University of Cincinnati

Home , Celt (tool), Mann Site

U UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI

Date:

I, , hereby submit this original work as part of the requirements for the degree of:

It is entitled:

Student Signature:

This work and its defense approved by:

Committee Chair:

Approval of the electronic document:

I have reviewed the Thesis/Dissertation in its final electronic format and certify that it is an accurate copy of the document reviewed and approved by the committee.

Committee Chair signature: Hopewell Resource Collection:

A Paleoethnobotanical Perspective of Twin Mounds

A Thesis submitted to the Graduate School

in partial fulfillment of the

MASTER OF ARTS

From the Department of Anthropology

University of Cincinnati

College of Arts and Sciences

Brian G. Lane

B.A. Aquinas College, May 2007

Committee:

Kenneth B. Tankersley, Chair

Vernon L. Scarborough

David L. Lentz

July 2009 ABSTRACT

In the past five decades, studies of the Hopewell Interaction Sphere have focused on long distance resource procurement as exemplified by artifacts made from obsidian, copper, silver, and marine shells. The Hopewell Interaction Sphere includes broad expanses of eastern North America and the Great Plains and dates approximately from

2100 years B.P. to 1500 years B.P. In recent years, two interpretative extremes in assessing resource selection have arisen: (1) exotic materials dominate Hopewell artifact assemblages, or (2) most of the artifact assemblages evaluated is local in origin. A close examination of distinctive Hopewell artifacts recovered from the Twin Mounds site that

dates to 2030 ± 40 B.P. reveals that most of this ancient material was obtained locally.

Plant fibers used to create two Hopewell textiles were identified as Asclepias incarnata

and Eryngium yuccifolium. Palynological data from the region was reviewed to

determine local availability of these plants and the results suggest that the local

environment was suitable for their growth and procurement.

ii iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Completion of this project could not have been possible without the funding to

Dr. Kenneth B. Tankersley from John and Georgia Court, the Court Family Foundation, the Charles Phelps Taft Foundation, and the University of Cincinnati Research Council.

The Hamilton County Park District was also instrumental to the completion of this work.

My thanks go to Necti Kaval in the Department of Chemistry for assisting with the electron microscopy imaging. Aid and support from Don and Lisa Lane, Marianne

Ballantyne and Claire Hamburg were indispensible to the completion of this work. The

guidance and encouragement of Drs. Kenneth B. Tankersley, David L. Lentz, and Vernon

L. Scarborough made this all possible.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract……………………………………………………………………….…….ii

Listing of Figures……………………………………………………………….…..vii

Listing of Tables…………………………………………………………………....viii

Chapter 1: Introduction……………………………………………………………..1

Hopewell Interaction Sphere………………………………………………..1

Exotic and Nonlocal Exploitation…………………………………………..3

Local Resource Exploitation……………………………………………...... 4

Hopewell Paleoethnobotany and Textile Research…………………..…….5

Chapter 2: Site Background………………………………………………………....8

Site Location…………………………………………………………………8

Site Importance……………………………………………………………...9

Early Investigations………………………………………………………....9

20th Century Investigations…………….…………………………………..10

2008 Investigations………………………………………………………...14

Chapter 3: Hopewell Textiles………….…………………………………………...18

Plant Fiber Identification……...……………………………………………18

Methodological Background……………………………………………….20

Chapter 4: Identification Methods….……………………………………………....21

Documentation……………………………………………………………...21

Structural Analysis………………………………………………………….22

Electron Microscopy………………………………………………………..22

Comparative Collection……………………………………………….…….22

Chapter 5: Paleoethnobotanical Identifications……………………………………..25

Breastplate…………………………………………………………………...25

Celt…………………………………………………………………………...29

Chapter 6: Paleoenviornment of Middle Woodland Southwestern Ohio…...……...34

Silver Lake…………………………………………………………………..35

Stage’s Pond………………………………………………………………...35

Cliff Palace Pond……………………………………………………………36

Jackson Pond………………………………………………………………..36

Hopewell Environment……………………………………………………..37

Chapter 7: Discussion ……………………………………………………….………38

Textile Structures….………………………………………………………...38

Asclepias incarnata………………………………………………………….40

Eryngium yuccifolium……………………………………………………….43

Copper ……………………………………………………………………….46

Bear Canines………………………………………………………….……..47

Beads………………………………………………………………….……..48

Summary……………………………………………………………….……49

Chapter 8: Conclusions………..……………………………………………….……50

References Cited……………………………………………………………….…….54

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Location of Shawnee Lookout Archaeological District and sites mentioned

Figure 2: Celt and breastplate recovered from Twin Mounds in 1971

Figure 3: (from left to right) Breastplate sample 1, Breastplate sample 2, Celt sample 1,

Celt sample 2, and Celt sample 3. Images were taken at 10x magnification

Figure 4: Details of the breastplate textiles

Figure 5: EDS results of the breastplate textile

Figure 6: Comparison of Asclepias sp. (left) to archaeological material from the Twin

Mounds breastplate (right)

Figure 7: Detail photographs of the front and back of the celt from Twin Mounds

Figure 8: EDS results from the celt textile

Figure 9: Comparison of modern Eryngium yuccifolium fibers (left) and mineralized

fibers from the Twin Mounds celt (right)

Figure 10: Locations of palynological cores around southwestern Ohio

vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Itemized Table of Cremation Remains

Table 2: Associated Artifacts with the Twin Mounds Burial

Table 3: Middle Woodland Radiocarbon Dates in the Central Ohio River Valley

Table 4: List of Fiber Plants Utilized in Textiles in the Eastern Woodlands

Table 5: Structural Measurements from the Textiles of Twin Mounds

Table 6: List of Taxa of Shawnee Lookout in the Asclepiadaceae and Apiaceae Families

viii

Chapter 1:

Introduction

The hallmark of the Hopewell Interaction Sphere has long been the use and exchange of exotic raw materials formed into a series of characteristic styles and motifs (Caldwell 1964;

Seeman 1979). The ease at which material types have historically been labeled as nonlocal belies the complexity of the situation. Misidentification and reliance on traditionally accepted sources of material as established by Caldwell (1964) and Seeman (1979) have shaped Hopewell studies to this day. It cannot be denied that exotic materials are an important aspect of the

Hopewell Interaction Sphere, but the degree and frequency in which exotic materials were traded and relied upon in an economic context no longer holds up to scrutiny.

To determine the extent of local versus nonlocal resource exploitation, close examination of artifact assemblages from Hopewell sites should be inspected to determine the actual range of material collection. Further clues to resource exploitation can be gained through the analysis of botanical remains, a practice that has traditionally been widely overlooked in Hopewell resource studies. Applying this frame to the items recovered from Twin Mounds, a characteristic

Hopewell mortuary site reveals an alternative view of resource collection and exploitation.

Hopewell Interaction Sphere

The term Hopewell is used to capture the shared traits found in religious, ceremonial, mortuary, and economic aspects of the various local groups that lived in the Eastern Woodlands during the Middle Woodland period (2100-1500 years BP). Decades of research have focused on the “Hopewell Interaction Sphere” to describe the broad interregional aspect of the time

period. Recent studies have attempted to bring to light more localized aspects of economic need

and the conditions that drove groups to interact on a wider scale (Carr 2005).

Caldwell (1964) was the first to apply the concept of interaction spheres to Hopewell

studies. Prior to the application of the concept of interaction spheres, Hopewell was seen as

many things, including a culture, episode, phase, style, and civilization in order to describe the

many similarities that were seen in material culture and mortuary customs. The Hopewell

Interaction Sphere was described as many small traditions that were brought together under a

large shared tradition that visually manifested in shared styles, motifs, and mortuary customs

(Caldwell 1964: 138).

Various regional traditions were drawn together by aspects of a shared material culture.

The region that was encompassed by the Hopewell Interaction Sphere stretches from the Great

Lakes region of southern Ontario to the Gulf Coast and east from the Great Plains into the

Appalachians, with concentrations through Central Ohio to Illinois. Within this vast space,

Caldwell drew a variety of cultures and societies across eastern North America together into a wider perspective.

Markers of the Hopewell Interaction Sphere that appear in the archaeological record include a suite of artifacts that have varying distribution across the Eastern Woodlands, traditionally thought to be made from nonlocal materials and designs. Artifacts that are characteristic of Hopewell interaction in both socially significant burials and altar contexts include platform pipes, silver, copper earspools, breastplates, celts, bear canines, pearl beads, marine shell, and mica effigies (Byers 2004; Seeman 1979). In any region within the Hopewell

Interaction Sphere, this combination of artifacts would represent an amalgamation of both local and nonlocal resources being acquired and utilized. Explanations for such a broad reaching

2 network have ranged from wide trade networks based on economic need, long distance acquisition of knowledge as a symbolic journey, exchange networks amongst elite groups, pilgrimages, and quests in search of visions or power (Carr 2005).

Exotic and Nonlocal Exploitation

Focus on the exotic materials that represent the Interaction Sphere that Caldwell described became the mainstay for Hopewellian studies. The exotic materials represented an expansive economic and ideological network based on trade. This thinking dominated thought to the point where it was viewed that the smaller traditions that Caldwell mentioned were dependent upon the trade network for economic reasons.

Continuing this thinking, Seeman (1979) expounded upon the breadth and variety of exotic materials. He detailed a list of 34 artifacts that are characteristic of Hopewell, the majority of which are concentrated at sites in Ohio and Indiana. Most of the artifacts on

Seeman’s list are made up of materials that he also attributed as a product of long distance trade, e.g., copper, silver, marine shells, grizzly bear canines, obsidian, and meteoric iron. He further claimed that the Hopewell Interaction Sphere represented an increase in the interaction between groups as well as higher degrees of interdependence (Seeman 1979: 240).

The framework, initiated by Caldwell and continued by Seeman, interprets the expansive network as mainly serving economic functions. Taken at face value, the amount of trade that would be required to cover the substantial area within the Hopewell Interaction Sphere would have been a significant investment. This network would require incredible amounts of energy and manpower to bring the raw materials from the point of origin to the intended site, while leaving little or no evidence of the material between the two locations.

Justification for an extensive network such as Caldwell and Seeman describe was

attributed to economic interdependence. This can be likened to the interdependence that we see

in the 21st century, where regions and nations are linked together through economic trade for

necessary raw material. The biggest difference is that the Hopewell Interaction Sphere began

2000 years ago and relied on foot and river transportation. Though the Hopewell Interaction

Sphere was described as interdependence between groups, Seeman (1979) gives little

justification for the economic need past the acquisition of exotic material for ceremonial and

mortuary items.

Local Resource Exploitation

The long history of investigating Hopewell at an interregional level has often focused on

locating sources of exotic materials (Carr and Case 2005). Often heavy minerals (e.g., copper,

silver, and iron), obsidian, and marine materials are the most enticing materials to source. These resources have specific source locations often hundreds of kilometers away. Though there is little doubt about the range of interaction that took place, often studies have shown that stylistically distant patterns and heavy mineral resources could be produced and obtained on a local level (Ruby and Shriner 2005; Tankersley 2007).

Studies of the ceramics at the Mann site in southern Illinois, a site well known for the amount of exotic material, have identified that the vast majority of materials were produced locally (Ruby and Shriner 2005). The majority of ceramics were first identified as originating from the southeastern United States based on the unique stylistic patterns. Under close scrutiny, the mineral composition of the clay in the ceramics was linked to local sources within a few days travel from the Mann site.

Recent investigation at the Turner site in southwestern Ohio have brought to light that

significant deposits of copper in glacial gravel and sand beds have been known to exist for more

than a century (Tankersley 2007). Seeman (1979: 293) acknowledged the existence of such

deposits of copper and silver in glacial deposits but quickly dismissed the idea of resource

collection from these sources. Instead, Seeman decided that the copper found at Hopewell sites

was collected from primary sources in the Great Lakes region and were products of long distance

trade.

Subsistence studies of the Hopewell Interaction Sphere have also determined that

collection and cultivation of local resources comprised the Hopewell diet (Wymer 1993).

Lacking effective preservation methods and reliance on seasonal movement for food sources

eliminates any idea of dependence on nonlocal subsistence resources.

Carr (2005) has provided a framework that examines the long distance exchange that

occurred in the Hopewell Interaction Sphere as an exchange of knowledge, ideas, and prestige

through travel. This focus represents a shift from an emphasis on material goods to an interest in

intangible materials such as ideas and values, and it goes beyond the more economic relationships that exotic materials inherently represent. When reexamined, items that have

traditionally been associated with long distance trade networks are identified as having local

sources, a reevaluation of the purpose of exchange is warranted.

Hopewell Paleoethnobotany and Textile Research

Investigations of resource collection in the Eastern Woodlands during the Hopewell

episode have left perishable materials relatively unexamined. A unique opportunity to examine

plant resource collection, independent from subsistence practices were presented by a pair of

textiles preserved due to an association with copper artifacts. Utilizing a combination of

analytical methods, the fibers of each textile were identified to species and used as a reference

for a look into the paleoecology of the region to determine the local availability of the plant

resources.

Previous paleoethnobotanical studies concerning interregional interaction have been

limited to economic plant species associated with subsistence practices (Wymer 1993, 1996).

The lack of study is not without good reason. Preservation of plant remains can often be

problematic in the Eastern Woodlands, where conditions for preservation are quite limited and

circumstantial.

Hopewell textiles have many hurdles to overcome to even survive to the present day, as

they are among the most perishable artifacts. In the Ohio Valley textiles are preserved by either

carbonization (Church 1984; Thompson and Simon 2008), rapid burial in alkaline soils that

prevent decomposition (Thompson and Simon 2008), being left in dry caves or rock shelters

(Dellinger 1936; Gordon and Keating 2001; Shetron 1928), or by close contact with copper or

silver artifacts (Chen et al. 1998; Church 1983, 1984; Lee and Vickery 1972; Wimberley 2004;

Wymer 2004).

In the study of textiles of the Eastern Woodlands, there is often little attempt to go beyond a description of the structure and a general categorization of the materials used (Chruch

1983, 1984; King 1978; Miner 1936; Thompson and Simon 2008; Wimberley 2004). With the importance that Hopewell studies placed on the material from which status items are made, it would be remiss to ignore such a visible marker of social identity as a textile. Textile studies

have advanced in the past century, from a time when many were destroyed to make other

artifacts more presentable for collection (Webster and Drooker 2000; Wymer 2004).

There are various established methodologies for the analysis and identification of plant fibers that rely on the use of light microscopy and electron microscopy (Good 2001; Goodway

1987; Gordon and Keating 2001; Jakes 2000; Jakes et al. 1994). By utilizing these methods, it is possible to determine which species were used in the creation of the Twin Mounds textiles.

Through the examination of paleoenvironmental data from the pollen record of the surrounding area, a clear picture is created to determine the local availability of the plant resources. Through an analysis of paleoethnobotanical and other remains, this thesis provides an alternative perspective on local versus nonlocal resource collection as related to the Hopewell Interaction

Sphere.

Chapter 2:

Site Background

The purpose of this chapter is to introduce Twin Mounds as the location of this study. A brief description of the site and surrounding area is provided, inclusive of a review of previous

investigations in the area highlighting the importance of Twin Mounds.

Site Location

Twin Mounds is located within the bounds of the Shawnee Lookout Archaeological

District, a National Register Archaeological District in southwestern Ohio (Figure 1). The

District is adjacent to the Kentucky and Indiana borders at the confluence of the Great Miami and Ohio Rivers. It is known that the area within Shawnee Lookout has a rich history dating as far back as Paleoindian times, as is evidenced by two Clovis points that were found at the nearby

DuPont site and a third recovered in 2008 by the University of Cincinnati field school (Dalbey

2007; Tankersley 2008).

Twin Mounds and its associated eastern and western habitation sites are located on a ridgetop that is roughly centered in the protected lands. Less than a kilometer away from Twin

Mounds, Miami Fort sits atop an escarpment overlooking the confluence of the two historically significant rivers and their floodplains. Miami Fort is a hilltop enclosure of earthworks with several closely associated mounds and earthworks.

Site Importance

To determine local availability of Hopewell resources, a site and an artifact assemblage that reflect the characteristics of the Hopewell Interaction Sphere is required. According to distribution maps by Seeman (1979), concentrations of characteristic Hopewell artifacts are found along major river ways in Ohio, Indiana and Illinois. Any site that falls within the Middle

Woodland period in this region would be ideal for an analysis of Hopewell resource exploitation.

An optimal site that fulfils these requirements is Twin Mounds. Its location and a secure date to the early Middle Woodland place it well within the bounds of the Hopewell Interaction

Sphere. Additionally an artifact assemblage with preserved textiles was recovered in 1971, and originally attributed as products of the Hopewell Interaction Sphere (Lee and Vickery 1972).

Due to its proximity to the large hilltop enclosure of Miami Fort and a variety of other registered sites, Twin Mounds is used as a reflection of a characteristic Hopewell site in terms of occupation and economy.

Early Investigations

As far back as 1795, Miami Fort and nearby earthworks were noted by European travelers and explorers (Morrow 1907). Nearly half-a-century later, located in his backyard,

William Henry Harrison (1838) described and mapped in detail Miami Fort as a fortification used by the ancient natives. Further investigations into Miami Fort and the surrounding area were subsequently continued with additional mapping and detailed accounts (Squire and Davis

1848; Fowke 1902; Whittlesey 1871).

20th Century Investigations

Starr (1960, 1963) described Miami Fort and the surrounding archaeological sites in

Shawnee Lookout, at a time just prior to and immediately following the acquisition of the land by the Hamilton County Parks District. Investigations and field schools from the University of

Cincinnati investigated and further documented many of the sites in the archaeological district

(Fischer 1965, 1966, 1968, 1969, 1970). The 1965 and 1966 field seasons headed by Fred

Fischer directly investigated the hilltop enclosure of Miami Fort. Excavations inside the enclosure uncovered several middens, hearths, and storage pits.

Figure 1: Location of Shawnee Lookout Archaeological District and sites mentioned (Adapted from Ballantyne 2009).

In order to assist the park district in their planning, Fischer (1968) conducted a broad survey of archaeological sites within the park. In conjuncture with Fischer’s investigation, an engineering and architecture firm was hired to conduct an aerial photo mapping survey to aid in documenting the archaeological sites within the park boundaries (Benedict et al. 1968). Between

both investigations, more than 40 archaeological sites were identified within the borders of

Shawnee Lookout, as well as a handful that remained outside of the park’s protection.

Fischer (1969, 1970) then turned his investigations towards Twin Mounds and their

associated village site. The village site was divided up into the eastern and western habitation

areas. Located within the Eastern Habitation zone a large Late Archaic cemetery was identified and partially excavated. A greater emphasis was placed on the excavations in the Western

Habitation zone, which dates to the Middle Woodland period. These excavations uncovered the remains of a central structure within the site, which was described as a habitation structure

(Fisher 1970).

Since the original excavations, the habitation zones of Twin Mounds have been studied several times over the past decades. In 1972, Lee completed his work on the eastern habitation zone, an attempt at comparing Twin Mounds and other local sites to determine a patterned use of sites in the area based on seasonality.

Rebecca Hawkins-Bennett conducted a detailed ceramic analysis and typological study

(1986; Hawkins 1992, 1996). The ceramics from Twin Mounds Village West were the largest collection of Middle Woodland ceramics in the Lower Miami region. The study of these ceramics focused on recreating a typology for Middle Woodland pottery with a more substantial collection as the basis. Through the typological study it was determined that there was a cultural horizon in the western habitation zone between Early and Middle Woodland periods (Bennett

1986).

Kaltenthaler (1992) analyzed the lithic debitage from the western habitation zone.

Specifically looking at the debitage associated with the possible house structure, a typological analysis was preformed. Special attention was focused on tool production, spatial-patterning,

and internal vs. external lithic activities of the house structure. It was determined that lithic

production was performed away from the central structure.

Direct investigations at the Twin Mounds site culminated in a test excavation by students from the University of Cincinnati during the 1971 salvage program at the nearby Headquarters site (Lee and Vickery 1972). Although it was known that the mounds had been looted in 1966, a controlled test excavation was placed at the center of the mound group. The excavation came down directly on top of the central tomb containing a fragmentary cremation (Table 1). Among the associated grave goods (Table 2) were a copper breastplate and a copper celt (Figure 2), each wrapped in partially mineralized and preserved textile, drilled bear canines, cord marked pottery,

Ohio pipestone, and beads made from marine shell (Lee and Vickery 1972).

Table 1: Cremation Remains

Part of Body Number of fragments Weight (g) Comments

Occipital 1 9.50 Burned Occipital / Parietal 1 8.61 Burned

Parietal 1 1.94 Some copper mineralization

Cranial 9 15.31 4 with copper staining

Parietal (posterior) 1 3.51 Copper stains

Mandible 1 3.78 Burned

Femur 1 1.17 Burned

Sacrum 1 6.38 Burned

Proximal Phalanx 2 1.48 Burned

Humerus 3 14.87 Burned

Humeral errata 10 20.91 1 copper stained

Table 2: Associated Artifacts with the Twin Mounds Burial

Measurements (cm) Artifact Weight (g) Comments Length Width Thickness

Originally thought to be Bone Bead 0.62 1.1 0.7 0.8 pipestone Breastplate 388.84 Preserved textiles 28.7 14.15 0.2

Celt 702.1 Preserved textiles 15.40 8.1

Drilled Bear Canine 8.14 Ocher pigment 8.3 2.1 0.6

Drilled Bear Canine 7.32 6.7 2.05 0.6

Drilled Bear Canine 6.59 7.1 4.01 0.59

Drilled Bear Canine 6.97 Well polished 6.6 1.9 0.7

Drilled Bear Canine 2.61 Isotopic analysis 3.5 1.8 0.6

Drilled Bear Canine 2.96 AMS dated 4.15 1.7 0.6

Drilled Bear Canine 5.56 Well polished 6.5 1.95 0.7

Drilled Bear Canine 7.46 7.1 2.2 0.6

Drilled Bear Canine 11.82 8.05 2.9 0.95

Drilled Bear Canine 9.45 Ocher pigments 7.1 2.85 0.7

Shell Bead “Bracelet” 4.00 13 Beads 0.87* -- 0.62*

Shell Bead “Bracelet” 5.36 15 Beads 0.95* -- 0.64*

*Mean measurements per individual bead

In the Headquarters site report, it was noted that the ceramics recovered from Twin

Mounds village and the Headquarters site shared striking stylistic similarities with the artifacts recovered from the Twin Mounds, these similarities securely placed them within the “Hopewell

Interaction Sphere” (Lee and Vickery 1972). Since their recovery, the textiles and other

associated artifacts have remained relatively undocumented and unexamined.

2008 Investigations

In 2008, a field school from the University of Cincinnati headed by Kenneth Tankersley

placed a series of excavation units, with a combined area of 29m2, at the base of the Twin

Mounds (Tankersley 2008). The excavations revealed a disturbed midden along the north side of

the mound group. A diverse mixture of lithics and ceramics representing time periods from

Paleoindian to Middle Woodland were uncovered. Other investigations by the 2008 field school

focused on Miami Fort and used a combination of x-ray diffraction and magnetic susceptibility

to demonstrate that Miami Fort was an elaborate hydrological system used to maintain and control the water supply (Ballyntine 2009; Tankersley 2008).

Tankersley (2008) submitted for AMS radiocarbon dating a drilled bear canine associated

with the burial uncovered in 1971. A date of 2,030 + 40 years before present (calibrated at 2

Sigma to BC 160-AD 60), which securely placed Twin Mounds within the range of dates from

other Hopewell sites in the region (Table 3).

Figure 2: Celt and breastplate recovered from Twin Mounds in 1971.

Table 3: Middle Woodland Radiocarbon Dates in the Central Ohio River Valley ______

Site Name References Radiocarobon Dates Calibrated Date

Location Years 14C BP Calendar Years

(2 Sigma) 1

______

Arrowhead Farm Mocas 1976, 2965 + 175 (UGa 677) BC 1538 - BC 802

Jefferson Co. KY Railey 1990 1285 + 70 (UGa 699) AD 635 - AD 894

920 + 245 (UGa 678) AD 631 - AD 1454

Hansen Ahler 1987 2750 + 70 (Beta 14577) BC 1056- BC 796

Greenup Co. KY 2710 +60 (Beta 14576) BC 997 - BC 795

2460 + 70 (Beta 15085) BC 769 - BC 406

1770 + 90 (Beta 15111) AD 53 - AD 436

1630 + 100 (Beta 15510) AD 213 - AD 638

1630 + 90 (Beta 15082) AD 222 - AD 618

1520 + 60 (Beta 14573) AD 423 - AD 642

1510 + 70 (Beta 15084) AD 416 - AD 652

410 + 80 (Beta 155509) AD 526 - AD 775

1400 + 70 (Beta 155512) AD 533 - AD 776

1360 + 70 (Beta 14575) AD 548 - AD 783

Leonard Haag Reidhead 1976, 1910 + 225 (Gx 2929) BC 399 - AD 596

Dearborn Co. IN 1981 1835 + 150 (Gx 2928) BC 167 - AD 537

1670 + 100 (Dic 242) AD 132 - AD 582

1300 + 100 (Dic 241) AD 569 - AD 903

Turner Greber 2003 1850 + 50 (Beta 145866) AD 53 - AD 259

Hamilton Co. OH Tankersley 2007 1790 + 50 (Beta 133996) AD 125 - AD 381 16

1780 + 50 (Beta 145867) AD 128 - AD 384

1740 + 50 (Beta 133998) AD 208 - AD 412

1710 + 50 (Beta 133995) AD 211 - AD 433

1650 + 50 (Beta 133997) AD 319 - AD 537

Jennison Guard Blosser 1996 1810 + 70 (Wis 1746) AD 66 - AD 388

Dearborn Co. IN 1800 + 70 (Wis 1744) AD 72 - AD 392

1660 + 70 (Wis 1745) AD 232 - AD 557

1660 + 70 (Beta 67622) AD 232 - AD 557

Miami Fort Hawkins 1996, 1680 + 130 (Mi 1869) AD 77 - AD 617

Hamilton Co. OH Vickery 1996

Turpin Drooker 1997, 1320 + 20 (Wis 1750) AD 656 - AD 713

Hamilton Co. OH 2000, 1155 + 245 (UGa 4486) AD 406 - AD 1296

Oehler 1973 1140 + 40 (Wis 1749) AD 800 - AD 987

1. After Stuiver and Reimer (2002) and Remier et al. (2004)

Chapter 3:

Hopewell Textiles

Exotic materials often overshadow botanical remains from Hopewell sites. This oversight has left a gap in the information available concerning Hopewell resource selection. At

Twin Mounds, similar to other Hopewell sites, the textiles in question are closely associated with the copper artifacts they covered. It has long been accepted that the copper was the product of long distance trade. The question that remains is whether or not the textiles themselves should

also be considered exotic materials.

Prior works examining archaeological textiles in the Ohio Valley have had a wide range

of goals and methods. Whitford (1943) examined and compiled a wide-ranging study on the

variety of fiber plants utilized in pre-Columbian North America. Among his list of plants for the

Eastern Woodlands were species from several wide spread genera such as Asclepias

(milkweeds), Andropogon (bluestem grasses), Apocynum (dogbane), Betula (birch), Juglans

(walnut), Ulmus (elm), and Urtica (nettles). Recent studies of archaeological textiles have tended to focus on structural and technological aspects of construction (Church 1983, 1984; King

1978; Miner 1936; Thompson and Simon 2008; Watson 1969; Wimberley 2004) or stylistic characteristics of the textiles (Baldia et al. 2008; Webster and Drooker 2000).

Plant Fiber Identification

Identification of the plant species that comprise the textiles from Twin Mounds will determine the environmental conditions that were needed for their growth. These data, in

conjunction with available palynological data, will describe the local environment during the

Middle Woodland period and determine the plants’ local availability.

Few textile studies have attempted to make solid identifications of the plant material used

in fabrication or detail the identification process used. Damage to a textile’s structure and

material components is inherent in its use. This damage can occur from several sources at the

time the raw material is harvested until the textile is recovered by archaeologists (Jakes et al.

1994; King 1978). The methods used for retting the plants can cause damage to the fibers that

can leave them beyond recognition (Jakes et al. 1994). Retting is a process of controlled rotting

that involves soaking the fibers to free them from the stem. The means of material preservation is

an added factor when looking at damage through the life history of an object. Association with

copper, carbonization, desiccation, and water logging will affect the raw fiber in a variety of

ways that may obscure or prevent accurate description and identification (King 1978).

These complex situations have led some researchers to believe that faunal and vegetal

fiber identification is nearly impossible in many cases due to physical properties of the fibers, or

in situations where degradation has taken its toll (Goodway 1987; King 1978). Attempts to

understand the morphological changes that can occur from the time of manufacture to the present have found productive means of identifying fibers. Good (2001) calls for multiple analytical methods in order to be able to identify the raw materials. Studies dealing with larger sample sizes, that contain a wider variety of materials, have made basic categorical identifications that only determine if it is a botanical or faunal origin (Wymer 2004).

Methodological Background

Several important methods have been applied in the identification of plant fibers. Most

of these methods tend to focus on morphological comparisons in addition to chemical and

elemental testing. Light microscopy has been praised for its simplicity and low cost to the

researcher and has been utilized in several successful studies (Goodway 1987; Gordon and

Keating 2001; Jakes 2000). Electron microscopy enables the researcher to get highly detailed

images of the plant fibers, and it allows for the description of the surface morphology as well as the damage that the fibers have suffered through use and preservation (Chen et al. 1998; Jakes

2000; Jakes et al. 1994; King 1978; Thompson and Simon 2008). In addition to electron

microscopy, use of X-ray elemental analysis can provide important information about dyes used

and other compounds associated with the fibers and though the information is not enough to

make an identification alone, it does provide additional information (Jakes 2000; King 1978).

In addition to the visual and elemental tests, it is important to have a working knowledge

of botany and plant structure. As with any paleoethnobotanical work, it is necessary to have

access to a comparative collection from which morphological comparisons can be made. Gordon

and Keating (2001) and Jakes et al. (1994) exemplified this aspect of the identification process

through the building of collections specifically for the research of textiles and dyes.

Chapter 4:

Identification Methods

Identification of the plant species that were utilized in these textiles was a key element in determining the local availability of the plants. To secure an identification of the plant species used in each textile, the highest degree of imaging accuracy was necessary. Electron microscopy was selected for the identification process due to the degree of detail that the images reveal about the fiber morphology and because of the small sample size.

At the beginning of this investigation each copper artifact was closely examined for preserved textiles, with attention given to locations where fibers had broken off or loosened. To reduce the amount of damage to the textile during sampling, the samples were removed from these weakened locations and mounted for examination under both the light and electron microscopes.

Documentation

Images of the breastplate and celt were taken with a Nikon D90 digital camera mounted on a copy stand. Both front and back of each artifact were imaged at varying locations and magnification. Special interest was given to locations that retained any preserved textiles.

Additional images of the textiles were taken with the digital camera mounted on an Olympus binocular light microscope at magnifications of 7.5x to 50x.

Structural Analysis

Examination of the structure of each textile was done under a binocular dissecting scope at 8x to 50x magnification, with a fiber optic illuminator. Detailed measurements of each of the textile samples were taken after a combination of the methods detailed by Wimberley (2004) and

Church (1984). Each measurement was taken at least six times wherever possible, with a pair of metric calipers measuring to the nearest 0.1mm. Each set of measurements was then averaged.

Electron Microscopy

Electron micrographs and the energy dispersive analysis of X-rays (energy dispersive spectroscopy) were recorded with a Phillips XL30 ESEM with an EDAX medial attachment.

Due to some severe mineralization caused by the copper, five textile samples were taken to increase the chances of identification. Two samples were taken from the breastplate and three from the celt. After the textile samples were mounted for imaging, they were photographed under the light microscope for documentation (Figure 3). The samples were then imaged by

ESEM at low vacuum, and elemental dispersive spectroscopy readings were taken with EDAX for each individual sample to determine what elements were still present in each sample. Gold coating for conductivity was then applied to each sample for higher resolution imaging at high vacuum. SEM images at high vacuum were taken multiple times at charges ranging from 10kV to 25kV for the highest resolution possible.

Comparative collection

A list of likely plant fibers was compiled based on plant characteristics provided by Jakes et al. (1994) and Whitford (1943) (Table 4). A selection of the most likely candidates was

22 collected from the University of Cincinnati Herbarium. Fibers were retted and mounted for comparative imaging in the electron microscope. Specific characteristics that were looked for were fiber size, lumen size, and general surface morphology.

Figure 3: (from left to right) Breastplate sample 1, Breastplate sample 2, Celt sample 1, Celt sample 2, and Celt sample 3. Images were taken at 10x magnification.

Table 4: List of Fiber Plants Utilized in Textiles in the Eastern Woodlands (from Jakes et al.

1994; Whitford 1943)

Taxon Common Name

Andropogon furcatus Big bluestem

Apocynum cannabinum Indian hemp

Apocynum androsaemifolium Spreading dogbane

Asclepias syriaca Common milkweed

Asclepias incarnata Swamp milkweed

Asclepias tuberosa Butterfly weed

Asclepias pulchra Swamp milkweed

Eryngium yuccifolium Rattlesnake master

Morus rubra Red mulberry

Urtica dioica Slender nettle

Chapter 5:

Paleoethnobotanical Results

This chapter looks at the results of the paleoethnobotanical investigation of the textiles.

An initial description of each artifact is followed by a structural analysis of each textile.

Elemental analysis is briefly examined in order to determine the means of preservation and use of possible dyes before describing the identification of the plant species.

Breastplate

Measuring 14.15 cm in height and varying in width from 28.70 cm at the top and 26.70 cm at its base and weighing 388.84 grams, the breastplate from Twin Mounds is similar to other

Hopewell breastplates in size and shape. Similar to other copper preserved textiles, the ionization of the copper in the soil has preserved the fibers and over time created

“pseudomorphs” of the textile that were buried along with the cremation (Chen et al. 1998).

Textiles can be observed on the obverse side of the breastplate in the lower right and lower left corners (Figure 4). The majority of the textiles are pseudomorphs of the original, but some unmineralized material can still be observed in the middle of the left-hand side of the breastplate.

According to Emery (1980) the structure of the textile is classified as spaced-single- strand-weft-twining. This style is characterized by a single warp with a paired weft that “enclose successive units of the opposite set [the warp], one at a time” (Emery 1980:196). The mean number of warps per centimeter was 10.8, and the mean number of wefts 7.8. Gaps between the warps were on average 0.33mm wide, and gaps between the wefts were on average 0.87mm wide

(Table 5). This spacing represents a relatively tight construction of the textile.

Figure 4: Detail images of the breastplate textiles.

Individual elements of the warps and wefts were made of spun plant fibers. The main warp elements were a common Z-twist and averaged 0.62mm in diameter. The main elements of the wefts however were a spun S-twist that averaged 0.65mm in diameter. In construction the paired wefts were twined around the warp in a Z-twist.

Figure 5: EDS results of the breastplate textile

The elemental analysis of the breastplate textile revealed no unusual elements. C, O, and

Cu were recorded as the most prevalent elements in the sample, confirming that the breastplate is produced from copper and that much of the remaining textile has been at least partially mineralized despite its initial appearance. Other trace elements detected such as Fe, Mg, Ca, S,

Al, and Sl are most likely a result of traces of the soil matrix that are still adhering to the textile samples and the copper artifacts (Figure 5). However, the presence of Fe in the samples may be an indication of trace amounts of red ocher still adhering to the textile. Red ocher was a known dye and is also found on two of the bear canines associated with this burial.

Careful comparisons between the textile samples and the known plant fibers indicated that the main component fibers in the breastplate textile were from the genus Asclepias (Figure

6). Fibers in the known sample from Asclepias (milkweeds) and the textile both range in size from about 20μm to 25μm. Images showing the size of the fibers’ lumen were not obtained or compared with the selected samples. However surface morphology of the textile fibers and those of Asclepias incarnata share a number of distinguishing characteristics in addition to similar size that allow for a confident identification. The fiber nodes in A. incarnata and the textile appear in similar regularities and sizes. Similar nodes in the textile sample have been worn down and are more difficult to see than the more robust nodes of the fresh plant fibers of the comparison samples. Since they appear in similar localities, regularities, and morphologies it is determined that the breastplate textile’s main component is A. incarnata.

Figure 6: Comparison of Asclepias incarnata (left column) to archaeological material from the Twin Mounds breastplate (right column)

Table 5: Structural Measurements from the Textiles of Twin Mounds

Mean Diameter (mm) Mean Gap Size (mm) Warps per cm Wefts per cm Thread Warps Wefts Warps Wefts

Breastplate 10.8 7.8 0.46 0.62 0.65 0.33 0.87

Celt* 7.8 8.4 0.68 0.68 0.48 0.33 0.43

*Due to mineralization measurements may be reduced from original sizes

Celt

Heavier than the breastplate, the celt weighs 702.10 grams. At its greatest length it is

15.4 cm. At the head it is 8.1 cm in height and at the butt it tapers down to 4.8 cm. The celt is mostly covered in textile remains, leaving little of the metal surface exposed. Unlike the breastplate, the cloth is found abundantly on both sides of the celt (Figure 7). Due to the close association with the celt during interment, the fabric has been mostly replaced by the copper minerals, leaving a pseudomorph with small deposits of the original fibers interspersed.

Identification of the construction and raw material was made more difficult due to this extreme case of mineralization. Wymer (2004) also makes mention of a lower quality of preservation and higher levels of mineralization in textiles specifically associated with copper celts at other

Hopewell sites.

Close examination reveals that the textile is constructed using a plain oblique interlacing.

As Emery (1980:62) points out, oblique interlacing in its simplest form is just like a “standard three-strand braid.” This construction leaves very little differentiation between warp and weft, as the elements are composed of the same threads. Per centimeter, there are on average 7.8

Figure 7: Detail photographs of the front and back of the celt from Twin Mounds.

warps and 8.4 wefts. The average gap size left between the interlacing of the warps was 0.33

mm and the average gap between the wefting elements was 0.43 mm (Table 5).

Individual elements of the textile were loosely spun using a Z-twist. Mean size of the wefting elements was 0.48 mm. The mean size of the warps was 0.68 mm. A separate measurement of random thread elements had a mean width of 0.68 mm as well.

Figure 8: EDS results from the celt textile

Elemental analysis of the textile samples from the celt showed the same dominance by

the three elements Cu, O, and C, again confirming the high degree of mineralization through

copper association. It is noteworthy to mention that the levels of C were noticeably lower than

those from the breastplate samples and the percentage of Cu was dramatically higher, showing

the extreme case of mineralization and confirming the additional degradation to the fiber

morphology (Figure 8). This seems to be an indication of the greater degree of mineralization

that the celt textiles have gone through as opposed to the samples from the breastplate, a finding

that is common with celts from larger studies of copper associated textiles (Wymer 2004).

Background elements from the soil in the celt samples were similar to those seen on the breastplate samples as well.

The fibers were obscured by surface deposits of minerals due to the level of mineralization that the textile has undergone, most surface structures and morphological characteristics. Chen et al. (1998) describe the mineralization process as stabilizing the cellulose structure of the fibers, and thus stabilizing its structure until complete degradation or complete replacement by mineralization.

It was determined that the fibers in the textile sample most likely came from a plant with parallel veined leaves. When images were compared to the most likely monocot Andropogon furcatus (big bluestem) however, they did not match up. The only other plant that had parallel veins and was collected for fiber was Eryngium yuccifolium (rattlesnake master). Many of the fibers in the textile samples were splayed open exposing the smaller fibril bundles. Under close investigation it was determined that the fibers from the celt had an average fiber diameter of 20-

25 μm, identical to the reference fibers taken from E. yuccifolium. Rib structures in the fibers of the textile sample and similar rib structure in the comparison sample of E. yuccifolium were photographed at high magnifications (Figure 9). Precise measurements were taken of the mineralized rib structures from the celt fibers, revealing that they were 2.7 μm wide. When the exposed rib structures of E. yuccifolium were measured they averaged a width of 2.6 μm. Based on these data it was determined that the plant fiber used in the textiles associated with the celt was from E. yuccifolium.

Figure 9: Comparison of modern Eryngium yuccifolium fibers (right) and mineralized fibers from the Twin Mounds celt (left).

Chapter 6:

Paleoenviornment of Middle Woodland Southwestern Ohio

An examination of the environmental conditions of 2,000 B.P. was made to assess the local

availability of the species used in the manufacture of the Twin Mounds textiles. Palynological

studies are often used to aid in the reconstruction of a past environment and climate (Shane et al.

2001). Changes in vegetation through time in a region are demonstrated by observing shifts in the represented species.

Preservation of pollen in chronological sequence generally requires permanent bodies of slow moving or standing water or nonseasonal wetlands. Within the surrounding 125 kilometers of Twin Mounds, many bodies of water satisfy these criteria. They are geologically recent arrivals, since the last glaciations, and subject to change due to infilling of lakes and shifting water courses. As a result no pollen cores have been extracted in the immediate vicinity of Twin

Mounds that are capable of securing chronological control or the time depth necessary for reconstructing the environment during the Middle Woodland period.

However, four suitable sites for palynological information in the greater region were used to examine the environmental conditions over the last two thousand years (Figure 10). The

nearest site is about 125 km away from Twin Mounds, and the furthest is more than 230 km.

These locations are capable of showing the vegetation and climate trends that existed at the

edges of the region that encompasses southwestern Ohio. General characteristics of the center of

this region are determined by the uniformity that each of these sites share.

Silver Lake

Silver Lake began accumulating pollen by at least 11,000 years BP. It is located 125 kilometers north of Twin Mounds in central western Ohio. Palynological study of the 9 meter core showed five distinct post-glacial vegetational strata. Around 3,600 years BP, a xerothermic episode is evident in the pollen record based on a shift from warm-moist conditions that relate to a slight decrease in oak-hickory pollen and an increase in nonarboreal species. The strata also represent the extension of the prairie peninsula into Indiana, Ohio, and Kentucky (Ogden 1966).

This xerothermic shift also represents a drier climate throughout the region.

Figure 10: Locations of palynological cores around southwestern Ohio (imagery from Google Earth)

Stage’s Pond

Northeast 170 km of Twin Mounds is Stage’s Pond. Two pollen cores have been extracted from this location that shows the vegetation history of the region throughout the

Holocene. The late Holocene (from 4,000-200 B.P.) is broken into two distinct portions that

differentiate themselves around 2,000 years B.P. (Shane et al. 2001). At the beginning of this

stage, there is an initial increase in the nonarboreal species that indicate the extension of the

prairie peninsula and “complex open vegetation” (Shane et al. 2001: 34). Mixed Oak-Hickory forests appear to have a strong presence in the region through the entirety of the late Holocene, even through the decline of the nonarboreal species sometime after 2,000 years B.P.

Cliff Palace Pond

Cliff Palace Pond in Jackson County, Kentucky, is at an archaeological site within the

Daniel Boone National Forest on the western edge of the Cumberland Plateau, approximately

170 km to the south of Twin Mounds. Occupation at the site dates back at least 8,000 years BP, and the pond itself evidences of anthropogenic modifications in the form of a sandstone lining

(Delcourt et al. 1998). Based on this core, at a time around 3,000 BP a decline in cedar is observed and an increase in the oak-hickory forest type as well as other fire adapted species.

High concentrations of charcoal in the sediment core indicated that frequent ground fires began at this same level. A combination in the shift of forest types, frequent burning episodes, and an increase in pollen, indicate local forest openings coinciding with the xerothermic event and the forestry/agricultural practices of the Middle Woodland population (Delcourt et al. 1998).

Jackson Pond

A sediment core from Jackson Pond, 230 km southwest of Twin Mounds, shows changes in vegetation for the past 20,000 years. The pond is located on the eastern extent of the “Big

Barrens”, an anthropogenic extension of the prairie peninsula maintained by annual fires

(Chester et al. 1997). This pollen core shows that starting 3,900 years ago, there was an influx of

grass pollen and other prairie indicators, demonstrating the expansion of the prairie into the east

(Wilkins et al. 1990). The complete composition of the region around Jackson pond, as indicated by the pollen evidence, shows a slight shift from oak-willow forests to a mixture of mixed oak- hickory forest and prairie.

Hopewell Environment

In each of the study areas, a shift that incorporates both Oak-Hickory forest types as well as optimal conditions for grasses and prairie species is observed. After examining the pollen profiles around southwestern Ohio, it is safe to say that the region was dominated by similar conditions, i.e., a drying trend, with local variability.

Based on the data from the pollen records (Delcourt et al. 1998; Ogden 1966; Shane et al.

2001; Wilkins et al. 1990), the region around the confluence of the Great Miami River and the

Ohio River was comprised of oak-hickory deciduous forests but with a drying trend that would have allowed for the encroachment of prairies in well-drained soils. E. yuccifloium would have thrived in these open prairie areas. Knowing that there was a substantial human population in the area as well it is also likely that brush fires were used to promote local cultigens in creating

isolated tracts of forest openings that would attract plants that thrive in disturbed areas, such as

A. incarnata.

Chapter 7:

Discussion

This chapter presents a review of the paleoethnobotanical and archaeological records for

A. incarnata and E. yuccifolium, in addition to a review of the artifact assemblage from Twin

Mounds. All raw materials in the assemblage are examined through the frame of local versus nonlocal availability in order to discover the choices made by Hopewell groups.

Aspects of the textiles and the method by which they were preserved will be looked at in terms of distribution at other Hopewell sites, as well as the raw materials that were exploited. In addition to determining the local availability, the choices made in construction of the textile will be examined for indicators of economic and social capital. These aspects are factors that are closely tied to the use of the textiles and question of local or nonlocal exploitation.

Textile Structures

In previous studies it has been shown that there can be a variety of construction styles in

Hopewell textiles, especially those associated with mound burials; commonly being a variation of twining (Church 1983, 1984; Wimberley 2004; Wymer 2004). In the study of textiles from three sites, Church (1984) lists oblique interlacing as representing 8% of the sample and spaced single-strand weft twining as 6.5% of the total sample. Wimberley (2004) found similar results in an examination of seven Hopewell sites in the Scioto area. Oblique interlacing accounted for

6% of the sample and simple spaced weft-twining accounting for just over 1%. This indicates that the two fabric structures encountered at Twin Mounds are not common construction patterns, but have been acknowledged at other Hopewell sites.

According to the measurements of both textiles (Table 5), it is evident that both fabrics were tightly constructed. Small gap spaces between the warps and wefts as well as the individual threads having been spun indicate a greater investment of time into the construction of the materials. Additionally, the complex construction and time necessary for the harvesting, retting, boiling, and spinning of the individual threads from both textiles reveal that these items were made carefully and at great investment from the owner, possibly representing several weeks of preparation and work.

Similar to the textiles found at other Hopewell sites, those from Twin Mounds represent a great labor and time allocation by those that worked the material into a cohesive fabric. As

Church (1984) mentions labor investment in the creation of such fabrics would only be accessible by a select few members of the community. Labor investment along with the textiles’ association with the copper artifacts indicate that the individual that was cremated and interred in

Twin Mounds represents an individual that possessed a significant amount of social, political, and economic capital in Hopewell society. Wimberley (2004) points out that the textiles and copper objects represent a set of non-utilitarian grave goods that were associated with those individuals who had access to such processed raw materials. This follows the idea that copper plates and other copper objects were associated with a particular prestige group in Hopewell society (Greber 1979).

It is important to remember that the textiles that are often preserved and recovered through association with copper artifacts are not representative of the full range of textile technology available to Hopewell people. Wimberley (2004) points out that known structures associated with copper are only a small fraction of the total number of types likely employed by

Middle Woodland peoples. Not only are these items associated with a particular high status

39 echelon of society, but they also represent a specific context of ceremonial life and are often associated with other grave goods that have their own unique demarcations of status (Table 2).

Asclepias incarnata

From the Asclepiaceae family, the swamp milkweed is a common plant of bottomlands, moist disturbed areas, and well and lit moist meadow/prairie areas. A. incarnata generally stands just over a meter tall with small pinkish flowers that later yield heads of small hairy seeds.

Common throughout the Eastern North America, it is no surprise that it thrives in southwestern

Ohio (Cooperrider 1995). In the vascular plant list for Shawnee Lookout Park, created by the

Hamilton County Park District, A. incarnata is one of four species of Asclepias known to be represented in the park (Table 6).

Based on the palynological evidence, the environmental conditions at the time would allow for a strong presence of A. incarnata in the region around Twin Mounds. The moist river valleys and bottomland settings that are found in and around Shawnee Lookout would have provided optimal conditions. Additionally, if the open areas were burned to promote the growth of cultigens, this would have provided additional localities for the swamp milkweed to thrive.

With many locally available sources for collecting this plant, there would have been no impetus to acquire it from distant localities.

It has long been established that members of the genus Asclepias were used as a fiber source in prehistoric North America (Dellinger 1936; Jakes et al. 1994; Moerman 1998; Shetrone

1928; Whitford 1943). Preserved fishing nets, partially prepared cordage, and completed cordage made from A. incarnata have been found in several rock shelters and caves throughout the Ohio area (Shetrone 1928). Wimberley (2004) also indicates the possible use of milkweeds

40 in her study of a large sample of Hopewell textiles from the Scioto Valley. The utilization of A. incarnata in prehistory has been documented. However the use of swamp milkweed in the fine textile from Twin Mounds is an uncommon occurrence.

Table 6: List of Taxa of Shawnee Lookout in the Asclepiadaceae and Apiaceae Families

(adapted from Hamilton County Park District 2008)

Family Taxon Common Name

Asclepiadaceae Ampelamus albidus Sandvine

Asclepias incarnata Swamp milkweed

Asclepias syriaca Common milkweed

Asclepias tuberosa Butterfly weed

Apiaceae

Chaerophyllum procumbens Spreading chervil

Conium maculatum Poison hemlock

Cryptotaenia canadensis Honewort

Daucus carota Queen Ann’s lace

Osmorhiza claytoni Sweet cicely

Osmorhiza longistyllis Sweet cicely

Pastinaca sativa Wild parsnip

Sanicula canadensis Canada snakeroot

Sanicula gregaria Clustered snakeroot

Further documentation of use by native groups of the Eastern Woodlands comes from ethnographic sources. Groups such as the Ojibwa, Iroquois, Menominee, Delaware, and other related tribes are all documented as having utilized A. incarnata in various roles (Lyford 1945;

Herman 1950; Moerman 1998). In addition to the many instances of fine strings and cordage, in fishing nets, and fiber in wampum belts, A. incarnata has been documented as a medicine for various maladies. Moerman (1998) in his work compiling Native American plant uses listed swamp milkweed as having been utilized by the Iroquois and Ojibwa, using infusions of the root as a medicine associated with giving strength to the body or aspects of the body. The

Menominee were also documented as using the heads of the plant as an additive in stews.

With the many instances of A. incarnata in the archaeological and ethnographic record, it is not surprising to identify it in a Hopewell setting. Preparing the fibers for use required harvesting sufficient quantities of the plant and retting the fibers through boiling before finally twisting the fibers into thin cordage. A. incarnata easily thrived near the Ohio and Great Miami rivers and their many associated streams and floodplains. This location created an abundant and easy to collect source of swamp milkweed near Twin Mounds.

Not knowing the size of the textile when it was originally made, or the degree of degradation associated with any possible dyes or patterns worked into the completed fabric, makes it impossible to determine the amount of time required to complete the work.

Nevertheless, to find such fine cordage at all as the only visible material from a finely made textile does suggest a significant time and energy investment into the completed work.

Abundant supplies of swamp milkweed in the region and its apparent common usage suggest that

A. incarnata as a raw material was available to the whole of the region’s population, when and wherever time and energy was available for preparation.

Evidence indicates that A. incarnata was widely available throughout the area and presented itself as a commonly used resource. The interesting aspect is the time investment that would have been necessary to create the covering textile. It is possible that other such textile material with fine construction was also linked to status.

Eryngium yuccifolium

Rattlesnake master, button eryngo, and button snake root are common names for E.

yuccifolium, a plant in the Apiaceae family that likes moderately moist to dry acidic soils and a

lot of sunlight. It thrives in prairie settings and is noted as a subdominant prairie species occurring in many natural tall-grass prairies as far away as eastern Ohio and generally accepted as a true prairie species (Flores 2001; Wistendahl 1975). It is also capable of growth in forest clearings with plentiful sunlight, meadows, and disturbed places that have the appropriate soils.

Trent (1938) lists the modern distribution of E. yuccifolium in North America as east of the 98th

meridian. In Ohio, native status likely originated from the encroachment of the tall-grass prairie sometime following the Wisconsin glaciations having left small ‘relic colonies’ interspersed throughout the state of Ohio (Gleason 1922; Jones 1944). According to the Hamilton County

Parks District, no occurrence has been documented in Shawnee Lookout Park, despite it being a native plant in Hamilton County (Table 5).

Drier climates and the encroachment of the Prairie Peninsula, as spurred on by the xerothermic event sometime in the first millennium BC, presented optimal conditions for E.

yuccifolium (Ogden 1966). In addition to the occurrence of deliberate land clearing episodes through burning, many growth opportunities were available to rattlesnake master within a

43 suitable area around Shawnee Lookout. With these optimal conditions, E. yuccifolium would have been available at a local level and commonly utilized for its fibers.

Some may argue that conditions in the immediate vicinity of Twin Mounds may not have been conducive to the growth of one or both of the plant species; however it is known that

Hopewell settlement patterns were based on seasonal rounds (Byers 2004). Regular seasonal movement to different localities undoubtedly increases the chances of encountering the raw materials needed. This would also provide a great enough quantity of raw material for the fabrics, and it would still be produced at a “local” level. Knowing that conditions within the bounds of this seasonal movement allowed for the growth of both A. incarnate and E. yuccifolium, there is little doubt that the materials were gathered by the same group that utilized

Twin Mounds.

E. yuccifolium is documented archaeologically throughout the Eastern North America.

Shetrone (1928) in his description of various rockshelters and caves in Ohio mentions rattlesnake master identified at Kettle Hill as braided rope and heavy cordage. At Ozark Bluff rockshelter in

Missouri, Dellinger (1936) mentions it identified in braided and plaited cordage used in baby cradles as well as in sandals. Further identification of E. yuccifolium in sandal construction comes from Salts Cave, Kentucky, where six sandals were found containing rattlesnake master as the predominant material in construction (Gordon and Keating 2001). All of these occurrences prompted the plant’s inclusion in the comparative collections put together by Jakes et al. (1994).

In the ethnographic record, documentation of E. yuccifolium is found in groups that originated in the Eastern Woodlands and the Southeast. The majority of uses that are listed for the Cherokee, Seminole, and Meskwaki revolve around medicinal applications, almost

44 exclusively the root (Moerman 1998). Many of the medicinal uses focus on its use as an antidote for poisons as well as snakebite remedies. Ceremonial use of the plant is also listed in connection with ceremonial medicinal dances and songs for the treatment of snakebite.

In the archaeological record it is not uncommon to find E. yuccifolium used as a fiber source in cordage construction. It is interesting to note that none of the ethnographic descriptions indicate rattlesnake master as a fiber resource. The textile covering the Twin

Mounds celt is interesting because of E. yuccifolium’s use in a fabric as opposed to cordage or footwear. Many similarities are shared with swamp milkweed; both have been relatively undocumented as major components in fabrics, generally being described as cordage and other non-textile based uses.

The occurrence of E. yuccifolium is further interesting due to the requisite amount of raw material needed for construction of a tightly made textile as that covering the celt. No large stand of the plant currently exists within the bounds Shawnee Lookout Park, but it is still documented as a native species within Hamilton County. As indicated by the palynological evidence, the past environment of southwestern Ohio during the Middle Woodland was conducive to the growth of E. yuccifolium. With Twin Mounds located at the confluence of two major river systems, it is unlikely that there was a single stand of rattlesnake master that supplied all of the material for the recovered textile. In all likelihood, the plant was available in abundance within a day’s walk of the site.

Although most ethnohistoric listings for E. yuccifolium are concerned with medicinal use, the archaeological record indicates a reliance on the plant for fibers used in cordage and textiles.

The Twin Mounds celt textile demonstrates yet another use of the fiber that goes beyond cordage

45 and footwear to possible status related fabrics. Without knowing the textiles original size and shape, its function will remain unknown.

Copper

Of the metal resources that are found in Hopewell context, copper is the most prevalent.

Of the many products made from copper, celts required the largest amount of the raw material to fabricate (Bernadini and Carr 2005). Based on frequency and distribution at other Hopewell sites, copper artifacts have been suggested to symbolically convey specific social information concerning group membership and social or religious ranking within Hopewell groups. Celts and headplates are shown to denote roles of leadership within the community, and breastplates and earspools are most likely an indication of membership within well-defined social groups

(Carr 2005). The burial at Twin Mounds represents an individual of high status seen as a leader of a specific social group that existed during BC 160-AD 60.

Copper was integral to the preservation of the textiles and is a hallmark of the Hopewell

Interaction Sphere, and it has long been thought to be the product of long distance exchange.

The acquisition of copper has traditionally implied a trade network, or long distance travel of some socially significant purpose, as the nearest accessible copper was believed to be in northern

Michigan or in eastern Tennessee.

However, as mentioned by Seeman (1979: 293) and most recently by Tankersley (2007) in his work on the Turner site, locally available deposits of copper are found in the sand and gravel beds that were laid down by receding glaciers. Seeman quickly discounts these deposits as the primary source of copper due to the intensity in which it was utilized in the Hopewell

Interaction Sphere.

Interestingly the concentration of copper artifacts within the Hopewell Interaction Sphere is found from central Indiana through Ohio and into western Pennsylvania. This region was also the area subject to the Wisconsin glaciation, which deposited the heavy mineral resources noted by Tankersley (2007). If it is the case that the copper resources were harvested from the gravel beds, then the implication of regular long-distance trade networks become reduced to less frequent journeys made for alternative reasons. The hypothesis that copper was not acquired through long distance exchange but locally manufactured also can be supported by the fact that many exotic materials are rarely found in contemporary sites located between the source and the artifact (Carr 2005). It is expected that the material would not simply travel from its origin point to a distant location without also being found between the two locations.

It is more likely that the copper is harvested from local deposits in the bottomlands along major drainages. According to distribution maps by Seeman (1979), copper artifacts that require substantial amounts of copper are concentrated along the Ohio and Scioto rivers in Ohio and along the Mississippi River in Illinois with little to no occurrences in the Great Lakes region.

The only other major occurrences of copper artifacts appear further south closer to the copper deposits in Tennessee. All major areas where copper artifacts are found in great densities sit on top of a region that has locally available copper.

Bear Canines

There is a long history of attributing bear canines found at Hopewell sites from the grizzly bear, and as such, products of long-distance exchange (Seeman 1979: 301). This identification is due to an overlapping range in size between the grizzly and black bears and a

47 virtually identical morphology. It is speculated however, that the majority of canines found in the Eastern Woodlands are from the native black bear, Ursus americanas.

Average crown size of the female black bear canine is 2.1-3.3 cm (Powell et al. 1997).

At Twin Mounds, the average length of the crown is 3.2 cm, near the top of the size range of the black bear. Prior to European incursion, the black bear was native to nearly all of North America

(Powell et al. 1997). The distribution of the black bear far outreached that of the grizzly, which is still restricted to an area west of the Great Plains. The likelihood that an available local resource would have been passed over is unlikely. It is logical to suggest that the canines from

Twin Mounds are that of the local black bear, and not products of long-distance exchange.

Beads

Two types of bead were found in Twin Mounds. The single bone bead cannot be attributed to a specific species and identification of the shells used in the “bracelets” has yet to be conclusively determined. Either locally available river mollusks were harvested or larger marine mollusks were brought from the coastal regions.

The argument for marine shell was made by Seeman (1979: 352), stating that the majority of shell beads that are attributed to the Hopewell Interaction Sphere are of sufficient size to rule out the smaller river mussels. Additionally, there is a well-supported ethnohistoric component to marine shell trading.

Of the near 300 species of freshwater bivalves in North America, a little less than half are found in the waterways of Ohio (Sanders 2001). Many of the species are capable of growing more than 12cm in length. Several of these freshwater bivalves are capable of shell thickness in excess of 1cm (Grier 1922). The beads found at Twin Mounds were at their on average 0.64 cm,

well within the range of freshwater species, making Seeman’s argument of thickness

uncorroborated.

Summary

Examination of the artifact assemblage from Twin Mounds has revealed that the only

possible exotic materials were the shell-beads. The textiles, breastplate, celt, and bear canines

were all locally available, and constructed within the region. In the case of Twin Mounds, the

majority of characteristic Hopewell Interaction Sphere artifacts reflect a suite of well-known and locally available materials.

Chapter 8:

Conclusions

Close reassessment of the artifact assemblage from Twin Mounds was performed to determine the range of Hopewell resources exploitation. Hopewell studies have long described

characteristic materials as products of long-distance exchange in order to justify the shared

motifs and customs. It has long been accepted that exotic materials were widespread throughout

the Hopewell Interaction Sphere, but the high degree of exoticism that was championed by

Caldwell and Seeman is not supported by the findings of this study.

Hopewell was first viewed as an Interaction Sphere in the 1960s (Caldwell 1964). This

was an attempt to justify the shared similarities in customs and material culture that spread

across eastern North America. An extensive listing of characteristic artifacts and styles was

established, many of which were considered exotic materials from long-distance exchange

(Seeman 1979). It has been argued that the advent of the Hopewell Interaction Sphere indicated

a greater reliance on interregional exchange and was more economically driven than ideologically (Seeman 1979). This economic focused thinking dominated studies for decades.

Recent shifts in interest have moved to looking at Hopewell through a local/regional perspective in a search for the impetus for long-distance travel, an attempt to determine the scale at which it was performed. Carr (2005) argues that the goal of long-distance travel was the exchange and transmission of knowledge and a growth of prestige through travel. Carr’s idea is supported by locally produced ceramics from the Mann site that have unique motifs that originate from thousands of kilometers to the southeast (Ruby and Shriner 2005). Further

evidence that suggests an alternative origin for long-distance trade is that many materials

attributed to exotic sources are misidentified or having local sources (Tankersley 2007).

Under close scrutiny, the case for many nonlocal resources has lost much of its strength.

The argument for local resource collection is exemplified in the assemblage from Twin Mounds,

which indicates that all but one type of material were locally available. This conclusion suggests

that ideologies and stylistic motifs were the primary products of long-distance exchange.

Credence is given to the model that Carr (2005) has presented an interregional system based on

long-distance travel for information exchange and the growth of prestige. Reliance on local

materials and the sharing of styles and ideas indicate a greater interaction, one that goes beyond a

simple economic exchange of goods and indicates a deeper reliance on overarching ideologies.

Original classification of the Twin Mounds artifacts, the celt, breastplate, and shell beads

were described as products of long-distance trade (Table 2). Of the common copper artifact

types that are characteristic of the Hopewell Interaction Sphere the breastplate and celt require

the most raw material to produce. At Twin Mounds the craftsman of these artifacts required just over one kilogram of copper. Since elemental sourcing would indicate that both local and the

Great Lakes copper are identical, it is difficult to know for certain the origin of the copper material. Tankersley (2007) has noted that copper nodules were locally available from glacial deposits, therefore it seems reasonable to suggest that the copper artifacts at Twin Mounds are

local products. This is supported by the fact that copper artifact distribution within the Hopewell

contexts is concentrated within the boundaries of the Wisconsin glaciation, where the extent of

the gravel and sand bed are located.

Fibers that were used prehistorically in the Ohio Valley have been examined previously,

but it is uncommon in the literature to encounter solid identifications that attribute a specific

plant to the fibers used. Analysis of the preserved textiles on the breastplate and celt indicated

that plant fibers from Asclepias incarnata and Eryngium yuccifolium were used as materials

respectively. Palynological evidence indicates that the environment was drier during Hopewell

times and suitable for local growth of these species in southwestern Ohio. These textiles are

likely products of a local economy.

Of the remaining artifacts from Twin Mounds, the only possible nonlocal materials were

the shell beads. Black bears are commonly found in archaeological deposits throughout the

Eastern Woodlands, and they have long been acknowledged as a native species. The bone bead originally identified as pipestone could have come from any animal and must be considered

local. If the shell beads were marine in origin, this would lend credence to Carr’s (2005)

hypothesis that long-distance exchange was on a more individual level and a reflection of status

and/or power. However, if the shell is local then the assemblage of Twin Mounds represents a

complete suite of locally collected materials.

Under a closer scrutiny as that applied to the Twin Mounds burial, it is likely that many

other Hopewell artifacts can be found as candidates for local resource collection and production.

Style alone cannot be relied on to determine location of manufacture, as Ruby and Shriner (2005)

demonstrated with ceramics from the Mann site. Raw material has also been shown to be a

tentative category for assigning material collection as local or nonlocal.

The results of the Twin Mounds analysis challenge the long established view of the

Hopewell Interaction Sphere as being dominated by the economic exchange of exotic materials.

Instead, the study reveals a locally dominated economy. Mortuary customs, stylistic motifs, and

possible marine shell beads are the only visible products of long-distance exchange. The

combination of a locally dominated material economy and an ideology that was influenced from

distant locations supports Carr’s hypothesis that long-distance travel was a basis for an exchange of ideas and a growth of prestige, with little exchange of exotic materials.

What Twin Mounds reveals is a shared ideological framework that manifests itself throughout the Eastern Woodlands. With the idea of securing locally available resources, the concept of an Interaction Sphere is shifted to represent the coalescence of shared ideologies and customs that fostered closer association between disparate groups of people. Caldwell (1964), through his use of the interaction sphere concept, tried to form a basis for a developing

‘civilization’ based on economic grounds. What Twin Mounds is able to demonstrate is the formation of an ideological union that brought groups together under a shared ideology.

References Cited

Adovasio, J.M. and J.S. Illingworth

2004 Prehistoric Perishable Fiber Technology in the Upper Ohio River Valley. In

Perishable Material Culture in the Northeast, edited by Penelope B. Drooker, pp. 19-30.

New York State Museum, Albany.

Ahler, S.R.

1987 Middle-Late Woodland Occupation at the Hanson Site, Greenup County, Kentucky. In

Current Archaeological research in Kentucky, edited by David Pollack. Kentucky

Heritage Council Press, Frankfort, pp. 44-75.

Baldia, C. M., K. A. Jakes, and M. O. Baldia

2008 Coloration and Fabric Structures of Selected Polychrome Textiles from the Seip

Mound Group. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 33(2):197-222.

Ballantyne, M.

2009 Miami Fort: An Ancient Hydraulic Feature. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of

Anthropology, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati.

Benedict, S, L. Nippert, and J.A. Rollman

1968 Shawnee lookout Park: Final Report of Photo-interpretation Study of Archaeological

Sites and Aerial Mapping. Final report submitted to Hamilton County Park District,

Cincinnati.

Benett, R. A. H.

1986 The Twin Mound Village and Hopewell in Southwestern Ohio: A Ceramic Identity

Crisis. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Cincinnati,

Cincinnati.

Bernadini, W. and C. Carr

2005 Hopewellian Copper Celts from Eastern North America: Their Social and Symbolic

Significance. In Gathering Hopewell: Society, Ritual, and Ritual Interaction. edited by

C. Carr and D.T. Case pp.624-647. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York.

Blosser, J. K.

1986 Mica Working at the Jennison Guard Site: A Middle Woodland Village in

Southeastern Indiana. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology,

University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati.

Byers, A.M.

2004 The Ohio Hopewell Episode: Paradigm Lost and Paradigm Gained. The University of

Akron Press, Akron.

Carr, C.

2005 Gathering Hopewell: Society, Ritual, and Ritual Interaction. Springer Science and

Business Media, New York.

Caldwell, J.R.

1964 Interaction Spheres in Prehistory. In Hopewellian Studies edited by J.R. Caldwell and

R.L. Hall. pp. 133-143. Illinois State Museum, Springfield.

Carr, C. and D. T. Case

2005 The Gathering of Hopewell. In Gathering Hopewell: Society, Ritual, and Ritual

Interaction, edited by Christopher Carr and D. Troy Case, pp. 258-338. Springer Science

and Business Media, New York.

Chen, HL, K. A. Jakes, and D. W. Foreman

1998 Preservation of Archaeological Textiles Through Fibre Mineralization. Journal of

Archaeological Science 25:1015-1021.

Chester, E.W., B.E. Wofford, J.M. Baskin, and C.C. Baskin

1997 A Floristic Study of Barrens on the Southwestern Pennyroyal Plain, Kentucky and

Tennessee. Castanea 62(3):161-172.

Church, F.

1983 An Analysis of Textile Fragments from Three Ohio Hopewell Sites. Ohio

Archaeologist 33(1):10-15.

1984 Textiles as Markers of Hopewell Social Identities. Midcontinental Journal of

Archaeology 9(1):1-26.

Cooperrider, T.S.

1995. The Dicotyledoneae of Ohio. Part 2: Linaceae through Campanulaceae. Columbus,

Ohio State University Press.

Dalbey, T. S.

2007 Geological Aspects of Key Archaeological Sites in Northern Kentucky and Southern

Ohio. Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Columbus.

Delcourt, P. A., H. R. Delcourt, C. R. Ison, W. E. Sharp, and K. J. Gremillion.

1998 Prehistoric Human use of Fire, the Eastern Agricultural Complex, and Appalachian

Oak-Chestnut Forests: Paleoecology of Cliff Palace Pond, Kentucky. American Antiquity

63(2): 263-278.

Dellinger, S. C.

1936 Baby Cradles of the Ozark Bluff Dwellers. American Antiquity 1(3):197-214.

Drooker, P.B.

1997 The View From Madisonvile: Protohistoric Western Fort Ancient Interaction Patterns.

Museum of Anthropology Memoirs, No. 31, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

2000 Madisonville Focus Revisited: Reexcavating Southwestern Ohio Fort Ancient from

Museum Collections. In Cultures Before Contact: The Late Prehistory of Ohio and

Surrounding Regions, edited by R. A. Genheimer. The Ohio Archaeological Council,

Columbus, pp. 228-270.

Emery, I.

1980 The Primary Structures of Fabrics: An Illustrated Classification. The Textile

Museum, Washington D.C.

Fisher, F.

1965 Preliminary Report on the 1965 Archaeological investigations at Miami Fort.

Manuscript on file, Department of Anthropology, University of Cincinnati.

1966 Miami Fort Site: 1966 Preliminary Report. Manuscript on file, Department of

Anthropology, University of Cincinnati.

1968 A survey of the Archaeological Remains of Shawnee Lookout Park. Manuscript on

file, Department of Anthropology, University of Cincinnati.

1969 Preliminary Report on the University of Cincinnati Archaeological Investigation.

Manuscript on file, Department of Anthropology, University of Cincinnati.

1970 Preliminary Report on the University of Cincinnati Archaeological Investigations,

1970. Manuscript on file, Department of Anthropology, University of Cincinnati.

Flores, B. M.

2001 Biology of Eryngium yuccifolium (Apiaceae), a Prairie Species. Journal of the Torrey

Botanical Society 128(1):1-6.

Fowke, G.

1902 Archaeological History of Ohio: The Mound Builders and Later Indians. Ohio State

Archaeological and Historical Society, Columbus.

Gleason, H. A.

1922 The Vegetational History of the Middle West. Annals of the Association of American

Geographers 12:39-85.

Good, I.

2001 Archaeological Textiles: A Review of Current Research. Annual Review of

Anthropology 30:209-226.

Goodway, M.

1987 Fiber Identification in Practice. Journal of the American Institute for Conservation

26(1):27-44.

Gordon, A. and R. C. Keating

2001 Light Microscopy and Determination of Eryngium yuccifolium Michaux Leaf Material

in Twined Slippers from Salts Cave, Kentucky. Journal of Archaeological Science

28:55-60.

Greber, N.

1979 A comparative Study of Site Morphology and Burial Practices at Edwin, Harness, and

Seip Mounds 1 and 2. In Hopewell Archaeology edited by D Brose and N Greber. pp.

27-38. Kent, Kent State University Press.

2003 Chronological Relationships among Ohio Hopewell Sites: Few Dates and Much

Complexity. In Theory, Method, and Practice in Modern Archaeolgoy edited by Robert

J. Jeske and Doughlas K. Charles, pp. 88-113. Westport, Praeger Publishers.

Grier, N.M.

1922 Observation on the Rate of Growth of the Shell of Lake Dwelling Fresh Water Mussels.

American Midland Naturalist. 8(6): 129-148.

Hamilton County Park District

2008 Hamilton County Park District Vascular Plants of Shawnee Lookout. Hamilton County

Park District, Cincinnati.

Harrison, W. H.

1838 A Discourse on the Aborigines. Office of the Cincinnati Express, Cincinnati.

Hawkins, R. A.

1992 Subsistence Inferences from Woodland and Mississippian Ceramics: The Central Ohio

River Valley, Circa 1000 BC-AD 1200. In Long-Term Subsistence Change in

Prehistoric North America, edited by Rebecca Hawkins, D.R. Croes, and Barry Isaac. pp.

47-76. Research in Economic Anthropology, Supplement 6, JAI Press, Greenwich.

1996 Revising the Ohio Middle Woodland Ceramic Typology: New Information from the

Twin Mounds Village Site. In A View from the Core: A Synthesis of Ohio Hopewell

Archaeology, edited by P.J. Pacheco, pp. 70-91. The Ohio Archaeological Council,

Columbus.

Herman, M. W.

1950 A Reconstruction of Aboriginal Delaware Culture from Contemporary Sources. In

Kroeber Anthropological Society Papers Vol. 1, pp.45-77. Kroeber Anthropological

Society, Berkley.

Jakes, K. A.

2000 Microanalytical Methods for Studying Prehistoric Textile Fibers. In Beyond Cloth and

Cordage: Archaeological Textile Research in the Americas, edited by Penelope B.

Drooker and Laurie D. Webster, pp. 51-68. The University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Jakes, K. A., L. R. Sibley and R. Yerkes

1994 A Comparative Collection for the Study of Fibres Used in Prehistoric Textiles from

Eastern North America. Journal of Archaeological Science 21: 641-650.

Jones, C. H.

1944 Studies in Ohio Floristics-III. Vegetation of Ohio Praries. Bulletin of the Torrey

Botanical Club 71(5):536-548.

Kaltenthaler, L. A.

1992 Analysis of the Chert Debitage and Tools from the Twin Mounds Village Site.

Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Cincinnati,

Cincinnati.

King, M. E.

1978 Methods and Prehistoric Textiles. American Antiquity 43(1):89-96.

Kuttruff, J. T, G. DeHart, and M. J. O’Brien

1998 7500 Years of Prehistoric Footwear from Arnold Research Cave, Missouri. Science

281:72-75.

Lee, A.

1972 The Archaic Component of the Twin Mounds Village and a Consideration of Certain

Late Archaic Manifestations in Southwestern Ohio. Unpublished M.A. thesis,

Department of Anthropology, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati.

Lee, A. M. and K. D. Vickery

1972 Salvage Excavations at the Headquarters Site, a Middle Woodland Village Burial Area

in Hamilton. Ohio Archaeologist. 22(1):3-11.

Lyford, C.

1945 Iroquois Crafts. Lawrence, Haskell Institute.

Miner, H.

1936 The Importance of Textiles in the Archaeology of the Eastern United States. American

Antiquity 1(3):181-192.

Mocas, S.T.

1976 Excavations at the Arrowhead Farm (15Jf237). University of Louisville

Archaeological Survey, Louisville.

Moerman, D. E.

1998 Native American Ethnobotany. Portland, Timber Press.

Moorehead, W.K.

1929 The Moundbuilder Problem to Date. American Anthropologist 31(3): 544-554.

Morrow, J.

1907 Tours into Kentucky and the Northwest Territory, Three Journals by Reverend James

Smith of Powhatan County, Virginia, 1783-1795-1797. Ohio Archaeological and

Historical Publications XVI, pp.348-401.

Oehler, C.

1973 Turpin Indians. Cincinnati Museum of Natural History, Cincinnati.

Ogden, J. G., III

1966 Forest History of Ohio. I. Radiocarbon Dates and Pollen Stratigraphy of Silver Lake,

Logan County, Ohio. The Ohio Journal of Science 66(4): 387-400.

Powell, R.A., J.W. Zimmerman, and D.E. Seaman

1997 Ecology and Behaviors of North American Black Bears. Chapman and Hall, London.

Railey, J.A.

1990 The Woodland Period. In The Archaeology of Kentucky: Past Accomplishments and

Future Directions, edited by David Pollack. Kentucky Heritage Council Press, Frankfort,

pp. 247-374.

Reidhead, V.A.

1976 Optimization and Food Procurement at the Prehistoric Leonard Haag Site,

Southeastern Indiana. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology,

Indiana University, Bloomington.

1981 A Linear Programming Model of Prehistoric Subsistence Optimization: A

Southeastern Indiana Example. Indiana Historical Society, Indianapolis.

Reimer, P.J., M.G.L. Baillie, E. Bard, A. Bayliss, J.W. Beck, C. Bertrand, P.G. Blackwell, C.E.

Buck, G. Burr, K.B. Cutler, P.E. Damon, R.L. Edwards, R.G. Fairbanks, M. Friedrich, T.P.

Guilderson, K.A. Hughen, B. Kromer, F.G. McCormac, S. Manning, C. Bronk Ramsey, R.W.

Reimer, S. Remmele, J.R. Southon, M. Stuiver, S. Talamo, F.W. Taylor, J. van der Plicht, and

C.E Weyhenmeyer

2004 IntCal04 Terrestrial Radiocarbon Age Calibration, 0-26 Cal Kyr BP, Radiocarbon

46:1029-1058.

Ruby, B. J. and C.M. Shriner

2005 Ceramic Vessel Compositions and Styles as Evidence of the Local and Nonlocal Social

Affiliations of Ritual Participants at the Mann Site, Indiana. In Gathering Hopewell:

Society, Ritual, and Ritual Interaction. edited by C. Carr and D.T. Case pp.553-574.

Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York.

Sanders, R.E. (editor)

2001 A Guide to Ohio Streams. Streams Committee, Ohio Chapter of the American Fisheries

Society in partnership with Ohio Environmental Education Fund, Ohio Dept. of Natural

Resources, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Columbus.

Seeman, M.F.

1979 The Hopewellian Interaction Sphere: The Evidence for Interregional Trade and

Structural Complexity. Prehistoric Research Series 5(2): 235-438.

Shane, L.C.K., G.G. Snyder, and K.H. Anderson

2001 Holocene Vegetation and Climate Changes in the Ohio Region. In Archaic Transitions

in Ohio and Kentucky Prehistory, edited by O.H. Prufer, S.E. Pedde, and R.S. Meindl pp.

11-58. Kent State University Press, Kent.

Shetrone, H. C.

1928 Some Ohio Caves and Rock Shelters Bearing Evidence of Human Occupancy. Ohio

Archaeological and Historical Quarterly 37:1-34.

Squier, E. G. and E.H. Davis

1848 Ancient Monuments of the Mississippi Valley, Smithsonian Contributions to

Knowledge, v. 1; repreinted in 1973 with introduction by J. B. Griffin as Antiquities of

the New World: Early Explorations in Archaeology, v. 2: New York, AMS Press for

Peabody Museum, Harvard University.

Starr, F.S.

1960 The Archaeology of Hamilton County, Ohio. Journal of the Cincinnati Museum of

Natural History 23(1):130p

1963 Prehistoric Miami Fort. Ohio Archaeologist. 13:12-17.

Stuiver, M. and P.J Reimer

1993 Radiocarbon 35:215-230.

Tankersley, K. B.

2007 Archaeological Geology of the Turner Site Complex, Hamilton County, Ohio. North

American Archaeologist 28(4):271-294.

2008 2008 Report: Shawnee Lookout Park Archaeological Field School. Report Submitted

to the Hamilton County Park District, On file at the University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati.

Thompson, A. and M. Simon

2008 An Analysis of Textile Fragments from the Janey B. Goode Site. Midcontinental

Journal of Archaeology 33(2): 155-180.

Trent, J.A.

1938 Eryngium yuccifolium: Ecological Distribution and Some Morphological

Irregularities. Transactions of the Kansas Academy of Science 41:155-163.

Vickery, K.D.

1996 Flint Raw Material Use in Ohio Hopewell. In A View from the Core: A Synthesis of

Ohio Hopewell Archaeology, edited by P. J. Pacheco. The Ohio Archaeological Council,

Columbus, pp. 108-127.

Watson, P. J. (editor)

1969 The Prehistory of Salts Cave, Kentucky. Illinois State Museum, Springfield.

Webster, L. D. and P. B. Drooker

2000 Archaeological Textile Research in the Americas. In Beyond Cloth and Cordage:

Archaeological Textile Research in the Americas, edited by Penelope B. Drooker and

Laurie D. Webster, pp. 1-24. The University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Whitford, A. C.

1943 Fiber Plants of the North American Aborigines. Journal of the New York Botanical

Garden 44:25-34.

Whittlesey, C.

1871 Ancient earth Forts of the Cuyahoga Valley, Ohio. Fairbanks, Benedict, and

Company, Cleveland.

Wilkins, G. R., P. A. Delcourt, H. R. Delcourt, F. W. Harrison, and M. R. Turner.

1991 Paleoecology of Central Kentucky since the Last Glacial Maximum. Quaternary

Research 36: 224-239.

Wimberley, V. S.

2004 Preserved Textiles on Hopewell Copper. In Perishable Material Culture in the

Northeast, edited by Penelope B. Drooker, pp. 69-85. New York State Museum, Albany.

Wistendahl, W. A.

1975 Buffalo Beats, a Relic Prairie within a southeastern Ohio Forest. Bulletin of the Torrey

Botanical Club 102(4):178-186.

Wymer, D.

1993 Cultural Change and Subsistence: The Middle Woodland and Late Woodland

Transition in the Mid-Ohio Valley. In Foraging and Farming in the Eastern Woodlands.

edited by C.M. Scarry. pp. 138-156. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

1996 The Ohio Hopewell Econiche: Human-Land Interaction in the Core Area. In A View

from the Core: A Synthesis of Ohio Hopewell Archaeology. edited by PJ Pacheco pp. 36-

52. Ohio Archaeological Council, Columbus.

2004 Organic Preservation on Prehistoric Copper Artifacts of the Ohio Hopewell. In

Perishable Material Culture in the Northeast, edited by Penelope B. Drooker, pp. 45-68.

New York State Museum, Albany.