Hopewell geometric earthworks

Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 23 (2004) 331–356

www.elsevier.com/locate/jaa

Hopewell geometric earthworks: a case study in thereferential and experiential meaning of monuments

Wesley Bernardini

Department of Sociology and Anthropology, University of Redlands, 1200 E. Colton Ave., USA

Received 15 October 2003; revised 3 February 2004

Abstract

Archaeological landscapes with dispersed settlements often contain widely spaced, morphologically similar, non-res-

idential monuments (e.g., Neolithic megaliths and enclosures, Eastern Woodlands conical burial mounds, Southwestern

great kivas, and Hopewell geometric earthworks). These monuments are commonly interpreted as ‘‘village surrogates,’’

places at which members of a local, dispersed community gathered to express and reproduce social ties. Some applica-

tions of the village surrogate model have privileged referential meaning (what a monument symbolized) at the expense

of experiential meaning (how monuments were experienced), obscuring important variability in relationships between

monuments and use-groups. Focusing on a cluster of five likely contemporary Hopewell geometric earthworks in south-

central Ohio, this paper emphasizes that the construction of monuments in dispersed settings was not always experi-

enced as the aggregation of autonomous, isomorphic communities. An analysis of labor involved in earthwork

construction demonstrates that in the Hopewell case, a very widely dispersed population, not exclusively affiliated with

individual monuments, gathered repeatedly to build a related set of ceremonial centers. Parallels with the Chaco Phe-

nomenon of northwest New Mexico are explored, and the importance of distinguishing between referential and expe-

riential meaning in the broader study of prehistoric monuments is discussed.

� 2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

The construction of large-scale monuments by dis-

persed populations was not uncommon in prehistory.

Examples include the Neolithic henges and enclosures

of Europe, Woodland Period mounds in the eastern

United States, and great houses and great kivas in the

American Southwest. Hopewell geometric earthworks,

built between ca. A.D. 1–500 in and around southern

Ohio, are among the most impressive examples of such

monuments, consisting of earthen embankments ar-

ranged into precise geometric shapes up to 5.2m (17ft)

tall and more than 300m (1000ft) in diameter (Fig. 1).

0278-4165/$ - see front matter � 2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserve

doi:10.1016/j.jaa.2004.06.001

E-mail address: [email protected].

Monuments in dispersed social landscapes have typi-

cally been interpreted as focal points for a surrounding

community. In the absence of a large, fixed settlement,

monuments are thought to have served as ‘‘village surro-

gates,’’ venues at which relationships among a local,

dispersed populationwere created, symbolized, and repro-

duced (Hodder, 1984; Sherratt, 1984, 1990). Hopewell

earthworks have been interpreted using a variant of the

‘‘village surrogate’’ idea, the ‘‘vacant ceremonial center

model’’ (DanceyandPacheco, 1997a),whichproposes that

each earthworkorganizedanumberof small, dispersed set-

tlements into a community through group ceremonies.

In the case of Hopewell earthworks, and other simi-

lar monuments, the village surrogate interpretation is

d.

mailto:[email protected].

Fig. 1. The Seip Earthworks. Reproduced from Squier and Davis, 1848: pl. XX. Note that the north arrow is misdirected by 90degr,

and actually points east.

332 W. Bernardini / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 23 (2004) 331–356

supported as much by the lack of data as by the presence

of it. For example, few residential sites have been docu-

mented in the areas surrounding Hopewell earthworks,

and those that are known are small and ephemeral

(Pacheco, 1996). The monuments themselves are often

nearly devoid of artifacts outside of mortuary contexts.

Thus, the strength of the village surrogate model is its

ability to reconcile large-scale, empty monuments on

W. Bernardini / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 23 (2004) 331–356 333

the one hand, and dispersed, isolated settlements on the

other. Yet as often employed, this interpretation is al-

most entirely post hoc, with little direct confirmation

of the behaviors it implies.

In this context, it may be useful to draw a heuristic

distinction between ‘‘referential’’ meanings of mon-

uments—what (we think) they symbolized to the

people who lived around them—and ‘‘experiential’’

meanings—how activities at a monument were physi-

cally experienced by participants (Hodder, 1994). Refer-

ential meanings can carry experiential implications, and

physical experiences can generate referential meanings,

but the two can vary independently within a population

or over time. For example, only part of a population

may participate in certain events at a monument, pro-

ducing for them a particular experiential meaning that

is not shared by a wider group. Similarly, an experiential

meaning grounded in participation in an event may be

supplanted by only distantly related referential meanings

in later non-participant generations, a process of reinter-

pretation that probably begins as soon as construction

ends (Bradley, 1993).

As the Hopewell village surrogate example illustrates,

referential meanings can be deceptively circular (monu-

ments are centrally located because they organize the

surrounding population; dispersed settlements cluster

around a monument because they use it as a central

place). Such circularity can be especially difficult to

break when, as in the case of Hopewell earthworks,

there are so little available data directly pertaining to

the behavior being explained (e.g., material residue of

gatherings at monuments by local communities; evi-

dence of the dispersed settlements themselves) to provide

‘‘resistance’’ to interpretation (Wylie, 1994).

One benefit of the proposed heuristic division is that

it encourages more critical examination of physical

experience separate from inferred meaning. It also per-

mits the experiential aspect of meaning to be explored

as an independent variable, rather than simply as an

implication of referential meaning. For ‘‘vacant’’ monu-

ments like Hopewell earthworks, where little but earthen

architecture remains for analysis, experience may be

productively measured through energetic analysis

(Abrams, 1994)—the quantification of a manual con-

struction event in terms of the number of people in-

volved, the duration of the project, the area from

which participants were drawn, etc. Establishing the

energetic parameters of experience helps us to under-

stand the nature and social scale of the relationships ex-

pressed and created among participants in a common

venture.

This study presents an experiential analysis of Hope-

well earthwork construction, an energetic assessment of

the experiences of the people who built them. The results

of this analysis show that some earthworks in the core

Scioto Valley and Paint Creek areas of the Hopewell sys-

tem were not constructed by local populations affiliated

with each earthwork, as assumed by the village surrogate

(and vacant ceremonial center) model. That is, earthwork

construction was not �experienced� by participants as the

convergence of a local community. Instead, earthwork

construction was the product of labor pooled at a regio-

nal level, and thus was experienced as a much larger so-

cial phenomenon than previously recognized. This

conclusion reorients Hopewell research from questions

about the intra- and inter-community dynamics of earth-

work polities (e.g., papers in Dancey and Pacheco,

1997b) to questions about pan-regional ceremonial sys-

tems. It also demonstrates the importance of distinguish-

ing between referential and experiential meaning in the

broader study of prehistoric monuments.

Referential and experiential meaning

The concepts of referential and experiential meaning

are well illustrated by a consideration of Neolithic tombs

(Hodder, 1994). It has long been suggested that linear

Neolithic tombs �mean� houses for the dead (Childe,

1949). This referential meaning is inferred from a num-

ber of formal similarities between long barrow tombs

and earlier long houses, including an elongated trapezoi-

dal shape of similar length and width, an entrance at the

broader end, a northwest–southeast alignment, and a

linear internal division (Hodder, 1984, 1990). Tombs

are also often built on top of earlier long houses (Hod-

der and Shand, 1988), apparently referencing the older

structures in space as well as form. Thus, it seems likely

that a Neolithic citizen of north-west Europe would

have understood linear tombs to symbolize �houses for

ancestors.�To accept a broad referential meaning for all tombs,

however, is to ignore the many different ways in which

people can experience a monument at any one point in

time, or over time (Bradley, 1993; Holtorf, 1998). As

Hodder (1994, p. 85, italics added) notes,

Even if the tombs were called �houses� of the ancestorsand were built on house or settlement sites, they presum-ably came to have meaning in their own right as associ-

ated with a specific set of activities. Those who dug thesoil together, who carried the stone or timbers to makethe chambers, who carried in the dead, moving asideearlier remains of their ancestors, who gave gifts, who

burned, mounded over and closed the tomb, in theirjoint activities developed a common tradition. For themthe tomb acted less through reference and more through

direct experience.

For those involved in the communal labor project,

the experiential significance of asserting common

ancestry and continuity of rights likely superseded the


broader referential meaning of tombs in society. Once

tombs were closed off and moved into their ‘‘afterlife’’

(Bradley, 1993), it was no longer possible to experience

meaning through them directly, and they ‘‘came to act

as reference points on the landscape (e.g., Barrett

et al., 1991), now being meaningful less through direct

experience and more through reference to the past.

Thus, ‘‘the meaning of tomb material culture may have

shifted through time from referential to experiential to

referential again’’ (Hodder, 1994, p. 85).

Like Neolithic tombs, Hopewell geometric earth-

works have lately come to be interpreted through the

lens of a homogeneous referential meaning—in this

case, as ‘‘village surrogates.’’ This blanket interpretation

obscures potentially important variability in the ways

that sub-groups on the landscape experienced monu-

ments. Decoupling referential from experiential mean-

ing can provide productive new insights into this

variability.

Fig. 2. The broadest territorial definition of the Hopewell

phenomenon.

Fig. 3. Primary distribution of Hopewell geometric earthworks.

1 As usual for Hopewell there is at least one exception, at the

Turner Site.

Hopewell geometric earthworks

The Hopewell phenomenon is usually defined by the

presence of one or more non-utilitarian goods, often

(but not only) recovered from mortuary contexts, such

as copper celts, mica cutouts, and bear canines (Struever

and Houart, 1972). In its most extreme definitions,

Hopewell covers most of eastern North America in the

Middle Woodland Period (ca. A.D. 1–500), from Ontar-

io to Louisiana and from New York to Florida (Fig. 2).

There is, however, an increasing recognition that defin-

ing the boundaries of the Hopewell phenomenon

through a composite of diagnostic artifacts encompasses

a tremendous range of local variability in social and rit-

ual organization (Carr et al., 2002).

This study focuses on the core area of the Hopewell

phenomenon, widely agreed to be centered on the Scioto

Valley of south-central Ohio, but defined more specifi-

cally here by the distribution of geometric earthworks.

The distribution of Hopewell geometric earthworks cov-

ers a much smaller territory than Hopewell artifacts,

with the densest concentration centered on the modern

town of Chillicothe (Fig. 3). As their name implies, geo-

metric earthworks are composed of embankments of

earth arranged into various geometric shapes, including

circles, squares, octagons, and ‘‘roads’’ (parallel

embankments of earth). The scale of these constructions

is immense, with individual geometric shapes enclosing

areas of 30 acres or more, equivalent to more than 25

football fields.

Hopewell geometric earthworks were the most visi-

ble products of Hopewell society, yet despite their

prominence, their use (intended or actual) remains un-

clear. Unlike conical burial mounds, the most common

Middle Woodland earthen construction, geometric

earthworks were not used as repositories for the dead

or their associated offerings,1 though earthworks some-

times enclosed spaces in which burial mounds were con-

structed and mortuary rituals were performed.

Although geometric earthworks consisted of high walls

and ditches, they were almost certainly not used for de-

fense since their embankments contain many openings

and often have interior ditches, rather than exterior


ones. Earthworks are generally free of trash or habita-

tion debris, though some exceptions are known (in most

of these cases, occupation seems to predate earthwork

construction; see below). Some scholars have proposed

that earthworks were astronomical observatories (Hive-

ly and Horn, 1982), noting alignments through gate-

ways and mounds. Most researchers attribute a

symbolic meaning to the precise geometric arrange-

ments that comprise the earthworks, for example, as

representations of winter and summer moiety ‘‘big

houses’’ (DeBoer, 1997), or as broader materializations

of ancient cosmologies (Romain, 1996). Beyond these

outlines, little is known about the details of geometric

earthwork construction and use, and until recently little

field research had been conducted on them (but see Gre-

ber, 1999, 2002; Lynott, 2003; Lynott and Weymouth,

2002).

ig. 4. The vacant ceremonial center model of hopewell

ettlement. Redrawn after Dancey and Pacheco (1997, Figure

.2).

Village surrogates

The presence of isolated monuments within dispersed

settlement systems is common, especially in prehistoric

North America and Europe. An insightful explanation

of these monuments, presented most clearly by Euro-

pean archaeologists, views monuments in dispersed set-

tings as ‘‘village surrogates’’ (Hodder, 1984; Renfrew,

1976; Sherratt, 1984, p. 129; Sherratt, 1990, p. 148–

149). That is, in the absence of an actual nucleated

village, members of a dispersed population created,

reproduced, and symbolized a community through the

construction and use of a central monument. Among

European examples, Neolithic megaliths (Chapman,

1981; Renfrew, 1976; Sherratt, 1990) and enclosures

(Evans et al., 1988) have been profitably interpreted in

this manner. Similar interpretations have been made

for monuments in dispersed settings in North America.

For example, Woodland period conical burial mounds

in eastern North America have been interpreted as

markers of a group�s investment and ancestry in an area

(Buikstra, 1979; Buikstra and Charles, 1999; Charles,

1985). Late Woodland period animal effigy mounds in

Wisconsin, often occurring as lines of repeated figures,

are thought to have been built during seasonal aggrega-

tions of totemically affiliated groups of mobile foragers

(Benn, 1979; Storck, 1974). In the American Southwest,

isolated great kivas have been interpreted as integrative

facilities at which the residents of surrounding dispersed

farming settlements converged to conduct ceremonies

and exchange goods, mates, and information (Adler,

1990). Isolated Chacoan great houses (outliers) in the

American Southwest, many of which are associated with

a great kiva, are also frequently interpreted as focal

points of dispersed communities (Breternitz et al.,

1982; Marshall et al., 1979; Lekson, 1991; but see Maho-

ney, 2000).

The vacant ceremonial center model

Many Hopewell researchers accept a variant of the

village surrogate model for Ohio Hopewell geometric

earthworks known as the ‘‘vacant ceremonial center

model,’’ variously defined by Prufer (1964a, p. 71;

1964b;1965, p. 137)., Pacheco (1996), Smith (1992),

and most recently by Dancey and Pacheco (1997a).

The model was originally borrowed from Mesoamerica

where it was used to explain Mayan ceremonial com-

plexes, though subsequent discoveries of substantial

activity and occupation at these complexes led to the

dropping of the term in that area (Morley et al., 1983).

The vacant center model proposes that Ohio Hope-

well peoples organized themselves into settlements, or

‘‘hamlets,’’ of one to a few households that were distrib-

uted around a ceremonial earthwork center. The central

assumption of the model is that a single earthwork

served as the ceremonial center for each community of

dispersed hamlets. Schematically, then, the vacant center

model envisions the Hopewell landscape as divided into

autonomous polities, each consisting of an earthwork

surrounded by its associated, dispersed community, as

depicted in Fig. 4. Under the vacant center model, ham-

lets should be clustered around earthworks, with bound-

aries or gaps in settlement between these dispersed

communities.

Unfortunately, the settlement pattern data needed

to evaluate the expectations of the vacant center model

are lacking for the Hopewell period and for Ohio in

general. A recent tabulation of Middle Woodland (ca.

F

s

1


A.D. 1–500) habitation and non-mortuary sites in Ohio

compiled in 1997 contains only 91 sites for the entire

state (Dancey and Pacheco, 1997a, Table 1.1), many

of which are marginal candidates for residential status.

The few areas that have been intensively covered by

systematic block surveys are concentrated almost exclu-

sively in the immediate area of known mounds and

earthworks (e.g., Lynott, 1982; Lynott and Monk,

1985; Seeman, 1981) and thus do not cover potential

community boundary areas. Further, of the suspected

habitation sites identified from surface remains or sho-

vel testing, few have been tested extensively enough to

determine the relationship between surface and subsur-

face expressions. Dancey (1991, p. 68), for example,

acknowledges that ‘‘[The Murphy Site] may be the

only comprehensively documented [Middle Woodland

Period habitation] site in central Ohio (if not all of

Ohio).2’’

Critiques of the village surrogate model

As research on monuments in dispersed settlement

systems has progressed, some of the original formula-

tions of the village surrogate model have been chal-

lenged. As initially conceived, the village surrogate

model hypothesized that increasing reliance on agricul-

ture and a resultant increase in territoriality motivated

the construction of fixed markers to legitimize control

of restricted resources. Recent research has, however, re-

vealed that ‘‘full-scale agriculture was more the excep-

tion than the rule’’ (Chapman, 1995, p. 39) among

monument builders in dispersed settlement systems.

Without fixed investments to defend, monuments may

have been constructed along lines of movement rather

than in the centers of defended territories, and thus

may not correspond in direct ways to local communities

(Bradley, 1993; Chapman, 1995).

The village surrogate model can also be critiqued for

focusing on the distribution of monuments rather than

the surrounding dispersed settlements. Habitation sites

are typically difficult to identify archaeologically in dis-

persed settlement systems; in fact, somewhat circularly,

2 The lack of settlement pattern data does not reflect a lack

of effort by current Hopewell researchers, who have focused

increasing energy on the collection of such information (e.g.,

Dancey, 1991, 1992; Pacheco, 1988, 1993). Rather, it is the

cumulative product of several factors, not least of which is the

longstanding bias towards mortuary contexts over the first 100

years of the development of Hopewell archaeology, leaving

considerable ground to be caught up. The study of Hopewell

habitations is also not helped by the rapid and deep burial of

sites in the eastern Woodlands, extensive site disturbance by

timber cutting and farming, and the wooden architecture of

prehistoric Hopewell settlements, all of which conspire to make

detection of small residential sites difficult.

it is often the ephemeral nature of the dispersed commu-

nity that supports the interpretation of monuments as

fixed, central gathering places. When small sites are

archaeologically visible and adequate survey data are

available, as for example in the American Southwest,

it is clear that the settlement patterns of dispersed sites

do not often conform to the expectations of the village

surrogate model. For example, dispersed settlements

near Chacoan great houses often do not follow the

boundaries of Thiessen polygons separating hypotheti-

cal great house territories (Mahoney, 2000); while small

groups of structures generally do cluster around great

houses, contemporary settlements can be found up to

13miles distant in seeming ‘‘no man�s lands’’ (e.g., Ba-

ker, 1991).

Finally, variability in the function of morphologically

similar earthworks is being increasingly recognized. Sub-

stantial differences in labor investment are often masked

under headings assigned to monuments built in the same

form. For example, Late Woodland period thunderbird

effigy mounds in Wisconsin can be found with wing-

spans of as little as 15m (50ft) to as much as 770m

(2500ft) (Rosenbrough and Birmingham, 2003), imply-

ing use-groups of very different scales. In Illinois and

Ohio, Ruby et al. (2004) document the variety of ways

in which earthen enclosures and mounds can organize

surrounding populations of different sizes and

compositions.

Ethnographic cases have helped to broaden the range

of potential uses of morphologically similar monuments.

For example, while some of the smaller ceremonial cen-

ters used by the Chachi of northwest Ecuador organize

local dispersed communities, the largest and oldest cen-

ter, Punta Venado, serves a much broader population

drawn from at least five distinct communities located

along 16km of river-front territory (DeBoer and Blitz,

1991). A similar pattern of convergence on a single cer-

emonial center by a broadly dispersed population was

also recorded for the Mapuche of south-central Chile

by Dillehay (1990). The Mapuche�s biannual nguillatun

ceremony, hosted in rotation by different local groups,

draws up to 8000 attendants. Significantly, an individual

is ‘‘invited to several different ceremonies each year, as a

member of their own lineage and as an outsider’’ (Dille-

hay, 1990, p. 227); attendance is not limited to members

of the local community.

The recognition that not all monuments in dispersed

landscapes are created equal opens up an exciting range

of possible interpretations. For example, a single com-

munity may build and use multiple monuments with dif-

ferent functions, and multiple communities may

converge on a single monument. The following section

approaches a set of Hopewell geometric earthworks with

an eye toward such variability, and finds evidence for a

very different pattern of use than previously attributed

to these sites.

Fig. 5. The Scioto and Paint Creek Valleys of Ohio showing the

location of the five tripartite Hopewell geometric earthworks

included in the analysis.

Fig. 6. The five tripartite earthworks of the Scioto and Paint

Creek Valleys. North varies for each site.


Tripartite Hopewell earthworks: a unique set

Significant differences in scale, morphology, and

placement on the landscape are evident within the

known assemblage of Hopewell geometric earthworks.

In particular, morphology appears to differ in important

ways across time and space, with local clusters of earth-

works exhibiting strong similarities in the kinds and

arrangements of shapes they contain (DeBoer, 1997).

This study focuses on a set of five uniquely similar

earthworks located in the Scioto and Paint Creek Val-

leys of south-central Ohio (Fig. 5). The five sites are:

Seip and Baum in the main Paint Creek valley; Frank-

fort in the North Fork of Paint Creek; and Liberty

and Works East in the main Scioto valley. These earth-

works represent some of the largest monuments ever

constructed by Hopewell groups, and are located in

what most researchers agree was the ‘‘core’’ of Hopewell

activities. They receive special attention here because

their morphological similarities suggest that they were

built and used within a relatively short time of each

other. The ability to identify earthworks that were likely

built and used within a single human generation is extre-

mely unusual for Hopewell archaeology, since absolute

chronological control is relatively poor.3

Each of the tripartite earthworks consists primarily

of three conjoined shapes (Fig. 6): a square with sides

of approximately 305m (1100ft) in length; a large circle

or partial circle with a diameter of approximately 460m

(1500ft); and a smaller circle with a diameter of about

200m (650ft). While many Hopewell earthworks con-

tain combinations of circles and squares, these five sites

stand out for their tripartite configuration and the stan-

dardized dimensions of their component shapes. Outside

the Scioto Valley area, only the Marietta earthworks

(160km [100miles] east) contains a square of this size,

and this complex lacks circles altogether. With two

exceptions (Newark and Seal), the 460m diameter circle

and 200m circles are exclusive to the five tripartite earth-

works, and neither exception includes a comparable

305m square.

Squier and Davis (1848, p. 56) were the first to point

out the similarities of this set of earthworks: ‘‘This work

[Liberty] is a very fair type of a singular series occurring

in the Scioto valley, all of which have the same figures in

combination, although occupying different positions

with respect to one another, viz. a square and two cir-

cles.’’ The authors went on to comment (Squier and Da-

vis, 1848, p. 57): ‘‘That there is some hidden significance,

in the first place in the regularity, and secondly in the

3 Despite a modest number of radiocarbon dates (Greber,

2002) and an important artifact seriation (Ruhl, 1992), the

construction and use of most sites cannot be dated to intervals

smaller than a century or more.

arrangement of various parts, can hardly be doubted.

Nor can the coincidences observable between this and

the other succeeding works of the same series be wholly

accidental.’’ Succeeding scholars have also pointed out

the striking similarity of this set of sites. For example,

Greber (1979, p. 36) noted that ‘‘within the central Sci-

oto–Paint Creek area, the series of five sites identified

by the tripartite earthwork design form a regional

subunit.’’

The strong morphological similarities among this set

of five earthworks is very likely the result of close inter-

action between the people who planned and built them.

Greber (1997a, p. 219) notes that ‘‘the five square enclo-

sures are almost identical in size, construction material,


iconographic detail, and their nonrandom orientations

on the landscape. This strongly suggests that each was

part of one overall architectural design likely to have

been built over a relatively short time span.’’ The simi-

larities among the earthworks are so strong that it is

not unreasonable to consider that they were all laid

out by the same person or group of people with the req-

uisite ritual and architectural knowledge (James Mar-

shall, personal communication, 2002)—a ‘‘unique

relatively short time within the Ohio Hopewell period

when political and social ties were strong enough within

the central Scioto to provide a basis for the close eco-

nomic and symbolic sharing’’ (Greber, 1997b, p. 246).

The case for contemporaneity of these five earth-

works rests primarily on their pronounced morphologi-

cal similarities. No absolute dates are available from

embankment contexts of the tripartite earthworks; C14

dates from mound contexts at Seip and Liberty overlap

generally for the two centuries between A.D. 200–400

(corrected) (Greber, 2003a). Copper earspool assem-

blages (Ruhl, 1992), again from mound (rather than geo-

metric earthwork) contexts are more similar than they

are different [e.g., a Brainerd–Robinson similarity coeffi-

cient (Shennan, 1997, p. 233) of 118 out of 200], though

this offers only weak support for contemporaneity. Fur-

ther support for the assumption that the tripartite earth-

works were planned and built by contemporaneous

groups of people is found in their construction details,

discussed below.

Energetic analysis

Energetic analysis is a quantitative method of esti-

mating the physical and social parameters of the experi-

ence of construction (Abrams, 1994). Such an analysis is

based on an assessment of the number of person-hours

of labor invested in construction of a monument, which

is then converted into estimates of numbers of laborers

and durations of construction for each monument.

Labor estimates

The first step in evaluating the organization of labor

for Hopewell earthworks is to calculate the person-hours

involved in their construction. These calculations re-

quire measurements of embankment dimensions and

knowledge of the source of construction materials.

Unfortunately, virtually all Hopewell earthworks have

been severely damaged by agricultural and construction

activities; some, like Frankfort, have been completely

destroyed. Others exist as barely visible outlines trace-

able on aerial photographs. As a result of this tragic

destruction, it is necessary to consult historical refer-

ences to obtain most of the necessary embankment

dimensions.

The profiles of embankment walls are described as

being trapezoidal before they were damaged by plowing.

Basal width of the larger earthworks was consistently

measured at about 15m (50ft) (Squier and Davis,

1848; Thomas, 1889). Squier and Davis (1848, p. 51) de-

scribe the walls of the square at the Hopeton earthworks

(about six and one half kilometers [4miles] northwest of

Works East) as resembling ‘‘the heavy grading of a rail-

way, and are broad enough, on the top, to admit the

passage of a coach.’’ Similarly, Shepherd (1887) de-

scribes the top of the walls as wide enough ‘‘to admit

the passage of a four-horse wagon.’’ From these descrip-

tions, the width of the top of the embankment of the

Hopeton square is conservatively estimated at 2.4m

(8ft, or 16% of the width of the embankment�s 15.2m

[50ft] wide base). Based on this description, the volume

of earth in Hopewell embankments is calculated assum-

ing that they are trapezoidal prisms, using the following

formula:

V ¼ h=2ðb1 þ b2Þ � embankment length:

Thus, to calculate the volume of an embankment it is

necessary to obtain measurements of its height, basal

width, and top width. Because historic descriptions for

the five sites included in this analysis are incomplete,

especially regarding embankment widths, it is necessary

to extrapolate from observations of nearby earthworks

to fill in missing values. Table 1 presents historic records

of embankment dimensions from 14 nearby Hopewell

geometric earthworks in southern Ohio, comprising 29

individual observations of different geometric shapes

within them. The earliest recorded heights of squares or

octagons before substantial damage from plowing at

nine sites average about 3m (10ft), with a range of 1.8–

3.7m (6–12ft), excluding the unusually low square

embankment at Liberty. Historical reports of wall

heights for circular embankments were slightly lower,

about 2.3m (7.4 ft), with a range of 1.2–3.7m (4–12ft),

excluding the unusually high walls of the Fairground

circle at Newark. The basal width of both square and cir-

cular embankments averaged about 4.8 times the height

of the wall, for a mean width of 12.2m (40ft). For all

sites, the width of the top of the embankment (the b2measurement) is estimated at 16% of the basal width,

based on the Squier and Davis observations at Hopeton.

Embankment lengths (sides of squares and circum-

ferences of circles) for the five sites included in this

analysis were measured from maps generated from

ground-truthed aerial photographs produced by Mar-

shall (1996), who shared unpublished maps of Works

East and Frankfort (personal communication, 2002).

Where river erosion or modern disturbance has rendered

portions of the earthworks invisible, maps from Squier

and Davis (1848) were used to obtain an image of what

Table 1

Embankment height and basal width (all measurements in feet)

Site Shape Date of observation

1817 1820 1848 1879 1887 1889 1892

Baum All walls 10 Height

Base

Seip All walls 10 Height

Base

High Bank Octagon 11.5 11 7.5 5 Height

50 50 60 Base

Circle 4.5 4.5 2 2 Height

37 Base

Hopeton Square 12 12 5 Height

50 Base

Circle 5 5 2 Height

41 Base

2 Smaller circles 2 Height

Base

Parallel walls 2.5 Height

Base

Liberty Square 4 4 1.5 Height

Base

Circles 3 4 .5 Height

Base

Frankfort All walls 5.5 Height

Base

Newark Octagon 10 5.5 2.5–5.9 Height

43 Base

Fairground circle 13–17 12 5–14 Height

50 35–55 Base

Observatory circle 6 6 4.5 Height

Base

square 10 Height

38 Base

Ellipse 12 Height

50 Base

Small circles 4.5 Height

Base

Parallel walls 4.5 Height

Base

Marietta Large square 6–10 6–10 5.5 5.5 Height

25–36 25–36 20–30 20–30 Base

Parallel walls 5 5 Height

42 42 Base

Circleville Circles 10 10 Height

Base

Square 10 Height

Base

Portsmouth Eastern parallel walls 4–6 Height

Base

Western parallel walls 6–10 Height

Base

Cincinnati Ellipse 3–6 Height

Base

(continued on next page)


Table 1 (continued)

Site Shape Date of observation

1817 1820 1848 1879 1887 1889 1892

Alexanders-ville All walls 5–6 Height

50 Base

Mound City Square 3–4 Height

Base

circle 5 Height

25 Base

Hopewell D-shape 6 Height

35 Base

Data from Brown (1817), Atwater (1820), Squier and Davis (1848), MacLean (1879); Shepherd (1887), Thomas (1889), and

Moorehead (1892).


was likely the intention of the original architects and fill

in missing pieces for measurement. Embankment

dimensions used in labor calculations are provided in

Table 2.

Excavation and transport

The labor involved in the construction of an earth-

work involves two primary tasks: excavating the earth

to be used, and transporting that earth to the desired

building location. The labor involved in excavating

earth was estimated from experiments conducted by

Erasmus (1965), who observed that it took 1.9 person-

hours (PH) to excavate a cubic meter of earth with a dig-

ging stick. The labor involved in transporting earth was

estimated at .32PH/m3/10m of transport, based on

observations by Erasmus (1965) and the United Nations

(ECAFE, 1957, p. 22).4 Transport distances varied

depending on the raw material, as described below.

Although relatively few geometric earthwork embank-

ments have been tested, most appear to have been con-

structed of differently colored soils, some locally

available, some transported fromadistance.Colored soils

were deliberately selected and deposited to create distinct

patterns of color within the embankment. The three pri-

mary colors used in embankment construction were

brown, yellow, and red. The construction of the square

embankment at Hopeton provides a good example of

the use of these soils (Fig. 7). Trenches through the Hop-

eton square (Lynott, 2003; Lynott and Weymouth, 2002;

Ruby, 1997), reveal that the embankmentwas constructed

by first scraping the surrounding topsoil away to expose

the natural yellow, clay-loam subsoil beneath. In at least

4 Erasmus� experiment yielded an estimate of 1.6PH/m3 over

50m of transport; the transport formulae based on the UN

observations yields an estimate of 1.4PH/m3 over the same

distance. I averaged the two results to obtain 1.5PH/m3 for

50m of transport, then divided the result by five to obtain a

base estimate of .32PH/m3 for 10m of transport.

some places, a black, organic soil was deposited on top

of this surface. Then, additional yellow clay-loam, similar

to the subsoil base, was excavated from nearby borrow

pits and piled up to form the internal face of the embank-

ment. Next, a red, sandy clay was brought in (probably

from the banks of the Scioto river some 750m to the west)

andpiled on the top andoutside of the yellow clay-loam to

form the external face of the embankment wall. Finally,

the local brown topsoil was used to forma cap over the en-

tire embankment.

Testing revealed that the Fairground Circle at the

Newark earthworks was also built of differently colored

earth—a yellow soil on the internal face and dark brown

on the outside—though it apparently lacked the capping

mantle seen at Hopeton (Lepper, 1996). The High Bank

Works Great Circle wall was built of reddish soil on the

interior and yellow soil on the exterior face (Greber,

2003b, p. 8). Red soil was used to construct at least

the base of the Seip square, in contrast to the dark

brown soil used in the large circle (Greber, 2003b, p.

7). Red soil was also used to build the square embank-

ment of the Anderson earthworks, a smaller work lo-

cated several miles west of the Hopeton earthworks

(Pickard and Pahdopony, 1995). The excavators note

that the red soil does ‘‘not occur naturally on the terrace

and would have had to [have] been carried in from a re-

mote location’’ (Pickard and Pahdopony, 1995, p. 4),

likely from the other side of a nearby stream (N�omi

Greber, personal communication, 2004).

In the absence of more detailed information about

the composition of the five tripartite earthwork embank-

ments, it is assumed that they were constructed of the

three primary colors found in neighboring earthworks,

yellow, red, and brown. Following the pattern most

clearly visible in the Hopeton square, the basal embank-

ment soils are assumed to have been split roughly evenly

between yellow and red, with the remaining 50% de-

voted to a brown capping layer. Although this particular

recipe of soils may not characterize all embankments

Table 2

Values used in labor calculations

Site Geometric shape Lengtha Basal width Top width Height Volume (m3) Distance to soils PH

Red Yellow Brown

Baum Square 1305 15.2 2.4 3.0 34,450 55 230 65 279,000

Large circle 1640 11.0 1.8 2.3 24,150 75 285 35 129,000

Small circle 690 4.3 .7 .9 1,550 55 115 NA 7200

Site total: 415,200

Scip Square 1250 15.2 2.4 3.0 33,000 460 425 65 330,700

Large circle 1535 11.0 1.8 2.3 22,600 55 460 35 148,700

Small circle 945 4.3 .7 .9 2126 305 50 NA 15,300

Site total: 494,700

Liberty Square 1090 15.2 2.4 3.0 59,650 90 115 140 344,800

Large circle 1405 11.0 1.8 2.3 20,700 100 410 40 137,000

Small circle 719 4.3 .7 .9 1620 60 40 NA 5,700

Concentric circle 125 4.3 .7 .7 281 55 75 NA 1100

Site Total: 488,600

Works East Square 1155 15.2 2.4 3.0 30,500 305 100 65 188,500

Large circle 1805 11.0 1.8 2.3 26,500 305 55 35 141,500

Small circle 745 4.3 .7 .9 1,700 135 85 NA 14,600

Smallest circle 460 4.3 .7 .9 1,050 240 30 NA 6500

Site total: 351,100

Frankfort Square 1270 15.2 2.4 3.0 33,550 80 490 65 251,600

Large circle 1465 11.0 1.8 2.3 33,350 55 380 55 208,800

Small circle 635 4.3 .7 .9 1,450 40 305 NA 10,800

Site total: 471,200

a Total length of embankments comprising the geometric shape minus gateways; all measurements in meters unless noted.

W.Bern

ardini/JournalofAnthropologica

lArch

aeology23(2004)331–356

341

Fig. 7. Embankment profile of the Hopeton square (Trench 2, western embankment, north face).


equally well, the inclusion of all three soils in labor cal-

culations ensures a plausible �middle ground� estimate.

In the vicinity of the five tripartite earthworks, red-

dish soils can be found in the Eldean soil series; yellow-

ish soils in the Ockley, Celina, Miamian, Shelocta, and

Glenford soil series; and brown soils in the Rossburg,

Nineveh, Gessie, and Stonelick soil series. In Fig. 8 the

five tripartite earthworks (plotted from aerial photo-

graph-based drawings kindly provided by James Mar-

shall [personal communication, 2004]) have been

overlain onto simplified soil maps (soil data from the

2003 USDA-NRCS Soil Survey of Ross County, Ohio).

Distances to the various colored soils were estimated

from the Ross County soil survey maps and from the

locations of borrow pits mapped by Squier and Davis

(1848); when no borrow pits were mapped distances

were calculated to the edge of the nearest soil deposit

outside the boundaries of the earthwork.5 Since almost

all soils near the earthworks featured a ca. 10cm layer

of brown topsoil at the surface, the brown capping soil

was inferred to have been scraped from the surface out-

side each embankment. The distance that must be cov-

ered to transport this brown soil can be estimated by

dividing the volume of it included in the embankment

wall by the topsoil�s average natural depth 10cm, divid-

ing this value by the perimeter length of the embank-

ment in question, and dividing this value in half to

obtain the midpoint distance that must be walked away

from a point on the embankment perimeter. Because

smaller earthwork shapes were not built as high as the

460m diameter circles and the 305m squares, they are

calculated without a brown capping layer. Soil transport

5 Borrow pits immediately adjacent to mounds (rather than

embankments) were excluded when calculating transport

distances.

distances are listed in Table 2; distances are estimated

separately for each component geometric shape com-

prising a particular earthwork, and are averaged for at

least four points on each shape.

Construction episodes

I assume that each geometric shape was planned and

built in a continuous construction process. Two lines of

evidence support this assumption. First, unfinished

embankments provide evidence that individual shapes,

and perhaps entire earthworks, were completely laid

out before construction began, rather than being con-

structed section by section. Second, profiles of embank-

ment walls indicate no significant gaps in construction

activity once building had begun. These lines of evidence

are discussed in greater detail below.

Observations in the late 1800 s by MacLean at several

well-preserved but unfinished earthworks led him to

comment that ‘‘we have every reason for believing . . .that [the mound builders�] work was marked out before

commencing’’ (MacLean, 1879, p. 84). Of particular

importance is the existence of ‘‘marker mounds’’ outlin-

ing the form of several unfinished earthworks. For exam-

ple, MacLean (1879, pp. 219–220) documented a group

of 11 mounds comprising the Jacksonburg Works which

were arranged in a circle 70m (230ft) in diameter (Fig. 9),

the same diameter as a complete circular enclosure with

an interior ditch located only 44m (145ft) away. The soil

for the marker mounds was excavated from borrow pits

adjacent to each mound, located towards the center of

the circle; completion of the earthwork would only have

required excavating the remainder of the ditch between

the borrow pits and piling the earth up between the

mounds. A similar example of a smaller circular enclo-

sure in Union Township, in which four marker mounds

at the cardinal directions defined the outline of a circle,

illustrates the same point: ‘‘Between the mounds the

Fig. 8. Soils underlying the five tripartite Hopewell earthworks (soil data from the 2003 USDA-NRCS Soil Survey of Ross County,

Ohio).


walls gradually taper until they meet midway. The ditch

is on the inside. It is regular and of equal depth at all

points’’ (MacLean, 1879, p. 172). Likewise, at the Alex-

andersville earthworks, three mounds associated with

an unfinished circle were ‘‘found not be mounds at all,

but intended to form component parts of the intended

circle . . . located on the line of the curve. The fact here

brought to light is that the whole line was established be-

fore work was begun, and work was performed on differ-

ent parts of the line at the same time. This fact is also true

of the square a short distance removed from the circle’’

(MacLean, 1879, p. 85). Recently, Lepper (1996) docu-

mented the existence of marker mounds which outlined

the Fairground Circle at the Newark earthworks. The

Fig. 9. The Jacksonburg Works. Reproduced after MacLean

(1879, Figure 62).


black soil identified at the base of Trench 2 through the

Hopeton square embankment may also be the remains

of a marker mound.

MacLean�s observations at the Alexandersville earth-

works further suggest that in at least some cases, the

plan of the entire earthwork was laid out simulta-

neously, with concurrent construction occurring on mul-

tiple shapes. MacLean (1879, p. 84) notes that ‘‘Of the

three, or rather four, sacred enclosures at Alexanders-

ville, not one is complete. These incomplete remains

prove that all of these works were commenced at the

same time, all abandoned before being finished.’’ The

uniformity of the layouts of Baum, Seip, Liberty, Frank-

fort, and Works East suggest that they too were likely

planned from the outset, rather than resulting from the

accretion of individual shapes together over time. For

example, the small circle at these earthworks is always

attached to the large circle, never to the square, which

always adjoins the large circle.

A second line of evidence supporting continuous

earthwork construction is the absence of accumulated

soil or evidence of erosion between layers of embank-

ment soil. Multiple trenches cut through the square

embankment at the Hopeton earthworks provide a

well-documented source of information about earth-

work construction at this site (Lynott, 2003; Lynott

and Weymouth, 2002). Here, the different layers of col-

ored soils rest directly on top of each other, with no

intervening deposits of windblown sediment or evidence

of erosion suggesting that time had elapsed between

them (Fig. 7). Evidence from burned features in the

trenches indicates, in fact, that some layers were depos-

ited within minutes or hours of the preceding one. In

both Trench 2 and Trench 3 at Hopeton, organic mate-

rial was burned on top of the yellow layer of the

embankment, then covered with red soil quickly enough

for ashes to be scattered through the red earth, and for

the red earth to be discolored by the heat (Lynott, 2003).

Greber (2003b) noted a similar lack of weathering in

strata comprising the High Bank Works Great Circle.

Duration of labor

An important variable in calculating labor estimates

is the number of days per year devoted to communal

projects like earthwork construction. This variable dif-

fers depending on the political organization of the soci-

ety in question, especially whether coercive force is

involved in the process. Ethnographic observations of

communal labor projects organized without coercive

force provide potential analogs for Hopewell earthwork

construction. For instance, construction of a Tambaran

spirit house, which measured 22 · 13 · 9m, by the Ilah-

ita Arapesh, a horticultural group in New Guinea, was

completed in 2 months, though only about half of those

days were actually devoted to construction (Tuzin, 1980,

p. 121). Construction of a spirit house in the nearby Ma-

prik region of New Guinea (Hauser-Schaublin, 1989, p.

608) took place over approximately 3 months. The

building of a 12.2 · 4.3m Ilahita Arapesh house in the

took place over seven weeks, but again only about half

(23) of those days were spent working on the project

(Hogbin, 1951, p. 317). In the Maya village of Chan

Kom (Redfield and Rojas, 1962), adult males typically

contributed 50 days of labor toward communal village

projects. Among the residents of Wogeo Island in New

Guinea, the followers of a clan�s hereditary headman

spend an average of one day in eight carrying out pro-

jects of his design, or about 40–45 days per year (Hog-

bin, 1939, p. 148). The youths and men who built a

club-house at the village of Kapana on Solomon Island

‘‘worked at the job somewhat desultorily over a period

of 20 days’’ (Oliver, 1955, p. 378).

Though no one of these preceding examples features

a society that is a close analog for Hopewell popula-

tions, and none of the projects undertaken approached

the scale of a geometric earthwork, together they pro-

vide a rough picture of the amount of time per year de-

voted to communal labor projects in ‘‘middle-range’’

societies (i.e., those with forms of social organization

less complex than the classic chiefdom). Collectively,

these examples suggest that about 45 days may be de-

voted to communal labor projects in a single year (cf.

Erasmus, 1956, p. 280), though only about half of them

may be productive work days. Thus, a range of 25–50


days of labor per person per year would be an appropri-

ate range. The work day is assumed to have been five

hours long, a figure based on digging experiments by

Erasmus (1965) in which he observed that worker pro-

ductivity dropped markedly after the fifth hour of labor.

Earthwork energetics

Table 2 presents the total embankment volume for

each component geometric shape within the five earth-

work complexes, as well as the total person-hours of

construction required to build each one. These estimates

are conservative in that they cover only embankment

construction, not potentially simultaneous (and often

substantial) mound construction, and include only

the labor involved in digging and transport, not the

dumping and packing of earth. The volumes of the

square embankments average about 38,200m3 of earth,

large circles about 25,500m3, and small circles about

1300m3. Converted to person-hours, each of these con-

struction projects required an average of approximately

280,000, 150,000, and 11,000PH of labor, respectively.

In Table 3, PH values are converted into labor crew

sizes for each construction event, figured over different

lengths of time. Construction scenario one, the most la-

bor-intensive projection, assumes that each geometric

shape was built in a single year. Scenario two assumes

that each geometric shape was built over the course of

5 years. Scenarios three and four assume that an entire

Table 3

Labor crew sizes for each tripartite earthwork, calculated under four d

a single year; (2) each geometric shape built over 5 years; (3) each tripar

earthwork complex built over 10 years

Site Geometric shape 1 Shape, 1 year 1 Sha

Baum Square 1120–2230 220–4

Large circle 520–1030 100–2

Small circle 50–60 6–10

Seip Square 1320–2650 270–5



Liberty Square 1380 – 2760 280 –



Smaller circle 5–10 1–2

Works East Square 750–1510 150–3



Smaller circle 30–50 5–10

Frankfort Square 1010–2010 200–4



The range reflects calculations using 50 and 25 days of work per yea

earthwork complex was built over the course of 5 and

10 years, respectively. Ten years would seem to be close

to an upper limit for sustained mobilization of labor

within the life spans of a small group of contemporane-

ous architects/organizers. These 10 years of construction

need not have occurred in strict succession; breaks of up

to several years are conceivable, and some years of con-

struction may have been more intense than others. For

each scenario, a range of values is presented reflecting

25 or 50 days of labor per year.

The largest possible construction events, in which a

single geometric shape was erected in a single year,

would have required at least 1000 laborers, and as many

as 2700 laborers. The organization of such large num-

bers of people in the absence of coercion seems unlikely,

though ethnographic examples [e.g., the Maupuche

nguillatun ceremony, which draws up to 8000 attendants

(Dillehay, 1990)] and the evidence discussed above

regarding the continuous nature of embankment con-

struction means this scenario cannot be ruled out. More

conservative construction scenarios stretching over 5

years would still have involved at least 300–600 people

at a time. The most conservative scenario modeled here,

in which each earthwork complex was built in ten (not

necessarily consecutive) years, would have required

approximately 150–400 laborers at each earthwork in a

given year. Thus, it is likely that size of labor crews that

constructed Hopewell earthworks numbered at least in

the low hundreds of people.

ifferent construction scenarios: (1) each geometric shape built in

tite earthwork complex built over 5 years; and (4) each tripartite

pe, 5 years Earthwork, 5 years Earthwork, 10 years

50 330–660 170–330

05

30 400–790 200–400

40

550 390 – 780 200 –390

20

00 280–560 140–280

30

00 380–750 190–380

30

r.

6 Both children and the elderly are also likely to have

participated in construction events, for example compacting soil

or feeding laborers. As these contributions are more difficult to

quantify they are omitted here, but it is important to keep in

mind that large-scale labor projects must have been important

social and even festive occasions.


Labor catchment areas

Having identified some probable labor crew sizes for

the construction of Hopewell earthworks, we may now

consider the size of the ‘‘labor catchment area’’ needed

to supply different numbers of laborers. A labor catch-

ment area is the territory from which people must be

drawn, under a given population density, to provide a

requisite number of laborers. This exercise requires an

estimate of Ohio Hopewell population density. As noted

above, extant Ohio Middle Woodland settlement data

are less than ideal. However, a combination of the avail-

able demographic data and cross-cultural comparisons

are sufficient to establish a range of likely population

densities.

The most empirically well-supported estimate of

Hopewell population density is Asch�s (1976) study of

population in the lower Illinois Valley drainage. Asch�sestimate, based on an appraisal of the number of burial

mounds and the number of burials per mound, yields a

population density of about 40 people/100km2 (Asch et

al., 1979). The paleoethnobotanical record for mid-Ohio

Valley Middle Woodland sites is similar, though not

identical, to that of the lower Illinois Valley (Wymer,

1992; Wymer and Johannessen, 2002), justifying the

assumption of roughly comparable population densities

between the areas (the richer environment of the Illinois

Valley probably supported higher densities of people

than the Ohio Valley). Estimates of the society sizes nec-

essary to produce the burial population under the larger

Seip mound, assuming a yearly death rate of .02 and a

35 year span of building use, yield a figure of about

200 people (Buikstra, 1979); this figure equates to a pop-

ulation density for southern Ohio similar to the Illinois

estimates of about .4 people/km2 (Greber, 1979, p. 37).

Population densities of less than one person/km2 are

consistent with historic tribal densities in eastern North

America calculated by James Mooney (published in

Kroeber, 1939, pp. 138-141). According to Mooney�sestimates, not a single interior group had a density great-

er than .4 people/km2.

Although in agricultural societies population density

is generally not correlated with agricultural potential

(Netting, 1990), the relationship is more direct among

hunter gatherer populations (e.g., Baumhoff, 1958;

Thompson, 1966). Hopewell people farmed eastern agri-

cultural complex crops in small garden plots, but they

relied on gathered nuts, fruits, and tubers for an impor-

tant component of their diet (Wymer, 1997); they were

most likely only part-time farmers. Thus, it may be use-

ful to consider cross-cultural hunter gatherer population

density as another source of comparative information

about Hopewell density. In a cross-cultural sample of

14 hunter-gatherer groups from temperate forests, the

closest approximation of the Ohio Middle Woodland

environment, Kelly (1995, pp. 224–225, Table 6-4) re-

corded an average population density of .13 people/

km2 (.06 people/miles2). The maximum temperate forest

hunter-gatherer density in Kelly�s sample was .42 people/

km2.

Together, archaeological estimates and cross-cultural

figures suggest that Ohio Hopewell population density

was probably not greater than about .5 people/km2, with

a maximum of no more than 1 person/km2. In calculat-

ing labor catchment areas, it is assumed that roughly

half of the population of any given area was of adequate

age and health to participate in the ‘‘heavy lifting’’ that

comprised the bulk of earthwork construction (probably

a liberal assumption).6 Thus, to determine labor catch-

ment areas, the labor crew figures listed in Table 3 must

first be doubled to reflect the total population from

which the laborers would have been drawn.

Several scenarios were evaluated in modeling labor

catchment areas. What is considered to be the most rea-

sonable scenario involves laborers working for 25 days a

year for 10 years to complete each earthwork complex,

and assumes a population density of .5 people/km2. This

scenario would have involved about 350 people/year at

each tripartite earthwork. Keeping in mind that a total

population of 700 people would have been necessary

to field 350 workers, a crew of this size would have been

drawn from a catchment area with a diameter of about

42km. Increasing the number of work days per year to

50 decreases the average diameter to 30km.

Distances separating earthworks from their nearest

neighbors range from 6km for Seip and Baum to

10km for Works East and Liberty, to 22km for Frank-

fort and Works East. Fig. 10A plots labor catchment cir-

cles around each earthwork complex calculated at 25

days/year for 10 years of construction at .5 people/

km2. Portions of catchment circles are shaded when they

overlap with a neighboring earthwork�s labor catchment

area. Under this labor scenario, Works East, Liberty,

and Frankfort overlap more than 50% of each other�scatchments, while Seip overlaps 100% of Baum�s catch-ment. Fig. 10B shows overlapping catchments for the

50 work-days/year scenario, which decreases the average

overlap only slightly to about 45% (not including the

complete overlap of Baum by Seip).

Less conservative labor scenarios produce larger la-

bor crews, larger labor catchment areas, and greater

overlap. If each earthwork complex was built over 5

years, labor catchments range in size from 44 to 60km

in diameter, depending on the number of days worked

(50 or 25). If each geometric shape was built over the


course of 5 years, construction of some of the larger

embankments, such as the square at the Liberty earth-

works, would have required 280–550 laborers; at a den-

sity of .5 people/km2, such a crew would have been

drawn from a catchment 36–53km in diameter. The

Fig. 10. Labor catchment areas for the five tripartite earthworks calcu

days per year; (B) 50 work-days per year.

870–1730 people required to build the average individual

geometric shapes (squares and large circles) in a single

year at 50/25 days/year and .5 people/km2 would have

been drawn from an area 66–94km across. Small

embankment circles, in contrast, required much smaller

lated for 350 laborers at a density of .5 people/km2: (A) 25 work-


labor crews, and could have been built in a single year

under the same parameters by 50–90 laborers drawn

from a 16 to 22km diameter catchment.

Significantly, even the most conservative labor sce-

nario modeled here would have required overlapping

labor pools or laborers from outside the local area sur-

rounding each earthwork. Thus, construction for two

and a half months (50 days) a year for 10 years to com-

plete each earthwork complex, with a high population

density estimate of 1 person/km2, would still have re-

quired that laborers be drawn from a large average

catchment area of 22km in diameter. Even for this con-

servative scenario there is considerable overlap in the

labor catchments of the tripartite earthworks (45%

overlap for Liberty, Frankfort, and Works East; 80%

overlap for Seip and Baum). That is, it would be diffi-

cult for construction to occur on neighboring earth-

works in the same generation without drawing on the

same pool of laborers, or drawing on very distant

populations.

Fig. 11 illustrates labor catchments designed to avoid

overlapping neighboring earthworks� catchments, lim-

ited to land on one side of a river. Inspection of Fig.

11A reveals that, with 50-day work years and .5 peo-

ple/km2, some earthworks� labor catchments, for exam-

ple Frankfort and Works East, must be stretched over

a distance of 80km (50miles) to encompass the neces-

sary workers, reaching as far north as the modern city

of Columbus, Ohio. Reducing the number of work-days

per year to 25 increases the area covered by the labor

catchments to almost 13,000km2, from north of Colum-

bus, Ohio south to the city of Portsmouth on the Ohio

River (Fig. 11B).

It is instructive to consider how high Hopewell pop-

ulation density would have to have been in order for

each earthwork to draw laborers exclusively from a local

catchment area that would not overlap its neighbors

(approximating the assumptions about community

structure employed the �vacant center� model). To pro-

vide enough laborers to build each earthwork complex

in 10 years at 25 days of labor per year (the most likely

scenario outlined above), with all laborers drawn exclu-

sively from a 10km diameter area surrounding each

earthwork, population density in the Scioto and Paint

Creek valleys would have had to have been 8.9 people/

km2 (3.4 people/mile2). Most researchers would agree

that the population density of the Hopewell landscape

was not nearly so high.

Thus, even the most conservative scenarios of earth-

work construction imply considerable overlap in the lo-

cal labor catchment areas from which work crews for

different earthworks would have been drawn. Conse-

quently, workers must either have been drawn in from

a substantial distance to participate in earthwork con-

struction, or workers in the Scioto and Paint Creek val-

leys participated in the construction of parts of several

earthworks during their lifetimes. Earthworks could

not have been built exclusively by the people living in

close proximity to them, a conclusion that has pro-

found implications for the use of these facilities. Most

importantly, this conclusion implies that earthworks

were not centers for autonomous, local populations.

The proposed use of paired tripartite earthworks (such

as Seip and Baum) by a single ‘‘community’’ (Greber,

1997a) would only amplify this conclusion, as the labor

catchment covering the builders of this paired complex

would extend over a very broad area. These conclu-

sions are bolstered by a consideration of mating

networks.

Mating networks

To emphasize the point that earthworks were not

built and used by autonomous local populations, but

rather drew on a much broader population, Fig. 12 plots

circles around earthworks that encompass areas large

enough to support the minimum 475 people necessary

to maintain a viable mating network (Wobst, 1974).

At a population density of .5 people/km2, these circles

have diameters of 35km. As Fig. 12 illustrates, the

amount of overlap in mating networks is considerable,

and supports the labor data in arguing against discrete,

autonomous populations associated with each earth-

work center.

Riverine transport

Given the terrain of southern Ohio and the location

of most Hopewell earthworks adjacent to waterways, it

is likely that riverine transport was common (Brose,

1990). Based on surveys of the Licking Valley, Paul

Pacheco (personal communication, 2001) suggests that

population may have been concentrated along river

banks. Waterborne travel is considerably more efficient

than overland travel, with most researchers accepting a

5:1 ratio of overland: waterborne ‘‘fuel costs’’ for travel-

ers (Brose, 1990; Drennan, 1984). The implication is that

people could theoretically travel greater distances to an

earthwork complex via water than they could over land

in the same amount of time, increasing the radius of

manageable round-trips and the distance people might

plausibly cover to attend an event. If 18km is the max-

imum round trip manageable by foot (Drennan, 1984),

the maximum riverine distance would be approximately

90km—sufficient to bring in participants from the edges

of even the largest labor catchments identified in this

study. Although efficient riverine transport might at first

glance appear to diminish the significance of the large la-

bor catchments identified above, in fact it helps to ex-

plain how seemingly distant populations could be

regular participants in events at ‘‘non-local’’ ceremonial

complexes.

Fig. 11. Non-overlapping labor catchments calculated for 350 laborers at a density of .5 people/km2: (A) 50 work-days per year; (B) 25

work-days per year.


The Hopewell ceremonial landscape

The preceding analyses indicate that the five tripartite

Hopewell geometric earthworks in the core Scioto and

Paint Creek valleys of Ohio did not function as village

surrogates for autonomous, isomorphic communities.

Thus, the gathering of people to construct an earthwork

was not experienced by participants as the aggregation

of a dispersed community, but instead as the assembly

of a much wider social network. Most participating indi-

viduals were probably not affiliated exclusively with any

one earthwork, and may have even participated in con-

struction events at multiple earthworks within their

lifetimes.

Evidence from other contexts suggests that pan-local

gatherings of Hopewell populations may have been a

Fig. 12. Catchment areas encompassing the 475 people neces-

sary to maintain a viable mating network for each earthwork.


regular component of Hopewell ceremonialism. Patterns

of artifact deposition for some elaborate Hopewell buri-

als and artifact caches indicate that associated ceremo-

nies often attracted attendants from great distances,

far greater than the surrounding few kilometers sur-

rounding an earthwork. For example, the number of

artifacts which were probably personal possessions (such

as copper celts) deposited in a single offering often far

exceeds the number of people in the local area who likely

possessed them. As many as 60 celt-owners contributed

to one cache at the Hopewell Site, more than two-thirds

of whom likely traveled from outside the Scioto region

to attend the event (Bernardini and Carr, 2004). Unusu-

ally large deposits of copper breastplates, earspools,

platform pipes, bear canines, and other objects that were

also likely individual possessions reinforce the interpre-

tation that large-scale social gatherings periodically

drew attendants from great distances to the core Hope-

well area (Carr et al., 2004).

The construction and use of geometric earthworks

If monuments can be thought of as having life-histo-

ries (Holtorf, 1998), this study has concentrated on the

‘‘birth,’’ of monuments in Hopewell society, seemingly

at the expense of later events. Aspects of the Hopewell

archaeological record suggest, however, that the con-

struction of a geometric earthwork may have been the

defining event of its life-history, with little large-scale

use thereafter. For example, while some Hopewell earth-

works enclose mounds covering mortuary and other

deposits, or in a few cases are built of earth containing

old midden deposits, most contain very little evidence

of activity contemporary with the embankments. A sys-

tematic surface survey of the Hopeton earthworks

(Burks and Walter, 2003; Burks et al., 2003), covering

an area of more than 1.2km2, identified fewer than

300 diagnostic Middle Woodland artifacts—only one

artifact for every 4000m2. Other nearby earthworks,

including the tripartite works at Seip and Liberty, con-

tain higher densities of utilitarian debris, but this mate-

rial is generally found within mounds and embankments

as construction fill (Griffin, 1996; Shetrone and Green-

man, 1931, pp. 430–431), indicating that earthwork con-

struction occurred after intensive use of the area. It

appears that the majority of activity involving material

culture at earthwork sites was focused on mortuary

and mound contexts, with the geometric enclosures

likely representing a separate and subsequent stage of

construction (Greber, 1997a).

Paradoxically, the immense horizontal scale of the

earthworks also argues against geometric earthworks

serving as the locus of large gatherings after their con-

struction. Here, an emphasis on the referential meaning

of circles and squares as meeting places has distracted

from the experiential observation that they enclose

spaces so large as to be socially unusable. Cross-cultural

data suggest that ‘‘high-level’’ integrative facilities,

which serve entire communities, average about 1m2 of

floor space per participant (Adler, 1990). To put the

scale of the enclosed space at Hopewell earthworks into

perspective, at 1m2 of floor area per participant, each

300m (1000ft) diameter large circle at the tripartite

earthworks alone could have held more than 280,000

people! The vastness of the enclosed area would also

seem to preclude the embankment walls from serving

as observational platforms for smaller ceremonies occur-

ring in the enclosed area, since the distance to a per-

former at the center of a large circle would exceed

150m—more than twice the distance from the farthest

row of seats to midfield in the largest football stadium

in the United States (Michigan Stadium, capacity

107,500).

In light of the scarce evidence for use of many Hope-

well earthworks after their construction, perhaps the

search for the ‘‘function’’ of earthworks has been mis-

guided. If earthworks were built by laborers drawn from

a broad area, rather than a regularly interacting local

population, then these monuments may not have actu-

ally been used (experienced) on a regular basis. Instead,

perhaps the most important even in the life history of an

earthwork, and the most important experience of a par-

ticipant, was the act of construction. After this remark-

able event, an undertaking involving hundreds of people

and stretching over a number of months or years, the

raison d�etre for an assembly on this scale may have

passed for that monument. The planning of a new mon-

ument may have been required to mobilize sufficient la-

bor to recreate the assembly. Such one-off events in

which the act of creating something was the critical


event, with little use of the feature thereafter, are known

in the ethnographic literature (Kuchler, 1987), albeit not

on this scale.

If the five tripartite earthworks were planned as, or

developed into, a series of events in which the construc-

tion activity was paramount, it could help to explain the

difference between earthworks that enclose burial

mounds (Liberty, Frankfort, and Seip), and those that

enclose empty space (Baum, Works East). Tripartite

earthwork construction may have been initiated in

‘‘ancestral’’ locations to enclose existing mortuary mon-

uments. To perpetuate the cycle of large-scale aggrega-

tions, construction was subsequently expanded into

‘‘scion’’ locations lacking the historical context of their

predecessors. Chronological data may be able to verify

or discredit this hypothesis.

Even if the tripartite earthworks were not built for

‘‘planned obsolescence,’’ they nevertheless may have

failed to be used in the manner for which they were de-

signed despite the best efforts of their architects. The ac-

tual use of a monument after its construction can be

expected to deviate from its intended use for a number

of reasons, with increasing distortion and manipulation

as monuments are encountered by populations increas-

ingly distant from its construction (Hingley, 1996; Hol-

torf, 1998). The unity of purpose at the time of

construction of some monuments may not have been

matched afterwards. As Bradley (1993, p. 2) reminds

us, ‘‘Monuments are made to last, but their meanings

are often elusive, and not just for archaeologists. The

process of interpretation started as soon as they were

built.’’

Ceremonial centers with multiple monuments

The notion that a widely dispersed population could

be organized to construct not one but a suite of inter-re-

lated, contemporaneous, and morphologically similar

monuments is not a common one. In other examples

of monuments in dispersed settlement systems, such as

conical burial mounds, effigy mounds, henges, causew-

ayed enclosures, great kivas, or outlier Chacoan great

houses, morphologically similar constructions are usu-

ally widely spaced on the landscape. The similarities

among monuments in theses cases appear to stem from

a broadly shared cosmology which persisted over a wide

territory for several hundred years. This is true of the

broader class of Hopewell geometric earthworks in

southern Ohio, whose resemblances to each other most

likely ‘‘reflect only ideological similarities’’ (Greber,

1997b, p. 246).

In contrast, the morphological similarities among the

five closely spaced tripartite earthworks of Baum, Seip,

Frankfort, Works East, and Liberty go far beyond what

could be expected from a region-wide system of shared

ceremonial architecture grammar. Similarities in the

dimensions and layout of the component shapes of the

five tripartite Hopewell earthworks strongly suggest that

they were planned and built by contemporaneous, inter-

acting architects, probably within a single human gener-

ation. These five earthworks did not arrive at a common

endpoint through independent interpretation of com-

mon cosmological principles; instead they were built to

similar plans by design, reflecting the particular close-

ness of the populations in and around the Scioto and

Paint Creek valleys during a few decades of the Middle

Woodland period.

Ethnographic or historic analogs to a dispersed set-

tlement system organized around morphologically

redundant monuments are difficult to identify. Examples

of ceremonial precincts composed of multiple monu-

ments are typically associated with more socially com-

plex societies, such as the religious centers of ancient

Greece, Delphi and Olympia. However, at least one

additional archaeological relative of the Scioto Valley

Hopewell core is known from North America: Chaco

Canyon. Comparison to the Chacoan case is instructive,

as it suggests the degree to which a relatively non-hierar-

chical regional ceremonial system can be organized

around a central ritual precinct.

Like the core Hopewell area, Chaco Canyon, located

in northwestern New Mexico, contains an unusual con-

centration of monumental architecture surrounded by

relatively small, undifferentiated settlements. Nine great

houses—multi-story, masonry buildings—were built

along a 10-mile stretch of canyon, with the bulk of con-

struction occurring from A.D. 1050 to 1100 (Lekson,

1986). The core group of great houses in Chaco Canyon

display the same kind of close morphological similarity

evidenced by the five tripartite Hopewell earthworks,

raising the possibility that the great houses were inte-

grated into a common ceremonial system rather than

serving as centers for local polities within the canyon

(cf. Fritz, 1978). The two largest great houses, Pueblo

Bonito and Chetro Ketl, each contained more than

500 rooms each and yet are located less than 500m

apart. Like Hopewell earthworks, Chaco great houses

show little sign of residential use and appear to be lar-

gely ceremonial constructions (Bernardini, 1999; Win-

des, 1984). The largest Chacoan construction episodes

approached the scale of individual Hopewell earthwork

shapes, for example, the more than 282,000PH invested

in Pueblo Bonito between about A.D. 1075 and 1085

(Lekson, 1986).

The density of great house architecture in Chaco

Canyon appears to far outstrip the needs of the compar-

atively modest surrounding local residential population

(Fig. 13), leading some scholars to suggest that the can-

yon was the site of long-distance pilgrimages (Judge,

1989; Malville and Malville, 2001). Well documented

and frequent trips from the Chuska Mountains, 60km

distant, to Chaco Canyon, by travelers often bearing

Fig. 13. Settlement pattern of central Chaco Canyon. Each

circle represents a ‘‘unit house’’ comprising 7–10 rooms,

interpreted as the residence of one, or a few, families. Redrawn

after Lekson (1991, Figure 3.9).


substantial loads of wood and pottery (Toll, 2001; Win-

des and McKenna, 2001), attest to the area over which

regional ceremonial centers can attract attendants in

middle-range societies—even in the absence of riverine

transport.

The developments in Chaco Canyon were the center

of a very widespread phenomenon of great house con-

struction. The extent of the Chacoan great house distri-

bution has been variously defined, but ranges from

about 60,000 to 110,000km2 (Doyel and Lekson,

1992). In comparison, Hopewell geometric earthworks

(Fig. 3) cover an area of about 30,000km2. Thus, a mid-

dle-range society precedent certainly exists for a regional

ceremonial system organized around a central ceremo-

nial precinct on the scale encompassed by Hopewell geo-

metric earthworks. It may therefore be productive for

Hopewell researchers to consider more seriously scenar-

ios of alliance, integration, colonization, pilgrimage, and

other pan-local socio-political relationships among the

broader distribution of earthworks surrounding the Sci-

oto Valley earthwork core.

In fact, several lines of evidence support the idea that

the core Scioto Valley earthworks anchored a much

broader ceremonial system. Lepper (1996) has docu-

mented the possible existence of a 90km long ‘‘road’’

consisting of parallel embankments 60m apart connect-

ing the Newark earthworks to the central Scioto Valley.

This road is visible in aerial photographs at several inter-

vals but has not yet been confirmed through testing.

Interestingly, the road would mirror connections be-

tween centers in the Chaco system not just in scale but

possibly in (symbolic) function as well (cf. Sofaer et

al., 1989). The 50km long, 9m wide Chaco North Road

connects two sequential centers of the Chaco phenome-

non, linking the original cluster of great houses in Chaco

Canyon proper to a later cluster of great houses centered

on Aztec Ruin. The road is thus a bridge in both time

and space (Fowler and Stein, 1992). The ‘‘great Hope-

well road’’ would have terminated near the High Banks

earthworks, which shares an almost identical layout

with part of the Newark complex—both contain circles

with a diameter of 320m (1050ft), attached to octagons

(see Squier and Davis, 1848, p. XVI, XXV). Newark was

the single largest Hopewell earthwork complex ever

built, but its chronological relationship to the earthwork

cluster around Chillicothe is still unresolved (Greber,

2003a); thus we do not know whether the potential

Hopewell road might have also been a bridge in time

as well as space. Shorter ‘‘sacred way’’ segments extend-

ing toward the Scioto Valley from the Portsmouth and

Marietta earthworks (at the eastern and southern edges

of the primary geometric earthwork distribution, respec-

tively) may also have symbolically linked these distant

monuments to the core (see Squier and Davis, 1848, p.

XXVI, XXVII), though these segments do not appear

to continue beyond the river banks adjacent to each

complex.

Conclusions

This study demonstrates the importance of establish-

ing parameters for the scale of social groups and social

interaction as a foundation upon which higher level the-

oretical interpretations can be based. This lesson can be

applied to the study of monuments cross-culturally. Pre-

vious research on monuments in dispersed landscapes,

including Hopewell, often attributed to them a referen-

tial meaning as ‘‘village surrogates’’ without adequately

exploring the implications of this interpretation. Insuffi-

cient attention to the experiential aspects of monument

construction and use has permitted debate to rage over

aspects of a model which is unsupported by the data

at a fairly basic level (e.g., Baby and Langlois, 1979;

Converse, 1993, 1994; Griffin, 1996; Pacheco, 1996; Pru-

fer, 1996).

This study represents only a first step in redefining

the interpretation of Hopewell geometric construction

and use. The task of detailing the precise nature of

the alliances or cooperative ventures that produced

the five tripartite earthworks must await future study.

Nevertheless, an empirical foundation has been


established to direct further exploration toward partic-

ular lines of inquiry, especially concerning motives and

mechanisms for channeling the energies of a wide-

spread dispersed population into the construction of

morphologically redundant, closely spaced ceremonial

centers.

The conclusions reached in this study are not in-

tended to challenge the ‘‘village surrogate’’ interpreta-

tion for all monuments constructed by dispersed

populations. The demographic lessons of mating simula-

tions (Wobst, 1974) illustrate the necessity for regular

interaction among dispersed communities, which would

have been facilitated by the use of centrally located mon-

uments. Ceremonial landscapes like that of the core

Hopewell area were probably relatively rare, and the five

tripartite earthworks are almost certainly atypical of the

broader class of Hopewell monuments. Hundreds of

geometric earthworks were built in southern Ohio and

portions of West Virginia, Kentucky, Indiana, and Illi-

nois in the Early and Middle Woodland periods, span-

ning a period of at least 500 years and exhibiting

considerable variety in their morphology, size, and spa-

tial relationships to each other. At least some of these

earthworks likely organized local communities, rather

than regional populations.

Nevertheless, as the Chaco Canyon example illus-

trates, the presence of a ceremonial core necessitates

consideration of its impact in the periphery. The fact

that an integrated ceremonial core could lie hidden in

plain view in the Hopewell landscape should stimulate

the search in other areas of the world for alternative

relationships between dispersed populations and the

monuments they built. A careful distinction between ref-

erential and experiential meaning should greatly im-

prove the success of these investigations.

Acknowledgments

This paper benefited from careful readings and com-

ments by Christopher Carr, Warren DeBoer, N�omi

Greber, Mark Lynott, and Katherine Spielmann,

though their help does not imply agreement with all

points in the final product. Mark Lynott�s invitation to

participate in field research at the Hopeton earthworks

sparked my interest in this topic. I also thank Jarrod

Burks and Jennifer Pederson of the National Park Ser-

vice for their help and input at many stages of this re-

search, and James Marshall for generously providing

access to his earthwork maps.

References

Abrams, E.M., 1994. How the Maya Built Their World.

University of Texas Press, Austin.

Adler, M. A., 1990. Communities of Soil and Stone: An

Archaeological Investigation of Population Aggregation

Among the Mesa Verde Region Anasazi, A.D. 900–1300,

University of Michigan.

Asch, D.L., 1976. The Middle Woodland Population of the

Lower Illinois Valley: A Study in Paleodemographic Meth-

ods. Northwestern University Archaeology Program Scien-

tific Papers No. 1, Evanston.

Asch, D., Farnsworth, K., Asch, N., 1979. Woodland subsis-

tence and settlement in west central Illinois. In: Brose, D.,

Greber, N. (Eds.), Hopewell Archaeology: The Chillicothe

Conference. Kent State University Press, Kent, pp. 80–85.

Atwater, C., 1820. Description of the antiquities discovered in

the state of Ohio. The Transactions and Collections of the

American Antiquarian Society 1, 109–251.

Baby, R., Langlois, S., 1979. Seip mound state memorial:

nonmortuary aspects of Hopewell. In: Brose, D., Greber, N.

(Eds.), Hopewell Archaeology: The Chillicothe Conference.

Kent State University Press, Ohio, pp. 16–18.

Baker, 1991. History of the Rio Puerco Valley Project. In:

Baker, L., Irwin-Williams, C. (Eds.), Anasazi Puebloan

Adaptation in Response to Climatic Stress: Prehistory of the

Middle Rio Puerco Valley. Bureau of Land Management,

Albuquerque, pp. 8–32.

Barrett, J., Bradley, R., Green, M., 1991. Landscape, Monu-

ments, and Society. Cambridge University Press,

Cambridge.

Baumhoff, R., 1958. Ecological Determinants of Population.

University of California Survey Reports 48, pp. 32–65.

Benn, D., 1979. Some trends and traditions in Woodlands

cultures of the Quad-State region in the upper Mississippi

River basin. The Wisconsin Archaeologist 60 (1), 47–82.

Bernardini, W., 1999. Reassessing the Scale of Social Action at

Pueblo Bonito, Chaco Canyon, New Mexico. Kiva 64 (4),

447–470.

Bernardini, W., Carr, C., 2004. Hopewell Copper Celts:

Canonical and Indexical Messages and the Generation of

Social Prestige. In: Carr, C., (Ed.), Hopewell Society,

Ritual, and Religion. Plenum Press, New York, in

preparation.

Bradley, R., 1993. Altering the Earth: The Origins of Monu-

ments in Britain and Continental Europe. Society of

Antiquaries of Scotland, Edinburgh.

Breternitz, C.D., Doyel, D.E., Marshall, M.P. (Eds.), 1982. Bis

san�ani: A late Bonito phase community on Escavada Wash,

northwest New Mexico. Navajo Nation Papers in Anthro-

pology, no. 14. Window Rock, Arizona.

Brose, D.S., 1990. Toward a Model of Exchange Values for the

Eastern Woodlands. Midcontinental J. Archaeol. 15 (1),

100–136.

Brown, S.R., 1817. The Western Gazetteer: or Emigrant�sDirectory, Containing a Geographical Description of the

Western States and Territories. H.C. Southwick, Auburn,

New York.

Buikstra, J., 1979. Contributions of physical anthropologists to

the concept of Hopewell: a historical perspective. In: Brose,

D., Greber, N. (Eds.), Hopewell Archaeology: The Chillic-

othe Conference. Kent State University Press, Kent, pp.

220–233.

Buikstra, J.E., Charles, D.K., 1999. Centering the ancestors:

Cemeteries, mounds and sacred landscapes of the ancient


North American Midcontinent. In: Ashmore, W., Bernard

Knapp, A. (Eds.), Archaeologies of Landscape: Contempo-

rary Perspectives. Blackwell Publishers, Oxford.

Burks, J., Walter, D., 2003. Hopewell Occupation at the

Hopeton Earthworks: Combining Surface Survey and

Geophysical Data to Study Land Use. Paper presented at

the 68th Annual Meeting of the Society for American

Archaeology, Milwaukee, WI.

Burks, J., Pederson, J., Walter, D., 2003. Hopewell Landuse

Patterns at the Hopeton Earthworks. Paper presented at the

67th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archae-

ology, Denver, CO.

Carr, C., Weets, J., Case, D., Goldstein, B., 2002. Scioto

Hopewell Inter-Community Alliances and Alliance Strate-

gies. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Mid-

western Archaeological Conference, Columbus, OH.

Carr, C., Goldstein, B., Weets, J., 2004. Estimating the Sizes of

Mortuary-related Gatherings at Scioto Hopewell Earth-

work-mound Sites. In: Carr, C. (Ed.), Gathering Hopewell:

Society, Ritual, and Religion. Plenum Press, New York, in

press.

Chapman, R., 1981. The emergence of formal disposal areas

and the ‘‘problem’’ of megalithic tombs in prehistoric

Europe. In: Chapman, R., Kinnes, I., Randsborg, K. (Eds.),

The Archaeology of Death. Cambridge University Press,

Cambridge, pp. 71–81.

Chapman, R., 1995. Ten years after—megaliths, mortuary

practices, and the territorial model. In: Anderson Beck, L.

(Ed.), Regional Approaches to Mortuary Analysis. Plenum

Press, New York.

Charles, D., 1985. Corporate Symbols: An Interpretive Prehis-

tory of Indian Burial Mounds in West central Illinois.

Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Northwestern University.

Childe, V.G., 1949. Social Worlds of Knowledge. Oxford

University Press, London.

Converse, R., 1993. The Troyer site: a Hopewell habitation site,

and a secular view of Ohio Hopewell villages. Ohio

Archaeologist 43 (3), 4–12.

Converse, R., 1994. The harness Hopewell village sites. Ohio

Archaeologist 44 (1), 4–9.

Dancey, W., 1991. A middle Woodland settlement in central

Ohio: a preliminary report on the Murphy site (33LI212).

Pennsylvania Archaeologist 61 (2), 37–72.

Dancey, W., Pacheco, P., 1997a. A community model of Ohio

Hopewell settlement. In: Dancey, W., Pacheco, P. (Eds.),

Ohio Hopewell Community Organization. Kent State Uni-

versity Press, Kent, pp. 3–40.

Dancey, W., Pacheco, P. (Eds.), 1997b. Ohio Hopewell

Community Organization. Kent State University Press,

Kent.

DeBoer, W., 1997. Ceremonial centres from the Cayapas

(Esmeraldas, Ecuador) to Chillicothe (Ohio, USA). Cam-

bridge Archaeol. J. 7 (2), 225–253.

DeBoer, W., Blitz, J., 1991. Ceremonial Centers of the Chachi.

Expedition 33 (1), 53–62.

Dillehay, T., 1990. Mapuche ceremonial landscape, social

recruitment and resource rights. World Archaeology 22

(2), 223–241.

Doyel, D.E., Lekson, S.H., 1992. Regional Organization in the

American Southwest. In: Doyel, D.E. (Ed.), Anasazi

Regional Organization and the Chaco System. Papers of

the Maxwell Museum of Anthropology 5. Maxwell Museum

of Anthropology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque,

pp. 15–21.

Drennan, R.D., 1984. Long-distance transport costs in pre-

hispanic MesoAmerica. Am. Anthropol. 86, 105–112.

Economic Commission for Asia and the Far East (ECAFE)

1957. Manual Labour and Its More Effective Use in

Competition with Machines for Earthwork in the ESCAFE

Region. United National Publication E/CN. 11 Conf. 3/L.I.

Erasmus, C.J., 1956. Culture structure and process: the occur-

rence and disappearance of reciprocal farm labor. South-

west. J. Anthropol. 12, 444–469.

Erasmus, C.J., 1965. Monument building: some field experi-

ments. Southwest. J. Anthropol. 21 (4), 277–301.

Evans, J., Rouse, A., Sharples, N., 1988. The landscape setting

of causewayed camps: recent work on the maiden castle

enclosure. In: Barrett, J., Kinnes, I. (Eds.), The Archaeology

of Context in the Neolithic and Bronze Age. University of

Sheffield, Sheffield, pp. 73–84.

Fowler, A.P., Stein, J.R., 1992. The Anasazi SGreat House in

space, time, and paradigm. In: Doyel, D.E. (Ed.), Anasazi

Regional Organization and the Chaco System. Maxwell

Museum of Anthropology Anthropological Papers No.5.

University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, pp. 101–122.

Fritz, J., 1978. Paleopsychlogy today: ideational systems and

human adaptation in prehistory. In: Redman, D., Berman,

M., Curtin, E., Langhorne, W., Versaggi, N., Wanser, C.

(Eds.), Social Archaeology: Beyond Subsistence and Dating.

Academic Press, New York, pp. 37–59.

Greber, N., 1979. A comparative study of site morphology and

burial patterns at Edwinharness Mound and Seip Mounds 1

and 2. In: Brose, D.S., Greber, N. (Eds.), Hopewell

Archaeology: The Chillicothe Conference. Kent State Uni-


Greber, N., 1997a. Two geometric enclosures in the Paint Creek

Valley: an estimate of possible changes in community

patterns through time. In: Dancey, W., Pacheco, P. (Eds.),

Ohio Hopewell Community Organization. Kent State Uni-


Greber, N., 1997b. Comment on ceremonial centres from the

Cayapas (Esmeraldas, Ecuador) to Chillicothe (Ohio,

USA). Camb. Archaeol. J. 7 (2), 244–247.

Greber, N., 1999. Combining geophysics and ground truth at

High Bank Earthworks, Ross County, Ohio. Ohio

Archaeol. Counc. Newsletter 11 (1), 8–12.

Greber, N., 2002. A preliminary comparison of 1997 and 2002

limited excavations in the Great Circle Wall, High Bank

Works, Ross County, Ohio. Hopewell Archaeology 5 (2),

1–6.

Greber, N., 2003a. Chronological relationships among Ohio

Hopewell sites: few dates and much complexity. In: Jeske,

R., Charles, D. (Eds.), Theory, Method, and Practice in

Modern Archaeology. Praeger Press, Westport, CT, pp. 88–

113.

Greber, N., 2003b. Enclosures and communities in Ohio

Hopewell: an essay. In: Charles, D., Buikstra, J. (Eds.),

Recreating Hopewell, in preparation.

Griffin, J., 1996. The Hopewell housing shortage in Ohio, A.D.

1–350. In: Pacheco, P. (Ed.), A View from the Core: A

Synthesis of Ohio Hopewell Archaeology. The Ohio

Archaeological Council Inc., Columbus, pp. 4–15.


Hauser-Schaublin, B., 1989. Kulthauser in Nordneuguinea.

Academie-Verlag, Berlin.

Hingley, R., 1996. Ancestors and identity in the later prehistory

of Atlantic Scotland—the reuse and reinvention of Neolithic

monuments and material culture. World Archaeol. 28, 231–

243.

Hively, R., Horn, R., 1982. Geometry and astronomy in

prehistoric Ohio. J. Hist. Astron. Suppl. 13 (4), 1–20.

Hodder, I., 1984. Burials, houses, women and men in the

European Neolithic. In: Miller, D., Tilley, C. (Eds.),

Ideology, Power and Prehistory. Cambridge University

Press, Cambridge, pp. 51–68.

Hodder, I., 1990. The Domestication of Europe. Blackwell,

Oxford.

Hodder, I., 1994. Architecture and meaning: the example of

neolithic houses and tombs. In: Parker Pearson, M.,

Richards, C. (Eds.), Architecture and Order: Approaches

to Social Space. Routledge, New York, pp. 73–86.

Hodder, I., Shand, P., 1988. The Haddenham long barrow: an

interim statement. Antiquity 62, 349–353.

Hogbin, H.I., 1939. Native land tenure in New Guinea. Oceania

10, 113–165.

Hogbin, H., 1951. Transformation Scene: The Changing

Culture of a New Guinea Village. Routledge & Kegan Paul

Limited, London.

Holtorf, C., 1998. The life-history of megaliths in Mecklenburg-

Vorpommern (Germany). World Archaeol. 30 (1), 23–38.

Judge, W.J., 1989. Chaco Canyon-San Juan Basin. In: Cordell,

L., Gummerman, G. (Eds.), Dynamics of Southwest

Prehistory. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington,

DC, pp. 209–262.

Kelly, R.C., 1995. The foraging spectrum. Smithsonian Insti-

tution Press, Washington, DC.

Kroeber, A., 1939. Cultural and natural areas of native North

AmericaUniversity of California Publications in American

Archaeology and Ethnology, vol. 38. University of Califor-

nia Press, Berkeley.

Kuchler, S., 1987. Malangan: art and memory in a melanesian

society. Man, New Series 22 (2), 238–255.

Lekson, S.H., 1986. Great Pueblo Architecture of Chaco

Canyon, NM. University of New Mexico Press,

Albuquerque.

Lekson, S.H., 1991. Settlement patterns and the Chaco region.

In: Crown, P.L., Judge, W.J. (Eds.), Chaco and Hoho-

kam: Prehistoric Regional Systems in the American South-

west. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe, pp.

31–56.

Lepper, B., 1996. The Newark earthworks and the geometric

enclosures of the Scioto Valley: connections and conjec-

tures. In: Pacheco, P. (Ed.), A View from the Core: A

Synthesis of Ohio Hopewell Archaeology. The Ohio

Archaeological Council, Columbus, pp. 224–241.

Lynott, M.J., 1982. An Archaeological Investigation of an Area

Adjacent to Mound City Group National Monument: A

Preliminary Report. Midwest Archaeological Center,

National Park Service.

Lynott, M.J., 2003. Preliminary Report, 2002 Investigations,

Hopeton Earthworks. Hopewell Archaeology, in

preparation.

Lynott, M.J., Monk, S., 1985. Mound City, Ohio, Archaeo-

logical Investigations. Occasional Studies in Anthropology

No. 12. Midwest Archaeological Center, National Park

Service, Lincoln.

Lynott, M., Weymouth, J., 2002. Preliminary report, 2001

investigations, Hopeton Earthworks. Hopewell Archaeol.

5 (1), 1–7.

MacLean, J.P., 1879. The Mound Builders. Robert Clarke and

Co., Cincinnati.

Mahoney, N., 2000. Redefining the scale of Chacoan commu-

nities. In: Kantner, J., Mahoney, N. (Eds.), Great house

communities across the Chacoan landscape. University of

Arizona Press, Tucson, pp. 17–27.

Malville, J., Malville, N., 2001. Pilgrimage and periodical

festivals as processes of social integration in Chaco Canyon.

Kiva 66, 327–344.

Marshall, J., 1996. Towards a definition of the Ohio

Hopewell core and periphery utilizing the geometric

earthworks. In: Pacheco, P. (Ed.), A View from the

Core. The Ohio Archaeological Council, Columbus, pp.

210–223.

Marshall, M.P., Stein, J., Loose, R., Novotny, J., 1979. Anasazi

communities in the San Juan Basin. Public Service Com-

pany of New Mexico and New Mexico Historic Preserva-

tion Bureau, Albuquerque and Santa Fe.

Moorehead, W.K., 1892. Primitive Man in Ohio. The Knick-

erbocker Press, G.P. Putnam�s Sons, New York.

Morley, S., Brainerd, G., Sharer, R., 1983. The Ancient Maya,

fourth ed. Stanford University Press, Stanford.

Netting, R.Mc., 1990. Population, permanent agriculture, and

polities: unpacking the evolutionary portmanteau. In:

Upham, S. (Ed.), The Evolution of Political Systems:

Sociopolitics in Small Scale Sedentary Societies. Cambridge

University Press, New York, pp. 21–61.

Oliver, D., 1955. A Solomon Island Society. Harvard Univer-

sity Press, Cambridge.

Pacheco, P., 1996. Ohio Hopewell regional settlement

patterns. In: Pacheco, P. (Ed.), A View from the

Core. The Ohio Archaeological Council, Columbus, pp.

16–35.

Pacheco, P., 1988. Ohio Middle Woodland Settlement Vari-

ability in the Upper Licking River Drainage. J. Steward

Anthropol. Soc. 18 (2), 87–117.

Pacheco, P., 1993. Ohio Hopewell Settlement Patterns: An

Application of the Vacant Center Model to Middle Wood-

lands Period Intracommunity Settlement Variability in the

Upper Licking River Valley. Ph.D. dissertation, Depart-

ment of Anthropology, The Ohio State University. Univer-

sity Microfilms, Ann Arbor.

Pickard, W., Pahdopony, L.G., 1995. Paradise regained and

lost again: the Anderson earthwork, Ross County, Ohio.

Hopewell Archaeology 1 (2), 3–6.

Prufer, O.H., 1964a. The Hopewell Complex of Ohio. In:

Caldwell, J. Hall, J. Caldwell, R. Hall, (Eds.), Hopewellian

Studies, Illinois State Museum, Scientific Papers 12, Spring-

field, pp. 35-83.

Prufer, O.H., 1964b. The Hopewell Cult. Sci. Am. 211, 90–102.

Prufer, O.H., 1965. The McGraw site: a study in Hopewellian

dynamics. Cleveland Museum of Natural History, Scientific

Publications 4(1), Cleveland.

Prufer, O.H., 1996. Core and periphery: the final chapter on

Ohio Hopewell. In: Pacheco, P. (Ed.), A View From the

Core: A Synthesis of Ohio Hopewell Archaeology. The


Ohio Archaeological Council, Columbus, Ohio, pp. 406–

425.

Redfield, R., Rojas, A.V., 1962. Chan Kom: A Maya Village.

The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Renfrew, C., 1976. Megaliths, territories and populations. In:

De Laet, S. (Ed.), Acculturation and Continuity in Atlantic

Europe. De Tempel, Brugge, pp. 198–220.

Romain, W., 1996. Hopewellian geometry: forms at the

interface of time and eternity. In: Pacheco, P. (Ed.), A

View From the Core. The Ohio Archaeological Council,

Columbus, pp. 194–209.

Rosenbrough, A., Birmingham, B., 2003. Effigy Mound Land-

scapes in Wisconsin. Paper presented at the 2003 Annual

Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology,

Milwaukee.

Ruby, B., 1997. Current research at Hopewell culture National

Historic Park. Hopewell Archaeology 2 (2), 1–6.

Ruby, B., Carr, C., Charles, D., 2004. Community Organiza-

tion in the Scioto, Mann, and Havan Hopewell Regions: A

Comprative Perspective. In: Carr, C. (Ed.), Gathering

Hopewell: Society, Ritual, and Religion. Plenum Press,

New York, in press.

Ruhl, K.C., 1992. Copper Earspools from Ohio Hopewell Sites.

Midcontinental J. Archaeol. 17, 46–79.

Seeman, M., 1981. An Archaeological Survey of the Hopewell

Site (33Ro27) and Vicinity, Ross County, Ohio. Report on

file at the Ohio Historic Preservation Office, Columbus.

Shennan, S., 1997. Quantifying Archaeology. Edinburgh Uni-

versity Press, Edinburgh.

Shepherd, H., 1887. Antiquities of the State of Ohio. John C.

Yorston and Co., Cincinnati.

Sherratt, A., 1984. Social evolution: Europe in the later

Neolithic and Copper Ages. In: Bintliff, J. (Ed.), European

Social Evolution. University of Bradford, Bradford, pp.

123–134.

Sherratt, A., 1990. The genesis of megaliths: monumentality,

ethnicity and social complexity in Neolithic North-west

Europe. World Archaeol. 22 (2), 147–167.

Shetrone, H., Greenman, E., 1931. Explorations of the Seip

group of prehistoric earthworks. Ohio Archaeol. Historical

Q. 40, 343–509.

Smith, B.D., 1992. Rivers of Change. Smithsonian Institution

Press, Washington, DC.

Sofaer, A., Marshall, M.P., Sinclair, R.M., 1989. The great

north road: a cosmographic expression of the Chaco culture

of New Mexico. In: Aveni, A.F. (Ed.), World Archaeoas-

tronomy. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp. 365–

376.

Squier, E.G., Davis, E.H., 1848. Ancient Monuments of the

Mississippi Valley. Smithsonian Contributions to Knowl-

edge 1, Washington, DC.

Storck, P., 1974. Some aspects of effigy mound subsistence and

settlement patterns during the late Woodlands period in

Wisconsin. Arctic Anthropol. 11, 272–279.

Struever, S., Houart, G.L., 1972. An Analysis of the Hopewell

Interaction Sphere. In: Wilmsen, E.N. (Ed.), Social

Exchange and Interaction. University of Michigan Museum

of Anthropology Anthropological Papers No. 46, Ann

Arbor, Michigan, pp. 47–79.

Thomas, C., 1889. The Circular, Square, and Octagonal

Earthworks of Ohio. Bureau of American Ethnology

Bulletin no. 10. Government Printing Office, Washington,

DC.

Thompson, B., 1966. A technique using anthropological and

biological data. Curr. Anthropol. 7, 417–424.

Toll, H.W., 2001. Making and breaking pots in the Chaco

world. Am. Antiquity 66 (1), 56–78.

Tuzin, D., 1980. The Voice of the Tambaran. University of

California Press, Berkeley.

United States Department of Agriculture/Natural Resources

Conservation Service 2003 Soil Survey of Ross County,

Ohio. United States Department of Agriculture, Washing-

ton, DC.

Windes, T., 1984. A new look at population in Chaco Canyon.

In: JamesJudge, W., Schelberg, J.D. (Eds.), Recent

Research on Chaco Prehistory. Division of Cultural

Research, National Park Service, Albuquerque, NM, pp.

75–87.

Windes, T., McKenna, P., 2001. Going against the grain: wood

production in Chacoan society. Am. Antiquity 66 (1), 119–

140.

Wobst, H.M., 1974. Boundary conditions for paleolithic social

systems: a simulation approach. Am. Antiquity 39 (2), 147–

178.

Wylie, A., 1994. Evidential constraints: pragmatic objectivism

in archaeology. In: Martin, M., McIntyre, L. (Eds.),

Readings in the Philosophy of Social Science. MIT Press,

Cambridge MA, pp. 747–765.

Wymer, D., 1992. Trends and disparities: the Woodland

Paleoethnobotanical record of the Mid-Ohio valley. In:

Seeman, M. (Ed.), Cultural Variability in Context: Wood-

land Settlements of the Mid-Ohio Valley. Kent State

University Press, Kent, pp. 65–76.

Wymer, D., 1997. Paleoethnobotany in the Licking River

valley, Ohio: implications for understanding Ohio Hope-

well. In: Dancey, W., Pacheco, P. (Eds.), Ohio Hopewell

Community Organization. Kent State University Press,

Kent, pp. 153–174.

Wymer, D., Johannessen, S., 2002. Growing the World in Their

Image: The Evolutionary Trajectories of Hopewell Farm-

ing, East and West. Paper presented at the 48th Annual

Midwest Archaeological Conference, Columbus.

Date post:	16-Apr-2015
Category:	Documents
Upload:	nicolae-ion-catalin
View:	50 times
Download:	2 times

Hopewell geometric earthworks

Documents