Footprints- In the Footprints of Squier and Davis: Archeological Fieldwork in Ross County, Ohio

TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements....................................................................iList of Tables...................................................................vii List of Figures...................................................................ix Contributors .........................................................................xiii Chapter 1 In the Footprints of Squier and Davis : Archeological Fieldwork in Ross County, Ohio Mark J. Lynott................................................................................1 Previous Studies in Ohio ...................................................1 Hopewell Studies Today ................................................................4 Recent Field Research ..........................................................................6 Goal of this Volume ................................................................................12 Chapter 2 In Non-mound Space at the Hopewell Mound Group Jennifer Pederson Weinberger .........................................13 Geophysical Survey .......................................................15Western Village Area.....................................................................16 Near the East Village .....................................................................18 Central Area ............................................................................19 Discussion .......................................................................................19 Chapter 3 Field Studies of the Octagon and Great Circle, High Bank Earthworks Ross County, Ohio N’omi B. Greber and Orrin C. Shane III ..............................................23 Excavations at the Octagon ............................................................25 Geophysics at the Great Circle ............................................................30 Excavations at the Great Circle ..........................................................33 Radiocarbon Assays ...........................................................................41 Comments ....................................................................................44 Addendum ..........................................................................................46 Chapter 4 Spruce Hill Earthworks: The 1995-1996 National Park Service Investigations Bret J. Ruby .............................................................................................49 Background .......................................................................................49 The Spruce Hill Earthworks .......................................................................49 Spruce Hill Revisited ......................................................................53 The 1995-1996 National Park Service Investigations ............................53 Discussion and Conclusions ..............................................................61 Chapter 5 Falling Through a Crack in the Core: The Surprise and Demise of Anderson Earthwork William H. Pickard and Jeffrey W. Weinberger ........................................ 67 History and Setting ..................................................................................68 1993 Excavations ..................................................................................70 Discussion ..............................................................................................72 Conclusion ............................................................................................74 Chapter 6 Middle Woodland and Other Settlement Remains in the Overly Tract Near The Hopeton Earthwork, Ross County, Ohio William S. Dancey .....................................................................................................77 Research Design.............................................................................77 Artifact Categories and their Distributions..............................................80 Discussion............................................................................................92 Chapter 7 Hopewell Occupation at the Hopeton Earthworks: Large Scale Surface Survey Using GPS Technology Jarrod Burks and Dawn Walter Gagliano................................................97 The Survey Area ................................................................................98 Survey Methodology .............................................................................99 Survey Results ...................................................................................99 The Surface Data: A Siteless Approach .................................................103 Discussion and Conclusion .........................................................................106 Notes ...................................................................................................107 Chapter 8 Hopewellian Centers in Context: Investigations In and Around the Hopeton Earthworks Bret J. Ruby And Mark J. Lynott .................................................................109 Surface Survey ......................................................................................110 Redwing Site ...........................................................................................111 Comparisons .........................................................................................118 Conclusions ......................................................................................122 Chapter 9 Searching for Hopewell Settlements: The Triangle Site at the Hopeton Earthworks Mark Lynott ...................................................................................... 125 Field Investigations ............................................................................127 Geophysical Survey ............................................................................128 1998 Season ....................................................................................128 Features, Artifacts and Radiocarbon Dating ........................................130 Animal Remains ...............................................................................137 Plant Remains ................................................................................138 Interpretations ..............................................................................139 Chapter 10 Geophysical Investigations at the Hopeton Earthworks John Weymouth, Bruce Bevan, and Rinita Dalan ...............................145 The Cesium Gradiometer Survey ...........................................................146 Cesium Gradiometer Results ...................................................................146 Geoscan Instrument Surveys ..............................................................148 Comparison of Cesium Magnetic and Resistance Data ........................148 Small Circles...........................................................................................149 Trench Excavations ...................................................................................149 Discussion ................................................................................................152 Conclusions ......................................................................................157 Chapter 11 Archeological and Geoarcheological Study of the Rectangular Enclosure at the Hopeton Works Mark J. Lynott and Rolfe D. Mandel ......................................................159 The Study of the Rectangular Earthwork ................................................161 Geophysical Survey ..............................................................................163 Trench Excavations .............................................................................164 Chronology ........................................................................................170 Geoarcheological Analysis of Trench 1 .................................................172 Interpretations ................................................................................174 Chapter 12 Ohio Hopewell Ritual Craft Production Katherine A. Spielmann ............................................................ 179Raw Material Procurement ....................................................................180 Hopewell Crafting ................................................................................181 Deposition ...........................................................................................186 Conclusions ....................................................................................188 References Cited .....................................................................................................18

Hopewell Archeology: Volume 5, Number 2, December 2002

1. A Preliminary Comparison of 1997 and 2002 Limited Excavations in the Great Circle Wall, High Bank Works, Ross County, Ohio The High Bank Works (33Ro24) are located southeast of Chillicothe on a glacial outwash terrace about 17 m above the active floodplain of the Scioto River. They are one of the more complexly designed sets of enclosures among the numerous enclosure sites found in the Central Scioto region. The major sections include a relatively rare octagonal enclosure, small and large circular features, and linear walls (Figure 1). Excavation Findings An unexpected finding is that more than 200 of the recorded features are apparently re-filled post holes of varying diameters (Figure 3). There is no obvious pattern in their locations. It is likely that other post holes exist outside the excavated area. The excavations also revealed the remnant of the wall itself and a different sequence of construction from that found in either of the two test trenches placed near the neck south of the farm lane (Greber 1999:Figs. 4,5). Consistent with the initial construction seen in both Trenches I and II, the aboriginal site users apparently cleared the ground surface to about 20 cm above the underlying natural glacial sandy gravels. Radiocarbon Dates Three AMS radiocarbon assays have been completed (Table 1). Two dates, Beta 170562 and Beta 170564, come from bits of charred oak recovered from the slide trench (Feature 2) and are consistent with the dates obtained from the larger charred oak posts that composed the dismantled fence found in Trench II (Greber 1999: Table 1). The average at two sigma for the dates based on the small line of posts in Trench III is 1860 ± 80 years BP. Averaging the date based on charcoal from an above-ground section of the dismantled fence and the three dates from the in situ below-ground posts found in Trench II gives the same date. The third date, Beta 170563, is apparently not associated with the Hopewell wall construction. It is based on charred oak bits found at the edge of a post hole directly north of the slide trench (Feature 6). Beta Analytic conducted a second independent run based on materials selected from the remaining pretreated portion of the sample. The resulting date is the same as for the first run, many millennia before the Hopewell era (Table 1). Comments It must be kept in mind that the following comments are based on a very small excavation sample of the wall. The six usable radiocarbon dates from essentially opposite sides of the circle suggest a relatively short time, in terms of human generations, for initial construction of the wall. This is consistent with the condition of the lower strata found in Trenches I and II where about thirty percent (40 cm) of the wall height recorded in 1846 is still intact. Here the top surfaces of the inner “red” and outer “yellow” base strata showed no signs of exposure. The total construction time that left a significantly higher wall is still not known. 2. Hopewell Mound 11: Yet Another Look at an Old Collection The single largest deposit of obsidian known anywhere in prehistoric eastern North America is the huge quantity of flakes and other debitage excavated by Henry C. Shetrone (1926) from a “characteristic floor” at the base of the small Mound 11 of the Hopewell type site in Ross County, Ohio (Shetrone 1922:August 2). Approximately 136 kg of obsidian debitage had been carefully placed on the floor (Figure 1). Shetrone interpreted the obsidian debitage as having resulted from the production of the 150+ very large bifaces, including Ross points, found in ritual deposits within Mound 25 and elsewhere at the Hopewell site. He further inter-preted a nearby cremation burial as that of the “Master Artisan” who knapped those large, magnificently crafted bifaces (1922, 1930). Comments on Context The well-known photograph of the obsidian deposit (Shetrone 1926: Fig. 10; Shetrone 1930:Fig. 125; Hatch et al. 1990:Fig. 2) does not show the deposit as first found. As recorded in the field notes, excavations began on the south side of the mound, and the edge of the deposit was encountered almost immediately (Figure 1). The entire deposit was removed over two days (Shetrone 1922: 22 and 23 August). The character of the deposit and the two portions of mica cutouts and a cut and polished, though likely unfinished, piece of calcite are described in the notes in some detail. Excavations continued to the east where a small ritual basin was encountered (Figure 1). Examination of the Collection On May 7, 2002, we conducted a preliminary survey of the Mound 11 flake collection at the Ohio Historical Society curation facility. The examination convinces us that there is much to be learned from this unique deposit and its context, and additional study is planned. Martha Otto, Cheryl Johnston, and William Pickard facilitated our study and deserve our great appreciation

Hopewell Archeology: Volume 3, Number 2, April 1999

1. Correlating Maps of the Hopewell Site, 1820-1993 By N\u27omi B. Greber, Ph.D. Curator of Archaeology Cleveland Museum of Natural History Introduction Eight maps, covering nearly two hundred years of research at the Hopewell site, were used to make a best guess reconstruction of the site as it was seen in 1800, just before human activities considerably accelerated erosion and other natural processes that altered the original Hopewellian landscape. Information from extant associated field notes, publications, museum curation records, modern aerial photographs, and limited ground survey provided additional data. Using both Geographic Information Systems (GIS) software and old fashioned paper maps, correlations have been estimated among the maps. The Site The Hopewell site (33R027), the type site for the Hopewell culture, covers extensive areas of the second and third terraces above the active flood plain of the North Fork of Paint Creek. In 1800, more than three kilometers of earthen and stone walls formed a two-part enclosure: the Great Enclosure, encompassing more than 40 hectares, and the adjoining Square Enclosure, which could hold the entire Mound City monument with room to spare. Inside the Great Enclosure were two smaller enclosures: the D-Shaped Enclosure and the Circular Enclosure. At least 40 mounds were scattered within and outside the enclosures. They ranged in size from the largest constructed by any Hopewellian people to some of the smallest. Overall, the quality and quantity of cultural remains recovered from, and extant at, the site form the most striking representation of the Hopewell culture in eastern North America. Three major excavations at the site were separated by many decades: Ephraim G. Squier and Edwin H. Davis in 1845, Warren K. Moorehead in 1891 and 1892, and Henry C. Shetrone from 1922 to 1925. Six maps based on their findings have been used in this project. 2. Book Review By John E. Kelly Staging Ritual: Hopewell Ceremonialism at the Mound House Site, Greene County, Illinois; by Jane E. Buikstra, Douglas K. Charles, and Gordon F. M. Rakita. Kampsville Studies in Archeology and History No. 1. Center for American Archeology Press, Kampsville, Illinois. 216 pages, 60 illustrations, 1998. Archeology of the Middle Woodland Mound House site is presented within a broad context using an interpretative framework that derives its models from traditional, small-scale societies, where notes of the sacred are pervasive rather than circumscribed. Interdisciplinary studies are used to strengthen interpretations, and newly discovered complexities in the structure of the site are explored here along with data from other Illinois Valley mortuary sites. 3. Notes on Research at Goodall, 1998 Mark Schurr University of Notre Dame For the past three years, the University of Notre Dame archeology field school has conducted geophysical surveys and excavations at the Goodall site in northwestern Indiana. The Goodall tradition, a northwestern extension of Havana Hopewell, was one of the first archeological cultures defined in Indiana. The Goodall site has been central to archeological ideas about Hopewell in northwestern Indiana and southwestern Michigan. However, most of what we know about the site comes from amateur excavations conducted in the nineteenth century, so the site remains poorly known by modern standards. 4. Announcement. Dr. Bret Ruby has accepted a position with the U. S. Army at Fort Bliss, Texas. Look for additional information in the next issue of this publication