**Hopewell Archeology:**

**The Newsletter of Hopewell Archeology in the Ohio River Valley**

**Volume 3, Number 2, April 1999**

**1. Correlating Maps of the Hopewell Site, 1820-1993 By N\'omi B.
Greber, Ph.D. Curator of Archaeology Cleveland Museum of Natural
History**

Introduction

Eight maps, covering nearly two hundred years of research at the
Hopewell site, were used to make a \"best guess\" reconstruction of the
site as it was seen in 1800, just before human activities considerably
accelerated erosion and other natural processes that altered the
original Hopewellian landscape. Information from extant associated field
notes, publications, museum curation records, modern aerial photographs,
and limited ground survey provided additional data. Using both
Geographic Information Systems (GIS) software and oldfashioned paper
maps, correlations have been estimated among the maps.

The Site

The Hopewell site (33R027), the type site for the Hopewell culture,
covers extensive areas of the second and third terraces above the active
flood plain of the North Fork of Paint Creek. In 1800, more than three
kilometers of earthen and stone walls formed a two-part enclosure: the
Great Enclosure, encompassing more than 40 hectares, and the adjoining
Square Enclosure, which could hold the entire Mound City monument with
room to spare. Inside the Great Enclosure were two smaller enclosures:
the D-Shaped Enclosure and the Circular Enclosure. At least 40 mounds
were scattered within and outside the enclosures. They ranged in size
from the largest constructed by any Hopewellian people to some of the
smallest. Overall, the quality and quantity of cultural remains
recovered from, and extant at, the site form the most striking
representation of the Hopewell culture in eastern North America. Three
major excavations at the site were separated by many decades: Ephraim G.
Squier and Edwin H. Davis in 1845, Warren K. Moorehead in 1891 and 1892,
and Henry C. Shetrone from 1922 to 1925. Six maps based on their
findings have been used in this project.

There are at least seven obstacles associated with attempts to correlate
specific mounds and other excavated areas as described and mapped by the
three expeditions: (1) the lack of exact location data in extant field
notes; (2) the use of the same number by a given excavator to refer to
different mounds; (3) the lack of consistent changes in references if
numbers are reused or reassigned; (4) possible misidentification by
subsequent excavators of the location of previously excavated mounds;
(5) ambiguities in field notes; (6) ambiguities in catalogs; and (7)
loss of records. Despite these problems, it is possible to correlate
published references, field notes, catalog entries, and often the
specimens themselves for some recorded mounds. Research projects using
such correlations have b een published (e.g., Greber, Essenpreis, and
Ruhl 1995; Greber and Ruhl 1989; Ruhl and Seeman 1998; Seeman and Greber
1991). Two additional maps were added to those from the major
excavations, the oldest by Caleb Atwater (1820) and the latest by James
Marshall done in 1979.

Each map contributed information to the project\'s data base, albeit in
varying degrees. A summary of the history and tenor of each map follows
in chronological order of publication.

The Maps

The drawing in Atwater\'s map is crude, but two points have proven
useful. First, the overall shape of the Great Enclosure is more
realistic than it is in the later Squier and Davis volume. Second, six
mounds are shown as a group south and east of the D-Shaped Enclosure,
where the Squier and Davis published map shows only four. The accuracy
of the map was not suitable for geographic registration, thus it could
not be entered into a Geographic Information Systems file.

![](media/image1.jpeg){width="5.998611111111111in"
height="4.641666666666667in"}

**Figure 1. Map of the Hopewell site by Ephraim Squier and Edwin Davis
(1848). The map is entitled \"North Fork Works\" and shows the D-Shaped
and Circular Enclosures within the Great Enclosure, while the Square
Enclosure adjoins the Great on the east. (Click on the image for a
larger (40 KB) version.)**

Two Squier and Davis maps have been used: the well-known plate from the
Ancient Monuments of the Mississippi Valley (Figure 1 above) and a draft
of this map recorded on a microfilm copy of the Squier papers in the
Library of Congress. The general shape of the embankment walls is the
same in both maps. The mound numbering varies between the two maps, and
a very important mound (Warren Moorehead Field Notes Mound 17) is on the
manuscript map but was apparently missed on the final lithograph. The
walls of the Great Enclosure on both maps do not match the shape seen on
aerial photographs or on other earlier and later maps. The north-south
distance is too short. I have not yet been able to find a coordinate
transformation that would stretch the north-south distance and still
maintain a reasonable east-west configuration. Thus, neither of the
Squier and Davis maps could be geographically registered. They were used
in three cut sections to make an estimated location \"point map\" for
comparative purposes.

![](media/image2.jpeg){width="5.998611111111111in"
height="3.8944444444444444in"}

Figure 2. Drawing based on Clinton Cowen\'s 1892 map of the Hopewell
site. This map provides a better approximation of the shape of the Great
Enclosure and the locations of the six mounds immediately southeast of
the D-Shaped Enclosure. NORTH FORK WORKS, Surveyed by C. Cowen in 1892.
(Click on the image for a larger (28 KB) version.)

The map in Moorehead\'s 1922 report on his work in 1891 and 1892 also
could not be geographically registered. In his report, Moorehead
attributes the map to Clinton Cowen, but it has no apparent relationship
to the Cowen map used for the present study (Figure 2). The Moorehead
1922 map appears to be based on the Squire and Davis 1848 map with some
additional mound numbers and a few mounds added. The road through the
southern portion of the site is shown as it was in 1848, not as it was
in 1891 when both a straightened road and a parallel railroad track
crossed the site. The shape of the Great Enclosure follows that shown on
the Squire and Davis map. Additional problems in correlating field
records, published records, and on-the-ground locations for this survey
come from inconsistencies in mound numbering in the field notes and
missing or poor descriptions of mound locations in the notes. Although
the map could not be geographically registered, information from the
1891-1892 work was included in the study. Such information is essential
for correlating records and artifacts across the Moorehead and Shetrone
excavations.

Two Shetrone maps have been used: a map found in the archived field
notes file and the map published in 1926. Some sections of the archived
field map have been traced over in ink. It is likely that this map was
made by the professional surveyor, F.R. Jones, listed on the published
map. There are some differences between the maps. For example, two small
mounds noted as being on the upper terrace are not on the field map but
are on the published map as Mounds 36 and 37. Locations given in the
field notes are not explicit enough to map them accurately. A major
problem in compiling information was the confusion in mound numbering
within the field notes. Shetrone changed mound numbers, but he did not
always make consistent changes. This is similar to the problem one has
in dealing with records from Shetrone\'s work at the Seip Group.

The map made in 1892 by surveyor Clinton Cowen, apparently as part of
the documentation of the 1891-1892 Moorehead excavations, is curated at
the Harvard Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology. It is large,
torn, and fragile and cannot be directly scanned. A full-size copy was
made for my files and was used for this project. The first publication
of a simplified reproduction of the map is in Greber and Ruhl (1989:Fig.
2.1), a version of which appears above as Figure 2. The map\'s format is
the same as that used for other projects directed by Frederick Putnam;
that is, walls and mounds are stylized and features such as fences and
roads are not entered onto the map.

The differences in diameters of the mounds appear to be deliberate. We
found that, overall, the sizes by general class match those recorded by
other workers at the site. The work of James Marshall has been an
essential part of this project. Marshall, a civil engineer, has used his
professional skills for many years to map prehistoric enclosures found
in eastern North America (e.g., Marshall 1979). Over these years he has
graciously shared information with archeologists and others. The
Hopewell site map he made available for this project combines his
on-the-ground survey points with his study of archived aerial
photographs. Marshall also supplied additional on-the-ground reference
points that aided in making reasonable geographic registration of other
maps.

READING THE MAPS

Two techniques were used to obtain data from the maps. One centered on
computer images and software manipulations using Environmental Systems
Research Institute GIS programs; the other centered on hand measurements
made on paper maps. This dual approach allowed some integration of data
of varying accuracy and also some cross checking of results. Both
methods were checked against aerial photographs and limited available
modern ground survey. Aerial photographs can, when photographic
conditions are appropriate, show landscape features visible in 1800 that
are no longer visible at ground level.

![](media/image3.jpeg){width="5.998611111111111in"
height="4.7340277777777775in"}

**Figure 3. The Shetrone field map of the early 1920s. It proved
suitable for geographic registration and served as a base map for part
of this study. The Shetrone map shows mounds on the upper terrace and
conveys a sense of the topography. (Click on the image for a larger (44
KB) version.)**

The computer work began as usual by transferring scanned copies of maps
into GIS files. \"Layering\" then placed in separate files mounds, wall
segments, and other natural and built features appropriate for each map.
The hand measurements were made on copies of maps that had been
photographically adjusted to the same scale using the various original
map scales. Using a light table, each map was matched to the Marshall
map, and the grid was then transferred. The matching was a \"best visual
estimate,\" heavily weighting extensive features that have been visible
to all field workers, the northern and eastern walls of the Great
Enclosure. Information from both approaches is available on-screen for
interactive use on a need-to-know basis. Because of the technical
difficulties encountered using computer software to register antique
maps, I was pleased that, in general, the locations measured by hand and
those read by software from a computer image matched fairly well. For
mounds actually seen in the field by a given researcher and apparently
mapped with reasonable accuracy, the majority of the locations overlap
within the recorded mound size. The differences tend to be less for
readings from the Cowen and Marshall maps. This is at least partly due
to the differences in drawing style. It is easier, particularly on the
computer screen, to determine \"mound centers\" for line drawings than
for the more realistic style of the Shetrone map (Figures 3 and 4).
However, even this overlap cannot always determine a match among field,
research, and museum records of a particular ground location (usually
labeled as a mound). Thus, I still prefer to attach a prefix to identify
the excavator when noting, for example, that Moorehead Mound 17 is
clearly not the same mound as Shetrone Mound 17. I also have concluded
that the mound labeled \"../index.html\" on Moorehead\'s published map
does not indicate the location of this mound, nor does the location that
Shetrone provides on his published map. Rather, the best approximation
to the original location is apparently found on the Squier and Davis
manuscript map and on the Cowen map.

![](media/image4.jpeg){width="5.998611111111111in"
height="4.7340277777777775in"}

**Figure 4. Geo-referenced Shetrone map showing points attached to the
Location Data Base File developed during this map correlation project.
(Click on the image for a larger (44 KB) version.)**

Conclusions

The present project has formally organized data that may aid in finding
a path through the maze of number jumble that has accumulated over many
decades in descriptions of the Hopewell site. \"New\" data that might
clarify matters can appear from private or museum archive sources, as
did the Cowen map, but the best additional data will come from modern
ground surveys. It is hoped that the recently organized data will aid in
planning cultural resource protection and future research projects that
will enhance the public appreciation of the remarkable legacy left by
the ancient builders of the Hopewell site.

Acknowledgments

I thank the Eastern National Park and Monuments Association; the
Kirtlandia Society of the Cleveland Museum of Natural History; Hopewell
Culture National Historical Park; the GIS Office, Cuyahoga Valley
National Recreation Area; the Department of Anthropology, Kent State
University; and the Department of Geography, University of Akron, for
support. I extend special thanks to those who worked on the project:
Michael DiPaolo, Anthony Gireau, Bret Ruby, John Yaist, and as we came
to the end, Jennifer Pederson. As always, I acknowledge personal thanks
to those who care for and graciously give access to the collections that
form the basis for all Hopewell research. References

Atwater, Caleb

1820 Description of the Antiquities Discovered in Ohio and Other Western
States. Archaeologia Americana I:105-267. Greber, N\'omi B.

1995 The 1993 Field Season at the Hopewell Site, Ross County, Ohio.
Report to the Archaeological Conservancy, Inc., Santa Fe, New Mexico.
Submitted by N\'omi Greber and Mark Seeman.

Greber, N\'omi B., Patricia Essenpreis, and Katharine C. Ruhl

1995 The Hopewell Site: Realm of Hopewellian Artisans and Architects. On
CD, The Hopewell Mound Group: Its People and Their Legacy. Presented by
the Ohio Historical Society.

Greber, N\'omi B., and Katharine C. Ruhl

1989 The Hopewell Site: A Contemporary Analysis Based on the Work of
Charles C. Willoughby. West View Press, Boulder.

Marshall, James A.

1978American Indian Geometry. Ohio Archeologist 28(1):29-33.

Moorehead, Warren K.

1896The Hopewell Find. American Antiquarian 18:58-62.

1922 The Hopewell Mound Group of Ohio. Field Museum of Natural History
Anthropological Series 6:73-184.

Moorehead, Warren K., Hilborne T. Cresson, and Clinton Cowen

1891-1892 Field notes from excavations at the Hopewell Mounds, Anderson,
Ross County, Ohio. On file, Department of Anthropology, Field Museum of
Natural History.

Ruhl, Katharine C., and Mark F. Seeman

1998 The Temporal and Social Implications of Ohio Hopewell Copper Ear
Spool Design. American Antiquity 63(4): 651-678.

Seeman, Mark F.

1981 An Archaeological Survey of the Hopewell Site (33Ro27) and
Vicinity. Submitted to the Ohio Historic Preservation Office, Columbus.

Seeman, Mark, and N\'omi Greber

1991 Flames of Reverence: Variations in the Use of Prepared Clay Basins
Within Ohio Hopewell. Midwest Archaeological Conference, LaCrosse,
Wisconsin.

Shetrone, Henry C.

1922-1925. Field notes from excavations in the Hopewell Group. On file,
Ohio Historical Society, Columbus.

1926 Exploration of the Hopewell Group of Prehistoric Earthworks. Ohio
Archaeological and Historical Quarterly 35:5-227.

Squier, George E.

The Papers of Ephraim Squier. Microfilm (Series IV Vol. 9, Shelf No:
DM15, 116, Reel No: 12 of 14). On file, The Library of Congress,
Washington, D.C.

Squier, E. G., and E. H. Davis

1848 Ancient Monuments of the Mississippi Valley. Smithsonian
Contributions to Knowledge No. 1. Washington, D.C.

**2. Book Review By John E. Kelly**

Staging Ritual: Hopewell Ceremonialism at the Mound House Site, Greene
County, Illinois; by Jane E. Buikstra, Douglas K. Charles, and Gordon F.
M. Rakita. Kampsville Studies in Archeology and History No. 1. Center
for American Archeology Press, Kampsville, Illinois. 216 pages, 60
illustrations, 1998.

Archeology of the Middle Woodland Mound House site is presented within a
broad context using an interpretative framework that derives its models
from traditional, small-scale societies, where notes of \"the sacred\"
are pervasive rather than circumscribed. Interdisciplinary studies are
used to strengthen interpretations, and newly discovered complexities in
the structure of the site are explored here along with data from other
Illinois Valley mortuary sites.

**3. Notes on Research at Goodall, 1998 Mark Schurr University of Notre
Dame**

For the past three years, the University of Notre Dame archeology field
school has conducted geophysical surveys and excavations at the Goodall
site in northwestern Indiana. The Goodall tradition, a northwestern
extension of Havana Hopewell, was one of the first archeological
cultures defined in Indiana.

The Goodall site has been central to archeological ideas about Hopewell
in northwestern Indiana and southwestern Michigan. However, most of what
we know about the site comes from amateur excavations conducted in the
nineteenth century, so the site remains poorly known by modern
standards.

![](media/image5.jpeg){width="5.998611111111111in"
height="4.438888888888889in"}

Figure 5. A reconstruction of the original distribution of mounds at the
Goodall site based on Bill Mangold\'s interpretation of Ernest Young\'s
maps. (Click on the image for a larger (11 KB) version.)

Even the number of mounds once present at the site (22) was uncertain
until Bill Mangold, Indiana Division of Natural Resources, found a
\"lost map\" of the site in the Ernest W. Young Collection at the
Illinois State Museum (Figure 5). Young was an amateur archeologist who
regularly collected at the Goodall site during the mid-20th century. The
Young collections are now on loan to Notre Dame, where they are being
studied in depth by Mark Schurr and Bill Mangold.

The field investigations have shown that even a site that appears to
have been destroyed by years of looting, grading, and cultivation can
still provide new archeological data when approached with modern
techniques.

![](media/image6.jpeg){width="5.998611111111111in" height="3.9125in"}

Figure 6. Classic Havana Hopewell ware sherds from the Goodall site.
(Click on the image for a larger (58 KB) version.)

So far, the Notre Dame field investigations at the Goodall site and Bill
Mangold\'s surface surveys have defined several habitation areas
surrounding the mound group. They have also revealed that one of the
mounds was probably constructed between AD 1 and AD 150, when Havana
Hopewell was in its most complex and elaborate expression. The Hopewell
ware sherds in (Figure 6) from disturbed contexts in the mound were
probably produced at that time.

Leslie Bush, Indiana University, has identified a single, well-preserved
bottle gourd seed from the Goodall site, which is the first
documentation of a domesticated plant from a Middle Woodland context in
northwestern Indiana. Further investigations at the Goodall site in the
coming year will attempt to refine the use of geophysical surveys
through a large-scale magnetic and soil resistivity survey of several of
the former mound locations.

**4. Announcemen**t.

Dr. Bret Ruby has accepted a position with the U. S. Army at Fort Bliss,
Texas. Look for additional information in the next issue of this
publication.