Está en la página 1de 26

Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 23 (2004) 331356 www.elsevier.

com/locate/jaa

Hopewell geometric earthworks: a case study in the referential and experiential meaning of monuments
Wesley Bernardini
Department of Sociology and Anthropology, University of Redlands, 1200 E. Colton Ave., USA Received 15 October 2003; revised 3 February 2004

Abstract Archaeological landscapes with dispersed settlements often contain widely spaced, morphologically similar, non-residential monuments (e.g., Neolithic megaliths and enclosures, Eastern Woodlands conical burial mounds, Southwestern great kivas, and Hopewell geometric earthworks). These monuments are commonly interpreted as village surrogates, places at which members of a local, dispersed community gathered to express and reproduce social ties. Some applications of the village surrogate model have privileged referential meaning (what a monument symbolized) at the expense of experiential meaning (how monuments were experienced), obscuring important variability in relationships between monuments and use-groups. Focusing on a cluster of ve likely contemporary Hopewell geometric earthworks in southcentral Ohio, this paper emphasizes that the construction of monuments in dispersed settings was not always experienced as the aggregation of autonomous, isomorphic communities. An analysis of labor involved in earthwork construction demonstrates that in the Hopewell case, a very widely dispersed population, not exclusively aliated with individual monuments, gathered repeatedly to build a related set of ceremonial centers. Parallels with the Chaco Phenomenon of northwest New Mexico are explored, and the importance of distinguishing between referential and experiential meaning in the broader study of prehistoric monuments is discussed. 2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

The construction of large-scale monuments by dispersed populations was not uncommon in prehistory. Examples include the Neolithic henges and enclosures of Europe, Woodland Period mounds in the eastern United States, and great houses and great kivas in the American Southwest. Hopewell geometric earthworks, built between ca. A.D. 1500 in and around southern Ohio, are among the most impressive examples of such monuments, consisting of earthen embankments arranged into precise geometric shapes up to 5.2 m (17 ft) tall and more than 300 m (1000 ft) in diameter (Fig. 1).

E-mail address: wesley_bernardini@redlands.edu.

Monuments in dispersed social landscapes have typically been interpreted as focal points for a surrounding community. In the absence of a large, xed settlement, monuments are thought to have served as village surrogates, venues at which relationships among a local, dispersed population were created, symbolized, and reproduced (Hodder, 1984; Sherratt, 1984, 1990). Hopewell earthworks have been interpreted using a variant of the village surrogate idea, the vacant ceremonial center model (Dancey and Pacheco, 1997a), which proposes that each earthwork organized a number of small, dispersed settlements into a community through group ceremonies. In the case of Hopewell earthworks, and other similar monuments, the village surrogate interpretation is

0278-4165/$ - see front matter 2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jaa.2004.06.001

332

W. Bernardini / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 23 (2004) 331356

Fig. 1. The Seip Earthworks. Reproduced from Squier and Davis, 1848: pl. XX. Note that the north arrow is misdirected by 90 degr, and actually points east.

supported as much by the lack of data as by the presence of it. For example, few residential sites have been documented in the areas surrounding Hopewell earthworks, and those that are known are small and ephemeral

(Pacheco, 1996). The monuments themselves are often nearly devoid of artifacts outside of mortuary contexts. Thus, the strength of the village surrogate model is its ability to reconcile large-scale, empty monuments on

W. Bernardini / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 23 (2004) 331356

333

the one hand, and dispersed, isolated settlements on the other. Yet as often employed, this interpretation is almost entirely post hoc, with little direct conrmation of the behaviors it implies. In this context, it may be useful to draw a heuristic distinction between referential meanings of monumentswhat (we think) they symbolized to the people who lived around themand experiential meaningshow activities at a monument were physically experienced by participants (Hodder, 1994). Referential meanings can carry experiential implications, and physical experiences can generate referential meanings, but the two can vary independently within a population or over time. For example, only part of a population may participate in certain events at a monument, producing for them a particular experiential meaning that is not shared by a wider group. Similarly, an experiential meaning grounded in participation in an event may be supplanted by only distantly related referential meanings in later non-participant generations, a process of reinterpretation that probably begins as soon as construction ends (Bradley, 1993). As the Hopewell village surrogate example illustrates, referential meanings can be deceptively circular (monuments are centrally located because they organize the surrounding population; dispersed settlements cluster around a monument because they use it as a central place). Such circularity can be especially dicult to break when, as in the case of Hopewell earthworks, there are so little available data directly pertaining to the behavior being explained (e.g., material residue of gatherings at monuments by local communities; evidence of the dispersed settlements themselves) to provide resistance to interpretation (Wylie, 1994). One benet of the proposed heuristic division is that it encourages more critical examination of physical experience separate from inferred meaning. It also permits the experiential aspect of meaning to be explored as an independent variable, rather than simply as an implication of referential meaning. For vacant monuments like Hopewell earthworks, where little but earthen architecture remains for analysis, experience may be productively measured through energetic analysis (Abrams, 1994)the quantication of a manual construction event in terms of the number of people involved, the duration of the project, the area from which participants were drawn, etc. Establishing the energetic parameters of experience helps us to understand the nature and social scale of the relationships expressed and created among participants in a common venture. This study presents an experiential analysis of Hopewell earthwork construction, an energetic assessment of the experiences of the people who built them. The results of this analysis show that some earthworks in the core Scioto Valley and Paint Creek areas of the Hopewell sys-

tem were not constructed by local populations aliated with each earthwork, as assumed by the village surrogate (and vacant ceremonial center) model. That is, earthwork construction was not experienced by participants as the convergence of a local community. Instead, earthwork construction was the product of labor pooled at a regional level, and thus was experienced as a much larger social phenomenon than previously recognized. This conclusion reorients Hopewell research from questions about the intra- and inter-community dynamics of earthwork polities (e.g., papers in Dancey and Pacheco, 1997b) to questions about pan-regional ceremonial systems. It also demonstrates the importance of distinguishing between referential and experiential meaning in the broader study of prehistoric monuments.

Referential and experiential meaning The concepts of referential and experiential meaning are well illustrated by a consideration of Neolithic tombs (Hodder, 1994). It has long been suggested that linear Neolithic tombs mean houses for the dead (Childe, 1949). This referential meaning is inferred from a number of formal similarities between long barrow tombs and earlier long houses, including an elongated trapezoidal shape of similar length and width, an entrance at the broader end, a northwestsoutheast alignment, and a linear internal division (Hodder, 1984, 1990). Tombs are also often built on top of earlier long houses (Hodder and Shand, 1988), apparently referencing the older structures in space as well as form. Thus, it seems likely that a Neolithic citizen of north-west Europe would have understood linear tombs to symbolize houses for ancestors. To accept a broad referential meaning for all tombs, however, is to ignore the many dierent ways in which people can experience a monument at any one point in time, or over time (Bradley, 1993; Holtorf, 1998). As Hodder (1994, p. 85, italics added) notes, Even if the tombs were called houses of the ancestors and were built on house or settlement sites, they presumably came to have meaning in their own right as associated with a specic set of activities. Those who dug the soil together, who carried the stone or timbers to make the chambers, who carried in the dead, moving aside earlier remains of their ancestors, who gave gifts, who burned, mounded over and closed the tomb, in their joint activities developed a common tradition. For them the tomb acted less through reference and more through direct experience. For those involved in the communal labor project, the experiential signicance of asserting common ancestry and continuity of rights likely superseded the

334

W. Bernardini / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 23 (2004) 331356

broader referential meaning of tombs in society. Once tombs were closed o and moved into their afterlife (Bradley, 1993), it was no longer possible to experience meaning through them directly, and they came to act as reference points on the landscape (e.g., Barrett et al., 1991), now being meaningful less through direct experience and more through reference to the past. Thus, the meaning of tomb material culture may have shifted through time from referential to experiential to referential again (Hodder, 1994, p. 85). Like Neolithic tombs, Hopewell geometric earthworks have lately come to be interpreted through the lens of a homogeneous referential meaningin this case, as village surrogates. This blanket interpretation obscures potentially important variability in the ways that sub-groups on the landscape experienced monuments. Decoupling referential from experiential meaning can provide productive new insights into this variability.
Fig. 2. The broadest territorial denition of the Hopewell phenomenon.

Hopewell geometric earthworks The Hopewell phenomenon is usually dened by the presence of one or more non-utilitarian goods, often (but not only) recovered from mortuary contexts, such as copper celts, mica cutouts, and bear canines (Struever and Houart, 1972). In its most extreme denitions, Hopewell covers most of eastern North America in the Middle Woodland Period (ca. A.D. 1500), from Ontario to Louisiana and from New York to Florida (Fig. 2). There is, however, an increasing recognition that dening the boundaries of the Hopewell phenomenon through a composite of diagnostic artifacts encompasses a tremendous range of local variability in social and ritual organization (Carr et al., 2002). This study focuses on the core area of the Hopewell phenomenon, widely agreed to be centered on the Scioto Valley of south-central Ohio, but dened more specically here by the distribution of geometric earthworks. The distribution of Hopewell geometric earthworks covers a much smaller territory than Hopewell artifacts, with the densest concentration centered on the modern town of Chillicothe (Fig. 3). As their name implies, geometric earthworks are composed of embankments of earth arranged into various geometric shapes, including circles, squares, octagons, and roads (parallel embankments of earth). The scale of these constructions is immense, with individual geometric shapes enclosing areas of 30 acres or more, equivalent to more than 25 football elds. Hopewell geometric earthworks were the most visible products of Hopewell society, yet despite their prominence, their use (intended or actual) remains unclear. Unlike conical burial mounds, the most common Middle Woodland earthen construction, geometric

Fig. 3. Primary distribution of Hopewell geometric earthworks.

earthworks were not used as repositories for the dead or their associated oerings,1 though earthworks sometimes enclosed spaces in which burial mounds were constructed and mortuary rituals were performed. Although geometric earthworks consisted of high walls and ditches, they were almost certainly not used for defense since their embankments contain many openings and often have interior ditches, rather than exterior
1 As usual for Hopewell there is at least one exception, at the Turner Site.

W. Bernardini / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 23 (2004) 331356

335

ones. Earthworks are generally free of trash or habitation debris, though some exceptions are known (in most of these cases, occupation seems to predate earthwork construction; see below). Some scholars have proposed that earthworks were astronomical observatories (Hively and Horn, 1982), noting alignments through gateways and mounds. Most researchers attribute a symbolic meaning to the precise geometric arrangements that comprise the earthworks, for example, as representations of winter and summer moiety big houses (DeBoer, 1997), or as broader materializations of ancient cosmologies (Romain, 1996). Beyond these outlines, little is known about the details of geometric earthwork construction and use, and until recently little eld research had been conducted on them (but see Greber, 1999, 2002; Lynott, 2003; Lynott and Weymouth, 2002).

The vacant ceremonial center model Many Hopewell researchers accept a variant of the village surrogate model for Ohio Hopewell geometric earthworks known as the vacant ceremonial center model, variously dened by Prufer (1964a, p. 71; 1964b;1965, p. 137)., Pacheco (1996), Smith (1992), and most recently by Dancey and Pacheco (1997a). The model was originally borrowed from Mesoamerica where it was used to explain Mayan ceremonial complexes, though subsequent discoveries of substantial activity and occupation at these complexes led to the dropping of the term in that area (Morley et al., 1983). The vacant center model proposes that Ohio Hopewell peoples organized themselves into settlements, or hamlets, of one to a few households that were distributed around a ceremonial earthwork center. The central assumption of the model is that a single earthwork served as the ceremonial center for each community of dispersed hamlets. Schematically, then, the vacant center model envisions the Hopewell landscape as divided into autonomous polities, each consisting of an earthwork surrounded by its associated, dispersed community, as depicted in Fig. 4. Under the vacant center model, hamlets should be clustered around earthworks, with boundaries or gaps in settlement between these dispersed communities. Unfortunately, the settlement pattern data needed to evaluate the expectations of the vacant center model are lacking for the Hopewell period and for Ohio in general. A recent tabulation of Middle Woodland (ca.

Village surrogates The presence of isolated monuments within dispersed settlement systems is common, especially in prehistoric North America and Europe. An insightful explanation of these monuments, presented most clearly by European archaeologists, views monuments in dispersed settings as village surrogates (Hodder, 1984; Renfrew, 1976; Sherratt, 1984, p. 129; Sherratt, 1990, p. 148 149). That is, in the absence of an actual nucleated village, members of a dispersed population created, reproduced, and symbolized a community through the construction and use of a central monument. Among European examples, Neolithic megaliths (Chapman, 1981; Renfrew, 1976; Sherratt, 1990) and enclosures (Evans et al., 1988) have been protably interpreted in this manner. Similar interpretations have been made for monuments in dispersed settings in North America. For example, Woodland period conical burial mounds in eastern North America have been interpreted as markers of a groups investment and ancestry in an area (Buikstra, 1979; Buikstra and Charles, 1999; Charles, 1985). Late Woodland period animal egy mounds in Wisconsin, often occurring as lines of repeated gures, are thought to have been built during seasonal aggregations of totemically aliated groups of mobile foragers (Benn, 1979; Storck, 1974). In the American Southwest, isolated great kivas have been interpreted as integrative facilities at which the residents of surrounding dispersed farming settlements converged to conduct ceremonies and exchange goods, mates, and information (Adler, 1990). Isolated Chacoan great houses (outliers) in the American Southwest, many of which are associated with a great kiva, are also frequently interpreted as focal points of dispersed communities (Breternitz et al., 1982; Marshall et al., 1979; Lekson, 1991; but see Mahoney, 2000).

Fig. 4. The vacant ceremonial center model of hopewell settlement. Redrawn after Dancey and Pacheco (1997, Figure 1.2).

336

W. Bernardini / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 23 (2004) 331356

A.D. 1500) habitation and non-mortuary sites in Ohio compiled in 1997 contains only 91 sites for the entire state (Dancey and Pacheco, 1997a, Table 1.1), many of which are marginal candidates for residential status. The few areas that have been intensively covered by systematic block surveys are concentrated almost exclusively in the immediate area of known mounds and earthworks (e.g., Lynott, 1982; Lynott and Monk, 1985; Seeman, 1981) and thus do not cover potential community boundary areas. Further, of the suspected habitation sites identied from surface remains or shovel testing, few have been tested extensively enough to determine the relationship between surface and subsurface expressions. Dancey (1991, p. 68), for example, acknowledges that [The Murphy Site] may be the only comprehensively documented [Middle Woodland Period habitation] site in central Ohio (if not all of Ohio).2 Critiques of the village surrogate model As research on monuments in dispersed settlement systems has progressed, some of the original formulations of the village surrogate model have been challenged. As initially conceived, the village surrogate model hypothesized that increasing reliance on agriculture and a resultant increase in territoriality motivated the construction of xed markers to legitimize control of restricted resources. Recent research has, however, revealed that full-scale agriculture was more the exception than the rule (Chapman, 1995, p. 39) among monument builders in dispersed settlement systems. Without xed investments to defend, monuments may have been constructed along lines of movement rather than in the centers of defended territories, and thus may not correspond in direct ways to local communities (Bradley, 1993; Chapman, 1995). The village surrogate model can also be critiqued for focusing on the distribution of monuments rather than the surrounding dispersed settlements. Habitation sites are typically dicult to identify archaeologically in dispersed settlement systems; in fact, somewhat circularly,

The lack of settlement pattern data does not reect a lack of eort by current Hopewell researchers, who have focused increasing energy on the collection of such information (e.g., Dancey, 1991, 1992; Pacheco, 1988, 1993). Rather, it is the cumulative product of several factors, not least of which is the longstanding bias towards mortuary contexts over the rst 100 years of the development of Hopewell archaeology, leaving considerable ground to be caught up. The study of Hopewell habitations is also not helped by the rapid and deep burial of sites in the eastern Woodlands, extensive site disturbance by timber cutting and farming, and the wooden architecture of prehistoric Hopewell settlements, all of which conspire to make detection of small residential sites dicult.

it is often the ephemeral nature of the dispersed community that supports the interpretation of monuments as xed, central gathering places. When small sites are archaeologically visible and adequate survey data are available, as for example in the American Southwest, it is clear that the settlement patterns of dispersed sites do not often conform to the expectations of the village surrogate model. For example, dispersed settlements near Chacoan great houses often do not follow the boundaries of Thiessen polygons separating hypothetical great house territories (Mahoney, 2000); while small groups of structures generally do cluster around great houses, contemporary settlements can be found up to 13 miles distant in seeming no mans lands (e.g., Baker, 1991). Finally, variability in the function of morphologically similar earthworks is being increasingly recognized. Substantial dierences in labor investment are often masked under headings assigned to monuments built in the same form. For example, Late Woodland period thunderbird egy mounds in Wisconsin can be found with wingspans of as little as 15 m (50 ft) to as much as 770 m (2500 ft) (Rosenbrough and Birmingham, 2003), implying use-groups of very dierent scales. In Illinois and Ohio, Ruby et al. (2004) document the variety of ways in which earthen enclosures and mounds can organize surrounding populations of dierent sizes and compositions. Ethnographic cases have helped to broaden the range of potential uses of morphologically similar monuments. For example, while some of the smaller ceremonial centers used by the Chachi of northwest Ecuador organize local dispersed communities, the largest and oldest center, Punta Venado, serves a much broader population drawn from at least ve distinct communities located along 16 km of river-front territory (DeBoer and Blitz, 1991). A similar pattern of convergence on a single ceremonial center by a broadly dispersed population was also recorded for the Mapuche of south-central Chile by Dillehay (1990). The Mapuches biannual nguillatun ceremony, hosted in rotation by dierent local groups, draws up to 8000 attendants. Signicantly, an individual is invited to several dierent ceremonies each year, as a member of their own lineage and as an outsider (Dillehay, 1990, p. 227); attendance is not limited to members of the local community. The recognition that not all monuments in dispersed landscapes are created equal opens up an exciting range of possible interpretations. For example, a single community may build and use multiple monuments with different functions, and multiple communities may converge on a single monument. The following section approaches a set of Hopewell geometric earthworks with an eye toward such variability, and nds evidence for a very dierent pattern of use than previously attributed to these sites.

W. Bernardini / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 23 (2004) 331356

337

Tripartite Hopewell earthworks: a unique set Signicant dierences in scale, morphology, and placement on the landscape are evident within the known assemblage of Hopewell geometric earthworks. In particular, morphology appears to dier in important ways across time and space, with local clusters of earthworks exhibiting strong similarities in the kinds and arrangements of shapes they contain (DeBoer, 1997). This study focuses on a set of ve uniquely similar earthworks located in the Scioto and Paint Creek Valleys of south-central Ohio (Fig. 5). The ve sites are: Seip and Baum in the main Paint Creek valley; Frankfort in the North Fork of Paint Creek; and Liberty and Works East in the main Scioto valley. These earthworks represent some of the largest monuments ever constructed by Hopewell groups, and are located in what most researchers agree was the core of Hopewell activities. They receive special attention here because their morphological similarities suggest that they were built and used within a relatively short time of each other. The ability to identify earthworks that were likely built and used within a single human generation is extremely unusual for Hopewell archaeology, since absolute chronological control is relatively poor.3 Each of the tripartite earthworks consists primarily of three conjoined shapes (Fig. 6): a square with sides of approximately 305 m (1100 ft) in length; a large circle or partial circle with a diameter of approximately 460 m (1500 ft); and a smaller circle with a diameter of about 200 m (650 ft). While many Hopewell earthworks contain combinations of circles and squares, these ve sites stand out for their tripartite conguration and the standardized dimensions of their component shapes. Outside the Scioto Valley area, only the Marietta earthworks (160 km [100 miles] east) contains a square of this size, and this complex lacks circles altogether. With two exceptions (Newark and Seal), the 460 m diameter circle and 200 m circles are exclusive to the ve tripartite earthworks, and neither exception includes a comparable 305 m square. Squier and Davis (1848, p. 56) were the rst to point out the similarities of this set of earthworks: This work [Liberty] is a very fair type of a singular series occurring in the Scioto valley, all of which have the same gures in combination, although occupying dierent positions with respect to one another, viz. a square and two circles. The authors went on to comment (Squier and Davis, 1848, p. 57): That there is some hidden signicance, in the rst place in the regularity, and secondly in the

Fig. 5. The Scioto and Paint Creek Valleys of Ohio showing the location of the ve tripartite Hopewell geometric earthworks included in the analysis.

Fig. 6. The ve tripartite earthworks of the Scioto and Paint Creek Valleys. North varies for each site.

3 Despite a modest number of radiocarbon dates (Greber, 2002) and an important artifact seriation (Ruhl, 1992), the construction and use of most sites cannot be dated to intervals smaller than a century or more.

arrangement of various parts, can hardly be doubted. Nor can the coincidences observable between this and the other succeeding works of the same series be wholly accidental. Succeeding scholars have also pointed out the striking similarity of this set of sites. For example, Greber (1979, p. 36) noted that within the central SciotoPaint Creek area, the series of ve sites identied by the tripartite earthwork design form a regional subunit. The strong morphological similarities among this set of ve earthworks is very likely the result of close interaction between the people who planned and built them. Greber (1997a, p. 219) notes that the ve square enclosures are almost identical in size, construction material,

338

W. Bernardini / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 23 (2004) 331356

iconographic detail, and their nonrandom orientations on the landscape. This strongly suggests that each was part of one overall architectural design likely to have been built over a relatively short time span. The similarities among the earthworks are so strong that it is not unreasonable to consider that they were all laid out by the same person or group of people with the requisite ritual and architectural knowledge (James Marshall, personal communication, 2002)a unique relatively short time within the Ohio Hopewell period when political and social ties were strong enough within the central Scioto to provide a basis for the close economic and symbolic sharing (Greber, 1997b, p. 246). The case for contemporaneity of these ve earthworks rests primarily on their pronounced morphological similarities. No absolute dates are available from embankment contexts of the tripartite earthworks; C14 dates from mound contexts at Seip and Liberty overlap generally for the two centuries between A.D. 200400 (corrected) (Greber, 2003a). Copper earspool assemblages (Ruhl, 1992), again from mound (rather than geometric earthwork) contexts are more similar than they are dierent [e.g., a BrainerdRobinson similarity coecient (Shennan, 1997, p. 233) of 118 out of 200], though this oers only weak support for contemporaneity. Further support for the assumption that the tripartite earthworks were planned and built by contemporaneous groups of people is found in their construction details, discussed below.

The proles of embankment walls are described as being trapezoidal before they were damaged by plowing. Basal width of the larger earthworks was consistently measured at about 15 m (50 ft) (Squier and Davis, 1848; Thomas, 1889). Squier and Davis (1848, p. 51) describe the walls of the square at the Hopeton earthworks (about six and one half kilometers [4 miles] northwest of Works East) as resembling the heavy grading of a railway, and are broad enough, on the top, to admit the passage of a coach. Similarly, Shepherd (1887) describes the top of the walls as wide enough to admit the passage of a four-horse wagon. From these descriptions, the width of the top of the embankment of the Hopeton square is conservatively estimated at 2.4 m (8 ft, or 16% of the width of the embankments 15.2 m [50 ft] wide base). Based on this description, the volume of earth in Hopewell embankments is calculated assuming that they are trapezoidal prisms, using the following formula: V h=2b1 b2 embankment length: Thus, to calculate the volume of an embankment it is necessary to obtain measurements of its height, basal width, and top width. Because historic descriptions for the ve sites included in this analysis are incomplete, especially regarding embankment widths, it is necessary to extrapolate from observations of nearby earthworks to ll in missing values. Table 1 presents historic records of embankment dimensions from 14 nearby Hopewell geometric earthworks in southern Ohio, comprising 29 individual observations of dierent geometric shapes within them. The earliest recorded heights of squares or octagons before substantial damage from plowing at nine sites average about 3 m (10 ft), with a range of 1.8 3.7 m (612 ft), excluding the unusually low square embankment at Liberty. Historical reports of wall heights for circular embankments were slightly lower, about 2.3 m (7.4 ft), with a range of 1.23.7 m (412 ft), excluding the unusually high walls of the Fairground circle at Newark. The basal width of both square and circular embankments averaged about 4.8 times the height of the wall, for a mean width of 12.2 m (40 ft). For all sites, the width of the top of the embankment (the b2 measurement) is estimated at 16% of the basal width, based on the Squier and Davis observations at Hopeton. Embankment lengths (sides of squares and circumferences of circles) for the ve sites included in this analysis were measured from maps generated from ground-truthed aerial photographs produced by Marshall (1996), who shared unpublished maps of Works East and Frankfort (personal communication, 2002). Where river erosion or modern disturbance has rendered portions of the earthworks invisible, maps from Squier and Davis (1848) were used to obtain an image of what

Energetic analysis Energetic analysis is a quantitative method of estimating the physical and social parameters of the experience of construction (Abrams, 1994). Such an analysis is based on an assessment of the number of person-hours of labor invested in construction of a monument, which is then converted into estimates of numbers of laborers and durations of construction for each monument. Labor estimates The rst step in evaluating the organization of labor for Hopewell earthworks is to calculate the person-hours involved in their construction. These calculations require measurements of embankment dimensions and knowledge of the source of construction materials. Unfortunately, virtually all Hopewell earthworks have been severely damaged by agricultural and construction activities; some, like Frankfort, have been completely destroyed. Others exist as barely visible outlines traceable on aerial photographs. As a result of this tragic destruction, it is necessary to consult historical references to obtain most of the necessary embankment dimensions.

W. Bernardini / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 23 (2004) 331356 Table 1 Embankment height and basal width (all measurements in feet) Site Shape Date of observation 1817 Baum Seip High Bank All walls All walls Octagon Circle Hopeton Square Circle 2 Smaller circles Parallel walls Liberty Square Circles Frankfort Newark All walls Octagon Fairground circle Observatory circle square Ellipse Small circles Parallel walls Marietta Large square Parallel walls Circleville Circles Square Portsmouth Eastern parallel walls Western parallel walls Cincinnati Ellipse 36 610 2536 5 42 10 4.5 4.5 610 2536 5 42 10 10 46 610 5.5 2030 5.5 2030 10 38 12 50 10 1317 5.5 12 50 6 2.55.9 43 514 3555 4.5 1820 10 10 11.5 50 4.5 12 50 5 2 2.5 4 3 4 4 1.5 .5 5.5 11 50 4.5 7.5 60 2 12 5 5 2 37 5 2 41 1848 1879 1887 1889 1892

339

Height Base Height Base Height Base Height Base Height Base Height Base Height Base Height Base Height Base Height Base Height Base Height Base Height Base Height Base Height Base Height Base Height Base Height Base Height Base Height Base Height Base Height Base Height Base Height Base Height Base (continued on next page)

340 Table 1 (continued) Site

W. Bernardini / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 23 (2004) 331356

Shape

Date of observation 1817 1820 1848 56 50 34 5 25 6 35 1879 1887 1889 1892 Height Base Height Base Height Base Height Base

Alexanders-ville Mound City

All walls Square circle

Hopewell

D-shape

Data from Brown (1817), Atwater (1820), Squier and Davis (1848), MacLean (1879); Shepherd (1887), Thomas (1889), and Moorehead (1892).

was likely the intention of the original architects and ll in missing pieces for measurement. Embankment dimensions used in labor calculations are provided in Table 2. Excavation and transport The labor involved in the construction of an earthwork involves two primary tasks: excavating the earth to be used, and transporting that earth to the desired building location. The labor involved in excavating earth was estimated from experiments conducted by Erasmus (1965), who observed that it took 1.9 personhours (PH) to excavate a cubic meter of earth with a digging stick. The labor involved in transporting earth was estimated at .32 PH/m3/10 m of transport, based on observations by Erasmus (1965) and the United Nations (ECAFE, 1957, p. 22).4 Transport distances varied depending on the raw material, as described below. Although relatively few geometric earthwork embankments have been tested, most appear to have been constructed of dierently colored soils, some locally available, some transported from a distance. Colored soils were deliberately selected and deposited to create distinct patterns of color within the embankment. The three primary colors used in embankment construction were brown, yellow, and red. The construction of the square embankment at Hopeton provides a good example of the use of these soils (Fig. 7). Trenches through the Hopeton square (Lynott, 2003; Lynott and Weymouth, 2002; Ruby, 1997), reveal that the embankment was constructed by rst scraping the surrounding topsoil away to expose the natural yellow, clay-loam subsoil beneath. In at least
4 Erasmus experiment yielded an estimate of 1.6 PH/m3 over 50 m of transport; the transport formulae based on the UN observations yields an estimate of 1.4 PH/m3 over the same distance. I averaged the two results to obtain 1.5 PH/m3 for 50 m of transport, then divided the result by ve to obtain a base estimate of .32 PH/m3 for 10 m of transport.

some places, a black, organic soil was deposited on top of this surface. Then, additional yellow clay-loam, similar to the subsoil base, was excavated from nearby borrow pits and piled up to form the internal face of the embankment. Next, a red, sandy clay was brought in (probably from the banks of the Scioto river some 750 m to the west) and piled on the top and outside of the yellow clay-loam to form the external face of the embankment wall. Finally, the local brown topsoil was used to form a cap over the entire embankment. Testing revealed that the Fairground Circle at the Newark earthworks was also built of dierently colored eartha yellow soil on the internal face and dark brown on the outsidethough it apparently lacked the capping mantle seen at Hopeton (Lepper, 1996). The High Bank Works Great Circle wall was built of reddish soil on the interior and yellow soil on the exterior face (Greber, 2003b, p. 8). Red soil was used to construct at least the base of the Seip square, in contrast to the dark brown soil used in the large circle (Greber, 2003b, p. 7). Red soil was also used to build the square embankment of the Anderson earthworks, a smaller work located several miles west of the Hopeton earthworks (Pickard and Pahdopony, 1995). The excavators note that the red soil does not occur naturally on the terrace and would have had to [have] been carried in from a remote location (Pickard and Pahdopony, 1995, p. 4), likely from the other side of a nearby stream (Nomi Greber, personal communication, 2004). In the absence of more detailed information about the composition of the ve tripartite earthwork embankments, it is assumed that they were constructed of the three primary colors found in neighboring earthworks, yellow, red, and brown. Following the pattern most clearly visible in the Hopeton square, the basal embankment soils are assumed to have been split roughly evenly between yellow and red, with the remaining 50% devoted to a brown capping layer. Although this particular recipe of soils may not characterize all embankments

Table 2 Values used in labor calculations Site Geometric shape Lengtha Basal width Top width Height Volume (m3) Distance to soils Red Baum Square Large circle Small circle Square Large circle Small circle Square Large circle Small circle Concentric circle Square Large circle Small circle Smallest circle Square Large circle Small circle 1305 1640 690 1250 1535 945 1090 1405 719 125 1155 1805 745 460 1270 1465 635 15.2 11.0 4.3 15.2 11.0 4.3 15.2 11.0 4.3 4.3 15.2 11.0 4.3 4.3 15.2 11.0 4.3 2.4 1.8 .7 2.4 1.8 .7 2.4 1.8 .7 .7 2.4 1.8 .7 .7 2.4 1.8 .7 3.0 2.3 .9 3.0 2.3 .9 3.0 2.3 .9 .7 3.0 2.3 .9 .9 3.0 2.3 .9 34,450 24,150 1,550 33,000 22,600 2126 59,650 20,700 1620 281 30,500 26,500 1,700 1,050 33,550 33,350 1,450 55 75 55 460 55 305 90 100 60 55 305 305 135 240 80 55 40 Yellow 230 285 115 425 460 50 115 410 40 75 100 55 85 30 490 380 305 Brown 65 35 NA 65 35 NA 140 40 NA NA 65 35 NA NA 65 55 NA 279,000 129,000 7200 Site total: 415,200 330,700 148,700 15,300 Site total: 494,700 344,800 137,000 5,700 1100 Site Total: 488,600 188,500 141,500 14,600 6500 Site total: 351,100 251,600 208,800 10,800 Site total: 471,200 PH W. Bernardini / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 23 (2004) 331356

Scip

Liberty

Works East

Frankfort

Total length of embankments comprising the geometric shape minus gateways; all measurements in meters unless noted.

341

342

W. Bernardini / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 23 (2004) 331356

Fig. 7. Embankment prole of the Hopeton square (Trench 2, western embankment, north face).

equally well, the inclusion of all three soils in labor calculations ensures a plausible middle ground estimate. In the vicinity of the ve tripartite earthworks, reddish soils can be found in the Eldean soil series; yellowish soils in the Ockley, Celina, Miamian, Shelocta, and Glenford soil series; and brown soils in the Rossburg, Nineveh, Gessie, and Stonelick soil series. In Fig. 8 the ve tripartite earthworks (plotted from aerial photograph-based drawings kindly provided by James Marshall [personal communication, 2004]) have been overlain onto simplied soil maps (soil data from the 2003 USDA-NRCS Soil Survey of Ross County, Ohio). Distances to the various colored soils were estimated from the Ross County soil survey maps and from the locations of borrow pits mapped by Squier and Davis (1848); when no borrow pits were mapped distances were calculated to the edge of the nearest soil deposit outside the boundaries of the earthwork.5 Since almost all soils near the earthworks featured a ca. 10 cm layer of brown topsoil at the surface, the brown capping soil was inferred to have been scraped from the surface outside each embankment. The distance that must be covered to transport this brown soil can be estimated by dividing the volume of it included in the embankment wall by the topsoils average natural depth 10 cm, dividing this value by the perimeter length of the embankment in question, and dividing this value in half to obtain the midpoint distance that must be walked away from a point on the embankment perimeter. Because smaller earthwork shapes were not built as high as the 460 m diameter circles and the 305 m squares, they are calculated without a brown capping layer. Soil transport

distances are listed in Table 2; distances are estimated separately for each component geometric shape comprising a particular earthwork, and are averaged for at least four points on each shape. Construction episodes I assume that each geometric shape was planned and built in a continuous construction process. Two lines of evidence support this assumption. First, unnished embankments provide evidence that individual shapes, and perhaps entire earthworks, were completely laid out before construction began, rather than being constructed section by section. Second, proles of embankment walls indicate no signicant gaps in construction activity once building had begun. These lines of evidence are discussed in greater detail below. Observations in the late 1800 s by MacLean at several well-preserved but unnished earthworks led him to comment that we have every reason for believing . . . that [the mound builders] work was marked out before commencing (MacLean, 1879, p. 84). Of particular importance is the existence of marker mounds outlining the form of several unnished earthworks. For example, MacLean (1879, pp. 219220) documented a group of 11 mounds comprising the Jacksonburg Works which were arranged in a circle 70 m (230 ft) in diameter (Fig. 9), the same diameter as a complete circular enclosure with an interior ditch located only 44 m (145 ft) away. The soil for the marker mounds was excavated from borrow pits adjacent to each mound, located towards the center of the circle; completion of the earthwork would only have required excavating the remainder of the ditch between the borrow pits and piling the earth up between the mounds. A similar example of a smaller circular enclosure in Union Township, in which four marker mounds at the cardinal directions dened the outline of a circle, illustrates the same point: Between the mounds the

Borrow pits immediately adjacent to mounds (rather than embankments) were excluded when calculating transport distances.

W. Bernardini / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 23 (2004) 331356

343

Fig. 8. Soils underlying the ve tripartite Hopewell earthworks (soil data from the 2003 USDA-NRCS Soil Survey of Ross County, Ohio).

walls gradually taper until they meet midway. The ditch is on the inside. It is regular and of equal depth at all points (MacLean, 1879, p. 172). Likewise, at the Alexandersville earthworks, three mounds associated with an unnished circle were found not be mounds at all, but intended to form component parts of the intended circle . . . located on the line of the curve. The fact here

brought to light is that the whole line was established before work was begun, and work was performed on dierent parts of the line at the same time. This fact is also true of the square a short distance removed from the circle (MacLean, 1879, p. 85). Recently, Lepper (1996) documented the existence of marker mounds which outlined the Fairground Circle at the Newark earthworks. The

344

W. Bernardini / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 23 (2004) 331356

intervening deposits of windblown sediment or evidence of erosion suggesting that time had elapsed between them (Fig. 7). Evidence from burned features in the trenches indicates, in fact, that some layers were deposited within minutes or hours of the preceding one. In both Trench 2 and Trench 3 at Hopeton, organic material was burned on top of the yellow layer of the embankment, then covered with red soil quickly enough for ashes to be scattered through the red earth, and for the red earth to be discolored by the heat (Lynott, 2003). Greber (2003b) noted a similar lack of weathering in strata comprising the High Bank Works Great Circle. Duration of labor An important variable in calculating labor estimates is the number of days per year devoted to communal projects like earthwork construction. This variable differs depending on the political organization of the society in question, especially whether coercive force is involved in the process. Ethnographic observations of communal labor projects organized without coercive force provide potential analogs for Hopewell earthwork construction. For instance, construction of a Tambaran spirit house, which measured 22 13 9 m, by the Ilahita Arapesh, a horticultural group in New Guinea, was completed in 2 months, though only about half of those days were actually devoted to construction (Tuzin, 1980, p. 121). Construction of a spirit house in the nearby Maprik region of New Guinea (Hauser-Schaublin, 1989, p. 608) took place over approximately 3 months. The building of a 12.2 4.3 m Ilahita Arapesh house in the took place over seven weeks, but again only about half (23) of those days were spent working on the project (Hogbin, 1951, p. 317). In the Maya village of Chan Kom (Redeld and Rojas, 1962), adult males typically contributed 50 days of labor toward communal village projects. Among the residents of Wogeo Island in New Guinea, the followers of a clans hereditary headman spend an average of one day in eight carrying out projects of his design, or about 4045 days per year (Hogbin, 1939, p. 148). The youths and men who built a club-house at the village of Kapana on Solomon Island worked at the job somewhat desultorily over a period of 20 days (Oliver, 1955, p. 378). Though no one of these preceding examples features a society that is a close analog for Hopewell populations, and none of the projects undertaken approached the scale of a geometric earthwork, together they provide a rough picture of the amount of time per year devoted to communal labor projects in middle-range societies (i.e., those with forms of social organization less complex than the classic chiefdom). Collectively, these examples suggest that about 45 days may be devoted to communal labor projects in a single year (cf. Erasmus, 1956, p. 280), though only about half of them may be productive work days. Thus, a range of 2550

Fig. 9. The Jacksonburg Works. Reproduced after MacLean (1879, Figure 62).

black soil identied at the base of Trench 2 through the Hopeton square embankment may also be the remains of a marker mound. MacLeans observations at the Alexandersville earthworks further suggest that in at least some cases, the plan of the entire earthwork was laid out simultaneously, with concurrent construction occurring on multiple shapes. MacLean (1879, p. 84) notes that Of the three, or rather four, sacred enclosures at Alexandersville, not one is complete. These incomplete remains prove that all of these works were commenced at the same time, all abandoned before being nished. The uniformity of the layouts of Baum, Seip, Liberty, Frankfort, and Works East suggest that they too were likely planned from the outset, rather than resulting from the accretion of individual shapes together over time. For example, the small circle at these earthworks is always attached to the large circle, never to the square, which always adjoins the large circle. A second line of evidence supporting continuous earthwork construction is the absence of accumulated soil or evidence of erosion between layers of embankment soil. Multiple trenches cut through the square embankment at the Hopeton earthworks provide a well-documented source of information about earthwork construction at this site (Lynott, 2003; Lynott and Weymouth, 2002). Here, the dierent layers of colored soils rest directly on top of each other, with no

W. Bernardini / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 23 (2004) 331356

345

days of labor per person per year would be an appropriate range. The work day is assumed to have been ve hours long, a gure based on digging experiments by Erasmus (1965) in which he observed that worker productivity dropped markedly after the fth hour of labor. Earthwork energetics Table 2 presents the total embankment volume for each component geometric shape within the ve earthwork complexes, as well as the total person-hours of construction required to build each one. These estimates are conservative in that they cover only embankment construction, not potentially simultaneous (and often substantial) mound construction, and include only the labor involved in digging and transport, not the dumping and packing of earth. The volumes of the square embankments average about 38,200 m3 of earth, large circles about 25,500 m3, and small circles about 1300 m3. Converted to person-hours, each of these construction projects required an average of approximately 280,000, 150,000, and 11,000 PH of labor, respectively. In Table 3, PH values are converted into labor crew sizes for each construction event, gured over dierent lengths of time. Construction scenario one, the most labor-intensive projection, assumes that each geometric shape was built in a single year. Scenario two assumes that each geometric shape was built over the course of 5 years. Scenarios three and four assume that an entire

earthwork complex was built over the course of 5 and 10 years, respectively. Ten years would seem to be close to an upper limit for sustained mobilization of labor within the life spans of a small group of contemporaneous architects/organizers. These 10 years of construction need not have occurred in strict succession; breaks of up to several years are conceivable, and some years of construction may have been more intense than others. For each scenario, a range of values is presented reecting 25 or 50 days of labor per year. The largest possible construction events, in which a single geometric shape was erected in a single year, would have required at least 1000 laborers, and as many as 2700 laborers. The organization of such large numbers of people in the absence of coercion seems unlikely, though ethnographic examples [e.g., the Maupuche nguillatun ceremony, which draws up to 8000 attendants (Dillehay, 1990)] and the evidence discussed above regarding the continuous nature of embankment construction means this scenario cannot be ruled out. More conservative construction scenarios stretching over 5 years would still have involved at least 300600 people at a time. The most conservative scenario modeled here, in which each earthwork complex was built in ten (not necessarily consecutive) years, would have required approximately 150400 laborers at each earthwork in a given year. Thus, it is likely that size of labor crews that constructed Hopewell earthworks numbered at least in the low hundreds of people.

Table 3 Labor crew sizes for each tripartite earthwork, calculated under four dierent construction scenarios: (1) each geometric shape built in a single year; (2) each geometric shape built over 5 years; (3) each tripartite earthwork complex built over 5 years; and (4) each tripartite earthwork complex built over 10 years Site Baum Geometric shape Square Large circle Small circle Square Large circle Small circle Square Large circle Small circle Smaller circle Square Large circle Small circle Smaller circle Square Large circle Small circle 1 Shape, 1 year 11202230 5201030 5060 13202650 6001190 60120 1380 2760 5501110 2050 510 7501510 5701130 60120 3050 10102010 8401670 4090 1 Shape, 5 years 220450 100205 610 270530 120240 1224 280 550 110220 510 12 150300 110230 1020 510 200400 170330 1020 Earthwork, 5 years 330660 Earthwork, 10 years 170330

Seip

400790

200400

Liberty

390 780

200 390

Works East

280560

140280

Frankfort

380750

190380

The range reects calculations using 50 and 25 days of work per year.

346

W. Bernardini / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 23 (2004) 331356

Labor catchment areas Having identied some probable labor crew sizes for the construction of Hopewell earthworks, we may now consider the size of the labor catchment area needed to supply dierent numbers of laborers. A labor catchment area is the territory from which people must be drawn, under a given population density, to provide a requisite number of laborers. This exercise requires an estimate of Ohio Hopewell population density. As noted above, extant Ohio Middle Woodland settlement data are less than ideal. However, a combination of the available demographic data and cross-cultural comparisons are sucient to establish a range of likely population densities. The most empirically well-supported estimate of Hopewell population density is Aschs (1976) study of population in the lower Illinois Valley drainage. Aschs estimate, based on an appraisal of the number of burial mounds and the number of burials per mound, yields a population density of about 40 people/100 km2 (Asch et al., 1979). The paleoethnobotanical record for mid-Ohio Valley Middle Woodland sites is similar, though not identical, to that of the lower Illinois Valley (Wymer, 1992; Wymer and Johannessen, 2002), justifying the assumption of roughly comparable population densities between the areas (the richer environment of the Illinois Valley probably supported higher densities of people than the Ohio Valley). Estimates of the society sizes necessary to produce the burial population under the larger Seip mound, assuming a yearly death rate of .02 and a 35 year span of building use, yield a gure of about 200 people (Buikstra, 1979); this gure equates to a population density for southern Ohio similar to the Illinois estimates of about .4 people/km2 (Greber, 1979, p. 37). Population densities of less than one person/km2 are consistent with historic tribal densities in eastern North America calculated by James Mooney (published in Kroeber, 1939, pp. 138-141). According to Mooneys estimates, not a single interior group had a density greater than .4 people/km2. Although in agricultural societies population density is generally not correlated with agricultural potential (Netting, 1990), the relationship is more direct among hunter gatherer populations (e.g., Baumho, 1958; Thompson, 1966). Hopewell people farmed eastern agricultural complex crops in small garden plots, but they relied on gathered nuts, fruits, and tubers for an important component of their diet (Wymer, 1997); they were most likely only part-time farmers. Thus, it may be useful to consider cross-cultural hunter gatherer population density as another source of comparative information about Hopewell density. In a cross-cultural sample of 14 hunter-gatherer groups from temperate forests, the closest approximation of the Ohio Middle Woodland environment, Kelly (1995, pp. 224225, Table 6-4) re-

corded an average population density of .13 people/ km2 (.06 people/miles2). The maximum temperate forest hunter-gatherer density in Kellys sample was .42 people/ km2. Together, archaeological estimates and cross-cultural gures suggest that Ohio Hopewell population density was probably not greater than about .5 people/km2, with a maximum of no more than 1 person/km2. In calculating labor catchment areas, it is assumed that roughly half of the population of any given area was of adequate age and health to participate in the heavy lifting that comprised the bulk of earthwork construction (probably a liberal assumption).6 Thus, to determine labor catchment areas, the labor crew gures listed in Table 3 must rst be doubled to reect the total population from which the laborers would have been drawn. Several scenarios were evaluated in modeling labor catchment areas. What is considered to be the most reasonable scenario involves laborers working for 25 days a year for 10 years to complete each earthwork complex, and assumes a population density of .5 people/km2. This scenario would have involved about 350 people/year at each tripartite earthwork. Keeping in mind that a total population of 700 people would have been necessary to eld 350 workers, a crew of this size would have been drawn from a catchment area with a diameter of about 42 km. Increasing the number of work days per year to 50 decreases the average diameter to 30 km. Distances separating earthworks from their nearest neighbors range from 6 km for Seip and Baum to 10 km for Works East and Liberty, to 22 km for Frankfort and Works East. Fig. 10A plots labor catchment circles around each earthwork complex calculated at 25 days/year for 10 years of construction at .5 people/ km2. Portions of catchment circles are shaded when they overlap with a neighboring earthworks labor catchment area. Under this labor scenario, Works East, Liberty, and Frankfort overlap more than 50% of each others catchments, while Seip overlaps 100% of Baums catchment. Fig. 10B shows overlapping catchments for the 50 work-days/year scenario, which decreases the average overlap only slightly to about 45% (not including the complete overlap of Baum by Seip). Less conservative labor scenarios produce larger labor crews, larger labor catchment areas, and greater overlap. If each earthwork complex was built over 5 years, labor catchments range in size from 44 to 60 km in diameter, depending on the number of days worked (50 or 25). If each geometric shape was built over the
6 Both children and the elderly are also likely to have participated in construction events, for example compacting soil or feeding laborers. As these contributions are more dicult to quantify they are omitted here, but it is important to keep in mind that large-scale labor projects must have been important social and even festive occasions.

W. Bernardini / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 23 (2004) 331356

347

course of 5 years, construction of some of the larger embankments, such as the square at the Liberty earthworks, would have required 280550 laborers; at a density of .5 people/km2, such a crew would have been drawn from a catchment 3653 km in diameter. The

8701730 people required to build the average individual geometric shapes (squares and large circles) in a single year at 50/25 days/year and .5 people/km2 would have been drawn from an area 6694 km across. Small embankment circles, in contrast, required much smaller

Fig. 10. Labor catchment areas for the ve tripartite earthworks calculated for 350 laborers at a density of .5 people/km2: (A) 25 workdays per year; (B) 50 work-days per year.

348

W. Bernardini / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 23 (2004) 331356

labor crews, and could have been built in a single year under the same parameters by 5090 laborers drawn from a 16 to 22 km diameter catchment. Signicantly, even the most conservative labor scenario modeled here would have required overlapping labor pools or laborers from outside the local area surrounding each earthwork. Thus, construction for two and a half months (50 days) a year for 10 years to complete each earthwork complex, with a high population density estimate of 1 person/km2, would still have required that laborers be drawn from a large average catchment area of 22 km in diameter. Even for this conservative scenario there is considerable overlap in the labor catchments of the tripartite earthworks (45% overlap for Liberty, Frankfort, and Works East; 80% overlap for Seip and Baum). That is, it would be dicult for construction to occur on neighboring earthworks in the same generation without drawing on the same pool of laborers, or drawing on very distant populations. Fig. 11 illustrates labor catchments designed to avoid overlapping neighboring earthworks catchments, limited to land on one side of a river. Inspection of Fig. 11A reveals that, with 50-day work years and .5 people/km2, some earthworks labor catchments, for example Frankfort and Works East, must be stretched over a distance of 80 km (50 miles) to encompass the necessary workers, reaching as far north as the modern city of Columbus, Ohio. Reducing the number of work-days per year to 25 increases the area covered by the labor catchments to almost 13,000 km2, from north of Columbus, Ohio south to the city of Portsmouth on the Ohio River (Fig. 11B). It is instructive to consider how high Hopewell population density would have to have been in order for each earthwork to draw laborers exclusively from a local catchment area that would not overlap its neighbors (approximating the assumptions about community structure employed the vacant center model). To provide enough laborers to build each earthwork complex in 10 years at 25 days of labor per year (the most likely scenario outlined above), with all laborers drawn exclusively from a 10 km diameter area surrounding each earthwork, population density in the Scioto and Paint Creek valleys would have had to have been 8.9 people/ km2 (3.4 people/mile2). Most researchers would agree that the population density of the Hopewell landscape was not nearly so high. Thus, even the most conservative scenarios of earthwork construction imply considerable overlap in the local labor catchment areas from which work crews for dierent earthworks would have been drawn. Consequently, workers must either have been drawn in from a substantial distance to participate in earthwork construction, or workers in the Scioto and Paint Creek valleys participated in the construction of parts of several

earthworks during their lifetimes. Earthworks could not have been built exclusively by the people living in close proximity to them, a conclusion that has profound implications for the use of these facilities. Most importantly, this conclusion implies that earthworks were not centers for autonomous, local populations. The proposed use of paired tripartite earthworks (such as Seip and Baum) by a single community (Greber, 1997a) would only amplify this conclusion, as the labor catchment covering the builders of this paired complex would extend over a very broad area. These conclusions are bolstered by a consideration of mating networks. Mating networks To emphasize the point that earthworks were not built and used by autonomous local populations, but rather drew on a much broader population, Fig. 12 plots circles around earthworks that encompass areas large enough to support the minimum 475 people necessary to maintain a viable mating network (Wobst, 1974). At a population density of .5 people/km2, these circles have diameters of 35 km. As Fig. 12 illustrates, the amount of overlap in mating networks is considerable, and supports the labor data in arguing against discrete, autonomous populations associated with each earthwork center. Riverine transport Given the terrain of southern Ohio and the location of most Hopewell earthworks adjacent to waterways, it is likely that riverine transport was common (Brose, 1990). Based on surveys of the Licking Valley, Paul Pacheco (personal communication, 2001) suggests that population may have been concentrated along river banks. Waterborne travel is considerably more ecient than overland travel, with most researchers accepting a 5:1 ratio of overland: waterborne fuel costs for travelers (Brose, 1990; Drennan, 1984). The implication is that people could theoretically travel greater distances to an earthwork complex via water than they could over land in the same amount of time, increasing the radius of manageable round-trips and the distance people might plausibly cover to attend an event. If 18 km is the maximum round trip manageable by foot (Drennan, 1984), the maximum riverine distance would be approximately 90 kmsucient to bring in participants from the edges of even the largest labor catchments identied in this study. Although ecient riverine transport might at rst glance appear to diminish the signicance of the large labor catchments identied above, in fact it helps to explain how seemingly distant populations could be regular participants in events at non-local ceremonial complexes.

W. Bernardini / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 23 (2004) 331356

349

Fig. 11. Non-overlapping labor catchments calculated for 350 laborers at a density of .5 people/km2: (A) 50 work-days per year; (B) 25 work-days per year.

The Hopewell ceremonial landscape The preceding analyses indicate that the ve tripartite Hopewell geometric earthworks in the core Scioto and Paint Creek valleys of Ohio did not function as village surrogates for autonomous, isomorphic communities. Thus, the gathering of people to construct an earthwork was not experienced by participants as the aggregation

of a dispersed community, but instead as the assembly of a much wider social network. Most participating individuals were probably not aliated exclusively with any one earthwork, and may have even participated in construction events at multiple earthworks within their lifetimes. Evidence from other contexts suggests that pan-local gatherings of Hopewell populations may have been a

350

W. Bernardini / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 23 (2004) 331356

Fig. 12. Catchment areas encompassing the 475 people necessary to maintain a viable mating network for each earthwork.

regular component of Hopewell ceremonialism. Patterns of artifact deposition for some elaborate Hopewell burials and artifact caches indicate that associated ceremonies often attracted attendants from great distances, far greater than the surrounding few kilometers surrounding an earthwork. For example, the number of artifacts which were probably personal possessions (such as copper celts) deposited in a single oering often far exceeds the number of people in the local area who likely possessed them. As many as 60 celt-owners contributed to one cache at the Hopewell Site, more than two-thirds of whom likely traveled from outside the Scioto region to attend the event (Bernardini and Carr, 2004). Unusually large deposits of copper breastplates, earspools, platform pipes, bear canines, and other objects that were also likely individual possessions reinforce the interpretation that large-scale social gatherings periodically drew attendants from great distances to the core Hopewell area (Carr et al., 2004). The construction and use of geometric earthworks If monuments can be thought of as having life-histories (Holtorf, 1998), this study has concentrated on the birth, of monuments in Hopewell society, seemingly at the expense of later events. Aspects of the Hopewell archaeological record suggest, however, that the construction of a geometric earthwork may have been the dening event of its life-history, with little large-scale use thereafter. For example, while some Hopewell earthworks enclose mounds covering mortuary and other deposits, or in a few cases are built of earth containing old midden deposits, most contain very little evidence of activity contemporary with the embankments. A sys-

tematic surface survey of the Hopeton earthworks (Burks and Walter, 2003; Burks et al., 2003), covering an area of more than 1.2 km2, identied fewer than 300 diagnostic Middle Woodland artifactsonly one artifact for every 4000 m2. Other nearby earthworks, including the tripartite works at Seip and Liberty, contain higher densities of utilitarian debris, but this material is generally found within mounds and embankments as construction ll (Grin, 1996; Shetrone and Greenman, 1931, pp. 430431), indicating that earthwork construction occurred after intensive use of the area. It appears that the majority of activity involving material culture at earthwork sites was focused on mortuary and mound contexts, with the geometric enclosures likely representing a separate and subsequent stage of construction (Greber, 1997a). Paradoxically, the immense horizontal scale of the earthworks also argues against geometric earthworks serving as the locus of large gatherings after their construction. Here, an emphasis on the referential meaning of circles and squares as meeting places has distracted from the experiential observation that they enclose spaces so large as to be socially unusable. Cross-cultural data suggest that high-level integrative facilities, which serve entire communities, average about 1 m2 of oor space per participant (Adler, 1990). To put the scale of the enclosed space at Hopewell earthworks into perspective, at 1 m2 of oor area per participant, each 300 m (1000 ft) diameter large circle at the tripartite earthworks alone could have held more than 280,000 people! The vastness of the enclosed area would also seem to preclude the embankment walls from serving as observational platforms for smaller ceremonies occurring in the enclosed area, since the distance to a performer at the center of a large circle would exceed 150 mmore than twice the distance from the farthest row of seats to mideld in the largest football stadium in the United States (Michigan Stadium, capacity 107,500). In light of the scarce evidence for use of many Hopewell earthworks after their construction, perhaps the search for the function of earthworks has been misguided. If earthworks were built by laborers drawn from a broad area, rather than a regularly interacting local population, then these monuments may not have actually been used (experienced) on a regular basis. Instead, perhaps the most important even in the life history of an earthwork, and the most important experience of a participant, was the act of construction. After this remarkable event, an undertaking involving hundreds of people and stretching over a number of months or years, the raison detre for an assembly on this scale may have passed for that monument. The planning of a new monument may have been required to mobilize sucient labor to recreate the assembly. Such one-o events in which the act of creating something was the critical

W. Bernardini / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 23 (2004) 331356

351

event, with little use of the feature thereafter, are known in the ethnographic literature (Kuchler, 1987), albeit not on this scale. If the ve tripartite earthworks were planned as, or developed into, a series of events in which the construction activity was paramount, it could help to explain the dierence between earthworks that enclose burial mounds (Liberty, Frankfort, and Seip), and those that enclose empty space (Baum, Works East). Tripartite earthwork construction may have been initiated in ancestral locations to enclose existing mortuary monuments. To perpetuate the cycle of large-scale aggregations, construction was subsequently expanded into scion locations lacking the historical context of their predecessors. Chronological data may be able to verify or discredit this hypothesis. Even if the tripartite earthworks were not built for planned obsolescence, they nevertheless may have failed to be used in the manner for which they were designed despite the best eorts of their architects. The actual use of a monument after its construction can be expected to deviate from its intended use for a number of reasons, with increasing distortion and manipulation as monuments are encountered by populations increasingly distant from its construction (Hingley, 1996; Holtorf, 1998). The unity of purpose at the time of construction of some monuments may not have been matched afterwards. As Bradley (1993, p. 2) reminds us, Monuments are made to last, but their meanings are often elusive, and not just for archaeologists. The process of interpretation started as soon as they were built. Ceremonial centers with multiple monuments The notion that a widely dispersed population could be organized to construct not one but a suite of inter-related, contemporaneous, and morphologically similar monuments is not a common one. In other examples of monuments in dispersed settlement systems, such as conical burial mounds, egy mounds, henges, causewayed enclosures, great kivas, or outlier Chacoan great houses, morphologically similar constructions are usually widely spaced on the landscape. The similarities among monuments in theses cases appear to stem from a broadly shared cosmology which persisted over a wide territory for several hundred years. This is true of the broader class of Hopewell geometric earthworks in southern Ohio, whose resemblances to each other most likely reect only ideological similarities (Greber, 1997b, p. 246). In contrast, the morphological similarities among the ve closely spaced tripartite earthworks of Baum, Seip, Frankfort, Works East, and Liberty go far beyond what could be expected from a region-wide system of shared ceremonial architecture grammar. Similarities in the

dimensions and layout of the component shapes of the ve tripartite Hopewell earthworks strongly suggest that they were planned and built by contemporaneous, interacting architects, probably within a single human generation. These ve earthworks did not arrive at a common endpoint through independent interpretation of common cosmological principles; instead they were built to similar plans by design, reecting the particular closeness of the populations in and around the Scioto and Paint Creek valleys during a few decades of the Middle Woodland period. Ethnographic or historic analogs to a dispersed settlement system organized around morphologically redundant monuments are dicult to identify. Examples of ceremonial precincts composed of multiple monuments are typically associated with more socially complex societies, such as the religious centers of ancient Greece, Delphi and Olympia. However, at least one additional archaeological relative of the Scioto Valley Hopewell core is known from North America: Chaco Canyon. Comparison to the Chacoan case is instructive, as it suggests the degree to which a relatively non-hierarchical regional ceremonial system can be organized around a central ritual precinct. Like the core Hopewell area, Chaco Canyon, located in northwestern New Mexico, contains an unusual concentration of monumental architecture surrounded by relatively small, undierentiated settlements. Nine great housesmulti-story, masonry buildingswere built along a 10-mile stretch of canyon, with the bulk of construction occurring from A.D. 1050 to 1100 (Lekson, 1986). The core group of great houses in Chaco Canyon display the same kind of close morphological similarity evidenced by the ve tripartite Hopewell earthworks, raising the possibility that the great houses were integrated into a common ceremonial system rather than serving as centers for local polities within the canyon (cf. Fritz, 1978). The two largest great houses, Pueblo Bonito and Chetro Ketl, each contained more than 500 rooms each and yet are located less than 500 m apart. Like Hopewell earthworks, Chaco great houses show little sign of residential use and appear to be largely ceremonial constructions (Bernardini, 1999; Windes, 1984). The largest Chacoan construction episodes approached the scale of individual Hopewell earthwork shapes, for example, the more than 282,000 PH invested in Pueblo Bonito between about A.D. 1075 and 1085 (Lekson, 1986). The density of great house architecture in Chaco Canyon appears to far outstrip the needs of the comparatively modest surrounding local residential population (Fig. 13), leading some scholars to suggest that the canyon was the site of long-distance pilgrimages (Judge, 1989; Malville and Malville, 2001). Well documented and frequent trips from the Chuska Mountains, 60 km distant, to Chaco Canyon, by travelers often bearing

352

W. Bernardini / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 23 (2004) 331356

Fig. 13. Settlement pattern of central Chaco Canyon. Each circle represents a unit house comprising 710 rooms, interpreted as the residence of one, or a few, families. Redrawn after Lekson (1991, Figure 3.9).

substantial loads of wood and pottery (Toll, 2001; Windes and McKenna, 2001), attest to the area over which regional ceremonial centers can attract attendants in middle-range societieseven in the absence of riverine transport. The developments in Chaco Canyon were the center of a very widespread phenomenon of great house construction. The extent of the Chacoan great house distribution has been variously dened, but ranges from about 60,000 to 110,000 km2 (Doyel and Lekson, 1992). In comparison, Hopewell geometric earthworks (Fig. 3) cover an area of about 30,000 km2. Thus, a middle-range society precedent certainly exists for a regional ceremonial system organized around a central ceremonial precinct on the scale encompassed by Hopewell geometric earthworks. It may therefore be productive for Hopewell researchers to consider more seriously scenarios of alliance, integration, colonization, pilgrimage, and other pan-local socio-political relationships among the broader distribution of earthworks surrounding the Scioto Valley earthwork core. In fact, several lines of evidence support the idea that the core Scioto Valley earthworks anchored a much broader ceremonial system. Lepper (1996) has documented the possible existence of a 90 km long road consisting of parallel embankments 60 m apart connect-

ing the Newark earthworks to the central Scioto Valley. This road is visible in aerial photographs at several intervals but has not yet been conrmed through testing. Interestingly, the road would mirror connections between centers in the Chaco system not just in scale but possibly in (symbolic) function as well (cf. Sofaer et al., 1989). The 50 km long, 9 m wide Chaco North Road connects two sequential centers of the Chaco phenomenon, linking the original cluster of great houses in Chaco Canyon proper to a later cluster of great houses centered on Aztec Ruin. The road is thus a bridge in both time and space (Fowler and Stein, 1992). The great Hopewell road would have terminated near the High Banks earthworks, which shares an almost identical layout with part of the Newark complexboth contain circles with a diameter of 320 m (1050 ft), attached to octagons (see Squier and Davis, 1848, p. XVI, XXV). Newark was the single largest Hopewell earthwork complex ever built, but its chronological relationship to the earthwork cluster around Chillicothe is still unresolved (Greber, 2003a); thus we do not know whether the potential Hopewell road might have also been a bridge in time as well as space. Shorter sacred way segments extending toward the Scioto Valley from the Portsmouth and Marietta earthworks (at the eastern and southern edges of the primary geometric earthwork distribution, respectively) may also have symbolically linked these distant monuments to the core (see Squier and Davis, 1848, p. XXVI, XXVII), though these segments do not appear to continue beyond the river banks adjacent to each complex.

Conclusions This study demonstrates the importance of establishing parameters for the scale of social groups and social interaction as a foundation upon which higher level theoretical interpretations can be based. This lesson can be applied to the study of monuments cross-culturally. Previous research on monuments in dispersed landscapes, including Hopewell, often attributed to them a referential meaning as village surrogates without adequately exploring the implications of this interpretation. Insucient attention to the experiential aspects of monument construction and use has permitted debate to rage over aspects of a model which is unsupported by the data at a fairly basic level (e.g., Baby and Langlois, 1979; Converse, 1993, 1994; Grin, 1996; Pacheco, 1996; Prufer, 1996). This study represents only a rst step in redening the interpretation of Hopewell geometric construction and use. The task of detailing the precise nature of the alliances or cooperative ventures that produced the ve tripartite earthworks must await future study. Nevertheless, an empirical foundation has been

W. Bernardini / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 23 (2004) 331356

353

established to direct further exploration toward particular lines of inquiry, especially concerning motives and mechanisms for channeling the energies of a widespread dispersed population into the construction of morphologically redundant, closely spaced ceremonial centers. The conclusions reached in this study are not intended to challenge the village surrogate interpretation for all monuments constructed by dispersed populations. The demographic lessons of mating simulations (Wobst, 1974) illustrate the necessity for regular interaction among dispersed communities, which would have been facilitated by the use of centrally located monuments. Ceremonial landscapes like that of the core Hopewell area were probably relatively rare, and the ve tripartite earthworks are almost certainly atypical of the broader class of Hopewell monuments. Hundreds of geometric earthworks were built in southern Ohio and portions of West Virginia, Kentucky, Indiana, and Illinois in the Early and Middle Woodland periods, spanning a period of at least 500 years and exhibiting considerable variety in their morphology, size, and spatial relationships to each other. At least some of these earthworks likely organized local communities, rather than regional populations. Nevertheless, as the Chaco Canyon example illustrates, the presence of a ceremonial core necessitates consideration of its impact in the periphery. The fact that an integrated ceremonial core could lie hidden in plain view in the Hopewell landscape should stimulate the search in other areas of the world for alternative relationships between dispersed populations and the monuments they built. A careful distinction between referential and experiential meaning should greatly improve the success of these investigations.

Acknowledgments This paper beneted from careful readings and comments by Christopher Carr, Warren DeBoer, Nomi Greber, Mark Lynott, and Katherine Spielmann, though their help does not imply agreement with all points in the nal product. Mark Lynotts invitation to participate in eld research at the Hopeton earthworks sparked my interest in this topic. I also thank Jarrod Burks and Jennifer Pederson of the National Park Service for their help and input at many stages of this research, and James Marshall for generously providing access to his earthwork maps. References
Abrams, E.M., 1994. How the Maya Built Their World. University of Texas Press, Austin.

Adler, M. A., 1990. Communities of Soil and Stone: An Archaeological Investigation of Population Aggregation Among the Mesa Verde Region Anasazi, A.D. 9001300, University of Michigan. Asch, D.L., 1976. The Middle Woodland Population of the Lower Illinois Valley: A Study in Paleodemographic Methods. Northwestern University Archaeology Program Scientic Papers No. 1, Evanston. Asch, D., Farnsworth, K., Asch, N., 1979. Woodland subsistence and settlement in west central Illinois. In: Brose, D., Greber, N. (Eds.), Hopewell Archaeology: The Chillicothe Conference. Kent State University Press, Kent, pp. 8085. Atwater, C., 1820. Description of the antiquities discovered in the state of Ohio. The Transactions and Collections of the American Antiquarian Society 1, 109251. Baby, R., Langlois, S., 1979. Seip mound state memorial: nonmortuary aspects of Hopewell. In: Brose, D., Greber, N. (Eds.), Hopewell Archaeology: The Chillicothe Conference. Kent State University Press, Ohio, pp. 1618. Baker, 1991. History of the Rio Puerco Valley Project. In: Baker, L., Irwin-Williams, C. (Eds.), Anasazi Puebloan Adaptation in Response to Climatic Stress: Prehistory of the Middle Rio Puerco Valley. Bureau of Land Management, Albuquerque, pp. 832. Barrett, J., Bradley, R., Green, M., 1991. Landscape, Monuments, and Society. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Baumho, R., 1958. Ecological Determinants of Population. University of California Survey Reports 48, pp. 3265. Benn, D., 1979. Some trends and traditions in Woodlands cultures of the Quad-State region in the upper Mississippi River basin. The Wisconsin Archaeologist 60 (1), 4782. Bernardini, W., 1999. Reassessing the Scale of Social Action at Pueblo Bonito, Chaco Canyon, New Mexico. Kiva 64 (4), 447470. Bernardini, W., Carr, C., 2004. Hopewell Copper Celts: Canonical and Indexical Messages and the Generation of Social Prestige. In: Carr, C., (Ed.), Hopewell Society, Ritual, and Religion. Plenum Press, New York, in preparation. Bradley, R., 1993. Altering the Earth: The Origins of Monuments in Britain and Continental Europe. Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, Edinburgh. Breternitz, C.D., Doyel, D.E., Marshall, M.P. (Eds.), 1982. Bis sanani: A late Bonito phase community on Escavada Wash, northwest New Mexico. Navajo Nation Papers in Anthropology, no. 14. Window Rock, Arizona. Brose, D.S., 1990. Toward a Model of Exchange Values for the Eastern Woodlands. Midcontinental J. Archaeol. 15 (1), 100136. Brown, S.R., 1817. The Western Gazetteer: or Emigrants Directory, Containing a Geographical Description of the Western States and Territories. H.C. Southwick, Auburn, New York. Buikstra, J., 1979. Contributions of physical anthropologists to the concept of Hopewell: a historical perspective. In: Brose, D., Greber, N. (Eds.), Hopewell Archaeology: The Chillicothe Conference. Kent State University Press, Kent, pp. 220233. Buikstra, J.E., Charles, D.K., 1999. Centering the ancestors: Cemeteries, mounds and sacred landscapes of the ancient

354

W. Bernardini / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 23 (2004) 331356 the Maxwell Museum of Anthropology 5. Maxwell Museum of Anthropology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, pp. 1521. Drennan, R.D., 1984. Long-distance transport costs in prehispanic MesoAmerica. Am. Anthropol. 86, 105112. Economic Commission for Asia and the Far East (ECAFE) 1957. Manual Labour and Its More Eective Use in Competition with Machines for Earthwork in the ESCAFE Region. United National Publication E/CN. 11 Conf. 3/L.I. Erasmus, C.J., 1956. Culture structure and process: the occurrence and disappearance of reciprocal farm labor. Southwest. J. Anthropol. 12, 444469. Erasmus, C.J., 1965. Monument building: some eld experiments. Southwest. J. Anthropol. 21 (4), 277301. Evans, J., Rouse, A., Sharples, N., 1988. The landscape setting of causewayed camps: recent work on the maiden castle enclosure. In: Barrett, J., Kinnes, I. (Eds.), The Archaeology of Context in the Neolithic and Bronze Age. University of Sheeld, Sheeld, pp. 7384. Fowler, A.P., Stein, J.R., 1992. The Anasazi SGreat House in space, time, and paradigm. In: Doyel, D.E. (Ed.), Anasazi Regional Organization and the Chaco System. Maxwell Museum of Anthropology Anthropological Papers No.5. University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, pp. 101122. Fritz, J., 1978. Paleopsychlogy today: ideational systems and human adaptation in prehistory. In: Redman, D., Berman, M., Curtin, E., Langhorne, W., Versaggi, N., Wanser, C. (Eds.), Social Archaeology: Beyond Subsistence and Dating. Academic Press, New York, pp. 3759. Greber, N., 1979. A comparative study of site morphology and burial patterns at Edwinharness Mound and Seip Mounds 1 and 2. In: Brose, D.S., Greber, N. (Eds.), Hopewell Archaeology: The Chillicothe Conference. Kent State University Press, Kent, pp. 2738. Greber, N., 1997a. Two geometric enclosures in the Paint Creek Valley: an estimate of possible changes in community patterns through time. In: Dancey, W., Pacheco, P. (Eds.), Ohio Hopewell Community Organization. Kent State University Press, Kent, pp. 207230. Greber, N., 1997b. Comment on ceremonial centres from the Cayapas (Esmeraldas, Ecuador) to Chillicothe (Ohio, USA). Camb. Archaeol. J. 7 (2), 244247. Greber, N., 1999. Combining geophysics and ground truth at High Bank Earthworks, Ross County, Ohio. Ohio Archaeol. Counc. Newsletter 11 (1), 812. Greber, N., 2002. A preliminary comparison of 1997 and 2002 limited excavations in the Great Circle Wall, High Bank Works, Ross County, Ohio. Hopewell Archaeology 5 (2), 16. Greber, N., 2003a. Chronological relationships among Ohio Hopewell sites: few dates and much complexity. In: Jeske, R., Charles, D. (Eds.), Theory, Method, and Practice in Modern Archaeology. Praeger Press, Westport, CT, pp. 88 113. Greber, N., 2003b. Enclosures and communities in Ohio Hopewell: an essay. In: Charles, D., Buikstra, J. (Eds.), Recreating Hopewell, in preparation. Grin, J., 1996. The Hopewell housing shortage in Ohio, A.D. 1350. In: Pacheco, P. (Ed.), A View from the Core: A Synthesis of Ohio Hopewell Archaeology. The Ohio Archaeological Council Inc., Columbus, pp. 415.

North American Midcontinent. In: Ashmore, W., Bernard Knapp, A. (Eds.), Archaeologies of Landscape: Contemporary Perspectives. Blackwell Publishers, Oxford. Burks, J., Walter, D., 2003. Hopewell Occupation at the Hopeton Earthworks: Combining Surface Survey and Geophysical Data to Study Land Use. Paper presented at the 68th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Milwaukee, WI. Burks, J., Pederson, J., Walter, D., 2003. Hopewell Landuse Patterns at the Hopeton Earthworks. Paper presented at the 67th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Denver, CO. Carr, C., Weets, J., Case, D., Goldstein, B., 2002. Scioto Hopewell Inter-Community Alliances and Alliance Strategies. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwestern Archaeological Conference, Columbus, OH. Carr, C., Goldstein, B., Weets, J., 2004. Estimating the Sizes of Mortuary-related Gatherings at Scioto Hopewell Earthwork-mound Sites. In: Carr, C. (Ed.), Gathering Hopewell: Society, Ritual, and Religion. Plenum Press, New York, in press. Chapman, R., 1981. The emergence of formal disposal areas and the problem of megalithic tombs in prehistoric Europe. In: Chapman, R., Kinnes, I., Randsborg, K. (Eds.), The Archaeology of Death. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 7181. Chapman, R., 1995. Ten years aftermegaliths, mortuary practices, and the territorial model. In: Anderson Beck, L. (Ed.), Regional Approaches to Mortuary Analysis. Plenum Press, New York. Charles, D., 1985. Corporate Symbols: An Interpretive Prehistory of Indian Burial Mounds in West central Illinois. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Northwestern University. Childe, V.G., 1949. Social Worlds of Knowledge. Oxford University Press, London. Converse, R., 1993. The Troyer site: a Hopewell habitation site, and a secular view of Ohio Hopewell villages. Ohio Archaeologist 43 (3), 412. Converse, R., 1994. The harness Hopewell village sites. Ohio Archaeologist 44 (1), 49. Dancey, W., 1991. A middle Woodland settlement in central Ohio: a preliminary report on the Murphy site (33LI212). Pennsylvania Archaeologist 61 (2), 3772. Dancey, W., Pacheco, P., 1997a. A community model of Ohio Hopewell settlement. In: Dancey, W., Pacheco, P. (Eds.), Ohio Hopewell Community Organization. Kent State University Press, Kent, pp. 340. Dancey, W., Pacheco, P. (Eds.), 1997b. Ohio Hopewell Community Organization. Kent State University Press, Kent. DeBoer, W., 1997. Ceremonial centres from the Cayapas (Esmeraldas, Ecuador) to Chillicothe (Ohio, USA). Cambridge Archaeol. J. 7 (2), 225253. DeBoer, W., Blitz, J., 1991. Ceremonial Centers of the Chachi. Expedition 33 (1), 5362. Dillehay, T., 1990. Mapuche ceremonial landscape, social recruitment and resource rights. World Archaeology 22 (2), 223241. Doyel, D.E., Lekson, S.H., 1992. Regional Organization in the American Southwest. In: Doyel, D.E. (Ed.), Anasazi Regional Organization and the Chaco System. Papers of

W. Bernardini / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 23 (2004) 331356 Hauser-Schaublin, B., 1989. Kulthauser in Nordneuguinea. Academie-Verlag, Berlin. Hingley, R., 1996. Ancestors and identity in the later prehistory of Atlantic Scotlandthe reuse and reinvention of Neolithic monuments and material culture. World Archaeol. 28, 231 243. Hively, R., Horn, R., 1982. Geometry and astronomy in prehistoric Ohio. J. Hist. Astron. Suppl. 13 (4), 120. Hodder, I., 1984. Burials, houses, women and men in the European Neolithic. In: Miller, D., Tilley, C. (Eds.), Ideology, Power and Prehistory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 5168. Hodder, I., 1990. The Domestication of Europe. Blackwell, Oxford. Hodder, I., 1994. Architecture and meaning: the example of neolithic houses and tombs. In: Parker Pearson, M., Richards, C. (Eds.), Architecture and Order: Approaches to Social Space. Routledge, New York, pp. 7386. Hodder, I., Shand, P., 1988. The Haddenham long barrow: an interim statement. Antiquity 62, 349353. Hogbin, H.I., 1939. Native land tenure in New Guinea. Oceania 10, 113165. Hogbin, H., 1951. Transformation Scene: The Changing Culture of a New Guinea Village. Routledge & Kegan Paul Limited, London. Holtorf, C., 1998. The life-history of megaliths in MecklenburgVorpommern (Germany). World Archaeol. 30 (1), 2338. Judge, W.J., 1989. Chaco Canyon-San Juan Basin. In: Cordell, L., Gummerman, G. (Eds.), Dynamics of Southwest Prehistory. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, pp. 209262. Kelly, R.C., 1995. The foraging spectrum. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC. Kroeber, A., 1939. Cultural and natural areas of native North AmericaUniversity of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology, vol. 38. University of California Press, Berkeley. Kuchler, S., 1987. Malangan: art and memory in a melanesian society. Man, New Series 22 (2), 238255. Lekson, S.H., 1986. Great Pueblo Architecture of Chaco Canyon, NM. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Lekson, S.H., 1991. Settlement patterns and the Chaco region. In: Crown, P.L., Judge, W.J. (Eds.), Chaco and Hohokam: Prehistoric Regional Systems in the American Southwest. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe, pp. 3156. Lepper, B., 1996. The Newark earthworks and the geometric enclosures of the Scioto Valley: connections and conjectures. In: Pacheco, P. (Ed.), A View from the Core: A Synthesis of Ohio Hopewell Archaeology. The Ohio Archaeological Council, Columbus, pp. 224241. Lynott, M.J., 1982. An Archaeological Investigation of an Area Adjacent to Mound City Group National Monument: A Preliminary Report. Midwest Archaeological Center, National Park Service. Lynott, M.J., 2003. Preliminary Report, 2002 Investigations, Hopeton Earthworks. Hopewell Archaeology, in preparation. Lynott, M.J., Monk, S., 1985. Mound City, Ohio, Archaeological Investigations. Occasional Studies in Anthropology

355

No. 12. Midwest Archaeological Center, National Park Service, Lincoln. Lynott, M., Weymouth, J., 2002. Preliminary report, 2001 investigations, Hopeton Earthworks. Hopewell Archaeol. 5 (1), 17. MacLean, J.P., 1879. The Mound Builders. Robert Clarke and Co., Cincinnati. Mahoney, N., 2000. Redening the scale of Chacoan communities. In: Kantner, J., Mahoney, N. (Eds.), Great house communities across the Chacoan landscape. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, pp. 1727. Malville, J., Malville, N., 2001. Pilgrimage and periodical festivals as processes of social integration in Chaco Canyon. Kiva 66, 327344. Marshall, J., 1996. Towards a denition of the Ohio Hopewell core and periphery utilizing the geometric earthworks. In: Pacheco, P. (Ed.), A View from the Core. The Ohio Archaeological Council, Columbus, pp. 210223. Marshall, M.P., Stein, J., Loose, R., Novotny, J., 1979. Anasazi communities in the San Juan Basin. Public Service Company of New Mexico and New Mexico Historic Preservation Bureau, Albuquerque and Santa Fe. Moorehead, W.K., 1892. Primitive Man in Ohio. The Knickerbocker Press, G.P. Putnams Sons, New York. Morley, S., Brainerd, G., Sharer, R., 1983. The Ancient Maya, fourth ed. Stanford University Press, Stanford. Netting, R.Mc., 1990. Population, permanent agriculture, and polities: unpacking the evolutionary portmanteau. In: Upham, S. (Ed.), The Evolution of Political Systems: Sociopolitics in Small Scale Sedentary Societies. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp. 2161. Oliver, D., 1955. A Solomon Island Society. Harvard University Press, Cambridge. Pacheco, P., 1996. Ohio Hopewell regional settlement patterns. In: Pacheco, P. (Ed.), A View from the Core. The Ohio Archaeological Council, Columbus, pp. 1635. Pacheco, P., 1988. Ohio Middle Woodland Settlement Variability in the Upper Licking River Drainage. J. Steward Anthropol. Soc. 18 (2), 87117. Pacheco, P., 1993. Ohio Hopewell Settlement Patterns: An Application of the Vacant Center Model to Middle Woodlands Period Intracommunity Settlement Variability in the Upper Licking River Valley. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, The Ohio State University. University Microlms, Ann Arbor. Pickard, W., Pahdopony, L.G., 1995. Paradise regained and lost again: the Anderson earthwork, Ross County, Ohio. Hopewell Archaeology 1 (2), 36. Prufer, O.H., 1964a. The Hopewell Complex of Ohio. In: Caldwell, J. Hall, J. Caldwell, R. Hall, (Eds.), Hopewellian Studies, Illinois State Museum, Scientic Papers 12, Springeld, pp. 35-83. Prufer, O.H., 1964b. The Hopewell Cult. Sci. Am. 211, 90102. Prufer, O.H., 1965. The McGraw site: a study in Hopewellian dynamics. Cleveland Museum of Natural History, Scientic Publications 4(1), Cleveland. Prufer, O.H., 1996. Core and periphery: the nal chapter on Ohio Hopewell. In: Pacheco, P. (Ed.), A View From the Core: A Synthesis of Ohio Hopewell Archaeology. The

356

W. Bernardini / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 23 (2004) 331356 Storck, P., 1974. Some aspects of egy mound subsistence and settlement patterns during the late Woodlands period in Wisconsin. Arctic Anthropol. 11, 272279. Struever, S., Houart, G.L., 1972. An Analysis of the Hopewell Interaction Sphere. In: Wilmsen, E.N. (Ed.), Social Exchange and Interaction. University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology Anthropological Papers No. 46, Ann Arbor, Michigan, pp. 4779. Thomas, C., 1889. The Circular, Square, and Octagonal Earthworks of Ohio. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin no. 10. Government Printing Oce, Washington, DC. Thompson, B., 1966. A technique using anthropological and biological data. Curr. Anthropol. 7, 417424. Toll, H.W., 2001. Making and breaking pots in the Chaco world. Am. Antiquity 66 (1), 5678. Tuzin, D., 1980. The Voice of the Tambaran. University of California Press, Berkeley. United States Department of Agriculture/Natural Resources Conservation Service 2003 Soil Survey of Ross County, Ohio. United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC. Windes, T., 1984. A new look at population in Chaco Canyon. In: JamesJudge, W., Schelberg, J.D. (Eds.), Recent Research on Chaco Prehistory. Division of Cultural Research, National Park Service, Albuquerque, NM, pp. 7587. Windes, T., McKenna, P., 2001. Going against the grain: wood production in Chacoan society. Am. Antiquity 66 (1), 119 140. Wobst, H.M., 1974. Boundary conditions for paleolithic social systems: a simulation approach. Am. Antiquity 39 (2), 147 178. Wylie, A., 1994. Evidential constraints: pragmatic objectivism in archaeology. In: Martin, M., McIntyre, L. (Eds.), Readings in the Philosophy of Social Science. MIT Press, Cambridge MA, pp. 747765. Wymer, D., 1992. Trends and disparities: the Woodland Paleoethnobotanical record of the Mid-Ohio valley. In: Seeman, M. (Ed.), Cultural Variability in Context: Woodland Settlements of the Mid-Ohio Valley. Kent State University Press, Kent, pp. 6576. Wymer, D., 1997. Paleoethnobotany in the Licking River valley, Ohio: implications for understanding Ohio Hopewell. In: Dancey, W., Pacheco, P. (Eds.), Ohio Hopewell Community Organization. Kent State University Press, Kent, pp. 153174. Wymer, D., Johannessen, S., 2002. Growing the World in Their Image: The Evolutionary Trajectories of Hopewell Farming, East and West. Paper presented at the 48th Annual Midwest Archaeological Conference, Columbus.

Ohio Archaeological Council, Columbus, Ohio, pp. 406 425. Redeld, R., Rojas, A.V., 1962. Chan Kom: A Maya Village. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Renfrew, C., 1976. Megaliths, territories and populations. In: De Laet, S. (Ed.), Acculturation and Continuity in Atlantic Europe. De Tempel, Brugge, pp. 198220. Romain, W., 1996. Hopewellian geometry: forms at the interface of time and eternity. In: Pacheco, P. (Ed.), A View From the Core. The Ohio Archaeological Council, Columbus, pp. 194209. Rosenbrough, A., Birmingham, B., 2003. Egy Mound Landscapes in Wisconsin. Paper presented at the 2003 Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Milwaukee. Ruby, B., 1997. Current research at Hopewell culture National Historic Park. Hopewell Archaeology 2 (2), 16. Ruby, B., Carr, C., Charles, D., 2004. Community Organization in the Scioto, Mann, and Havan Hopewell Regions: A Comprative Perspective. In: Carr, C. (Ed.), Gathering Hopewell: Society, Ritual, and Religion. Plenum Press, New York, in press. Ruhl, K.C., 1992. Copper Earspools from Ohio Hopewell Sites. Midcontinental J. Archaeol. 17, 4679. Seeman, M., 1981. An Archaeological Survey of the Hopewell Site (33Ro27) and Vicinity, Ross County, Ohio. Report on le at the Ohio Historic Preservation Oce, Columbus. Shennan, S., 1997. Quantifying Archaeology. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh. Shepherd, H., 1887. Antiquities of the State of Ohio. John C. Yorston and Co., Cincinnati. Sherratt, A., 1984. Social evolution: Europe in the later Neolithic and Copper Ages. In: Bintli, J. (Ed.), European Social Evolution. University of Bradford, Bradford, pp. 123134. Sherratt, A., 1990. The genesis of megaliths: monumentality, ethnicity and social complexity in Neolithic North-west Europe. World Archaeol. 22 (2), 147167. Shetrone, H., Greenman, E., 1931. Explorations of the Seip group of prehistoric earthworks. Ohio Archaeol. Historical Q. 40, 343509. Smith, B.D., 1992. Rivers of Change. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC. Sofaer, A., Marshall, M.P., Sinclair, R.M., 1989. The great north road: a cosmographic expression of the Chaco culture of New Mexico. In: Aveni, A.F. (Ed.), World Archaeoastronomy. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp. 365 376. Squier, E.G., Davis, E.H., 1848. Ancient Monuments of the Mississippi Valley. Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge 1, Washington, DC.

También podría gustarte