OHIO HOPEWELL EARTHWORKS: AN EXAMINATION OF SITE USE FROM NON-MOUND SPACE AT THE HOPEWELL SITE DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Jennifer Pederson Weinberger, B.A., M.A. ***** The Ohio State University 2006 Dissertation Committee: Approved by Dr. William S. Dancey, Advisor Dr. Kristen J. Gremillion ______________________________ Advisor Dr. Paul Sciulli Graduate Program in Anthropology Copyright by Jennifer Pederson Weinberger 2006 ABSTRACT This dissertation examines the prehistoric use of non-mound space at the Hopewell site, an Ohio Hopewell earthwork built during the Middle Woodland period (200 B.C.-A.D. 400). Until very recently, archaeological research at earthworks concentrated on mounds and embankments. However, earthworks consist of more than earthen architecture. Between the mounds and embankments is non-mound space that may have been used for a variety of activities. These activities relate to earthwork use and provide a deeper understanding of Hopewell community organization, social dynamics, and ideology. Various site uses have been proposed for Ohio Hopewell earthworks. Seven uses are considered in this study: ceremonial centers, burial sites, communal meeting places, trading centers, for defense, settlement, and horticulture. These site uses are formulated into two general hypotheses concerning the archaeological record of earthworks. The Ceremonial Center hypothesis limits earthwork use to ritual and mortuary activity, thus non-mound space is similarly restricted in terms of its archaeological record. The Corporate Center hypothesis posits a variety of political, economic, ceremonial, and social activities varying in terms of nature (sacred vs. secular) and extent (short-term vs. long-term and small-scale vs. large-scale). ii To test these hypotheses, a random sample of non-mound space at the Hopewell site was studied using geophysical and traditional archaeological techniques. Analysis of the magnetic, electrical resistance, and artifactual data identified several non-mound activity areas. Evidence supports use for ceremonies, communal meetings, and possibly settlement, but these activities were limited in nature and extent. There is no evidence to suggest long-term or large-scale settlement. When compared to expectations for the two hypotheses, the Ceremonial Center hypothesis is rejected and the Corporate Center hypothesis is not rejected. Furthermore, the finding that non-mound space at the Hopewell site was used only for limited activities associated with earthwork construction, maintenance, and use supports the Vacant Ceremonial Center and Dispersed Sedentary Community models. iii Dedicated to my boys iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This dissertation would not have been possible without my advisor, Dr. William Dancey. More than a decade has past since I entered Ohio State and began digging shovel tests under his guidance. Over the years, he has generously provided his knowledge, time, and support to my intellectual pursuits. In addition, he directed an archaeology field school that conducted a good portion of the fieldwork contained in this research. I wish to thank the other members of my committee for their assistance. Dr. Kristen Gremillion and Dr. Paul Sciulli provided insightful comments on this manuscript, as well as encouragement throughout the years. In addition, I gratefully acknowledge the help of many other individuals. Big thanks are owed to Jarrod Burks, Kathy Brady-Rawlins, and Dawn Walter Gagliano for their help during all phases of this research. Students in the 2001 The Ohio State University Archaeological Field School, teachers participating in Hopewell Culture National Historical Park’s Archaeology for Teachers Workshops, and numerous volunteers provided much hard labor in all weather conditions. I also want to thank N’omi Greber for sharing her wisdom about the Hopewell and the Hopewell site, as well as for many kind words of encouragement. Mark Lynott has shared his data and ideas about Hopewell earthworks. In addition, I owe him thanks for lending me geophysical equipment. I also wish to thank Charles Zickafoos for mowing the site. v Thank you to the staff at Hopewell Culture National Historical Park for providing various kinds of support that enabled this research to be completed. I am particularly grateful to current Superintendent Dean Alexander and past Superintendent John Neal. This dissertation would not have been possible without the support provided by friends and family, especially my parents. A very special thank you goes to my husband Jeff for his encouragement and insight as he remained steadfast through years of this research. And his hard work made many hot and humid days of fieldwork enjoyable. Lastly, thank you to my son Will for his many, many smiles that lightened the load considerably. vi VITA March 6, 1971……………………….…. Born—Smithtown, New York 1993……………………………………. B.A. Anthropology, University of Georgia 1996……………………………………. M.A. Anthropology, The Ohio State University 1994 - 1995…………………………….. Dean’s Fellow, The Ohio State University 1995 - 1998…………………………….. Graduate Research and Teaching Associate, The Ohio State University 1999 - present…………….……………..Archaeologist, Hopewell Culture National Historical Park FIELDS OF STUDY Major Field: Anthropology Minor Field: North American Eastern Woodlands Prehistory vii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………ii Dedication………………………………………………………………………………iv Acknowledgments……………………...……………………………………………….v Vita………………………………………...……………………………………………vii List of Tables………………………………………..…………………………………. xii List of Figures………………………………………………..……………...……….....xv Chapters: 1. Introduction…………………………………………………...……...…………1 Defining Ohio Hopewell………………………………………………..3 Proposed Site Uses for Ohio Hopewell Earthworks………………...….5 Ceremonial Centers………………………………..……………6 Burial Sites……..……………………………………………….7 Communal Meeting Places……………………………………..8 Trading Centers…………………………………………………9 Defense………………………..……………………………….. 11 Settlement.…………………..…………………………………. 13 Horticulture…………………..…………………………………15 Site Use Hypotheses……………………………………………..…….. 15 Ceremonial Center Hypothesis………………………………… 16 Corporate Center Hypothesis…………………………………...17 Summary………………………………………………………………..19 2. Towards an Understanding of Non-mound Space……………………………...21 Non-mound Research at Ohio Hopewell Earthworks.………………….22 viii Page Seip Earthworks………………………………………………...22 High Bank……………………………………………………… 24 Liberty Works………………………………………………….. 25 Mound City…………………………………………………….. 25 Hopeton Earthworks…………………………………………… 26 Fort Hill…………………………………………………………27 Fort Ancient……………………………………………………. 27 Stubbs Earthworks……………………………………………... 29 Purdom Mound Group……………………………...………….. 29 Newark Earthworks……………………………………………. 30 Other Earthworks……………………………………………….31 Modeling Site Use of Non-mound Space……………………………… 32 Non-mound Space for Ceremonial Centers………………….… 33 Non-mound Space for Burial Sites…………………………….. 33 Non-mound Space for Communal Meeting Places……………..34 Non-mound Space for Trading Centers………………………... 35 Non-mound Space for Defense…………………………………35 Non-mound Space for Settlement..……………………………..36 Non-mound Space for Horticulture……………………………. 38 Summary……………………………………………………………..…38 3. Natural Environment.…………………………………………………………...41 Physiography………………………………………………..………..…41 Geology and Soils………………………………………..………….….42 Hydrology……………………………………………………………… 43 Fauna and Flora……………………………………………………..…..44 Summary………………………………………………………………..45 4. Cultural Environment.…………………………………………………………..47 Local Expressions of Ohio Hopewell………………………………….. 48 Description of the Hopewell Site…………………………...…………..50 History of Archaeological Research at the Hopewell Site……………...53 Mound Explorations………………………………………….....53 Research of Non-mound Space…………………………………55 Chronology of the Hopewell Site…………………………...…………. 59 5. Field Methods…...……………………………………………………………... 63 Selection of Sample……………………………………………………. 63 Geophysical Surveys...……………………………………………….....66 Magnetometry…………………………………………………..68 ix Page Electrical Resistance………………………………………….... 73 Shovel Test Pits………………………………………………………... 77 Anomaly Testing………………………………………………………..79 Feature Excavation……………………………………………………...80 Summary……………………………………………………………..…82 6. Analytical Methods……………………………………………………………..84 Geophysical Data……………………………………………………….84 Magnetometry………………………………………………..…85 Electrical Resistance…………………………..……………….. 90 Artifact Assemblage………………………...…………………………..94 Fire-cracked Rock………………………………………………96 Lithic Materials………..………………………………………..97 Pottery Sherds……..…………………………………………… 98 Flotation Samples……………………………………………….99 7. Research Results………..……………………………………………………… 100 Block 10………..……………………………………………………….100 Block 23………..……………………………………………………….107 Block 26………..……………………………………………………….111 Block 28………..……………………………………………………….114 Block 32………..……………………………………………………….120 Block 34………..……………………………………………………….123 Block 65………..……………………………………………………….126 Block 68………..……………………………………………………….129 Block 82………..……………………………………………………….132 Block 87………..…………………………………………………….…135 Block 100………..……………………………………………………...139 Block 114………..……………………………………………………...142 Block 124………..……………………………………………………...146 Block 147………..……………………………………………………...151 Block 156………..……………………………………………………...154 Block 159………..……………………………………………………...157 Block 161………..……………………………………………………...161 Block 167………..……………………………………………………...163 8. Synthesis of Results………...………………….………………………………. 170 Geophysical Surveys...……...………………………….……………….170