|
MWAC
|
Hopewell
Archeology:
The Newsletter
of Hopewell Archeology in the Ohio River Valley
Volume 6, Number 1, September 2004
———————————————— |
4. Survey and Excavations in 2004 at
33RO1059;
by Ann C. Bauermeister |
| The Hopewell site (33RO27), with
its extensive earthwork complex, is renowned as
the type site
for the Hopewell culture and has long been a focus
for archeological research, beginning as early
as 1845 with Squier and Davis. Recently, active
erosion along the bank of the North Fork of Paint
Creek has drawn attention to archeological resources
located outside of the complex that are threatened
by the encroaching stream. Site 33RO1059 is located
south and east of the Square Enclosure in a formerly
cultivated
field flanked by Paint Creek on the south (Figure
1). |
|
|
click
on image to enlarge |
 |
Figure 1. The Squier and Davis 1845 map of
the Hopewell site, adapted from Squier and
Davis (1998:Plate X). The project area is depicted
north of Paint Creek. |
|
The site was originally identified
through observation of artifacts on the surface
of the
field, but relatively little was known about this
site and its relationship, if any, to the earthwork
complex.
Realizing the site might be in jeopardy, managers
from Hopewell Culture National Historical Park
began pursuing alternatives that would protect
the site from further erosion and loss of archeological
resources. One alternative would involve a construction
approach where the bank would be mechanically stabilized;
another, the no-construction alternative, would
allow the erosion to continue but would involve
the mitigation of adverse impacts through archeological
data collection. Several strategies for mechanical
stabilization were considered, all of which would
involve substantial ground disturbance albeit to
varying degrees. Under the no-construction alternative,
archeological resources within the area expected
to erode in the foreseeable future would be removed
through excavation. Before the preferred alternative
could be chosen, however, the resources at site
33RO1059 needed to be evaluated to determine not
only site type, but whether or not the resources
were significant and if the site had enough integrity
to warrant protection.
|
Geophysical and Pedestrian Surveys
National Park Service archeologists from Hopewell
Culture NHP and the Midwest Archeological Center
began by conducting geophysical and pedestrian
surveys. The survey area was confined to the
open, previously cultivated portion of the field,
encompassing about 2.2 hectares, and included
any area that might be impacted by the erosion
occurring along the southern end of the field
or from construction-related ground disturbance
(Figure 2). |
|
click
on image to enlarge |
 |
Figure 2. Map of project area, site 33RO1059,
showing location of potential archeological
features, test unit and feature locations,
and areas slated for additional testing. |
|
|
Forty-eight complete 20-x-20-m
blocks and six partial 20-x-20-m blocks were
surveyed
using an FM 36 fluxgate gradiometer; three
complete 20-x-20-m grids were surveyed with an
EM 38 electromagnetic
conductivity meter. In total area, about 21,600
m² were included in the geophysical survey.
Results from the survey identified numerous
anomalies in the data indicative of prehistoric
subsurface
features (De Vore and Bauermeister 2003).
The pedestrian survey that followed was completed
shortly after the project area was mowed and disked,
which improved surface visibility to about 85 percent.
In total, 341 artifacts were encountered and mapped
according to Global Positioning System position.
Both prehistoric and historic materials were noted,
but prehistoric materials were far more prevalent
(308 compared to 33) and became the primary focus
of this research; refer to Burks (2004) for details
on the historic component. Fire-cracked rock was
the most-represented artifact class and was widely
scattered across the field, with a slightly heavier
concentration in the western half of the project
area. Additional prehistoric artifacts identified
include debitage, pitted stones, bladelets, and
an end scraper. These, too, occurred more regularly
in the western half of the field with a specific
cluster noted approximately in the center of the
area. Hopewell artifacts were among those in the
cluster and include two bladelets, a Vanport chert
perform, and two quartz crystal flakes, giving
this surface deposit a Middle Woodland affiliation.
Data obtained through the surface collection
and mapping helped delineate site boundaries
while
documenting concentrations of prehistoric artifacts.
Coupled with the geophysical survey data, this
information proved quite useful in planning the
next phase of work that would focus on excavations.
Archeologists were effectively able to concentrate
on specific areas having the greatest potential
to yield information through subsurface deposits
as predicted by these combined data. Fifteen
locations were identified where the potential
for buried
prehistoric features was both highest and within
the potential zone of impact (the width of the
creek bend west to east and approximately 30
m north). The zone of impact was determined
based
on the amount of ground disturbance required
by the construction alternatives and assumed
the greatest
possible extent.
|
Excavations
Archeologists returned to the site in April
2004 to conduct the excavations at the specified
locations.
At this time it was apparent that even more
of the field had been lost to erosion just
since
the previous year. In fact, three of the
test unit locations were now so close to
the edge
of the bank and the undercutting was so severe
that excavation in this portion of the field
was not feasible (Figure 3).
|
| In all, five 1-x-1-m
test units (TUs 1, 2, 6–8) and three
2-x-2-m test units (TUs 3–5) were excavated
at the site in 2004. All of the units yielded
prehistoric
materials, with five features (Features 1–4,
and unassigned) identified in four of those
units (TUs 4, 6–8). Features 1 and 3
yielded temporally diagnostic materials attributed
to Late Woodland and Middle Woodland, respectively.
They are discussed in more detail below. The
unassigned
feature and Feature 4 yielded prehistoric materials,
but none from within the features themselves
are culturally or temporally diagnostic. Hopewell
bladelets were, however, recovered from the
plowzone above Feature 4. Feature 2 was determined
to be natural rather than cultural in origin. |
|
click
on image to enlarge |
 |
Figure 3. Erosion along the southern
edge of site 33RO1059. |
|
|
Feature 1 was identified
in TU 6 as a distinct and intentional
intrusion dug into the surrounding subsoil,
which in this field is a gravelly clay
loam (Figure 4).As excavation
continued, the feature began to take
the shape of
a basin and appears to extend to the
north and to the east. Artifacts turned
up consistently throughout the feature
fill and include debitage, fire-cracked
rock, pottery, two bladelets, and a triangular
projectile point. The point and pottery
are typical of Fort Ancient artifacts,
giving Feature 1 a Late Woodland association.
|
|
click
on image to enlarge |
 |
Figure 4. Feature 1 in Test Unit
6. |
|
| |
|
click
on image to enlarge |
 |
Figure 5. Copper debris recovered
from Feature 3 in Test Unit 8. |
|
|
Feature 3 emerged as a large,
dark burned earth stain that encompasses
the majority
of TU 8 and extends well to the north,
west, and east. Artifacts recovered included
fire-cracked rock, burned bone, cord-marked
pottery, debitage, and two copper fragments
(Figure 5). Most of the
pottery sherds are fairly small (2–3
cm in diameter), though larger sherds (5–8
cm in diameter) were recovered from deeper
soils. |
One of the larger sherds
exhibits a surface treatment similar to
incised rocker-stamped. The discovery of
copper fragments, particularly what appear
to be remnant debris, is quite a rare and
significant find and might provide a link
between this site and 33RO27. Based on
feature content, Feature 3 appears to be
Hopewell in origin.
Initial observations indicate that this
is a habitation site that represents
at least two temporal periods, Middle
and Late Woodland, and perhaps several
occupations. Of particular interest is
the presence of copper debris. Copper
is a rare find, and it is even more unusual
to find copper debris that has merely
been discarded and not reworked. The
copper, the bladelets, and the cord-marked
pottery are strong evidence for a Hopewellian
occupation—perhaps one that is
contemporaneous with events relating
to the earthworks. The site has the potential
to yield considerable data, which might
help answer questions relating to the
activities associated directly with earthwork
construction and utilization.
Preservation Decisions
The findings verify that important
resources are located within the
field and that
efforts to protect the archeological
site from erosion should be pursued.
Hydrology studies have determined
that the flow of water along this
curve
of Paint Creek has slowed, and it
is anticipated that at some point
the
erosion will slow or stop. The erosion
is active at the toe of the bank,
which is undercutting the upper bank
and
causing it to recede. In effect,
the bank is attempting to stabilize
itself
by developing a more even slope.
It follows, then, if the toe erosion
were
to stop, so too would the erosion
along the upper bank that is impacting
the
site. The questions then become,
how much would be lost, and is bank
stabilization
needed?
The mechanical bank stabilization
would effectively prevent additional
erosion
from occurring, but a substantial
portion of the site would be subjected
to ground
disturbance during construction.
The mitigation of construction impacts
to the archeological resources
would
require
extensive excavation of the site.
Significantly less of the site would
be impacted
by the erosion, without any bank
stabilization
work, assuming the stream will erode
at a certain rate over a defined
period of time. The threatened resources
could
still be recovered through excavation
and more of site would be left intact,
providing future opportunities to
learn from it.
The National Park Service chose the
no-construction alternative as
the most advantageous
to protecting the archeological
resources at the site. No mechanical
bank stabilization
will take place and the erosion
will be allowed to continue. Additional
and more extensive archeological
excavations are set to begin in
2006
and will continue
into 2007.
References Cited
Burks, Jarrod
2004 Surface Collection at 33RO1059.
On file, National Park Service,
Hopewell Culture National Historical
Park,
Chillicothe, Ohio.
De Vore, Steven L., and Ann C.
Bauermeister
2003 Interim Report of the
Geophysical Investigations
of the River Bank
Stabilization Project Area
at Hopewell Mound Group,
Ross County, Ohio. On file,
National Park Service, Midwest
Archeological
Center, Lincoln.
Squier, Ephraim G., and Edwin
H. Davis
1998 Ancient Monuments
of the Mississippi Valley.
Contributions
to Knowledge
Volume 1. Smithsonian Institution,
Washington,
D.C. 150th Anniversary
Reissue Edition; Introduction
by
David
J. Meltzer.
Originally printed in 1848
by the Smithsonian
Institution.
Print this Page
 word
.doc (1.4M)
 pdf (559K)
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
