Ohio Hopewell Earthworks - Pederson Weinberger

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
Shovel Test Pits……...………………….……………………………... 172
Anomaly Testing……...………………….……………………………..174
x
Page
Feature Excavation……...………………………….…………………...176
Site Use of Non-mound Space………………………………………….178
Ceremonial Center……...………………….…………………... 179
Burial Site……...………………….…………………………… 181
Communal Meeting Place..……...………………….…………..181
Trading Center.……...………………….……………………… 183
Defense……...………………….……………………………… 183
Settlement.……...………………….…………………………... 184
Horticulture……...………………….………………………….. 185
Summary……………...………………………………………………... 186
9. Conclusions…………………………………………………………………….. 188
Ceremonial Center Hypothesis………………………………………… 188

Corporate Center Hypothesis………………………………………...…190
Discussion……………………………………………………………… 192
Use of Geophysical Techniques in the Eastern Woodlands…………… 195
Bibliography…………………………………………………………………………… 197
Appendix A: Tables……………………………………………………….…………… 211
Appendix B: Figures…………………………………………………………………… 239
Appendix C. Artifacts from Shovel Test Pits…………………………………………. 305
xi
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Proposed activities conducted at Ohio Hopewell earthworks……………….....212
2. Archaeological correlates of Ohio Hopewell short- and long-term

habitation……………………………………………………………….......…..213
3. Published radiocarbon dates from the Hopewell site…………………......…....215
4. Magnetic anomalies identified for each block……………………………….. ..216
5. Electrical resistance anomalies identified for each block……………………. ..217
6. Artifacts recovered during all stages of fieldwork……………………………..218
7. Artifacts recovered from shovel tests pits………………………………….... ..219
8. Fire-cracked rock recovered from all stages of fieldwork…………………… ..220
9. Lithic debitage recovered from all stages of fieldwork……………….……... ..220
10. Pottery sherds recovered from all stages of fieldwork……..…….………….....220
11. Magnetic anomalies in Block 10…………………………………………….. ..221
12. Electrical resistance anomalies in Block 10…………………………………....222
17. Magnetic anomalies in Block 28…………………………………………….....225
xii
Table Page
20. Electrical resistance anomalies in Block 32………………………………..…..226
21. Magnetic anomalies in Block 34…………………………………………..… ..226
30. Magnetic anomalies in Block 100..………………………………………….. ..230
31. Electrical resistance anomalies in Block 100..………………………………....230
xiii
Table Page
41. Diversity of artifacts per block based on shovel tests……………………….....235
42. Anomalies tested for prehistoric cultural features…………………………… ..236
43. Radiocarbon dates from non-mound space at the Hopewell site…………….. ..237
xiv
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1. Spatial distribution of earthworks in southern Ohio..………………………... ..239
2. Hypothetical model of earthwork evolution..………………………………... ..240
3. Proposed plan view of the Big House of Mound 25 at the Hopewell

site…………………………………………………………....................……. ..241
4. The Hopewell site as mapped by Warren K. Moorehead showing

two “village sites”………………………………...………………………….. ..242
5. The Hopewell site as mapped by Henry C. Shetrone showing two

“habitation sites”.…………………………….…………………………….… ..243
6. Ohio Hopewell earthworks with non-mound research………………………. ..244
7. Soils in the vicinity of the Hopewell site………………………………..…… ..245
8. The Hopewell site as mapped by Ephraim Squier and Edwin Davis.…….…. ..246
9. Middle Woodland sites in the vicinity of the Hopewell site…………………...247
10. The Hopewell site as mapped by Clinton Cowen in 1892 ……………….........248
11. Aerial photograph of the Hopewell site from 1976………………………..… ..249
12. Composite of photointerpreted anomalies from aerial photographs

taken between 1951-1994 of the Hopewell site……………………………… ..250
13. Earliest map of the Hopewell site by Caleb Atwater…..……………………. ..251
14. Map of the eighteen blocks in the sample……………………………..……... ..252
xv
Figure Page
15. Collection of magnetic data from Block 65 using the Geoscan FM-36
Fluxgate Gradiometer………………………………………………………... ..253
16. Collection of resistance data from Block 114 using the Geoscan
RM-15 Resistance Meter…………………………………………………….. ..254
17. Shovel test pit in Block 124 with Feature 124-1 at base of plowzone………. ..255
18. Artifacts made from exotic materials…………………………………….…... ..256
19. Sample of fire-cracked rock………………………………………………….. ..257
20. Projectile points……………………………………………………………… ..258
21. Bladelet fragments..……………………………………………………..…… ..259
22. Groundstone artifacts..………………………………………………………. ..260
23. Pottery sherds……………………………………………………...………… ..261
24. Processed magnetic data from Block 10……………………………………... ..262
25. Interpretation of magnetic data from Block 10 showing probable

prehistoric cultural features………………………………………………….. ..262
26. Processed electrical resistance data from Block 10………………………….. ..263
27. Interpretation of electrical resistance data from Block 10 showing

probable prehistoric cultural features………………….…………………….. ..263

prehistoric cultural features………………………………………………….....264

probable prehistoric cultural features………………….…………………….....265
xvi
Figure Page



39. Topographic map showing location of mounded area in relation

to electrical resistance data collected for Block 28..…………………………. ..269

41. Plan view of Feature 28-5 at 60 centimeters below datum…………………... ..271

45. Electrical resistance data in the vicinity of Block 32 showing a

portion of the D-shaped embankment………………………………………... ..273


xvii
Figure Page








66. Processed magnetic data from Block 100..…………………………………... ..286
xviii
Figure Page

68. Processed electrical resistance data from Block 100..……………………….. ..287


72. Processed electrical resistance data from Block 114...………………………. ..289






xix
Figure Page


93. Map of the Hopewell site showing the number of geophysical

anomalies found in each block…………………………………………….…. ..300
94. Map of the Hopewell site showing the number of prehistoric

artifacts found in shovel tests for each block……………………………...…. ..301
95. Map of the Hopewell site showing the number of prehistoric

artifacts excluding fire-cracked rock found in shovel tests for
each block……………………………………………………………………. ..302
96. Calibrated radiocarbon dates for the Hopewell site………………………….. ..303
xx
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
This dissertation examines the prehistoric use of non-mound space at 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 the visible
components of these sites—the mounds and embankments—resulting in knowledge
about the ceremonial and mortuary activities conducted at earthworks and construction
sequences of mounds and embankments. However, earthworks consist of more than
earthen architecture. Between the mounds and embankments is space that may have been
used for a variety of activities. These activities are related to how an earthwork was used
and at least seven site uses have been proposed for Ohio Hopewell earthworks. For this
dissertation, the site uses are formulated into two general hypotheses concerning the
archaeological record of earthworks. Each hypothesis makes different assumptions about
the nature and extent of activities conducted in non-mound space. The hypotheses are
tested against geophysical and archaeological data collected from non-mound space at the
Hopewell site during fieldwork under my direction. Results from this research will be
useful in determining the function of this earthwork, as well as provide a deeper
understanding of Hopewell community organization, social dynamics, and ideology.
1
The question of what types of activities, and subsequently site use, occurred at
Ohio Hopewell earthworks has been asked since the late eighteenth century. Early
speculation deduced that the sites contained settlements or were used for defensive needs
in times of unrest. More recently, the concept of earthworks as gathering centers that
hosted a variety of political, economic, ceremonial, and social activities has been
proposed. Regardless of the site use, most of the supporting data comes from mound
excavations, but large, flat expanses of non-mound space may have provided unique
staging areas capable of hosting either a wide range of activities or large numbers of
participants and observers.
In terms of non-mound space, limited fieldwork has been conducted. Mainfort
and Sullivan (1998) attribute this lack of research to fewer artifacts as compared to the
mounds, the large scale of many enclosures, and scarcity of previous investigations to
guide new research. More intensive research is clearly needed to better understand the
range of activities conducted in non-mound space at these sites—a point noted by three
Hopewell archaeologists in recent literature:
1. DeBoer (1997:249) states that there is a need for “more

carefully crafted signatures of short-term activities carried out
over a long time at centres versus daily activities carried out
over a short duration at habitation sites.”
2. Griffin (1997:13) requests that fieldwork be conducted at

earthworks using “modern recovery and analytical techniques.”
3. Riordan (1998:68) explains that “The extent to which other

corporate activities, including craft production, economic
transactions, and even residential use may have occurred at
them [earthworks] is still a subject of some debate, largely due
to a lack of much archaeological attention to the non-mound
components of their interiors.”
2
A compromise for non-mound studies must be found that balances time and
money constraints with scientific needs. To this end, I designed a research project to
determine the nature and extent of non-mound activities at the Hopewell site using
geophysical and traditional archaeological techniques. Due to the size of this earthwork, a
simple random sampling strategy was used to test ten percent of non-mound space.
Fieldwork was conducted between 2001 and 2003. The results of this work are reported
in this dissertation and are compared to expectations of the archaeological record for the
two hypotheses concerning site use at Ohio Hopewell earthworks.
Defining Ohio Hopewell
The term Hopewell refers to beliefs, practices, and artifact styles shared among
groups of people in eastern North America during the Middle Woodland period (Dancey
2005). The archaeological record left by the Hopewell is spectacular. Earthen mounds
covered the remnants of buildings containing mortuary deposits. Mica, copper, obsidian,
and many other materials were crafted into objects used for ritual purposes. The
widespread distribution of Hopewell characteristics from Illinois to Ohio and Michigan to
Louisiana and Florida attest to its adoption by many people, but primary centers were
located in the Lower Illinois River Valley and southern Ohio. Earthen architecture and
finely-crafted artifacts are distinguishing characteristics of the Ohio Hopewell.
The presence of earthen embankments formed into geometric or free-form
enclosures commonly characterize Ohio Hopewell sites. Enclosures are constructed of
silt, sand, clay, or stone and may be solitary or part of a group of two, three, or more
forms. The dimensions of these sites vary from less than an hectare to over fifty hectares
3
in area. Enclosures are often located along the rivers and streams of southern and central
Ohio (Figure 1). Many river valleys may house “recognizable variants” of the Hopewell
culture based on slight differences in earthwork architecture (Pacheco 1996:18).
Explanations for enclosure function are divided or combined between the political,
economic, social, and ideological realms. In the end, it appears that each earthwork may
have been designed, built, and used for a variety of functions (Carr 2005). Also, the
function of any enclosure may have changed through time as features were added or
modified or as ideology changed (Mainfort and Sullivan 1998). Figure 2 depicts a
hypothetical sequence of earthwork evolution proffered by Dancey and Pacheco (1997).
Mounds are also found throughout Ohio. Some conical mounds date to the Early
Woodland period (1000-200 B.C.), but mounds were also constructed during the Middle
Woodland period. These mounds were built of silt, sand, clay, or stone. Although mounds
located at enclosure gateways may not have sub-mound structures or mortuary features,
early excavations revealed that wooden structures once stood in the footprint of some
Middle Woodland mounds. These structures were staging areas for many ceremonial and
mortuary activities; the larger of these structures are referred to as Big Houses (Greber
and Ruhl 2000). Human remains, either as extended burials or cremations, were
frequently laid upon clay basins raised slightly off the floor. Goods, such as copper
earspools and freshwater pearl beads, oftentimes accompanied burials. Some mounds also
contained ritual deposits of particular objects, such as the biface cache from Mound 2 at
the Hopewell site or the pipes from Mound 8 at Mound City.
Artistry in craft production is also a mark of the Ohio Hopewell. It appears that
while some objects were crafted on a household basis, such as pottery, stone tools, and
4
perhaps mica pieces, other objects were made by craft specialists, including pipes and
obsidian points (Spielmann 2002). Pipes with effigy or geometric bowls were crafted
with skill. Obsidian was expertly knapped into large points with parallel flaking patterns
on either side of the points. Many other mediums were used for crafting Hopewell ritual
objects. Much of these materials were obtained either through travel or trade. Essenpreis
(1987:36) states that the earthworks in Ohio “are far richer in the quantity and diversity
of trade goods, suggesting that southern Ohio partially controlled the trade and
manufacture of these exotic objects.”
Proposed Site Uses for Ohio Hopewell Earthworks
Early speculation about Ohio Hopewell earthworks resulted in suggestions of
diverse uses for these sites. One of the earliest to be put forth was for defensive
structures. In the 1770s missionary David Jones referred to the Frankfort Works in Ross
County as being an “old fortification” (Jones reprint 1971:56). Expanding considerably
on this use, Atwater (1833:18) suggested these sites were defensive in nature as well as
“cemeteries, temples, altars, camps, towns, villages, race grounds, and other places of
amusement, habitations of chieftains, videttes, watch towers, monuments, &c.” The
earthworks were thus assigned use based on a variety of defensive, ceremonial,
settlement, social, and political activities. Following on Atwater’s writings, Squier and
Davis (1848) postulated site use of earthworks as settlements, forts, and sacred places. In
an interesting twist in the use of earthworks for settlements, Morgan (1881) believed that
the long embankment walls were foundations for massive longhouses. Other late
nineteenth century ideas cited by Fowke (1902) included the use of earthworks as large
5
arenas for games and sports, as game preserves to hold animals until slaughter, or for
protection of agricultural fields. Fowke (1902:153) dismissed these ideas and returned to
the use of these sites as housing settlements: “Perhaps the most plausible hypothesis is
that villages were located within the walls.”
These historical writings about site use of Ohio Hopewell earthworks mirror more
recent research conducted overseas. Drewett (1977) proposed that English Neolithic
enclosures had seven uses: livestock pastures, ceremonial centers, burial sites, communal
meeting places, trading centers, for defense, and settlements. All of these uses have been
suggested for Ohio Hopewell earthworks. Use as pasture has been dismissed due to the
absence of domesticated animals (Mainfort and Sullivan 1998); however, Romain (2004)
posits that enclosures were used for horticultural activities. A summary of each of these
site uses is given below.
Ceremonial Centers
The most common site use for Ohio Hopewell earthworks in the literature is as
ceremonial centers. The earthworks would have provided a sacred place to perform or
watch rituals. These ritual activities may have occurred in sub-mound structures, during
the construction of embankment walls and mounds, on the embankment walls or mounds,
or in non-mound space. These rituals may have been performed aperiodically according
to a community’s needs, such as upon the death of a community member, or during
natural events, such as during the winter solstice (Greber and Ruhl 2000). Evidence of the
use of earthworks as ceremonial centers comes from archaeological deposits and from the
configuration of the earthworks themselves.
6
Some archaeological deposits located at the base of mounds or in embankments
appear to be ceremonial in nature. Caches found within the remains of sub-mound
structures at several earthworks lack any associated human remains and reflect activities
that were ceremonial in nature. For instance, Mound 2 at Hopewell contained over 8,000
bifaces made from chert from southeastern Indiana. Greber (1996:170) hypothesizes that
“the unique double layer of ceremonial bifaces is also a symbol of this [calendrical]
cycle.” Small, burned deposits within the embankment walls at Hopeton point to rituals
conducted during wall construction (Lynott 2004).
The configuration of the enclosures themselves may also indicate ceremonial use.
Hively and Horn (1982; 1984) found alignments to astronomical events at Newark and
High Bank. In addition, Byers (1996:183-184) states that some enclosures “were
constructed so as to establish the siting lines directed to horizon positions that mark the
turning points of both the 18.6 year lunar cycle and the solstice and equinoxes of the solar
cycle.” Square enclosures at five tripartite earthworks in Ross County may have been
constructed in reference to astronomical events (Greber 1997b).
Burial Sites
The use of Ohio Hopewell earthworks as burial sites has long been proposed since
excavations in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries found burials at some, but not all,
earthwork sites. Cremations or inhumations were typically located in the structures
underneath mounds. Burials were also situated in mound and embankment fill; for
example, in the Seip-Pricer Mound at Seip (Shetrone and Greenman 1931) and in the
embankment at Mound City (Brown 1994).
7
Studies of human remains from earthworks provide information about
Hopewellian mortuary behavior. Konigsberg’s (1985:123) study of 87 individuals from
Seip found that all ages and both sexes were represented, the “burial population was
formed fairly rapidly,” and cremated individuals were burned in the flesh without being
dismembered. Mitochondrial DNA extracted from 34 individuals from at least five
mounds at the Hopewell site found no matrilineal descent among those in the sample and
no segregation in burial location based on kinship (Mills 2003).
While some earthworks do contain archaeological evidence for use as burial sites,
not all earthworks appear to have been used in this fashion. Greber (1997a:245) notes
“the majority of the complex geometric enclosures do not surround burial mounds.” Sites
without burials usually have no mounds or mounds are positioned directly inside
gateways. For example, the octagon enclosure at High Bank has gateway mounds but
does not have evidence of burial mounds. Similarly, surface collections and extensive
geophysical testing at the Hopeton site did not find any evidence of burials (Burks et al.
2002; Lynott 2004).
Communal Meeting Places
Use of Ohio Hopewell earthworks as communal meeting places has been
advanced by some archaeologists. Brown (1997:243) posits that “Embankments were
designed to facilitate meetings of individuals for certain lengths of time in a cultural
environment that otherwise provided very little protection to hosts and guests alike.” The
Dispersed Sedentary Community model by Dancey and Pacheco (1997) envisions
earthworks as gathering places to conduct political, economic, social, and ceremonial
8
activities that were community-based; “On occasion, Hopewell ‘vacant’ centers would
have been abuzz with activity, while on other occasions they would have sat empty”
(Pacheco 1996:21).
Another facet of using earthworks as communal meeting places may have been
the gathering of craftspeople to produce ceremonial objects. Structures located inside an
enclosure at Seip have been interpreted by Baby and Langlois (1979) as craft workshops.
Based on this evidence, Spielmann (2002:202) hypothesizes that “Much of the production
of Ohio Hopewell ritual items was concentrated within these earthworks. Crafting of
certain ornaments, such as mica and copper cutouts, appears to have been carried out in
these precincts by multiple craftspeople.” In addition, obsidian is thought to have been
worked by a small segment of the population: “The ties among those few privileged to
handle the black glass could have been biological or social” (Greber 1996:162). Perhaps
obsidian blades, and other specialty objects, were produced only at the earthworks.
Trading Centers
The use of exotic raw materials is a defining characteristic of the Hopewell
culture. Artifacts were crafted from obsidian from the Rocky Mountains, copper from the
Upper Great Lakes, marine shell from the Gulf of Mexico, mica from the Appalachians,
among other materials. While obsidian is scarcely found at earthwork sites outside the
Central Scioto River Valley, other materials are common throughout the geographical
range of the Hopewell. For example, copper earspools have been found distributed at
earthworks throughout the Midwest (Ruhl 2005). This geographical extent has been
attributed to a Hopewell Interaction Sphere in which ideas were trading throughout the
9
eastern United States (Caldwell 1964). Struever (1964:106) envisioned that “some form
(or forms) of communication, intercourse, or articulation existed prehistorically to enable
far-distant groups to share an assemblage of imported raw materials, artifact styles, and
precepts governing the interment of certain dead.” While Struever and Houart (1972)
proposed that the Hopewell Interaction Sphere was organized as a hierarchical social
system, Seeman’s (1979a) study suggested otherwise. In summary, earthworks have been
proposed as trading centers for the exchange of exotic materials and goods. Perhaps this
use parallels evidence of craft manufacturing activities at earthworks. Contrary to use of
earthworks as trading centers, Dancey and Pacheco (1997:9) speculate movement of
materials throughout the Midwest by “direct and down-the-road procurement rather than
organized trade.”
Support for use of earthworks as trading centers comes from two caches at the
Hopewell site. Mound 2 contained over 8,200 bifaces of Indiana hornstone. Mound 11
had approximately 300 pounds of obsidian. Both caches contained a great quantity of
non-local materials that may have been traded into the region. Vickery (1996) ponders
four models for flint use at earthworks. His economic model may be useful in explaining
caches found at the Hopewell site: “Elements of the “economic” model in which
Hopewell Interaction Sphere goods, including flint, were exchanged or traded for other
goods and/or services may be invoked to account for some of the raw material that occurs
in abundance at the major Ohio Hopewell centers” (Vickery 1996:122).
Recently DeBoer (1997) suggested that enclosure configuration reflects a
changing social order during the Middle Woodland period involving the Hopewellian
exchange of marriage partners and the trade of exotic goods. As food production
10
increased, the value of labor of females tending the gardens also increased. At the same
time, DeBoer (1997:238) assumes a shortage of females in the potential marriage pool
such “that ‘Hopewell Interaction Sphere’ goods figured not only in mortuary context but
in the entire array of rites of passage, including the recruitment of women and their
labour through marital alliances. That is, one role of these goods may have been as a form
of ‘bride price’.” Exchange of marriage partners was no longer based on reciprocal
agreements, but on the trade of exotic goods. DeBoer speculates that the earliest
configurations of symmetrical circle-square enclosures demonstrated this reciprocal
exchange pattern with trading partners (i.e., marriage partners exchanged directly). Later
asymmetric tripartite enclosures represented a new exchange pattern in which females
were instead traded for exotic objects.
Defense
Use of earthworks for defense was suggested by early travelers such as the
missionary David Jones (Jones reprint 1971:56). At first glance the architecture of the
enclosures, especially those located on hilltops, evokes a defensive nature. This site use
was a popular explanation throughout the nineteenth century. By the turn of the twentieth
century, Fowke (1902) firmly believed that hilltop enclosures were used solely as forts
during times of warfare. Excavations in the late twentieth century have started to
critically explore this possibility.
Excavations at the hilltop site of Pollack examined embankment construction
(Riordan 1998). Five stages of construction point to a change in site use over a period of
150 years. The first three stages concern the construction of the embankments and
11
mounds. A fourth stage was the construction of a 1.5 meter high stockade atop the
embankment and a 4 meter high stockade around the bluff edges. The fifth and final stage
was the destruction of the stockade by fire, and subsequent capping of the stockade
remnants with soil. Riordan (1998:83) hypothesizes the stockade was used either as a
defensive structure in a time of hostility followed by its dismantling during more peaceful
times or the stockade may have been part of a “magico-religious effort” concerning
activities conducted within the interior of the enclosure. Evidence of burned stockades at
three other enclosures in the Miami River Valley is similarly interpreted by Riordan
(1996; 1998).
Excavations through a portion of embankment at Fort Hill did not locate evidence
of a palisade, but did convince Prufer (1997a:320) of a defensive purpose of the hilltop
enclosure: “During raids or whatever, kids, women, etc. may have been shunted up to the
top of the structure.” Prufer also conceded that these hilltop earthworks were also used
for ceremonial activities.
While more research is needed to determine if hilltop enclosures in southwestern
Ohio were used for defensive purposes, no evidence of defensive structures or warfare
has been found at Ohio Hopewell earthworks located on terraces. The slope and height of
most embankments were not sufficient to ward off attackers. Many walls were between 1
to 3.5 meters in height and 6 to 15 meters in width at their bases. Excavations through
embankment walls at Newark, Hopeton, High Bank, and Mound City did not find any
evidence for defensive structures. Furthermore, a recent study by Johnston (2002) of
cultural modified human remains from the Hopewell site found no evidence that
individuals died from warfare, were scalped, or scavenged after death. Evidence,
12
according to Dancey (2005:123), therefore suggests that “Even though many are called
forts, and early reports referred to some as defensive works, it is unlikely that any of them
would have been effective militarily.”
Settlement
The use of Ohio Hopewell earthworks for habitation has been the subject of much
debate. Of interest to this debate are five potential Hopewellian settlement patterns
outlined by Dancey and Pacheco (1997): Nucleated Sedentary, Semi-permanent
Sedentary, Central Place, Seasonal Mobility, and Dispersed Sedentary Community.
The first, Nucleated Sedentary, posits long-term, permanent villages at or adjacent
to the earthworks. Speculation in the nineteenth century concluded that earthworks were
used for settlement. Documentation around the turn of the twentieth century seemed to
support this type of site use at Turner, Fort Ancient, Hopewell, Ginther Mound, Feurt
Village, and Seip (as cited in Griffin 1996). Additional evidence gathered from
archaeological field reports by Griffin (1997:405) led to his conclusion that Hopewell
villages were located in or adjacent to the earthworks: “Based on the observations of
earlier archaeologists of village debris near earthworks, it is suggested that Ohio
Hopewell settlement systems included permanent settlements, perhaps of great size, near
the Hopewell centers.”
The second settlement pattern is Semi-permanent Sedentary. Part of the year
would have been spent in nucleated villages in or near the earthworks and the rest of the
year divided between temporary, dispersed camps. Possible evidence from earthworks
13
may be the same as for the first settlement pattern because the relatively small periods of
time when people disperse to camps may not be discernible in the archaeological record.
The third settlement pattern, Central Place, limits settlement at the earthworks to
only an elite class. In this scenario, the distance between a residence and earthwork
directly reflects the status of a household. Support for this pattern has been advanced
from archaeologists working at Fort Ancient and Hopewell. Lazazzera (1997) found
features inside Fort Ancient that she concludes may be indicative of elite households. In
non-mound space at the Hopewell site, Seeman (1981) found artifact clusters indicative
of either elite housing or craft manufacture.
The fourth settlement pattern, Seasonal Mobility, limits Hopewellian settlement to
short-term, seasonally occupied camps. Settlement in terms of the earthworks would be
limited to those of short duration associated with the use of the earthworks. The Hale’s
House site at Newark is interpreted as one of these short-term domestic sites that may
have been reoccupied for a number of years (Lepper and Yerkes 1997).
The fifth pattern, Dispersed Sedentary Community, was proposed by Dancey and
Pacheco (1997). This pattern was built on Prufer’s (1964; 1965) use of the Vacant
Ceremonial Center-Dispersed Agricultural Hamlet settlement model. In the Dispersed
Sedentary Community model, the earthwork was a focal point for the community but not
a place for permanent settlement. Instead, the earthwork was for occasional, short-term
habitation related solely to the construction and use of the enclosures and mounds.
Permanent habitation was restricted to hamlets located in the vicinity of the earthwork.
14
Horticulture
Plant domestication began in the Eastern Woodlands during the Late Archaic
period (3000-1000 B.C.). Archaeological evidence documents horticultural activities in
the Middle Woodland period. Following Morgan’s (1881) suggestion that embankments
enclosed agricultural fields, Romain (2004:170) proposed that the interiors of earthworks
were used for horticultural activities: “I wish to investigate the possibility that the
geometric complexes were used, in part, to grow field crops such as goosefoot, maygrass,
and knotweed, which were communally tended.”
Romain (2004) provides limited evidence for this site use. First, he states the
plants cultivated by the Hopewell grow well in the same locations where the terrace
earthworks are located (i.e., flat terrain and well drained soils). Second, he attributes the
scantiness of artifacts recovered from a surface collection conducted by Burks et al.
(2002) at the Hopeton Works as evidence for horticulture. Third, he (2004:184) states
that seeds recovered from mounds at Marietta and Liberty “place known Hopewell
cultigens within the geometric enclosures.” Fourth, he cites a recent study of two pond
cores by McLauchlan (2003:564) from the Fort Ancient site in which cultigen pollen
were found in higher concentrations in levels dated to Hopewellian use of the earthwork
suggesting that Middle Woodland populations “likely cultivated crops at this site for
several hundred years.”
Site Use Hypotheses
The archaeological evidence for seven site uses proposed for Ohio Hopewell
earthworks varies. There is abundant evidence for earthworks used as ceremonial centers
15
or burial sites, limited supporting data for communal meeting places, trading centers, and
for defense, little evidence in the case of horticulture, and contentious evidence for
settlement. The main source of the settlement debate stems from the extent of site use.
Was habitation restricted to intermittent short-term stays or open to permanent long-term
settlements? Compressing the seven proposed site uses results in the formulation of two
general hypotheses concerning the use of Ohio Hopewell earthworks. The Ceremonial
Center hypothesis views earthworks as places for conducting limited activities in support
of earthwork use as ceremonial centers and/or burial sites. The Corporate Center
hypothesis expects a variety of ceremonial, social, economic, and political activities to
occur at earthworks related to a more open, or unrestricted, use of the earthwork. This
dissertation examines the archaeological record of non-mound space at the Hopewell site
to determine which hypothesis best explains the overall use of this site.
Ceremonial Center Hypothesis
The Ceremonial Center hypothesis focuses only on ceremonial and burial site
uses for Ohio Hopewell earthworks. In this hypothesis, all activities conducted at
earthworks are related to one or both of these site uses. Ceremonial use may have
included ritual activities, calendrical rituals, or world renewal ceremonies (Byers 1996;
Romain 1996; Greber 1997a; Greber and Ruhl 2000). Burial use may have involved a
suite of mortuary activities culminating in inhumation. Although never expressed
formally, this hypothesis is often alluded to in the literature; for example, Cowan
(1996:131) states “Major Ohio Hopewell ceremonies and observances took place in
sacred precincts.”
16
The archaeological evidence for both types of activities is often found within sub-
mound structures, such as documented at Mound City, Hopewell, Seip, and Harness
(Mills 1921; Moorehead 1922; Shetrone 1926; Shetrone and Greenman 1931; Greber
1979). Figure 3 shows a plan view of the Big House of Mound 25 at the Hopewell site
with multiple graves, basins, burned areas, and pits. In contrast, very little evidence
related to ceremonies or burials has been recovered from non-mound space. There are at
least three explanations for this paucity of evidence. First, ceremonies that took place in
non-mound space may not have left an archaeologically visible trace; for instance, a
group of people gathering inside Fort Ancient to witness the winter solstice. Second,
ceremonial space was ritually cleaned after use (Brown 1997). Third, systematic research
has not been conducted in non-mound space. Nonetheless, the Ceremonial Center
hypothesis remains a strong contender for understanding site use since the majority of
mound and embankment evidence clearly supports ceremonial or burial use of
earthworks.
If the Hopewell site is best described as a Ceremonial Center, then I expect the
archaeological record of non-mound space to contain very little or no evidence of
activities. If evidence is found, it will only represent that of a sacred nature associated
with ceremonial or burial activities. No evidence of other types of activities, such as those
related to defense or settlement, is expected to be found in non-mound space.
Corporate Center Hypothesis
Bruce Smith (1992:209) termed Hopewell earthworks as “corporate-ceremonial
centers” to encapsulate the multitude of site uses that may be present at any one
17
earthwork. He broadly defined four types of activities conducted at earthworks: mortuary,
corporate labor, craft manufacture, and possibly redistribution or feasting. The more
recent use of the term “corporate center” by Greber (1997b) effectively captures a range
of activities that may be expected at these sites. The Corporate Center hypothesis thus
envisions earthworks as the focal points for communities such that evidence of activities
representing any one, or more, of the site uses other than mortuary or ceremonial may be
found at these sites, regardless of the more or less sacred or secular nature of that use.
If the Hopewell site is best defined as a Corporate Center, then I expect the
archaeological record of non-mound space to contain evidence of activities other than
those associated with ceremonial or burial site uses. Activities may have been fairly
diverse spanning the social, political, and economic realms. A list of activities suggested
for earthworks is presented as Table 1. The extent of activities is also of interest to this
research for two reasons. First, radiocarbon dates of mound debris from the Hopewell site
range over hundreds of years. This suggests a long history of Middle Woodland use.
Many activities could have occurred during this time in non-mound space and thus the
archaeological record might be quite dense. Second, limited testing in non-mound space
at the Hopewell site resulted in different interpretations concerning the extent of
settlement. In his 1922 report on fieldwork at the Hopewell site, Moorehead noted two
“village sites” (Figure 4). Subsequently Shetrone (1926) referred to the villages as
“habitation sites” (Figure 5). Perhaps this shift in nomenclature reflects Shetrone’s
opinion that these areas represent a shorter-term or smaller-scale occupation. More recent
work by Seeman (1981) stated that the western locale represented manufacturing or elite
housing areas.
18
Summary
This dissertation focuses on site use of Ohio Hopewell earthworks by studying the
archaeological record of non-mound space at the Hopewell site. Two hypotheses that
account for seven proposed site uses are tested using data generated from fieldwork. 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 activities varying in terms of nature (sacred vs.
secular) and extent (short-term vs. long-term and small-scale vs. large-scale) such that the
archaeological record of non-mound space is boundless in terms of what might be
expected, especially given the duration of Middle Woodland use. The result of this
research will be an understanding of site use at the Hopewell site, which is a necessary
step in the process of learning how these sites functioned. A critical assumption of this
research is that site use can be differentiated based on the archaeological record.
This dissertation continues in Chapter 2 by summarizing previous research of
non-mound space at Ohio Hopewell earthworks and modeling site use based on
archaeological evidence from non-mound space. In Chapter 3 I describe the research
setting in terms of the natural environment. The Hopewell site is located in an area where
numerous earthworks are regularly spaced along the Central Scioto and Paint Creek River
Valleys. This region has been considered one of the focal points for the Hopewell culture,
no doubt in part due to its gentle topography and rich natural resources. The Hopewell
site was also the location of numerous mapping and other archaeological field projects, so
a review of previous archaeological studies that emphasizes non-mound research is given
in Chapter 4.
19
Chapter 5 contains the methods used during fieldwork. Here the sampling strategy
is explained, as well as the geophysical and traditional archaeological techniques used in
this research. In Chapter 6 I describe the analytical methods used to make sense of the
archaeological record from the geophysical and artifact data.
Results of the fieldwork are presented in Chapter 7. Detailed data are given for
each of eighteen sampling units in the study. In Chapter 8 I synthesize these results, as
well as integrate results from previous non-mound studies at the Hopewell site, in order
to determine which of the seven proposed uses of earthworks is documented in non-
mound space. I give a project summary that focuses on the two hypotheses in Chapter 9
along with proposing directions for future research. A short discussion on the use of
geophysical techniques in archaeological research closes this final chapter.
20
CHAPTER 2
TOWARDS AN UNDERSTANDING OF NON-MOUND SPACE
Archaeological fieldwork conducted at Ohio Hopewell earthworks has yielded
evidence of activities indicative of how earthworks were used. While most of the
evidence comes from mound and embankment investigations, non-mound space may
have played a crucial role by staging a variety of activities; however, only limited
fieldwork of this earthwork component has been carried out. This is unfortunate since the
majority of the area of an earthwork is non-mound space. Some research has been
conducted, but it has been restricted in scope to surface collecting, limited shovel testing,
or excavation of only a small portion of an earthwork, such as a surface collection at the
Hopewell site by Seeman (1981). This research, to be detailed in the Chapter 4, located
evidence for Hopewell craft manufacture and habitation.
This chapter begins with an overview of non-mound research conducted at Ohio
Hopewell earthworks. A map showing the locations of these earthworks in relation to the
Hopewell site is provided as Figure 6. Then expectations of the archaeological record of
non-mound space for each site use are presented.
21
Non-mound Research at Ohio Hopewell Earthworks
Seip Earthworks
Archaeological evidence of the use of non-mound space at the Seip Earthworks
appears to have been found by sheer accident on two different occasions. During early
work on the mounds, Shetrone and Greenman (1931:474) located an isolated burial in
non-mound space:
During reconstruction of Mound Number 1 a grave was disclosed

72 feet south of the west end. A small pile of cremated bones lay in
a pit two and one-half feet deep. Accompanying this cremation
were two copper ear-spools and the broken half of a human
mandible which had been perforated artificially five-eighths of an
inch inward from the gonion, by a hole one-eighth of an inch in
diameter. The jaw is that of a male of middle age at the time of
death and is undoubtedly a trophy or a family relic.
Decades later Baby and Langlois (1979) conducted excavations at the site in order to
collect data for interpretive exhibits of the Seip-Pricer Mound and the wall of the large
circular enclosure. During excavations, archaeologists noticed a slight rise in elevation
between the two areas under investigation. A test excavation in the non-mound space
found a midden and further excavations were begun. A total of seven structures were
excavated. These structures do not contain evidence indicative of use as Big Houses or
residences. Instead the authors (1979:18) state that these buildings were “specialized
workshops” in which the artifacts now found within the mounds were fashioned by
Hopewell craft specialists. Their evidence of craft manufacture includes the presence of
bladelets and mica fragments in all structures, deposits of worked mica in two structures,
pits with animal remains, and the presence of marine shell and three flakes of obsidian.
No evidence for habitation, such as cooking or storage pits, was found.
22
Radiocarbon dates from the seven structures in non-mound space overlap those
from the Big House below the Seip-Pricer Mound. Dates for Seip are given in RCYBP by
Greber (2003). Calibration of these dates at two sigma using CALIB 5.0.1-IntCal04
(Reimer et al. 2004) produced dates from the mound of A.D. 382-433 and from the
structures ranging between 40 B.C.-A.D. 351 to A.D. 945-1291. These structures were
used for an extended period of time before and after this area was surrounded by the large
circular enclosure. Evidence shows that the large circular enclosure was built after the
Seip-Pricer Mound was completed (Greber 1997b).
Field notes from earlier excavations of the mounds and embankments state that
habitation debris was redeposited as earthwork fill. This debris is hypothesized to be from
middens that resulted from intensive long- and short-term occupations during the Middle
Woodland period (Greber 1997b). These occupations were probably located somewhere
within the area contained by the largest enclosure; however, these occupations appear to
pre-date construction of this enclosure. Thus, Hopewellian use of this space was not
guided by its location within an enclosure (i.e., non-mound space). Habitation appears to
have occurred either before enclosure construction or during use of the first Big House.
Additional evidence of activities in non-mound space at Seip includes another
possible habitation area in the smaller circular enclosure, and a habitation area, “ritual
post,” and two “ritual fires” in the largest enclosure (Greber 1997b). A description of the
ritual activity is given by Greber (1997b:210):
… variously sized spaces were cleared of topsoil, thus forming a

simply prepared but serviceable floor. Activities carried out on
these floors include making small fires directly on the floors, and
then clearing away the debris and raising large posts, which were
ultimately lowered and the postholes refilled. At some point in
23
time, each space was covered in a customary Hopewellian manner.
The spaces were mantled by a covering of small yellow gravels
that are easily obtainable from subsurface deposits of the outwash
terrace on which the site was built.
In total, the archaeological evidence of site use in non-mound space at the Seip
Earthworks is limited to the largest circular enclosure and, to a much lesser extent, the
small circle. One isolated cremation provides evidence for non-mound burial. Craft
workshops indicate use of the site for communal meeting spaces or trading locales.
Features attributed to ritual activities suggest non-mound use for a ceremonial center.
Lastly, site use for settlement seems to predate conversion of land to non-mound space.
Based on the archaeological evidence, a wide range of activities related to the
construction and use of the earthworks, but not long-term habitation, occurred in non-
mound space at Seip.
High Bank
Fieldwork at the High Bank earthworks in the 1970s by Shane focused on
excavating trenches through embankment walls. Prufer (1996) reports that surface
collections were also conducted during this time but that only about 350 objects were
found in non-mound space. Very few of these artifacts were indicative of Hopewellian
occupation and only a handful of fire-cracked rock (FCR) was found. Similar results were
found during field collections in the late 1980s by Jonathan Bowen (as reported in Prufer
1996). While two possible bladelet fragments were recovered, Prufer (1996) states that
the assemblage does not appear to be Hopewellian in origin. The lack of debris in non-
mound space suggests very limited use of this space, possibly only for ceremonial use.
24
Liberty Works
Examination of a large private collection from a farm at Liberty Works in Ross
County found evidence of bladelet manufacture within the earthworks. The extant
collection of Robert Harness, landowner of a 602 hectare farm that includes the
earthwork, contains over 19,000 artifacts collected over a period of 28 years (Coughlin
and Seeman 1997). Most finds were from surface collections, but some were recovered
from excavations. All artifacts are provenienced to a field or to a specific site within a
field. Coughlin and Seeman (1997) noted two areas within the large circular enclosure
that contain clusters of blades and blade cores. Site 25 contains 678 blades and 58 blade
cores. Site 18 has 308 blades and 73 blade cores. Flint at both sites includes Knife River
and obsidian. Coughlin and Seeman (1997:237) conclude that Site 25 is probably a
“special-purpose site for blade production” and Site 18 is a “special-purpose blade
production site similar to Site 25, small ritual localities, or both.” The large number of
finished bladelets suggests a ceremonial purpose to this manufacturing activity.
Mound City
Archaeological fieldwork in the non-mound space at Mound City has not revealed
much in the way of Middle Woodland remains. Brown (1994) reports on the limited
excavations carried out in the 1960s and 1970s in non-mound space. Most of these
investigations were located in the northern limits of the enclosure around the perimeters
of mounds. Very little was found in these areas. In addition, some work was conducted in
the southeast corner of the enclosure. A series of posts to the west of Mound 10 is a
structure built as a “simpler and lighter construction” (Brown 1994:130). To the southeast
25
of Mound 10 is another series of postmolds and a midden. The postmolds were not
arranged in a discernible pattern, but Camp Sherman construction activities disturbed this
area heavily and this may have impacted any post pattern. Brown (1994:131) describes
the midden as “elongate in ground plan with irregular edges,” and states that the debris
resulted from a local occupation that predated the construction of the enclosure.
Hopeton Earthworks
A surface collection of 70 hectares inside and around the Hopeton earthworks was
conducted in 2001 by the National Park Service (Burks et al. 2002). A total of 12,541
artifacts were found—9,301 of which were fire-cracked rock. Most artifacts were
recovered from outside the earthwork. An analysis of artifacts suggests short-term
Hopewellian habitation on the terrace surrounding the earthwork. Furthermore, the
following conclusion was reached regarding non-mound space: “There were strict rules
against inhabiting the areas inside the earthworks and/or these areas were periodically
cleaned of all occupation and use debris” (Burks et al. 2002:8).
Additional recent investigations at the Hopeton Earthworks focused on
determining construction techniques of the embankments and looking for activity areas in
non-mound space (Lynott 2004). Geophysical survey has resulted in almost total
coverage of the site. A total of sixteen hectares have been tested with magnetic
equipment, including most of the non-mound space. In 2002, four geophysical anomalies
within the square enclosure were tested and a posthole and a deep pit feature were found;
however, the relationship between these features and the earthworks is presently
unknown.
26
Fort Hill
Archaeological research of non-mound space at Fort Hill is extremely limited.
Fieldwork in the 1960s excavated a trench through an embankment wall and placed
several units (approximately 1 by 1 meter) within the interior of the enclosure (Prufer
1997a). No artifacts were recovered and no features were found. The lack of remains is
attributed to use of the site for defense as Prufer (1997a:320) presents a scenario that Fort
Hill was used “as highly temporary occupation areas in times of trouble.” I interpret the
lack of archaeological remains within the hilltop as evidence of a ceremonial, not
defensive, use.
Fort Ancient
Evidence for site use of non-mound space is documented at the Fort Ancient site
in Warren County. Morgan (1946) first noted habitation debris within the enclosures that
he attributed to a permanent village. Connolly (1996a) noted pavement features in non-
mound space that he thought were related to food preparation activities. More recently at
least ten structures within the site’s North Fort enclosure were found prior to renovating
an existing museum structure. The general location for the excavations was determined
by the placement of the expanded building and infrastructure. A total of 44 features of a
domestic nature, including earth ovens, basins, and trash pits, were excavated. Artifacts
recovered included bladelets, Middle Woodland projectile points, and small quantities of
mica, quartz, and non-local pot sherds. Lazazzera (2004) proposes that the structures
represent three different contexts: generalized domestic, specialized domestic, and
specialized ceremonial. Each context has associated site types such as hamlets and base
27
camps for generalized domestic, seasonal and ritual camps for specialized domestic, and
earthworks and charnel houses for specialized ceremonial. Evidence for the two domestic
site types was found in non-mound space.
Radiocarbon dates from several structures and other features located within the
North Fort at Fort Ancient indicate occupation after the space was enclosed. Greber
(2003:103-104) notes that:
Changes through time are clearly evident, but the chronological

relationships among the group of structures found inside the
northern enclosure, various stages of wall construction (including
some relatively simple walls and intricate combinations of ponds
and walkways at some wall openings), cemetery areas within the
walls, and cultural materials found just outside the walls are not yet
firmly set.
Even without precise chronological control, some of these structures appear to have been
used for habitation. Although the duration of use through time is not known, Lazazzera
(2004) proposes that the generalized domestic structures were occupied for longer
periods of time corresponding to intense episodes of earthwork construction and
ceremonial use, while the specialized domestic structures resulted from short-term
occupations also during earthwork construction and use.
The archaeological evidence supports use of non-mound space for settlement,
communal meeting space, and ceremonial activities. Although site use is directly related
to earthwork construction and use activities, evidence may support a modified version of
Griffin’s settlement proposition that enclosures were used for long-term, more permanent
habitation.
28
Stubbs Earthwork
This geometric earthwork is located on the Little Miami River. Surface
collections in the 1980s found a site that is probably located directly outside the
enclosure. The Stubbs Mill Blade site consisted of cores and bladelets indicative of a
manufacturing area and pot sherds, drills, projectile points, and other artifacts of a
domestic nature. Genheimer (1997:291) attributes the archaeological record to “multiple
short-term, or perhaps cyclical, seasonal occupations.” This interpretation supports site
use for short-term habitation.
Salvage excavations prior to and during construction of a school were conducted
at the Stubbs earthworks in the 1990s (Cowan et al. 2000). A woodhenge of 172 posts
was located at the base of a small circular enclosure. In addition, the remains of
seventeen structures were found. These structures had rectangular, circular, or c-shaped
floor plans. Few pit features and a limited range of artifacts point to short-term habitation
of these structures.
Purdom Mound Group
Non-mound space was tested at the Purdom Mound Group in 1989 and 1992
(Heilman and Mahoney 1996). In 1989, a 7 by 1 meter trench immediately north of a
mound located almost 100 pot sherds, a portion of a bannerstone, and FCR, among other
artifacts. The assemblage was thought to be the remnants of a Hopewell occupation,
possibly associated with a mound. In 1992 additional excavations were placed in two
locales. One area was selected for excavation because the landowners were building a
house in this location. One posthole was found along with stone tools, lithic debitage, and
29
FCR. All diagnostic artifacts were dated to the Archaic period, but 238 of 868 flakes
were of Flint Ridge chert. A dense cluster of flakes was determined to represent a
manufacturing or reworking area; however, Heilman and Mahoney (1996:299) write:
“We cannot state conclusively that this cultural debris was made during a Hopewell
occupation.”
Although very little was recovered from these limited excavations, pot sherds and
Flint Ridge flakes may point to a Hopewell origin. Prufer (1996) suggests that these
remains may be part of a domestic structure. The sparse nature of the remains may have
resulted from a short-term occupation.
Newark Earthworks
A survey of a portion of the Newark Earthworks in advance of a highway project
relocating portions of the earthworks and found two sites. The survey consisted of surface
collecting, shovel testing and other small excavations, trenching, and backhoe excavating
in the project corridor between 1977 and 1980. Hale’s House site is located slightly north
of the northeast portion of the Newark Earthworks. Microwear analysis detected use for
butchering activities or other activities associated with bone, hide, meat, and possibly
antler. Postmolds, diagnostic artifacts, and radiocarbon dates led to a conclusion that this
site was used as “ordinary domestic loci occupied for part of the year by Hopewell social
groups who came to the Newark Earthworks for their periodic ‘rites of passage’ and other
special events” (Lepper and Yerkes 1997:188). The Meridian Alley site may have been
located within earthen walls that formed one of the many avenues of the Newark
earthworks. The site consisted of four features: a postmold with mica flecks; two sterile
30
shallow pits; and a shallow basin containing mica and a portion of a biface. Lepper and
Yerkes (1997:182) believe this site was occupied for a short period with “a function
directly connected with the special activities taking place within the earthworks.”
Non-mound activity areas are also located at the Octagon and at Salisbury Square
near Newark (Lepper 1998). Some fieldwork occurred at the Octagon prior to the
expansion of Moundbuilders Country Club in 1994. A historic 1815 map marked “sunken
wells” near each gateway. A series of 1 by 1 meter units were excavated to determine the
nature of these features. A long, narrow pit feature with gravel fill and a small postmold
was found. Lepper (1998:128) speculates that these may have represented some sort of
astronomical alignment post or “signposts erected to bear some identifying standard
significant to each opening of the octagon.” Clearly, an assignment of ceremonial site use
has been given to these deposits. Another ceremonial feature was recorded at the
Salisbury Square. This pit feature, found by a landowner preparing her garden, contained
layers of artifacts, including cores, projectile points, and bladelets. It is not certain if this
feature was contained within non-mound space or just outside the embankment wall.
This large earthwork complex has had limited research conducted in non-mound
space. Results found activity areas in non-mound space indicative of short-term
habitation and ceremonial activities, suggesting use of non-mound space for settlement
and as a ceremonial center.
Other Earthworks
Griffin (1996) described evidence for site use in terms of settlement at several
Ohio Hopewell earthworks. Most of this evidence was collected at the turn of the
31
twentieth century when observations about the archaeological record other than the
mounds were quite minimal. These observations were ancillary to the mound excavations
and were not part of projects designed to systematically locate non-mound debris.
Habitation debris, including much pottery, was located under an enclosure and inside the
main enclosure at Turner in the 1890s. Below the Ginther and Shilder Mounds were
remnants of habitation suggestive to Griffin of villages. Finds included pot sherds, flakes,
mica, and FCR. Remains of structures, hearths, pot sherds, and ceremonial objects, are
his evidence of habitation at the Marietta Earthworks.
Much of this habitation data does not seem to support the idea of large, permanent
villages within the earthworks. Archaeological deposits located under walls or mounds
are more suggestive of habitation prior to the construction of any earthwork feature. In
addition, Prufer (1996:409) interprets the Turner assemblage as representing “separate
localities within the orbit of the huge earthworks.” In this case, the evidence may have
derived from episodic, short-term habitation related to earthwork construction,
maintenance, or use over a period of two to four hundred years. Given this scenario, the
data may be indicative of short-term settlements.
Modeling Site Use of Non-mound Space
There is evidence for use of non-mound space at Ohio Hopewell earthworks as
demonstrated by the archaeological remnants of activities. For example, craft
manufacturing areas found at Seip Earthworks and Liberty Works support site use for
communal meeting places or trading centers. Domestic debris found at Purdom Mound
Group and other earthworks may represent site use for either short- or long-term
32
settlement. The goal of this research is to determine site use of non-mound space at the
Hopewell site by locating evidence of activities. The seven proposed site uses are now
reviewed in light of archaeological expectations.
Non-mound Space for Ceremonial Centers
Archaeological evidence of earthworks used for ceremonial centers has been
found in structures underneath mounds and within embankments. Non-mound space may
have also been used for a variety of ceremonies. Ritual features, including fired floors
and postholes, were found at Seip (Greber 1997b). Specialized ceremonial structures at
Fort Ancient were attributed to ceremonial behavior (Lazazzera 1997). Features
containing Hopewell exotic goods and gravel-filled pits were located in non-mound space
at Newark (Lepper and Yerkes 1997; Lepper 1998). There is quite a range of features
attributed to ceremonial behavior. Some features contain exotic or large quantities of
goods. Other features that are not easily identifiable as secular in nature are classed as
ceremonial. Since the range of ceremonial activities is vast, any number of features may
indicate that non-mound space was used for a ceremonial center. Based on evidence from
other earthworks, ceremonial activities may be represented by isolated or groups of
postholes, caches of goods, compacted floors, or pit features without habitation debris.
Non-mound Space for Burial Sites
In general, use of some Ohio Hopewell earthworks for burial sites is supported
based on evidence from mounds and embankments. There are also a very few cases of
burials recovered from non-mound space. One isolated Hopewell burial was fortuitously
33
found in non-mound space within the large enclosure at Seip (Shetrone and Greenman
1931; see also Greber 1997b). Non-mound burials at Fort Ancient were found by
Moorehead in the late nineteenth century, but these were later determined to be from the
Late Prehistoric period (A.D. 1000-1650) (Riordan 1998). The paucity of documented
non-mound burials may be due to the lack of systematic archaeological work in the non-
mound space or be indicative of non-mound use other than for burial sites. If non-mound
space at the Hopewell site was used as a burial site, then I expect to locate features
associated with mortuary activities, such as processing areas (i.e., crematory basins or
sub-mound structures), or the burials themselves.
Non-mound Space for Communal Meeting Places
The range of activities related to community-based meetings is extremely broad.
For instance, activities may include marriages, alliance building, decision making, trials
(in terms of a judiciary system), feasting, storytelling, dancing, or gaming. The nature of
these activities requires a staging area to accommodate the participants and observers.
Non-mound space provides an area to conduct these activities, but what are the
archaeological remnants of these activities? Many of these communal activities may
leave little to no proof, such as storytelling, while others leave distinct remnants, such as
feasting. Evidence of use for communal meeting places may be prepared floors that
represent staging areas. To date much of the archaeological evidence for communal
meeting places in non-mound space is focused on craft manufacturing or feasting debris.
If non-mound space at the Hopewell site was used for communal meetings, then I would
expect many participants due to the grandness of the earthworks and deposits of artifacts.
34
Perhaps an equal number of observers also came to the earthworks. As such, the
archaeological record supporting the use of non-mound space for a communal meeting
place may contain compacted floors, craft manufacturing areas, and feasting debris (i.e.,
large earth ovens, roasting pits, and middens). In addition, the archaeological record may
contain isolated finds of personal items from the large number of people visiting the site
even if the non-mound space was cleaned after every meeting.
Non-mound Space for Trading Centers
Evidence of earthworks used for trading centers is limited. Most comes from
artifact caches found in mound deposits and perhaps from the finely crafted artifacts of
exotic material themselves. Non-mound evidence that may support use for trading
activities includes structures like those interpreted as craft workshops at Seip and blade
manufacturing areas such as at Liberty. If non-mound space at the Hopewell site was
used for a trading center, then the archaeological remnants of caches, structures, features
containing Hopewell exotic materials but without habitation debris, or possibly isolated
finds of Hopewell artifacts may support this site use.
Non-mound Space for Defense
Use of earthworks for defense is usually based on strategic positioning of the
earthwork or the presence of some sort of defensive features, such as stockades or moats.
Many of the terrace earthworks located in southern Ohio do not exhibit either of these
characteristics. Furthermore, there is little archaeological evidence of warfare from
Hopewell skeletal remains. However, stockades recently excavated at Pollack may point
35
to a defensive nature of this earthwork (Riordan 1998). If an earthwork was used for
defensive purposes, non-mound space may contain archaeological remnants of stockades,
ditches, or fortified buildings. Additional embankments may have been built to surround
temporary quarters of those seeking safety. Artifacts may include weapons, perhaps
found in abundance in caches. If the earthworks were breached during an invasion,
evidence of burned structures may be found. To date, no evidence of a defensive nature
has been found in non-mound space at any Ohio Hopewell earthwork; yet, it is the lack of
any type of feature or debris from Fort Hill that led Prufer (1997a) to conclude a
defensive nature for this hilltop enclosure. If non-mound space at the Hopewell site was
used for defense, then a variety of defensive features and artifacts should be found.
Non-mound Space for Settlement
The site use most attributed to non-mound space is for settlement. Two of the five
settlement patterns outlined by Dancey and Pacheco (1997)—Seasonal Mobility and
Dispersed Sedentary Community—limit habitation at the earthworks to brief stays
associated with the construction, maintenance, or use of these sites. In contrast, three
settlement patterns—Nucleated Sedentary, Semi-permanent Sedentary, and Central
Place—have long-term habitation in or adjacent to the earthworks. Non-mound evidence
has therefore been interpreted to support both short- and long-term habitation. Pacheco
(1996:21) supports short-term habitation of non-mound space:
… the vacant centers of the model represent multi-purpose

localities at which the remains of many different kinds of
activities, such as craft production and mortuary ceremonialism,
are to be expected. Some of the structures associated with these
activities may have been relatively permanent features…. Social
36
gatherings for any purpose at the earthworks would have
necessarily included many otherwise typical domestic activities….
The presence of such camps or even more substantial remains is
not evidence to reject the model as long as these are not the
remains of nucleated villages. Thus, it is not the lack of
occupational debris that makes Ohio Hopewell centers vacant, but
the lack of permanent villages.
In contrast, Lepper (1996:236) alludes to long-term occupation at earthworks:
… there seems to be little justification for the notion that geometric

earthworks were vacant ceremonial centers. Although these
structures clearly are not the walls of large urban centers and the
interiors of the earthworks sometimes appear to be vacant, when
sought, domestic debris commonly is found both outside and inside
the embankments. There is no evidence to support the claim that
all of these domestic loci are merely ephemeral camp sites
occupied either by laborers during construction of the earthworks
or ritual specialists during periodic visits to prepare the honored
dead for burial.
Fifteen archaeological correlates for Middle Woodland short- and long-term
settlements are provided in Table 2. The correlates for short-term habitation were
modeled after the “mobile foragers” proposed by Yerkes (2002:239). This settlement
model envisions the Hopewell moving seasonally throughout the local landscape and thus
should strongly correlate with the proposition of short-term habitation at earthworks. The
archaeological record may include postholes of temporary shelters, shallow middens, and
limited tool kits. The correlates for long-term habitation, such as spatial segregation of
activities, large storage pits, and diverse tool kits, are patterned on the Hopewell hamlets
in the Dispersed Sedentary Community model by Dancey and Pacheco (1997). While
hamlets are occupied for long periods of time and make a suitable correlate in that
respect, Griffin’s (1996) idea of long-term villages inside earthworks is on a scale much
larger than the one or two families that formed a hamlet. I would therefore expect an
37
exaggeration in size of the archaeological record in terms of the correlates to account for
this type of nucleation. Evidence for settlement in non-mound space at the Hopewell site
may include a variety of structures, features, or artifacts associated with daily life.
Non-mound Space for Horticulture
There are no strong indicators that earthworks were used for horticulture. Very
limited circumstantial evidence is provided by Romain (2004), although he does cite
pond cores from Fort Ancient that contained higher amounts of cultigen pollen as
evidence of horticultural activities inside these enclosures. If non-mound space at the
Hopewell site was used for horticulture, then at the minimum I expect to find garden
tools. In addition, fences and food processing areas might be found. Although Romain
(2004) states that the absence of features and artifacts supports this type of site use, a
careful consideration of a sparse archaeological record has to be done before assigning a
site use for horticultural activities. Scanty remnants may also be due to activities with
weak archaeological signatures, cleaning activities, or research design bias.
Summary
Activities staged inside earthworks are of interest to this research. A review of the
literature found evidence of non-mound debris at several Ohio Hopewell earthworks.
However, fieldwork from other earthworks found scant evidence of non-mound debris.
This is the case at High Bank as surface collections in the 1970s and 1980s did not locate
much in the way of Hopewell artifacts (Prufer 1996). A recent surface collection of the
Hopeton Works also found little in terms of artifacts within the enclosure as opposed to
38
the many artifact clusters adjacent to the embankments (Burks et al. 2002). It appears that
each earthwork may have played host to different activities that were ultimately governed
by site use.
The goal of this research is to understand site use of one Ohio Hopewell
earthwork by testing two hypotheses—Ceremonial Center and Corporate Center. As
such, this research looks for evidence of activities by sampling non-mound space at the
Hopewell site using traditional archaeological and geophysical techniques. The research
problem is simply stated in two parts: (1) what site uses are supported by evidence found
in non-mound space at the Hopewell site? And (2) does site use support or reject the
Ceremonial Center and Corporate Center hypotheses?
Of importance to this research is that evidence for all seven proposed uses may be
found because earthworks may have been used in multiple ways:
The automatic assumption that surface or redeposited remains

physically near an obvious corporate center are “Ceremonial” will,
I believe, automatically bias conclusions drawn concerning the
uses of the monument sites. Although it may be archaeological
inconvenient to have an overlap between domestic and corporate
activities, it is anthropologically more realistic to acknowledge that
such overlaps can, do, and did occur. (Greber 1997b:212)
In addition, the configuration and use of earthworks evolved over time as Hopewell
communities changed. Greber (1997b:216) comments about land use at Seip Earthworks:
I suggest that a significant shift occurred in socially accepted uses

of land. As soon as the walls of the large circle were erected, areas
were no longer available that could, and I think had, afforded
suitable locations for family homes and everyday activities. Just as
social customs apparently caused debris to be deposited outside the
boundaries of the large prepared floor north of the Seip-Pricer
Mound and at other equivalent locations, some types of debris and
activities were required to be outside the space defined by
embankments. For example, once the major circular wall had been
39
constructed, the elevated areas (old natural levees) along the
former channels of Paint Creek that fell within the enclosure were
no longer used for domestic purposes.
Multiple site uses and earthwork evolution contribute to the complex archaeological
record documented at Ohio Hopewell earthworks.
40
CHAPTER 3
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
The Hopewell site, the “type site” of the Hopewell culture, is located in Ross
County in the rolling hills of southern Ohio. While the specific reason why this land was
chosen for an earthwork is unknown, the relatively flat expanse amid hills, dry soil, a
series of springs, and local fauna and flora may have influenced its selection. Shetrone
(1926:200) notes:
While it is evident to the most casual observer that the sites

occupied by all important groups of the Hopewell culture were
carefully selected by their builders, the location of the Hopewell
Group is easily the most impressive. The region (Union Township,
Ross County) is marked by the glacial moraine and presents the
interesting phenomenon of rugged, unglaciated hills, bordering the
North Fork Paint Creek, in close proximity to glacial formations of
almost equal size and impressiveness.
This chapter summarizes aspects of the natural environment that may have affected
prehistoric use of the area.
Physiography
The Hopewell site is situated within the Glaciated Allegheny Plateau, an area
between the Till Plains to the north and the Unglaciated Allegheny Plateau to the south.
41
This physiographic region has steep valleys, ridges, and flat uplands that are covered with
deposits of glacial drift (Brockman 1998). This glacial terrain is evident at the Hopewell
site as two episodes of glaciation, the Illinoian and the Wisconsinan, modified the two
terraces overlooking the North Fork Paint Creek. The second terrace, which contains the
majority of the earthworks, is covered with outwash. The third terrace is part of the
Lattaville end moraine that formed during the Wisconsinan glaciation. To the west of
these terraces is a deep valley lined with shale cliffs formed from the movement of ice
across the ridges (Hyde 1920). To the east, the terraces spread out onto the alluvial
floodplains and outwash terraces of the North Fork Paint Creek River valley. This valley
was actually the Paint Creek River valley prior to the last episode of glaciation when the
Paint Creek was rerouted along a more southern route. Elevation in the project area
averages 213 meters above mean sea level.
Geology and Soils
Bedrock below the Hopewell site consists of shales dating to the Devonian ages
(USDA 2003). Depth to bedrock at the site is more than three meters and sandy and
gravelly glacial outwash form a thick deposit along the Paint Creek River valley (USDA
1967). As a result, soil formation is not influenced by the underlying bedrock, but by the
glacial materials deposited on the terraces during the Wisconsinan glaciation.
The general soil association of the Hopewell site is that of Gessie-Eldean-Ross.
This association is characterized by deep, well drained soils of moderate permeability
(USDA 2003). The Hopewell site has two distinctive soils (Figure 7). The second terrace,
containing the majority of the site, is predominantly Eldean loam with small patches of
42
Glenford silt loam. Eldean loam has high clay content. Most of the second terrace is level
with 0-2% slopes. Slopes of 2-6% correspond with earthworks along the east wall of the
main enclosure and around Mound 25. Patches of Glenford silt loam occur in three
locations within the enclosures, in the west field, around the West Village site, and at the
base of the slope from the second to the third terrace. These areas, with little to no slope,
have moderately slow permeability and a seasonally high water table that could have
potentially restricted prehistoric development or use. In addition, the USDA (2003)
classifies the Glenford soil as having a perched water table, defined as a small,
freestanding body of water separated from the real water table by dry soils. The third
terrace containing the northern limits of the Hopewell site rises about twelve meters
above the second terrace and is Miamian silt loam (USDA 2003). This soil drains well,
but has high clay content and moderately slow permeability. The terrace has slopes that
vary between 6-12% in the northwest portion of the earthwork to 20-35% along the north
wall of the main enclosure. These steep slopes are subject to erosion without a thick
cover of vegetation.
Hydrology
The Hopewell site is located on a terrace overlooking the North Fork Paint Creek.
The entirety of the site is less than a kilometer from the river but portions are within 300
meters of the river. This river is a tributary of Paint Creek, which is a major tributary of
the Scioto River. Water flows in North Fork Paint Creek year-round. An intermittent
stream, Sulphur Lick, runs further east and north of the site.
43
Springs are a common occurrence in the area, such as the nearby Sulphur Lick
Springs used at the turn of the twentieth century for medicinal purposes. Water trapped in
the uplands in large sand layers is transported laterally through the sand layer until it is
released at the terrace edges resulting in a series of year-round springs located along the
slope of the third terrace. Hyde (1920:88) described the springs as located at “intervals of
rods or a mile along its edge…. Practically every gully head has a spring.” An early map
by Squier and Davis (1848) depicts two springs within the main enclosure, as well as one
spring outside the main enclosure but adjacent to the west gateway (Figure 8). Squier and
Davis also describe a stream that flowed from the third to second terrace that was
rerouted by the Hopewell into an artificial channel or ditch that is associated with the
western wall of the main enclosure.
Fauna and Flora
The fauna and flora of prehistoric Ohio provided many resources. Fauna included
many of the animals documented historically. Regarding contribution to the Hopewellian
diet, the most important animal appears to be deer, followed by turkey and raccoon, and
then a mix of small mammals, fish, shellfish, and migratory fowl (Ford 1979).
Archaeological evidence of animal remains from structures at Seip included deer, turkey,
skunk, fox, squirrel, prairie chicken, fish, and a salamander (Baby and Langlois 1979).
In general, vegetation was deciduous or mesophytic forests of oak, hickory,
maple, walnut, and honey locust. Natural clearings in the forests provided grassy areas,
some used by the Hopewell for swidden garden horticulture. Wymer (1996:47) envisions
the Hopewell environment as a mixture of forests with “differing patches of in-use
44
current gardens, recently abandoned plots, and secondary forest re-growth in older
cleared areas surrounding the sites.” Furthermore, earthwork sites may have been cleared
of vegetation at least during construction phases and perhaps during astronomical events
in the case of alignments.
Vegetation at the Hopewell site has changed significantly since development of
the area at the turn of the nineteenth century. Early settlers cleared the hardwood forests
that covered the site at the same time relic or pocket prairies were converted to
agricultural fields. The rich soils of the second and third terraces have been in agricultural
production for two hundred years. A noticeable plowzone with a depth of 20 to 30
centimeters below surface is documented in the fields at the Hopewell site. Although the
steep slopes separating the terraces were not plowed and planted, they were cleared of
vegetation and used for pasture. During the mid-twentieth century the springs were
capped and water diverted for use by grazing animals. Farmers also skimmed soils off the
southern portions of the fields and placed it along the northern edges where the wetter
spots of the Glenford silt loam soils decreased crop productivity (Zickafoos, personal
communication). At the time of this research, the second terrace has a mixture of grasses
that is periodically mowed, the slope is covered in trees and brush, and the third terrace is
divided into a woodlot and an old pasture that is in the middle stages of succession.
Summary
The natural environment of the Hopewell site is complex. The location of the site
was chosen for one or more unknown reasons. Archaeologists have primarily used three
reasons to explain placement of earthworks: the location was already considered sacred
45
by that culture; the location was chosen based on the presence or absence of natural
features; or the location was situated in reference to settlement. While the first reason
may be impossible to test, the other two can be examined using a regional approach.
Although beyond the scope of this dissertation, it is important to remember context
within the larger environment when considering how a site was used, especially if the site
was utilized for centuries.
46
CHAPTER 4
CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT
People have inhabited Ohio for over 11,000 years. Archaeological traces for all
prehistoric periods, from Paleoindian to Late Prehistoric, are present in Ross County.
However, the number of mounds and enclosures along the Scioto River and Paint Creek
is astounding. Mills (1914) documented over 370 mounds and 49 enclosures in Ross
County. Of these, only Spruce Hill is a hilltop enclosure. The remainder is a mix of
geometric and free-form enclosures. Major earthworks overlooking the Scioto River are
Dunlaps, Cedar Banks, Hopeton, Mound City, Works East, High Bank, and Liberty.
Along the Paint Creek are Junction, Spruce Hill, Black Run, Bourneville Circle, Baum,
Seip, and Trefoil. On the North Fork Paint Creek are Frankfort, Anderson, and Hopewell.
Five earthworks bear similar tripartite designs consisting of two circular enclosures
attached to one square enclosure; these sites are Seip, Baum, Frankfort, Works East, and
Liberty. Two earthworks contain many burial mounds. Mound City, a squarish enclosure
of five hectares, contains 23 mounds. Hopewell encloses 52 hectares and at least 28
burial mounds. The sheer volume and quality of goods located in these mounds are
staggering. At least 120 pipes were recovered from Mound 8 at Mound City. Over 8,200
chert bifaces were found in Mound 2 at Hopewell. Most of the obsidian found in
47
Hopewell contexts in the Midwest was discovered in Mound 11 at Hopewell. Ross
County was a major center for the Hopewell culture. This chapter examines the cultural
environment of the Hopewell site by describing other Hopewell sites in the vicinity, the
Hopewell site itself, its history of archaeological research, and chronological indictors of
use.
Local Expressions of Ohio Hopewell
The Hopewell site is situated in a core area for the Ohio Hopewell. The
archaeological record for Ross County is vast. Within a few kilometers of the Hopewell
site are other Hopewell earthworks. In terms of habitation sites, recent fieldwork has
surveyed areas adjacent to the earthworks and located occupation debris. A map of
Middle Woodland sites within the vicinity of the Hopewell site is presented as Figure 9.
In addition to the Hopewell site, two earthworks and one isolated mound are
located on this stretch of the North Fork Paint Creek. The Anderson Works, found on
aerial photography in the 1970s, is a squarish enclosure located 2.3 kilometers
downstream from the Hopewell site. Only limited salvage work was conducted prior to
development of part of the site as a housing subdivision. Pickard and Pahdopony (1995)
report on two trenches containing three postmolds and a basin filled with gravel. An
AMS date calibrated to two sigma using CALIB 5.0.1-IntCal04 (Reimer et al. 2004)
returned a date of 173 B.C.-A.D. 90 (2010±60 RCYBP). The Frankfort Works located
9.5 kilometers upriver from the Hopewell site is a tripartite earthwork enclosing 31.5
hectares. Squier and Davis (1848) mapped the earthwork as a small circle connected to a
larger circle that contained four interior mounds. A square enclosure with four gateway
48
mounds, somewhat similar to the square enclosure at the Hopewell site, was attached to
the larger circle. Three of the mounds in the larger circle enclosure were conjoined.
Greber (1997b) states that the excavation of this mound revealed stratigraphy similar to a
conjoined mound at Seip. The Ater Mound, situated 8.3 kilometers northwest of the
Hopewell site, was also a salvage project prior to a construction project. Analysis of
seven extended burials, 54 cremations, and associated artifacts resulted in identifying one
social group with some differentiation between individuals based on the presence of
copper plates (Greber 1976).
Several areas adjacent to the Hopewell site contain Middle Woodland occupation
debris. The Engdahl site is located 0.5 kilometers northeast of the Hopewell site (Ohio
Archaeological Inventory Form 33Ro184). Described as a lithic scatter, this site
contained Middle and/or Late Woodland bifaces. A prehistoric site of unknown temporal
affiliation, the Pfifer Sensitive Area, located approximately 0.75 kilometers east of the
Hopewell site had three Flint Ridge flakes, one Upper Mercer flake, and another flake
(Ohio Archaeological Inventory Form 33Ro470). Presence of the Flint Ridge flakes may
be indicative of a Hopewell occupation. Seeman (1981) located the Tavern site
(33Ro302), a nineteenth century historic site with a Middle Woodland component. A
bladelet, blade cores, and a biface similar to those found in the Mound 2 cache were
found in this Hopewell occupation about 0.25 kilometers west of the Hopewell site. In
2004 the Riverbank site with a Middle Woodland component was recorded
approximately 225 meters southeast of the Hopewell site (Ohio Archaeological Inventory
Form 33Ro1059). Diagnostic artifacts and features with radiocarbon dates point to
occupation by the Hopewell in an unspecified habitation site.
49
A field project in the mid-1990s identified Middle Woodland occupations within
a 4 kilometer catchment zone around the Hopewell site (Dancey 1996a). Surface
collecting and shovel testing were conducted in 25 discrete locations. Bladelets were
found in nine locations. Based on the archaeological record, Middle Woodland hamlets
might be present at eight locations. Four locations are clustered within 0.5 kilometers to
the east of the site (Datums D, E, F, and H). Two locations are within 0.5 kilometers west
of the Hopewell site (Datums A and O). One location is on the third terrace about 0.5
kilometers north of the earthworks (Datum C), and the last is 2.75 kilometers east of the
Hopewell site (Datum M1). These sites may contain archaeological remnants of
habitation related to the community that built and used the Hopewell site.
A survey around the eastern and northern perimeter of the Hopewell site, as well
as along the interior of the western embankment, was conducted in 2005 prior to a trail
installation (Wilson 2006). A total of 359 shovel test pits were excavated in a 10 meter
corridor. Artifacts (n=116) were found in 41 units. Only 77 artifacts were prehistoric,
including 10 bladelets and 8 grit-tempered pottery sherds. One artifact concentration
suggestive of a long-term habitation may correlate to a proposed hamlet location (Datum
H) from Dancey’s survey. Wilson (2006) concludes that three other Middle Woodland
artifact concentrations are probably short-term habitation locales.
Description of the Hopewell Site
The Hopewell site consists of a “two part enclosure” with one enclosure slightly
resembling a parallelogram and the other a square (Greber and Ruhl 2000:11). Figure 10
is an historic map of the site showing major features. Located inside the larger enclosure,
50
hereafter designated the main enclosure, are a D-shaped enclosure and a small circular
enclosure. The majority of the earthworks are located on the second terrace. The northern
wall of the main enclosure runs along the top of the third terrace enclosing two springs
that flow from the slope. The west, north, and east walls of the main enclosure were
approximately 1.8 meters in height and 10.5 meters wide; a corresponding ditch
immediately outside these walls measured about 1.8 meters in depth and 10.5 meters
wide (Squier and Davis 1848). The southern wall of the main enclosure was 1.2 meters
high and made of stone. A number of gateways provide access to the site. Six gateways
enter the main enclosure, two each on the north and south walls and one each on the west
and east walls. The gateway along the east wall of the main enclosure was twice as wide
as any another gateway. Note that the western gateway is located near a spring and the
rerouted intermittent stream. Five gateways enter into the square. There was one gateway
in each of the two smaller enclosures.
There are at least 32 mounds within the enclosures, 28 in the main enclosure and
four in the square. The largest mound known to have been built by the Hopewell, Mound
25, is located within the D-shaped enclosure. Dimensions of this mound in the 1840s
were recorded as 150 meters long, 55 meters wide, and 9 meters high (Squier and Davis
1848). Many of the mounds contained the remains of sub-mound structure, although no
mounds in the square contained substructures or mortuary features. At least eight other
mounds are located just outside the enclosures on both the second and third terraces.
The main enclosure contains 46 hectares and the square enclosure six hectares for
a total area of 52 enclosed hectares. I wanted to determine how much of the 52 hectares
was occupied by mounds or embankments versus non-mound space. To calculate this, I
51
used measurements from Atwater (1820), Squier and Davis (1848), Moorehead (1922),
and Shetrone (1926) for sixteen mounds, including both oblong and conical mounds, and
the D-shaped and circular enclosures. I estimated the area for sixteen additional mounds
based on general descriptions, such as “never a large mound” (Shetrone 1926), and the
average size of mounds at the site, excluding the largest mounds (Mounds 23 and 25). In
total, the mounds covered an area of 1.22 hectares. The small D-shaped and circular
embankments covered an additional 0.4 hectares. A total of 1.62 hectares (3%) was
occupied by earthworks out of a possible 52 hectares.
Moorehead (1922) calculated that three million cubic feet (84,951 cubic meters)
of earthen materials was needed to build the mounds and enclosures at the Hopewell site.
Construction materials included clay, loam, sand, gravel, and stone. To double-check this
calculation, I used the dimensions provided for fifteen mounds (52,780 cubic meters) at
the Hopewell site from Seeman (1977) and calculated the volume of materials used to
construct the remaining mounds and embankments. Sixteen additional mounds were
estimated to have used 3,779 cubic meters of materials. The walls of the enclosures
required an estimated 39,000 cubic meters of materials. The majority of this material was
surface or subsurface soils found at the site. In fact, many walls appear to be of the “dig-
and-throw” variety. From these calculations, the total volume of materials used for the
mounds and enclosures was 95,559 cubic meters (3.4 million cubic feet).
An aerial view of the site from 1976 shows remnants of the site after nearly two
hundred years of agriculture (Figure 11). In addition to plowing, local development and
three episodes of excavation have severely eroded the mounds and embankments. A
recent study examined eight sets of aerial photographs taken decades after the major
52
mound excavations. Ebert and Associates (2000) studied each photograph to identify
anomalies that may be indicative of prehistoric earthen architecture. Figure 12 is the
composite of anomalies. While the general shape of the earthworks is consistent, several
potential features have not been previously mapped, including the anomalies within the
square and the small rectangular anomaly to the north of the square.
History of Archaeological Research at the Hopewell Site
The Hopewell site has attracted the attention of many archaeologists. Three
mound excavations and numerous smaller research projects have generated much data.
The history of research at the site will be divided into two sections: mound explorations
and studies in non-mound space.
Mound Explorations
The earliest documentation of the site is by Caleb Atwater in 1820 when he
published a site map and brief description (Figure 13). This map shows the main and
square enclosures, the two small enclosures inside the main enclosure, and sixteen
mounds, concentrated in the southern half of the site. Interestingly, the map depicts the
D-shaped enclosure as a circle. Although Atwater (1833:10) does not provide details of
any excavations, he did note that the mounds were used as cemeteries and that “the
immense labor, and the numerous cemeteries filled with human bones, denote a vast
population near this spot in ancient times.”
Squier and Davis (1848) provide the first description of excavations at the site,
then known as the Clark’s Work or the North Fork Works. After excavating at least four
53
mounds (Mounds 1, 2, 5, and 9), Squier and Davis (1848:26) described the earthwork as
“one of the largest and most interesting in the Scioto valley.” Their 1848 volume includes
a description of the site, a site map, and engravings depicting mounds and some artifacts.
Attesting to the archaeological significance of the site, they (1848:29) commented
“Within this work, some of the most interesting discoveries recorded in this volume were
made.”
The impact of Squier and Davis’ tome, and particularly of their description of the
Hopewell site, is demonstrated in a quote by Warren K. Moorehead (1922:80) regarding
his decision to dig at the site:
I had in our camp Squier and Davis’ volume “Ancient Monuments

of the Mississippi Valley.” … Squier and Davis had spoken at
considerable length of the importance of this group of mounds….
From reading their volume, it was my firm conviction that here we
would find one of the principal if not actually the largest,
settlement of the Scioto Valley moundbuilding tribe. Thus Squier
and Davis’ work more than anything else brought about the
exploration of the Hopewell group.
In his quest to locate exotic artifacts for the 1893 World’s Columbian Exposition,
Moorehead excavated at least fourteen of the site’s mounds in 1891-1892.
The last of the three mound explorations was by Henry C. Shetrone of the Ohio
Archaeological and Historical Society. He conducted a thorough examination of the site’s
extant mounds and a small portion of one enclosure wall between 1922 and 1925.
Shetrone documented seven additional mounds but he also discovered that many mounds
were destroyed by agriculture, previous excavations, or by railroad and road construction.
A project conducted between 1992 and 1993 focused on Mound 23 at the
Hopewell site (Greber and Seeman 1993, 1995). The immediate goal was to relocate the
54
mound floor using a conductivity meter to determine the accuracy of Moorehead’s
Mound 23 map. Subsequent fieldwork based on the conductivity data successfully
relocated the floor using soil coring. The project’s overall objective to answer
chronological questions about mound use was not achieved due to the lack of materials
suitable for radiocarbon dating.
In the summer of 2004, geophysical testing of an area surrounding Mound 23 was
conducted by an intern at the Midwest Archeological Center, National Park Service.
Magnetic, resistance, and conductivity data was collected from a 7,200 square meter area
in an effort to locate remnants of Mound 23 and the nearby main enclosure wall and ditch
(McKee 2005). The results indicate that much is still intact despite repeated excavations
and many decades of agricultural plowing.
In total, these episodes of mound exploration at the Hopewell site provide
knowledge of the mounds and embankments in terms of stratigraphy and contents.
Research about the earthen architecture continues and artifacts recovered from the early
excavations continue to be mined for information as demonstrated by three recent
dissertations (Johnston 2002; Lloyd 2002; and Mills 2003). Discussion will now turn to
an examination of previous research conducted in the non-mound space at the Hopewell
site.
Research of Non-mound Space
As previously stated, studies of non-mound space were not a focus of nineteenth
and early twentieth century archaeology. Glimpses of the archaeological record in non-
mound space were a by-product of mound excavations. Many times artifacts were not
55
collected, maps were not made of artifact concentrations, and field notes were not taken.
Much of what is known about non-mound space was teased from field notes or published
reports, or is the result of modern archaeological efforts.
Squier and Davis (1848:27) surmised that the Hopewell site was a “fortified
town” that contained both ceremonial and residential activities. While their excavations
of at least four mounds provided evidence of ritual behavior, an explanation concerning
the residential nature of the site consisted of:
The comparative slightness of the wall and the absence of a ditch,

at the points possessing natural defenses,—the extension of the
artificial defenses upon the table lands overlooking and
commanding the terrace,—the facilities afforded for an abundant
supply of water, as well as the large area enclosed, with its
mysterious circles and sacred mounds,—all go to sustain the
conclusion, that this was a fortified town or city of the ancient
people. (Squier and Davis 1848:28-29)
The extent of fieldwork done in non-mound space is not clear but Squier and Davis made
a notation of an area in the northeast corner of the main enclosure (see Figure 8). The
archaeological nature of locale “16” is unknown, but it does correspond to the locations
of habitation sites depicted on later maps.
Both Moorehead and Shetrone commented about non-mound space in their site
reports. Moorehead (1922:86) stated, “The entire space was occupied as a village site, but
the indications are most numerous where the words “village site” have been placed on the
map” (see Figure 4). According to expedition accounts on file at the Field Museum of
Natural History, Moorehead based his determination on evidence from the visible surface
plus excavations in the east village area that recovered carved bone fragments. Additional
insight regarding the nature of the villages states that they were “of closely related clans,
56
fratries or families, which occupied the site for a considerable time,” although his final
sentence in the report limits residency to a select few: “It is my belief that Hopewell itself
was the metropolis of this ancient people, where resided the chief traders or merchants, as
well as the most skilled artisans” (Moorehead 1922:175, 178). In contrast, Prufer
(1965:126) wrote that Moorehead’s villages were likely the “refuse deposited during
mound construction, or in the course of the ceremonial activities that must have taken
place here.”
Excavations conducted by Shetrone in the 1920s searched for evidence of the
residential areas as advanced by Squier and Davis and later by Moorehead. His
examination of non-mound space located small clusters bone fragments, pot sherds, mica
flecks, and flint knives, as well as features containing darkened soil and FCR. Shetrone
(1926:112) subsequently renamed Moorehead’s “village sites” to simply “habitation
sites” noting that the lack of domestic debris was troubling, and stated that “the problem
as to where its builders and occupants lived, remains a puzzling one” (see Figure 5).
Formal investigations of non-mound space at the Hopewell site began in the late
1970s by Mark Seeman of Kent State University. In his effort to evaluate the integrity of
the site for future research and examine Hopewellian settlement patterns, Seeman
conducted surface collections of 178 hectares and limited test excavations within and
adjacent to the site in 1978 and 1980. After the initial work in 1978, Seeman (n.d.)
recorded six activity areas within the embankment walls that ranged in size from 1 to 4
hectares. Both craft manufacturing and habitation areas were found. In addition, two
trenches (6 by 3 meters) were excavated in a habitation area along the base of the third
terrace near two springs. On the surface this habitation area contained a cluster of FCR
57
and other objects but the excavations found no features. At the end of the field season in
1980, Seeman concluded that the density of Hopewell diagnostic artifacts was higher
within the enclosures as compared to that outside. Furthermore, Seeman (1981:45) stated
that:
The general presence of Hopewell material throughout the site

would seem to most adequately be explained by the fact that
people as mourners, worshipers, or constructors were no doubt
periodically mustered to the site. Those areas of somewhat greater
concentration within the site, for example the “western village,”
could easily result from the continued plowing of what were
originally several smaller loci, themselves representing
manufacturing areas and/or the residences of societal leaders.
In addition to the west village, Seeman (1981) found artifact clusters in the east village,
near Mounds 15 and 16, west of the west village, and east of Mound 29. These clusters
may represent manufacturing or residential areas. No radiocarbon dates from any of these
locales were obtained making it unclear when these deposits originated.
Griffin (1997) cites three explanations for the lack of habitation debris found
during Seeman’s surface collections: slope wash along the bottom of the northern terrace;
agricultural practices spanning 150 years; and continual surface collecting by locals.
Griffin clearly believes that habitation occurred within the enclosures.
Additional investigations of non-mound space consisting of a series of shovel
tests and limited test excavations occurred in the late 1990s when Bret Ruby, then of the
National Park Service (NPS), directed research in Moorehead’s East Village. Fieldwork
was continued in 1999 and 2000 by NPS archaeologists. Although no evidence
substantiating a long-term habitation site was found, a light scatter of artifacts, including
bladelets, was found in the general area (Burks and Pederson n.d.). An artifact cluster and
58
pit feature adjacent to Mound 1 contained a variety of lithic tools and debitage, bone,
FCR, and pottery, including tetrapodal feet and stamped sherds. Analysis of the artifacts
determined that this area was used as a short-term campsite probably associated with the
use of nearby Mound 1. In addition, several postholes and a pit feature filled with debris
were found in two locations underneath the eastern wall of the main enclosure.
Lastly, a series of 57 shovel test pits were excavated along the interior of the
western wall of the main enclosure in 2005 (Wilson 2006). Three isolated units contained
five prehistoric artifacts. The lone diagnostic, a bladelet, was found approximately ten
meters east of the embankment. Interestingly, no artifacts were found in the shovel tests
nearest the western gateway.
Chronology of the Hopewell Site
The archaeological record at the Hopewell site reflects a lengthy occupation.
Surface collections inside the enclosures found diagnostic artifacts of the Early, Middle,
and Late Archaic, Late Prehistoric, and nineteenth and twentieth centuries (Seeman
1981). People used this area before and after the Middle Woodland period, although
occupation by the Hopewell resulted in the most visible and well-known portion of its
archaeological record.
Prior to this research, twelve radiocarbon dates had been obtained from materials
recovered from the sub-mound structures of Mounds 11, 17, and 25 (Table 3). One date is
from Mound 17, two from Mound 11, and the remainder from Mound 25. Uncalibrated
dates were given by Libby (1955), Crane and Griffin (1972), Cowan and Greber (2002),
and Greber (2003). Calibration at two sigma was completed using CALIB 5.0.1-IntCal04
59
(Reimer et al. 2004). Two early dates from Mound 25 calibrated to 841 B.C.-A.D. 133
and 826-538 B.C. may not be accurate according to Greber (2003) and were not used in
her analysis of the Hopewell site dates. In addition, the two dates from Mound 11 were
not available during Greber’s (2003) analysis. Material from Burial 248 from Mound 25
dates to 669 B.C.-A.D. 436. This burial, located in the eastern end of the substructure,
contained three copper plates, copper antlers, bear canines, and a beaded garment, among
other objects. Greber averaged the other Mound 25 dates resulting in dates of A.D.
147±72 for Altar 1 and A.D. 220±61 for Burial 260/261. These dates are perhaps
indicative of the peak use of the site due to the accompanying deposits. Altar 1 was a
fired clay basin with a variety of objects, including obsidian and pipes (Moorehead
1922). Burial 260/261, a double burial, contained 66 copper celts, 23 copper plates, a
copper celt weighing 38 pounds, many shell and pearl beads, and other goods that make it
the richest burial feature found at the site (Moorehead 1922). The two dates from Mound
11, calibrated to A.D. 125-339 and A.D. 212-409, were from wood charcoal found
among artifacts collected from the Mound 11 obsidian cache and temporally overlap the
calibrated dates from Mound 25. In contrast, Mound 17 ranged slightly later than the
Mound 11 and 25 deposits. The sole calibrated date is A.D. 123-662.
Nine obsidian artifacts from the Mound 11 cache underwent obsidian hydration
dating. Stevenson et al. (2004) published a general date range for the manufacture of
these artifacts between 258±119 B.C. to A.D. 607±94, although the youngest dates may
not be accurate due to contamination. The range of dates suggests that obsidian was
knapped in multiple episodes over several hundred years. The debitage was collected
60
over the centuries and eventually deposited as one cache in Mound 11. In general, the
obsidian hydration dates actually incorporate many of the radiocarbon dates from the
Hopewell site.
Aside from the radiocarbon and obsidian hydration dates, a seriation of earspools
by Ruhl (1992) may provide some understanding of intrasite chronology. Ruhl’s
sequence placed Mounds 24 and 26 in time before Mounds 2 and 17. Mound 24 is a small
mound located within the main enclosure that contained at least ten burials with limited
grave goods. Mound 26 is located inside the D-shaped enclosure that contained Mound
25 and contained numerous burials, two clay basins, and a deposit with beads, flint
knives, fabric, and other objects. Mound 2, located north of the D-shaped enclosure,
contained the cache of over 8,000 bifaces as well as five burials. Shetrone’s Mound 17,
located in the northeast corner of the main enclosure, had no burials but two large
deposits of various objects. Greber (2003) adds that Mound 2 appears to be later and may
have some connection with the Turner Earthworks in southwest Ohio and that the Big
Houses of Mounds 17 and 25 may have been in use at the same time.
In terms of the enclosures themselves, very little is known. DeBoer (1997)
presents a tentative seriation of Ohio Hopewell earthworks. He builds on previous work
by Byers (1987) that the square enclosure at Hopewell was constructed later than the
main enclosure. DeBoer then explains the addition of the square as evidence of a
changing social order involving marriage practices. In terms of other enclosures at the
site, it is unknown when the smaller D-shaped and circle enclosures were built.
The lack of dates hampers the development of an in-depth chronology at the
Hopewell site. Radiocarbon dates, obsidian hydration, and earspool seriation from mound
61
deposits have started to piece together information, but much more is needed. At two
sigma calibration, most of the Middle Woodland radiocarbon dates range from A.D. 125-
465. Therefore, the site was in use by the Hopewell for at least two centuries in the later
half of the Middle Woodland period.
62
CHAPTER 5
FIELD METHODS
This research examined the prehistoric use of non-mound space at the Hopewell
site. A sample of non-mound space was used since the site is very large. A combination
of geophysical and traditional archaeological techniques was used— magnetometry,
electrical resistance, shovel test pits, anomaly testing, and feature excavation. Fieldwork
was conducted intermittently from June 2001 to May 2003, although the majority of
fieldwork was conducted in the summers of 2001 and 2002. This chapter details the
sampling strategy and field methods.
Selection of Sample
Portions of the site that were available for study are within the boundaries of
Hopewell Culture National Historical Park. Although park boundaries currently
incorporate most of the site plus a small buffer zone, land available at time of research
was 89 hectares spread over four agricultural fields on the second terrace. These fields
were in hay production. The area was bound by a slope to the third terrace to the north,
Sulphur Lick Creek to the east, Sulphur Lick Road to the south, and a fallow agricultural
field to the west. Only three fields within these boundaries contained portions of the
63
Hopewell site. Since the subject of this research was non-mound space inside an
earthwork, only 40 hectares enclosed by either the main or square enclosure were
included in the study universe.
The sampling strategy was selected based on the research goal of understanding
how non-mound space was used. Seeman’s (1981) surface collection offers a general idea
of where Hopewell activities were located in non-mound space at the Hopewell site.
However, I did not specifically study these activity areas for two main reasons. First, I
wanted this research to use a siteless approach in which all portions of non-mound space
were treated equally. Therefore, it is the distribution of artifacts and features over land
that becomes important rather than the delineation of sites (Dunnell and Dancey 1983).
To take this approach, I needed to conduct fieldwork without focusing on previously
identified “sites.” Second, this research used modern techniques in response to Griffin
(1997) and answered his three critiques of Seeman’s surface collection by examining sub-
plowzone deposits for evidence of Hopewellian occupation. Due to these reasons, simple
random sampling was chosen.
Random sampling, also called probability sampling, ensures that “we know the
probability of any particular unit being selected for” (Orton 2000:20). This type of
sampling essentially eliminates researcher bias because no variables are being controlled.
This was an important consideration due to the experimental nature of this research. By
using simple random sampling, the effectiveness of this research design for non-mound
studies can be evaluated by comparing my results to those obtained from Seeman’s
(1981) surface collection. While beyond the scope of this dissertation, this sampling
strategy permits in-depth statistical testing of the data.
64
Using ESRI’s ArcView 3.2 Geographic Information System software, the study
area was gridded into a series of 40 by 40 meter blocks. This block size was chosen to
maximize interpretation from the geophysical tests, while conforming to the grid size
limitations of the geophysical instruments. The blocks also had to cover a large enough
area to discern any structural pattern that may have been related to craft manufacture or
habitation. The dimensions of sub-mound structures at Mound City were about 15 by 15
meters (Brown 1997); thus, this grid size would cover enough area to confidently locate
potential structures or posthole patterns. The grid was then placed atop aerial
photographs, topographic maps, and archaeological maps in ArcView.
Blocks with any portion of a mound were excluded from the study since the goal
was to examine non-mound space. All of the known mounds at this site were excavated
one, if not two or more, times. The last mound explorations by Shetrone in the 1920s
sought to excavate all of the extant mounds. Many times these excavations also extended
beyond the mound itself in an effort to confirm the dimensions of the mound. The
destructive nature of these excavations left very little intact. The process of eliminating
blocks containing mounds was made by visually inspecting aerial photographs and maps.
Aerial photographs were examined using a stereoscope and in ArcView. Mounds may
leave visible traces that show up as crop, soil, or shadow marks in aerial photographs.
Maps by Atwater (1820), Squier and Davis (1848), Cowen (from 1892, as published in
Greber and Ruhl 2000), Moorehead (1922), Shetrone (1926), and Marshall (n.d.) had
previously been digitized by Greber (1999) and were studied in ArcView. Maps of the
site by Seeman (1981) were also consulted. Blocks containing any portion of a mound
were excluded from the study.
65
The study universe of the non-mound space at the Hopewell site totaled 36
hectares. This area contained 225 40 by 40 meter blocks, but 47 blocks contained
portions of mounds and were excluded. The remaining 178 blocks had a total area of 28.5
hectares. Each of these blocks was then assigned a number from 1 to 178. I decided to
sample 10% (2.85 hectares or 18 blocks) of this area given time and budgetary
constraints. A simple random sample of 18 blocks was done using a random number
generator computer program. The selected 40 by 40 meter blocks were: 10, 23, 26, 28,
32, 34, 65, 68, 82, 87, 100, 114, 124, 147, 156, 159, 161, and 167 (Figure 14). Of these
18 blocks, two were located in the 6 hectare west field, thirteen in the 18 hectare center
field, and three in the 16 hectare east field.
Geophysical Surveys
Geophysical techniques measure physical properties of material located on or in
the ground. Given a scenario that land usually forms under the same conditions and thus
has similar physical properties, geophysical instruments would record the same or very
similar readings across that land. If the land either does not form uniformly or if the land
is impacted differentially, then the geophysical instruments will record measurements
that vary over that area. The differences in measurements, which can be very minute,
result in higher or lower measurements from those of the surrounding area. The peaks
(higher or positive measurements) and valleys (lower or negative measurements) are
called geophysical anomalies. These anomalies can be analyzed to determine if they are
likely to be natural or cultural features. Additional analysis partnered with existing
archaeological knowledge may provide information about the type of feature detected.
66
Geophysical techniques can thereby guide the direction of archaeological research.
However, traditional archaeological research is necessary to determine the exact type and
age of cultural features.
Geophysical techniques have been used in archaeology for at least forty years
(Watters 2001). Archaeological deposits may be found either by measuring the earth’s
magnetic field, a technique called magnetometry, or by emitting energy and recording its
transmission back to a receiver, such as with electrical resistivity or resistance,
electromagnetics, and ground penetrating radar (GPR). The advantage of using
geophysical techniques in archaeology is the ability to quickly survey an area with little
to no ground disturbance. This preserves more of the archaeological record intact and
saves time and money by pinpointing potential features to excavate. Disadvantages
include the expense of the equipment and the high learning curve for field use and data
interpretation. In addition, no single technique will work on all archaeological projects
because the physical property measured, or the way the technique measures the physical
property, is dependent on the physical and/or cultural environment under study. For
example, GPR cannot be used to locate shipwrecks since radar waves cannot travel
through salt water. However, magnetometry can locate shipwrecks based on ferrous
metal often associated with these features. Conversely, GPR and magnetometry work
well together to locate historic cemeteries, since radar can determine the dimensions of an
anomaly while magnetism can locate ferrous metal associated with coffins. The use of
two geophysical techniques that measure different physical properties is recommended
since data can be compared and contrasted to produce a more precise, accurate, and
comprehensive interpretation of the geophysical anomalies (Clay 2001; Kvamme 2003).
67
Of four principle geophysical techniques, two were selected for this research:
magnetometry and electrical resistance. Magnetometry is most frequently used in
archaeological research due to its ability to quickly locate potential cultural features
without ground disturbance. Electrical resistance, the first geophysical technique widely
used by archaeologists, is the easiest of geophysical techniques to learn and so crew
members with only a little instruction could collect good data. These two techniques were
also chosen because they collect very different types of data that when combined can
locate a wide range of cultural features, including earth ovens, crematory basins,
middens, compacted floors, ditches, and embankments. These techniques were also
selected because I had experience with both types of geophysical techniques and the
equipment was available at no cost. Electromagnetic techniques, such as conductivity
meters and metal detectors, were eliminated since these use similar principles as
magnetometry. GPR was not available. A brief discussion of the two types of geophysical
techniques used will be given.
Magnetometry
Complex interactions between the earth’s core and mantle produce the magnetic
field that surrounds the earth (Clark 1996). The magnetic field can be conceptualized as a
giant bar magnet located within the center of the earth (Breiner 1973). The magnetic field
varies in a predictable way, such that the field is oriented vertically at the North and
South Poles and horizontally at the Equator. The strength of the earth’s magnetic field
can be measured and compared for any one location. Deviations from the predicted
strength of the magnetic field result in magnetic anomalies.
68
Magnetometers can detect extremely small variations in the strength of the earth’s
magnetic field. In any study area, the magnetism is assumed to be uniform unless natural
(e.g. geologic or pedologic) or cultural processes modify the strength of the magnetic
field. Magnetism is the result of electrical charge movement. Many anomalies are caused
by human activity because a material’s magnetization was altered. Two magnetization
processes have important implications to the archaeological record. The first is
thermoremanence. Weakly magnetic compounds, such as oxides found in clay, may be
changed into strongly magnetic compounds by exposure to high temperatures. Once the
compounds cool down, the Earth’s magnetic field re-magnetizes the compounds resulting
in a remnant, or permanent, magnetization that is detectable by a magnetometer.
Archaeological features resulting from this type of magnetization are fire pits, kilns, or
any other burned feature. Ferrous metals are also detected through this magnetization.
The second process is called magnetic susceptibility. Materials, such as topsoil or rocks,
are magnetic only in the presence of a magnetizing field. Since the Earth has a magnetic
field that is always present, small differences in the magnetic susceptibility of materials
can be found using the magnetometer. Of importance here is the contrast between
materials. For example, topsoil is generally more magnetic than subsoil such that a ditch
dug into the subsoil and filled with topsoil will produce a positive magnetic signal. Subtle
differences in magnetic susceptibility may be indicative of storage pits, borrow pits,
middens, and walls.
Magnetometers record magnetic signals using the standard unit of magnetic flux
density called the nanoTesla (nT). Measurements are downloaded into computer software
that depicts the measurements within a survey area as an image or topographic map.
69
Given a relatively constant background that has little magnetic noise, anomalies result
from a difference in the expected versus actual magnetic field for any particular location.
Anomalies can vary in size as a result of the dimensions of a feature, the strength of the
field surrounded the feature, or the depth of the feature. Anomalies appear as monopoles
or dipoles. In a topographic map, monopoles are shown as either peaks or valleys and
dipoles can be arranged in a number of different variations although always with a
contrasting positive and negative portion. Oftentimes the distinct nature of magnetic
signatures and the anomaly structure itself can identify the buried feature as a natural,
prehistoric, or historic feature. For example, lightening strikes are represented as dipoles
arranged in a starburst pattern. Iron artifacts, such as horseshoes or nails, are depicted as
strong circular dipoles. Solitary but somewhat magnetic rocks may be represented as
weak positive monopoles, although this signature could also represent a posthole or other
weakly magnetic cultural feature. In this case, knowledge of the expected archaeological
record and analysis of the signature characteristics may yield additional information.
There are three types of magnetometers: proton magnetometers, cesium
magnetometers, and fluxgate gradiometers. Proton magnetometers were the first used in
archaeology but their single detector, total field design and slow operation are outdated.
The cesium magnetometer is a highly sensitive magnetometer that measures total field
and thus suffers from interference from electromagnetic variations caused by power lines,
passing trains, and magnetic storms (McIntosh 1986; Clark 1996). The fluxgate
gradiometer does not measure total field and is not subject to the amount of
electromagnetic interference as the two previous magnetometers. Instead, the fluxgate
sensor measures the magnetic field only in the direction of its axis. This sensor design
70
results in the need to keep the fluxgate sensor (housed in the fluxgate magnetometer)
aligned in the same plane during the course of a survey. To alleviate problems resulting
from accidental tilt or rotation of the magnetometer, another fluxgate sensor was added.
The second sensor detects any movement of the instrument and subtracts that drift from
the final measurement. The fluxgate gradiometer has subsequently become the
“workhorse” of magnetometry (Clark 1996). This research used the Geoscan FM-36
fluxgate gradiometer to collect magnetic data from the eighteen blocks in the sample
(Figure 15).
The standardized survey area size for geophysical instruments is 20 by 20 meters
(Kvamme 2003). Since the blocks in this research are 40 by 40 meters, each block was
subdivided into four smaller blocks of 20 by 20 meters. Each block had four geophysical
quadrants: northwest, northeast, southwest, and southeast. Each block was laid out using
a Leica total station to locate its four corners to within 5 centimeters, which was the
width of the wooden stakes used to mark the corners. Measuring tapes were then used to
mark the 20 by 20 meter quadrants. In each quadrant, nylon ropes with markings every
0.5 meters were used to keep the operator on pace and in the correct alignment with the
instrument.
The fluxgate gradiometer only measures the field directly below the sensors. To
locate small cultural features enough readings had to be taken to ensure detection of at
least some portion of the expected cultural feature. The smallest expected cultural feature
for this study was postholes. These features ranged from 20 to 30 centimeters in diameter
at the Big House at the Edwin Harness Mound (Greber 1979). Transects were initially
spaced at 0.25 meter intervals in order to locate postholes. Readings along transects were
71
automatically taken by the instrument at 0.125 meter intervals. This interval is the
smallest setting available on the fluxgate gradiometer. The magnetic survey of one 20 by
20 meter block took about two hours since each transect had to be precisely walked.
Transects were walked in a parallel manner, meaning that data was recorded only as the
operator walked to the north. Then the operator and instrument had to return to the start
line to the south. The magnetometer had to be downloaded after every 20 by 20 meter
quadrant for an additional downtime of thirty minutes. One to two field days were
required to survey one 40 by 40 meter block. Combined with problems resulting from the
shift in diurnal magnetism, I decided to collect less data. Transects were spaced every 0.5
meters. Although some resolution was lost and individual postholes may not be located, I
felt that a recognizable pattern would be detectable if a row of postholes was present.
Since fewer transects were walked and fewer readings were taken, one 40 by 40 meter
block took only five hours. Using this method a total of 25,600 readings were taken per
40 by 40 meter block.
Based on published information, the area under investigation in this study had no
geologic or pedologic characteristics that would limit the use of magnetometry. Given
this assumption, I assumed that any anomaly found during the survey resulted from a
discrete natural or cultural feature. In the field, magnetic data was visually inspected for
anomalies. Back in the lab, analysis of the magnetic data and comparisons with electrical
resistance data determined if anomalies were more likely to be natural or cultural. Further
analysis determined if cultural features were caused by ferrous metal and thus historic in
age. In-depth discussion of data analysis and interpretation of magnetic data will be given
in the next chapter that details the analytical methods.
72
Electrical Resistance
The resistance of any medium through which an electrical current is passed can be
measured. Electrical resistance is a relative measurement that is dependent on the
characteristics of the medium. “The electrical resistance of the ground is almost entirely
dependent upon the amount and distribution of moisture within it” (Clark 1996:27). For
example, electrical resistance increases if the soil is dry and decreases if the soil is wet.
Archaeological deposits by their very nature change the distribution of soil moisture and
can thereby be detected with an electrical resistance meter.
Electrical resistance meters measure the relative resistance at any one location.
The standard unit of measurement is the ohm (Ω). When an electrical charge, or voltage,
is applied to two separate electrical conductors, a current flows through it to complete the
circuit. The size of the current is dependent on the resistance of the conductor and
medium it is flowing through. Resistance can then be calculated with the following
equation:
R= V
I
where R is the resistance, V is the voltage, and I is the current. The equation states that
“resistance is the ratio of potential difference (or voltage) to current flow” (Clark
1996:27).
In contrast, resistivity is an absolute measurement that allows the electrical
resistance of different materials or of different archaeological sites to be compared. The
standard unit of measurement for resistivity is the ohm-meter (Ω-m). For example, clay
and soil has resistivity of 1-10 Ω-m and gravel is 1,000-10,000 Ω-m (Clark 1996; Bevan
73
1998). Although resistance is a relative measurement and cannot be compared to
resistance measurements at other sites, Bevan (2000:2) states “if the goal of the survey is
one of detecting features in the soil, a map of electrical resistance is just as good as a map
of electrical resistivity.” However, resistance measurements can be converted to
resistivity with the following equation:
ρ=2ΠsR
where ρ is resistivity and s is electrode spacing. This equation gives an approximation of
resistivity.
Electrical resistance meters measure how the ground conducts electricity. This
technique sends an electrical current into the ground through a pair of electrodes spaced
at regular intervals. The electrodes are pushed into the ground at a depth of 2 to 10
centimeters (Bevan 1998). When the current is sent into the ground, it searches for the
easiest path to travel regardless of depth. Once the circuit is complete, a measurement of
the resistance is taken. The simplest electrical resistance meters overcome contact
resistance between the pair of electrodes by using an additional pair of electrodes. This
four electrode array, called the Wenner array, functions to effectively measure the
resistance of the ground through which the current is passing.
If the soil in one location is uniform, then a current sent into the ground will
always travel to a depth of half the electrode spacing. A site with uniform soil conditions
will then have similar resistance readings across the entire site. However, cultural
features impact the ground such that soil wetness is increased or decreased. The result is
electrical resistance measurements that vary from the surrounding area. Once the
measurements are mapped, the anomalies appear as valleys (lower resistance) or peaks
74
(higher resistance). For instance, ground containing moist soil attracts the path of an
electrical current and resistance measurements are low. Cultural features retaining more
moisture are thus discovered. Common features include filled-in pits, graves, ditches,
compacted floors, and roads. In contrast, ground with drier soil repels the path of the
current resulting in increased resistance. High resistance anomalies can result from
cultural features made of stone or brick, such as buried walls.
Electrical resistance meters vary from manual or automatic modes. Manual meters
take a series of measurements between the electrodes to determine resistance. These
instruments consist of a meter, batteries, metal electrodes, and wire. Commonly a meter
similar to a digital multimeter is used. Bevan (1998) has written concise instructions on
how to build an electrical resistance meter from parts available from a home electronics
store. Although these types of meters are inexpensive and easy to build and use, surveys
using this type of instrument require much time and concentration since electrodes have
to be moved in specific sequences and calculations based on the above formula must be
done by hand. Automatic meters automate the process by performing calculations within
the meter. The twin-probe array uses a four electrode array and is commonly used for
archaeological research. Two electrodes maintain a constant current in the ground at one
location and are not moved. Two other electrodes mounted to a rigid frame are moved
across the survey area. Once these electrodes are inserted into the ground, the meter takes
several measurements, performs the calculation, displays the resistance measurement on
the LCD, and stores the measurement in the meter. All of this occurs within a few
seconds. The resulting data are later downloaded into a computer program to be graphical
displayed, analyzed, and interpreted.
75
The Geoscan RM-15 resistance meter was used in this research (Figure 16). This
instrument uses the twin-probe array. An electrode spacing of 0.5 meters was selected. As
with the magnetometry survey, each 40 by 40 meter block was subdivided into four
quadrants of 20 by 20 meters each. Oftentimes the electrical resistance survey
immediately followed the magnetometry survey such that the grid was already laid out.
The same ropes used in the magnetometry survey were used for the resistance survey.
The markings on the ropes guided the operator as to the correct placement of the
electrodes. Transects were walked in a zig-zag manner to cut down on survey time as this
field method does not affect the quality of resistance data. As with the magnetometry
survey, the smallest expected cultural feature was a posthole. To locate these features,
measurements would have had to be taken at 0.25 meter intervals. However, a survey of
one 20 by 20 meter area with readings taken every 0.25 meters takes about nine hours,
not including set-up, download, and breakdown time. With the additional time factored
in, one 40 by 40 meter block would take five to five days. A survey of one 20 by 20
meter area with 0.5 meter transects and readings every 0.5 meters would take about two
to three hours and an entire 40 by 40 meter block about one and a half to two days. I
decided to space transects 1 meter apart and take readings every 0.5 meters along
transects. A total of 3,200 readings per 40 by 40 meter block were taken. This survey
required about one hour per 20 by 20 meter area and an entire block could be finished
within a day. I felt this was a necessary compromise due to time constraints. Information
that was potentially lost due to this survey design was supplemented by the
magnetometry survey.
76
During the course of fieldwork, no major limitations to the use of electrical
resistance were encountered. Rainfall amounts varied throughout the course of the
survey, but fluctuations in the raw data were corrected with the computer software. In
addition, problems with the internal clock of the resistance meter were minimized
through data processing. Anomalies found in the data resulted from natural or cultural
features. Analysis of the data and comparisons with the associated magnetometry data
resulted in feature identification. A description of this process is presented in the next
chapter.
Shovel Test Pits
Shovel test pits (STPs) provide a representative sample of artifacts by
standardizing the intervals between and the dimensions of the STPs. In this research, each
shovel test measured 50 by 50 centimeters and was excavated as a single unit consisting
of the plowzone. Data from STPs can be used to estimate settlement size, functional
diversity, occupation length, and activity areas (Dancey 1998). These small excavation
units are frequently the starting point for most archaeological projects in which surface
visibility is low. Usually a series of shovel tests blanket an area. Once positive STPs are
located, site boundaries are determined by excavating additional shovel tests. Depending
on research objectives, the site may be subjected to large-scale excavations.
While this technique is a long-standing tradition in archaeology, studies have
shown that STPs may not be very effective in locating sites. For instance, Shott (1985)
determined that this technique does not locate all archaeological sites within a study area.
Kvamme (2003:453) argues that STPs are a “relatively unproductive, slow, and primitive
77
form of prospecting” and that geophysical techniques offer superior ability to locate
features and gain knowledge about site organization. At the very least, Kvamme (2003)
suggests using a combination of shovel tests and geophysical techniques for
archaeological surveys. This research used a combination of both techniques. A main
advantage of using STPs in this study was to learn about the complex stratigraphy of the
site and collect artifacts that could be used to identify the nature and age of nearby
features detected in the geophysical data. This was an important benefit since the research
centered on use of the site during the Middle Woodland period.
For this research, each block had a series of STPs spaced at equal intervals of 20
meters resulting in a total of nine shovel tests for each block. This interval was chosen
because earlier testing in the East Village of the Hopewell site by Ruby in the late 1990s
utilized this interval and thus the projects could be mitered together at some future date. I
also felt that this interval would provide sufficient artifact type and distribution data to
determine the presence or absence of Hopewell occupation. In the case that two blocks
overlapped in a corner, as was the case for eight blocks, only one STP was excavated in
the overlapping location. Only six STPs were excavated in Block 159 due to heavy
vegetation. A total of 155 STPs were completed. Artifacts were found in 122 STPs.
The location of each shovel test was found either by using the total station to
locate the unit’s southwest corner or running a measuring tape between block corner
stakes. The block corner stakes were set in using the total station. Each shovel test
measured 50 by 50 centimeters square and was excavated as one stratigraphic unit of the
plowzone (Figure 17). This dimension was chosen because the larger size meant that the
stratigraphy was easily examined. Shovel test pits were excavated to the base of the
78
plowzone and 5 centimeters into the subsoil. Soil was dry-screened through 0.25-inch
mesh hardware cloth. Artifacts were taken back to the lab for processing. Artifact
analysis is discussed in the analysis section of next chapter.
Some STPs had soil deposits below the plowzone but above the subsoil. In Block
161 this resulted from soil eroding from the slope of the third terrace. In Blocks 114 and
156, additional soil layers were the result of enclosure wall construction. In all cases, the
shovel tests were expanded into 50 by 100 centimeter units in order to provide enough
room for crew members to dig. Some of the units in Block 161 extended below 1 meter in
depth with no artifacts recovered. In these cases, a bucket auger was used in the center of
the STP to determine depth to subsoil.
Anomaly Testing
Determining where to excavate is traditionally driven from information found in
shovel test pits. The presence of artifacts or the absence of subsoil may initiate additional
testing. In this research, five shovel tests had atypical soil below the plowzone and were
explored for potential cultural features. Of these, three were attributed to natural causes
(i.e., animal burrows and tree roots) and two yielded cultural features (Features 28-2 and
124-1). The addition of geophysical data in this research also served to guide test
excavations. Since there is very little published about how Eastern Woodland
archaeological features are represented in geophysical data, a variety of anomalies were
chosen for test excavations. Selection of anomalies to test occurred in the field based on
visual inspection of the geophysical data. This method relies on the researcher to identify
potential cultural features from the data with little to no statistical analysis. This method
79
allows the researcher to make quick decisions about where to excavate without the delay
of performing more time-consuming statistical analysis. A total of 22 anomalies, included
monopoles and dipoles of varying magnetic strengths, were tested.
Once the decision to test an anomaly was made, a unit of suitable size was chosen
based on the size of the geophysical anomaly. For instance, an anomaly with the
dimensions of 1.5 by 1.25 meters was staked out as a 2 by 2 meter unit. Excavation units
were pinpointing using grid coordinates and a total station. The plowzone was removed
by excavating a series of STPs within the unit. Oftentimes the shovel tests were
excavated in a checkerboard pattern to locate the anomaly’s boundaries. Once the
boundaries were found, the remaining plowzone was removed. All soil from the
plowzone was screened through 0.25-inch mesh hardware cloth. With the plowzone
removed, anomalies were determined to be natural or cultural in origin. Natural features
were mapped and backfilled. Cultural features were mapped and excavation continued.
Anomalies that were not conclusively identified were mapped and excavated until
sufficient data for a determination was recovered.
Feature Excavation
Excavation recovers data that is used to “examine behavioral and contextual
relationships” (Hester et al. 1997:69). Although shovel tests provide artifact distribution
data and geophysical techniques yield feature distribution data, cultural features must be
explored in-depth to really understand what happened at that location at some time in the
past. The only technique to uncover this data is excavation.
80
Once the plowzone was removed, the size of the feature determined excavation
method. Small features (less than 0.5 meters in diameter) were halved. One half was
excavated in 10 centimeter levels using a trowel. Diagnostic and large artifacts were
pedestaled until the level was complete. A plan map of each level was drawn indicating
the location of these artifacts. Excavation continued in this manner until the base of the
feature was located. An additional 5 to 10 centimeters was excavated into the subsoil to
verify the extent of the feature. This was important since features were sometimes capped
with a layer of redeposited subsoil before continued use. Feature fill was screened
through 0.25-inch mesh hardware cloth. The intact half of extremely small features (less
than 0.25 meters in diameter) was taken in stratigraphic if identifiable or arbitrary levels
as a flotation sample. Features between 0.25-0.5 meters in diameter were halved again.
One half, or a quarter of the original feature, was excavated in stratigraphic levels while
the other was taken as a flotation sample. The flotation samples were again taken by
stratigraphic or arbitrary levels.
Features greater than 0.5 meters in diameter were excavated using a slightly
different method. These large features were first quartered. One quarter was then
excavated in 10 centimeter levels with a trowel. Diagnostic and large artifacts were
pedestaled until the level was completed. A plan map of each level was drawn indicating
the location of these artifacts. Features were excavated until subsoil was reached. An
additional 5 to 10 centimeters was then excavated to ensure the complete excavation of
the feature. In some cases, the opposite quarter was also excavated using stratigraphic or
arbitrary levels. All feature fill was screened through 0.25-inch hardware cloth. In situ
charcoal, such as burned logs, was recovered in its entirety for radiocarbon testing.
81
Charcoal was placed in aluminum foil pouches and allowed to dry in the lab. A column
of fill from the unexcavated portion of the feature was taken from the central area for
flotation. This column was approximately 25 cubic centimeters and was recorded in
stratigraphic or arbitrary levels. The feature was then backfilled with nearly one half to
three quarters of the feature intact.
Flotation samples were brought to the lab for processing. Flotation recovers
paleoethnobotanical artifacts that otherwise might escape detection through screens used
in the field. Each sample was measured for volume before being placed in a flotation
tank. Light and heavy fractions were then size sorted and bagged for analysis. Analysis of
the samples is beyond the scope of this dissertation and will not be examined.
Summary
The field methodology used geophysical and traditional archaeological methods
to locate evidence indicative of site use in non-mound space. Fieldwork was conducted in
eighteen 40 by 40 meter blocks inside the enclosures at the Hopewell site. This 10%
simple random sample of non-mound space provides documentation of this space and
preserves much of the site intact for future research. Geophysical methods were selected
based on their ability to locate archaeological remains in a cost-efficient manner because
large areas can be surveyed quickly. To supplement the magnetic and electrical resistance
data, large shovel test pits (50 by 50 centimeters square) were dug to obtain a sample of
artifacts and examine soil composition and stratigraphy. Anomaly testing was limited but
provided necessary ground-truthing of geophysical anomalies. Excavation of features
found during the shovel or anomaly testing completed the fieldwork portion of this
82
research. Under ideal conditions each block would have been tested in a sequence of
magnetometry, electrical resistance, shovel tests, anomaly tests, and feature excavations.
While this sequence was followed in a few blocks, personnel and time limitations
required flexibility in testing; frequently STPs were conducted prior to geophysical
surveys. Although the ideal sequence was not adhered to, I believe that the resulting data
was not impaired.
83
CHAPTER 6
ANALYTICAL METHODS
Two general types of data resulted from fieldwork conducted for this research.
Geophysical data consists of strings of measurements taken in the field, processed using
computer software, analyzed for specific characteristics, and interpreted in relation to the
archaeological record. Artifacts from STPs and excavations are collected in the field,
washed and sorted in the lab, and analyzed for specific attributes per artifact type. This
chapter details the methods used to analyze the geophysical and artifact data.
Geophysical Data
Data collectors on geophysical instruments hold a finite number of readings such
that data collection in the field is periodically interrupted to transfer data to a computer.
Once the data are downloaded, the data are processed and analyzed to locate anomalies
that may represent cultural features. In this research, both the fluxgate gradiometer and
electrical resistance meter were products of Geoscan Research. This simplified data
processing and analysis since both sets of data use one version of computer software.
Geoplot (Version 3.00 for Windows) is the proprietary software of Geoscan Research.
84
Once the data are downloaded, the first step is to configure the data to correspond
to the actual field survey. This survey collected data by dividing each 40 by 40 meter
block into four 20 by 20 meter blocks. Since the data are actually recorded as a string of
numbers collected as a file, the software must be told how to configure the data. This
process results in a master grid for each block. No actual data are located in the master
grid; instead, only the names and arrangement of the data files are stored. A composite
file is then constructed from the master grid. The composite is the actual survey data
arranged in the correct sequence. Once the composite is made, this file can be
manipulated using functions (algorithms) that have been created for use with geophysical
data. For this research, unless otherwise stated, all functions used the default parameters.
Since each Geoscan Research instrument collects different types of data, different
functions are used to process each type of data. Processing of the magnetic and electrical
resistance data is described below. Once the geophysical data was processed, the data
was analyzed for cultural features. Since the analysis is different for each instrument, this
is also discussed below. Lastly, since Geoplot has limited graphics capabilities, the
processed data was exported into Surfer in order to produce final maps.
Magnetometry
Fluxgate gradiometer data is centered on zero. Prehistoric archaeological features
in magnetic data are typically between –10 and 10 nT, although strong archaeological
features, such as hearths, are often between 10 and 20 nT (Geoscan 2001). Weak ferrous
features, such as farm machinery parts or nails, may also range between –20 to –10 and
10 to 20 nT, but these are usually bipolar and localized. Strong ferrous features, such as
85
buried utility lines or fences, are usually strong alternating patterns of negative and
positive measurements that are greater than ±20 nT. Large-scale geology, considered
background noise in archaeological surveys, is removed from gradiometer data since the
two sensors effectively provide a high pass filter. For this research, magnetic data was
processed in the field and visual inspection of the processed data located anomalies to
test. This method allowed for quick decisions to be made that maximized labor efficiently
at times when many crew members were present, such as during the field school and
teacher workshops. At a later date, the large quantity of data was subjected to intensive
analysis in the laboratory to identify and interpret magnetic anomalies using statistical
methods.
Processing data for this research consisted of several steps. The first step was to
remove periodic defects from the data that resulted from slight changes in the way the
instrument was held during a survey. Each person held the fluxgate gradiometer
differently and had a unique gait that resulted in small defects in the data. The function
Zero Mean Traverse determined the mean of each traverse within a grid and subtracted
that mean from each traverse. This process also resulted in removing slight differences
between conjoined grids. The second process smoothed the data since readings were
taken every 0.125 meters north-south and 0.5 meters east-west, which resulted in a very
pixelated image. Data points were added in the north-south and east-west directions by a
function, Interpolation, that sampled the data to calculate new data points. An increase in
data points from 0.5 meters to 0.25 meters required two processes: Interpolation to
expand the y-direction and then Interpolation to shrink the x-direction. The third process
was to further smooth the data by removing background noise from the magnetic data.
86
The function Low Pass Filter was “used to suppress higher frequency components such
as noise in the data whilst at the same time preserving low frequency, large scale spatial
data” (Geoscan 2001). This filter scanned a window of data, averaged data within that
window, and changed the center data point to the new weighted average. For this process,
I selected a window size of 2 by 2 data points. The next process limited the data I
analyzed to only that usually indicative of cultural features. As previously stated,
archaeological features are usually less than ±20 nT. To simplify the analysis of magnetic
data, I used the Clip function to replace data with readings greater than ±20 nT with a
minimum or maximum value of –20 or 20 nT. The last processes dealt with the display.
The data was rotated 270° to place north at the top of a page; this is necessary because the
software orients north to the right of the page as a default. The data was then exported
into Surfer for final mapping and adding of graphics.
Once the data was processed, it was analyzed in the laboratory for cultural
features. Magnetic data is a combination of archaeology, geology, noise from the
instrument itself, and operator defects. Magnetic data caused by the geology, instrument,
and operator need to be removed in order to “see” the cultural features. According to
Geoscan (2001:3-28), “statistically speaking any noise data with a magnitude greater than
approximately 2.5 standard deviations is unlikely (0.5%), and at the 3 standard deviations
level very unlikely indeed (0.1%).” Therefore, at three standard deviations we expect to
locate anomalies that are the result of natural or cultural features. Standard deviation (σ)
is found by testing a quiet area of the data. Once the standard deviation is multiplied by
three, the Clip algorithm is used to remove all data less than three standard deviations.
The resulting data was analyzed to determine if anomalies are natural or cultural. In this
87
case, anomalies greater than three standard deviations are 99.7% likely to be caused by an
actual cultural or natural feature. Data was also analyzed at greater than two standard
deviations since some types of cultural features, such as postholes, have weak magnetic
signatures. Anomalies were thus 95% likely to be caused by an actual feature and not by
background or instrument noise.
To differentiate anomalies as natural, historic cultural, or prehistoric cultural
features, two characteristics were analyzed: anomaly shape and range of measurements.
Shape, in terms of geometry, may indicate the presence of deep natural features or
historic iron-rich materials. Narrow anomalies tend to be near-surface, such as plow scars
(Weymouth 1998). Linear or alternating bipolar anomalies are typically buried utility
lines or agricultural tiling. Asymmetrical bipolar anomalies, such as ones in which the
positive measurements bend around the negative measurements, are usually ferrous
metal. Monopole anomalies with an off-center peak are generally metal objects.
Prehistoric cultural features typical of the Eastern Woodlands are usually symmetrical
and round or ovate shaped. Range of measurements is also a good indicator of anomaly
type. As previously stated, prehistoric cultural features in the Eastern Woodlands
generally range to ±20 nT. The higher the measurement, the greater the chance the
anomaly is ferrous. By examining the contours of each anomaly, the steepness of the
slope may indicate the presence or absence of metal. Steeper slopes, particularly if the
measurements range in the mid to high teens, are suggestive of the presence of iron-rich
materials. Based on this initial analysis, magnetic anomalies indicative of prehistoric
cultural features were identified.
88
Once anomalies were identified, four calculations were made which led to a final
interpretation. These calculations are derived from data that has only been processed
using Zero Mean Traverse. While the other algorithms are useful for general
interpretation and display purposes, these algorithms may introduce false anomalies. The
calculations were anomaly length, peak magnetic intensity, depth to peak magnetic
moment, and mass. The length of the anomaly is simply measured along the longest east-
west and north-south axis. The peak magnetic intensity is the highest reading for the
anomaly. To calculate the depth of the anomaly requires the peak, or greatest magnetic
measurement, and the background intensity or mean (Bevan 1998). The average of the
peak and background intensity measurements is plotted on the contour map and the
diameter of this is the depth of the anomaly below the magnetometer’s sensor. To find the
depth below ground surface, subtract the height of the sensor (ca. 38 centimeters). This
calculation of depth below ground surface uses the “half-width rule” to provide an
approximate depth based on the assumption that the anomaly is compact; Bevan (1998)
states that the depth calculated may be deeper than the actual peak magnetic moment.
Nonetheless, this calculation provides a good estimate of anomaly depth.
The anomaly calculations of length, magnetic intensity, and depth were used to
interpret the likely cause of an anomaly. In some cases the anomaly was ruled prehistoric
or historic. Additionally, the anomaly shape and calculations were used to hypothesize
about feature type. For example, large diameter and high peak intensity combined with
depth to magnetic peak moment below the plowzone may be indicative of a prehistoric
earth oven. Based on these characteristics, anomalies were ranked as:
89
A Anomaly is greater than ±3 standard deviations from the
mean, is circular or ovate and regular in shape, and depth of
peak magnetic moment is below plowzone.
B Anomaly is greater than ±3 standard deviations from the

mean, is irregular in shape, and depth of peak magnetic
moment is in plowzone.
C Anomaly is greater than ±2 standard deviations from the

mean, is circular or ovate and regular in shape, and depth of
peak magnetic moment is below plowzone.
D Anomaly is greater than ±2 standard deviations from the

mean, is irregular in shape, depth of peak magnetic moment
is in plowzone.
E Anomaly is less than ±2 standard deviations from the mean,

is circular or ovate and regular in shape, and depth of peak
magnetic moment is below plowzone.
A total of 88 magnetic anomalies indicative of prehistoric cultural features were
identified from the laboratory analysis. Table 4 summarizes the counts of magnetic
anomalies according to rank for each block. However, interpretation cannot differentiate
similar cultural features from different time periods, such as a pit feature from Early
Woodland or Late Prehistoric periods. Only ground-truthing can provide this information.
Electrical Resistance
Resistance data is a relative measurement that varies according to the local
environment. Slight changes in geology, topography, and soils can affect readings, as can
changes in rainfall or temperature over the course of a survey. As such, this data are more
difficult to process and analyze than magnetic data. Of importance to note here is that the
resistance surveys generally occurred after the shovel tests. Disturbance from excavations
is visible in the resistance data and these areas were excluded from analysis. In addition,
90
the resistance surveys were conducted over a period of three years. Fluctuations in
vegetation and rainfall at the time of the surveys are evident in the resulting data. Portions
of several 40 by 40 meter blocks were collected on different days, such that the data from
the four conjoined 20 by 20 meter blocks are impossible to edge match. The solution was
to process the individual 20 by 20 meter blocks according to the steps below and then
piece the processed data together in Surfer. This method works since this type of data is a
relative, not absolute, measure.
Data in this research were analyzed using two different methods. The broad-scale
method examined each block for large anomalies caused by the local environment, such
as geology, topography, or soils, and cultural anomalies, including borrow pits,
enclosures, and compacted floors. The small-scale method focused on discrete anomalies
indicative of individual cultural features. Resistance data was then compared to magnetic
data to substantiate interpretations.
The first method examined broad-scale anomalies in each 40 by 40 meter block.
Beginning with raw data, several algorithms were used for data processing. The first step
removed edge discontinuities, if present, between the four 20 by 20 meter blocks. The
function Edge Match automated this process by comparing the mean edge difference
from the blocks and adjusting one block to the mean of the other. The second process was
to Despike the data. Despiking removed false readings that were taken when the probes
were not in full contact; for instance, when a probe struck a rock. The next process
repeated Edge Match, if necessary. The data was then converted to resistivity data by
multiplying the entire set by the equation:
ρ=2ΠsR
91
where ρ is resistivity and s is electrode spacing. The resistivity data was then clipped at
three standard deviations to limit error from background noise. Since the survey collected
data every 0.5 meters north-south and every 1 meters east-west, the next step was to
Interpolate to smooth the data. This process expanded the y-direction by calculating new
data points. The last step was to rotate the data so that north was oriented at the top of the
page. The data was then exported to Surfer for mapmaking and interpretation.
Once the data were processed, the broad-scale data were ready for analysis and
interpretation. The data were examined as image maps containing areas of high and low
measurements. High readings may be indicative of stone or brick walls, paved areas, and
highly compacted floors. Low readings suggests ditches, borrow pits, and roads. In this
research, I graphically displayed data in terms of standard deviation to define anomalies.
As with the magnetic data, I used greater than two and three standard deviations.
Interpretation of anomalies as natural or cultural features primarily depended upon the
shape of the anomaly in comparison to the expected archaeological record. In addition,
knowledge of the environment, such as topography, soils, geology, played a critical role
in determining the origin of anomalies.
The second method of analysis for the resistance data concentrated on locating
small anomalies within each block. Raw data underwent several processes in Geoplot.
The first step clipped the data at greater than three standard deviations to remove any
noise from the data. This process may also remove “true” data, although the nature of
archaeological features generally leaves a remnant of the feature preserved at less than
three standard deviations. The next function was Despike to remove any false readings.
The function Edge Match was then used for selected blocks where the data between the
92
four 20 by 20 meter blocks did not match. To remove broad-scale anomalies the function
High Pass Filter was used. This process examined the data and “calculates the weighted
average within the window and subtracts this from the central reading in the window”
(Geoplot 2001). This function essentially enhanced small-scale details by removing
background geology. The Interpolation function was used to smooth the data set. By
expanding the data in the y-direction, data was represented at equal intervals north-south
and east-west. Lastly, data was rotated to place north at the top of the page. The data was
then exported to Surfer for mapping and interpretation.
This resistance data was analyzed for small anomalies. Prehistoric cultural
features may have very subtle signatures in resistance data, therefore, the resistance data
was analyzed at one standard deviation. Discrete high or low resistance anomalies were
marked. Anomalies of high resistance may be stone walls, paved areas, or stone-filled
pits. Low resistance anomalies may be filled-in pits or graves. However, the amount of
water in the soil greatly affects resistance readings, such that any anomaly could have
higher resistance at one time of year and lower resistance at another. The utility in
resistance in this research was to locate anomalies and compare these to the magnetic
data to improve accuracy of the interpretation. Once comparisons between the data sets
were made, many resistance anomalies were determined to be plow scars and were
omitted from further analysis.
Both sets of resistance data were analyzed for high and low anomalies.
Interpretation of these anomalies as possible prehistoric cultural features was based on
the characteristics of distance from the mean in terms of standard deviation, overall
shape, and correspondence to a magnetic anomaly. A ranking system was thus devised:
93
A Anomaly is greater than ±3 standard deviations from the
mean, is circular or ovate and regular in shape, and
corresponds to a magnetic anomaly.
B Anomaly is greater than ±2 standard deviations from the

mean, is circular or ovate and regular in shape, and may or
may not correspond to a magnetic anomaly.
C Anomaly is less than ±2 standard deviations from the mean,

is circle, ovate, or irregular in shape, and may or may not
correspond to a magnetic anomaly.
Anomalies indicative of cultural features were then numbered for each block. In all, 39
resistance anomalies suggestive of prehistoric cultural features were identified. Table 5
provides a summary of the results of the resistance survey for each block.
Artifact Assemblage
The archaeological data were examined to discern information about the use of
non-mound space by examining remnants of activity areas. From the field, the artifacts
were brought to the laboratory for cleaning and sorting. Each artifact was weighed and
cataloged. Given the same provenience, artifacts of the same class were bagged together
except for diagnostic artifacts, tools, and those with wear damage. Most artifacts were not
temporally diagnostic with the exception of some stone tools and pottery sherds. I
assumed that non-temporally diagnostic artifacts resulted from Middle Woodland
occupations, since the archaeological record found to date is overwhelmingly related to
that of the Hopewell. In addition, two artifacts of exotic material generally associated
with the Hopewell culture were found. An image of an obsidian flake and cut pieces of
mica is included as Figure 18.
94
A total of 6,111 artifacts were recovered from all stages of fieldwork from the
eighteen blocks. Table 6 presents a breakdown of all artifacts recovered. Of these
artifacts, 537 were found in the shovel tests. Table 7 contains artifacts recovered from the
STPs in each block and Appendix C contains a list of these artifacts. FCR (53%)
dominated the assemblage. Lithic artifacts (33%) consisted of bladelets, biface fragments,
flakes, and shatter. Prehistoric sherds and historic objects each contributed about 6%. A
very small amount of bone was also found (1.6%). Three artifact classes (fire-cracked
rock, lithic materials, and pottery sherds) dominated the assemblage and were examined
further. The methods for each artifact class varied and details for each are provided
below.
To discern activity areas in the archaeological record, artifact type, density, and
diversity were analyzed. Artifact type suggests the type of activity conducted. An
examination of artifact density delineates artifact clusters because artifacts tend to collect
where an activity occurred. For example, a concentration of lithic debitage is an artifact
cluster representative of a manufacturing area. Artifact diversity in terms of the number
of artifact classes present or absent from a unit of study may also be used to understand
activity areas. Specialized activity areas usually have low diversity due to limited tasks,
while habitation sites have high diversity because of the many tasks associated with
everyday living (Banning 2000). For this research, diversity was measured by the
presence or absence of ten artifact classes in each of the eighteen blocks. The artifact
classes were FCR, flakes, shatter, cores, bladelets, bifaces, flake tools, groundstone,
sherds, and bone.
95
Once activity areas were located, spatial analysis examined the distribution of
these activities in non-mound space. Specific questions were asked of the data: Were
activity areas situated near any particular natural feature? What is the spatial relationship
between activity areas and earthwork architecture? The results from these analyses were
used to determine site use in order to test expectations of the Ceremonial Center and
Corporate Center hypotheses.
Fire-cracked Rock
Fire-cracked rock (FCR) is a product of heating and is usually associated with
food preparation activities (Figure 19). Other activities that may create FCR are sweat
lodges, heating of small temporary structures, enclosing hearths, or creating ceramic
temper (Lovick 1983). This type of artifact is an extremely durable component of the
archaeological record, but is usually overlooked by amateur archaeologists. As such, FCR
provides a good indication of the above mentioned activities.
This research recovered FCR from shovel test pits, anomaly tests, and feature
excavations. A total of 4,025 pieces of FCR was found. FCR was sorted by size (<2.5
cm; 2.5-5 cm; 5-7.5 cm; 7.5-10 cm; 10-12.5 cm; 12.5-15 cm; 15-20 cm; and >20 cm) and
weighed. The total weight of the FCR was 153,273 grams (Table 8). The size of FCR
may indicate whether a piece was reused until it was no longer effective for heating
purposes. Pieces of FCR can be used again and again such that smaller pieces may be
indicative of repeated use. The amount of FCR may also indicate length of occupation or
size of occupation. More FCR may mean longer, multiple, or large occupations. The FCR
was also examined for material type (i.e., sandstone, limestone, granite, or other). A study
96
by House and Smith (1975) found that sandstone is better for cooking because it produces
and retains more heat. Sandstone comprised 85% by weight of the FCR from the shovel
tests.
Lithic Materials
Lithic materials consist of stone tools or are the by-products of producing stone
tools. Stone tools commonly include bifaces, knives, drills, and axes. By-products include
cores, flakes, and shatter. Flakes that show signs of use as tools for cutting or scraping are
called utilized flakes. A total of 820 lithic artifacts were recovered, including 92 stone
tools and 728 pieces of debitage. A selection of projectile points, bladelets, and
groundstone artifacts are shown in Figures 20-22. The stone tools were sorted by artifact
type, measured, sourced for material type, and examined for macroscopic wear. Due to
the abundance of flakes and shatter, the main focus of further analysis was on these two
artifact types. The total of 728 pieces of debitage weighed 688.79 grams.
In general, the subtractive nature of stone tool manufacture results in
progressively smaller by-products as the lithic reduction sequence continues. Stone tool
manufacture produces debris that may not be useful, particularly if it resulted during the
later stages of tool manufacture. While larger flakes and shatter may be reworked or used
as expedient tools, smaller flakes and shatter are likely to be left behind in activity areas
with one exception. Due to their sharp edges, flakes and shatter may be swept up at
habitation sites and dumped in trash areas. Mass analysis was used for this research, a
technique to analyze lithic debitage developed by Ahler (1989). Each artifact was
weighed and size sorted into five classes (<0.25 in; 0.25-0.5 in; 0.5-1 in; 1-2 in; and >2
97
in). The majority of the debitage (567 or 78%) measured 0.5-1 inch (Table 9). Chert type,
percentage of cortex, and heat treatment was determined for each artifact. Flakes were
further examined for completeness, edge damage, lip, and termination type. The early
stages of the lithic reduction sequence usually contain debitage of larger size and with
cortex.
Pottery Sherds
Fieldwork recovered 534 pottery sherds weighing a total of 1,013.37 grams. Some
of the pottery sherds, mainly rim pieces, are shown in Figure 23. Four fragments of a
shell-tempered clay pipe were found in a pit (Feature 10-5) that was radiocarbon dated to
the Late Woodland-Late Prehistoric period. Sherds were size sorted into five classes
(<0.25 in; 0.25-0.5 in; 0.5-1 in; 1-2 in; and >2 in), measured for thickness, and examined
for vessel part, temper, surface treatment, decoration, color. The overwhelming majority
of sherds (489 or 92%) measured between 0.25-1 inch (Table 10).
An analysis of 513 sherds from historic excavations of the Hopewell site by
Prufer (1967) identified nine types of ceramics. Over 99% of these sherds were grit-
tempered, the majority being classed as McGraw cordmarked. Sherds from Mounds 2,
17, 25, and 30-38 were Hopewellian Series, Chillicothe rocker-stamped (n=5),
Hopewellian series, Seip plain (n=4), Hopewellian Series, Brangenberg Plain (n=1),
Hopewellian series, untyped zoned incised (n=1), and Southeastern Series, Turner
Simple-stamped A (n=2). The majority of sherds (n=500) were from unknown locations
at the Hopewell site and consisted mainly of McGraw cordmarked or plain (n=441). Only
one sherd, a McGraw cordmarked with grit temper, was provenienced to a non-mound
98
context (“Hopewell habitation area”). It appears that any ceramic type may be found in
mound deposits, thus sherds typically thought of as more utilitarian may not be a good
indicator of habitation areas.
Flotation Samples
Flotation samples from all features were brought back to the laboratory for
processing. Fill from each bag was measured prior to being placed into a manual flotation
machine. Since no deflocculent was used, soil was occasionally kneaded softly with the
fingers to break apart clumps. Each sample was kept in the machine until all soil was
suspended in the water. A record for each sample was kept and included provenience,
processing date, volume, and time in flotation machine. Samples were removed from the
flotation machine to dry in the laboratory on drying racks. Once completely dry, the light
and heavy fractions were stored in individual bags and curated. Further analysis of the
samples is beyond the scope of this dissertation.
99
CHAPTER 7
RESEARCH RESULTS
The geophysical and traditional archaeological techniques used in this study
located evidence of prehistoric activity in non-mound space at the Hopewell site.
Geophysical anomalies were found in all but one of the eighteen blocks. Artifacts were
recovered from every block. However, analyses determined that much of this evidence
pre- or post-dates the Middle Woodland period. This chapter presents the research results
in detail. A discussion about each block begins with a description of the localized
physical and cultural environment, followed by results of the geophysical surveys, shovel
test pits, anomaly testing, and feature excavation. An assessment of prehistoric activity is
then made based on the data.
Block 10
Block 10 is situated in the southwest quadrant of the main enclosure on the level
second terrace. Topographic relief is less than 30 centimeters. No major physiographic
features are within or near the block. Distance to the nearest water source, North Fork
Paint Creek, is 410 meters. Soils are the well drained Eldean loam of 0-2% slope.
100
This block is in a field that has been farmed since at least the 1820s. Shovel tests
found the plowzone to range from 20-30 centimeters deep. The westernmost portion of
the block is adjacent to an historic fieldline now overgrown with vegetation. Squier and
Davis mapped this line in the 1840s, so archaeological deposits may be more intact in this
area. Historic documents did not show any structures in this block. Thus, agricultural
practices have caused the biggest impact to the archaeological record.
Block 10 is located directly west of the D-shaped enclosure of Mound 25.
Distance to this enclosure is about 90 meters. The nearest recorded mounds, located at a
distance of 130 meters or greater, are within the D-shaped enclosure. The immediate area
surrounding and containing Block 10 are vacant of any known earthen architecture, but
Moorehead (1922), Shetrone (1926), and Seeman (1981) report finding archaeological
remains in the near vicinity.
Moorehead (1922) reported a “village site” about 150 meters to the north. Details
of this site are not included in his report, but Moorehead (1922:86) stated that the
“indications are most numerous.” Shetrone (1926) later identified the same area as a
“habitation site.” Shetrone (1926:112) reported finding bone fragments, flakes, sherds,
and mica flecks in the area but states that “Dark soil and burned stones indicate limited
occupancy of the site, but nothing commensurate with the importance of the group, and
the problem as to where its builders and occupants lived, remains a puzzling one.”
Seeman’s (1981) surface collection relocated the west village site to within and adjacent
to Block 10. The Ohio Archaeological Inventory form (33Ro27) lists the artifacts from
“western village:” one blade core, eight bladelets, one Hopewell point, one Middle
Woodland point, seven biface fragments, an assortment of additional stone tools, and
101
numerous flakes. The form describes the site as a Middle Woodland habitation, although
Seeman (1981:14) notes the area may not represent a village per se but a series of
“smaller loci, themselves representing manufacturing areas and/or the residences of
societal leaders.” In addition, Seeman (1981) reports local amateur archaeologists found
artifacts in this general area. Based on the available literature, the potential to locate
artifacts and features in this block was extremely high.
Geophysical Surveys
Magnetic gradient and electrical resistance data were collected over the entire
block. A series of plow scars running east-west is visible in the magnetic data (Figure
24). A total of eighteen anomalies were identified with the majority (n=14) located in the
southern half of the block (Figure 25). Analysis of the anomalies found that all were
greater than three standard deviations from the mean. Based on the statistics and anomaly
characteristics, twelve anomalies were given the highest rank and six were given the next
highest rank (Table 11). These anomalies are extremely likely to be prehistoric cultural
features.
The processed resistance data for Block 10 is shown as Figure 26 and the
interpretation shown as Figure 27. A distinct area of lower resistance (greater than three
standard deviations) is visible in the central area of the block. This area measures 23.5
meters east-west and 27 meters north-south and is roughly oval in shape. This is an area
that may be compacted soil, possibly representing a heavily used open area or structure
floors. Magnetic anomalies were located both inside and outside this area. In addition,
102
four higher resistance anomalies were identified in the block. Each corresponds to a
magnetic anomaly. These anomalies are most likely pit features, perhaps fill with rocks.
Characteristics of the resistance anomalies are included in Table 12.
Shovel Test Pits
Nine shovel tests were excavated in Block 10. Aside from a deposit of cobbles in
the west shovel test (Anomaly 10-1), no other cultural features were located in the shovel
tests. In all, 124 prehistoric artifacts were recovered and each STP tested positive for
artifacts. Artifacts were 5 bladelets, 28 flakes, 2 shatter, 20 sherds, 8 bone fragments, and
61 pieces of FCR. The artifacts clustered in the northwest quadrant of the block, although
37 of the 124 artifacts (30%) were recovered from the central STP. This cluster appears
to correlate with the southernmost edge of the western village site. Other interesting
results are one bladelet was made of quartz crystal as was one flake from a different
shovel test, the sherds were all grit-tempered, cord-marked body pieces, and the eight
bone fragments from one STP were calcined. Unfortunately, the bone fragments are
extremely small and species could not be identified. The only Hopewell diagnostic
artifacts were the bladelets. The flakes were predominantly 0.5-1 inch in size and made of
local chert. Five flakes had cortex and four were bifacial thinning flakes. All sherds were
less than an inch and eleven were smaller than 0.5 inch. Average thickness of fourteen
sherds was 6.97 centimeters. The FCR consisted mainly of sandstone pieces (n=55)
between 2.5-7.5 centimeters in size.
103
Anomaly Testing
A total of six anomalies were tested. Anomaly 10-1 was located at the base of a
shovel test and was later determined to be a natural deposit. Five anomalies were
identified from the visual inspection of the magnetic gradient survey in the field.
Anomaly 10-2 was a dipole with a peak intensity of 11.67 nT. Anomaly 10-3 was a
monopole peaking at 12.39 nT. Anomalies 10-4, 10-5, and 10-6 were dipoles with
magnetic peaks of 11.94, 6.8, and 30.34 nT, respectively. Upon testing, Anomalies 10-2
and 10-6 were inconclusive for cultural features, Anomaly 10-4 was an historic piece of
metal, and Anomalies 10-3 and 10-5 were prehistoric cultural features.
Feature Excavation
Two features in Block 10 were excavated from within the approximate boundaries
of the western village. Feature 10-3 is a cooking pit filled with refuse. The recovery of
bivalve shells atop a layer of charcoal from the lower depths of the pit indicates cooking
of shellfish. Upper layers of the pit are filled with assorted trash, including flakes, sherds,
and FCR. The discovery of a quartz crystal bladelet within the 0-5 centimeter below
plowzone (bpz) layer indicate an Hopewell occupation, but the base of a biface and
fragments of a shell-tempered elbow pipe point to the Late Prehistoric period. Charcoal
recovered from 90-100 centimeters below plowzone was sent for radiocarbon dating.
Calibration at two sigma using CALIB 5.0.1-IntCal04 (Reimer et al. 2004) yielded a date
of A.D. 883-1156 (1040±60 RCYBP) that dates to the time of the transition from the Late
Woodland to Late Prehistoric periods. However, the presence of Late Prehistoric
diagnostic artifacts indicate a later occupation.
104
The other feature located within this area, Feature 10-5, is also a deep cooking pit
with a layer of FCR and charcoal at its base. Animal bones, flakes, and a few sherds were
found. Five bladelets of Flint Ridge chert and one Middle Woodland projectile point from
either the plowzone or directly underneath the plowzone point to a Hopewell origin.
Charcoal obtained from the base of the pit (75-80 centimeters bpz) was sent for
radiocarbon dating. Calibration at two sigma using CALIB 5.0.1-IntCal04 (Reimer et al.
2004) resulted in a date of A.D. 778-1032 (1090±60 RCYBP) during the Late Woodland
or Late Prehistoric period.
Assessment
Block 10 is located within the western village. Geophysical testing identified
anomalies indicative of prehistoric cultural features. The magnetic gradient data
contained anomalies that are most likely pit features. Resistance data show a possible
compacted area and several anomalies that support the magnetic interpretation. Artifacts
recovered from the shovel tests are indicative of habitation, such as sherds and flakes.
However, two artifacts (quartz crystal bladelet and quartz crystal flake) are more typical
of goods recovered from the remains of sub-mound structures and are indicative of a
ceremonial nature, as is an obsidian flake found in the plowzone during testing of
Anomaly 10-2. Some artifacts attest to a Hopewell connection, but carbon from two
features was radiocarbon dated to the Late Woodland-Late Prehistoric periods. Block 10
therefore contains evidence of two distinct occupations.
The first occupation was during the Middle Woodland period. I interpret the
evidence to represent the remains of a short-term occupation related to activities that
105
occurred during earthwork use. The majority of lithic debitage was very small flakes (less
than 0.25 in) and these are suggestive of either a high degree of site maintenance
(cleaning) or extremely limited tool sharpening activities. Both explanations do not
correlate to the expected archaeological record of short-term habitation sites as listed in
Table 2. Instead communal activities, such as meetings, may have required a clean open
space necessitating the removal of large pieces of lithic debris or other communal
activities may have produced small flakes due to the resharpening of stone tools. The use
of the block for communal meetings also explains the presence of a limited amount of
exotic materials (quartz crystal and obsidian) and the large resistance anomaly indicative
of compacted soil. Nonetheless, the lack of large quantities of raw materials, by-products,
or finished goods does not support use of this area for the manufacture of goods
involving craft specialists.
The second occupation dates after the Middle Woodland period. Radiocarbon
dates from two large cooking pits were calibrated to A.D. 883-1156 and A.D. 778-1032,
but the artifacts are more indicative of a Late Prehistoric occupation. Comparison of dates
between the Block 10 features and the Late Prehistoric Fort Ancient site of Blain Village
in Chillicothe attempted to assign a more definitive temporal affiliation. Blain Village
was dated to A.D. 970-1225 by Prufer and Shane (1970). I recalibrated three of their
radiocarbon dates at two sigma using CALIB 5.0.1-IntCal04 (Reimer et al. 2004) to
compare to the two dates from the Block 10 features. The three dates from Blain Village
ranged between A.D. 658-1399 (760±100, 970±220, and 1035±155 RCYBP) and
therefore overlapped in time with the Block 10 features. The wide ranging dates from
Blain Village make it difficult to establish temporal affiliation. In summary, Block 10
106
contains settlement debris from a later occupation dating to either the Late Woodland or
Late Prehistoric periods. Many of the geophysical anomalies in this block are likely the
result of this later occupation, perhaps even the large area of low resistance that may
represent a central plaza. The western village is not a Hopewell village as proposed by
Moorehead (1922) and Griffin (1996).
Block 23
Block 23 is located in the southeast quadrant of the main enclosure. The block is
nearly level and lies 425 meters north of North Fork Paint Creek. No other physiographic
features exist within or near the block. The soil is well drained Eldean loam.
This block is in an agricultural field that has been farmed for almost two hundred
years. The depth to subsoil ranges from 21-37 centimeters below surface. The
easternmost portion of this block is located in an historic fieldline (ca. 1840s) with
extensive trees and brush. Some vegetation had to be removed in order to conduct the
geophysical surveys and STPs. Although no structures were found on historic documents,
an entranceway into the field is located directly south of the block and heavier
agricultural traffic, in addition to regular agricultural practices, may have impacted the
archaeological record.
Block 23 is located within the small circular enclosure of the main enclosure. This
small enclosure is 115 meters in diameter, had a solitary gateway facing north, and
contained one mound (Mound 12). Very little is known about the circle other than it was
“bounded by a single slight wall” (Squier and Davis 1848:27). This enclosure is situated
between the D-shaped enclosure containing Mound 25 to its west and the second-largest
107
mound at the site to its east (Mound 23). A main enclosure gateway is approximately 100
meters to the south. Numerous small mounds are located within a 200 meter diameter.
Previous archaeological research in this area is very limited. Atwater (1820),
Squier and Davis (1848), and Moorehead (1922) mapped the circular enclosure and
Mound 12. Shetrone (1926) subsequently marked the circle and mound as obliterated. No
known excavations are documented in this area, primarily because construction of the
railroad in 1852 and subsequent relocation of Sulphur Lick Road destroyed much of the
enclosure and Mound 12. Seeman’s surface collection did locate artifacts in this area: a
grit-tempered, cordmarked sherd, two biface fragments, seven flakes, and an historic
bottle fragment. Seeman (1981:12) stopped short of calling this artifact concentration a
site, but states that it is “part of a more general debris increase as the terrace margin is
approached.” In addition, Seeman (1981) reports that this area may be associated with an
Archaic artifact cluster to the south of Sulphur Lick Road. Based on the close proximity
of numerous mounds and embankments and the results from Seeman’s survey, it seemed
likely that this block would contain a significant archaeological record.
Geophysical Surveys
Magnetic gradient data was successfully collected from the block. Plow scars
running both east-west and north-south are visible in the data (Figure 28). After data
processing, eighteen magnetic anomalies were identified (Figure 29). Two of these
anomalies (Magnetic Anomalies 1 and 2) are quite distinct in the northwest corner of the
block and consist of two curvilinear bands about 3 meters in width. These are interpreted
as the wall of the circular enclosure. An additional fourteen anomalies are arranged in an
108
arcing pattern that parallels Magnetic Anomaly 2. These anomalies are extremely weak
and were not readily apparent during the visual inspection of the data. Perhaps they
represent a series of large postholes, such as those found at Stubbs (Cowan 2005). Two
isolated anomalies are located in the block’s eastern extremes and may represent
truncated features. Table 13 contains measurements for each of the magnetic anomalies.
Of the anomalies, only the two curvilinear anomalies were greater than three standard
deviations. Three anomalies were two standard deviations from the mean and thirteen
were less than two standard deviations from the mean.
Resistance data was collected for the entire block, but a defect in the internal
clock of the data collector produced errors (Figure 30). These errors are quite noticeable
on the large-scale data set as an east-west area of high resistance. Data processing on the
small-scale data set minimized the errors and one resistance anomaly was identified that
matched Magnetic Anomaly 2 (Table 14; Figure 31). This higher resistance area
represents the embankment wall of the circular enclosure.
Shovel Test Results
Nine shovel tests were excavated in this block. The northwest test unit overlapped
the southeast unit of Block 34; in this case, only one unit was excavated and results used
in the analysis of both blocks. The northeast STP was moved slightly due to the presence
of a tree. No features were found in any of the shovel tests, including the unit nearest the
enclosure. A total of 34 artifacts were recovered from eight shovel tests, but none were
diagnostic of any temporal period. The artifacts were one biface fragment, 21 flakes, and
twelve pieces of FCR. Most artifacts clustered in the northeast quadrant. Most of the
109
flakes (n=16) were 0.5-1 inch in size and of local chert. Five flakes were of Flint Ridge
chert and three flakes had cortex. The FCR were sandstone between 2.5-7.5 centimeters
in size.
Anomaly Testing
No anomalies were tested in this block.
Feature Excavation
No features were excavated in Block 23.
Assessment
Based on the available data this block appears to represent a short-term activity
area, possibly related to expedient stone tool manufacture. The block is located within a
circular enclosure as evidenced by the magnetic and resistance data and typically would
be the scene of ceremonial activities. As such, I would not expect flintknapping to occur
in this area during earthwork use. Instead, the area may have been used for flintknapping
prior to earthwork construction. Perhaps the flintknapping occurred during the Archaic
period as suggested by Seeman (1981) and/or during the early Middle Woodland use of
the site. Excavation of Magnetic Anomalies 17 and 18 may determine the exact nature of
this activity area. The remainder of the magnetic anomalies appears to relate to the
enclosure and thus assigned to a ceremonial use.
110
Block 26
Block 26 is located in the southwest quadrant of the main enclosure. This level
area is nearly 500 meters north of the North Fork Paint Creek, but only 100 meters east of
a spring mapped by Squier and Davis (1848). Soils are well drained Eldean loam of 0-2%
slope with Glenford silt loam in the western portion of the block.
The plowzone ranges in depth from 24-30 centimeters below surface. This area
has been in agriculture since at least the 1840s. At that time Squier and Davis (1848)
mapped an east-west field line that bisected this block. No mention of this field division
occurs again in the historic records. This fieldline may have only minimally affected the
archaeological record in this block. No other historic structures are documented in or near
this block.
This block is situated in the westernmost portion of the main enclosure about 100
meters east of the west wall and ditch. Mounds 15 and 16, approximately 100 meters to
the north, are the nearest mounds. This block has two interesting features located nearby.
First, one of the six gateways into the main enclosure and the only one along the west
wall of the enclosure is located within 100 meters. Second, directly outside this gateway
Squier and Davis (1848) mapped a “copious spring” at the head of a small gully that
drains into the North Fork Paint Creek. Hopewell people might have traversed the area
contained within this block as they entered or exited the earthwork, possibly in route to
gather water from the spring.
In terms of previous archaeological research, the absence of mounds left this area
virtually untouched by archaeologists. Moorehead’s and Shetrone’s west habitation site is
located about 100 meters east-northeast. Seeman (1981) mapped the western village
111
further south, about 50-75 meters to the southeast of this block. Seeman (1981) also
located a Middle Woodland habitation site, the Turtle Shell Locale, in the near vicinity of
this block, within 20 meters to the southeast. This site contained five bladelets, four
biface fragments, a turtle carapace, and nineteen flakes. This block had potential in terms
of finding non-mound debris, yet no specific references to artifacts or features were
mentioned in the literature.
Geophysical Surveys
Magnetic gradient data show prominent plow scars running north-south
throughout the block (Figure 32). Interpretation of the processed data identified seven
anomalies that may be prehistoric features (Figure 33). Six of the anomalies are greater
than three standard deviations from the mean. These anomalies appear to represent pit
features with the exception of Magnetic Anomaly 6. If this large anomaly of irregular
dimensions is a prehistoric feature, it probably represents a midden. Measurements and
rank for each anomaly are given in Table 15.
The resistance data show distinct areas of low and high resistance (Figure 34).
Much of these areas correspond to plow scars seen in the magnetic data. A total of five
resistance anomalies were found (Table 16; Figure 35). The high resistance area in the
block’s southeast quadrant, Resistance Anomaly 4, may represent a pit. This
interpretation is congruent with that of a midden for Magnetic Anomaly 6. Due to its
proximity to the Turtle Shell Locale, this anomaly may be related to this activity area.
The remaining resistance anomalies match with magnetic anomalies and are probably
prehistoric pit features.
112
Shovel Test Results
Nine STPs were excavated in Block 26. No cultural features were found but six of
the nine units were positive for artifacts. A total of nineteen artifacts were recovered: five
flakes, two pot sherds, two pieces of granite, and ten pieces of FCR. None were Hopewell
diagnostics, although four flakes were Flint Ridge chert and one was quartz. All flakes
were less than an inch in size. The sherds were grit-tempered body pieces that refit.
Thickness was measured at 7.6 centimeters. The pieces of granite refit and were curved,
perhaps in the shape of a bowl. The FCR was mainly sandstone of 2.5-7.5 centimeters in
size. Most artifacts were found in the east half of the block suggesting an association
either with the westernmost edge of the western village or with the Turtle Shell Locale.
Anomaly Testing
No geophysical anomalies were tested in Block 26.
Feature Excavation
No features were excavated in this block.
Assessment
The geophysical and archaeological data from this block point to a short-term
occupation. Several magnetic anomalies are quite strong and appear to represent pits.
These anomalies may pre- or post-date the Middle Woodland use of the site, such as the
Late Prehistoric occupation of the west village, or may be associated with the nearby
Middle Woodland Turtle Shell Locale. Unfortunately, the shovel tests found little in the
113
way of artifacts. Flakes of Flint Ridge chert and quartz crystal are indicative of a Middle
Woodland presence perhaps related to ceremonial activities. The FCR, as well as three
magnetic anomalies with high peaks, provide evidence of heating events. Based on the
evidence collected to date, Block 26 may represent an activity area used for a short period
of time for some sort of specialized activity involving heating activities. These activities
may be related to site use as a ceremonial center or communal meeting place.
Block 28
Block 28 is in the southwest quadrant of the main enclosure. The majority of this
block is within the center field. The extreme southwestern corner is located in the west
field. A 30 centimeter elevation gain in the block’s southeastern corner is caused by a
broad, low rise centered outside of the block. Additional changes in elevation resulted
from the accumulation of soil in the fieldline. Distance to the North Fork Paint Creek is
500 meters, but a spring lies 215 meters west. The soil is the well drained Eldean loam.
This block lies at the edge of a field that has been in continuous cultivation since
the early 1800s. Depth to plowzone ranged from 30 centimeters in the field to 23
centimeters in the fieldline. The line was mapped as early as the 1840s but it is now
overgrown with trees and brush. Much of this vegetation was cleared in order to conduct
fieldwork. No other structures were reported historically for this area. Since the fenceline
was in existence prior to modern agriculture, a more intact archaeological record may
exist here than in the portions of the block in the agricultural field.
Block 28 is situated within the western third of the main enclosure. No mounds or
enclosures occur within a 100 meter radius of this block. The D-shaped enclosure of
114
Mound 25 is located 100 meters to the southeast. The west gateway of the main enclosure
is 200 meters to the west. Mounds 15 and 16 are 150 meters to the northwest, Mounds 24
and 3 are 150 meters to the northeast, and Mound 25 is 150 meters to the southeast. The
area to the southwest is void of any known mounds or enclosures. Concerning other types
of archaeological features, this block is 50-75 meters south of the habitation sites mapped
by Moorehead (1922) and Shetrone (1926) and 10-25 meters north of Seeman’s (1981)
relocation of the western village site. It is unknown if Seeman’s surface collection found
any artifacts within this block. Due to it location among mounds and near the west village
site, this block had potential for locating significant archaeological resources.
Geophysical Surveys
A fence in the western portion of Block 28 prevented complete coverage with the
geophysical equipment. Magnetic gradient data displays multiple sets of plow scars
(Figure 36). Nonetheless, four anomalies were identified (Figure 37). All magnetic
anomalies were greater than three standard deviations from the mean (Table 17).
Broad-scale resistance analysis found two high resistance areas (Figure 38). The
west area corresponds to the existing fenceline that contains much vegetation. The east
area is within an arc of high readings that corresponds to a topographic high (Figure 39).
This appears to be a low, broad mounded area. In addition, two other resistance
anomalies were identified (Figure 40). Resistance Anomaly 2 is a dipole in the same
location as Magnetic Anomaly 3. Resistance Anomaly 3 is an area of low resistance that
matches Magnetic Anomaly 4. Both of these anomalies appear to be pit features. Table
18 provides details for these three resistance anomalies.
115
Shovel Test Results
Eight of the nine shovel tests excavated in this block tested positive for artifacts.
Of these, two units had soil irregularities at the base of the plowzone that warranted
further testing as described in the next subsection (Anomalies 28-1 and 28-2). A total of
44 artifacts were recovered, including three historic artifacts. The prehistoric artifacts
were one bladelet, fourteen flakes, one piece of shatter, two sherds, and 23 pieces of
FCR. The bladelet was found in the southeast unit. The lithic debitage consisted mostly
of local cherts less than an inch in size. Six flakes were Flint Ridge chert and one flake
had cortex. Both sherds were grit-tempered body pieces, although a sherd from the
southeast unit had a smoothed surface. The majority of FCR was sandstone (n=22)
ranging in size up to 10 centimeters. The artifacts clustered in the southeast quadrant of
the block, corresponding to the northern extent of the western village and to the mounded
area of high resistance.
Anomaly Testing
Six anomalies found in the STPs or geophysical data were tested in Block 28.
Anomaly 28-1 was found in the west STP, but was subsequently determined to be a
natural feature. Anomaly 28-2 in the southeast STP was found to be a buried surface that
roughly corresponds to the topographic high. Upon examination of the soil and discovery
of two small pot sherds at 35 centimeters below surface, it was determined that this was a
unique cultural feature and additional excavations continued. Four magnetic anomalies
were also selected for testing based visual inspection of the data. Anomalies 28-3, 28-5,
116
and 28-6 were positive monopole anomalies on the magnetic gradient data and all
produced cultural features. Anomaly 28-4, a strong dipole, resulted from an iron pin
uncovered at 20 centimeters below surface.
Feature Excavation
Four cultural features were excavated in Block 28. The block’s southeast shovel
test was expanded into a 1 by 1 meter unit when subsoil was not encountered at the base
of the plowzone. This feature (Feature 28-2) was located on a low, broad rise. This area
may have represented a prehistoric mound that was never mapped or overburden from
historic excavations of nearby Mound 25. Excavation of Feature 28-2 to 65 centimeters
below surface located three additional stratigraphic levels. The first level below plowzone
was 9 centimeters in depth and contained FCR, pot sherds, flakes, and charcoal flecks.
The second level was 10 centimeters in total depth and had one piece of FCR. The third
level was 35 centimeters in depth and was free of artifacts. Three additional 1 by 1 meter
excavation units were placed at 20 meter intervals across this rise. Similar artifact bearing
layers were found below the plowzone. By subtracting the elevation gain from these
excavation units, a 15-25 centimeter layer of artifacts was found. This layer may
represent the historic plowzone prior to the Mound 25 excavations. I also tried to
calculate the volume of Mound 25 fill excavated by Moorehead (1922) to compare to the
volume of this topographic rise, but was unsuccessful because of inconsistencies in the
published report. The analysis to date has determined that this feature is likely
overburden from historic excavations of the nearby Mound 25. It appears that up to 35
centimeters of mound fill was deposited across this area. The plowzone and first level
117
below plowzone contained artifacts similar to those found in the mound fill of the Seip-
Pricer mound (Greber 1997b). The second and third levels below plowzone appear to
represent an historic plowzone. Support for this conclusion comes from Moorehead
(1922:103) as he writes about the Mound 25 excavations: “I find in the field-notes that
the owner, Mr. M. C. Hopewell, was exceedingly kind and courteous. Our teams dropped
earth about his clover fields and destroyed crops, yet he entered no complaint.”
Two other features, Features 28-3 and 28-6, are postholes. Both were encountered
at the base of the plowzone and extend for 68 and 43 centimeters below surface
respectively. Neither posthole had any artifacts except for small flecks of charcoal.
The last feature is located immediately to the north of the west village. Feature
28-5 consists of a layer of FCR atop a layer of burned logs (Figure 41). The feature is 5.5
meters in length, 1.5 meters in width, and 20 centimeters in depth. Five bladelets and one
Middle Woodland point were recovered from the plowzone. Additional bladelets and
cordmarked pot sherds were excavated from an intervening layer between the plowzone
and the FCR feature (30-60 cmbs). Artifacts recovered from the uppermost layers are
indicative of a Middle Woodland origin. No artifacts, aside from FCR and burned
limestone, were found in the FCR feature itself. Charcoal at the base of the feature was
sent for radiocarbon dating. Calibration at two sigma using CALIB 5.0.1-IntCal04
(Reimer et al. 2004) produced a date of 570-202 B.C. (2330±70 RCYBP), which slightly
pre-dates the generally accepted dates for the Middle Woodland period. The uppermost
layers of this feature represent fill, most likely part of the Mound 25 overburden
documented in Feature 28-2, while the FCR feature is a remnant of an Early Woodland
period heating activity.
118
Assessment
Block 28, situated among three locales given for a village site, contains much
evidence to support prehistoric occupation. Geophysical testing found a few anomalies
indicative of cultural features. The magnetic and resistance data located two anomalies
that are most likely to be pit features; indeed, one excavated anomaly (Feature 28-5) was
a large feature containing much FCR. In addition, the resistance data showed a large area
of higher resistance. At least one shovel test excavated within this anomaly produced
evidence of a buried floor supporting the idea of a low, broad mound resulting from
historic excavations.
Results from the southeastern shovel tests attest to some sort of Middle Woodland
short-term occupation. The absence of exotic artifacts potentially excludes ceremonial or
mortuary uses. The prehistoric artifacts (n=44), including flakes, sherds, and FCR, are
indicative of settlement, but the lack of stone tools and food remains is troubling. One
explanation is that the area was covered with Mound 25 mound fill that contained a
mixture of habitation debris. Another explanation is that this area may have been used for
short-term communal meetings similar to those documented in Block 10.
Prehistoric cultural features in this block include two postholes and a large pit
containing FCR. Evidence found in and around the postholes is not enough to conclude a
temporal affiliation or a function as building supports, temporary shelter supports,
isolated posts, or another use. The FCR feature appears to be ceremonial in nature, but
dated to the Early Woodland period.
I interpret the data in Block 28 to be the remains of one, possibly two or three,
prehistoric occupation. One occupation during the Early Woodland period may be
119
associated with an Adena presence at the site prior to large-scale earthwork construction
that occurred during the Middle Woodland period. Of interest to note is that Brown
(1994) found at least three FCR pits at Mound City that are similar in nature. Evidence
for a possible second occupation comes from the two postholes. The lack of artifacts
from these features and nearby shovel tests points to an explanation other than settlement.
Only additional excavations can determine the nature and origin of these postholes. A
third possible occupation may be related to Hopewell communal activities conducted in
Block 10; this is only plausible if the low mounded area did not result from historic
excavations of Mound 25. In general, evidence for use of Block 28 for non-mound
activities during the Middle Woodland period is limited.
Block 32
Block 32 is in the southwest quadrant of the main enclosure. This part of the
terrace contains some topographic relief due to its proximity to Mound 25. The North
Fork Paint Creek is 475 meters to the south and the nearest spring is 360 meters to the
west. Eldean loam of 0-6% slope is the only soil occurring in this block.
The block lies near the center of a field that has been farmed for nearly two
hundred years. The plowzone varies from 24-34 centimeters in depth. It appears from
historic documents that no structures existed in this location. Although agriculture has
severely impacted the topsoil, it is expected that the archaeological record should be
fairly intact below the plowzone.
This block is located in the main enclosure. The D-shaped enclosure should pass
through the southeastern corner of the block. This enclosure was originally described as a
120
circular enclosure by Atwater (1820:86), “The largest circular work, which consists of a
wall and ditch like those already described, is a sacred enclosure, including within it six
mounds, which have been used as cemeteries.” Based on his descriptions in the same
paragraph of enclosure dimensions, it can be extrapolated that the earthen wall was 12
feet in height and 20 feet in width and the ditch was 20 feet wide (Atwater 1820).
Contrary to this account, Squier and Davis (1848) describe this enclosure as D-shaped:
“…the other is a semi-circular enclosure, two thousand feet in circumference, bounded by
a slight circumvallation and ditch as represented in the plan.” An examination of their
accompanying cross-section reveals a slight ditch, perhaps a meter deep, along the arcing
section of the enclosure. There is no ditch along the linear section that should bisect this
block. The walls are mapped as one meter in height and approximately two meters in
width. This enclosure was not visible by the 1920s (Shetrone 1926).
Inside the D-shaped enclosure was Mound 25. The mound originally would have
been 25-30 meters south of Block 32. Topographic mapping found an increase in
elevation at the southern edge of this block. This rise may be the northernmost limits of
Mound 25, but it is more likely to be the backdirt pile from historic excavations.
Although this block is located near significant archaeological features, previous
fieldwork has been limited to Seeman’s surface collection. Seeman (1981) found the field
in which this block is located to be generally devoid of artifacts except for the western
village and the artifact cluster in Block 23 (Seeman 1981). Based on these accounts, it
was expected that this block would contain a portion of the D-shaped enclosure but little
else.
121
Geophysical Surveys
All portions of Block 32 underwent magnetic testing (Figure 42). Analysis of the
processed data identified one anomaly amid numerous plow scars (Figure 43). This
anomaly is located in the southwest corner of the block; Table 19 provides further
information. The magnetic data had no indications of the embankment.
The resistance survey found a large area of higher resistance in the southern
portion of the block (Figure 44). This area appears to correspond to the D-shaped
enclosure that contains Mound 25. To determine if this was the earthen wall, additional
survey was conducted to the east and north of this block. Figure 45 shows the extent of
higher resistance, as well as reveals the location of the D-shaped embankment wall to the
east of this block. The resistance anomaly in Block 32 may actually represent some sort
of drainage or alternatively may be a backdirt pile from Mound 25 excavations. One
resistance anomaly indicative of a large pit feature was found that corresponds to the lone
magnetic anomaly (Table 20; Figure 46).
Shovel Test Results
Of the nine shovel tests in Block 32, five tested positive for artifacts. No cultural
features were found in the shovel tests. A total of fifteen artifacts were recovered: seven
flakes, one shatter, one sherd, and six pieces of FCR. The flakes were mainly of local
chert sized between 0.5-1 inch in size. Two flakes were of Flint Ridge chert. The sherd
was a grit-tempered body piece of 0.25-0.5 inch in size and 7.6 millimeters in thickness.
The FCR was sandstone, granite, and chert sized at 2.5-5 centimeters. Six of the fifteen
artifacts (40%) were found in the north shovel test.
122
Anomaly Testing
The lone anomaly for this block was not tested.
Feature Excavation
No features were excavated in Block 32.
Assessment
The lack of geophysical anomalies and artifacts from the shovel tests indicate
very little use of this block. The one geophysical anomaly identified may be a pit feature.
The artifacts appear to represent a general scatter of debris within the main enclosure, a
conclusion also reached by Seeman (1981) from his surface collections. Additional
resistance testing of the surrounding area relocated a portion of the D-shaped enclosure,
but the embankment is located outside the bounds of Block 32.
Block 34
This block is located within the main enclosure. The terrace is level with less than
20 centimeter relief. No physiographic features are evident. Distance to the North Fork
Paint Creek is 450 meters to the south. Two springs in the terrace slope are located about
400 meters to the north. The well drained soil is Eldean loam.
This block is in an agricultural field that has been in active production since the
early 1800s. Depth of the plowzone is 23-29 centimeters. No structures were recorded on
historic documents for this area. The most significant impact to the archaeological record
was plowing but the archaeological record should be intact underneath the plowzone.
123
Block 34 is located within the southeast quadrant of the main enclosure. This
block slightly overlaps an area that contains a portion of the small circular enclosure.
This enclosure was discussed in reference to Block 23. The enclosure consisted of a small
earthen wall, probably no wider than two meters and no higher than one meter. The
enclosure had one gateway that would have been about 40 meters northwest of this block.
It was anticipated that the enclosure would bisect the southeastern corner of this block. In
terms of other features, the D-shaped enclosure is located 80 meters to the west, Mound
19 is about 30 meters to the northwest, and Mound 4 is 60 meters to the west. Seeman
(1981) also reported that James Marshall, a civil engineer who mapped the site in the
1970s, identified a possible mound to the east of Mound 19, approximately 30 to 40
meters north or northeast of this block. In summary, mounds and enclosures surround this
block and therefore the area may have served as a staging area for activities.
Geophysical Surveys
Magnetic data was collected over the entire block. Plow scars are visible in both
east-west and north-south directions (Figure 47). The two large dipoles are probably the
result of lightning-induced remanent magnetization. Maki (2005:451) describes this
phenomenon as “isothermal remanent magnetization that occurs within a few meters of a
lightning strike.” Only one magnetic anomaly was identified as a probable prehistoric l
feature (Figure 48). This anomaly was two standard deviations from the mean and
received a low rank of “D” (Table 21). No evidence of the circular enclosure was found.
The resistance survey found a large area of high resistance in the central portion
of the block (Figure 49). Higher resistance readings are typical of stone pavements or
124
natural gravel deposits. A 1938 aerial photograph shows a farm lane passing through this
block that may be the cause, yet the anomaly measures 25 meters north-south. Further
analysis found that three distinct anomalies were present. No magnetic features
correspond to this high resistance area. At this time, I am unsure as to the cause of this
anomaly. No resistance anomalies indicative of prehistoric features were identified.
Shovel Test Results
This block had nine shovel tests with the southeast unit overlapping with the
northwest unit of Block 23. Each shovel test had at least one artifact, although the north
unit contained only one piece of historic stoneware. A total of eighteen prehistoric
artifacts were found: seven flakes, three sherds, and eight pieces of FCR. No artifacts
were diagnostic of the Middle Woodland period. The flakes were of local chert and
smaller than 0.5 inch in size. The sherds consisted of one rim and two body pieces. The
fragmentary nature of the sherds did not permit a determination of surface treatment. All
FCR was sandstone and smaller than 5 centimeters in diameter. Furthermore, there is no
clear concentration of artifacts.
Anomaly Testing
The single magnetic anomaly was not tested.
Feature Excavation
125
Assessment
Although this block is located near several mounds and enclosure, there is very
little evidence of site use based on the geophysical and archaeological data. The magnetic
and electrical resistance data are relatively quiet in terms of prehistoric features. The
artifacts are scattered throughout the block without any apparent clustering. Accordingly,
this block represents an area that may not have been widely used during the Middle
Woodland period. Perhaps the area contained within this block was kept free of activities
in order to facilitate movement around the nearby mounds and embankments.
Block 65
Block 65 is located near the center of the main enclosure. This block is situated in
the midst of the second terrace and has little topographic relief, less than 10 centimeters.
No major physiographic features occur in this block. A uniform deposit of Eldean loam
characterizes the soil.
This block is currently situated in the middle of a large agricultural field. The base
of the plowzone varied from 12-30 centimeters. The shallow nature of the plowzone, in
the southwest unit, may have resulted from modern scraping and relocation of soil to wet
spots along the terrace edge (Zickafoos, personal communication). Historic documents
indicate that the current field was subdivided into a number of smaller fields. Squier and
Davis (1848) mapped four fields. At that time, this block may have been split into three
fields. Aerial photographs also depict various configurations of the field divided into two
or three smaller fields, but no fencelines could be discerned on the aerial photographs. No
buildings were located on historic documents, although one aerial photograph shows a
126
small farm lane extending into this area. At the terminus of this lane, near the bounds of
Block 65, appears to be a cleared spot. It is unknown what this area may have been used
for. The extent of historic use may not have impacted the archaeological record below the
plowzone.
Block 65 is located near the center of the main enclosure about 32 meters north of
the D-shaped enclosure. This block lies amid a number of mounds—Mound 25 is 80
meters to the southwest, Mounds 4 and 19 are 100 meters to the southeast, Mound 2 is 90
meters to the north, and Mound 3 is 100 meters to the west. An additional mound located
by James Marshall (n.d) may be 60 meters to the east. Although this block is surrounded
by mounds, there are no known archaeological features. In addition, the surface
collection by Seeman (1981:11) in this field “produced relatively little cultural
material….Most of this material came from the western half of the field.” The
archaeological record in this block may be very slight.
Geophysical Surveys
Block 65 contains numerous plow scars running in the cardinal directions (Figure
50). This block was fairly quiet in terms of magnetic anomalies indicative of cultural
features. Only two anomalies were identified (Figure 51). Both are located in the block’s
southeast quadrant. Table 22 provides information about the two anomalies. Both
anomalies are ranked as “C”. These may represent small or truncated pit features.
Large-scale analysis shows a distinct area of high resistance (Figure 52). High
resistance is located in the northwest quadrant and in an arc from the extreme northeast
corner to the south. These areas represent topography or underlying drainage patterns.
127
Three resistance anomalies were identified from the analysis (Table 23; Figure 53). An
area of very low resistance in the south central portion of the block measures six meters
east-west and nine meters north-south. This may represent a compacted floor. This area
does not correspond to any magnetic anomaly. Conversely, this area may be due to poor
drainage. Two other small, high resistance anomalies are located in the block. While both
may be stone-filled pits, Resistance Anomaly 3 corresponds to the magnetic anomaly and
thus provides a greater probability that it is a prehistoric cultural feature.
Shovel Test Results
The nine shovel tests only recovered eight artifacts from five units. In addition,
one anomaly was found in the southeast unit and labeled 65-1, which was later found to
be rodent burrow. From the shovel tests, the artifacts consisted of two historic and six
prehistoric objects. A scraper, utilized flake, three flakes, and a piece of shatter were the
prehistoric artifacts. Both the scraper and utilized flake were of Upper Mercer chert. Two
flakes were of local chert and one was of Flint Ridge. The shatter was quartz crystal
between 0.5-1 inch in size. The artifacts were loosely clustered in the northeast quadrant
of the block, although there is no clear concentration of artifacts.
Anomaly Testing
Three anomalies were tested in this block, including Anomaly 65-1 found to be a
natural feature. The other two anomalies tested were selected in the field from processed
magnetic data. Both anomalies are characterized as strong dipoles. Upon testing,
128
Anomaly 65-2 was an animal burrow and Anomaly 65-3 was a piece of metal in the
plowzone. None of the geophysical anomalies identified from data analysis were tested.
Feature Excavation
No cultural features were located in the anomaly testing.
Assessment
Overall, Block 65 contains limited evidence for use of non-mound space. A total
of four geophysical anomalies with low rankings do not support extensive use of the area
during prehistory. This is bolstered by the handful of artifacts recovered from the shovel
tests—two stone tools among a few pieces of lithic debitage. The presence of Flint Ridge
and Upper Mercer chert plus quartz crystal does support some type of Middle Woodland
presence. I suggest that this area was the scene of a momentary activity related to a
specialized activity involving stone tool manufacture.
Block 68
This block, located within the main enclosure, contains land that is relatively level
with less than 30 centimeters relief. The North Fork Paint Creek is 530 meters to the
south and two streams are located within 320 meters to the north. The soil is classified as
Eldean loam of 0-2% slope.
Agricultural activity since the early 1800s resulted in a plowzone of 24-35
centimeters for this block. While this block is located in a field that is currently ten
hectares, the field was subdivided into four fields when Squier and Davis (1848) mapped
129
the site. It is unknown if fences marked the field boundaries. It is possible that one field
boundary passed through the southern half of this block. Since no other structures are
reported for this area, the impact to the archaeological record appears to be the result of
agricultural activities.
Block 68 is located east of center in the main enclosure. While this area does not
contain mounds or enclosures, it is in close proximity to numerous earthworks. The D-
shaped enclosure is 80 meters to the southwest and the circular enclosure is 52 meters to
the southeast. Mound 19 is 25 meters south and Mound 4 is 80 meters to the southwest.
Additional mounds identified by Marshall (n.d.) and Seeman (1981) are 50 meters to the
west-northwest and 70 meters to the north. Seeman (1981) reports that James Marshall
also located another mound east of Mound 19, possibly 20 meters southeast of this block.
As with much of the study area, this block has not been subjected to archaeological
fieldwork other than surface collections. Seeman (1981) found only a few artifacts from
this entire field, although most were concentrated well outside of this block. As such, I
expected to find a scant archaeological record in this block even though the area is near
mounds.
Geophysical Surveys
The magnetic data of Block 68 contained plow scars in east-west and north-south
directions (Figure 54). In addition, an historic or modern disturbance bisects the extreme
southern edge of the block. This may be remains of a fence used to separate fields in
historic times. Only two magnetic anomalies were identified in the processed data, both
130
were located in the extreme northern section of the block (Figure 55). Both anomalies
exhibit characteristics of pit features in terms of their dimensions, shape, peak intensities,
and depth to peak magnetic moment (Table 24).
The electrical resistance data show distinct areas of low and high resistance
(Figure 56). An area of low resistance in the northwest corner of the block is indicative of
a compacted area. This area appears to be related to agricultural practices. The high
resistance area in the northeast quadrant probably represents extremely well drained soils
or a topographic high. Two high resistance anomalies were identified in the analysis
(Table 25; Figure 57). Both showed characteristics indicative of pits, yet only Resistance
Anomaly 1 matched a magnetic anomaly.
Shovel Test Results
Nine shovel tests were excavated in this block with the northwest unit overlapping
the southeast unit in Block 87. Five shovel tests were positive. A total of six artifacts
were found. One biface fragment of Flint Ridge chert was found, as well as a flake
scraper, two flakes, and two pieces of sandstone FCR. None of the artifacts were
diagnostic of the Middle Woodland period. There was no clear concentration of artifacts
since so little was recovered.
Anomaly Testing
No anomalies were tested.
131
Feature Excavation
Assessment
This block contained very little in terms of the geophysical and archaeological
data. There is no clear indication that this area was used by the Hopewell, except for the
Flint Ridge biface fragment. This lack of evidence points to a limited use of the area.
Block 82
Block 82 is located in the northwest quadrant of the main enclosure. Local
topography is fairly level with no physiographic features present. Soils are the well
drained Eldean loam.
This block is situated within the center field of the site, although a very small
portion of the northwest corner extends into the west field. These fields have been
cultivated for nearly two hundred years. The plowzone varies from 24-35 centimeters in
depth. A portion of this block is located in the historic fieldline that now contains a mix
of trees and heavy brush. Some vegetation was removed for this study but a dense
mixture of poison ivy, weeds, and tree saplings hampered the geophysical surveys. Since
the area not surveyed was in fieldline that had remnants of barbed wire and wire fencing,
the magnetometer would have registered the ferrous metal and the resistance meter would
have picked up only the soil conditions caused by the presence of dense vegetation. Also,
132
Squier and Davis (1848) mapped an east-west fieldline that may have crossed through
this block. No known historic structures existed in this area so the archaeological record
is expected to be intact at the base of the plowzone and within the fenceline.
This block is located near several mounds and immediately north of Moorehead’s
and Shetrone’s west village. These sites would have been about 15 meters south of this
block. Seeman (1981) relocated these sites about 140 meters south of this block. Mounds
15 and 16 are located about 135 and 100 meters, respectively, to the west. Mound 24 is
50 meters to the east and Mound 3 is 75 meters to the southeast. Little is known about the
archaeological record in this block. The only documented survey was conducted by
Seeman (1981). His surface collection located some artifacts within the field that includes
this block, however, there was no artifact concentration in the immediate vicinity.
Geophysical Surveys
The extreme northwest corner of this block was not tested due to the presence of
vegetation. Data that was collected clearly show multiple sets of plow scars running
across the block (Figure 58). A slightly stronger linear feature running east-west just
south of center may be the fieldline that Squier and Davis mapped in the 1840s or an
extremely deep plow scar that is visible on a 1938 aerial photograph. A total of four
magnetic anomalies were identified that were indicative of prehistoric cultural features
(Figure 59). These anomalies were scattered throughout the block. Characteristics and
rank of each anomaly are given in Table 26. All four anomalies are candidates for
prehistoric pit features.
133
The resistance data show areas of highs and lows (Figure 60). Broad-scale
analysis of the data found a large area of higher resistance to the north and low resistance
to the south. These two areas are separated by a linear, high resistance anomaly that
corresponds to a magnetic anomaly thought to be the result of an historic fenceline or
historic agricultural practices. Two anomalies were found during analysis (Figure 61).
Resistance Anomaly 1 is a dipole that matches a magnetic dipole in the same location.
Typically magnetic dipoles are representative of metal, but in this case, it actually may
represent a highly magnetic stone-filled pit. The other anomaly confirms the presence of
a pit feature seen in the magnetic data. Table 27 displays the characteristics for each
resistance anomaly.
Shovel Test Results
Nine shovel tests were excavated. The northwest unit overlaps with the southeast
unit of Block 100. Five units had artifacts. A total of 25 artifacts were found, including
one historic object. Prehistoric artifacts were one bladelet, one hafted biface, one flake,
one piece of groundstone, and twenty pieces of sandstone FCR. The bladelet is diagnostic
of the Hopewell and the biface is indicative of the Middle Woodland period (see Figure
20, artifact labeled E4240 N5140). The artifacts cluster in the southeast portion of the
block and the nature of artifacts, particularly the sandstone FCR, is representative of a
primarily heating or cooking function.
Anomaly Testing
No geophysical anomalies were excavated in Block 82.
134
Feature Excavation
Assessment
The location of this block near a number of mounds and north of settlements
mapped by Moorehead and Shetrone makes it a likely candidate for prehistoric activities.
However, only a few geophysical anomalies are present. While these anomalies are
indicative of pit features, they are not arranged in a manner suggestive of an integrative
use. If these anomalies do represent features, then perhaps they resulted from multiple,
short-term uses. At this time, it is unclear if these anomalies are related to Middle
Woodland use of the site, but one anomaly found in both the magnetic and resistance
surveys may provide insight. This anomaly in the southwest quadrant is located within a
cluster of artifacts. The resistance data suggests a pit filled with stones, an idea bolstered
by the presence of FCR in the near vicinity. Two artifacts dating to the Middle Woodland
period were found in this block. This anomaly may represent a heating event conducted
in association with Hopewell activities at the site. Overall, there is a lack of artifacts,
multiple anomalies, and soil compaction indicative of long-term use of the area. The lack
of domestic debris points to a specialized, rather than a domestic, use for this block.
Block 87
Block 87 is located in the main enclosure on the second terrace. The local
topography rises 20 centimeters in the southern half of the block. A spring from the slope
of the third terrace is located 265 meters north. Eldean loam soil covers the entire block.
135
This block was located in an agricultural field that has been in cultivation for over
150 years. Depth to the base of the plowzone is 33 centimeters on average. In addition to
the destruction of the archaeological record caused by the plowing, a historic fieldline
might have bisected this block. An east-west fieldline is mapped on the Squier and Davis
(1848) map. The method for delineating this field boundary is unknown. However, this
fieldline was not depicted in any other maps and is not evident in aerial photographs;
therefore, the impact may have been negligible.
Block 87 is located near the center of the main enclosure. Within a 100 meter
radius are many Hopewell features, including Mounds 2, 22, and 19. Two additional rises
have been identified as potential mounds by James Marshall (as cited in Seeman 1981).
Both are close to this block—one is in close proximity to Mound 22 and the other
halfway between Mounds 2 and 19. The latter may be very near or possibly in this block.
The location of this rise was confirmed in Seeman’s survey, but no artifact concentrations
were located. Seeman (1981:15) concluded, “only additional work will serve to clarify
the possible cultural significance of these two rises.” In terms of enclosures, the northeast
corner of the D-shaped enclosure is 80 meters to the southeast and the circular enclosure
is 130 meters to the southeast. From examining the archaeological evidence, it appears
that this block is located in an active Hopewell activity zone.
Geophysical Results
Magnetic data was collected for Block 87. Upon downloading the data in the
field, a large anomaly appeared in the block’s southern half. This semi-circular anomaly
continued to the south of this block and so two additional 20 by 20 meter blocks were
136
tested (Figure 62). A circular anomaly measuring 30 meters in diameter and 1.5 meters in
width with a gap facing east was found. In addition, analysis of the original 40 by 40
meter block identified two smaller magnetic anomalies to the north of the large circle
(Figure 63). Table 28 contains the measurements and rank for the three magnetic
anomalies.
Large-scale resistance data shows distinct areas of highs and lows (Figure 64).
Areas of higher resistance in the block may relate to underlying geology and agricultural
practices. The low resistance area is the result of agriculture as plow scars visible in the
magnetic data occur in the same location and with similar patterning. A total of three
anomalies were identified from the analysis (Table 29; Figure 65). The large circular
anomaly seen in the magnetic data is clearly visible in the data as an area of higher
resistance. The area inside the circular anomaly has a lower resistance than outside the
anomaly, thus suggesting a compacted floor. Two other anomalies were identified; of
these, one matched a magnetic anomaly and is a good candidate to be a pit feature.
Shovel Test Results
Nine shovel tests were excavated in this block with the southeast unit overlapping
the northwest unit of Block 68. Only two shovel tests had artifacts. One STP had 22
pieces of historic cinder. The other shovel test, the north unit, had only one piece of
shatter of Flint Ridge chert. This block had the lowest amount of prehistoric artifacts
within the sample.
137
Anomaly Testing
Two geophysical anomalies were chosen for testing based on the field processed
magnetic data. Anomaly 87-1, a strong dipole, proved to be a concentration of cinder.
Anomaly 87-2 tested was the large circular feature, a magnetic monopole with peak
intensity of 7.52 nT. During removal of the plowzone, three pieces of lithic debitage, a
broken groundstone celt, and FCR were recovered amid cinders. A distinct silt loam soil
appeared at the base of the plowzone and feature excavation begun.
Feature Excavation
The only feature excavated in Block 87 was the large circular anomaly. A 1 by 4
meter trench excavated through a southern portion of the anomaly revealed a shallow
ditch that was 2.5 meters wide and extended below the plowzone about 20 centimeters
deep. The only artifact found in the feature was one piece of FCR. No charcoal was
recovered. Circular ditches, although sometimes accompanying small Hopewell circular
enclosures, are more prominent during the Early Woodland period; however, more
excavation is necessary before assigning a temporal affiliation.
Assessment
This block is surrounded by many mounds and its central location in the main
enclosure makes it a good location for staging various activities. The identification and
subsequent excavation of a large circular ditch feature denote a ceremonial nature of
activities conducted in this area. The discovery of only one piece of lithic debitage in the
shovel tests also points to a limited, or perhaps restricted, use of this space. Of interest to
138
note is that based on the lack of artifacts found in the shovel tests, this block may not
have received further attention using only traditional archaeological methods and the
circular ditch may not have been found. However, both Marshall (n.d.) and Seeman
(1981) describe at least one mound near this block. Perhaps this ditch feature is the same
as their mound.
While the archaeological evidence points to a ceremonial use of this non-mound
space, it is unclear if this feature represents an Early Woodland (Adena) or Middle
Woodland (Hopewell) earthwork. Excavations at the Peter site in Kentucky, an Adena
circular enclosure, document a sequence of construction beginning with a stockade and
later reconfigured to a ditch and embankment earthwork (Clay 1987). Recent work at the
Stubbs site, a Hopewell earthwork in southwestern Ohio, found a ring of large postholes
underneath the location of a circular earthwork; it appears that at least two phases of
construction occurred (Cowan et al. 1999). Therefore, a circular ditch of this size may
have been constructed during either time period. Nonetheless, this feature represents the
remnants of ceremonial activity.
Block 100
Block 100 is situated in the northwest quadrant of the main enclosure. The
majority of the block is located in the west field with the extreme southeast corner
extending into the center field. This block is level and no physiographic features are
present although the base of the terrace slope is about 75 meters to the north. The soil is
Eldean loam of 0-2% slope and is uniform throughout the block.
139
This block is situated along the eastern boundary of an agricultural field. This
field has been farmed for over 150 years. Depth to the base of the plowzone is 30
centimeters. The block’s eastern edge is adjacent to an historic field boundary that is
overgrown with trees, weeds, and poison ivy. Some of this vegetation was manually
cleared in order to complete fieldwork. The age of this fieldline may have protected
archaeological features in the near vicinity otherwise plowing would have destroyed any
shallow features.
Archaeological features near this block include several mounds. Mounds 15 and
16 are located about 60 and 90 meters to the west. Mound 24 is within 100 meters of the
block. Shetrone’s Mound 28 probably lies 165 meters to the northeast, although Seeman
(1981) found evidence of a potential mound situated 75 meters to the north. Seeman
speculates that this may be one of two possible locations for Mound 28. An additional
mound may have been located about 110 meters north-northeast of this block (Marshall
n.d.). Settlements recorded by Moorehead (1922) and Shetrone (1926) are 65 meters to
the south. As previously mentioned, Seeman (1981) relocated the western village almost
190 meters to the south. The surface collections by Seeman (1981) did not locate any
concentrations of artifacts in the area of Block 100 and thus this block may not contain an
extensive archaeological record.
Geophysical Surveys
The magnetic data contains numerous plow scars, predominantly in the north-
south direction (Figure 66). Six anomalies were found situated throughout the block
140
(Figure 67). The anomalies all appear to be good candidates for pit features. All
anomalies are large (greater than 1 meter in diameter), circular to oval in shape, and
depths of 0.42 to 1.12 meters below surface (Table 30).
Upon first examination, the resistance map appears to display only the remnants
of plowing (Figure 68). The extreme eastern portion of the block is affected by water
retention in the fieldline vegetation. Small-scale analysis of the data located four
resistance anomalies (Figure 69). Two anomalies matched magnetic anomalies and may
represent prehistoric pit features (Resistance Anomalies 2 and 3). Resistance Anomaly 4
is indicative of a pit but it correlates with a magnetic dipole; this anomaly may be a pit
filled with FCR. Table 31 lists the anomalies, characteristics, and ranks.
Shovel Test Results
Nine shovel tests were excavated in this block. The southeast unit overlapped
with Block 82. Eight of the units tested positive for artifacts. A total of 54 artifacts were
recovered. Of the artifacts, all were prehistoric and included a bladelet, nine flakes, and
44 pieces of FCR. The bladelet and eight flakes were of Flint Ridge chert. The flakes
were all less than 0.5 inch. The FCR are mainly sandstone from 2.5-7.5 centimeters in
size. Artifacts concentrate in the west half of this block. The north shovel test contained
44% of the total artifacts found in the shovel tests. The density of FCR around this shovel
test probably represents a nearby plowed-out feature. A deposit of silty loam underlay the
plowzone in two of the STPs. This deposit reached a depth of 51 centimeters below
surface in the central STP and 86 centimeters below surface in the northwest unit. This
deposit may be colluvium from the nearby third terrace.
141
Anomaly Testing
None of the magnetic or resistance anomalies were tested.
Feature Excavation
No feature excavation occurred in this block.
Assessment
The presence of six magnetic anomalies plus FCR in eight of the shovel tests is
indicative of prehistoric occupation. The few lithic materials found are not suggestive of
a domestic occupation, especially since most were made of Flint Ridge chert and were
small in size. This block may represent a specialized activity area related to the
Hopewellian use of the site. According to Seeman (1981), the remains of a fired clay
feature in Mound 15 were clearly visible during his surface collection in 1980. In
addition, 40 flakes and several stone tools of Flint Ridge chert were recovered from the
area surrounding Mounds 15 and 16. This block’s location near several mounds may have
provided a good place to conduct specialized heating activities associated with the
ceremonial use of nearby sub-mound structures. Alternatively, activities may have been
related to site use for communal meetings.
Block 114
This block is located near the east embankment of the main enclosure. Local relief
in the east half of Block 114 is due to the presence of the embankment. The soil is Eldean
loam with 0-6% slope.
142
This block in located in an agricultural field that has been under continuous
cultivation for over 150 years. The uneven nature of the block’s topography results in a
plowzone varying from 23-45 centimeters in depth. Although currently located in the
middle of a field, Squier and Davis (1848) mapped an east-west fieldline that would have
run though this block. The extent of field boundary markers, such as whether a fence was
installed, is unknown. No indication of fencing is visible on aerial photographs. Since no
historic structures are documented for this area, it appears that the archaeological record
should be intact below the plowzone.
Block 114 is located inside the main enclosure near a gateway joining the main
and square enclosures. This block contains a portion of the wall of the main enclosure
along its easternmost edge. Shetrone (1926:112) excavated a portion of this wall,
although the exact location is unknown, and found “several unimportant and not well
defined fire-beds.” He attributed these features to activities conducted prior to wall
construction. In terms of features relative to this block, the gateway is approximately 12
meters east and the gateway’s associated mound is 25 meters distant. Excavation of this
mound by Moorehead (1922) did not locate any significant finds. Shetrone (1926)
mapped a borrow pit 35 meters to the north and his west habitation site is 70 meters to the
northwest on a low, broad ridge. Surface collections of this field by Seeman (1981) did
not find any concentrations, including any that correspond to Moorehead’s and
Shetrone’s settlements. Although this block sits near Hopewell architecture, it may
contain a limited archaeological record since it is close to a gateway. If the gateway was
used regularly, then the area might have been kept free of obstructions.
143
Geophysical Surveys
The entirety of Block 114 was tested with the magnetometer. Plow scars are
visible (Figure 70). In addition, there are quite a few anomalies indicative of historic
metal, particularly in the block’s eastern half. Four anomalies were identified as probable
prehistoric features (Figure 71). One anomaly is a large linear feature in the northwest
quadrant with a width of four meters. The other three anomalies are roughly circular in
shape and all with diameters less than 1 meter. Further details about these magnetic
anomalies are given in Table 32.
Large-scale analysis of the resistance data found areas of both high and low
resistance (Figure 72). The high resistance area in the middle portion of the block is a
linear feature running roughly east-west. Although this anomaly is exaggerated because
of a defect in the instrument’s internal clock, it may be related to an old historic
fenceline. The resistance lows are a by-product of the resistance high and the instrument
error. After analysis, only one anomaly was identified as a probable cultural feature
(Figure 73). This anomaly corresponds to the large magnetic anomaly. This anomaly may
represent a borrow pit mapped in this area by Shetrone (1926). Table 33 provides
additional information about the resistance anomaly.
Shovel Test Results
Six of the nine shovel tests were positive for artifacts. A total of ten artifacts were
recovered: one bladelet, five flakes, a piece of shatter, an amorphous core, and two pieces
of sandstone FCR. The bladelet and shatter were from different units, but both were made
144
of Flint Ridge chert. The other lithic debitage were made from local pebble cherts and
were sized between 0.5-1 inch. With the exception of the bladelet, artifacts clustered to
the west or the area furthest from the embankment of the main enclosure.
Two shovel tests were located on the embankment. The northeast unit reached a
distinct soil containing pebbles and cobbles at a depth of 38 centimeters below surface
without recovering any artifacts. An auger test to 81 centimeters below surface was filled
with much of the same soil that may be embankment fill. The east shovel test reached the
same gravelly soil at 45 centimeters below surface. An additional 20 centimeters was
excavated with no change in the soil and no artifacts found.
Anomaly Testing
Two geophysical anomalies were tested. These were chosen in the field based on
the field processed data. Both anomalies were monopoles. Anomaly 114-1 had a peak
intensity of 12.49 nT and a diameter of 1.5 meters. Anomaly 114-2 was a weak anomaly
with a peak of 2.59 nT and a diameter of 0.5 meters. These anomalies were selected
because I thought they may represent small, discrete cultural features, such as postholes.
Upon excavation, both had small amounts of lithic debitage and FCR yet both were
barren of cultural features. Instead, both contained a great amount of gravel and cobbles
throughout the plowzone and a dense layer of glacial till at shallow depths (28 cmbs in
Anomaly 114-1 and 21 cmbs in Anomaly 114-2).
145
Feature Excavation
With the exception of the two shovel tests on the embankment, no cultural
features were excavated.
Assessment
Block 114 is located near several important Hopewellian features—a portion of
the main enclosure wall, a borrow pit, a gateway, a mound, and the East Village. This
central location makes it attractive for a staging area, yet its location near a gateway may
have also served to limit its use to permit movement in and out of the main enclosure.
The latter suggestion appears to be borne out as only a few anomalies were identified in
the geophysical data. Of these, one appears to be the remnants of a borrow pit while the
others may represent small pits. The shovel test data also support this idea as few artifacts
were found indicative of an activity area. It appears that this block was not used heavily
except for activities related to earthwork construction.
Block 124
Block 124 is located in the northeast quadrant of the main enclosure. Local
topography is fairly level with less than 20 centimeters relief. No physiographic features
are present. The nearest water source is a spring located 140 meters to the north. North
Fork Paint Creek is over 600 meters to the south. The predominant soil is the well
drained Eldean loam with small patches of the moderately well drained Glenford silt
loam.
146
Historic use of this block is limited to agriculture. This block is located in the
center field that has been continuously cultivated for over 150 years. The plowzone
extends 31 centimeters below surface on average. No structures have been reported; thus,
historic impact to the archaeological record in this block should be limited to the depth of
the plow.
Block 124 lies among a trio of mounds. To the west is Mound 2, to the northeast
Mound 21, and to the southeast Mound 22. All mounds are within 100 meters. The most
important of these mounds is Mound 2 because it contained over 8,200 flint bifaces of
Wyandotte chert. Flintknapping evidence for large-scale biface production is not present
at the Hopewell site, but it was interesting to survey this area for any remnant of
Hopewell activity that may be related to Mound 2 activities. Seeman’s (1981) survey did
not find any artifact clusters in this area. The archaeological record in this block may be
quite sparse.
Geophysical Survey
Magnetic data in Block 124 show numerous plow scars (Figure 74). A large
dipole anomaly in the block’s northeast corner is the result of a lightening strike. In the
otherwise quiet data, three anomalies were found in the block’s southwest quadrant
(Figure 75). Table 34 presents information about the anomalies. The anomaly in the
southwest corner was originally found in a shovel test at the base of the plowzone. The
other two anomalies are circular in shape with diameters greater than one meter. All three
anomalies are indicative of prehistoric pit features.
147
Large-scale analysis shows high resistance in the northeast quadrant (Figure 76).
This may correspond to slight differences in soil type. Three high resistance anomalies
were identified from the analysis (Table 35; Figure 77). All three correspond to magnetic
anomalies and are likely to be cultural features.
Shovel Test Results
Nine shovel tests were completed for this unit. The northeast unit overlaps the
southwest unit of Block 147. All nine shovel tests contained prehistoric artifacts; no
historic artifacts were recovered. The artifacts were 13 flakes and 27 pieces of FCR. Only
four of the flakes were Flint Ridge chert, the rest were local cherts. Eleven of the flakes
ranged between 0.5-1 inch in size. The FCR was predominantly sandstone with sizes
ranging to 12.5 centimeters in size. A total of 50% of the artifacts were recovered from
two shovel tests, the southwest and west units, while the other artifacts seemed evenly
distributed over the remainder of the block. One anomaly was found in the southwest
shovel test.
Anomaly Testing
A total of four anomalies were tested. Anomaly 124-1 was initially found in a
shovel test and subsequently verified with magnetic data. This anomaly consisted of a
deposit of FCR. Removal of the plowzone located FCR, a few flakes, and a small grit-
tempered, plain sherd. Anomaly 124-2 was a magnetic anomaly characterized as a haloed
dipole with a peak intensity of 19.33 nT. A few flakes and pieces of FCR were recovered
from the plowzone along with a hafted biface fragment of unknown temporal affiliation.
148
Feature fill found at the base of the plowzone contained specks of charcoal and FCR.
Anomaly 124-3 was a weak magnetic dipole. One flake was found during plowzone
removal, but no feature was found. It is likely that this anomaly was a piece of metal.
Anomaly 124-4 was a small, weak monopole located in the vicinity of Anomalies 124-1
and 124-2. Although a few flakes and pieces of FCR were found in the plowzone, no
feature was discovered. This anomaly may have resulted from a plow scar.
Feature Excavation
Two features were excavated in Block 124. Feature 124-1 (Anomaly 124-1) is a
basin of FCR measuring 2 meters in length and 1.5 meters in width. The feature extends
only 10 centimeters below the plowzone. The feature fill is redeposited subsoil with only
a few small flecks of charcoal. Soil below the feature appears to have a higher organic
content as a result of leaching. Aside from the numerous pieces of FCR recovered from
the feature, only one piece of shatter of Flint Ridge flint was found. This feature is similar
to “rock heating pits” found at Mound City. Brown (1994) describes these features as
“Each consists of group of rock exhibiting evidence of being in a fire that is at least
partially resting in a pit filled with organic stained earth in addition to the rock.” At
Mound City, a few artifacts other than the FCR were recovered, including charcoal
flecks, bone fragments, and one bladelet. Average diameter of these oval features at
Mound City is less than 1 meter. A similar type of feature recorded at Mound City is
“rock piles,” a deposit of FCR without additional artifacts or soil discoloration (Brown
1994). Feature 124-1 seems to resemble the heating pits more than the rock piles. As
149
such, this feature represents some sort of heating activity, such as a roasting or steaming
facility. No temporal affiliation is indicated except possibly the piece of Flint Ridge
debitage.
Feature 124-2 (Anomaly 124-2) is an earth oven with a diameter is 1.28 meters.
The feature extends 34 centimeters below plowzone and is lined with FCR. Feature fill is
an organic soil with charcoal throughout. A burned log sits at the base of the feature. One
quartz crystal was recovered from 20-30 centimeters below plowzone; no other artifacts
aside from the FCR were found. A portion of the log was radiocarbon dated. Calibration
at two sigma using CALIB 5.0.1-IntCal04 (Reimer et al. 2004) resulted in a date of 929-
506 B.C. (2610±80 RCYBP), much too early to be considered Hopewell but within the
limits commonly given for the Early Woodland period Adena culture.
Assessment
Block 124 is located among three mounds in a relatively flat area of the main
enclosure. This area may be particularly suited for the staging of activities yet previous
work did not locate much in terms of an archaeological record. Three geophysical
anomalies were found in both the magnetic and resistance data. These anomalies were
clustered in the block’s southwestern quadrant. A total of 40 artifacts were found in the
shovel tests, 20 of which came from two units in the southwestern quadrant. The majority
of artifacts are FCR (n=27), while the remainder are flakes. The discovery of two features
containing vast amounts of FCR denotes heating activities. Lack of artifacts other than
FCR limits interpretation, although both may have been used for a variety of ceremonial
or communal activities. Carbon from the earth oven dated to the Early Woodland period
150
and perhaps the nearby FCR feature is of the same age. Conclusive evidence, though, has
not been found. At best Hopewell activity in this block was limited to that of a
specialized nature due to the overall lack of domestic debris. The features do not appear
to be reused and represent a short-term occupation.
Block 147
This block is located in the northeast quadrant of the main enclosure. Local relief
is slight on this portion of level second terrace. A spring in the terrace slope is 110 meters
to the north. The North Fork Paint Creek is a distant 700 meters to the south. An
intermittent stream flowing from the third to the second terrace also drains in this area
creating pockets of wet soil. This block is predominantly the moderately well drained
Eldean loam with small patches of Glenford silt loam.
Block 147 is located in a field that had been in cultivation since the early 1800s.
Shovel tests located the base of the plowzone between 25-35 centimeters below surface.
Features within the plowzone would have been destroyed. If there is an archaeological
record in this block, then it should be fairly intact underneath the plowzone. No historic
structures are known to have existed in this block.
The known archaeological record in the immediate vicinity of this block consists
of two mounds. Mound 21 is located 30 meters to the northeast and Mound 22 is 35
meters southeast. These mounds were small and had been much disturbed by plowing
prior to their investigations in the 1890s and 1920s. At that time, no artifacts or features
were found in either mound (Moorehead 1922; Shetrone 1926). In addition, Mound 2 is
about 100 meters to the southwest. Directly 125 meters north is a gateway into the main
151
enclosure on the third terrace. In terms of Seeman’s (1981) surface collection, no artifact
concentrations were found near this block. This block may contain very limited
archaeology due to the nature of the surrounding mounds and soil.
Geophysical Surveys
Block 147 is fairly quiet in terms of magnetic anomalies indicative of prehistoric
features (Figure 78). The block contains numerous plow scars in both directions as well
as several dipole anomalies, probably the result of historic metal artifacts. The processed
data has only one anomaly that may be prehistoric in origin (Figure 79). This anomaly
has a diameter of approximately one meter and peak intensity of 9.52 nT, but depth to
peak magnetic moment is only 22 centimeters below surface (Table 36). This anomaly
represents a ferrous object in the plowzone or a truncated feature, or alternatively the
assumptions of the depth calculation do not hold for this anomaly (see Bevan 1998).
The resistance data contain areas of low and high resistance (Figure 80). Low
areas are indicative of wet soils and probably result from the perched water table of the
Glenford soils located in the northern sections of the block. Small-scale analysis of the
resistance data only located one anomaly (Table 37; Figure 81). This anomaly has low
resistance. Because this anomaly does not match with the magnetic anomaly, it may be a
filled-in pit that does not contain much burned (magnetic) materials.
Shovel Test Results
The southwest shovel test overlapped the northeast unit of Block 124. Of the nine
shovel tests, seven tested positive for artifacts. Fourteen artifacts were found including
152
one piece of historic whiteware, six flakes, an amorphous core, a pot sherd, and five
pieces of FCR. The amorphous core was a heat-treated piece of Flint Ridge chert. One
flake was also of Flint Ridge chert. The sherd was a body piece and surface treatment
could not be determined due to its small size. Artifacts clustered in the western half of the
block. Shovel tests revealed a layer of colluvium, possibly from the nearby third terrace,
in the three northern shovel tests. This soil deposit extended from the base of the
plowzone to 97 centimeters below surface. This explains the recovery of the Flint Ridge
flake and one piece of FCR at 30-40 centimeters below surface in two different units.
Anomaly Testing
Anomalies were not tested in Block 147.
Feature Excavation
Assessment
This block is located near several mounds. The nearest mounds had been
extensively disturbed by plowing and little was found during excavations. Evidence is
lacking in terms of geophysical anomalies. Only two anomalies were found and both
were located within areas of wetter soil. The artifacts found are also limited in number.
Two pieces of lithic debitage were made of Flint Ridge chert. The flakes, predominantly
Columbus and Delaware cherts, range in size from 0.25-1 inch. In general, the light
153
scatter of artifacts in this block is similar in nature to that reported for the entire field by
Seeman (1981). Based on available evidence, this area does not seem to have been used
extensively by the Hopewell.
Block 156
This block is situated in the square enclosure. The topography of this block is
fairly level and no physiographic features are present. Distance to the nearest water
source is a spring in the terrace slope about 300 meters northwest. Both the North Fork
Paint Creek and Sulphur Lick Creek are at a distance of 400 meters. The soils are the well
drained Eldean loam varying from 0-2% and 2-6%. Greater slopes correspond roughly to
the north wall of the square enclosure.
This block has been under active cultivation for at least 150 years. The base of the
plowzone varies in depth from 22 to 32 centimeters below surface. Agriculture is
expected to have had the biggest impact to the archaeological record. In fact, by the time
of Shetrone’s excavations in the 1920s the walls of the square, as well as the mounds,
were obliterated. However, it was expected that archaeological deposits would be intact
beneath the plowzone. No historic structures have been documented for this block.
Block 156 is the only block within the square enclosure. Distance to the northern
wall of the square enclosure is estimated at no more than 10 meters north. The east wall
and ditch of the main enclosure (forming the west wall of the square) is 50 meters to the
west. The four gateways of the square enclosure each have a mound located inside their
entrances. The nearest gateway and mound feature is the north-facing gateway at 55
meters to the northeast. The west-facing gateway and mound is 70 meters to the
154
southwest. Moorehead (1922:88) remarked on the gateway mounds, “The four mounds
within the square to the east were so disturbed and reduced in height that we did not
number them. We tested them and found practically nothing.” Greber and Ruhl (2000:12)
posit “the four small mounds within the square were most likely part of a symbolic
design and thus functioned differently from the other mounds.”
Seeman (1981) conducted surface collections across the field containing this
block. The eastern half of the field, which did not include this block, contained eleven
Hopewell diagnostic artifacts. No artifact clusters were found near Block 156. It was thus
expected that the archaeological record in this block would be extremely limited given
the lack of artifacts and features found in the nearby excavations and surface collections.
Geophysical Surveys
The magnetic data for Block 156 contains a series of plow scars oriented in the
north-south direction (Figure 82). After analysis, a total of nine anomalies were identified
and these appear to be almost equally spaced (Figure 83). These anomalies are generally
located in a north-south direction along the block’s mid-section. Most of the peak
intensities are in the 5-7 nT range. The anomalies, their characteristics, and ranks are
presented in Table 38. These anomalies appear to represent pit features but temporal
affiliation cannot be assigned based on the magnetic data.
The electrical resistance data appear to correspond to plow scars that are quite
noticeable in the magnetic data (Figure 84). No anomalies were identified after the small-
scale analysis. It appears that this block is quiet in terms of electrical resistance
anomalies.
155
Shovel Test Results
Of the nine shovel tests in this block, six had a total of 21 artifacts. Four of the
artifacts were historic in nature. The prehistoric artifacts were two Flint Ridge chert
bladelets, thirteen flakes, and two pieces of sandstone FCR. The bladelets are diagnostic
of the Hopewell. Ten of the flakes were of Flint Ridge chert. The prehistoric artifacts
clustered in the northern half of the unit, nearest the suspected location of the north wall
of the square enclosure.
Anomaly Testing
One anomaly was selected for testing based on the field processed magnetic data.
This anomaly was a weak monopole with a peak intensity of 5.47 nT. Excavation of the
plowzone found charcoal fragments, two flakes, three pieces of shatter, and three pieces
of FCR. A circular charcoal stain at the base of the plowzone measuring 20 centimeters in
diameter was bisected. The western half, excavated to 50 centimeters below surface
contained one piece of FCR and a bullet. In addition, a charcoal lens 13 centimeters thick
drifted diagonally through part of the stain. The overall shape of the stain was slightly
sinuous with a diffuse lower boundary grading into subsoil. This anomaly was a result of
natural causes rather than a prehistoric cultural feature. It may represent a burned out tree
root or animal burrow.
Feature Excavation
No features were encountered during the fieldwork for this block.
156
Assessment
This block is located within the square enclosure, approximately ten meters south
of the northern embankment. Analysis of the magnetic data identified nine anomalies
indicative of cultural features. No potential features were found in the resistance data.
Artifacts from the shovel tests clustered in the northern portions of the block, the area
nearest the embankment. Two bladelets and ten flakes of Flint Ridge chert attest to a
Hopewellian occupation. The testing of one magnetic anomaly, while not cultural in
nature, did locate a few additional pieces of lithic debitage and FCR. The lack of pot
sherds and other objects of a domestic nature suggest a short-term specialized use of this
block, probably related to the construction of the embankment.
Block 159
Block 159 is in the main enclosure. This block is located at the base of the slope
to the third terrace and is situated on a slight rise, less than 50 centimeters in relief. The
nearest water source, a spring, is located approximately 110 meters to the east. A gully,
intermittently in nature, cuts down from the third terrace to the second terrace directly
northwest of this block. Soils in this block are still classified as the well drained Eldean
loam with 0-2% slope.
This block has been in cultivation for nearly 200 years. Shovel tests located the
plowzone at 23-31 centimeters deep. The northern ten meters of the block is in an historic
fenceline now consisting of trees and multiflora rose. Some of this dense vegetation was
cleared, but the majority remained because the trees hampered mowing efforts. No
historic structures were located in this block.
157
In terms of the known archaeological record, this block is about 70 meters south
of the northern wall and ditch of the main enclosure. A gateway along this northern wall
is approximately 100 meters to the northeast. However, the northern wall runs along the
third terrace and this block is on the second terrace. Nearby features on the second terrace
include Mound 2 at 80 meters south of the block. Shetrone (1926:108) did map one
mound, Mound 28, in this vicinity:
This small mound, not previously recorded, is located toward the

northwest corner of the large enclosure at the very foot of the steep
terrace. It was only ten inches in depth with a lateral extent of
probably not more than 20 feet, there being no distinct floor and
the original surface line being disturbed by the plow, excepting at
the highest point. Its identity was disclosed only by a test, since it
resembles several other slight elevations bordering the foot of the
terrace, due to the deposition of talus from the adjacent slope.
This mound contained one small “basin” containing pot sherds, worked mica fragments,
two knives, and hundreds of bone beads. According to Shetrone’s map, the mound would
have been within 20 meters west of this block. However, Seeman (1981:10) located two
rises in aerial photographs that he thought might be Mound 28; “Shetrone’s Mound 28
may lie in the extreme northeastern corner of Field 1, or it may correspond with a similar
rise in Field 2.” The rise in the west field (or Seeman’s Field 1) is 60 meters west of this
block and the rise in the center field (or Seeman’s Field 2) is located approximately in the
same location as Shetrone’s Mound 28. Seeman (1981:14) is cautious about describing
either one as a mound as he states that the Field 2 rise may be a mound or “natural talus
slopes projecting into the field from the elevated area immediately to the north.” Based
on these documents, I assume that Mound 28 is within the center field in a location about
20 meters west of Block 159. An additional mound may also be in the general vicinity in
158
the extreme northwestern corner of this field (as cited in Seeman 1981). No known
archaeological fieldwork has been conducted within this block except for Seeman’s
surface collection of the field. No artifact concentrations were found in this block
(Seeman 1981). Due to the possible location of Mound 28 and the elevated location, this
area may have been a staging area for mound related activities.
Geophysical Surveys
The northern portions of this block were overgrown with vegetation and were not
tested with the magnetometer. Plow scars are visible on the data, as well as several
anomalies representing metal artifacts and drainage patterns (Figure 85). Note the linear
anomalies descending from the northwest corner of the block that provide drainage for
the nearby gully. In terms of archaeology, three anomalies of probable prehistoric cultural
origins were identified (Figure 86). These are scattered throughout the block. The
southernmost anomaly is a very good candidate for a deep pit filled with FCR based on
its characteristics. Table 39 provides more information about these anomalies.
The electrical resistance data show several areas of high and low resistance
(Figure 87). Most of these areas are the result of the intermittent drainage. The low
resistance area in the westernmost portion of the block is due to the soil’s slow
permeability and the pooling of the spring water in this area. A high resistance anomaly
in the northeast corner is probably related to sloughing of soil from the slope above and
the presence of more vegetation in this area (this area was not mowed). Further analysis
of the data did not locate any significant anomalies indicative of prehistoric features.
159
Shovel Test Results
The configuration of the block situated the three northern STPs at the base of the
talus slope in an overgrown fenceline containing multiflora, trees, and poison ivy. These
shovel tests were not excavated. The remaining six shovel tests did contain artifacts. A
total of sixteen artifacts were found: a utilized flake, a piece of shatter, a grit-tempered
body sherd, and thirteen pieces of sandstone FCR. The general distribution of the artifacts
does not suggest clustering.
Anomaly Testing
No anomalies were tested.
Feature Excavation
Assessment
Mounds are located quite near this block yet little evidence exists for prehistoric
use of the area. The geophysical survey found three magnetic anomalies and no resistance
anomalies. In addition, the shovel tests contained mainly FCR. The other prehistoric
artifacts are not clearly associated with any Hopewell activities. It appears that the natural
setting of this block may have limited the prehistoric use of the area.
160
Block 161
This block is located within the north-central area of the main enclosure. This
block is on the fairly level second terrace, but local relief varies by 80 centimeters as a
result of a depression at the base of the third terrace slope. An intermittent stream from
the third terrace drains into this block creating wet spots. A spring in the terrace slope is
located about 55 meters to the north. The soil in Block 161 is Glenford silt loam and is
moderately well drained.
Although soil in this block has slower permeability compared to the rest of the
field, this area has been under cultivation for over 150 years. Shovel tests located the base
of the plowzone at 30 centimeters below surface on average, however, a thick layer of
colluvium buried the subsoil. Expanded shovel tests and augering located the subsoil at
varying depths from 90 to 120 centimeters below surface. No historic structures were
located in this area. Impact to the archaeological record should be limited to the
plowzone.
The archaeological record in or near this block is extremely limited, probably due
to the wet soil conditions. The nearest mounds (Mounds 21, 22, 2, and 28) are over 100
meters distant. The north wall and ditch of the main enclosure is 85 meters to the north on
the third terrace. A gateway in this wall is an additional 10 meters to the east of this same
location. Seeman (1981) did not find any artifact clusters in this area during his surface
collections. The probability of locating archaeological remains in this block was
considered to be low given the nature of the topography and soils.
161
Geophysical Surveys
Block 161 has noticeable plow scars amid several dipoles of historic origin
(Figure 88). Interpretation of the data found no anomalies indicative of prehistoric
features. This may be due to the thick layer of colluvium that accumulated over the
centuries and the depth penetration of the fluxgate gradiometer to about 50 centimeters
below surface. Conversely, the wet nature of the soils and the topographic low may not
have been suitable for many activities.
The electrical resistance data shows an area of lower resistance in the western half
and higher resistance in the southeastern quadrant of the block (Figure 89). The lower
resistance is most likely related to the Glenford soil that traps water. Small-scale analysis
of the data did not locate any electrical resistance anomalies indicative of prehistoric
cultural features.
Shovel Test Results
Eight of the nine shovel tests in this block contained a total of 29 artifacts. One
historic artifact was found in the center unit. The prehistoric artifacts were one Flint
Ridge flake, one piece of shatter, one calcined bone, and 25 pieces of FCR. The FCR was
a mixture of sandstone (n=20), limestone (n=2), and granite (n=3) with most ranging in
size between 2.5-7.5 centimeters (n=23). The artifacts were found in varying depths up to
75 centimeters below surface. All artifacts recovered from below 40 centimeters were
pieces of FCR. There was not a clear concentration of artifacts within the block.
162
Anomaly Testing
No geophysical anomalies were found in this block.
Feature Excavation
No features were found in this block.
Assessment
The location of this block at the base of the third terrace and in an area with
wetter soils is not ideal for most uses proposed for Ohio Hopewell earthworks. While the
FCR and calcined bone found in shovel tests are indicative of heating activities, no highly
magnetic anomalies were found. Since the FCR was found at varying depths, perhaps
erosion deposited some of the artifacts in this location. Based on the geophysical and
archaeological data, I conclude that the area contained within this block was not used
extensively by the Hopewell for any activities.
Block 167
This block is located in the northeast quadrant of the main enclosure. Block 167 is
situated 80 meters south of the slope to the third terrace. An intermittent stream and
spring are also located on this slope. This location drains both water features resulting in
occasional wet spots. The soil is Glenford silt loam of 0-2% slope. Due to the nearby
water features and the soil type, this block does not drain well and may have been wet
during prehistoric and historic times.
163
This block lies in a field that has been plowed since the early 1800s. Shovel tests
located the plowzone to a depth of 19-30 centimeters below surface. No historic
disturbances other than from agriculture were found for this block. However, a discussion
with a tenant farmer during the course of fieldwork about the agricultural history of this
area is interesting to note. Mr. Charles Zickafoos stated that the field was wet along the
terrace slope (in the vicinity of this block). He thought he recalled movement of soil from
the southern part of the field to this northern part in order to build up this area and make
it more productive. He could not recall when this happened. Since no tile was placed in
any of these fields, it is possible that soil was added as a low-cost option to improve crop
productivity.
In terms of the known archaeological record, several features have been
documented in the vicinity of this block. Earthen walls of the main enclosure are 100
meters to the east and 130 meters to the north. Four mounds surround this block. Mound
17 is about 85 meters to the northeast, Mound 1 is 70 meters to the east, Mound 18 is 35
meters to the southwest, and Mound 29 is 50 meters to the west. In addition,
Moorehead’s east “Village Site” and Shetrone’s east “Habitation Site” are both located
about 70 meters to the southeast of the block. Very little is written about the
archaeological record of this settlement except that the artifact concentration contained
“evidence of occupation, such as fragments of bone, flint flakes, occasional flint knives,
potsherds, and bits of mica” (Shetrone 1926:112). In contrast, surface collections by
Seeman (1981) did not recover any evidence indicative of an artifact concentration that
would be expected with a settlement, although he did recover three Hopewell diagnostic
artifacts and a handful of other artifacts, including a Middle Woodland point and quartz
164
crystal, in the vicinity. This evidence is suggestive of lithic manufacture. Although this
block is situated near many Hopewell features, the wet nature of the soil may have
limited its use in prehistoric times.
Geophysical Surveys
Very prominent plow scars run north-south throughout the block (Figure 90).
These deep features are still visible at two standard deviations. Two sets of east-west
tracks resulting from agricultural activities are also visible on the data. Analysis
identified only two anomalies thought to be of prehistoric origin (Figure 91). The
characteristics of both anomalies resulted in low ranks (Table 40).
The resistance data had several problems associated with the instrument and
weather conditions, including the appearance of small, low resistance anomalies in the
southeast quadrant (Figure 92). Data was collected several times for the block in an effort
to improve its quality. The instrument problems unfortunately could not be corrected.
However, data processing minimized these errors and data analysis was able to occur.
Three areas of distinct lower resistance in the western half of the block were caused by
excavations and backdirt piles (Anomalies 167-1, 167-2, and 167-3). No resistance
anomalies suggestive of prehistoric cultural features were found in the data.
Shovel Test Results
A total of 36 artifacts were recovered from eight of the nine shovel tests in Block
167. All artifacts were prehistoric, but none were diagnostic of the Middle Woodland
period. Artifacts were seven flakes of local cherts, two pieces of shatter (one Flint Ridge,
165
one local chert), four pot sherds, and twenty-three pieces of FCR. The sherds were small,
grit-tempered body pieces. Two sherds from the northwest unit were cordmarked. The
FCR was predominantly sandstone of 2.5-5 centimeters in size. Over 50% of the artifacts
were recovered from the northwest unit. The remainder of artifacts is distributed in all
areas of the block except for the northeast corner.
Anomaly Testing
Two geophysical anomalies were tested in this block. Anomaly 167-1 was a weak
positive magnetic monopole. Removal of the plowzone in a 2.5 square meter area
recovered three bladelets, a biface fragment, flakes and shatter, three grit-tempered
sherds, and some FCR. The bladelets are of Middle Woodland origin, while the biface
fragment is part of a Late Prehistoric point. In the northwest quadrant of the unit, two
possible postholes were found that will be discussed in the next section.
The second anomaly tested, Anomaly 167-2, was a large monopole identified as
Magnetic Anomaly 2 on Figure 91. A total area of 7.5 square meters of plowzone was
removed and 507 artifacts found. Artifacts were bladelets (n=6), flakes (n=33), shatter
(n=3), groundstone fragment (n=1), sherds (n=118), FCR (n=342), vegetal material
(n=2), and historic sherd (n=1). Feature fill was encountered at the base of the plowzone
and feature excavation begun.
Feature Excavation
Three, possibly four, cultural features were found in Block 167. Testing of
Anomaly 167-1 found two possible postholes. Upon further examination, one was
166
inconclusive for evidence as to whether it was a posthole or animal burrow. The second
was a posthole (Feature 167-1) that contained four pieces of FCR that refit. The posthole
was approximately 16 centimeters in diameter and contained no other artifacts.
Excavation of Anomaly 167-2 uncovered a large area of feature fill mottled with
subsoil. The total extent of this area is not known, although diffuse boundaries were
found that mark the eastern and western limits. The east-west length was nearly four
meters. Inside this area was a large oval pit feature (Feature 167-2) that consisted of a
concentration of artifacts in an organic rich soil matrix. Dimensions of this feature are
2.05 meters in length by 1.65 meters in width by 49 centimeters in depth below
plowzone. A total of 261 artifacts were found, including four bladelets, four utilized
flakes, ten flakes, four pieces of shatter, 125 sherds, and 103 pieces of FCR. Most of the
feature’s artifacts (n=179) were recovered between 30-39 centimeters below ground
surface. The rest of the artifacts were nearly evenly distributed between 39-79
centimeters below surface. A point and a small piece of cut mica were found between 59-
79 centimeters below surface; these, as well as the bladelets found throughout the feature,
are indicative of a Middle Woodland occupation. Radiocarbon dating was not possible
from the feature debris. Feature 167-2 is a pit used for an unknown activity, perhaps a
storage pit, and then later filled with debris. The large area surrounding Feature 167-2
appears to be a floor of an activity area.
A posthole was found immediately adjacent to Feature 167-2. This feature
(Feature 167-3) was filled with five pieces of FCR and contained charcoal at its base. The
posthole was circular in shape with a diameter of 30 centimeters and extended 45
167
centimeters below surface. A portion of the charcoal was sent for radiocarbon dating.
Calibration at two sigma using CALIB 5.0.1-IntCal04 (Reimer et al. 2004) yielded a date
of A.D. 117-413 (1770±70 RCYBP), evidence of a Middle Woodland origin.
Assessment
Block 167 is located near Mounds 29, 1, 17, and 18 and the eastern village site
recorded by Moorehead. However, no clear evidence of habitation activities was found in
this area during Seeman’s surface collection. A general lack of anomalies is documented
in the geophysical data. Only two magnetic anomalies were identified as probable
prehistoric cultural features. The lithic debitage, pot sherds, and FCR found in the shovel
tests indicate generalized occupation of the block.
Features found during the testing of geophysical anomalies located evidence of a
Middle Woodland occupation. Two postholes were located 90 centimeters apart. Both
features contained several pieces of FCR at approximately 39 centimeters below surface.
I assume that these features are related and were part of some type of structure used
during the Middle Woodland period, as supported by the radiocarbon date from Feature
167-3. Furthermore, these postholes are situated within 1.5 meters of Feature 167-2, a
feature that also contained evidence of a Middle Woodland occupation. I therefore
assume that these three features were part of the same occupation.
Feature 167-2 is a pit filled with refuse. Characteristics of this feature are similar
to midden features found at Mound City. Brown (1994) documented three middens that
contained artifacts, faunal remains, burned rocks, mica flakes, and charcoal. One of these
middens had associated postmolds that suggested some sort of habitation prior to
168
embankment construction. For Feature 167-2, the lack of faunal remains among the lithic
tools and debitage, pot sherds, mica, and FCR is troubling, yet, two postholes were
discovered. No discernible pattern indicative of a particular structure type was found, but
a radiocarbon date of one posthole is in agreement with dates from three mounds at the
Hopewell site (Mounds 11, 17, and 25). As such, these features appear to be related to
earthwork use either from ceremonial or manufacturing activities, such as documented
with the structures inside Seip, or from habitation by those who were participating in
mound activities.
If Feature 167-2 is the result of habitation, then four correlates listed in Table 2
point to a short-term habitation: discrete midden; midden size; stages of lithic reduction;
and curated and/or expedient tools. First, a pit was reused for trash disposal rather than
the establishment of a discrete midden or trash disposal zone. Second, the midden is
relatively small and sparse in comparison to the midden found at the McGraw site in
southern Ross County. The McGraw midden contained a vast quantity of artifacts, such
as nearly 10,000 sherds, as evidence of long-term settlement during the Middle
Woodland period (Prufer 1965). Third, all stages of the lithic reduction sequence are not
found in Feature 167-2. An analysis of the lithic debitage (n=50) from the plowzone and
feature fill found 39 flakes (78%) from 0.5-1 inch in size, eight flakes (16%) were 0.25-
0.5 inch in size, and three (6%) were 1-2 inch in size. Fourth, ten bladelets, a projectile
point, four utilized flakes, and a groundstone fragment make up the stone tool kit. This
does not contain a variety of curated tools expected at long-term habitation sites. If this
area was used for settlement, then it was used as temporary quarters for those building or
using the earthworks.
169
CHAPTER 8
SYNTHESIS OF RESULTS
In this research, a combination of geophysical and archaeological techniques was
used to determine the nature and extent of activities from a sample of non-mound space
at the Hopewell site. This research was experimental in design due to the lack of
preceding non-mound studies and the large size of the Hopewell site. The use of a simple
random sampling strategy proved beneficial by eliminating bias in the selection of the
blocks and reducing extraneous variables. Non-mound space was sampled evenly and is
representative of the entire site such that additional testing of non-mound space is
expected to produce similar results. Data generated from this 10% sample of non-mound
space found that only a small range of activities were conducted in non-mound space at
the Hopewell site during the Middle Woodland period. This chapter begins with a
summary of the results from the fieldwork. Then each of the seven proposed site uses is
reviewed in light of these results and those from previous studies of the site.
Geophysical Surveys
Each of the eighteen blocks in the sample was surveyed with a magnetometer and
electrical resistance meter. The magnetic signatures of anomalies provide a general idea
170
of the type of cultural feature. Magnetic data were supplemented with electrical
resistance data in order to weed out historic deposits and to identify anomalies with the
best chance of being prehistoric cultural deposits. Resistance data were also used to
locate more generalized features that typically are not found with the magnetometer.
Magnetic data were collected, downloaded, and inspected for anomalies
indicative of prehistoric cultural features. A total of 88 anomalies were identified that
were indicative of prehistoric cultural features. In general, analyses of the magnetic data
identified more anomalies in the western village area (Blocks 10, 26, and 28) and around
the circular embankment in the southeastern quadrant of the main enclosure (Block 23).
Eighteen magnetic anomalies were each found in Blocks 10 and 23. Twelve of the
eighteen magnetic anomalies in Block 10, located within the western village site, were
very strong and received with the highest rank. These anomalies are likely deep pit
features. In contrast, thirteen of the anomalies in Block 23 were very weak and were
assigned the lowest available rank. Many of these weak anomalies paralleled a linear
magnetic anomaly that represented a portion of the small circular enclosure and thus may
represent ceremonial features. Block 156 inside the square enclosure contained a total of
nine magnetic anomalies that may pre-date the building of the square or be related to
earthwork construction activities. Blocks 32, 34, 65, and 68, in the central non-mound
area inside the main enclosure, were fairly quiet in terms of magnetic anomalies. Block
161 located at the base of the third terrace had no magnetic anomalies.
Analysis of the resistance data located 39 anomalies indicative of cultural
features. Only thirteen of these received the highest ranking for prehistoric features, such
as the circular feature in Block 87. Thirteen electrical resistance anomalies were found in
171
or near the western village site in Blocks 10, 26, and 28. One anomaly in Block 10
measuring about 20 meters in diameter may represent a compacted open area or structure
floors. No resistance anomalies were found in four blocks; three of these blocks (Blocks
159, 161, and 167) are located at the base of the third terrace and the other is in the
square enclosure (Block 156).
Analysis of the data from the eighteen blocks identified 88 magnetic anomalies
and 39 electrical resistance anomalies (see Tables 4 and 5). These anomalies were
compared to locate those that appeared as both magnetic and electrical resistance
anomalies. A total of 101 individual geophysical anomalies were identified for the
sample. Figure 93 is a map of the Hopewell site showing the total number of geophysical
anomalies for each block. Blocks near the western village site (Blocks 10, 26, and 28)
account for 30% (n=31) of the geophysical anomalies attesting to the use of this area in
prehistoric times. Block 23 in the circle enclosure and Block 156 in the square enclosure
represent an additional 26% (n=27) of the anomalies. These anomalies are most likely
related to the construction or use of enclosures. The remainder of non-mound space in the
sample contains a nearly even distribution of geophysical anomalies, with the exception
of Block 32 nearest the D-shaped enclosure (n=1) and Block 161 located in a depression
at the base of the third terrace (n=0).
Shovel Test Pits
One hundred fifty-five shovel test pits were excavated in the eighteen blocks.
Artifacts found in the shovel tests provided temporal indicators of site use, determined
the nature and extent of activity areas, and were used to measure diversity for each block.
172
The importance of shovel test data, especially for Middle Woodland research, has been
stated by Dancey (1998) despite general problems resulting from artifact size and
cultivation effects.
A total of 537 artifacts were found in 122 shovel tests (see Table 7). Historic
artifacts comprised approximately 7% (n=35). Exempting the historic artifacts from
further consideration, at least one prehistoric artifact was found in every block. Figure 94
is a map showing the number of prehistoric artifacts found in each block. Blocks in the
central portion of the main enclosure had only a handful of artifacts (Blocks 65, 68, and
87). In contrast, Block 10 contained nearly 25% (n=124) of the prehistoric artifacts,
including 61 pieces of FCR, 5 bladelets, 30 pieces of lithic debitage (10 of Flint Ridge
chert), 20 pottery sherds, and 8 bone fragments. The shovel test data show a distinct
cluster in the vicinity of Moorehead’s west village. The general distribution of all
artifacts from the STPs indicates a scatter across the entire site—a conclusion also drawn
by Seeman (1981). This conclusion is more noticeable when examining the distribution
of artifacts except FCR found in the shovel tests. Figure 95 is a map of prehistoric
artifacts minus FCR per block. A very light scatter of artifacts results because FCR was
56% (n=283) of the prehistoric artifacts recovered from the STPs. Of these artifacts, only
a very few (n=12) were temporally diagnostic of the Middle Woodland period. Bladelets
and one point were found in shovel tests of six blocks (Blocks 10, 28, 82, 100, 114, and
156).
Examining the diversity of artifacts for each block gives a general idea of the
nature of activities. Table 41 shows the diversity index of artifacts based on the shovel
test data. Since this diversity table does not take into account the geophysical results and
173
feature excavations, it serves only as a general guide when comparing blocks. The most
diverse block is Block 10, followed by Blocks 28, 82, and 114. The least diverse blocks
are Blocks 87 and 124. More diversity in the archaeological record suggests more
generalized activities, while less diversity is indicative of more specialized activities. In
terms of the Middle Woodland period, assessments of these blocks in the previous
chapter assigned communal uses to Blocks 10 and 28 and ceremonial or other specialized
uses to Blocks 87 and 124.
Anomaly Testing
A total of 26 anomalies in eight blocks were investigated during this research.
Five of these anomalies were found in shovel test pits, while the remaining were
geophysical anomalies. Importantly, anomalies from only eight blocks were tested
because of time constraints resulting from feature excavation. Table 42 lists the
anomalies along with some of their characteristics.
The anomalies found in the shovel tests had distinctive soil at the base of the
plowzone. Upon further testing, three of these anomalies (Anomalies 10-1, 28-1, and
65-1) were determined to be natural features. Expansion of the original shovel test by
removing more plowzone resulted in delineating cultural features for Anomalies 28-2 and
124-1.
The geophysical anomalies were selected for testing based on visual inspection of
magnetic data in the field. Although the selection of anomalies to test may have been
different after the intensive laboratory analysis, the anomalies chosen represent typical
geophysical signatures of data from the Eastern Woodlands. I felt it was necessary to test
174
a variety of anomalies since literature on geophysical surveys with ground-truthed data
are limited in the eastern United States. Thus, both monopole and dipole anomalies of
various strengths were tested.
Of the 21 geophysical anomalies tested, nine were positive for prehistoric cultural
features. In terms of only the magnetic data, seven of the anomalies are best described as
positive monopoles, one is a haloed dipole with a strong positive core surrounded by a
weak negative, and one is a dipole with a very strong positive and significantly weaker
magnetic negative. The twelve anomalies that were negative were four historic deposits
with magnetic signatures of three strong and one weak dipoles, four natural features with
three monopole and one dipole signatures, and three unknown features with dipole
signatures.
A comparison of anomalies selected for testing using visual inspection in the field
versus those identified through the laboratory analysis is enlightening. Of the twenty-one
tested geophysical anomalies, only eleven were identified in the laboratory analysis of the
magnetic data. These eleven anomalies are overwhelmingly monopoles with varying
magnetic peaks and ranks of seven “A,” two “B,” and two “D.” Seven of these eleven
magnetic anomalies also had a corresponding resistance anomaly. These seven electrical
resistance anomalies were a mix of ranks. Of the eleven magnetic anomalies tested that
were identified in the laboratory analysis, nine were prehistoric cultural features and the
cause of two anomalies is unknown. Surprisingly, one of the unfounded anomalies had
both magnetic and resistance signatures. These results underline the importance of the
laboratory analysis of geophysical data and provide a potential success rate of identifying
prehistoric cultural features. As previously stated, 88 magnetic and 39 resistance
175
anomalies were identified in the analysis. Since nine of eleven anomalies were prehistoric
cultural features, then I might expect 74 magnetic anomalies in the eighteen blocks to be
prehistoric features. However, this research underscores the importance of using two or
more geophysical methods when trying to identify prehistoric cultural features. A point
made in recent literature (Clay 2001; Kvamme 2003). Thus, looking solely at anomalies
with both magnetic and electrical resistance signatures (n=27), I expect 23 anomalies in
the eighteen blocks to be prehistoric features.
Feature Excavation
A total of twelve prehistoric cultural features in five blocks were excavated during
this research. Two features were found during excavation of shovel tests. Ten features
were unearthed during the testing of eleven geophysical anomalies as one anomaly
(Anomaly 167-2) contained two distinct features (Features 167-2 and 167-3). Table 43
contains radiocarbon dates from five features.
Two features were excavated in Block 10 in the vicinity of the western village
site. Both features were deep cooking pits filled with layers of refuse. Artifacts found
within the plowzone and the extreme uppermost layers of feature fill were indicative of
the Middle Woodland period; however, radiocarbon dating of charcoal from the lowest
depths of both features returned Late Woodland-Late Prehistoric period dates. Feature
10-3 had a calibrated date at two sigma of A.D. 883-1156 and Feature 10-5 had a date of
A.D. 778-1032.
Four features were excavated in Block 28, also in the vicinity of the western
village. Feature 28-2, consisting of a buried A horizon, is part of a low, broad mound.
176
The limited amount of artifacts recovered from the excavation unit support a Middle
Woodland origin, but this feature appears to be overburden from Mound 25 excavations
around the turn of the twentieth century. Alternatively, this mound may have been built
by the Hopewell. Two postholes, Features 28-3 and 28-6, were found about two meters
apart in Block 28. It is unknown if these postholes are part of the same structure. Lack of
artifacts and charcoal hampered efforts to date these features. Feature 28-5 is a large FCR
feature. Bladelets, a projectile point, and cordmarked pot sherds found in the plowzone
and uppermost layer of the feature fill are indicative of the Middle Woodland period.
Charcoal recovered from a log below the layer of FCR was dated and calibrated to 570-
202 B.C., a date fixed within the Early Woodland period. This lack of congruency is
explained by two episodes of occupation. The FCR feature was in use before the
earthworks were constructed by the Hopewell. The artifact bearing upper stratigraphic
layer represents fill associated with the nearby low mound.
One feature (Feature 87-2) was excavated in Block 87, located near the center of
the main enclosure. A small trench perpendicular to a large circular geophysical anomaly
was excavated. A shallow ditch containing only one piece of FCR was found in the
trench. Unfortunately no carbon was located and the exact origin of this feature remains
unknown. Circular ditches are known from both Adena and Hopewell earthworks and
often represent one construction stage in the evolution of an earthwork.
Two features were found in Block 124. Feature 124-1 contains a layer of FCR. A
piece of shatter of Flint Ridge chert was the only artifact aside from the numerous pieces
of FCR. No suitable material for radiocarbon dating was found. This feature is similar to
those described as heating pits found at Mound City (Brown 1994) and probably
177
functioned as a roasting or steaming facility. Feature 124-2 is an earth oven lined with
FCR. A quartz crystal flake was recovered from the feature fill. A burned log at the base
of the feature returned a calibrated radiocarbon date of 929-506 B.C. This date is much
too early to be Hopewell, although one calibrated date from a burial in Mound 25 was
826-538 B.C. (Greber 2003). Feature 124-2 may have been used by those of the Adena
culture for some communal or ceremonial event. Perhaps Feature 124-1 is related to
Feature 124-2.
Three features were found in two geophysical anomalies in Block 167. Features
167-1 and 167-3 were postholes with pieces of FCR. Both features were within a meter of
each other. Charcoal from the base of Feature 167-3 had a calibrated date of A.D. 117-
413. Feature 167-2 is a pit filled with refuse, including bladelets, pot sherds, a Middle
Woodland projectile point, and a piece of cut mica. Overall, the artifacts are more
indicative of more generalized activities associated with settlement or communal
activities than those associated with ceremonial or other specialized behavior. Feature fill
did not contain materials suitable for radiocarbon dating, but the presence of a significant
quantity of diagnostic artifacts argues for a Hopewell origin. In combination, these three
features represent an activity area, possible even the floor of a structure, used during the
Middle Woodland period.
Site Use of Non-mound Space
Seven site uses have been proposed for earthworks. Evidence for some associated
activities, such as ceremonial and mortuary behavior, has been found inside the sub-
mound structures at these sites. Research also supports use of non-mound space at some
178
Ohio Hopewell earthworks for burials, ceremonial centers, communal meeting places,
and settlement; yet, little to no evidence has been located in non-mound space for use as
trading centers, defense, and horticulture. Each site use is now considered for non-mound
space at the Hopewell site based on evidence gathered from this research and from
previous research conducted at the site. Discussion will be limited to evidence from the
Middle Woodland period.
Ceremonial Center
Archaeological evidence of the use of non-mound space for ceremonies has been
found at several sites. Fired floors and postholes at Seip and specialized ceremonial
structures at Fort Ancient are examples (Greber 1997b; Lazazzera 1997). The range of
features attributed to ceremonial behavior is quite vast, but archaeological indicators may
include artifacts of non-local materials, caches of goods, features without domestic
debris, and earthen architecture. Analysis of these portions of the archaeological record
must also take into account their potential use in political or economic activities before
assigning a strictly ceremonial use.
Evidence of ceremonial activities was found in eight blocks in this study. Four
blocks contained portions of or were adjacent to earthen architecture. Blocks 23 and 114
had known earthwork features. Block 87 had an unknown circular feature. Evidence from
these three blocks suggests use for ceremonial purposes, yet the extent of use is
questionable. All three blocks had very little recovered from the shovel tests to indicate a
long-term or recurring use. In contrast, the electrical resistance data of the circular feature
in Block 87 shows a compacted inner floor suggestive of either a large number of one-
179
time participants or more likely a recurring use. Block 156 is located adjacent to the
northern wall of the square enclosure and evidence suggests short-term specialized use
related to earthwork construction.
Four other blocks have evidence of ceremonial use. These blocks are situated
amid earthen features. Evidence from Block 26 is suggestive of a short-term specialized
activity area and is located within 100 meters of two mounds and the west gateway of the
main enclosure. Perhaps Block 26 was used for ceremonial activities involving heating or
cooking. Blocks 82, 100, and 124 are also located among a series of mounds. Block 82
was used for short-term ceremonial activities. Block 100 has evidence of specialized
activities related to heating that may have been ceremonial in nature and possibly
connected to the use of nearby Mounds 15 and 16. Block 124 also has evidence of
heating activities, yet not all evidence dates to the Middle Woodland period. Hopewellian
occupation of this area appears to be limited to that of a short-term, specialized nature. In
addition, Block 167 may contain evidence of a ceremonial nature due to the cut mica
found in Feature 167-2.
Non-mound space within this sample was used for ceremonial activities.
However, the ceremonial activities appear to be limited in nature to those associated with
the earthworks and to some sort of heating or other specialized activities. Perhaps these
heating features are related to activities conducted in the sub-mound structures. Previous
studies did not provide evidence of ceremonial behaviors in non-mound space, other than
those directly related to the mounds or embankments.
180
Burial Site
An isolated burial has been found in non-mound space at Seip, but few other
examples of mortuary activities have been found in non-mound space at Ohio Hopewell
earthworks. This research did not locate any burials or associated features. Previous
research at the Hopewell site did not find any isolated burials or other mortuary features.
Non-mound space at the Hopewell site does not appear to have been used for burial
activities. Instead, mortuary activities were conducted in numerous structures that were
subsequently capped with mounds.
Communal Meeting Place
A wide range of activities is encompassed under the site use of communal
meeting place. Many of these activities will leave an archaeological record, while others
may not leave a distinct trace; for instance, feasting or craft production versus gambling
or storytelling. If non-mound space was used for communal meetings, then I expected to
find compacted floors that staged activities, craft production areas, feasting debris, and
assorted artifacts of a personal nature, such as gaming pieces or clothing elements, that
may have been easily lost during activities.
Electrical resistance survey found a compacted area amid debris recovered from
shovel tests in Block 10. Two questions surround this geophysical anomaly. First, it is
unknown if the anomaly represents one large open plaza or one to three structure floors.
Second, evidence in this block dates to both the Middle Woodland and Late Prehistoric
181
periods such that a determination of origin for this anomaly is not possible at this time.
Assuming that this anomaly dates to the Hopewellian occupation of the site, this block
may have been used for staging communal activities.
Other potential evidence of communal activities was found in Blocks 26, 28, 124,
and 167. Block 26 has evidence of a short-term occupation. Geophysical anomalies and
the presence of fire-cracked rock suggest heating activities. Blocks 28 and 124 had large
features filled with FCR that were used for heating activities. This evidence is suggestive
of activities involving the steaming or roasting food (although no faunal remains were
found), a heat source during night-time or cold-weather activities, or perhaps a sweat
lodge. Thus these features may be related to communal activities or potentially to
ceremonial behaviors requiring large heat sources. Unfortunately, the feature in Block 28
dates to the Early Woodland and the feature in Block 124 is in close proximity to an earth
oven that was also dated to the Early Woodland period. Block 167 contained a pit filled
with refuse and two postholes set amid a floor. The nature of artifacts recovered may
point to some sort of communal use by the Hopewell.
There is limited evidence for use of non-mound space for communal meetings at
the Hopewell site. Block 10 does contain evidence for specialized activities during the
Middle Woodland period, although the large compacted area may have resulted from
habitation during the Late Woodland-Late Prehistoric periods. Somewhat similar
evidence was found in Block 167 that may be suggestive of community events. No other
features indicative of community meetings were found, such as isolated artifacts of a
182
personal nature. In general, this conclusion is similar to that reached by Seeman (1981) as
he stated that the western village site (in the vicinity of Block 10) may have been a craft
manufacturing area, a form of a communal activity.
Trading Center
Archaeological evidence for trading activities at earthworks is primarily centered
on artifacts recovered from sub-mound deposits, such as the biface cache in Mound 2 at
the Hopewell site. Non-mound evidence derives from specialized manufacturing areas,
for example the craft workshops at Seip (Baby and Langlois 1979) and the blade
manufacturing areas at Liberty (Coughlin and Seeman 1997). If trading activities
occurred in non-mound space at the Hopewell site, then I expected to find artifacts of
exotic materials, artifact caches, manufacturing areas, or specialized workshop structures.
The recovery of exotic material (obsidian in Block 10 and mica in Block 167)
does not denote trading activities. Two areas with evidence for stone tool manufacture
either are extremely limited in nature (Block 65) or may date to the Archaic period
(Block 23). No other features suggestive of trading were found in this research. Non-
mound space at the Hopewell site was not used for organized trading activities, but trade
may have occurred on a small-scale during communal meetings.
Defense
Although no archaeological evidence of a defensive nature has been found in non-
mound space at Ohio earthworks, the presence of an embankment and ditch around
portions of the Hopewell site led Squier and Davis (1848:47) to conclude that the site was
183
a “fortified town.” More recent research found no indications of a defensive site use. No
features or artifacts indicative of warfare were found in non-mound space during this
research. The earthworks were not used as a place of refuge during periods of unrest.
Settlement
Evidence for settlement has been found in non-mound space at some Ohio
Hopewell earthworks. Both short- and long-term habitation has been proposed, as well as
housing limited to only an elite segment of the population. Artifacts, features, and
structures containing domestic debris are general indicators of settlement. The duration of
an occupation may be determined by examining a series of correlates presented in Table
2. Furthermore, an elite settlement is expected to include numerous high-quality artifacts
made of non-local materials.
A west settlement in non-mound space at the Hopewell site was noted by
Moorehead (1922) and Shetrone (1926). Seeman (1981) subsequently relocated the
western village site and described the site as a manufacturing or elite housing area.
Seeman (1981) found another habitation area further west designated the Turtle Shell
Locale. These habitation areas generally correspond to Blocks 10, 26, and 28 in this
study. These blocks occupy non-mound space that is free of earthen architecture. This
location in the southwest quadrant of the main enclosure is somewhat removed from
activities involving the construction and use of the earthworks but is located near the
western gateway and its spring, thereby making it a good location to set up temporary
living quarters. Although a dense concentration of artifacts, geophysical anomalies, and
features were found, some of the evidence post-dates the Hopewellian use of the site.
184
Instead, the evidence for a Middle Woodland occupation is indicative of communal
meetings related to earthwork use. This is not surprising since Seeman (1981) found a
blade core, bladelets, and a Middle Woodland period point in this area.
An east settlement was also documented by Squier and Davis (1848), Moorehead
(1922), and Shetrone (1926). The location of this settlement is between Blocks 114 and
167 according to historic maps. Block 167 contains three features that may be indicative
of short-term habitation. This block is set amongst four mounds in the northeast corner of
the main enclosure. Although this location has slightly wetter soils, short-term habitation
in this area would have been centrally located to several mounds and may have supported
earthwork construction that took place in the vicinity.
Non-mound space at the Hopewell site may have been used for settlement. The
lack of permanent housing, storage pits, thick middens, gardens, diverse ceramics, and a
generalized tool kit are all characteristics of short-term habitation. Furthermore, it
appears that these settlements may not have been used repeatedly since the archaeological
record is not dense. Instead, the habitation areas seem to have been more ephemeral in
nature. If non-mound space at the Hopewell site was used for settlement, then the lack of
significant quantities of exotic goods points to settlement open to the general population.
Horticulture
Expected evidence for a horticultural use of non-mound space included the
presence of gardening tools, fences, and food processing areas. Conclusive evidence has
yet to be found at Ohio Hopewell earthworks other than at Fort Ancient and was not
found in the course of this fieldwork. In addition, Romain (2004) cited the lack of
185
artifacts and features in non-mound space as evidence for horticulture. Of the eighteen
blocks in this sample, seven contained very little evidence for any type of activity. These
blocks were either located near the center of the main enclosure amid numerous earthen
features and so these areas might have been kept free of any activities to permit
movement (Blocks 32, 34, 65, and 68), or these blocks were located in areas with wetter
soils, low spots, or at the base of the third terrace (Blocks 147, 159, and 161). Therefore,
I attribute the scantiness of the archaeological record in these blocks to a general lack of
use. Importantly, paleoethnobotanical remains from numerous flotation samples were not
analyzed as part of this dissertation and these may contain additional insight.
Summary
Fieldwork conducted in non-mound space at the Hopewell site supports use for
ceremonies, communal meetings, and perhaps settlement. This is not surprising given
previous research at this and other Hopewell earthworks. However, these activities were
limited in nature and extent. There is no evidence to suggest long-term or large-scale
settlement as suggested by Griffin (1996; 1997). The distribution of artifacts from the
shovel tests indicates a light scatter across the entire site. This scatter is explained by use
prior to the building the main enclosure and continued use of the site for limited activities
after the large enclosures were built. Although societal rules governing how this space
was used transformed once the main enclosure was constructed, the site was used by the
Hopewell who subsequently left, either intentionally or accidentally, an archaeological
186
record. Furthermore, the finding that non-mound space at the Hopewell site was used for
only limited activities associated with earthwork construction, maintenance, and use
supports the Vacant Ceremonial Center and Dispersed Sedentary Community models.
187
CHAPTER 9
CONCLUSIONS
The overwhelming majority of Ohio Hopewell earthwork studies have centered
on the mounds and associated sub-mound structures. Non-mound space at Ohio Hopewell
earthworks received very little attention, such was the case of fieldwork conducted at the
Hopewell site in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Yet these surveys recorded
non-mound debris of a settlement nature in two locations. By the late twentieth century, a
few archaeologists began to explore non-mound space. Seeman (1981) conducted a
surface collection across the Hopewell site, but found no major deposits indicative of
extensive use of non-mound space. At the start of the twenty-first century, this
dissertation research employed traditional archaeological and geophysical techniques to
conduct a random sample of non-mound space in order to test two hypotheses concerning
site use at earthworks.
Ceremonial Center Hypothesis
The hypothesis that the Hopewell site was restricted to ceremonial and burial uses
expects that activities in non-mound space were limited in nature to only those related to
these two site uses. It was thus assumed that these monumental sites were built and used
188
for specific purposes that did not involve any secular activities. Participants and
observers may have gathered at the earthwork to conduct ritual activities, for solar or
lunar observances, or bury their dead. But they did not hold community events,
manufacture crafts, trade, seek refuge during warfare, or live their everyday lives in these
locales. The amount of time and energy spent planning, building, and maintaining these
large sites meant that only special activities were staged inside the enclosures.
Archaeological evidence for ceremonial and mortuary activities has been found at
the Hopewell site, both within mounds and in non-mound space. Inside some mounds
were caches of goods. For example, Mound 17 at the Hopewell site contained two large
ceremonial deposits without any burials. Greber and Ruhl (2000:216) speculate that “it is
the wider sense of the concepts of yin and yang which would be in keeping with the
duality suggested. These assemblages may be seen as representing two basic forces or
qualities which contribute to a whole life force.” Evidence of mortuary activities is
abundant from the mounds at Hopewell; Johnston (2002) reported a total of 230 burials
excavated from the mounds.
A surface collection by Seeman (1981) did not locate vast amounts of evidence of
ceremonial or burial activities in non-mound space. While no burials or areas for
processing the dead were found in non-mound space during this current research,
ceremonial activity areas were found in a few locations around the site. These areas,
located near mounds, were frequently noted by the presence of fire-cracked rock
indicative of heating events. Furthermore, the scant archaeological record may have
resulted from momentary ceremonial activities that did not leave an archaeologically
visible trace or to ritual cleaning.
189
The Ceremonial Center hypothesis predicts that only ceremonial and mortuary
activities would have taken place in non-mound space at the Hopewell site. It was thus
assumed that the site was built and used for a sacred function related to Hopewellian
ideology to the extent that more mundane activities were not permitted. Evidence of
ceremonies was found in non-mound space during the course of this research. However,
the archaeological record in non-mound space also contained evidence of other activities.
The Ceremonial Center hypothesis is thus rejected.
Corporate Center Hypothesis
The alternate hypothesis under consideration in this dissertation states that the
Hopewell site was the center of a community and was the stage for a variety of
ceremonial, mortuary, social, economic, and political activities. This hypothesis assumes
that Ohio Hopewell earthworks were constructed and used for sacred and secular
activities involving any of the seven proposed site uses for earthworks. People may have
gathered at the Hopewell site for a variety of activities, such as gaming, alliance building,
craft production, trading, protection during periods of unrest, short- or long-term
settlement, or horticultural tasks. As such, a dense archaeological record is expected,
especially since the Hopewell site was in use for a number of centuries. Even if non-
mound space was cleaned after activities, I would expect to find the collected debris in
middens or as embankment fill (see Brown 1979 or Greber 1997b), or small or isolated
objects that were lost or overlooked during cleaning would be recovered.
Previous fieldwork at the site has documented a range of these activities in and
between the mounds. The primary uses of the mounds and sub-mound structures are
190
related to ceremonial and mortuary contexts. Seeman (1979b) also presents a scenario in
which the sub-mound structures were the location for the redistribution of food. He cites
evidence of charcoal, ashes, and numerous animal bones recovered by Shetrone’s
excavation of Mound 33 at the Hopewell site.
Archaeological evidence of activities in non-mound space at the Hopewell site is
limited. Historical explorations documented some sort of non-mound debris, although
details are lacking in all three cases (Squier and Davis 1848; Moorehead 1922; and
Shetrone 1926). Surface collections by Seeman (1981) documented Hopewellian
habitation and craft manufacturing areas in the western village, near Mounds 15 and 16,
west of the western village (Turtle Shell Locale), east village area, and east of Mound 29.
This research found evidence of ceremonial, communal, and possible settlement
activities. Ceremonial activities were conducted in several locations near enclosures or
mounds. Non-mound space may have been used for a variety of community related
activities. Possible evidence for Hopewellian settlement was found in Block 167. Here
the nature of the archaeological record may point to short-term habitation. A dense
concentration of habitation debris in the vicinity of the western village appears to be
largely the remnants of a Late Woodland-Late Prehistoric occupation.
The Corporate Center hypothesis predicts that activities other than those related to
ceremonial and mortuary behavior would have taken place in non-mound space at the
Hopewell site. The sheer size of non-mound space, plus generally gentle topography and
well drained soils, would have made an ideal location for sacred and secular activities.
Evidence of ceremonies, communal meetings, and perhaps short-term habitation was
found in this research. As such, the Corporate Center hypothesis is not rejected.
191
Discussion
The Hopewell site fits the expectations of the Corporate Center hypothesis
because a variety of activities were conducted inside the enclosures, but these activities
were quite limited in extent and duration. This is surprising given the Middle Woodland
use of the site for hundreds of years, the amount of non-mound space of roughly 50
hectares, and the range of activities that have been proposed by archaeologists (see Table
1). The question of where these various activities occurred then arises. If Hopewellian
people did not conduct activities in the sub-mound structures or in non-mound space,
then activities must have taken place at other locales within the community. Perhaps
these activities took place at the specialized camps and hamlets surrounding the
earthworks as envisioned in the Dispersed Sedentary Community model (Dancey and
Pacheco 1997).
Several field projects surrounding the Hopewell site provide some insight. A
surface collection of approximately 125 hectares surrounding the Hopewell site found a
few locations with Middle Woodland diagnostic artifacts (Seeman 1981). A survey of a 4
kilometer catchment around the earthworks found evidence of lithic manufacturing areas
and hamlets (Dancey 1995). Recent National Park Service archaeological projects also
found small Middle Woodland artifact clusters suggestive of short-term camp sites just
outside the enclosures (Burks and Pederson n.d.; Pederson et al. 2004). These areas may
have adequately served to house local people constructing, using, and maintaining the
earthworks because they could commute to the site for short periods of time and camp
without conducting a lot of specialized activities. Yet this evidence is troubling.
192
Some archaeologists have commented that the sheer size of the Hopewell site and
nature of the deposits may be indicative that the site was a regional center. If so, then the
known archaeological record both inside and adjacent to the earthworks appears small in
size and limited in nature. Instead, the Hopewell site should have many artifact clusters
documenting the activities conducted by thousands of people over hundreds of years. A
wide range of generalized and specialized activities should be documented. At minimum,
activities should include food preparation, trash disposal, resource procurement, social
meetings, and camping. Explanations for this disparity may be that the Hopewell site was
not a regional center, these associated activities occurred at a greater distance from the
earthwork, or previous surveys had sampling bias that worked against finding these types
of archaeological deposits. The question of site use as a regional center is an avenue for
future research.
The zenith of activity at the Hopewell site obviously occurred during the Middle
Woodland period, but features found during this research highlight the importance of this
location during other time periods. There is a complex chronological sequence
documented at the site (Figure 96). Features dating to the Early Woodland period, such as
the large feature containing fire-cracked rock in Block 28, support a ceremonial or
communal use of the site prior to the large-scale construction of the embankments and
many of the mounds. But were earthworks built at the site during the Early Woodland
period? Or was their a slow drift from using more Adena-like traits to those of the
Hopewell? Or perhaps the new circular feature represents the transition from Early
Woodland to Middle Woodland periods—only further excavation can reveal its true
identity. Furthermore, some features had much later origins. Did Late Woodland-Late
193
Prehistoric period populations utilize the site for habitation while conducting their own
specialized activities at the Hopewell site? Continued excavation of geophysical
anomalies in Block 10 may provide answers.
Additional future directions include exploring the question of site function given
the archaeological record of mounded and non-mound space in order to understand
Hopewellian ideology, social dynamics, and community organization. Perhaps this work
would provide information concerning the use of the Hopewell site as both a local and
regional center. The continuation of geophysical surveys within and adjacent to the
enclosures may uncover additional earthworks or other features that may significantly
alter our view of the site. In addition, more geophysical surveys could also impart
knowledge about the construction techniques of the embankments.
This research sought to address three recent comments concerning Ohio Hopewell
earthworks (DeBoer 1997; Griffin 1997; Riordan 1998) by identifying activity areas in a
sample of non-mound space using geophysical and traditional archaeological techniques.
First, while the lack of non-mound debris and features prevented a thorough examination
of short-term recurring activities, the correlates borrowed from Hopewellian settlement
studies were utilized to grasp the duration of activities. Second, fieldwork was conducted
in non-mound space using conventional and modern techniques. And third, investigations
were focused on non-mound space in order to determine the nature of ceremonial and
corporate activities. Importantly, this research was experimental in design due to the lack
of preceding non-mound studies and the large size of the Hopewell site. An improvement
to the research design would be the elimination of the visual inspection method for
selecting geophysical anomalies to excavate. While visual inspection of the data is quick,
194
it focuses on locating strong cultural features and oftentimes weak features are
overlooked. Laboratory analysis of the geophysical data would increase the number of
cultural features found during excavations. The use of an Oakfield soil core to test the
probable prehistoric cultural features prior to test excavations would also increase the
success rate.
Use of Geophysical Techniques in the Eastern Woodlands
The application of geophysical techniques to archaeological research originated in
Europe where features include Roman villas and Neolithic enclosures. These types of
architecture provide a great contrast from the surrounding physical environment such that
geophysical survey easily locates these types of features. Archaeological features of the
Eastern Woodlands, particularly of earlier time periods, are often more subtle.
Conventional wisdom dictates that these types of subtle features would be harder to
locate using geophysical survey, but technological advances have provided a range of
instruments that are able to detect smaller or more ephemeral features. Therefore,
geophysical survey can be used by archaeologists in eastern North America to answer a
variety of research questions.
The advantages of using geophysical survey are many, three of which are listed
here. First, one or two trained individuals can quickly collect data over a large area. The
agricultural fields of the Midwest are particularly good candidates for research given their
fairly even and open terrain. Although survey in woods or urban settings is difficult, it
can also be accomplished. Second, geophysics provides continuous data coverage versus
conventional survey methods. Shovel tests in Block 87 did not locate any significant
195
features and the one piece of prehistoric shatter found would not have warranted further
research; yet, the discovery of a large circular feature in the magnetic and electrical
resistance data underscores the value of continuous coverage. And third, geophysical
survey is a non-destructive technique that provides data while leaving the archaeological
record intact. Less site disturbance also results because the geophysical data can be used
to pinpoint excavations rather than stripping large areas to locate cultural features.
In contrast, two main disadvantages are often cited for not conducting geophysical
survey. One, the cost is expensive. The initial costs alone deter many archaeologists, but
instruments and accompanying software also need regular maintenance and updating at
additional expense. Two, the learning curve is steep. While learning to conduct a survey
is somewhat easy because there is a protocol, the survey design and data interpretation is
much harder because it relies on the archaeologist to make critical decisions. This can be
especially daunting in a region where few geophysical surveys have been conducted and
geophysical signatures of cultural features are not yet established.
In conclusion, geophysical survey is immensely beneficial for Eastern Woodlands
archaeology given the right research question, physical environment, and survey design.
Geophysical techniques can locate subsurface cultural features, but additional ground
testing is usually necessary to determine their origin and nature. Although the most
successful uses to date in the Eastern Woodlands have been to locate the remnants of
prehistoric earthworks, such as at the Hopeton site (Lynott 2004), this research shows the
utility of geophysics to find isolated, more transient features. Within the past few years,
the number of surveys conducted throughout the Eastern Woodlands has increased
exponentially thereby attesting to the more widespread adoption of these techniques.
196
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abrams, Elliot M.
1989 Architecture and Energy: An Evolutionary Perspective. In Archaeological
Method and Theory, Vol. 1, edited by M. B. Schiffer, pp. 47-77. University of
New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Atwater, Caleb
1820 Description of the Antiquities Discovered in Ohio and Other Western States.
Archaeologia Americana 1:105-267. Originally reprinted in 1833 by Caleb
Atwater; later reprinted in 1991 by Arthur McGraw.
1833 The Writings of Caleb Atwater. Scott and Wright, Columbus, Ohio.
Baby, Raymond, and Suzanne Langlois

1979 Seip Mound State Memorial: Nonmortuary Aspects of Hopewell. In Hopewell
Archaeology: The Chillicothe Conference, edited by David Brose and N’omi
Greber, pp. 16-18. The Kent State University Press, Kent, Ohio.
Bevan, Bruce W.
1998 Geophysical Exploration for Archaeology: An Introduction to Geophysical
Exploration. Midwest Archeological Center Special Report 1. National Park
Service, Lincoln, Nebraska.
Bradley, Richard
1998 The Significance of Monuments. Routledge, New York, New York.
Breiner, Sheldon
1973 Applications Manual for Portable Magnetometers. Geometrics, Sunnydale,
California.
Brockman, C. Scott
1998 Physiographic Regions of Ohio Map. Ohio Department of Natural Resources,
Columbus, Ohio.
197
Brown, James
1994 Inventory and Integrative Analysis: Excavations of Mound City, Ross County,
Ohio. Ms. on file at Hopewell Culture National Historical Park, Chillicothe.
Ohio.
1997 Comments on Warren DeBoer’s Ceremonial Centres from the Cayapas

(Esmeraldas, Ecuador) to Chillicothe (Ohio, USA). Cambridge
Archaeological Journal 7(2):242-244.
Burks, Jarrod, and Jennifer Pederson

In press The Place of Non-Mound Debris at Hopewell Mound Group (33Ro27),
Ross County, Ohio. In Recreating Hopewell, edited by J. Buikstra and D.
Charles. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.
Burks, Jarrod, Jennifer Pederson, and Dawn Walter

2002 Hopewell Landuse Patterns at the Hopeton Earthworks. Paper presented at the
67th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Denver,
Colorado. Ms. on file at Hopewell Culture National Historical Park,
Chillicothe, Ohio.
Byers, A. Martin
1987 The Earthwork Enclosures of the Central Ohio Valley: A Temporal and
Structural Analysis of Woodland Society and Culture. Unpublished Ph.D.
Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, State University of New York at
Albany, Albany, New York.
1996 Social Structure and the Pragmatic Meaning of Material Culture: Ohio
Hopewell as Ecclesiatic-Communal Cult. In A View from the Core: A
Synthesis of Ohio Hopewell Archaeology, edited by Paul J. Pacheco, pp. 174-
192. Ohio Archaeological Council, Columbus, Ohio.
Caldwell, Joseph R.
1964 Hopewell Interaction Spheres in Prehistory. In Hopewellian Studies, edited by
Joseph R. Caldwell and Robert L. Hall, pp. 133-143. Scientific Papers Vol.
12, Illinois State Museum, Springfield, Illinois.
Carr, Christopher
2005 Salient Issues in the Social and Political Organizations of Northern
Hopewellian Peoples. In Gathering Hopewell: Society, Ritual, and Ritual
Interaction, edited by Christopher Carr and D. Troy Case, pp. 73-118. Kluwer
Academic / Plenum Publishers, New York, New York.
CERHAS
2005 <http://www.earthworks.uc.edu/photo.htm> Assessed October 2005.
198
Clark, Anthony J.
1996 Seeing Beneath the Soil: Prospecting Methods in Archaeology. Batsford,
London, England.
Clay, R. Berle
1987 Circles and Ovals: Two Types of Adena Space. Southeastern Archaeology
6:46-55.
2001 Complementary Geophysical Survey Techniques: Why Two Ways are Always
Better than One. Southeastern Archaeology 20:31-43.
Connolly, Robert P.
1996a Middle Woodland Hilltop Enclosures: The Built Environment, Construction
and Function. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology,
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, Illinois.
1996b Prehistoric Land Modification at the Fort Ancient Hilltop Enclosure: A Model
of Formal and Accretive Development. In A View from the Core: A Synthesis
of Ohio Hopewell Archaeology, edited by Paul J. Pacheco, pp. 258-273. Ohio
Archaeological Council, Columbus, Ohio.
1997 The Evidence for Habitation at the Fort Ancient Earthworks, Warren County,
Ohio. In Ohio Hopewell Community Organization, edited by William S.
Dancey and Paul J. Pacheco, pp. 251-281. The Kent State University Press,
Kent, Ohio.
Coughlin, Sean, and Mark Seeman

1997 Hopewell Settlements at the Liberty Earthworks, Ross County, Ohio. In Ohio
Hopewell Community Organization, edited by William S. Dancey and Paul J.
Pacheco, pp. 231- 247. The Kent State University Press, Kent, Ohio.
Cowan, C. Wesley
1996 Social Implications of Ohio Hopewell Art. In A View from the Core: A
Cowan, Frank L., and N’omi B. Greber

2002 Hopewell Mound 11: Yet Another Look at an Old Collection. Hopewell
Archeology, Vol. 5, No. 2, Article 2.
<http://www.cr.nps.gov/mwac/hopewell/v5n2/two.htm>. Document dated
December 2002; assessed November 2005.
199
Cowan, Frank L., Theodore S. Sunderhaus, and Robert A. Genheimer
1999 Notes from the Field, 1999: More Hopewell "Houses" at the Stubbs
Earthwork Site. Ohio Archaeological Council, Columbus, Ohio.
<http://www.ohioarchaeology.org/cowan_1999.html>. Document dated 1999;
assessed January 2006.
2000 Wooden Architecture in Ohio Hopewell Sites: Structural and Spatial Patterns
at the Stubbs Earthworks Site. Paper presented at the 65th Annual Meeting of
the Society for American Archaeology, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Ms. on
file at Hopewell Culture National Historical Park, Chillicothe, Ohio.
Dancey, William S.
1991 A Middle Woodland Settlement in Central Ohio: A Preliminary Report on the
Murphy Site (33Li212). Pennsylvania Archaeologist 61:37-72.
1996a Hopewell Earthwork Catchment Survey: Interim Report. Report submitted to

the Hopewell Culture National Historical Park, Chillicothe, Ohio.
1996b Putting an End to Ohio Hopewell. In A View from the Core: A Synthesis of
Ohio Hopewell Archaeology, edited by Paul J. Pacheco, pp. 394-405. Ohio
1998 The Value of Surface Archaeological Data in Exploring the Dynamics of

Community Evolution in the Middle Ohio Valley. In Surface Archaeology,
edited by Alan P. Sullivan III, pp. 3-19. University of New Mexico Press,
Albuquerque, New Mexico.
2005 The Enigmatic Hopewell of the Eastern Woodlands. In North American

Archaeology, edited by Timothy R. Pauketat and Diana DiPaolo Loren, pp.
108-137. Blackwell Publishing, Malden, Massachusetts.
Dancey, William S., and Paul J. Pacheco

1997 A Community Model of Ohio Hopewell Settlement. In Ohio Hopewell
Community Organization, edited by William S. Dancey and Paul J. Pacheco,
pp. 3-40. The Kent State University Press, Kent, Ohio.
DeBoer, Warren R.
1997 Ceremonial Centres from the Cayapas (Esmeraldas, Ecuador) to Chillicothe
(Ohio, USA). Cambridge Archaeological Journal 7(2):225-253.
Drewett, Peter
1977 The Excavation of Neolithic Causewayed Enclosure on Offham Hill, East
Sussex. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 43:201-241.
200
Dunnell, Robert C., and William S. Dancey
1983 The Siteless Survey: A Regional Scale Data Collection Strategy. In Advances
in Archaeological Methods and Theories, Vol. 6, edited by Michael Schiffer,
pp. 267-287. Academic Press, New York, New York.
Ebert and Associates

2000 Use of Remote Sensing to Evaluate and Monitor the Condition of Prehistoric
Earthen Structures. Ms. on file at Hopewell Culture National Historical Park,
Chillicothe, Ohio.
Essenpreis, Patricia
1987 Introduction of an Atlas of American Indian Geometry by James Marshall.
Ohio Archaeologist 37(2):36.
Ford, Richard I.
1979 Gathering and Gardening: Trends and Consequences of Hopewell Subsistence
Strategies. In Hopewell Archaeology: The Chillicothe Conference, edited by
David S. Brose and N'omi Greber, pp. 234-238. Kent State University Press,
Kent, Ohio.
Fowke, Gerard
1902 Archaeological History of Ohio: The Mound Builders and Later Indians. The
Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Society, Columbus, Ohio.
Geoscan
2001 Geoplot, Version 3.00 for Windows Instruction Manual, Version 1.6. Geoscan
Research, Bradford, England.
Greber, N’omi
1976 Within Ohio Hopewell: Analyses of Burial Patterns from Several Classic
Sites. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Case
Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio.
1979 A Comparative Study of Site Morphology and Burial Patterns at Edwin

Harness Mound and Seip Mounds 1 and 2. In Hopewell Archaeology: The
Chillicothe Conference, edited by David S. Brose and N'omi Greber, pp. 27-
38. Kent State University Press, Kent, Ohio.
1991 A Study of Continuity and Contrast between Central Scioto Adena and
Hopewell Sites. West Virginia Archaeologist 43(1&2):1-26.
1996 A Commentary on the Contexts and Contents of Large to Small Ohio

Hopewell Deposits. In A View from the Core: A Synthesis of Ohio Hopewell
Archaeology, edited by Paul J. Pacheco, pp. 150-172. Ohio Archaeological
Council, Columbus, Ohio.
201
1997a Comments on Warren DeBoer’s Ceremonial Centres from the Cayapas
(Esmeraldas, Ecuador) to Chillicothe (Ohio, USA). Cambridge
Archaeological Journal 7(2):244-247.
1997b Two Geometric Enclosures in the Paint Creek Valley: An Estimate of Possible
Changes in Community Patterns through Time. In Ohio Hopewell Community
Organization, edited by William S. Dancey and Paul J. Pacheco, pp. 207-229.
The Kent State University Press, Kent, Ohio.
1999 Correlating Maps of the Hopewell Site, 1820-1993. Ms. on file at Hopewell
Culture National Historical Park, Chillicothe, Ohio.
2002 A Preliminary Comparison of 1997 and 2002 Limited Excavation in the Great
Circle Wall, High Bank Works, Ross County, Ohio. Hopewell Archaeology
5(2):1-5.
2003 Chronological Relationships among Ohio Hopewell Sites: Few Dates and
Much Complexity. In Theory, Method, and Practice in Modern Archaeology,
edited by Robert J. Jeske and Douglas K. Charles, pp. 88-113. Praeger
Publishers, Westport, Connecticut.
Greber, N’omi, and Katherine Ruhl

2000 The Hopewell Site, reprinted and revised. Eastern National, Port Washington,
Pennsylvania.
Greber, N’omi, and Mark Seeman

1995 The 1993 Field Season at the Hopewell Site, Ross County, Ohio. Report on
file at Hopewell Culture National Historical Park, Chillicothe, Ohio.
Griffin, James
1996 Hopewell Housing Shortage in Ohio, A.D. 1-350. In A View from the Core: A
Synthesis of Ohio Hopewell Archaeology, edited by Paul J. Pacheco, pp. 4-15.
The Ohio Archaeological Council, Columbus, Ohio.
1997 Interpretations of Ohio Hopewell 1845-1984 and the Recent Emphasis on the
Study of Dispersed Hamlets. In Ohio Hopewell Community Organization,
edited by William S. Dancey and Paul J. Pacheco, pp. 405-426. The Kent
State University Press, Kent, Ohio.
Hall, Robert L.
1997 An Archaeology of the Soul: North American Indian Belief and Ritual.
University of Illinois Press, Urbana and Chicago, Illinois.
202
Heilman, J. M., and Lynn M. Mahoney
1996 The Purdom Mound Group: The Dayton Museum of Natural History’s
Excavation and a Synopsis of the Excavations of Adams and Bailey. In A
View from the Core: A Synthesis of Ohio Hopewell Archaeology, edited by
Paul J. Pacheco, pp. 286-301. Ohio Archaeological Council, Columbus, Ohio.
Hester, Thomas R., Harry J. Shafer, and Kenneth L. Feder

1997 Field Methods in Archaeology, seventh edition. Mayfield Publishing
Company, Mountain View, California.
Hively, Ray, and Robert Horn

1982 Geometry and Astronomy in Prehistoric Ohio. Archaeoastronomy 4:1-20.
1984 Hopewellian Geometry and Astronomy at High Bank. Archaeoastronomy

7:85-100.
Hyde, J. E.
1920 Geology of the Camp Sherman Quadrangle. Ohio Division of Geological
Survey, Columbus, Ohio.
Johnston, Cheryl
2002 Culturally Modified Human Remains from the Hopewell Mound Group.
Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, The Ohio State
University, Columbus, Ohio.
Jones, David
1971 A Journal of Two Visits Made to Some Nations of Indians on the West Side of
the River Ohio in the Years 1772 and 1773, reprinted. Arno Press, New York,
New York.
Konigsberg, Lyle W.
1985 Demography and Mortuary Practice at Seip Mound One. Midcontinental
Journal of Archaeology 10(1):123-148.
Kvamme, Kenneth
2003 Geophysical Surveys as Landscape Archaeology. American Antiquity 68:435-
457.
Lazazzera, Adrienne
1997 Preliminary Report of 1995 Winter and 1996 Summer Investigations at the
Fort Ancient State Memorial: Hopewell Habitation on the North Fort Interior.
Report submitted to Ohio Historical Society, Columbus, Ohio.
203
2004 Hopewell Household Variation at the Fort Ancient Site. In The Fort Ancient
Earthworks, edited by Robert Connolly and Bradley Lepper, pp. 84-106. Ohio
Historical Society, Columbus, Ohio.
Lepper, Bradley
1996 The Newark Earthworks and the Geometric Enclosures of the Scioto Valley:
Connections and Conjectures. In A View from the Core: A Synthesis of Ohio
Hopewell Archaeology, edited by Paul J. Pacheco, pp. 224-241. Ohio
Lepper, Bradley T., and Richard W. Yerkes

1997 Hopewellian Occupations at the Northern Periphery of the Newark
Earthworks: The Newark Expressway Sites Revisited. In Ohio Hopewell
Lloyd, Timothy C.
2002 Mortuary Patterns, Social Organization, and Ideology at the Hopewell Site.
Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, State
University of New York at Albany, Albany, New York.
Lynott, Mark
2004 Earthwork Construction and the Organization of Hopewell Society. Hopewell
Archeology, Vol. 6, No. 1, Article 6.
<http://www.cr.nps.gov/mwac/hopewell/v6n1/six.htm>. Document dated
September 2004; assessed September 2005.
Mainfort, Robert, and Lynne Sullivan

1998 Explaining Earthen Enclosures. In Ancient Earthen Enclosures of the Eastern
Woodlands, edited by Robert Mainfort and Lynne Sullivan, pp. 1-16.
University of Florida Press, Gainesville, Florida.
Maki, David
2005 Lightning Strikes and Prehistoric Ovens: Determining the Source of Magnetic
Anomalies Using Techniques of Environmental Magnetism. Geoarchaeology
20(5):449–459.
McIntosh, Jane
1986 The Practical Archaeologist: How We Know What We Know about the Past.
Facts on File, New York, New York.
204
McKee, Arlo
2005 Geophysical Investigations of the Hopewell Earthworks (33RO27), Ross
County, Ohio. Hopewell Archeology, Vol. 6, No. 2, Article 4.
<http://www.cr.nps.gov/mwac/hopewell/v6n2/four.htm>. Document dated
March 2005; assessed September 2005.
McLauchlan, Kendra
2003 Plant Cultivation and Forest Clearance by Prehistoric North Americans:
Pollen Evidence from Fort Ancient, Ohio, USA. The Holocene 13:557–566.
Mills, Lisa
2003 Mitochondrial DNA Analysis of the Ohio Hopewell of the Hopewell Mound
Group. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, The
Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.
Mills, William C.
1914 Archaeological Atlas of Ohio. Ohio State Archaeological and Historical
Society, Columbus, Ohio.
1921 Exploration of the Mound City Group, Ross County, Ohio. Ohio State
Archaeological and Historical Society, Columbus, Ohio.
Morgan, Lewis Henry

1881 Houses and House-life of the American Aborigines. Government Printing
Office, Washington, D.C.
Morgan, Richard G.
1946 Fort Ancient. Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Society, Columbus,
Ohio.
Moorehead, Warren K.
1922 The Hopewell Mound Group of Ohio. Field Museum of Natural History
Publication 211, Anthropological Series. Field Museum of Natural History,
Chicago, Illinois.
Orton, Clive
2000 Sampling in Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, New York, New
York.
Pacheco, Paul J.
1996 Ohio Hopewell Regional Settlement Patterns. In A View from the Core: A
205
Pederson, Jennifer, Jarrod Burks, Dawn Walter Gagliano, and Kathy Brady-Rawlins
2004 Assessment of Effect for Riverbank Stabilization Project at the Hopewell
Mound Group Unit, Hopewell Culture National Historical Park, Union
Township, Ross County, Ohio. Ms. on file at the Hopewell Culture National
Historical Park, Chillicothe, Ohio.
Pickard, William H., and Laurie A. Gray Pahdopony

1995 Paradise Regained and Lost Again: The Anderson Earthwork, Ross County,
Ohio (33RO551). Hopewell Archeology, Vol. 1, No. 2, Article 3.
<http://www.cr.nps.gov/mwac/hopewell/v1n2/doc/v1n2.doc>. Document
dated December 1995; assessed March 2006.
Prufer, Olaf
1964 The Hopewell Complex of Ohio. In Hopewellian Studies, edited by Joseph
Caldwell and Robert Hall, pp. 37-83. Illinois State Museum Scientific Papers,
Volume 12. Springfield, Illinois.
1965 The McGraw Site: A Study in Hopewellian Dynamics. The Cleveland Museum
of Natural History, Cleveland, Ohio.
1996 Core and Periphery: The Final Chapter on Ohio Hopewell. In A View from the
Core: A Synthesis of Ohio Hopewell Archaeology, edited by Paul J. Pacheco,
pp. 406-425. Ohio Archaeological Council, Columbus, Ohio.
1997a Fort Hill 1964: New Data and Reflections on Hopewell Hilltop Enclosures in
Southern Ohio. In Ohio Hopewell Community Organization, edited by
William S. Dancey and Paul J. Pacheco, pp. 311-327. The Kent State
University Press, Kent, Ohio.
1997b How to Construct a Model: A Personal Memoir. In Ohio Hopewell

Prufer, Olaf H., and Orrin C. Shane, III.

1970 Blain Village and the Fort Ancient Tradition in Ohio. The Kent State
University Press, Kent, Ohio.
Quinn, Michael J., and Richard P. Goldthwait

1985 Glacial Geology of Ross County, Ohio. State of Ohio, Department of Natural
Resources, Division of Geological Survey, Columbus, Ohio.
206
Reimer, Paula J., Mike G. L. Baillie, Edouard Bard, Alex Bayliss, J. Warren Beck,
Chanda J. H. Bertrand, Paul G. Blackwell, Caitlin E. Buck, George S. Burr, Kirsten B.
Cutler, Paul E. Damon, R. Lawrence Edwards, Richard G. Fairbanks, Michael Friedrich,
Thomas P. Guilderson, Alan G. Hogg, Konrad A. Hughen, Bernd Kromer, Gerry
McCormac, Stuart Manning, Christopher Bronk Ramsey, Ron W. Reimer, Sabine
Remmele, John R. Southon, Minze Stuiver, Sahra Talamo, F. W. Taylor, Johannes van
der Plicht, and Constanze E. Weyhenmeyer
2004 IntCal04 Terrestrial Radiocarbon Age Calibration, 0–26 cal kyr BP.
Radiocarbon 46:1029-1058.
Riordan, Robert V.
1996 The Enclosed Hilltops of Southern Ohio. In A View from the Core: A
1998 Boundaries, Resistance, and Control: Enclosing the Hilltops in Middle

Woodland Ohio. In Ancient Earthen Enclosures of the Eastern Woodlands,
edited by Robert Mainfort and Lynne Sullivan, pp. 68-84. University of
Florida Press, Gainesville, Florida.
Ruhl, Katherine
1992 Copper Earspools from Ohio Hopewell Sites. Midcontinental Journal of
Archaeology 17(1):46-79.
2005 Hopewellian Copper Earspools from Eastern North America: The Social,
Ritual, and Symbolic Significance of Their Contexts and Distribution. In
Gathering Hopewell: Society, Ritual, and Ritual Interaction, edited by
Christopher Carr and D. Troy Case, pp. 696-713. Kluwer Academic/Plenum
Publishers, New York, New York.
Sciulli, Paul W., and Michael C. Mahaney

1986 Evidence of Local Biological Continuity for an Ohio Hopewell Complex
Population. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 11(2):181-199.
Seeman, Mark
1977 The Hopewell Interaction Sphere: The Evidence for Inter-regional Trade and
Structural Complexity. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of
Anthropology, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana.
1979a The Hopewell Interaction Sphere: The Evidence of Inter-regional Trade and
Structural Complexity. Indiana Historical Society, Prehistoric Research
Series 5(2):237-438.
207
1979b Feasting with the Dead: Ohio Hopewell Charnel House Ritual as a Context for
Redistribution. In Hopewell Archaeology: The Chillicothe Conference, edited
by David Brose and N’omi Greber, pp. 39-46. The Kent State University
Press, Kent, Ohio.
1981 An Archaeological Survey of the Hopewell Site (33Ro27) and Vicinity, Ross
County, Ohio. Report submitted to the Ohio Historic Preservation Office. Ms.
on file at Hopewell Culture National Historical Park, Chillicothe, Ohio.
nd An Archaeological Survey of the Hopewell Works, Ross County, Ohio.

Research proposal on file at Hopewell Culture National Historical Park,
Chillicothe, Ohio.
Shetrone, Henry C.
1926 Explorations of the Hopewell Group of Prehistoric Earthworks. In Ohio
Archaeological and Historical Publications, Volume 35, 1926, pp. 5-227. Fred
Heer, Columbus, Ohio.
Shetrone, Henry C., and Emerson F. Greenman

1931 Explorations of the Seip Group of Prehistoric Earthworks. Ohio
Archaeological and Historical Quarterly 40:343-509.
Shott, Michael
1985 Shovel-test Sampling as a Site Discovery Technique: A Case-study from
Michigan. Journal of Field Archaeology 12(4):457-468.
Smith, Bruce
1992 Rivers of Change. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.
Spielmann, Katherine
2002 Feasting, Craft Specialization, and the Ritual Mode of Production in Small-
scale Societies. American Anthropologist 104(1):195-207.
Squier, Ephraim, and Edwin Davis

1848 Ancient Monuments of the Mississippi Valley. Smithsonian Institution,
Washington D.C.
Stevenson, Christopher M., Ihab Abdelreheim, and Steven W. Novak

2004 High Precision Measurement of Obsidian Hydration Layers on Artifacts from
the Hopewell Site Using Secondary Ion Mass Spectrometry. American
Antiquity 69(3):555-568.
208
Struever, Stuart
1964 The Hopewell Interaction Sphere in Riverine-Western Great Lakes Culture
History. In Hopewellian Studies, edited by Joseph R. Caldwell and Robert L.
Hall, pp. 85-106. Scientific Papers Vol. 12, Illinois State Museum,
Springfield, Illinois.
Struever, Stuart, and Gail L. Houart

1972 An Analysis of the Hopewell Interaction Sphere. In Social Exchange and
Interaction, edited by Edwin Wilmsen, pp. 47-80. Anthropological Papers No.
46, Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)

1967 Soil Survey of Ross County, Ohio. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil
Conservation Service. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
2003 Soil Survey of Ross County, Ohio. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural
Resources Conservation Service. Government Printing Office, Washington,
D.C.
Vickery, Kent D.
1996 Flint Raw Material Use in Ohio Hopewell. In A View from the Core: A
Watters, Meg
2001 Another Tool for the Kit. The SAA Archaeological Record 17-20.
Weymouth, John
1998 Magnetic Anomalies of Interest at the Hopeton Site, 1997. Report submitted
to the Midwest Archeological Center, National Park Service. Ms. on file at
Hopewell Culture National Historical Park, Chillicothe, Ohio.
Wilson, James
2006 Phase I Archaeological Survey Prior to Trail Installation at the Hopewell
Mound Group Unit, Hopewell Culture National Historical Park, Union
Township, Ross County, Ohio. Ms. on file at Hopewell Culture National
Historical Park, Chillicothe, Ohio.
Wymer, Dee Anne

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
Paul J. Pacheco, pp. 36-52. Ohio Archaeological Council, Columbus, Ohio.
209
1997 Paleoethnobotany in the Licking River Valley, Ohio: Implications for
Understanding Ohio Hopewell. In Ohio Hopewell Community Organization,
edited by William S. Dancey and Paul J. Pacheco, pp. 153-171. The Kent
State University Press, Kent, Ohio.
Yerkes, Richard W.
2002 Hopewell Tribes: A Study of Middle Woodland Social Organization in the
Ohio Valley. In The Archaeology of Tribal Societies, edited by William A.
Parkinson, pp. 227-245. International Monographs in Prehistory, Ann Arbor,
Michigan.
210
APPENDIX A: TABLES
211
Activity Reference
Ceremonial activities Shetrone and Greenman 1931; Hively and Horn
1982, 1984; Smith 1992; Cowan 1996; DeBoer 1997;
Greber 1997a, 1997b; Prufer 1997b; Lepper 1998;
Dancey 2005
Ritual activities Brown 1997; Dancey and Pacheco 1997; Greber
1997b
Calendrical rituals Byers 1996; Greber 1996, 1997b; Greber and Ruhl
2000; Dancey 2005
Mortuary rituals Smith 1992; Vickery 1996; Brown 1997; DeBoer
1997; Dancey 2005
Ritual cleanings Pacheco 1996; Brown 1997
World renewal ceremonies Byers 1996; Romain 1996
Burials Dancey and Pacheco 1997; Greber 1997b; Prufer
1997b
Visiting/Social meetings Brown 1997; Yerkes 2002
Feasting Seeman 1979b; Smith 1992; Connolly 1996a;
Vickery 1996; DeBoer 1997; Yerkes 2002
Dancing DeBoer 1997; Yerkes 2002; Dancey 2005
Storytelling Vickery 1996
Gift-giving Vickery 1996
Gaming DeBoer 1997
Gambling DeBoer 1997
Racetrack Atwater 1833; Fowke 1902
Craft production Baby and Langlois 1979; Smith 1992; Vickery 1996;
Coughlin and Seeman 1997; Genheimer 1997;
Riordan 1998; Spielmann 2002
Economic activities Smith 1992; Riordan 1998
Trading Vickery 1996
Marriages Vickery 1996
Alliance building Brown 1997; Hall 1997
Judicial court Greber 1997a
Defense Riordan 1996, 1998; Prufer 1997a
Habitation Greber 1997b; Riordan 1998; Lazazzera 2004
Elite habitation Seeman 1981; Lazazzera 1997
Short-term habitation Dancey and Pacheco 1997; Lepper and Yerkes 1997;
Prufer 1997b
Long-term habitation Griffin 1996, 1997
Horticulture McLauchlan 2003; Romain 2004
Earthwork construction Smith 1992; Vickery 1996; Dancey and Pacheco
1997; Prufer 1997b
Table 1. Proposed activities conducted at Ohio Hopewell earthworks.
212
Archaeological Record Short-term Long-term
Habitation Habitation
Types of activity areas1 Limited All
Spatial segregation of activities2 Little to none Yes
Houses3 Temporary Permanent, substantial
Rebuilding or repositioning4 Minimal Likely
Site maintenance5 Low High
Feature types6 Restricted Diverse
Storage pits7 Possible Yes
Size of storage pits8 Small Large
Discrete midden9 Variable Yes
Midden size10 Shallow Large and thick
Evidence of gardens or gardening11 Possible Yes
Ceramic vessel size12 Restricted Diverse
Stages of lithic reduction13 Limited All
Curated and/or expedient tools14 Unknown Both
Multi-season food remains15 Maybe Yes
Table 2. Archaeological correlates of Ohio Hopewell short- and long-term habitation.
1. Activity areas present: Short-term sites are expected to have restricted types of activity areas because
activities are limited to only those conducted at that site for a short period of time. In contrast, long-
term sites should have diverse activity types displaying a range of activities.
2. Spatial segregation of activities: Short-term settlements may have spatial segregation of activities,
such as flintknapping areas (Yerkes 2002). Long-term sites will have spatial segregation such as
documented at Murphy (Dancey 1991).
3. Houses: Short-term sites have temporary, perhaps nominal structures. Long-term sites should have
substantial houses, perhaps larger in size than short-term structures (Yerkes 2002).
4. Rebuilding or repositioning: Due to the limited occupancy, short-term settlements should have
minimal evidence of rebuilding or repositioning while long-term sites have evidence for these
activities. However, short-term sites that are reused may have rebuilding or repositioning episodes;
Hale’s House at Newark has a semicircular arc of postmolds under postmolds forming a rectangular
structure (Lepper and Yerkes 1997).
5. Site maintenance: Typically short-term sites will have low site maintenance and long-term sites will
have high site maintenance. “Removal of refuse from an area is highly predicted on the intended future
use of that area” (Kozarek 1997).
6. Feature types: A restricted range of feature types is expected at short-term sites because of the duration
of occupation. Diversity of feature types is expected at long-term sites in which the accumulation of
feature types occurs over many years.
7. Storage pits: Short-term habitations may have shallow basin features instead of substantial storage pits.
Long-term sites should have many substantial pits for storage.
213
8. Size of storage pits: Short-term sites in which people did not expect to reuse the site would have no
storage pits. The ability to store objects for future use is a trait of long-term settlement (Yerkes 2002).
Long-term sites should have deep storage pits.
9. Discrete midden: Variable for short-term sites in which pits used for other purposes may have been
reused for trash disposal. At long-term sites, discrete middens are positioned near but not in the way of
structures (Yerkes 2002). There may even be a “refuse zone” such as documented at Murphy (Dancey
1991).
10. Midden size: The size of the midden corresponds to length of occupation such that short-term
settlements should have small, thin midden deposits and long-term should have large, thick deposits
(Kozarek 1997).
11. Evidence of gardens or gardening: Depending on the type and location of the site, evidence of
gardening may be present at short-term habitation sites if peoples were engaged in horticultural
activities. Gardening evidence is expected at long-term sites as suggested by Wymer (1997).
12. Ceramic vessel size: More mobile groups are expected to transport many objects between habitation
sites such that pottery may be restricted to those more easily carried. However, large pots could be left
at sites that would be reused seasonally. Long-term sites should have a range of vessel size since
transportation of these objects does not occur frequently.
13. Stages of lithic reduction: Expect limited stages of lithic reduction sequence at short-term sites but all
stages at long-term sites.
14. Curated and/or expedient tools: Short-term sites may be limited in tools because of the need to
transport tools emphasizing multipurpose use. In contrast, long-term habitation sites should have
curated tools as well as expedient tools (see Lepper and Yerkes 1997).
15. Multi-season food remains: Short-term habitation sites should have more food indicative of one
particular season. Long-term sites should have multi-season food remains due to the use of storage
pits.
214
Feature RCYBP Calibrated Date Reference
(2 sigma)
Mound 25, Moorehead Burial 260/261 2285±210a.b 841 B.C.-A.D. 133 Libby 1955
Mound 25, Moorehead Burial 260/261 2570±50c 826-538 B.C. Greber 2003
Mound 25, Moorehead Burial 248 2044±250b 669 B.C.-A.D. 436 Libby 1955
Mound 25, Altar 1 1951±200b 397 B.C.-A.D. 465 Libby 1955
Mound 25, Moorehead Burial 260/261 1800±50 A.D. 85-346 Greber 2003
Mound 17 1620±140 A.D. 123-662 Crane and Griffin 1972
Mound 11 1800±40 A.D. 125-339 Cowan and Greber 2002
Mound 25, Altar 1 1760±50 A.D. 134-390 Greber 2003
Mound 11 1740±40 A.D. 212-409 Cowan and Greber 2002
215
Mound 25, Moorehead Burial 260/261 1660±50 A.D. 256-534 Greber 2003
Note: Calibrations used CALIB 5.0.1- IntCal04 (Reimer et al. 2004).
a
Material dated was shell that may have produced an inaccurate date (Greber 2003).
b
The standard deviation of greater than ±200 is due to radiocarbon dating techniques in the 1950s.
c
Greber (2003:106) attributes this early date to “part of the variation expected from radiocarbon assays.”
Table 3. Published radiocarbon dates from the Hopewell site.
215
Block Rank A Rank B Rank C Rank D Rank E Total
10 12 6 18
23 2 1 2 13 18
26 4 2 1 7
28 2 2 4
32 1 1
34 1 1
65 2 2
68 2 2
82 2 1 1 4
87 2 1 3
100 3 2 1 6
114 2 1 1 4
124 2 1 3
147 1 1
156 2 4 2 1 9
159 1 1 1 3
161 0
167 2 2
Total 33 21 11 11 14 88
Table 4. Magnetic anomalies identified for each block.
216
Block Rank A Rank B Rank C Total
10 1 1 3 5
23 1 1
26 2 3 5
28 1 2 3
32 1 1
34 1 2 3
65 1 2 3
68 2 1 3
82 2 1 3
87 2 1 3
100 1 3 4
114 1 1
124 1 2 3
147 1 1
156 0
159 0
161 0
167 0
Total 8 12 19 39
Table 5. Electrical resistance anomalies identified for each block.
217
Block Fire- Lithic Lithic Pottery Faunal Burned Other Historics Total
cracked Tools Debitage Sherds Remains Limestone Prehistoric
Rock Objects
10 926 43 334 222 353 6 8 8 1900
23 11 1 21 33
26 10 5 2 2 19
28 1503 13 174 29 235 2 12 1968
32 6 8 1 15
34 8 7 3 1 19
65 5 2 5 16 28
68 9 1 2 12
82 20 2 1 1 24
87 14 2 4 110 130
100 44 1 9 54
114 10 2 9 10 31
218
124 802 1 47 1 851

147 2 6 1 1 10
156 6 2 20 5 33
159 16 1 1 1 2 21
161 25 2 1 1 29
167 608 21 73 221 1 9 1 934
Total 4025 92 728 481 354 242 33 156 6111
Table 6. Artifacts recovered during all stages of fieldwork.
218
Block FCR Lithic Lithic Pottery Faunal Historics Total
Tools Debitage Sherds Remains
10 61 5 30 20 8 124
23 12 1 21 34
26 10 2 5 2 19
28 23 1 15 2 3 44
32 6 8 1 15
34 8 7 3 1 19
65 2 4 2 8
68 2 2 2 6
82 20 3 1 1 25
87 1 22 23
100 44 1 9 54
114 2 1 7 10
124 27 13 40
147 5 7 1 1 14
156 2 2 13 4 21
159 13 1 1 1 16
161 25 2 1 1 29
167 23 9 4 36
Total 283 21 155 34 9 35 537
Table 7. Artifacts recovered from shovel tests pits.
219
Size Class Count % by Count Weight (g) % by Weight
<2.5 cm 816 20.30 1652 1.10
2.5-5 cm 2121 52.30 29982 20.00
5-7.5 cm 775 19.3 47723 31.10
7.5-10 cm 240 6.00 38898 25.40
10-12.5 cm 50 1.20 19049 12.40
12.5-15 cm 17 0.40 10226 6.70
15-20 cm 5 0.10 4543 3.00
>20 cm 1 0.02 1200 0.80
Total 4025 99.62 153273 100.50
Table 8. Fire-cracked rock recovered from all stages of fieldwork.

<0.25 in 2 0.30 0.05 0.007
0.25-0.5 in 33 4.50 6.32 0.90
0.5-1 in 567 77.90 218.47 31.70
1-2 in 119 16.30 200.00 29.00
>2 in 7 1.00 263.95 38.30
Total 728 100.00 688.79 99.90
Table 9. Lithic debitage recovered from all stages of fieldwork.

<0.25 in 15 2.80 3.11 0.30
0.25-0.5 in 242 45.30 163.40 16.10
0.5-1 in 247 46.30 534.83 52.80
1-2 in 28 5.20 251.91 24.90
>2 in 2 0.40 60.12 5.90
Total 481 100.00 1013.37 100.00
Table 10. Pottery sherds recovered from all stages of fieldwork.
220
Anomaly Maximum Maximum Peak Depth below Mass Rank
number east-west north-south (nT) surface (kg)
(m) (m) (cm)
1 1.80 1.45 12.39 1.02 0.88 A
2 1.10 0.85 11.54 0.37 0.18 A
3 1.20 0.70 18.97 0.27 0.27 B
4 2.00 1.30 6.61 0.92 0.49 B
5 1.20 1.25 7.20 0.77 0.22 A
6 1.60 1.50 6.80 0.92 0.42 B
7 2.00 1.40 13.22 0.87 1.08 A
8 2.00 2.00 15.38 1.02 2.04 A
9 1.40 1.50 6.16 0.62 0.31 B
10 1.70 0.90 11.17 0.52 0.41 A
11 1.90 1.50 20.04 0.62 1.64 A
12 1.25 1.25 7.20 0.42 0.23 B
13 1.30 1.25 8.15 0.62 0.28 B
14 1.40 1.25 6.54 0.42 0.25 A
15 1.10 0.75 12.90 0.32 0.17 A
16 2.00 1.00 15.13 0.37 0.85 A
17 1.90 1.50 8.96 0.87 0.73 A
18 1.60 1.30 8.97 0.52 0.45 A
mean= 0.05
standard deviation= 1.99
minimum value= -15.74
maximum value= 30.34
Table 11. Magnetic anomalies in Block 10.
221
Anomaly Maximum Maximum Peak Rank
number east-west north-south (ohms)
(m) (m)
1 23.50 27.00 77.83 A
2 2.00 1.70 95.81 B
3 1.90 1.00 92.04 C
4 1.20 0.80 88.51 C
5 1.00 0.75 89.45 C
mean= 88.95
minimum value= 77.83
Table 12. Electrical resistance anomalies in Block 10.
222
(m) (m) (cm)
1 4.00 unknown 40.88 unknown unknown A
2 3.50 unknown 13.84 unknown unknown A
3 1.30 1.05 5.76 0.62 0.15 E
4 1.50 0.80 3.28 0.52 0.08 E
5 0.75 0.75 2.90 0.22 0.02 E
6 0.75 1.25 3.05 0.17 0.05 E
7 0.60 0.55 4.70 -0.13 0.01 E
8 0.50 1.00 6.06 -0.13 0.04 E
9 1.00 0.90 6.67 0.27 0.09 D
10 0.80 1.60 5.40 0.37 0.15 E
11 1.10 1.30 6.23 0.62 0.17 E
12 1.00 1.50 4.15 1.12 0.13 E
13 0.75 1.60 4.93 0.32 0.13 E
14 1.00 1.40 6.34 0.82 0.18 D
15 0.60 0.60 3.48 0.12 0.01 E
16 1.15 1.40 7.26 0.37 0.25 C
17 1.60 1.50 5.69 0.72 0.34 E
18 1.30 1.20 5.35 0.62 0.17 E
mean= 0.16

(m) (m)
1 4.00 4.50 57.85 B
mean= 26.62
minimum value= 9.75
223
(m) (m) (cm)
1 1.50 1.50 4.87 1.12 0.27 C
2 1.75 1.60 15.72 0.62 1.22 A
3 1.90 1.80 10.69 0.82 1.12 A
4 1.50 2.40 13.51 0.72 1.66 A
5 2.00 2.00 7.99 1.42 1.05 B
6 3.50 9.00 9.43 3.87 38.00 B
7 2.50 2.00 8.40 1.32 1.58 A
mean= 0.09

(m) (m)
1 1.60 1.50 72.95 B
2 0.60 0.80 65.45 C
3 1.30 1.90 66.45 C
4 3.80 7.00 74.50 B
5 1.90 1.40 66.85 C
mean= 65.28
224
(m) (m) (cm)
1 0.74 0.80 8.28 0.27 0.06 A
2 1.50 1.30 7.18 1.02 0.33 B
3 2.75 1.10 7.05 1.37 0.83 B
4 1.10 1.40 6.79 1.12 0.22 A
mean= 0.03

(m) (m)
1 16.50 40.00 71.20 B
2 2.25 1.50 50.10 C
3 1.50 1.90 47.35 C
mean= 56.26

(m) (m) (cm)
1 2.50 2.00 7.94 1.37 1.51 A
mean= 0.05
225
(m) (m)
1 1.90 2.00 48.25 A
mean= 39.52

(m) (m) (cm)
1 1.60 1.25 6.38 0.92 0.30 D
mean= 0.07

(m) (m) (cm)
1 2.00 1.20 5.90 0.82 0.40 C
2 2.00 1.30 6.45 0.82 0.48 C
mean= 0.04
226
(m) (m)
1 1.50 2.00 58.55 C
2 9.30 9.30 42.50 B
3 1.70 1.70 59.50 C
mean= 56.37

(m) (m) (cm)
1 2.10 1.50 12.68 0.82 1.23 C
2 1.80 1.50 14.13 0.57 1.05 C
mean= 0.04

(m) (m)
1 2.90 1.05 77.85 A
2 2.10 1.90 78.55 A
mean= 63.67
227
(m) (m) (cm)
1 1.90 1.90 7.67 0.87 0.86 C
2 1.95 1.00 7.69 1.12 0.40 D
3 2.00 2.00 10.83 1.32 1.43 A
4 2.00 2.00 10.48 1.12 1.38 A
mean= 0.12

(m) (m)
1 4.00 3.70 73.45 A
2 1.60 1.40 56.10 C
mean= 59.46
228
(m) (m) (cm)
1 1.50 1.50 5.72 0.62 0.32 A
2 1.00 1.70 6.11 0.87 0.25 C
3 2.00 2.00 8.20 Unknown Unknown A
mean= 0.09

(m) (m)
1 2.20 1.70 82.95 B
2 3.00 2.50 75.65 C
3 3.50 3.00 83.10 B
mean= 63.55
229
(m) (m) (cm)
1 1.80 1.70 7.67 1.02 0.68 A
2 1.70 1.90 9.96 0.42 0.96 A
3 1.15 1.10 5.89 0.72 0.14 B
4 1.70 2.10 9.62 0.82 1.09 B
5 1.00 1.20 5.60 0.62 0.12 C
6 1.20 2.60 8.78 1.12 1.00 A
mean= 0.06

(m) (m)
1 1.50 1.10 72.20 C
2 1.00 0.60 74.35 C
3 1.40 1.00 82.20 B
4 2.10 1.90 63.75 C
mean= 67.92
230
(m) (m) (cm)
1 6.00 5.00 11.29 Unknown Unknown E
2 1.10 1.00 8.56 0.32 0.16 D
3 1.00 0.90 11.73 0.62 0.17 B
4 0.80 1.10 12.99 0.77 0.18 B
mean= 0.07

(m) (m)
1 8.00 11.00 83.95 B
mean= 54.94

(m) (m) (cm)
1 unknown unknown 11.86 unknown unknown B
2 2.00 2.00 19.33 0.62 2.57 A
3 1.10 1.00 7.08 0.82 0.14 A
mean= 0.03
231
(m) (m)
1 1.30 1.60 56.60 C
2 2.10 2.25 63.00 B
3 0.70 0.70 56.10 C
mean= 54.32

(m) (m) (cm)
1 1.00 0.90 9.52 0.22 0.14 B
mean= 0.01

(m) (m)
1 1.30 1.00 35.00 C
mean= 39.42
232
(m) (m) (cm)
1 0.70 0.70 6.57 0.32 0.04 A
2 1.10 1.15 7.42 0.62 0.18 B
3 1.60 0.90 6.43 0.82 0.21 B
4 1.00 0.70 6.26 0.47 0.06 B
5 0.70 0.80 5.28 0.22 0.04 D
6 1.00 1.05 5.90 0.62 0.11 C
7 1.20 1.70 10.51 0.82 0.53 A
8 1.00 1.20 6.88 0.52 0.15 B
9 1.00 0.60 5.68 0.42 0.05 C
mean=0.02

(m) (m) (cm)
1 1.50 1.00 4.83 0.72 0.16 D
2 1.10 0.50 5.47 0.37 0.05 B
3 2.50 2.10 11.05 1.62 2.23 A
mean= 0.04
233
(m) (m) (cm)
1 1.50 1.00 5.19 0.62 0.17 D
2 2.00 1.00 5.98 0.97 0.33 D
mean= 0.06
234
Block FCR Flakes Shatter Cores Bladelets Bifaces Flake Ground- Pottery Bone Diversity
Tools stone Sherds Index
10 X X X X X X 0.6
23 X X X 0.3
26 X X X X 0.4
28 X X X X X 0.5
32 X X X X 0.4
34 X X X 0.3
65 X X X X 0.4
68 X X X X 0.4
82 X X X X X 0.5
87 X 0.1
100 X X X 0.3
114 X X X X X 0.5
124 X X 0.2
235
147 X X X X 0.4
159 X X X X 0.4
161 X X X X 0.4
167 X X X X 0.4
Table 41. Diversity of artifacts per block based on shovel tests.
235
Anomaly Easting Northing Discovery General Magnetic Description
Number Method Form Peak
(nT)
10-1 4160 4940 Shovel test n/a n/a Natural
deposit of
cobbles
10-2 4169 4957 Magnetics Dipole 11.67 Unknown
10-3 4194 4952 Magnetics Monopole 12.39 Deep cooking
pit
10-4 4170 4950 Magnetics Dipole 11.94 Metal
10-5 4184.5 4929 Magnetics Dipole 6.80 Cooking pit
10-6 4167.5 4927 Magnetics Dipole 30.34 Unknown
28-1 4160 5020 Shovel test n/a n/a Tree root
28-2 4200 5000 Shovel test n/a n/a Mound
28-3 4191 5032 Magnetics Monopole 8.28 Posthole
28-5 4191 5006.5 Magnetics Monopole 7.05 FCR feature
65-1 4440 5080 Shovel test n/a n/a Animal
burrow
65-2 4407 5096 Magnetics Dipole 10.80 Animal
burrow
87-1 4496 5142 Magnetics Dipole 8.08 Cinder
87-2 4501 5103 Magnetics Monopole 8.20 Ditch
114-1 4810.5 5164.5 Magnetics Monopole 12.49 Till
114-2 4801 5163.5 Magnetics Monopole 2.59 Till
124-1 4440 5200 Shovel test n/a n/a FCR feature
124-2 4454 5211 Magnetics Haloed 19.33 Earth oven
Dipole
124-3 4459.5 5209.5 Magnetics Dipole 7.08 Unknown
124-4 Magnetics Monopole 2.61 Plow scar
156-1 4906.5 5241 Magnetics Monopole 5.47 Burned tree
root
167-2 4685.5 5294 Magnetics Monopole 5.98 Pit
Table 42. Anomalies tested for prehistoric cultural features.
236
Feature RCYBP Calibrated Date
(2 sigma)
Feature 124-2 2610±80 929-506 B.C.
Earth Oven
Feature 28-5 2330±70 570-202 B.C.
FCR Feature
Feature 167-3 1770±70 A.D. 117-413
Posthole
Feature 10-5 1090±60 A.D. 778-1032
Cooking Pit
Feature 10-3 1040±60 A.D. 883-1156
Cooking Pit
Note: Calibrations used CALIB 5.0.1-IntCal04 (Reimer et al. 2004).
Table 43. Radiocarbon dates from non-mound space at the Hopewell site.
237
APPENDIX B: FIGURES
238
Figure 1. Spatial distribution of earthworks in southern Ohio (adapted from Dancey
1996b). The location of the Hopewell site circled.
239
Figure 2. Hypothetical model of earthwork evolution (adapted from Dancey and Pacheco
1997). Solid polygons represent mounds. Lines and open polygons represent
embankments and enclosures.
240
Figure 3. Proposed plan view of the Big House of Mound 25 at the Hopewell site (Greber
and Ruhl 2000).
241
Figure 4. The Hopewell site as mapped by Warren K. Moorehead (1922) showing two
“village sites.”
242
Figure 5. The Hopewell site as mapped by Henry C. Shetrone (1926) showing two
“habitation sites.”
243
Figure 6. Ohio Hopewell earthworks with non-mound research.
244
Figure 7. Soils in the vicinity of the Hopewell site (adapted from USDA 2003).
Embankments shown as dashed line.
245
Figure 8. The Hopewell site as mapped by Ephraim Squier and Edwin Davis (1848).
246
Figure 9. Middle Woodland sites in the vicinity of the Hopewell site.
247
Figure 10. The Hopewell site as mapped by Clinton Cowen in 1892 (adapted from Greber
and Ruhl 2000). Mounds lettered a-z.
248
Figure 11. Aerial photograph of the Hopewell site from 1976. Arrows point to visible
embankment walls.
249
Figure 12. Composite of photointerpreted anomalies from aerial photographs taken
between 1951-1994 of the Hopewell site (Ebert and Associates 2000).
250
Figure 13. Earliest map of the Hopewell site by Caleb Atwater (1820; adapted from
McGraw 1991).
251
Figure 14. Map of the 18 blocks in the sample. Blocks identified by numbers shown.
252
Figure 15. Collection of magnetic data from Block 65 using the Geoscan FM-36 Fluxgate
Gradiometer. Pictured left to right: Jennifer Pederson Weinberger, April Boyer, and
Andrew Drake.
253
Figure 16. Collection of resistance data from Block 114 using the Geoscan RM-15
Resistance Meter. Pictured: Jennifer Pederson Weinberger.
254
Figure 17. Shovel test pit in Block 124 with Feature 124-1 at base of plowzone.
255
Figure 18. Artifacts made from exotic materials.
256
Figure 19. Sample of fire-cracked rock.
257
Figure 20. Projectile points.
258
Figure 21. Bladelet fragments.
259
Figure 22. Groundstone artifacts.
260
Figure 23. Pottery sherds.
261
Figure 24. Processed magnetic data from Block 10.
Figure 25. Interpretation of magnetic data from Block 10 showing probable prehistoric
cultural features.
262
Figure 26. Processed electrical resistance data from Block 10.
Figure 27. Interpretation of electrical resistance data from Block 10 showing probable
prehistoric cultural features.
263
cultural features.
264
265
cultural features.
266
267
cultural features.
268
Figure 39. Topographic map showing location of mounded area in relation to electrical
resistance data collected for Block 28. Contour interval of 0.1 meters is above datum.
269
270
Figure 41. Plan view of Feature 28-5 at 60 centimeters below datum.
271
cultural features.
272
Figure 45. Electrical resistance data in the vicinity of Block 32 showing a portion of the
D-shaped embankment.
273
274
cultural features.

275
cultural features.
276
277
cultural features.
278
279
cultural features.
280
281
282
cultural features.
283
284
285
cultural features.
286
287
cultural features.
288
289
cultural features.
290
291
cultural features.
292
293
cultural features.
294
295
cultural features.

296
297
cultural features.
298
299
Figure 93. Map of the Hopewell site showing the number of geophysical anomalies found
in each block. Anomalies with both magnetic and electrical resistance signatures only
counted once. Block numbers located above each block.
300
Figure 94. Map of the Hopewell site showing the number of prehistoric artifacts found in
shovel tests for each block. Block numbers located above each block.
301
Figure 95. Map of the Hopewell site showing the number of prehistoric artifacts excluding
fire-cracked rock found in shovel tests for each block. Block numbers located above each
block.
302
3500
1500 B.C.
3000 Temporal extent of the

1000 B.C.
Middle Woodland period
500 B.C.
2500
0
2000
A.D. 1500
500
A.D. 1000
1000
A.D. 1500
500
303
A.D. 20000
11
17
11
e
r1
r1
r1
r1
t
n
e
8
1*
61
61
Pi
Pi
ur
ol
ve
24
61
lt a
lta
lta
lt a
26
/2
/2
d
th
nd
d
at
ng
g
O
/2
un
un
al
60
60
in
Fe
os
0/
,A
,A
,A
A
ou
60
ki
th
ok
o
o
ur
26
l2
l2
,P
5,
o
ar
M
R
25
25
25
2
Co
Co
B
2
ria
ria
FC
-3
,E
l
ria
nd
nd
nd
nd
d
67
i
Bu
Bu
a
3,
5,
-2
5,
Bu
Bu
he
ou
ou
ou
ou
e1
0-
0-
24
8-
ad
ad
re
e1
e1
ad
ad
e1
e2
ur
oo
he
he
he
he
at
ur
ur
ur
ur
,M
re
re
Fe
at
at
re
re
at
at
oo
oo
Fe
Fe
oo
oo
25
Fe
Fe
,M
,M
,M
,M
nd
25
25
ou
25
25
nd
nd
M
nd
nd
ou
ou
ou
ou
M
M
Note: Calibration at two sigma using CALIB 5.0.1-IntCal04 (Reimer et al. 2004).
* Dates may be inaccurate (see Greber 2003).
Figure 96. Calibrated radiocarbon dates for the Hopewell site. Dates from non-mound space shown as thicker lines.
303
APPENDIX C. ARTIFACTS FROM SHOVEL TEST PITS
304
Catalog # Block Easting Northing Object Count Depth
22101 10 4200 4960 Sherd 1 Plowzone
22103 10 4180 4960 Bladelet 1 Plowzone
22106 10 4200 4960 Flake 1 Plowzone
22111 10 4160 4920 Sherd 1 Plowzone
22113 10 4160 4960 Flake 1 Plowzone
22114 10 4180 4960 Mica Chunk? 1 Plowzone
22115 10 4180 4940 Shatter 2 Plowzone
22116 10 4160 4940 Sherd 2 Plowzone
22117 10 4200 4960 Flake 3 Plowzone
22119 10 4180 4920 Flake 2 Plowzone
22120 10 4160 4960 Flake 2 Plowzone
22121 10 4180 4920 Sherd 2 Plowzone
22123 10 4180 4960 Sherd 5 Plowzone
22124 10 4160 4940 Flake 8 Plowzone
22125 10 4180 4960 Flake 7 Plowzone
22127 10 4180 4940 Bone 8 Plowzone
22131 10 4180 4940 Flake 4 Plowzone
22133 10 4180 4940 Sherd 9 Plowzone
22134 10 4200 4960 FCR 1 Plowzone
22135 10 4180 4960 FCR 1 Plowzone
22136 10 4200 4920 FCR 1 Plowzone
22137 10 4200 4940 FCR 3 Plowzone
22138 10 4160 4920 FCR 11 Plowzone
22139 10 4200 4920 FCR 4 Plowzone
22140 10 4180 4920 FCR 2 Plowzone
22141 10 4200 4940 FCR 5 Plowzone
22142 10 4160 4960 FCR 9 Plowzone
22143 10 4160 4940 FCR 11 Plowzone
22145 10 4180 4940 FCR 13 Plowzone
22471 23 4620 4980 Flake 2 Plowzone
22472 23 4620 5000 Flake 1 Plowzone
22473 23 4600 4960 Flake 1 Plowzone
22474 23 4620 4980 Flake 1 Plowzone
22475 23 4640 4980 Biface Fragment 1 Plowzone
22476 23 4638.5 4999.5 Flake 1 Plowzone
22477 23 4620 4960 Flake 2 Plowzone
22478 23 4600 4980 Flake 4 Plowzone
22479 23 4640 4980 Flake 9 Plowzone
22480 23 4640 4980 FCR 1 Plowzone
305
22481 23 4600 4980 FCR 2 Plowzone
22482 23 4638.5 4999.5 FCR 4 Plowzone
22483 23 4620 4980 FCR 4 Plowzone
22484 26 4120 5040 Flake 1 Plowzone
22485 26 4100 5040 Flake 1 Plowzone
22486 26 4100 5040 Flake 1 Plowzone
22487 26 4100 5000 Flake 1 Plowzone
22488 26 4120 5000 Flake 1 Plowzone
22489 26 4120 5000 Sherd 2 Plowzone
22490 26 4100 5000 FCR 1 Plowzone
22491 26 4120 5000 FCR 1 Plowzone
22492 26 4120 5040 FCR 1 Plowzone
22493 26 4100 5040 FCR 1 Plowzone
22494 26 4080 5040 FCR 1 Plowzone
22495 26 4120 5020 FCR 1 Plowzone
22496 26 4120 5040 FCR 2 Plowzone
22497 26 4120 5040 Granite 2 Plowzone
22498 26 4120 5000 FCR 1 Plowzone
22499 26 4100 5000 FCR 1 Plowzone
22500 28 4200 5000 Sherd 1 29-35 cmbs
22501 28 4180 5000 Flake 1 Plowzone
22502 28 4200 5000 Flake 2 Plowzone
22503 28 4200 5000 Flake 1 Plowzone
22504 28 4180 5000 Flake 1 Plowzone
22506 28 4200 5000 FCR 6 29-35 cmbs
22507 28 4180 5000 FCR 2 Plowzone
22508 28 4200 5000 FCR 2 Plowzone
22509 28 4180 5000 FCR 2 Plowzone
22510 28 4200 5020 Nail 1 Plowzone
22511 28 4200 5020 Glass 1 Plowzone
22512 28 4200 5020 Sherd 1 Plowzone
22513 28 4200 5040 Flake 1 Plowzone
22514 28 4200 5020 Flake 2 Plowzone
22515 28 4200 5020 Flake 1 Plowzone
22517 28 4200 5020 FCR 1 Plowzone
22518 28 4200 5020 FCR 1 Plowzone
22519 28 4200 5020 FCR 4 Plowzone
22520 28 4160 5040 Flake 1 Plowzone
22521 28 4180 5040 Flake 2 Plowzone
22522 28 4180 5020 Flake 2 Plowzone
22523 28 4160 5040 Metal Washer 1 Plowzone
306
22524 28 4160 5040 FCR 1 Plowzone
22525 28 4180 5040 FCR 3 Plowzone
22526 28 4160 5020 FCR 1 Plowzone
22838 32 4340 5040 Flake 1 Plowzone
22839 32 4340 5000 Flake 2 Plowzone
22840 32 4320 5040 Flake 3 Plowzone
22841 32 4320 5000 Flake 1 Plowzone
22842 32 4340 5040 Sherd 1 Plowzone
22844 32 4340 5040 FCR 1 Plowzone
22845 32 4340 5040 FCR 1 Plowzone
22846 32 4340 5000 FCR 1 Plowzone
22847 32 4320 5040 FCR 1 Plowzone
22848 32 4360 5000 FCR 1 Plowzone
22849 32 4340 5040 FCR 1 Plowzone
22850 34 4600 5040 Sherd 1 Plowzone
22851 34 4560 5040 Sherd 2 Plowzone
22852 34 4580 5040 Stoneware 1 Plowzone
22853 34 4580 5020 Flake 1 Plowzone
22854 34 4580 5000 Flake 2 Plowzone
22855 34 4600 5040 Flake 2 Plowzone
22856 34 4560 5000 Flake 2 Plowzone
22857 34 4580 5000 FCR 1 Plowzone
22858 34 4600 5000 FCR 1 Plowzone
22859 34 4600 5020 FCR 3 Plowzone
22860 34 4560 5020 FCR 3 Plowzone
22862 124 4480 5200 Flake 2 Plowzone
22863 124 4480 5200 FCR 1 Plowzone
22864 124 4480 5200 Flake 1 Plowzone
22865 124 4460 5220 Flake 1 Plowzone
22866 124 4440 5220 Flake 1 Plowzone
22867 124 4440 5220 Flake 1 Plowzone
22868 124 4440 5220 Flake 3 Plowzone
22869 124 4440 5220 FCR 1 Plowzone
22870 124 4440 5220 FCR 1 Plowzone
22871 124 4440 5220 FCR 3 Plowzone
22872 124 4460 5200 FCR 1 Plowzone
22873 124 4460 5240 FCR 3 Plowzone
22874 124 4460 5240 FCR 1 Plowzone
22875 124 4480 5200 FCR 1 40-45 cmbs
22876 124 4480 5240 Flake 1 Plowzone
22877 124 4480 5240 FCR 2 30-35 cmbs
22878 124 4480 5240 FCR 1 Plowzone
307
22879 124 4440 5240 FCR 2 Plowzone
22880 124 4440 5240 FCR 1 Plowzone
22881 124 4480 5220 Flake 1 Plowzone
22882 124 4480 5220 FCR 1 Plowzone
22886 124 4440 5200 Flake 1 Plowzone
22887 124 4440 5200 Flake 1 Plowzone
22899 124 4440 5200 FCR 3 Plowzone
22913 124 4440 5200 FCR 5 Plowzone
22969 65 4400 5120 Flake 1 30-40 cmbs
22971 65 4420 5100 Flake 1 Plowzone
22972 65 4420 5100 Flake 1 Plowzone
22973 65 4440 5100 Utilized Flake 1 Plowzone
22974 65 4420 5080 Flake Scraper 1 Plowzone
22982 65 4440 5120 Nail 2 Plowzone
22984 68 4560 5080 Flake 1 Plowzone
22985 68 4540 5100 Flake 1 Plowzone
22986 68 4560 5080 Flake Scraper 1 Plowzone
22987 68 4560 5100 FCR 1 Plowzone
22988 68 4540 5120 FCR 1 Plowzone
22989 68 4200 5001 FCR 7 30-40 cmbs
22990 82 4240 5120 Flake 1 Plowzone
22992 82 4240 5140 Hafted Biface Fragment 1 Plowzone
22994 82 4240 5120 FCR 1 Plowzone
22995 82 4220 5120 FCR/Groundstone 1 Plowzone
22996 82 4240 5160 FCR 1 Plowzone
22997 82 4220 5120 FCR 2 30-40 cmbs
22998 82 4200 5140 FCR 6 Plowzone
22999 82 4220 5120 FCR 5 Plowzone
23000 82 4220 5120 FCR 3 Plowzone
23001 82 4240 5140 FCR 2 Plowzone
23006 87 4520 5100 Biface Fragment 1 Plowzone
23013 87 4500 5140 Cinder 2 30-40 cmbs
23016 87 4500 5140 Cinder 3 Plowzone
23019 87 4500 5140 Cinder 6 Plowzone
23026 87 4500 5140 Cinder 11 Plowzone
23039 100 4180 5160 Flake 2 Plowzone
23040 100 4180 5200 Flake 3 Plowzone
23041 100 4160 5160 Flake 4 Plowzone
308
23043 100 4200 5180 FCR 1 Plowzone
23044 100 4200 5200 FCR 1 Plowzone
23045 100 4180 5160 FCR 1 Plowzone
23046 100 4160 5180 FCR 6 Plowzone
23047 100 4160 5200 FCR 2 Plowzone
23048 100 4160 5160 FCR 5 Plowzone
23049 100 4180 5180 FCR 8 Plowzone
23050 100 4180 5200 FCR 20 Plowzone
23051 114 4820 5180 Flake 1 Plowzone
23052 114 4840 5160 Flake 1 Plowzone
23053 114 4840 5200 Flake 2 Plowzone
23054 114 4820 5200 Flake 1 Plowzone
23066 114 4840 5160 Amorphous Core 1 Plowzone
23067 114 4820 5180 FCR 1 Plowzone
23069 114 4820 5160 FCR 1 Plowzone
23074 147 4500 5240 Whiteware 1 Plowzone
23075 147 4520 5260 Sherd 1 Plowzone
23076 147 4500 5280 Flake 1 30-40 cmbs
23077 147 4500 5280 Flake 1 Plowzone
23078 147 4500 5260 Flake 1 Plowzone
23079 147 4480 5260 Flake 1 Plowzone
23080 147 4480 5280 Flake 1 Plowzone
23081 147 4480 5280 Amorphous Core 1 Plowzone
23082 147 4500 5240 FCR 1 Plowzone
23083 147 4480 5280 FCR 1 Plowzone
23085 156 4920 5260 Flake 1 Plowzone
23086 156 4920 5260 Flake 2 Plowzone
23088 156 4900 5260 Flake 2 Plowzone
23089 156 4920 5280 Flake 3 Plowzone
23090 156 4900 5280 Flake 5 Plowzone
23097 156 4920 5280 Shotgun Cap 1 Plowzone
23099 156 4920 5260 Wire Fragment 1 Plowzone
23101 156 4920 5260 FCR 1 Plowzone
23103 156 4900 5260 FCR 1 Plowzone
23105 159 4340 5280 Hematite? 1 Plowzone
23106 159 4360 5280 Sherd 1 Plowzone
23107 159 4340 5300 Flake, Utilized 1 Plowzone
309
23109 159 4820 5280 FCR 1 Level 4
23110 159 4340 5300 Hematite? 1 Plowzone
23111 159 4360 5300 FCR 1 Plowzone
23112 159 4340 5280 FCR 1 Plowzone
23113 159 4340 5300 FCR 2 Plowzone
23114 159 4340 5260 FCR 3 Plowzone
23115 159 4360 5300 FCR 3 Plowzone
23116 159 4340 5280 FCR 2 Plowzone
23117 159 4320 5300 FCR 3 Plowzone
23118 161 4420 5300 Earthenware Sherd 1 Plowzone
23119 161 4440 5320 Bone 1 Plowzone
23120 161 4400 5280 Flake 1 30-40 cmbs
23121 161 4400 5320 Shatter 1 30-40 cmbs
23122 161 4440 5280 FCR 1 30-40 cmbs
23123 161 4400 5280 FCR 1 30-40 cmbs
23124 161 4440 5300 FCR 1 30-40 cmbs
23125 161 4440 5280 FCR 1 40-50 cmbs
23126 161 4440 5320 FCR 1 Plowzone
23127 161 4420 5300 FCR 1 30-40 cmbs
23128 161 4400 5280 FCR 1 50-60 cmbs
23129 161 4420 5280 FCR 3 40-50 cmbs
23130 161 4400 5320 FCR 2 50-75 cmbs
23131 161 4400 5300 FCR 3 50-60 cmbs
23132 161 4440 5300 FCR 1 Plowzone
23133 161 4440 5320 FCR 1 Plowzone
23134 161 4440 5320 FCR 1 30-40 cmbs
23135 161 4400 5320 FCR 1 Plowzone
23136 161 4440 5300 FCR 6 Plowzone
23137 161 4210 4990 Sherd 2 0-50 cmbs
23252 167 4700 5300 Sherd 1 Plowzone
23253 167 4680 5320 Sherd 1 Plowzone
23255 167 4680 5320 Sherd 2 30-55 cmbs
23256 167 4700 5320 Flake 1 Plowzone
23260 167 4680 5280 Flake 1 Plowzone
23261 167 4680 5300 Flake 1 Plowzone
23262 167 4700 5280 Flake 2 Plowzone
23263 167 4680 5320 Flake 2 Plowzone
23269 167 4720 5300 FCR 2 25-25 cmbs
23271 167 4700 5280 FCR 1 Plowzone
23272 167 4700 5320 FCR 1 Plowzone
23273 167 4720 5300 FCR 1 Plowzone
310
23478 167 4680 5300 FCR 1 Plowzone
23479 167 4720 5280 FCR 1 38-50 cmbs
23480 167 4680 5320 FCR 1 Plowzone
23482 167 4700 5300 FCR 3 Plowzone
23483 167 4680 5320 FCR 6 Plowzone
23484 167 4680 5320 FCR 6 30-55 cmbs
311

Ohio Hopewell Earthworks - Pederson Weinberger

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Ohio Hopewell Earthworks - Pederson Weinberger

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

OHIO HOPEWELL EARTHWORKS: AN EXAMINATION OF SITE USE FROM

NON-MOUND SPACE AT THE HOPEWELL SITE

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for

the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate

School of The Ohio State University

Jennifer Pederson Weinberger, B.A., M.A.

The Ohio State University

Dr. Kristen J. Gremillion ______________________________

This dissertation examines the prehistoric use of non-mound space at the

(200 B.C.-A.D. 400). Until very recently, archaeological research at earthworks

concentrated on mounds and embankments. However, earthworks consist of more than

provide a deeper understanding of Hopewell community organization, social dynamics,

non-mound space is similarly restricted in terms of its archaeological record. The

Corporate Center hypothesis posits a variety of political, economic, ceremonial, and

long-term and small-scale vs. large-scale).

and support to my intellectual pursuits. In addition, he directed an archaeology field

as well as encouragement throughout the years.

In addition, I gratefully acknowledge the help of many other individuals. Big

University Archaeological Field School, teachers participating in Hopewell Culture

National Historical Park’s Archaeology for Teachers Workshops, and numerous

various kinds of support that enabled this research to be completed. I am particularly

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

1999 - present…………….……………..Archaeologist, Hopewell Culture National

Major Field: Anthropology

Minor Field: North American Eastern Woodlands Prehistory

List of Tables………………………………………..…………………………………. xii

Defining Ohio Hopewell………………………………………………..3

2. Towards an Understanding of Non-mound Space……………………………... 21

Non-mound Research at Ohio Hopewell Earthworks.………………….22

Local Expressions of Ohio Hopewell………………………………….. 48

7. Research Results………..……………………………………………………… 100

Block 10………..………………………………………………………. 100

8. Synthesis of Results………...………………….………………………………. 170

Ceremonial Center Hypothesis………………………………………… 188

Appendix A: Tables……………………………………………………….…………… 211

Appendix B: Figures…………………………………………………………………… 239

Appendix C. Artifacts from Shovel Test Pits…………………………………………. 305

1. Proposed activities conducted at Ohio Hopewell earthworks……………….....212

2. Archaeological correlates of Ohio Hopewell short- and long-term

3. Published radiocarbon dates from the Hopewell site…………………......…....215

4. Magnetic anomalies identified for each block……………………………….. ..216

5. Electrical resistance anomalies identified for each block……………………. ..217

6. Artifacts recovered during all stages of fieldwork……………………………..218

7. Artifacts recovered from shovel tests pits………………………………….... ..219

8. Fire-cracked rock recovered from all stages of fieldwork…………………… ..220

9. Lithic debitage recovered from all stages of fieldwork……………….……... ..220

10. Pottery sherds recovered from all stages of fieldwork……..…….………….....220

11. Magnetic anomalies in Block 10…………………………………………….. ..221

12. Electrical resistance anomalies in Block 10…………………………………....222

13. Magnetic anomalies in Block 23…………………………………………….. ..223

14. Electrical resistance anomalies in Block 23…………………………………....223

15. Magnetic anomalies in Block 26…………………………………………….. ..224

16. Electrical resistance anomalies in Block 26…………………………………....224

17. Magnetic anomalies in Block 28…………………………………………….....225

18. Electrical resistance anomalies in Block 28…………………………………....225

19. Magnetic anomalies in Block 32…………………………………………….. ..225

20. Electrical resistance anomalies in Block 32………………………………..…..226

21. Magnetic anomalies in Block 34…………………………………………..… ..226

22. Magnetic anomalies in Block 65…………………………………………….. ..226

23. Electrical resistance anomalies in Block 65…………………………………....227