|
MWAC
|
Hopewell
Archeology:
The Newsletter of Hopewell Archeology
in the Ohio River Valley
Volume 6, Number 1, September 2004
———————————————— |
5. New Discoveries Right in Our Own Front Yard:
Preliminary Results of Recent Research at Mound
City Group
Jarrod Burks, Jennifer Pederson, Lynette Willsey,
Dawn Walter Gagliano, and Kathy Brady-Rawlins
| The Mound City Group: Past and Present
Mound City Group is probably the most extensively
excavated Hopewell earthwork in Ohio. Squier
and Davis (1848), William Mills (1922),
and a whole host of more recent archaeologists,
have conducted excavations within and between
the site’s 23 mounds and ca. 950
m of earthen embankment. In addition to
their diggings in the mounds, Squier and
Davis produced the first map of the 15.6-acre
earthwork complex, which included other
mounds and earthen enclosures in the vicinity
of Mound City (Figure 1). |
|
click
on image to enlarge |
|
Figure 1. Squier and Davis map
of Mound City and vicinity. |
|
| Among these additional mounds
and earthworks are a circular enclosure and
four mounds to the west and northwest of
Mound City. The larger of the two mounds
located just south of the small circular
enclosure northwest of Mound City, known
as the Briggs Mound (33RO7), was excavated
in the 1897 by Clarence Loveberry (Moorehead
1899). While Moorehead (1899:136) also mentions
another mound that was excavated at the same
time in the near vicinity, to our knowledge
none of the remaining mounds west and northwest
of Mound City that appear on the Squier and
Davis map were excavated prior to their disappearance
from the landscape. Additionally, only limited
work has been conducted in non-mound areas
among these enclosures and mounds. To better
understand how prehistoric peoples used these
earthworks and mounds near Mound City, exploration
of non-mound areas must be undertaken. A
project begun in June 2003 sought to address
this need by studying a small area in the
front yard of the visitor center at Mound
City. |
click
on image to enlarge |
 |
Figure 2. Close-up of the project
area with topographic contours,
geophysical
survey area, and excavation unit
locations. |
|
|
The project area covers 1,200 m² and
contains one of the isolated mounds,
now reconstructed, thought to have been
mapped by Squier and Davis (Figure
2).
The mound is located about 230 m to the
west of the Mound City enclosure. Dimensions
of the mound were not recorded in the
1840s, and no documentation exists for
excavations of the mound or its immediate
vicinity.
|
| However, a comparison of
the Squier and Davis map and a modern
map of the reconstructed elements of
Mound City and the project area (Figure
3), show that the reconstructed
mound is located about 200 m south and
east of where Squier and Davis show it
on their map. |
| How the reconstructed
mound could be so far off the Squier
and Davis location is easy to understand.
After many decades of agricultural
use, beginning perhaps as early as
1800, this area was used in 1917-1920
as a parade ground for Camp Sherman,
a World War I training camp that
covered the Mound City earthworks
and miles of Scioto Valley floodplain
(Figure 3). While
Camp Sherman buildings were not part
of the project area,
the parade grounds were no doubt
leveled off by cutting and filling
bumps and gullies. This presumably
accounts for the ultimate fate of
mounds located within the parade
ground area that once lined what
is now State Route 104. |
|
click
on image to enlarge |
|
Figure 3. Project area
map showing the location of
Camp Sherman
structures, current mounds
and earthworks, and mounds
mapped
by Squier and Davis. |
|
|
Today the former parade
ground area west of Mound City is a
grassy lawn and the two mounds that
appear on the Squier and Davis map
of Mound City have been reconstructed
to a height of 1.5 m and a diameter
of 10 m, though apparently in the wrong
locations.
Geophysical Survey
Our research in the vicinity of the northern
reconstructed mound began with topographic
mapping and geophysical testing of
three 20-x-20-m blocks. Both magnetic
gradient and electrical resistance
data were collected. A Geoscan Research
FM 36 fluxgate gradiometer was used
for collecting magnetic gradient data
every 12.5 cm along transects spaced
50 cm apart, yielding 6,400 readings
per block. Resistance data were collected
every 50 cm across the survey area
using a Geoscan Research RM 15 resistance
meter. A total of 1,600 resistance
readings were recorded per block. |
click
on image to enlarge |
 |
Figure 4. Magnetic gradient
data. |
|
|
Geophysical data
can provide a unique glimpse of subsurface
deposits, as it does for this study.
The reconstructed mound is clearly
visible in the northeast corner of
both the magnetic gradient data (Figure
4) and resistance data (Figure
5).
It is particularly interesting that
the extent of disturbance from the
reconstruction is also visible as
a rectangular area of lower magnetic
gradient and resistance readings.
At least 23 possible prehistoric
features, among numerous historic
features and artifacts, are visible
in the magnetic gradient data. Similarly,
the resistance data show multiple
anomalies, a few of which are rectangular. |
|
| click
on image to enlarge |
 |
Figure 5. Electrical resistance
data. |
|
|
When the two
data sets are superimposed, a large
area containing both magnetic and
resistance anomalies is apparent
to the west of the mound. This area
contains two magnetic anomalies.
Anomaly 1 is circular, about 2.5
m in diameter, and has an unusually
strong magnetic gradient intensity
(37.65 nT) for a possible prehistoric
feature. Anomaly 2 is linear, about
7 m long, and consists of above-average
magnetic gradient readings (ca. 5
nT). |
|
| In our preliminary analysis
we speculated that Anomaly 1 was a prehistoric
fire pit feature and Anomaly 2 was possibly
part of a series of post holes present
along the southern and eastern sides
of the large pit. In the resistance data,
the same area as magnetic Anomalies 1
and 2 appear to have higher resistance
readings arranged in a rectangular shape
roughly 10 m². Was it possible that
this resistance anomaly indicates the
presence of a compacted floor? In combination,
the geophysical data point to the presence
of a possible structure to the west of
the reconstructed mound. This was very
intriguing at the time since we now know
that all of the Mound City mounds were
built over the remains of structures.
Had we discovered the remains of a submound
building and the actual spot where the
nearby mound should have been reconstructed?
To determine the exact nature of these
geophysical anomalies, ground-truthing
was needed.
|
| Excavations
To date, our excavations have focused
on the two magnetic anomalies.
Removal of the plowzone by hand
has revealed a large circular pit
at Anomaly 1 and patches of darker
soil at Anomaly 2. In excavating
Anomaly 1 (Figure 6),
we have bisected the feature, removing
the southern
half in 10-cm levels down to a
depth of about 1 m. The Anomaly
1 pit appears to be the remains
of a thermal feature now filled
with three distinct stratigraphic
levels: a pottery-rich upper layer;
a middle layer of redeposited subsoil
containing significantly fewer
artifacts but much gravel; and
an organic-rich soil layer at the
bottom containing fire-cracked
rock and charcoal. |
|
click
on image to enlarge |
 |
Figure 6. Anomaly 1 bisected.
The photo board reads: Mound
City
Group; Teacher’s Workshop;
Feature #1; North Wall Profile;
June 30, 2004. |
|
Most of the pottery
sherds represent a grit-tempered
ware, with a couple excurvate rim
sherds. One grit-tempered sherd,
while heavily eroded, is clearly
covered by a fine rocker stamping.
In addition to the large amounts
of pottery, a number of bladelets
and biface fragments and lots of
fire-cracked rock were also present
in the feature fill.
Only the eastern portion of Anomaly
2 was tested due to its large size.
Screening of the plowzone produced
a small collection of pottery sherds
and flakes. More numerous was fire-cracked
rock. The patches of darker soil
at the base of the plowzone were
tested further but no obvious cultural
features could be defined. The
source of Anomaly 2 thus proved
to be elusive as none of the expected
postholes were evident.
|
| Conclusions
At this time, preliminary results
are inconclusive as to whether
this area represents a structure.
Excavations of both magnetic
anomalies located artifacts,
with bladelets (Figure
7) and
a small piece of mica from
Anomaly 1. The Anomaly 1 pit
feature certainly appears to
be related to some sort of
Hopewell occupation. Given
the large number of similar
magnetic anomalies in the study
area, perhaps this whole area
to the south and west of the
present mound was occupied
during construction of the
mounds within and outside of
Mound City. |
click
on image to enlarge |
 |
Figure 7. Bladelets
from Anomaly 1. |
|
|
A much larger
magnetic survey conducted recently
across much of the front yard
of Mound City produced over 80
magnetic anomalies in three clusters,
each of which might represent
areas occupied by the Hopewell
while visiting the Mound City
area to participate in the ceremonial
goings-on within and/or outside
the earthwork. |
These findings
outside Mound City, as with similar
findings at Hopeton Earthworks
and Hopewell Mound Group, show
that quite a lot of evidence
of Hopewell occupation yet exists
at these old earthwork sites,
despite hundreds of years of
historic disturbance.
References Cited
Mills, William C.
1922 Exploration of the Mound
City Group. Ohio Archaeological
and Historical Quarterly 31:423–584.
Moorehead, Warren K.
1899 Report of Field Work in
Various Portions of Ohio. Ohio
Archaeological and Historical
Publications 7:110–203.
Squier, Ephraim G., and Edwin
H. Davis
1848 Ancient Monuments
of the Mississippi Valley. Contributions
to Knowledge No. 1. Smithsonian
Institution, Washington, D.C.
Print this Page
 word
.doc (526K)
 pdf (498K)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
