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 iv 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. v 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 vi 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 ««««««««««««««««« ix 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 x 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«««««««« xi 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