U UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI Date: I, , hereby submit this original work as part of the requirements for the degree of: in 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 By 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. iv 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 v 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 vi 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 1 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