TOWARD A MODEL OF HOPEWELL SUBSISTENCE SCHEDULING:

TOWARD A MODEL OF HOPEWELL SUBSISTENCE SCHEDULING:

the Geometrical Earthworks of Ohio as Calendrical Devices

Christopher S. Turner

2000

The author grants permission to reproduce text, tables, maps, or images included herein, provided that the author is cited as Turner, Christopher S.,  year of article, name of article, conference event and date if applicable to paper, page, and source, and provided that use of any text, tables, maps, or images included herein is for non-commercial, academic purposes.

 

Abstract

            Data are reviewed and presented demonstrating calendrical alignments at the Fairground Circle and the Hopeton Earthworks, two Middle Woodland Hopewell geometric enclosures in Ohio. The relationship of these designs to earlier Adena circles is considered. The corpus of available radiocarbon dates for Hopewell and Adena enclosures is discussed. Established chronologies of horticultural development in the prehistoric Eastern Woodlands are examined and suggest a motive for the creation of these Hopewell earthworks: subsistence scheduling.

Archaeoastronomy as an interpretive tool has been ignored in Eastern Woodlands archaeology. As the title suggests, this paper is an effort to stimulate such investigations.

Poorly executed archaeoastronomical research can often be little more than confusing arrays of lines on low accuracy maps, with scant cultural interpretation. This paper seeks to avoid such pitfalls by its in-depth review of paleobotanical data and chronologies, and by suggesting possible variations in social structuring associated with primitive calendar keepers, or “skywatchers”.  

Introduction

South central Ohio was the locus of the primary florescence of the Hopewell culture. This Middle Woodland Period expression of the Eastern Woodlands Indians is noted for its extensive and elaborate artwork and mortuary customs. Perhaps equally well known are the large geometric earthworks. The “Indian Mounds” of the Midwest and southern United States have long fascinated both layman and professional archaeologists alike. The extensive use of earth as a construction material by the early people of eastern North America is well evidenced by its adaptation to mortuary customs (burial mounds), communication systems (signal mounds), defensive structures (hill fort embankments)1, and ceremonial areas (“sacred circles”).

            The latter category are the “sacred circles” of the Early Woodland Period Adena culture (Greber 1991, Otto 1979, Sciulli 1977). Though of a geometric form, Adena circles are found to be of modest dimensions when compared with the Hopewell geometric enclosures. Adena circles are typically about 60 m in diameter. The Hopewell geometric enclosures, however, are on the order of 300 m across or greater.

            Various authors have long suggested that these unique earthworks were designed as astronomical/calendrical devices (Atwater 1820:144; Eddy 1977; see also Squier and Davis 1848:47-49, 66). Since 1980, several research papers have substantiated such speculations (Hively and Horn 1982, 1984; Turner 1982, 1983).

            The creation of these geometric enclosures did not occur in a cultural vacuum. Just as there is evidence that Hopewell mortuary customs, subsistence, trade, and sedentism patterns emerged from developments in the Archaic and Early Woodland Periods, such is also the case for the origin of the geometric enclosures (Abrams 1992; Black 1979; Brose 1979; Dragoo 1963:230-246, 1964, 1976a:3, 1976b; Greber 1991; Otto 1979; Prufer 1964; Seeman 1979; Streuver 1964; Streuver and Houart 1972; Webb and Snow 1945).

            Notable is the evolution of the Adena “sacred circles”. Though some late Adena sites were coeval with Hopewell, there are numerous examples demonstrating the Early Woodland origin of such circular embankments. Many such Kentucky sites have been studied and documented. These Adena earthworks themselves have a complex evolution and morphology (Clay 1985, 1986, 1987, 1991, 1998). Most groups occurred away from centers of habitation, typically on ridgetops2, and were eventually associated with a mortuary function. Such ridgetop mortuary patterns reflect earlier examples found in Late Archaic cultures (Buikstra and Charles 1999; Dragoo 1963:233-246, Jeffries 1988:16, Perino 1968:67-74). Whatever the exact chronology of these customs, it is clear that Adena circles came to be built in a pattern as follows: circular embankment surrounding an interior ditch, with a singular opening or “gateway”3 (figure 1). Examples of this design can be found at Dominion in Ohio (33Fr12), Mt. Horeb in Kentucky (15Fa1) and Anderson in Indiana (12Ma2) (Clay 1998; Cochran 1992, Cramer 1989). Evidence indicates that these three circles date to the mid-late first millennium BC.4

 

 

The Fairground Circle

While it is part of a larger multi-enclosure complex, the Newark Earthworks (33LI 10) (figure 2), it is possible that the Fairground Circle was the earliest constructed of the all of the large Hopewell geometric enclosures. A sub-embankment paleosoil humate sample was obtained and dated to 2110 ± 80 BP(160 BC) (Beta 58449) (Lepper 1998:126). “Flecks of charcoal were present in the same paleosoil sample”, thus bolstering the confidence in the accuracy of this humate date (Wymer 1996:48).  Compared with other similar mound groups, the Fairground Circle is irregularly shaped. Its geometric non-perfection stands in sharp contrast to other highly accurate and more complex Hopewell geometric enclosures (Thomas 1889, 1894). This variation can be interpreted as evidence of its early position in a morphological lineage (Bradley 1993:97; Dancey 1996:401-402). Also, the Fairground Circle is comparatively simplistic in that it has but one opening or gateway.  Its design (i.e., interior ditch and singular gateway) is evidently based on the earlier Adena circles4 (figure 1). To wit: “The Dresden and Lichtenau Circles, as well as the Fairground Circle in Newark…were developing simultaneously out of late Adena at various localities in the Upper Licking and Muskingum valleys” (Carskadden and Morton 1997:372). Fairground’s interior ditch does distinguish it from virtually all of the other Hopewell sites except Circleville (Atwater 1820) and the quasi-Hopewell Reformatory Circle in Chillicothe (Greber 1991:17; Squier and Davis 1848:156, plate XIX), further suggesting that it was conceived in a mound building continuum whose roots were in Adena (Otto 1979:10, 11; Prufer 1964:57; Riordan 1995:78; Webb and Snow 1945:327 ).

            The astronomical bearing of the sightline defined by the Fairground Circle has been misinterpreted in the literature. It has been claimed to be a summer solstice rise marker (Stocker 1981:25, White 1985). It has also been suggested to be a north lunar minimum rise index, even though it is greater than two degrees from this event (Romain 1993b:48-49). Even the entry walls have been interpreted as alignment devices, though they are exceedingly short for such purposes (Hively and Horn 1982:S15).

            More likely, the circle indexes the May cross-quarter sunrise date5 (Turner 1982). The first gleam phenomenon through the center of the main gateway as seen from the  Eagle Mound occurs on May 3 and August 10, whereas the full disk or last tangent rise is on May 5 and August 8. The latter dates more accurately quarter the year, suggesting the use of the last tangent event at this earthwork (McCluskey 1989, 1993:104-105).

The Hopeton Earthworks

The Hopeton site (33Ro26) (figure 3) is host to numerous solar and lunar alignments (Turner 1983). These results were computed using survey data obtained in the 1880s by the Bureau of Ethnology (Thomas 1889, 1894:473). The survey has been checked for accuracy by various authors (Hively and Horn 1982:S7, 1984:S89- S91; Robertson 1983; Turner 1983:19; see also Marshall 1999:37). Values for site latitude and horizon heights of the sightlines were determined using U.S. Geological Survey 7.5‘ maps. Standard values for refraction correction, parallax, and semi-diameter were obtained from astronomy tables (Hawkins 1975; Thom 1967, 1971). All of these factors were then inserted into the appropriate spherical trigonometry equation6. It was in this manner that the Hopeton site was analyzed.

            Alignments were found to mark rising and setting points of the solstices, equinoxes, and the lunar extrema (figures 4a and 4b, tables 1a and 1b). These sightlines are from gateway to gateway7.

            The north and south sides of the Hopeton polygon (more exactly, sightlines 5-7 and 1-11) point to the sunrise on the May cross-quarter date. This is the same date as marked by the Fairground Circle. The basic design of these two earthworks is determined by this index. At the Fairground Circle, the singular gateway is located to mark this sunrise point. At Hopeton, the overall orientation of the polygon is defined by this alignment. This is especially significant in that these three sightlines are all of differing azimuths and have different horizon heights, yet they mark the same sunrise date (table 2).

            For reasons similar to those at the Fairground Circle, Hopeton is likely early in the lineage of Hopewell geometric enclosures. The Hopeton earthworks had a sub-embankment charcoal sample dated to 1930 ±60 BP  (AD 20)(Beta 96598) (Ruby 1997:6). This was from a charcoal lens lying atop a thin prepared burned surface of silt, sand, and clay overlying the A-horizon paleosol. The provenience of this feature is consistent with an initial construction event.

            A second date of 1840±50 BP(AD110) (Beta 109962)(Bret Ruby, personal communication, Jan. 2000) was determined. This charcoal sample was from a redeposited midden feature located atop the final major construction-episode layer.

            Overlapping at one sigma, these statistically simultaneous dates are consistent with a rapid construction phase in the mid-first century A.D. Thus, at least in the case of Hopeton, though the embankment profile indicated three construction episodes, these may have been immediately sequential (cf. Greber 1997:209, 218-219; Pacheco 1993:95, 1996:20).

These construction layers at Hopeton were of varying soil types and colors. Though it has been suggested that such various colors may have had a symbolic significance (Lepper 1996:233), a more economical interpretation would hold that typical final cap or slope layers (when made of clay-bearing soil as was the case at Hopeton and at the Fairground Circle) are anti-erosional buffers.

            Hopeton lacks the geometrical regularity found at other similar Hopewell sites. Byers (1998:139)  definition of  the C-R motif, a two-element (circular and rectilinear) enclosure joined, with axial symmetry, fits well with the Newark Octagon, High bank, Hopeton, and Circleville. Most of the other dozen-odd Hopewellian enclosure groups consist of three parts, a square and two circles, the so-called “tripartite groups” . In the C-R motif category, Hopeton is the most irregularly shaped. The Newark Octagon is the C-R earthwork with the highest geometrical accuracy and complexity.  At Hopeton though, the large circle is decidedly oval. The polygon is not  regular as is found at other sites (Fowke 1889:386; Thomas 1889).  This is consistent with Hopeton being an earlier enclosure. Apparently the Hopewell were neither compelled, nor yet able, to attain to a high degree of geometrical accuracy. Also, as demonstrated at the Newark Octagon and the High Bank site, otherwise regular geometric shapes were distorted to accommodate given astronomical alignments (Hively and Horn 1982:S14, S17; 1984:S95-S96). This same distortion can be found at Hopeton. For instance, gateway 11 is located to mark the winter solstice rise alignment. Otherwise, a squarer shape could have resulted, with gateway 11 more to the east than its actual location (figure 4a). Also, the backsight point for alignment 5-11, the northwest corner of the polygon, was defined by a distinct narrowing or closure of the gateway, rendering the sightline more precise (figure 5). This alignment, combined with the May cross-quarter lines (the north and south sides of the polygon, or more exactly, sightlines 5-7 and 1-11), uniquely define the orientation and proportion of the Hopeton “square”.

Horizon Foresight Features

There is strong evidence suggesting that the Newark and Hopeton earthworks were located and designed to delineate extant horizon foresight features. The primary backsight at the Newark Octagon group, the Observatory Mound, is bounded by an eastern horizon with notable landforms marking the north lunar maximum rise, the equinox, and the south lunar maximum rise. All three are topographically distinct peaks or bluffs (figure 6). The south lunar maximum sightline horizon foresight consists of a small enclosure at the crest of a natural hilltop. This earthwork is indicated on the 1860s Unzicker map (Lepper 2000:18) as a dot (i.e. a mound). It is actually a 40-foot in diameter enclosure with a single gateway and small interior mound. This is the first formal noting of it in print. It is now called the Naiya mound (33Li1057)(figure 7). Its angular elevation as seen from the Newark Octagon Observatory Mound (as calculated from the topographic map) is 1.0°. This sightline misses the south lunar maximum risepoint by only 0.1°(calculated).  Alternatively, Hively and Horn (1982) suggested that this sightline was intentionally aimed at the edge of the Fairground Circle. The embankment of the Fairground Circle would appear only a tenth of a degree in angular height, however (figure 6), virtually invisible at near two kilometers away with a higher horizon behind it.  

            At the Fairground Circle, the axial May Day alignment shares its horizon foresight with equinox rise as seen from the Observatory Mound (figure 6). The Fairground Circle sightline is located such that it points to a section of horizon where the angular elevation is nearly zero degrees (0.15° calculated from map).  This is because the bearing follows the Licking River valley, and does not encounter an obscuring landform for some 16 km. The bluff foresight feature that it crosses some 3 km away, though having a local relief of 25 m, is at the same elevation as the Fairground Circle. Had the enclosure been located just a few tens of meters north or south of its actual location, the view would have been aimed toward a hilly section of horizon. Thus it appears that the Hopewell located the Fairground Circle in accord with an extant horizon foresight “gap”. This bolsters the notion that, prior to mound construction, such viewlines were already known to long-time resident individuals (skywatchers/calendar keepers). Further, because sunrises seen along this azimuth occur over the Licking River valley (where morning fogs would be likely), it is logical that the full disk (last tangent) phenomenon would be indexed (to facilitate visibility). This is in contrast to rising events at Hopeton, where the “saw-toothed” mountainous horizon profile lends itself to first gleam phenomena, as is in accord with observations there. 

            At Hopeton, the author completed an extensive systematic survey of the horizons surrounding this earthwork (Turner 1983). Piles of fire-cracked rock (or fire cairns) have been noted to surround the geometric enclosures:

“The apparent dependence which exists between some of them [fire cairns] and the larger earthworks [the geometric enclosures] would seem to favor the idea that they were lookouts. But whether signal stations or otherwise, there can be no doubt that the ancient people selected prominent and elevated positions upon which to build large fires, which were kept burning for long periods, or were renewed at frequent intervals… The traces of these fires are only observed upon the brows of the hills: they appear to have been built generally upon heaps of stones, which are broken up and sometimes partially vitrified” [Squier and Davis 1848:183].

            The author mapped these remnant fire cairns (FCR concentrations) on the ridges surrounding Hopeton (Turner 1983)(figure 8). Most of these correspond with sightlines defined by the Hopeton gateways (figure 9). Some, like the concentration of scattered FCR on the peak of Sugarloaf, are probably remnants of signal fires used for non-calendrical communication . Sugarloaf is a most salient feature on the Scioto Hopewell landscape, and certainly would figure in any schemata dictating intersite visibility (Waldron & Abrams 1999). As seen from Hopeton, many gaps and peaks mark the eastern horizon itself. Several of these features correspond with alignments. Most notable is the discrete gap formed by Bunker Hill and Mt. Ives. This feature exactly frames the winter solstice rise as seen along line 5-11. In addition, a remnant fire cairn was located by the author on east Mt.Ives peak, which forms part of the profile of this noted gap.  All of the rising alignments as seen from Hopeton are marked by either natural horizon features or fire cairns (Turner 1999).

            The author suggests that all proposed alignments at Hopewell geometric sites have the corresponding horizon locales searched for earthworks, remnant fire cairns, or natural topographic features (distinct gaps or peaks). The consistent presence of such foresight markers (especially at the earlier non-mortuary sites) will give great support to the calendrical interpretation. Surface mapping of cairn remnants should be undertaken at all proposed horizon foresight areas. Thermoluminescent dating of cairn samples, and excavations in search of diagnostic artifacts would be prudent. The appropriate landforms surrounding Newark, High Bank , Liberty earthworks, and Baum should also be investigated .

 

Radiocarbon Dates for Other Ohio Hopewell Geometric Earthworks

As mentioned, the Fairground Circle and Hopeton are possibly the two earliest built of the Hopewell geometric enclosures. While some of the Hopewell enclosures have been destroyed and will never be datable, other sites have had radiometric dates obtained. Unfortunately, the proveniences of many such samples are from contexts that reveal no insight into the initial creation of the geometric components of the given earthwork.  

For instance, three different BC dates from mound 25 at the Hopewell type-site (figure 10) are all from mortuary contexts (Libby 1955:94-95), not from within an embankment nor in/on the A-horizon beneath .

Thirty absolute dates have been published for the Seip (33Ro40) and Harness (33Ro22) earthworks (Baby and Langlois 1979, Carr 1996, Greber 1983:34-37). None of the sample proveniences pertain to the geometric embankments. The vast bulk of dates, many in the Late Woodland, postdate the Fairground Circle and Hopeton. 

According to Greber (1999:11), charred posts from within the circular enclosure embankment at the High Bank site in Chillicothe (33Ro24) yielded the following: 

·           1740  +/-  60 BP  (AD 210) (Beta-199207)

·           1960  +/-  40 BP  (10 BC) (Beta-109208)

·           1830  +/- 30 BP  (AD 120) (Beta-110640)

·           1900 +/-  40 BP  (AD 50) (Beta-124044)

 Given the vagaries of dating heartwood vs. the outer tree ring layers, these dates are consistent with a 2^nd century A.D. construction episode. The geometrical complexity/accuracy of High Bank compared to the Fairground Circle and Hopeton is also consistent with this chronology. 

Two humate samples from an unusual pit or basin feature within the octagonal enclosure at Newark (33Li10) yielded dates of 1650±80BP(AD 300) (Beta 76908) and 1720±80 BP(AD230) (Beta 76909)(Lepper 1998:128). Though not from directly under the enclosure embankment, neither were the samples associated with features suggesting other functional roles (e.g. mortuary, storage, structural, defensive pickets, etc). This is consistent with the octagon being constructed after AD. 200. Again, based on geometrical complexity/accuracy, the chronology indicated sensibly follows the lineage Fairground Circle, Hopeton, High Bank.8

It is reasonable to surmise, based on available radiocarbon dates and the development of geometrical earthwork construction beginning during the time of the Early Woodland Adena culture4, that the Fairground Circle and the Hopeton Earthworks were two of the earliest constructed of the Hopewell geometric enclosures. The dates and the artifactual associations at Hopeton (Brose 1976) are very convincing. The single humate date and the meager diagnostic artifacts found at the Fairground Circle (Lepper 1998:126), while not constituting a convincing argument, are certainly consistent with an early Middle Woodland time frame.

Only devout skeptics could deny a correlation between the Adena circles and the design of the Fairground enclosure (Bradley 1993:97). Excepting, for example, such Adena circles as from the Plains site in the lower Hocking Valley, the majority of these sites with associated radiocarbon dates predate the Hopewell earthworks. It remains a puzzling archaeological question as to why inhabitants of the Hocking River area exhibited traits of the late Adena culture, when their contemporaries, the Hopewell, were thriving in the Scioto Valley to their west and the Upper Muskingum Valley to their north. Adena circles at the Plains site have been dated to the late first century AD, after the proposed construction time of the Fairground Circle. The anomalous nature of the Hocking Valley evidence stands as a good example of variation in regional cultural trends, rather than as non-corroborating evidence in surmising a Hopewell enclosure chronology (Abrams 1992a; Otto 1979)

            This period of construction I posit for Fairground and Hopeton, circa AD 1, is contemporaneous with the increased use of the starchy seed taxa of the Eastern Agricultural Complex. Seed assemblage data from many sites in the Midwest indicate increased density and ubiquity of cultivated plant foods at this time.

A Brief Chronology of the Development of the Eastern Agricultural Complex

             Starting in the 1960s, water flotation as a superior method for screening archaeological samples gained acceptance among researchers (Streuver 1968; Watson 1997). Increased attention was subsequently paid to the recovery of floral remains at excavation sites. The database of paleobotanical materials expanded dramatically in the 1970s and 1980s. Additionally, the advent of accelerator mass spectrometer (AMS) dating in the early 1980s allowed for absolute chronologies to be established using exceedingly small sample sizes (Conard et al 1984). Because of the inherent presence of carbon in seeds and floral remains, paleobotanical samples lend themselves well to dating. Through the 1990s to the present, chronologies have emerged establishing the development of horticulture by the Eastern Woodlands Indians. It is now largely accepted that eastern North America, and particularly the Midwest, was an independent center of cultivation and domestication of various plant foods starting in the Late Archaic period and continuing into the Woodland  (Cowan 1985; Smith 1992; Streuver 1964:99; Streuver and Vickery 1972; Yarnell and Black 1985).

            Squash (Cucurbita pepo) is the earliest found of such taxa. It is possible that the most common use of squash was as a non-food item, i.e. it was utilized as a container or even as a fishing float (Prentice 1986). There is an ongoing debate as to the original source of squash. The two dominant hypotheses suggest that it was either of Meso-American origin (a tropical cultigen), or that it was derived from a wild variety found in the Texas-Missouri area (Cucurbita pepo var. texana) (Cowan 1997; Cowan and Smith 1993; Newsom, et al 1993).

            Whatever the origin of squash, the other taxa of the Eastern Agricultural Complex (EAC) have had their histories fairly well documented. Their presence has been confirmed at widely separated Late Archaic and Early Woodland sites from the Ozarks and Illinois, to central Kentucky and eastern Tennessee (Yarnell 1993).

            A domesticated form of marsh elder, Iva annua var. macrocarpa, has been found at the Napoleon Hollow site in Illinois dating from about 2000 BC. (Asch and Asch 1978). Maygrass (Phalaris caroliniana) was present at Bacon Bend (40Hr25) in eastern Tennessee at the same time (Cowan 1978).  Thin-testa chenopod, a domesticated form of lambsquarter (Chenopodium berlandieri ssp. jonesianum), was found in Newt Kash (Kentucky) rockshelter seed assemblages from circa 1500 BC. (Fritz and Smith 1988; Gremillion 1997). Also, sunflower (Helianthus annuus), with an enlarged seed size indicative of domestication, was present at the Marble Bluff rockshelter site (3Se1) in Arkansas around 1000 BC. (Fritz 1997) and at the Higgs site (40Lo45) in eastern Tennessee around the same time (Chapman and Shea 1981:72).

Though such remains have been confirmed at these times and places, they are not found in large quantities at Late and Terminal Archaic sites. Seed densities and ubiquities are much greater for Early Woodland rockshelter and cave sites in central Kentucky (Crawford 1982; Gardner 1987; Gremillion 1993; Railey 1996). Such increases did not occur pandemically around the Midwest till about 200 BC to AD 1 (Braun 1987; 154, 170-173; Braun and Plog 1982:516;  Fritz 1993; O’Brien 1987; Smith 1985b:52-56, 1987:37, 1989:1566, figure 3, 1992b:205; Wymer 1987, 1992, 1996, 1997).

Areas where intensive archaeological investigations of habitation sites have been undertaken in the Midwest and upper Midsouth have yielded evidence of this increase in the use of the EAC cultivars.

In the American Bottom, the number of seeds per liter of analyzed feature fill increased over 600% from the Early Woodland to the Middle Woodland (Johannessan 1984:200).

East-central Tennessee also produced such evidence. Middle Woodland McFarland culture sites in the Duck and Elk River valleys showed an “increasing reliance on cultivated and domesticated plants” (Faulkner 1988:85). Concomitant “marked changes …evident in community patterning and settlement location between the early McFarland phase dating ca. 200-100 BC and the late McFarland phase dating between AD 100-200” are consistent with changing subsistence patterns (Faulkner 1988:79; Fuller 1981). Food processing features and valley bottom habitation increased. Exotic items associated with the Copena culture and the Hopewell interaction sphere are present at McFarland and associated sites (Faulkner 1988:79-80).

Further east, in the Little Tennessee River valley, deeply stratified sites (ranging from the Archaic to the Historic period) give further evidence of the increasing use of the EAC cultivars. Regional preferences for various taxa are apparent throughout the east-central U.S. For example, knotweed is not abundant in eastern Tennessee till the Early Mississippian period. With chenopodium, however, “although a few seeds were identified in Early Archaic period samples, …beginning with  the Late Archaic…the occurrence of chenopod  increases and whole seeds and fragments are relatively abundant during the Woodland and Early Mississippian” (Chapman and Shea 1981:70).

About 150 km away in Alabama is Russell Cave, located downstream of the Little Tennessee River sites. Excavations there in 1956 revealed a basket or grass-lined cache of seeds. This feature was vandalized, and only a fraction was salvaged. The sample totaled 50,000 chenopodium seeds, including the domesticated variety. Samples of the basket were dated to 1975±55 BP (25BC)(SI-5502)(Smith 1985b:71). Samples of the seeds were AMS dated to 2340±120 BP (390BC)(Beta 11882)(Smith 1985b:71). The presence of such a large cache of domesticated seeds in the early Middle Woodland is consistent with a pan-regional reliance on produced (rather than collected) food sources.

The Illinois River valley is noted for the archaeological data it has yielded. Many deeply stratified and single component sites have been explored there. Some of the earliest evidence of domestication of EAC cultigens is from this area. A well-defined progression of seed use from the Archaic to the Mississippian is found, with a hard-to-explain gap during the Early Woodland period. As in other regions, however, at the beginning of the Middle Woodland, seed volumes burgeon, increasing and peaking in the Late Woodland. Seed-to-nut ratios were forty times greater at the Middle Woodland  Macoupin site compared to a Late Archaic feature at Koster (Asch and Asch 1978:329). At one Late Woodland site, Newbridge, a pit containing five million starchy taxa EAC seeds was found (Asch and Asch 1981:287, 1985:171,183;  Fritz 1993:48).

Rockshelters in the Ozarks and the east-central highlands of Kentucky have produced some of the best preserved archaeobotanical remains, both in the form of caches and paleofecal samples. In Arkansas, seed stashes in woven bags have been found in such cave settings. At Marble Bluff (3Se1), domesticated forms of EAC cultivars have been excavated and dated to 1000-1500 BC. (Fritz 1997), giving further evidence of the long-developing horticultural technology throughout the east-central U.S.

            Highly dried paleofecal remains from Salts Cave and Newt Kash, both in Kentucky, suggest a strong reliance on plant foods existed regionally here during the Early Woodland.

Intestinal contents from the Salts Cave “mummies” yielded similar evidence (Jones 1936; Yarnell 1974).

In eastern Kentucky, the Red River area is noted for its beautiful landforms and its many caves and rockshelters. These have been the source of important paleoethnobotanical finds. The Cold Oak rockshelter (15Le50) is a primary typical example. Late Archaic floral assemblages reveal the presence of EAC species in small amounts by 1500 BC. (Fritz and Smith 1988:9, Gremillion 1993:162,172,179). These taxa appear suddenly in the archaeological record and occur out of their natural range (Cowan 1978:265; Gremillion 1993:171-172; Yarnell 1978:290-291). The EAC cultivars are found in greater quantitie in later Early Woodland contexts (i.e. after 1000 BC.). Compared to all of the other regions mentioned, only Kentucky rockshelter and cave assemblages show this Early Woodland increase (Cowan 1985:238-241; Gremillion 1993: 162,169,179).

Also, importantly, forests were being modified.Charcoal assemblage species and pollen samples from near Kentucky rockshelters indicate the increased presence of fire at this time, consistent with the creation of forest openings to facilitate the clearing of garden plots (Delcourt et al 1998). Diagnostic artifacts from this period, termed the Cogswell phase, include contracting stemmed points similar to Adena diagnostics (Ison 1988:212). Associated Skidmore phase McWhinney Stemmed and Merom-Trimble Notched points are found throughout the range of Adena territory (southwest and central Ohio, northern Kentucky, and southeastern Indiana)(Ison 1988:215; Jeffries 1996:63). Though the confirmed presence of EAC cultigens in an Adena context is so far lacking, geographical and temporal congruity is strongly suggestive of a Cogswell Phase-Adena connection. Adena has been defined essentially as a mortuary phenomenon, and its dispersed settlements have been poorly documented (Clay 1991:30, 1998:1; Dragoo 1976a:3, 6-7). Established changes in habitation patterns and loci, social stratification, and use/exchange of exotic items, however, are well-documented (Clay 1991; Cowan 1985:238; Dragoo 1963:178-227; Greber 1991). These noted changes are concomitant with resource procurement patterns associated with an intensified agriculture (Bender 1978:213-214; Braun 1986; Clay 1991:35; Fuller 1981).

The dearth of information on Adena settlements, due in large part to the focus on its mortuary features, is mirrored in Ohio Hopewell. Only in the last 20 years have substantial efforts been made to fill this lacuna, though the results are not universally embraced by archaeologists (Converse 1993, Dancey and Pacheco 1997, Griffin 1996, Pacheco 1997). Not only are habitation models still coming into their own, but thorough data on paleoethnobotanical remains, also contingent on habitation site excavations, are continuing to accrue. In general, the results so far are consistent with the rest of the Midwest (Shane 1970:144; Wymer 1987, 1990). The usual spectra of starchy and oily seed taxa are found, with maygrass, knotweed, and chenopod predominating (Wymer 1992:73). Evidence of anthropogenic landscape alteration is present: pollen/phytolith samples and charcoal assemblages indicate an increasing clearing of trees and presence of successional species (Cummings 1992; Wymer 1996:45-47, 1997:159). As in the eastern Kentucky highlands, these patterns are consistent with swidden farming (Dancey 1991:52; Delcourt et al 1998:276; Wymer 1996:47, 1997:159). Also as in Kentucky, most of the EAC taxa are non-indigenous. In Ohio, however, they are poorly represented in the Early Woodland, burgeoning in the early Middle Woodland (Wymer 1992:65,71). Floral assemblage data from sites in or adjoining Newark, the home of the Fairground Circle, clearly indicate an increase in EAC use around the second century BC .

Paleobotanical data from the vicinity of the Hopeton earthworks are lacking. Notably though, the largest single cache of EAC seeds ever discovered was found in a rockshelter 38 km east of Hopeton in the Hocking Hills region. These domesticated chenopod seeds totaled 9,600,000 (Smith 1985:109). A sample was AMS dated to

1720±100 BP (AD230 ) (Beta 11346)(Smith 1985:112). Though this date is not immediately germane to demonstrating the inception of intensified horticulture in the Scioto valley area, clearly such foodstuffs were in use regionally during the Middle Woodland period          

            Thus, the inception of agriculture (horticultural food production) in Ohio was contemporaneous with the advent of the large Hopewell geometric earthworks. This suggests that the original motive for the construction of these calendrical indices was to accurately mark planting times during the appropriate season. The marking of the May cross-quarter date by the Fairground Circle and Hopeton further underscores this line of interpretation.

Speculations on the Evolution of the Geometric Groups

There is a notable paucity of evidence suggesting that the Fairground Circle and Hopeton, and some other geometrical enclosures, were the foci of nucleated sedentism, mortuary centers, or trade-item distribution centers or workshops (Brose 1976; Greber 1996:156; Griffin 1996; Lepper 1998:124-125; Prufer 1967:316). The Vacant Ceremonial Center model has been used to describe these observations (Pacheco 1993; Prufer 1964:70-74).  Subsequent studies have supported this view, showing that the Hopewell favored a dispersed hamlet pattern of habitation (Dancey 1991, 1992; Dancey and Pacheco 1997; Pacheco 1989, 1993, 1996, 1997).Contrary to this though, some of the more complex geometric sites (the tripartite groups), were the centers of extensive mortuary and trade item areas (Baby and Langlois 1979; Greber 1979, 1983; Seeman 1979). Greber has such mortuary sites being established as status burial areas, with the geometric/calendrical component, (e.g. a square), being added last (1997:214-216). At the Hopewell type-site (33Ro27), the square enclosure has the appearance of having been appended to the existing mortuary perimeter wall (figure 10)(Greber 1997:220).

            By 200 BC, the long-developing technology of horticulture provided a primary source of subsistence for the Adena-early Hopewell (Abrams 1992:21; Carskadden 1997:365;  Delcourt et al 1998; Jones 1936; O’Brien 1987;  Pacheco 2000;  Watson 1989:561; Wymer 1996). It is possible that certain individuals, by observing the sunrises at various horizon points, became keenly aware of calendrical planting times. Perhaps this concept was not widespread enough to obviate the need for overt sightline-marking devices. If such knowledge was in the minds of only a few individuals, their ultimate deaths would have resulted in the loss of such information. Further, the total destruction of a seed crop due to a mistimed planting combined with a late hard freeze could have precipitated a subsistence crisis (Turner 2000). Hence the dispersed hamlet-egalitarian populace may have found an urgent need to develop a method of marking the appropriate sunrise (to indicate a safe planting date). This would explain the voluntary collaboration of the non-centralized work force necessary to construct these large edifices.

            Contrary to Prufer’s “Vacant Ceremonial Center” model, such earthworks may have been “Vacant Calendrical Centers”, inhabited by the skywatchers who dwelt at such areas. These locales became the sites of the geometric enclosures because the individuals who lived there had become accustomed to the yearly pattern of sunrises as marked by the familiar horizons. Hence the Fairground Circle and Hopeton were merely marking devices for horizon foresight points that were already familiar to the skywatchers.  This is demonstrated by their design being correlated to their respective horizon features. This contradicts the notion that the earthworks, at least the earlier purely calendrical ones, were intentionally located centrally within greater habitation areas, or that they necessarily served as unifying corporate centers for the dispersed hamlets (Dancey and Pacheco 1997:21; Turner 2001). Again, they were likely located to adapt to extant landscape features. This is evidenced by the Hopeton sightlines: they are keyed to the topography of the Great Seal Range to its east. Similar congruencies are found in Newark. Also, not all regions of known Hopewell habitation have large earthworks at their core: such regions devoid of any putative earthwork foci have been noted in an Ohio Hopewell context (Carskadden and Morton 1996:327; Church 1996:344).   

It is perhaps telling that the cross-quarter sightlines at Fairground and Hopeton are very  simply defined, this in comparison to the rest of the alignments at Hopeton or to the complex array of lunar indices at the Newark Octagon. This simplicity in the marking of the agriculturally important cross-quarter lines may have been an intentional feature designed to appease the general work force who constructed these monuments.  Thus if the skywatchers died or were otherwise uncooperative, or attempted to gain great power through their knowledge, such effects would be obviated by the ease with which any individual could perform the key May Day sunrise observations. Such a lack of social power among skywatchers or sun priests  has been noted in the ethnographic record. For instance, an familiar horizons role for the calendar keepers among the Pueblo Indians of the American southwest has been documented.  No one would be overly dependent on the skywatcher’s cooperation, and the egalitarian lifestyle could be maintained, as is evidenced in the Middle Woodland archaeological record.

            In contrast, it is known that hierarchies did exist at the tripartite mortuary and trade-item centers. The later adaptation of the geometrical mound elements at these sites may be indicative of the extant trade/mortuary hierarchy’s efforts to expand their influence by incorporating such indices into their specialized mortuary earthworks (Greber 1997). The access to the volunteer work force that had constructed the calendrical sites may have been a primary benefit of such an adaptation (Reyman 1975:206, 1987:132). Prior to this, it appears that any elites gained their influence by the control and distribution of trade-status items (Baby and Langlois 1979:18; Braun 1977:100, 1986:118-123; Brose 1979:8; Goad 1978:107-157, 222; Greber 1979b:57; Streuver and Houart 1972:74). Once these individuals incorporated the calendrical knowledge into their sacred ritualistic world, they acquired greater access to agricultural food sources (Brose 1986:21; Reyman 1987:132-136). The increased resource base of intensive EAC subsistence honed by calendrics likely fueled the fluorescence of the artwork industry and mortuary complexity noted in the archaeological record (Peebles and Kus 1977:432-433).  This effort at power consolidation ultimately failed, reaching its acme between AD 200 and AD 450. The Hopewellian demise has long presented an enigma to archaeologists. It may be in part explained by a breakdown in accurate calendar keeping and the associated threat to crop surety (Reyman 1980:51). Whereas the earliest geometrical groups specifically delineate calendar points, other sites involve complex mortuary and workshop areas (Baby and Langlois 1979; Greber 1979; Seeman 1979). This may be indicative of a loss of date-keeping technology, or a breakdown of the functional/ritualistic roles of the sunwatchers/calendar keepers . “One could even suggest that a group whose ritually encoded scientific concepts no longer function effectively would lose adherence, supporters and political power” (McCluskey 1987:214; see also Peebles and Kus 1977:429-430). “When the system has been significantly modified or diverted from its original function: astronomical knowledge for the purpose of subsistence…(then) the greatest threats arise to its continued existence” (Reyman 1975:207;  see also Thunen 1988:103). 

While it seems clear that the increased reliance on horticultural production was at least partly responsible for the Hopewell florescence, the decline of the Hopewell cannot be linked to a similar reduction in the use of such foodstuffs. In fact, EAC production increased in the early Late Woodland (Brose 1986:124-125; Johannessan  1984:201-202, 1993; Smith 1992a:110-111; Wymer 1987, 1992, 1997:157).

“Overall, the paleoethnobotanical record for the mid-Ohio valley,

from the Middle Woodland to the Late Woodland, shows a basically similar horticultural and gathering subsistence system for the two periods. However, there is a well-documented and distinctive increase in both density and diversity for the early Late Woodland period. This pattern…[is]…virtually identical to the paleoethnobotanical record developed for the lower Illinois River valley and the American Bottom”

(Wymer 1990:541-542). 

  So perhaps it may be that the “Hopewell demise” was brought on by a growing familiarity with farming techniques and scheduling amongst the dispersed bands, thus obviating the influence that the once exclusive knowledge had provided to the established hierarchies. Interesting, complex interpretations have yet to be offered describing the trajectories through the Late Woodland of the various grains, the EAC and maize, and the way this subsistence continuum shaped and seamlessly defined the three Woodland periods (Rindos 1989:31).  Though nucleated sedentism began to prevail year round in Ohio Newtown villages  (Dancey 1988;Wymer 1990: 87-111, 540-555), ultimately, an egalitarian mindset would predominate during the Late Woodland till the intrusion of the Mississippian polities in the southeastern United States (Tainter 1977:347).

These foregoing “speculations” are intended as probative heuristics intended in part to illustrate the limitations of fixating on mortuary data. Contemporary Hopewell archaeologists are near sighted in their insistence on determining social structure through analyzing burial remains .Simply calling the geometric earthworks “sacred enclosures”, while basing such a moniker on ethnographic comparison, is hardly adequate.  Concepts involving archaeoastronomy have been ignored to the detriment of a fuller understanding of this ancient people.

             

             

Discussion

            For decades, archaeologists have postulated a Hopewell reliance on agriculture, and the classic maize-beans-squash triad was cited as the basis of this agriculture (Dragoo 1976a:2; Morgan 1952:91; Prufer 1964:71; Shetrone 1930:55). Today, however, some archaeologists have a reluctance to ascribe the same role to the EAC cultivars, even though it has been conclusively demonstrated that maize was not in widespread use in the Eastern Woodlands till ca. AD 800-1000 (Asch and Asch 1985:196-199; Fritz and Kidder 1993:9-10; Smith 1992:110-114; Wymer 1990:503, 518, 554). As Richard Yarnell (1994:12) has said, “Established beliefs die a slow and sometimes agonizing death”. Such obdurate attitudes are difficult to understand. As Gayle Fritz (1993:40) has suggested somewhat humorously, a “Real Men Don’t Eat Pigweed” bias is prevalent today. She cites James Griffin’s comment that the “eastern agricultural complex would not feed a canary for a week” (Fritz 1993:51).

At the other end of the spectrum, Dee Anne Wymer has been unequivocal in asserting that the Hopewell were farmers:

                       “There is no doubt that…Hopewell populations had been farmers –

                         not maize agriculturalists, but farmers nonetheless” (1997:158).

“…the cultigens from those gardens were a major, if not the major,

                         portion  of their diet” (1996:42)(italics original).

                        “…the Ohio Hopewell had been sophisticated farmers and managers

                        of their environment” (1996:41)(italics original).

            Parallel examples in the Pueblo southwest demonstrate the co:developing  phenomena of interregional trade, horticultural evolution, and also subsistence scheduling by a recognized “skywatcher(s)”. Scholars investigating Eastern Woodlands cultures have virtually ignored the latter aspect of interpretation, though models of these social patterns are largely accepted in the American southwest as accurate. The Hopewell interaction sphere, calendrical sightlines at the geometric earthworks, and the varieties of social stratification all have parallels in the rich Pueblo archaeological/ethnographic record, yet these parallels have not been investigated sufficiently. Rather than study available empirical data in this light, the trend is to relent to an open-ended, highly speculative model of so-called “ritual” provinces and earthwork functionality. Researchers must at least review the available archaeoastronomical literature pertaining to the Pueblo Indians before denying what may be a more economical interpretation.

Co:evolutionary development of aggregation, riverine sedentism, nucleation, population increase, and social stratification all have been linked to an increased reliance on produced plant foods (Braun 1986; Fuller 1981; O’Brien 1987; Peebles and Kus 1977; Rindos 1984). Aside from the obvious mortuary and exchange traits, these factors virtually define Hopewell. If indeed swidden farming was of the paramount importance suggested by Wymer, then the creation of the monumental geometric enclosures as calendrical devices is not at all implausible.

Athens (1977) discusses the challenges facing swidden horticulturalists: they are much more than simply “when to plant”.  Critical timing is needed at various given points in the annual cycle. Also, within the Ohio Hopewell area, some of the EAC cultivars were out of their native geographical range (Asch and Asch 1978:320-321; Cowan 1978:269, 285; O’Brien 1987:184; Yarnell 1978:290-291;).  I analyzed modern weather records for five cities in the prehistoric EAC use area : Little Rock, St. Louis, Nashville, Lexington, and Columbus. For the five cities, Columbus, Ohio experienced the greatest range in springtime temperatures. It also had the second latest last freeze of the five.

What does this imply? Perhaps that as these non-indigenous EAC cultivars were adopted in the Scioto and upper Muskingum Valleys, being out of their natural range and subject to new climate variations, they elicited responses from the Hopewell needed to foster agricultural success. Braun and Plog (1982) discuss the effects of “environmental unpredictability”, and the “effective responses” it engenders: “All environmental changes initially trigger relatively ‘shallow’ highly specific responses, that are inexpensive, rapid, and easily activated. ..(while ultimately the) successful reduction of risk will depend on the activation of increasingly generalized responses, ever more deeply imbedded in the system”.  These decision making processes were concomitant with increasing social complexity within Hopewell. Pacheco and Dancey (2000) declared “The domesticated plants...appear to influence the stability of the settlement system, facilitating sedentism, but they do not appear to free the human group from dependence on natural reproductive cycles” (italics mine).  Binford (1980) notes how “other things being equal, we can expect increases in the role of logistical strategies within the subsistence-settlement system”  given a reduction in the length of the growing season.

This environmentally imposed compulsion engendered  hierarchy within Hopewell. Viewed within the continuum of developing social complexity, Ohio Adena and/or Hopewell has been termed a collection of sodalities (Byers 2000) , peer-polities (Braun 1986), and dispersed hamlets (Dancey and Pacheco 1997). Judged by five correlates proposed by Peebles and Kus (1977:431-433), Ohio Hopewell can also be called a chiefdom. 

1.      non-volitional ascribed ranking

2.      hierarchy of settlement types and sizes reflecting position in the regulatory and ritual network

3.      area of high local subsistence efficiency

4.      monuments and craft specialization

5.      society-wide organization in response to specific environment

The first four define Ohio Hopewell. The first, ranking,  is seen in the well known mortuary evidence, the second in the landscape arrangement of the earthworks themselves. Chillicothe, nexus of the Scioto Tradition in Ohio Hopewell, is a well known rich ecotone, and was an area offering resource optimization, while Hopewell mounds and enclosures and their artistic remains meet correlate #4.

It is correlate #5 that I find most interesting. Peebles and Kus look for  evidence of social complexity prompted  by responses to particular environmentally imposed scenarios. For instance, evidence of irrigation systems in a dry land; evidence of defensive structures in a warring area, evidence of large-scale food storage facilities in over-wintering sites, etc.

It is arguable that the monumental earthworks as calendrical devices answer well to the fifth correlate. They are mute evidence to an organized, labor-intensive willfulness directed at temporally and ritualistically establishing a normative annual cycle. The very real challenges of adapting exotic EAC cultigens to the local environment became joined with the no less palpable ritual demands. Referring to calendrical/scheduling decisions, Peebles and Kus (1977:430) wrote  “...because of the nature of these ritually transduced pronouncements or proclaimed concensuses, the information and decisions are assigned truth value by the sacred context. The act and interactions encompassed by ritual transform the ambiguous and indeterminate into the unambiguous and believable”.

Referring to Hopewell enclosures and associated social complexity Griffin (1952:359) commented   “...that this was probably dominated by male shamans who were promulgating the interpretation of the  relationship of man to the universe as a whole. This suggests the development of a specialized priesthood.”

Hence the “monumentality” of the Hopewell enclosures served at least three functions: technically as calendrical sightline indices; as objects of awe sanctifying ritual proceedings (Buikstra, Charles, and Rakita 1998:81-94): and as a constructed feature, a signet or sign on the regional cultural landscape.

Successive accretional monuments were layered onto the extant topographical landscape by the Adena and the Hopewell, establishing, fixing, and defining their place on the earth itself. These constructs are earmarks of a culture transitioning from mobile to sedentary. Earlier Adena earthen monuments, such as the Adena type site, Grave Creek, Robbins, etc., invariably involved mortuary activity. The history of the ancestors was implicit in these mounds and the landscapes they created (Buikstra and Charles 1999).  By contrast, the Hopewell geometric enclosures established normative spatial roots in the local cosmic geography. The sites are also time referent, not to the ancestral past as are the mortuary tumuli, but to the perennial, repetitive celestial cycles (Knapp and Ashmore 1999:14). These earthworks go beyond a mere statement of possessing territory,  and beyond ancestral identity of the local social/historical landscape. Their size, form, and use are born from the celestial dome. Their complexity and sheer size surely added to the mystique and respect paid to the calendric specialists who utilize their time-keeping properties.

Given the reliability of solar horizon calendars, it is likely that the Late Woodland Indians of Ohio continued to use the established sightlines at the various earthworks. A decline in the use of the enclosures need not have been concomitant with the breakdown in Hopewell per se, circa  AD 450  (McCluskey 1977:192; Reyman 1980:51). Some later Fort Ancient period sites are located near or even on earlier Hopewell enclosure s (e.g.Baum) (Greber 1997:208). The Harness earthworks have yielded radiocarbon dates to as late as ca. AD 900 (Greber 1983:36). Two Fort Ancient period sites, the Serpent Mound (Fletcher et al 1996; Hardman and Hardman 1987; Lepper 1998b) and the Kern Effigies (White 1986, 1987) have solstice alignments at them. Thus a continual pattern of scheduling based on sun monitoring from the Early Woodland to the Mississippian can be inferred.   

The consistent demonstration of calendrical sightlines at the Hopewell geometric enclosures is the best evidence in support of the intentionality of proposed astronomical alignments. This has been the case for those groups accurately analyzed: the Newark Octagon (Hively and Horn 1982), the High Bank earthworks (Hively and Horn 1984), Hopeton (Turner 1983), and the Fairground Circle (Turner 1982). Preliminary and unpublished data also indicate sightlines at the Baum earthworks (33Ro4) (Hively and Horn 1982:S18; Turner, unpublished notes, December 1982).

            Because it likely predates the other Hopewell geometric enclosures, the Fairground Circle is of paramount importance. It is the keystone in interpreting these sites calendrically. If the cross-quarter date sightline was not intentional, a glaring lacuna is created: if all such enclosures in Ohio (i.e. geometric enclosures, see Turner 1983:19, footnote 1) do not delineate calendrically significant events, then the hypothesis is severely weakened.

            On the other hand, if the May cross-quarter date was intentionally indexed at the Fairground Circle, the importance of farming to the Hopewell is underscored. Further, the Adena circles, with their similar design and their possible role as “sun-watching” areas (Clay 1986:589), are sensible progenitors to the Fairground Circle and its hypothesized calendrical use. Forthcoming data from Cogswell phase habitation site excavations may help establish the continuity of horticulture from Adena to Hopewell. Verification/testing of the Kentucky Adena “sacred circles” as calendrical sightline backsights can only be achieved by on-site examination, surveying, and actual observations of the sunrises/sunsets and the associated terrestrial horizon features.

            It is perhaps significant that early examples of Adena circles existed in Kentucky, where EAC taxa were prevalent during the same period (the Early Woodland). It is possible that horticultural and scheduling technologies diffused from Kentucky into the lower Scioto and upper Licking valleys (Delcourt et al 1998). These areas had the riverine “mud flats” and glacial terraces that were superior agricultural ecozones (Streuver and Vickery 1972:1214). The established Adena trade corridors responsible for distributing colorful Flint Ridge Robbins points during this phase would have allowed for the acquisition of the EAC cultivars in Ohio in return. The likely preeminence of the upper Licking River valley as a hub of Adena procurement (Flint Ridge) is consistent with Newark being the locus of the first geometric enclosure (Carskadden and Morton 1997:366, 380; Dragoo 1963:214, 271, 1976a:3,5).

            As if describing the Hopeton site and its surroundings, the universality of the horizon calendar method of date-marking is suggested by the following description of  Pueblo Indian sunwatching : “sites will use horizon markers [with] observation times most likely at sunrise and less often at sunset… Shrines may be located at the sun’s key positions on the horizon, [with] winter solstice as the most likely event to be marked by an [exact] alignment, summer solstice next, [and with] a planting calendar (April to J

une) also being marked” (Zeilik 1987: 29).

           

Acknowledgements

The following scholars reviewed draft versions of this paper and offered insights and criticisms: Jack Blosser, Donald Cochran, Kristen Gremillion, Ron Hicks, Ray Hively, Robert Horn, Brad Lepper, Paul Pacheco, William Pickard, and Joe Saunders. I am grateful to all of them for sharing their experienced opinions.

                I thank Bret Ruby for providing information about the 1996 excavations at Hopeton, particularly that pertaining to radiocarbon dates.

            Janet Hess of the Ross County Public Library in Chillicothe Ohio was kind in obtaining various publications and providing general assistance.

            Brad Lepper of the Ohio Historical Society was very helpful in providing copies of maps he has located in his various archive searches, and in answering assorted questions concerning archaeology.

            Sheila L. Owens of Sunshine Concessions, Charles Reily III of Avery Island Inc., John Graubarth (all New Orleans, Louisiana associates) and my father Harold Turner all have helped with logistical and financial assistance without which this effort would have been lessened.

                Various unnamed individuals also contributed in different ways, but I thank all involved equally. My apologies for any errors I have failed to correct. 

References Cited

Abrams, Elliot M.

1992    Woodland Settlement Patterns in the Southern Hocking River Valley,

Southeastern Ohio. In Cultural Variability in Context: Woodland Settlements of the Mid-Ohio Valley, edited by Mark F. Seeman, pp. 19-23.

Mid-Continental Journal of Archaeology Special Paper  No. 7, Kent State University Press, Kent, Ohio.

1992a  Archaeological investigations at the Armitage Mound (33-AT-434), The         Plains, Ohio.  Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 17(1):80-111, Kent.

Asch, David L. and Asch Nancy B.

1978    The Economic Potential of Iva Annua and Its Prehistoric Importance

In the Lower Illinois Valley. In The Nature and Status of Ethnobotany, edited by Richard I. Ford, pp. 300-341. Anthropological Papers No. 67, Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

1981  Archaeobotany of Newbridge, Carlin, and the Weitzer Sites- The White          

Hall Components. In Faunal Exploitation and Resource Selection, edited   by Bonnie W. Styles, pp. 275-291. Illinois State Museum, Springfield.  

1985  Prehistoric Plant Cultivation in West-Central Illinois. In Prehistoric Food

Production in North America, edited by Richard I. Ford, pp. 149-203. Anthropological Paper No. 75, Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Ashmore, Wendy and A. Bernard Knapp

1999  Archaeological Landscapes: Constructed, Conceptualized, Ideational. In Archaeologies of Landscape: Contemporary Perspectives, pp. 1-30. Blackwell Press, Malden, Massachusetts.

Athens, J. Stephen

1977    Theory Building and the Study of Evolutionary Process in Complex

Societies. In For Theory Building in Archaeology edited by Lewis R.

Binford, pp. 353-384. Academic Press, New York.

Atwater, Caleb

1820    Descriptions of the Antiquities Discovered in the State of Ohio and  Other

Western States. American Antiquarian Society, Archaeologia Americana, Transactions and Collections, I:105-267.

Baby, Raymond S. and Suzanne M. Langlois

1979    Seip Mound State Memorial: Non-Mortuary Aspects of Hopewell.

In Hopewell Archaeology: the Chillicothe Conference, edited by David S. Brose and N’omi B. Greber, pp.16-18. Kent State University Press, Kent, Ohio.

Beers, Frederick W.

1970    Atlas of Licking County, Ohio. Mayhill Publications, (reprinted edition),

Knightstown, Indiana. 

          

Bender, Barbara

1978    Gatherer Hunter to Farmer: A Social Perspective. World Archaeology

10:204-222.

Binford, Lewis R.

1968    Archaeological Perspectives. In New Perspectives in Archaeology, edited

Sally R. Binford and Lewis R. Binford, pp. 5-32. Aldine Publishers, Chicago.

Black, Deborah B.

1979    Adena and Hopewell Relations in the Lower Hocking Valley. In

Hopewell Archaeology: the Chillicothe Conference, edited by David S. Brose and N’omi B. Greber, pp. 19-26. Kent State University Press, Kent, Ohio.

Bradley, Richard

            1993  Altering the Earth. Alan Sutton, Edinburgh.

Braun, David

1977  Middle Woodland - Early Woodland Social Change in Prehistoric

Central Midwestern United States. PhD dissertation, University of Michigan, University Microfilm, Ann Arbor.  

1986  Midwestern Hopewellian Exchange and Supralocal Interaction. In Peer

Polity Interaction and Socio-political Change, edited by Colin Renfrew,

pp. 117-126. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

1987          Co:evolution of Sedentism, Pottery Technology and Horticulture in the

Central Midwest, 200 BC to AD 600. In Emergent Horticultural Economies of the Eastern Woodlands, edited by William F. Keegan, pp. 153-181. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Occasional Paper No. 7, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale.

Braun, David P. and Stephen Plog

1982    Evolution of “Tribal” Social Networks: Theory and Prehistoric North

American Evidence. American Antiquity 47(3):504-525.

Brose, David S.

1976    An Historical and Archaeological Investigation of the Hopeton Earthworks.

Submitted to the National Park Service, contract PX-6115-6-0141, Midwest Archaeological Center, Lincoln, Nebraska.

1979    A Speculative Model of the Role of Exchange in the Prehistory of the

Eastern Woodlands. In Hopewell Archaeology: the Chillicothe Conference,

edited by David S. Brose and N’omi B. Greber, pp. 3-8. Kent State University Press, Kent, Ohio.

Buikstra, Jane E. and Douglas K. Charles

1999  Centering the Ancestors: Cemeteries, Mounds, and Sacred Landscapes of the Ancient North American Midcontinent. In Archaeologies of Landscape: Contemporary Perspectives, pp. 1-30. Blackwell Press, Malden, Massachusetts.

Buikstra, Jane E. , Douglas K. Charles, and G. Rakita

1998  Staging Ritual: Hopewell Ceremonialism at the Mound House Site, Greene County, Illinois. Center for American Archaeology, Kampsville, Illinois.

Byers, A. Martin

1998    Is the Newark Circle-Octagon the Ohio Hopewell “Rosetta Stone”? A Question of Archaeological Interpretation. In Ancient Earthen Enclosure of the Eastern Woodlands,  edited by Robert C. Mainfort and Lynne  P. Sullivan, pp. 135-153. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

2000  Deontic Ecology in Middle Woodland Ohio: Symbolic Pragmatics, Subsistence Strategies, and Social Systems. Paper presented at the Perspectives on the Middle Woodland at the Millennium Conference, Center for American Archaeology, held at Pere Marquette State Park, Grafton, Illinois, July 2000.

Carr, Christopher and Herbert Haas

1996  Beta-Count and AMS Radiocarbon Dates of Woodland and Ft. Ancient 

Period Occupations in Ohio, 1350 B.C.- A.D. 1650. West Virginia   Archaeologist 48(1&2):19-53.

               

Carskadden, Jeff and James Morton

1996  The Middle Woodland-Late Woodland Transition in the Central                             

          Muskingum Valley of Eastern Ohio: A View from the Philo Archaeological

          District. In View from the Core: A Synthesis of Ohio Hopewell 

Archaeology, edited by Paul J. Pacheco, pp. 318-339. Ohio Archaeological

Council, Columbus, Ohio.

1997    Living on the Edge: A Comparison of Adena and Hopewell Communities

In the Central Muskingum Valley of Eastern Ohio. In Ohio Hopewell Community Organization, edited by William S. Dancey and Paul J. Pacheco, pp. 365-401. Kent State University Press, Kent, Ohio.

Chapman, Jefferson C. and Andrea B. Shea

1981 The Archaeobotanical Record: Early Archaic Period to Contact in the

    Lower Little Tennessee River Valley. Tennessee Anthropologist

    6(1):61-84.

Church, Flora

1997    Beyond the Scioto Valley: Middle Woodland Occupations in the Salt

Creek Drainage. In Ohio Hopewell Community Organization, edited by William S. Dancey and Paul J. Pacheco., pp. 332-363. Kent State University Press, Kent, Ohio.

Clay, R. Berle

1985  Peter Village 163 Years Later: the 1983 Excavations. In Woodland Period

Research in Kentucky, edited by David Pollack, Thomas N. Sanders, and

Charles D. Hockensmith, pp. 1-42. Kentucky Heritage Council, Frankfort.

1986    Adena Ritual Spaces. In Early Woodland Archaeology, edited by

Kenneth Farnsworth and Thomas Emerson, pp. 581-595. Kampsville Seminars in Archaeology, Volume 2. Center for American Archaeology, Kampsville, Illinois.

1987    Circles and Ovals: Two Types of Adena Space. Southeastern Archaeology

6:46-56.

1991    Adena Ritual Development: An Organizational Type in a Temporal

Perspective. In The Human Landscape in Kentucky’s Past: Site

Structure and Settlement Patterns, edited by Charles Stout and Christine Henley, pp. 30-39. Kentucky Heritage Council, Frankfort, Kentucky.

1998    The Essential Features of Adena Ritual and Their Implications.

Southeastern Archaeology 17(1):1-21.

Cochran, Donald R.

1992    Adena and Hopewell Cosmology: New Evidence from East Central

Indiana. In Proceedings of the First Minnetrista Cultural Conference for Great Lakes Native American Studies, edited by R. Hicks, pp.23-40. Minnetrista Cultural Center, Ball State University, Muncie, Indiana.

Conard, Nicholas and David L. Asch, Nancy B. Asch, David Elmore, Harry Gove, Meyer

                      Rubin, James A. Brown, Michael Wiant, Kenneth Farnsworth, and

Thomas Cook.

1984    Accelerator Radiocarbon Dating of Evidence for Prehistoric Horticulture in

Illinois. Nature 308:443-446.

Converse, Robert N.

1993    The Troyer Site: A Hopewell Habitation Site, and  a Secular View of Ohio

Hopewell Villages. Ohio Archaeologist 43(3):4-12.

Connolly, Robert P.

1998    Architectural Grammar Rules at the Fort Ancient Hilltop Enclosure.

In Ancient Earthen Enclosures of the Eastern Woodlands, edited by

Robert C. Mainfort and Lynne P. Sullivan, pp. 85-113.  University of Florida Press, Gainesville.

Cowan, C. Wesley

            1978  The Prehistoric Use and Distribution of Maygrass in Eastern North

                      America: Cultural and Phytogeographical Implications. In Nature and

Status of Ethnobotany, edited by Richard I. Ford, pp. 263-287.   Anthropological  Papers No. 67, University of Michigan, Museum of Anthropology, Ann Arbor.

1985    Understanding the Evolution of Plant Husbandry in Eastern North America:

Lessons from Botany, Ethnography and Archaeology. In Prehistoric Food

Production in North America, edited by Richard I. Ford, pp. 205-243. Anthropological Papers No. 75, University of Michigan, Museum of Anthropology, Ann Arbor.

1997    Evolutionary Changes Associated with the Domestication of Cucurbita

Pepo- Evidence from Eastern Kentucky. In People, Plants, and Landscapes: Studies in Paleoethnobotany, edited by Kristen J. Gremillion, pp.63-85. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Cowan, C. Wesley and Bruce D. Smith

1994    New Perspectives on Wild Gourd in Eastern North America.

Journal of Ethnobiology 13(1):17-54.

Cramer, Ann C.

1989  The Dominion Land Company Site: An Early Adena Mortuary                          

          Manifestation in Franklin Co. Ohio. Masters Thesis, Kent State University,

          Kent, Ohio.

Crawford, Gary W.

1982    Late Archaic Plant Remains from West-Central Kentucky: A Summary.

Mid-Continental Journal of Archaeology  7(2):205-224.

Cummings, Linda S.

1992  Phytolith Analysis of the Fairground Circle Paleo Sample.

  Unpublished report on file at the Ohio Historical Center, Columbus, Ohio.

Dancey, William S.

1988  The Community Plan of an Early Late Woodland Village in the Middle Scioto River Valley. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 13(2):223-258.

1991    A Middle Woodland Settlement in Central Ohio: A Preliminary Report

on the Murphy Site (33LI212). Pennsylvania Archaeologist  61:37-72.

1992    Village Origins in Central Ohio: The Results and Implications of

Recent Middle and Late Woodland Research. In Cultural Variability in Context: Woodland Settlements of the Mid-Ohio Valley, edited by Mark F. Seeman, pp. 24-29. Kent State University Press, Kent, Ohio.

1996  Putting an End to Ohio Hopewell. In View from the Core: A  Synthesis of Ohio Hopewell Archaeology, edited by Paul J. Pacheco, pp. 396-405. Ohio Archaeological Council, Columbus, Ohio.

Dancey, William S. and Paul J. Pacheco

            1997  A Community Model of Hopewell Settlement. In Ohio Hopewell

Community Organization, edited by William S. Dancey and Paul J. Pacheco, pp. 9-40. Kent State University Press, Kent, Ohio.

Delcourt, Paul A., Hazel R. Delcourt, Cecil R. Ison, William E. Sharp, and Kristen J.

                      Gremillion

1998    Prehistoric Human Use of Fire, the EAC, and the Appalachian Oak-

                      Chestnut Forests: Paleoecology of Cliff Palace Pond, Kentucky.

                       American Antiquity 63(2):263-278.

                       

Dragoo, Donald W.

1963    Mounds for the Dead: An Analysis of the Adena Culture. Annals of

          Carnagie Museum 37, Pittsburgh.

1964    The Development of the Adena Culture and Its Role in the Formation of

Ohio Hopewell. In Hopewellian Studies, edited by Joseph R. Caldwell and

Robert L. Hall, pp. 1-34. Illinois State Museum Scientific Papers 12(2),

Springfield, Illinois.

1976a  Adena and the Eastern Burial Cult. Archaeology of Eastern North America

4:1-9.

            1976b  Some Aspects of Eastern North American Prehistory: A Review.

                       American Antiquity 41(1):3-27.

Eddy, John

1977    Archaeoastronomy of North America: Cliffs, Mounds, and Medicine

Wheels. In In Search of Ancient Astronomies, edited by Edwin C. Krupp,

pp. 133-163. Garden City, New York.

Eliade, Mircea

1959    The Sacred and the Profane: the Nature of Religion.

Harcourt, Brace, and Jovanovich. New York.

Ellis, Florence H.

1975    A Thousand Years of Pueblo Sun-Moon-Star Calendar.

In Archaeoastronomy in Pre-Columbian America, edited by Anthony F. Aveni, pp. 59-88. University of Texas Press, Austin.

Faulkner, Charles H.

1988    Middle Woodland Community and Settlement Patterns on the Eastern

Highland Rim, Tennessee. In Middle Woodland Settlement and Ceremonialism in the Mid-South and Lower Mississippi Valley,

edited by Robert C. Mainfort, pp.76-98. Mississippi Department

of Archives and History, Archaeological Report No. 22, Jackson.

Fletcher, Robert V. and Terry L. Cameron

            1988  Serpent Mound: A New Look at the Old Snake in the Grass.

                      Ohio Archaeologist 38(1):55-61.

Fletcher, Robert V., Terry L. Cameron, Bradley T. Lepper, Dee Anne Wymer, and

                     William Pickard

            1996  Serpent Mound: A Ft. Ancient Icon. Midcontinental Journal of

                      Archaeology 21(1):105-143.

Fowke, Gerard

1889    Popular Errors in Regard to the Mound Builders. Ohio Archaeological and

Historical Quarterly Volume 3:380-387.

Fritz, Gayle J. 

            1993  Early and Middle Woodland Period Ethnobotany. In Foraging and Farming

in the Eastern Woodlands, edited by C. Margaret Scarry, pp. 39-56. University of Florida Press, Gainesville.

1997    A Three-Thousand Year Old Cache of Seeds from Marble Bluff Arkansas.

In People, Plants and Landscapes: Studies in Paleoethnobotany, edited by

Kristen J. Gremillion, pp. 42-62. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Fritz, Gayle J. and Tristam R. Kidder

1993    Recent Investigations into Prehistoric Agriculture in the Lower

Mississippi Valley. Southeastern Archaeology 12(1):1-14.

Fritz, Gayle J. and Bruce D. Smith

1989    Old Collections and New Technology: Documenting the Domestication

Of Chenopodium in Eastern North America. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology  13(1):3-27.

Fuller, John W.

1981  The Development of Sedentary Village Communities in Northern West

Virginia: the Test of a Model. In Plowzone Archaeology: Contributions to Theory and Technique, edited by Michael J. O’Brien, pp. 187-214. Vanderbilt University Publications in Anthropology No. 27, Nashville.

Gardner, Paul S.

1987  New Evidence Concerning the Chronology and Paleoethnobotany

Of Salts Cave, Kentucky.  American Antiquity  52(2)358-367.

Goad, Sharon I.

1978    Exchange Networks in the Southeastern United States.  Phd

Dissertation, University of Georgia, Athens, University Microfilms, Ann

Arbor.

Greber, N’omi B.

            1979a  A Comparative Study of Site Morphology and Burial Patterns at Edwin

                      Harness and Seip Mound 1&2. In Hopewell Archaeology: the Chillicothe

Conference, edited by David S. Brose and N’omi B. Greber, pp. 27-38.     Kent State University Press, Kent, Ohio.

            1979b  Variations in Social Structures of Ohio Hopewell Peoples.

                      Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 4:35-78

            1983  Recent Excavations at the Edwin Harness Mound, Liberty Works, Ross Co.,

Ohio. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology Special Paper No. 5, Kent State University Press, Kent, Ohio.

1991  A Study of Continuity and Contrast Between Central Scioto Adena and

Hopewell Sites. West Virginia Archaeologist 43(1&2):1-26.

1996    A Commentary on the Context and Contents of Large to Small Ohio

Hopewell Deposits. In View from the Core: A Synthesis of Ohio

Hopewell Archaeology, edited by Paul J. Pacheco, pp. 152-172. Ohio Archaeological Council, Columbus.

1997    Two Geometric Enclosures in the Paint Creek Valley- An Estimate

of Possible Changes in Community Patterns Through Time. In

Ohio Hopewell Community Organization, edited by William S. Dancey and Paul J. Pacheco, pp. 207-230. Kent State University Press, Kent, Ohio.

1999    Combining Geophysics and Ground Truth at High Bank Earthworks, Ross

County, Ohio. Ohio Archaeological Council Newsletter, 11(1):8-12,

Columbus.

Gremillion, Kristen J.

1994    Plant Husbandry at the Archaic/Woodland Transition: Evidence from

The Cold Oak Shelter, Kentucky.  Mid-Continental Journal of Archaeology, 18(2):161-189.

1997    New Perspectives on the Paleoethnobotany of the Newt Kash

Rockshelter. In People, Plants and Landscapes: Studies in Paleoethnobotany, edited by Kristen J. Gremillion, pp. 23-41.  University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Griffin, James B.

1996  The Hopewell Housing Shortage in Ohio, A.D. 1-350. In

                      View from the Core: A Synthesis of Ohio Hopewell Archaeology, edited by

                       Paul J. Pacheco, pp. 7-15. Ohio Archaeological Council, Columbus.

Hardman, Clark and Marjorie H. Hardman

1986    The Great Serpent and the Sun. Ohio Archaeologist 37(3):37-40.

1992  Linear Solar Observatory Theory: The Development of Concepts of Time and Calendar. North American Archaeologist 13(2):149-172

Hawkins, Gerald S.

1975  Archaeoastronomy: The Unwritten Evidence. In Archaeoastronomy of

Pre-Columbian America, edited by Anthony F. Aveni, pp. 131-152. University of Texas Press, Austin.

 Hively, Ray  and Robert  Horn

1982    Geometry and Astronomy in Prehistoric Ohio. Archaeoastronomy  

supplement to the Journal for the History of Astronomy 13(4):S1-S20.

1984  Hopewellian Geometry and  Astronomy at High Bank. Archaeoastronomy

  supplement to the Journal for the History of Astronomy 15(7):S85-S100.

Hudson, Travis

1984  California’s First Astronomers. In Archaeoastronomy and the Roots of

Science, edited by Edwin C. Krupp, pp. 11-81. Westview Press, Boulder.

            1988  The Nature of California Indian Astronomy. In Visions of the Sky:

Archaeological and Ethnological Studies of California Indian Astronomy,    edited by Robert A. Schiffman, pp. 5-30. Coyote Press, Salinas, CA.

Hudson, Travis, Georgia Lee, and Ken Hedges

1979     Solstice Observers and Observatories in Native California.

 Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology, 1(1):39-63.

Hutton, Ronald

1996    The Stations of the Sun: A History of the Ritual Year in Britain.

Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Ison, Cecil R.

            1988  The Cold Oak Shelter: Providing a Better Understanding of the Terminal  

Archaic. In Paleoindian and Archaic Research in Kentucky, edited by        Charles D. Hockensmith, David Pollack, and Thomas N. Sanders, pp. 205-221. Kentucky Heritage Council, Frankfort. 

James, Edwin O.

            1961  Seasonal Feasts and Festivals. Barnes and Noble, New York.

Jeffries, Richard W.

1986    The Archaic Period in Kentucky: New Deal Archaeological Investigations.      

In New Deal Era Archaeology and Current Research in Kentucky, edited by

David Pollack and Mary Lucas Powell, pp. 14-25. Kentucky Heritage Council, Lexington.

            1996  Hunters and Gatherers After the Ice Age. In Kentucky Archaeology,

edited by R. Barry Lewis, pp. 39-78. University Press of Kentucky,   Lexington.

Johannessan, Sissel

            1984  Paleoethnobotany. In American Bottom Archaeology, edited by

                      Charles J. Bareis and James W. Porter, pp. 197-214. University of Indiana

                      Press, Urbana.

            1993  Farmers of the Late Woodland. In Foraging and Farming in the Eastern

Woodlands, edited by C. Margaret Scarry, pp. 57-77.University of Florida

Press, Gainesville.

Jones, Volney H,

1936  The Vegetal Remains of Newt Kash Hollow Shelter. In University of Kentucky Reports in Anthropology 3(4), edited by W.S. Webb and W.D. Funkhouser, Lexington.

Lepper, Bradley T.

            1996  The Newark Earthworks and the Geometric Enclosures of the Scioto

                      Valley. In View from the Core: A Synthesis of Ohio Hopewell   

                      Archaeology, edited by Paul J. Pacheco, pp. 224-241. Ohio Archaeological

                      Council, Columbus.

            1998a  The Archaeology of the Newark Earthworks. In Ancient Earthen

Enclosures of the Eastern Woodlands, edited by Robert C. Mainfort and Lynne  P. Sullivan, pp. 114-134. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

            1998b  Great Serpent. Timeline 15(5):30-45.

Lepper, Bradley T. and J. Gill

            2000  The Newark Holy Stones. Tmeliine 17(3):16-25.

Libby, Willard F.

            1955  Radiocarbon Dating, 2^nd Edition. University of Chicago Press, Chigaco.

McCluskey, Stephen C.

1977  The Astronomy of the Hopi Indians. Journal for the History of Astronomy,

          8:174-195.

1982  Historical Archaeoastronomy: the Hopi Example. In Archaeoastronomy in

the New World, edited by Anthony F. Aveni, pp. 31-58. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    1987  Science, Society, Objectivity, and the Astronomies of the Southwest. In

                      Astronomy and Ceremony in the Prehistoric Southwest, edited by John B.

                      Carlson, pp. 205-217. Papers of the Maxwell Museum of Anthropology, #2.

                       Maxwell Museum Press, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque. 

1989  The Mid-Quarter Days and the Historical Survival of British Folk

Astronomy.  Archaeoastronomy supplement to the Journal for the History of Astronomy  20(13):S1-S19.

1993  Astronomies and Rituals at the Dawn of the Middle Ages. In

Astronomies and Cultures, edited by Clive N. Ruggles, pp. 163-201. University of Colorado Press, Niwot, Colorado.

Malotki, Ekkehart

            1983  Hopi Time: A Linguistic Analysis of Temporal Concepts in the Hopi

                      Language. Mouton Publishers, Berlin.

Marshack, Alexander

1985  A Lunar-Solar Calendar Stick from North America.

  American Antiquity 50(1):27-51.

1989  North American Indian Calendar Sticks: the Evidence for a Widely

                      Distributed Tradition. In World Archaeoastronomy, edited by Anthony F.

                      Aveni, pp. 308-324. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

 

Marshall, James A.

1999  A Rebuttal to Archaeoastronomers: Science Begins with the Facts.

          Ohio Archaeologist 49(1):32-49.

1987  An Atlas of American Indian Geometry. Ohio Archaeologist  37(2):36-49.

Maslowski, Robert F., Charles M. Niquette, and Derek M. Wingfield

            1995  The Kentucky, Ohio, and West Virginia Radiocarbon Date Base.

                      West Virginia Archaeologist 47(1&2):1-75.

Middleton, James D. and Gerard Fowke

      Ca. 1885  Unpublished field notes from Thomas (1894). Smithsonian

                       Anthropological Archives, Manuscript No. 2400, Washington DC.

Morgan, Richard G. 

1952  Outline of Cultures in the Ohio Region. In Archaeology of the Eastern United States, edited by James B. Griffin. University of Chicago.

Myer, William E.

1928    Indian Trails of the Southeast. Bureau of Ethnology Annual Report,

volume 42:727-854. 

Newsom, Lee A., S. David Webb, and James S. Dunbar

            1993  History and Geographic Distribution of Cucurbita Pepo Gourds in

                      Florida. Journal of Ethnobiology 13(1):75-97.

O’Brien, Michael J.

1987  Sedentism, Population Growth, and Response Selection in the Woodland

          Midwest: A Review of Co:evolutionary Developments. Current

          Anthropology  28(2):177-197.

Otto, Martha P.

1979  Hopewell Antecedents in the Adena Heartland. In Hopewell Archaeology:

the Chillicothe Conference, edited by David S. Brose and N’omi B. Greber, pp. 9-14. Kent State University Press, Kent , Ohio.

Pacheco, Paul J.

1989  Ohio Middle Woodland Settlement Variability in the Upper Licking River

Drainage. Journal of the Steward Anthropological Society, 18(1&2):87-117.

            1993  Ohio Hopewell Settlement Patterns: An Application of the Vacant Center

                      Model to Middle Woodland Period Intra-Community Settlement

                      Variability in the Upper Licking River Valley. Unpublished PhD

                      Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Ohio State University,

                      Columbus.

1996    Ohio Hopewell Regional Settlement Patterns. In View from the Core:

A Synthesis of Ohio Hopewell Archaeology, edited by Paul J. Pacheco, pp.16-35. Ohio Archaeological Council, Columbus, Ohio.

1997    Ohio Middle Woodland Intracommunity Settlement Variability: A Case

Study from the Licking Valley. In Ohio Hopewell Community Organization, edited by William S. Dancey  and Paul J. Pacheco, pp. 41-84. Kent State University Press, Kent, Ohio.

          

Parsons, Elsie C.

1939    Pueblo Indian Religion, 2 volumes. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Peebles, Christopher S. and Susan M. Kus

            1977  Some Archaeological Correlates of Ranked Societies.

                      American Antiquity 42(3):421-447.

Perino, Gregory H.

            1968  The Pete Klunk Mound Group, Calhoun Co., Illinois: the Archaic and

                      Hopewell Occupations. In Hopewell and Woodland Site Archaeology

                       in Illinois, pp. 9-124. Illinois Archaeological Survey, Bulletin #6,   

                       University of Illinois, Urbana.

Prentice, Guy

            1986  Origins of Plant Domestication in the Eastern United States:

                      Promoting the Individual in Archaeological Theory. Southeastern

                      Archaeology 5(2):103-119.

Prufer, Olaf H.

1964    The Ohio Hopewell Complex of Ohio. In Hopewellian Studies, edited by Joseph R. Caldwell and Robert L. Hall, pp. 35-83. Illinois State Museum

Scientific Papers 12(2), Springfield, Illinois.

1997    Fort Hill 1964: New Data and Reflections on Hopewell Hilltop Enclosures

in Southern Ohio. In Ohio Hopewell Community Organization, edited by

William S. Dancey and Paul J. Pacheco, pp. 311-328. Kent State University Press, Kent, Ohio.

Prufer, Olaf H. and Douglas H. McKenzie

1967    Studies in Ohio Archaeology. Press at Western Reserve University,

Cleveland. Reprinted 1975, Kent State University Press, Kent, Ohio.

Railey, Jimmy A.

1996    Woodland Cultivators. In Kentucky Archaeology, edited by R. Barry Lewis,

pp. 79-125. University of Kentucky Press, Lexington.

Reyman, Johnathan E.

1975  The Nature and Nurture of Archaeoastronomical Studies. In  

Archaeoastronomy in Pre-Columbian America, edited by Anthony F. Aveni, pp. 205-215. University of Texas Press, Austin.

1980  The Predictive Dimension of Priestly Power. In New Frontiers in

  the Archaeology and Ethnohistory of the Greater Southwest, Transactions

  of the Illinois State Academy of Science, 72(4):40-59. Edited by

  Carroll L. Riley and Basil Hedrick. Illinois State Museum, Springfield.

1987  Priests, Power and Politics: Some Implications of Socioceremonial

          Control. In Astronomy and Ceremony in the Prehistoric Southwest,

          edited by John B. Carlson, pp. 121-147. Maxwell Museum Press,

          Albuquerque.

Rindos, David

1984  The Origins of Agriculture: An Evolutionary Perspective.

          Academy Press, New York.

1989  Darwinism and Its Role in the Explanation of Domestication. In Foraging and Farming: the Evolution of Plant Exploitation , edited by David R. Harris and Gordon C. Hillman,  pp. 27-41.  Unwin Hyman, London.

Riordan, Robert V.

1995   A Construction Sequence for a Middle Woodland Hilltop Enclosure.

     Mid-Continental Journal of Archaeology  20(1):62-104.

Robertson, Thomas H.

1983    The Reliability of Historical Maps of Earthworks in the Ohio Valley.

Archaeoastronomy 6(1-4):75-79. Center for Archaeoastronomy, College Park, Maryland.

Romain, William F.

            1993a  Hopewell Ceremonial Centers and Geomantic Influences.

                       Ohio Archaeologist 43(1):35-44.

            1993b  Further Notes on Hopewell Astronomy and Geometry.

                       Ohio Archaeologist 43(3):48-52.

Ruby, Bret J.

1997    Current Research at Hopewell Culture National Historical Park. In

Hopewell Archaeology: The Newsletter of Hopewell Archaeology in the Ohio River Valley, Volume 2(2), October 1997, edited by Bret J. Ruby and Mark Lynott. The National Park Service Midwest Archaeological Center and Hopewell Culture National Historical Park, Lincoln, Nebraska and Chillicothe, Ohio.

Ruggles, Clive

1999   Whose Equinox? Archaeoastronomy supplement to the Journal for the History of Astronomy, no. 22,  pp. S45-S50.

Sciulli, Paul W.

1976  Evidence of Local Biological Continuity for  an Ohio Hopewell Complex

  Population. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 2(2):181-199.

Seeman, Mark F.

            1979a  Hopewell Interaction Sphere: The Evidence for Interregional Trade

                        and Structural Complexity. Prehistoric Research Series 5(2), Indiana

                        Historical Society, Indianapolis.

            1979b  Feasting with the Dead: Ohio Hopewell Charnel House Ritual as a

                        Context for Redistribution. In Hopewell Archaeology: the Chillicothe

Conference, edited by David S. Brose and N’omi B. Greber, pp. 35-46. Kent State University Press, Kent, Ohio.

Shane, Orrin C. III

1969    The Scioto Hopewell. In Adena: the Seeking of an Idenity by B.K. Swartz Jr., pp. 142-157. Ball State University, Muncie.

Shetrone, Henry C.

            1930  The Mound-Builders. Kennikat Press, Port Washington, New York.

Silverburg, Robert

1968    Mound Builders of Ancient America: The Archaeology of a Myth.

New York Graphic Society, Greenwich, Connecticut.

Skinner, Alanson

1911        Notes on the Eastern Cree and Northern Salteaux, Anthropological

Papers, xi, American Museum of Natural History, New York.

Smith, Bruce D.

            1985a  Chenopodium Berlandieri ssp. Jonesianum: Evidence for a

                      Hopewellian Domesticate from Ash Cave, Ohio.

                      Southeastern Archaeology 4(2):107-133.

            1985b  The Role of Chenopodium as a Domesticate in Pre-Maize Garden

                      Systems in the Eastern U.S. Southeastern Archaeology 4:51-72.        

            1987  The Independent Domestication of Seed Bearing Plants in Eastern

 North America. In Emergent Horticultural Economies of the Eastern     Woodlands, edited by William F. Keegan, pp. 3-47. Center for  Archaeological Investigations, Occasional Paper No. 7, Southern Illinois   University at Carbondale.

            1989  Origins of Agriculture in Eastern North America.

          Science 246:1566-1571.

            1992a  Prehistoric Plant Husbandry in Eastern North America. In The Origins of

                      Agriculture: An International Perspective, edited by C. Wesley Cowan and

Patty Jo Watson, pp. 101-119. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington             DC.

            1992b  Rivers of Change: Essays on Agriculture in Eastern North America.

                      Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington DC.

 

Squier, Ephraim and  Edwin Davis

1848    Ancient Monuments of the Mississippi Valley. Smithsonian Contributions

to Knowledge, Volume 1,  Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington DC.

Stocker, Terry

            1981  A Note on Eastern U.S. Site Orientation. Archaeoastronomy 4(3):24-29.

                       Center for Archaeoastronomy, College Park, Maryland.

Streuver, Stuart

1964    The Hopewell Interaction Sphere in Riverine Western Great Lakes Culture

History. In Hopewellian Studies, edited by Joseph R. Caldwell and Robert L. Hall, pp. 86-106. Illinois State Museum Scientific Papers 12(2), Springfield, Illinois.

1968    Flotation Techniques for the Recovery of Small Scale Archaeological

Remains. American Antiquity 33:353-362.

Streuver, Stuart and Gail L.  Houart

1972    An Analysis of the Hopewell Interaction Sphere. In Social Exchange and Interaction, edited by Edwin N. Wilmsen, pp. 47-80. University of Michigan,  Museum of Anthropology, Anthropological Papers 46, Ann Arbor.

Streuver, Stuart and Kent Vickery

1972    The Beginnings of Cultivation in the Midwest Riverine Area of the United

States. American Anthropologist 75(5):1197-1220.

Tainter, Joseph A.

            1977  Modeling Change in Prehistoric Social Systems. In For Theory

                      Building in Archaeology, Lewis R. Binford, pp. 287-316.

                      Academic Press, New York.

1988  The Collapse of Complex Societies. Cambridge University Press,

Cambridge.

Thom, Alexander

1967    Megalithic Sites in Britain. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

1971  Megalithic Lunar Observatories. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Thomas, Cyrus

1889    The Circular, Square, and Octagonal Earthworks of Ohio. Bureau of

Ethnology Bulletin, No. 10, Washington DC.

1894  Report on the Mound Explorations of the Bureau of Ethnology. Twelfth

  Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology, Washington DC.

Thunen, Robert L.

1987    Geometric Enclosures in the Mid-South: An Archaeological Analysis

Of Enclosure Form. In Middle Woodland Settlement and Ceremonialism in the Mid-South and Lower Mississippi Valley, edited by Robert C. Mainfort, pp. 99-115. Mississippi Department of Archives and History, Archaeological Report No. 22, Jackson.

Titiev, Mischa

1938    Dates of Planting at the Hopi Indian Pueblo of Oraibi.

Museum Notes, Museum of Northern Arizona 11(5):39-42.

Turner, Christopher S.

1982    Hopewell Archaeoastronomy. Archaeoastronomy 5(3):9.

Center for Archaeoastronomy, College Park, Maryland.

1983    An Astronomical Interpretation of the Hopeton Earthworks.

                      Manuscript on file at the Hopewell Culture National Historical Park,

                      Chillicothe, Ohio; and at the Ohio Historical Center, Columbus.

  1999  Calendrical Sightlines at the Hopeton Earthworks. Paper presented at the

66^th Annual Meeting of the Eastern States Archaeological Federation,

Kings Island, Ohio.

2000    Hopewell Subsistence Scheduling: The Ohio Geometric Earthworks as

Calendrical Devices. Poster presented at the Perspectives on the Middle

Woodland at the Millennium Conference, Center for American Archaeology, held at Pere Marquette State Park, Grafton, Illinois, July 2000.

2001    Archaeoastronomy and Landscape at the Hopeton Earthworks, Ross Co.,   Ohio. Paper presented at the 66^th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, New Orleans, La.

2002    Maps, Landscape, and Sunrises: Archaeoastronomy at High Bank, Ross Co.,   Ohio. Paper presented at the 47^th Annual Meeting of the Midwest Archaeological Society, LaCrosse, Wisconsin.

Waldron, John and Elliot Abrams

1999  Adena Burial Mounds and Inter-Hamlet Visibility: a GIS Approach. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology, 24(1):97-111, University of Iowa.

Watson, Patty Jo

1989  Early Plant Cultivation in the Eastern Woodlands of North America. In Foraging and Farming: the Evolution of Plant Exploitation. Edited by David R. Harris and Gordon C. Hillman, pp. 551-571. Unwin Hyman, London.

1997    The Shaping of Modern Paleoethnobotany. In People, Plants and

Landscapes: Studies in Paleoethnobotany, edited by Kristen J. Gremillion, pp.13-22. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Webb, William S.

            1941  Mt. Horeb Earthworks, Site 1 and the Drake Mound, Site 11, Fayette

County , Kentucky. Reports in Anthropology and Archaeology, 5(2).

University of Kentucky, Lexington.

Webb, William S. and Charles E. Snow

1945    The Adena People. Publications of the Department of Anthropology and Archaeology, Volume 6.  University of Kentucky, Lexington.

White, A.L. 

            1985  Indian Intermound Orientations in Ohio.

                      Ohio Archaeologist 35(3):8-10.

White, John R.

            1986  The Kern Effigy: Evidence for a Prehistoric Ft Ancient Summer Solstice

                      Marker. North American Archaeologist 7(2):137-165.

1988    Kern Effigy #2: A Ft Ancient Winter Solstice Marker?

Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 12(2):225-239.

Wymer, Dee Anne

            1987  The Paleoethnobotanical Record of Central Ohio- 100BC to AD 800:

                      Subsistence Continuity and Cultural Change. Unpublished PhD

          Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Ohio State University,

          Columbus.

1990  Archaeobotany. In Childers and Woods: Two Late Woodland Sites in the

Upper Ohio Valley, Mason Co., West Virginia, edited by Michael J. Shott,

pp. 487-616. Cultural Resource Assessment Archaeological Report 200,

University of Kentucky, Lexington.

            1992  Trends and Disparities: The Woodland Paleoethnobotanical Record of the

                      Mid-Ohio Valley. In Cultural Variability in Context: Woodland

Settlements of the Mid-Ohio Valley, edited by Mark F. Seeman, pp. 65-69.     Mid-Continental Journal of Archaeology Special Paper No. 7, Kent State University Press, Kent, Ohio.

1996    The Ohio Hopewell Eco-Niche: Human Land Interactions in the

Core Area. In View From the Core: A Synthesis of Hopewell Archaeology,

edited by Paul J. Pacheco, pp. 36-52. Ohio Archaeological Council, Columbus.

1997    Paleoethnobotany in the Licking River Valley, Ohio: Implications for

Understanding the Hopewell. In Ohio Hopewell Community Organization,

edited by William S. Dancey and Paul J. Pacheco, pp. 153-171. Kent State University Press, Kent, Ohio.

Yarnell, Richard A.

1974  Intestinal Contents of the Salts Cave Mummy and Analysis of the Initial Salts Cave Flotation Series. In Archaeology of the Mammoth Cave Area, edited by Patty Jo Watson, pp. 109-122.  Academic Press, New York.

            1978  Domestication of Sunflower and Sumpweed in Eastern North

                      America. In The Nature and Status of Ethnobotany, edited by Richard I.

                      Ford, pp. 289-299. Anthropological Papers No. 67, Museum of

                      Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

1984    Temporal Trends Indicated by a Survey of Archaic and Woodland Plant

Food Remains from Southeastern North America.  Southeastern Archaeology 4(2):93-106.

1993  The Importance of Native Crops During the Late Archaic and Woodland

   Periods. In Foraging and Farming in the Eastern Woodlands, edited by

   C. Margaret Scarry, pp. 13-26. University of Florida Press, Gainesville.

             1994  Investigations Relevant to the Native Development of Plant Husbandry

                        in Eastern North America: A Brief and Reasonably True Account.

                        In Agricultural Origins and Development in the Mid-Continent, edited by

                        William Green, pp. 7-24. Office of the State Archaeologist, University of

                        Iowa, Iowa City.

 Zeilik, Michael

 1985  The Ethnoastronomy of the Historic Pueblos, I. Calendrical Sun

Watching. Archaeoastronomy supplement to the Journal for the History        of Astronomy, 16(8):1-24.

             1987  Anticipation in Ceremony- the Readiness is All.  In Astronomy and

                       Ceremony in the Prehistoric Southwest, edited by John B. Carlson,

                        pp. 25-42. Papers of the Maxwell Museum of Anthropology, #2,

                        Maxwell Museum Press, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.

Footnotes

1.           The utilitarian function of hilltop enclosures is unresolved. Current proponents of a non-martial view rely on enthusiastic interpretation of archaeological data (Connolly 1998, Riordan 1997), whereas the classic “hillfort” concept is grounded in an empirical, parsimonious approach (Prufer 1997:312-314; Thunen 1988:103-105). Elaboration on this topic is outside the scope of this paper.

2.           Clay has suggested that some Early Woodland Adena ridgetop sites in Kentucky may have been “sun-watching” areas (Clay 1986:589). Though the azimuths of the gateways of Adena circles span the entire horizon, the majority of them point to the eastern quadrant (Webb 1941:161-166; Webb and Snow 1945: 51).

3.           The gaps in the earthen embankments are called “gateways”. The term, though a misnomer, is still in use. No archaeological evidence of actual gates at these features has been demonstrated.

4.            The Dominion Land site, Columbus, Ohio, prior to its destruction in 1953, was the location of possibly the oldest Adena circle. Samples from a pit feature in the bottom of the ditch yielded the following dates:

·         2555±100 BP (605 BC) (ETH 3072)

·         2440±100 BP (490 BC) (ETH 3071)

·         2210±100 BP (260 BC) (ETH 3073)

·         2135±  80 BP (185 BC) (ETH 4241)(Carr & Hass 1996;

      Cramer 1989:74)

         Early Adena diagnostics were present at the site also (Cramer 1989:59-60, 74).

   The Mt. Horeb Circle, north of Lexington Kentucky, had no datable material and was lacking in cultural remnants (Webb 1941). However, the adjacent Fisher (15Fa160), Tarlton (15Fa15), and Peter (15Fa166) sites have yielded diagnostics artifacts and radiocarbon dates. Fisher and Tarlton both produced artifacts consistent with an early Adena construction (Dragoo 1963:188-197). Two samples excavated from the ditch at Peter resulted in the following dates:

·         2220±100 BP (270 BC) (Beta 7757)

·         2140±110 BP (190 BC) (Beta 7756) (Clay 1985:15-17)

   It is reasonable to assert that the Mt. Horeb Circle was constructed circa 200-250 B.C.

   The “Great Circle” at the earthworks in Anderson Indiana had a sample from within the embankment dated to:

·         2110±90 BP (160 BC) (Beta 22129)(Cochran 1992:33).

   Thus it can be surmised that the Adena Circles of this design persisted over about a 600-year time span, beginning circa 500 B.C.

5.           The cross-quarter days (figure 3.2) fall midway between the solstices and the equinoxes. Due to cyclic calendrical variations, the May cross-quarter date falls on the fifth or sixth of the month. Ethnographically, this regimen of date keeping is associated with agricultural patterns. Best known is its use in Britain during the first millenium A.D. and likely much earlier (Hutton 1998; James 1961:227-316; McCluskey 1989, 1993). In pre-Christian Rome, the Floralia, an ancient fertility feast associated with crop conditions, was held at the beginning of May (James 1961:169).

Examples in American prehistory are evidenced by accounts of Hopi traditions. One cites the dates May 4 and 6 as a particular weather prediction interval (Ellis 1975:74). On First Mesa in May, the skywatcher had “to watch the sun very carefully for the people to plant” (Parsons 1939:494). At Oraibi, the arrival of the blackbird in early May was concomitant with the proper time for early planting (McCluskey 1982:48; Malotki 1983:402-403). The horizon at Oraibi had shrine markers not only at the two solstice points, as is typical, but also at the area marking the early May sunrise (Titiev 1938:41-42).  There are also accounts of the other cross-quarter days being reckoned by the Hopi. Anticipatory observations leading up to the solstice rituals associated with Soyal commenced around November 7-8 (Zeilik 1985:S16). The observance of Powamu, whose timing is based on combined lunar-solar observations, occurs around early February (McCluskey 1977:192). This corresponds with the American Groundhog’s Day, the Catholic Candlemas, the Celtic Imbolc, and the Irish St. Bridgit’s Day (Hutton 1996).      

Additionally, the Eastern Cree were said to have observed an annual calendar of eight equal seasons (Skinner 1911:48).

Though this form of calendar was ubiquitous neither in prehistoric America nor worldwide, it is a logical pattern derived empirically from the annual temporal cycle. Observers of the solstices could determine the times of the equinoxes and thence the cross-quarter days relatively easily by keeping day counts. Such Native American numeration practices are evidenced by the Winnebago calendar stick (Marshack 1985, 1989; Zeilik 1986:S6,S9,S13) and by ethnographic accounts of California Indians, for instance (Hudson et al 1979, Hudson 1984, 1988).

6.      sin d  =  sin f   sin h   +   cos f   cos h   cos A

Where  d = declination                           h = corrected horizon height in degrees

             f = latitude                                              =  h* - r  +  p  ±  q

             A = azimuth                        where     h* = true horizon height

                                                                         r  =  refraction correction

                                                                         p = parallax

                                                                         q = semi-diameter

(Hawkins 1975; Thom 1967, 1971)

7.            Are such gateway-to-gateway alignments practical and feasible? Would trees block the viewlines? At distances of greater than 300 m, would foresight gateways be visible, especially for nighttime lunar observations (Brose 1976:68-70; Marshall 1999:34; Turner 1983:12-13)?

      During mechanical grading of the Hopeton earthworks in 1961, informants noted the presence of 30-35 cm in diameter pits in the centers of the gateways filled with charcoal and ash (also containing unburned limestone, representing after-use fill?) (Brose 1976:59). It is possible such features demonstrate that the gateways were illuminated for observational use. Their repeated presence at similar sites, if demonstrated archaeologically, would support this view.

      During trenching of the northwest wall at Hopeton in 1996, the subembankment paleosol was noted to be a 25 to 30 cm deep prairie soil (Ruby 1997:4, and private communication January 2000). This would indicate a treeless environment in this area at construction.

      What’s more, the paleosol from beneath the Fairground Circle embankment was

analyzed  for  phytolith/pollen data. The results were consistent with a “park or clearing that supported primarily grasses and herbs, rather than a forested area…strengthening the argument that there were no trees growing in the area used to construct the Great [Fairground] Circle” (Cummings 1992).

      Additionally, charcoal and seed assemblages from the nearby Murphy site (33Li212) indicate an increase of second growth taxa locally during the Middle Woodland. This is not only consistent with the clearing of trees, but also suggests ongoing/increased agriculture at this time (figure 6.11)(Wymer 1996:47, 1997:160).

8.      The four earthworks: High Bank, Hopeton, Circleville, and the Newark Octagon display axial symmetry between two conjoined figures, Byers (1998) “c-r groups”. Two of these contain the rare octagon, two others have interior ditches: both traits the only such in Hopewell enclosures. None contained lavish mortuary burial assemblages as did Seip, Liberty-Harness, or Hopewell. Perhaps the c-r enclosures were a functionally separate category from the tripartite series. Within the c-r category itself, variation can be examined. Clear patters emerge in calendrical assessment of them.

                  The Fairground Circle, one of only two large Hopewell circular enclosures  not conjoined to another geometric monument, is neither c-r nor tripartite. For comparison, though, it is included in the table, as a c-r sans polygon, as it were; a zero point.

C-R Enclosures

	FAIRGROUND CIRCLE	CIRCLEVILLE	HOPETON	HIGH BANK OCTAGON	NEWARK OCTAGON
CIRCLE MEAN DIAMETER	1176	1139	993	1056	1054
DEVIATION FROM TRUE CIRCLE	2.2%	?	3.3%	0.6%	0.4%
DITCH PRESENT?	YES	YES	NO	NO	NO
POLYGON SHAPE	NONE	SQUARE	IRREGULAR POLYGON	IRREGULAR OCTAGON	REGULAR OCTAGON
RELATIVE DEGREE OF AXIAL SYMMETRY	MEDIUM	HIGH	LOW	MEDIUM	HIGH
RADIOCARBON ASSESSMENTS	After 160 BC	NONE	1ST Century AD	Circa 2nd Century AD	After AD 200 ?
CROSS-QUARTER SIGHTLINES	yes	?	yes	no	no
EQUINOX SIGHTLINES	no	?	yes	no	no
SOLSTICE SIGHTLINES	no	?	yes	yes	no
LUNAR SIGHTLINES	no	?	yes	yes	yes

      What patterns emerge here? First, the diameters are notable with the last two, the octagon groups. As has been cited in the past concerning these circles, the impressive degree of accuracy coupled with an octagon sets them apart, I contend at the apex of the regional mound morphology continuum.

      The presence of a ditch at the first two may corroborate the relative age of these: the ditch seems patterned on earlier originally Adena designs.

      Again, the simplicity of the Fairground Circle, and its Adena-like design, implicate it as an early Hopewell enclosure. Conversely, High Bank and Newark demonstrate a more complex geometry.

      The increasing regularity in the latter three complex polygons mirrors their calendrical evolution. The relatively obvious patterns of the sun’s annual motion   would become known to observers much sooner than the more lengthy 18.6 year lunar sequence, hence one would expect to see evidence of solar observations preceding evidence of lunar ones. The primitive observers learned these celestial patterns in successive degrees (Hardman 1992,  Ruggles 1997).

      The Newark Octagon is the only site directed wholly toward the lunar extrema, the most complex of the Hopewell sightlines. It is perhaps no coincidence that the eight-sided octagon is found at both high Bank and Newark to mark the eight lunar extrema. Use of the four-sided square to mark the four solar extrema (solstices) has been confirmed by my own data at the Liberty and Baum squares, and hinted at by Greber (1997) and Byers (1998).

      The above relative chronology is in-line with the available radiocarbon dates, and presents a schemata against which calendrical concepts and any associated social models can be compared. 

Figures

 Above: Fairground Circle

Supplemental figures 

Entrance to Fairground Circle with the central Eagle Mound visible in the distance. Note causewayed entrance flanked by interior moat or ditch. Image:Turner (1982)

View from top of entry wall across entrance, showing curved interior moat or ditch, and the curved perimeter  enclosure wall trailing off in the distance. Image: Turner (1982)

Key to Tables

G-                Gateways (backsight and foresight)

E-                 Event: equinox (EQ), May cross-quarter date (CQ), summer solstice (SS),

winter solstice (WS), lunar minimum (LN), lunar maximum (LX).

D-                Distance between gateways (backsight and foresight) in meters

A-                Azimuth of sightline

d-         Declination demarcated by alignment

e-                  Error (in degrees of declination). Declination of events for epoch A.D. 100 are as

follows: equinox = 0°, solstice = ±23.7°, lunar minimum = ±18.5°,

lunar maximum = ±28.8°.   

h-            Horizon height along sightline, in degrees.

q-                  Semi-diameter of object, i.e.:

First/last gleam   =  (-)

Central Bisection [object half up or down] =   (0)

First/last tangent [object touching horizon, full disk just visible]   =  (+)

Horizon feature

            Feature or area at horizon along given sightline.

Table 1a

Rise Phenomena

                           

G         E          D             A                d          e          h          q          Horizon Feature                 

                                                                                                                                    ______

2-12     EQ       206m       91.9°            0.0°      Æ         2.3°      +         S.Sand Hill Peak        

4-10     EQ       299          90.3             0.9       0.9       2.3       -         Sand Hill Ridge

           

6-9       EQ       219          92.0           -0.1       0.1       2.3       +         Sand Hill Ridge 

5-7       CQ      241          70.5             15.6     Æ        1.3         0        N.Ridge Bald Hill

1-11     CQ      251          70.9             15.6     Æ        1.8         0        N.Ridge Bald Hill              

4-8       SS        286          59.2             23.7     Æ        1.2         -        NW Slope Sugarloaf          

39-9     WS        92         123.1          -23.7     Æ        2.3         -        Bunker Hill-MtIves gap    

5-11     WS      361         123.2          -23.7     Æ        2.4         -        Bunker Hill-MtIves gap   

42-10   WS      222         123.8          -23.9     0.2       2.3         +        Bunker Hill-MtIves gap   

4-9       LN       285          67.5             18.5     Æ        1.5         -        Sugarloaf-BaldHill gap      

2-10     LN       290          67.3             18.5     Æ        1.4         -        Sugarloaf-BaldHill gap      

3-12     LN       264         117.3          -18.5     Æ        2.9         -        South Ridge, Bunker Hill   

6-10     LN       283         116.9          -18.1     0.4       3.0         -        Bunker Hill Ridge             

1-10     LX       301           52.5            28.8     Æ        0.7         -        Water Tower Hill                

3-8       LX       286           53.4            28.8     Æ        1.3         0        NW Slope Sugarloaf            5-12        LX       333               131.8          -28.8     Æ        2.6         -        W. Mt. Ives Peak                

6-11     LX       331         132.0          -28.8     Æ        2.7         -        W. Mt. Ives Peak                

                                                                                                                                                           

Table 1b

                                                            Set Phenomena

G         E          D             A               d                        e          h          q          Horizon Feature                     

9-5       EQ       276m      269.7°         0            Æ         1.0       -         Ridge(Turner1983:13)  

10-4     EQ       299         269.7           0           Æ         1.0       -         Ridge, Egypt Pike

11-2     EQ       262         268.6         -0.5        0.5       1.0       +         Ridge, Egypt Pike          

11-5     SS        361         301.4           23.7      Æ         0.7       -         Near Cattail Road            

8-3       WS      286         238.6         -23.7      Æ         0.8       -         Adena/Larrick Lane         

13-2     LN       116         293.2           18.5      Æ         0.9       -         Egypt Pike Plateau          

10-6     LN       283         293.9           19.0      0.5       0.8       -         Egypt Pike Plateau         

9-3       LN       285         244.8         -18.5      Æ         0.8       -         Clinton Rd/LarrickLane   

9-39     LX         92         307.9           28.8      Æ         0.5       -          Rt 207/Old Stone Rd      

11-6     LX       331         308.2           29.1      0.3       0.5       -         Rt 207/Old Stone Rd      

39-4     LX       248         229.9         -28.8      Æ         0.9       0         North of Adena Estate                                                                                                                                             

 Table 2

Fairground Circle-Hopeton Comparison

May Cross-Quarter Date

Sightline                                               A                    h                 d                     

Fairground Circle                                68.6°                0°                     15.8°

Hopeton North Side (5-7)                   70.5                 1.3                   15.6

Hopeton South Side (1-11)             70.9                1.8                   15.6

                                                                                                                                           

---

1              

2              

3              

4              

4              

5              

6              

7              

8              

4