Environment and Human Response at Newark's Great Circle

Environment and Human Response at 1HZDUN¶V*UHDW&LUFOH

A thesis submitted to the

Division of Graduate Studies and Research

of the University of Cincinnati

in partial fulfillment for the

requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

in the Department of Anthropology

of the McMicken College of Arts and Sciences

2011

Emily G. Culver

B.A., Beloit College 2007

Committee: Kenneth B. Tankersley, Chair

Vernon L. Scarborough

Abstract

As agents on the landscape, humans leave an imprint that becomes incorporated into the archaeological record. The archaeological record may include stone tools or broken pieces of pottery, or on a larger scale, geometric earthen constructions. An anthropologist or archaeologist attempts to interpret the behavior which led to the archaeological phenomenon.

One cultural phenomenon that has been a constant source of intrigue for archaeologists is the earthen monuments built by indigenous people in North America. Perhaps the greatest earthworks in the world in terms of scale were built by indigenous people during the Middle

Woodland period (ca.2100-1500 B.P.) within the Ohio Valley. The most visible expression of building prowess is in terms of scale is exhibited in the Newark Earthworks Complex.

This thesis explores the cultural phenomenon of the ditch at the Great Circle, part of the

Newark Earthworks Complex, in order to examine the cultural response to environment during indigenous occupation of the Newark area. Paleoenvironmental reconstruction using proxy data helps elucidate cultural adaptation by indigenous people to either environmental stability or duress. This thesis examines four cores from one of the geometric components of the Newark

Earthworks, the ditch of the Great Circle, and uses various environmental proxies including magnetic susceptibility (MS), powder x-ray diffraction (XRD), particle size analysis, and loss on ignition (LOI) from radiocarbon dated sediments retrieved from soil cores as an exploratory investigation of climatic conditions.

Magnetic susceptibility in conjunction with radiocarbon dating indicates that the Newark earthworks were built after a cold and dry period. The Great Circle earthwork was likely used as a water management feature after a climatic downturn. Mineralogical interpretation based on

XRD analysis supports the conjecture that the ditch of the Great Circle held water, suggesting it

ii was used as a water reservoir in prehistoric times. However, the indigenous people may have used the ditch for other purposes including using it as a social boundary as a means of separating those outside the circle from those within it. One or both of these behaviors may have been the impetus for constructing the Great Circle.

iii

Acknowledgements

I would like to take the opportunity to recognize the organizations and individuals who have offered their support, guidance, and assistance throughout the graduate school journey. First, I would like to take this opportunity to thank my advisor Dr. Tankersley for his support and guidance, as well as the opportunity to be his Field Assistant for 2010 Field Season and to acquire my thesis data as part of the field school. I would like to thank the University of

Cincinnati Anthropology Department in general. I am grateful to Dr. Allen for her willingness to devote time and energy to my thesis and listening. I am appreciative of Dr. Scarborough

2SD ¶Vcaring, insight, and coffee provisions. I would like to thank Dr. Sullivan for being a benevolent big giant head. I am grateful to Dr. Dunning for his help with correlation between soil cores. I would also like to thank Dr. Huff, for his help with XRD data interpretation. I would like to thank the Department Secretary, Nuha Nusrallah, for everything she does for the students. I would like to thank my family for their emotional and financial support throughout the years. I am grateful to Louis Bubb, without whose support and encouragement none of this would have been possible. I am grateful to Briana Eames for keeping me sane and making me

ODXJK,ZRXOGOLNHWRWKDQN$QJHOD+DLQHVIRUWDONLQJPHLQWR«DQGHDYHVGURSSLQJ I am grateful for all of Ethan Barnes¶ help this past summer, especially when it came to core extraction. I am thankful for 7RQ\7DPEHULQR¶VKHOSZLWK([FHODQGJUDSKSURGXFWLRQI would like to thank Jim Malawski, employed by Dr. Tankersley as a laboratory technician. Dr.

Tankersley generously provided funding for the radiocarbon dating and laboratory analyses. I would also like to thank Andrew Miller and the rest of the 2010 Ohio Valley Field School for their help in core extraction. Finally, I would like to thank the Ohio Historical Society and

Hamilton County Parks.

Table of Contents

$EVWUDFW««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««...ii

Acknowledgements«««««««««««««««««««««««««««Y

7DEOHRI&RQWHQWV«««««««««««««««««««««««««««vi

/LVWRI7DEOHV«««««««««««««««««««««««««««....ix

List of FigureV«««««««««««««««««««««««««««.....xi

List of Appendices«««««««««««««««««««««««««««[LL

&KDSWHU,QWURGXFWLRQ«««««««««««««««««««««««««««1

Spatial Location of Newark Earthworks«««««««««««««««««..3

Environmental Proxies««««««««««««««««««««««««6

Environmental Proxies: X-ray Diffraction««««««««««««««««.6

Environmental Proxies: Magnetic Susceptibility««««««««««««««

Environmental Proxies: Loss on Ignition«««««««««««««««««8

(QYLURQPHQWDO3UR[LHV3DUWLFOH6L]H$QDO\VLV«««««««««««««««

Chapter 2: History of Archaeological InvesWLJDWLRQDW1HZDUN«««««««««««

Chapter 3: History of TKHRU\««««««««««««««««««««««««4

Newark Earthworks Complex as D&HUHPRQLDO&HQWHU«««««««««««24

Newark Earthworks Complex as an Expression RI$VWURQRPLFDO(YHQWV«««28

:DWHU0DQDJHPHQW«««««««««««««««««««««««««31

The Great Circle as a WateU0DQDJHPHQW)HDWXUH««««««««««««33

Chapter 4: MethodoloJ\«««««««««««««««««««««««««4

Field Methods««««««««««««««««««««««««««

Laboratory Methods««««««««««««««««««««««««35

Magnetic Susceptibility«««««««««««««««««««««««..36

Particle Size Analysis««««««««««««««««««««««««..36

Loss on Ignition...«««««««««««««««««««««««««.37

X-ray DiffractLRQ«««««««««««««««««««««««««...38

Soil Horizon Definition««..«««««««««««««««««««««.39

Chapter 5: Data««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««40

Radiocarbon Dates«««««««««««««««««««««««««...40

&RUH««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««...41

Core 2««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««..43

vii

Core 3««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««..44

Core 4««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««45

Chapter 6: Analysis««««««««««««««««««««««««««««.55

&KURQRPHWULF'DWLQJ««««««««««««««««««««««««

&RUH««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««..56

&RUH««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««56

&RUH««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««57

Paleoclimate Data««««««««««««««««««««««««««57

6RLOVDQG3DUWLFOH6L]H«««««««««««««««««««...... 60

X-ray Diffraction««««««««««««««««««««««««««2

Chapter 7: ConcOXVLRQ««««««««««««««««««««««««««««

5HIHUHQFHV&LWHG««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««1

Appendices««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««

viii

List of Tables

Table 1. Radiocarbon Dates frRP1HZDUN6LWHV«««««««««««««««..18

Table 2. Mineralogical Composition Core «««««««««««««««««

List of Figures

Figure 1. 1HZDUNZLWKLQWKH8QLWHG6WDWHV«««««««««««««««««««4

Figure 2. 1862 Salisbury & Salisbury Map of Newark Earthworks..«««««««««

Figure 3. /RFDWLRQRI&RUH([WUDFWLRQDW1HZDUN¶V*UHDW Circle.«««««««««

Figure 4. Cross section of cores extracted from the Great Circle ditch (depths in cm).«...47

Figure 5. Core strata ZLWKFRUUHODWLRQOLQHV««««««««««««««««««48

Figure 6. Particle Size CompositLRQ&RUH««««««««««««««««««

Figure 7. Particle Size CompositLRQ&RUH««««««««««««««««««51

Figure 8. Particle Size CompositLRQ&RUH««««««««««««««««««51

Figure 9. Particle Size CompositLRQ&RUH««««««««««««««««««.52

Figure 10. Particle Size Composition Core 1 with 6RLO+RUL]RQV««««««««««52

Figure 11. Particle Size Composition Core 2 with Soil Horizons...... 53

Figure 12. Particle Size Composition Core 3 with Soil Horizons...... 53

Figure 13. Particle Size Composition Core 4 wLWK6RLO+RUL]RQV««««««««««

Figure 14. Magnetic Susceptibility (SI) in Relation to Depth Below 6XUIDFH«««««59

Figure 15. Magnetic Susceptibility &RUHZLWK5DGLRFDUERQ'DWHV«««««««««

Figure 16. Magnetic Susceptibility Core 2 with RadiocaUERQ'DWH««««««««««

Figure 17. 0DJQHWLF6XVFHSWLELOLW\&RUHZLWK5DGLRFDUERQ'DWH««««««««««60

Figure 18. Magnetic Susceptibility and Mineralogical Composition of Core 1«««««

Figure 19. Core 1 Percent Calcite in Relation to Depth Below 6XUIDFH««««««««

List of Appendices

Appendix A. Core 1 Depth, Loss on Ignition, Magnetic SuscHSWLELOLW\DQG3DUWLFOH6L]H««

Appendix B. Core 2 Depth, Loss on Ignition, Magnetic SuscHSWLELOLW\DQG3DUWLFOH6L]H««0

Appendix C. Core 3 Depth, Loss on Ignition, Magnetic SuscHSWLELOLW\DQG3DUWLFOH6L]H««

Appendix D. Core 4 Depth, Loss on Ignition, Magnetic SuscHSWLELOLW\DQG3DUWLFOH6L]H««

Appendix E. Core 1 Munsell Color and HorL]RQ'HVFULSWLRQV««««««««««««

Appendix F. Core 2 Munsell Color and HorL]RQ'HVFULSWLRQV««««««««««««

Appendix G. Core 3 Munsell Color and HorL]RQ'HVFULSWLRQV««««««««««««

Appendix H. Core 4 Munsell Color and Horizon DesFULSWLRQV««««««««««««

xii

Chapter 1: Introduction

Indigenous people in the Ohio Valley have been building monumental earthen features for at least the past 2800 hundred years. Perhaps the most visible fluorescence of earthwork construction in the Ohio Valley took place during the Middle Woodland period. The Newark

Earthworks complex is the largest geometric earthwork and was built during the Middle

Woodland (2100-1500 BP). One of the most stunning components of the Newark complex is the

Great Circle. Many theories have been proposed to explain the purpose behind the Newark

Earthworks Complex. Early theory, including that of 6TXLHUDQG'DYLV¶ believed the earthworks were religious in nature. Other early explanations regarding the function of the earthworks were that they were military structures though several investigators refuted militaristic explanations (Park 1870; Smucker 1881).

More recent theories regarding the cultural phenomena of these earthworks are based on cultural paradigms (Byers 1987), that the Newark complex was a ceremonial center possibly connected to other earthwork loci in the Scioto Valley (Lepper 1996) and astronomical phenomena (Hivley and Horn 1982; Horn 2010). If the earthworks at Newark are an expression of a cultural milieu, I would expect to find certain building rules regarding earthwork construction. If the Newark Earthworks served as a ceremonial center, I would expect to find high status artifacts reflecting a set ideology. If the purpose of the Newark Earthworks was to align geometric earthworks with the cosmos I would expect to find astronomical alignments between cosmic phenomena and earthen structures at statistically significant probabilities. None of these hypotheses and expectations appear strongly supported.

If the ditch of the Great Circle was a water management feature, however, I would expect the proxy analyses utilized herein to indicate that the environment in the surrounding area prior

to the building of the earthwork was cold and dry requiring people living in the area to respond by attempting to control water. Additionally, if the ditch of the Great Circle were built as a water management feature, I would expect that it would hold water. The data collected using environmental proxies including particle size analysis, MS, XRD, and LOI suggest that the ditch at the Great Circle functioned as a water management structure built and was built as an adaptation to environmental stress.

Climate can be stable, progressive (a steady increase or decrease in temperature or precipitation), or cyclical throughout time. Humans respond to these climatic changes in a myriad of ways. One way humans attempt to control the environment includes creating and overseeing water management features. Cross-cultural examples of water management features occur globally from Bali to the Maya region (Scarborough 2003). More recently, water management structures have been identified regionally and include a system of reservoirs identified at the Fort Ancient site (Lepper and Connolly 2004). Additional sites with water management aspects are located in the Cincinnati area at the Turner Earthworks (2007), the

Mariemont Earthwork (Tankersley 2008), and the Miami Fort Earthworks (Tankersley and

Balantyne 2010). The presence of regional water management structures indicates that Native

Americans were active participants in landscape modification.

The human impact on environment is not simply a process of increasing change or degradation in response to linear population growth and economic expansion. It is instead interrupted by periods of reversal and ecological rehabilitation as cultures collapse, populations decline, wars occur, and habitats are abandoned. Impacts may be constructive, benign, or degenerative (all subjective concepts), but change is continual at variable rates and in different directions. Even mild impacts and slow changes are cumulative, and the long-term effects can be dramatic (Denevan 1992:381).

Denevan states that change is continual, as is environmental variability and human response to it.

Indigenous people living in the Newark area of the Ohio Valley responded to continual environmental variability by modifying their surroundings. One form of modification was to create or alter existing watersheds to oversee one of the most precious resources, water. While earthwork function is difficult to assess from the archaeological record an attempt to do so was made by identifying environmental signatures chronosequenced with earthwork construction. In conjunction with mineralogical analysis used to test the hypothesis, one function of a component of the Newark earthworks, specifically the Great Circle, was as a water management facility.

However, other hypotheses regarding the function of the Great Circle include ceremonialism and agricultural purposes.

Environmental proxies used in this thesis included x-ray diffractometry or powder x-ray diffraction (XRD), magnetic susceptibility (MS), loss on ignition (LOI), and particle size analysis. I removed four sediment cores from the ditch of the Great Circle in order to perform

MS, XRD, particle size analysis, and LOI as an exploratory study regarding environmental conditions and function of the Great Circle, part of the Newark Earthworks complex.

Radiocarbon dates were used to couple environmental reconstructions within a temporal framework.

Spatial Location of Newark Earthworks

The Newark Earthworks Complex is located in Licking County at the junction of the South and

Raccoon forks of the Licking River. Figures 1 and 2 spatially orient the site.

Figure 1. Newark Earthworks within the United States.

Circle Earthworks. Map of Newark Salisbury 2. 1862 Salisbury & Figure P-Observatory Circle lake Key A-Great Y-Ancient enclosure Square) (Wright enclosure B-Square enclosure Q-Octagon C-Oval

While the map presented is from Salisbury and Salisbury (1862), Bradley Lepper, the preeminent extant scholar of the Newark earthworks, believes it is the most accurate map (Lepper 2006).

Environmental Proxies

There is no way to precisely measure past environments without actually being there. Since no indigenous people in North America were recording environmental data 2000 years ago, the only way to study past environments is to rely on proxies as substitutes for actual measurements of temperature or precipitation. For the past several years environmental proxies have been useful tools in attempting to reconstruct past climate.

X-ray Diffraction. To elucidate the types of analyses utilized in the study, brief explanations of each technique are provided here. XRD is a technique used to identify crystalline minerals.

Archaeological applications of XRD technique have ranged from the identification of clay minerals in pottery to determining mineralogical composition of artifacts (Tankersley and

Meinhart 1982; Tankersley and Haines 2010). Most recently it has been employed in climatic reconstructions using clay-sized particles (Curtis 1990; Tankersley and Balantyne 2010; Yuretich et al. 1999). Rainfall affects weathering of clay minerals differently allowing for reconstruction of climate conditions (Tankersley and Balantyne 2010:133,138).

Warm, humid climates favour authigenic hydrated oxides of Al and Fe (both crystalline and amorphous) along with halloysite and kaolinite in deep profiles (high Fe, Al). Less humid and/or FRROHUFOLPDWHVERWKIDYRXULQFRPSOHWHK\GURO\VLVSURGXFWVRIµSULPDU\¶PLQHUDOVVRLO vermiculites, interstratified clays, illites and chlorites (high Si, Mg, K) (Curtis 1990:355).

Thus, the identification of minerals such as illite and chlorite or the common mixed layer clay, illite/smectite suggest cooler climates. Additionally, chlorite, illite, kaolinite, and smectite are all clay minerals. Clay minerals are significant because their identification in the cores supports the

idea that the ditch was impermeable promoting the ponding of water, a necessary feature if the structure was used for water management. However, clay may have simply washed into the ditch.

Magnetic Susceptibility. Magnetic susceptibility is the ratio of temporary magnetization acquired by a sample in response to the presence of a weak magnetic field (Verosub and Roberts

1995:2176). As applied to environmental reconstruction, the technique is based on lake or

UHVHUYRLUFOD\V¶PDJQHWLFSURSHUWLHVYDU\LQJLQUHVSRQVHWRFOLPDWHDQGKXPDQPRGLILFDWLRQ

(Sandgren and Snowball 2001:17). In general, warm and moist climatic conditions are associated with high magnetic susceptibility (SI) values; low SI values are associated with cold and dry climatic episodes (Tankersley and Balantyne 2010:136). While magnetic susceptibility may arise from weathering intensity as a product of climate change, it can also occur due to stream capture, and landscape destruction by fire (Verosub and Roberts 1995:2178).

Additionally, sediment provenience also influences whether peaks in the environmental magnetic signal are associated with glacial or interglacial intervals (Verosub and Roberts 1995:2180-

2182). In other words high SI values suggesting warm, moist environments may not hold true in all parts of the world. Pedogenic processes may also influence the integrity of the SI value, as they tend to smooth values, thus the paleoclimate signal may have had greater amplitude and short-term variations than observable from the MS record (Verosub and Roberts 1995:2186).

Magnetic susceptibility is a great environmental proxy because the tools, once purchased, are relatively labor inexpensive; additionally, analyses are non-destructive and can be performed quickly. However, we must temper our analysis by accounting for the influence of particle provenience and pedogenic processes.

Loss on Ignition. Loss on ignition (LOI) is a technique used to measure the organic matter composition of sediments. In general, it is expected that the amount of organic matter will decrease with increasing depth. In order to determine LOI, samples are generally ignited in a muffle furnace. This study used the weight of the sample before heating on a Cole-Parmer hotplate minus the weight of the sample after heating to determine LOI. According to Dean

ORVV RQ LJQLWLRQ LV ³DQ DFFXUDWH PHDVXUH RI WKH DPRXQW RI RUJDQLF PDWWHU LQ D

VDPSOH´ The LOI of the stratum after the ditch was dug would have a higher organic composition relative to the strata before (deeper strata) it so the identification of strata with increased organic matter can be used to identify when the ditch was constructed.

Particle size analysis. Particle size analysis was used to provide a construction sequence for the

Great Circle. Sediment samples were put through a set of nested sieves and material that did not fall through a particular mesh size was weighed and set aside for XRD analysis.

The following chapter, two, provides a history of archaeological investigation at

Newark. The earliest documented investigations at Newark were published in 1820 and the

Newark Earthworks continue to be a location of archaeological inquiry today. Early hypotheses regarding the function of the Newark Earthworks viewed them as defensive in nature. More recently the purpose of the earthworks has been viewed as ceremonial. On the other hand, two of the main ceremonialism theories are that the earthworks serve as locations for astronomical alignments, and that the geometric works are iconic representations of the worldview of the builders. Chapter three discusses hypotheses pertaining to the Newark Earthworks and water management theory. Methods of core extraction, MS readings, XRD, LOI, particle size analysis, and soil horizon definition are discussed in chapter four. Results of MS, XRD, LOI, 8

particle size analysis, and the identification of soil horizons are provided in chapter five.

Chapter six provides an analysis of the radiocarbon dates and paleoclimate data and a correlation between the two. Conclusions, the significance of the study, and directions for future work are discussed in chapter seven.

Chapter 2: History of Archaeological Investigation at Newark

The earliest documented investigations at the Newark earthworks began in 1820 and were conducted by Caleb Atwater. His description included its geographic location (on two branches of the Licking River) and description of the two main earthwork components, the Great Circle and the Octagon. Both the Octagon and what is today known as the Great Circle were previously identified as forts. The Great Circle wDVRIWHQUHIHUUHGWRDVWKH³2OG)RUW.´ According to

Atwater, the Octagon contains 40 acres and its walls are 10 ft. high. A smaller circle associated with the Octagon contains 22 acres. The latter is connected to the Octagon by parallel earthen walls. The Great Circle encloses 26 acres and its interior ditch is sometimes filled with water

(Atwater 1820). According to Atwater, parallel walls at the site likely led to other earthworks, but he only followed them for approximately a mile. Atwater interpreted the purpose of the earthworks as defensive, and believed that the walls functioned as defensive berms or fences

(Atwater 1820).

Ephraim Squier and Edwin Davis investigated the earthworks after Atwater. They also noted the placement of the Newark earthworks in proximity to the junction of the South and

Raccoon Forks of the Licking River. They described the Newark earthworks as being so complicated that they were nearly indescribable (Squier and Davis 1848). The earthworks cover an extent of two miles square and consist of three divisions, the Great Circle, the square, and the

Octagon/Circle combination, all connected by parallel walls (Squier and Davis 1848). The walls of the Great Circle are about 12 ft. high by 50 ft. at the base, surrounded by an interior ditch that is 7 ft. deep by 35 ft. wide. Squier and Davis (1848) made note of what they recognized as barrow pit areas where they surmised earth was removed to build the earthworks. They said that

Atwater called these areas wells, which they generally thought was incorrect. However, they noted it was possible that a few of those areas were wells or were secondarily designed as 10

reservoirs. Squier and Davis (1848) were the first to point out that the presence of an interior ditch within the Great Circle indicates these earthworks were not intended as defensive structures. They mention that within an area partially enclosed by the earthworks is a large natural pond of about 100 acres. At that time the area was drained and under cultivation

(1848:71). Before the earthquake of 1811 the pond only held a little water, but after the earthquake the water depth rose to ten feet (Squier and Davis 1848:71). Though Squier and

Davis (1848:71) attribute the change in water depth of the pond to be a result of the earthquake, it may also be associated with the beginning of the end of the Little Ice Age (A.D. 1550 to A.D.

1850), a cold and dry climatic episode. Squier and Davis (1848:68-69) believed the main purpose of the Newark earthworks was a religious one.

Later 19th century interpretations no longer held to prior notions of defensive explanations for Newark earthworks. Recently rediscovered descriptions of Newark by the

Salisbury brothers add supplemental information including that there may have been an effigy earthwork within the Oval enclosure (Figure 2, Letter C). 7KHGLPHQVLRQVRIWKH*UHDW&LUFOH¶V ditch are 63 ft. from the wall outside to the bottom of the ditch (Salisbury and Salisbury 1862).

Perpendicular height from the bottom of the ditch is about 20 ft., except at the opening of the

Great Circle where the perpendicular height is about 30 ft. The area encompassed by the Great

Circle is about 25 and ¾ acres. Salisbury and Salisbury (1862) are the only investigators who reference the presence of low exterior walls surrounding the Great Circle. The walls are at a distance of 110 to 140 inches from the Great Circle and between 12 and 18 inches in height.

They are about 20 feet in width connecting to the parallel walls and leading to the Wright Square

(Figure 2, Letter B).

Salisbury and Salisbury (1862:3) measured the dimensions of the walls surrounding the

GreaW&LUFOHDQGQRWHWKDW³WKHUHLVDQDUURZSDVVDJHH[WHQGLQJWRWKHIRUPHUODNH´Northeast of the Great Circle are parallel walls connecting the Great Circle and the Wright Square. There is a break in the parallel walls of approximately 111 ft. Directly, northwest of the break in the walls is the ancient lake. Salisbury and Salisbury (1862:4) note that the channel, created by the break

LQWKHSDUDOOHOZDOOVLVPRVWO\EULGJHGZLWKHDUWK³H[FHSWZLWKLQ 15 ft. of each, under which and the passageway was probDEO\DWXQQHOIRUZDWHU´Whether or not this passage was actually a path IRUZDWHUWKH6DOLVEXU\V¶ZRUNVKRZVWKDW even at an early date investigators were recognizing connections between the earthworks and hydrologic features. The ancient lake, while so dry when the first European settlers arrived, was used as a race course, gradually filling with water (Salisbury and Salisbury 1862:20).

Samuel Park (1870) stated that for many years the earthworks were seen as having one of three functions: military, mortuary, or sacrificial, but he saw no evidence for the structures functioning as military features and little evidence for the latter two ideas. His main argument as to why the earthworks could not possibly be defensive structures was that they were too accessible. He ZHQWVRIDUWRVD\WKDWPLOLWDU\LQWHUSUHWDWLRQVRIWKHVHVWUXFWXUHVZHUH³VLPSO\

SUHSRVWHURXV´ Park 1870:11). Park (1870) was beyond his time in intuiting that it was military men who made claims about these structures as military forts. He notes that moats or ditches are found on the inside of the walls and not on the outside as one would expect in a military structure

(Park 1870:13). In observing the earthworks from many vantage points, Park determined their primary functions were as watchtowers/ lookout points and fostered a communication system throughout the area. As support for the theory that the earthworks were lookout points, Park noted that if no trees were present one could observe any number of the earthworks from a

vantage point on any particular earthwork (Park 1870:16). While Park was ahead of his time in terms of interpretation of earthwork function, he was a product of his time when it came to addressing the question of who actually built the mounds. He held eurocentric beliefs, and he could not conceive of extant indigenous populations being capable of earthwork construction.

Isaac Smucker (1881), resided in the Newark area and felt he had a claim to pontificating on the earthworks because he observed them for 55 years and made measurements on some of them. He also felt that the least likely interpretation for the Newark Earthworks was a military one. Smucker (1881:266) stated WKDWWKHORFDWLRQRIWKH*UHDW&LUFOHRUWKH³2OG)RUW´RQOHYHO ground, its symmetry, and an interior ditch indicated that military interpretations were erroneous

(1881). He believed the Eagle Mound, located in the center of the Great Circle held a sacred altar. Smucker (1881) believed the Old Fort (Great Circle) was a sacred enclosure used for the practice of religion.

The idea that the earthworks at Newark, and many other earthworks in the Ohio Valley, were tied to and even centered upon water is becoming more commonplace. Connections between earthworks and bodies of water were prevalent in the late 19th century, specifically in the works of Park (1870) and Smucker (1881). Park (1870:5) noted that a IRUWRQ+LOOEUDQW¶V property had openings located north, east, and southeast toward three springs, and that at some point in the past the springs may have flowed toward the earthworks. Smucker (1881:265) described the ditch of the Great Circle in the early part of the century as being partially or sometimes fully filled with water. He indicated however, that the ditch had not held much water in the past few years (Smucker 1881). Earthwork investigators in the early 20th century would largely return to earlier notions of the Newark earthworks as being defensive or military related.

Not until the late 20th century would Newark earthworks again become a source of serious archaeological inquiry.

While early speculation regarding earthwork function relied on militaristic interpretations of embankment walls as fortification aids, investigations at the Mound City site in the 1960's concluded that embankment walls would not have prevented anyone from entering the enclosure

(Lepper 1996). Additionally, many early investigators (Park 1870; Smucker 1881) pointed out that there were three means of entering the Great Circle at Newark, all of them originating at creek loci. The earthworks being readily accessible from at least three locations, originating at creeks, belie their use as defensive structures and also indicate the importance of water to the people occupying and utilizing the area.

To understand the Newark Earthworks and comprehend earthworks in general, it is necessary to investigate their internal composition. Lepper (1996) studied a cross-section of a trench cut through the Great Circle allowing him to reconstruct the building sequence. The Great

Circle was constructed in two phases. There was no evidence of surface preparation prior to construction. Pollen and phytolith remains from buried A horizons indicate that the environment in the area at the time of Great Circle construction was a mesic prairie (Lepper 1996:233).

Before the first construction phase, there was a circle of small mounds where the Great Circle is now located. A ditch was subsequently excavated around the mounds, and dark brown silt loam was placed on top of the mounds creating a low circular embankment. Additional bright, yellow-brown silty clay loam and gravel from nearby borrow pits was used to fill in a gap between the embankment and ditch. The specific placement of certain soil types led to the circle appearing brown from the outside and yellow from the inside (Lepper 1996:233). While it is unclear what the significance those colors held for the builders of the Great Circle, it is clear that

specific sediments were chosen for earthwork construction and may have been used as a way to symbolically define the space (Lepper 1996). Evidence for a similar sequence of specific sediments has been recorded from the Turner earthwork in southwest Ohio (Tankersley 2007).

The Great Circle earthwork base rests on a surface that is AMS radiocarbon dated to 2110 ± 80

14C yr B.P. (Beta-58449), 51-301 B.C. (2 ʍ calibration), (Lepper 2004; Danzeglocke et al. 2011).

The so-called Eagle Mound, located in the center of the Great Circle seems to be a collection of adjacent mounds and may have served as a charnel house, a place for cremating the dead.

Other previously held assumptions regarding earthworks include the notion that ceremonial areas were seen as being relatively vacant, single purpose spots committed to ritual activity. Recently, however, increasing evidence points to these areas having been used for domestic activities as well (Lepper and Yerkes 1997). Much of /HSSHU¶V information comes from cursory archaeological investigation by Everett Hale as a part of the Newark Expressway

Project. As part of a perfunctory literature review, Hale noted that no map from antiquity was more correct than any other, while Lepper and Yerkes (1997:177) argue WKDW:\ULFN¶V 1866 map is more accurate than that of the 1848 Squier and Davis map. Lepper and Yerkes (1997:178) also state that Hale was operating under the preconceived notion that all of the Newark earthworks had been destroyed, and even though his archaeological investigations proved that some aspects of the earthworks remained intact, he never abandoned his prior beliefs. During the

FRXUVHRI+DOH¶VLQYHVWigation, bulldozed areas in preparation for the expressway were not investigated beforehand which destroyed most, if not all, of any intact archaeological remnants.

After the bulldozing, Hale conducted a random surface survey of 1% of the real estate lots that had been bulldozed. Additionally, surface surveys were conducted on affected areas of the

Moundbuilders State Memorial and White Athletic Field, but vegetation was not cleared before

surveys were performed (Lepper and Yerkes 1997). Areas which had not been previously cleared by the bulldozer were shovel tested, but this only included removing the vegetative cover rendering a one to five square foot area of topsoil observable. These poor field methods indicate that the actual surveyed area was probably far less than 1% (Lepper and Yerkes 1997).

+DOH¶VILHOGZRUNGLGVKRZWKDWRULJLQDOODQGFRQWRXUVZHUHODUJHO\LQWDFWGHVSLWH modern occupation of the Newark area. The Wright Earthworks (C, in Figure 2), once a large square, and part of the Newark Earthworks Complex were encountered during archaeological investigation prior to construction of the Newark Expressway. A 2 x 10 ft (0.61 x 3.04 m) trench was excavated on a line interjecting into the projected northeastern wall of the Wright enclosure.

The trench revealed zones of light orange clay, dark brown clay, and light brown clay, at approximately the same location of the reconstructed Wright mound (Lepper and Yerkes 1997).

Hale believed that the aforementioned strata were part of the mound, yet despite this conclusion

LQ+DOH¶VUHSRUWKHVWDWHGWKDWno evidence was found for prehistoric occupation in areas not already protected by the state.

In spite of the assertion that no intact surfaces were encountered, fieldwork for the expressway project continued from October of 1978 until January of 1980. Fieldwork during the two-year span located three probable earthwork remnants, the first being the previously mentioned, varying colored clay strata adjacent to the Wright Earthworks. The second remnant was found in two trenches on opposite sides of Pine Street close to Wright Mounds. The third remaining component was encountered between Wilson and Malholm Street. Again, contrary to archaeological evidence, Hale stated that the excavations did not reveal mound fill or sub-mound structures (Lepper and Yerkes 1997).

Several sites with varying levels of habitation were encountered during the expressway project as well. One of these, the Hale House site is important because it adds three radiocarbon dates to the little that is known about the chronological sequence in the Newark area. The house site is located 150 m south of Raccoon Creek and 120 m north and west of the enclosure surrounding burial mounds of the Cherry Valley cluster. Lepper received collections from the

LIC-79 (Newark Expressway) project in 1988 and arranged for three charcoal samples from the

Hale House Site to be dated. Feature 10 yielded an AMS radiocarbon date of 2670 ± 70 14C yr

B.P. (Beta-27446); the two sigma calibration range is 610-1002 B.C. (Lepper and Yerkes

1997:181; Danzeglocke et al. 2011). Feature 15 contained Middle Woodland artifacts and yielded an AMS radiocarbon date of 1845 ± 60 14C yr B.P. (Beta-28062/ETH-4593) calibrated within two sigma to A.D. 34-314 (Lepper and Yerkes 1997:181; Danzeglocke et al. 2011). The third feature, Feature 1, returned an AMS date of 1640 ± 90 14C yr B.P. (Beta-58450); the calibrated range for this date within two sigma is A.D. 181-559 (Lepper and Yerkes 1997:181;

Danzeglocke et al. 2011). These dates are presented in Table 1 for clarity. Additionally, based on a wide variety of stone tool-types occurring here and at other sites encountered during the expressway project, arguments can be made for activities occurring at these locations that were multipurpose and domestic in nature, indicating the area surrounding Newark was well populated

(Lepper and Yerkes 1997).

Additional information regarding the environmental and cultural setting of the Newark earthworks is acquired from four sites identified as habitations in Licking County (Wymer 1997).

Middle Woodland sites in the Licking Valley yielded nut types including hickory, hazelnut, acorn, and black walnut. Hickory was the most common and appeared throughout all time periods while hazelnut or acorn were the second most common (Wymer 1997). The most

commonly used firewood at all localities was hickory and white oak. Species preferring mesic environments such as elm, ash, walnut, maple, and sycamore occurred in minor to moderate quantities (Wymer 1997).

Table 1. Radiocarbon Dates from Newark Sites

Measured AMS Calibration range Provenience 14C yr B.P. Lab # (two sigma)

Feature 10 610-1002 B.C.

(Lepper and Yerkes 1997) 2670 ± 70 Beta-27446

Feature 15 1845 ± 60 Beta- A.D. 34-314

(Lepper and Yerkes 1997) 28062/ETH-

4593

Feature 1 1640 ± 90 A.D. 181-559

(Lepper and Yerkes 1997) Beta-58450

Core 1 30-40 cm below surface 90 ± 40 Beta ± 284087 A.D. 1670-1940

Core 1 50-60 cm below surface 1330 ± 40 Beta ± 284088 A.D. 650-770

Core 2 100-110 cm below 90 ± 40 Beta ± 284089 A.D. 1690-1930

surface

Core 4 230-240 cm below 38,320 ± 330 Beta ± 284090 Outside of

surface calibration range

As the pre-earthwork environmental setting was a mesic prairie, elm and ash are the expected species for this ecotone (Lepper 1996:233). The eastern agricultural complex (EAC), a

suite of plants including maygrass, knotweed, goosefoot, sumpweed, and sunflower (Smith

1989) represented a dominant portion of the seed assemblages at all four sites. Goosefoot appeared in around 25% of the total counts of starchy species. Scanning-electron microscope analysis revealed that goosefoot recovered from three of the four sites were domesticated varieties. :\PHU VWDWHVWKDWWKHUHLV³QRGRXEWWKDW/LFNLQJ5LYHU9DOOH\+RSHZHll populations had been farmers´. In fact, reconstruction of prehistoric floral communities indicate that all four sites were located in dense white-oak hickory forests and that some areas surrounding the sites were cleared for gardens or living space (Wymer 1997:159). The presence in the assemblages of such genera including elderberries, sumac, raspberries, and hazelnut indicate that a swidden system was employed for cultivation as all of the aforementioned species are common in relatively open areas (Wymer 1997:159). Garden species such as sumpweed and others co-occurred with harvested generas such as elderberry in the same depositional contexts and features suggesting that cultivated plants were growing in human created plots of land and in varying stages of regrowth close to human habitation sites (Wymer 1997:159).

In specific consideration of the Newark earthworks, Wymer (1997:159) notes that they are located on the same glacial outwash terrace as Hopewellian habitation sites. The Newark

Earthworks complex, like the habitation sites, if not modified by humans would have been white- oak forest. ³,WLVVLJQLILFDQWWKDWWKHVHHDUWKZRUNVwere built surrounding a natural marshy pond that may (even) have been artiILFLDOO\H[SDQGHG´ :\PHU160). Wymer also notes the connection between the Newark Earthworks and bodies of water.

One of the most interesting components of the Newark Earthworks is the Great Circle, and its associated ditch which varies in depth from 8-13 ft (2-4 m) and is deepest at the entrance to the circle. Connections between the Great Circle and other earthworks that are part of the

Newark Complex indicate that the layout of the earthworks was planned to some extent. For example, the distance from the center of the Observatory Circle to the center of the Great Circle is six times the diameter of the Observatory Circle (Hively and Horn 1982).

Aside from similarities in diameters and lunar alignments, one of the most prominent features of the earthworks is their close association with water (Lepper 2004:76). ³7KHHQWLUH complex of the earthworks appears to have been built around a large pond, and streams formed the northern, eastern, and southern boundaries of the site: Raccoon Creek to the north, the South

Fork of the Licking River to the east and Ramp CrHHNWRWKHVRXWK´ /HSSHU76). The large pond to the northwest of the Great Circle is a central feature of the plain on which the earthworks are situated and the water level in the pond fluctuated throughout historic time. Squier & Davis

(1848) said the pond was dry for most of the years between 1800 and 1811, and the shape of the pond changes in every map made between 1820-1862 (Lepper 2004:76). While some people have speculated that the pond was created from a barrow pit dug when the earthworks were constructed, historical data negate this idea. Salisbury & Salisbury (1862) wrote that drainage ditches dug through the area showed layers of peat and marl at the bottom of the pond. These deposits indicate the pond existed long enough for such strata to form (Lepper 2004). Indeed,

³WKHSRQGPRVWOLNHO\IRUPHGDWWKH end of the last Ice Age and therefore would have been a prominent part of the Hopewellian landscape both before and after construction of the

HDUWKZRUNV´ /HSSHU76). As noted by earlier writers, the entrances to the earthworks complex are bounded by parallel walls extending from each of the three surrounding streams

(Smucker 1881; Lepper 2004). The Great Circle is the only structure at Newark having a ditch associated with it and likely served a special function. The ditch may have held water and been used as a reflecting pool, reservoir, or water barrier (Lepper 2004).

It is clear that people living at Newark during Middle Woodland times engaged in a wide variety of activities including taking on monumental construction projects. Inhabitants also had a strongly held belief system, though we may still be trying to unravel what those beliefs might be. There is much that remains to be learned about Newark, especially how such monumental projects as the Great Circle were completed without dense populations or recognizable forms of centralized government (Lepper 1996).

Lepper's research (2004) has brought to light a more accurate map of the Newark earthworks than that of Squier and Davis. While the Squier and Davis map is the most well known, a map made by the Salisbury brothers in 1862 is more accurate. $WZDWHU¶VLQYHVWLJDWLRQV

LQWKH¶VLQGLFDWHGHYLGHQFHIRUSDUDOOHOZDOOVDWWKH1HZDUNVLWHDQGVSHFXODWHd they ran a

OHQJWKRIPLOHV7KH6DOLVEXU\EURWKHUVIROORZLQJ$WZDWHU¶VOHDGWUDFHd the parallel walls for six miles and speculated that continuing to follow the walls would lead to Circleville and

Chillicothe. The appearance of aerial photography in 1930 revealed walls extending from the

Newark Octagon to Millersport, and when these lines are extrapolated they lead directly to

Chillicothe (Lepper 2006). These lines represent a road that may have solidified ties between polities at Newark and in the Scioto Valley (Lepper 1998). Using aerial photography and predicted compass bearings from extrapolated parallel lines at Newark, Lepper (2006) has identified five locations where parallel lines are observed in the soil within a predicted corridor.

These conclusions are tentative and require more rigorous investigation before they are accepted as fact.

Many similarities arise when comparing Newark with High Bank, geometric earthworks located in Chillicothe. High Bank is the only other circle-octagon earthwork, and has similar lunar alignments to Newark (Lepper 2006). Both circles have identical diameters of 320 meters.

Due to the geometric similarities between Newark and High Banks and the possibility of a road joining these two locations, Lepper (2006) suggests the road was used for pilgrimages. That the road was not used for trade purposes is suggested by the fact that more items and materials were entering the area than were being exported (Lepper 2006). If this road was being used for trade there should be an equal distribution of exotic materials.

Several VFKRODUVKDYHSRVLWHGWKHQRWLRQRIDVDFUHG³+RSHZHOOJHRPHWU\´ 5RPDLQ

2000). One of the sacred geometries exhibited at the Newark earthworks site is the idea of

³VTXDULQJWKHFLUFOH´7his occurs when the perimeter of a square earthwork is nearly equivalent to the perimeter of an associated circular earthwork. Another concept that Romain identifies as being specific to earthworks sites is a standard measure of 1053 ft. Even Squier and Davis thought the people who built the Newark earthworks had a standard measurement to which they adhered (1848).

Early investigators of the Newark Earthworks Complex believed that the purpose of the earthworks was defensive or militaristic. Further investigation revealed that these earthworks could not be intended as fortifications, as ditches were on the interior of the earthworks rather than the exterior as one would expect if the purpose of these structures were for defense. More recent archaeological investigation has indicated that indigenous people living in the Newark area during prehistory were cultivating domestic crops (Wymer 1997). Other activities taking place at the Newark earthworks were ceremonial in nature and this locus may have been connected to ceremonial locations in the Scioto river valley (Lepper 1996). In the following chapter, hypotheses for the phenomenon of the Newark Earthworks Complex will be further explored as well as the theory behind these hypotheses. Conjectures will be made regarding

what outcomes are expected from the environmental proxies examined within this thesis including LOI, XRD, MS, and particle size analysis.

Chapter 3: History of Theory

This chapter presents three hypotheses for the purpose of the Newark Earthworks. First, the

Newark Earthworks Complex functioned as a ceremonial center and was an expression of the worldview of the builders (Byers 1987; Lepper 2010). Second, the Newark Earthworks

Complex was built in alignment with cosmological phenomena (Horn 2010). Third, because this thesis is primarily concerned with the environmental conditions that may have initiated the use of the Great Circle as a water management feature, this chapter examines the theory behind the environmental proxies used herein.

Newark Earthworks Complex as a Ceremonial Center

After rejecting the idea that the Newark Earthworks were intended as a military outpost, early scholars proposed that the purpose of the earthworks was religious in nature (Squier and Davis

1848). Recently, Byers (1987) has discussed the concept of the ³umwelt´ as it pertains to the

Newark Earthworks and other enclosures in the Central Ohio Valley. A concept borrowed from

Harré (1980), Byers (1987) defines the ³umwelt´ as the constructed environment, or a set of cultural structures drawn upon to establish socio-cultural properties of space and time. The physical environment is a culturally structured reality and is practiced through iconic symbols such as geometric earthworks (Byers 1987:252). The structuring of the social environment is also simultaneously the structuring of the world. Some examples of the umwelt stress architecture as the iconic modeling element, however, the human body may also be an iconic model (Byers

1987).

Additionally, the construction process itself reaffirmed and sanctified the ³umwelt´.

During the process of construction, the intended purpose or outcome may change, and the final

product may deviate from the norm; Byers (1987) terms this phenomenon rectification. A corollary of rectification is de-constructive rectification, by which the outputs of past actions impede the present concerns/umwelt. However, rectifications, instead of being a way to fix mistakes or account for changes in world view (umwelt), may simply be expressions of stylistic variation.

Byers (1987) states that the observatory mound, a component of the Octagon, exemplifies rectification and was built in order to avoid deconstruction. His thesis is that the High Bank circle-rectangle (C-R) combination DQGWKH1HZDUN2FWDJRQDUH³5RVHWWD6WRQHV´ of enclosures of the Central Ohio Valley because rectification was integral to reconstructing the ³umwelt´

(Byers 1987:285). Thus, if the ³umwelt´ is solidified through construction and rectification, then the rules governing construction and rectification will be expressed at geometric earthwork sites, specifically the Newark Earthworks (Byers 1987:289).

The example of the sanctity of the ³umwelt´ is expressed at the Newark earthworks in the rectification evident in the observatory component of the Octagon. The observatory mound expresses two abnormalities, an extra opening and a gateway/neck. The gateway was covered with the observatory mound (Byers 1987:289). Closing the extra opening in the Octagon is significant because it indicates that the ³umwelt´ of the builders did not allow for deconstruction as a possible option (Byers 1987:289). Thus the addition of the observatory mound led to a distortion/over-distortion of the earthwork. If deconstruction was a viable method of earthwork (and ³umwelt´) expression, then the earth from the extra gateway could simply have been removed rather than adding the observatory mound. ³This means that, given the socio- temporal context of construction and this frame of reference, their world image, the canons of construction could only be manifested effectiveO\LQWKLVPDQQHU´ %\HUV289). Since

distortion of the earthwork was not avoided, two conclusions may be made. First, the change of plan making rectification necessary was more important than the avoidance of executing the rectification itself, and secondly, the rectification process in light of the impetus for rectification could only be executed through the addition of the observatory mound. Additionally, the circle- octagon structure indicates a special relationship between Newark and Chillicothe, as expressed through the geometric earthworks in these locales. Building codes of the indigenous people who built the circle-octagon combination had a proscription against moving soil, once it had been deposited it could not be disturbed, requiring the observatory mound to be built rather than the extra gateway to be removed (Byers 1987).

While Byers (1987) does not directly reference the Great Circle component of the

Newark earthworks, his theories regarding the ³umwelt´ and the significance of earth appear evident at this component of the Newark earthworks. If the Great Circle, as a component of the

Newark earthworks, is a manifestation of the ³umwelt´/worldview of the builders, then this earthwork as a cultural structure should exemplify aspects of space and time. Manifestations of

VSDFHGHOLQHDWLRQDUHHYLGHQWLQWKH*UHDW&LUFOH¶VFRQVWUXFWLRQ,QH[DPLQLQJWKH*UHDW&LUFOH

Lepper (1996) noted that sediments were placed such that the Great Circle appeared brown from the inside and yellow from the outside. The placement of these distinctly colored sediments indicates that the ³umwelt´ may have been H[SUHVVHGLQWKH*UHDW&LUFOH¶VFRQVWUXFWLRQWKURXJK the use of soil to define space. An additional separation of space is indicated by the standing water in the ditch identified by the mineralogical sediments analyzed for this thesis. The presence of water in the ditch suggests another possible purpose for the Great Circle aside from a water management function, i.e., as a social boundary separating those inside of the circle from those outside. Expressions of ³umwelt´ solidification through the socio-cultural aspect of time

are more difficult to identify, but it does appear that space was a pertinent consideration for the builders of the Great Circle.

If the Newark earthworks are ritual in nature, I would expect to find evidence of exotic trade materials at the site. I would also expect that the site would function as a central locus for people living in the area and even further away. While /HSSHU¶V PRVWUHFent theoretical work regarding the Newark earthworks has not provided much evidence regarding the presence of exotic materials at the site, it has focused on the idea that the components of the earthworks are a systematically integrated whole and not simply independent structures haphazardly tacked on to one another (Lepper 2010:113). His hypothesis that the earthworks in the Newark vicinity are part of a complex whole is supported by the astronomical alignments encoded in their structure and the predominantly lunar emphasis of these alignments (Lepper 2010). The primary purpose of the Newark earthworks, according to Lepper (2010), is ritual in nature. This supposition is supported by the network of parallel walled earthen features between the main components of the complex and the connection between the earthen structures and cosmological events (Lepper 2010). Evidence for the Newark Earthworks Complex being a central locus is supported by the enclosed corridors (parallel walls) ability to channel the movement of people through the site (Lepper 1998:119). The movement of people was constrained by physical boundaries such as the parallel walls, making the Newark Earthworks Complex a central location whereby all roads led to the geometric earthworks.

The second theory I will explore in this chapter is that the Newark earthworks were built to connect to astronomical events. If the Newark complex was built to coincide with cosmological phenomena, then I would expect to find alignments between the earthworks and astronomical events at statistically significant probabilities.

Newark Earthworks Complex as an Expression of Astronomical Events

Horn (2010) proposes that astronomical knowledge played a significant role in the location and design of the large geometrically sophisticated earthworks. The two hypotheses Horn (2010) presents are first, that some earthworks express geometrical concerns and astronomical alignments and second, the placement of earthworks was in specific locales within the local terrain. If his conclusions regarding astronomical alignments are valid, then the statistical probability of those alignments occurring by chance alone will be less than .05.

Horn used Monte Carlo techniques to assess the statistical distribution of astronomical alignments with geometric earthworks by using a computer to model many comparable sites

(2010). The computer was used to compute the probability that the astronomical alignments expressed at the Newark Earthworks complex are random. According to Horn (2010:131), the octagon design achieves five lunar alignments on its symmetry axis and four walls. The probability that this number of alignments occurred by chance is less than 0.001. In other words

999 times out of a 1000 the observed number of alignments would not occur by chance alone.

He cautions that his analysis does not prove that the builders of the Octagon intended the structure to exhibit lunar alignments, but it does prevent one from dismissing the astronomical alignments on a solely statistical basis (Horn 2010:132).

His second hypothesis, that earthworks were specifically located within the terrain was spurred by a significant alignment error in one wall of the Octagon (Horn 2010:133).

Identification of this error led him to the zero-altitude hypothesis, which states that consistent and precise astronomical observations would have been difficult to make from valley floors

(Horn 2010:133). The zero-altitude hypothesis predicts that preference would be shown for elevations that could function as long distance backsights for lunar alignments found at

1HZDUN¶VFLUFOH-octagon. However, suitable elevations are likely to be backsights for lunar alignments simply by chance because of the hills surrounding the valley. Thus, his hypothesis is only valid if the elevated points have additional characteristics indicating that they were deliberately chosen and used to make astronomical observations.

Horn (2010:133) layouts three criteria in looking for sites that may have played a role in the planning and layout of geometric earthworks. The first criterion is that the site can serve as a backsight allowing for a zero-altitude horizon view of a lunar/solar extreme over the length of an octagon wall or along the symmetry axis of one or more geometric earthworks (Horn 2010:133).

Second, the site must be prominent among hill sites, allowing for an optimal view of the earthworks. Third, the site may show evidence of Early or Middle Woodland activity (Horn

2010). He has identified a hill, Hill One (H1), southwest of the Newark Earthworks, which meets all three criteria. This hill is connected to the Great Circle by the azimuth of the north minimum moonrise passing through its axis, and the north maximum moonrise passes through the long axis of the Octagon (Horn 2010:134). $QRWKHUWRSRJUDSKLFSURPLQHQFH&RIIPDQ¶V

Knob, suggests that Middle Woodland people chose to build so extensively at Newark because the confluence of Raccoon Creek and the South and North Forks of the Licking are eminently visible from this locale. This suggests a fourth criterion for sites integral to earthwork layout may have been where astronomical alignments appear in conjunction with earthwork architecture and prominent natural features such as river confluences (Horn 2010). In support of this fourth criterion, Horn notes that the azimuth through Raccoon Creek valley to the north minimum moonset passes near the entrance to the Great Circle and a large circular embankment located in the valley below as well as the alligator effigy located east of Granville. Additionally, while no

0LGGOH:RRGODQGFRQVWUXFWLRQLVUHFRUGHGQHDUWKHSHDNRI&RIIPDQ¶V.QRE0LGGOH:RRGODQG

habitations, enclosures, and mounds are located nearby (Horn 2010:136). The zero-altitude horizon views of tangent moonrises and setVIURP+DQG&RIIPDQ¶V.nob occur along lines from which major elements of the Newark earthworks are laid out including the long axes of the

Octagon, the Salisbury square and ellipse, the Great Circle, and other features within the

Raccoon Creek Valley between Newark and Granville (Horn 2010:136).

Another test to determine the possibility of astronomical alignments occurring by chance aside from statistical probabilities, is a comparison between alignments at Newark and those at

High Bank. Design similarities between these two locales are important because they are the only places where a circle-octagon combination was built. The observatory circle diameter at

Newark is the same as the diameter of the circle at High Bank. In contrast to the five alignments identified at the Newark Octagon, only one of the eight alignments on lunar extremes found at the High Bank circle-octagon are aligned with the wall. $FFRUGLQJWR+RUQ ³WKH hypothesis of deliberate experimentation to determine the shapes which aligned with the most

OXQDUVRODUH[WUHPDµH[SODLQV¶WKHGHVLJQRIERWKRFWDJRQVNQRZQWRKDYHEHHQFRQVWUXFWHGE\ the Hopewell.´ However the hypothesis that zero-altitude points overlooking suitable locations for earthworks were used in the planning and layout of earthworks is not confirmed (Horn 2010).

The earthworks at Newark and Granville are coordinated with lunar extremes as well as local topography as viewed from zero-altitude locations. Evidence for these design preferences is more strongly supported at Newark and Granville than at High Bank (Horn 2010).

The final theory for the purpose of the Great Circle component of the Newark Earthworks is that it was a water management feature constructed by indigenous people as a cultural adaptation after a cold and dry period. If the Great Circle was built as a facility to control water as a response to an environmental downturn, I would expect that MS would be low just before or

during the time the structure was built reflecting a cold and dry climate. Low MS values may also reflect low rates of erosion (McLauchlan 2003). Low erosion rates suggest more arid climatic conditions as erosion rates are sensitive to rainfall intensity (Nearing 2001). I would also expect the XRD analysis to show an increase in clay minerals in the strata representing the construction event as the Great Circle ditch would have to be impermeable if it were to retain water, a necessary feature of a water management structure. Before examining the Great Circle specifically, I will examine water management in general to provide an understanding as to why water was such an integral resource for indigenous people.

Water Management

Societies throughout history and prehistory have used water management as an adaptation to control a variable commodity. Water is an essential element for life and food production and is also one of the most easily controlled resources. Scarborough (2003) has examined water management in both Old and New World societies and its manifestation in the archaeological record.

As a part of water management in traditional societies, Scarborough (2003) makes a distinction between still-water systems including reservoirs, lakes, and spring containment, and flow-water systems composed of canals and irrigation. He provides case studies of still-water systems at Lowland Maya sites including Tikal and Cerros (Scarborough 2003:50,52). Lowland

Maya water systems could not use canal irrigation because of their location in a karstic environment. Tiered reservoir systems at Tikal allowed for a downhill release of water during the dry season. These tiered systems elucidate the connections that would have been necessary as water was used as an economic and political force. State formation processes are still being

discussed by anthropologists today, but many agree that water management may have been an important factor)LQDOO\³«ZDWHUPDQDJHPHQWV\VWHPVDFFRPPRGDWHGPXOWLSOHXVHV including transportation, defense, drainage, and flood control, nomadic/sendentist symbiosis, and

ULWXDO´ Scarborough 2003:79).

Archaeological research conducted by the University of Cincinnati since 2007 has shown that the Miami Fort earthwork is a human-modified watershed (Tankersley and Balantyne 2010).

Still-water systems, reservoirs, were located along the ridge overlooking the confluence of the

Great Miami and Ohio rivers. Reservoirs provided a viable water resource. Although the Miami

Fort earthwork overlooks two major river systems, the rivers are located 70 meters below and at least half a kilometer west of the enclosure. Archaeological investigation has identified a graded causeway, more than 5 km of earthen berms, a broad and deep ditch, and the remains of prehistoric log and clay dams (Tankersley and Balantyne 2010). Terraced reservoirs drained into a basal catchment containing 1200 m3 of water. Dam remnants included charred wood and fired clay. Hydraulic features at Miami Fort, constructed by AD 620 during the Middle Woodland,

Late Woodland, and protohistoric Fort Ancient were built on steep slopes and collected seasonal groundwater, precipitation, and surface runoff allowing indigenous populations to control water during cold and dry climatic downturns (Tankersley and Balantyne 2010).

Additional evidence for water management features in the Ohio Valley have been identified at the Turner earthworks (Tankersley 2007) and Mariemont earthworks (Tankersley

2008). While Newark is not situated in the same topographic setting as Mariemont or Miami

Fort, it is similar to the Turner site in terms of earthworks and the data suggest that one possible function of the site was as a water management facility following an environmental downturn.

The Great Circle as a Water Management Feature

If the Great Circle of the Newark Earthworks was built as a water management facility, I would expect MS values to be low before the Great Circle was constructed suggesting a need to respond to a cold and dry climate by controlling water. Warm, wet periods are indicated by high MS values because increased precipitation leads to weathering and the development of magnetic mineral formation whereas during cold and dry periods magnetic mineral formation is low.

Successful applications of MS as a proxy for climate was undertaken by Tankersley and

Balatyne (2010) at Miami Fort, Tankersley (2007) at the Turner Earthworks complex, and

Tankersley (2008) at the Mariemont earthwork. Other scholars have identified climate sensitive minerals including kaolinite, smectite, vermiculite, mixed-layer illite/smectite, illite, and chlorite

(Cutris 1990:352). According to Curtis (1990:356) climate strongly influences clay mineralogy within soils. As a means of climatic reconstruction, XRD analyses from ponded sediments have been performed in the Ohio Valley (Tankersley and Balatyne 2010) to locales as exotic as Lake

Baikal in Siberia (Yuretich et al. 1999). If the ditch of the Great Circle held water, then I would expect the particle size analysis to show a horizon with an increase in small (closer to clay sized) particles as they would be more effective in retaining water than horizons in which the particles were larger in size. If the ditch was lined I would expect the particle size analysis to reflect an increase in small particles prior to the stratum representing ditch construction.

The following chapter will explore the methodology undertaken in recovering the sediment cores in the field as well as how analysis was performed in the lab. First, the tools and methodology used to acquire the cores, such as the Environmental Subsoil Probe (ESP), will be discussed. Secondly, techniques used in laboratory analysis, including MS, particle size analysis, LOI, XRD, and how soil horizons were defined, will be explained.

Chapter 4: Methodology

This investigation of the Newark Earthworks, specifically the Great Circle, utilized a variety of materials and methods including core sampling, XRD, particle size analysis, MS, LOI, and radiocarbon dating. This combination of environmental proxies presents a multivalent picture of the site in terms of geologic phenomena, climatic variation, and anthropogenic activity. The anthropogenic presence at the Newark Earthworks suggests that indigenous people were agents on the landscape responding to a complex suite of environmental and cultural pressures.

Field Methods

During 2010, four cores were extracted from the ditch of the Great Circle. Locations were randomly chosen and cores extracted in four cardinal directions from the Eagle Mound at

Newark (Figure 3). To extract sediments at Newark believed to be anthropogenic in origin, an

Environmental Subsoil Probe (ESP) was used. The ESP was fitted with a 5.6 kg slide hammer with 1 meter extensions and a 1 meter stainless steel sample tube with a thread-on bit.

The ESP was lined with copolylester tubes 2 cm in diameter and 90 centimeters in length. The

ESP was fitted with a foot-operated jack allowing for the sample tube to be removed from the ground with 600 kg of lifting force following the technique used by Ballantyne (2009). As the copolyester tubes were extracted, they were sealed with red caps (top) and black caps (bottom) in order to maintain stratigraphic integrity.

Studies noting the benefits of magnetic analyses often use coring as a means of procuring sediment for analysis (Sandgren and Snowball 2001). When coring, it is crucial that stratigraphic integrity be maintained as much as possible and that the orientation of the core is known. The core barrel should be lined with a plastic tube to prevent any remnant magnetism from affecting MS results. Cores were also labeled with depth and location. 34

Drill CoreFigure Extraction 3/RFDWLRQRI&RUH([WUDFW LRQDW1HZDUN¶V*UHDW&LUFOH ( contour interval two feet)

Cores were vertically extracted in 90 cm intervals from four locations of the ditch within the Great Circle using the ESP probe. ESPs¶ have been widely used to recover sediment for environmental reconstruction by archaeologists at sites in the Maya world (Scarborough et al.

1994) to those in the Ohio Valley (Tankersley and Balantyne 2010). Core 1 was cored to 2.6 m below surface before refusal. Core 2 was cored to 2.5 m below surface before refusal. Cores 3 and 4 were cored to 2.7 m below surface before refusal.

Laboratory Methods

ESP samples were stored at room temperature between 20 and 25° C. Copolyester tubes were split using a dremmel saw. Cores were divided into arbitrary 10 cm intervals.

Magnetic Susceptibility

Magnetic susceptibility readings were taken using a Bartington MS2E sensor in an area which had been cleared of ferrous objects to prevent contamination of the data. To ensure full contact with the instrument, the sensor was fully pressed into the sediment and the reading was then taken. The sensor was cleaned with demineralized and deionized water between each reading and zeroed approximately one meter from the core to prevent cross-contamination.

MS analysis was undertaken on cores extracted from the ditch of the Great Circle because this location was similar to lake/ponded locales where magnetic susceptibility has previously been applied. Lake sediments have been found to reflect variation in the direction and strength

RIWKHHDUWK¶VPDJQHWLFILHOG 6Dndgren and Snowball 2001:217). ,QIDFW³URXWLQHRUVWDQGDUG

PLQHUDOPDJQHWLFDQDO\VHVLQFOXGHPHDVXUHPHQWVRIPDJQHWLFVXVFHSWLELOLW\´ 6DQGJUHQDQG

Snowball 2001:225). Since the ditch of the Great Circle held water in historic times, (Atwater

1820) sediment was viewed as similar to core sediment from ponded contexts, and therefore, mineral magnetic techniques such as MS were considered applicable analytical tools.

Particle Size Analysis

Particle size analysis of the cores was performed to identify the construction sequence within the ditch. An increase in large size particles in the cores, close enough to the surface to not be associated with a glacial event, preceded by an increase of small particles reflects the digging of the ditch. Samples were weighed on an Ohaus Precision Standard scale. Munsell soil colors were then defined. Samples were placed in a beaker and dried on a Cole-Parmer Stirring Hot

Plate. Drying allowed for ease of sieving as well as for the calculation of Loss on Ignition.

After drying samples were crushed with a mortar and pestle, breaking up large clumps, while

attempting not to reduce all particles to the same size. Samples were then put through a set of nested sieves. Materials that did not fall through a particular mesh size were weighed and set aside for XRD analysis.

Loss on Ignition

Loss on ignition is a frequently used method to estimate the organic carbonate content of sediment (Heiri et al. 2001:101). Generally, a sample is oxidized at temperatures between 500 and 550° C until the sample is transformed into carbon dioxide and ash (Heiri et al. 2001:101).

Weight loss within the sample is ascertained by weighing the sample before and after oxidation.

According to Heiri et al. (2001:102), there is a strong correlation between the Loss on Ignition of a sample at 550°C and the organic carbon content of a sample. In other words, LOI is a a measure of organic content. Though techniques for measuring LOI vary among laboratories, most often in terms of oxidation time, the range within laboratories was generally small suggesting that LOI is a useful tool for correlating sediment cores with unique LOI signatures

(Heiri et al. 2001:109). LOI was also useful in defining paleosols (buried soils) as organic content would be expected to decrease down core (further from the surface); thus identifying a higher LOI down core would indicate organic content and likely reflect a paleosol. Though LOI is usually undertaken by oxidizing samples in a muffle furnace (Dean 1974; Heiri et al. 2001), this method would destroy sediment needed for XRD analysis. Therefore, samples were weighed before and after drying on a Cole-Parmer Stirring Hot Plate. The weight before drying, minus the dry weight provided the LOI in grams.

X-ray Diffraction

XRD analysis of mineralogical composition of materials has been performed since the early twentieth century. Successful applications of this technique for paleoclimate reconstruction have been used for at least the past twenty-five years (Curtis 1990) and most recently in the Ohio

Valley (Tankersley and Balantyne 2010) as well as many other areas. In general, climate means a combination of temperature and precipitation (Curtis 1990:351). As previously mentioned, less humid/cooler climates lead to the preferential development of clay minerals including vermiculites, mixed-layer clays, illites, and chlorites (Curtis 1990:355).

For the purposes of this thesis, XRD analysis was undertaken to provide two sets of analyses. First, the identification of an increase in chlorite was used to identify colder periods that may have prompted indigenous people to adapt to climatic stress by building and maintaining water management features. Secondly, the ditch of the Great Circle would need to hold water to be an effective water management tool. An increase in clay minerals in certain strata, particularly those with an increase in smaller particles would indicate an impermeable or less permeable ditch lining useful for retaining water.

X-ray diffraction (XRD) was performed on material which did not pass through <ȝP

DQGȝPVLHYHV&RUHVDPSOHVZHUHSUHSDred in a deionized water slurry in 100 ml beakers.

The particles were in natural gradation in the slurry and a 5 ml pipette was used to remove sediment from the top portion. Slides were prepared individually per 10 cm interval and analyzed for mineral identification. The scale utilized for sample identification was 2 to 32 theta, at 0.5 increments on a Siemens D-500 using a Cu-.ĮUDGLDWLRQVRXUFH. After completion of XRD analysis the threshold was set to 1.6 and peaks were identified in relation to their known spacing and 2 theta values. No specific minerals were targeted for this analysis.

Soil Horizon Definition

Soil horizons were defined using depth below surface, particle size, Munsell color, and LOI.

The A horizon was identified within the first 50 cm in all four cores. Munsell colors in the A horizon were darker than in the other horizons as a result of decaying organic matter in this horizon. The Bw horizon was defined by its depth below the A horizon and having a different color than the A and C horizons. The buried horizon, Ab, was defined based an increase in large-sized particles and LOI as this would indicate the digging of the ditch because larger sized particles would fall into the ditch from above. The C horizon was defined by being below

(deeper) the Ab horizon, and its particle size. The large size particles and lack of color change at this depth indicate that no soil genesis has taken place.

The following chapter will present the data compiled from these analyses including the radiocarbon dates, the MS, LOI, particle size analysis, and prose descriptions of the horizons from all four cores. The minimum, maximum, and mean values for each core are presented as well as the minimum and maximum LOI values. The XRD results are presented along with the graphic representation of the particle size analysis and soil horizons.

Chapter 5: Data

This chapter provides the data recovered from the four cores using the environmental proxies:

XRD, MS, LOI, particle size analysis, and radiocarbon dating to provide a temporal framework for these analyses. The identification of increased clay content within the Ab horizon infers the lining of the ditch and is useful in determining if the Great Circle ditch was capable of holding water. Additionally, the identification of climate sensitive minerals, i.e., illite and chlorite will allow for environmental reconstruction as well as correlation with MS measurements. MS readings will provide insight into paleoenvironmental conditions at the Great Circle, and particle size analysis will be used to identify when the earthwork was constructed as well as soil horizons. Radiocarbon dating will allow for correlating environmental conditions with cultural sequences. Specifically, these combined results allow for preliminary correlation of the environmental setting with the cultural response, i.e., if the ditch was built as an adaptation to control water following a cold and dry period.

Radiocarbon Dates

Four AMS radiocarbon dates were obtained from hand-picked charcoal extracted from soil organic matter (SOM) collected from the Great Circle at Newark. An AMS radiocarbon date from Core 1 located in the northern side of the ditch at the Great Circle between 30 and 40 cm below surface yielded a date of 90 ± 40 14C yr B.P. (Beta 284087). The calibrated age range for this date within two sigma is A.D. 1670-1940. An additional date from Core 1, 50-60 cm below surface, yielded an AMS date of 1330 ± 40 14C yr B.P. (Beta 284088). The calibrated age range for this date within two sigma is A.D. 650-770. A third radiocarbon date was recovered from

Core 2, taken from the western edge of the ditch. The date taken from 100 to 110 cm below surface yielded an AMS date of 90 ± 40 14C yr B.P. (Beta 284089). The calibrated age range for 40

this date within two sigma is A.D. 1690-1930. The fourth date was taken from a core extracted from the ditch on the southern portion of the opening between 230 and 240 cm below surface.

AMS dated to 38,320 ± 330 14C yr B.P. (Beta 284090), the result could not be calibrated. For clarity, these dates are presented again below.

Core 1

Appendix A shows the raw data taken from the Core 1 sample including the magnetic susceptibility, loss on ignition, particles size composition, and depth.

Magnetic susceptibility is represented by SI values and showed a high degree of variability, ranging from 5 to 322 x 10-8 in relation to soil depth. The highest magnetic susceptibility value, 322 x 10-8, occurred 70 to 80 cm below surface, and the lowest value,

5 x 10-8, occurred 190 to 200 cm below surface. The mean of all the SI values recorded from

Core 1 is 68.7 x 10-8 SI. The lowest value, 5 x 10-8, occurred 190-200 cm below surface and may reflect a cold dry climate; it may also reflect a time of low erosion. Elsewhere in the core, a value of 322 x 10-8 is recorded. The high value is the second highest in all of the cores and likely reflects a warm, moist climate. What is most evident from the MS analysis is the variable nature of climatic signals through the past 40,000 years.

The LOI values range from 0.26 grams at 240-250 cm below surface to 17.71 grams at between 20 and 30 cm below surface. In general there is a decrease in LOI from the top of the core (closer to the surface) to the bottom of the core (further away from the surface) indicating a decrease in organic content down core. However, there is a zone between 120-130 cm below surface in which the LOI increases to 13.32 grams after having decreased in strata closer to the

surface. I believe the spike to 13.32 grams indicates a paleosol and possible anthropogenic lining of the ditch.

Provenience Measured AMS Lab # Calibration range 14C yr B.P. (two sigma)

Feature 10 610-1002 B.C.

(Lepper and Yerkes 1997) 2670 ± 70 Beta-27446

Feature 15 1845 ± 60 Beta- A.D. 34-314

(Lepper and Yerkes 1997) 28062/ETH-

4593

Feature 1 1640 ± 90 A.D. 181-559

(Lepper and Yerkes 1997) Beta-58450

Core 1 30-40 cm below 90 ± 40 Beta ± 284087 A.D. 1670-1940 surface

Core 1 50-60 cm below 1330 ± 40 Beta ± 284088 A.D. 650-770 surface

Core 2 100-110 cm below 90 ± 40 Beta ± 284089 A.D. 1690-1930 surface

Core 4 230-240 cm below 38,320 ± 330 Beta ± 284090 Outside of surface calibration range

The particle size analysis indicates varying zones of small (<0.6 mm) to large sized

(>1.18 mm) particles. In Core 1 the deepest horizons indicate a spike in large sized particles followed by a spike in very fine particles (see Figure 6) which I believe represents glacial outwash followed by a loess deposit. Loess is windblown sand and silt and is often found in glaciated regions.

Core 2

The raw data from Core 2 is located Appendix B and includes magnetic susceptibility, loss on ignition, particle size composition and depth. Magnetic Susceptibility is highly variable in this core as well as the remaining cores. The highest SI value in Core 2 is 128 x 10-8 and located between 100 and 110 cm below surface. The lowest SI value is found between 110 and 120 cm below surface and is 10 x 10-8 SI. Mean SI value for Core 2 is 51.9 x 10-8. The high SI value of

128 x 10-8, recorded from the horizon 100-110 cm below surface indicates a warm, wet period or a period of increased erosion. The lowest SI value found in this core is 10 x 10-8, located between 110 to 120 cm below surface, and indicates a cold, dry climate or a low sedimentation rate.

The LOI from Core 2 exhibits, in general, the same trend in as Core 1 with organic content decreasing with depth. LOI ranges from 0.14 grams to 10.61 grams. In general, the LOI decreases from top to bottom except from between 110 and 120 cm where the LOI is greater than the strata above it (closer to the surface). There is another spike in the LOI value at the bottom of the core, which may indicate a paleosol. However, since the Munsell color of this stratum is pale yellow, it does not seem likely that it is a paleosol.

The particle size analysis is similar to that of Core 1. A spike in large sized particles is present at the bottom of Core 2 as well, though it is smaller than that found in Core 1 (see Figure

7). This increase in larger particles is likely represents a glacial event composed of glacial outwash as noted in Core 1.

Core 3

Core 3 raw data can be found in Appendix C and includes magnetic susceptibility, loss on ignition, particle size composition, and depth. The highest SI value in Core 3 is 174 x 10-8 and is located between 160 and 170 cm below surface. The lowest value is located between 240 and

250 cm below surface and is 20 x 10-8 SI. Mean SI for Core 3 is 87.5 x 10-8. The high SI value of 174 x 10-8, is indicative of a warm, moist environment or a period with increased sedimentation rates. The lowest SI value, 20 x 10-8, is located between 240 and 250 cm below and represents a cold, dry period or a time when erosion rates were decreased.

The LOI values from Core 3 range from 3.57 grams to 12.37 grams. The LOI of 3.57 grams is the second deepest stratum and the LOI of 12.37 grams is the third stratum from the top of the core. The only variance in the decreasing LOI sequence is located between 110 and 140 cm below surface where after decreasing with depth the LOI increases again to 9.56 grams between 110 and 120 cm. The spike in LOI values at that depth probably reflects a paleosol.

The particle size analysis for Core 3 is similar to Cores 1 and 2 with alternating peaks of small and large-sized particles. Core 3 does not reflects the glacial outwash deposit identified in

Cores 1 and 2 as there is not a spike in large size particles in the beginning (deepest depth) of the core (see Figure 8). There is a spike in small particles toward the bottom of the core that likely represents the postglacial loess deposit identified in Core 1.

Core 4

The raw data for Core 4 is located in Appendix D. As with the other three cores, the SI is highly variable. The highest value is 349 x 10-8 and located between 200 and 210 cm below surface.

The lowest value is 4 x 10-8 and is located between 230 and 240 cm below surface. The mean value for Core 4 is 109.8 x 10-8. The high SI value, 349 x 10-8, is the highest value recorded from all four cores and represents a warm, wet period or a period of increased erosion. The lowest SI value in Core 4, 4 x 10-8 SI, is the lowest SI value throughout all of the cores and indicates a cold, dry period or a time-period in which sedimentation rates were low.

The LOI in Core 4 is more variable than in the other three cores and ranges from 2.19 grams to 17.2 grams. LOI decreases from the top of the core downward with several spikes of greater LOI. While the LOI was decreasing with depth in strata above, between 110 and 170 cm

LOI begins to increase again, likely representing a paleosol, and another peak is identified between 200 and 220 cm below surface. The LOI value peaks at 10.58 grams between 160 and

170 cm and at 10.34 grams at 210 to 220 cm.

The particle size analysis for Core 4 is similar to the other cores, but most similar to Core

3 (see Figure 9). The glacial event is represented at the bottom of the core followed by the associated loess deposit.

Appendices E-H show the particle sizes for the cores in prose form based on the

Wentworth scale. The Wentworth scale is used to classify particles based on their size in mm and separated into categories. This thesis used clay, silt, sand and gravel for particle size descriptors. Strata were then defined by their weight composition. The results of this classification are visible in Appendices E-H. The classification of each stratum into prose form made it easier to identify and correlate soil horizons within and among cores.

Appendices E-H also denote the Munsell color of each stratum. Since color is subjective,

Munsell color books are used as a way to standardize color identification. Munsell colors were also useful in identifying soil horizons and correlating between cores.

The E-H appendices show that the vast majority of strata are composed of poorly sorted silty gravelly sand. Munsell colors are highly variable between cores, but in general the layers closer to the surface are darker than those deeper down. The Munsell color is what I would expect as there is greater organic content closer to the surface. There are also darker Munsell colors in the paleosols of Cores 1 and 4. Again, this is an expected outcome as buried soils

(paleosols) generally have higher organic content than either B or C horizons. The C horizon is composed of loess and outwash and is generally yellow in color. This Munsell color is the expected result for this type of deposit.

A total of four cores were extracted using the ESP, Figure 4 shows the results of those extractions including the soil horizons. Figure 5 shows the soil horizons from the cores with lines of correlation connecting the same horizons between the cores. The correlation lines indicate that there were slight differences between the cores in terms of the depth where the core began, and how deep the ESP went before refusal. Cores 2 and 3 seem to be more similar to each other overall than Cores 1 and 4. The Ab horizons in Cores 2 and 3 are more similar in depth, whereas the depths of Ab horizons in Cores 1 and 4 are more alike (see Figure 5).

Additionally, Cores 3 and 4 were cored to the same depth before refusal.

Figure 4. Cross section of cores extracted from the Great Circle ditch (depths in cm).

The x-ray diffraction analysis showed several different minerals, some of which- particularly calcite-were depth-dependent. Percent calcite ranges from 14% between 190 and 200 cm below surface to almost zero between 10 and 90 cm below surface. Dolomite also appears depth dependent ranging from 28% between 140 and 150 cm below surface to zero between 10 and 90 cm below surface. Potassium feldspar (K-spar in Table 2) also appears to be somewhat depth dependent with 23% potassium feldspar composition 70-80 cm below surface and zero potassium feldspar between 10 and 60 cm below surface.

Figure 5. Core strata with correlation lines.

Quartz content decreases from the top to the bottom of the core with 18% quartz at the bottom of the core to 63% at the top. Illite is common throughout the core, with the highest value 41% located 70-80 cm below surface and 210-220 cm below surface. The lowest illite value, 22%, is located between 140 and 150 cm below surface. Chlorite is relatively common throughout the core as well with the highest value, 17%, at the bottom of the core and the lowest value, 3%, located between 70 and 80 cm below surface. Table 2 presents the minerals identified by XRD and their relative percent. Kaolinite is common throughout most of the core with the highest value, 11%, at 200-210 cm below surface and 230 to 240 cm below surface.

Percent kaolinite drops off between 10 and 50 cm below surface.

Particle size analysis for the four cores may be used to identify the construction of the

Great Circle indicated by an increase in larger sized particles. The spike indicates the removal of earth creating the ditch and resulting in an influx of larger grained sediment from above. The percent composition figures also reflect by the Ab possibly anthropogenic soil horizon reflected by the high organic content of those strata. The increase of fine-grained particles at approximately 125 cm below surface in Core 1, 135 cm in Core 2, 155 cm in Core 3, and 150 cm in Core 4 reflect the Ab horizons. Figures 6-9 show the particle size analysis for Cores 1-4.

The particle size figures show alternating composition between small and larges sized particles. The spike in large sized particles at the bottom of Cores 1 and 2 represent a glacial outwash deposit and the following increase in small particles reflects a postglacial loess deposit.

The spike in large particles from 120-150 cm in Core 1 (see Figure 10), 140-170 cm in Core 2

(see Figure 11), and 100-130 cm in Core 4 (see Figure 13) indicate the influx of colluvial sediment as a result of building the earthwork. The construction event in Core is 3 located between 150 and 200 cm below surface (see Figure 12).

Table 2. Mineralogical Composition of Core 1

Depth Quartz K-feldspar Illite Chlorite Kaolinite Calcite Dolomite (cm) Relative % Relative % Relative % Relative % Relative % Relative % Relative %

15 63 0 29 8 0 0 0

25 62 0 30 4 0 4 0

35 67 0 28 5 0 0 0

45 53 0 38 5 0 0 0

55 57 0 27 10 6 0 0

65 33 19 30 12 6 0 0

75 23 23 41 3 10 0 0

85 34 21 32 6 6 0 0

125 25 17 24 5 6 2 20

135 20 16 26 4 4 4 25

145 21 14 22 8 4 4 28

155 18 16 29 11 6 5 15

165 23 11 33 8 4 6 14

175 18 15 28 12 8 7 9

195 18 8 31 12 7 14 9

205 19 0 35 15 11 12 8

215 15 8 41 14 9 6 7

225 20 9 36 12 7 7 8

235 11 0 39 16 11 12 10

245 18 0 32 17 10 11 12

255 16 0 32 17 11 13 11

Figure 6. Particle Size Composition Core 1.

Figure 7. Particle Size Composition Core 2.

Figure 8. Particle Size Composition Core 3.

Figure 9. Particle Size Composition Core 4.

Figures 10-13 show particle size composition with the addition of soil horizon delineation. The soil horizons generally match with the particle size composition figures. The

Ab horizon is indicated by the increase in smaller particles followed by larger particles aside from the increase in large particles believed to be caused by a glacial event identified at the beginning (bottom) of the core.

Figure 10. Core 1 Particle Size Composition with Soil Horizons.

Figure 11. Core 2 Particle Size Composition with Soil Horizons.

Figure 12. Core 3 Particle Size Composition with Soil Horizons.

Figure 13. Core 4 Particle Size Composition with Soil Horizons.

The combination of analyses presented in this chapter MS, LOI, XRD, and particle size analysis present a preliminary YLHZRISDOHRHQYLURQPHQWDW1HZDUN¶V*UHDW&LUFOH7KH06 values reflect the cyclical nature of climate. LOI values indicate that organic content generally decreases with depth, though it may increase where buried soils are present. XRD analysis indicated that several minerals appear depth dependent including calcite and dolomite and possibly potassium feldspar. The particle size analysis indicates alternating spikes of small and large sized particles that can be correlated with earthwork construction and glacial events.

The following chapter will interpret the results presented in this chapter. Correlation between radiocarbon dates and environmental proxies including MS and XRD will be presented.

Additionally, correlation between paleoclimate indicators, soil horizons, and radiocarbon dates is presented as well as an interpretation of the cultural phenomenon of the Great Circle.

Chapter 6: Analysis

A species¶ ability to survive is based on managing to adapt successfully. Humans are not exempt from the survive or flounder paradigm, and culture is what enables humans to adapt successfully.

Humans are agents on the landscape and products of their environment. Proxy data from this exploratory study suggests that people living in the Newark area may have altered their environment by utilizing the Great Circle as a water management feature. Additionally, the

Great Circle may have served as a social and ideological boundary. A water filled ditch as XRD analysis indicates was present at the Great Circle would send a strong social message delineating those outside the Great Circle from those inside. It is also possible that the ditch of the Great

Circle fulfilled multiple purposes.

This chapter examines the evidence for climate change using magnetic susceptibility and

X-ray diffraction in core samples. Particle size is used to identify construction, and radiocarbon dating provides a temporal framework. Low MS values fall either just prior to or during the construction of the earthwork suggesting a cooler period. XRD analysis reflecting the depth dependence of calcite indicates that the ditch was filled with water from the time the Great Circle was built to the present. Additionally, the increase in chlorite during periods known to be glacial support using this mineral as an indicator of cold dry conditions.

Chronometric Dating

Newark earthworks and its component, the Great Circle, are classified as a Hopewell site and is comprised of the largest geometric earthen enclosures in the world. Temporally, the Great Circle was constructed sometime between 51 and 301 B.C. (Lepper 2004). Identification of Great

Circle construction using particle size analysis allows a correlation of time (from radiocarbon dates) with paleoclimate proxies (MS and XRD data). 55

Core 1. Two radiocarbon dates were returned from Core 1, the first from hand-picked charcoal identified in SOM located 30 to 40 cm below surface (Appendix A). This sampled yielded an

AMS radiocarbon age of 90 ± 40 14C yr B.P. (Beta ± 284087), A.D. 1670-1940 (2 ʍ calibration).

Correlating the radiocarbon date with the soil horizon based on the depth below surface indicates that this date fell within the A horizon. A soil horizons are soil horizons located just below an organic horizon, or at the soil surface (Buol et al. 2003). Since the radiocarbon date from this depth is relatively recent, I would expect the corresponding soil horizon not to show much evidence for soil development as little time has elapsed.

The second radiocarbon date from Core 1 was taken from SOM 50-60 cm below the surface (see Appendix A). The sample returned an AMS radiocarbon age of 1330 ± 40 14C yr

B.P. (Beta ± 284088), A.D. 650-770 (2 ʍ calibration). This date is almost a thousand years after the construction of the Great Circle (51-301 B.C., Lepper 2004) and associated ditch. However, this date can be correlated with MS and XRD results to elucidate the environmental setting of the earthworks at this time. Additionally, the radiocarbon date was located in the Bw soil horizon; a horizon that forms below organic (O) and A horizons and has been significantly altered by pedogenic processes (Buol et al. 2003). The influence of pedogenic processes would be expected from a soil horizon that had over a thousand years of soil genesis taking place.

Core 2. The sample from this core came from between 100 and 110 cm below surface (see

Table 2). The AMS radiocarbon age returned was 90 ± 40 14C yr B.P. (Beta ± 284089), A.D.

1690-1930 (2 ʍ calibration). Based on the depth below surface, this sample should have come from the Bw horizon. The Bw horizon is a soil horizon that has been significantly influenced by

pedogenic processes. It is unlikely that pedogenic processes would have occurred as quickly as indicated by the radiocarbon date for the Core 2 sample. Thus, I attribute the inconsistency in having a relatively recent date at such a depth to an influx of younger (closer to the surface) sediment from above during the coring process.

Core 4. The hand-picked charcoal identified within SOM from Core 4 was located between 230 and 240 cm below surface (see Table 2). The AMS radiocarbon age returned for this sample was

38,320 ± 330 14C yr B.P. (Beta-284090). The date for this sample was outside the calibration range. Based on the depth below surface, the sample came from the C horizon. The C horizon is a layer other than bedrock that does not show influence of pedogenic processes (Buol et al.

2003). The sample from this depth falls within the C horizon.

Paleoclimate Data

The collection of paleoclimate proxies as a part of this preliminary study identified within cores taken from the ditch of the Great Circle helps elucidate why this earthwork may have been used as a water management facility. MS values provide proxies for mean temperature and moisture; they may also indicate erosion rates. X-ray diffraction provides mineralogical composition of core sediments. The correlation of XRD results with fluctuations in magnetic susceptibility values further validate the use of these analyses as proxies because moisture levels and temperature variability (climate) influences the deposition of minerals into ponded sediments such as the ditch of the Great Circle (Ballantyne 2009).

The ditch was chosen as the location for core extraction because historical references indicate that it holds water at certain times allowing for core analyses of ponded sediments

(Atwater 1820, Smucker 1881). The graph in Figure 14 shows magnetic susceptibility values from all four cores in relation to their depth below surface. Figures 15-17 shows the magnetic susceptibility values with radiocarbon dates. The graph shows a trend of varying MS values through time which may indicate climatic variability and/or sedimentation rates.

In Core 1 the construction event is identified between 120 and 160 cm below surface based on the increase in large particles at these depths. The increase in large particles can be identified as the construction event because when the ditch was dug larger particles from above would fall into the excavated area. In the strata located between 190 and 200 cm, the lowest MS value throughout the core, 5 x 10-8, is recorded. Within the Ab horizon which I interpret as an anthropogenic ditch lining, an SI of 8 x 10-8 is recorded, and is the third lowest value throughout the core. In Core 2 the ditch lining is 130-170 cm below surface and was identified on the basis of particle size. Within the Ab horizon, between 160 and 170 cm below surface, is the second lowest value in Core 2, 13 x 10-8 SI. In Core 3, the construction event is identified between 150 and 200 cm below surface. The second lowest SI value in Core 3, 26 x 10-8, is found between

200-210 cm below surface, just prior to the construction of the Great Circle ditch. The construction event in Core 4 is identified at 100-130 cm below surface. The fifth lowest value in

Core 4, 69 x 10-8, occurs at 160-170 cm below surface. In most cases, when the lowest MS values in the cores were not prior to or during ditch construction, the low values are attributable to glacial periods.

Environmental signatures may be able to be correlated with climatic events. The large drop in SI value around 45 cm suggests a dramatic shift to cold and dry climate conditions which

I believe represents the Little Ice Age (A.D. 1550 to A.D. 1850). Historical references from the early 19th century indicate that while the ditch had previously held water, it had not held water

for several years and seems to indicate the human experience of the Little Ice Age as cold and dry conditions. The spike in SI value directly before the downturn may reflect the Medieval

Warming period (A.D. 950 to A.D. 1250), as a high SI value represents warm and moist climate conditions (Tankersley and Balantyne 2010).

Figure 14. Magnetic susceptibility (SI) in relation to depth below surface.

Figure 15. Magnetic Susceptibility of Core 1 with Radiocarbon Dates.

Figure 16. Magnetic Suceptibility of Core 2 with Radiocarbon Date.

Figure 17. Magnetic Susceptibility of Core 4 with Radiocarbon Date.

Soils and Particle Size

Particle size analysis was undertaken on the Newark Cores to identify the construction sequence for the Great Circle was constructed as well as to obtain samples for XRD. Particle size analysis was further used to define soil horizons for each of the cores and to provide correlation between cores.

Munsell color and particle size were used to determine four soil horizons in the Newark

Cores: the A, Bw, Ab, and C (Figures 10-13). The A soil horizon is a mineral soil horizon below

an organic horizon or at the soil surface (Buol et al. 2003). An A horizon with a b subscript indicates a buried soil. These horizons are a mixture of minerals and organic particles and may result from organic decomposition or cultivation, physically disturbing the horizon. B horizons

DUHPLQHUDOKRUL]RQVIRUPHGEHORZRUJDQLF 2 DQG$KRUL]RQV³LQwhich parent material has been significantly altered by concentrations of silicate clay, iron, aluminum, carbonates, gypsum,

RUKXPXVRUE\WKHUHPRYDORIWKHPRUHVROXDEOHFRPSRQHQWV´ %XROHWDO The main identifying characteristic of a B horizon is that it formed as subsoil beneath one or more horizons, and pedogenic processes have caused it to be significantly different than the material in which it formed. The subscript w designates the development of color and structure. It indicates

B horizons that have developed a color different from the A and C horizons, usually a redder color. It may have a blocky structure, but does not have an illuvial (downwardly translocated clay) layer (Buol et al. 2003). The C horizon is a layer other than bedrock, with little to no soil genesis. Figures (10, 11, 12, and 13) depict the soil horizons for the Newark Cores.

A construction event would be evident in particle size analysis and represented by an increase in fine sediments for the ditch lining proceeded by an increase in large particles as colluvial influx from embankment walls. In cores 1, 2, and 4 the construction event is visible at

155, 140, and 125 cm below surface, respectively (Figures 6,7, and 9). These depths correspond to the Ab horizon, which I believe represents an anthropogenic lining placed in the ditch used for the retention of water. Returned radiocarbon dates were located in three soil horizons: A, Bw, and C. Radiocarbon dates of the same age, 90 ± 40 14C yr B.P., are present in both Core 1 and

2. While these radiocarbon dates occur in different horizons, the A and Bw respectively, I believe the same radiocarbon date lower in the core for Core 2 represents an influx of sediment from above during the coring process. The soil horizons in Core 2 correspond to those in Cores

1 and 4, and the radiocarbon date simply represents the ESP scraping off sediment from above or sediment falling in from above to return such a recent date 100-110 cm below surface.

X-ray Diffraction

XRD has been used since the early 20th century in the identification of mineralogical composition. Clay minerals have been identified as useful climate proxies as rainfall differentially impacts weathering of clay minerals (Tankersley and Balantyne 2010). Illite and smectite have been identified as climate sensitive minerals with illites and chlorites reflecting cooler climates (Curtis 1990:355). Additionally, clay minerals such as illite, smectite, and kaolinite provide a more impermeable barrier than other materials such as a glacial substrate.

Thus, an increase in relative percent of these minerals in the Ab soil horizon would provide a less permeable barrier for water and likely result in increased ponding of water. Table 2 provides the relative percent of the minerals encountered in the XRD analysis. The XRD analysis does not show an increase in clay minerals in the Ab soil horizon.

The clay minerals illite, chlorite, and kaolinite are prevalent throughout the cores.

Chlorite is present in greater percentages during known cold periods such as the glacial period represented at the bottom of the core and radiocarbon dated in Core 4 to 38,320 ± 330 years before present. According to the particle size analysis, the construction event is visible in Core 1 beginning at 155 cm below surface. /HSSHU¶V VWXG\RIWKH*UHDW&LUFOHFRQVWUXFWLRQ indicates the Great Circle was built sometime between 51 and 301 B.C. A relatively high percent value for illite, 29%, occurs just before the earthwork was constructed.

Figure 18. Magnetic Susceptibility and Mineralogical Composition of Core 1.

Illite represents less humid/cooler climates (Curtis 1990:355). Therefore the increase in illite percentage just before the Great Circle was built suggests the Great Circle may have been built just after a cool dry period. Temporally, this cold, dry episode began between 51 and 301 B.C.

The focus of this thesis was WRDGGUHVVHQYLURQPHQWDQGKXPDQUHVSRQVHDW1HZDUN¶V

Great Circle. Climate has been established as highly variable throughout time using proxies such as XRD and magnetic susceptibility. I hypothesized that the Great Circle ditch was utilized as a water management feature in response to environmental stress. Many historical sources reference the ditch being filled with water through the 19th century, but the evidence for prehistory can be found in the XRD results.

Calcite is a water soluable mineral, meaning that it dissolves in water, thus, if there is water in the ditch, calcite will not be identified in the XRD analysis. According to Buol et al.

(2003), decalcification is the term for the eluviation of carbonates within a soil. It may lead to complete removal of carbonates from the soil, a common outcome in humid areas.

Decalcification takes place when water and carbon dioxide are present and leads to the formation of soluable bicarbonate (Buol et al. 2003). Since decalcification occurs under saturated conditions, the lack of calcite in the ditch verifies that water was present. In strata deeper (older)

than 155 cm below surface, the relative percent calcite varies from 6-14%. In strata closer to the surface (younger), the relative percent of calcite drops to between 2% and 5% for several 10 cm increments and abates until the modern era between 90 and 120 cm below surface. In fact, the only modern stratum which has any calcite is between 20 and 30 cm below surface with a relative percent of 4. The relative percent of calcite in relation to depth is depicted in Figure 19.

Additional minerals that appear to be depth dependent are dolomite and potassium feldspar. No dolomite is present from 10 to 120 cm below surface. Potassium feldpar disappears in strata above 60 cm. In addition to calcite, dolomite and potassium feldspar are also water-soluable minerals. The disappearance of these minerals after the anthropogenic lining was in place indicates that the ditch held water for some period of time.

Figure 19. Core 1 Percent Calcite in Relation to Depth Below Surface

While it is not known exactly when the ditch was built, it was constructed sometime between 51 and 301 B.C. Construction took place after a period of cold, dry conditions as indicated by the increased illite percentage before the earthwork was built. The presence of water is indicated by the absence of water soluable minerals including calcite, dolomite, and possibly potassium felspar after the anthropogenic lining of the ditch was in place. The magnetic

susceptibility from this depth supports the interpretation of this period as one of environmental downturn or low sedimentation rates. The second lowest magnetic susceptibility value in Core 1,

8 x 10-8, is located in the 150 to 160 cm stratum, when ditch construction is believed to have occurred. Only a few strata closer to the surface after the low MS value, calcite becomes absent in the XRD analysis. These various proxies suggest that the ditch was being used as a water management feature as a repsonse to climatic stress.

Previous academic investigation hypothesized that the Newark Earthworks complex was aligned with cosmologic events (Horn 2010). Because of the nature of this study, the hypothesis that the earthworks at Newark represent astronomical alignments can be neither confirmed nor denied. Byers (1987) and Lepper (1996, 1998, 2010) hypothesized that the Newark Earthworks complex was ritual in nature. The XRD analysis showed the disappearance of water soluable minerals, calcite, dolomite, and potassium feldspar, after the anthropogenic lining of the ditch was in place suggesting the ditch successfully held water. It is not clear whether this water was used as a way to divide space and separate people within the Great Circle from those outside of it or as a water reservoir.

This study hypothesized that environmental degradation led to the utilization of the Great

Circle at Newark as a water management facility. Therefore, construction of the ditch and Great

Circle would be expected to occur after times of cold and dry climate conditions. In general, low

MS values are identified just before or during ditch construction. Additionally, illite and chlorite, minerals associated with cold and dry environments, have an increased relative percent before the earthwork was constructed. Whether the indigenous people living in the vicinity of the Newark Earthworks built the Great Circle and ditch as a response to environmental stress or as a way to enact a social norm, it is clear that this earthwork was a cultural adaptation.

Chapter 7: Conclusion

Indigenous people living in the Ohio valley were agents on the landscape. They built and maintained earthworks beginning at least 2800 years ago. The most impressive florescence of their building skill is represented by the Middle Woodland period (2100-1500 B.P.) and the earthen monuments constructed during this cultural period. The Newark Earthworks complex is the most stunning of all of the Middle Woodland earthen features and is the largest geometric earthwork in the world. Archaeological investigation has attempted to solve the riddle of why these earthworks were constructed for many years.

This exploratory study proposed that one explanation for monumental earthen construction was to build the Great Circle and its water-holding ditch as a water management feature in response to a cold, dry period. In order to do so, this thesis used a combination of techniques in an attempt to examine human response to environmental conditions at the Newark

Earthworks. Four cores of between 2.5 and 2.7 m in length were recovered from the ditch of

NHZDUN¶V*UHDW&LUFOHDQGanalyzed using proxies to assess environmental conditions. Analyses included taking magnetic susceptibility readings in order to determine if climate was warm and moist versus cool and dry or to assess rates of erosion. Particle size composition allowed for X- ray diffraction analysis (XRD) to determine the mineralogical composition of sediments and identify the sequence of construction at the Great Circle ditch, as well as loss on ignition in order to ascertain the organic composition of the sediments. All of the aforementioned proxies were correlated with radiocarbon dates from three of the four cores as a means of temporally situating environmental data.

Early suppositions regarding earthwork function believed that the main purpose of earthworks were as ceremonial centers. The earliest documented investigation of the Newark

earthworks was by Caleb Atwater in 1820. He and many of the first investigators held the notion that the earthworks served ceremonial functions. However, he also provided the first

GRFXPHQWDWLRQRIWKHFRQQHFWLRQEHWZHHQ1HZDUN¶V*UHDW&LUFOHDQGZDWHUIHDWXUHVE\QRWLQJ that the ditch of the Great Circle was sometimes filled with water (Atwater 1820). Other investigators of these earthworks in the 19th century believed they also served ceremonial purposes or that they were lookout points from which Native Americans could communicate with others in the surrounding area (Squier and Davis 1848; Park 1870; Smucker 1881).

More recent theories of the Newark earthworks hold that they are part of a ceremonial center joining earthworks in the Newark area with those in Chillicothe (Lepper 2006), that the earthworks are an expressions of the builders worldview (Byers 1987), and that the Newark earthworks exhibit alignments with astronomical phenomena (Hivley and Horn 1982; Horn

2010). Recent archaeological investigation in the Ohio Valley utilized XRD analysis to conclude that the Miami Fort Earthwork functioned as a water management feature. The XRD analysis undertaken as a part of this thesis suggests that the ditch of the Great Circle may also have functioned as a water management feature, as the ditch held water up until and including historic times. The function of the Great Circle is likely multilayered and may have served as a ceremonial location, an astronomical observatory, water management facility, or a multivalent combination of all of these hypotheses.

The cores used for investigation of environmental proxies were extracted using an environmental subsoil probe (ESP). The ESP was fitted with a 5.6 kg slide hammer with one meter extensions and was lined with a copolyester tube two centimeters in diameter. Sections were extracted in 90 cm increments. Once removed from the ditch, cores were returned to the lab for further processing. Core tubes were divided into arbitrary 10 cm sections and split using

a dremmel saw. Magnetic susceptibility readings were taken with a Bartington MS2E sensor.

The sensor was cleaned and zeroed between each reading. Munsell colors were recorded from each ten centimeter section. Samples were then weighed and dried for particle size analysis.

Dried samples were put through a set of nested sieves. Sediment that did not fall through a particular sieve was weighed and set aside for XRD analysis. X-ray diffraction (XRD) was performed on material that GLGQRWSDVVWKURXJK ȝPDQGȝPVLHYHV6DPSOHVZHUHSODFHG in a deionized water slurry after which sediment was removed from the top portion with a 5 mL pipette. Sediment was then pipetted onto a glass slide and allowed to air dry. Slides were prepared individually per 10 cm interval and analyzed for mineral identification. The scale utilized for sample identification was 2 to 32 theta, at 0.5 increments. After completion of XRD analysis, the threshold was set to 1.6 and peaks were identified in relation to their known spacing and 2 theta values. No specific minerals were targeted for this analysis.

The magnetic susceptibility readings from all four cores were highly variable. The lowest magnetic susceptibility value overall is 4 x 10-8 SI, and the highest is 349 x 10-8 SI. The mean for all four cores is 79.9 x 10-8 SI. While people were not living at Newark during glacial periods, the magnetic susceptibility data from the glacial period as indicated by the radiocarbon date are correlated with lowest SI value found in all four cores. The identification of a low MS value with a known glacial period supports the claim that a stratum higher up in the core (i.e. closer to the surface) AMS radiocarbon dated to 1330 ± 40 14C yr B.P. (Beta-284088), A.D. 650 to 770 (2 ʍ calibration), with a low magnetic susceptibility value reflects a cool, dry climate.

Particle size analysis allowed for the identification of four soil horizons, A, Bw, Ab, and

C. The Ab is an anthropogenic buried soil placed as a ditch lining sometime between 51 and 301

B.C. (Lepper 2004; Danzeglocke et al. 2011). The XRD results indicate that after the lining was

in place, the ditch held water for a period of time shown by the lack of calcite after a certain depth. The data suggest that the earthwork was constructed after a cold and dry period represented by low magnetic susceptibility values and increased percentages of climate sensitive minerals.

The combination suite of environmental proxies utilized in this analysis led to two important conclusions. First, climate is constantly changing expressed by the highly variable percentages of minerals identified by XRD. Second, the XRD analysis indicated that the ditch of the Great Circle was filled with water for a period of time. I believe the water in the ditch was an anthropogenic response to a cold and dry period, but it may have served a combination of purposes. Climate reconstructions from magnetic susceptibility readings indicate cyclical variability with warm, moist periods followed by cold, dry ones or periods of high erosion followed by periods of less erosion. Correlation with radiocarbon dates indicate the earthwork was constructed following a cold, dry period. The XRD analysis provides irrefutable evidence that water began ponding in the ditch of the Great Circle sometime between 51 and 301 B.C., and the ditch continued to hold ponded water until the last couple of hundred years. The data suggest that the ditch may have been a water management feature built after a cold, dry episode.

However, the ditch may have served as a social boundary separating those inside the circle from those outside. The hydraulic nature of this boundary may have added another layer of symbolism to the color delineation enacted by specific sediment placement wherein the Great

Circle appeared brown from the outside and yellow from the inside (Lepper 1996:233).

While this study has shown the utility of using proxies to reconstruct climate, a plethora of analyses remains available for further research. Further analyses could include continued

XRD analysis of other cores, more radiocarbon dates to correlate with environmental proxies,

and comparison between cores extracted from the ditch and those sediments that were not impacted by anthropogenic activities.

The Newark Earthworks Complex is one of the most visible expressions of cultural phenomena. Perhaps the most resplendent component of these works is the Great Circle. The

DQDO\VLVRIIRXUVHGLPHQWFRUHVIURPWKH*UHDW&LUFOH¶VGLWFKVXggests that this earthwork was built by indigenous people as an adaptive response to environmental stress. Additionally, the conjecture that the Newark earthworks are ritual in nature is also supported by this study. The water holding capabilities of the Great Circle ditch may have been enacted by indigenous people as a cultural adaptation to social norms. A ditch filled with water sent a symbolic message from those within the Great Circle to those outside of its boundaries. The ditch may have fulfilled one or both of these roles, but it is clear that this location was a cultural adaptation holding multiple valences for the indigenous people in the Newark area.

References Cited

Atwater, Caleb

1820 Description of the Antiquities Discovered in the State of Ohio and Other Western

States. Archaeologica Americana 1:105-267.

Ballantyne, Marianne

2009 Miami Fort: An Ancient Hydraulic Structure. MA Thesis, University of Cincinnati.

Buol, Stanley W., Southard, Randal J., Graham, Robert C., and Paul A. McDaniel

2003 Soil Genesis and Classification. Blackwell Publishing Professional, Ames.

Byers, A. Martin

1987 The Earthwork Enclosures of the Central Ohio Valley: A Temporal and Structural

Analysis of Woodland Society and Culture. Doctoral dissertation, State University of

New York, Albany.

Curtis, C.D.

1990 Aspects of climatic influence on the clay mineralogy and geochemistry of soils,

paleosols and clastic sedimentary rocks. Journal of the Geological Society 147:351-357.

Danzeglocke, U., Jöris, O., Weninger, B., 2011. CalPal-2007online. http://www.calpal-online.de/,

accessed 2011-05-08.

Dean, Walter E., Jr.

1974 Determination of Carbonate and Organic Matter in Calcareous Sediments and

Sedimentary Rocks by Loss on Ignition: Comparison with Other Methods.

Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 44:242-248.

Denevan, William M.

1992 The Pristine Myth: The Landscape of the Americas in 1492. Annals of the

American Association of Geographers 82:369-385.

Harré, Rom

1980 Social Being. Rowman and Littlefield, Totowa.

Heiri, O., Lotter, A.F., and G. Lemcke

2001 Loss on ignition as a method for estimating organic and carbonate content in

sediments: reproducibility and comparability of results. Journal of Paleolimonology 25:101-

110.

Hively, Ray and Robert Horn.

1982 ³*HRPHWU\DQG$VWURQRP\LQ3UHKLVWRULF2KLR´ Archaeoastronomy, Supplement to

Journal for the History of Astronomy 4:S1-S20.

Horn, Robert

2010 Hopewell Cosmography at Newark and Chillicothe, Ohio. In Hopewell Settlement

Patterns, Subsistence and Symbolic Landscapes, edited by A.M. Byers and D.Wymer, pp.128-

164. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Lepper, Bradley T.

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 P.J. Pacheco, pp. 224-241. Ohio Archaeological Council, Columbus.

1998 The Archaeology of the Newark Earthworks. In Ancient Earthen Enclosures of the

Eastern Woodlands, edited by R.C. Mainfort and L. Sullivan, pp. 114-134. University Press

of Florida, Gainsville.

2004 The Newark Earthworks: Monumental Geometry and Astronomy at a Hopewellian

Pilgrimage Center, in Hero, Hawk, and Open Hand: American Indian Art of the Ancient

Midwest and South, edited by Richard V. Townsend and Robert V. Sharp. Art Institute of

Chicago and Yale University Press, Chicago.

2006 The Great Hopewell Road and the Role of Pilgrimage in the Hopewell Interaction

Sphere, in Recreating Hopewell, edited by Douglas K. Charles and Jane E. Buikstra, pp. 122-

133. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

2010 The Ceremonial Landscape of the Newark Earthworks and the Raccoon Creek Valley, in

Hopewell Settlement Patterns, Subsistence, and Symbolic Landsacpes, edited by A. Martin

Byers and DeeAnne Wymer, pp. 97-127. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Lepper, B.T. and R.P. Connolly, eds.

2004 The Fort Ancient Earthworks: Prehistoric Lifeways of the Hopewell Culture in

Southwestern Ohio. Ohio Historical Society, Columbus.

Lepper, B.T. and R. 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. 175-205.

The Kent State University Press, Kent.

McLauchlan, Kendra

2003 Plant cultivation and forest clearance by prehistoric North Americans: pollen evidence

from Fort Ancient, Ohio, USA. The Holocene 13(4):557-566.

Nearing, M.A.

2001 Potential changes in rainfall erosivity in the U.S. with climate change during the 21st

century. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 56(3):229-232.

Park, Samuel

1870 American Antiquities: Read Before a Joint Meeting of the Counties of Franklin,

Muskingum, and Licking at Their Celebration of the National Anniversary Pataskala, Ohio,

O.J. Smith & Co., Terra Haute.

Romain, William F.

2000 Mysteries of the Hopewell: Astronomers, Geometers, and Magicians of the

Eastern Woodlands. University of Akron Press, Akron.

Salisbury, J. and C. Salisbury.

1862 Accurate Surveys and Descriptions of the Ancient Earthworks at Newark, Ohio.

Manuscript on file, American Antiquarian Society, Worchester, Massachusetts.

Sandgren, P. and I. Snowball

2001 Application of Mineral Magnetic Techniques to Paleolimonology. In Tracking

Environmental Change Using Lake Sediments Volume 2: Physical and Geochemical Methods.

Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp. 217-237.

Scarborough, Vernon

2003 The Flow of Power Ancient Water Systems and Landscapes. SAR Press, Santa Fe.

Scarborough, Vernon, Connolly, R, and S. Ross

1994 The Prehispanic Maya Reservoir System at Kinal, Peten, Guatamala. Ancient

Mesoamerica 5(1):97-106.

Smucker, Isaac

0RXQG%XLOGHUV¶:RUNV1HDU1HZDUN2KLRAmerican Antiquarian 3(4):261-

270.

Smith, Bruce

1989 Origins of Agriculture in Eastern North America. Science 246:1566-1571.

Squier, Ephraim G. and Edwin H. Davis

1848 Ancient Monuments of the Mississippi Valley; Comprising the Results of Extensive

Original Surveys and Explorations. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Tankersley, Kenneth B.

2007 Archaeological Geology of the Turner Site Complex. North American Archaeologist

28:271-294.

2008 The Mariemont Earthwork: A Fort Ancient Serpentine Hydraulic Structure. North

American Archaeologist 29:123-143.

Tankersley, Kenneth B. and A. Haines

2010 Was Newton a Fort Ancient Progenitor? North American Archaeologist 31:201-220.

Tankersley, Kenneth B. and J. Meinhart

1982 Physical and Structural Properties of Ceramic Materials Utilized by a Fort Ancient

Group. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 7:225-243.

Tankersley, Kenneth B. and Marianne Balantyne

2010 X-ray powder diffraction analysis of Late Holocene reservoir sediments. Journal of

Archaeological Science 37:133-138.

Verosub, Kenneth L. and Andrew P. Roberts

1995 Environmental Magnetism: Past, present, and future. Journal of Geophysical

Research 100:2175-2192.

Wymer, Deeanne

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, The Kent State University Press, Kent, Ohio.

Yuretich, Richard, Martin Melles, Brenn Sarata, and Hannes Grobe

1999 Clay Minerals in the Sediments of Lake Baikal: A Useful Climate Proxy. Journal of

Sedimentary Research 69:588-596.

Appendix A. Core 1 Magnetic Susceptibility, Loss on Ignition, and Percent Composition

Depth SI LOI 19 12.5 9.51 4.75 1.18 0.85 0.6 0.075 <0.075 (cm) (g) mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm (g) (g) (g) (g) (g) (g) (g) (g) (g)

15 77 13.82 0 0 0 0.19 0 0 0 20 1.14

25 119 17.71 0 0 0 0.41 17.45 0 0 27.83 5.76

35 126 11.91 0 0 0 0 14.09 0 0 15.46 1.17

45 102 11.58 0 0 2.8 6.12 15.04 2.21 2.97 15.8 1.66

55 16 12.93 0 0 1.57 14.87 21.34 3.9 2.61 21.23 2.26

65 45 8.66 0 2.54 0 0 13.39 3.25 4.21 26.09 2.3

75 322 9.07 0 9.32 3.75 3.83 12.03 4.22 4.51 26.4 2.28

85 131 7.05 0 5.68 5.31 4.13 7.81 1.95 1.84 17.89 1.04

125 30 13.32 0 0 5.69 8.42 9.2 2.43 2.94 25.74 2.81

135 38 5.24 35.25 0 3.01 4.42 6.15 1.73 0.83 6.97 2.05

145 195 6.26 17.18 0 1.8 2.47 13.9 2.92 2.36 15.28 1.69

155 8 6.25 0 0 2.35 11.31 9.2 1.68 2.43 12 2.18

165 35 3.62 0 0 1.21 6.75 13.97 2.48 2.7 8.84 1.53

175 45 2.29 0 10.21 5.06 9.3 14.39 2.16 1.93 5.17 1.54

195 5 0.56 0 2.07 1.8 4.17 6.7 1.82 2.62 5.98 0.44

205 7 0.53 0 4.86 0 4.31 6.57 0.63 0.51 1.19 0.44

215 21 0.78 0 0 2.55 2.33 2.54 0.4 0.53 11.09 1.33

225 16 0.71 0 0 0 0 1.14 0.16 0.4 17.05 1.73

235 12 0.93 0 3.41 0 5.32 6.55 1.11 0.86 2.9 0.23

245 63 0.26 0 11.5 8.37 4.6 6.09 0.81 0.92 2.73 0.15

255 30 0.83 0 3.74 8.97 12.31 15.96 1.96 2.12 9.46 0.96

Appendix B. Core 2 Magnetic Susceptibility, Loss on Ignition, and Percent Composition

19 12.5 9.51 4.75 1.18 0.85 0.6 0.075 <0.075 Depth LOI mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm (cm) SI (g) (g) (g) (g) (g) (g) (g) (g) (g) (g)

5 115 5.79 0 0 0 1.79 22.59 2.94 2.61 9.44 1.63

15 124 4.91 9.81 0 1.41 2.07 11.75 2.28 2.18 10.94 2.13

25 95 4.53 0 0 2.4 8.31 23.48 3.01 2.72 10.63 1.12

35 51 3.48 0 0 1.47 2.31 13.19 2.48 2.32 10.88 1.72

45 28 5.48 0 0 11.27 11.46 15.96 2.62 2.83 10.54 1.71

55 40 3.53 0 6.33 0 2.83 12 2.01 2.19 8.74 1.35

65 14 0 0 0 12.02 17.47 3.14 2.7 18.5 1.53

75 36 5.92 0 0 3.76 8.3 18.61 2.5 2.41 6.81 1.16

115 10 10.08 0 0 10.33 10.09 20.23 3.72 2.67 12.55 1.46

125 13 8.18 0 0 4.77 18.1 18.91 2.95 0 11.41 3.12

135 20 7.77 0 0 2.26 13.8 19.57 2.98 0 10.85 2.34

145 35 3.84 32.09 6.07 0.86 3.02 10.47 1.55 0 4.76 1.1

155 47 1.72 78.94 0 0 0.26 2.08 0.54 0.74 3.2 1.07

165 13 3.24 0 2.08 3.22 10.15 19.17 2.44 2.5 5.77 1.15

195 58 0.14 9.59 0 1.42 4.39 5.1 0.75 2.7 3.43 0.64

205 47 1.71 0 14.27 3.79 8.2 17.53 2.54 2.54 14.49 1.3

215 32 4.05 10.28 4.98 4.07 5.91 16.06 1.82 2.22 12.68 1.2

225 55 14.14 0 2.72 6.61 16.11 3.13 3.47 24.31 3.84

235 55 1.51 17.68 3.46 1.95 3.86 13.44 3.1 2.83 17.28 3.93

245 75 10.61 0 0 6.26 17.73 51.82 10.9 10.08 34.05 0

Appendix C. Core 3 Magnetic Susceptibility, Loss on Ignition, and Percent Composition

19 12.5 9.51 4.75 1.18 0.85 0.6 0.075 <0.075 Depth LOI mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm (cm) SI (g) (g) (g) (g) (g) (g) (g) (g) (g) (g)

5 95 10.49 0 0 0 2.54 12.36 3.78 2.52 12.33 4.93

15 104 11.39 0 0 0 1.86 24.1 5.19 4.33 14.89 6.51

25 130 12.37 0 0 0 4.37 25.45 5.58 4.06 14.56 4.64

35 94 0 0 0 5.97 28.69 5.27 4.2 15.15 5.04

45 45 7.32 0 13.1 8.73 9.43 20.41 4.42 4.53 22.77 6.06

55 53 7.22 0 0 7.96 5.31 20.08 3.59 3.53 17.21 5.28

65 52 9.91 0 0 0 9.86 36.82 8.01 7.29 28.44 3.41

75 62 5.97 0 0 0 23.54 38.07 7.58 5.73 20.4 3.9

115 97 9.56 0 3.6 1.8 8.97 33.35 6.98 5.53 22.66 3.34

125 164 11.99 0 0 4.9 18.8 38.31 6.73 6.28 25.82 3.84

135 96 10.21 0 0 0 14.07 38.69 7.64 5.37 18.59 5.87

145 61 8.7 0 4.04 1.34 10.28 25.54 4.28 3.45 20.05 6.71

155 60 7.83 0 6.87 0 8.62 31.88 6.62 5.94 26.34 5.96

165 174 5.63 18.66 3.92 4.47 17.97 25.32 3.77 2.62 13.32 2.89

195 77 5.62 0 0 12.41 14.14 32.94 5.52 4.98 26.41 3.56

205 26 7.09 0 0 0 2.48 34.87 9.87 8.45 47.18 2.87

215 136 6.2 0 8.33 14.62 29.2 42.84 6.22 5.81 27.24 3.02

225 31 4.89 0 0 13.32 26.8 42.1 7.11 5.96 29.16 3.18

235 102 7.71 0 4.9 3.24 32.51 52.33 7.43 6.21 21.74 2.72

245 20 5.3 0 0 3 14.44 64.82 10.2 6.38 18.27 3.89

255 116 4.15 0 0 4.25 17.32 48.01 8.42 7.82 42.71 2.04

265 130 3.57 0 12.94 3.13 16.26 26.68 4.69 4.84 22.14 3.04

Appendix D. Core 4 Magnetic Susceptibility, Loss on Ignition, and Percent Composition

19 12.5 9.51 4.75 1.18 0.85 0.6 0.075 <0.075 Depth LOI mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm (cm) SI (g) (g) (g) (g) (g) (g) (g) (g) (g) (g)

5 124 11.4 0 0 0 4.93 18.01 3.85 3.79 16.48 3.65

15 59 10.95 0 0 0.88 10.66 27.94 6.16 5.14 19.60 4.09

25 115 9.74 0 0 0 7.40 34.07 5.53 3.70 15.67 4.46

35 135 8.79 0 0 0 11.86 32.55 5.76 4.21 16.79 5.48

45 141 9.73 0 0 0.97 5.05 27.33 5.02 4.42 25.80 7.85

55 127 17.21 0 3.26 2.38 4.68 23.03 4.95 4.49 25.52 4.18

65 102 9.35 0 0 0 3.34 21.54 3.65 3.31 17.41 7.48

75 74 5.2 0 0 3.10 5.19 15.60 3.64 3.29 11.44 2.24

105 96 10.34 0 0 3.04 10.99 34.89 8.27 7.1 26.17 4.24

115 65 5.27 0 11.99 7.83 20.33 28.97 4.14 3.23 11.53 2.02

125 125 9.76 0 0 5.02 13.4 36 6.23 6.02 22.15 3.74

135 188 7.63 0 9.08 6.11 19.96 30.1 5.5 5.31 22.93 3.83

145 91 7.37 0 11.46 9.85 21.05 31.65 6.06 6.25 24.96 3.84

155 157 8 0 3.78 14.7 21.83 29.09 3.88 4.49 15.45 3.44

165 69 10.58 0 5.18 8.83 18.22 38.6 5.68 6.47 29.15 5.26

175 127 4.57 0 0 0 9.48 18.83 3.13 3.16 11.93 2.46

195 47 3.05 0 3.36 3.18 9.09 10.45 1.6 1.54 4.27 1.03

205 349 9.42 0 14.19 7.81 21.06 29.25 3.75 3.64 10.65 1.98

215 104 10.34 0 7.51 2.86 24.17 35.76 4.89 4.53 16.51 4.84

225 98 8.19 0 7.35 3.58 14.61 29.75 4.46 3.74 15.95 2.81

235 4 6.14 0 0 2.99 10.04 38.52 7.11 5.68 19.42 2.34

245 14 7.63 0 2.87 1.28 20.12 39.47 6.43 6.39 43.53 2.7

255 69 6.04 0 11.31 6.8 17.13 37.67 5.74 4.9 29.76 3.94

265 154 2.19 0 0 1.53 11.2 17.05 2.06 1.91 17.82 1.56

Appendix E. Core 1 Munsell Colors and Horizon Descriptions

Depth (cm) Stratum Munsell Description

15 A Black Poorly sorted gravelly silty sand

25 A Very dark brown Poorly sorted gravelly silty sand

35 A Very dark brown Poorly sorted silty sand

45 Bw Very dark brown with specks of yellowish brown Poorly sorted silty gravelly sand

55 Bw Very dark brown with specks of yellowish brown Poorly sorted silty gravelly sand

65 Bw Very dark brown mottled with yellowish brown Poorly sorted silty gravelly sand

75 Bw Yellow and dark yellowish brown Poorly sorted silty gravelly sand

85 Bw Dark yellowish brown Poorly sorted silty gravelly sand

125 Ab Strong Brown Poorly sorted silty gravelly sand

135 Ab Brownish yellow and dark yellowish brown Poorly sorted silty sandy gravel

145 Ab Brownish yellow and dark yellowish brown Poorly sorted silty gravelly sand

155 C Strong Brown, and brown Poorly sorted silty gravelly sand

165 C Yellowish brown and brown Poorly sorted silty gravelly sand

175 C Brownish yellow and brown Poorly sorted silty sandy gravel

195 C Yellowish brown and dark yellowish brown Poorly sorted silty gravelly sand

205 C Yellowish brown and dark yellowish brown Poorly sorted silty sandy gravel

215 C Gray Poorly sorted silty gravelly sand

225 C Gray Poorly sorted silty sand

235 C Light yellowish brown and gray Poorly sorted silty gravelly sand

245 C Light yellowish brown Poorly sorted silty sandy gravel

255 C Yellowish brown and light yellowish brown Poorly sorted silty gravelly sand

Appendix F. Core 2 Munsell Colors and Stratum Descriptions

Depth (cm) Stratum Munsell Description

5 A Very dark grayish brown Poorly sorted silty gravelly

sand

15 A Very dark grayish brown Poorly sorted silty gravelly

sand

25 A Gray Poorly sorted silty gravelly

sand

35 A Grayish Brown Poorly sorted silty gravelly

sand

45 Bw Dark grayish brown mottled with yellow and very Poorly sorted silty gravelly

pale brown sand

55 Bw Dark gray mottled with yellow and yellowish brown Poorly sorted silty gravelly

sand

65 Bw Dark grayish brown mottled with very pale Poorly sorted silty gravelly

brown sand

75 Bw Dark grayish brown mottled with dark yellowish Poorly sorted silty gravelly

brown sand

115 Bw Very dark gray mottled with yellow and red Poorly sorted silty gravelly

sand

125 Bw Dark gray Poorly sorted silty gravelly

sand

135 Bw Dark gray mottled with yellowish brown Poorly sorted silty gravelly

sand

145 Ab Very dark gray mottled with yellow and red Poorly sorted silty sandy gravel

155 Ab Yellow mottled with light gray and brown Poorly sorted silty sandy

gravel

165 Ab Reddish brown Poorly sorted silty gravelly

sand

195 C Light olive brown Poorly sorted silty sandy

gravel

205 C Light olive brown Poorly sorted silty gravelly

sand

215 C Dark grayish brown Poorly sorted silty gravelly

sand

225 C Brown mottled with dark yellowish brown and Poorly sorted silty gravelly

dark grayish brown sand

235 C Pale yellow Poorly sorted silty gravelly

sand

245 C Pale yellow Poorly sorted gravelly sand

Appendix G. Core 3 Munsell Colors and Horizon Descriptions

Depth (cm) Stratum Munsell Description

5 A Dark brown Poorly sorted gravelly silty sand

15 A Very dark grayish brown Poorly sorted gravelly silty sand

25 A Very dark grayish brown Poorly sorted gravelly silty sand

35 A Very dark grayish brown Poorly sorted silty gravelly sand

45 Bw Dark grayish brown Poorly sorted silty gravelly sand

55 Bw Dark grayish brown Poorly sorted silty gravelly sand

65 Bw Dark grayish brown mottled with yellowish

brown Poorly sorted silty gravelly sand

75 Bw Grayish brown mottled with yellowish brown Poorly sorted silty gravelly sand

115 Bw Very dark grayish brown mottled with

brownish yellow Poorly sorted silty gravelly sand

125 Bw Grayish brown mottled with yellowish brown Poorly sorted silty gravelly sand

135 Bw Brown mottled with brownish yellow Poorly sorted silty gravelly sand

145 Bw Brown mottled with brownish yellow Poorly sorted silty gravelly sand

155 Ab Brown mottled with brownish yellow Poorly sorted silty gravelly sand

165 Ab Brown mottled with pale yellow and strong

brown Poorly sorted silty gravelly sand

195 Ab Light olive brown mottled with pinkish white Poorly sorted silty gravelly sand

205 C Light olive brown Poorly sorted silty gravelly sand

215 C Reddish yellow mottled with brownish yellow,

light gray, and black Poorly sorted silty gravelly sand

225 C Light yellowish brown mottled with dark gray Poorly sorted silty gravelly sand

235 C Light yellowish brown mottled with strong Poorly sorted silty gravelly sand

brown and light gray

245 C Yellowish brown mottled with strong brown Poorly sorted silty gravelly sand

and very dark gray

255 C Light yellowish brown mottled with gray Poorly sorted silty gravelly sand

265 C Light yellowish brown and pale yellow Poorly sorted silty gravelly sand

Appendix H. Core 4 Munsell Colors and Horizon Descriptions

Depth (cm) Stratum Description

5 A Black Poorly sorted silty gravelly sand

15 A Very dark grayish brown Poorly sorted silty gravelly sand

25 Bw Very dark grayish brown Poorly sorted silty gravelly sand

35 Bw Dark grayish brown mottled with brown Poorly sorted silty gravelly sand

45 Bw Reddish brown Poorly sorted gravelly silty sand

55 Bw Brown mottled with black and yellowish Poorly sorted silty gravelly sand

brown

65 Bw Dark grayish brown mottled with brown Poorly sorted gravelly clayey silty

sand

75 Bw Very dark grayish brown mottled with Poorly sorted gravelly silty sand

yellow

105 Ab Black mottled with very dark grayish brown Poorly sorted silty gravelly sand

and light yellowish brown

115 Ab Dark brown mottled with black and brownish Poorly sorted silty gravelly sand

yellow

125 Ab Dark yellowish brown mottled with yellow Poorly sorted silty gravelly sand

135 C Yellowish brown mottled with light Poorly sorted silty gravelly sand

yellowish brown

145 C Olive brown mottled with brownish yellow Poorly sorted silty gravelly sand

and light brownish gray

155 C Light olive brown mottled with gray and Poorly sorted silty gravelly sand

yellowish brown

165 C Light yellowish brown Poorly sorted silty gravelly sand

175 C Olive yellow mottled with yellow Poorly sorted silty gravelly sand

195 C Light olive brown mottled with brownish Poorly sorted silty gravelly sand

yellow and light yellowish brown

205 C Olive brown mottled with pale yellow Poorly sorted silty gravelly sand

215 C Brownish yellow mottled with very dark Poorly sorted silty gravelly sand

grayish brown and brownish yellow

225 C Yellowish brown mottled with dark Poorly sorted silty gravelly sand

yellowish brown and dark gray

235 C Light yellowish brown mottled with pale Poorly sorted silty gravelly sand

yellow and very dark gray

245 C Yellowish brown Poorly sorted silty gravelly sand

255 C Brownish yellow mottled with light gray Poorly sorted silty gravelly sand

265 C Brownish yellow mottled with light gray Poorly sorted silty gravelly sand