Ohio Hopewell Earthworks: an Examination of Site Use from Non-Mound Space at the Hopewell Site

Home , Earthworks (archaeology), Earthworks (engineering), Hopeton Earthworks, Newark Earthworks, Stubbs Earthworks, Terrace (earthworks)

OHIO HOPEWELL EARTHWORKS: AN EXAMINATION OF SITE USE FROM NON-MOUND SPACE AT THE HOPEWELL SITE

DISSERTATION

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for

the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate

School of The Ohio State University

Jennifer Pederson Weinberger, B.A., M.A.

*****

The Ohio State University 2006

Dissertation Committee: Approved by Dr. William S. Dancey, Advisor

Dr. Kristen J. Gremillion ______Advisor Dr. Paul Sciulli Graduate Program in Anthropology

ABSTRACT

This dissertation examines the prehistoric use of non-mound space at the

Hopewell site, an Ohio Hopewell earthwork built during the Middle Woodland period

(200 B.C.-A.D. 400). Until very recently, archaeological research at earthworks concentrated on mounds and embankments. However, earthworks consist of more than earthen architecture. Between the mounds and embankments is non-mound space that may have been used for a variety of activities. These activities relate to earthwork use and provide a deeper understanding of Hopewell community organization, social dynamics, and ideology.

Various site uses have been proposed for Ohio Hopewell earthworks. Seven uses are considered in this study: ceremonial centers, burial sites, communal meeting places, trading centers, for defense, settlement, and horticulture. These site uses are formulated into two general hypotheses concerning the archaeological record of earthworks. The

Ceremonial Center hypothesis limits earthwork use to ritual and mortuary activity, thus non-mound space is similarly restricted in terms of its archaeological record. The

Corporate Center hypothesis posits a variety of political, economic, ceremonial, and social activities varying in terms of nature (sacred vs. secular) and extent (short-term vs. long-term and small-scale vs. large-scale).

ii To test these hypotheses, a random sample of non-mound space at the Hopewell

site was studied using geophysical and traditional archaeological techniques. Analysis of

the magnetic, electrical resistance, and artifactual data identified several non-mound

activity areas. Evidence supports use for ceremonies, communal meetings, and possibly

settlement, but these activities were limited in nature and extent. There is no evidence to suggest long-term or large-scale settlement. When compared to expectations for the two hypotheses, the Ceremonial Center hypothesis is rejected and the Corporate Center hypothesis is not rejected. Furthermore, the finding that non-mound space at the

Hopewell site was used only for limited activities associated with earthwork construction, maintenance, and use supports the Vacant Ceremonial Center and Dispersed Sedentary

Community models.

iii

Dedicated to my boys

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This dissertation would not have been possible without my advisor, Dr. William

Dancey. More than a decade has past since I entered Ohio State and began digging shovel tests under his guidance. Over the years, he has generously provided his knowledge, time, and support to my intellectual pursuits. In addition, he directed an archaeology field school that conducted a good portion of the fieldwork contained in this research.

I wish to thank the other members of my committee for their assistance. Dr.

Kristen Gremillion and Dr. Paul Sciulli provided insightful comments on this manuscript, as well as encouragement throughout the years.

In addition, I gratefully acknowledge the help of many other individuals. Big thanks are owed to Jarrod Burks, Kathy Brady-Rawlins, and Dawn Walter Gagliano for their help during all phases of this research. Students in the 2001 The Ohio State

University Archaeological Field School, teachers participating in Hopewell Culture

National Historical Park’s Archaeology for Teachers Workshops, and numerous volunteers provided much hard labor in all weather conditions. I also want to thank

N’omi Greber for sharing her wisdom about the Hopewell and the Hopewell site, as well as for many kind words of encouragement. Mark Lynott has shared his data and ideas about Hopewell earthworks. In addition, I owe him thanks for lending me geophysical equipment. I also wish to thank Charles Zickafoos for mowing the site.

v Thank you to the staff at Hopewell Culture National Historical Park for providing

various kinds of support that enabled this research to be completed. I am particularly

grateful to current Superintendent Dean Alexander and past Superintendent John Neal.

This dissertation would not have been possible without the support provided by friends and family, especially my parents. A very special thank you goes to my husband

Jeff for his encouragement and insight as he remained steadfast through years of this research. And his hard work made many hot and humid days of fieldwork enjoyable.

Lastly, thank you to my son Will for his many, many smiles that lightened the load considerably.

VITA

March 6, 1971……………………….…. Born—Smithtown, New York

1993……………………………………. B.A. Anthropology, University of Georgia

1996……………………………………. M.A. Anthropology, The Ohio State University

1994 - 1995…………………………….. Dean’s Fellow, The Ohio State University

1995 - 1998…………………………….. Graduate Research and Teaching Associate, The Ohio State University

1999 - present…………….……………..Archaeologist, Hopewell Culture National Historical Park

FIELDS OF STUDY

Major Field: Anthropology

Minor Field: North American Eastern Woodlands Prehistory

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………ii

Dedication………………………………………………………………………………iv

Acknowledgments……………………...……………………………………………….v

Vita………………………………………...……………………………………………vii

List of Tables………………………………………..…………………………………. xii

List of Figures………………………………………………..……………...……….....xv

Chapters:

1. Introduction…………………………………………………...……...…………1

Defining Ohio Hopewell………………………………………………..3 Proposed Site Uses for Ohio Hopewell Earthworks………………...….5 Ceremonial Centers………………………………..……………6 Burial Sites……..……………………………………………….7 Communal Meeting Places……………………………………..8 Trading Centers…………………………………………………9 Defense………………………..……………………………….. 11 Settlement.…………………..…………………………………. 13 Horticulture…………………..…………………………………15 Site Use Hypotheses……………………………………………..…….. 15 Ceremonial Center Hypothesis………………………………… 16 Corporate Center Hypothesis…………………………………...17 Summary………………………………………………………………..19

2. Towards an Understanding of Non-mound Space……………………………...21

Non-mound Research at Ohio Hopewell Earthworks.………………….22

viii Page

Seip Earthworks………………………………………………...22 High Bank……………………………………………………… 24 Liberty Works………………………………………………….. 25 Mound City…………………………………………………….. 25 Hopeton Earthworks…………………………………………… 26 Fort Hill…………………………………………………………27 Fort Ancient……………………………………………………. 27 Stubbs Earthworks……………………………………………... 29 Purdom Mound Group……………………………...………….. 29 Newark Earthworks……………………………………………. 30 Other Earthworks……………………………………………….31 Modeling Site Use of Non-mound Space……………………………… 32 Non-mound Space for Ceremonial Centers………………….… 33 Non-mound Space for Burial Sites…………………………….. 33 Non-mound Space for Communal Meeting Places……………..34 Non-mound Space for Trading Centers………………………... 35 Non-mound Space for Defense…………………………………35 Non-mound Space for Settlement..……………………………..36 Non-mound Space for Horticulture……………………………. 38 Summary……………………………………………………………..…38

3. Natural Environment.…………………………………………………………...41

Physiography………………………………………………..………..…41 Geology and Soils………………………………………..………….….42 Hydrology……………………………………………………………… 43 Fauna and Flora……………………………………………………..…..44 Summary………………………………………………………………..45

4. Cultural Environment.…………………………………………………………..47

Local Expressions of Ohio Hopewell………………………………….. 48 Description of the Hopewell Site…………………………...…………..50 History of Archaeological Research at the Hopewell Site……………...53 Mound Explorations………………………………………….....53 Research of Non-mound Space…………………………………55 Chronology of the Hopewell Site…………………………...…………. 59

5. Field Methods…...……………………………………………………………... 63

Selection of Sample……………………………………………………. 63 Geophysical Surveys...……………………………………………….....66 Magnetometry…………………………………………………..68

ix Page

Electrical Resistance………………………………………….... 73 Shovel Test Pits………………………………………………………... 77 Anomaly Testing………………………………………………………..79 Feature Excavation……………………………………………………...80 Summary……………………………………………………………..…82

6. Analytical Methods……………………………………………………………..84

Geophysical Data……………………………………………………….84 Magnetometry………………………………………………..…85 Electrical Resistance…………………………..……………….. 90 Artifact Assemblage………………………...…………………………..94 Fire-cracked Rock………………………………………………96 Lithic Materials………..………………………………………..97 Pottery Sherds……..…………………………………………… 98 Flotation Samples……………………………………………….99

7. Research Results………..……………………………………………………… 100

Block 10………..……………………………………………………….100 Block 23………..……………………………………………………….107 Block 26………..……………………………………………………….111 Block 28………..……………………………………………………….114 Block 32………..……………………………………………………….120 Block 34………..……………………………………………………….123 Block 65………..……………………………………………………….126 Block 68………..……………………………………………………….129 Block 82………..……………………………………………………….132 Block 87………..…………………………………………………….…135 Block 100………..……………………………………………………...139 Block 114………..……………………………………………………...142 Block 124………..……………………………………………………...146 Block 147………..……………………………………………………...151 Block 156………..……………………………………………………...154 Block 159………..……………………………………………………...157 Block 161………..……………………………………………………...161 Block 167………..……………………………………………………...163

8. Synthesis of Results………...………………….………………………………. 170

Geophysical Surveys...……...………………………….……………….170 Shovel Test Pits……...………………….……………………………... 172 Anomaly Testing……...………………….……………………………..174

x Page

Feature Excavation……...………………………….…………………...176 Site Use of Non-mound Space………………………………………….178 Ceremonial Center……...………………….…………………... 179 Burial Site……...………………….…………………………… 181 Communal Meeting Place..……...………………….…………..181 Trading Center.……...………………….……………………… 183 Defense……...………………….……………………………… 183 Settlement.……...………………….…………………………... 184 Horticulture……...………………….…………………………..185 Summary……………...………………………………………………...186

9. Conclusions……………………………………………………………………..188

Ceremonial Center Hypothesis………………………………………… 188 Corporate Center Hypothesis………………………………………...…190 Discussion………………………………………………………………192 Use of Geophysical Techniques in the Eastern Woodlands…………… 195

Bibliography…………………………………………………………………………… 197

Appendix A: Tables……………………………………………………….…………… 211

Appendix B: Figures……………………………………………………………………239

Appendix C. Artifacts from Shovel Test Pits…………………………………………. 305

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1. Proposed activities conducted at Ohio Hopewell earthworks……………….....212

2. Archaeological correlates of Ohio Hopewell short- and long-term habitation………………………………………………………………...... …..213

3. Published radiocarbon dates from the Hopewell site…………………...... …....215

4. Magnetic anomalies identified for each block………………………………....216

5. Electrical resistance anomalies identified for each block……………………...217

6. Artifacts recovered during all stages of fieldwork……………………………..218

7. Artifacts recovered from shovel tests pits…………………………………...... 219

8. Fire-cracked rock recovered from all stages of fieldwork……………………..220

9. Lithic debitage recovered from all stages of fieldwork……………….……... ..220

10. Pottery sherds recovered from all stages of fieldwork……..…….………….....220

11. Magnetic anomalies in Block 10…………………………………………….. ..221

12. Electrical resistance anomalies in Block 10…………………………………....222

13. Magnetic anomalies in Block 23…………………………………………….. ..223

14. Electrical resistance anomalies in Block 23…………………………………....223

15. Magnetic anomalies in Block 26…………………………………………….. ..224

16. Electrical resistance anomalies in Block 26…………………………………....224

17. Magnetic anomalies in Block 28…………………………………………….....225

xii Table Page

18. Electrical resistance anomalies in Block 28…………………………………....225

19. Magnetic anomalies in Block 32…………………………………………….. ..225

20. Electrical resistance anomalies in Block 32………………………………..…..226

21. Magnetic anomalies in Block 34…………………………………………..… ..226

22. Magnetic anomalies in Block 65…………………………………………….. ..226

23. Electrical resistance anomalies in Block 65…………………………………....227

24. Magnetic anomalies in Block 68…………………………………………….. ..227

25. Electrical resistance anomalies in Block 68…………………………………....227

26. Magnetic anomalies in Block 82…………………………………………….. ..228

27. Electrical resistance anomalies in Block 82…………………………………....228

28. Magnetic anomalies in Block 87…………………………………………….. ..229

29. Electrical resistance anomalies in Block 87…………………………………....229

30. Magnetic anomalies in Block 100..………………………………………….. ..230

31. Electrical resistance anomalies in Block 100..………………………………....230

32. Magnetic anomalies in Block 114..………………………………………….. ..231

33. Electrical resistance anomalies in Block 114..………………………………....231

34. Magnetic anomalies in Block 124..………………………………………….. ..231

35. Electrical resistance anomalies in Block 124..………………………………....232

36. Magnetic anomalies in Block 147..………………………………………….. ..232

37. Electrical resistance anomalies in Block 147..………………………………....232

38. Magnetic anomalies in Block 156..………………………………………….. ..233

39. Magnetic anomalies in Block 159..………………………………………….. ..233

xiii Table Page

40. Magnetic anomalies in Block 167..………………………………………….. ..234

41. Diversity of artifacts per block based on shovel tests……………………….....235

42. Anomalies tested for prehistoric cultural features…………………………… ..236

43. Radiocarbon dates from non-mound space at the Hopewell site……………....237

xiv

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1. Spatial distribution of earthworks in southern Ohio..……………………….....239

2. Hypothetical model of earthwork evolution..……………………………….....240

3. Proposed plan view of the Big House of Mound 25 at the Hopewell site…………………………………………………………...... ……...241

4. The Hopewell site as mapped by Warren K. Moorehead showing two “village sites”………………………………...…………………………....242

5. The Hopewell site as mapped by Henry C. Shetrone showing two “habitation sites”.…………………………….…………………………….…..243

6. Ohio Hopewell earthworks with non-mound research………………………. ..244

7. Soils in the vicinity of the Hopewell site………………………………..……..245

8. The Hopewell site as mapped by Ephraim Squier and Edwin Davis.…….…. ..246

9. Middle Woodland sites in the vicinity of the Hopewell site…………………...247

10. The Hopewell site as mapped by Clinton Cowen in 1892 ………………...... 248

11. Aerial photograph of the Hopewell site from 1976………………………..…..249

12. Composite of photointerpreted anomalies from aerial photographs taken between 1951-1994 of the Hopewell site………………………………..250

13. Earliest map of the Hopewell site by Caleb Atwater…..……………………. ..251

14. Map of the eighteen blocks in the sample……………………………..…….....252

xv Figure Page

15. Collection of magnetic data from Block 65 using the Geoscan FM-36 Fluxgate Gradiometer………………………………………………………... ..253

16. Collection of resistance data from Block 114 using the Geoscan RM-15 Resistance Meter…………………………………………………….. ..254

17. Shovel test pit in Block 124 with Feature 124-1 at base of plowzone………. ..255

18. Artifacts made from exotic materials…………………………………….….....256

19. Sample of fire-cracked rock…………………………………………………....257

20. Projectile points……………………………………………………………… ..258

21. Bladelet fragments..……………………………………………………..…… ..259

22. Groundstone artifacts..………………………………………………………. ..260

23. Pottery sherds……………………………………………………...………… ..261

24. Processed magnetic data from Block 10…………………………………….....262

25. Interpretation of magnetic data from Block 10 showing probable prehistoric cultural features………………………………………………….. ..262

26. Processed electrical resistance data from Block 10………………………….. ..263

27. Interpretation of electrical resistance data from Block 10 showing probable prehistoric cultural features………………….…………………….. ..263

28. Processed magnetic data from Block 23…………………………………….....264

29. Interpretation of magnetic data from Block 23 showing probable prehistoric cultural features………………………………………………….....264

30. Processed electrical resistance data from Block 23………………………….. ..265

31. Interpretation of electrical resistance data from Block 23 showing probable prehistoric cultural features………………….…………………….....265

32. Processed magnetic data from Block 26…………………………………….....266

xvi Figure Page

33. Interpretation of magnetic data from Block 26 showing probable prehistoric cultural features………………………………………………….....266

34. Processed electrical resistance data from Block 26………………………….. ..267

35. Interpretation of electrical resistance data from Block 26 showing probable prehistoric cultural features………………….…………………….....267

36. Processed magnetic data from Block 28…………………………………….....268

37. Interpretation of magnetic data from Block 28 showing probable prehistoric cultural features………………………………………………….....268

38. Processed electrical resistance data from Block 28………………………….. ..269

39. Topographic map showing location of mounded area in relation to electrical resistance data collected for Block 28..…………………………. ..269

40. Interpretation of electrical resistance data from Block 28 showing probable prehistoric cultural features………………….…………………….....270

41. Plan view of Feature 28-5 at 60 centimeters below datum………………….....271

42. Processed magnetic data from Block 32…………………………………….....272

43. Interpretation of magnetic data from Block 32 showing probable prehistoric cultural features………………………………………………….....272

44. Processed electrical resistance data from Block 32………………………….. ..273

45. Electrical resistance data in the vicinity of Block 32 showing a portion of the D-shaped embankment……………………………………….....273

46. Interpretation of electrical resistance data from Block 32 showing probable prehistoric cultural features………………….…………………….....274

47. Processed magnetic data from Block 34…………………………………….....274

48. Interpretation of magnetic data from Block 34 showing probable prehistoric cultural features………………………………………………….....275

49. Processed electrical resistance data from Block 34………………………….. ..275

xvii Figure Page

50. Processed magnetic data from Block 65…………………………………….....276

51. Interpretation of magnetic data from Block 65 showing probable prehistoric cultural features………………………………………………….....276

52. Processed electrical resistance data from Block 65………………………….. ..277

53. Interpretation of electrical resistance data from Block 65 showing probable prehistoric cultural features………………….…………………….....277

54. Processed magnetic data from Block 68…………………………………….....278

55. Interpretation of magnetic data from Block 68 showing probable prehistoric cultural features………………………………………………….....278

56. Processed electrical resistance data from Block 68………………………….. ..279

57. Interpretation of electrical resistance data from Block 68 showing probable prehistoric cultural features………………….…………………….....279

58. Processed magnetic data from Block 82…………………………………….....280

59. Interpretation of magnetic data from Block 82 showing probable prehistoric cultural features………………………………………………….....280

60. Processed electrical resistance data from Block 82………………………….. ..281

61. Interpretation of electrical resistance data from Block 82 showing probable prehistoric cultural features………………….…………………….. ..281

62. Processed magnetic data from Block 87…………………………………….....282

63. Interpretation of magnetic data from Block 87 showing probable prehistoric cultural features………………………………………………….. ..283

64. Processed electrical resistance data from Block 87………………………….. ..284

65. Interpretation of electrical resistance data from Block 87 showing probable prehistoric cultural features………………….…………………….. ..285

66. Processed magnetic data from Block 100..………………………………….....286

xviii Figure Page

67. Interpretation of magnetic data from Block 100 showing probable prehistoric cultural features………………………………………………….. ..286

68. Processed electrical resistance data from Block 100..……………………….. ..287

69. Interpretation of electrical resistance data from Block 100 showing probable prehistoric cultural features………………….…………………….....287

70. Processed magnetic data from Block 114..………………………………….....288

71. Interpretation of magnetic data from Block 114 showing probable prehistoric cultural features………………………………………………….. ..288

72. Processed electrical resistance data from Block 114...………………………. ..289

73. Interpretation of electrical resistance data from Block 114 showing probable prehistoric cultural features………………….…………………….. ..289

74. Processed magnetic data from Block 124..………………………………….....290

75. Interpretation of magnetic data from Block 124 showing probable prehistoric cultural features………………………………………………….....290

76. Processed electrical resistance data from Block 124..……………………….. ..291

77. Interpretation of electrical resistance data from Block 124 showing probable prehistoric cultural features………………….…………………….....291

78. Processed magnetic data from Block 147..………………………………….....292

79. Interpretation of magnetic data from Block 147 showing probable prehistoric cultural features………………………………………………….. ..292

80. Processed electrical resistance data from Block 147..……………………….. ..293

81. Interpretation of electrical resistance data from Block 147 showing probable prehistoric cultural features………………….…………………….....293

82. Processed magnetic data from Block 156..………………………………….....294

83. Interpretation of magnetic data from Block 156 showing probable prehistoric cultural features………………………………………………….. ..294

xix Figure Page

84. Processed electrical resistance data from Block 156..……………………….. ..295

85. Processed magnetic data from Block 159..………………………………….....295

86. Interpretation of magnetic data from Block 159 showing probable prehistoric cultural features………………………………………………….. ..296

87. Processed electrical resistance data from Block 159..……………………….. ..296

88. Processed magnetic data from Block 161..………………………………….....297

89. Processed electrical resistance data from Block 161..……………………….. ..297

90. Processed magnetic data from Block 167..………………………………….....298

91. Interpretation of magnetic data from Block 167 showing probable prehistoric cultural features………………………………………………….....298

92. Processed electrical resistance data from Block 167..……………………….. ..299

93. Map of the Hopewell site showing the number of geophysical anomalies found in each block…………………………………………….…...300

94. Map of the Hopewell site showing the number of prehistoric artifacts found in shovel tests for each block……………………………...…...301

95. Map of the Hopewell site showing the number of prehistoric artifacts excluding fire-cracked rock found in shovel tests for each block……………………………………………………………………. ..302

96. Calibrated radiocarbon dates for the Hopewell site…………………………....303

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

This dissertation examines the prehistoric use of non-mound space at an Ohio

Hopewell earthwork built during the Middle Woodland period (200 B.C.-A.D. 400).

Until very recently, archaeological research at earthworks concentrated on the visible components of these sites—the mounds and embankments—resulting in knowledge

about the ceremonial and mortuary activities conducted at earthworks and construction

sequences of mounds and embankments. However, earthworks consist of more than

earthen architecture. Between the mounds and embankments is space that may have been

used for a variety of activities. These activities are related to how an earthwork was used

and at least seven site uses have been proposed for Ohio Hopewell earthworks. For this

dissertation, the site uses are formulated into two general hypotheses concerning the

archaeological record of earthworks. Each hypothesis makes different assumptions about

the nature and extent of activities conducted in non-mound space. The hypotheses are

tested against geophysical and archaeological data collected from non-mound space at the

Hopewell site during fieldwork under my direction. Results from this research will be

useful in determining the function of this earthwork, as well as provide a deeper

understanding of Hopewell community organization, social dynamics, and ideology.

1 The question of what types of activities, and subsequently site use, occurred at

Ohio Hopewell earthworks has been asked since the late eighteenth century. Early speculation deduced that the sites contained settlements or were used for defensive needs

in times of unrest. More recently, the concept of earthworks as gathering centers that

hosted a variety of political, economic, ceremonial, and social activities has been proposed. Regardless of the site use, most of the supporting data comes from mound

excavations, but large, flat expanses of non-mound space may have provided unique

staging areas capable of hosting either a wide range of activities or large numbers of participants and observers.

In terms of non-mound space, limited fieldwork has been conducted. Mainfort and Sullivan (1998) attribute this lack of research to fewer artifacts as compared to the mounds, the large scale of many enclosures, and scarcity of previous investigations to guide new research. More intensive research is clearly needed to better understand the range of activities conducted in non-mound space at these sites—a point noted by three

Hopewell archaeologists in recent literature:

1. DeBoer (1997:249) states that there is a need for “more carefully crafted signatures of short-term activities carried out over a long time at centres versus daily activities carried out over a short duration at habitation sites.”

2. Griffin (1997:13) requests that fieldwork be conducted at earthworks using “modern recovery and analytical techniques.”

3. Riordan (1998:68) explains that “The extent to which other corporate activities, including craft production, economic transactions, and even residential use may have occurred at them [earthworks] is still a subject of some debate, largely due to a lack of much archaeological attention to the non-mound components of their interiors.”

2 A compromise for non-mound studies must be found that balances time and

money constraints with scientific needs. To this end, I designed a research project to

determine the nature and extent of non-mound activities at the Hopewell site using

geophysical and traditional archaeological techniques. Due to the size of this earthwork, a

simple random sampling strategy was used to test ten percent of non-mound space.

Fieldwork was conducted between 2001 and 2003. The results of this work are reported

in this dissertation and are compared to expectations of the archaeological record for the

two hypotheses concerning site use at Ohio Hopewell earthworks.

Defining Ohio Hopewell

The term Hopewell refers to beliefs, practices, and artifact styles shared among groups of people in eastern North America during the Middle Woodland period (Dancey

2005). The archaeological record left by the Hopewell is spectacular. Earthen mounds covered the remnants of buildings containing mortuary deposits. Mica, copper, obsidian, and many other materials were crafted into objects used for ritual purposes. The widespread distribution of Hopewell characteristics from Illinois to Ohio and Michigan to

Louisiana and Florida attest to its adoption by many people, but primary centers were located in the Lower Illinois River Valley and southern Ohio. Earthen architecture and finely-crafted artifacts are distinguishing characteristics of the Ohio Hopewell.

The presence of earthen embankments formed into geometric or free-form enclosures commonly characterize Ohio Hopewell sites. Enclosures are constructed of silt, sand, clay, or stone and may be solitary or part of a group of two, three, or more forms. The dimensions of these sites vary from less than an hectare to over fifty hectares

3 in area. Enclosures are often located along the rivers and streams of southern and central

Ohio (Figure 1). Many river valleys may house “recognizable variants” of the Hopewell

culture based on slight differences in earthwork architecture (Pacheco 1996:18).

Explanations for enclosure function are divided or combined between the political,

economic, social, and ideological realms. In the end, it appears that each earthwork may

have been designed, built, and used for a variety of functions (Carr 2005). Also, the

function of any enclosure may have changed through time as features were added or

modified or as ideology changed (Mainfort and Sullivan 1998). Figure 2 depicts a

hypothetical sequence of earthwork evolution proffered by Dancey and Pacheco (1997).

Mounds are also found throughout Ohio. Some conical mounds date to the Early

Woodland period (1000-200 B.C.), but mounds were also constructed during the Middle

Woodland period. These mounds were built of silt, sand, clay, or stone. Although mounds located at enclosure gateways may not have sub-mound structures or mortuary features, early excavations revealed that wooden structures once stood in the footprint of some

Middle Woodland mounds. These structures were staging areas for many ceremonial and mortuary activities; the larger of these structures are referred to as Big Houses (Greber and Ruhl 2000). Human remains, either as extended burials or cremations, were frequently laid upon clay basins raised slightly off the floor. Goods, such as copper earspools and freshwater pearl beads, oftentimes accompanied burials. Some mounds also contained ritual deposits of particular objects, such as the biface cache from Mound 2 at the Hopewell site or the pipes from Mound 8 at Mound City.

Artistry in craft production is also a mark of the Ohio Hopewell. It appears that while some objects were crafted on a household basis, such as pottery, stone tools, and

4 perhaps mica pieces, other objects were made by craft specialists, including pipes and

obsidian points (Spielmann 2002). Pipes with effigy or geometric bowls were crafted

with skill. Obsidian was expertly knapped into large points with parallel flaking patterns

on either side of the points. Many other mediums were used for crafting Hopewell ritual

objects. Much of these materials were obtained either through travel or trade. Essenpreis

(1987:36) states that the earthworks in Ohio “are far richer in the quantity and diversity

of trade goods, suggesting that southern Ohio partially controlled the trade and

manufacture of these exotic objects.”

Proposed Site Uses for Ohio Hopewell Earthworks

Early speculation about Ohio Hopewell earthworks resulted in suggestions of

diverse uses for these sites. One of the earliest to be put forth was for defensive

structures. In the 1770s missionary David Jones referred to the Frankfort Works in Ross

County as being an “old fortification” (Jones reprint 1971:56). Expanding considerably

on this use, Atwater (1833:18) suggested these sites were defensive in nature as well as

“cemeteries, temples, altars, camps, towns, villages, race grounds, and other places of

amusement, habitations of chieftains, videttes, watch towers, monuments, &c.” The

earthworks were thus assigned use based on a variety of defensive, ceremonial,

settlement, social, and political activities. Following on Atwater’s writings, Squier and

Davis (1848) postulated site use of earthworks as settlements, forts, and sacred places. In an interesting twist in the use of earthworks for settlements, Morgan (1881) believed that the long embankment walls were foundations for massive longhouses. Other late nineteenth century ideas cited by Fowke (1902) included the use of earthworks as large

5 arenas for games and sports, as game preserves to hold animals until slaughter, or for

protection of agricultural fields. Fowke (1902:153) dismissed these ideas and returned to the use of these sites as housing settlements: “Perhaps the most plausible hypothesis is that villages were located within the walls.”

These historical writings about site use of Ohio Hopewell earthworks mirror more recent research conducted overseas. Drewett (1977) proposed that English Neolithic enclosures had seven uses: livestock pastures, ceremonial centers, burial sites, communal meeting places, trading centers, for defense, and settlements. All of these uses have been suggested for Ohio Hopewell earthworks. Use as pasture has been dismissed due to the absence of domesticated animals (Mainfort and Sullivan 1998); however, Romain (2004) posits that enclosures were used for horticultural activities. A summary of each of these site uses is given below.

Ceremonial Centers

The most common site use for Ohio Hopewell earthworks in the literature is as

ceremonial centers. The earthworks would have provided a sacred place to perform or

watch rituals. These ritual activities may have occurred in sub-mound structures, during

the construction of embankment walls and mounds, on the embankment walls or mounds,

or in non-mound space. These rituals may have been performed aperiodically according

to a community’s needs, such as upon the death of a community member, or during

natural events, such as during the winter solstice (Greber and Ruhl 2000). Evidence of the use of earthworks as ceremonial centers comes from archaeological deposits and from the configuration of the earthworks themselves.

6 Some archaeological deposits located at the base of mounds or in embankments

appear to be ceremonial in nature. Caches found within the remains of sub-mound

structures at several earthworks lack any associated human remains and reflect activities

that were ceremonial in nature. For instance, Mound 2 at Hopewell contained over 8,000

bifaces made from chert from southeastern Indiana. Greber (1996:170) hypothesizes that

“the unique double layer of ceremonial bifaces is also a symbol of this [calendrical]

cycle.” Small, burned deposits within the embankment walls at Hopeton point to rituals

conducted during wall construction (Lynott 2004).

The configuration of the enclosures themselves may also indicate ceremonial use.

Hively and Horn (1982; 1984) found alignments to astronomical events at Newark and

High Bank. In addition, Byers (1996:183-184) states that some enclosures “were constructed so as to establish the siting lines directed to horizon positions that mark the

turning points of both the 18.6 year lunar cycle and the solstice and equinoxes of the solar

cycle.” Square enclosures at five tripartite earthworks in Ross County may have been

constructed in reference to astronomical events (Greber 1997b).

Burial Sites

The use of Ohio Hopewell earthworks as burial sites has long been proposed since excavations in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries found burials at some, but not all, earthwork sites. Cremations or inhumations were typically located in the structures underneath mounds. Burials were also situated in mound and embankment fill; for example, in the Seip-Pricer Mound at Seip (Shetrone and Greenman 1931) and in the embankment at Mound City (Brown 1994).

7 Studies of human remains from earthworks provide information about

Hopewellian mortuary behavior. Konigsberg’s (1985:123) study of 87 individuals from

Seip found that all ages and both sexes were represented, the “burial population was formed fairly rapidly,” and cremated individuals were burned in the flesh without being dismembered. Mitochondrial DNA extracted from 34 individuals from at least five mounds at the Hopewell site found no matrilineal descent among those in the sample and no segregation in burial location based on kinship (Mills 2003).

While some earthworks do contain archaeological evidence for use as burial sites, not all earthworks appear to have been used in this fashion. Greber (1997a:245) notes

“the majority of the complex geometric enclosures do not surround burial mounds.” Sites without burials usually have no mounds or mounds are positioned directly inside gateways. For example, the octagon enclosure at High Bank has gateway mounds but does not have evidence of burial mounds. Similarly, surface collections and extensive geophysical testing at the Hopeton site did not find any evidence of burials (Burks et al.

2002; Lynott 2004).

Communal Meeting Places

Use of Ohio Hopewell earthworks as communal meeting places has been advanced by some archaeologists. Brown (1997:243) posits that “Embankments were designed to facilitate meetings of individuals for certain lengths of time in a cultural environment that otherwise provided very little protection to hosts and guests alike.” The

Dispersed Sedentary Community model by Dancey and Pacheco (1997) envisions earthworks as gathering places to conduct political, economic, social, and ceremonial

8 activities that were community-based; “On occasion, Hopewell ‘vacant’ centers would

have been abuzz with activity, while on other occasions they would have sat empty”

(Pacheco 1996:21).

Another facet of using earthworks as communal meeting places may have been

the gathering of craftspeople to produce ceremonial objects. Structures located inside an

enclosure at Seip have been interpreted by Baby and Langlois (1979) as craft workshops.

Based on this evidence, Spielmann (2002:202) hypothesizes that “Much of the production

of Ohio Hopewell ritual items was concentrated within these earthworks. Crafting of

certain ornaments, such as mica and copper cutouts, appears to have been carried out in

these precincts by multiple craftspeople.” In addition, obsidian is thought to have been

worked by a small segment of the population: “The ties among those few privileged to

handle the black glass could have been biological or social” (Greber 1996:162). Perhaps

obsidian blades, and other specialty objects, were produced only at the earthworks.

Trading Centers

The use of exotic raw materials is a defining characteristic of the Hopewell culture. Artifacts were crafted from obsidian from the Rocky Mountains, copper from the

Upper Great Lakes, marine shell from the Gulf of Mexico, mica from the Appalachians, among other materials. While obsidian is scarcely found at earthwork sites outside the

Central Scioto River Valley, other materials are common throughout the geographical range of the Hopewell. For example, copper earspools have been found distributed at earthworks throughout the Midwest (Ruhl 2005). This geographical extent has been attributed to a Hopewell Interaction Sphere in which ideas were trading throughout the

9 eastern United States (Caldwell 1964). Struever (1964:106) envisioned that “some form

(or forms) of communication, intercourse, or articulation existed prehistorically to enable far-distant groups to share an assemblage of imported raw materials, artifact styles, and precepts governing the interment of certain dead.” While Struever and Houart (1972) proposed that the Hopewell Interaction Sphere was organized as a hierarchical social system, Seeman’s (1979a) study suggested otherwise. In summary, earthworks have been proposed as trading centers for the exchange of exotic materials and goods. Perhaps this use parallels evidence of craft manufacturing activities at earthworks. Contrary to use of earthworks as trading centers, Dancey and Pacheco (1997:9) speculate movement of materials throughout the Midwest by “direct and down-the-road procurement rather than organized trade.”

Support for use of earthworks as trading centers comes from two caches at the

Hopewell site. Mound 2 contained over 8,200 bifaces of Indiana hornstone. Mound 11 had approximately 300 pounds of obsidian. Both caches contained a great quantity of non-local materials that may have been traded into the region. Vickery (1996) ponders four models for flint use at earthworks. His economic model may be useful in explaining caches found at the Hopewell site: “Elements of the “economic” model in which

Hopewell Interaction Sphere goods, including flint, were exchanged or traded for other goods and/or services may be invoked to account for some of the raw material that occurs in abundance at the major Ohio Hopewell centers” (Vickery 1996:122).

Recently DeBoer (1997) suggested that enclosure configuration reflects a changing social order during the Middle Woodland period involving the Hopewellian exchange of marriage partners and the trade of exotic goods. As food production

10 increased, the value of labor of females tending the gardens also increased. At the same

time, DeBoer (1997:238) assumes a shortage of females in the potential marriage pool

such “that ‘Hopewell Interaction Sphere’ goods figured not only in mortuary context but

in the entire array of rites of passage, including the recruitment of women and their

labour through marital alliances. That is, one role of these goods may have been as a form

of ‘bride price’.” Exchange of marriage partners was no longer based on reciprocal

agreements, but on the trade of exotic goods. DeBoer speculates that the earliest

configurations of symmetrical circle-square enclosures demonstrated this reciprocal

exchange pattern with trading partners (i.e., marriage partners exchanged directly). Later

asymmetric tripartite enclosures represented a new exchange pattern in which females

were instead traded for exotic objects.

Defense

Use of earthworks for defense was suggested by early travelers such as the

missionary David Jones (Jones reprint 1971:56). At first glance the architecture of the

enclosures, especially those located on hilltops, evokes a defensive nature. This site use

was a popular explanation throughout the nineteenth century. By the turn of the twentieth century, Fowke (1902) firmly believed that hilltop enclosures were used solely as forts during times of warfare. Excavations in the late twentieth century have started to critically explore this possibility.

Excavations at the hilltop site of Pollack examined embankment construction

(Riordan 1998). Five stages of construction point to a change in site use over a period of

150 years. The first three stages concern the construction of the embankments and

11 mounds. A fourth stage was the construction of a 1.5 meter high stockade atop the

embankment and a 4 meter high stockade around the bluff edges. The fifth and final stage

was the destruction of the stockade by fire, and subsequent capping of the stockade

remnants with soil. Riordan (1998:83) hypothesizes the stockade was used either as a

defensive structure in a time of hostility followed by its dismantling during more peaceful

times or the stockade may have been part of a “magico-religious effort” concerning activities conducted within the interior of the enclosure. Evidence of burned stockades at three other enclosures in the Miami River Valley is similarly interpreted by Riordan

(1996; 1998).

Excavations through a portion of embankment at Fort Hill did not locate evidence of a palisade, but did convince Prufer (1997a:320) of a defensive purpose of the hilltop

enclosure: “During raids or whatever, kids, women, etc. may have been shunted up to the

top of the structure.” Prufer also conceded that these hilltop earthworks were also used

for ceremonial activities.

While more research is needed to determine if hilltop enclosures in southwestern

Ohio were used for defensive purposes, no evidence of defensive structures or warfare

has been found at Ohio Hopewell earthworks located on terraces. The slope and height of

most embankments were not sufficient to ward off attackers. Many walls were between 1

to 3.5 meters in height and 6 to 15 meters in width at their bases. Excavations through

embankment walls at Newark, Hopeton, High Bank, and Mound City did not find any

evidence for defensive structures. Furthermore, a recent study by Johnston (2002) of cultural modified human remains from the Hopewell site found no evidence that

individuals died from warfare, were scalped, or scavenged after death. Evidence,

12 according to Dancey (2005:123), therefore suggests that “Even though many are called forts, and early reports referred to some as defensive works, it is unlikely that any of them would have been effective militarily.”

Settlement

The use of Ohio Hopewell earthworks for habitation has been the subject of much debate. Of interest to this debate are five potential Hopewellian settlement patterns outlined by Dancey and Pacheco (1997): Nucleated Sedentary, Semi-permanent

Sedentary, Central Place, Seasonal Mobility, and Dispersed Sedentary Community.

The first, Nucleated Sedentary, posits long-term, permanent villages at or adjacent to the earthworks. Speculation in the nineteenth century concluded that earthworks were used for settlement. Documentation around the turn of the twentieth century seemed to support this type of site use at Turner, Fort Ancient, Hopewell, Ginther Mound, Feurt

Village, and Seip (as cited in Griffin 1996). Additional evidence gathered from archaeological field reports by Griffin (1997:405) led to his conclusion that Hopewell villages were located in or adjacent to the earthworks: “Based on the observations of earlier archaeologists of village debris near earthworks, it is suggested that Ohio

Hopewell settlement systems included permanent settlements, perhaps of great size, near the Hopewell centers.”

The second settlement pattern is Semi-permanent Sedentary. Part of the year would have been spent in nucleated villages in or near the earthworks and the rest of the year divided between temporary, dispersed camps. Possible evidence from earthworks

13 may be the same as for the first settlement pattern because the relatively small periods of time when people disperse to camps may not be discernible in the archaeological record.

The third settlement pattern, Central Place, limits settlement at the earthworks to only an elite class. In this scenario, the distance between a residence and earthwork directly reflects the status of a household. Support for this pattern has been advanced from archaeologists working at Fort Ancient and Hopewell. Lazazzera (1997) found features inside Fort Ancient that she concludes may be indicative of elite households. In non-mound space at the Hopewell site, Seeman (1981) found artifact clusters indicative of either elite housing or craft manufacture.

The fourth settlement pattern, Seasonal Mobility, limits Hopewellian settlement to short-term, seasonally occupied camps. Settlement in terms of the earthworks would be limited to those of short duration associated with the use of the earthworks. The Hale’s

House site at Newark is interpreted as one of these short-term domestic sites that may have been reoccupied for a number of years (Lepper and Yerkes 1997).

The fifth pattern, Dispersed Sedentary Community, was proposed by Dancey and

Pacheco (1997). This pattern was built on Prufer’s (1964; 1965) use of the Vacant

Ceremonial Center-Dispersed Agricultural Hamlet settlement model. In the Dispersed

Sedentary Community model, the earthwork was a focal point for the community but not a place for permanent settlement. Instead, the earthwork was for occasional, short-term habitation related solely to the construction and use of the enclosures and mounds.

Permanent habitation was restricted to hamlets located in the vicinity of the earthwork.

14 Horticulture

Plant domestication began in the Eastern Woodlands during the Late Archaic period (3000-1000 B.C.). Archaeological evidence documents horticultural activities in the Middle Woodland period. Following Morgan’s (1881) suggestion that embankments enclosed agricultural fields, Romain (2004:170) proposed that the interiors of earthworks were used for horticultural activities: “I wish to investigate the possibility that the geometric complexes were used, in part, to grow field crops such as goosefoot, maygrass, and knotweed, which were communally tended.”

Romain (2004) provides limited evidence for this site use. First, he states the plants cultivated by the Hopewell grow well in the same locations where the terrace earthworks are located (i.e., flat terrain and well drained soils). Second, he attributes the scantiness of artifacts recovered from a surface collection conducted by Burks et al.

(2002) at the Hopeton Works as evidence for horticulture. Third, he (2004:184) states that seeds recovered from mounds at Marietta and Liberty “place known Hopewell cultigens within the geometric enclosures.” Fourth, he cites a recent study of two pond cores by McLauchlan (2003:564) from the Fort Ancient site in which cultigen pollen were found in higher concentrations in levels dated to Hopewellian use of the earthwork suggesting that Middle Woodland populations “likely cultivated crops at this site for several hundred years.”

Site Use Hypotheses

The archaeological evidence for seven site uses proposed for Ohio Hopewell earthworks varies. There is abundant evidence for earthworks used as ceremonial centers

15 or burial sites, limited supporting data for communal meeting places, trading centers, and

for defense, little evidence in the case of horticulture, and contentious evidence for

settlement. The main source of the settlement debate stems from the extent of site use.

Was habitation restricted to intermittent short-term stays or open to permanent long-term

settlements? Compressing the seven proposed site uses results in the formulation of two

general hypotheses concerning the use of Ohio Hopewell earthworks. The Ceremonial

Center hypothesis views earthworks as places for conducting limited activities in support of earthwork use as ceremonial centers and/or burial sites. The Corporate Center hypothesis expects a variety of ceremonial, social, economic, and political activities to occur at earthworks related to a more open, or unrestricted, use of the earthwork. This dissertation examines the archaeological record of non-mound space at the Hopewell site to determine which hypothesis best explains the overall use of this site.

Ceremonial Center Hypothesis

The Ceremonial Center hypothesis focuses only on ceremonial and burial site uses for Ohio Hopewell earthworks. In this hypothesis, all activities conducted at earthworks are related to one or both of these site uses. Ceremonial use may have included ritual activities, calendrical rituals, or world renewal ceremonies (Byers 1996;

Romain 1996; Greber 1997a; Greber and Ruhl 2000). Burial use may have involved a suite of mortuary activities culminating in inhumation. Although never expressed formally, this hypothesis is often alluded to in the literature; for example, Cowan

(1996:131) states “Major Ohio Hopewell ceremonies and observances took place in sacred precincts.”

16 The archaeological evidence for both types of activities is often found within sub- mound structures, such as documented at Mound City, Hopewell, Seip, and Harness

(Mills 1921; Moorehead 1922; Shetrone 1926; Shetrone and Greenman 1931; Greber

1979). Figure 3 shows a plan view of the Big House of Mound 25 at the Hopewell site with multiple graves, basins, burned areas, and pits. In contrast, very little evidence related to ceremonies or burials has been recovered from non-mound space. There are at least three explanations for this paucity of evidence. First, ceremonies that took place in non-mound space may not have left an archaeologically visible trace; for instance, a group of people gathering inside Fort Ancient to witness the winter solstice. Second, ceremonial space was ritually cleaned after use (Brown 1997). Third, systematic research has not been conducted in non-mound space. Nonetheless, the Ceremonial Center hypothesis remains a strong contender for understanding site use since the majority of mound and embankment evidence clearly supports ceremonial or burial use of earthworks.

If the Hopewell site is best described as a Ceremonial Center, then I expect the archaeological record of non-mound space to contain very little or no evidence of activities. If evidence is found, it will only represent that of a sacred nature associated with ceremonial or burial activities. No evidence of other types of activities, such as those related to defense or settlement, is expected to be found in non-mound space.

Corporate Center Hypothesis

Bruce Smith (1992:209) termed Hopewell earthworks as “corporate-ceremonial centers” to encapsulate the multitude of site uses that may be present at any one

17 earthwork. He broadly defined four types of activities conducted at earthworks: mortuary,

corporate labor, craft manufacture, and possibly redistribution or feasting. The more

recent use of the term “corporate center” by Greber (1997b) effectively captures a range of activities that may be expected at these sites. The Corporate Center hypothesis thus envisions earthworks as the focal points for communities such that evidence of activities representing any one, or more, of the site uses other than mortuary or ceremonial may be

found at these sites, regardless of the more or less sacred or secular nature of that use.

If the Hopewell site is best defined as a Corporate Center, then I expect the

archaeological record of non-mound space to contain evidence of activities other than

those associated with ceremonial or burial site uses. Activities may have been fairly

diverse spanning the social, political, and economic realms. A list of activities suggested

for earthworks is presented as Table 1. The extent of activities is also of interest to this

research for two reasons. First, radiocarbon dates of mound debris from the Hopewell site

range over hundreds of years. This suggests a long history of Middle Woodland use.

Many activities could have occurred during this time in non-mound space and thus the archaeological record might be quite dense. Second, limited testing in non-mound space at the Hopewell site resulted in different interpretations concerning the extent of settlement. In his 1922 report on fieldwork at the Hopewell site, Moorehead noted two

“village sites” (Figure 4). Subsequently Shetrone (1926) referred to the villages as

“habitation sites” (Figure 5). Perhaps this shift in nomenclature reflects Shetrone’s opinion that these areas represent a shorter-term or smaller-scale occupation. More recent work by Seeman (1981) stated that the western locale represented manufacturing or elite housing areas.

18 Summary

This dissertation focuses on site use of Ohio Hopewell earthworks by studying the

archaeological record of non-mound space at the Hopewell site. Two hypotheses that account for seven proposed site uses are tested using data generated from fieldwork. The

Ceremonial Center hypothesis limits earthwork use to ritual and mortuary activity thus non-mound space is similarly restricted in terms of its archaeological record. The

Corporate Center hypothesis posits activities varying in terms of nature (sacred vs. secular) and extent (short-term vs. long-term and small-scale vs. large-scale) such that the archaeological record of non-mound space is boundless in terms of what might be expected, especially given the duration of Middle Woodland use. The result of this research will be an understanding of site use at the Hopewell site, which is a necessary step in the process of learning how these sites functioned. A critical assumption of this research is that site use can be differentiated based on the archaeological record.

This dissertation continues in Chapter 2 by summarizing previous research of non-mound space at Ohio Hopewell earthworks and modeling site use based on archaeological evidence from non-mound space. In Chapter 3 I describe the research setting in terms of the natural environment. The Hopewell site is located in an area where numerous earthworks are regularly spaced along the Central Scioto and Paint Creek River

Valleys. This region has been considered one of the focal points for the Hopewell culture, no doubt in part due to its gentle topography and rich natural resources. The Hopewell site was also the location of numerous mapping and other archaeological field projects, so a review of previous archaeological studies that emphasizes non-mound research is given

in Chapter 4.

19 Chapter 5 contains the methods used during fieldwork. Here the sampling strategy

is explained, as well as the geophysical and traditional archaeological techniques used in

this research. In Chapter 6 I describe the analytical methods used to make sense of the

archaeological record from the geophysical and artifact data.

Results of the fieldwork are presented in Chapter 7. Detailed data are given for

each of eighteen sampling units in the study. In Chapter 8 I synthesize these results, as

well as integrate results from previous non-mound studies at the Hopewell site, in order

to determine which of the seven proposed uses of earthworks is documented in non-

mound space. I give a project summary that focuses on the two hypotheses in Chapter 9

along with proposing directions for future research. A short discussion on the use of geophysical techniques in archaeological research closes this final chapter.

CHAPTER 2

TOWARDS AN UNDERSTANDING OF NON-MOUND SPACE

Archaeological fieldwork conducted at Ohio Hopewell earthworks has yielded evidence of activities indicative of how earthworks were used. While most of the evidence comes from mound and embankment investigations, non-mound space may have played a crucial role by staging a variety of activities; however, only limited fieldwork of this earthwork component has been carried out. This is unfortunate since the majority of the area of an earthwork is non-mound space. Some research has been conducted, but it has been restricted in scope to surface collecting, limited shovel testing, or excavation of only a small portion of an earthwork, such as a surface collection at the

Hopewell site by Seeman (1981). This research, to be detailed in the Chapter 4, located evidence for Hopewell craft manufacture and habitation.

This chapter begins with an overview of non-mound research conducted at Ohio

Hopewell earthworks. A map showing the locations of these earthworks in relation to the

Hopewell site is provided as Figure 6. Then expectations of the archaeological record of non-mound space for each site use are presented.

21 Non-mound Research at Ohio Hopewell Earthworks

Seip Earthworks

Archaeological evidence of the use of non-mound space at the Seip Earthworks

appears to have been found by sheer accident on two different occasions. During early

work on the mounds, Shetrone and Greenman (1931:474) located an isolated burial in non-mound space:

During reconstruction of Mound Number 1 a grave was disclosed 72 feet south of the west end. A small pile of cremated bones lay in a pit two and one-half feet deep. Accompanying this cremation were two copper ear-spools and the broken half of a human mandible which had been perforated artificially five-eighths of an inch inward from the gonion, by a hole one-eighth of an inch in diameter. The jaw is that of a male of middle age at the time of death and is undoubtedly a trophy or a family relic.

Decades later Baby and Langlois (1979) conducted excavations at the site in order to collect data for interpretive exhibits of the Seip-Pricer Mound and the wall of the large circular enclosure. During excavations, archaeologists noticed a slight rise in elevation between the two areas under investigation. A test excavation in the non-mound space found a midden and further excavations were begun. A total of seven structures were excavated. These structures do not contain evidence indicative of use as Big Houses or residences. Instead the authors (1979:18) state that these buildings were “specialized workshops” in which the artifacts now found within the mounds were fashioned by

Hopewell craft specialists. Their evidence of craft manufacture includes the presence of bladelets and mica fragments in all structures, deposits of worked mica in two structures, pits with animal remains, and the presence of marine shell and three flakes of obsidian.

No evidence for habitation, such as cooking or storage pits, was found.

22 Radiocarbon dates from the seven structures in non-mound space overlap those from the Big House below the Seip-Pricer Mound. Dates for Seip are given in RCYBP by

Greber (2003). Calibration of these dates at two sigma using CALIB 5.0.1-IntCal04

(Reimer et al. 2004) produced dates from the mound of A.D. 382-433 and from the structures ranging between 40 B.C.-A.D. 351 to A.D. 945-1291. These structures were used for an extended period of time before and after this area was surrounded by the large circular enclosure. Evidence shows that the large circular enclosure was built after the

Seip-Pricer Mound was completed (Greber 1997b).

Field notes from earlier excavations of the mounds and embankments state that habitation debris was redeposited as earthwork fill. This debris is hypothesized to be from middens that resulted from intensive long- and short-term occupations during the Middle

Woodland period (Greber 1997b). These occupations were probably located somewhere within the area contained by the largest enclosure; however, these occupations appear to pre-date construction of this enclosure. Thus, Hopewellian use of this space was not guided by its location within an enclosure (i.e., non-mound space). Habitation appears to have occurred either before enclosure construction or during use of the first Big House.

Additional evidence of activities in non-mound space at Seip includes another possible habitation area in the smaller circular enclosure, and a habitation area, “ritual post,” and two “ritual fires” in the largest enclosure (Greber 1997b). A description of the ritual activity is given by Greber (1997b:210):

… variously sized spaces were cleared of topsoil, thus forming a simply prepared but serviceable floor. Activities carried out on these floors include making small fires directly on the floors, and then clearing away the debris and raising large posts, which were ultimately lowered and the postholes refilled. At some point in

23 time, each space was covered in a customary Hopewellian manner. The spaces were mantled by a covering of small yellow gravels that are easily obtainable from subsurface deposits of the outwash terrace on which the site was built.

In total, the archaeological evidence of site use in non-mound space at the Seip

Earthworks is limited to the largest circular enclosure and, to a much lesser extent, the small circle. One isolated cremation provides evidence for non-mound burial. Craft workshops indicate use of the site for communal meeting spaces or trading locales.

Features attributed to ritual activities suggest non-mound use for a ceremonial center.

Lastly, site use for settlement seems to predate conversion of land to non-mound space.

Based on the archaeological evidence, a wide range of activities related to the

construction and use of the earthworks, but not long-term habitation, occurred in non-

mound space at Seip.

High Bank

Fieldwork at the High Bank earthworks in the 1970s by Shane focused on

excavating trenches through embankment walls. Prufer (1996) reports that surface

collections were also conducted during this time but that only about 350 objects were

found in non-mound space. Very few of these artifacts were indicative of Hopewellian

occupation and only a handful of fire-cracked rock (FCR) was found. Similar results were

found during field collections in the late 1980s by Jonathan Bowen (as reported in Prufer

1996). While two possible bladelet fragments were recovered, Prufer (1996) states that

the assemblage does not appear to be Hopewellian in origin. The lack of debris in non-

mound space suggests very limited use of this space, possibly only for ceremonial use.

24 Liberty Works

Examination of a large private collection from a farm at Liberty Works in Ross

County found evidence of bladelet manufacture within the earthworks. The extant collection of Robert Harness, landowner of a 602 hectare farm that includes the earthwork, contains over 19,000 artifacts collected over a period of 28 years (Coughlin and Seeman 1997). Most finds were from surface collections, but some were recovered from excavations. All artifacts are provenienced to a field or to a specific site within a field. Coughlin and Seeman (1997) noted two areas within the large circular enclosure that contain clusters of blades and blade cores. Site 25 contains 678 blades and 58 blade cores. Site 18 has 308 blades and 73 blade cores. Flint at both sites includes Knife River and obsidian. Coughlin and Seeman (1997:237) conclude that Site 25 is probably a

“special-purpose site for blade production” and Site 18 is a “special-purpose blade production site similar to Site 25, small ritual localities, or both.” The large number of finished bladelets suggests a ceremonial purpose to this manufacturing activity.

Mound City

Archaeological fieldwork in the non-mound space at Mound City has not revealed

much in the way of Middle Woodland remains. Brown (1994) reports on the limited

excavations carried out in the 1960s and 1970s in non-mound space. Most of these

investigations were located in the northern limits of the enclosure around the perimeters of mounds. Very little was found in these areas. In addition, some work was conducted in the southeast corner of the enclosure. A series of posts to the west of Mound 10 is a structure built as a “simpler and lighter construction” (Brown 1994:130). To the southeast

25 of Mound 10 is another series of postmolds and a midden. The postmolds were not

arranged in a discernible pattern, but Camp Sherman construction activities disturbed this

area heavily and this may have impacted any post pattern. Brown (1994:131) describes the midden as “elongate in ground plan with irregular edges,” and states that the debris resulted from a local occupation that predated the construction of the enclosure.

Hopeton Earthworks

A surface collection of 70 hectares inside and around the Hopeton earthworks was

conducted in 2001 by the National Park Service (Burks et al. 2002). A total of 12,541

artifacts were found—9,301 of which were fire-cracked rock. Most artifacts were

recovered from outside the earthwork. An analysis of artifacts suggests short-term

Hopewellian habitation on the terrace surrounding the earthwork. Furthermore, the

following conclusion was reached regarding non-mound space: “There were strict rules

against inhabiting the areas inside the earthworks and/or these areas were periodically

cleaned of all occupation and use debris” (Burks et al. 2002:8).

Additional recent investigations at the Hopeton Earthworks focused on

determining construction techniques of the embankments and looking for activity areas in

non-mound space (Lynott 2004). Geophysical survey has resulted in almost total

coverage of the site. A total of sixteen hectares have been tested with magnetic

equipment, including most of the non-mound space. In 2002, four geophysical anomalies

within the square enclosure were tested and a posthole and a deep pit feature were found;

however, the relationship between these features and the earthworks is presently unknown.

26 Fort Hill

Archaeological research of non-mound space at Fort Hill is extremely limited.

Fieldwork in the 1960s excavated a trench through an embankment wall and placed

several units (approximately 1 by 1 meter) within the interior of the enclosure (Prufer

1997a). No artifacts were recovered and no features were found. The lack of remains is

attributed to use of the site for defense as Prufer (1997a:320) presents a scenario that Fort

Hill was used “as highly temporary occupation areas in times of trouble.” I interpret the

lack of archaeological remains within the hilltop as evidence of a ceremonial, not

defensive, use.

Fort Ancient

Evidence for site use of non-mound space is documented at the Fort Ancient site

in Warren County. Morgan (1946) first noted habitation debris within the enclosures that

he attributed to a permanent village. Connolly (1996a) noted pavement features in non-

mound space that he thought were related to food preparation activities. More recently at least ten structures within the site’s North Fort enclosure were found prior to renovating an existing museum structure. The general location for the excavations was determined by the placement of the expanded building and infrastructure. A total of 44 features of a domestic nature, including earth ovens, basins, and trash pits, were excavated. Artifacts recovered included bladelets, Middle Woodland projectile points, and small quantities of

mica, quartz, and non-local pot sherds. Lazazzera (2004) proposes that the structures

represent three different contexts: generalized domestic, specialized domestic, and

specialized ceremonial. Each context has associated site types such as hamlets and base

27 camps for generalized domestic, seasonal and ritual camps for specialized domestic, and earthworks and charnel houses for specialized ceremonial. Evidence for the two domestic site types was found in non-mound space.

Radiocarbon dates from several structures and other features located within the

North Fort at Fort Ancient indicate occupation after the space was enclosed. Greber

(2003:103-104) notes that:

Changes through time are clearly evident, but the chronological relationships among the group of structures found inside the northern enclosure, various stages of wall construction (including some relatively simple walls and intricate combinations of ponds and walkways at some wall openings), cemetery areas within the walls, and cultural materials found just outside the walls are not yet firmly set.

Even without precise chronological control, some of these structures appear to have been

used for habitation. Although the duration of use through time is not known, Lazazzera

(2004) proposes that the generalized domestic structures were occupied for longer

periods of time corresponding to intense episodes of earthwork construction and

ceremonial use, while the specialized domestic structures resulted from short-term

occupations also during earthwork construction and use.

The archaeological evidence supports use of non-mound space for settlement,

communal meeting space, and ceremonial activities. Although site use is directly related

to earthwork construction and use activities, evidence may support a modified version of

Griffin’s settlement proposition that enclosures were used for long-term, more permanent

habitation.

28 Stubbs Earthwork

This geometric earthwork is located on the Little Miami River. Surface

collections in the 1980s found a site that is probably located directly outside the

enclosure. The Stubbs Mill Blade site consisted of cores and bladelets indicative of a

manufacturing area and pot sherds, drills, projectile points, and other artifacts of a

domestic nature. Genheimer (1997:291) attributes the archaeological record to “multiple

short-term, or perhaps cyclical, seasonal occupations.” This interpretation supports site

use for short-term habitation.

Salvage excavations prior to and during construction of a school were conducted

at the Stubbs earthworks in the 1990s (Cowan et al. 2000). A woodhenge of 172 posts

was located at the base of a small circular enclosure. In addition, the remains of

seventeen structures were found. These structures had rectangular, circular, or c-shaped

floor plans. Few pit features and a limited range of artifacts point to short-term habitation

of these structures.

Purdom Mound Group

Non-mound space was tested at the Purdom Mound Group in 1989 and 1992

(Heilman and Mahoney 1996). In 1989, a 7 by 1 meter trench immediately north of a

mound located almost 100 pot sherds, a portion of a bannerstone, and FCR, among other

artifacts. The assemblage was thought to be the remnants of a Hopewell occupation, possibly associated with a mound. In 1992 additional excavations were placed in two

locales. One area was selected for excavation because the landowners were building a

house in this location. One posthole was found along with stone tools, lithic debitage, and

29 FCR. All diagnostic artifacts were dated to the Archaic period, but 238 of 868 flakes

were of Flint Ridge chert. A dense cluster of flakes was determined to represent a

manufacturing or reworking area; however, Heilman and Mahoney (1996:299) write:

“We cannot state conclusively that this cultural debris was made during a Hopewell

occupation.”

Although very little was recovered from these limited excavations, pot sherds and

Flint Ridge flakes may point to a Hopewell origin. Prufer (1996) suggests that these

remains may be part of a domestic structure. The sparse nature of the remains may have resulted from a short-term occupation.

Newark Earthworks

A survey of a portion of the Newark Earthworks in advance of a highway project

relocating portions of the earthworks and found two sites. The survey consisted of surface

collecting, shovel testing and other small excavations, trenching, and backhoe excavating

in the project corridor between 1977 and 1980. Hale’s House site is located slightly north

of the northeast portion of the Newark Earthworks. Microwear analysis detected use for

butchering activities or other activities associated with bone, hide, meat, and possibly

antler. Postmolds, diagnostic artifacts, and radiocarbon dates led to a conclusion that this

site was used as “ordinary domestic loci occupied for part of the year by Hopewell social

groups who came to the Newark Earthworks for their periodic ‘rites of passage’ and other

special events” (Lepper and Yerkes 1997:188). The Meridian Alley site may have been

located within earthen walls that formed one of the many avenues of the Newark

earthworks. The site consisted of four features: a postmold with mica flecks; two sterile

30 shallow pits; and a shallow basin containing mica and a portion of a biface. Lepper and

Yerkes (1997:182) believe this site was occupied for a short period with “a function

directly connected with the special activities taking place within the earthworks.”

Non-mound activity areas are also located at the Octagon and at Salisbury Square near Newark (Lepper 1998). Some fieldwork occurred at the Octagon prior to the expansion of Moundbuilders Country Club in 1994. A historic 1815 map marked “sunken wells” near each gateway. A series of 1 by 1 meter units were excavated to determine the nature of these features. A long, narrow pit feature with gravel fill and a small postmold was found. Lepper (1998:128) speculates that these may have represented some sort of astronomical alignment post or “signposts erected to bear some identifying standard

significant to each opening of the octagon.” Clearly, an assignment of ceremonial site use

has been given to these deposits. Another ceremonial feature was recorded at the

Salisbury Square. This pit feature, found by a landowner preparing her garden, contained layers of artifacts, including cores, projectile points, and bladelets. It is not certain if this feature was contained within non-mound space or just outside the embankment wall.

This large earthwork complex has had limited research conducted in non-mound space. Results found activity areas in non-mound space indicative of short-term habitation and ceremonial activities, suggesting use of non-mound space for settlement and as a ceremonial center.

Other Earthworks

Griffin (1996) described evidence for site use in terms of settlement at several

Ohio Hopewell earthworks. Most of this evidence was collected at the turn of the

31 twentieth century when observations about the archaeological record other than the

mounds were quite minimal. These observations were ancillary to the mound excavations

and were not part of projects designed to systematically locate non-mound debris.

Habitation debris, including much pottery, was located under an enclosure and inside the

main enclosure at Turner in the 1890s. Below the Ginther and Shilder Mounds were

remnants of habitation suggestive to Griffin of villages. Finds included pot sherds, flakes,

mica, and FCR. Remains of structures, hearths, pot sherds, and ceremonial objects, are

his evidence of habitation at the Marietta Earthworks.

Much of this habitation data does not seem to support the idea of large, permanent

villages within the earthworks. Archaeological deposits located under walls or mounds

are more suggestive of habitation prior to the construction of any earthwork feature. In addition, Prufer (1996:409) interprets the Turner assemblage as representing “separate localities within the orbit of the huge earthworks.” In this case, the evidence may have derived from episodic, short-term habitation related to earthwork construction, maintenance, or use over a period of two to four hundred years. Given this scenario, the data may be indicative of short-term settlements.

Modeling Site Use of Non-mound Space

There is evidence for use of non-mound space at Ohio Hopewell earthworks as demonstrated by the archaeological remnants of activities. For example, craft manufacturing areas found at Seip Earthworks and Liberty Works support site use for communal meeting places or trading centers. Domestic debris found at Purdom Mound

Group and other earthworks may represent site use for either short- or long-term

32 settlement. The goal of this research is to determine site use of non-mound space at the

Hopewell site by locating evidence of activities. The seven proposed site uses are now

reviewed in light of archaeological expectations.

Non-mound Space for Ceremonial Centers

Archaeological evidence of earthworks used for ceremonial centers has been

found in structures underneath mounds and within embankments. Non-mound space may have also been used for a variety of ceremonies. Ritual features, including fired floors and postholes, were found at Seip (Greber 1997b). Specialized ceremonial structures at

Fort Ancient were attributed to ceremonial behavior (Lazazzera 1997). Features containing Hopewell exotic goods and gravel-filled pits were located in non-mound space at Newark (Lepper and Yerkes 1997; Lepper 1998). There is quite a range of features attributed to ceremonial behavior. Some features contain exotic or large quantities of

goods. Other features that are not easily identifiable as secular in nature are classed as

ceremonial. Since the range of ceremonial activities is vast, any number of features may

indicate that non-mound space was used for a ceremonial center. Based on evidence from

other earthworks, ceremonial activities may be represented by isolated or groups of

postholes, caches of goods, compacted floors, or pit features without habitation debris.

Non-mound Space for Burial Sites

In general, use of some Ohio Hopewell earthworks for burial sites is supported based on evidence from mounds and embankments. There are also a very few cases of burials recovered from non-mound space. One isolated Hopewell burial was fortuitously

33 found in non-mound space within the large enclosure at Seip (Shetrone and Greenman

1931; see also Greber 1997b). Non-mound burials at Fort Ancient were found by

Moorehead in the late nineteenth century, but these were later determined to be from the

Late Prehistoric period (A.D. 1000-1650) (Riordan 1998). The paucity of documented

non-mound burials may be due to the lack of systematic archaeological work in the non-

mound space or be indicative of non-mound use other than for burial sites. If non-mound

space at the Hopewell site was used as a burial site, then I expect to locate features

associated with mortuary activities, such as processing areas (i.e., crematory basins or

sub-mound structures), or the burials themselves.

Non-mound Space for Communal Meeting Places

The range of activities related to community-based meetings is extremely broad.

For instance, activities may include marriages, alliance building, decision making, trials

(in terms of a judiciary system), feasting, storytelling, dancing, or gaming. The nature of

these activities requires a staging area to accommodate the participants and observers.

Non-mound space provides an area to conduct these activities, but what are the archaeological remnants of these activities? Many of these communal activities may

leave little to no proof, such as storytelling, while others leave distinct remnants, such as feasting. Evidence of use for communal meeting places may be prepared floors that represent staging areas. To date much of the archaeological evidence for communal meeting places in non-mound space is focused on craft manufacturing or feasting debris.

If non-mound space at the Hopewell site was used for communal meetings, then I would expect many participants due to the grandness of the earthworks and deposits of artifacts.

34 Perhaps an equal number of observers also came to the earthworks. As such, the archaeological record supporting the use of non-mound space for a communal meeting place may contain compacted floors, craft manufacturing areas, and feasting debris (i.e., large earth ovens, roasting pits, and middens). In addition, the archaeological record may contain isolated finds of personal items from the large number of people visiting the site even if the non-mound space was cleaned after every meeting.

Non-mound Space for Trading Centers

Evidence of earthworks used for trading centers is limited. Most comes from artifact caches found in mound deposits and perhaps from the finely crafted artifacts of exotic material themselves. Non-mound evidence that may support use for trading activities includes structures like those interpreted as craft workshops at Seip and blade manufacturing areas such as at Liberty. If non-mound space at the Hopewell site was used for a trading center, then the archaeological remnants of caches, structures, features containing Hopewell exotic materials but without habitation debris, or possibly isolated finds of Hopewell artifacts may support this site use.

Non-mound Space for Defense

Use of earthworks for defense is usually based on strategic positioning of the earthwork or the presence of some sort of defensive features, such as stockades or moats.

Many of the terrace earthworks located in southern Ohio do not exhibit either of these characteristics. Furthermore, there is little archaeological evidence of warfare from

Hopewell skeletal remains. However, stockades recently excavated at Pollack may point

35 to a defensive nature of this earthwork (Riordan 1998). If an earthwork was used for defensive purposes, non-mound space may contain archaeological remnants of stockades, ditches, or fortified buildings. Additional embankments may have been built to surround temporary quarters of those seeking safety. Artifacts may include weapons, perhaps found in abundance in caches. If the earthworks were breached during an invasion, evidence of burned structures may be found. To date, no evidence of a defensive nature has been found in non-mound space at any Ohio Hopewell earthwork; yet, it is the lack of any type of feature or debris from Fort Hill that led Prufer (1997a) to conclude a defensive nature for this hilltop enclosure. If non-mound space at the Hopewell site was used for defense, then a variety of defensive features and artifacts should be found.

Non-mound Space for Settlement

The site use most attributed to non-mound space is for settlement. Two of the five settlement patterns outlined by Dancey and Pacheco (1997)—Seasonal Mobility and

Dispersed Sedentary Community—limit habitation at the earthworks to brief stays associated with the construction, maintenance, or use of these sites. In contrast, three settlement patterns—Nucleated Sedentary, Semi-permanent Sedentary, and Central

Place—have long-term habitation in or adjacent to the earthworks. Non-mound evidence has therefore been interpreted to support both short- and long-term habitation. Pacheco

(1996:21) supports short-term habitation of non-mound space:

… the vacant centers of the model represent multi-purpose localities at which the remains of many different kinds of activities, such as craft production and mortuary ceremonialism, are to be expected. Some of the structures associated with these activities may have been relatively permanent features…. Social

36 gatherings for any purpose at the earthworks would have necessarily included many otherwise typical domestic activities…. The presence of such camps or even more substantial remains is not evidence to reject the model as long as these are not the remains of nucleated villages. Thus, it is not the lack of occupational debris that makes Ohio Hopewell centers vacant, but the lack of permanent villages.

In contrast, Lepper (1996:236) alludes to long-term occupation at earthworks:

… there seems to be little justification for the notion that geometric earthworks were vacant ceremonial centers. Although these structures clearly are not the walls of large urban centers and the interiors of the earthworks sometimes appear to be vacant, when sought, domestic debris commonly is found both outside and inside the embankments. There is no evidence to support the claim that all of these domestic loci are merely ephemeral camp sites occupied either by laborers during construction of the earthworks or ritual specialists during periodic visits to prepare the honored dead for burial.

Fifteen archaeological correlates for Middle Woodland short- and long-term settlements are provided in Table 2. The correlates for short-term habitation were modeled after the “mobile foragers” proposed by Yerkes (2002:239). This settlement model envisions the Hopewell moving seasonally throughout the local landscape and thus should strongly correlate with the proposition of short-term habitation at earthworks. The archaeological record may include postholes of temporary shelters, shallow middens, and

limited tool kits. The correlates for long-term habitation, such as spatial segregation of

activities, large storage pits, and diverse tool kits, are patterned on the Hopewell hamlets

in the Dispersed Sedentary Community model by Dancey and Pacheco (1997). While

hamlets are occupied for long periods of time and make a suitable correlate in that

respect, Griffin’s (1996) idea of long-term villages inside earthworks is on a scale much

larger than the one or two families that formed a hamlet. I would therefore expect an

37 exaggeration in size of the archaeological record in terms of the correlates to account for

this type of nucleation. Evidence for settlement in non-mound space at the Hopewell site

may include a variety of structures, features, or artifacts associated with daily life.

Non-mound Space for Horticulture

There are no strong indicators that earthworks were used for horticulture. Very

limited circumstantial evidence is provided by Romain (2004), although he does cite

pond cores from Fort Ancient that contained higher amounts of cultigen pollen as

evidence of horticultural activities inside these enclosures. If non-mound space at the

Hopewell site was used for horticulture, then at the minimum I expect to find garden

tools. In addition, fences and food processing areas might be found. Although Romain

(2004) states that the absence of features and artifacts supports this type of site use, a

careful consideration of a sparse archaeological record has to be done before assigning a

site use for horticultural activities. Scanty remnants may also be due to activities with

weak archaeological signatures, cleaning activities, or research design bias.

Summary

Activities staged inside earthworks are of interest to this research. A review of the

literature found evidence of non-mound debris at several Ohio Hopewell earthworks.

However, fieldwork from other earthworks found scant evidence of non-mound debris.

This is the case at High Bank as surface collections in the 1970s and 1980s did not locate

much in the way of Hopewell artifacts (Prufer 1996). A recent surface collection of the

Hopeton Works also found little in terms of artifacts within the enclosure as opposed to

38 the many artifact clusters adjacent to the embankments (Burks et al. 2002). It appears that

each earthwork may have played host to different activities that were ultimately governed by site use.

The goal of this research is to understand site use of one Ohio Hopewell earthwork by testing two hypotheses—Ceremonial Center and Corporate Center. As

such, this research looks for evidence of activities by sampling non-mound space at the

Hopewell site using traditional archaeological and geophysical techniques. The research

problem is simply stated in two parts: (1) what site uses are supported by evidence found

in non-mound space at the Hopewell site? And (2) does site use support or reject the

Ceremonial Center and Corporate Center hypotheses?

Of importance to this research is that evidence for all seven proposed uses may be

found because earthworks may have been used in multiple ways:

The automatic assumption that surface or redeposited remains physically near an obvious corporate center are “Ceremonial” will, I believe, automatically bias conclusions drawn concerning the uses of the monument sites. Although it may be archaeological inconvenient to have an overlap between domestic and corporate activities, it is anthropologically more realistic to acknowledge that such overlaps can, do, and did occur. (Greber 1997b:212)

In addition, the configuration and use of earthworks evolved over time as Hopewell

communities changed. Greber (1997b:216) comments about land use at Seip Earthworks:

I suggest that a significant shift occurred in socially accepted uses of land. As soon as the walls of the large circle were erected, areas were no longer available that could, and I think had, afforded suitable locations for family homes and everyday activities. Just as social customs apparently caused debris to be deposited outside the boundaries of the large prepared floor north of the Seip-Pricer Mound and at other equivalent locations, some types of debris and activities were required to be outside the space defined by embankments. For example, once the major circular wall had been

39 constructed, the elevated areas (old natural levees) along the former channels of Paint Creek that fell within the enclosure were no longer used for domestic purposes.

Multiple site uses and earthwork evolution contribute to the complex archaeological record documented at Ohio Hopewell earthworks.

CHAPTER 3

NATURAL ENVIRONMENT

The Hopewell site, the “type site” of the Hopewell culture, is located in Ross

County in the rolling hills of southern Ohio. While the specific reason why this land was chosen for an earthwork is unknown, the relatively flat expanse amid hills, dry soil, a series of springs, and local fauna and flora may have influenced its selection. Shetrone

(1926:200) notes:

While it is evident to the most casual observer that the sites occupied by all important groups of the Hopewell culture were carefully selected by their builders, the location of the Hopewell Group is easily the most impressive. The region (Union Township, Ross County) is marked by the glacial moraine and presents the interesting phenomenon of rugged, unglaciated hills, bordering the North Fork Paint Creek, in close proximity to glacial formations of almost equal size and impressiveness.

This chapter summarizes aspects of the natural environment that may have affected prehistoric use of the area.

Physiography

The Hopewell site is situated within the Glaciated Allegheny Plateau, an area between the Till Plains to the north and the Unglaciated Allegheny Plateau to the south.

41 This physiographic region has steep valleys, ridges, and flat uplands that are covered with deposits of glacial drift (Brockman 1998). This glacial terrain is evident at the Hopewell site as two episodes of glaciation, the Illinoian and the Wisconsinan, modified the two terraces overlooking the North Fork Paint Creek. The second terrace, which contains the majority of the earthworks, is covered with outwash. The third terrace is part of the

Lattaville end moraine that formed during the Wisconsinan glaciation. To the west of these terraces is a deep valley lined with shale cliffs formed from the movement of ice across the ridges (Hyde 1920). To the east, the terraces spread out onto the alluvial floodplains and outwash terraces of the North Fork Paint Creek River valley. This valley was actually the Paint Creek River valley prior to the last episode of glaciation when the

Paint Creek was rerouted along a more southern route. Elevation in the project area averages 213 meters above mean sea level.

Geology and Soils

Bedrock below the Hopewell site consists of shales dating to the Devonian ages

(USDA 2003). Depth to bedrock at the site is more than three meters and sandy and gravelly glacial outwash form a thick deposit along the Paint Creek River valley (USDA

1967). As a result, soil formation is not influenced by the underlying bedrock, but by the glacial materials deposited on the terraces during the Wisconsinan glaciation.

The general soil association of the Hopewell site is that of Gessie-Eldean-Ross.

This association is characterized by deep, well drained soils of moderate permeability

(USDA 2003). The Hopewell site has two distinctive soils (Figure 7). The second terrace, containing the majority of the site, is predominantly Eldean loam with small patches of

42 Glenford silt loam. Eldean loam has high clay content. Most of the second terrace is level

with 0-2% slopes. Slopes of 2-6% correspond with earthworks along the east wall of the main enclosure and around Mound 25. Patches of Glenford silt loam occur in three locations within the enclosures, in the west field, around the West Village site, and at the base of the slope from the second to the third terrace. These areas, with little to no slope,

have moderately slow permeability and a seasonally high water table that could have

potentially restricted prehistoric development or use. In addition, the USDA (2003)

classifies the Glenford soil as having a perched water table, defined as a small,

freestanding body of water separated from the real water table by dry soils. The third

terrace containing the northern limits of the Hopewell site rises about twelve meters

above the second terrace and is Miamian silt loam (USDA 2003). This soil drains well,

but has high clay content and moderately slow permeability. The terrace has slopes that

vary between 6-12% in the northwest portion of the earthwork to 20-35% along the north

wall of the main enclosure. These steep slopes are subject to erosion without a thick

cover of vegetation.

Hydrology

The Hopewell site is located on a terrace overlooking the North Fork Paint Creek.

The entirety of the site is less than a kilometer from the river but portions are within 300

meters of the river. This river is a tributary of Paint Creek, which is a major tributary of

the Scioto River. Water flows in North Fork Paint Creek year-round. An intermittent

stream, Sulphur Lick, runs further east and north of the site.

43 Springs are a common occurrence in the area, such as the nearby Sulphur Lick

Springs used at the turn of the twentieth century for medicinal purposes. Water trapped in

the uplands in large sand layers is transported laterally through the sand layer until it is released at the terrace edges resulting in a series of year-round springs located along the slope of the third terrace. Hyde (1920:88) described the springs as located at “intervals of rods or a mile along its edge…. Practically every gully head has a spring.” An early map by Squier and Davis (1848) depicts two springs within the main enclosure, as well as one spring outside the main enclosure but adjacent to the west gateway (Figure 8). Squier and

Davis also describe a stream that flowed from the third to second terrace that was

rerouted by the Hopewell into an artificial channel or ditch that is associated with the western wall of the main enclosure.

Fauna and Flora

The fauna and flora of prehistoric Ohio provided many resources. Fauna included many of the animals documented historically. Regarding contribution to the Hopewellian diet, the most important animal appears to be deer, followed by turkey and raccoon, and

then a mix of small mammals, fish, shellfish, and migratory fowl (Ford 1979).

Archaeological evidence of animal remains from structures at Seip included deer, turkey,

skunk, fox, squirrel, prairie chicken, fish, and a salamander (Baby and Langlois 1979).

In general, vegetation was deciduous or mesophytic forests of oak, hickory,

maple, walnut, and honey locust. Natural clearings in the forests provided grassy areas,

some used by the Hopewell for swidden garden horticulture. Wymer (1996:47) envisions the Hopewell environment as a mixture of forests with “differing patches of in-use

44 current gardens, recently abandoned plots, and secondary forest re-growth in older cleared areas surrounding the sites.” Furthermore, earthwork sites may have been cleared of vegetation at least during construction phases and perhaps during astronomical events in the case of alignments.

Vegetation at the Hopewell site has changed significantly since development of the area at the turn of the nineteenth century. Early settlers cleared the hardwood forests that covered the site at the same time relic or pocket prairies were converted to agricultural fields. The rich soils of the second and third terraces have been in agricultural production for two hundred years. A noticeable plowzone with a depth of 20 to 30 centimeters below surface is documented in the fields at the Hopewell site. Although the steep slopes separating the terraces were not plowed and planted, they were cleared of vegetation and used for pasture. During the mid-twentieth century the springs were capped and water diverted for use by grazing animals. Farmers also skimmed soils off the southern portions of the fields and placed it along the northern edges where the wetter spots of the Glenford silt loam soils decreased crop productivity (Zickafoos, personal communication). At the time of this research, the second terrace has a mixture of grasses that is periodically mowed, the slope is covered in trees and brush, and the third terrace is divided into a woodlot and an old pasture that is in the middle stages of succession.

Summary

The natural environment of the Hopewell site is complex. The location of the site was chosen for one or more unknown reasons. Archaeologists have primarily used three reasons to explain placement of earthworks: the location was already considered sacred

45 by that culture; the location was chosen based on the presence or absence of natural features; or the location was situated in reference to settlement. While the first reason may be impossible to test, the other two can be examined using a regional approach.

Although beyond the scope of this dissertation, it is important to remember context within the larger environment when considering how a site was used, especially if the site was utilized for centuries.

CHAPTER 4

CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT

People have inhabited Ohio for over 11,000 years. Archaeological traces for all prehistoric periods, from Paleoindian to Late Prehistoric, are present in Ross County.

However, the number of mounds and enclosures along the Scioto River and Paint Creek is astounding. Mills (1914) documented over 370 mounds and 49 enclosures in Ross

County. Of these, only Spruce Hill is a hilltop enclosure. The remainder is a mix of geometric and free-form enclosures. Major earthworks overlooking the Scioto River are

Dunlaps, Cedar Banks, Hopeton, Mound City, Works East, High Bank, and Liberty.

Along the Paint Creek are Junction, Spruce Hill, Black Run, Bourneville Circle, Baum,

Seip, and Trefoil. On the North Fork Paint Creek are Frankfort, Anderson, and Hopewell.

Five earthworks bear similar tripartite designs consisting of two circular enclosures attached to one square enclosure; these sites are Seip, Baum, Frankfort, Works East, and

Liberty. Two earthworks contain many burial mounds. Mound City, a squarish enclosure of five hectares, contains 23 mounds. Hopewell encloses 52 hectares and at least 28 burial mounds. The sheer volume and quality of goods located in these mounds are staggering. At least 120 pipes were recovered from Mound 8 at Mound City. Over 8,200 chert bifaces were found in Mound 2 at Hopewell. Most of the obsidian found in

47 Hopewell contexts in the Midwest was discovered in Mound 11 at Hopewell. Ross

County was a major center for the Hopewell culture. This chapter examines the cultural environment of the Hopewell site by describing other Hopewell sites in the vicinity, the

Hopewell site itself, its history of archaeological research, and chronological indictors of use.

Local Expressions of Ohio Hopewell

The Hopewell site is situated in a core area for the Ohio Hopewell. The archaeological record for Ross County is vast. Within a few kilometers of the Hopewell site are other Hopewell earthworks. In terms of habitation sites, recent fieldwork has surveyed areas adjacent to the earthworks and located occupation debris. A map of

Middle Woodland sites within the vicinity of the Hopewell site is presented as Figure 9.

In addition to the Hopewell site, two earthworks and one isolated mound are located on this stretch of the North Fork Paint Creek. The Anderson Works, found on aerial photography in the 1970s, is a squarish enclosure located 2.3 kilometers downstream from the Hopewell site. Only limited salvage work was conducted prior to development of part of the site as a housing subdivision. Pickard and Pahdopony (1995) report on two trenches containing three postmolds and a basin filled with gravel. An

AMS date calibrated to two sigma using CALIB 5.0.1-IntCal04 (Reimer et al. 2004) returned a date of 173 B.C.-A.D. 90 (2010±60 RCYBP). The Frankfort Works located

9.5 kilometers upriver from the Hopewell site is a tripartite earthwork enclosing 31.5 hectares. Squier and Davis (1848) mapped the earthwork as a small circle connected to a larger circle that contained four interior mounds. A square enclosure with four gateway

48 mounds, somewhat similar to the square enclosure at the Hopewell site, was attached to the larger circle. Three of the mounds in the larger circle enclosure were conjoined.

Greber (1997b) states that the excavation of this mound revealed stratigraphy similar to a conjoined mound at Seip. The Ater Mound, situated 8.3 kilometers northwest of the

Hopewell site, was also a salvage project prior to a construction project. Analysis of seven extended burials, 54 cremations, and associated artifacts resulted in identifying one social group with some differentiation between individuals based on the presence of copper plates (Greber 1976).

Several areas adjacent to the Hopewell site contain Middle Woodland occupation debris. The Engdahl site is located 0.5 kilometers northeast of the Hopewell site (Ohio

Archaeological Inventory Form 33Ro184). Described as a lithic scatter, this site contained Middle and/or Late Woodland bifaces. A prehistoric site of unknown temporal affiliation, the Pfifer Sensitive Area, located approximately 0.75 kilometers east of the

Hopewell site had three Flint Ridge flakes, one Upper Mercer flake, and another flake

(Ohio Archaeological Inventory Form 33Ro470). Presence of the Flint Ridge flakes may be indicative of a Hopewell occupation. Seeman (1981) located the Tavern site

(33Ro302), a nineteenth century historic site with a Middle Woodland component. A bladelet, blade cores, and a biface similar to those found in the Mound 2 cache were found in this Hopewell occupation about 0.25 kilometers west of the Hopewell site. In

2004 the Riverbank site with a Middle Woodland component was recorded approximately 225 meters southeast of the Hopewell site (Ohio Archaeological Inventory

Form 33Ro1059). Diagnostic artifacts and features with radiocarbon dates point to occupation by the Hopewell in an unspecified habitation site.

49 A field project in the mid-1990s identified Middle Woodland occupations within

a 4 kilometer catchment zone around the Hopewell site (Dancey 1996a). Surface

collecting and shovel testing were conducted in 25 discrete locations. Bladelets were

found in nine locations. Based on the archaeological record, Middle Woodland hamlets might be present at eight locations. Four locations are clustered within 0.5 kilometers to the east of the site (Datums D, E, F, and H). Two locations are within 0.5 kilometers west of the Hopewell site (Datums A and O). One location is on the third terrace about 0.5 kilometers north of the earthworks (Datum C), and the last is 2.75 kilometers east of the

Hopewell site (Datum M1). These sites may contain archaeological remnants of habitation related to the community that built and used the Hopewell site.

A survey around the eastern and northern perimeter of the Hopewell site, as well as along the interior of the western embankment, was conducted in 2005 prior to a trail installation (Wilson 2006). A total of 359 shovel test pits were excavated in a 10 meter corridor. Artifacts (n=116) were found in 41 units. Only 77 artifacts were prehistoric, including 10 bladelets and 8 grit-tempered pottery sherds. One artifact concentration suggestive of a long-term habitation may correlate to a proposed hamlet location (Datum

H) from Dancey’s survey. Wilson (2006) concludes that three other Middle Woodland

artifact concentrations are probably short-term habitation locales.

Description of the Hopewell Site

The Hopewell site consists of a “two part enclosure” with one enclosure slightly

resembling a parallelogram and the other a square (Greber and Ruhl 2000:11). Figure 10

is an historic map of the site showing major features. Located inside the larger enclosure,

50 hereafter designated the main enclosure, are a D-shaped enclosure and a small circular

enclosure. The majority of the earthworks are located on the second terrace. The northern

wall of the main enclosure runs along the top of the third terrace enclosing two springs

that flow from the slope. The west, north, and east walls of the main enclosure were

approximately 1.8 meters in height and 10.5 meters wide; a corresponding ditch

immediately outside these walls measured about 1.8 meters in depth and 10.5 meters

wide (Squier and Davis 1848). The southern wall of the main enclosure was 1.2 meters

high and made of stone. A number of gateways provide access to the site. Six gateways

enter the main enclosure, two each on the north and south walls and one each on the west

and east walls. The gateway along the east wall of the main enclosure was twice as wide as any another gateway. Note that the western gateway is located near a spring and the rerouted intermittent stream. Five gateways enter into the square. There was one gateway in each of the two smaller enclosures.

There are at least 32 mounds within the enclosures, 28 in the main enclosure and four in the square. The largest mound known to have been built by the Hopewell, Mound

25, is located within the D-shaped enclosure. Dimensions of this mound in the 1840s were recorded as 150 meters long, 55 meters wide, and 9 meters high (Squier and Davis

1848). Many of the mounds contained the remains of sub-mound structure, although no mounds in the square contained substructures or mortuary features. At least eight other mounds are located just outside the enclosures on both the second and third terraces.

The main enclosure contains 46 hectares and the square enclosure six hectares for a total area of 52 enclosed hectares. I wanted to determine how much of the 52 hectares was occupied by mounds or embankments versus non-mound space. To calculate this, I

51 used measurements from Atwater (1820), Squier and Davis (1848), Moorehead (1922), and Shetrone (1926) for sixteen mounds, including both oblong and conical mounds, and the D-shaped and circular enclosures. I estimated the area for sixteen additional mounds based on general descriptions, such as “never a large mound” (Shetrone 1926), and the average size of mounds at the site, excluding the largest mounds (Mounds 23 and 25). In total, the mounds covered an area of 1.22 hectares. The small D-shaped and circular embankments covered an additional 0.4 hectares. A total of 1.62 hectares (3%) was occupied by earthworks out of a possible 52 hectares.

Moorehead (1922) calculated that three million cubic feet (84,951 cubic meters) of earthen materials was needed to build the mounds and enclosures at the Hopewell site.

Construction materials included clay, loam, sand, gravel, and stone. To double-check this calculation, I used the dimensions provided for fifteen mounds (52,780 cubic meters) at the Hopewell site from Seeman (1977) and calculated the volume of materials used to construct the remaining mounds and embankments. Sixteen additional mounds were estimated to have used 3,779 cubic meters of materials. The walls of the enclosures required an estimated 39,000 cubic meters of materials. The majority of this material was surface or subsurface soils found at the site. In fact, many walls appear to be of the “dig- and-throw” variety. From these calculations, the total volume of materials used for the mounds and enclosures was 95,559 cubic meters (3.4 million cubic feet).

An aerial view of the site from 1976 shows remnants of the site after nearly two hundred years of agriculture (Figure 11). In addition to plowing, local development and three episodes of excavation have severely eroded the mounds and embankments. A recent study examined eight sets of aerial photographs taken decades after the major

52 mound excavations. Ebert and Associates (2000) studied each photograph to identify anomalies that may be indicative of prehistoric earthen architecture. Figure 12 is the composite of anomalies. While the general shape of the earthworks is consistent, several potential features have not been previously mapped, including the anomalies within the square and the small rectangular anomaly to the north of the square.

History of Archaeological Research at the Hopewell Site

The Hopewell site has attracted the attention of many archaeologists. Three mound excavations and numerous smaller research projects have generated much data.

The history of research at the site will be divided into two sections: mound explorations and studies in non-mound space.

Mound Explorations

The earliest documentation of the site is by Caleb Atwater in 1820 when he published a site map and brief description (Figure 13). This map shows the main and square enclosures, the two small enclosures inside the main enclosure, and sixteen mounds, concentrated in the southern half of the site. Interestingly, the map depicts the

D-shaped enclosure as a circle. Although Atwater (1833:10) does not provide details of any excavations, he did note that the mounds were used as cemeteries and that “the immense labor, and the numerous cemeteries filled with human bones, denote a vast population near this spot in ancient times.”

Squier and Davis (1848) provide the first description of excavations at the site, then known as the Clark’s Work or the North Fork Works. After excavating at least four

53 mounds (Mounds 1, 2, 5, and 9), Squier and Davis (1848:26) described the earthwork as

“one of the largest and most interesting in the Scioto valley.” Their 1848 volume includes

a description of the site, a site map, and engravings depicting mounds and some artifacts.

Attesting to the archaeological significance of the site, they (1848:29) commented

“Within this work, some of the most interesting discoveries recorded in this volume were made.”

The impact of Squier and Davis’ tome, and particularly of their description of the

Hopewell site, is demonstrated in a quote by Warren K. Moorehead (1922:80) regarding his decision to dig at the site:

I had in our camp Squier and Davis’ volume “Ancient Monuments of the Mississippi Valley.” … Squier and Davis had spoken at considerable length of the importance of this group of mounds…. From reading their volume, it was my firm conviction that here we would find one of the principal if not actually the largest, settlement of the Scioto Valley moundbuilding tribe. Thus Squier and Davis’ work more than anything else brought about the exploration of the Hopewell group.

In his quest to locate exotic artifacts for the 1893 World’s Columbian Exposition,

Moorehead excavated at least fourteen of the site’s mounds in 1891-1892.

The last of the three mound explorations was by Henry C. Shetrone of the Ohio

Archaeological and Historical Society. He conducted a thorough examination of the site’s extant mounds and a small portion of one enclosure wall between 1922 and 1925.

Shetrone documented seven additional mounds but he also discovered that many mounds were destroyed by agriculture, previous excavations, or by railroad and road construction.

A project conducted between 1992 and 1993 focused on Mound 23 at the

Hopewell site (Greber and Seeman 1993, 1995). The immediate goal was to relocate the

54 mound floor using a conductivity meter to determine the accuracy of Moorehead’s

Mound 23 map. Subsequent fieldwork based on the conductivity data successfully

relocated the floor using soil coring. The project’s overall objective to answer

chronological questions about mound use was not achieved due to the lack of materials suitable for radiocarbon dating.

In the summer of 2004, geophysical testing of an area surrounding Mound 23 was conducted by an intern at the Midwest Archeological Center, National Park Service.

Magnetic, resistance, and conductivity data was collected from a 7,200 square meter area in an effort to locate remnants of Mound 23 and the nearby main enclosure wall and ditch

(McKee 2005). The results indicate that much is still intact despite repeated excavations

and many decades of agricultural plowing.

In total, these episodes of mound exploration at the Hopewell site provide

knowledge of the mounds and embankments in terms of stratigraphy and contents.

Research about the earthen architecture continues and artifacts recovered from the early

excavations continue to be mined for information as demonstrated by three recent

dissertations (Johnston 2002; Lloyd 2002; and Mills 2003). Discussion will now turn to

an examination of previous research conducted in the non-mound space at the Hopewell

site.

Research of Non-mound Space

As previously stated, studies of non-mound space were not a focus of nineteenth

and early twentieth century archaeology. Glimpses of the archaeological record in non-

mound space were a by-product of mound excavations. Many times artifacts were not

55 collected, maps were not made of artifact concentrations, and field notes were not taken.

Much of what is known about non-mound space was teased from field notes or published

reports, or is the result of modern archaeological efforts.

Squier and Davis (1848:27) surmised that the Hopewell site was a “fortified

town” that contained both ceremonial and residential activities. While their excavations

of at least four mounds provided evidence of ritual behavior, an explanation concerning

the residential nature of the site consisted of:

The comparative slightness of the wall and the absence of a ditch, at the points possessing natural defenses,—the extension of the artificial defenses upon the table lands overlooking and commanding the terrace,—the facilities afforded for an abundant supply of water, as well as the large area enclosed, with its mysterious circles and sacred mounds,—all go to sustain the conclusion, that this was a fortified town or city of the ancient people. (Squier and Davis 1848:28-29)

The extent of fieldwork done in non-mound space is not clear but Squier and Davis made

a notation of an area in the northeast corner of the main enclosure (see Figure 8). The

archaeological nature of locale “16” is unknown, but it does correspond to the locations

of habitation sites depicted on later maps.

Both Moorehead and Shetrone commented about non-mound space in their site

reports. Moorehead (1922:86) stated, “The entire space was occupied as a village site, but

the indications are most numerous where the words “village site” have been placed on the

map” (see Figure 4). According to expedition accounts on file at the Field Museum of

Natural History, Moorehead based his determination on evidence from the visible surface

plus excavations in the east village area that recovered carved bone fragments. Additional

insight regarding the nature of the villages states that they were “of closely related clans,

56 fratries or families, which occupied the site for a considerable time,” although his final

sentence in the report limits residency to a select few: “It is my belief that Hopewell itself

was the metropolis of this ancient people, where resided the chief traders or merchants, as

well as the most skilled artisans” (Moorehead 1922:175, 178). In contrast, Prufer

(1965:126) wrote that Moorehead’s villages were likely the “refuse deposited during

mound construction, or in the course of the ceremonial activities that must have taken

place here.”

Excavations conducted by Shetrone in the 1920s searched for evidence of the

residential areas as advanced by Squier and Davis and later by Moorehead. His

examination of non-mound space located small clusters bone fragments, pot sherds, mica

flecks, and flint knives, as well as features containing darkened soil and FCR. Shetrone

(1926:112) subsequently renamed Moorehead’s “village sites” to simply “habitation

sites” noting that the lack of domestic debris was troubling, and stated that “the problem

as to where its builders and occupants lived, remains a puzzling one” (see Figure 5).

Formal investigations of non-mound space at the Hopewell site began in the late

1970s by Mark Seeman of Kent State University. In his effort to evaluate the integrity of

the site for future research and examine Hopewellian settlement patterns, Seeman

conducted surface collections of 178 hectares and limited test excavations within and

adjacent to the site in 1978 and 1980. After the initial work in 1978, Seeman (n.d.)

recorded six activity areas within the embankment walls that ranged in size from 1 to 4

hectares. Both craft manufacturing and habitation areas were found. In addition, two

trenches (6 by 3 meters) were excavated in a habitation area along the base of the third

terrace near two springs. On the surface this habitation area contained a cluster of FCR

57 and other objects but the excavations found no features. At the end of the field season in

1980, Seeman concluded that the density of Hopewell diagnostic artifacts was higher within the enclosures as compared to that outside. Furthermore, Seeman (1981:45) stated that:

The general presence of Hopewell material throughout the site would seem to most adequately be explained by the fact that people as mourners, worshipers, or constructors were no doubt periodically mustered to the site. Those areas of somewhat greater concentration within the site, for example the “western village,” could easily result from the continued plowing of what were originally several smaller loci, themselves representing manufacturing areas and/or the residences of societal leaders.

In addition to the west village, Seeman (1981) found artifact clusters in the east village, near Mounds 15 and 16, west of the west village, and east of Mound 29. These clusters may represent manufacturing or residential areas. No radiocarbon dates from any of these locales were obtained making it unclear when these deposits originated.

Griffin (1997) cites three explanations for the lack of habitation debris found during Seeman’s surface collections: slope wash along the bottom of the northern terrace; agricultural practices spanning 150 years; and continual surface collecting by locals.

Griffin clearly believes that habitation occurred within the enclosures.

Additional investigations of non-mound space consisting of a series of shovel tests and limited test excavations occurred in the late 1990s when Bret Ruby, then of the

National Park Service (NPS), directed research in Moorehead’s East Village. Fieldwork was continued in 1999 and 2000 by NPS archaeologists. Although no evidence substantiating a long-term habitation site was found, a light scatter of artifacts, including bladelets, was found in the general area (Burks and Pederson n.d.). An artifact cluster and

58 pit feature adjacent to Mound 1 contained a variety of lithic tools and debitage, bone,

FCR, and pottery, including tetrapodal feet and stamped sherds. Analysis of the artifacts determined that this area was used as a short-term campsite probably associated with the use of nearby Mound 1. In addition, several postholes and a pit feature filled with debris were found in two locations underneath the eastern wall of the main enclosure.

Lastly, a series of 57 shovel test pits were excavated along the interior of the western wall of the main enclosure in 2005 (Wilson 2006). Three isolated units contained five prehistoric artifacts. The lone diagnostic, a bladelet, was found approximately ten meters east of the embankment. Interestingly, no artifacts were found in the shovel tests nearest the western gateway.

Chronology of the Hopewell Site

The archaeological record at the Hopewell site reflects a lengthy occupation.

Surface collections inside the enclosures found diagnostic artifacts of the Early, Middle, and Late Archaic, Late Prehistoric, and nineteenth and twentieth centuries (Seeman

1981). People used this area before and after the Middle Woodland period, although occupation by the Hopewell resulted in the most visible and well-known portion of its archaeological record.

Prior to this research, twelve radiocarbon dates had been obtained from materials recovered from the sub-mound structures of Mounds 11, 17, and 25 (Table 3). One date is from Mound 17, two from Mound 11, and the remainder from Mound 25. Uncalibrated dates were given by Libby (1955), Crane and Griffin (1972), Cowan and Greber (2002), and Greber (2003). Calibration at two sigma was completed using CALIB 5.0.1-IntCal04

59 (Reimer et al. 2004). Two early dates from Mound 25 calibrated to 841 B.C.-A.D. 133 and 826-538 B.C. may not be accurate according to Greber (2003) and were not used in

her analysis of the Hopewell site dates. In addition, the two dates from Mound 11 were

not available during Greber’s (2003) analysis. Material from Burial 248 from Mound 25

dates to 669 B.C.-A.D. 436. This burial, located in the eastern end of the substructure, contained three copper plates, copper antlers, bear canines, and a beaded garment, among other objects. Greber averaged the other Mound 25 dates resulting in dates of A.D.

147±72 for Altar 1 and A.D. 220±61 for Burial 260/261. These dates are perhaps

indicative of the peak use of the site due to the accompanying deposits. Altar 1 was a

fired clay basin with a variety of objects, including obsidian and pipes (Moorehead

1922). Burial 260/261, a double burial, contained 66 copper celts, 23 copper plates, a

copper celt weighing 38 pounds, many shell and pearl beads, and other goods that make it

the richest burial feature found at the site (Moorehead 1922). The two dates from Mound

11, calibrated to A.D. 125-339 and A.D. 212-409, were from wood charcoal found

among artifacts collected from the Mound 11 obsidian cache and temporally overlap the

calibrated dates from Mound 25. In contrast, Mound 17 ranged slightly later than the

Mound 11 and 25 deposits. The sole calibrated date is A.D. 123-662.

Nine obsidian artifacts from the Mound 11 cache underwent obsidian hydration

dating. Stevenson et al. (2004) published a general date range for the manufacture of

these artifacts between 258±119 B.C. to A.D. 607±94, although the youngest dates may not be accurate due to contamination. The range of dates suggests that obsidian was knapped in multiple episodes over several hundred years. The debitage was collected

60 over the centuries and eventually deposited as one cache in Mound 11. In general, the obsidian hydration dates actually incorporate many of the radiocarbon dates from the

Hopewell site.

Aside from the radiocarbon and obsidian hydration dates, a seriation of earspools by Ruhl (1992) may provide some understanding of intrasite chronology. Ruhl’s

sequence placed Mounds 24 and 26 in time before Mounds 2 and 17. Mound 24 is a small

mound located within the main enclosure that contained at least ten burials with limited

grave goods. Mound 26 is located inside the D-shaped enclosure that contained Mound

25 and contained numerous burials, two clay basins, and a deposit with beads, flint

knives, fabric, and other objects. Mound 2, located north of the D-shaped enclosure,

contained the cache of over 8,000 bifaces as well as five burials. Shetrone’s Mound 17,

located in the northeast corner of the main enclosure, had no burials but two large

deposits of various objects. Greber (2003) adds that Mound 2 appears to be later and may have some connection with the Turner Earthworks in southwest Ohio and that the Big

Houses of Mounds 17 and 25 may have been in use at the same time.

In terms of the enclosures themselves, very little is known. DeBoer (1997)

presents a tentative seriation of Ohio Hopewell earthworks. He builds on previous work

by Byers (1987) that the square enclosure at Hopewell was constructed later than the

main enclosure. DeBoer then explains the addition of the square as evidence of a changing social order involving marriage practices. In terms of other enclosures at the

site, it is unknown when the smaller D-shaped and circle enclosures were built.

The lack of dates hampers the development of an in-depth chronology at the

Hopewell site. Radiocarbon dates, obsidian hydration, and earspool seriation from mound

61 deposits have started to piece together information, but much more is needed. At two sigma calibration, most of the Middle Woodland radiocarbon dates range from A.D. 125-

465. Therefore, the site was in use by the Hopewell for at least two centuries in the later half of the Middle Woodland period.

CHAPTER 5

FIELD METHODS

This research examined the prehistoric use of non-mound space at the Hopewell site. A sample of non-mound space was used since the site is very large. A combination of geophysical and traditional archaeological techniques was used— magnetometry, electrical resistance, shovel test pits, anomaly testing, and feature excavation. Fieldwork was conducted intermittently from June 2001 to May 2003, although the majority of fieldwork was conducted in the summers of 2001 and 2002. This chapter details the sampling strategy and field methods.

Selection of Sample

Portions of the site that were available for study are within the boundaries of

Hopewell Culture National Historical Park. Although park boundaries currently incorporate most of the site plus a small buffer zone, land available at time of research was 89 hectares spread over four agricultural fields on the second terrace. These fields were in hay production. The area was bound by a slope to the third terrace to the north,

Sulphur Lick Creek to the east, Sulphur Lick Road to the south, and a fallow agricultural field to the west. Only three fields within these boundaries contained portions of the

63 Hopewell site. Since the subject of this research was non-mound space inside an

earthwork, only 40 hectares enclosed by either the main or square enclosure were

included in the study universe.

The sampling strategy was selected based on the research goal of understanding

how non-mound space was used. Seeman’s (1981) surface collection offers a general idea

of where Hopewell activities were located in non-mound space at the Hopewell site.

However, I did not specifically study these activity areas for two main reasons. First, I

wanted this research to use a siteless approach in which all portions of non-mound space

were treated equally. Therefore, it is the distribution of artifacts and features over land

that becomes important rather than the delineation of sites (Dunnell and Dancey 1983).

To take this approach, I needed to conduct fieldwork without focusing on previously identified “sites.” Second, this research used modern techniques in response to Griffin

(1997) and answered his three critiques of Seeman’s surface collection by examining sub-

plowzone deposits for evidence of Hopewellian occupation. Due to these reasons, simple

random sampling was chosen.

Random sampling, also called probability sampling, ensures that “we know the

probability of any particular unit being selected for” (Orton 2000:20). This type of

sampling essentially eliminates researcher bias because no variables are being controlled.

This was an important consideration due to the experimental nature of this research. By

using simple random sampling, the effectiveness of this research design for non-mound

studies can be evaluated by comparing my results to those obtained from Seeman’s

(1981) surface collection. While beyond the scope of this dissertation, this sampling

strategy permits in-depth statistical testing of the data.

64 Using ESRI’s ArcView 3.2 Geographic Information System software, the study

area was gridded into a series of 40 by 40 meter blocks. This block size was chosen to

maximize interpretation from the geophysical tests, while conforming to the grid size

limitations of the geophysical instruments. The blocks also had to cover a large enough

area to discern any structural pattern that may have been related to craft manufacture or

habitation. The dimensions of sub-mound structures at Mound City were about 15 by 15

meters (Brown 1997); thus, this grid size would cover enough area to confidently locate

potential structures or posthole patterns. The grid was then placed atop aerial

photographs, topographic maps, and archaeological maps in ArcView.

Blocks with any portion of a mound were excluded from the study since the goal was to examine non-mound space. All of the known mounds at this site were excavated one, if not two or more, times. The last mound explorations by Shetrone in the 1920s sought to excavate all of the extant mounds. Many times these excavations also extended beyond the mound itself in an effort to confirm the dimensions of the mound. The destructive nature of these excavations left very little intact. The process of eliminating blocks containing mounds was made by visually inspecting aerial photographs and maps.

Aerial photographs were examined using a stereoscope and in ArcView. Mounds may leave visible traces that show up as crop, soil, or shadow marks in aerial photographs.

Maps by Atwater (1820), Squier and Davis (1848), Cowen (from 1892, as published in

Greber and Ruhl 2000), Moorehead (1922), Shetrone (1926), and Marshall (n.d.) had previously been digitized by Greber (1999) and were studied in ArcView. Maps of the site by Seeman (1981) were also consulted. Blocks containing any portion of a mound were excluded from the study.

65 The study universe of the non-mound space at the Hopewell site totaled 36

hectares. This area contained 225 40 by 40 meter blocks, but 47 blocks contained

portions of mounds and were excluded. The remaining 178 blocks had a total area of 28.5

hectares. Each of these blocks was then assigned a number from 1 to 178. I decided to

sample 10% (2.85 hectares or 18 blocks) of this area given time and budgetary constraints. A simple random sample of 18 blocks was done using a random number generator computer program. The selected 40 by 40 meter blocks were: 10, 23, 26, 28,

32, 34, 65, 68, 82, 87, 100, 114, 124, 147, 156, 159, 161, and 167 (Figure 14). Of these

18 blocks, two were located in the 6 hectare west field, thirteen in the 18 hectare center field, and three in the 16 hectare east field.

Geophysical Surveys

Geophysical techniques measure physical properties of material located on or in the ground. Given a scenario that land usually forms under the same conditions and thus has similar physical properties, geophysical instruments would record the same or very similar readings across that land. If the land either does not form uniformly or if the land

is impacted differentially, then the geophysical instruments will record measurements that vary over that area. The differences in measurements, which can be very minute, result in higher or lower measurements from those of the surrounding area. The peaks

(higher or positive measurements) and valleys (lower or negative measurements) are called geophysical anomalies. These anomalies can be analyzed to determine if they are likely to be natural or cultural features. Additional analysis partnered with existing archaeological knowledge may provide information about the type of feature detected.

66 Geophysical techniques can thereby guide the direction of archaeological research.

However, traditional archaeological research is necessary to determine the exact type and

age of cultural features.

Geophysical techniques have been used in archaeology for at least forty years

(Watters 2001). Archaeological deposits may be found either by measuring the earth’s

magnetic field, a technique called magnetometry, or by emitting energy and recording its

transmission back to a receiver, such as with electrical resistivity or resistance,

electromagnetics, and ground penetrating radar (GPR). The advantage of using

geophysical techniques in archaeology is the ability to quickly survey an area with little

to no ground disturbance. This preserves more of the archaeological record intact and

saves time and money by pinpointing potential features to excavate. Disadvantages

include the expense of the equipment and the high learning curve for field use and data interpretation. In addition, no single technique will work on all archaeological projects because the physical property measured, or the way the technique measures the physical property, is dependent on the physical and/or cultural environment under study. For example, GPR cannot be used to locate shipwrecks since radar waves cannot travel through salt water. However, magnetometry can locate shipwrecks based on ferrous metal often associated with these features. Conversely, GPR and magnetometry work well together to locate historic cemeteries, since radar can determine the dimensions of an anomaly while magnetism can locate ferrous metal associated with coffins. The use of two geophysical techniques that measure different physical properties is recommended since data can be compared and contrasted to produce a more precise, accurate, and comprehensive interpretation of the geophysical anomalies (Clay 2001; Kvamme 2003).

67 Of four principle geophysical techniques, two were selected for this research:

magnetometry and electrical resistance. Magnetometry is most frequently used in

archaeological research due to its ability to quickly locate potential cultural features

without ground disturbance. Electrical resistance, the first geophysical technique widely

used by archaeologists, is the easiest of geophysical techniques to learn and so crew

members with only a little instruction could collect good data. These two techniques were

also chosen because they collect very different types of data that when combined can

locate a wide range of cultural features, including earth ovens, crematory basins,

middens, compacted floors, ditches, and embankments. These techniques were also

selected because I had experience with both types of geophysical techniques and the equipment was available at no cost. Electromagnetic techniques, such as conductivity meters and metal detectors, were eliminated since these use similar principles as magnetometry. GPR was not available. A brief discussion of the two types of geophysical techniques used will be given.

Magnetometry

Complex interactions between the earth’s core and mantle produce the magnetic

field that surrounds the earth (Clark 1996). The magnetic field can be conceptualized as a

giant bar magnet located within the center of the earth (Breiner 1973). The magnetic field

varies in a predictable way, such that the field is oriented vertically at the North and

South Poles and horizontally at the Equator. The strength of the earth’s magnetic field

can be measured and compared for any one location. Deviations from the predicted

strength of the magnetic field result in magnetic anomalies.

68 Magnetometers can detect extremely small variations in the strength of the earth’s

magnetic field. In any study area, the magnetism is assumed to be uniform unless natural

(e.g. geologic or pedologic) or cultural processes modify the strength of the magnetic

field. Magnetism is the result of electrical charge movement. Many anomalies are caused

by human activity because a material’s magnetization was altered. Two magnetization

processes have important implications to the archaeological record. The first is

thermoremanence. Weakly magnetic compounds, such as oxides found in clay, may be

changed into strongly magnetic compounds by exposure to high temperatures. Once the

compounds cool down, the Earth’s magnetic field re-magnetizes the compounds resulting

in a remnant, or permanent, magnetization that is detectable by a magnetometer.

Archaeological features resulting from this type of magnetization are fire pits, kilns, or

any other burned feature. Ferrous metals are also detected through this magnetization.

The second process is called magnetic susceptibility. Materials, such as topsoil or rocks,

are magnetic only in the presence of a magnetizing field. Since the Earth has a magnetic

field that is always present, small differences in the magnetic susceptibility of materials

can be found using the magnetometer. Of importance here is the contrast between

materials. For example, topsoil is generally more magnetic than subsoil such that a ditch

dug into the subsoil and filled with topsoil will produce a positive magnetic signal. Subtle

differences in magnetic susceptibility may be indicative of storage pits, borrow pits,

middens, and walls.

Magnetometers record magnetic signals using the standard unit of magnetic flux

density called the nanoTesla (nT). Measurements are downloaded into computer software

that depicts the measurements within a survey area as an image or topographic map.

69 Given a relatively constant background that has little magnetic noise, anomalies result from a difference in the expected versus actual magnetic field for any particular location.

Anomalies can vary in size as a result of the dimensions of a feature, the strength of the field surrounded the feature, or the depth of the feature. Anomalies appear as monopoles or dipoles. In a topographic map, monopoles are shown as either peaks or valleys and dipoles can be arranged in a number of different variations although always with a contrasting positive and negative portion. Oftentimes the distinct nature of magnetic signatures and the anomaly structure itself can identify the buried feature as a natural, prehistoric, or historic feature. For example, lightening strikes are represented as dipoles arranged in a starburst pattern. Iron artifacts, such as horseshoes or nails, are depicted as strong circular dipoles. Solitary but somewhat magnetic rocks may be represented as weak positive monopoles, although this signature could also represent a posthole or other weakly magnetic cultural feature. In this case, knowledge of the expected archaeological record and analysis of the signature characteristics may yield additional information.

There are three types of magnetometers: proton magnetometers, cesium magnetometers, and fluxgate gradiometers. Proton magnetometers were the first used in archaeology but their single detector, total field design and slow operation are outdated.

The cesium magnetometer is a highly sensitive magnetometer that measures total field and thus suffers from interference from electromagnetic variations caused by power lines, passing trains, and magnetic storms (McIntosh 1986; Clark 1996). The fluxgate gradiometer does not measure total field and is not subject to the amount of electromagnetic interference as the two previous magnetometers. Instead, the fluxgate sensor measures the magnetic field only in the direction of its axis. This sensor design

70 results in the need to keep the fluxgate sensor (housed in the fluxgate magnetometer) aligned in the same plane during the course of a survey. To alleviate problems resulting from accidental tilt or rotation of the magnetometer, another fluxgate sensor was added.

The second sensor detects any movement of the instrument and subtracts that drift from the final measurement. The fluxgate gradiometer has subsequently become the

“workhorse” of magnetometry (Clark 1996). This research used the Geoscan FM-36 fluxgate gradiometer to collect magnetic data from the eighteen blocks in the sample

(Figure 15).

The standardized survey area size for geophysical instruments is 20 by 20 meters

(Kvamme 2003). Since the blocks in this research are 40 by 40 meters, each block was subdivided into four smaller blocks of 20 by 20 meters. Each block had four geophysical quadrants: northwest, northeast, southwest, and southeast. Each block was laid out using a Leica total station to locate its four corners to within 5 centimeters, which was the width of the wooden stakes used to mark the corners. Measuring tapes were then used to mark the 20 by 20 meter quadrants. In each quadrant, nylon ropes with markings every

0.5 meters were used to keep the operator on pace and in the correct alignment with the instrument.

The fluxgate gradiometer only measures the field directly below the sensors. To locate small cultural features enough readings had to be taken to ensure detection of at least some portion of the expected cultural feature. The smallest expected cultural feature for this study was postholes. These features ranged from 20 to 30 centimeters in diameter at the Big House at the Edwin Harness Mound (Greber 1979). Transects were initially spaced at 0.25 meter intervals in order to locate postholes. Readings along transects were

71 automatically taken by the instrument at 0.125 meter intervals. This interval is the smallest setting available on the fluxgate gradiometer. The magnetic survey of one 20 by

20 meter block took about two hours since each transect had to be precisely walked.

Transects were walked in a parallel manner, meaning that data was recorded only as the operator walked to the north. Then the operator and instrument had to return to the start line to the south. The magnetometer had to be downloaded after every 20 by 20 meter quadrant for an additional downtime of thirty minutes. One to two field days were required to survey one 40 by 40 meter block. Combined with problems resulting from the shift in diurnal magnetism, I decided to collect less data. Transects were spaced every 0.5 meters. Although some resolution was lost and individual postholes may not be located, I felt that a recognizable pattern would be detectable if a row of postholes was present.

Since fewer transects were walked and fewer readings were taken, one 40 by 40 meter block took only five hours. Using this method a total of 25,600 readings were taken per

40 by 40 meter block.

Based on published information, the area under investigation in this study had no geologic or pedologic characteristics that would limit the use of magnetometry. Given this assumption, I assumed that any anomaly found during the survey resulted from a discrete natural or cultural feature. In the field, magnetic data was visually inspected for anomalies. Back in the lab, analysis of the magnetic data and comparisons with electrical resistance data determined if anomalies were more likely to be natural or cultural. Further analysis determined if cultural features were caused by ferrous metal and thus historic in age. In-depth discussion of data analysis and interpretation of magnetic data will be given in the next chapter that details the analytical methods.

72 Electrical Resistance

The resistance of any medium through which an electrical current is passed can be measured. Electrical resistance is a relative measurement that is dependent on the characteristics of the medium. “The electrical resistance of the ground is almost entirely dependent upon the amount and distribution of moisture within it” (Clark 1996:27). For example, electrical resistance increases if the soil is dry and decreases if the soil is wet.

Archaeological deposits by their very nature change the distribution of soil moisture and can thereby be detected with an electrical resistance meter.

Electrical resistance meters measure the relative resistance at any one location.

The standard unit of measurement is the ohm (Ω). When an electrical charge, or voltage, is applied to two separate electrical conductors, a current flows through it to complete the circuit. The size of the current is dependent on the resistance of the conductor and medium it is flowing through. Resistance can then be calculated with the following equation:

R = V I where R is the resistance, V is the voltage, and I is the current. The equation states that

“resistance is the ratio of potential difference (or voltage) to current flow” (Clark

1996:27).

In contrast, resistivity is an absolute measurement that allows the electrical resistance of different materials or of different archaeological sites to be compared. The standard unit of measurement for resistivity is the ohm-meter (Ω-m). For example, clay and soil has resistivity of 1-10 Ω-m and gravel is 1,000-10,000 Ω-m (Clark 1996; Bevan

73 1998). Although resistance is a relative measurement and cannot be compared to

resistance measurements at other sites, Bevan (2000:2) states “if the goal of the survey is

one of detecting features in the soil, a map of electrical resistance is just as good as a map of electrical resistivity.” However, resistance measurements can be converted to resistivity with the following equation:

ρ = 2 Π s R where ρ is resistivity and s is electrode spacing. This equation gives an approximation of resistivity.

Electrical resistance meters measure how the ground conducts electricity. This technique sends an electrical current into the ground through a pair of electrodes spaced at regular intervals. The electrodes are pushed into the ground at a depth of 2 to 10 centimeters (Bevan 1998). When the current is sent into the ground, it searches for the easiest path to travel regardless of depth. Once the circuit is complete, a measurement of the resistance is taken. The simplest electrical resistance meters overcome contact resistance between the pair of electrodes by using an additional pair of electrodes. This four electrode array, called the Wenner array, functions to effectively measure the resistance of the ground through which the current is passing.

If the soil in one location is uniform, then a current sent into the ground will always travel to a depth of half the electrode spacing. A site with uniform soil conditions will then have similar resistance readings across the entire site. However, cultural features impact the ground such that soil wetness is increased or decreased. The result is electrical resistance measurements that vary from the surrounding area. Once the measurements are mapped, the anomalies appear as valleys (lower resistance) or peaks 74 (higher resistance). For instance, ground containing moist soil attracts the path of an

electrical current and resistance measurements are low. Cultural features retaining more

moisture are thus discovered. Common features include filled-in pits, graves, ditches,

compacted floors, and roads. In contrast, ground with drier soil repels the path of the current resulting in increased resistance. High resistance anomalies can result from cultural features made of stone or brick, such as buried walls.

Electrical resistance meters vary from manual or automatic modes. Manual meters take a series of measurements between the electrodes to determine resistance. These instruments consist of a meter, batteries, metal electrodes, and wire. Commonly a meter similar to a digital multimeter is used. Bevan (1998) has written concise instructions on how to build an electrical resistance meter from parts available from a home electronics store. Although these types of meters are inexpensive and easy to build and use, surveys

using this type of instrument require much time and concentration since electrodes have

to be moved in specific sequences and calculations based on the above formula must be

done by hand. Automatic meters automate the process by performing calculations within

the meter. The twin-probe array uses a four electrode array and is commonly used for

archaeological research. Two electrodes maintain a constant current in the ground at one

location and are not moved. Two other electrodes mounted to a rigid frame are moved

across the survey area. Once these electrodes are inserted into the ground, the meter takes

several measurements, performs the calculation, displays the resistance measurement on

the LCD, and stores the measurement in the meter. All of this occurs within a few seconds. The resulting data are later downloaded into a computer program to be graphical displayed, analyzed, and interpreted.

75 The Geoscan RM-15 resistance meter was used in this research (Figure 16). This instrument uses the twin-probe array. An electrode spacing of 0.5 meters was selected. As with the magnetometry survey, each 40 by 40 meter block was subdivided into four quadrants of 20 by 20 meters each. Oftentimes the electrical resistance survey immediately followed the magnetometry survey such that the grid was already laid out.

The same ropes used in the magnetometry survey were used for the resistance survey.

The markings on the ropes guided the operator as to the correct placement of the electrodes. Transects were walked in a zig-zag manner to cut down on survey time as this field method does not affect the quality of resistance data. As with the magnetometry survey, the smallest expected cultural feature was a posthole. To locate these features, measurements would have had to be taken at 0.25 meter intervals. However, a survey of one 20 by 20 meter area with readings taken every 0.25 meters takes about nine hours, not including set-up, download, and breakdown time. With the additional time factored in, one 40 by 40 meter block would take five to five days. A survey of one 20 by 20 meter area with 0.5 meter transects and readings every 0.5 meters would take about two to three hours and an entire 40 by 40 meter block about one and a half to two days. I decided to space transects 1 meter apart and take readings every 0.5 meters along transects. A total of 3,200 readings per 40 by 40 meter block were taken. This survey required about one hour per 20 by 20 meter area and an entire block could be finished within a day. I felt this was a necessary compromise due to time constraints. Information that was potentially lost due to this survey design was supplemented by the magnetometry survey.

76 During the course of fieldwork, no major limitations to the use of electrical

resistance were encountered. Rainfall amounts varied throughout the course of the survey, but fluctuations in the raw data were corrected with the computer software. In addition, problems with the internal clock of the resistance meter were minimized

through data processing. Anomalies found in the data resulted from natural or cultural

features. Analysis of the data and comparisons with the associated magnetometry data resulted in feature identification. A description of this process is presented in the next chapter.

Shovel Test Pits

Shovel test pits (STPs) provide a representative sample of artifacts by standardizing the intervals between and the dimensions of the STPs. In this research, each shovel test measured 50 by 50 centimeters and was excavated as a single unit consisting of the plowzone. Data from STPs can be used to estimate settlement size, functional diversity, occupation length, and activity areas (Dancey 1998). These small excavation units are frequently the starting point for most archaeological projects in which surface visibility is low. Usually a series of shovel tests blanket an area. Once positive STPs are located, site boundaries are determined by excavating additional shovel tests. Depending on research objectives, the site may be subjected to large-scale excavations.

While this technique is a long-standing tradition in archaeology, studies have shown that STPs may not be very effective in locating sites. For instance, Shott (1985) determined that this technique does not locate all archaeological sites within a study area.

Kvamme (2003:453) argues that STPs are a “relatively unproductive, slow, and primitive

77 form of prospecting” and that geophysical techniques offer superior ability to locate features and gain knowledge about site organization. At the very least, Kvamme (2003) suggests using a combination of shovel tests and geophysical techniques for archaeological surveys. This research used a combination of both techniques. A main advantage of using STPs in this study was to learn about the complex stratigraphy of the site and collect artifacts that could be used to identify the nature and age of nearby features detected in the geophysical data. This was an important benefit since the research centered on use of the site during the Middle Woodland period.

For this research, each block had a series of STPs spaced at equal intervals of 20 meters resulting in a total of nine shovel tests for each block. This interval was chosen because earlier testing in the East Village of the Hopewell site by Ruby in the late 1990s utilized this interval and thus the projects could be mitered together at some future date. I also felt that this interval would provide sufficient artifact type and distribution data to determine the presence or absence of Hopewell occupation. In the case that two blocks overlapped in a corner, as was the case for eight blocks, only one STP was excavated in the overlapping location. Only six STPs were excavated in Block 159 due to heavy vegetation. A total of 155 STPs were completed. Artifacts were found in 122 STPs.

The location of each shovel test was found either by using the total station to locate the unit’s southwest corner or running a measuring tape between block corner stakes. The block corner stakes were set in using the total station. Each shovel test measured 50 by 50 centimeters square and was excavated as one stratigraphic unit of the plowzone (Figure 17). This dimension was chosen because the larger size meant that the stratigraphy was easily examined. Shovel test pits were excavated to the base of the

78 plowzone and 5 centimeters into the subsoil. Soil was dry-screened through 0.25-inch mesh hardware cloth. Artifacts were taken back to the lab for processing. Artifact analysis is discussed in the analysis section of next chapter.

Some STPs had soil deposits below the plowzone but above the subsoil. In Block

161 this resulted from soil eroding from the slope of the third terrace. In Blocks 114 and

156, additional soil layers were the result of enclosure wall construction. In all cases, the shovel tests were expanded into 50 by 100 centimeter units in order to provide enough room for crew members to dig. Some of the units in Block 161 extended below 1 meter in depth with no artifacts recovered. In these cases, a bucket auger was used in the center of the STP to determine depth to subsoil.

Anomaly Testing

Determining where to excavate is traditionally driven from information found in shovel test pits. The presence of artifacts or the absence of subsoil may initiate additional testing. In this research, five shovel tests had atypical soil below the plowzone and were explored for potential cultural features. Of these, three were attributed to natural causes

(i.e., animal burrows and tree roots) and two yielded cultural features (Features 28-2 and

124-1). The addition of geophysical data in this research also served to guide test excavations. Since there is very little published about how Eastern Woodland archaeological features are represented in geophysical data, a variety of anomalies were chosen for test excavations. Selection of anomalies to test occurred in the field based on visual inspection of the geophysical data. This method relies on the researcher to identify potential cultural features from the data with little to no statistical analysis. This method

79 allows the researcher to make quick decisions about where to excavate without the delay of performing more time-consuming statistical analysis. A total of 22 anomalies, included monopoles and dipoles of varying magnetic strengths, were tested.

Once the decision to test an anomaly was made, a unit of suitable size was chosen based on the size of the geophysical anomaly. For instance, an anomaly with the dimensions of 1.5 by 1.25 meters was staked out as a 2 by 2 meter unit. Excavation units were pinpointing using grid coordinates and a total station. The plowzone was removed by excavating a series of STPs within the unit. Oftentimes the shovel tests were excavated in a checkerboard pattern to locate the anomaly’s boundaries. Once the boundaries were found, the remaining plowzone was removed. All soil from the plowzone was screened through 0.25-inch mesh hardware cloth. With the plowzone removed, anomalies were determined to be natural or cultural in origin. Natural features were mapped and backfilled. Cultural features were mapped and excavation continued.

Anomalies that were not conclusively identified were mapped and excavated until sufficient data for a determination was recovered.

Feature Excavation

Excavation recovers data that is used to “examine behavioral and contextual relationships” (Hester et al. 1997:69). Although shovel tests provide artifact distribution data and geophysical techniques yield feature distribution data, cultural features must be explored in-depth to really understand what happened at that location at some time in the past. The only technique to uncover this data is excavation.

80 Once the plowzone was removed, the size of the feature determined excavation method. Small features (less than 0.5 meters in diameter) were halved. One half was excavated in 10 centimeter levels using a trowel. Diagnostic and large artifacts were pedestaled until the level was complete. A plan map of each level was drawn indicating the location of these artifacts. Excavation continued in this manner until the base of the feature was located. An additional 5 to 10 centimeters was excavated into the subsoil to verify the extent of the feature. This was important since features were sometimes capped with a layer of redeposited subsoil before continued use. Feature fill was screened through 0.25-inch mesh hardware cloth. The intact half of extremely small features (less than 0.25 meters in diameter) was taken in stratigraphic if identifiable or arbitrary levels as a flotation sample. Features between 0.25-0.5 meters in diameter were halved again.

One half, or a quarter of the original feature, was excavated in stratigraphic levels while the other was taken as a flotation sample. The flotation samples were again taken by stratigraphic or arbitrary levels.

Features greater than 0.5 meters in diameter were excavated using a slightly different method. These large features were first quartered. One quarter was then excavated in 10 centimeter levels with a trowel. Diagnostic and large artifacts were pedestaled until the level was completed. A plan map of each level was drawn indicating the location of these artifacts. Features were excavated until subsoil was reached. An additional 5 to 10 centimeters was then excavated to ensure the complete excavation of the feature. In some cases, the opposite quarter was also excavated using stratigraphic or arbitrary levels. All feature fill was screened through 0.25-inch hardware cloth. In situ charcoal, such as burned logs, was recovered in its entirety for radiocarbon testing.

81 Charcoal was placed in aluminum foil pouches and allowed to dry in the lab. A column of fill from the unexcavated portion of the feature was taken from the central area for flotation. This column was approximately 25 cubic centimeters and was recorded in stratigraphic or arbitrary levels. The feature was then backfilled with nearly one half to three quarters of the feature intact.

Flotation samples were brought to the lab for processing. Flotation recovers paleoethnobotanical artifacts that otherwise might escape detection through screens used in the field. Each sample was measured for volume before being placed in a flotation tank. Light and heavy fractions were then size sorted and bagged for analysis. Analysis of the samples is beyond the scope of this dissertation and will not be examined.

Summary

The field methodology used geophysical and traditional archaeological methods to locate evidence indicative of site use in non-mound space. Fieldwork was conducted in eighteen 40 by 40 meter blocks inside the enclosures at the Hopewell site. This 10% simple random sample of non-mound space provides documentation of this space and preserves much of the site intact for future research. Geophysical methods were selected based on their ability to locate archaeological remains in a cost-efficient manner because large areas can be surveyed quickly. To supplement the magnetic and electrical resistance data, large shovel test pits (50 by 50 centimeters square) were dug to obtain a sample of artifacts and examine soil composition and stratigraphy. Anomaly testing was limited but provided necessary ground-truthing of geophysical anomalies. Excavation of features found during the shovel or anomaly testing completed the fieldwork portion of this

82 research. Under ideal conditions each block would have been tested in a sequence of magnetometry, electrical resistance, shovel tests, anomaly tests, and feature excavations.

While this sequence was followed in a few blocks, personnel and time limitations required flexibility in testing; frequently STPs were conducted prior to geophysical surveys. Although the ideal sequence was not adhered to, I believe that the resulting data was not impaired.

CHAPTER 6

ANALYTICAL METHODS

Two general types of data resulted from fieldwork conducted for this research.

Geophysical data consists of strings of measurements taken in the field, processed using

computer software, analyzed for specific characteristics, and interpreted in relation to the

archaeological record. Artifacts from STPs and excavations are collected in the field,

washed and sorted in the lab, and analyzed for specific attributes per artifact type. This

chapter details the methods used to analyze the geophysical and artifact data.

Geophysical Data

Data collectors on geophysical instruments hold a finite number of readings such

that data collection in the field is periodically interrupted to transfer data to a computer.

Once the data are downloaded, the data are processed and analyzed to locate anomalies that may represent cultural features. In this research, both the fluxgate gradiometer and

electrical resistance meter were products of Geoscan Research. This simplified data

processing and analysis since both sets of data use one version of computer software.

Geoplot (Version 3.00 for Windows) is the proprietary software of Geoscan Research.

84 Once the data are downloaded, the first step is to configure the data to correspond to the actual field survey. This survey collected data by dividing each 40 by 40 meter block into four 20 by 20 meter blocks. Since the data are actually recorded as a string of numbers collected as a file, the software must be told how to configure the data. This

process results in a master grid for each block. No actual data are located in the master

grid; instead, only the names and arrangement of the data files are stored. A composite file is then constructed from the master grid. The composite is the actual survey data arranged in the correct sequence. Once the composite is made, this file can be manipulated using functions (algorithms) that have been created for use with geophysical data. For this research, unless otherwise stated, all functions used the default parameters.

Since each Geoscan Research instrument collects different types of data, different functions are used to process each type of data. Processing of the magnetic and electrical resistance data is described below. Once the geophysical data was processed, the data was analyzed for cultural features. Since the analysis is different for each instrument, this is also discussed below. Lastly, since Geoplot has limited graphics capabilities, the processed data was exported into Surfer in order to produce final maps.

Magnetometry

Fluxgate gradiometer data is centered on zero. Prehistoric archaeological features

in magnetic data are typically between –10 and 10 nT, although strong archaeological

features, such as hearths, are often between 10 and 20 nT (Geoscan 2001). Weak ferrous

features, such as farm machinery parts or nails, may also range between –20 to –10 and

10 to 20 nT, but these are usually bipolar and localized. Strong ferrous features, such as

85 buried utility lines or fences, are usually strong alternating patterns of negative and positive measurements that are greater than ±20 nT. Large-scale geology, considered background noise in archaeological surveys, is removed from gradiometer data since the two sensors effectively provide a high pass filter. For this research, magnetic data was processed in the field and visual inspection of the processed data located anomalies to test. This method allowed for quick decisions to be made that maximized labor efficiently at times when many crew members were present, such as during the field school and teacher workshops. At a later date, the large quantity of data was subjected to intensive analysis in the laboratory to identify and interpret magnetic anomalies using statistical methods.

Processing data for this research consisted of several steps. The first step was to remove periodic defects from the data that resulted from slight changes in the way the instrument was held during a survey. Each person held the fluxgate gradiometer differently and had a unique gait that resulted in small defects in the data. The function

Zero Mean Traverse determined the mean of each traverse within a grid and subtracted that mean from each traverse. This process also resulted in removing slight differences between conjoined grids. The second process smoothed the data since readings were taken every 0.125 meters north-south and 0.5 meters east-west, which resulted in a very pixelated image. Data points were added in the north-south and east-west directions by a function, Interpolation, that sampled the data to calculate new data points. An increase in data points from 0.5 meters to 0.25 meters required two processes: Interpolation to expand the y-direction and then Interpolation to shrink the x-direction. The third process was to further smooth the data by removing background noise from the magnetic data.

86 The function Low Pass Filter was “used to suppress higher frequency components such as noise in the data whilst at the same time preserving low frequency, large scale spatial data” (Geoscan 2001). This filter scanned a window of data, averaged data within that window, and changed the center data point to the new weighted average. For this process,

I selected a window size of 2 by 2 data points. The next process limited the data I analyzed to only that usually indicative of cultural features. As previously stated, archaeological features are usually less than ±20 nT. To simplify the analysis of magnetic data, I used the Clip function to replace data with readings greater than ±20 nT with a minimum or maximum value of –20 or 20 nT. The last processes dealt with the display.

The data was rotated 270° to place north at the top of a page; this is necessary because the software orients north to the right of the page as a default. The data was then exported into Surfer for final mapping and adding of graphics.

Once the data was processed, it was analyzed in the laboratory for cultural features. Magnetic data is a combination of archaeology, geology, noise from the instrument itself, and operator defects. Magnetic data caused by the geology, instrument, and operator need to be removed in order to “see” the cultural features. According to

Geoscan (2001:3-28), “statistically speaking any noise data with a magnitude greater than approximately 2.5 standard deviations is unlikely (0.5%), and at the 3 standard deviations level very unlikely indeed (0.1%).” Therefore, at three standard deviations we expect to locate anomalies that are the result of natural or cultural features. Standard deviation (σ) is found by testing a quiet area of the data. Once the standard deviation is multiplied by three, the Clip algorithm is used to remove all data less than three standard deviations.

The resulting data was analyzed to determine if anomalies are natural or cultural. In this

87 case, anomalies greater than three standard deviations are 99.7% likely to be caused by an

actual cultural or natural feature. Data was also analyzed at greater than two standard

deviations since some types of cultural features, such as postholes, have weak magnetic signatures. Anomalies were thus 95% likely to be caused by an actual feature and not by background or instrument noise.

To differentiate anomalies as natural, historic cultural, or prehistoric cultural features, two characteristics were analyzed: anomaly shape and range of measurements.

Shape, in terms of geometry, may indicate the presence of deep natural features or historic iron-rich materials. Narrow anomalies tend to be near-surface, such as plow scars

(Weymouth 1998). Linear or alternating bipolar anomalies are typically buried utility lines or agricultural tiling. Asymmetrical bipolar anomalies, such as ones in which the positive measurements bend around the negative measurements, are usually ferrous metal. Monopole anomalies with an off-center peak are generally metal objects.

Prehistoric cultural features typical of the Eastern Woodlands are usually symmetrical and round or ovate shaped. Range of measurements is also a good indicator of anomaly type. As previously stated, prehistoric cultural features in the Eastern Woodlands generally range to ±20 nT. The higher the measurement, the greater the chance the anomaly is ferrous. By examining the contours of each anomaly, the steepness of the slope may indicate the presence or absence of metal. Steeper slopes, particularly if the measurements range in the mid to high teens, are suggestive of the presence of iron-rich materials. Based on this initial analysis, magnetic anomalies indicative of prehistoric cultural features were identified.

88 Once anomalies were identified, four calculations were made which led to a final

interpretation. These calculations are derived from data that has only been processed using Zero Mean Traverse. While the other algorithms are useful for general interpretation and display purposes, these algorithms may introduce false anomalies. The calculations were anomaly length, peak magnetic intensity, depth to peak magnetic moment, and mass. The length of the anomaly is simply measured along the longest east- west and north-south axis. The peak magnetic intensity is the highest reading for the anomaly. To calculate the depth of the anomaly requires the peak, or greatest magnetic measurement, and the background intensity or mean (Bevan 1998). The average of the peak and background intensity measurements is plotted on the contour map and the diameter of this is the depth of the anomaly below the magnetometer’s sensor. To find the depth below ground surface, subtract the height of the sensor (ca. 38 centimeters). This calculation of depth below ground surface uses the “half-width rule” to provide an approximate depth based on the assumption that the anomaly is compact; Bevan (1998) states that the depth calculated may be deeper than the actual peak magnetic moment.

Nonetheless, this calculation provides a good estimate of anomaly depth.

The anomaly calculations of length, magnetic intensity, and depth were used to interpret the likely cause of an anomaly. In some cases the anomaly was ruled prehistoric or historic. Additionally, the anomaly shape and calculations were used to hypothesize about feature type. For example, large diameter and high peak intensity combined with depth to magnetic peak moment below the plowzone may be indicative of a prehistoric earth oven. Based on these characteristics, anomalies were ranked as:

89 A Anomaly is greater than ±3 standard deviations from the mean, is circular or ovate and regular in shape, and depth of peak magnetic moment is below plowzone.

B Anomaly is greater than ±3 standard deviations from the mean, is irregular in shape, and depth of peak magnetic moment is in plowzone.

C Anomaly is greater than ±2 standard deviations from the mean, is circular or ovate and regular in shape, and depth of peak magnetic moment is below plowzone.

D Anomaly is greater than ±2 standard deviations from the mean, is irregular in shape, depth of peak magnetic moment is in plowzone.

E Anomaly is less than ±2 standard deviations from the mean, is circular or ovate and regular in shape, and depth of peak magnetic moment is below plowzone.

A total of 88 magnetic anomalies indicative of prehistoric cultural features were

identified from the laboratory analysis. Table 4 summarizes the counts of magnetic anomalies according to rank for each block. However, interpretation cannot differentiate similar cultural features from different time periods, such as a pit feature from Early

Woodland or Late Prehistoric periods. Only ground-truthing can provide this information.

Electrical Resistance

Resistance data is a relative measurement that varies according to the local

environment. Slight changes in geology, topography, and soils can affect readings, as can changes in rainfall or temperature over the course of a survey. As such, this data are more

difficult to process and analyze than magnetic data. Of importance to note here is that the

resistance surveys generally occurred after the shovel tests. Disturbance from excavations is visible in the resistance data and these areas were excluded from analysis. In addition,

90 the resistance surveys were conducted over a period of three years. Fluctuations in vegetation and rainfall at the time of the surveys are evident in the resulting data. Portions of several 40 by 40 meter blocks were collected on different days, such that the data from the four conjoined 20 by 20 meter blocks are impossible to edge match. The solution was to process the individual 20 by 20 meter blocks according to the steps below and then piece the processed data together in Surfer. This method works since this type of data is a relative, not absolute, measure.

Data in this research were analyzed using two different methods. The broad-scale method examined each block for large anomalies caused by the local environment, such as geology, topography, or soils, and cultural anomalies, including borrow pits, enclosures, and compacted floors. The small-scale method focused on discrete anomalies indicative of individual cultural features. Resistance data was then compared to magnetic data to substantiate interpretations.

The first method examined broad-scale anomalies in each 40 by 40 meter block.

Beginning with raw data, several algorithms were used for data processing. The first step removed edge discontinuities, if present, between the four 20 by 20 meter blocks. The function Edge Match automated this process by comparing the mean edge difference from the blocks and adjusting one block to the mean of the other. The second process was to Despike the data. Despiking removed false readings that were taken when the probes were not in full contact; for instance, when a probe struck a rock. The next process repeated Edge Match, if necessary. The data was then converted to resistivity data by multiplying the entire set by the equation:

ρ = 2 Π s R

91 where ρ is resistivity and s is electrode spacing. The resistivity data was then clipped at

three standard deviations to limit error from background noise. Since the survey collected

data every 0.5 meters north-south and every 1 meters east-west, the next step was to

Interpolate to smooth the data. This process expanded the y-direction by calculating new

data points. The last step was to rotate the data so that north was oriented at the top of the

page. The data was then exported to Surfer for mapmaking and interpretation.

Once the data were processed, the broad-scale data were ready for analysis and

interpretation. The data were examined as image maps containing areas of high and low

measurements. High readings may be indicative of stone or brick walls, paved areas, and

highly compacted floors. Low readings suggests ditches, borrow pits, and roads. In this

research, I graphically displayed data in terms of standard deviation to define anomalies.

As with the magnetic data, I used greater than two and three standard deviations.

Interpretation of anomalies as natural or cultural features primarily depended upon the

shape of the anomaly in comparison to the expected archaeological record. In addition,

knowledge of the environment, such as topography, soils, geology, played a critical role

in determining the origin of anomalies.

The second method of analysis for the resistance data concentrated on locating

small anomalies within each block. Raw data underwent several processes in Geoplot.

The first step clipped the data at greater than three standard deviations to remove any

noise from the data. This process may also remove “true” data, although the nature of archaeological features generally leaves a remnant of the feature preserved at less than three standard deviations. The next function was Despike to remove any false readings.

The function Edge Match was then used for selected blocks where the data between the

92 four 20 by 20 meter blocks did not match. To remove broad-scale anomalies the function

High Pass Filter was used. This process examined the data and “calculates the weighted

average within the window and subtracts this from the central reading in the window”

(Geoplot 2001). This function essentially enhanced small-scale details by removing

background geology. The Interpolation function was used to smooth the data set. By

expanding the data in the y-direction, data was represented at equal intervals north-south and east-west. Lastly, data was rotated to place north at the top of the page. The data was then exported to Surfer for mapping and interpretation.

This resistance data was analyzed for small anomalies. Prehistoric cultural features may have very subtle signatures in resistance data, therefore, the resistance data was analyzed at one standard deviation. Discrete high or low resistance anomalies were marked. Anomalies of high resistance may be stone walls, paved areas, or stone-filled pits. Low resistance anomalies may be filled-in pits or graves. However, the amount of water in the soil greatly affects resistance readings, such that any anomaly could have higher resistance at one time of year and lower resistance at another. The utility in resistance in this research was to locate anomalies and compare these to the magnetic data to improve accuracy of the interpretation. Once comparisons between the data sets were made, many resistance anomalies were determined to be plow scars and were omitted from further analysis.

Both sets of resistance data were analyzed for high and low anomalies.

Interpretation of these anomalies as possible prehistoric cultural features was based on the characteristics of distance from the mean in terms of standard deviation, overall shape, and correspondence to a magnetic anomaly. A ranking system was thus devised:

93 A Anomaly is greater than ±3 standard deviations from the mean, is circular or ovate and regular in shape, and corresponds to a magnetic anomaly.

B Anomaly is greater than ±2 standard deviations from the mean, is circular or ovate and regular in shape, and may or may not correspond to a magnetic anomaly.

C Anomaly is less than ±2 standard deviations from the mean, is circle, ovate, or irregular in shape, and may or may not correspond to a magnetic anomaly.

Anomalies indicative of cultural features were then numbered for each block. In all, 39 resistance anomalies suggestive of prehistoric cultural features were identified. Table 5 provides a summary of the results of the resistance survey for each block.

Artifact Assemblage

The archaeological data were examined to discern information about the use of non-mound space by examining remnants of activity areas. From the field, the artifacts were brought to the laboratory for cleaning and sorting. Each artifact was weighed and cataloged. Given the same provenience, artifacts of the same class were bagged together except for diagnostic artifacts, tools, and those with wear damage. Most artifacts were not temporally diagnostic with the exception of some stone tools and pottery sherds. I assumed that non-temporally diagnostic artifacts resulted from Middle Woodland occupations, since the archaeological record found to date is overwhelmingly related to that of the Hopewell. In addition, two artifacts of exotic material generally associated with the Hopewell culture were found. An image of an obsidian flake and cut pieces of mica is included as Figure 18.

94 A total of 6,111 artifacts were recovered from all stages of fieldwork from the eighteen blocks. Table 6 presents a breakdown of all artifacts recovered. Of these artifacts, 537 were found in the shovel tests. Table 7 contains artifacts recovered from the

STPs in each block and Appendix C contains a list of these artifacts. FCR (53%) dominated the assemblage. Lithic artifacts (33%) consisted of bladelets, biface fragments, flakes, and shatter. Prehistoric sherds and historic objects each contributed about 6%. A very small amount of bone was also found (1.6%). Three artifact classes (fire-cracked rock, lithic materials, and pottery sherds) dominated the assemblage and were examined further. The methods for each artifact class varied and details for each are provided below.

To discern activity areas in the archaeological record, artifact type, density, and diversity were analyzed. Artifact type suggests the type of activity conducted. An examination of artifact density delineates artifact clusters because artifacts tend to collect where an activity occurred. For example, a concentration of lithic debitage is an artifact cluster representative of a manufacturing area. Artifact diversity in terms of the number of artifact classes present or absent from a unit of study may also be used to understand activity areas. Specialized activity areas usually have low diversity due to limited tasks, while habitation sites have high diversity because of the many tasks associated with everyday living (Banning 2000). For this research, diversity was measured by the presence or absence of ten artifact classes in each of the eighteen blocks. The artifact classes were FCR, flakes, shatter, cores, bladelets, bifaces, flake tools, groundstone, sherds, and bone.

95 Once activity areas were located, spatial analysis examined the distribution of

these activities in non-mound space. Specific questions were asked of the data: Were

activity areas situated near any particular natural feature? What is the spatial relationship between activity areas and earthwork architecture? The results from these analyses were used to determine site use in order to test expectations of the Ceremonial Center and

Corporate Center hypotheses.

Fire-cracked Rock

Fire-cracked rock (FCR) is a product of heating and is usually associated with food preparation activities (Figure 19). Other activities that may create FCR are sweat lodges, heating of small temporary structures, enclosing hearths, or creating ceramic temper (Lovick 1983). This type of artifact is an extremely durable component of the archaeological record, but is usually overlooked by amateur archaeologists. As such, FCR provides a good indication of the above mentioned activities.

This research recovered FCR from shovel test pits, anomaly tests, and feature excavations. A total of 4,025 pieces of FCR was found. FCR was sorted by size (<2.5 cm; 2.5-5 cm; 5-7.5 cm; 7.5-10 cm; 10-12.5 cm; 12.5-15 cm; 15-20 cm; and >20 cm) and weighed. The total weight of the FCR was 153,273 grams (Table 8). The size of FCR may indicate whether a piece was reused until it was no longer effective for heating purposes. Pieces of FCR can be used again and again such that smaller pieces may be indicative of repeated use. The amount of FCR may also indicate length of occupation or size of occupation. More FCR may mean longer, multiple, or large occupations. The FCR was also examined for material type (i.e., sandstone, limestone, granite, or other). A study

96 by House and Smith (1975) found that sandstone is better for cooking because it produces

and retains more heat. Sandstone comprised 85% by weight of the FCR from the shovel

tests.

Lithic Materials

Lithic materials consist of stone tools or are the by-products of producing stone

tools. Stone tools commonly include bifaces, knives, drills, and axes. By-products include

cores, flakes, and shatter. Flakes that show signs of use as tools for cutting or scraping are

called utilized flakes. A total of 820 lithic artifacts were recovered, including 92 stone

tools and 728 pieces of debitage. A selection of projectile points, bladelets, and

groundstone artifacts are shown in Figures 20-22. The stone tools were sorted by artifact

type, measured, sourced for material type, and examined for macroscopic wear. Due to

the abundance of flakes and shatter, the main focus of further analysis was on these two

artifact types. The total of 728 pieces of debitage weighed 688.79 grams.

In general, the subtractive nature of stone tool manufacture results in

progressively smaller by-products as the lithic reduction sequence continues. Stone tool

manufacture produces debris that may not be useful, particularly if it resulted during the

later stages of tool manufacture. While larger flakes and shatter may be reworked or used

as expedient tools, smaller flakes and shatter are likely to be left behind in activity areas with one exception. Due to their sharp edges, flakes and shatter may be swept up at habitation sites and dumped in trash areas. Mass analysis was used for this research, a technique to analyze lithic debitage developed by Ahler (1989). Each artifact was

weighed and size sorted into five classes (<0.25 in; 0.25-0.5 in; 0.5-1 in; 1-2 in; and >2

97 in). The majority of the debitage (567 or 78%) measured 0.5-1 inch (Table 9). Chert type, percentage of cortex, and heat treatment was determined for each artifact. Flakes were further examined for completeness, edge damage, lip, and termination type. The early stages of the lithic reduction sequence usually contain debitage of larger size and with cortex.

Pottery Sherds

Fieldwork recovered 534 pottery sherds weighing a total of 1,013.37 grams. Some of the pottery sherds, mainly rim pieces, are shown in Figure 23. Four fragments of a

shell-tempered clay pipe were found in a pit (Feature 10-5) that was radiocarbon dated to

the Late Woodland-Late Prehistoric period. Sherds were size sorted into five classes

(<0.25 in; 0.25-0.5 in; 0.5-1 in; 1-2 in; and >2 in), measured for thickness, and examined

for vessel part, temper, surface treatment, decoration, color. The overwhelming majority

of sherds (489 or 92%) measured between 0.25-1 inch (Table 10).

An analysis of 513 sherds from historic excavations of the Hopewell site by

Prufer (1967) identified nine types of ceramics. Over 99% of these sherds were grit-

tempered, the majority being classed as McGraw cordmarked. Sherds from Mounds 2,

17, 25, and 30-38 were Hopewellian Series, Chillicothe rocker-stamped (n=5),

Hopewellian series, Seip plain (n=4), Hopewellian Series, Brangenberg Plain (n=1),

Hopewellian series, untyped zoned incised (n=1), and Southeastern Series, Turner

Simple-stamped A (n=2). The majority of sherds (n=500) were from unknown locations

at the Hopewell site and consisted mainly of McGraw cordmarked or plain (n=441). Only

one sherd, a McGraw cordmarked with grit temper, was provenienced to a non-mound

98 context (“Hopewell habitation area”). It appears that any ceramic type may be found in

mound deposits, thus sherds typically thought of as more utilitarian may not be a good indicator of habitation areas.

Flotation Samples

Flotation samples from all features were brought back to the laboratory for

processing. Fill from each bag was measured prior to being placed into a manual flotation

machine. Since no deflocculent was used, soil was occasionally kneaded softly with the

fingers to break apart clumps. Each sample was kept in the machine until all soil was

suspended in the water. A record for each sample was kept and included provenience,

processing date, volume, and time in flotation machine. Samples were removed from the flotation machine to dry in the laboratory on drying racks. Once completely dry, the light

and heavy fractions were stored in individual bags and curated. Further analysis of the

samples is beyond the scope of this dissertation.

CHAPTER 7

RESEARCH RESULTS

The geophysical and traditional archaeological techniques used in this study located evidence of prehistoric activity in non-mound space at the Hopewell site.

Geophysical anomalies were found in all but one of the eighteen blocks. Artifacts were

recovered from every block. However, analyses determined that much of this evidence

pre- or post-dates the Middle Woodland period. This chapter presents the research results in detail. A discussion about each block begins with a description of the localized physical and cultural environment, followed by results of the geophysical surveys, shovel test pits, anomaly testing, and feature excavation. An assessment of prehistoric activity is then made based on the data.

Block 10

Block 10 is situated in the southwest quadrant of the main enclosure on the level second terrace. Topographic relief is less than 30 centimeters. No major physiographic features are within or near the block. Distance to the nearest water source, North Fork

Paint Creek, is 410 meters. Soils are the well drained Eldean loam of 0-2% slope.

100 This block is in a field that has been farmed since at least the 1820s. Shovel tests

found the plowzone to range from 20-30 centimeters deep. The westernmost portion of

the block is adjacent to an historic fieldline now overgrown with vegetation. Squier and

Davis mapped this line in the 1840s, so archaeological deposits may be more intact in this

area. Historic documents did not show any structures in this block. Thus, agricultural

practices have caused the biggest impact to the archaeological record.

Block 10 is located directly west of the D-shaped enclosure of Mound 25.

Distance to this enclosure is about 90 meters. The nearest recorded mounds, located at a

distance of 130 meters or greater, are within the D-shaped enclosure. The immediate area

surrounding and containing Block 10 are vacant of any known earthen architecture, but

Moorehead (1922), Shetrone (1926), and Seeman (1981) report finding archaeological

remains in the near vicinity.

Moorehead (1922) reported a “village site” about 150 meters to the north. Details

of this site are not included in his report, but Moorehead (1922:86) stated that the

“indications are most numerous.” Shetrone (1926) later identified the same area as a

“habitation site.” Shetrone (1926:112) reported finding bone fragments, flakes, sherds,

and mica flecks in the area but states that “Dark soil and burned stones indicate limited

occupancy of the site, but nothing commensurate with the importance of the group, and the problem as to where its builders and occupants lived, remains a puzzling one.”

Seeman’s (1981) surface collection relocated the west village site to within and adjacent

to Block 10. The Ohio Archaeological Inventory form (33Ro27) lists the artifacts from

“western village:” one blade core, eight bladelets, one Hopewell point, one Middle

Woodland point, seven biface fragments, an assortment of additional stone tools, and

101 numerous flakes. The form describes the site as a Middle Woodland habitation, although

Seeman (1981:14) notes the area may not represent a village per se but a series of

“smaller loci, themselves representing manufacturing areas and/or the residences of societal leaders.” In addition, Seeman (1981) reports local amateur archaeologists found artifacts in this general area. Based on the available literature, the potential to locate artifacts and features in this block was extremely high.

Geophysical Surveys

Magnetic gradient and electrical resistance data were collected over the entire block. A series of plow scars running east-west is visible in the magnetic data (Figure

24). A total of eighteen anomalies were identified with the majority (n=14) located in the southern half of the block (Figure 25). Analysis of the anomalies found that all were greater than three standard deviations from the mean. Based on the statistics and anomaly characteristics, twelve anomalies were given the highest rank and six were given the next highest rank (Table 11). These anomalies are extremely likely to be prehistoric cultural features.

The processed resistance data for Block 10 is shown as Figure 26 and the interpretation shown as Figure 27. A distinct area of lower resistance (greater than three standard deviations) is visible in the central area of the block. This area measures 23.5 meters east-west and 27 meters north-south and is roughly oval in shape. This is an area that may be compacted soil, possibly representing a heavily used open area or structure floors. Magnetic anomalies were located both inside and outside this area. In addition,

102 four higher resistance anomalies were identified in the block. Each corresponds to a

magnetic anomaly. These anomalies are most likely pit features, perhaps fill with rocks.

Characteristics of the resistance anomalies are included in Table 12.

Shovel Test Pits

Nine shovel tests were excavated in Block 10. Aside from a deposit of cobbles in

the west shovel test (Anomaly 10-1), no other cultural features were located in the shovel tests. In all, 124 prehistoric artifacts were recovered and each STP tested positive for

artifacts. Artifacts were 5 bladelets, 28 flakes, 2 shatter, 20 sherds, 8 bone fragments, and

61 pieces of FCR. The artifacts clustered in the northwest quadrant of the block, although

37 of the 124 artifacts (30%) were recovered from the central STP. This cluster appears

to correlate with the southernmost edge of the western village site. Other interesting

results are one bladelet was made of quartz crystal as was one flake from a different

shovel test, the sherds were all grit-tempered, cord-marked body pieces, and the eight

bone fragments from one STP were calcined. Unfortunately, the bone fragments are

extremely small and species could not be identified. The only Hopewell diagnostic

artifacts were the bladelets. The flakes were predominantly 0.5-1 inch in size and made of

local chert. Five flakes had cortex and four were bifacial thinning flakes. All sherds were

less than an inch and eleven were smaller than 0.5 inch. Average thickness of fourteen

sherds was 6.97 centimeters. The FCR consisted mainly of sandstone pieces (n=55)

between 2.5-7.5 centimeters in size.

103 Anomaly Testing

A total of six anomalies were tested. Anomaly 10-1 was located at the base of a

shovel test and was later determined to be a natural deposit. Five anomalies were

identified from the visual inspection of the magnetic gradient survey in the field.

Anomaly 10-2 was a dipole with a peak intensity of 11.67 nT. Anomaly 10-3 was a

monopole peaking at 12.39 nT. Anomalies 10-4, 10-5, and 10-6 were dipoles with

magnetic peaks of 11.94, 6.8, and 30.34 nT, respectively. Upon testing, Anomalies 10-2

and 10-6 were inconclusive for cultural features, Anomaly 10-4 was an historic piece of

metal, and Anomalies 10-3 and 10-5 were prehistoric cultural features.

Feature Excavation

Two features in Block 10 were excavated from within the approximate boundaries

of the western village. Feature 10-3 is a cooking pit filled with refuse. The recovery of bivalve shells atop a layer of charcoal from the lower depths of the pit indicates cooking of shellfish. Upper layers of the pit are filled with assorted trash, including flakes, sherds, and FCR. The discovery of a quartz crystal bladelet within the 0-5 centimeter below

plowzone (bpz) layer indicate an Hopewell occupation, but the base of a biface and

fragments of a shell-tempered elbow pipe point to the Late Prehistoric period. Charcoal

recovered from 90-100 centimeters below plowzone was sent for radiocarbon dating.

Calibration at two sigma using CALIB 5.0.1-IntCal04 (Reimer et al. 2004) yielded a date

of A.D. 883-1156 (1040±60 RCYBP) that dates to the time of the transition from the Late

Woodland to Late Prehistoric periods. However, the presence of Late Prehistoric

diagnostic artifacts indicate a later occupation.

104 The other feature located within this area, Feature 10-5, is also a deep cooking pit

with a layer of FCR and charcoal at its base. Animal bones, flakes, and a few sherds were found. Five bladelets of Flint Ridge chert and one Middle Woodland projectile point from either the plowzone or directly underneath the plowzone point to a Hopewell origin.

Charcoal obtained from the base of the pit (75-80 centimeters bpz) was sent for radiocarbon dating. Calibration at two sigma using CALIB 5.0.1-IntCal04 (Reimer et al.

2004) resulted in a date of A.D. 778-1032 (1090±60 RCYBP) during the Late Woodland or Late Prehistoric period.

Assessment

Block 10 is located within the western village. Geophysical testing identified

anomalies indicative of prehistoric cultural features. The magnetic gradient data

contained anomalies that are most likely pit features. Resistance data show a possible

compacted area and several anomalies that support the magnetic interpretation. Artifacts

recovered from the shovel tests are indicative of habitation, such as sherds and flakes.

However, two artifacts (quartz crystal bladelet and quartz crystal flake) are more typical

of goods recovered from the remains of sub-mound structures and are indicative of a

ceremonial nature, as is an obsidian flake found in the plowzone during testing of

Anomaly 10-2. Some artifacts attest to a Hopewell connection, but carbon from two

features was radiocarbon dated to the Late Woodland-Late Prehistoric periods. Block 10

therefore contains evidence of two distinct occupations.

The first occupation was during the Middle Woodland period. I interpret the

evidence to represent the remains of a short-term occupation related to activities that

105 occurred during earthwork use. The majority of lithic debitage was very small flakes (less than 0.25 in) and these are suggestive of either a high degree of site maintenance

(cleaning) or extremely limited tool sharpening activities. Both explanations do not correlate to the expected archaeological record of short-term habitation sites as listed in

Table 2. Instead communal activities, such as meetings, may have required a clean open space necessitating the removal of large pieces of lithic debris or other communal activities may have produced small flakes due to the resharpening of stone tools. The use of the block for communal meetings also explains the presence of a limited amount of exotic materials (quartz crystal and obsidian) and the large resistance anomaly indicative of compacted soil. Nonetheless, the lack of large quantities of raw materials, by-products, or finished goods does not support use of this area for the manufacture of goods involving craft specialists.

The second occupation dates after the Middle Woodland period. Radiocarbon dates from two large cooking pits were calibrated to A.D. 883-1156 and A.D. 778-1032, but the artifacts are more indicative of a Late Prehistoric occupation. Comparison of dates between the Block 10 features and the Late Prehistoric Fort Ancient site of Blain Village in Chillicothe attempted to assign a more definitive temporal affiliation. Blain Village was dated to A.D. 970-1225 by Prufer and Shane (1970). I recalibrated three of their radiocarbon dates at two sigma using CALIB 5.0.1-IntCal04 (Reimer et al. 2004) to compare to the two dates from the Block 10 features. The three dates from Blain Village ranged between A.D. 658-1399 (760±100, 970±220, and 1035±155 RCYBP) and therefore overlapped in time with the Block 10 features. The wide ranging dates from

Blain Village make it difficult to establish temporal affiliation. In summary, Block 10

106 contains settlement debris from a later occupation dating to either the Late Woodland or

Late Prehistoric periods. Many of the geophysical anomalies in this block are likely the

result of this later occupation, perhaps even the large area of low resistance that may

represent a central plaza. The western village is not a Hopewell village as proposed by

Moorehead (1922) and Griffin (1996).

Block 23

Block 23 is located in the southeast quadrant of the main enclosure. The block is

nearly level and lies 425 meters north of North Fork Paint Creek. No other physiographic

features exist within or near the block. The soil is well drained Eldean loam.

This block is in an agricultural field that has been farmed for almost two hundred

years. The depth to subsoil ranges from 21-37 centimeters below surface. The

easternmost portion of this block is located in an historic fieldline (ca. 1840s) with extensive trees and brush. Some vegetation had to be removed in order to conduct the geophysical surveys and STPs. Although no structures were found on historic documents, an entranceway into the field is located directly south of the block and heavier agricultural traffic, in addition to regular agricultural practices, may have impacted the archaeological record.

Block 23 is located within the small circular enclosure of the main enclosure. This small enclosure is 115 meters in diameter, had a solitary gateway facing north, and contained one mound (Mound 12). Very little is known about the circle other than it was

“bounded by a single slight wall” (Squier and Davis 1848:27). This enclosure is situated between the D-shaped enclosure containing Mound 25 to its west and the second-largest

107 mound at the site to its east (Mound 23). A main enclosure gateway is approximately 100

meters to the south. Numerous small mounds are located within a 200 meter diameter.

Previous archaeological research in this area is very limited. Atwater (1820),

Squier and Davis (1848), and Moorehead (1922) mapped the circular enclosure and

Mound 12. Shetrone (1926) subsequently marked the circle and mound as obliterated. No known excavations are documented in this area, primarily because construction of the railroad in 1852 and subsequent relocation of Sulphur Lick Road destroyed much of the enclosure and Mound 12. Seeman’s surface collection did locate artifacts in this area: a grit-tempered, cordmarked sherd, two biface fragments, seven flakes, and an historic bottle fragment. Seeman (1981:12) stopped short of calling this artifact concentration a site, but states that it is “part of a more general debris increase as the terrace margin is approached.” In addition, Seeman (1981) reports that this area may be associated with an

Archaic artifact cluster to the south of Sulphur Lick Road. Based on the close proximity of numerous mounds and embankments and the results from Seeman’s survey, it seemed likely that this block would contain a significant archaeological record.

Geophysical Surveys

Magnetic gradient data was successfully collected from the block. Plow scars

running both east-west and north-south are visible in the data (Figure 28). After data

processing, eighteen magnetic anomalies were identified (Figure 29). Two of these

anomalies (Magnetic Anomalies 1 and 2) are quite distinct in the northwest corner of the

block and consist of two curvilinear bands about 3 meters in width. These are interpreted

as the wall of the circular enclosure. An additional fourteen anomalies are arranged in an

108 arcing pattern that parallels Magnetic Anomaly 2. These anomalies are extremely weak

and were not readily apparent during the visual inspection of the data. Perhaps they

represent a series of large postholes, such as those found at Stubbs (Cowan 2005). Two isolated anomalies are located in the block’s eastern extremes and may represent truncated features. Table 13 contains measurements for each of the magnetic anomalies.

Of the anomalies, only the two curvilinear anomalies were greater than three standard deviations. Three anomalies were two standard deviations from the mean and thirteen were less than two standard deviations from the mean.

Resistance data was collected for the entire block, but a defect in the internal clock of the data collector produced errors (Figure 30). These errors are quite noticeable on the large-scale data set as an east-west area of high resistance. Data processing on the small-scale data set minimized the errors and one resistance anomaly was identified that matched Magnetic Anomaly 2 (Table 14; Figure 31). This higher resistance area represents the embankment wall of the circular enclosure.

Shovel Test Results

Nine shovel tests were excavated in this block. The northwest test unit overlapped

the southeast unit of Block 34; in this case, only one unit was excavated and results used

in the analysis of both blocks. The northeast STP was moved slightly due to the presence

of a tree. No features were found in any of the shovel tests, including the unit nearest the

enclosure. A total of 34 artifacts were recovered from eight shovel tests, but none were

diagnostic of any temporal period. The artifacts were one biface fragment, 21 flakes, and

twelve pieces of FCR. Most artifacts clustered in the northeast quadrant. Most of the

109 flakes (n=16) were 0.5-1 inch in size and of local chert. Five flakes were of Flint Ridge chert and three flakes had cortex. The FCR were sandstone between 2.5-7.5 centimeters in size.

Anomaly Testing

No anomalies were tested in this block.

Feature Excavation

No features were excavated in Block 23.

Assessment

Based on the available data this block appears to represent a short-term activity area, possibly related to expedient stone tool manufacture. The block is located within a circular enclosure as evidenced by the magnetic and resistance data and typically would be the scene of ceremonial activities. As such, I would not expect flintknapping to occur in this area during earthwork use. Instead, the area may have been used for flintknapping prior to earthwork construction. Perhaps the flintknapping occurred during the Archaic period as suggested by Seeman (1981) and/or during the early Middle Woodland use of the site. Excavation of Magnetic Anomalies 17 and 18 may determine the exact nature of this activity area. The remainder of the magnetic anomalies appears to relate to the enclosure and thus assigned to a ceremonial use.

110 Block 26

Block 26 is located in the southwest quadrant of the main enclosure. This level area is nearly 500 meters north of the North Fork Paint Creek, but only 100 meters east of a spring mapped by Squier and Davis (1848). Soils are well drained Eldean loam of 0-2% slope with Glenford silt loam in the western portion of the block.

The plowzone ranges in depth from 24-30 centimeters below surface. This area has been in agriculture since at least the 1840s. At that time Squier and Davis (1848) mapped an east-west field line that bisected this block. No mention of this field division occurs again in the historic records. This fieldline may have only minimally affected the archaeological record in this block. No other historic structures are documented in or near this block.

This block is situated in the westernmost portion of the main enclosure about 100 meters east of the west wall and ditch. Mounds 15 and 16, approximately 100 meters to the north, are the nearest mounds. This block has two interesting features located nearby.

First, one of the six gateways into the main enclosure and the only one along the west wall of the enclosure is located within 100 meters. Second, directly outside this gateway

Squier and Davis (1848) mapped a “copious spring” at the head of a small gully that drains into the North Fork Paint Creek. Hopewell people might have traversed the area contained within this block as they entered or exited the earthwork, possibly in route to gather water from the spring.

In terms of previous archaeological research, the absence of mounds left this area virtually untouched by archaeologists. Moorehead’s and Shetrone’s west habitation site is located about 100 meters east-northeast. Seeman (1981) mapped the western village

111 further south, about 50-75 meters to the southeast of this block. Seeman (1981) also

located a Middle Woodland habitation site, the Turtle Shell Locale, in the near vicinity of

this block, within 20 meters to the southeast. This site contained five bladelets, four

biface fragments, a turtle carapace, and nineteen flakes. This block had potential in terms

of finding non-mound debris, yet no specific references to artifacts or features were

mentioned in the literature.

Geophysical Surveys

Magnetic gradient data show prominent plow scars running north-south

throughout the block (Figure 32). Interpretation of the processed data identified seven

anomalies that may be prehistoric features (Figure 33). Six of the anomalies are greater

than three standard deviations from the mean. These anomalies appear to represent pit features with the exception of Magnetic Anomaly 6. If this large anomaly of irregular

dimensions is a prehistoric feature, it probably represents a midden. Measurements and

rank for each anomaly are given in Table 15.

The resistance data show distinct areas of low and high resistance (Figure 34).

Much of these areas correspond to plow scars seen in the magnetic data. A total of five resistance anomalies were found (Table 16; Figure 35). The high resistance area in the block’s southeast quadrant, Resistance Anomaly 4, may represent a pit. This interpretation is congruent with that of a midden for Magnetic Anomaly 6. Due to its

proximity to the Turtle Shell Locale, this anomaly may be related to this activity area.

The remaining resistance anomalies match with magnetic anomalies and are probably

prehistoric pit features.

112 Shovel Test Results

Nine STPs were excavated in Block 26. No cultural features were found but six of

the nine units were positive for artifacts. A total of nineteen artifacts were recovered: five

flakes, two pot sherds, two pieces of granite, and ten pieces of FCR. None were Hopewell

diagnostics, although four flakes were Flint Ridge chert and one was quartz. All flakes

were less than an inch in size. The sherds were grit-tempered body pieces that refit.

Thickness was measured at 7.6 centimeters. The pieces of granite refit and were curved,

perhaps in the shape of a bowl. The FCR was mainly sandstone of 2.5-7.5 centimeters in

size. Most artifacts were found in the east half of the block suggesting an association

either with the westernmost edge of the western village or with the Turtle Shell Locale.

Anomaly Testing

No geophysical anomalies were tested in Block 26.

Feature Excavation

No features were excavated in this block.

Assessment

The geophysical and archaeological data from this block point to a short-term

occupation. Several magnetic anomalies are quite strong and appear to represent pits.

These anomalies may pre- or post-date the Middle Woodland use of the site, such as the

Late Prehistoric occupation of the west village, or may be associated with the nearby

Middle Woodland Turtle Shell Locale. Unfortunately, the shovel tests found little in the

113 way of artifacts. Flakes of Flint Ridge chert and quartz crystal are indicative of a Middle

Woodland presence perhaps related to ceremonial activities. The FCR, as well as three

magnetic anomalies with high peaks, provide evidence of heating events. Based on the evidence collected to date, Block 26 may represent an activity area used for a short period of time for some sort of specialized activity involving heating activities. These activities may be related to site use as a ceremonial center or communal meeting place.

Block 28

Block 28 is in the southwest quadrant of the main enclosure. The majority of this block is within the center field. The extreme southwestern corner is located in the west field. A 30 centimeter elevation gain in the block’s southeastern corner is caused by a broad, low rise centered outside of the block. Additional changes in elevation resulted from the accumulation of soil in the fieldline. Distance to the North Fork Paint Creek is

500 meters, but a spring lies 215 meters west. The soil is the well drained Eldean loam.

This block lies at the edge of a field that has been in continuous cultivation since the early 1800s. Depth to plowzone ranged from 30 centimeters in the field to 23 centimeters in the fieldline. The line was mapped as early as the 1840s but it is now overgrown with trees and brush. Much of this vegetation was cleared in order to conduct fieldwork. No other structures were reported historically for this area. Since the fenceline was in existence prior to modern agriculture, a more intact archaeological record may exist here than in the portions of the block in the agricultural field.

Block 28 is situated within the western third of the main enclosure. No mounds or enclosures occur within a 100 meter radius of this block. The D-shaped enclosure of

114 Mound 25 is located 100 meters to the southeast. The west gateway of the main enclosure

is 200 meters to the west. Mounds 15 and 16 are 150 meters to the northwest, Mounds 24

and 3 are 150 meters to the northeast, and Mound 25 is 150 meters to the southeast. The

area to the southwest is void of any known mounds or enclosures. Concerning other types of archaeological features, this block is 50-75 meters south of the habitation sites mapped by Moorehead (1922) and Shetrone (1926) and 10-25 meters north of Seeman’s (1981) relocation of the western village site. It is unknown if Seeman’s surface collection found

any artifacts within this block. Due to it location among mounds and near the west village

site, this block had potential for locating significant archaeological resources.

Geophysical Surveys

A fence in the western portion of Block 28 prevented complete coverage with the

geophysical equipment. Magnetic gradient data displays multiple sets of plow scars

(Figure 36). Nonetheless, four anomalies were identified (Figure 37). All magnetic

anomalies were greater than three standard deviations from the mean (Table 17).

Broad-scale resistance analysis found two high resistance areas (Figure 38). The

west area corresponds to the existing fenceline that contains much vegetation. The east

area is within an arc of high readings that corresponds to a topographic high (Figure 39).

This appears to be a low, broad mounded area. In addition, two other resistance

anomalies were identified (Figure 40). Resistance Anomaly 2 is a dipole in the same

location as Magnetic Anomaly 3. Resistance Anomaly 3 is an area of low resistance that

matches Magnetic Anomaly 4. Both of these anomalies appear to be pit features. Table

18 provides details for these three resistance anomalies.

115 Shovel Test Results

Eight of the nine shovel tests excavated in this block tested positive for artifacts.

Of these, two units had soil irregularities at the base of the plowzone that warranted further testing as described in the next subsection (Anomalies 28-1 and 28-2). A total of

44 artifacts were recovered, including three historic artifacts. The prehistoric artifacts were one bladelet, fourteen flakes, one piece of shatter, two sherds, and 23 pieces of

FCR. The bladelet was found in the southeast unit. The lithic debitage consisted mostly of local cherts less than an inch in size. Six flakes were Flint Ridge chert and one flake had cortex. Both sherds were grit-tempered body pieces, although a sherd from the southeast unit had a smoothed surface. The majority of FCR was sandstone (n=22) ranging in size up to 10 centimeters. The artifacts clustered in the southeast quadrant of the block, corresponding to the northern extent of the western village and to the mounded area of high resistance.

Anomaly Testing

Six anomalies found in the STPs or geophysical data were tested in Block 28.

Anomaly 28-1 was found in the west STP, but was subsequently determined to be a natural feature. Anomaly 28-2 in the southeast STP was found to be a buried surface that roughly corresponds to the topographic high. Upon examination of the soil and discovery of two small pot sherds at 35 centimeters below surface, it was determined that this was a unique cultural feature and additional excavations continued. Four magnetic anomalies were also selected for testing based visual inspection of the data. Anomalies 28-3, 28-5,

116 and 28-6 were positive monopole anomalies on the magnetic gradient data and all produced cultural features. Anomaly 28-4, a strong dipole, resulted from an iron pin uncovered at 20 centimeters below surface.

Feature Excavation

Four cultural features were excavated in Block 28. The block’s southeast shovel test was expanded into a 1 by 1 meter unit when subsoil was not encountered at the base of the plowzone. This feature (Feature 28-2) was located on a low, broad rise. This area may have represented a prehistoric mound that was never mapped or overburden from historic excavations of nearby Mound 25. Excavation of Feature 28-2 to 65 centimeters below surface located three additional stratigraphic levels. The first level below plowzone was 9 centimeters in depth and contained FCR, pot sherds, flakes, and charcoal flecks.

The second level was 10 centimeters in total depth and had one piece of FCR. The third level was 35 centimeters in depth and was free of artifacts. Three additional 1 by 1 meter excavation units were placed at 20 meter intervals across this rise. Similar artifact bearing layers were found below the plowzone. By subtracting the elevation gain from these excavation units, a 15-25 centimeter layer of artifacts was found. This layer may represent the historic plowzone prior to the Mound 25 excavations. I also tried to calculate the volume of Mound 25 fill excavated by Moorehead (1922) to compare to the volume of this topographic rise, but was unsuccessful because of inconsistencies in the published report. The analysis to date has determined that this feature is likely overburden from historic excavations of the nearby Mound 25. It appears that up to 35 centimeters of mound fill was deposited across this area. The plowzone and first level

117 below plowzone contained artifacts similar to those found in the mound fill of the Seip-

Pricer mound (Greber 1997b). The second and third levels below plowzone appear to represent an historic plowzone. Support for this conclusion comes from Moorehead

(1922:103) as he writes about the Mound 25 excavations: “I find in the field-notes that the owner, Mr. M. C. Hopewell, was exceedingly kind and courteous. Our teams dropped earth about his clover fields and destroyed crops, yet he entered no complaint.”

Two other features, Features 28-3 and 28-6, are postholes. Both were encountered at the base of the plowzone and extend for 68 and 43 centimeters below surface respectively. Neither posthole had any artifacts except for small flecks of charcoal.

The last feature is located immediately to the north of the west village. Feature

28-5 consists of a layer of FCR atop a layer of burned logs (Figure 41). The feature is 5.5 meters in length, 1.5 meters in width, and 20 centimeters in depth. Five bladelets and one

Middle Woodland point were recovered from the plowzone. Additional bladelets and cordmarked pot sherds were excavated from an intervening layer between the plowzone and the FCR feature (30-60 cmbs). Artifacts recovered from the uppermost layers are indicative of a Middle Woodland origin. No artifacts, aside from FCR and burned limestone, were found in the FCR feature itself. Charcoal at the base of the feature was sent for radiocarbon dating. Calibration at two sigma using CALIB 5.0.1-IntCal04

(Reimer et al. 2004) produced a date of 570-202 B.C. (2330±70 RCYBP), which slightly pre-dates the generally accepted dates for the Middle Woodland period. The uppermost layers of this feature represent fill, most likely part of the Mound 25 overburden documented in Feature 28-2, while the FCR feature is a remnant of an Early Woodland period heating activity.

118 Assessment

Block 28, situated among three locales given for a village site, contains much evidence to support prehistoric occupation. Geophysical testing found a few anomalies indicative of cultural features. The magnetic and resistance data located two anomalies that are most likely to be pit features; indeed, one excavated anomaly (Feature 28-5) was a large feature containing much FCR. In addition, the resistance data showed a large area of higher resistance. At least one shovel test excavated within this anomaly produced evidence of a buried floor supporting the idea of a low, broad mound resulting from historic excavations.

Results from the southeastern shovel tests attest to some sort of Middle Woodland short-term occupation. The absence of exotic artifacts potentially excludes ceremonial or mortuary uses. The prehistoric artifacts (n=44), including flakes, sherds, and FCR, are indicative of settlement, but the lack of stone tools and food remains is troubling. One explanation is that the area was covered with Mound 25 mound fill that contained a mixture of habitation debris. Another explanation is that this area may have been used for short-term communal meetings similar to those documented in Block 10.

Prehistoric cultural features in this block include two postholes and a large pit containing FCR. Evidence found in and around the postholes is not enough to conclude a temporal affiliation or a function as building supports, temporary shelter supports, isolated posts, or another use. The FCR feature appears to be ceremonial in nature, but dated to the Early Woodland period.

I interpret the data in Block 28 to be the remains of one, possibly two or three, prehistoric occupation. One occupation during the Early Woodland period may be

119 associated with an Adena presence at the site prior to large-scale earthwork construction that occurred during the Middle Woodland period. Of interest to note is that Brown

(1994) found at least three FCR pits at Mound City that are similar in nature. Evidence for a possible second occupation comes from the two postholes. The lack of artifacts from these features and nearby shovel tests points to an explanation other than settlement.

Only additional excavations can determine the nature and origin of these postholes. A third possible occupation may be related to Hopewell communal activities conducted in

Block 10; this is only plausible if the low mounded area did not result from historic excavations of Mound 25. In general, evidence for use of Block 28 for non-mound activities during the Middle Woodland period is limited.

Block 32

Block 32 is in the southwest quadrant of the main enclosure. This part of the terrace contains some topographic relief due to its proximity to Mound 25. The North

Fork Paint Creek is 475 meters to the south and the nearest spring is 360 meters to the west. Eldean loam of 0-6% slope is the only soil occurring in this block.

The block lies near the center of a field that has been farmed for nearly two hundred years. The plowzone varies from 24-34 centimeters in depth. It appears from historic documents that no structures existed in this location. Although agriculture has severely impacted the topsoil, it is expected that the archaeological record should be fairly intact below the plowzone.

This block is located in the main enclosure. The D-shaped enclosure should pass through the southeastern corner of the block. This enclosure was originally described as a

120 circular enclosure by Atwater (1820:86), “The largest circular work, which consists of a wall and ditch like those already described, is a sacred enclosure, including within it six mounds, which have been used as cemeteries.” Based on his descriptions in the same paragraph of enclosure dimensions, it can be extrapolated that the earthen wall was 12 feet in height and 20 feet in width and the ditch was 20 feet wide (Atwater 1820).

Contrary to this account, Squier and Davis (1848) describe this enclosure as D-shaped:

“…the other is a semi-circular enclosure, two thousand feet in circumference, bounded by a slight circumvallation and ditch as represented in the plan.” An examination of their accompanying cross-section reveals a slight ditch, perhaps a meter deep, along the arcing section of the enclosure. There is no ditch along the linear section that should bisect this block. The walls are mapped as one meter in height and approximately two meters in width. This enclosure was not visible by the 1920s (Shetrone 1926).

Inside the D-shaped enclosure was Mound 25. The mound originally would have been 25-30 meters south of Block 32. Topographic mapping found an increase in elevation at the southern edge of this block. This rise may be the northernmost limits of

Mound 25, but it is more likely to be the backdirt pile from historic excavations.

Although this block is located near significant archaeological features, previous fieldwork has been limited to Seeman’s surface collection. Seeman (1981) found the field in which this block is located to be generally devoid of artifacts except for the western village and the artifact cluster in Block 23 (Seeman 1981). Based on these accounts, it was expected that this block would contain a portion of the D-shaped enclosure but little else.

121 Geophysical Surveys

All portions of Block 32 underwent magnetic testing (Figure 42). Analysis of the

processed data identified one anomaly amid numerous plow scars (Figure 43). This

anomaly is located in the southwest corner of the block; Table 19 provides further information. The magnetic data had no indications of the embankment.

The resistance survey found a large area of higher resistance in the southern

portion of the block (Figure 44). This area appears to correspond to the D-shaped

enclosure that contains Mound 25. To determine if this was the earthen wall, additional

survey was conducted to the east and north of this block. Figure 45 shows the extent of

higher resistance, as well as reveals the location of the D-shaped embankment wall to the

east of this block. The resistance anomaly in Block 32 may actually represent some sort

of drainage or alternatively may be a backdirt pile from Mound 25 excavations. One

resistance anomaly indicative of a large pit feature was found that corresponds to the lone

magnetic anomaly (Table 20; Figure 46).

Shovel Test Results

Of the nine shovel tests in Block 32, five tested positive for artifacts. No cultural

features were found in the shovel tests. A total of fifteen artifacts were recovered: seven

flakes, one shatter, one sherd, and six pieces of FCR. The flakes were mainly of local

chert sized between 0.5-1 inch in size. Two flakes were of Flint Ridge chert. The sherd

was a grit-tempered body piece of 0.25-0.5 inch in size and 7.6 millimeters in thickness.

The FCR was sandstone, granite, and chert sized at 2.5-5 centimeters. Six of the fifteen

artifacts (40%) were found in the north shovel test.

122 Anomaly Testing

The lone anomaly for this block was not tested.

Feature Excavation

No features were excavated in Block 32.

Assessment

The lack of geophysical anomalies and artifacts from the shovel tests indicate

very little use of this block. The one geophysical anomaly identified may be a pit feature.

The artifacts appear to represent a general scatter of debris within the main enclosure, a conclusion also reached by Seeman (1981) from his surface collections. Additional

resistance testing of the surrounding area relocated a portion of the D-shaped enclosure,

but the embankment is located outside the bounds of Block 32.

Block 34

This block is located within the main enclosure. The terrace is level with less than

20 centimeter relief. No physiographic features are evident. Distance to the North Fork

Paint Creek is 450 meters to the south. Two springs in the terrace slope are located about

400 meters to the north. The well drained soil is Eldean loam.

This block is in an agricultural field that has been in active production since the early 1800s. Depth of the plowzone is 23-29 centimeters. No structures were recorded on historic documents for this area. The most significant impact to the archaeological record was plowing but the archaeological record should be intact underneath the plowzone.

123 Block 34 is located within the southeast quadrant of the main enclosure. This block slightly overlaps an area that contains a portion of the small circular enclosure.

This enclosure was discussed in reference to Block 23. The enclosure consisted of a small earthen wall, probably no wider than two meters and no higher than one meter. The enclosure had one gateway that would have been about 40 meters northwest of this block.

It was anticipated that the enclosure would bisect the southeastern corner of this block. In terms of other features, the D-shaped enclosure is located 80 meters to the west, Mound

19 is about 30 meters to the northwest, and Mound 4 is 60 meters to the west. Seeman

(1981) also reported that James Marshall, a civil engineer who mapped the site in the

1970s, identified a possible mound to the east of Mound 19, approximately 30 to 40 meters north or northeast of this block. In summary, mounds and enclosures surround this block and therefore the area may have served as a staging area for activities.

Geophysical Surveys

Magnetic data was collected over the entire block. Plow scars are visible in both east-west and north-south directions (Figure 47). The two large dipoles are probably the result of lightning-induced remanent magnetization. Maki (2005:451) describes this phenomenon as “isothermal remanent magnetization that occurs within a few meters of a lightning strike.” Only one magnetic anomaly was identified as a probable prehistoric l feature (Figure 48). This anomaly was two standard deviations from the mean and received a low rank of “D” (Table 21). No evidence of the circular enclosure was found.

The resistance survey found a large area of high resistance in the central portion of the block (Figure 49). Higher resistance readings are typical of stone pavements or

124 natural gravel deposits. A 1938 aerial photograph shows a farm lane passing through this

block that may be the cause, yet the anomaly measures 25 meters north-south. Further analysis found that three distinct anomalies were present. No magnetic features correspond to this high resistance area. At this time, I am unsure as to the cause of this

anomaly. No resistance anomalies indicative of prehistoric features were identified.

Shovel Test Results

This block had nine shovel tests with the southeast unit overlapping with the

northwest unit of Block 23. Each shovel test had at least one artifact, although the north

unit contained only one piece of historic stoneware. A total of eighteen prehistoric

artifacts were found: seven flakes, three sherds, and eight pieces of FCR. No artifacts

were diagnostic of the Middle Woodland period. The flakes were of local chert and

smaller than 0.5 inch in size. The sherds consisted of one rim and two body pieces. The

fragmentary nature of the sherds did not permit a determination of surface treatment. All

FCR was sandstone and smaller than 5 centimeters in diameter. Furthermore, there is no

clear concentration of artifacts.

Anomaly Testing

The single magnetic anomaly was not tested.

Feature Excavation

No features were excavated in this block.

125 Assessment

Although this block is located near several mounds and enclosure, there is very little evidence of site use based on the geophysical and archaeological data. The magnetic and electrical resistance data are relatively quiet in terms of prehistoric features. The

artifacts are scattered throughout the block without any apparent clustering. Accordingly,

this block represents an area that may not have been widely used during the Middle

Woodland period. Perhaps the area contained within this block was kept free of activities

in order to facilitate movement around the nearby mounds and embankments.

Block 65

Block 65 is located near the center of the main enclosure. This block is situated in

the midst of the second terrace and has little topographic relief, less than 10 centimeters.

No major physiographic features occur in this block. A uniform deposit of Eldean loam

characterizes the soil.

This block is currently situated in the middle of a large agricultural field. The base

of the plowzone varied from 12-30 centimeters. The shallow nature of the plowzone, in the southwest unit, may have resulted from modern scraping and relocation of soil to wet spots along the terrace edge (Zickafoos, personal communication). Historic documents indicate that the current field was subdivided into a number of smaller fields. Squier and

Davis (1848) mapped four fields. At that time, this block may have been split into three

fields. Aerial photographs also depict various configurations of the field divided into two or three smaller fields, but no fencelines could be discerned on the aerial photographs. No buildings were located on historic documents, although one aerial photograph shows a

126 small farm lane extending into this area. At the terminus of this lane, near the bounds of

Block 65, appears to be a cleared spot. It is unknown what this area may have been used

for. The extent of historic use may not have impacted the archaeological record below the

plowzone.

Block 65 is located near the center of the main enclosure about 32 meters north of

the D-shaped enclosure. This block lies amid a number of mounds—Mound 25 is 80 meters to the southwest, Mounds 4 and 19 are 100 meters to the southeast, Mound 2 is 90 meters to the north, and Mound 3 is 100 meters to the west. An additional mound located by James Marshall (n.d) may be 60 meters to the east. Although this block is surrounded by mounds, there are no known archaeological features. In addition, the surface collection by Seeman (1981:11) in this field “produced relatively little cultural material….Most of this material came from the western half of the field.” The archaeological record in this block may be very slight.

Geophysical Surveys

Block 65 contains numerous plow scars running in the cardinal directions (Figure

50). This block was fairly quiet in terms of magnetic anomalies indicative of cultural

features. Only two anomalies were identified (Figure 51). Both are located in the block’s

southeast quadrant. Table 22 provides information about the two anomalies. Both

anomalies are ranked as “C”. These may represent small or truncated pit features.

Large-scale analysis shows a distinct area of high resistance (Figure 52). High resistance is located in the northwest quadrant and in an arc from the extreme northeast corner to the south. These areas represent topography or underlying drainage patterns.

127 Three resistance anomalies were identified from the analysis (Table 23; Figure 53). An area of very low resistance in the south central portion of the block measures six meters east-west and nine meters north-south. This may represent a compacted floor. This area does not correspond to any magnetic anomaly. Conversely, this area may be due to poor drainage. Two other small, high resistance anomalies are located in the block. While both may be stone-filled pits, Resistance Anomaly 3 corresponds to the magnetic anomaly and thus provides a greater probability that it is a prehistoric cultural feature.

Shovel Test Results

The nine shovel tests only recovered eight artifacts from five units. In addition, one anomaly was found in the southeast unit and labeled 65-1, which was later found to be rodent burrow. From the shovel tests, the artifacts consisted of two historic and six prehistoric objects. A scraper, utilized flake, three flakes, and a piece of shatter were the prehistoric artifacts. Both the scraper and utilized flake were of Upper Mercer chert. Two flakes were of local chert and one was of Flint Ridge. The shatter was quartz crystal between 0.5-1 inch in size. The artifacts were loosely clustered in the northeast quadrant of the block, although there is no clear concentration of artifacts.

Anomaly Testing

Three anomalies were tested in this block, including Anomaly 65-1 found to be a natural feature. The other two anomalies tested were selected in the field from processed magnetic data. Both anomalies are characterized as strong dipoles. Upon testing,

128 Anomaly 65-2 was an animal burrow and Anomaly 65-3 was a piece of metal in the

plowzone. None of the geophysical anomalies identified from data analysis were tested.

Feature Excavation

No cultural features were located in the anomaly testing.

Assessment

Overall, Block 65 contains limited evidence for use of non-mound space. A total of four geophysical anomalies with low rankings do not support extensive use of the area

during prehistory. This is bolstered by the handful of artifacts recovered from the shovel tests—two stone tools among a few pieces of lithic debitage. The presence of Flint Ridge and Upper Mercer chert plus quartz crystal does support some type of Middle Woodland presence. I suggest that this area was the scene of a momentary activity related to a specialized activity involving stone tool manufacture.

Block 68

This block, located within the main enclosure, contains land that is relatively level with less than 30 centimeters relief. The North Fork Paint Creek is 530 meters to the

south and two streams are located within 320 meters to the north. The soil is classified as

Eldean loam of 0-2% slope.

Agricultural activity since the early 1800s resulted in a plowzone of 24-35

centimeters for this block. While this block is located in a field that is currently ten

hectares, the field was subdivided into four fields when Squier and Davis (1848) mapped

129 the site. It is unknown if fences marked the field boundaries. It is possible that one field boundary passed through the southern half of this block. Since no other structures are reported for this area, the impact to the archaeological record appears to be the result of agricultural activities.

Block 68 is located east of center in the main enclosure. While this area does not contain mounds or enclosures, it is in close proximity to numerous earthworks. The D- shaped enclosure is 80 meters to the southwest and the circular enclosure is 52 meters to the southeast. Mound 19 is 25 meters south and Mound 4 is 80 meters to the southwest.

Additional mounds identified by Marshall (n.d.) and Seeman (1981) are 50 meters to the west-northwest and 70 meters to the north. Seeman (1981) reports that James Marshall also located another mound east of Mound 19, possibly 20 meters southeast of this block.

As with much of the study area, this block has not been subjected to archaeological fieldwork other than surface collections. Seeman (1981) found only a few artifacts from this entire field, although most were concentrated well outside of this block. As such, I expected to find a scant archaeological record in this block even though the area is near mounds.

Geophysical Surveys

The magnetic data of Block 68 contained plow scars in east-west and north-south directions (Figure 54). In addition, an historic or modern disturbance bisects the extreme southern edge of the block. This may be remains of a fence used to separate fields in historic times. Only two magnetic anomalies were identified in the processed data, both

130 were located in the extreme northern section of the block (Figure 55). Both anomalies exhibit characteristics of pit features in terms of their dimensions, shape, peak intensities, and depth to peak magnetic moment (Table 24).

The electrical resistance data show distinct areas of low and high resistance

(Figure 56). An area of low resistance in the northwest corner of the block is indicative of

a compacted area. This area appears to be related to agricultural practices. The high

resistance area in the northeast quadrant probably represents extremely well drained soils

or a topographic high. Two high resistance anomalies were identified in the analysis

(Table 25; Figure 57). Both showed characteristics indicative of pits, yet only Resistance

Anomaly 1 matched a magnetic anomaly.

Shovel Test Results

Nine shovel tests were excavated in this block with the northwest unit overlapping

the southeast unit in Block 87. Five shovel tests were positive. A total of six artifacts

were found. One biface fragment of Flint Ridge chert was found, as well as a flake

scraper, two flakes, and two pieces of sandstone FCR. None of the artifacts were

diagnostic of the Middle Woodland period. There was no clear concentration of artifacts

since so little was recovered.

Anomaly Testing

No anomalies were tested.

131 Feature Excavation

No features were excavated in this block.

Assessment

This block contained very little in terms of the geophysical and archaeological

data. There is no clear indication that this area was used by the Hopewell, except for the

Flint Ridge biface fragment. This lack of evidence points to a limited use of the area.

Block 82

Block 82 is located in the northwest quadrant of the main enclosure. Local topography is fairly level with no physiographic features present. Soils are the well drained Eldean loam.

This block is situated within the center field of the site, although a very small portion of the northwest corner extends into the west field. These fields have been cultivated for nearly two hundred years. The plowzone varies from 24-35 centimeters in depth. A portion of this block is located in the historic fieldline that now contains a mix of trees and heavy brush. Some vegetation was removed for this study but a dense mixture of poison ivy, weeds, and tree saplings hampered the geophysical surveys. Since the area not surveyed was in fieldline that had remnants of barbed wire and wire fencing, the magnetometer would have registered the ferrous metal and the resistance meter would have picked up only the soil conditions caused by the presence of dense vegetation. Also,

132 Squier and Davis (1848) mapped an east-west fieldline that may have crossed through

this block. No known historic structures existed in this area so the archaeological record is expected to be intact at the base of the plowzone and within the fenceline.

This block is located near several mounds and immediately north of Moorehead’s and Shetrone’s west village. These sites would have been about 15 meters south of this block. Seeman (1981) relocated these sites about 140 meters south of this block. Mounds

15 and 16 are located about 135 and 100 meters, respectively, to the west. Mound 24 is

50 meters to the east and Mound 3 is 75 meters to the southeast. Little is known about the archaeological record in this block. The only documented survey was conducted by

Seeman (1981). His surface collection located some artifacts within the field that includes this block, however, there was no artifact concentration in the immediate vicinity.

Geophysical Surveys

The extreme northwest corner of this block was not tested due to the presence of

vegetation. Data that was collected clearly show multiple sets of plow scars running

across the block (Figure 58). A slightly stronger linear feature running east-west just

south of center may be the fieldline that Squier and Davis mapped in the 1840s or an

extremely deep plow scar that is visible on a 1938 aerial photograph. A total of four

magnetic anomalies were identified that were indicative of prehistoric cultural features

(Figure 59). These anomalies were scattered throughout the block. Characteristics and

rank of each anomaly are given in Table 26. All four anomalies are candidates for

prehistoric pit features.

133 The resistance data show areas of highs and lows (Figure 60). Broad-scale

analysis of the data found a large area of higher resistance to the north and low resistance

to the south. These two areas are separated by a linear, high resistance anomaly that corresponds to a magnetic anomaly thought to be the result of an historic fenceline or historic agricultural practices. Two anomalies were found during analysis (Figure 61).

Resistance Anomaly 1 is a dipole that matches a magnetic dipole in the same location.

Typically magnetic dipoles are representative of metal, but in this case, it actually may

represent a highly magnetic stone-filled pit. The other anomaly confirms the presence of a pit feature seen in the magnetic data. Table 27 displays the characteristics for each resistance anomaly.

Shovel Test Results

Nine shovel tests were excavated. The northwest unit overlaps with the southeast

unit of Block 100. Five units had artifacts. A total of 25 artifacts were found, including

one historic object. Prehistoric artifacts were one bladelet, one hafted biface, one flake,

one piece of groundstone, and twenty pieces of sandstone FCR. The bladelet is diagnostic

of the Hopewell and the biface is indicative of the Middle Woodland period (see Figure

20, artifact labeled E4240 N5140). The artifacts cluster in the southeast portion of the

block and the nature of artifacts, particularly the sandstone FCR, is representative of a

primarily heating or cooking function.

Anomaly Testing

No geophysical anomalies were excavated in Block 82.

134 Feature Excavation

No features were excavated in this block.

Assessment

The location of this block near a number of mounds and north of settlements

mapped by Moorehead and Shetrone makes it a likely candidate for prehistoric activities.

However, only a few geophysical anomalies are present. While these anomalies are indicative of pit features, they are not arranged in a manner suggestive of an integrative

use. If these anomalies do represent features, then perhaps they resulted from multiple,

short-term uses. At this time, it is unclear if these anomalies are related to Middle

Woodland use of the site, but one anomaly found in both the magnetic and resistance

surveys may provide insight. This anomaly in the southwest quadrant is located within a cluster of artifacts. The resistance data suggests a pit filled with stones, an idea bolstered

by the presence of FCR in the near vicinity. Two artifacts dating to the Middle Woodland

period were found in this block. This anomaly may represent a heating event conducted

in association with Hopewell activities at the site. Overall, there is a lack of artifacts,

multiple anomalies, and soil compaction indicative of long-term use of the area. The lack of domestic debris points to a specialized, rather than a domestic, use for this block.

Block 87

Block 87 is located in the main enclosure on the second terrace. The local topography rises 20 centimeters in the southern half of the block. A spring from the slope of the third terrace is located 265 meters north. Eldean loam soil covers the entire block.

135 This block was located in an agricultural field that has been in cultivation for over

150 years. Depth to the base of the plowzone is 33 centimeters on average. In addition to

the destruction of the archaeological record caused by the plowing, a historic fieldline

might have bisected this block. An east-west fieldline is mapped on the Squier and Davis

(1848) map. The method for delineating this field boundary is unknown. However, this fieldline was not depicted in any other maps and is not evident in aerial photographs;

therefore, the impact may have been negligible.

Block 87 is located near the center of the main enclosure. Within a 100 meter

radius are many Hopewell features, including Mounds 2, 22, and 19. Two additional rises

have been identified as potential mounds by James Marshall (as cited in Seeman 1981).

Both are close to this block—one is in close proximity to Mound 22 and the other

halfway between Mounds 2 and 19. The latter may be very near or possibly in this block.

The location of this rise was confirmed in Seeman’s survey, but no artifact concentrations

were located. Seeman (1981:15) concluded, “only additional work will serve to clarify

the possible cultural significance of these two rises.” In terms of enclosures, the northeast

corner of the D-shaped enclosure is 80 meters to the southeast and the circular enclosure

is 130 meters to the southeast. From examining the archaeological evidence, it appears

that this block is located in an active Hopewell activity zone.

Geophysical Results

Magnetic data was collected for Block 87. Upon downloading the data in the

field, a large anomaly appeared in the block’s southern half. This semi-circular anomaly

continued to the south of this block and so two additional 20 by 20 meter blocks were

136 tested (Figure 62). A circular anomaly measuring 30 meters in diameter and 1.5 meters in

width with a gap facing east was found. In addition, analysis of the original 40 by 40

meter block identified two smaller magnetic anomalies to the north of the large circle

(Figure 63). Table 28 contains the measurements and rank for the three magnetic

anomalies.

Large-scale resistance data shows distinct areas of highs and lows (Figure 64).

Areas of higher resistance in the block may relate to underlying geology and agricultural

practices. The low resistance area is the result of agriculture as plow scars visible in the

magnetic data occur in the same location and with similar patterning. A total of three

anomalies were identified from the analysis (Table 29; Figure 65). The large circular

anomaly seen in the magnetic data is clearly visible in the data as an area of higher

resistance. The area inside the circular anomaly has a lower resistance than outside the

anomaly, thus suggesting a compacted floor. Two other anomalies were identified; of

these, one matched a magnetic anomaly and is a good candidate to be a pit feature.

Shovel Test Results

Nine shovel tests were excavated in this block with the southeast unit overlapping

the northwest unit of Block 68. Only two shovel tests had artifacts. One STP had 22 pieces of historic cinder. The other shovel test, the north unit, had only one piece of shatter of Flint Ridge chert. This block had the lowest amount of prehistoric artifacts

within the sample.

137 Anomaly Testing

Two geophysical anomalies were chosen for testing based on the field processed magnetic data. Anomaly 87-1, a strong dipole, proved to be a concentration of cinder.

Anomaly 87-2 tested was the large circular feature, a magnetic monopole with peak intensity of 7.52 nT. During removal of the plowzone, three pieces of lithic debitage, a broken groundstone celt, and FCR were recovered amid cinders. A distinct silt loam soil appeared at the base of the plowzone and feature excavation begun.

Feature Excavation

The only feature excavated in Block 87 was the large circular anomaly. A 1 by 4

meter trench excavated through a southern portion of the anomaly revealed a shallow ditch that was 2.5 meters wide and extended below the plowzone about 20 centimeters deep. The only artifact found in the feature was one piece of FCR. No charcoal was recovered. Circular ditches, although sometimes accompanying small Hopewell circular enclosures, are more prominent during the Early Woodland period; however, more

excavation is necessary before assigning a temporal affiliation.

Assessment

This block is surrounded by many mounds and its central location in the main

enclosure makes it a good location for staging various activities. The identification and

subsequent excavation of a large circular ditch feature denote a ceremonial nature of

activities conducted in this area. The discovery of only one piece of lithic debitage in the

shovel tests also points to a limited, or perhaps restricted, use of this space. Of interest to

138 note is that based on the lack of artifacts found in the shovel tests, this block may not have received further attention using only traditional archaeological methods and the circular ditch may not have been found. However, both Marshall (n.d.) and Seeman

(1981) describe at least one mound near this block. Perhaps this ditch feature is the same as their mound.

While the archaeological evidence points to a ceremonial use of this non-mound space, it is unclear if this feature represents an Early Woodland (Adena) or Middle

Woodland (Hopewell) earthwork. Excavations at the Peter site in Kentucky, an Adena circular enclosure, document a sequence of construction beginning with a stockade and later reconfigured to a ditch and embankment earthwork (Clay 1987). Recent work at the

Stubbs site, a Hopewell earthwork in southwestern Ohio, found a ring of large postholes underneath the location of a circular earthwork; it appears that at least two phases of construction occurred (Cowan et al. 1999). Therefore, a circular ditch of this size may have been constructed during either time period. Nonetheless, this feature represents the remnants of ceremonial activity.

Block 100

Block 100 is situated in the northwest quadrant of the main enclosure. The majority of the block is located in the west field with the extreme southeast corner extending into the center field. This block is level and no physiographic features are present although the base of the terrace slope is about 75 meters to the north. The soil is

Eldean loam of 0-2% slope and is uniform throughout the block.

139 This block is situated along the eastern boundary of an agricultural field. This

field has been farmed for over 150 years. Depth to the base of the plowzone is 30

centimeters. The block’s eastern edge is adjacent to an historic field boundary that is

overgrown with trees, weeds, and poison ivy. Some of this vegetation was manually

cleared in order to complete fieldwork. The age of this fieldline may have protected

archaeological features in the near vicinity otherwise plowing would have destroyed any shallow features.

Archaeological features near this block include several mounds. Mounds 15 and

16 are located about 60 and 90 meters to the west. Mound 24 is within 100 meters of the block. Shetrone’s Mound 28 probably lies 165 meters to the northeast, although Seeman

(1981) found evidence of a potential mound situated 75 meters to the north. Seeman speculates that this may be one of two possible locations for Mound 28. An additional mound may have been located about 110 meters north-northeast of this block (Marshall n.d.). Settlements recorded by Moorehead (1922) and Shetrone (1926) are 65 meters to the south. As previously mentioned, Seeman (1981) relocated the western village almost

190 meters to the south. The surface collections by Seeman (1981) did not locate any concentrations of artifacts in the area of Block 100 and thus this block may not contain an extensive archaeological record.

Geophysical Surveys

The magnetic data contains numerous plow scars, predominantly in the north-

south direction (Figure 66). Six anomalies were found situated throughout the block

140 (Figure 67). The anomalies all appear to be good candidates for pit features. All

anomalies are large (greater than 1 meter in diameter), circular to oval in shape, and

depths of 0.42 to 1.12 meters below surface (Table 30).

Upon first examination, the resistance map appears to display only the remnants

of plowing (Figure 68). The extreme eastern portion of the block is affected by water

retention in the fieldline vegetation. Small-scale analysis of the data located four resistance anomalies (Figure 69). Two anomalies matched magnetic anomalies and may represent prehistoric pit features (Resistance Anomalies 2 and 3). Resistance Anomaly 4 is indicative of a pit but it correlates with a magnetic dipole; this anomaly may be a pit filled with FCR. Table 31 lists the anomalies, characteristics, and ranks.

Shovel Test Results

Nine shovel tests were excavated in this block. The southeast unit overlapped with Block 82. Eight of the units tested positive for artifacts. A total of 54 artifacts were

recovered. Of the artifacts, all were prehistoric and included a bladelet, nine flakes, and

44 pieces of FCR. The bladelet and eight flakes were of Flint Ridge chert. The flakes

were all less than 0.5 inch. The FCR are mainly sandstone from 2.5-7.5 centimeters in

size. Artifacts concentrate in the west half of this block. The north shovel test contained

44% of the total artifacts found in the shovel tests. The density of FCR around this shovel

test probably represents a nearby plowed-out feature. A deposit of silty loam underlay the

plowzone in two of the STPs. This deposit reached a depth of 51 centimeters below

surface in the central STP and 86 centimeters below surface in the northwest unit. This

deposit may be colluvium from the nearby third terrace.

141 Anomaly Testing

None of the magnetic or resistance anomalies were tested.

Feature Excavation

No feature excavation occurred in this block.

Assessment

The presence of six magnetic anomalies plus FCR in eight of the shovel tests is

indicative of prehistoric occupation. The few lithic materials found are not suggestive of

a domestic occupation, especially since most were made of Flint Ridge chert and were small in size. This block may represent a specialized activity area related to the

Hopewellian use of the site. According to Seeman (1981), the remains of a fired clay feature in Mound 15 were clearly visible during his surface collection in 1980. In addition, 40 flakes and several stone tools of Flint Ridge chert were recovered from the

area surrounding Mounds 15 and 16. This block’s location near several mounds may have provided a good place to conduct specialized heating activities associated with the

ceremonial use of nearby sub-mound structures. Alternatively, activities may have been

related to site use for communal meetings.

Block 114

This block is located near the east embankment of the main enclosure. Local relief

in the east half of Block 114 is due to the presence of the embankment. The soil is Eldean

loam with 0-6% slope.

142 This block in located in an agricultural field that has been under continuous cultivation for over 150 years. The uneven nature of the block’s topography results in a plowzone varying from 23-45 centimeters in depth. Although currently located in the middle of a field, Squier and Davis (1848) mapped an east-west fieldline that would have run though this block. The extent of field boundary markers, such as whether a fence was installed, is unknown. No indication of fencing is visible on aerial photographs. Since no historic structures are documented for this area, it appears that the archaeological record should be intact below the plowzone.

Block 114 is located inside the main enclosure near a gateway joining the main and square enclosures. This block contains a portion of the wall of the main enclosure along its easternmost edge. Shetrone (1926:112) excavated a portion of this wall, although the exact location is unknown, and found “several unimportant and not well defined fire-beds.” He attributed these features to activities conducted prior to wall construction. In terms of features relative to this block, the gateway is approximately 12 meters east and the gateway’s associated mound is 25 meters distant. Excavation of this mound by Moorehead (1922) did not locate any significant finds. Shetrone (1926) mapped a borrow pit 35 meters to the north and his west habitation site is 70 meters to the northwest on a low, broad ridge. Surface collections of this field by Seeman (1981) did not find any concentrations, including any that correspond to Moorehead’s and

Shetrone’s settlements. Although this block sits near Hopewell architecture, it may contain a limited archaeological record since it is close to a gateway. If the gateway was used regularly, then the area might have been kept free of obstructions.

143 Geophysical Surveys

The entirety of Block 114 was tested with the magnetometer. Plow scars are

visible (Figure 70). In addition, there are quite a few anomalies indicative of historic

metal, particularly in the block’s eastern half. Four anomalies were identified as probable

prehistoric features (Figure 71). One anomaly is a large linear feature in the northwest

quadrant with a width of four meters. The other three anomalies are roughly circular in

shape and all with diameters less than 1 meter. Further details about these magnetic

anomalies are given in Table 32.

Large-scale analysis of the resistance data found areas of both high and low

resistance (Figure 72). The high resistance area in the middle portion of the block is a linear feature running roughly east-west. Although this anomaly is exaggerated because of a defect in the instrument’s internal clock, it may be related to an old historic fenceline. The resistance lows are a by-product of the resistance high and the instrument error. After analysis, only one anomaly was identified as a probable cultural feature

(Figure 73). This anomaly corresponds to the large magnetic anomaly. This anomaly may represent a borrow pit mapped in this area by Shetrone (1926). Table 33 provides additional information about the resistance anomaly.

Shovel Test Results

Six of the nine shovel tests were positive for artifacts. A total of ten artifacts were

recovered: one bladelet, five flakes, a piece of shatter, an amorphous core, and two pieces

of sandstone FCR. The bladelet and shatter were from different units, but both were made

144 of Flint Ridge chert. The other lithic debitage were made from local pebble cherts and

were sized between 0.5-1 inch. With the exception of the bladelet, artifacts clustered to

the west or the area furthest from the embankment of the main enclosure.

Two shovel tests were located on the embankment. The northeast unit reached a distinct soil containing pebbles and cobbles at a depth of 38 centimeters below surface without recovering any artifacts. An auger test to 81 centimeters below surface was filled with much of the same soil that may be embankment fill. The east shovel test reached the same gravelly soil at 45 centimeters below surface. An additional 20 centimeters was excavated with no change in the soil and no artifacts found.

Anomaly Testing

Two geophysical anomalies were tested. These were chosen in the field based on

the field processed data. Both anomalies were monopoles. Anomaly 114-1 had a peak

intensity of 12.49 nT and a diameter of 1.5 meters. Anomaly 114-2 was a weak anomaly

with a peak of 2.59 nT and a diameter of 0.5 meters. These anomalies were selected because I thought they may represent small, discrete cultural features, such as postholes.

Upon excavation, both had small amounts of lithic debitage and FCR yet both were barren of cultural features. Instead, both contained a great amount of gravel and cobbles throughout the plowzone and a dense layer of glacial till at shallow depths (28 cmbs in

Anomaly 114-1 and 21 cmbs in Anomaly 114-2).

145 Feature Excavation

With the exception of the two shovel tests on the embankment, no cultural features were excavated.

Assessment

Block 114 is located near several important Hopewellian features—a portion of

the main enclosure wall, a borrow pit, a gateway, a mound, and the East Village. This central location makes it attractive for a staging area, yet its location near a gateway may

have also served to limit its use to permit movement in and out of the main enclosure.

The latter suggestion appears to be borne out as only a few anomalies were identified in

the geophysical data. Of these, one appears to be the remnants of a borrow pit while the

others may represent small pits. The shovel test data also support this idea as few artifacts

were found indicative of an activity area. It appears that this block was not used heavily

except for activities related to earthwork construction.

Block 124

Block 124 is located in the northeast quadrant of the main enclosure. Local

topography is fairly level with less than 20 centimeters relief. No physiographic features

are present. The nearest water source is a spring located 140 meters to the north. North

Fork Paint Creek is over 600 meters to the south. The predominant soil is the well

drained Eldean loam with small patches of the moderately well drained Glenford silt

loam.

146 Historic use of this block is limited to agriculture. This block is located in the center field that has been continuously cultivated for over 150 years. The plowzone extends 31 centimeters below surface on average. No structures have been reported; thus, historic impact to the archaeological record in this block should be limited to the depth of the plow.

Block 124 lies among a trio of mounds. To the west is Mound 2, to the northeast

Mound 21, and to the southeast Mound 22. All mounds are within 100 meters. The most important of these mounds is Mound 2 because it contained over 8,200 flint bifaces of

Wyandotte chert. Flintknapping evidence for large-scale biface production is not present at the Hopewell site, but it was interesting to survey this area for any remnant of

Hopewell activity that may be related to Mound 2 activities. Seeman’s (1981) survey did not find any artifact clusters in this area. The archaeological record in this block may be quite sparse.

Geophysical Survey

Magnetic data in Block 124 show numerous plow scars (Figure 74). A large

dipole anomaly in the block’s northeast corner is the result of a lightening strike. In the

otherwise quiet data, three anomalies were found in the block’s southwest quadrant

(Figure 75). Table 34 presents information about the anomalies. The anomaly in the southwest corner was originally found in a shovel test at the base of the plowzone. The other two anomalies are circular in shape with diameters greater than one meter. All three

anomalies are indicative of prehistoric pit features.

147 Large-scale analysis shows high resistance in the northeast quadrant (Figure 76).

This may correspond to slight differences in soil type. Three high resistance anomalies

were identified from the analysis (Table 35; Figure 77). All three correspond to magnetic

anomalies and are likely to be cultural features.

Shovel Test Results

Nine shovel tests were completed for this unit. The northeast unit overlaps the

southwest unit of Block 147. All nine shovel tests contained prehistoric artifacts; no

historic artifacts were recovered. The artifacts were 13 flakes and 27 pieces of FCR. Only

four of the flakes were Flint Ridge chert, the rest were local cherts. Eleven of the flakes ranged between 0.5-1 inch in size. The FCR was predominantly sandstone with sizes ranging to 12.5 centimeters in size. A total of 50% of the artifacts were recovered from two shovel tests, the southwest and west units, while the other artifacts seemed evenly distributed over the remainder of the block. One anomaly was found in the southwest shovel test.

Anomaly Testing

A total of four anomalies were tested. Anomaly 124-1 was initially found in a

shovel test and subsequently verified with magnetic data. This anomaly consisted of a deposit of FCR. Removal of the plowzone located FCR, a few flakes, and a small grit- tempered, plain sherd. Anomaly 124-2 was a magnetic anomaly characterized as a haloed dipole with a peak intensity of 19.33 nT. A few flakes and pieces of FCR were recovered from the plowzone along with a hafted biface fragment of unknown temporal affiliation.

148 Feature fill found at the base of the plowzone contained specks of charcoal and FCR.

Anomaly 124-3 was a weak magnetic dipole. One flake was found during plowzone removal, but no feature was found. It is likely that this anomaly was a piece of metal.

Anomaly 124-4 was a small, weak monopole located in the vicinity of Anomalies 124-1

and 124-2. Although a few flakes and pieces of FCR were found in the plowzone, no

feature was discovered. This anomaly may have resulted from a plow scar.

Feature Excavation

Two features were excavated in Block 124. Feature 124-1 (Anomaly 124-1) is a

basin of FCR measuring 2 meters in length and 1.5 meters in width. The feature extends

only 10 centimeters below the plowzone. The feature fill is redeposited subsoil with only

a few small flecks of charcoal. Soil below the feature appears to have a higher organic

content as a result of leaching. Aside from the numerous pieces of FCR recovered from

the feature, only one piece of shatter of Flint Ridge flint was found. This feature is similar

to “rock heating pits” found at Mound City. Brown (1994) describes these features as

“Each consists of group of rock exhibiting evidence of being in a fire that is at least

partially resting in a pit filled with organic stained earth in addition to the rock.” At

Mound City, a few artifacts other than the FCR were recovered, including charcoal

flecks, bone fragments, and one bladelet. Average diameter of these oval features at

Mound City is less than 1 meter. A similar type of feature recorded at Mound City is

“rock piles,” a deposit of FCR without additional artifacts or soil discoloration (Brown

1994). Feature 124-1 seems to resemble the heating pits more than the rock piles. As

149 such, this feature represents some sort of heating activity, such as a roasting or steaming

facility. No temporal affiliation is indicated except possibly the piece of Flint Ridge

debitage.

Feature 124-2 (Anomaly 124-2) is an earth oven with a diameter is 1.28 meters.

The feature extends 34 centimeters below plowzone and is lined with FCR. Feature fill is

an organic soil with charcoal throughout. A burned log sits at the base of the feature. One

quartz crystal was recovered from 20-30 centimeters below plowzone; no other artifacts

aside from the FCR were found. A portion of the log was radiocarbon dated. Calibration at two sigma using CALIB 5.0.1-IntCal04 (Reimer et al. 2004) resulted in a date of 929-

506 B.C. (2610±80 RCYBP), much too early to be considered Hopewell but within the limits commonly given for the Early Woodland period Adena culture.

Assessment

Block 124 is located among three mounds in a relatively flat area of the main

enclosure. This area may be particularly suited for the staging of activities yet previous

work did not locate much in terms of an archaeological record. Three geophysical

anomalies were found in both the magnetic and resistance data. These anomalies were

clustered in the block’s southwestern quadrant. A total of 40 artifacts were found in the shovel tests, 20 of which came from two units in the southwestern quadrant. The majority of artifacts are FCR (n=27), while the remainder are flakes. The discovery of two features containing vast amounts of FCR denotes heating activities. Lack of artifacts other than

FCR limits interpretation, although both may have been used for a variety of ceremonial or communal activities. Carbon from the earth oven dated to the Early Woodland period

150 and perhaps the nearby FCR feature is of the same age. Conclusive evidence, though, has not been found. At best Hopewell activity in this block was limited to that of a specialized nature due to the overall lack of domestic debris. The features do not appear to be reused and represent a short-term occupation.

Block 147

This block is located in the northeast quadrant of the main enclosure. Local relief is slight on this portion of level second terrace. A spring in the terrace slope is 110 meters to the north. The North Fork Paint Creek is a distant 700 meters to the south. An intermittent stream flowing from the third to the second terrace also drains in this area creating pockets of wet soil. This block is predominantly the moderately well drained

Eldean loam with small patches of Glenford silt loam.

Block 147 is located in a field that had been in cultivation since the early 1800s.

Shovel tests located the base of the plowzone between 25-35 centimeters below surface.

Features within the plowzone would have been destroyed. If there is an archaeological record in this block, then it should be fairly intact underneath the plowzone. No historic structures are known to have existed in this block.

The known archaeological record in the immediate vicinity of this block consists of two mounds. Mound 21 is located 30 meters to the northeast and Mound 22 is 35 meters southeast. These mounds were small and had been much disturbed by plowing prior to their investigations in the 1890s and 1920s. At that time, no artifacts or features were found in either mound (Moorehead 1922; Shetrone 1926). In addition, Mound 2 is about 100 meters to the southwest. Directly 125 meters north is a gateway into the main

151 enclosure on the third terrace. In terms of Seeman’s (1981) surface collection, no artifact

concentrations were found near this block. This block may contain very limited

archaeology due to the nature of the surrounding mounds and soil.

Geophysical Surveys

Block 147 is fairly quiet in terms of magnetic anomalies indicative of prehistoric

features (Figure 78). The block contains numerous plow scars in both directions as well

as several dipole anomalies, probably the result of historic metal artifacts. The processed

data has only one anomaly that may be prehistoric in origin (Figure 79). This anomaly

has a diameter of approximately one meter and peak intensity of 9.52 nT, but depth to

peak magnetic moment is only 22 centimeters below surface (Table 36). This anomaly

represents a ferrous object in the plowzone or a truncated feature, or alternatively the

assumptions of the depth calculation do not hold for this anomaly (see Bevan 1998).

The resistance data contain areas of low and high resistance (Figure 80). Low areas are indicative of wet soils and probably result from the perched water table of the

Glenford soils located in the northern sections of the block. Small-scale analysis of the resistance data only located one anomaly (Table 37; Figure 81). This anomaly has low resistance. Because this anomaly does not match with the magnetic anomaly, it may be a filled-in pit that does not contain much burned (magnetic) materials.

Shovel Test Results

The southwest shovel test overlapped the northeast unit of Block 124. Of the nine

shovel tests, seven tested positive for artifacts. Fourteen artifacts were found including

152 one piece of historic whiteware, six flakes, an amorphous core, a pot sherd, and five

pieces of FCR. The amorphous core was a heat-treated piece of Flint Ridge chert. One

flake was also of Flint Ridge chert. The sherd was a body piece and surface treatment

could not be determined due to its small size. Artifacts clustered in the western half of the block. Shovel tests revealed a layer of colluvium, possibly from the nearby third terrace, in the three northern shovel tests. This soil deposit extended from the base of the plowzone to 97 centimeters below surface. This explains the recovery of the Flint Ridge flake and one piece of FCR at 30-40 centimeters below surface in two different units.

Anomaly Testing

Anomalies were not tested in Block 147.

Feature Excavation

No features were excavated in this block.

Assessment

This block is located near several mounds. The nearest mounds had been

extensively disturbed by plowing and little was found during excavations. Evidence is

lacking in terms of geophysical anomalies. Only two anomalies were found and both

were located within areas of wetter soil. The artifacts found are also limited in number.

Two pieces of lithic debitage were made of Flint Ridge chert. The flakes, predominantly

Columbus and Delaware cherts, range in size from 0.25-1 inch. In general, the light

153 scatter of artifacts in this block is similar in nature to that reported for the entire field by

Seeman (1981). Based on available evidence, this area does not seem to have been used extensively by the Hopewell.

Block 156

This block is situated in the square enclosure. The topography of this block is fairly level and no physiographic features are present. Distance to the nearest water source is a spring in the terrace slope about 300 meters northwest. Both the North Fork

Paint Creek and Sulphur Lick Creek are at a distance of 400 meters. The soils are the well drained Eldean loam varying from 0-2% and 2-6%. Greater slopes correspond roughly to the north wall of the square enclosure.

This block has been under active cultivation for at least 150 years. The base of the plowzone varies in depth from 22 to 32 centimeters below surface. Agriculture is expected to have had the biggest impact to the archaeological record. In fact, by the time of Shetrone’s excavations in the 1920s the walls of the square, as well as the mounds, were obliterated. However, it was expected that archaeological deposits would be intact beneath the plowzone. No historic structures have been documented for this block.

Block 156 is the only block within the square enclosure. Distance to the northern wall of the square enclosure is estimated at no more than 10 meters north. The east wall and ditch of the main enclosure (forming the west wall of the square) is 50 meters to the west. The four gateways of the square enclosure each have a mound located inside their entrances. The nearest gateway and mound feature is the north-facing gateway at 55 meters to the northeast. The west-facing gateway and mound is 70 meters to the

154 southwest. Moorehead (1922:88) remarked on the gateway mounds, “The four mounds

within the square to the east were so disturbed and reduced in height that we did not number them. We tested them and found practically nothing.” Greber and Ruhl (2000:12) posit “the four small mounds within the square were most likely part of a symbolic design and thus functioned differently from the other mounds.”

Seeman (1981) conducted surface collections across the field containing this block. The eastern half of the field, which did not include this block, contained eleven

Hopewell diagnostic artifacts. No artifact clusters were found near Block 156. It was thus expected that the archaeological record in this block would be extremely limited given the lack of artifacts and features found in the nearby excavations and surface collections.

Geophysical Surveys

The magnetic data for Block 156 contains a series of plow scars oriented in the

north-south direction (Figure 82). After analysis, a total of nine anomalies were identified

and these appear to be almost equally spaced (Figure 83). These anomalies are generally

located in a north-south direction along the block’s mid-section. Most of the peak

intensities are in the 5-7 nT range. The anomalies, their characteristics, and ranks are

presented in Table 38. These anomalies appear to represent pit features but temporal

affiliation cannot be assigned based on the magnetic data.

The electrical resistance data appear to correspond to plow scars that are quite

noticeable in the magnetic data (Figure 84). No anomalies were identified after the small-

scale analysis. It appears that this block is quiet in terms of electrical resistance

anomalies.

155 Shovel Test Results

Of the nine shovel tests in this block, six had a total of 21 artifacts. Four of the

artifacts were historic in nature. The prehistoric artifacts were two Flint Ridge chert

bladelets, thirteen flakes, and two pieces of sandstone FCR. The bladelets are diagnostic

of the Hopewell. Ten of the flakes were of Flint Ridge chert. The prehistoric artifacts

clustered in the northern half of the unit, nearest the suspected location of the north wall

of the square enclosure.

Anomaly Testing

One anomaly was selected for testing based on the field processed magnetic data.

This anomaly was a weak monopole with a peak intensity of 5.47 nT. Excavation of the plowzone found charcoal fragments, two flakes, three pieces of shatter, and three pieces of FCR. A circular charcoal stain at the base of the plowzone measuring 20 centimeters in diameter was bisected. The western half, excavated to 50 centimeters below surface contained one piece of FCR and a bullet. In addition, a charcoal lens 13 centimeters thick drifted diagonally through part of the stain. The overall shape of the stain was slightly sinuous with a diffuse lower boundary grading into subsoil. This anomaly was a result of natural causes rather than a prehistoric cultural feature. It may represent a burned out tree root or animal burrow.

Feature Excavation

No features were encountered during the fieldwork for this block.

156 Assessment

This block is located within the square enclosure, approximately ten meters south

of the northern embankment. Analysis of the magnetic data identified nine anomalies

indicative of cultural features. No potential features were found in the resistance data.

Artifacts from the shovel tests clustered in the northern portions of the block, the area

nearest the embankment. Two bladelets and ten flakes of Flint Ridge chert attest to a

Hopewellian occupation. The testing of one magnetic anomaly, while not cultural in nature, did locate a few additional pieces of lithic debitage and FCR. The lack of pot sherds and other objects of a domestic nature suggest a short-term specialized use of this block, probably related to the construction of the embankment.

Block 159

Block 159 is in the main enclosure. This block is located at the base of the slope to the third terrace and is situated on a slight rise, less than 50 centimeters in relief. The nearest water source, a spring, is located approximately 110 meters to the east. A gully, intermittently in nature, cuts down from the third terrace to the second terrace directly northwest of this block. Soils in this block are still classified as the well drained Eldean loam with 0-2% slope.

This block has been in cultivation for nearly 200 years. Shovel tests located the plowzone at 23-31 centimeters deep. The northern ten meters of the block is in an historic fenceline now consisting of trees and multiflora rose. Some of this dense vegetation was cleared, but the majority remained because the trees hampered mowing efforts. No historic structures were located in this block.

157 In terms of the known archaeological record, this block is about 70 meters south

of the northern wall and ditch of the main enclosure. A gateway along this northern wall

is approximately 100 meters to the northeast. However, the northern wall runs along the

third terrace and this block is on the second terrace. Nearby features on the second terrace

include Mound 2 at 80 meters south of the block. Shetrone (1926:108) did map one

mound, Mound 28, in this vicinity:

This small mound, not previously recorded, is located toward the northwest corner of the large enclosure at the very foot of the steep terrace. It was only ten inches in depth with a lateral extent of probably not more than 20 feet, there being no distinct floor and the original surface line being disturbed by the plow, excepting at the highest point. Its identity was disclosed only by a test, since it resembles several other slight elevations bordering the foot of the terrace, due to the deposition of talus from the adjacent slope.

This mound contained one small “basin” containing pot sherds, worked mica fragments, two knives, and hundreds of bone beads. According to Shetrone’s map, the mound would

have been within 20 meters west of this block. However, Seeman (1981:10) located two

rises in aerial photographs that he thought might be Mound 28; “Shetrone’s Mound 28

may lie in the extreme northeastern corner of Field 1, or it may correspond with a similar

rise in Field 2.” The rise in the west field (or Seeman’s Field 1) is 60 meters west of this

block and the rise in the center field (or Seeman’s Field 2) is located approximately in the

same location as Shetrone’s Mound 28. Seeman (1981:14) is cautious about describing

either one as a mound as he states that the Field 2 rise may be a mound or “natural talus

slopes projecting into the field from the elevated area immediately to the north.” Based

on these documents, I assume that Mound 28 is within the center field in a location about

20 meters west of Block 159. An additional mound may also be in the general vicinity in

158 the extreme northwestern corner of this field (as cited in Seeman 1981). No known

archaeological fieldwork has been conducted within this block except for Seeman’s surface collection of the field. No artifact concentrations were found in this block

(Seeman 1981). Due to the possible location of Mound 28 and the elevated location, this

area may have been a staging area for mound related activities.

Geophysical Surveys

The northern portions of this block were overgrown with vegetation and were not

tested with the magnetometer. Plow scars are visible on the data, as well as several

anomalies representing metal artifacts and drainage patterns (Figure 85). Note the linear

anomalies descending from the northwest corner of the block that provide drainage for

the nearby gully. In terms of archaeology, three anomalies of probable prehistoric cultural

origins were identified (Figure 86). These are scattered throughout the block. The

southernmost anomaly is a very good candidate for a deep pit filled with FCR based on

its characteristics. Table 39 provides more information about these anomalies.

The electrical resistance data show several areas of high and low resistance

(Figure 87). Most of these areas are the result of the intermittent drainage. The low

resistance area in the westernmost portion of the block is due to the soil’s slow

permeability and the pooling of the spring water in this area. A high resistance anomaly

in the northeast corner is probably related to sloughing of soil from the slope above and

the presence of more vegetation in this area (this area was not mowed). Further analysis

of the data did not locate any significant anomalies indicative of prehistoric features.

159 Shovel Test Results

The configuration of the block situated the three northern STPs at the base of the

talus slope in an overgrown fenceline containing multiflora, trees, and poison ivy. These

shovel tests were not excavated. The remaining six shovel tests did contain artifacts. A

total of sixteen artifacts were found: a utilized flake, a piece of shatter, a grit-tempered

body sherd, and thirteen pieces of sandstone FCR. The general distribution of the artifacts

does not suggest clustering.

Anomaly Testing

No anomalies were tested.

Feature Excavation

No features were excavated in this block.

Assessment

Mounds are located quite near this block yet little evidence exists for prehistoric use of the area. The geophysical survey found three magnetic anomalies and no resistance anomalies. In addition, the shovel tests contained mainly FCR. The other prehistoric artifacts are not clearly associated with any Hopewell activities. It appears that the natural setting of this block may have limited the prehistoric use of the area.

160 Block 161

This block is located within the north-central area of the main enclosure. This block is on the fairly level second terrace, but local relief varies by 80 centimeters as a result of a depression at the base of the third terrace slope. An intermittent stream from the third terrace drains into this block creating wet spots. A spring in the terrace slope is located about 55 meters to the north. The soil in Block 161 is Glenford silt loam and is moderately well drained.

Although soil in this block has slower permeability compared to the rest of the field, this area has been under cultivation for over 150 years. Shovel tests located the base of the plowzone at 30 centimeters below surface on average, however, a thick layer of colluvium buried the subsoil. Expanded shovel tests and augering located the subsoil at varying depths from 90 to 120 centimeters below surface. No historic structures were located in this area. Impact to the archaeological record should be limited to the plowzone.

The archaeological record in or near this block is extremely limited, probably due to the wet soil conditions. The nearest mounds (Mounds 21, 22, 2, and 28) are over 100 meters distant. The north wall and ditch of the main enclosure is 85 meters to the north on the third terrace. A gateway in this wall is an additional 10 meters to the east of this same location. Seeman (1981) did not find any artifact clusters in this area during his surface collections. The probability of locating archaeological remains in this block was considered to be low given the nature of the topography and soils.

161 Geophysical Surveys

Block 161 has noticeable plow scars amid several dipoles of historic origin

(Figure 88). Interpretation of the data found no anomalies indicative of prehistoric features. This may be due to the thick layer of colluvium that accumulated over the centuries and the depth penetration of the fluxgate gradiometer to about 50 centimeters below surface. Conversely, the wet nature of the soils and the topographic low may not have been suitable for many activities.

The electrical resistance data shows an area of lower resistance in the western half and higher resistance in the southeastern quadrant of the block (Figure 89). The lower resistance is most likely related to the Glenford soil that traps water. Small-scale analysis of the data did not locate any electrical resistance anomalies indicative of prehistoric cultural features.

Shovel Test Results

Eight of the nine shovel tests in this block contained a total of 29 artifacts. One historic artifact was found in the center unit. The prehistoric artifacts were one Flint

Ridge flake, one piece of shatter, one calcined bone, and 25 pieces of FCR. The FCR was a mixture of sandstone (n=20), limestone (n=2), and granite (n=3) with most ranging in size between 2.5-7.5 centimeters (n=23). The artifacts were found in varying depths up to

75 centimeters below surface. All artifacts recovered from below 40 centimeters were pieces of FCR. There was not a clear concentration of artifacts within the block.

162 Anomaly Testing

No geophysical anomalies were found in this block.

Feature Excavation

No features were found in this block.

Assessment

The location of this block at the base of the third terrace and in an area with wetter soils is not ideal for most uses proposed for Ohio Hopewell earthworks. While the

FCR and calcined bone found in shovel tests are indicative of heating activities, no highly magnetic anomalies were found. Since the FCR was found at varying depths, perhaps erosion deposited some of the artifacts in this location. Based on the geophysical and archaeological data, I conclude that the area contained within this block was not used extensively by the Hopewell for any activities.

Block 167

This block is located in the northeast quadrant of the main enclosure. Block 167 is situated 80 meters south of the slope to the third terrace. An intermittent stream and spring are also located on this slope. This location drains both water features resulting in occasional wet spots. The soil is Glenford silt loam of 0-2% slope. Due to the nearby water features and the soil type, this block does not drain well and may have been wet during prehistoric and historic times.

163 This block lies in a field that has been plowed since the early 1800s. Shovel tests located the plowzone to a depth of 19-30 centimeters below surface. No historic disturbances other than from agriculture were found for this block. However, a discussion with a tenant farmer during the course of fieldwork about the agricultural history of this area is interesting to note. Mr. Charles Zickafoos stated that the field was wet along the terrace slope (in the vicinity of this block). He thought he recalled movement of soil from the southern part of the field to this northern part in order to build up this area and make it more productive. He could not recall when this happened. Since no tile was placed in any of these fields, it is possible that soil was added as a low-cost option to improve crop productivity.

In terms of the known archaeological record, several features have been documented in the vicinity of this block. Earthen walls of the main enclosure are 100 meters to the east and 130 meters to the north. Four mounds surround this block. Mound

17 is about 85 meters to the northeast, Mound 1 is 70 meters to the east, Mound 18 is 35 meters to the southwest, and Mound 29 is 50 meters to the west. In addition,

Moorehead’s east “Village Site” and Shetrone’s east “Habitation Site” are both located about 70 meters to the southeast of the block. Very little is written about the archaeological record of this settlement except that the artifact concentration contained

“evidence of occupation, such as fragments of bone, flint flakes, occasional flint knives, potsherds, and bits of mica” (Shetrone 1926:112). In contrast, surface collections by

Seeman (1981) did not recover any evidence indicative of an artifact concentration that would be expected with a settlement, although he did recover three Hopewell diagnostic artifacts and a handful of other artifacts, including a Middle Woodland point and quartz

164 crystal, in the vicinity. This evidence is suggestive of lithic manufacture. Although this block is situated near many Hopewell features, the wet nature of the soil may have

limited its use in prehistoric times.

Geophysical Surveys

Very prominent plow scars run north-south throughout the block (Figure 90).

These deep features are still visible at two standard deviations. Two sets of east-west

tracks resulting from agricultural activities are also visible on the data. Analysis

identified only two anomalies thought to be of prehistoric origin (Figure 91). The

characteristics of both anomalies resulted in low ranks (Table 40).

The resistance data had several problems associated with the instrument and

weather conditions, including the appearance of small, low resistance anomalies in the

southeast quadrant (Figure 92). Data was collected several times for the block in an effort

to improve its quality. The instrument problems unfortunately could not be corrected.

However, data processing minimized these errors and data analysis was able to occur.

Three areas of distinct lower resistance in the western half of the block were caused by

excavations and backdirt piles (Anomalies 167-1, 167-2, and 167-3). No resistance

anomalies suggestive of prehistoric cultural features were found in the data.

Shovel Test Results

A total of 36 artifacts were recovered from eight of the nine shovel tests in Block

167. All artifacts were prehistoric, but none were diagnostic of the Middle Woodland

period. Artifacts were seven flakes of local cherts, two pieces of shatter (one Flint Ridge,

165 one local chert), four pot sherds, and twenty-three pieces of FCR. The sherds were small,

grit-tempered body pieces. Two sherds from the northwest unit were cordmarked. The

FCR was predominantly sandstone of 2.5-5 centimeters in size. Over 50% of the artifacts

were recovered from the northwest unit. The remainder of artifacts is distributed in all

areas of the block except for the northeast corner.

Anomaly Testing

Two geophysical anomalies were tested in this block. Anomaly 167-1 was a weak

positive magnetic monopole. Removal of the plowzone in a 2.5 square meter area

recovered three bladelets, a biface fragment, flakes and shatter, three grit-tempered

sherds, and some FCR. The bladelets are of Middle Woodland origin, while the biface

fragment is part of a Late Prehistoric point. In the northwest quadrant of the unit, two

possible postholes were found that will be discussed in the next section.

The second anomaly tested, Anomaly 167-2, was a large monopole identified as

Magnetic Anomaly 2 on Figure 91. A total area of 7.5 square meters of plowzone was

removed and 507 artifacts found. Artifacts were bladelets (n=6), flakes (n=33), shatter

(n=3), groundstone fragment (n=1), sherds (n=118), FCR (n=342), vegetal material

(n=2), and historic sherd (n=1). Feature fill was encountered at the base of the plowzone

and feature excavation begun.

Feature Excavation

Three, possibly four, cultural features were found in Block 167. Testing of

Anomaly 167-1 found two possible postholes. Upon further examination, one was

166 inconclusive for evidence as to whether it was a posthole or animal burrow. The second

was a posthole (Feature 167-1) that contained four pieces of FCR that refit. The posthole

was approximately 16 centimeters in diameter and contained no other artifacts.

Excavation of Anomaly 167-2 uncovered a large area of feature fill mottled with

subsoil. The total extent of this area is not known, although diffuse boundaries were found that mark the eastern and western limits. The east-west length was nearly four

meters. Inside this area was a large oval pit feature (Feature 167-2) that consisted of a

concentration of artifacts in an organic rich soil matrix. Dimensions of this feature are

2.05 meters in length by 1.65 meters in width by 49 centimeters in depth below

plowzone. A total of 261 artifacts were found, including four bladelets, four utilized

flakes, ten flakes, four pieces of shatter, 125 sherds, and 103 pieces of FCR. Most of the

feature’s artifacts (n=179) were recovered between 30-39 centimeters below ground

surface. The rest of the artifacts were nearly evenly distributed between 39-79

centimeters below surface. A point and a small piece of cut mica were found between 59-

79 centimeters below surface; these, as well as the bladelets found throughout the feature,

are indicative of a Middle Woodland occupation. Radiocarbon dating was not possible

from the feature debris. Feature 167-2 is a pit used for an unknown activity, perhaps a

storage pit, and then later filled with debris. The large area surrounding Feature 167-2

appears to be a floor of an activity area.

A posthole was found immediately adjacent to Feature 167-2. This feature

(Feature 167-3) was filled with five pieces of FCR and contained charcoal at its base. The

posthole was circular in shape with a diameter of 30 centimeters and extended 45

167 centimeters below surface. A portion of the charcoal was sent for radiocarbon dating.

Calibration at two sigma using CALIB 5.0.1-IntCal04 (Reimer et al. 2004) yielded a date of A.D. 117-413 (1770±70 RCYBP), evidence of a Middle Woodland origin.

Assessment

Block 167 is located near Mounds 29, 1, 17, and 18 and the eastern village site recorded by Moorehead. However, no clear evidence of habitation activities was found in this area during Seeman’s surface collection. A general lack of anomalies is documented in the geophysical data. Only two magnetic anomalies were identified as probable prehistoric cultural features. The lithic debitage, pot sherds, and FCR found in the shovel tests indicate generalized occupation of the block.

Features found during the testing of geophysical anomalies located evidence of a

Middle Woodland occupation. Two postholes were located 90 centimeters apart. Both features contained several pieces of FCR at approximately 39 centimeters below surface.

I assume that these features are related and were part of some type of structure used during the Middle Woodland period, as supported by the radiocarbon date from Feature

167-3. Furthermore, these postholes are situated within 1.5 meters of Feature 167-2, a feature that also contained evidence of a Middle Woodland occupation. I therefore assume that these three features were part of the same occupation.

Feature 167-2 is a pit filled with refuse. Characteristics of this feature are similar to midden features found at Mound City. Brown (1994) documented three middens that contained artifacts, faunal remains, burned rocks, mica flakes, and charcoal. One of these middens had associated postmolds that suggested some sort of habitation prior to

168 embankment construction. For Feature 167-2, the lack of faunal remains among the lithic tools and debitage, pot sherds, mica, and FCR is troubling, yet, two postholes were discovered. No discernible pattern indicative of a particular structure type was found, but a radiocarbon date of one posthole is in agreement with dates from three mounds at the

Hopewell site (Mounds 11, 17, and 25). As such, these features appear to be related to earthwork use either from ceremonial or manufacturing activities, such as documented with the structures inside Seip, or from habitation by those who were participating in mound activities.

If Feature 167-2 is the result of habitation, then four correlates listed in Table 2 point to a short-term habitation: discrete midden; midden size; stages of lithic reduction; and curated and/or expedient tools. First, a pit was reused for trash disposal rather than the establishment of a discrete midden or trash disposal zone. Second, the midden is relatively small and sparse in comparison to the midden found at the McGraw site in southern Ross County. The McGraw midden contained a vast quantity of artifacts, such as nearly 10,000 sherds, as evidence of long-term settlement during the Middle

Woodland period (Prufer 1965). Third, all stages of the lithic reduction sequence are not found in Feature 167-2. An analysis of the lithic debitage (n=50) from the plowzone and feature fill found 39 flakes (78%) from 0.5-1 inch in size, eight flakes (16%) were 0.25-

0.5 inch in size, and three (6%) were 1-2 inch in size. Fourth, ten bladelets, a projectile point, four utilized flakes, and a groundstone fragment make up the stone tool kit. This does not contain a variety of curated tools expected at long-term habitation sites. If this area was used for settlement, then it was used as temporary quarters for those building or using the earthworks.

169

CHAPTER 8

SYNTHESIS OF RESULTS

In this research, a combination of geophysical and archaeological techniques was

used to determine the nature and extent of activities from a sample of non-mound space

at the Hopewell site. This research was experimental in design due to the lack of

preceding non-mound studies and the large size of the Hopewell site. The use of a simple

random sampling strategy proved beneficial by eliminating bias in the selection of the

blocks and reducing extraneous variables. Non-mound space was sampled evenly and is

representative of the entire site such that additional testing of non-mound space is

expected to produce similar results. Data generated from this 10% sample of non-mound space found that only a small range of activities were conducted in non-mound space at the Hopewell site during the Middle Woodland period. This chapter begins with a summary of the results from the fieldwork. Then each of the seven proposed site uses is

reviewed in light of these results and those from previous studies of the site.

Geophysical Surveys

Each of the eighteen blocks in the sample was surveyed with a magnetometer and

electrical resistance meter. The magnetic signatures of anomalies provide a general idea

170 of the type of cultural feature. Magnetic data were supplemented with electrical resistance data in order to weed out historic deposits and to identify anomalies with the best chance of being prehistoric cultural deposits. Resistance data were also used to locate more generalized features that typically are not found with the magnetometer.

Magnetic data were collected, downloaded, and inspected for anomalies indicative of prehistoric cultural features. A total of 88 anomalies were identified that were indicative of prehistoric cultural features. In general, analyses of the magnetic data identified more anomalies in the western village area (Blocks 10, 26, and 28) and around the circular embankment in the southeastern quadrant of the main enclosure (Block 23).

Eighteen magnetic anomalies were each found in Blocks 10 and 23. Twelve of the eighteen magnetic anomalies in Block 10, located within the western village site, were very strong and received with the highest rank. These anomalies are likely deep pit features. In contrast, thirteen of the anomalies in Block 23 were very weak and were assigned the lowest available rank. Many of these weak anomalies paralleled a linear magnetic anomaly that represented a portion of the small circular enclosure and thus may represent ceremonial features. Block 156 inside the square enclosure contained a total of nine magnetic anomalies that may pre-date the building of the square or be related to earthwork construction activities. Blocks 32, 34, 65, and 68, in the central non-mound area inside the main enclosure, were fairly quiet in terms of magnetic anomalies. Block

161 located at the base of the third terrace had no magnetic anomalies.

Analysis of the resistance data located 39 anomalies indicative of cultural features. Only thirteen of these received the highest ranking for prehistoric features, such as the circular feature in Block 87. Thirteen electrical resistance anomalies were found in

171 or near the western village site in Blocks 10, 26, and 28. One anomaly in Block 10 measuring about 20 meters in diameter may represent a compacted open area or structure floors. No resistance anomalies were found in four blocks; three of these blocks (Blocks

159, 161, and 167) are located at the base of the third terrace and the other is in the square enclosure (Block 156).

Analysis of the data from the eighteen blocks identified 88 magnetic anomalies and 39 electrical resistance anomalies (see Tables 4 and 5). These anomalies were

compared to locate those that appeared as both magnetic and electrical resistance

anomalies. A total of 101 individual geophysical anomalies were identified for the

sample. Figure 93 is a map of the Hopewell site showing the total number of geophysical

anomalies for each block. Blocks near the western village site (Blocks 10, 26, and 28)

account for 30% (n=31) of the geophysical anomalies attesting to the use of this area in prehistoric times. Block 23 in the circle enclosure and Block 156 in the square enclosure represent an additional 26% (n=27) of the anomalies. These anomalies are most likely related to the construction or use of enclosures. The remainder of non-mound space in the sample contains a nearly even distribution of geophysical anomalies, with the exception of Block 32 nearest the D-shaped enclosure (n=1) and Block 161 located in a depression at the base of the third terrace (n=0).

Shovel Test Pits

One hundred fifty-five shovel test pits were excavated in the eighteen blocks.

Artifacts found in the shovel tests provided temporal indicators of site use, determined

the nature and extent of activity areas, and were used to measure diversity for each block.

172 The importance of shovel test data, especially for Middle Woodland research, has been

stated by Dancey (1998) despite general problems resulting from artifact size and cultivation effects.

A total of 537 artifacts were found in 122 shovel tests (see Table 7). Historic artifacts comprised approximately 7% (n=35). Exempting the historic artifacts from further consideration, at least one prehistoric artifact was found in every block. Figure 94 is a map showing the number of prehistoric artifacts found in each block. Blocks in the central portion of the main enclosure had only a handful of artifacts (Blocks 65, 68, and

87). In contrast, Block 10 contained nearly 25% (n=124) of the prehistoric artifacts, including 61 pieces of FCR, 5 bladelets, 30 pieces of lithic debitage (10 of Flint Ridge chert), 20 pottery sherds, and 8 bone fragments. The shovel test data show a distinct cluster in the vicinity of Moorehead’s west village. The general distribution of all artifacts from the STPs indicates a scatter across the entire site—a conclusion also drawn by Seeman (1981). This conclusion is more noticeable when examining the distribution of artifacts except FCR found in the shovel tests. Figure 95 is a map of prehistoric artifacts minus FCR per block. A very light scatter of artifacts results because FCR was

56% (n=283) of the prehistoric artifacts recovered from the STPs. Of these artifacts, only

a very few (n=12) were temporally diagnostic of the Middle Woodland period. Bladelets

and one point were found in shovel tests of six blocks (Blocks 10, 28, 82, 100, 114, and

156).

Examining the diversity of artifacts for each block gives a general idea of the

nature of activities. Table 41 shows the diversity index of artifacts based on the shovel

test data. Since this diversity table does not take into account the geophysical results and

173 feature excavations, it serves only as a general guide when comparing blocks. The most diverse block is Block 10, followed by Blocks 28, 82, and 114. The least diverse blocks are Blocks 87 and 124. More diversity in the archaeological record suggests more generalized activities, while less diversity is indicative of more specialized activities. In terms of the Middle Woodland period, assessments of these blocks in the previous chapter assigned communal uses to Blocks 10 and 28 and ceremonial or other specialized uses to Blocks 87 and 124.

Anomaly Testing

A total of 26 anomalies in eight blocks were investigated during this research.

Five of these anomalies were found in shovel test pits, while the remaining were geophysical anomalies. Importantly, anomalies from only eight blocks were tested because of time constraints resulting from feature excavation. Table 42 lists the anomalies along with some of their characteristics.

The anomalies found in the shovel tests had distinctive soil at the base of the plowzone. Upon further testing, three of these anomalies (Anomalies 10-1, 28-1, and

65-1) were determined to be natural features. Expansion of the original shovel test by removing more plowzone resulted in delineating cultural features for Anomalies 28-2 and

124-1.

The geophysical anomalies were selected for testing based on visual inspection of magnetic data in the field. Although the selection of anomalies to test may have been different after the intensive laboratory analysis, the anomalies chosen represent typical geophysical signatures of data from the Eastern Woodlands. I felt it was necessary to test

174 a variety of anomalies since literature on geophysical surveys with ground-truthed data are limited in the eastern United States. Thus, both monopole and dipole anomalies of various strengths were tested.

Of the 21 geophysical anomalies tested, nine were positive for prehistoric cultural features. In terms of only the magnetic data, seven of the anomalies are best described as positive monopoles, one is a haloed dipole with a strong positive core surrounded by a weak negative, and one is a dipole with a very strong positive and significantly weaker magnetic negative. The twelve anomalies that were negative were four historic deposits with magnetic signatures of three strong and one weak dipoles, four natural features with three monopole and one dipole signatures, and three unknown features with dipole signatures.

A comparison of anomalies selected for testing using visual inspection in the field versus those identified through the laboratory analysis is enlightening. Of the twenty-one tested geophysical anomalies, only eleven were identified in the laboratory analysis of the magnetic data. These eleven anomalies are overwhelmingly monopoles with varying magnetic peaks and ranks of seven “A,” two “B,” and two “D.” Seven of these eleven magnetic anomalies also had a corresponding resistance anomaly. These seven electrical resistance anomalies were a mix of ranks. Of the eleven magnetic anomalies tested that were identified in the laboratory analysis, nine were prehistoric cultural features and the cause of two anomalies is unknown. Surprisingly, one of the unfounded anomalies had both magnetic and resistance signatures. These results underline the importance of the laboratory analysis of geophysical data and provide a potential success rate of identifying prehistoric cultural features. As previously stated, 88 magnetic and 39 resistance

175 anomalies were identified in the analysis. Since nine of eleven anomalies were prehistoric

cultural features, then I might expect 74 magnetic anomalies in the eighteen blocks to be

prehistoric features. However, this research underscores the importance of using two or

more geophysical methods when trying to identify prehistoric cultural features. A point made in recent literature (Clay 2001; Kvamme 2003). Thus, looking solely at anomalies

with both magnetic and electrical resistance signatures (n=27), I expect 23 anomalies in

the eighteen blocks to be prehistoric features.

Feature Excavation

A total of twelve prehistoric cultural features in five blocks were excavated during

this research. Two features were found during excavation of shovel tests. Ten features

were unearthed during the testing of eleven geophysical anomalies as one anomaly

(Anomaly 167-2) contained two distinct features (Features 167-2 and 167-3). Table 43

contains radiocarbon dates from five features.

Two features were excavated in Block 10 in the vicinity of the western village

site. Both features were deep cooking pits filled with layers of refuse. Artifacts found within the plowzone and the extreme uppermost layers of feature fill were indicative of the Middle Woodland period; however, radiocarbon dating of charcoal from the lowest depths of both features returned Late Woodland-Late Prehistoric period dates. Feature

10-3 had a calibrated date at two sigma of A.D. 883-1156 and Feature 10-5 had a date of

A.D. 778-1032.

Four features were excavated in Block 28, also in the vicinity of the western village. Feature 28-2, consisting of a buried A horizon, is part of a low, broad mound.

176 The limited amount of artifacts recovered from the excavation unit support a Middle

Woodland origin, but this feature appears to be overburden from Mound 25 excavations

around the turn of the twentieth century. Alternatively, this mound may have been built

by the Hopewell. Two postholes, Features 28-3 and 28-6, were found about two meters

apart in Block 28. It is unknown if these postholes are part of the same structure. Lack of

artifacts and charcoal hampered efforts to date these features. Feature 28-5 is a large FCR feature. Bladelets, a projectile point, and cordmarked pot sherds found in the plowzone

and uppermost layer of the feature fill are indicative of the Middle Woodland period.

Charcoal recovered from a log below the layer of FCR was dated and calibrated to 570-

202 B.C., a date fixed within the Early Woodland period. This lack of congruency is

explained by two episodes of occupation. The FCR feature was in use before the

earthworks were constructed by the Hopewell. The artifact bearing upper stratigraphic

layer represents fill associated with the nearby low mound.

One feature (Feature 87-2) was excavated in Block 87, located near the center of

the main enclosure. A small trench perpendicular to a large circular geophysical anomaly

was excavated. A shallow ditch containing only one piece of FCR was found in the

trench. Unfortunately no carbon was located and the exact origin of this feature remains

unknown. Circular ditches are known from both Adena and Hopewell earthworks and

often represent one construction stage in the evolution of an earthwork.

Two features were found in Block 124. Feature 124-1 contains a layer of FCR. A

piece of shatter of Flint Ridge chert was the only artifact aside from the numerous pieces

of FCR. No suitable material for radiocarbon dating was found. This feature is similar to

those described as heating pits found at Mound City (Brown 1994) and probably

177 functioned as a roasting or steaming facility. Feature 124-2 is an earth oven lined with

FCR. A quartz crystal flake was recovered from the feature fill. A burned log at the base of the feature returned a calibrated radiocarbon date of 929-506 B.C. This date is much

too early to be Hopewell, although one calibrated date from a burial in Mound 25 was

826-538 B.C. (Greber 2003). Feature 124-2 may have been used by those of the Adena culture for some communal or ceremonial event. Perhaps Feature 124-1 is related to

Feature 124-2.

Three features were found in two geophysical anomalies in Block 167. Features

167-1 and 167-3 were postholes with pieces of FCR. Both features were within a meter of

each other. Charcoal from the base of Feature 167-3 had a calibrated date of A.D. 117-

413. Feature 167-2 is a pit filled with refuse, including bladelets, pot sherds, a Middle

Woodland projectile point, and a piece of cut mica. Overall, the artifacts are more

indicative of more generalized activities associated with settlement or communal

activities than those associated with ceremonial or other specialized behavior. Feature fill

did not contain materials suitable for radiocarbon dating, but the presence of a significant

quantity of diagnostic artifacts argues for a Hopewell origin. In combination, these three

features represent an activity area, possible even the floor of a structure, used during the

Middle Woodland period.

Site Use of Non-mound Space

Seven site uses have been proposed for earthworks. Evidence for some associated

activities, such as ceremonial and mortuary behavior, has been found inside the sub-

mound structures at these sites. Research also supports use of non-mound space at some

178 Ohio Hopewell earthworks for burials, ceremonial centers, communal meeting places,

and settlement; yet, little to no evidence has been located in non-mound space for use as

trading centers, defense, and horticulture. Each site use is now considered for non-mound

space at the Hopewell site based on evidence gathered from this research and from

previous research conducted at the site. Discussion will be limited to evidence from the

Middle Woodland period.

Ceremonial Center

Archaeological evidence of the use of non-mound space for ceremonies has been

found at several sites. Fired floors and postholes at Seip and specialized ceremonial

structures at Fort Ancient are examples (Greber 1997b; Lazazzera 1997). The range of features attributed to ceremonial behavior is quite vast, but archaeological indicators may

include artifacts of non-local materials, caches of goods, features without domestic

debris, and earthen architecture. Analysis of these portions of the archaeological record

must also take into account their potential use in political or economic activities before

assigning a strictly ceremonial use.

Evidence of ceremonial activities was found in eight blocks in this study. Four blocks contained portions of or were adjacent to earthen architecture. Blocks 23 and 114 had known earthwork features. Block 87 had an unknown circular feature. Evidence from these three blocks suggests use for ceremonial purposes, yet the extent of use is questionable. All three blocks had very little recovered from the shovel tests to indicate a long-term or recurring use. In contrast, the electrical resistance data of the circular feature in Block 87 shows a compacted inner floor suggestive of either a large number of one-

179 time participants or more likely a recurring use. Block 156 is located adjacent to the northern wall of the square enclosure and evidence suggests short-term specialized use

related to earthwork construction.

Four other blocks have evidence of ceremonial use. These blocks are situated

amid earthen features. Evidence from Block 26 is suggestive of a short-term specialized

activity area and is located within 100 meters of two mounds and the west gateway of the

main enclosure. Perhaps Block 26 was used for ceremonial activities involving heating or

cooking. Blocks 82, 100, and 124 are also located among a series of mounds. Block 82

was used for short-term ceremonial activities. Block 100 has evidence of specialized

activities related to heating that may have been ceremonial in nature and possibly

connected to the use of nearby Mounds 15 and 16. Block 124 also has evidence of heating activities, yet not all evidence dates to the Middle Woodland period. Hopewellian occupation of this area appears to be limited to that of a short-term, specialized nature. In addition, Block 167 may contain evidence of a ceremonial nature due to the cut mica found in Feature 167-2.

Non-mound space within this sample was used for ceremonial activities.

However, the ceremonial activities appear to be limited in nature to those associated with the earthworks and to some sort of heating or other specialized activities. Perhaps these heating features are related to activities conducted in the sub-mound structures. Previous studies did not provide evidence of ceremonial behaviors in non-mound space, other than those directly related to the mounds or embankments.

180 Burial Site

An isolated burial has been found in non-mound space at Seip, but few other

examples of mortuary activities have been found in non-mound space at Ohio Hopewell

earthworks. This research did not locate any burials or associated features. Previous

research at the Hopewell site did not find any isolated burials or other mortuary features.

Non-mound space at the Hopewell site does not appear to have been used for burial

activities. Instead, mortuary activities were conducted in numerous structures that were

subsequently capped with mounds.

Communal Meeting Place

A wide range of activities is encompassed under the site use of communal

meeting place. Many of these activities will leave an archaeological record, while others

may not leave a distinct trace; for instance, feasting or craft production versus gambling

or storytelling. If non-mound space was used for communal meetings, then I expected to

find compacted floors that staged activities, craft production areas, feasting debris, and

assorted artifacts of a personal nature, such as gaming pieces or clothing elements, that

may have been easily lost during activities.

Electrical resistance survey found a compacted area amid debris recovered from shovel tests in Block 10. Two questions surround this geophysical anomaly. First, it is

unknown if the anomaly represents one large open plaza or one to three structure floors.

Second, evidence in this block dates to both the Middle Woodland and Late Prehistoric

181 periods such that a determination of origin for this anomaly is not possible at this time.

Assuming that this anomaly dates to the Hopewellian occupation of the site, this block

may have been used for staging communal activities.

Other potential evidence of communal activities was found in Blocks 26, 28, 124,

and 167. Block 26 has evidence of a short-term occupation. Geophysical anomalies and the presence of fire-cracked rock suggest heating activities. Blocks 28 and 124 had large

features filled with FCR that were used for heating activities. This evidence is suggestive

of activities involving the steaming or roasting food (although no faunal remains were

found), a heat source during night-time or cold-weather activities, or perhaps a sweat

lodge. Thus these features may be related to communal activities or potentially to

ceremonial behaviors requiring large heat sources. Unfortunately, the feature in Block 28

dates to the Early Woodland and the feature in Block 124 is in close proximity to an earth oven that was also dated to the Early Woodland period. Block 167 contained a pit filled with refuse and two postholes set amid a floor. The nature of artifacts recovered may point to some sort of communal use by the Hopewell.

There is limited evidence for use of non-mound space for communal meetings at the Hopewell site. Block 10 does contain evidence for specialized activities during the

Middle Woodland period, although the large compacted area may have resulted from habitation during the Late Woodland-Late Prehistoric periods. Somewhat similar evidence was found in Block 167 that may be suggestive of community events. No other features indicative of community meetings were found, such as isolated artifacts of a

182 personal nature. In general, this conclusion is similar to that reached by Seeman (1981) as he stated that the western village site (in the vicinity of Block 10) may have been a craft manufacturing area, a form of a communal activity.

Trading Center

Archaeological evidence for trading activities at earthworks is primarily centered on artifacts recovered from sub-mound deposits, such as the biface cache in Mound 2 at the Hopewell site. Non-mound evidence derives from specialized manufacturing areas, for example the craft workshops at Seip (Baby and Langlois 1979) and the blade manufacturing areas at Liberty (Coughlin and Seeman 1997). If trading activities occurred in non-mound space at the Hopewell site, then I expected to find artifacts of exotic materials, artifact caches, manufacturing areas, or specialized workshop structures.

The recovery of exotic material (obsidian in Block 10 and mica in Block 167) does not denote trading activities. Two areas with evidence for stone tool manufacture either are extremely limited in nature (Block 65) or may date to the Archaic period

(Block 23). No other features suggestive of trading were found in this research. Non- mound space at the Hopewell site was not used for organized trading activities, but trade may have occurred on a small-scale during communal meetings.

Defense

Although no archaeological evidence of a defensive nature has been found in non- mound space at Ohio earthworks, the presence of an embankment and ditch around portions of the Hopewell site led Squier and Davis (1848:47) to conclude that the site was

183 a “fortified town.” More recent research found no indications of a defensive site use. No features or artifacts indicative of warfare were found in non-mound space during this research. The earthworks were not used as a place of refuge during periods of unrest.

Settlement

Evidence for settlement has been found in non-mound space at some Ohio

Hopewell earthworks. Both short- and long-term habitation has been proposed, as well as housing limited to only an elite segment of the population. Artifacts, features, and structures containing domestic debris are general indicators of settlement. The duration of an occupation may be determined by examining a series of correlates presented in Table

2. Furthermore, an elite settlement is expected to include numerous high-quality artifacts made of non-local materials.

A west settlement in non-mound space at the Hopewell site was noted by

Moorehead (1922) and Shetrone (1926). Seeman (1981) subsequently relocated the western village site and described the site as a manufacturing or elite housing area.

Seeman (1981) found another habitation area further west designated the Turtle Shell

Locale. These habitation areas generally correspond to Blocks 10, 26, and 28 in this study. These blocks occupy non-mound space that is free of earthen architecture. This location in the southwest quadrant of the main enclosure is somewhat removed from activities involving the construction and use of the earthworks but is located near the western gateway and its spring, thereby making it a good location to set up temporary living quarters. Although a dense concentration of artifacts, geophysical anomalies, and features were found, some of the evidence post-dates the Hopewellian use of the site.

184 Instead, the evidence for a Middle Woodland occupation is indicative of communal

meetings related to earthwork use. This is not surprising since Seeman (1981) found a

blade core, bladelets, and a Middle Woodland period point in this area.

An east settlement was also documented by Squier and Davis (1848), Moorehead

(1922), and Shetrone (1926). The location of this settlement is between Blocks 114 and

167 according to historic maps. Block 167 contains three features that may be indicative of short-term habitation. This block is set amongst four mounds in the northeast corner of

the main enclosure. Although this location has slightly wetter soils, short-term habitation

in this area would have been centrally located to several mounds and may have supported

earthwork construction that took place in the vicinity.

Non-mound space at the Hopewell site may have been used for settlement. The

lack of permanent housing, storage pits, thick middens, gardens, diverse ceramics, and a

generalized tool kit are all characteristics of short-term habitation. Furthermore, it

appears that these settlements may not have been used repeatedly since the archaeological

record is not dense. Instead, the habitation areas seem to have been more ephemeral in

nature. If non-mound space at the Hopewell site was used for settlement, then the lack of

significant quantities of exotic goods points to settlement open to the general population.

Horticulture

Expected evidence for a horticultural use of non-mound space included the

presence of gardening tools, fences, and food processing areas. Conclusive evidence has

yet to be found at Ohio Hopewell earthworks other than at Fort Ancient and was not

found in the course of this fieldwork. In addition, Romain (2004) cited the lack of

185 artifacts and features in non-mound space as evidence for horticulture. Of the eighteen

blocks in this sample, seven contained very little evidence for any type of activity. These

blocks were either located near the center of the main enclosure amid numerous earthen

features and so these areas might have been kept free of any activities to permit

movement (Blocks 32, 34, 65, and 68), or these blocks were located in areas with wetter

soils, low spots, or at the base of the third terrace (Blocks 147, 159, and 161). Therefore,

I attribute the scantiness of the archaeological record in these blocks to a general lack of

use. Importantly, paleoethnobotanical remains from numerous flotation samples were not analyzed as part of this dissertation and these may contain additional insight.

Summary

Fieldwork conducted in non-mound space at the Hopewell site supports use for ceremonies, communal meetings, and perhaps settlement. This is not surprising given previous research at this and other Hopewell earthworks. However, these activities were limited in nature and extent. There is no evidence to suggest long-term or large-scale settlement as suggested by Griffin (1996; 1997). The distribution of artifacts from the shovel tests indicates a light scatter across the entire site. This scatter is explained by use prior to the building the main enclosure and continued use of the site for limited activities after the large enclosures were built. Although societal rules governing how this space was used transformed once the main enclosure was constructed, the site was used by the

Hopewell who subsequently left, either intentionally or accidentally, an archaeological

186 record. Furthermore, the finding that non-mound space at the Hopewell site was used for only limited activities associated with earthwork construction, maintenance, and use supports the Vacant Ceremonial Center and Dispersed Sedentary Community models.

187

CHAPTER 9

CONCLUSIONS

The overwhelming majority of Ohio Hopewell earthwork studies have centered

on the mounds and associated sub-mound structures. Non-mound space at Ohio Hopewell

earthworks received very little attention, such was the case of fieldwork conducted at the

Hopewell site in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Yet these surveys recorded non-mound debris of a settlement nature in two locations. By the late twentieth century, a few archaeologists began to explore non-mound space. Seeman (1981) conducted a surface collection across the Hopewell site, but found no major deposits indicative of extensive use of non-mound space. At the start of the twenty-first century, this dissertation research employed traditional archaeological and geophysical techniques to conduct a random sample of non-mound space in order to test two hypotheses concerning site use at earthworks.

Ceremonial Center Hypothesis

The hypothesis that the Hopewell site was restricted to ceremonial and burial uses expects that activities in non-mound space were limited in nature to only those related to these two site uses. It was thus assumed that these monumental sites were built and used

188 for specific purposes that did not involve any secular activities. Participants and observers may have gathered at the earthwork to conduct ritual activities, for solar or lunar observances, or bury their dead. But they did not hold community events, manufacture crafts, trade, seek refuge during warfare, or live their everyday lives in these locales. The amount of time and energy spent planning, building, and maintaining these large sites meant that only special activities were staged inside the enclosures.

Archaeological evidence for ceremonial and mortuary activities has been found at the Hopewell site, both within mounds and in non-mound space. Inside some mounds were caches of goods. For example, Mound 17 at the Hopewell site contained two large ceremonial deposits without any burials. Greber and Ruhl (2000:216) speculate that “it is the wider sense of the concepts of yin and yang which would be in keeping with the duality suggested. These assemblages may be seen as representing two basic forces or qualities which contribute to a whole life force.” Evidence of mortuary activities is abundant from the mounds at Hopewell; Johnston (2002) reported a total of 230 burials excavated from the mounds.

A surface collection by Seeman (1981) did not locate vast amounts of evidence of ceremonial or burial activities in non-mound space. While no burials or areas for processing the dead were found in non-mound space during this current research, ceremonial activity areas were found in a few locations around the site. These areas, located near mounds, were frequently noted by the presence of fire-cracked rock indicative of heating events. Furthermore, the scant archaeological record may have resulted from momentary ceremonial activities that did not leave an archaeologically visible trace or to ritual cleaning.

189 The Ceremonial Center hypothesis predicts that only ceremonial and mortuary activities would have taken place in non-mound space at the Hopewell site. It was thus assumed that the site was built and used for a sacred function related to Hopewellian ideology to the extent that more mundane activities were not permitted. Evidence of ceremonies was found in non-mound space during the course of this research. However, the archaeological record in non-mound space also contained evidence of other activities.

The Ceremonial Center hypothesis is thus rejected.

Corporate Center Hypothesis

The alternate hypothesis under consideration in this dissertation states that the

Hopewell site was the center of a community and was the stage for a variety of ceremonial, mortuary, social, economic, and political activities. This hypothesis assumes that Ohio Hopewell earthworks were constructed and used for sacred and secular activities involving any of the seven proposed site uses for earthworks. People may have gathered at the Hopewell site for a variety of activities, such as gaming, alliance building, craft production, trading, protection during periods of unrest, short- or long-term settlement, or horticultural tasks. As such, a dense archaeological record is expected, especially since the Hopewell site was in use for a number of centuries. Even if non- mound space was cleaned after activities, I would expect to find the collected debris in middens or as embankment fill (see Brown 1979 or Greber 1997b), or small or isolated objects that were lost or overlooked during cleaning would be recovered.

Previous fieldwork at the site has documented a range of these activities in and between the mounds. The primary uses of the mounds and sub-mound structures are

190 related to ceremonial and mortuary contexts. Seeman (1979b) also presents a scenario in

which the sub-mound structures were the location for the redistribution of food. He cites

evidence of charcoal, ashes, and numerous animal bones recovered by Shetrone’s excavation of Mound 33 at the Hopewell site.

Archaeological evidence of activities in non-mound space at the Hopewell site is

limited. Historical explorations documented some sort of non-mound debris, although

details are lacking in all three cases (Squier and Davis 1848; Moorehead 1922; and

Shetrone 1926). Surface collections by Seeman (1981) documented Hopewellian

habitation and craft manufacturing areas in the western village, near Mounds 15 and 16,

west of the western village (Turtle Shell Locale), east village area, and east of Mound 29.

This research found evidence of ceremonial, communal, and possible settlement

activities. Ceremonial activities were conducted in several locations near enclosures or

mounds. Non-mound space may have been used for a variety of community related

activities. Possible evidence for Hopewellian settlement was found in Block 167. Here

the nature of the archaeological record may point to short-term habitation. A dense

concentration of habitation debris in the vicinity of the western village appears to be

largely the remnants of a Late Woodland-Late Prehistoric occupation.

The Corporate Center hypothesis predicts that activities other than those related to

ceremonial and mortuary behavior would have taken place in non-mound space at the

Hopewell site. The sheer size of non-mound space, plus generally gentle topography and

well drained soils, would have made an ideal location for sacred and secular activities.

Evidence of ceremonies, communal meetings, and perhaps short-term habitation was

found in this research. As such, the Corporate Center hypothesis is not rejected.

191 Discussion

The Hopewell site fits the expectations of the Corporate Center hypothesis

because a variety of activities were conducted inside the enclosures, but these activities

were quite limited in extent and duration. This is surprising given the Middle Woodland

use of the site for hundreds of years, the amount of non-mound space of roughly 50

hectares, and the range of activities that have been proposed by archaeologists (see Table

1). The question of where these various activities occurred then arises. If Hopewellian

people did not conduct activities in the sub-mound structures or in non-mound space,

then activities must have taken place at other locales within the community. Perhaps

these activities took place at the specialized camps and hamlets surrounding the

earthworks as envisioned in the Dispersed Sedentary Community model (Dancey and

Pacheco 1997).

Several field projects surrounding the Hopewell site provide some insight. A

surface collection of approximately 125 hectares surrounding the Hopewell site found a

few locations with Middle Woodland diagnostic artifacts (Seeman 1981). A survey of a 4

kilometer catchment around the earthworks found evidence of lithic manufacturing areas

and hamlets (Dancey 1995). Recent National Park Service archaeological projects also

found small Middle Woodland artifact clusters suggestive of short-term camp sites just

outside the enclosures (Burks and Pederson n.d.; Pederson et al. 2004). These areas may

have adequately served to house local people constructing, using, and maintaining the

earthworks because they could commute to the site for short periods of time and camp without conducting a lot of specialized activities. Yet this evidence is troubling.

192 Some archaeologists have commented that the sheer size of the Hopewell site and nature of the deposits may be indicative that the site was a regional center. If so, then the known archaeological record both inside and adjacent to the earthworks appears small in size and limited in nature. Instead, the Hopewell site should have many artifact clusters documenting the activities conducted by thousands of people over hundreds of years. A wide range of generalized and specialized activities should be documented. At minimum, activities should include food preparation, trash disposal, resource procurement, social meetings, and camping. Explanations for this disparity may be that the Hopewell site was not a regional center, these associated activities occurred at a greater distance from the earthwork, or previous surveys had sampling bias that worked against finding these types of archaeological deposits. The question of site use as a regional center is an avenue for future research.

The zenith of activity at the Hopewell site obviously occurred during the Middle

Woodland period, but features found during this research highlight the importance of this location during other time periods. There is a complex chronological sequence documented at the site (Figure 96). Features dating to the Early Woodland period, such as the large feature containing fire-cracked rock in Block 28, support a ceremonial or communal use of the site prior to the large-scale construction of the embankments and many of the mounds. But were earthworks built at the site during the Early Woodland period? Or was their a slow drift from using more Adena-like traits to those of the

Hopewell? Or perhaps the new circular feature represents the transition from Early

Woodland to Middle Woodland periods—only further excavation can reveal its true identity. Furthermore, some features had much later origins. Did Late Woodland-Late

193 Prehistoric period populations utilize the site for habitation while conducting their own

specialized activities at the Hopewell site? Continued excavation of geophysical

anomalies in Block 10 may provide answers.

Additional future directions include exploring the question of site function given

the archaeological record of mounded and non-mound space in order to understand

Hopewellian ideology, social dynamics, and community organization. Perhaps this work

would provide information concerning the use of the Hopewell site as both a local and regional center. The continuation of geophysical surveys within and adjacent to the enclosures may uncover additional earthworks or other features that may significantly alter our view of the site. In addition, more geophysical surveys could also impart knowledge about the construction techniques of the embankments.

This research sought to address three recent comments concerning Ohio Hopewell earthworks (DeBoer 1997; Griffin 1997; Riordan 1998) by identifying activity areas in a sample of non-mound space using geophysical and traditional archaeological techniques.

First, while the lack of non-mound debris and features prevented a thorough examination of short-term recurring activities, the correlates borrowed from Hopewellian settlement studies were utilized to grasp the duration of activities. Second, fieldwork was conducted in non-mound space using conventional and modern techniques. And third, investigations were focused on non-mound space in order to determine the nature of ceremonial and corporate activities. Importantly, this research was experimental in design due to the lack of preceding non-mound studies and the large size of the Hopewell site. An improvement to the research design would be the elimination of the visual inspection method for selecting geophysical anomalies to excavate. While visual inspection of the data is quick,

194 it focuses on locating strong cultural features and oftentimes weak features are

overlooked. Laboratory analysis of the geophysical data would increase the number of

cultural features found during excavations. The use of an Oakfield soil core to test the

probable prehistoric cultural features prior to test excavations would also increase the

success rate.

Use of Geophysical Techniques in the Eastern Woodlands

The application of geophysical techniques to archaeological research originated in

Europe where features include Roman villas and Neolithic enclosures. These types of

architecture provide a great contrast from the surrounding physical environment such that

geophysical survey easily locates these types of features. Archaeological features of the

Eastern Woodlands, particularly of earlier time periods, are often more subtle.

Conventional wisdom dictates that these types of subtle features would be harder to locate using geophysical survey, but technological advances have provided a range of instruments that are able to detect smaller or more ephemeral features. Therefore, geophysical survey can be used by archaeologists in eastern North America to answer a variety of research questions.

The advantages of using geophysical survey are many, three of which are listed

here. First, one or two trained individuals can quickly collect data over a large area. The

agricultural fields of the Midwest are particularly good candidates for research given their

fairly even and open terrain. Although survey in woods or urban settings is difficult, it can also be accomplished. Second, geophysics provides continuous data coverage versus conventional survey methods. Shovel tests in Block 87 did not locate any significant

195 features and the one piece of prehistoric shatter found would not have warranted further

research; yet, the discovery of a large circular feature in the magnetic and electrical resistance data underscores the value of continuous coverage. And third, geophysical survey is a non-destructive technique that provides data while leaving the archaeological record intact. Less site disturbance also results because the geophysical data can be used to pinpoint excavations rather than stripping large areas to locate cultural features.

In contrast, two main disadvantages are often cited for not conducting geophysical survey. One, the cost is expensive. The initial costs alone deter many archaeologists, but instruments and accompanying software also need regular maintenance and updating at additional expense. Two, the learning curve is steep. While learning to conduct a survey is somewhat easy because there is a protocol, the survey design and data interpretation is much harder because it relies on the archaeologist to make critical decisions. This can be especially daunting in a region where few geophysical surveys have been conducted and geophysical signatures of cultural features are not yet established.

In conclusion, geophysical survey is immensely beneficial for Eastern Woodlands archaeology given the right research question, physical environment, and survey design.

Geophysical techniques can locate subsurface cultural features, but additional ground testing is usually necessary to determine their origin and nature. Although the most successful uses to date in the Eastern Woodlands have been to locate the remnants of prehistoric earthworks, such as at the Hopeton site (Lynott 2004), this research shows the utility of geophysics to find isolated, more transient features. Within the past few years, the number of surveys conducted throughout the Eastern Woodlands has increased exponentially thereby attesting to the more widespread adoption of these techniques.

196

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abrams, Elliot M. 1989 Architecture and Energy: An Evolutionary Perspective. In Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 1, edited by M. B. Schiffer, pp. 47-77. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, New Mexico.

Atwater, Caleb 1820 Description of the Antiquities Discovered in Ohio and Other Western States. Archaeologia Americana 1:105-267. Originally reprinted in 1833 by Caleb Atwater; later reprinted in 1991 by Arthur McGraw.

1833 The Writings of Caleb Atwater. Scott and Wright, Columbus, Ohio.

Baby, Raymond, and Suzanne Langlois 1979 Seip Mound State Memorial: Nonmortuary Aspects of Hopewell. In Hopewell Archaeology: The Chillicothe Conference, edited by David Brose and N’omi Greber, pp. 16-18. The Kent State University Press, Kent, Ohio.

Bevan, Bruce W. 1998 Geophysical Exploration for Archaeology: An Introduction to Geophysical Exploration. Midwest Archeological Center Special Report 1. National Park Service, Lincoln, Nebraska.

Bradley, Richard 1998 The Significance of Monuments. Routledge, New York, New York.

Breiner, Sheldon 1973 Applications Manual for Portable Magnetometers. Geometrics, Sunnydale, California.

Brockman, C. Scott 1998 Physiographic Regions of Ohio Map. Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Columbus, Ohio.

197 Brown, James 1994 Inventory and Integrative Analysis: Excavations of Mound City, Ross County, Ohio. Ms. on file at Hopewell Culture National Historical Park, Chillicothe. Ohio.

1997 Comments on Warren DeBoer’s Ceremonial Centres from the Cayapas (Esmeraldas, Ecuador) to Chillicothe (Ohio, USA). Cambridge Archaeological Journal 7(2):242-244.

Burks, Jarrod, and Jennifer Pederson In press The Place of Non-Mound Debris at Hopewell Mound Group (33Ro27), Ross County, Ohio. In Recreating Hopewell, edited by J. Buikstra and D. Charles. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.

Burks, Jarrod, Jennifer Pederson, and Dawn Walter 2002 Hopewell Landuse Patterns at the Hopeton Earthworks. Paper presented at the 67th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Denver, Colorado. Ms. on file at Hopewell Culture National Historical Park, Chillicothe, Ohio.

Byers, A. Martin 1987 The Earthwork Enclosures of the Central Ohio Valley: A Temporal and Structural Analysis of Woodland Society and Culture. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, State University of New York at Albany, Albany, New York.

1996 Social Structure and the Pragmatic Meaning of Material Culture: Ohio Hopewell as Ecclesiatic-Communal Cult. In A View from the Core: A Synthesis of Ohio Hopewell Archaeology, edited by Paul J. Pacheco, pp. 174- 192. Ohio Archaeological Council, Columbus, Ohio.

Caldwell, Joseph R. 1964 Hopewell Interaction Spheres in Prehistory. In Hopewellian Studies, edited by Joseph R. Caldwell and Robert L. Hall, pp. 133-143. Scientific Papers Vol. 12, Illinois State Museum, Springfield, Illinois.

Carr, Christopher 2005 Salient Issues in the Social and Political Organizations of Northern Hopewellian Peoples. In Gathering Hopewell: Society, Ritual, and Ritual Interaction, edited by Christopher Carr and D. Troy Case, pp. 73-118. Kluwer Academic / Plenum Publishers, New York, New York.

CERHAS 2005 Assessed October 2005.

198 Clark, Anthony J. 1996 Seeing Beneath the Soil: Prospecting Methods in Archaeology. Batsford, London, England.

Clay, R. Berle 1987 Circles and Ovals: Two Types of Adena Space. Southeastern Archaeology 6:46-55.

2001 Complementary Geophysical Survey Techniques: Why Two Ways are Always Better than One. Southeastern Archaeology 20:31-43.

Connolly, Robert P. 1996a Middle Woodland Hilltop Enclosures: The Built Environment, Construction and Function. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, Illinois.

1996b Prehistoric Land Modification at the Fort Ancient Hilltop Enclosure: A Model of Formal and Accretive Development. In A View from the Core: A Synthesis of Ohio Hopewell Archaeology, edited by Paul J. Pacheco, pp. 258-273. Ohio Archaeological Council, Columbus, Ohio.

1997 The Evidence for Habitation at the Fort Ancient Earthworks, Warren County, Ohio. In Ohio Hopewell Community Organization, edited by William S. Dancey and Paul J. Pacheco, pp. 251-281. The Kent State University Press, Kent, Ohio.

Coughlin, Sean, and Mark Seeman 1997 Hopewell Settlements at the Liberty Earthworks, Ross County, Ohio. In Ohio Hopewell Community Organization, edited by William S. Dancey and Paul J. Pacheco, pp. 231- 247. The Kent State University Press, Kent, Ohio.

Cowan, C. Wesley 1996 Social Implications of Ohio Hopewell Art. In A View from the Core: A Synthesis of Ohio Hopewell Archaeology, edited by Paul J. Pacheco, pp. 128- 148. Ohio Archaeological Council, Columbus, Ohio.

Cowan, Frank L., and N’omi B. Greber 2002 Hopewell Mound 11: Yet Another Look at an Old Collection. Hopewell Archeology, Vol. 5, No. 2, Article 2. . Document dated December 2002; assessed November 2005.

199 Cowan, Frank L., Theodore S. Sunderhaus, and Robert A. Genheimer 1999 Notes from the Field, 1999: More Hopewell "Houses" at the Stubbs Earthwork Site. Ohio Archaeological Council, Columbus, Ohio. . Document dated 1999; assessed January 2006.

2000 Wooden Architecture in Ohio Hopewell Sites: Structural and Spatial Patterns at the Stubbs Earthworks Site. Paper presented at the 65th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Ms. on file at Hopewell Culture National Historical Park, Chillicothe, Ohio.

Dancey, William S. 1991 A Middle Woodland Settlement in Central Ohio: A Preliminary Report on the Murphy Site (33Li212). Pennsylvania Archaeologist 61:37-72.

1996a Hopewell Earthwork Catchment Survey: Interim Report. Report submitted to the Hopewell Culture National Historical Park, Chillicothe, Ohio.

1996b Putting an End to Ohio Hopewell. In A View from the Core: A Synthesis of Ohio Hopewell Archaeology, edited by Paul J. Pacheco, pp. 394-405. Ohio Archaeological Council, Columbus, Ohio.

1998 The Value of Surface Archaeological Data in Exploring the Dynamics of Community Evolution in the Middle Ohio Valley. In Surface Archaeology, edited by Alan P. Sullivan III, pp. 3-19. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, New Mexico.

2005 The Enigmatic Hopewell of the Eastern Woodlands. In North American Archaeology, edited by Timothy R. Pauketat and Diana DiPaolo Loren, pp. 108-137. Blackwell Publishing, Malden, Massachusetts.

Dancey, William S., and Paul J. Pacheco 1997 A Community Model of Ohio Hopewell Settlement. In Ohio Hopewell Community Organization, edited by William S. Dancey and Paul J. Pacheco, pp. 3-40. The Kent State University Press, Kent, Ohio.

DeBoer, Warren R. 1997 Ceremonial Centres from the Cayapas (Esmeraldas, Ecuador) to Chillicothe (Ohio, USA). Cambridge Archaeological Journal 7(2):225-253.

Drewett, Peter 1977 The Excavation of Neolithic Causewayed Enclosure on Offham Hill, East Sussex. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 43:201-241.

200 Dunnell, Robert C., and William S. Dancey 1983 The Siteless Survey: A Regional Scale Data Collection Strategy. In Advances in Archaeological Methods and Theories, Vol. 6, edited by Michael Schiffer, pp. 267-287. Academic Press, New York, New York.

Ebert and Associates 2000 Use of Remote Sensing to Evaluate and Monitor the Condition of Prehistoric Earthen Structures. Ms. on file at Hopewell Culture National Historical Park, Chillicothe, Ohio.

Essenpreis, Patricia 1987 Introduction of an Atlas of American Indian Geometry by James Marshall. Ohio Archaeologist 37(2):36.

Ford, Richard I. 1979 Gathering and Gardening: Trends and Consequences of Hopewell Subsistence Strategies. In Hopewell Archaeology: The Chillicothe Conference, edited by David S. Brose and N'omi Greber, pp. 234-238. Kent State University Press, Kent, Ohio.

Fowke, Gerard 1902 Archaeological History of Ohio: The Mound Builders and Later Indians. The Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Society, Columbus, Ohio.

Geoscan 2001 Geoplot, Version 3.00 for Windows Instruction Manual, Version 1.6. Geoscan Research, Bradford, England.

Greber, N’omi 1976 Within Ohio Hopewell: Analyses of Burial Patterns from Several Classic Sites. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio.

1979 A Comparative Study of Site Morphology and Burial Patterns at Edwin Harness Mound and Seip Mounds 1 and 2. In Hopewell Archaeology: The Chillicothe Conference, edited by David S. Brose and N'omi Greber, pp. 27- 38. Kent State University Press, Kent, Ohio.

1991 A Study of Continuity and Contrast between Central Scioto Adena and Hopewell Sites. West Virginia Archaeologist 43(1&2):1-26.

1996 A Commentary on the Contexts and Contents of Large to Small Ohio Hopewell Deposits. In A View from the Core: A Synthesis of Ohio Hopewell Archaeology, edited by Paul J. Pacheco, pp. 150-172. Ohio Archaeological Council, Columbus, Ohio.

201 1997a Comments on Warren DeBoer’s Ceremonial Centres from the Cayapas (Esmeraldas, Ecuador) to Chillicothe (Ohio, USA). Cambridge Archaeological Journal 7(2):244-247.

1997b Two Geometric Enclosures in the Paint Creek Valley: An Estimate of Possible Changes in Community Patterns through Time. In Ohio Hopewell Community Organization, edited by William S. Dancey and Paul J. Pacheco, pp. 207-229. The Kent State University Press, Kent, Ohio.

1999 Correlating Maps of the Hopewell Site, 1820-1993. Ms. on file at Hopewell Culture National Historical Park, Chillicothe, Ohio.

2002 A Preliminary Comparison of 1997 and 2002 Limited Excavation in the Great Circle Wall, High Bank Works, Ross County, Ohio. Hopewell Archaeology 5(2):1-5.

2003 Chronological Relationships among Ohio Hopewell Sites: Few Dates and Much Complexity. In Theory, Method, and Practice in Modern Archaeology, edited by Robert J. Jeske and Douglas K. Charles, pp. 88-113. Praeger Publishers, Westport, Connecticut.

Greber, N’omi, and Katherine Ruhl 2000 The Hopewell Site, reprinted and revised. Eastern National, Port Washington, Pennsylvania.

Greber, N’omi, and Mark Seeman 1995 The 1993 Field Season at the Hopewell Site, Ross County, Ohio. Report on file at Hopewell Culture National Historical Park, Chillicothe, Ohio.

Griffin, James 1996 Hopewell Housing Shortage in Ohio, A.D. 1-350. In A View from the Core: A Synthesis of Ohio Hopewell Archaeology, edited by Paul J. Pacheco, pp. 4-15. The Ohio Archaeological Council, Columbus, Ohio.

1997 Interpretations of Ohio Hopewell 1845-1984 and the Recent Emphasis on the Study of Dispersed Hamlets. In Ohio Hopewell Community Organization, edited by William S. Dancey and Paul J. Pacheco, pp. 405-426. The Kent State University Press, Kent, Ohio.

Hall, Robert L. 1997 An Archaeology of the Soul: North American Indian Belief and Ritual. University of Illinois Press, Urbana and Chicago, Illinois.

202 Heilman, J. M., and Lynn M. Mahoney 1996 The Purdom Mound Group: The Dayton Museum of Natural History’s Excavation and a Synopsis of the Excavations of Adams and Bailey. In A View from the Core: A Synthesis of Ohio Hopewell Archaeology, edited by Paul J. Pacheco, pp. 286-301. Ohio Archaeological Council, Columbus, Ohio.

Hester, Thomas R., Harry J. Shafer, and Kenneth L. Feder 1997 Field Methods in Archaeology, seventh edition. Mayfield Publishing Company, Mountain View, California.

Hively, Ray, and Robert Horn 1982 Geometry and Astronomy in Prehistoric Ohio. Archaeoastronomy 4:1-20.

1984 Hopewellian Geometry and Astronomy at High Bank. Archaeoastronomy 7:85-100.

Hyde, J. E. 1920 Geology of the Camp Sherman Quadrangle. Ohio Division of Geological Survey, Columbus, Ohio.

Johnston, Cheryl 2002 Culturally Modified Human Remains from the Hopewell Mound Group. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.

Jones, David 1971 A Journal of Two Visits Made to Some Nations of Indians on the West Side of the River Ohio in the Years 1772 and 1773, reprinted. Arno Press, New York, New York.

Konigsberg, Lyle W. 1985 Demography and Mortuary Practice at Seip Mound One. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 10(1):123-148.

Kvamme, Kenneth 2003 Geophysical Surveys as Landscape Archaeology. American Antiquity 68:435- 457.

Lazazzera, Adrienne 1997 Preliminary Report of 1995 Winter and 1996 Summer Investigations at the Fort Ancient State Memorial: Hopewell Habitation on the North Fort Interior. Report submitted to Ohio Historical Society, Columbus, Ohio.

203 2004 Hopewell Household Variation at the Fort Ancient Site. In The Fort Ancient Earthworks, edited by Robert Connolly and Bradley Lepper, pp. 84-106. Ohio Historical Society, Columbus, Ohio.

Lepper, Bradley 1996 The Newark Earthworks and the Geometric Enclosures of the Scioto Valley: Connections and Conjectures. In A View from the Core: A Synthesis of Ohio Hopewell Archaeology, edited by Paul J. Pacheco, pp. 224-241. Ohio Archaeological Council, Columbus, Ohio.

Lepper, Bradley T., and Richard W. Yerkes 1997 Hopewellian Occupations at the Northern Periphery of the Newark Earthworks: The Newark Expressway Sites Revisited. In Ohio Hopewell Community Organization, edited by William S. Dancey and Paul J. Pacheco, pp. 175-206. The Kent State University Press, Kent, Ohio.

Lloyd, Timothy C. 2002 Mortuary Patterns, Social Organization, and Ideology at the Hopewell Site. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, State University of New York at Albany, Albany, New York.

Lynott, Mark 2004 Earthwork Construction and the Organization of Hopewell Society. Hopewell Archeology, Vol. 6, No. 1, Article 6. . Document dated September 2004; assessed September 2005.

Mainfort, Robert, and Lynne Sullivan 1998 Explaining Earthen Enclosures. In Ancient Earthen Enclosures of the Eastern Woodlands, edited by Robert Mainfort and Lynne Sullivan, pp. 1-16. University of Florida Press, Gainesville, Florida.

Maki, David 2005 Lightning Strikes and Prehistoric Ovens: Determining the Source of Magnetic Anomalies Using Techniques of Environmental Magnetism. Geoarchaeology 20(5):449–459.

McIntosh, Jane 1986 The Practical Archaeologist: How We Know What We Know about the Past. Facts on File, New York, New York.

204 McKee, Arlo 2005 Geophysical Investigations of the Hopewell Earthworks (33RO27), Ross County, Ohio. Hopewell Archeology, Vol. 6, No. 2, Article 4. . Document dated March 2005; assessed September 2005.

McLauchlan, Kendra 2003 Plant Cultivation and Forest Clearance by Prehistoric North Americans: Pollen Evidence from Fort Ancient, Ohio, USA. The Holocene 13:557–566.

Mills, Lisa 2003 Mitochondrial DNA Analysis of the Ohio Hopewell of the Hopewell Mound Group. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.

Mills, William C. 1914 Archaeological Atlas of Ohio. Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Society, Columbus, Ohio.

1921 Exploration of the Mound City Group, Ross County, Ohio. Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Society, Columbus, Ohio.

Morgan, Lewis Henry 1881 Houses and House-life of the American Aborigines. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

Morgan, Richard G. 1946 Fort Ancient. Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Society, Columbus, Ohio.

Moorehead, Warren K. 1922 The Hopewell Mound Group of Ohio. Field Museum of Natural History Publication 211, Anthropological Series. Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago, Illinois.

Orton, Clive 2000 Sampling in Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, New York, New York.

Pacheco, Paul J. 1996 Ohio Hopewell Regional Settlement Patterns. In A View from the Core: A Synthesis of Ohio Hopewell Archaeology, edited by Paul J. Pacheco, pp. 16- 35. Ohio Archaeological Council, Columbus, Ohio.

205 Pederson, Jennifer, Jarrod Burks, Dawn Walter Gagliano, and Kathy Brady-Rawlins 2004 Assessment of Effect for Riverbank Stabilization Project at the Hopewell Mound Group Unit, Hopewell Culture National Historical Park, Union Township, Ross County, Ohio. Ms. on file at the Hopewell Culture National Historical Park, Chillicothe, Ohio.

Pickard, William H., and Laurie A. Gray Pahdopony 1995 Paradise Regained and Lost Again: The Anderson Earthwork, Ross County, Ohio (33RO551). Hopewell Archeology, Vol. 1, No. 2, Article 3. . Document dated December 1995; assessed March 2006.

Prufer, Olaf 1964 The Hopewell Complex of Ohio. In Hopewellian Studies, edited by Joseph Caldwell and Robert Hall, pp. 37-83. Illinois State Museum Scientific Papers, Volume 12. Springfield, Illinois.

1965 The McGraw Site: A Study in Hopewellian Dynamics. The Cleveland Museum of Natural History, Cleveland, Ohio.

1996 Core and Periphery: The Final Chapter on Ohio Hopewell. In A View from the Core: A Synthesis of Ohio Hopewell Archaeology, edited by Paul J. Pacheco, pp. 406-425. Ohio Archaeological Council, Columbus, Ohio.

1997a Fort Hill 1964: New Data and Reflections on Hopewell Hilltop Enclosures in Southern Ohio. In Ohio Hopewell Community Organization, edited by William S. Dancey and Paul J. Pacheco, pp. 311-327. The Kent State University Press, Kent, Ohio.

1997b How to Construct a Model: A Personal Memoir. In Ohio Hopewell Community Organization, edited by William S. Dancey and Paul J. Pacheco, pp. 105-128. The Kent State University Press, Kent, Ohio.

Prufer, Olaf H., and Orrin C. Shane, III. 1970 Blain Village and the Fort Ancient Tradition in Ohio. The Kent State University Press, Kent, Ohio.

Quinn, Michael J., and Richard P. Goldthwait 1985 Glacial Geology of Ross County, Ohio. State of Ohio, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geological Survey, Columbus, Ohio.

206 Reimer, Paula J., Mike G. L. Baillie, Edouard Bard, Alex Bayliss, J. Warren Beck, Chanda J. H. Bertrand, Paul G. Blackwell, Caitlin E. Buck, George S. Burr, Kirsten B. Cutler, Paul E. Damon, R. Lawrence Edwards, Richard G. Fairbanks, Michael Friedrich, Thomas P. Guilderson, Alan G. Hogg, Konrad A. Hughen, Bernd Kromer, Gerry McCormac, Stuart Manning, Christopher Bronk Ramsey, Ron W. Reimer, Sabine Remmele, John R. Southon, Minze Stuiver, Sahra Talamo, F. W. Taylor, Johannes van der Plicht, and Constanze E. Weyhenmeyer 2004 IntCal04 Terrestrial Radiocarbon Age Calibration, 0–26 cal kyr BP. Radiocarbon 46:1029-1058.

Riordan, Robert V. 1996 The Enclosed Hilltops of Southern Ohio. In A View from the Core: A Synthesis of Ohio Hopewell Archaeology, edited by Paul J. Pacheco, pp. 242- 256. Ohio Archaeological Council, Columbus, Ohio.

1998 Boundaries, Resistance, and Control: Enclosing the Hilltops in Middle Woodland Ohio. In Ancient Earthen Enclosures of the Eastern Woodlands, edited by Robert Mainfort and Lynne Sullivan, pp. 68-84. University of Florida Press, Gainesville, Florida.

Ruhl, Katherine 1992 Copper Earspools from Ohio Hopewell Sites. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 17(1):46-79.

2005 Hopewellian Copper Earspools from Eastern North America: The Social, Ritual, and Symbolic Significance of Their Contexts and Distribution. In Gathering Hopewell: Society, Ritual, and Ritual Interaction, edited by Christopher Carr and D. Troy Case, pp. 696-713. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York, New York.

Sciulli, Paul W., and Michael C. Mahaney 1986 Evidence of Local Biological Continuity for an Ohio Hopewell Complex Population. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 11(2):181-199.

Seeman, Mark 1977 The Hopewell Interaction Sphere: The Evidence for Inter-regional Trade and Structural Complexity. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana.

1979a The Hopewell Interaction Sphere: The Evidence of Inter-regional Trade and Structural Complexity. Indiana Historical Society, Prehistoric Research Series 5(2):237-438.

207 1979b Feasting with the Dead: Ohio Hopewell Charnel House Ritual as a Context for Redistribution. In Hopewell Archaeology: The Chillicothe Conference, edited by David Brose and N’omi Greber, pp. 39-46. The Kent State University Press, Kent, Ohio.

1981 An Archaeological Survey of the Hopewell Site (33Ro27) and Vicinity, Ross County, Ohio. Report submitted to the Ohio Historic Preservation Office. Ms. on file at Hopewell Culture National Historical Park, Chillicothe, Ohio.

nd An Archaeological Survey of the Hopewell Works, Ross County, Ohio. Research proposal on file at Hopewell Culture National Historical Park, Chillicothe, Ohio.

Shetrone, Henry C. 1926 Explorations of the Hopewell Group of Prehistoric Earthworks. In Ohio Archaeological and Historical Publications, Volume 35, 1926, pp. 5-227. Fred Heer, Columbus, Ohio.

Shetrone, Henry C., and Emerson F. Greenman 1931 Explorations of the Seip Group of Prehistoric Earthworks. Ohio Archaeological and Historical Quarterly 40:343-509.

Shott, Michael 1985 Shovel-test Sampling as a Site Discovery Technique: A Case-study from Michigan. Journal of Field Archaeology 12(4):457-468.

Smith, Bruce 1992 Rivers of Change. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

Spielmann, Katherine 2002 Feasting, Craft Specialization, and the Ritual Mode of Production in Small- scale Societies. American Anthropologist 104(1):195-207.

Squier, Ephraim, and Edwin Davis 1848 Ancient Monuments of the Mississippi Valley. Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C.

Stevenson, Christopher M., Ihab Abdelreheim, and Steven W. Novak 2004 High Precision Measurement of Obsidian Hydration Layers on Artifacts from the Hopewell Site Using Secondary Ion Mass Spectrometry. American Antiquity 69(3):555-568.

208 Struever, Stuart 1964 The Hopewell Interaction Sphere in Riverine-Western Great Lakes Culture History. In Hopewellian Studies, edited by Joseph R. Caldwell and Robert L. Hall, pp. 85-106. Scientific Papers Vol. 12, Illinois State Museum, Springfield, Illinois.

Struever, Stuart, and Gail L. Houart 1972 An Analysis of the Hopewell Interaction Sphere. In Social Exchange and Interaction, edited by Edwin Wilmsen, pp. 47-80. Anthropological Papers No. 46, Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 1967 Soil Survey of Ross County, Ohio. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

2003 Soil Survey of Ross County, Ohio. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

Vickery, Kent D. 1996 Flint Raw Material Use in Ohio Hopewell. In A View from the Core: A Synthesis of Ohio Hopewell Archaeology, edited by Paul J. Pacheco, pp. 108- 127. Ohio Archaeological Council, Columbus, Ohio.

Watters, Meg 2001 Another Tool for the Kit. The SAA Archaeological Record 17-20.

Weymouth, John 1998 Magnetic Anomalies of Interest at the Hopeton Site, 1997. Report submitted to the Midwest Archeological Center, National Park Service. Ms. on file at Hopewell Culture National Historical Park, Chillicothe, Ohio.

Wilson, James 2006 Phase I Archaeological Survey Prior to Trail Installation at the Hopewell Mound Group Unit, Hopewell Culture National Historical Park, Union Township, Ross County, Ohio. Ms. on file at Hopewell Culture National Historical Park, Chillicothe, Ohio.

Wymer, Dee Anne 1996 The Ohio Hopewell Econiche: Human-Land Interaction in the Core Area. In A View from the Core: A Synthesis of Ohio Hopewell Archaeology, edited by Paul J. Pacheco, pp. 36-52. Ohio Archaeological Council, Columbus, Ohio.

209 1997 Paleoethnobotany in the Licking River Valley, Ohio: Implications for Understanding Ohio Hopewell. In Ohio Hopewell Community Organization, edited by William S. Dancey and Paul J. Pacheco, pp. 153-171. The Kent State University Press, Kent, Ohio.

Yerkes, Richard W. 2002 Hopewell Tribes: A Study of Middle Woodland Social Organization in the Ohio Valley. In The Archaeology of Tribal Societies, edited by William A. Parkinson, pp. 227-245. International Monographs in Prehistory, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

210

APPENDIX A: TABLES

211 Activity Reference Ceremonial activities Shetrone and Greenman 1931; Hively and Horn 1982, 1984; Smith 1992; Cowan 1996; DeBoer 1997; Greber 1997a, 1997b; Prufer 1997b; Lepper 1998; Dancey 2005 Ritual activities Brown 1997; Dancey and Pacheco 1997; Greber 1997b Calendrical rituals Byers 1996; Greber 1996, 1997b; Greber and Ruhl 2000; Dancey 2005 Mortuary rituals Smith 1992; Vickery 1996; Brown 1997; DeBoer 1997; Dancey 2005 Ritual cleanings Pacheco 1996; Brown 1997 World renewal ceremonies Byers 1996; Romain 1996 Burials Dancey and Pacheco 1997; Greber 1997b; Prufer 1997b Visiting/Social meetings Brown 1997; Yerkes 2002 Feasting Seeman 1979b; Smith 1992; Connolly 1996a; Vickery 1996; DeBoer 1997; Yerkes 2002 Dancing DeBoer 1997; Yerkes 2002; Dancey 2005 Storytelling Vickery 1996 Gift-giving Vickery 1996 Gaming DeBoer 1997 Gambling DeBoer 1997 Racetrack Atwater 1833; Fowke 1902 Craft production Baby and Langlois 1979; Smith 1992; Vickery 1996; Coughlin and Seeman 1997; Genheimer 1997; Riordan 1998; Spielmann 2002 Economic activities Smith 1992; Riordan 1998 Trading Vickery 1996 Marriages Vickery 1996 Alliance building Brown 1997; Hall 1997 Judicial court Greber 1997a Defense Riordan 1996, 1998; Prufer 1997a Habitation Greber 1997b; Riordan 1998; Lazazzera 2004 Elite habitation Seeman 1981; Lazazzera 1997 Short-term habitation Dancey and Pacheco 1997; Lepper and Yerkes 1997; Prufer 1997b Long-term habitation Griffin 1996, 1997 Horticulture McLauchlan 2003; Romain 2004 Earthwork construction Smith 1992; Vickery 1996; Dancey and Pacheco 1997; Prufer 1997b

Table 1. Proposed activities conducted at Ohio Hopewell earthworks.

212 Archaeological Record Short-term Long-term Habitation Habitation Types of activity areas1 Limited All Spatial segregation of activities2 Little to none Yes Houses3 Temporary Permanent, substantial Rebuilding or repositioning4 Minimal Likely Site maintenance5 Low High Feature types6 Restricted Diverse Storage pits7 Possible Yes Size of storage pits8 Small Large Discrete midden9 Variable Yes Midden size10 Shallow Large and thick Evidence of gardens or gardening11 Possible Yes Ceramic vessel size12 Restricted Diverse Stages of lithic reduction13 Limited All Curated and/or expedient tools14 Unknown Both Multi-season food remains15 Maybe Yes

Table 2. Archaeological correlates of Ohio Hopewell short- and long-term habitation.

1. Activity areas present: Short-term sites are expected to have restricted types of activity areas because activities are limited to only those conducted at that site for a short period of time. In contrast, long- term sites should have diverse activity types displaying a range of activities.

2. Spatial segregation of activities: Short-term settlements may have spatial segregation of activities, such as flintknapping areas (Yerkes 2002). Long-term sites will have spatial segregation such as documented at Murphy (Dancey 1991).

3. Houses: Short-term sites have temporary, perhaps nominal structures. Long-term sites should have substantial houses, perhaps larger in size than short-term structures (Yerkes 2002).

4. Rebuilding or repositioning: Due to the limited occupancy, short-term settlements should have minimal evidence of rebuilding or repositioning while long-term sites have evidence for these activities. However, short-term sites that are reused may have rebuilding or repositioning episodes; Hale’s House at Newark has a semicircular arc of postmolds under postmolds forming a rectangular structure (Lepper and Yerkes 1997).

5. Site maintenance: Typically short-term sites will have low site maintenance and long-term sites will have high site maintenance. “Removal of refuse from an area is highly predicted on the intended future use of that area” (Kozarek 1997).

6. Feature types: A restricted range of feature types is expected at short-term sites because of the duration of occupation. Diversity of feature types is expected at long-term sites in which the accumulation of feature types occurs over many years.

7. Storage pits: Short-term habitations may have shallow basin features instead of substantial storage pits. Long-term sites should have many substantial pits for storage.

213 8. Size of storage pits: Short-term sites in which people did not expect to reuse the site would have no storage pits. The ability to store objects for future use is a trait of long-term settlement (Yerkes 2002). Long-term sites should have deep storage pits.

9. Discrete midden: Variable for short-term sites in which pits used for other purposes may have been reused for trash disposal. At long-term sites, discrete middens are positioned near but not in the way of structures (Yerkes 2002). There may even be a “refuse zone” such as documented at Murphy (Dancey 1991).

10. Midden size: The size of the midden corresponds to length of occupation such that short-term settlements should have small, thin midden deposits and long-term should have large, thick deposits (Kozarek 1997).

11. Evidence of gardens or gardening: Depending on the type and location of the site, evidence of gardening may be present at short-term habitation sites if peoples were engaged in horticultural activities. Gardening evidence is expected at long-term sites as suggested by Wymer (1997).

12. Ceramic vessel size: More mobile groups are expected to transport many objects between habitation sites such that pottery may be restricted to those more easily carried. However, large pots could be left at sites that would be reused seasonally. Long-term sites should have a range of vessel size since transportation of these objects does not occur frequently.

13. Stages of lithic reduction: Expect limited stages of lithic reduction sequence at short-term sites but all stages at long-term sites.

14. Curated and/or expedient tools: Short-term sites may be limited in tools because of the need to transport tools emphasizing multipurpose use. In contrast, long-term habitation sites should have curated tools as well as expedient tools (see Lepper and Yerkes 1997).

15. Multi-season food remains: Short-term habitation sites should have more food indicative of one particular season. Long-term sites should have multi-season food remains due to the use of storage pits.

214 Feature RCYBP Calibrated Date Reference (2 sigma) Mound 25, Moorehead Burial 260/261 2285±210a.b 841 B.C.-A.D. 133 Libby 1955 Mound 25, Moorehead Burial 260/261 2570±50c 826-538 B.C. Greber 2003 Mound 25, Moorehead Burial 248 2044±250b 669 B.C.-A.D. 436 Libby 1955 Mound 25, Altar 1 1951±200b 397 B.C.-A.D. 465 Libby 1955 Mound 25, Moorehead Burial 260/261 1800±50 A.D. 85-346 Greber 2003 Mound 17 1620±140 A.D. 123-662 Crane and Griffin 1972 Mound 11 1800±40 A.D. 125-339 Cowan and Greber 2002 Mound 25, Altar 1 1760±50 A.D. 134-390 Greber 2003

215 Mound 11 1740±40 A.D. 212-409 Cowan and Greber 2002 Mound 25, Altar 1 1690±50 A.D. 234-438 Greber 2003 Mound 25, Altar 1 1690±50 A.D. 234-438 Greber 2003 Mound 25, Moorehead Burial 260/261 1660±50 A.D. 256-534 Greber 2003 Note: Calibrations used CALIB 5.0.1- IntCal04 (Reimer et al. 2004).

a Material dated was shell that may have produced an inaccurate date (Greber 2003). b The standard deviation of greater than ±200 is due to radiocarbon dating techniques in the 1950s. c Greber (2003:106) attributes this early date to “part of the variation expected from radiocarbon assays.”

Table 3. Published radiocarbon dates from the Hopewell site.

215 Block Rank A Rank B Rank C Rank D Rank E Total 10 12 6 18 23 2 1 2 13 18 26 4 2 1 7 28 2 2 4 32 1 1 34 1 1 65 2 2 68 2 2 82 2 1 1 4 87 2 1 3 100 3 2 1 6 114 2 1 1 4 124 2 1 3 147 1 1 156 2 4 2 1 9 159 1 1 1 3 161 0 167 2 2 Total 33 21 11 11 14 88

Table 4. Magnetic anomalies identified for each block.

216 Block Rank A Rank B Rank C Total 10 1 1 3 5 23 11 26 235 28 123 32 1 1 34 1 2 3 65 123 68 2 1 3 82 2 1 3 87 213 100 134 114 1 1 124 123 147 11 156 0 159 0 161 0 167 0 Total 8 12 19 39

Table 5. Electrical resistance anomalies identified for each block.

217 Block Fire- Lithic Lithic Pottery Faunal Burned Other Historics Total cracked Tools Debitage Sherds Remains Limestone Prehistoric Rock Objects 10 926 43 334 222 3536881900 23 11 1 21 33 26 10 5 2 2 19 28 1503 13 174 29 235 2 12 1968 32 6 8 1 15 34 8 7 3 1 19 65 5 2 5 16 28 68 9 1 2 12 82 20 2 1 1 24 87 14 2 4 110 130 100 44 1 9 54

218 114 10 2 9 10 31 124 802 1 47 1 851 147 2 6 1 1 10 156 6 2 20 5 33 159 16 1 1 1 2 21 161 25 2 1 1 29 167 608 21 73 221 1 9 1 934 Total 4025 92 728 481 354 242 33 156 6111

Table 6. Artifacts recovered during all stages of fieldwork.

218 Block FCR Lithic Lithic Pottery Faunal Historics Total Tools Debitage Sherds Remains 10 61 5 30 20 8 124 23 12 1 21 34 26 10 2 5 2 19 28 23 1 15 2 3 44 32 6 8 1 15 34 8 7 3 1 19 65 2 4 2 8 68 2 2 2 6 82 20 3 1 1 25 87 1 22 23 100 44 1 9 54 114 2 1 7 10 124 27 13 40 147 5 7 1 1 14 156 2 2 13 4 21 159 13 1 1 1 16 161 25 2 1 1 29 167 23 9 4 36 Total 283 21 155 34 9 35 537

Table 7. Artifacts recovered from shovel tests pits.

219 Size Class Count % by Count Weight (g) % by Weight <2.5 cm 816 20.30 1652 1.10 2.5-5 cm 2121 52.30 29982 20.00 5-7.5 cm 775 19.3 47723 31.10 7.5-10 cm 240 6.00 38898 25.40 10-12.5 cm 50 1.20 19049 12.40 12.5-15 cm 17 0.40 10226 6.70 15-20 cm 5 0.10 4543 3.00 >20 cm 1 0.02 1200 0.80 Total 4025 99.62 153273 100.50

Table 8. Fire-cracked rock recovered from all stages of fieldwork.

Size Class Count % by Count Weight (g) % by Weight <0.25 in 2 0.30 0.05 0.007 0.25-0.5 in 33 4.50 6.32 0.90 0.5-1 in 567 77.90 218.47 31.70 1-2 in 119 16.30 200.00 29.00 >2 in 7 1.00 263.95 38.30 Total 728 100.00 688.79 99.90

Table 9. Lithic debitage recovered from all stages of fieldwork.

Size Class Count % by Count Weight (g) % by Weight <0.25 in 15 2.80 3.11 0.30 0.25-0.5 in 242 45.30 163.40 16.10 0.5-1 in 247 46.30 534.83 52.80 1-2 in 28 5.20 251.91 24.90 >2 in 2 0.40 60.12 5.90 Total 481 100.00 1013.37 100.00

Table 10. Pottery sherds recovered from all stages of fieldwork.

220 Anomaly Maximum Maximum Peak Depth below Mass Rank number east-west north-south (nT) surface (kg) (m) (m) (cm) 1 1.80 1.45 12.39 1.02 0.88 A 2 1.10 0.85 11.54 0.37 0.18 A 3 1.20 0.70 18.97 0.27 0.27 B 4 2.00 1.30 6.61 0.92 0.49 B 5 1.20 1.25 7.20 0.77 0.22 A 6 1.60 1.50 6.80 0.92 0.42 B 7 2.00 1.40 13.22 0.87 1.08 A 8 2.00 2.00 15.38 1.02 2.04 A 9 1.40 1.50 6.16 0.62 0.31 B 10 1.70 0.90 11.17 0.52 0.41 A 11 1.90 1.50 20.04 0.62 1.64 A 12 1.25 1.25 7.20 0.42 0.23 B 13 1.30 1.25 8.15 0.62 0.28 B 14 1.40 1.25 6.54 0.42 0.25 A 15 1.10 0.75 12.90 0.32 0.17 A 16 2.00 1.00 15.13 0.37 0.85 A 17 1.90 1.50 8.96 0.87 0.73 A 18 1.60 1.30 8.97 0.52 0.45 A mean= 0.05 standard deviation= 1.99 minimum value= -15.74 maximum value= 30.34

Table 11. Magnetic anomalies in Block 10.

221 Anomaly Maximum Maximum Peak Rank number east-west north-south (ohms) (m) (m) 1 23.50 27.00 77.83 A 2 2.00 1.70 95.81 B 3 1.90 1.00 92.04 C 4 1.20 0.80 88.51 C 5 1.00 0.75 89.45 C mean= 88.95 standard deviation= 3.46 minimum value= 77.83 maximum value= 98.09

Table 12. Electrical resistance anomalies in Block 10.

222 Anomaly Maximum Maximum Peak Depth below Mass Rank number east-west north-south (nT) surface (kg) (m) (m) (cm) 1 4.00 unknown 40.88 unknown unknown A 2 3.50 unknown 13.84 unknown unknown A 3 1.30 1.05 5.76 0.62 0.15 E 4 1.50 0.80 3.28 0.52 0.08 E 5 0.75 0.75 2.90 0.22 0.02 E 6 0.75 1.25 3.05 0.17 0.05 E 7 0.60 0.55 4.70 -0.13 0.01 E 8 0.50 1.00 6.06 -0.13 0.04 E 9 1.00 0.90 6.67 0.27 0.09 D 10 0.80 1.60 5.40 0.37 0.15 E 11 1.10 1.30 6.23 0.62 0.17 E 12 1.00 1.50 4.15 1.12 0.13 E 13 0.75 1.60 4.93 0.32 0.13 E 14 1.00 1.40 6.34 0.82 0.18 D 15 0.60 0.60 3.48 0.12 0.01 E 16 1.15 1.40 7.26 0.37 0.25 C 17 1.60 1.50 5.69 0.72 0.34 E 18 1.30 1.20 5.35 0.62 0.17 E mean= 0.16 standard deviation= 3.55 minimum value= -108.16 maximum value= 133.78

Table 13. Magnetic anomalies in Block 23.

Anomaly Maximum Maximum Peak Rank number east-west north-south (ohms) (m) (m) 1 4.00 4.50 57.85 B mean= 26.62 standard deviation= 12.75 minimum value= 9.75 maximum value= 57.85

Table 14. Electrical resistance anomalies in Block 23.

223 Anomaly Maximum Maximum Peak Depth below Mass Rank number east-west north-south (nT) surface (kg) (m) (m) (cm) 1 1.50 1.50 4.87 1.12 0.27 C 2 1.75 1.60 15.72 0.62 1.22 A 3 1.90 1.80 10.69 0.82 1.12 A 4 1.50 2.40 13.51 0.72 1.66 A 5 2.00 2.00 7.99 1.42 1.05 B 6 3.50 9.00 9.43 3.87 38.00 B 7 2.50 2.00 8.40 1.32 1.58 A mean= 0.09 standard deviation= 1.99 minimum value= -7.57 maximum value= 60.74

Table 15. Magnetic anomalies in Block 26.

Anomaly Maximum Maximum Peak Rank number east-west north-south (ohms) (m) (m) 1 1.60 1.50 72.95 B 2 0.60 0.80 65.45 C 3 1.30 1.90 66.45 C 4 3.80 7.00 74.50 B 5 1.90 1.40 66.85 C mean= 65.28 standard deviation= 3.06 minimum value= 57.65 maximum value= 127.70

Table 16. Electrical resistance anomalies in Block 26.

224 Anomaly Maximum Maximum Peak Depth below Mass Rank number east-west north-south (nT) surface (kg) (m) (m) (cm) 1 0.74 0.80 8.28 0.27 0.06 A 2 1.50 1.30 7.18 1.02 0.33 B 3 2.75 1.10 7.05 1.37 0.83 B 4 1.10 1.40 6.79 1.12 0.22 A mean= 0.03 standard deviation= 1.99 minimum value= -85.35 maximum value= 58.95

Table 17. Magnetic anomalies in Block 28.

Anomaly Maximum Maximum Peak Rank number east-west north-south (ohms) (m) (m) 1 16.50 40.00 71.20 B 2 2.25 1.50 50.10 C 3 1.50 1.90 47.35 C mean= 56.26 standard deviation= 5.34 minimum value= 46.55 maximum value= 112.65

Table 18. Electrical resistance anomalies in Block 28.

Anomaly Maximum Maximum Peak Depth below Mass Rank number east-west north-south (nT) surface (kg) (m) (m) (cm) 1 2.50 2.00 7.94 1.37 1.51 A mean= 0.05 standard deviation= 1.87 minimum value= -92.43 maximum value= 65.73

Table 19. Magnetic anomalies in Block 32.

225 Anomaly Maximum Maximum Peak Rank number east-west north-south (ohms) (m) (m) 1 1.90 2.00 48.25 A mean= 39.52 standard deviation= 3.26 minimum value= 33.20 maximum value= 61.75

Table 20. Electrical resistance anomalies in Block 32.

Anomaly Maximum Maximum Peak Depth below Mass Rank number east-west north-south (nT) surface (kg) (m) (m) (cm) 1 1.60 1.25 6.38 0.92 0.30 D mean= 0.07 standard deviation= 02.65 minimum value= -70.26 maximum value= 62.17

Table 21. Magnetic anomalies in Block 34.

Anomaly Maximum Maximum Peak Depth below Mass Rank number east-west north-south (nT) surface (kg) (m) (m) (cm) 1 2.00 1.20 5.90 0.82 0.40 C 2 2.00 1.30 6.45 0.82 0.48 C mean= 0.04 standard deviation= 2.48 minimum value= -77.87 maximum value= 131.91

Table 22. Magnetic anomalies in Block 65.

226 Anomaly Maximum Maximum Peak Rank number east-west north-south (ohms) (m) (m) 1 1.50 2.00 58.55 C 2 9.30 9.30 42.50 B 3 1.70 1.70 59.50 C mean= 56.37 standard deviation= 5.14 minimum value= 42.50 maximum value= 81.90

Table 23. Electrical resistance anomalies in Block 65.

Anomaly Maximum Maximum Peak Depth below Mass Rank number east-west north-south (nT) surface (kg) (m) (m) (cm) 1 2.10 1.50 12.68 0.82 1.23 C 2 1.80 1.50 14.13 0.57 1.05 C mean= 0.04 standard deviation= 5.43 minimum value= -196.14 maximum value= 147.84

Table 24. Magnetic anomalies in Block 68.

Anomaly Maximum Maximum Peak Rank number east-west north-south (ohms) (m) (m) 1 2.90 1.05 77.85 A 2 2.10 1.90 78.55 A mean= 63.67 standard deviation= 4.69 minimum value= 52.00 maximum value= 85.15

Table 25. Electrical resistance anomalies in Block 68.

227 Anomaly Maximum Maximum Peak Depth below Mass Rank number east-west north-south (nT) surface (kg) (m) (m) (cm) 1 1.90 1.90 7.67 0.87 0.86 C 2 1.95 1.00 7.69 1.12 0.40 D 3 2.00 2.00 10.83 1.32 1.43 A 4 2.00 2.00 10.48 1.12 1.38 A mean= 0.12 standard deviation= 2.61 minimum value= -82.99 maximum value= 158.85

Table 26. Magnetic anomalies in Block 82.

Anomaly Maximum Maximum Peak Rank number east-west north-south (ohms) (m) (m) 1 4.00 3.70 73.45 A 2 1.60 1.40 56.10 C mean= 59.46 standard deviation= 5.19 minimum value= 48.65 maximum value= 96.45

Table 27. Electrical resistance anomalies in Block 82.

228 Anomaly Maximum Maximum Peak Depth below Mass Rank number east-west north-south (nT) surface (kg) (m) (m) (cm) 1 1.50 1.50 5.72 0.62 0.32 A 2 1.00 1.70 6.11 0.87 0.25 C 3 2.00 2.00 8.20 Unknown Unknown A mean= 0.09 standard deviation= 1.69 minimum value= -9.52 maximum value= 14.21

Table 28. Magnetic anomalies in Block 87.

Anomaly Maximum Maximum Peak Rank number east-west north-south (ohms) (m) (m) 1 2.20 1.70 82.95 B 2 3.00 2.50 75.65 C 3 3.50 3.00 83.10 B mean= 63.55 standard deviation= 7.43 minimum value= 44.55 maximum value= 90.10

Table 29. Electrical resistance anomalies in Block 87.

229 Anomaly Maximum Maximum Peak Depth below Mass Rank number east-west north-south (nT) surface (kg) (m) (m) (cm) 1 1.80 1.70 7.67 1.02 0.68 A 2 1.70 1.90 9.96 0.42 0.96 A 3 1.15 1.10 5.89 0.72 0.14 B 4 1.70 2.10 9.62 0.82 1.09 B 5 1.00 1.20 5.60 0.62 0.12 C 6 1.20 2.60 8.78 1.12 1.00 A mean= 0.06 standard deviation= 1.8 minimum value= -37.08 maximum value= 30.87

Table 30. Magnetic anomalies in Block 100.

Anomaly Maximum Maximum Peak Rank number east-west north-south (ohms) (m) (m) 1 1.50 1.10 72.20 C 2 1.00 0.60 74.35 C 3 1.40 1.00 82.20 B 4 2.10 1.90 63.75 C mean= 67.92 standard deviation= 4.77 minimum value= 52.70 maximum value= 120.50

Table 31. Electrical resistance anomalies in Block 100.

230 Anomaly Maximum Maximum Peak Depth below Mass Rank number east-west north-south (nT) surface (kg) (m) (m) (cm) 1 6.00 5.00 11.29 Unknown Unknown E 2 1.10 1.00 8.56 0.32 0.16 D 3 1.00 0.90 11.73 0.62 0.17 B 4 0.80 1.10 12.99 0.77 0.18 B mean= 0.07 standard deviation= 3.78 minimum value= -144.36 maximum value= 140.20

Table 32. Magnetic anomalies in Block 114.

Anomaly Maximum Maximum Peak Rank number east-west north-south (ohms) (m) (m) 1 8.00 11.00 83.95 B mean= 54.94 standard deviation= 12.71 minimum value= 27.35 maximum value= 86.90

Table 33. Electrical resistance anomalies in Block 114.

Anomaly Maximum Maximum Peak Depth below Mass Rank number east-west north-south (nT) surface (kg) (m) (m) (cm) 1 unknown unknown 11.86 unknown unknown B 2 2.00 2.00 19.33 0.62 2.57 A 3 1.10 1.00 7.08 0.82 0.14 A mean= 0.03 standard deviation= 1.67 minimum value= -16.12 maximum value= 22.11

Table 34. Magnetic anomalies in Block 124.

231 Anomaly Maximum Maximum Peak Rank number east-west north-south (ohms) (m) (m) 1 1.30 1.60 56.60 C 2 2.10 2.25 63.00 B 3 0.70 0.70 56.10 C mean= 54.32 standard deviation= 3.84 minimum value= 44.15 maximum value= 206.83

Table 35. Electrical resistance anomalies in Block 124.

Anomaly Maximum Maximum Peak Depth below Mass Rank number east-west north-south (nT) surface (kg) (m) (m) (cm) 1 1.00 0.90 9.52 0.22 0.14 B mean= 0.01 standard deviation= 1.31 minimum value= -21.48 maximum value= 46.21

Table 36. Magnetic anomalies in Block 147.

Anomaly Maximum Maximum Peak Rank number east-west north-south (ohms) (m) (m) 1 1.30 1.00 35.00 C mean= 39.42 standard deviation= 2.81 minimum value= 31.55 maximum value= 50.40

Table 37. Electrical resistance anomalies in Block 147.

232 Anomaly Maximum Maximum Peak Depth below Mass Rank number east-west north-south (nT) surface (kg) (m) (m) (cm) 1 0.70 0.70 6.57 0.32 0.04 A 2 1.10 1.15 7.42 0.62 0.18 B 3 1.60 0.90 6.43 0.82 0.21 B 4 1.00 0.70 6.26 0.47 0.06 B 5 0.70 0.80 5.28 0.22 0.04 D 6 1.00 1.05 5.90 0.62 0.11 C 7 1.20 1.70 10.51 0.82 0.53 A 8 1.00 1.20 6.88 0.52 0.15 B 9 1.00 0.60 5.68 0.42 0.05 C mean=0.02 standard deviation= 2.07 minimum value= -82.49 maximum value= 71.67

Table 38. Magnetic anomalies in Block 156.

Anomaly Maximum Maximum Peak Depth below Mass Rank number east-west north-south (nT) surface (kg) (m) (m) (cm) 1 1.50 1.00 4.83 0.72 0.16 D 2 1.10 0.50 5.47 0.37 0.05 B 3 2.50 2.10 11.05 1.62 2.23 A mean= 0.04 standard deviation= 1.53 minimum value= -14.45 maximum value= 48.95

Table 39. Magnetic anomalies in Block 159.

233 Anomaly Maximum Maximum Peak Depth below Mass Rank number east-west north-south (nT) surface (kg) (m) (m) (cm) 1 1.50 1.00 5.19 0.62 0.17 D 2 2.00 1.00 5.98 0.97 0.33 D mean= 0.06 standard deviation= 2.67 minimum value= -52.54 maximum value= 121.23

Table 40. Magnetic anomalies in Block 167.

234 Block FCR Flakes Shatter Cores Bladelets Bifaces Flake Ground- Pottery Bone Diversity Tools stone Sherds Index 10 X X X X X X 0.6 23 X X X 0.3 26 X X X X 0.4 28 X X X X X 0.5 32 X X X X 0.4 34 X X X 0.3 65 X X X X 0.4 68 X X X X 0.4 82 X X X X X 0.5 87 X 0.1 100 X X X 0.3 114 X X X X X 0.5 235 124 X X 0.2 147 X X X X 0.4 159 X X X X 0.4 161 X X X X 0.4 167 X X X X 0.4

Table 41. Diversity of artifacts per block based on shovel tests.

235

Anomaly Easting Northing Discovery General Magnetic Description Number Method Form Peak (nT) 10-1 4160 4940 Shovel testn/a n/a Natural deposit of cobbles 10-2 4169 4957 Magnetics Dipole 11.67 Unknown 10-3 4194 4952 Magnetics Monopole 12.39 Deep cooking pit 10-4 4170 4950 Magnetics Dipole 11.94 Metal 10-5 4184.5 4929 Magnetics Dipole 6.80 Cooking pit 10-6 4167.5 4927 Magnetics Dipole 30.34 Unknown 28-1 4160 5020 Shovel test n/a n/a Tree root 28-2 4200 5000 Shovel testn/a n/a Mound 28-3 4191 5032 Magnetics Monopole 8.28 Posthole 28-4 4199 5030 Magnetics Dipole 11.11 Metal 28-5 4191 5006.5 Magnetics Monopole 7.05 FCR feature 28-6 4192 5030 Magnetics Monopole 7.18 Posthole 65-1 4440 5080 Shovel testn/a n/a Animal burrow 65-2 4407 5096 Magnetics Dipole 10.80 Animal burrow 65-3 4423 5087 Magnetics Dipole 17.53 Metal 87-1 4496 5142 Magnetics Dipole 8.08 Cinder 87-2 4501 5103 Magnetics Monopole 8.20 Ditch 114-1 4810.5 5164.5 Magnetics Monopole 12.49 Till 114-2 4801 5163.5 Magnetics Monopole 2.59 Till 124-1 4440 5200 Shovel testn/a n/a FCR feature 124-2 4454 5211 Magnetics Haloed 19.33 Earth oven Dipole 124-3 4459.5 5209.5 Magnetics Dipole 7.08 Unknown 124-4 Magnetics Monopole 2.61 Plow scar 156-1 4906.5 5241 Magnetics Monopole 5.47 Burned tree root 167-1 4689 5293 Magnetics Monopole 5.50 Posthole 167-2 4685.5 5294 Magnetics Monopole 5.98 Pit

Table 42. Anomalies tested for prehistoric cultural features.

236

Feature RCYBP Calibrated Date (2 sigma) Feature 124-2 2610±80 929-506 B.C. Earth Oven Feature 28-5 2330±70 570-202 B.C. FCR Feature Feature 167-3 1770±70 A.D. 117-413 Posthole Feature 10-5 1090±60 A.D. 778-1032 Cooking Pit Feature 10-3 1040±60 A.D. 883-1156 Cooking Pit Note: Calibrations used CALIB 5.0.1-IntCal04 (Reimer et al. 2004).

Table 43. Radiocarbon dates from non-mound space at the Hopewell site.

237

APPENDIX B: FIGURES

238

Figure 1. Spatial distribution of earthworks in southern Ohio (adapted from Dancey 1996b). The location of the Hopewell site circled.

239

Figure 2. Hypothetical model of earthwork evolution (adapted from Dancey and Pacheco 1997). Solid polygons represent mounds. Lines and open polygons represent embankments and enclosures.

240

Figure 3. Proposed plan view of the Big House of Mound 25 at the Hopewell site (Greber and Ruhl 2000).

241

Figure 4. The Hopewell site as mapped by Warren K. Moorehead (1922) showing two “village sites.”

242

Figure 5. The Hopewell site as mapped by Henry C. Shetrone (1926) showing two “habitation sites.”

243

Figure 6. Ohio Hopewell earthworks with non-mound research.

244

Figure 7. Soils in the vicinity of the Hopewell site (adapted from USDA 2003). Embankments shown as dashed line.

245

Figure 8. The Hopewell site as mapped by Ephraim Squier and Edwin Davis (1848).

246

Figure 9. Middle Woodland sites in the vicinity of the Hopewell site.

247

Figure 10. The Hopewell site as mapped by Clinton Cowen in 1892 (adapted from Greber and Ruhl 2000). Mounds lettered a-z.

248

Figure 11. Aerial photograph of the Hopewell site from 1976. Arrows point to visible embankment walls.

249

Figure 12. Composite of photointerpreted anomalies from aerial photographs taken between 1951-1994 of the Hopewell site (Ebert and Associates 2000).

250

Figure 13. Earliest map of the Hopewell site by Caleb Atwater (1820; adapted from McGraw 1991).

251

Figure 14. Map of the 18 blocks in the sample. Blocks identified by numbers shown.

252

Figure 15. Collection of magnetic data from Block 65 using the Geoscan FM-36 Fluxgate Gradiometer. Pictured left to right: Jennifer Pederson Weinberger, April Boyer, and Andrew Drake.

253

Figure 16. Collection of resistance data from Block 114 using the Geoscan RM-15 Resistance Meter. Pictured: Jennifer Pederson Weinberger.

254

Figure 17. Shovel test pit in Block 124 with Feature 124-1 at base of plowzone.

255

Figure 18. Artifacts made from exotic materials.

256

Figure 19. Sample of fire-cracked rock.

257

Figure 20. Projectile points.

258

Figure 21. Bladelet fragments.

259

Figure 22. Groundstone artifacts.

260

Figure 23. Pottery sherds.

261

Figure 24. Processed magnetic data from Block 10.

Figure 25. Interpretation of magnetic data from Block 10 showing probable prehistoric cultural features. 262

Figure 26. Processed electrical resistance data from Block 10.

Figure 27. Interpretation of electrical resistance data from Block 10 showing probable prehistoric cultural features.

263

Figure 28. Processed magnetic data from Block 23.

Figure 29. Interpretation of magnetic data from Block 23 showing probable prehistoric cultural features. 264

Figure 30. Processed electrical resistance data from Block 23.

Figure 31. Interpretation of electrical resistance data from Block 23 showing probable prehistoric cultural features. 265

Figure 32. Processed magnetic data from Block 26.

Figure 33. Interpretation of magnetic data from Block 26 showing probable prehistoric cultural features. 266

Figure 34. Processed electrical resistance data from Block 26.

Figure 35. Interpretation of electrical resistance data from Block 26 showing probable prehistoric cultural features. 267

Figure 36. Processed magnetic data from Block 28.

Figure 37. Interpretation of magnetic data from Block 28 showing probable prehistoric cultural features. 268

Figure 38. Processed electrical resistance data from Block 28.

Figure 39. Topographic map showing location of mounded area in relation to electrical resistance data collected for Block 28. Contour interval of 0.1 meters is above datum.

269

Figure 40. Interpretation of electrical resistance data from Block 28 showing probable prehistoric cultural features.

270

Figure 41. Plan view of Feature 28-5 at 60 centimeters below datum.

271

Figure 42. Processed magnetic data from Block 32.

Figure 43. Interpretation of magnetic data from Block 32 showing probable prehistoric cultural features. 272

Figure 44. Processed electrical resistance data from Block 32.

Figure 45. Electrical resistance data in the vicinity of Block 32 showing a portion of the D-shaped embankment. 273

Figure 46. Interpretation of electrical resistance data from Block 32 showing probable prehistoric cultural features.

Figure 47. Processed magnetic data from Block 34.

274

Figure 48. Interpretation of magnetic data from Block 34 showing probable prehistoric cultural features.

Figure 49. Processed electrical resistance data from Block 34. 275

Figure 50. Processed magnetic data from Block 65.

Figure 51. Interpretation of magnetic data from Block 65 showing probable prehistoric cultural features. 276

Figure 52. Processed electrical resistance data from Block 65.

Figure 53. Interpretation of electrical resistance data from Block 65 showing probable prehistoric cultural features.

277

Figure 54. Processed magnetic data from Block 68.

Figure 55. Interpretation of magnetic data from Block 68 showing probable prehistoric cultural features.

278

Figure 56. Processed electrical resistance data from Block 68.

Figure 57. Interpretation of electrical resistance data from Block 68 showing probable prehistoric cultural features.

279

Figure 58. Processed magnetic data from Block 82.

Figure 59. Interpretation of magnetic data from Block 82 showing probable prehistoric cultural features. 280

Figure 60. Processed electrical resistance data from Block 82.

Figure 61. Interpretation of electrical resistance data from Block 82 showing probable prehistoric cultural features.

281

Figure 62. Processed magnetic data from Block 87.

282

Figure 63. Interpretation of magnetic data from Block 87 showing probable prehistoric cultural features.

283

Figure 64. Processed electrical resistance data from Block 87.

284

Figure 65. Interpretation of electrical resistance data from Block 87 showing probable prehistoric cultural features.

285

Figure 66. Processed magnetic data from Block 100.

Figure 67. Interpretation of magnetic data from Block 100 showing probable prehistoric cultural features. 286

Figure 68. Processed electrical resistance data from Block 100.

Figure 69. Interpretation of electrical resistance data from Block 100 showing probable prehistoric cultural features. 287

Figure 70. Processed magnetic data from Block 114.

Figure 71. Interpretation of magnetic data from Block 114 showing probable prehistoric cultural features. 288

Figure 72. Processed electrical resistance data from Block 114.

Figure 73. Interpretation of electrical resistance data from Block 114 showing probable prehistoric cultural features.

289

Figure 74. Processed magnetic data from Block 124.

Figure 75. Interpretation of magnetic data from Block 124 showing probable prehistoric cultural features.

290

Figure 76. Processed electrical resistance data from Block 124.

Figure 77. Interpretation of electrical resistance data from Block 124 showing probable prehistoric cultural features.

291

Figure 78. Processed magnetic data from Block 147.

Figure 79. Interpretation of magnetic data from Block 147 showing probable prehistoric cultural features. 292

Figure 80. Processed electrical resistance data from Block 147.

Figure 81. Interpretation of electrical resistance data from Block 147 showing probable prehistoric cultural features. 293

Figure 82. Processed magnetic data from Block 156.

Figure 83. Interpretation of magnetic data from Block 156 showing probable prehistoric cultural features.

294

Figure 84. Processed electrical resistance data from Block 156.

Figure 85. Processed magnetic data from Block 159.

295

Figure 86. Interpretation of magnetic data from Block 159 showing probable prehistoric cultural features.

Figure 87. Processed electrical resistance data from Block 159. 296

Figure 88. Processed magnetic data from Block 161.

Figure 89. Processed electrical resistance data from Block 161.

297

Figure 90. Processed magnetic data from Block 167.

Figure 91. Interpretation of magnetic data from Block 167 showing probable prehistoric cultural features. 298

Figure 92. Processed electrical resistance data from Block 167.

299

Figure 93. Map of the Hopewell site showing the number of geophysical anomalies found in each block. Anomalies with both magnetic and electrical resistance signatures only counted once. Block numbers located above each block.

300

Figure 94. Map of the Hopewell site showing the number of prehistoric artifacts found in shovel tests for each block. Block numbers located above each block.

301

Figure 95. Map of the Hopewell site showing the number of prehistoric artifacts excluding fire-cracked rock found in shovel tests for each block. Block numbers located above each block.

302

1500 B.C.3500

Temporal extent of the 1000 B.C.3000 Middle Woodland period

500 B.C.2500

20000

A.D. 1500500

A.D. 10001000

303 A.D. 1500500

A.D. 20000

1 1 1 le re 48 r 1 17 11 61* tu 2 a d ho tar 1 ar 1 61* 2 a l Oven 2 Al Fe Alt und Alt rth 60/ Post , oking Pit a 2 5, Moun Mound Mo o E l 2 -3, ia FCR d rial 260/26 nd 25, , u 67 u -2, -5 un B 1 und 25 -3, C 24 d 0 1 d Bur 28 Mo re Mo Mound 25, AltarMo 1 a hea re eatu tu re F orehead Burialorehe 260/ a Feature o Fe Feature 10-5,Feature Cooking 1 Pit , Moo Mo 5 2 d Mound 25, Moorehead Buria nd 25, M nd 25, u u Moun Mo Mo Mound 25, Moorehead Burial 260/261

Note: Calibration at two sigma using CALIB 5.0.1-IntCal04 (Reimer et al. 2004). * Dates may be inaccurate (see Greber 2003).

Figure 96. Calibrated radiocarbon dates for the Hopewell site. Dates from non-mound space shown as thicker lines. 303

APPENDIX C. ARTIFACTS FROM SHOVEL TEST PITS

304

Catalog # Block Easting Northing Object Count Depth 22101 10 4200 4960 Sherd 1 Plowzone 22103 10 4180 4960 Bladelet 1 Plowzone 22104 10 4180 4940 Bladelet 1 Plowzone 22106 10 4200 4960 Flake 1 Plowzone 22107 10 4200 4960 Bladelet 1 Plowzone 22111 10 4160 4920 Sherd 1 Plowzone 22112 10 4160 4940 Bladelet 2 Plowzone 22113 10 4160 4960 Flake 1 Plowzone 22114 10 4180 4960 Mica Chunk? 1 Plowzone 22115 10 4180 4940 Shatter 2 Plowzone 22116 10 4160 4940 Sherd 2 Plowzone 22117 10 4200 4960 Flake 3 Plowzone 22119 10 4180 4920 Flake 2 Plowzone 22120 10 4160 4960 Flake 2 Plowzone 22121 10 4180 4920 Sherd 2 Plowzone 22123 10 4180 4960 Sherd 5 Plowzone 22124 10 4160 4940 Flake 8 Plowzone 22125 10 4180 4960 Flake 7 Plowzone 22127 10 4180 4940 Bone 8 Plowzone 22131 10 4180 4940 Flake 4 Plowzone 22133 10 4180 4940 Sherd 9 Plowzone 22134 10 4200 4960 FCR 1 Plowzone 22135 10 4180 4960 FCR 1 Plowzone 22136 10 4200 4920 FCR 1 Plowzone 22137 10 4200 4940 FCR 3 Plowzone 22138 10 4160 4920 FCR 11 Plowzone 22139 10 4200 4920 FCR 4 Plowzone 22140 10 4180 4920 FCR 2 Plowzone 22141 10 4200 4940 FCR 5 Plowzone 22142 10 4160 4960 FCR 9 Plowzone 22143 10 4160 4940 FCR 11 Plowzone 22145 10 4180 4940 FCR 13 Plowzone 22471 23 4620 4980 Flake 2 Plowzone 22472 23 4620 5000 Flake 1 Plowzone 22473 23 4600 4960 Flake 1 Plowzone 22474 23 4620 4980 Flake 1 Plowzone 22475 23 4640 4980 Biface Fragment 1 Plowzone 22476 23 4638.5 4999.5 Flake 1 Plowzone 22477 23 4620 4960 Flake 2 Plowzone 22478 23 4600 4980 Flake 4 Plowzone 22479 23 4640 4980 Flake 9 Plowzone 22480 23 4640 4980 FCR 1 Plowzone

305

Catalog # Block Easting Northing Object Count Depth 22481 23 4600 4980 FCR 2 Plowzone 22482 23 4638.5 4999.5 FCR 4 Plowzone 22483 23 4620 4980 FCR 4 Plowzone 22484 26 4120 5040 Flake 1 Plowzone 22485 26 4100 5040 Flake 1 Plowzone 22486 26 4100 5040 Flake 1 Plowzone 22487 26 4100 5000 Flake 1 Plowzone 22488 26 4120 5000 Flake 1 Plowzone 22489 26 4120 5000 Sherd 2 Plowzone 22490 26 4100 5000 FCR 1 Plowzone 22491 26 4120 5000 FCR 1 Plowzone 22492 26 4120 5040 FCR 1 Plowzone 22493 26 4100 5040 FCR 1 Plowzone 22494 26 4080 5040 FCR 1 Plowzone 22495 26 4120 5020 FCR 1 Plowzone 22496 26 4120 5040 FCR 2 Plowzone 22497 26 4120 5040 Granite 2 Plowzone 22498 26 4120 5000 FCR 1 Plowzone 22499 26 4100 5000 FCR 1 Plowzone 22500 28 4200 5000 Sherd 1 29-35 cmbs 22501 28 4180 5000 Flake 1 Plowzone 22502 28 4200 5000 Flake 2 Plowzone 22503 28 4200 5000 Flake 1 Plowzone 22504 28 4180 5000 Flake 1 Plowzone 22505 28 4200 5000 Bladelet 1 Plowzone 22506 28 4200 5000 FCR 6 29-35 cmbs 22507 28 4180 5000 FCR 2 Plowzone 22508 28 4200 5000 FCR 2 Plowzone 22509 28 4180 5000 FCR 2 Plowzone 22510 28 4200 5020 Nail 1 Plowzone 22511 28 4200 5020 Glass 1 Plowzone 22512 28 4200 5020 Sherd 1 Plowzone 22513 28 4200 5040 Flake 1 Plowzone 22514 28 4200 5020 Flake 2 Plowzone 22515 28 4200 5020 Flake 1 Plowzone 22516 28 4200 5020 Shatter 1 Plowzone 22517 28 4200 5020 FCR 1 Plowzone 22518 28 4200 5020 FCR 1 Plowzone 22519 28 4200 5020 FCR 4 Plowzone 22520 28 4160 5040 Flake 1 Plowzone 22521 28 4180 5040 Flake 2 Plowzone 22522 28 4180 5020 Flake 2 Plowzone 22523 28 4160 5040 Metal Washer 1 Plowzone 306

Catalog # Block Easting Northing Object Count Depth 22524 28 4160 5040 FCR 1 Plowzone 22525 28 4180 5040 FCR 3 Plowzone 22526 28 4160 5020 FCR 1 Plowzone 22838 32 4340 5040 Flake 1 Plowzone 22839 32 4340 5000 Flake 2 Plowzone 22840 32 4320 5040 Flake 3 Plowzone 22841 32 4320 5000 Flake 1 Plowzone 22842 32 4340 5040 Sherd 1 Plowzone 22843 32 4340 5040 Shatter 1 Plowzone 22844 32 4340 5040 FCR 1 Plowzone 22845 32 4340 5040 FCR 1 Plowzone 22846 32 4340 5000 FCR 1 Plowzone 22847 32 4320 5040 FCR 1 Plowzone 22848 32 4360 5000 FCR 1 Plowzone 22849 32 4340 5040 FCR 1 Plowzone 22850 34 4600 5040 Sherd 1 Plowzone 22851 34 4560 5040 Sherd 2 Plowzone 22852 34 4580 5040 Stoneware 1 Plowzone 22853 34 4580 5020 Flake 1 Plowzone 22854 34 4580 5000 Flake 2 Plowzone 22855 34 4600 5040 Flake 2 Plowzone 22856 34 4560 5000 Flake 2 Plowzone 22857 34 4580 5000 FCR 1 Plowzone 22858 34 4600 5000 FCR 1 Plowzone 22859 34 4600 5020 FCR 3 Plowzone 22860 34 4560 5020 FCR 3 Plowzone 22862 124 4480 5200 Flake 2 Plowzone 22863 124 4480 5200 FCR 1 Plowzone 22864 124 4480 5200 Flake 1 Plowzone 22865 124 4460 5220 Flake 1 Plowzone 22866 124 4440 5220 Flake 1 Plowzone 22867 124 4440 5220 Flake 1 Plowzone 22868 124 4440 5220 Flake 3 Plowzone 22869 124 4440 5220 FCR 1 Plowzone 22870 124 4440 5220 FCR 1 Plowzone 22871 124 4440 5220 FCR 3 Plowzone 22872 124 4460 5200 FCR 1 Plowzone 22873 124 4460 5240 FCR 3 Plowzone 22874 124 4460 5240 FCR 1 Plowzone 22875 124 4480 5200 FCR 1 40-45 cmbs 22876 124 4480 5240 Flake 1 Plowzone 22877 124 4480 5240 FCR 2 30-35 cmbs 22878 124 4480 5240 FCR 1 Plowzone 307

Catalog # Block Easting Northing Object Count Depth 22879 124 4440 5240 FCR 2 Plowzone 22880 124 4440 5240 FCR 1 Plowzone 22881 124 4480 5220 Flake 1 Plowzone 22882 124 4480 5220 FCR 1 Plowzone 22886 124 4440 5200 Flake 1 Plowzone 22887 124 4440 5200 Flake 1 Plowzone 22899 124 4440 5200 FCR 3 Plowzone 22913 124 4440 5200 FCR 5 Plowzone 22968 65 4440 5120 Shatter 1 Plowzone 22969 65 4400 5120 Flake 1 30-40 cmbs 22971 65 4420 5100 Flake 1 Plowzone 22972 65 4420 5100 Flake 1 Plowzone 22973 65 4440 5100 Utilized Flake 1 Plowzone 22974 65 4420 5080 Flake Scraper 1 Plowzone 22982 65 4440 5120 Nail 2 Plowzone 22984 68 4560 5080 Flake 1 Plowzone 22985 68 4540 5100 Flake 1 Plowzone 22986 68 4560 5080 Flake Scraper 1 Plowzone 22987 68 4560 5100 FCR 1 Plowzone 22988 68 4540 5120 FCR 1 Plowzone 22989 68 4200 5001 FCR 7 30-40 cmbs 22990 82 4240 5120 Flake 1 Plowzone 22991 82 4240 5160 Bladelet 1 Plowzone 22992 82 4240 5140 Hafted Biface Fragment 1 Plowzone 22993 82 4220 5120 Metal Washer 1 Plowzone 22994 82 4240 5120 FCR 1 Plowzone 22995 82 4220 5120 FCR/Groundstone 1 Plowzone 22996 82 4240 5160 FCR 1 Plowzone 22997 82 4220 5120 FCR 2 30-40 cmbs 22998 82 4200 5140 FCR 6 Plowzone 22999 82 4220 5120 FCR 5 Plowzone 23000 82 4220 5120 FCR 3 Plowzone 23001 82 4240 5140 FCR 2 Plowzone 23005 87 4500 5160 Shatter 1 Plowzone 23006 87 4520 5100 Biface Fragment 1 Plowzone 23013 87 4500 5140 Cinder 2 30-40 cmbs 23016 87 4500 5140 Cinder 3 Plowzone 23019 87 4500 5140 Cinder 6 Plowzone 23026 87 4500 5140 Cinder 11 Plowzone 23039 100 4180 5160 Flake 2 Plowzone 23040 100 4180 5200 Flake 3 Plowzone 23041 100 4160 5160 Flake 4 Plowzone 23042 100 4180 5200 Bladelet 1 Plowzone 308

Catalog # Block Easting Northing Object Count Depth 23043 100 4200 5180 FCR 1 Plowzone 23044 100 4200 5200 FCR 1 Plowzone 23045 100 4180 5160 FCR 1 Plowzone 23046 100 4160 5180 FCR 6 Plowzone 23047 100 4160 5200 FCR 2 Plowzone 23048 100 4160 5160 FCR 5 Plowzone 23049 100 4180 5180 FCR 8 Plowzone 23050 100 4180 5200 FCR 20 Plowzone 23051 114 4820 5180 Flake 1 Plowzone 23052 114 4840 5160 Flake 1 Plowzone 23053 114 4840 5200 Flake 2 Plowzone 23054 114 4820 5200 Flake 1 Plowzone 23058 114 4860 5160 Bladelet 1 Plowzone 23060 114 4820 5200 Shatter 1 Plowzone 23066 114 4840 5160 Amorphous Core 1 Plowzone 23067 114 4820 5180 FCR 1 Plowzone 23069 114 4820 5160 FCR 1 Plowzone 23074 147 4500 5240 Whiteware 1 Plowzone 23075 147 4520 5260 Sherd 1 Plowzone 23076 147 4500 5280 Flake 1 30-40 cmbs 23077 147 4500 5280 Flake 1 Plowzone 23078 147 4500 5260 Flake 1 Plowzone 23079 147 4480 5260 Flake 1 Plowzone 23080 147 4480 5280 Flake 1 Plowzone 23081 147 4480 5280 Amorphous Core 1 Plowzone 23082 147 4500 5240 FCR 1 Plowzone 23083 147 4480 5280 FCR 1 Plowzone 23085 156 4920 5260 Flake 1 Plowzone 23086 156 4920 5260 Flake 2 Plowzone 23088 156 4900 5260 Flake 2 Plowzone 23089 156 4920 5280 Flake 3 Plowzone 23090 156 4900 5280 Flake 5 Plowzone 23094 156 4920 5280 Bladelet 1 Plowzone 23095 156 4880 5280 Bladelet 1 Plowzone 23097 156 4920 5280 Shotgun Cap 1 Plowzone 23098 156 4920 5240 Metal Washer 2 Plowzone 23099 156 4920 5260 Wire Fragment 1 Plowzone 23101 156 4920 5260 FCR 1 Plowzone 23103 156 4900 5260 FCR 1 Plowzone 23105 159 4340 5280 Hematite? 1 Plowzone 23106 159 4360 5280 Sherd 1 Plowzone 23107 159 4340 5300 Flake, Utilized 1 Plowzone 23108 159 4340 5300 Shatter 1 Plowzone 309

Catalog # Block Easting Northing Object Count Depth 23109 159 4820 5280 FCR 1 Level 4 23110 159 4340 5300 Hematite? 1 Plowzone 23111 159 4360 5300 FCR 1 Plowzone 23112 159 4340 5280 FCR 1 Plowzone 23113 159 4340 5300 FCR 2 Plowzone 23114 159 4340 5260 FCR 3 Plowzone 23115 159 4360 5300 FCR 3 Plowzone 23116 159 4340 5280 FCR 2 Plowzone 23117 159 4320 5300 FCR 3 Plowzone 23118 161 4420 5300 Earthenware Sherd 1 Plowzone 23119 161 4440 5320 Bone 1 Plowzone 23120 161 4400 5280 Flake 1 30-40 cmbs 23121 161 4400 5320 Shatter 1 30-40 cmbs 23122 161 4440 5280 FCR 1 30-40 cmbs 23123 161 4400 5280 FCR 1 30-40 cmbs 23124 161 4440 5300 FCR 1 30-40 cmbs 23125 161 4440 5280 FCR 1 40-50 cmbs 23126 161 4440 5320 FCR 1 Plowzone 23127 161 4420 5300 FCR 1 30-40 cmbs 23128 161 4400 5280 FCR 1 50-60 cmbs 23129 161 4420 5280 FCR 3 40-50 cmbs 23130 161 4400 5320 FCR 2 50-75 cmbs 23131 161 4400 5300 FCR 3 50-60 cmbs 23132 161 4440 5300 FCR 1 Plowzone 23133 161 4440 5320 FCR 1 Plowzone 23134 161 4440 5320 FCR 1 30-40 cmbs 23135 161 4400 5320 FCR 1 Plowzone 23136 161 4440 5300 FCR 6 Plowzone 23137 161 4210 4990 Sherd 2 0-50 cmbs 23252 167 4700 5300 Sherd 1 Plowzone 23253 167 4680 5320 Sherd 1 Plowzone 23255 167 4680 5320 Sherd 2 30-55 cmbs 23256 167 4700 5320 Flake 1 Plowzone 23260 167 4680 5280 Flake 1 Plowzone 23261 167 4680 5300 Flake 1 Plowzone 23262 167 4700 5280 Flake 2 Plowzone 23263 167 4680 5320 Flake 2 Plowzone 23265 167 4680 5320 Shatter 1 Plowzone 23266 167 4700 5280 Shatter 1 Plowzone 23269 167 4720 5300 FCR 2 25-25 cmbs 23271 167 4700 5280 FCR 1 Plowzone 23272 167 4700 5320 FCR 1 Plowzone 23273 167 4720 5300 FCR 1 Plowzone 310

Catalog # Block Easting Northing Object Count Depth 23478 167 4680 5300 FCR 1 Plowzone 23479 167 4720 5280 FCR 1 38-50 cmbs 23480 167 4680 5320 FCR 1 Plowzone 23482 167 4700 5300 FCR 3 Plowzone 23483 167 4680 5320 FCR 6 Plowzone 23484 167 4680 5320 FCR 6 30-55 cmbs

311