The Ohio Hopewell Episode: Paradigm Lost and Paradigm Gained

1. The Ohio Hopewell Embankment Earthwork Systematics

Name /uap04/22015_u02 04/28/04 01:46PM Plate # 0-Composite pg 21 # 1 ⫺1 0 ⫹1 21 Chapter 1 T H E O H I O H O P E W E L L E M B A N K M E N T E A R T H W O R K S Y S T E M A T I C S The embankment earthworks encountered by Europeans entering the Central Ohio Valley in the late 1700s were magnificent monuments made of locally procured earth (and some stone). For immediate purposes, two major formal types will be addressed, what are often called the “geometricals” and the “fortifications.” The former, typified by Newark (fig. P.1), Liberty Works (fig. P.3), and Seip (fig. P.4), can also be subdivided into symmetrical and subsymmetrical types. The “fortifications,” exemplified by Fort Hill (fig. P.6), Fort Ancient (fig. P.7), and Miami Fort (fig. P.9), were built as great wall-like embankments on isolated tabletop plateaus and ridge tops. The term “fortification” may be a serious misnomer, since there is now growing evidence that the embankments served as major ceremonial rather than as defensive features. The alternative “fortification” view is still represented in the literature.1 The distribution of these two types correlates roughly with two different regions of the Central Ohio Valley, so they seem to be manifesting some real social distinctions. But there is some intermixing. Several representatives of the ridge-top earthworks , such as Fort Hill near Chillicothe, are in the zone where the “geometricals” dominate, and a number of “geometricals” being in the zone where “fortifications” dominate. Because of this intermixing, and Name /uap04/22015_u02 04/28/04 01:46PM Plate # 0-Composite pg 22 # 2 22 t h e w o r l d e m b o d i e d ⫺1 0 ⫹1 further reasons discussed later, both sets will be treated as ceremonial locales. embankment attributes An overview of the known earthworks reveals a great deal of variation and complexity of form that cannot be adequately characterized by the two terms “fortification” and “geometrical.” Moreover, such functional-descriptive terms prefigure particular prehistoric reconstructions , thereby implicating cultural backgrounds that presuppose particular types of social systems. The approach in this book attempts to minimize this prefiguring by avoiding “loaded” functional-descriptive terms and, instead, classifies the earthworks in terms of the variation in the primary attributes, these being the attributes making up horizontal or plan form and vertical or profile form. Because the plan form, or the “bird’s-eye-view” aspect, is the primary mode of representing them in the literature, the earthworks tend to be thought of as two-dimensional. However, they are threedimensional , having horizontal and vertical extension.2 In principle, horizontal and vertical forms can vary independently. Therefore, by analyzing these two forms as separate and, in principle, independent attributes, correlations of the variations in these two attributes can be made to establish whether significant and mutually exclusive patterns exist. If they do, then the possibility of a real or emic typology of embankment earthworks can be established. If these types can be further noted as sorting regionally and temporally, this becomes reasonable grounds to postulate sets of construction protocols that varied historically and geographically across the Central Ohio Valley. This analytical procedure was performed, and it resulted in empirical evidence useful for postulating embankment earthwork traditions. These were also used to ground a chronological model based on the combination of three analyses: (1) a form of “horizontal stratigraphy” based on the analysis of contrasting vertical profile and horizontal plan forms combined in several separate complex earthworks; (2) a formal seriation Name /uap04/22015_u02 04/28/04 01:46PM Plate # 0-Composite pg 23 # 3 e m b a n k m e n t e a r t h w o r k s y s t e m a t i c s 23 ⫺1 0 ⫹1 analysis of the major attributes earthworks; and (3) an analysis using the available radiocarbon dates. The Horizontal Plan Attribute The horizontal plan form has three basic variants, here termed the G-Form, T-Form, and C-Form. Traditionally, only the first two have been recognized, those called “geometricals” and “fortifications,” respectively. The identification of the third type, the C-Form...