**Hopewell Archeology:**

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

**Volume 5, Number 2, December 2002**

**1. A Preliminary Comparison of 1997 and 2002 Limited Excavations in
the Great Circle Wall, High Bank Works, Ross County, Ohio**

By N'omi B. Greber, Cleveland Museum of Natural History

The High Bank Works (33Ro24) are located southeast of Chillicothe on a
glacial outwash terrace about 17 m above the active floodplain of the
Scioto River. They are one of the more complexly designed sets of
enclosures among the numerous enclosure sites found in the Central
Scioto region. The major sections include a relatively rare octagonal
enclosure, small and large circular features, and linear walls **(Figure
1)**.

![](media/image1.jpeg){width="4.111805555555556in"
height="5.335416666666666in"}

Figure 1. The earthwork as mapped by Squire and Davis. The middle
section of linear

walls and circles is more eroded than the sets of northern and southern
elements.

Fieldwork in 2002 continued studies centered on the Great Circle as part
of long term research aimed at placing enclosure sites into the contex t
of both other types of struc­tural remains such as buildings and mounds,
and the well-known artifacts. Since 1994 a combination of geophysical
surveys and limited excavation and coring has produced details of the
design and construction of the Great Circle wall. Two major goals were
set for this past season and both were met. The first was to determine
the source of an anomaly identified by magnetic and resistance surveys
in a small section of the wall directly across from the center point of
the neck joining the Circle and Octagon. In an idealized ground plan,
this point is a natural end for a line that would bisect the circle and
the octagon. It also is a significant point in the astronomical design
criteria proposed by Ray Hively and Robert Horn that might have been
used in constructing the walls (Hively and Horn 1984). The second goal
was to recover materials appropriate for radiocarbon assays.

The nineteenth-century farm lane that cut across the Circle and Octagon
has been expanded for use by modern trucks and other vehicles **(Figure
2)**. This has severely impacted portions of these enclosures and the
westerly side of the neck joining the two major enclosures. In 1846 the
Great Circle wall, that had already been affected by farming, was still
1.4 m (4½ ft) high (Squire and Davis 1848:50). Today at ground level it
is difficult to impossible to visually trace the entire wall. It is
easier using remote sensing techniques. Almost the total length and
portions of the interior have been surveyed using a variety of
geophysical instruments. The geophysical maps have identified erosional
wash and the inner and outer edges of the wall itself that appears to
originally been about 8 m across. The geophysical anomaly investigated
this season was first identified in 2000 using a fluxgate FM36
gradiometer. Surveys with the same instrument in 2001 and 2002, and
resistivity pseudo-sections taken using the Geohm C earth resistance
meter in 2001, corroborated the location and pattern of the anomaly.
This pattern contrasts with the patterning of the general wall
construction design (Greber 1999; Royce and Greber 2001).

![](media/image2.jpeg){width="3.6979166666666665in"
height="3.6979166666666665in"}

Figure 2. Aerial view of the Circle and Octagon in 1938. Note the

farm road that cuts through the enclosures and the neck that joins

them. The apparent widths of the walls are increased by erosional

wash in addition to the walls themselves.

A 2-m by 18-m trench was placed perpendicular to the wall in the central
area of the anomaly that is generally circular in outline and
approximately 14 m across. The northwesterly corner of the trench was at
N 253.88, E -71.42 in the general site grid. Nine 2-m by 2-m excavation
units, numbered north to south, were established. Excavations and
backfilling took place from 17 June through 17 July.

**Excavation Findings**

An unexpected finding is that more than 200 of the recorded features are
apparently re-filled post holes of varying diameters **(Figure 3)**.
There is no obvious pattern in their locations. It is likely that other
post holes exist outside the excavated area. The excavations also
revealed the remnant of the wall itself and a different sequence of
construction from that found in either of the two test trenches placed
near the neck south of the farm lane (Greber 1999:Figs. 4,5). Consistent
with the initial construction seen in both Trenches I and II, the
aboriginal site users apparently cleared the ground surface to about 20
cm above the underlying natural glacial sandy gravels.

![](media/image3.jpeg){width="4.5465277777777775in" height="5.775in"}

Figure 3. Floor plan of Unit 3 and the southern end of Unit 2 at site
elevation

42 cm below N 0, E 120.

![](media/image4.jpeg){width="4.75in" height="3.5625in"}

Figure 4. Flagging floor features in Unit 3.

The clayey nature of the cleared B‑horizon makes a usable activity floor
that is a common Ohio Hope­well feature as seen, for example, at Seip in
the structures excavated by the Ohio Historical Society and in the
nearby plaza area (Greber, Otto, and Lee 2002, Greber 1981, 1984). The
specific activities associated with such prepared floors vary. At the
High Bank Great Circle, numerous posts were placed on the floor found in
Trench III. Shortly thereafter they were apparently removed and the
holes filled with soils of the same type as those that formed the floor
itself. Thus, it was extremely difficult to identify the post holes when
the floor stratum was first exposed.

![](media/image5.jpeg){width="4.375in" height="3.2708333333333335in"}

Figure 5. Northwest section of Unit 1 floor at site elevation 41 cm
below N O, E 120.

Re-filled post holes can be seen against the underlying natural sandy
gravels.

Such re-filling is also a relatively common Hopewell feature, but the
post holes are more easily recognized when fine gravels, colored clays,
or other more contrasting materials are used as seen, again as examples,
in the Edwin Harness Big House, on the floor under Mound 2 at the
Hopewell Site, or in post holes found under Capitolium Mound, Marietta
(Greber et al. 1983; Greber and Ruhl 2000:55; and Greber 1991,
respectively). In our work this past season, the post holes were very
easily identified as soon as the natural gravels were reached **(Figures
3--5)**. The origins of the posts can be seen in wall profiles **(Figure
6)**.

![](media/image6.jpeg){width="3.625in" height="2.3979166666666667in"}

Figure 6. Close-up view, grid west wall Unit 1 at northern end

of excavation. Here a post hole (Feature 20) is seen on the wall

and adjoining floor.

The original construction in this wall section included a slide trench
smaller in scale than that found in Trench II **(Greber 1999:Fig. 5**).
A line of small decayed posts crossed the northerly end of the
excavation near the outer edge of the Great Circle wall **(Figure 7)**.
The posts ended in the underlying natural gravels. The separate covering
over this feature was truncated by the plow zone.

![](media/image7.jpeg){width="3.375in" height="3.245138888888889in"}

Figure 7. Window trench centered on grid west half of Feature 2.

The line of small stakes extends across the upper surface of the

activity floor (the cleared B-horizon).

A mantle composed of a layer of heavy gravels in a clayey matrix had
been placed on the original activity floor. Infrequently, small areas of
reddened soils and/or burnt pebbles were found in the loadings that
formed this stratum, but no evidence for *in situ* burning was found.
One large post intruded into the top of this stratum and possibly a line
of shallow post holes near the inner edge of the Great Circle wall. The
first stratum of the wall itself, found immediately below the plow zone,
was a reddish sandy clay placed over a portion of the gravelly layer.
The southerly end of this stratum indicates the inner edge of the Great
Circle wall and appears to correspond to a change within the pattern of
the geophysical anomalies.

Studies are continuing to work towards identifying the correspondence
between the ground truth data and specific elements of the pattern of
the anomaly for possible use in interpreting future geophysical surveys.
Due to the lack of contrast between the materials of the floor and the
re-filled post holes there is not, to my knowledge, a currently
available geophysical survey instrument that would detect such features.
A contrasting fill, particularly one that contained burned materials or
fired ceramics, would provide a better target. The mantle materials,
even those that are redeposited unaltered sub-soils and gravels, can
provide more contrast with the ground areas immediately surrounding the
walls. These are the types of signals we hope to clarify.

**Radiocarbon Dates**

Three AMS radiocarbon assays have been completed (Table 1). Two dates,
Beta 170562 and Beta 170564, come from bits of charred oak recovered
from the slide trench (Feature 2) and are consistent with the dates
obtained from the larger charred oak posts that composed the dismantled
fence found in Trench II (Greber 1999: Table 1). The average at two
sigma for the dates based on the small line of posts in Trench III is
1860 ± 80 years BP. Averaging the date based on charcoal from an
above-ground section of the dismantled fence and the three dates from
the i*n situ* below-ground posts found in Trench II gives the same date.
The third date, Beta 170563, is apparently not associated with the
Hope­well wall construction. It is based on charred oak bits found at the
edge of a post hole directly north of the slide trench (Feature 6). Beta
Analytic conducted a second independent run based on materials selected
from the remaining pretreated portion of the sample. The resulting date
is the same as for the first run, many millennia before the Hopewell era
(Table 1).

Feature 6, a post hole that originated on the activity floor, contained
a humic soil (7.5 YR 3/4, dark brown). It tapered downward some 40 cm
deep into the underlying natural gravels. Tiny flecks of charcoal
occurred in parts of the fill. The charred wood found on the activity
floor at the edge of the post hole appears to have been the remains of
some earlier use of the site. The only portable artifact recovered this
season is a small, burnt, worked flint flake that was probably an
accidental inclusion in the soils used for wall construction. It is
possible that a second accidental inclusion of charcoal bits occurred
during Hopewell earth moving. Unfortunately, Beta 170563 is not useful
for dating the original building time of the Great Circle wall.

![](media/image8.jpeg){width="6.40625in" height="1.5729166666666667in"}

**Comments**

It must be kept in mind that the following comments are based on a very
small excavation sample of the wall. The six usable radiocarbon dates
from essentially opposite sides of the circle suggest a relatively short
time, in terms of human generations, for initial construction of the
wall. This is consistent with the condition of the lower strata found in
Trenches I and II where about thirty percent (40 cm) of the wall height
recorded in 1846 is still intact. Here the top surfaces of the inner
"red" and outer "yellow" base strata showed no signs of exposure. The
total construction time that left a significantly higher wall is still
not known.

Edges of the upper layers and two erosional episodes, apparently before
and after AD 1800, were seen in Trenches I and II. The materials used to
form the "red" stratum near the neck and also to re-fill post holes on
the opposite side of the circle, likely came from a horizontal stripping
of the pre-Hopewell natural ground surface.

Dan LeMaster, Regional Soils Specialist, USDA Natural Resources
Conservation Service, has found evidence for this stripping in his
observations of the present ground surface within the circle (personal
communications 1997, 2001, and 2002). Such stripping was also clearly
documented beyond the inner edge of the original circle wall at the
southerly end of Trench III.

Prior to wall construction, appropriate Hopewell architects and
engineers determined a ground plan, wall design, and construction
techniques. Prior to raising the wall, activities took place at the site
that emphasize the importance of the initiation of the building process,
and perhaps of the planning phase. At least some of these activities
could have been seen by those carrying the required special soils and
gravels that they deposited, each in their proper arrangement. The
remains of the ritual activities found at the base of the wall differ
near the neck and across the circle from the neck. None of the portable
objects used in any associated activities have been found. The plethora
of posts adds new, and as yet unexplained, elements to possible
interpretations of the range of pre-construction activities.

**Acknowledgments**

Permission for the excavation came from the United States Department of
the Interior and Hope­well Culture National Historical Park. Funding was
provided by the Robert M. Utley Research Fund, the Laub Foundation, the
NPS Challenge Cost Share Program, and Hopewell Culture National
Historical Park. Services in kind came from Hopewell Culture National
Historical Park, the Midwest Archeological Center, Hocking College, and
the Cleveland Museum of Natural History.

**References Cited**

Greber, N'omi B.

1981 Salvaging Clues to a Prehistoric Culture. *The Gamut* 3:22--45.
Cleveland State University.

1984 Geophysical Remote Sensing at Archaeological Sites in Ohio: A Case
History. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society of
Exploration Geophysics, Atlanta. Published in a volume of the
proceedings.

1991 *Preliminary Report on the 1990 Excavations at Capitol­ium Mound,
Marietta Earth­works, Ohio.* Presented to The National Geographic
Society, Washington, D.C.

Greber, N'omi B., continued

1999 Combining Geophysics and Ground Truth at High Bank Earth­works, Ross
County, Ohio. *The Ohio Archaeological Council Newsletter* 11(1): 8--12.

Greber, N'omi, editor

1983 Recent Excavations at the Edwin Harness Mound, Liberty Works, Ross
County Ohio. Special Paper No. 5, *Midcon­tinental Journal of
Archaeology*, Kent State University Press.

Greber, N'omi B., Martha P. Otto, and Anne B. Lee

2002 *Revisiting the Structures Recorded Within the Seip Earthworks,
Ross County, Ohio.* Plenary Session Paper presented at the 48th Annual
Meeting of the Midwest Archaeological Conference, Oc- tober 3--6,
Columbus, Ohio.

Greber, N'omi, and Katherine C. Ruhl

2000 *The Hopewell Site: A Contemporary Analysis Based on the Work of
Charles C. Willoughby*. Eastern National, Washington, Pennsylvania.

Hively, Ray, and Robert Horn

1984 Hopewellian Geometry and Astronomy at High Bank. *Jour­nal for the
History of Astro­nomy,* Supplement to Volume 15, pp. S85-S100.

Royce, Karen, and N'omi B. Greber

2001 The Year 2000 Field Season at the High Bank Earth­work. *The Ohio
Archaeological Council Newsletter* 13 (1):23.

Squier, Ephraim G. and Edwin H. Davis

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

**2. Hopewell Mound 11: Yet Another Look at an Old Collection**

By Frank L. Cowan and N'omi B. Greber

The single largest deposit of obsid- ian known anywhere in prehistoric
eastern North America is the huge quantity of flakes and other debi­tage
excavated by Henry C. Shetrone (1926) from a "characteristic floor" at
the base of the small Mound 11 of the Hopewell type site in Ross County,
Ohio (Shetrone 1922:Au- gust 2). Approximately 136 kg of obsidian
debitage had been carefully placed on the floor **(Figure 1)**. Shetrone
interpreted the obsidian debitage as having resulted from the production
of the 150+ very large bifaces, including Ross points, found in ritual
deposits within Mound 25 and elsewhere at the Hopewell site. He further
inter-preted a nearby cremation burial as that of the "Master Artisan"
who knapped those large, magnificently crafted bifaces (1922, 1930).

![](media/image9.jpeg){width="3.6458333333333335in" height="4.71875in"}

Figure 1. Reconstructed floor plan of Mound 11, Hopewell site.

Adapted from Greber 1996:Figure 9.6.

Remarkably, there have not been detailed studies of the obsidian
de-posit to determine if the character of the Mound 11 flake assemblage
truly is consistent with the kinds of flakes that result from the
production of large bifaces. Hatch et al. (1990) examined a very small
sample of the flakes to study the chemical characteristics of the
ob-sidian and the thicknesses of the hydration rinds. Their "cursory
ex-amination of 19 artifacts from the cache material suggests \... that
it consists entirely of flake blades, core fragments, and small bifacial
tools produced by a percussion blade-core technology" (Hatch et al.
1990:463).

Two alternative interpretations of the obsidian deposit are thus posed.
In one scenario, outlined by Shetrone (1922, 1930), the flakes are
by-products of the pro-duction of Ross points and other very large
bifaces found at Hope­well and at some other Hopewel­lian sites. In that
case, the several deposits of obsidian bifaces and the flakes are
related and might be more-or-less contemporaneous. In contrast, Hatch et
al. (1990) suggest that the flake deposit and the biface deposits
represent "in-dependent reduction sequence(s)." In that case, the
bifaces and flakes could have been obtained, although not necessarily,
from sepa-rate source localities, and the arti-facts could differ both
in the dates of production and dates of deposition (Hatch et al. 1990;
see also Hughes 1992; Stevenson et al. 1992).

The character of the flake assemblage, then, has bearing on the
intrasite chronological relationships of different ritual deposits and
different mounds within the Hopewell site. It also has implications for
long-standing questions about the mechanisms of obsidian transport from
the Rocky Mountain region to the Midwest (e.g., Griffin 1965; Griffin et
al. 1969).

**Comments on Context**

The well-known photograph of the obsidian deposit (Shetrone 1926: Fig.
10; Shetrone 1930:Fig. 125; Hatch et al. 1990:Fig. 2) does not show the
deposit as first found. As recorded in the field notes, excavations
began on the south side of the mound, and the edge of the deposit was
encountered almost immediately **(Figure 1)**. The entire deposit was
removed over two days (Shetrone 1922: 22 and 23 August). The character
of the deposit and the two portions of mica cutouts and a cut and
polished, though likely unfinished, piece of calcite are described in
the notes in some detail. Excavations continued to the east where a
small ritual basin was encountered **(Figure 1)**.

As work continued north, the cre-mated burial was found. Some time after
this, apparently for pho-tographic purposes, at least some of the
obsidian was returned to the floor. Mica pieces and the small polished
stone that had originally been found within the deposit were placed in
full view. It is possible that one of the pieces of mica in the
photograph was found with the cremated remains. In addition to general
concerns about interpreting a staged photograph, we have questions about
the line of stones in the photograph that partially en-circles the
artifacts and the cremated remains forming a "grave."

After the cremated remains were uncovered, Shetrone (1922: 23 August)
writes "it was clearly to be seen that the obsidian deposit belonged to
it \[the burial\], since a row of scattered boulders, from one to five
pounds, extended from the south side of the crematory, around the
deposit and the burial."

In the photograph the blade of the trowel points south. This direction
is consistent with the relative locations of the deposit, basin, and
burial as described in the notes and map **(Figure 1)**. The mantle over
these features is described as "unproductive gravelly loam composing the
body of the mound" (Shetrone 1922: 29 August). Many possible "boulders"
are clearly visible in the fill seen in the photograph. No stones were
mentioned at the edge of the obsidian deposit as work began and
proceeded from the south.

The cobbles in the photograph were apparently placed for the photograph
after the deposit was removed and then re-placed. Such a line is not a
com-mon Ohio Hopewell grave marker. While there is much individuality in
grave construction, we do not con-sider the evidence in this case
suf-ficiently clear to positively place the obsidian deposit within any
grave. The individual buried near the deposit, and perhaps the
indi­-vidual(s) represented by the charred human bones found in the
backfill over the round ritual basin on the north side of the mound, may
all have been "master artisans." This connection is a reasonable
interpretation that is hard to prove.

**Examination of the Collection**

On May 7, 2002, we conducted a preliminary survey of the Mound 11 flake
collection at the Ohio His-torical Society curation facility. The
examination convinces us that there is much to be learned from this
unique deposit and its context, and additional study is planned. Martha
Otto, Cheryl Johnston, and William Pickard facilitated our study and
deserve our great ap-preciation.

The obsidian pieces are cataloged under accession number 283 and stored
in eight cardboard boxes (ca. 0.84 ft² each). Within the boxes, the
flakes are packed into heavy paper bags, a variety of plastic boxes, and
a few plastic zipper-seal bags. The flakes are size-sorted to some
extent as some boxes and bags contain ob-sidian pieces of approximately
the same size. Dirt still adheres to some of the obsidian flakes within
the paper bags.

The collection consists of many tens of thousands of obsidian
arti-facts, and our examination thus far has been necessarily cursory.
We surveyed the contents of each plastic box, although some boxes and
bags received more concentrated attention than others. The contents of
some bags were spread out on separate trays to better examine the
contents; in other cases we just peered into the bag to get a sense as
to whether or not the contents were similar to that of adjacent bags.

Many pieces were individually studied in detail, although most flakes
were just visually scanned. We have not yet undertaken for-mal coding or
measurements of any of the flakes, and appropriate sampling and
quantification procedures for a formal study are yet to be worked out.
Nonetheless, we feel we can make a number of solid qualitative
observations about the collection and some reasonable inferences about
the behaviors that created it. We also separated 29 obsidian flakes that
may be an appropriate sample for a planned energy dispersive x-ray
fluorescence (EDXRF) analysis to be performed by Richard Hughes.

In addition to obsidian, we encountered some other notable items within
the storage boxes. Box 12 contained several non-obsidian artifacts that
we sorted out and placed into separate small, plastic zipper-seal bags.
These materials include tiny mica pieces, fragments of quartz crystal,
very small pottery sherds including a rim sherd, faunal fragments, two
tiny copper-stained organic fragments (bark?), one copper fragment,
chert flakes, and modern debris probably from excavation or curation
storage. The unanticipated discovery of a small sample of wood charcoal
in the collection engendered much excitement and provides us the first
opportunity to obtain radiometric age estimates for Mound 11 and its
deposits. The radiocarbon age estimates are presented and discussed
below.

**Production Technology and Behaviors**

The most striking characteristic of the Mound 11 obsidian flakes is that
the entire assemblage results from the production of many very large
bifaces. Much of the assemblage consists of relatively large, broad
flakes with relatively little longitudinal curvature. The dorsal
surfaces bear multiple flake scar facets, many of which show multiple
flaking orientations. Most flakes are fragmentary. Striking platform
remnants are relatively small, infrequently cortical, and many are
multifaceted with platform edge (dorsal surface) trimming and platform
edge abrasion. These flake characteristics are common traits of bifacial
tool production.

In marked contrast to the technological assessment of Hatch et al.
(1990), we see absolutely no evidence that the flakes represent a
"percussion blade-core technology" or bladelet production. In fairness
to Hatch and his associates, it is worth remembering that they were not
conducting a technological analysis and examined only 19 specimens out
of the tens of thousands of flakes in the collection.

The bifaces from which many of the flakes derived were very large. Many
flake fragments are greater than 6 cm in length along the flaking axis,
and we estimate that many of those fragments represent individual flake
removals that could easily have been 15 cm or more in length. Such large
biface thinning flakes indicate that the bifaces were a least 15 cm in
width at some stage in the reduction sequence. The relative "flatness"
of the flakes along their longitudinal axes indicates that the bifaces
had relatively biplanar (flat) cross sections. The thinness of many of
the flakes, especially relative to overall flake size, indicates that
the bifaces were carefully "pared" to smoothly contoured surfaces.

These flakes, then, are entirely consistent with the production of Ross
"points" and other very large, relatively thin, biplanar bifaces such as
those known from Mound 25 and elsewhere at the Hopewell site. Some of
the Hopewell site bifaces were as much as 25 to 38 cm in length (Greber
and Ruhl 2000:147--154; Moorehead 1922: 132) and tend to be much larger
than the obsidian bifaces recovered from Mound City, Fort Ancient, or
other Ohio Hopewell sites.

The Mound 11 flake assemblage was produced by virtuoso flint­knappers (we
have no opinion, at present, as to whether one or more knappers were
involved). The knappers were accomplished in the flaking of very large,
broad, and thin bifaces, and it appears that they were also quite
familiar with working obsidian. There are no broken or otherwise
mishandled bifaces in the Mound 11 collection, and we have not yet
noticed any knapping errors in the flake assemblage.

It appears likely that the Mound 11 obsidian deposit consisted of flakes
only from successful production episodes and that flakes from
unsuccessful attempts were deposited elsewhere. Nonetheless, given that
neither the making of such large, thin bifaces nor obsidian-working were
common practices for the Middle Woodland people of Ohio, it is
intriguing to contemplate how and where such practiced expertise would
have come into being.

The Mound 11 obsidian flake deposit is also biased in that the deposit
lacks the small-sized end of the flake spectrum. The smallest flake
fragments in the extant collection are approximately finger-nail-sized
or about the size that would likely be collected by hand and transported
from the original production sites. Although we do not expect that
micro-debitage would have been collected in a 1922 excavation, we do
suspect that Shetrone would have attempted to recover quite small
obsidian flakes from such a context. It is unlikely that the thousands
of pieces contained those flakes at the time of deposition.

Cortex-bearing flake surfaces are not rare in the assemblage. The nature
of the cortex suggests that the obsidian was obtained directly from *in
situ* obsidian flows rather than from secondary deposits such as stream
cobbles. The presence of cortex and of internal flaws suggest that the
obsidian was only minimally tested and reduced prior to transport from
the source region to Ohio. Some bifaces, however, were made from large
flakes as evidenced by the presence of so-called "Janus flakes" ---
flakes whose dorsal surfaces were the ventral surfaces of larger flake
blanks.

The obsidian is quite varied in its visual appearance. Some is very deep
black, smooth, and glassy; some is opaque even at the thin edges of
flakes; some translucent to transparent; some is milky; some has light
banding; and some contain numerous phenocrysts. We can not say whether
or not this visual variability reflects different obsidian sources.

Finally, we would note that much of the debitage placed within the Mound
11 deposit was sufficiently large that it could have been used to make
everyday Hopewellian Middle Woodland retouched tools, which tend to be
relatively small. The raw material potential of the obsidian debitage,
therefore, was not "economized" any more than were the large bifaces
that were placed with other ritual deposits at the Hopewell site. Partly
for this reason, we find it rather unlikely that the edge damage so
common on the Mound 11 flakes represents use-wear as interpreted by
Hatch et al. (1990:463). Instead, the edge-damage probably represents
both prehistoric and relatively modern "curation damage" to thin, very
fragile flake edges.

**Dating the Deposit**

The results of two radiocarbon assays on wood charcoal sorted from the
deposit are consistent with each other (Table 1). Their average, at one
sigma, dates the placement of the obsidian debi­tage to 1745 ± 40 years
BP. This does not necessarily date the chipping of the large bifaces
that produced the debitage. Dates for this chipping, based on the
thicknesses of the hydration rinds found on 19 pieces from the deposit,
have been published (Hatch et al. 1990). However, several technical
problems associated with the method used prevent complete acceptance of
these dates (e.g., Hughes 1992).

Technical problems associated with measuring the depth of the rind
itself have been overcome. Work continues to find appropriate
temperature values that are needed in the theoretical equation
translating rind depth to chronological time (e.g., Lepper, Skinner and
Stevenson 1998). The success of this work could answer questions
concerning the length of time of active use of obsidian by Ohio Hopewell
artisans. The dates in Table 1 reflect the end of this major use.

**Conclusions**

Our very brief survey of the Hopewell Mound 11 obsidian indicates that
there is much to be learned by further study of the collection. Of all
the exotic raw materials employed by Hopewellian peoples, obsidian was
the commodity whose original source was farthest from home. As the only
substantial assemblage of Hopewellian obsidian debitage known in Ohio,
study of this flake collection remains the best pathway for
understanding the mechanisms and motivations by which obsidian made its
way from the Rocky Mountains to the Midwest. More formal and detailed
studies of small sub-samples of the collection are pending. Even the
brief study to date emphasizes the importance of the information that is
still to be found in museum collections, in this instance a collection
that has been safely curated for eight decades.

**Acknowledgements**

We thank the Ohio Historical Society for allowing us to examine the
Mound 11 assemblage and for giving permission to date a charcoal sample
found within the collection. We especially thank Martha Otto, Curator of
Archaeology, for facilitating our study.

Funding for the AMS radiocarbon age estimates came from donations made
to the Hopewell Research Fund at the Cleveland Museum of Natural
History.

![](media/image10.jpeg){width="5.0625in" height="0.9895833333333334in"}

**References Cited**

Greber, N. B.

1996 A Commentary on the Contexts and Contents of Large and Small Ohio
Hopewell Deposits. In *A View from the Core: A Synthesis of Ohio
Hopewell Archaeology*, edited by P. J. Pacheco, pp. 150--172. Ohio
Archaeological Council, Columbus.

Greber, N. B., and K. C. Ruhl

2000 *The Hopewell Site: A Con­temporary Analysis Based on the Work of
Charles C. Will­oughby*. Eastern National, Washington, Pennsylvannia.

Griffin, J. B.

1965 Hopewell and the Dark Black Glass. *Michigan Archaeologist*
11:115--155.

Griffin, J. B., A. A. Gordus, and G. A. Wright

1969 Identification of the Sources of Hopewellian Obsidian in the Middle
West. *American Antiquity* 34:1--14.

Hatch, J. W., J. W. Michels, C. M. Stevenson, B. E. Scheetz, and R. A.
Geidel

1990 Hopewell Obsidian Studies: Behavioral Implications of Recent
Sourcing and Dating Research. *American Antiquity* 55(3):461--479.

Hughes, R. E.

1992Another Look at Hopewell Obsidian Studies. *American Antiquity*
57(3):515--523.

Lepper, B. T., C. E. Skinner, and C. M. Stevenson

1998 Analysis of an Obsidian Biface Fragment from a Hope­well Occupation
Associated with the Fort Hill (33Hi1) Hilltop Enclosure in Southern
Ohio. *Archaeology of Eastern North America* 25:33--39.

Moorehead, W. K.

1922 *The Hopewell Mound Group of Ohio.* Publication 211,
Anthropological Series 6(5). Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago.

Shetrone, H. C.

1922--1925 Field notes of the Ohio State Archaeological and Historical
Society excavations at the Hopewell Group. On file, Department of
Archaeology, Ohio Historical Society, Columbus.

1926 Explorations of the Hope­well Group of Prehistoric Earthworks. *Ohio
Archaeological and Historical Quarterly* 35:1--227.

1930 *The Mound-Builders.* Appleton-Century, New York.

Stevenson, C. M., B. Scheetz, and J. W. Hatch

1992 Reply to Hughes. *American Antiquity* 57(3):524--525.