**Hopewell Archeology:**

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

**Volume 5, Number 1, June 2002**

**1. Preliminary Report, 2001 Investigations, Hopeton Earthworks**

By Mark J. Lynott Midwest Archeological Center and John Weymouth
University of Nebraska, Lincoln

Although the Hopewell mounds and earthworks of Ross County, Ohio, have
been well known to the scientific community for more than 150 years,
many simple and basic questions have yet to be answered about the sites,
and about the people and culture who built them. Early archeological
research focused on mounds and mortuary behavior (e.g., Squier and Davis
1848; Thomas 1894; Mills 1922; Moorehead 1922) and yielded a great deal
of information about the artistic and ritual aspects of Hopewell life.

Recent trends in Hopewell research have emphasized settlement pattern
analysis and the relationships of the larger mound and earthwork sites
to smaller villages and hamlets (Dancey and Pacheco 1997; Pacheco 1996).
Comparisons among the large mound and earthwork sites have demonstrated
some broad general similarities, but the structure and configuration of
most sites are surprisingly diverse. The most thoughtful attempts to
build broad explanatory models about the Hopewell world continue to be
plagued by a lack of understanding about the chronology, structure, and
function of individual earthwork sites. We believe this can be overcome
with sustained, multi-year studies of individual earthwork sites. The
Midwest Archeological Center has initiated a long-term study of the
Hopeton Earthworks. This paper summarizes the results of research
conducted in 2001.

The Midwest Archeological Center began research at the Hopeton
Earthworks in 1994 with a combination of geophysical surveys and
strategic testing. Subsequent research was conducted in 1997 and 1998
(Lynott 2001). The 2001 investigations, which are described here, are a
continuation of that work. This work is intended to answer specific
questions about the site and to develop a model to better interpret the
nature and significance of the archeological resources at this location.
The 2001 investigations included geophysical surveys in association with
strategic testing. This research was conducted at the southern end of
the "square" in an area approximately 350 m x 100 m. The research
objectives for the 2001 research season were to:

\(1\) Begin developing a topographic map of the earthworks and site to
document their current conditions and create a base map that can be used
to document past, present, and future research at the site.

\(2\) Conduct geophysical surveys within the 2001 research area to
determine whether geophysical survey data can be used to interpret the
internal structure of mounds and earthworks.

\(3\) Conduct geophysical surveys to identify anomalies that may be
related to Hopewellian activities associated with the earthworks.

\(4\) Excavate two trenches across the south and west walls of the
square to examine the structure of the wall and better understand how
that structure is reflected in the geophysical survey data. Study the
construction of the wall to determine whether the wall was built during
a single construction episode in a relatively brief time, or whether it
was built as a series of episodes over a more prolonged period of time.

\(5\) Conduct test excavations over a series of magnetic anomalies to
better determine the value of magnetic survey data for interpreting
subsurface features associated with Hopewellian activity at the site.
Use the test excavations to expose and study subsurface features that
may reflect the nature of prehistoric activities associated with the
earthworks. Compare the various anomalies and features found inside the
earthworks with anomalies and features found outside the earthworks.

**Research Area**

Hopeton Earthworks is a vast site that covers more than 200 acres (81
hectares). The site is located on an alluvial terrace on the east side
of the Scioto River. The terrace is composed of glacial outwash. The
Chillicothe Sand and Gravel Company mines the rich sand and gravel
deposits to the northwest and west of the earthworks.

![](media/image1.jpeg){width="6.5in" height="4.769444444444445in"}

**Figure 1. Hopeton Earthworks with the 2001 research area highlighted
in gray, corresponding to the area shown in Figure 2.**

The 2001 investigations were focused on the southern edge of the
earthworks (Figure 1). This area is generally known as the "square"
(Squier and Davis 1848; Thomas 1894). The area is located immediately
south of a farm road and measures approximately 300 m east-west and 100
m north-south. The area was mowed immediately prior to our geophysical
survey in May, and again immediately prior to test excavations in June.

**Geophysical Survey**

Geophysical survey work was conducted at the Hopeton Earthworks from May
12 through May 17, 2001. The geophysical survey work conducted by the
Midwest Archeological Center was limited to magnetic surveys using a
Geoscan FM-36 fluxgate gradiometer and a Geometrics G858 cesium
gradiometer.

During the course of this research, the Midwest Archeological Center and
Hopewell Culture National Historical Park sponsored a workshop on
geophysical survey techniques. The contemporaneous scheduling of these
two events allowed Dr. Bruce Bevan to conduct independent geophysical
prospection studies at the Hopeton Earthworks site (Bevan 2001).

The 2001 geophysical survey at Hopeton Earthworks was conducted on the
south side of the east-west farm road that passes through the square.
The area surveyed is part of the overall Hopeton Earthworks grid system
and is located between 2800 and 2900 north and between 2860 and 3160
east. Geophysical survey data was collected in blocks measuring 20 m x
20 m (Figure 1). A total of 47 blocks were surveyed, covering an area of
18,800 m².

Data was collected at intervals of 1.0 meter between transects.
Forty-five blocks were surveyed with the G858 cesium gradiometer, and
fourteen blocks were surveyed with the FM-36 fluxgate gradiometer.

The Geometrics G858 cesium gradiometer was in the vertical
configuration, with the lower sensor 30 cm above the surface and the
upper sensor 100 cm above the lower sensor. The survey was in the
'walking' mode using a 0.2-second cycle with traverses spaced at
intervals of 1.0 meter, and readings spaced about 14 cm apart. The
magnetic data map in Figure 2 provides a composite result of all the
G858 survey blocks clipped at ± 10 nT/m. Since the sensor separation was
100 cm, the results are essentially total field data with the values
numerically equal to nT.

The most notable accomplishment of the geophysical survey was the
discovery that the western and southern walls of the square are very
distinctly visible in the magnetic survey data (Figure 2). The sharp
boundaries on the interiors and exteriors of the walls are in marked
contrast to existing topography, which is very gradual due to years of
agricultural activities.

The sharp magnetic contrast between the core of the wall and the
surrounding soils suggested that the interior of the wall must have been
constructed from a material that differed markedly from the soils that
occur naturally on the terrace.

Magnetic survey data was used to select an area for test excavation that
might best expose some of the better preserved sections of the wall. The
strong magnetic lines marking the earthwork wall lines are separated by
10 to 15 m. The magnetic maxima are 15 to 20 nT. Breaks in the wall line
anomalies correspond to the gateways mapped by Squier and Davis (1848)
and Thomas (1894). We believe the east-west streaking that occurs at
various places is the result of deep plow scars.

A subset of these blocks, plus two additional blocks, were surveyed with
a Geoscan FM?36 fluxgate gradiometer. The FM-36 gradiometer is vertical,
with sensors separated by 50 cm and the lower sensor at about 30 cm
above the surface. The traverses were separated by 1.0 meter, and the
readings were taken in the automatic mode with 8 readings per meter,
which gives intervals of 12.5 cm. Examination of the data indicates that
the G858 and FM-36 data sets are generally comparable.

An east-west line in Blocks AQ, AR, and AS was examined with several
geophysical survey methods by Bruce Bevan (2001). He conducted a
magnetic survey, and carried out a traverse with a GSM-19fg gradiometer.
The sensor spacing was 1.5 meters and the lower sensor was 0.57 meters
above the surface. The measurement interval was 0.1 meters.

A comparison of the data from this survey with the G858 and FM-36
indicates that all three surveys produced comparable results. The G858
maximum is about 11 nT/m above the background, and the maxima for the
GSM-19fg and FM-36 are 8 nT/m and 6 nT/m above the background. The lower
value for the GSM is because the lower sensor was higher above the
surface. The lower value for the FM-36 is due to the smaller sensor
separation in the instrument.

During the course of the magnetic survey of the wall, data was also
collected from areas immediately inside and outside of the square wall.
It was hoped that this survey data would identify anomalies that might
represent features resulting from Hopewellian activities associated with
the earthwork. Examination of the survey data resulted in the
identification of 11 anomalies that might represent prehistoric
features.

**Topographic Survey**

In June 2001, Archeologist Bruce A. Jones, Midwest Archeological Center,
conducted a topographic survey of the research area. This was the first
detailed topographic survey at the Hopeton Earthworks since Colonel
Middleton surveyed the site for the Bureau of American Ethnology in 1890
(Thomas 1894).

![](media/image2.jpeg){width="6.5in" height="2.939583333333333in"}

**Figure 2. Magnetic map of the Hopeton Earthworks, south part of the
"square."**

Comparison of the magnetic map (Figure 2) and the topographic map
(Figure 3) of the study area indicates that the magnetic maxima lie
within the area of highest topography, but that the magnetic maxima are
closer together while the topographic data shows that sediments from the
wall are more widely spread.

![](media/image3.jpeg){width="6.25in" height="3.0416666666666665in"}

**Figure 3. Topographic map of the Hopeton Earthworks, south part of the
"square." The contour interval is 0.5 m.**

Visual examination of the site and the topographic map clearly shows
that the wall has been flattened by cultivation. However, it is
interesting that the material causing the magnetic high in the wall has
not been dispersed by the spreading out of wall soils by plowing.

**Strategic Test Excavations**

The Midwest Archeological Center, with assistance of field school
students from the University of Nebraska, Lincoln, and the Milton
Hershey School, Pennsylvannia, conducted test excavations in the study
area from June 13 through June 29, 2001. Test excavations consisted of
four 2-x-2-meter units and a trench 48 meters north-south and
approximately 1.5 meters east-west.

The four 2-x-2-meter test units were placed to expose four different
anomalies. All four units were located adjacent to, or near, the
exterior of the south wall of the square. Test units were assigned
numbers corresponding to the arbitrary numbers assigned to the magnetic
anomalies, so the four corresponding Test Units 2, 3, 4, and 6 were
excavated.

Metal horseshoes were found in Test Units 2 and 3 that may have produced
signals that were misinterpreted as prehistoric features. No evidence of
a prehistoric feature was observed in Test Unit 3, but a horseshoe and
modern agricultural disturbance may have produced Anomaly 3.

A large post hole was exposed at 1.0 meter below surface in Test Unit 2,
so it is possible that the anomaly that was observed in this area was
due to the post hole rather than the historic metal horseshoe fragment.
Test Units 4 and 6 exposed two important prehistoric features that
appear to be related to the Hopewell activities at the earthworks.

Trench 1 was about 1.5 meters wide and 48 meters long; it was located
between 2880N and 2832N and between 3018.5E and 3020E on the site grid.
The purpose of the trench was to transect a segment of the south wall of
the square. The trench was excavated by backhoe.

The backhoe operator carefully removed small amounts of soil along the
trench alignment, and archeologists were able to monitor the work and
divert excavation when several possible features were exposed. After the
backhoe removed the majority of the fill, the archeological team
hand-excavated five possible features within the trench. Three of these
proved to be prehistoric features.

Excavators cleaned the walls of the trench to expose them for further
study by Dr. Rolfe Mandel, who spent two days at the Hopeton Earthworks
with the research team. Dr. Mandel inspected the trench profile and
noted that "the reddish fill strongly resembles a well-developed
alluvial soil in the immediate vicinity of the site. Iron-bearing
minerals in the parent material (sandy alluvium) were weathered during
pedogenesis, thereby producing Fe2O3."

The general construction sequence for this segment of the south wall can
be reconstructed from the stratigraphy in the trench. First, all topsoil
was removed from the area upon which the wall was built. This exposed a
compact yellow clay-loam subsoil. Additional yellow clay-loam, similar
to the subsoil base, was then brought in from another location and piled
up to form a wall. A red sandy clay was then piled on the top and
outside (south) of the yellow clay-loam wall. Then, topsoil was piled on
the top and both sides of the wall. The contact between the yellow and
red soils is very sharp, and it would appear that little time elapsed
between these two construction phases (Figure 4).

The magnetic profile from the cesium gradiometer survey along the trench
line (before excavation) had two strong, narrow maxima that must be
related to the iron-oxide content of the soils. Micromorphological and
magnetic susceptibility studies of soil columns are being conducted to
further evaluate this interpretation. The trench profile revealed two
'A' horizons that sloped upward towards the middle of the wall segment
and appeared to represent the original surfaces of the wall. These have
been covered by slopewash from the top of the wall as a result of
historic and recent agricultural activities.

The stratigraphy in this wall segment is only generally similar to that
reported by Ruby (1997) for the north-west corner of the square. A
second trench, planned for the west wall of the square, was not
excavated in 2001 due to time limitations.

**Features**

Ten soil stains were initially assigned feature numbers during the
excavation of the trench and test units. Seven of these appear to be the
result of prehistoric cultural activities; the others are the result of
rodent activity. Two post holes were recorded in Trench 1, and another
was located in Test Unit 2. A fourth possible post hole or shallow pit
was identified in the fill of the wall within Trench 1.

The other features included a burned log in Feature 6, which was located
at the base of the wall in Trench 1, a fired-clay basin in Test Unit 4,
and a large pit in Test Unit 6. These latter three features warrant
further discussion and illustration.

Feature 1 is located in Test Unit 4 and represents a large clay basin
that has been hardened by fire (Figure 5). The basin has a raised rim on
the north and west sides and slopes slightly downward to the southeast.
Although the feature extends into the east wall of the test unit, enough
of the basin was exposed to note that it appears to represent a prepared
clay surface that was hardened by repeated exposure to fIre. The basin
contained burned soil, charcoal, and ash.

Several ceramic sherds were found on the northwest edge of the basin.
Although this basin is not as symmetrical and well prepared as the
features routinely called crematory basins at other Hopewell sites, it
is clear that it is similar in form and construction. No bone was
present in association with this feature, but the evidence for repeated
fires is likely indicative of ritual activities.

Feature 6 is located at the eastern end of a segment of the south wall
and appears to have been built at the edge of one of the many gateways
to the square. The feature was located in Trench 1 near the base of the
yellow clay that was piled up to form the first component of the wall.
Two burned logs were lying horizontally at a level immediately above the
undisturbed yellow clay subsoil upon which the wall was built (Figure
6). The feature appears to be contemporaneous with the start of
construction on this segment of the wall and should provide sufficient
carbon for radiocarbon dating.

Feature 9 is located in Test Unit 6, which is on the south side of the
southern wall of the square. The feature is located about 10 meters
outside one of the gateways in this part of the wall. The feature
appears to be a large pit. The fill of the pit is similar in color to
the surrounding subsoil, but the presence of abundant prehistoric
artifacts, combined with a looser-textured soil in the pit, made it
possible to distinguish the pit during careful excavation.

Only a sample of the pit fill was excavated, but fire-cracked rock,
bladelets, pottery, and mica were abundant in the pit. Excavators
recovered what appears to be part of a tetrapod ceramic vessel that
contained mica. In numerous cases, small pieces of mica were found
adhering to the interior surfaces of ceramic sherds.

A heavily used ground-stone celt was also found in the pit fill. Further
analysis is necessary, but the pit may contain refuse from ritual
activities or from the preparation of objects for ritual activities.

**Summary**

The 2001 research at the Hopeton Earthworks focused on the southern end
of the square. Magnetic survey data provided evidence that the core of
the wall was intact, and gateways dividing the wall into sections can be
detected from the magnetic data. Several anomalies appear to indicate
prehistoric features, and these were also recorded. Subsequent testing
confirmed that the core of the southern wall of the square is still
intact.

Field observation of stratigraphy detected a complex construction
sequence that appears to have occurred over a relatively short time.
Micromorphological and magnetic susceptibility analysis are planned to
evaluate this interpretation. Strategic testing to examine four
anomalies provided evidence for several features, including a fired-clay
basin and a pit containing what appears to be refuse from ritual
activities or preparation of materials for ritual activities. The
methodology employed in 2001 appears to be effective in addressing the
research problems and questions identified for this multi-year project.

**References**

Bevan, Bruce

2001 Geophysical Tests at the Hopeton Mound Group. Geosight, Weems,
Virginia.

Dancey, William S. and Paul J. Pacheco (ed.)

1997 Ohio Hopewell Community Organization. Kent State University Press,
Kent.

Lynott, Mark J.

2001 The Hopeton Earthworks: An Interim Report. Hopewell Archeology
4(2):1-5.

Mills, William C.

1922 Exploration of the Mound City Group. Ohio Archaeological and
Historical Society 31.

Moorehead, Warren K.

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

Pacheco, Paul J. (ed.)

1996 A View From the Core, A Synthesis of Ohio Hopewell Archaeology.
Ohio Archaeological Council, Inc.

Ruby, Brett

1997 Current Research at Hopewell Culture National Historical Park.
Hopewell Archeology 2(2):1-6.

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

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

Thomas, Cyrus

1894 Report on the Mound Explorations of the Bureau of Ethnology.
Twelfth Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology for the Years
1890-91, Washington, D.C.

**Acknowledgements:**

The authors thank Jarrod Burks for his assistance in the preparation of
Figure 1, and John Andresen for his assistance in editing and formatting
this paper.

About the Authors

Mark Lynott is Manager, Midwest Archeological Center. John Weymouth is
Professor Emeritus, University of Nebraska, and winner of the 1998
Fryxell Award for his use of geophysical studies in archeology.

**2. The John L. Cotter Award for Excellence in National Park Service
Archeology**

PREFACE: In honor of his long and distinguished career and his
pioneering contributions to professional archeology within the National
Park System, this unofficial annual award was established by agency
staff as inspiration for student and professional archeologists to
continue Dr. John L. Cotter's model of excellence.

PURPOSE: To recognize a specific archeological project within a unit of
the National Park System, conducted by National Park Service staff,
cooperator, permittee, or consultant as guided by senior National Park
Service staff archeologist(s), each fiscal year, which meets or exceeds
the criteria below.

AWARD: The selected project lead person(s) will receive a commemorative
non-monetary award and certificate bearing name(s) of principal
investigator(s), project dates and field unit name. Presentation of
award shall be at a suitable gathering of NPS archeological staff,
followed by a brief project presentation. The award will be announced
through official NPS public affairs channels.

CRITERIA: Candidate project leader(s) and the work within park submerged
or terrestrial site(s) shall address the following elements for
eligibility:

\(1\) Exemplary multidisciplinary research design, which includes
testable inquiries (e.g., cultural patterns, affiliations, cultural
change, or other analytical concepts of anthropology) as objectives, and
data from other supporting disciplines;

\(2\) Involvement of high school or college students who performed work
elements which contributed significantly to project goals;

\(3\) Innovative scientific analysis, curatorial management meeting
federal standards, and interpretation of archeological material culture
were integrated with research design inquiries, and appropriate
specialists' assistance was utllized in these activities;

\(4\) A program(s) was stated to improve local public education
regarding research results and benefits of new knowledge about past
peoples as well as increased scientific values;

\(5\) Publication plans identified funding for printing of project
results as professional reports, including electronic formats.

PROJECT TYPES: Eligible projects may be a phase of a continuing
multi-year program or a single-year project that addresses prehistoric
or historical park archeological resources through excavation, survey,
or inventory actions, sponsored focused symposia, analysis and
description of an artifact collection, or combinations of these
activities. If not NPS funded, the project must contribute to a field
unit's strategic management of its archeological resources.

NOMINATION: A project begun and completed in FY 2002 or begun in an
earlier fiscal year and completed in FY 2002 and its supervisory staff
may be nominated by an NPS career employee or non-NPS professional
archeologist familiar with the work (other than the Review Committee
members or persons otherwise directly involved). Nominations addressing
criteria above should be less than 10 pages with fewer than five
photographs and other graphics. Six copies will be forwarded to the
Office of the Department of the Interior Consulting Archeologist,
labeled "Cotter Award Nomination" with a dated transmittal letter copied
to Committee co-chairs. The due date for FY 2002 nominations will be in
early 2003. Contact Roger Kelly or David Orr (below) for exact deadline
and other details. Electronic submittal is recommended.

REVIEW OF NOMINATIONS: At least six NPS supervisory archeologists will
be requested by the Consulting Archeologist to review nominations
received and place them in rank order with a recommendation for award.
This Committee may seek input from previous awardees or non-NPS
archeological experts, if needed. A consensus decision is needed. The
Consulting Archeologist's Office will be informed of the award
recommendation within four weeks of nomination receipt.

ANNOUNCEMENT: The Review Committee will schedule a suitable presentation
event, usually during the annual National Park Service meetings prior to
the Society for American Archeology annual conference. Public
announcement will be made within NPS public affairs channels.

**CONTACT:**

Roger Kelly

NPS Pacific West Region

1111 Jackson St., Suite 700

Oakland, CA 94607-4807 (510) 817-1400.

David Orr

NPS Valley Forge Archeological Resource Center

Route 23 & North Gulph Road

Valley Forge, PA 19482-0953 (610) 783-0252 or 783-0253.

**3. Reply to Mark Lynott's Review of Mysteries of the Hopewell**

In the previous issue of Hopewell Archeology (Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 8-9)
Dr. Mark Lynott reviewed Mysteries of the Hopewell: Astronomers,
Geometers, and Magicians of the Eastern Woodlands by William F. Romain.
Mr. Romain's response to the review is presented here.

Dear Mr. Lynott,

Thank you for your recent review of my book, "Mysteries of the Hopewell:
Astronomers, Geometers, and Magicians of the Eastern Woodlands"
(University of Akron, 2000). In the interests of scientific inquiry, I
hope you will print this letter in your newsletter. Given the
abbreviated format of the newsletter, I will keep my comments brief.

Perhaps the most serious criticism you raise is that "One of the most
notable shortcomings of this book \... is that it fails to
satisfactorily address time." You go on to say, "This is most evident in
the author's effort to relate Hopewell earthworks to ... events in the
year A.D. 250." I am sorry I was not clear enough in my explanation on
pages 106 and 107, that the date of A.D. 250 simply represents a
convenient date for calculation purposes, near in time to the mid-point
of Hopewell florescence from about 100 B.C. to A.D. 500. The change in
the sun's rising and setting azimuths over time is caused by a slowly
decreasing change in the obliquity of the ecliptic. This change is equal
to about 40 seconds of arc per century. Given this rate of change, it is
a simple matter to establish that in 100 B.C., with all other values
held the same, at Hopeton or Mound City, the sun would have set at an
azimuth of 299.39 degrees. In A.D. 500, the sun would have set at an
azimuth of 299.48 degrees. The difference of 0.09 degrees is negligible.
For all practical purposes, a person viewing the sunset in A.D. 500,
would have seen the sun set in virtually the same place on the horizon
as it did in 100 B.C.

I am not proposing that these earthworks were built in the year A.D.
250, or used only in that year; but rather, based on the calculations
just discussed, the A.D. 250 date is simply a good reference point to
use when making these sorts of calculations.

A second criticism raised by reference to Marshall, is that
"archaeoastronomers are selective in the potential azimuths they choose
to emphasize." And further, "dozens of potential azimuths at the Hopeton
Earthworks \... are ignored \... ".

While it is true that many potential alignments are ignored, it is an
error in logic to think that all possible azimuths necessarily need to
be accounted for. Let me provide an analogy.

Let's say I'm building a simple, rectangular-shaped house. I decide to
orient the house so that the front door and living room window face a
nearby mountain peak. Stated another way, the minor axis of the
structure is now in alignment with the mountain. By design, what matters
here is only the one sightline or azimuth to the mountain. The fact that
other azimuths can be drawn through the corners, or parallel to the back
wall of the house, is not relevant to why the house was oriented in the
direction we established. So too, although other sightlines or azimuths
can be drawn through all of the Hopewell earthworks, most were probably
not used for astronomical purposes.

One way we ascertain the intentionality of a proposed alignment is by
checking to see if the same alignment occurs at other sites. In the case
of the Hopewell, solstice sightlines are found at several sites (having
accurate surveys) --- thus demonstrating the likelihood that the Mound
City and/or Hopeton solstice alignments were also deliberate.

In connection with my proposed Hopewell unit of length, Mr. Lynott
correctly takes me to task for not sufficiently quantifying the
distances between post holes. I appreciate that criticism and will
correct that oversight in my Ph.D. dissertation, and in my second book,
"Lost Worlds of the Hopewell."

I note that Mr. Lynott does not offer any criticism relevant to Part Two
of the book, wherein I propose that the Hopewell earthworks were perhaps
meant as symbols of the earth and sky, or earth, upperworld, and
underworld --- and that they were likely used for ceremonies relating to
passage from this world to the next, death and rebirth, and world
renewal. In this regard, it is interesting to note that in their book,
"Indian Mounds of Wisconsin" (University of Wisconsin Press, 2000),
Robert Birmingham and Leslie Eisenberg recently proposed a similar
explanation for the effigy mounds in Wisconsin, based in part on the
work of Robert Hall and R. Clark Mallam.

If what Mallam, Hall, Birmingham, Eisenberg, and myself are proposing is
accurate, then it may be that we will soon be in a position to
demonstrate a continuity in belief systems extending from historic
Native American groups, back through time, to the ancient Hopewell and
perhaps, even beyond. I hope this brief note has helped clarify a couple
of issues. Thank you for your interest in my work.

Sincerely,

William F. Romain

**4. Meeting Calendar**

**Midwest Archaeological Conference 48th Annual Meeting**

October 3-6, 2002

Ramada Hotel and Conference Center, Columbus, Ohio.

Conference information is available at
\<http://anthropology.ohio-state.edu\>

**Southeastern Archaeological Conference 59th Annual Meeting**

November 6-9, 2002

Beau Rivage Resort and Casino, Biloxi, Mississippi.

Conference information is available at
\<http://www.uark.edu/campus-resources/seac/\>

**Forthcoming**

The next issue of Hopewell Archeology will feature the discovery of a
new earthen circle at the Hopewell site and an update on the continuing
research at the Hopeton Earthworks. We are always looking for short
contributions relating to Hopewell archeology. Potential authors should
contact the editor.

**5. Detecting the Shriver Circle Earthwork, Ross County, Ohio**

by Jennifer Pederson and Jarrod Burks

Ephraim Squier and Edwin Davis surveyed the Mound City Group area over
150 years ago. Although primarily interested in this earthwork complex,
with its more than 20 mounds surrounded by a low embankment, their map
also depicted an oblong circular enclosure located less than 1,500 feet
from Mound City's southern embankment wall. Named after Henry Shriver,
owner of the surrounding farmland in the mid-1800s, the Shriver Circle
consists of a large circular embankment flanked by an exterior ditch
(Figure 1). Six gateways break the circumference of the circle, which
has a diameter exceeding 1,000 feet. In the 1840s, the embankment
measured 5 feet high and 25 feet wide at the base, while the ditch was 4
feet deep and 20 feet wide (Squier and Davis 1848:Plate XIX).

![](media/image4.jpeg){width="5.208333333333333in"
height="6.229166666666667in"}

**Figure 1. The Shriver Circle, the survey area, and selected
contemporary features.**

Near the enclosure's center, Squier and Davis mapped a low mound 40 feet
across and 5 feet high. Excavation into the mound's center uncovered a
large altar containing burned bones, 10 copper bracelets, and 2 plates
of mica, leading Squier and Davis (1848:55) to conclude that the mound
was "clearly a place of sacrifice." Artifacts found within this mound
coincide with materials found in quantity at Mound City (e.g., mica).
However, some of the artifacts, namely the copper bracelets, look
similar to those found in mounds attributed to the Adena culture.

Today the earthwork has all but disappeared from the ground surface.
Even prior to Squier and Davis, the earthwork was impacted by nearly 50
years of agriculture, bisected by a main thoroughfare, and trenched for
the construction of the Ohio and Erie Canal. Since the mid-1800s, the
Shriver Circle has suffered through a number of additional disturbances,
including continued agricultural plowing, grading to make way for parade
grounds associated with the WWI Camp Sherman training facility, the
construction of a large prison, and the expansion of State Route 104.
Each of these disturbances, joined by a healthy community of ground
hogs, has chipped away at various parts of the earthwork. Until
recently, no intensive archeological research had been conducted at the
site.

In spring 2001, archeologists from Hopewell Culture National Historical
Park began geophysical testing of the site in an effort to relocate its
southern limit. This research was driven, in part, by a proposal to
widen State Route 104. We conducted a survey of a 60-x-60-m area using a
Geoscan Research fluxgate gradiometer, the FM-36. This survey clearly
located a 60-m-long section of a ditch and embankment that correlate
very closely to the measurements given by Squier and Davis in 1848
(Figure 2).

![](media/image5.jpeg){width="6.5in" height="2.55in"}

**Figure 2. Magnetic survey data from the Shriver Circle collected
during the Archeology for Teachers Workshop, June 2001. Crew included J.
Pederson, P. Castro, L. Davis, E. Karshner, and J. Burks.**

Furthermore, the linear bands of magnetic high and low readings over the
ditch suggest that it was partially in-filled by organically rich soils,
especially along the outer edge, and partially in-filled by less-
magnetic soils along the interior edge, perhaps eroded down from the
embankment. Whether this signature is the result of rapid in-filling
from agricultural plowing subsequent to Squier and Davis's visit or a
backfilling event during construction of Camp Sherman remains to be
discovered.

Figure 1. The Shriver Circle, the survey area, and selected contemporary
features.

Spurred on by these results, we enlisted the help of teachers enrolled
in the park's 2001 Archeology for Teachers Workshop. Over the course of
a week, the teachers collected magnetic, resistivity, topographic, and
GPS data. The additional magnetic data included several anomalies with
the potential for being cultural features.

The transect of resistivity data was collected with off-the-shelf
components (i.e., a digital multimeter, barbecue skewers, and a six-volt
lantern battery) arranged in a Wenner array of four probes with
one-meter spacings. Even this simple geophysical test (Figure 2), which
we conducted to demonstrate the accessibility of geophysics for
pre-college teaching, revealed useful information about the Shriver
Circle. Not only did it produce a classic double-peak signature over the
ditch, but it also seems to have detected the inside edge of the
embankment \-- as did the magnetic survey.

Figure 2. Magnetic survey data from the Shriver Circle collected during
the Archeology for Teachers

Workshop, June 2001. Crew included J. Pederson, P. Castro, L. Davis, E.
Karshner, and J. Burks.

While other projects now dominate our summer agenda, we plan to return
to the Shriver Circle to test the western portion of the site using
these same techniques. By using geophysical testing and accurate mapping
techniques, we can efficiently document subsurface features covering
large areas without excavation. In addition, these techniques clearly
show that earthworks, without surface expression, can still be
successfully located even after 200 years of historic and modern
disturbance.

**Reference Cited**

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

1848 Ancient Monuments of the Mississippi Valley.

Contributions to Knowledge No. 1. Smithsonian Institution, Washington,
D. C.

About the Authors

Jennifer Pederson is Park Archeologist and Jarrod Burks is Archeological
Technician, both at Hopewell Culture National Historical Park. Both
authors are Ph.D. candidates at Ohio State University.