in western Ohio and at the Cahokia Mounds World
> Heritage Site in Illinois. In addition to the ritual significance of
> such alignments, there is an obvious practical significance for
> cultures that practiced agriculture. The solar calendar was important
> for determining the most propitious dates for planting and harvesting
> crops.
>
> The practice of aligning monumental architecture to cosmological
> rhythms is illustrated at many World Heritage sites around the world
> including Cahokia, Stonehenge, the Archaeological Park and Ruins of
> Quirigua, El Tajin, the Lines and Geoglyphs of Nasca and Pampas de
> Jumana, and Uxmal. The cultures that erected each of these
> astronomically-aligned monuments had their own reasons for doing so,
> but rarely were their interests simply calendrical and practical. More
> often, the builders were sacralizing their architectural spaces by
> aligning them with astronomical phenomena that are believed to be
> manifestations of the divine.

iv. *be an outstanding example of a type of building, architectural or
    technological ensemble or landscape which illustrates (a)
    significant stage(s) in human history;*

> \_\_[X]{.underline}\_\_  This criterion applies to the property I am
> proposing 
>
> Reason:
>
> Serpent Mound is the foremost and best-known expression of effigy
> mound building in the world. Perhaps inspired by the more numerous,
> but spatially separate, effigy mounds of the Upper Midwest, its form,
> positioning, and alignments represent a unique integration of
> cosmological beliefs, monumental sculpture and landscape design. As an
> iconic geoglyph, it is comparable to the finest animal effigies at the
> Lines and Geoglyphs of Nasca and Pampas de Jumana World Heritage site.
> Yet the construction techniques relating to effigy mound building are
> far different from those employed by the builders of the Nasca
> geoglyphs who simply had to rake, or hoe, dark colored sediments aside
> to reveal the lighter colored (less weathered) material underneath.
> Effigy mounds are fully three dimensional and were built by excavating
> the earth and transporting it in baskets to the chosen location where
> it was piled into the desired shapes.

v.  *be an outstanding example of a traditional human settlement,
    land-use, or sea-use which is representative of a culture (or
    cultures), or human interaction with the environment especially when
    it has become vulnerable under the impact of irreversible change;*

> \_\_  This criterion applies to the property I am proposing 

Reason:

vi. *be directly or tangibly associated with events or living
    traditions, with ideas, or with beliefs, with artistic and literary
    works of outstanding universal significance. (The Committee
    considers that this criterion should preferably be used in
    conjunction with other criteria);*

> \_\_\_\_  This criterion applies to the property I am proposing 
>
> Reason: \
>  

vii. *contain superlative natural phenomena or areas of exceptional
     natural beauty and aesthetic importance;*  

> \_\_\_\_  This criterion applies to the property I am proposing 
>
> Reason:  
>
> *be outstanding examples representing major stages of earth\'s
> history, including the record of life, significant on-going geological
> processes in the development of landforms, or significant geomorphic
> or physiographic features;*
>
> \_\_\_\_  This criterion applies to the property I am proposing 
>
> Reason: 

ix. *be outstanding examples representing significant on-going
    ecological and biological processes in the evolution and development
    of terrestrial, fresh water, coastal and marine ecosystems and
    communities of plants and animals;*  

> \_\_\_\_  This criterion applies to the property I am proposing 
>
> Reason:  

x.  *contain the most important and significant natural habitats for
    in-situ conservation of biological diversity, including those
    containing threatened species of outstanding universal value from
    the point of view of science or conservation.*

> \_\_\_\_  This criterion applies to the property I am proposing 
>
> Reason: 

**3.b.  Proposed statement of outstanding universal value** 

Based on the criteria you have selected just above, provide a brief
**Proposed Statement of Outstanding Universal Value** summarizing and
making clear why you think the property merits inscription on the World
Heritage List.  If adopted by the World Heritage Committee, the
statement "will be the key reference for the future effective protection
and management of the property." 

*Explanation: This statement should clearly explain the
**internationally** significant values embodied by the property, **not**
its **national** prominence. *

*"**Outstanding Universal Value**" **is formally defined as  "...
cultural and/or natural significance which is so exceptional as to
transcend national boundaries and to be of common importance for present
and future generations of all humanity. As such, the permanent
protection of this heritage is of the highest importance to the
international community as a whole."*** 

**Cultural property** 

*For example, a cultural World Heritage Site may be a unique survival of
a particular building form or settlement or an exceptional example of a
designed town or the best work by a great internationally recognized
architect.  It may be a particularly fine or early or rich survival and
it may bear witness to a vanished culture or way of life, or ecosystem. 
Elements to consider for inclusion in the statement may be such cardinal
facts about the site as:* 

> *- Historic Context*
>
> *- Period of International Significance*
>
> *- Internationally Significant Dates*
>
> *- Internationally Significant Groups, Persons, Events*
>
> *- Cultural Affiliation* \
>  

Serpent Mound has universal value as a monumental geoglyph embodying
fundamental cosmological principles of an indigenous ancient American
Indian culture.

Serpent Mound represents the acme of prehistoric effigy mound-building
in the world. It has become an icon of indigenous cultural achievements
in North America, principally because of its enormous scale and its
remarkably naturalistic quality that makes it immediately recognizable
as a representation of a serpent. Whatever else it may have represented
to its ancient builders, modern observers readily can identify it as a
snake.

The depiction of the Serpent in the form of a massive, naturalistic
geoglyph designed to mark the passage of the seasons, epitomizes the
attempts of the Fort Ancient people to integrate their lives with the
cosmos in much the same way as peoples in places as distant as the World
Heritage sites of Stonehenge, Copan, and Cahokia.

**Cultural landscapes** 

*Such landscapes illustrate the evolution of human society and
settlement over time under the influence of the physical constraints
and/or opportunities presented by the natural environment and of
successive social, economic, and cultural forces, both external and
internal**.***  

**Natural property** 

*For example, a natural World Heritage Site may be a unique existence of
a type of habitat or ecosystem.   It may comprise assemblages of
threatened endemic species, exceptional ecosystems, outstanding natural
landscapes or other natural phenomena.*  

**Mixed property** 

*A mixed property must be justified under at least one cultural
criterion (i-vi) under 3a above and one natural criterion (vii-x) under
3a above. *  

**3.c.  Comparison of proposed property to similar or related properties
(including state of preservation of similar properties)** 

Please provide a statement explaining how the property being proposed
compares with all other similar or related properties anywhere in the
world, whether already on the World Heritage List or not.

*Explanation:*   *Examples of questions that may be useful to consider
include whether the proposed property is part of a series or sequence of
similar sites belonging to the same cultural grouping and/or the same
period of history.   Also, are there features that distinguish it from
other sites and suggest that it should be regarded as **more**,
**equally** or **jointly** worthy than they are?  What is it that makes
this property intrinsically better than others and qualifies it for the
World Heritage List?  For example, does it have more features, species
or habitats than a similar site?  Is the property larger or better
preserved or more complete or less changed by later developments?* 

*It will be especially helpful if specific reference can be made to a
study placing the property in a global context.  The absence of
comparative information may indicate that the property is either truly
exceptional (a difficult case to prove) or that it lacks international
importance.  If the results of the comparative review reveal that
multiple sites possess roughly comparable merit and may possess
international significance as a group, you may wish to recommend that
more than one site be proposed, as a serial nomination or as a joint
nomination by the United States and another country.* 

*Also please make note of any major works that evaluate the property in
comparison to similar properties anywhere else in the world.* 

Ohio\'s Serpent Mound is one of the most recognizable icons of
prehistoric America. Monumental geoglyphs, such as the Lines and
Geoglyphs of Nasca and Pampas de Jumana World Heritage site, are known
to exist throughout the world, but, as the following comparisons
illustrate, Serpent Mound is exceptional in terms of scale, artistic
execution, and the integration of iconography, cosmology, and landscape.

[Midwestern United States effigy mounds]{.underline}

In the valley of the upper Mississippi River, there is concentration of
biomorphic geoglyphs sculpted between about AD 650 and 1300. Various
authors have suggested that there were originally ten to twenty thousand
mounds built in the shapes of birds, bears, panthers, humans, and other
creatures. Like the South American geoglyphs, these usually occurred in
clusters. Some of the effigies contain burials and small conical burial
mounds often are associated with the mound groups. According to Mallam
(1976), the effigy mound complexes were \"multipurpose integrative
mechanisms which functioned to articulate the cultural activities of a
variety of hunting and gathering groups\" (1976:40). David Smith,
historian of the Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska, asserted the effigy mounds
were \"symbols of families such as the bear and thunder clan\" and that
the mound complexes were \"places of worship\" (Lenzendorf 2000:23-24).

[Serpent Mound, Keene, Ontario, Canada (National Historic Site of
Canada)]{.underline}

The only effigy mound in Canada is a large serpent effigy at Rice Lake
in southern Ontario, Canada. It is 59 meters long and is a burial mound
built by the Port Peninsula culture, circa 700 BC to AD 700. The serpent
is not well defined and in some ways resembles a tadpole more than a
serpent.

[Serpent Intaglio (14RC101), Lyons, Kansas, USA]{.underline}

In Rice County, Kansas, there is a 49 meter long intaglio excavated to a
depth of 8 to 25 centimeters below the surface (Mallam 1985). Although
utilizing a distinctively different construction technique, the serpent
intaglio bears some striking similarities to the Ohio Serpent Mound. It
appears to represent a serpent in the act of uncoiling and the \"head\"
is marked by a V-shaped embankment partially surrounding an oval
elevation. Moreover, the sunset on the summer solstice is aligned to the
westerly \"jaw\" of the serpent. The age and cultural affiliation of the
intaglio have not been determined.

[English hill-figures, UK]{.underline}

The 110 meter long Uffington Horse is probably the oldest of the
hill-figures dating to between 1300 -- 600 BC. Little is known about its
purpose, but mortuary ceremonialism in the immediate vicinity of the
site preceded its construction and continued after its presence
transformed this English hillside into something more than a cemetery
(Miles 1999: 42).

The Cerne Abbas Giant is more problematic. There is no consensus
regarding the age of this dramatically-posed hill-figure. Some
authorities relate the giant\'s impressive phallus to fertility rituals,
but his threateningly raised club suggests this interpretation might be
incomplete.

[Serpent Mound at Loch Nell, Scotland, UK]{.underline}

The Serpent Mound at Loch Nell is a serpent effigy 91 meters long and 6
meters high. The head is formed by a circular rock cairn. This mound has
not been well-studied and little has been reported about its age or
cultural context.

[Peruvian geoglyphs]{.underline}

The Lines and Geoglyphs of Nasca and Pampas de Jumana World Heritage
site includes representations of a variety of animals as well as more
abstract geometric designs. Birds are the most frequently depicted
animal, but fish, lizards, a monkey, a spider, and a fox are also known.
Some of these same creatures figure prominently on the painted ceramics
of the Early Intermediate Period (100 BC -- AD 500), so many of the
animal geoglyphs may belong to the same era. Various explanations have
been offered for the Nasca geoglyphs -- from their use as astronomical
instruments to George Kubler\'s suggestion, elaborated recently by
Reinhard (1992) and Aveni (2000), that they define ritual pathways.

Wilson argued that similar and approximately contemporary ground
drawings on the north coast of Peru are \"... depictions of animals that
have been an integral part of Andean religious systems...\" (1988:801).
He suggested they were \"...constructed as part of elaborate ritual
ceremonies related to agricultural fertility...\" (Wilson 1988:795).

[Chilean Geoglyphs]{.underline}

There are more than 5,000 geoglyphs etched into the Atacama Desert in
Chile. One of the largest is the so-called \"Atacama Giant,\" a human
effigy 115 m long. The majority were built between 600 and 1500 A.D, but
Briones M. links it with rock art traditions that began much earlier and
continued into the historic era (Briones-M. 2006).

[Blythe intaglios and Yuha geoglyphs (Arizona and California,
USA)]{.underline}

In North America, biomorphic geoglyphs are common along the lower
Colorado and Gila Rivers of southwestern Arizona and southern
California. Johnson has documented about 200 intaglios including images
of humans, animals, and abstract designs. Animals depicted include
horse, lizard, rattlesnake, thunderbird, fish and quail. According to
Johnson, they were made in the late prehistoric and early historic
periods and he notes a \"fair correspondence\" between the iconography
of the geoglyphs and the myths of local Native American tribes
(1985:39). Two intaglio sites are listed on the National Register of
Historic Places: the Ha-ak Va-ak Intaglio Site (Sacaton Intaglio), Pinal
County and the Ripley Intaglios, La Paz County. There is at least one
serpent effigy that is approximately 50 meters long, but it has been
judged to be modern.

[Australian ground drawings and effigy mounds]{.underline}

Matthews (1896) described numerous geoglyphs produced by the aboriginal
groups of Australia, including serpent effigies constructed in various
ways and with various media, including raised earthen figures and
alignments of rock. The largest Australian geoglyph is the \"Marree
Man,\" or \"Stuart\'s Giant.\" This is an enormous intaglio that is 4.2
km long. It is the largest known geoglyph in the world, but it likely
was created in the 20^th^ century.

[Analysis]{.underline}

Serpent Mound and the other effigy mounds of eastern North America
differ from most of the other documented geoglyphs in being formed as
built-up mounds rather than being delineated by the excavation of an
outline. Each group of geoglyphs must be understood in the context of
the culture that produced them, but it is worthwhile considering the
phenomenon from a global perspective.

Geoglyphs, in the form of animal or human effigy mounds or intaglios,
are known from sites all over the world. The Lines and Geoglyphs of
Nasca and Pampas de Jumana is the only such site to be inscribed on the
World Heritage List.  A few, such as an impossibly long-billed cormorant
etched into the Plains of Nasca, approach or even exceed Serpent Mound
in size, but the labor involved in excavating the earth and shaping it
into the three-dimensional serpent effigy far exceeded the effort
involved in raking aside the dark rocks of the pampas to expose the
outlines of the South American geoglyphs. Therefore, \"effigy mounds\"
may be regarded as a class of geoglyph separate and distinct from the
monumental etchings of Peru and Chile and the intaglios known from other
regions of the world.

Serpent Mound is most closely associated, in both space and time, with
the effigy mounds of the Upper Midwestern United States. Serpent Mound,
however, is larger and much more isolated than the smaller and much more
numerous effigies of the upper Mississippi Valley. Also, the Midwestern
effigy mounds commonly occur in clusters, but the Serpent Mound is
virtually isolated from other effigies. Finally, many of the Midwestern
effigy mounds were used for the internment of human remains, whereas
Serpent Mound was not.

Nevertheless, both the Midwestern effigy mounds, the Canadian Serpent
Mound, and Ohio\'s Serpent Mound depict animals, or animal spirits, that
figure powerfully in the cosmology of the indigenous peoples of the
Eastern Woodlands. Although there are no known serpent effigies in the
Upper Mississippi River valley, there are numerous panther effigies
similar, in many respects, to Ohio\'s \"Alligator\" Mound. These are
interpreted as varying manifestations of the chief spirit of the Below
World known to the Ojibwa as \"Mishebeshu.\" Therefore, the majority of
effigy mounds in eastern North America cohere as monumental
representations of supernatural beings that were used as shrines or
places of ceremony. Such an interpretation is broadly consistent with a
global perspective on biomorphic geoglyphs. Wherever they are found,
such monumental effigies usually are erected to honor, placate, or
solicit aid from powerful supernatural beings.

**3.d.  Integrity and/or Authenticity** 

*Explanation: As with a site's international significance, the clear
intent of this requirement is that a World Heritage Site's authenticity
or integrity must rise to a superlative level.  Thus, for example, it is
quite important to understand that reconstructions of historic
structures or sites or largely restored ecosystems will usually be
disqualified from inscription in the World Heritage List. *  

**Cultural property** 

[Authenticity]{.underline}:  Does the property retain its original
design, materials, workmanship and setting? 

YES:  \_\_\_\_\_[X]{.underline}\_\_\_\_  NO:  \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ 

Comment:\_

Serpent Mound retains its original design, materials, workmanship and
setting. This has been demonstrated by limited archeological
investigation of embankment walls during the 19^th^ and 20^th^
centuries. Although there has been some restoration of Serpent Mound
following some years of cultivation, the restorations were undertaken by
the archeologist who had made the first systematic examination of the
mound by selectively excavating trenches across it at various points and
who had available to him the 1848 Squier and Davis map and survey made
prior to any disturbance. More recent excavations have confirmed the
accuracy of the restoration in at least one location. These
investigations allow us to estimate that as much as 50-70% of the mound
structure is original.

[Integrity]{.underline}:  Do the authentic material and spatial evidence
inside the proposed boundaries remain in sufficient quantity to convey
the full significance of the site?  To tell the full story of why the
site is outstanding? 

YES:  \_\_\_\_[X]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_   NO:  \_\_\_\_ 

Is the integrity weakened by the intrusion of discordant and/or abundant
elements or buildings that are unrelated to the significance and detract
from the visual unity of the place?  

YES:  \_\_\_\_\_   NO:  \_\_[X\_\_]{.underline} 

Comment:\
 

Serpent Mound is preserved within its original landscape context on the
top of a bluff projecting into the valley of Ohio Brush Creek. The
surrounding countryside is rural forest and farm fields with little
development to adversely affect the viewscape.

Serpent Mound retains its integrity in terms of the setting, original
design, materials, and workmanship. The only intrusions of discordant
elements to the setting are those facilities built to provide visitor
access and site interpretation (museum, park manager residence, park
roads, picnic shelter) and these are situated well away from the effigy,
with the exception of a metal viewing tower installed by the Ohio
Historical Society in 1908 to allow visitors to obtain an \"aerial\"
view of the mound and more clearly appreciate its form.

The integrity of the mound has been demonstrated by comparison of modern
maps and aerial photographs with historic maps and early 20^th^ century
aerial photographs. In addition, limited excavations in 1991 established
that much of the original mound structure remains intact. These
excavations, combined with a study of early maps, also demonstrate that
the 19^th^ century restorations did not significantly alter the original
shape and form of the embankment.

Although we cannot know with certainty how the effigy mounds were
maintained and presented in antiquity, it is likely that the surfaces
were covered in prairie grass, which would have been burned off
periodically so the effigy could be distinguished. This strategy is not
practical in this setting today, but the careful mowing results in a
presentation that may not be too different from what ancient Native
Americans experienced several weeks following the intentional burning of
the covering prairie grass.

How do authenticity and integrity compare for this property? 

The integrity of Serpent Mound was somewhat degraded by 19^th^ century
cultivation, looting, and limited archeological excavations. (Putnam
only excavated a few trenches across the mound and the 1991 excavations
were limited to reopening a portion one of Putnam\'s original trenches.)
Putman restored the effigy with meticulous care and it demonstrably
preserves a significant core of intact deposits. Therefore, while the
integrity has been somewhat compromised in a few portions of the
embankment, the authenticity has been maintained to a high degree.

 

[Repairs:]{.underline}  If repairs have been made, were they carried out
using traditional materials and methods?  If yes, please discuss.  If
not, please explain the methods used and why.  

YES:  \_\_[X]{.underline}\_\_   NO:  \_\_\_\_\_ 

Comment: 

The restoration of the mound in the 19^th^ century primarily involved
scraping up material from the adjacent ground surface. This soil likely
represented much of the soil that had eroded off the effigy over time
due to erosion, cultivation, and other disturbances of its original
form. It is likely that some fill obtained from nearby was used to
achieve the dimensions originally recorded for the mound.

**4. STATE OF PRESERVATION AND FACTORS AFFECTING THE PROPERTY** \
 

**4.a.  Present state of preservation of the property** 

**Cultural property** 

What is the present state of preservation of the property (including its
physical condition and preservation measures in place)? 

The present state of the mound is excellent. Erosion is monitored and
controlled by keeping visitors from walking on the effigy. The terms of
the gift of the site from Harvard University to the Ohio Historical
Society require that the Society provide \"perpetual care\" for the
property. All work undertaken at the site by the Society meets the
Secretary of the Interior\'s Standards for Historic Preservation
Projects. The property is large enough to provide a suitable setting for
the effigy. However, during 2007-08 the Ohio Historical Society will
undertake a master plan to determine if additional land needs to be
acquired to provide adequate protection for the site from incompatible
development.

Are there any recent or forthcoming planned major repair projects? Are
there any major repairs needed to buildings or structures that have not
been planned or financed?

None planned for cultural resource. Improvements are planned for visitor
facilities, including restrooms and museum.

**4b.  Factors affecting the property** 

If there are known factors likely to affect or threaten the outstanding
universal values of the property or there any difficulties that may be
encountered in addressing such problems through measures taken, or
proposed to be taken, please use the following is a checklist to help in
identifying factors. 

***(i)  Development Pressures (e.g., encroachment, modification,
agriculture, mining)*** 

Are there development pressures affecting the property?  Or major
changes in traditional land use?  Or demographic shifts, especially in
sites still in the hands of the descendants of their creators, or, for
example, traditional ethnic communities. 

YES:  \_\_\_\_   NO:  \_\_[X]{.underline}\_\_ 

Comment:

At this time, there are no development pressures; however, there is no
local zoning. Surrounding properties are used for agriculture or
single-family homes on small parcels ([+]{.underline} 4 ha).

***(ii)  Environmental pressures (e.g., pollution, climate change,
desertification)*** 

Are there major sources of environmental deterioration currently
affecting the property? 

YES:  \_\_\_\_\_   NO:  \_ [X]{.underline}\_\_

Comment:

***(iii)  Natural disasters and risk preparedness (earthquakes, floods,
fires, etc.)*** 

Are natural disasters likely to present a foreseeable threat to the
property?  If so, are there available background data (e.g., for a
property in a seismic zone, give details of past seismic activity, or
the precise location of the property in relation to the seismic zone,
etc.)  

YES:  \_\_\_\_   NO:  \_\_[X]{.underline}\_\_

Comment: 

Are there contingency plans for dealing with disasters, whether by
physical protection measures or staff training? 

YES:  \_\_\_\_   NO:  \_\_[X]{.underline}\_\_ 

Comment:

The site is not subject to flooding and, because there are no trees on
the effigy mound, there is little danger from tornadoes or forest fires,
which are very rare in this region.

***(iv)  Visitor/tourism pressures*** 

If the property is open to visitors, is there an established or
estimated \"carrying capacity\" of the property? Can it absorb or
mitigate the current or an increased number of visitors without
significant adverse effects? 

YES:  \_\_\_\_  NO:  \_\_[X]{.underline}\_\_ 

Comment:

Current visitation is about 18,600 annually, which the site is able to
accommodate easily. Visitation in the past was much higher when there
were no charges for parking and picnicking was very popular. There was
no adverse effect. It is anticipated that substantial increases could be
accommodated without negatively impacting the site.

***(v)  Other*** 

Are there any other risks or threats that could jeopardize the
property's Outstanding Universal Values? 

YES:  \_\_\_\_   NO:  \_\_[X]{.underline}\_\_ 

Comment: \
 

**5.  PROTECTION AND MANAGEMENT**  \
 

**5.a.  Ownership** 

Provide the name(s) and addresses of all owners: 

Ohio Historical Society

1982 Velma Avenue

Columbus, OH 43211 

If any of these owners are corporations or other nongovernmental
entities, identify which are public and which private.  Identify any
traditional or customary owners. 

Public organization owners:

Private organization owners: Ohio Historical Society

(The Ohio Historical Society, a 501(c)3 corporation, is by law the
State\'s partner in providing history services to the public.)

Traditional or customary owners: [none identified\_]{.underline} \
 

If there are any other authorities with legal responsibility for
managing the property, provide their names and addresses: 

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ 

Are there any restrictions on public access to the property? 

*Explanation:  Public access is not required for inclusion in the World
Heritage List.  Policies in effect should be explained, however. )* 

YES:  \_\_[X]{.underline}\_\_   NO:  \_\_\_\_\_ 

Comment:

Deed restrictions require that the site be open without charge to the
public. Parking fees are charged. The grounds and visitor facilities are
open on an established schedule. The park is closed on Thanksgiving,
Christmas, & New Year\'s Day.

 

**5.b.  Protective designations** 

What are the principal existing (and pending) legal measures of
protection that apply to the property? 

*Explanation: List, [but do not attach]{.underline} copies of, all
relevant known or proposed legal, regulatory, contractual, planning,
institutional and/or traditional measures that affect the status of the
property: e.g., national park, wildlife refuge, historic monument,
zoning, easements, covenants, deed restrictions, State and local
historic preservation ordinances and regulations, and the like.* 

List of
measures:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Give the title and date of legal instruments and briefly summarize their
main provisions.  Provide the year of designation and the legislative
act(s) under which the status is provided. 

Titles, dates, and brief summaries of legal instruments:

State Law: Ohio Revised Code, Section 2927.11 (A)(3) prohibits a person,
without privilege to do so, from purposely defacing, damaging,
polluting, or otherwise physically mistreating any historical or
commemorative marker, or any structure, Indian mound or earthwork,
cemetery, thing, or site of great historical or archeological interest.
(B) Declares that whoever violates this section is guilty of
desecration, which in the case of subsection (A)(3) is a misdemeanor of
the second degree.

Deed Restriction: Deed from Harvard University to Ohio Archaeological
and Historical Society, 6 October 1900, requires perpetual care.

State Law: Ohio Revised Code, Section 149.30, requires that the Ohio
Historical Society maintain and operate a system of state memorials
(including properties owned by OHS) and requires legislative approval
for the transfer or sale of Society property if the State has a
\"financial interest\" in the property.

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ \
 

Are the protections in perpetuity? 

YES:  \_\_[X]{.underline}\_\_   NO:  \_\_\_\_\_ 

Comment:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ 

Are there potential gaps in the protection? 

YES:  \_\_[\_]{.underline}\_\_   NO:  \_\_[X]{.underline}\_\_\_ 

Comment:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ \
\
 

Are there any traditional ways in which custom safeguards the property? 

YES:  \_\_\_\_   NO:  \_\_[X]{.underline}\_\_ 

Comment:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ \
 \
 

**5.c.  Means of implementing protective measures** \
 

Will the owner(s) be responsible for ensuring that the nominated
property will be protected in perpetuity, whether by traditional and/or
statutory agencies?  If no, identify who will be responsible. 

YES:  [\_\_X\_\_]{.underline}   NO:  \_\_\_\_\_ 

Responsible entity other than the owner:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ \
 

What is the adequacy of resources available for this purpose?  Please
briefly explain your reasoning. 

Resources at current levels are adequate for the long term care of the
cultural resource. Current levels of funding limit public access and the
care of visitor facilities.

 

**5.d.  Existing plans related to municipality and region in which the
proposed property is located (e.g., regional or local plan, conservation
plan, tourism development plan)** 

*Explanation: List, [but do not attach]{.underline}, plans of which you
are aware that have been officially adopted or are currently under
development by governmental or other agencies that you believe directly
influence the way the property is developed, conserved, used or
visited.  Include the dates and agencies responsible for their
preparation and describe their general nature, including whether they
have the force of law.  It is recognized that this information may be
difficult to compile and that it may be difficult to decide what to
include, but the information will be very useful in determining how well
the property is protected.*  

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ \
 

**5.e.  Property management plan or other management system **  

Is there a formal management plan or other management system for the
property?  If yes, when was it last updated?  If not, is one in
preparation and when will it be completed?  (*It is not necessary to
provide copies, but a summary can be included if one is available.) *  

YES:  \_\_\_\_   NO:  \_[X]{.underline}\_\_ 

Comment:

At the present time, no management plan is in place; however, funds were
appropriated in December 2006 to create a master plan and a historic
site management plan for the site. It is scheduled to be completed by 30
June 2008.

The site is managed by the Ohio Historical Society, which was founded in
1885 as the Ohio Archaeological and Historical Society, to help protect
the mounds and earthworks in the State. The Society follows the
Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Historic Preservation Projects
in its work at the site.

Is this management plan or other management system being effectively
implemented? 

YES:  \_\_\_\_[X]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_  NO:  \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ 

Comment:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ \
 

**6.  MONITORING** 

*Because monitoring the condition of a property is not essential to a
decision as to whether a property meets the basic qualifications for
nomination to the World Heritage List, no information about the
property's monitoring program is being requested at this time.  If the
property is subsequently added to the U.S. Tentative List, a set of key
indicators for assessing the property's condition, the arrangements for
monitoring it, and information on the results of past monitoring
exercises will be required to complete the nomination of the property
for inscription on the World* *Heritage List.* \
 

**7.  DOCUMENTATION** \
 

**7.a  Photographs, slides, and other audiovisual materials** 

Location map showing the location of Serpent Mound in Ohio

Squier and Davis map of Serpent Mound

Holmes map of Serpent Mound

Map from *The Century* magazine

CERHAS image of Serpent Mound

Aerial photograph of Serpent Mound

Diagram of solar alignments at Serpent Mound

Profiles of excavations at Serpent Mound

Photograph of conical mound

Illustration of artifacts excavated from conical mound

Photograph of elliptical mound

Illustration of artifacts from elliptical mound

Photographs of visitor facilities at Serpent Mound

If recent images (prints, slides and/or, where possible, electronically
formatted images, videos and aerial photographs) are available that give
a good general picture of the property, please provide a few photographs
and/or slides.  If available, film/video, or electronic images may also
be provided.  They should give a good general picture of the property
and illustrate the qualities/features that you believe justify the
nomination of the property to the World Heritage List. (Ten views or so
should be adequate for all but the most complicated properties.) 

Please label the images you supply and provide a separate list of them
here, including the photographer's name.  Please do not include any
copyrighted images or other images to which you do not possess the
rights or do not have permission. 

Images being supplied and names of their authors: 

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ \
 \
 

**8.  CONTACT INFORMATION**  \
 

**8a.  Preparer/Responsible Party for Contact:** 

**Name:** Bradley T. Lepper, PhD

**Title: ** Curator of Archaeology 

**Address:** Ohio Historical Society, 1982 Velma Ave

**City, State/Territory, Zip Code: ** Columbus, OH 43211

**Telephone**: (614) 297-2642 

**Cellular
phone: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_**

**Preferred Days/Hours for Contact:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_**

**Fax:** 614-297-2455 

**E-mail and/or website:** <_blepper@ohiohistory.org>**;**
[www.ohiohistory.org](http://www.ohiohistory.org/)\
 \
  \
 

**8.b.  Responsible Official or Local Institution/Agency** 

If different from the preparer above, provide the same information for
the agency, museum, institution, community or manager locally
responsible for the management of the property.  In the case of public
property, identify both the responsible official and the agency.  If the
normal reporting institution is a national agency, please also provide
that contact information. 

**Name:** Dr. William K. Laidlaw, Jr.  

**Title:** Executive Director, Ohio Historical Society 

**Address:** 1982 Velma Ave**.**

**City, State/Territory, Zip Code:** Columbus, OH 43211

**Telephone:** 614-297-2350 

**Cellular phone:**

**Fax:** 614-297-2352

**E-mail and/or website:** [wlaidlaw@ohiohistory.org\
]{.underline}