**Hopewell Archeology:**

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

**Volume 6, Number 1, September 2004**

**1. A Message from the Editor: Introducing a New Format**; by Mark J.
Lynott

*Hopewell Archeology* was initiated in 1995 to "promote interest in the
study and interpretation of Hopewell archeology" (Vol. 1, No. 1, p. 2).
Since its inception, we have managed to produce 11 issues (counting the
one you are now reading) featuring a wide range of topics. The first
issue of this newsletter was printed on standard white paper, and
subsequent issues were printed on green paper. This is the first issue
of *Hopewell Archeology* since Volume 5, Number 2 was printed in
December 2002.

In 2002 the Midwest Archeological Center was selected for a Competitive
Sourcing Initiative Study by the National Park Service. The Competitive
Sourcing Initiative (CSI) is designed to compare the cost of activities
performed by government workers with the cost of doing those same
activities by the private sector. From September of 2002 through October
of 2003, employees at the Midwest Archeological Center spent a
tremendous amount of time generating information for the CSI Study.
Regrettably, this meant that production of *Hopewell Archeology* and
many other important programs at the Center were put on hold while
employees worked to generate data to justify keeping their jobs. The
Department of the Interior elected to halt the CSI Study at the Center
in October of 2003 ("Threats of Privatization Beaten Back",
*Lincoln-Journal Star*, October 29, 2003).

Nearly a year after the end of the CSI Study at the Midwest
Archeological Center, we are still trying to catch up on work and
projects that were set aside during the course of the study. Happily, we
are now ready to resume publication of *Hopewell Archeology*. The nearly
two-year hiatus in the publication of this newsletter has brought
changes to the format we plan to use for publication. The National Park
Service is experiencing funding shortages in many of its programs, and
the high costs of printing and mailing are leading us to move to an
electronic publication format.

The shift to electronic publication is a worldwide trend, and we believe
it has many benefits beyond the savings on printing and mailing costs.
The electronic format will allow us to include a wider range of
features, with fewer limitations on the length of papers and the numbers
and types of illustrations and graphics. One of the most exciting
aspects of the electronic format is that we will be able to begin using
color figures. This should add interest to many of the papers we
feature, and this will give readers a better appreciation for the sites
and artifacts of Hopewell archeology. Most importantly, the electronic
format has the potential to reach many more people. The increasing use
of the Internet to share information cannot be ignored, and this is the
perfect time for us to join that trend. For those of us who still enjoy
reading paper copies, or maintaining paper files for reference, this
issue of *Hopewell Archeology* and all future issues will be posted in a
format that you will be able to print.

One final issue relating to the shift to an electronic format warrants
special comment. We have noted that many of the papers that we published
in previous issues of *Hopewell Archeology* have been cited by authors
in their own publications. We hope that readers will continue to find
the papers we publish useful and worthy of citation. Recognizing that
some readers might be uncertain as to the appropriate way to cite
Internet publications, I have asked John M. Andresen, the Editor at the
Midwest Archeological Center, to share some of his thoughts on this
subject (Article 8, this issue).

**2. Abstracts of the Summer Lecture Series 2004 at Hopewell Culture
National Historical Park**

Residents of central and southern Ohio and visitors to Hopewell Culture
National Historical Park in Chillicothe made a habit of attending the
annual Thursday evening summer lecture series. This annual series has
been very well received in past years, and the 2004 series was also very
popular. The speakers for 2004 generated considerable interest about
Ohio archeology, with most of the speakers focusing on Ohio Hopewell.
Abstracts of these wonderful lectures are presented below. Plans for
next year's lecture series are already underway, and readers are
encouraged to contact Hopewell Culture National Historical Park for
details in 2005. Hopewell Culture National Historical Park was pleased
to host the summer archeological lecture series. The following is a list
of speakers, titles, and abstracts of the topics presented.

June 10, 2004. Dr. Frank Cowan: "Visualizing Ohio Hopewell Sites:
Earthworks or Woodworks?"

Ohio Hopewell sites are well known for their monumental earthworks, and
our current understanding of those places is strongly influenced by the
earthen architecture witnessed and recorded by 19th century surveyors
and antiquarians. However, the architectural medium that dominated those
places during their actual periods of active use was wood. Recent
excavations at Fort Ancient and Stubbs Earthworks in the Little Miami
River valley reveal numerous wooden structures, including
special-purpose shelters, temporary dwellings, ritual buildings and
enclosures, and monumentally scaled ceremonial architecture. There are
also clear hints for an extraordinary variety of Hopewell wooden
architecture elsewhere in the Ohio River valley region. Such evidence
forces us to rethink the character and use of Hopewell ritual spaces and
to recognize that these were not static monuments but active,
dynamically changing places.

June 17, 2004. Dr. Mark Seeman, Kent State University: "Ohio Hopewell
and the Wild West: The Social and Symbolic Importance of Grizzly Bear
Teeth in Hopewell Societies"

Ohio Hopewell (1--400 AD) is an archeological complex that required the
acquisition, display, and burial of many standardized artifactual forms.
In this lecture, I discuss the characteristics that lend Ohio Hopewell
its distinctiveness, and examine the importance of using precious and
costly materials for public display. As an example, I present the
results of my recent research on the use of ornaments made of grizzly
bear teeth, and discuss how they fit into the larger pattern of western
voyaging for spiritual power.

June 24, 2004. Dr. Robert Riordan, Wright State University: "The Pollock
Hilltop Enclosure: Research and Interpretations"

The Pollock Works, a small Hopewell hilltop enclosure in Greene County,
has been under archeological investigation by Wright State since the
1980s. This presentation will discuss some of the major findings that
have been made there, including some recent discoveries in the central
gateway. Pollock is the only Hopewell enclosure for which a construction
sequence has been determined, and is so far the only hilltop enclosure
known to have been stockaded. The significance of the use of stone to
face its embankments is discussed in the context of how the site may
have been viewed in its landscape setting.

July 1, 2004. Dr. Richard Yerkes, Ohio State University: "Hopewell
Settlements"

For many years archeologists thought that Hopewell maize farmers lived
in sedentary villages. It was believed that earthwork construction and
elaborate Hopewell rituals required a food surplus and a sedentary
agricultural economy. A later model has the Hopewell living in dispersed
farmsteads where they grew native weedy crops using a system of shifting
slash-and-burn cultivation. However, Robert Hall, James B. Griffin, and
others have described Ohio Hopewell societies as egalitarian, mobile,
and decentralized. The few small domestic Ohio Hopewell sites that have
been excavated have not produced any evidence for prolonged occupation.
A mobile Hopewell settlement-subsistence system seems more likely.
Regular trips to mounds and earthworks for ritual and social interaction
were probably followed by dispersal to small settlements to hunt, fish,
gather wild nuts, seeds and fruits, and harvest domesticated weedy
plants. Elaborate ceremonies at the earthworks might have been necessary
to integrate the small mobile populations that used wild foods to meet
most of their subsistence needs. The Hopewell show us the degree of
cultural complexity that can be achieved with the organizational
flexibility of tribal societies, without agriculture, food surpluses,
and permanent settlements.

July 8, 2004. Dr. Kathryn Jakes, Ohio State University: "Fabrics from
Hopewell Mounds: Evidence of Technology and Cultural Practice"

Native American sites are classified as "Hopewell" by the particular
characteristics of their ceremonial mounds and by the artifacts
contained therein. The incised mica and copper, the marked and painted
ceramics, and the flint bladelets are well known to the public who visit
museums such as the Hopewell Culture National Historical Park. The
similarity in style of these artifacts, the trade of raw materials for
artifact manufacture, and the manner in which the mounds were
constructed provide evidence of communication between people from
Minnesota to Florida and from Kansas to New York.

The textiles recovered from these sites are less well known to the
public. They have also received less research attention than the more
permanent artifacts of copper and stone and ceramic but recent
investigations lend some new insights into Hopewell technological
knowledge and cultural practices. Study of fabrics provides evidence for
their manufacture and their use. We can learn how fibers were processed
from plants, spun into yarn, and twined in to fabric. Different fabric
structures have different properties, and therefore are made with
different uses in mind. Fibers removed from specific plants are long,
strong, and able to be spun into the yarns observed in these fabrics.
Dyed and painted fabrics were noted by early travelers to the North
American continent, and were also noted by archeologists, but very
little material retains visible coloration today. Recent studies in
replication of dyeing processes will ultimately lead to the ability to
identify dyes and pigments employed on the Hopewell fabrics.

From the study of textiles, we can also infer cultural practices. For
example, the charred fabrics remains, though fragmentary and very
fragile, show the types of structures used in cremation ceremonies as
distinguished from fabrics used in other ways. Recent investigations of
fabrics and yarns from Hopewell Mound sites revealed significant
differences between sites and between charred and uncharred material,
leading to the conclusion that although cremation rituals and burials
may have been culturally dictated over a wide geographic area, the
textiles used in these rituals were locally produced by individual
craftspeople or groups.

July 15, 2004. Lynn Simonelli and Bill Kennedy, Dayton Society of
Natural History: "Exploring the Past in Dayton, Ohio, AD 1200"

Past and current excavations in Dayton have allowed archeologists to
uncover a window into the prehistory of southwestern Ohio, ca. 800 years
ago. Investigations at two Fort Ancient culture villages have revealed
surprising variety in the types of activities practiced at these two
sites that are separated only slightly in time and space. This program
will highlight two important sites that are allowing archeologists to
reconstruct a portion of Ohio's rich prehistoric heritage. The program
will help visitors to understand what is was like to be a farmer in the
year AD 1200 and will demonstrate how archeologists use both high and
low tech tools to learn about the Fort Ancient culture.

July 22, 2004. Dr. Bob Genheimer, Cincinnati Museum Center: "On the
Edges of Earthworks: Important Hopewell Sites Near Stubbs and Fort
Ancient"

Recent work at both Stubbs, a geometric earthwork, and Fort Ancient, a
hilltop enclosure, illustrate the importance of sites near the periphery
of these Hopewell-age earthworks. Extreme and exotic lithic densities
have been recorded at a site near each of these earthworks, and
structure footprints have been identified at several. The temporary
nature of these structures, and the large quantities of exotic lithic
debitage, suggest that the sites may have served as short-term knapping
locations for the production of bifacial and blade artifacts. Exotic
materials at the Barnyard Site, near Stubbs, include Flint Ridge,
Wyandotte, Newman, Knox, Knife River Chalcedony, obsidian, and mica.

July 29, 2004. Brian Redmond, Cleveland Museum of Natural History:
"Fishing and Farming along the North Coast, Studying the Later
Prehistory of Northern Ohio"

For a thousand years prior to European contact (ca. AD 650--1650),
Native American societies in northern Ohio fished and hunted the rich
wetlands, river estuaries, and islands of Lake Erie's southern
shoreline. By AD 1000, these same groups made the shift from full-time
hunting and gathering to farming. More than 30 years of archeological
work in this area has turned up the well-preserved remains of the huge
fishing campsites and fortified village sites where this transition took
place. Recent excavations at the Danbury site on Sandusky Bay have
provided intriguing new evidence of these once-thriving north coast
cultures.

**3. The Field Museum Hopewell Catalogue Project: Getting the Word Out**

By Tristan T. Almazan, Stephen E. Nash, and Lauren Zych

The Hopewell Collection at the Field Museum is the world's
second-largest (next to the Ohio Historical Society's) collection of
material culture from the Hopewell site. Recently, Field Museum staff
re-discovered cataloging forms from the 1980s and decided to use the
information from this unfinished project as a starting block for
creating a Hopewell catalogue. The catalogue (which we hope will be
published) will act as a tool for disseminating data on the collection
as well as serving to pique the interest of additional scholars in the
Field Museum's collection.

**The Collection**

The Field Museum's Hopewell Collection comes primarily from one source
--- the 1891 and 1892 excavations by Warren K. Moorehead. Frederick W.
Putnum, director of the Department of Ethnology and Archaeology for the
1893 World's Columbian Exposition, hired Moorehead (along with dozens of
others), to collect material representing cultures of the Americas.
Moorehead, a native Ohioan who had already excavated at Fort Ancient and
published his findings (Moorehead 1890), was a natural choice for
gathering material from the Hopewell site. He spent the fall and winter
of 1891--1892 excavating there and keeping notes on his finds. Although
he did not always keep detailed records, he and his crew nevertheless
uncovered the most significant material to be collected from the site.

![](media/image1.jpeg){width="5.697916666666667in" height="3.625in"}

**Figure 1 Stone disks from Mound 2. © The Field Museum, CSA39671.**

The Field Museum's collection of Moorehead material encompasses roughly
800 catalogue numbers, although the number of individual pieces is much
higher. The scope and content of the Hopewell Collection are impressive.
For example, one storage room in the museum holds more than 7,000
chipped stone disks unearthed from Mound 2 (Figure 1). Not only is this
impressive for sheer quantity, but the fact that the disks are made of
Wyandotte chert from Southern Indiana makes it even more astonishing.
Hundreds of pounds of obsidian came from the Obsidian Cliffs in
Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming. Thousands of sheets of mica from
Tennessee or North Carolina composed some of the strata of Moorehead
Mound 17, while a large quantity of galena is believed to have
accompanied a burial from that mound. One obsidian blade, among many
others, measures 30 cm long by 12.5 cm wide (Figure 2). There are also
many pearl beads, bear claws and teeth (Figure 3), copper ear spools,
carved stone effigy figures, and mica and copper sheet ornaments.

![](media/image2.jpeg){width="6.15625in" height="4.46875in"}

**Figure 2. Obsidian blade. © The Field Museum, A113969_11c; Cat. No.
56803.**

![](media/image3.jpeg){width="4.677083333333333in"
height="3.1041666666666665in"}

**Figure 3. Bear claws and teeth ornaments. © The Field Museum,**

**A110123c; Cat. Nos. 56402 and 56427**

The remainder of the museum's Hopewell Collection came from the Ohio
Historical Society and the Kalamazoo Valley Museum. In 1925, the Field
Museum gave material from its anthropology collections to the Ohio
Historical Society in exchange for Hopewell material excavated by Henry
C. Shetrone from 1922 to 1925. This collection contains casts and
replicas, effigy pipes, celts, mica ornaments, and raw materials. In
1999, the Kalamazoo Valley Museum donated a collection of Hopewell and
prehistoric Woodlands material to The Field Museum, as these materials
had once been at The Field Museum and did not fit within the Kalamazoo
Valley Museum's collecting purview. Taken together, the Ohio Historical
Society and Kalamazoo Valley Museum components compose less than a
quarter of the Field Museum's total Hopewell Collection.

**Mound 25**

One of the most fascinating group of objects in the Field Museum
collection comes from Mound 25. This mound is the largest at the
Hopewell site and contains the most interesting and complex array of
material. Originally, Mound 25 was the site of a central building
complex with plazas. Over time, burials were created in the building, as
were separate deposits of exotic materials. The mound is in three
sections, with burials only being in the middle and largest section.
When excavated, Mound 25 held at least 100 burials, but the greatest
groupings of material were in the "altar" deposits and a copper deposit.
For example, large obsidian bifaces were found in "Altar 2."
Nonetheless, some burials did hold unusual objects and unusual amounts
of material. One burial (Moorehead Burial 248) is especially noteworthy
(Figure 4). In Moorehead's words (Field Museum Library Archives, p.
125):

![](media/image4.jpeg){width="4.03125in" height="5.166666666666667in"}

**Figure 4. Copper and shell objects. © The Field Museum,**

**A108265c; Cat. Nos. 56080, 56091, 56114, 56128, 56200, 56201,**

**56371, and 56751. (Note: The objects pictured above are from**

**several different proveniences within the Hopewell site.)**

> At the head of the skeleton was a remarkable deposit of copper. Wood
> covered with copper in the form of deer antlers ... The antler shaped
> ornament was composed of wood covered with and incased in thin sheets
> of copper one-sixteenth of an inch thick. There were 4 prongs on each
> side of nearly equal length. The mass of copper in the center
> originally was in the form of a semicircle reaching from the lower jaw
> to the crown of the head. It has been pressed flat by the weight of
> the earth, but part of the original contour is still apparent.

Another burial (Moorehead Burial 260-261) contained a large amount of
copper (Figure 5) including several celts and adzes. Others held shell
and bone beads, textile imprints, carved effigies, pearls, and copper
plates.

![](media/image5.jpeg){width="6.25in" height="3.0833333333333335in"}

**Figure 5. Copper ornament with pearl eye. © The Field Museum,
A110028c; Cat. No. 56356.**

**The Cataloging Project**

The Field Museum's project to catalogue the Hopewell Collection is
ongoing. It began last year, when museum staff funded by the Save
America's Treasures program (NEH PT-50004-03) were busy organizing and
creating finding aids for the North American anthropology archives. They
found two boxes containing cataloging forms, notes, and photos from a
project started, but never finished, in the mid-1980s. Michael Moseley
and the late Pat Essenpreis headed the project, and N'omi Greber acted
as a consultant. David Jessup, then a student at the University of
Chicago, completed most of the catalogue forms. A large amount of data
had been recorded about the individual Hopewell objects as a result of
their efforts, but the project fizzled, and the unfinished product ended
up in the archives. We contacted Greber, and Jim Brown of Northwestern
University, about the project and they agreed to help us make a final
effort to complete it and, if possible, publish a catalogue containing a
summary and synthesis of these descriptive data.

The first step in this process was to put the data in electronic format,
not as a matter of preservation (the cards and writing in No. 2 pencil
will be around a lot longer than electronic media), but to ease data
manipulation and access. We enlisted the help of graduate student Lauren
Zych of the University of Chicago, and in the fall of 2003 we began
entering the data from 1,300 forms into a project-specific FileMaker Pro
database. Syeda Razeen, a summer intern from Loyola University, has
joined in the project to assist with the data entry and to inventory the
collection. The information from Zych's database will be combined with
Razeen's inventory data to create a complete catalogue of extant Field
Museum holdings. The next step will be to compile the data into coherent
and useful sets for publication.

The collection is definitely not without problems, however. There are
missing objects, missing data, and missing associations between objects
and excavation contexts. Provenience information, where it exists, will
have to be closely scrutinized because Moorehead's notes were not always
accurate, much less precise. The project will not be halted by these
problems, however. We will do what we can, but we believe it is more
important to disseminate these data, even if they are less than perfect,
than to keep them in archival purgatory because of a few errors that we
cannot solve. Science is a cumulative and iterative process. Our goal is
to provide scholars with basic data about a world-class collection,
thereby exciting them to a world of analytical possibilities, the
surface of which has barely been scratched at The Field Museum (Figure
5).

**Conclusion**

Museums are continuously engaged in the effort to gather more
information on their collections and The Field Museum is no different in
this regard. Because many researchers use these materials, we especially
value scholarly data that will increase the scholarly utility of our
collections. The rediscovery of the Hopewell catalogue forms is allowing
us to expand our knowledge of the collection and of the Hopewell site
itself. Disseminating this information will hopefully bring in more
scholars and even more findings in a positive-feedback loop. Some of
these data may enrich labels for Hopewell objects to be exhibited in the
Field Museum's new *Hall of Americas*, which opens in 2006. No matter
the results of our Hopewell Catalogue Project, the presence of an
electronic catalogue of this important collection will allow us to
better serve the scholarly community in engaging new and innovative
research on the fascinating Hopewell culture.

**References Cited**

The Field Museum Library Archives

World's Columbian Exposition Expedition to Southern Ohio, 1891, 1892,
n.d. Box 1, Field Museum Library Archives, Chicago, Illinois.

Moorehead, Warren K.

1890 *Fort Ancient, Ohio*. Robert Clarke & Co., Cincinnati.

Nash, Stephen E., and Jonathan R. Haas

2000 Mounds, Myths and Museums: The Hopewell Culture of Central Ohio,
100 B.C. -- A.D. 400. *In the Field*, November-December 2000:2--5.

.**4. Survey and Excavations in 2004 at 33RO1059**, by Ann C.
Bauermeister

The Hopewell site (33RO27), with its extensive earthwork complex, is
renowned as the type site for the Hopewell culture and has long been a
focus for archeological research, beginning as early as 1845 with Squier
and Davis. Recently, active erosion along the bank of the North Fork of
Paint Creek has drawn attention to archeological resources located
outside of the complex that are threatened by the encroaching stream.
Site 33RO1059 is located south and east of the Square Enclosure in a
formerly cultivated field flanked by Paint Creek on the south (Figure
1). The site was originally identified through observation of artifacts
on the surface of the field, but relatively little was known about this
site and its relationship, if any, to the earthwork complex.

![](media/image6.jpeg){width="6.770833333333333in" height="4.96875in"}

**Figure 1 The Squier and Davis 1845 map of the Hopewell site, adapted
from Squier and Davis (1998:Plate X). The project area is depicted north
of Paint Creek.**

Realizing the site might be in jeopardy, managers from Hopewell Culture
National Historical Park began pursuing alternatives that would protect
the site from further erosion and loss of archeological resources. One
alternative would involve a construction approach where the bank would
be mechanically stabilized; another, the no-construction alternative,
would allow the erosion to continue but would involve the mitigation of
adverse impacts through archeological data collection. Several
strategies for mechanical stabilization were considered, all of which
would involve substantial ground disturbance albeit to varying degrees.
Under the no-construction alternative, archeological resources within
the area expected to erode in the foreseeable future would be removed
through excavation. Before the preferred alternative could be chosen,
however, the resources at site 33RO1059 needed to be evaluated to
determine not only site type, but whether or not the resources were
significant and if the site had enough integrity to warrant protection.

**Geophysical and Pedestrian Surveys**

National Park Service archeologists from Hopewell Culture NHP and the
Midwest Archeological Center began by conducting geophysical and
pedestrian surveys. The survey area was confined to the open, previously
cultivated portion of the field, encompassing about 2.2 hectares, and
included any area that might be impacted by the erosion occurring along
the southern end of the field or from construction-related ground
disturbance (Figure 2). Forty-eight complete 20-x-20-m blocks and six
partial 20-x-20-m blocks were surveyed using an FM 36 fluxgate
gradiometer; three complete 20-x-20-m grids were surveyed with an EM 38
electromagnetic conductivity meter. In total area, about 21,600 m² were
included in the geophysical survey. Results from the survey identified
numerous anomalies in the data indicative of prehistoric subsurface
features (De Vore and Bauermeister 2003).

![](media/image7.jpeg){width="6.777083333333334in"
height="4.043055555555555in"}

**Figure 2 Map of project area, site 33RO1059, showing location of
potential archeological features, test unit and feature locations, and
areas slated for additional testing.**

The pedestrian survey that followed was completed shortly after the
project area was mowed and disked, which improved surface visibility to
about 85 percent. In total, 341 artifacts were encountered and mapped
according to Global Positioning System position. Both prehistoric and
historic materials were noted, but prehistoric materials were far more
prevalent (308 compared to 33) and became the primary focus of this
research; refer to Burks (2004) for details on the historic component.
Fire-cracked rock was the most-represented artifact class and was widely
scattered across the field, with a slightly heavier concentration in the
western half of the project area. Additional prehistoric artifacts
identified include debitage, pitted stones, bladelets, and an end
scraper. These, too, occurred more regularly in the western half of the
field with a specific cluster noted approximately in the center of the
area. Hopewell artifacts were among those in the cluster and include two
bladelets, a Vanport chert perform, and two quartz crystal flakes,
giving this surface deposit a Middle Woodland affiliation.

Data obtained through the surface collection and mapping helped
delineate site boundaries while documenting concentrations of
prehistoric artifacts. Coupled with the geophysical survey data, this
information proved quite useful in planning the next phase of work that
would focus on excavations. Archeologists were effectively able to
concentrate on specific areas having the greatest potential to yield
information through subsurface deposits as predicted by these combined
data. Fifteen locations were identified where the potential for buried
prehistoric features was both highest and within the potential zone of
impact (the width of the creek bend west to east and approximately 30 m
north). The zone of impact was determined based on the amount of ground
disturbance required by the construction alternatives and assumed the
greatest possible extent.

**Excavations**

Archeologists returned to the site in April 2004 to conduct the
excavations at the specified locations. At this time it was apparent
that even more of the field had been lost to erosion just since the
previous year. In fact, three of the test unit locations were now so
close to the edge of the bank and the undercutting was so severe that
excavation in this portion of the field was not feasible (Figure 3). In
all, five 1-x-1-m test units (TUs 1, 2, 6--8) and three 2-x-2-m test
units (TUs 3--5) were excavated at the site in 2004. All of the units
yielded prehistoric materials, with five features (Features 1--4, and
unassigned) identified in four of those units (TUs 4, 6--8). Features 1
and 3 yielded temporally diagnostic materials attributed to Late
Woodland and Middle Woodland, respectively. They are discussed in more
detail below. The unassigned feature and Feature 4 yielded prehistoric
materials, but none from within the features themselves are culturally
or temporally diagnostic. Hopewell bladelets were, however, recovered
from the plowzone above Feature 4. Feature 2 was determined to be
natural rather than cultural in origin.

![](media/image8.jpeg){width="5.083333333333333in"
height="6.770833333333333in"}

**Figure 3 Erosion along the southern edge of site 33RO1059.**

Feature 1 was identified in TU 6 as a distinct and intentional intrusion
dug into the surrounding subsoil, which in this field is a gravelly clay
loam (Figure 4). As excavation continued, the feature began to take the
shape of a basin and appears to extend to the north and to the east.
Artifacts turned up consistently throughout the feature fill and include
debitage, fire-cracked rock, pottery, two bladelets, and a triangular
projectile point. The point and pottery are typical of Fort Ancient
artifacts, giving Feature 1 a Late Woodland association.

![](media/image9.jpeg){width="6.770833333333333in"
height="5.0777777777777775in"}

**Figure 4 Feature 1 in Test Unit 6.**

Feature 3 emerged as a large, dark burned earth stain that encompasses
the majority of TU 8 and extends well to the north, west, and east.
Artifacts recovered included fire-cracked rock, burned bone, cord-marked
pottery, debitage, and two copper fragments (Figure 5). Most of the
pottery sherds are fairly small (2--3 cm in diameter), though larger
sherds (5--8 cm in diameter) were recovered from deeper soils. One of
the larger sherds exhibits a surface treatment similar to incised
rocker-stamped. The discovery of copper fragments, particularly what
appear to be remnant debris, is quite a rare and significant find and
might provide a link between this site and 33RO27. Based on feature
content, Feature 3 appears to be Hopewell in origin.

![](media/image10.jpeg){width="6.770833333333333in"
height="5.0777777777777775in"}

**Figure 5 Copper debris recovered from Feature 3 in Test Unit 8.**

Initial observations indicate that this is a habitation site that
represents at least two temporal periods, Middle and Late Woodland, and
perhaps several occupations. Of particular interest is the presence of
copper debris. Copper is a rare find, and it is even more unusual to
find copper debris that has merely been discarded and not reworked. The
copper, the bladelets, and the cord-marked pottery are strong evidence
for a Hopewellian occupation---perhaps one that is contemporaneous with
events relating to the earthworks. The site has the potential to yield
considerable data, which might help answer questions relating to the
activities associated directly with earthwork construction and
utilization.

**Preservation Decisions**

The findings verify that important resources are located within the
field and that efforts to protect the archeological site from erosion
should be pursued. Hydrology studies have determined that the flow of
water along this curve of Paint Creek has slowed, and it is anticipated
that at some point the erosion will slow or stop. The erosion is active
at the toe of the bank, which is undercutting the upper bank and causing
it to recede. In effect, the bank is attempting to stabilize itself by
developing a more even slope. It follows, then, if the toe erosion were
to stop, so too would the erosion along the upper bank that is impacting
the site. The questions then become, how much would be lost, and is bank
stabilization needed?

The mechanical bank stabilization would effectively prevent additional
erosion from occurring, but a substantial portion of the site would be
subjected to ground disturbance during construction. The mitigation of
construction impacts to the archeological resources would require
extensive excavation of the site. Significantly less of the site would
be impacted by the erosion, without any bank stabilization work,
assuming the stream will erode at a certain rate over a defined period
of time. The threatened resources could still be recovered through
excavation and more of site would be left intact, providing future
opportunities to learn from it.

The National Park Service chose the no-construction alternative as the
most advantageous to protecting the archeological resources at the site.
No mechanical bank stabilization will take place and the erosion will be
allowed to continue. Additional and more extensive archeological
excavations are set to begin in 2006 and will continue into 2007.

**References Cited**

Burks, Jarrod

2004 Surface Collection at 33RO1059. On file, National Park Service,
Hopewell Culture National Historical Park, Chillicothe, Ohio.

De Vore, Steven L., and Ann C. Bauermeister

2003 Interim Report of the Geophysical Investigations of the River Bank
Stabilization Project Area at Hopewell Mound Group, Ross County, Ohio.
On file, National Park Service, Midwest Archeological Center, Lincoln.

Squier, Ephraim G., and Edwin H. Davis

1998 *Ancient Monuments of the Mississippi Valley*. Contributions to
Knowledge Volume 1. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 150th
Anniversary Reissue Edition; Introduction by David J. Meltzer.
Originally printed in 1848 by the Smithsonian Institution.

**5. New Discoveries Right in Our Own Front Yard: Preliminary Results of
Recent Research at Mound City Group**

Jarrod Burks, Jennifer Pederson, Lynette Willsey, Dawn Walter Gagliano,
and Kathy Brady-Rawlins

**The Mound City Group: Past and Present**

Mound City Group is probably the most extensively excavated Hopewell
earthwork in Ohio. Squier and Davis (1848), William Mills (1922), and a
whole host of more recent archaeologists, have conducted excavations
within and between the site's 23 mounds and ca. 950 m of earthen
embankment. In addition to their diggings in the mounds, Squier and
Davis produced the first map of the 15.6-acre earthwork complex, which
included other mounds and earthen enclosures in the vicinity of Mound
City (Figure 1). Among these additional mounds and earthworks are a
circular enclosure and four mounds to the west and northwest of Mound
City. The larger of the two mounds located just south of the small
circular enclosure northwest of Mound City, known as the Briggs Mound
(33RO7), was excavated in the 1897 by Clarence Loveberry (Moorehead
1899). While Moorehead (1899:136) also mentions another mound that was
excavated at the same time in the near vicinity, to our knowledge none
of the remaining mounds west and northwest of Mound City that appear on
the Squier and Davis map were excavated prior to their disappearance
from the landscape. Additionally, only limited work has been conducted
in non-mound areas among these enclosures and mounds. To better
understand how prehistoric peoples used these earthworks and mounds near
Mound City, exploration of non-mound areas must be undertaken. A project
begun in June 2003 sought to address this need by studying a small area
in the front yard of the visitor center at Mound City.

![](media/image11.jpeg){width="5.1875in" height="6.770833333333333in"}

**Figure 1 Squier and Davis map of Mound City and vicinity.**

The project area covers 1,200 m² and contains one of the isolated
mounds, now reconstructed, thought to have been mapped by Squier and
Davis (Figure 2). The mound is located about 230 m to the west of the
Mound City enclosure. Dimensions of the mound were not recorded in the
1840s, and no documentation exists for excavations of the mound or its
immediate vicinity. However, a comparison of the Squier and Davis map
and a modern map of the reconstructed elements of Mound City and the
project area (Figure 3), show that the reconstructed mound is located
about 200 m south and east of where Squier and Davis show it on their
map.

![](media/image12.jpeg){width="6.770833333333333in"
height="4.504166666666666in"}

**Figure 2 Close-up of the project area with topographic contours,
geophysical survey area, and excavation unit locations.**

How the reconstructed mound could be so far off the Squier and Davis
location is easy to understand. After many decades of agricultural use,
beginning perhaps as early as 1800, this area was used in 1917-1920 as a
parade ground for Camp Sherman, a World War I training camp that covered
the Mound City earthworks and miles of Scioto Valley floodplain (Figure
3). While Camp Sherman buildings were not part of the project area, the
parade grounds were no doubt leveled off by cutting and filling bumps
and gullies. This presumably accounts for the ultimate fate of mounds
located within the parade ground area that once lined what is now State
Route 104. Today the former parade ground area west of Mound City is a
grassy lawn and the two mounds that appear on the Squier and Davis map
of Mound City have been reconstructed to a height of 1.5 m and a
diameter of 10 m, though apparently in the wrong locations.

![](media/image13.jpeg){width="5.03125in" height="6.770833333333333in"}

**Figure 3 Project area map showing the location of Camp Sherman
structures, current mounds and earthworks, and mounds mapped by Squier
and Davis.**

**Geophysical Survey**

Our research in the vicinity of the northern reconstructed mound began
with topographic mapping and geophysical testing of three 20-x-20-m
blocks. Both magnetic gradient and electrical resistance data were
collected. A Geoscan Research FM 36 fluxgate gradiometer was used for
collecting magnetic gradient data every 12.5 cm along transects spaced
50 cm apart, yielding 6,400 readings per block. Resistance data were
collected every 50 cm across the survey area using a Geoscan Research RM
15 resistance meter. A total of 1,600 resistance readings were recorded
per block.

Geophysical data can provide a unique glimpse of subsurface deposits, as
it does for this study. The reconstructed mound is clearly visible in
the northeast corner of both the magnetic gradient data (Figure 4) and
resistance data (Figure 5). It is particularly interesting that the
extent of disturbance from the reconstruction is also visible as a
rectangular area of lower magnetic gradient and resistance readings. At
least 23 possible prehistoric features, among numerous historic features
and artifacts, are visible in the magnetic gradient data. Similarly, the
resistance data show multiple anomalies, a few of which are rectangular.

![](media/image14.jpeg){width="6.25in" height="6.260416666666667in"}

**Figure 4 Magnetic gradient data.**

![](media/image15.jpeg){width="6.25in" height="6.135416666666667in"}

**Figure 5 Electrical resistance data.**

When the two data sets are superimposed, a large area containing both
magnetic and resistance anomalies is apparent to the west of the mound.
This area contains two magnetic anomalies. Anomaly 1 is circular, about
2.5 m in diameter, and has an unusually strong magnetic gradient
intensity (37.65 nT) for a possible prehistoric feature. Anomaly 2 is
linear, about 7 m long, and consists of above-average magnetic gradient
readings (ca. 5 nT).

In our preliminary analysis we speculated that Anomaly 1 was a
prehistoric fire pit feature and Anomaly 2 was possibly part of a series
of post holes present along the southern and eastern sides of the large
pit. In the resistance data, the same area as magnetic Anomalies 1 and 2
appears to have higher resistance readings arranged in a rectangular
shape roughly 10 m². Was it possible that this resistance anomaly
indicates the presence of a compacted floor? In combination, the
geophysical data point to the presence of a possible structure to the
west of the reconstructed mound. This was very intriguing at the time
since we now know that all of the Mound City mounds were built over the
remains of structures. Had we discovered the remains of a submound
building and the actual spot where the nearby mound should have been
reconstructed? To determine the exact nature of these geophysical
anomalies, ground-truthing was needed.

**Excavations**

To date, our excavations have focused on the two magnetic anomalies.
Removal of the plowzone by hand has revealed a large circular pit at
Anomaly 1 and patches of darker soil at Anomaly 2. In excavating Anomaly
1 (Figure 6), we have bisected the feature, removing the southern half
in 10-cm levels down to a depth of about 1 m. The Anomaly 1 pit appears
to be the remains of a thermal feature now filled with three distinct
stratigraphic levels: a pottery-rich upper layer; a middle layer of
redeposited subsoil containing significantly fewer artifacts but much
gravel; and an organic-rich soil layer at the bottom containing
fire-cracked rock and charcoal. Most of the pottery sherds represent a
grit-tempered ware, with a couple excurvate rim sherds. One
grit-tempered sherd, while heavily eroded, is clearly covered by a fine
rocker stamping. In addition to the large amounts of pottery, a number
of bladelets and biface fragments and lots of fire-cracked rock were
also present in the feature fill.

![](media/image16.jpeg){width="6.25in" height="4.625in"}

**Figure 6 Anomaly 1 bisected. The photo board reads: Mound City Group;
Teacher's Workshop; Feature #1; North Wall Profile; June 30, 2004.**

Only the eastern portion of Anomaly 2 was tested due to its large size.
Screening of the plowzone produced a small collection of pottery sherds
and flakes. More numerous was fire-cracked rock. The patches of darker
soil at the base of the plowzone were tested further but no obvious
cultural features could be defined. The source of Anomaly 2 thus proved
to be elusive as none of the expected postholes were evident.

![](media/image17.jpeg){width="6.25in" height="4.34375in"}

**Figure 7 Bladelets from Anomaly 1.**

**Conclusions**

At this time, preliminary results are inconclusive as to whether this
area represents a structure. Excavations of both magnetic anomalies
located artifacts, with bladelets (Figure 7) and a small piece of mica
from Anomaly 1. The Anomaly 1 pit feature certainly appears to be
related to some sort of Hopewell occupation. Given the large number of
similar magnetic anomalies in the study area, perhaps this whole area to
the south and west of the present mound was occupied during construction
of the mounds within and outside of Mound City. A much larger magnetic
survey conducted recently across much of the front yard of Mound City
produced over 80 magnetic anomalies in three clusters, each of which
might represent areas occupied by the Hopewell while visiting the Mound
City area to participate in the ceremonial goings-on within and/or
outside the earthwork. These findings outside Mound City, as with
similar findings at Hopeton Earthworks and Hopewell Mound Group, show
that quite a lot of evidence of Hopewell occupation yet exists at these
old earthwork sites, despite hundreds of years of historic disturbance.

**References Cited**

Mills, William C.

1922 Exploration of the Mound City Group. *Ohio Archaeological and
Historical Quarterly* 31:423--584.

Moorehead, Warren K.

1899 Report of Field Work in Various Portions of Ohio. *Ohio
Archaeological and Historical Publications* 7:110--203.

Squier, Ephraim G., and Edwin H. Davis

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

**6. Earthwork Construction and the Organization of Hopewell Society**

By Mark J. Lynott, Midwest Archeological Center

The mounds and geometric enclosures of southern Ohio have fascinated
scholars for two centuries, but many of the questions that sparked the
interest of 19th-century antiquarians have yet to be fully addressed
today. Contemporary scholars are proposing new and interesting
interpretations about these impressive sites, but the sites themselves
are disappearing. None of the great geometric enclosures has survived
unscathed, and many of them can only be studied now by examining old
aerial photographs or reading historic accounts. The need for field
investigation of the remaining sites has never been greater.

Archaeological study of geometric enclosures in southern Ohio has been
limited, with most work being focused on mounds associated with the
enclosures. The large size of these sites has certainly served to deter
excavations, and most studies have been limited to one or two summers of
excavation. While these studies have generated useful information about
some aspect of individual earthworks, none have generated a holistic
view of any large geometric enclosure. Fortunately, geophysical survey
instruments make it possible to map large areas; these data can be used
to plan strategic excavations. The utility of this approach is
illustrated by recent work on the rectangular enclosure at the Hopeton
Earthworks, Ross County, Ohio.

Hopeton Earthworks is located north of Chillicothe. It was described by
Squier and Davis as being a rectangle with an attached circle (Figure
1). The earthwork also has two smaller circles that were integrated into
the north side of the rectangle and a pair of parallel walls that extend
from the northwest corner of the rectangle 2400 feet to the southwest.
The walls of the two larger enclosures were formed by a series of wall
segments. Each was estimated to enclose 20 acres. The walls of the
rectangular work were of monumental size, twelve feet high by fifty feet
at their bases, and lacking a ditch on either side.

![](media/image18.jpeg){width="5.072916666666667in"
height="6.770833333333333in"}

**Figure 1 Ephraim Squier and Edwin Davis mapped the major earthwork
features of the Hopeton site in 1846 and published their findings in a
classic volume that illustrates and describes many nowdestroyed Hopewell
earthworks (Squier and Davis 1848:51--52, Plate 17).**

**Geophysical Survey and Research Design**

More than 150 years of cultivation have greatly reduced the walls of
this enclosure, to the point where they are barely visible to the
untrained eye. In 2001, the National Park Service initiated geophysical
survey at Hopeton to determine if geophysical equipment could be useful
in evaluating the subsurface composition of mounds and earthen walls.
Reports in-progress elaborate on the geophysical studies; it should be
noted here, however, that the efforts of John Weymouth, Bruce Bevan,
Rinita Dalan, and Rolfe Mandel are producing exceptionally useful data.

The bulk of our survey efforts have relied upon a Geometrics G858 cesium
gradiometer. The most important accomplishment was the discovery that
the wall segments of the rectangular enclosure are distinctly visible in
the magnetic survey data (Figure 2). The sharp boundaries on the
interior and exterior of the wall segments are in marked contrast to the
topography of these features, which is very gradual due to years of
annual cultivation. The sharp magnetic contrast between the core of the
wall and the surrounding soils of the landform suggested that the wall
must have been constructed from soils that differ markedly from the
natural soils of the alluvial terrace. In an effort to determine how
much of the original wall was preserved at Hopeton, the geophysical
survey data were used to select four locations around the rectangular
enclosure for test excavations.

![](media/image19.jpeg){width="6.25in" height="4.96875in"}

**Figure 2 The locations of Trenches 1 through 4. These trenches were
placed to give representative cross section information for the main
enclosure wall of the large square.**

In 1996, Bret Ruby excavated a 1-m-wide trench across a wall segment at
the northwest corner of the rectangular enclosure. Aerial photographs
indicate this section of wall was preserved in a fence-row since at
least 1938. The 1996 trench revealed that three different soil deposits
were present in the wall, each representing a different stage of
construction (Ruby 1997:3--4). Using this information, we developed a
plan for testing other wall segments to determine whether we might be
able to learn how and when they were built.

**Trench Excavation Results**

Field studies of the walls that form the rectangular enclosure were
conducted from 2001 to 2003. Using the geophysical survey data to
evaluate the potential preservation of the wall segments, we selected
four locations in four different wall segments for trenching (Figure 2).
Each trench was 1.5 m wide and varied in length from 41 to 50 m. Trench
1 was in the central segment of the southern wall of the enclosure.
Trenches 2 and 3 were excavated through wall segments forming the
western wall, and Trench 4 was excavated across the only curved wall
segment that forms the northeast corner of the enclosure.

Examination of each of the trenches revealed that although there were
some general similarities in the methods and materials used to build the
wall segments, each wall segment was different. In each wall segment,
construction was started with removal of topsoil to expose the subsoil.
Two different subsoils are present on this landform. Yellow silt loam
was exposed at the bases of Trenches 1, 2, and 3, and red sandy loam was
exposed at the base of Trench 4. In each of the wall segments, the
builders performed rituals that involved burning. These activities left
small burned soil features with charred materials often at the interface
of two different construction stages. Unfortunately, due to degradation
from years of agriculture, we are only able to observe the first stages
of wall construction that form the base of the individual wall segments.

The base of the wall segment exposed by Trench 1 was formed by piling up
yellow silt loam similar to the subsoil, and then covering the top and
outside of the yellow soil with a red sandy loam (Figure 3). In Trenches
2 and 3, a dark gray-brown silt loam was piled on the yellow subsoil to
form the base of the wall. Then yellow or yellow-brown soil was piled on
the east or inside of this dark material, and red or red-brown soil was
placed on the west or outside of the wall segments. The configuration
and colors of the materials used in these two segments are quite
different, but the pattern of construction as just described is similar.

![](media/image20.jpeg){width="6.25in" height="4.145833333333333in"}

**Figure 3 The west wall profile in Trench 1 showing distinct soil
colors; Profile 3, 2852N, June 2001. The base of the wall was created by
piling up yellow silt loam similar to the subsoil. The top and outside
surfaces were then covered with red sandy loam.**

The contacts between the soil layers exposed in all three of these wall
segments were generally distinct, suggesting that little time elapsed
between the deposition of the different materials. To determine if this
observation was valid, Rolfe Mandel conducted micromorphological
analysis of sediments from Trench 1. This analysis indicates that no
evidence of weathering or soil formation is present, and construction of
the wall segment probably occurred in a few years or less (Lynott and
Weymouth 2002:5).

The situation in Trench 4 is quite different from what was observed in
the other trenches. Wall construction was initiated by stripping the
topsoil and exposing the red sandy loam subsoil. The subsoil was then
covered by a layer of dark gray loam with lenses of fine gravel. Dark
gray loam was then deposited on the dark base to form the core of the
wall segment. Red sandy loam was then piled on the south or inside of
the dark core, and the contact between these two layers exhibits a sharp
boundary. Gray-brown loam was deposited on the north side of the dark
core, but the boundary between these two materials is not sharp.
Numerous small lenses of different soil materials, which appear to
represent basket loads, form a complex boundary between the two soil
units (Figure 4).

![](media/image21.jpeg){width="6.25in" height="4.6875in"}

**Figure 4 Detail in the profile of Trench 4. Small lenses of different
soil materials appear to represent basket loads. As a group, these
lenses form a complex boundary between the two major soil units.**

**Construction Methods and Episodes**

One of the goals of this study is to determine when the walls of the
rectangular enclosure were built. Fortunately, the people who built the
wall segments conducted rituals that included burning wood and other
materials in association with the various stages of wall construction.
Four radiocarbon dates from features in Trenches 1, 2 and 3, plus two
other radiocarbon dates obtained by Bret Ruby from his 1996 trench
suggest these wall segments were probably built between AD 150 and AD
250.

Two radiocarbon dates were obtained from features in Trench 4, and they
are both 800 years more recent than the dates obtained from the other
trenches. Since one of the samples was taken from a feature at the very
base of the wall segment, it seems unlikely that these represent
intrusive episodes that postdate construction of the wall segment. When
these dates are considered in association with the unusual construction
methods recorded in Trench 4, it seems likely that this wall segment was
either built many centuries after the other wall segments, or it was
modified or repaired at this later time.

The work on the rectangular enclosure at Hopeton demonstrates that
variation in wall construction methods, and even the age of wall
construction, might be significant within individual earthworks.
Understanding the methods and materials used to build these walls is
important, because the amount of energy that was invested is a
reflection of the values, labor force, and social organization of the
people who built the enclosure.

Study of the materials used to construct the walls at Hopeton indicates
that all of the soil and gravel selected for this purpose was available
on the landform where the site is located. The massive amounts of soil
used to build the walls were quarried with hand tools and carried in
baskets, and vast amounts of soil were moved all across the site. This
substantial earthmoving resulted in the creation of a cultural landscape
that was probably cleared of vegetation to facilitate gathering and
moving soil around the site.

Rather than simply scooping up soil and piling it into an earthen wall,
the wall segments at Hopeton were built with carefully selected soils.
The entire process began by removing all topsoil from the area where a
wall segment was to be built. The action of exposing the yellow or red
subsoil certainly provided a very stable foundation for the wall
segment, but it also probably was related to the Hopewell people's
efforts to manage the spirit world. In the wall segments we examined on
the south and west sides of the Hopeton rectangular enclosure, the wall
builders always placed red soil on the side of the wall that would be
viewed from outside the enclosure. Yellow soils were always placed on
the side of the wall that would be viewed from inside the enclosure. The
contacts between the different soils used to build these wall segments
are sharp and clear, and it is obvious that the selection of soil and
its placement in the wall was carefully engineered. These wall segments
were all built about AD 200.

The curving wall segment that forms the northeast corner of this
enclosure is quite different. In this area, the topsoil was removed to
expose red subsoil, and this wall segment is constructed primarily of
red sandy loam plus two different shades of gray loam. There are large
homogenous deposits of these materials in the wall, but the contacts
between the different soil materials are frequently marked by
basket-loading. In this instance, red soil was placed to be visible from
inside the rectangular enclosure and gray loam would have been visible
from outside the enclosure. Of course, as time went by, and soil formed
on the earthen walls, the wall colors would have become less noticeable.
The variation we have noted in the color placement and construction
methods between these wall segments might be related to some intended
differences in function. However, the radiocarbon dates from the curved
wall segment suggest that the curved wall segment was completed about
800 years after the other wall segments were complete.

**Conclusions**

As archaeologists and geophysicists continue to study the relationship
between geophysical data and the archaeological record, it is apparent
that this line of research will provide a more accurate depiction of the
original placement and size of the wall segments than can be obtained
from either current topographic maps or 19th-century historic maps
(Figure 5). Recent interpretations suggest the placement of gateways at
Hopeton and other Hopewell enclosures were planned to view solar and
lunar events. Evaluation of these hypotheses can be accurately evaluated
through large-scale geophysical mapping of these sites. Geophysical
survey also provides an efficient and effective way to develop a
holistic view of the archaeological record of these giant earthen
monuments. This can be a particularly effective way to view large sites
when done in concert with systematic surface collections and strategic
testing efforts.

![](media/image22.jpeg){width="5.270833333333333in" height="6.25in"}

**Figure 5 Magnetic survey coverage through 2003 at Hopeton Earthworks.
Data from three field seasons are compiled; the resolution is 1 m by
1m.**

The timing of the introduction of these new technologies to the study of
Ohio Hopewell is critical. Earthworks and mounds were once plentiful
across all of southern Ohio. Urban growth, agriculture, and other
development activities have damaged or destroyed nearly every single
earthen monument in this region. The forces impacting the archaeological
record continue to escalate as population grows, cities expand, and
agriculture continues. A number of important sites have been purchased
and preserved. Unfortunately, now that methods and technologies that
permit effective study of these large sites are becoming available, the
vast majority of large Ohio Hopewell sites are being erased from the
cultural landscape. Increased efforts to preserve sites for future study
are certainly needed, but more large-scale archaeological studies of
these great places are also needed before they are lost forever.

*Note*: this article is a slightly modified version of a paper presented
at the 69th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology,
Montreal, Canada, April 4, 2004.

**References Cited**

Lynott, Mark J., and John Weymouth

2002 Preliminary Report, 2001 Investigations, Hopeton Earthworks.
*Hopewell Archeology* 5(1):1--7.

Ruby, Bret J.

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

Squier, Ephraim G., and Edwin H. Davis

1848. *Ancient Monuments of the Mississippi Valley*. Smithsonian
      Contributions to Knowledge, Volume 1. Smithsonian Institution,
      Washington, D.C. The Smithsonian Institution reprinted this volume
      in 1998 as the 150th Anniversary Reissue Edition, which includes a
      special Introduction by David J. Meltzer.

**7. Meeting Calendar** for *Hopewell Archeology*, Volume 6, Number 1,
in chronological order:

What: The 62nd Annual Plains Anthropological Conference

Where: Sheridan Billings Hotel, Billings, Montana

When: October 13 through 16, 2004

Who to Contact: The program chair is Lynelle Peterson, Ethnoscience
Inc., 4140 King Avenue East, Billings, MT 59101; phone 406-252-7945;
email \<lynelle@ethnoscience.com\>. Or visit the conference web site at
\<http://www.2004pc.org\>.

What: The 50th Anniversary, 29th Biennial Great Basin Anthropological
Conference

Where: John Ascuaga's Nugget Resort Hotel, Sparks, Nevada

When: October 14--16, 2004

Who to Contact: David W. Zeanah, Department of Anthropology, California
State University, 6000 'J' Street, Sacramento, CA 95819-6106; phone
916-278-5683; email \<zeanah@csus.edu\>.

What: The 2004 Joint Meeting of the Southeastern Archaeological
Conference and the Midwestern Archaeological Conference

Where: The St. Louis Marriott Downtown, St. Louis, Missouri, One
Broadway, St. Louis MO 63102; 1‑800-228-9290.

When: October 21--23, 2004

Who to Contact: The program chair is Timothy Baumann, Department of
Anthropology, University of Missouri, One University Blvd., Clark Hall
507, St. Louis MO 63121-4499; email \<tbaumann@ umsl.edu\>. The
conference web site is at
\<http://www.southeasternarchaeology.org/2004seac.html\>.

What: The Society for Historical Archeology Conference 2005

Where: York, England

When: January 5 through 10, 2005

Who to Contact: The program chair is Harold Mytum, who directs
conference inquiries to the conference web site at
\<http://www.york.ac.uk/depts./arch/SHA2005/SHAwelcom.htm\>.

What: The 70th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology

Where: The Downtown Marriott Hotel, Salt Lake City, Utah (note
*Downtown* because there are two Marriotts in Salt Lake City; this is an
important point).

When: March 30 to April 3, 2005

Who to Contact: No individual is responsible for all the highly varied
aspects of this meeting. The best place to start is at the SAA web site
\<http://www.saa.org/\>.

What: The 71st Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology

Where: San Juan, Puerto Rico

When: April 26--30, 2006

Who to Contact: To Be Announced; for now the SAA web site has limited
information at \<http://www.saa.org/\>.

What:

Where:

When:

Who to Contact:

**8. On Referencing and Citing the Newsletter and Other Internet
Documents**, by John M. Andresen

This is an essay on referencing and citing Internet documents, with
special attention to citing this issue and future issues of *Hopewell
Archeology*. The essay begins with a true story about an archaeologist,
his conference paper, and the archaeological community. It might seem at
first that the introductory story has nothing to do with the Internet,
but I hope to show by the end of this essay that the story relates to
Internet citation and referencing in several ways.

William W. Wasley was a staff archeologist for the Arizona State Museum,
Tucson, from the late 1950s to the mid-1960s, during which time he
conducted fieldwork and research within the Hohokam culture area,
located in southern and central Arizona and largely concentrated in the
low Sonoran Desert. His previous fieldwork and research had been within
the puebloan Southwest, largely to the east and northeast of the Hohokam
area.

When Wasley began working in the Hohokam area, the dominant thinking
held that the Hohokam Classic period (ca. AD 1150--1450, the last of
four periods) was caused by an influx of puebloan Salado people, whose
homeland was in the higher country adjacent to and northeast of the
Hohokam area. According to the established scenario, Salado people
peacefully moved into the Hohokam area and shared their pottery, their
burial methods, and their ideas about architecture, which eventually
resulted in the monumental architecture that defines the Hohokam Classic
period.

His staff position and the contracts held by the Arizona State Museum
enabled Wasley to conduct fieldwork within the Hohokam area at
previously unexcavated sites, and he participated with Emil Haury in the
re-excavation of the famous site of Snaketown. His research led him to
conclude that developments leading to the Classic period were more
gradual than might be expected from the sudden influx of Saladoan
people, and that outside influences came from Mesoamerica to the south
rather than from any puebloan group to the northern or northeast.

In the early 1960s, Wasley had published bits and pieces of his thinking
in project-specific reports. In 1966, he brought together all his ideas
and his database into a single paper and presented it at the 31st annual
meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, held in Reno, Nevada.
He took along several mimeographed copies of the report to give away;
there were no illustrations. The paper was humbly entitled "Hohokam
Classic Period" (Wasley 1966).

His paper generated tremendous interest. Some of his ideas were
considered radical at that time; other ideas were considered new and
insightful. Wasley had presented a paper that his colleagues could not
ignore, whether they agreed with him or not. Almost immediately,
colleagues began citing Wasley's conference paper, sometimes favorably
and sometimes not. His paper sparked much formal and informal
discussion, and the paper was cited throughout the 1ate 1960s and the
entire 1970s by nearly everyone writing about the Hohokam Classic
period.

Tragically, Wasley died in an automobile accident soon after he gave his
1966 conference paper. He did not live to refine his ideas or to
participate in the revolution he helped start. Nevertheless, his paper
was so widely cited that one could get a good sense of what it contained
by analyzing how it was cited and by reading what others said about it.
Interestingly, there were far more citations of Wasley's paper
throughout the 1970s than could be accounted for by the few copies known
to exist. The spread of inexpensive photocopying in the 1970s probably
helped increase the number copies in archeologists' files. But it also
appears that a few scholars were citing it without having attended the
conference or without having a copy in hand.

The continuing citation of this rare, unpublished paper became an
increasingly odd academic situation. The Arizona Archaeological and
Historical Society resolved the problem in 1980 by publishing Wasley's
original 1966 text accompanied by a special introduction for historical
context by David E. Doyel (Doyel and Wasley 1980). By this time,
Wasley's ideas no longer seemed as radical as they had in 1966, but its
1980 publication at the very least plugged a long-standing hole in the
available literature of Hohokam archeology.

**Location and Availability**

The story of William Wasley and his 1966 paper is not unique; rather, it
is an extreme example of something common in the experience of all
archeologists. We are all familiar with the citation and listing of
conference papers presented at national and regional meetings, and all
of us have encountered problems getting copies of all the papers we
would like to have, especially when we have been unable to attend a
particular conference. With enough persistence, we can usually obtain a
copy of a paper that we really want, but sometimes the presenter has no
hard copies to distribute and is usually under no obligation to create
any.

The traditional archeological literature is full of ephemeral, rare, and
hard-to-obtain documents. Some documents exist for years only in the
minds and files of individual archeologists, as was the case for 14
years with respect to Wasley's conference paper. Other, less-celebrated
papers remain that way forever. Location and availability are closely
related. If a document such as Wasley's 1966 paper has no fixed and
permanent location, to what extent can it be considered available?
Availability in such cases depends on chance circumstances and the
kindness of others. The same is true of the availability of the gray
literature.

The Internet has dramatically increased the quantity of documents with
questionable long-term availability. The uncertainty in long-term
availability is the direct result of uncertain future Internet location.
Basic computer users have no control over when a document is posted,
taken down, moved to a different location, revised, indexed, and so on.
It is entirely possible that the location information you use today to
obtain a document will become incorrect within a year or two.

The Internet has not introduced a new factor into the fundamental nature
of the archeological literature. Instead, the Internet has quickly
increased the proportion of ephemeral documents. There has been a
quantitative, rather than a qualitative, change. For some purposes, it
is helpful to think of the Internet as a very large, ongoing conference.
When a person presents a paper, whether in a traditional live conference
or in the electronic conference of the Internet, that paper is
immediately available to the attendees. In both presentation formats,
the continued availability of each paper becomes highly idiosyncratic,
with many factors converging on a simple probability---as time
increases, the chance of locating the paper decreases. This is equally
true for the Internet as it is for a traditional live conference.

One should apply the same judgment and standards in citing Internet
documents as one normally applies to conference papers. The uses and
citations of Internet documents do not present any new problems. They
are the same old problems that have been around for many, many years.
The only difference with the Internet is the quantity of such material.
It has always been the case, and will continue to be so, that a scholar
must take responsibility for what research materials are used and how
they are used. In this respect, the Internet has changed nothing.

**Reference and Citation Guidelines**

Permanency of location is an issue that has bedeviled Internet users and
creators of citation formats for many years. There have been many
attempts to confer some sort of permanency on Internet documents through
the development and application of complex and elaborate referencing
formats. With minute variations in formatting, these guidelines attempt
to cover every conceivable situation one might encounter with respect to
any electronic document. Most of these guidelines require the person
applying the format to know a good deal about the Internet. There is
perhaps an even bigger problem for the innocent reader. If you haven't
already memorized the guidelines for the format you are trying to
decipher in someone else's References Cited section, then you will have
considerable difficulty interpreting the reference itself and finding
the item of interest. There are too many such referencing guidelines to
cite and list here; Patrias (2001) is just one example.

We have found it necessary to cite earlier *Hopewell Archeology*
newsletter articles in later newsletter articles---using, of course, the
same format of academic reference listing that is normally applied to a
journal. Although all earlier issues are available electronically, they
were always primarily available as hard copy. As such, referenced
*Hopewell Archeology* articles were easily cited and formatted for
listing in the References Cited section at the end of an article.

With this issue, that situation changes. Unfortunately for the editor,
the new online-only format will add a layer of complexity to the
reference formatting of future articles that cite something in this
issue or later issues of *Hopewell Archeology*. Fortunately for the
editor, there are simple guidelines in place at the Midwest
Archeological Center to cover such a contingency. One purpose of this
essay is to introduce to our readers to what those guidelines consist of
and how these might be applied to an online-only format, such as we now
have with *Hopewell Archeology*.

The most recent version of the Midwest Archeological Center style guide
is divided into several interlinked subsection and distributed as a
group of PDF files, which all fit on a single 3.5-inch floppy disk, and
could easily be sent as email attachments, and placed on the office
intranet for easy access by Center employees. The style guide consists
of one central file containing the core of style guidelines with three
linked, separate files entitled *Enhancing Readability* (an essay on
headings), *References Cited* (a major topic of its own), and *Citing
Internet Sources.* For the first time, we are making this collection
available to the public.

The last of the files mentioned in the previous paragraph is the subject
of the remainder of this column. For those who can't wait, click
**here** to open *Citing Internet Sources*. Please note that the linked
file is an Adobe Acrobat Portable Document Format (PDF) file, and you
might need to upgrade your version of Adobe Reader to Version 6, which
is available free at their website, \<http://www.adobe.com\>.

In general structure, the format for listing an Internet source is very
much like that for a traditional hard copy book, journal, or thesis.
There is the usual author, date, document title, series or institution
name when applicable, location details, and additional information to
help the reader locate the item. When outlined like this, it all seems
very simple, and often it is that simple.

However, there are many kinds of "Internet documents" with all types of
authorship situations, ambiguous or multiple dates, ambiguous or missing
document titles, location details prone to instant and unannounced
change, and a host of other complexities that most seasoned Internet
users are already quite familiar with and are too numerous and varied to
list here. How, then, do we squeeze unprecedented variability and
complexity into a simple, traditional format? That question is answered
in detail in our *Citing Internet Sources* and discussed in general
terms in the next few paragraphs.

**Guidelines Used at the Midwest Archeological Center**

For reasons explained in detail elsewhere, email messages and documents
on CD are not part of this discussion. An email message is treated as a
traditional personal communication, and a document on CD is treated like
a hard-copy book or a traditional publication series. For a fuller
discussion of this issue and the underlying rationale, refer to pp. 6--7
in the Midwest Archeological Center's **References Cited** section of
the style guide.

Perhaps the most important issue of all is that there is nothing new
about Internet citation that hasn't been already treated in traditional
style guides and other academic writing manuals. Long before there was
an Internet, there were documents without titles, documents with
uncertain or corporate authorship, documents with missing, unknown, or
estimated dates, no established location, no clear revision date,
documents existing in draft form only, and no publisher. Usually not all
for of these problems would apply to a single document, but every
archive has at least one exception.

The Center's guidelines make use of special characters traditionally
used to indicate special types of information, and these special
characters can be adapted to Internet document citation formats.
Quotation marks always indicate a string of text that has been exactly
transcribed word for word from something. Square brackets always enclose
comments or clarifications inserted by an author, transcriber, or
editor. More recently, angled brackets have become the standard way of
enclosing Internet location information, which is usually a web site
address but might be an ftp location or an email address.

Putting it all together, the Midwest Archeological Center *Internet
Citation Guidelines* use long-standing, pre-Internet ways of dealing
with uncertain reference information in combination with traditional and
universally recognized punctuation. This allows an author to create
Internet reference listings that are understandable even to those who
are not directly familiar with the Midwest Archeological Center
*Internet Citation Guidelines*.

A significant degree of responsibility and creativity falls upon the
author or other creator of a references cited entry. There will be many
situations when a certain bit of information is not spelled out for you
in an obvious place, and you will have to do a little more searching and
thinking than is normally required for creating a references cited entry
for a traditional book or journal. The job is not as daunting as it
might seem at first, and a little bit of practice will go a long way.

It is important to keep in mind is that the placing of an Internet
document's reference details into a format---any format---and listing it
within a formally prepared References Cited section of a report does not
confer any special legitimacy on that document. Similarly, the fact that
it was found on the Internet does not detract from its legitimacy or
usefulness. The author must make judgments and take responsibility for
what references are used and how they are used. This has been true for
as long as there have been books with bibliographies and journals with
references cited.

For further discussion and details, refer to *Citing Internet Documents*
introduced above. The following example reference listing shows how to
use the Center's guidelines to reference Ann Bauermeister's article in
this issue of the newsletter:

Bauermeister, Ann C.

2004 "Survey and Excavations in 2004 at 33RO1059." \[Hopewell
Archeology, Vol. 6, No. 1, Article 4\]
\<http://www.cr.nps.gov/mwac/hopewell/v5n1/index.html#four\>. Document
dated September 2004; accessed October 2004. Comments: if the specific
location information fails, go to the Midwest Archeological Center home
page at \<http://www.cr.nps.gov/mwac/\> for directions to the Hopewell
newsletter directory.

**References Cited**

Patrias, Karen

2001 *National Library of Medicine Recommended Formats for Bibliographic
Citation, Supplement: Internet Formats*. U. S. Department of Health and
Human Services, Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health,
National Library of Medicine, Reference Section, Bethesda, Maryland.

Society for American Archaeology

1992 Editorial Policy, Information for Authors, and Style Guide for
*American Antiquity* and *Latin American Antiquity*. *American
Antiquity* 57(4):749--770.

2003 "Editorial Policy, Information for Authors, and Style Guide for
*American Antiquity* and *Latin Ameri­can Antiquity*" \[PDF downloaded
from SAA web site\] \<http://www.saa.org/Publications/StyleGuide/
saaguide.pdf\> Document revised 21 January 2003; accessed 05 February
2003.

Wasley, William W.

1966 Classic Period Hohokam. Paper presented at the 31st Annual Meeting
of the Society for American Archaeology, Reno, Nevada.

Wasley, William W., and David E. Doyel

1980 Classic Period Hohokam. *The Kiva* 45(4):337--352.