Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T15:50:38.915Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Beyond Squier and Davis: Rediscovering Ohio's Earthworks Using Geophysical Remote Sensing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Jarrod Burks  and
Robert A. Cook
Jarrod Burks
Affiliation:
Ohio Valley Archaeology, Inc., 4889 Sinclair Ave., Suite 210, Columbus, Ohio 43229 ([email protected])
Robert A. Cook
Affiliation:
The Ohio State University, 1179 University Drive, Newark, Ohio 43055 ([email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The prehistoric earthworks of Ohio have played a major role in the development of American archaeology and they continue to figure prominently in archaeological research. However, while a select group of larger earthwork sites have been intensively studied and resurveyed with geophysical survey instruments, much of the ongoing earthwork research, and reference to less-well-known sites, still relies on nineteenth-and early twentieth-century maps. In this article, we present the results of magnetic gradient surveys at three earthwork complexes in south central Ohio. Though much degraded by agricultural plowing and other historic impacts, our survey results show that despite near invisibility at the surface, Ohio's earthwork sites are (1) readily detected in geophysical surveys, (2) more complex than most early maps suggest, and (3) more numerous and varied than once thought. Given the major role these sites have taken on in studies that explore topics ranging from community structure and burial ceremonialism to population mobility and the development of socioeconomic complexity, a radical redrafting of the nineteenth-century maps could have far-reaching implications in the study of Woodland period (specifically, ca. 300 B.C.-A.D. 500) cultures in the Midwest U.S.

Resumen

Resumen

Las prehistóricas formaciones de tierra de Ohio han tenido un papel muy importante para el desarrollo de arqueología americana y siguen siendo un tema relevante en esta disciplina. Profusa investigación actual y referencia a los sitios pocos conocidos todavía dependen de los mapas de los siglos XIX y XX temprano, sin embargo un grupo selecto de grandes formaciones ha sido estudiado intensivamente y reanalizado con instrumentos de geofísica. En este artículo, presentamos los resultados de las prospecciones de gradiente magnetic en tres sitios con formaciones de tierra, ubicados en el centro surde Ohio. Sin embargo, dichas formaciones se encuentran bien degradadaspor la agricultura mecanizada y otros impactos históricos. Los resultados de nuestra prospección muestran que no obstante su casi invisibilidad en la superficie, las formaciones de tierra son (1) fácilmente detectadas con las prospecciones geofísicas; (2) más complejas que lo que la mayoría de los antiguos mapas indican; y (3) más numerosas y más variadas de lo que se pensaba. Por su peso, estos sitios han tenido en la historia de la investigación arqueológica una marca colosal sobre muchos temas tales como: estruetura comunitaria, ceremonialismo funerario, movilidad de poblaciones y desarrollo de la complejidad socioeconómica. Por lo tanto, un cambio radical de los mapas del siglo XIX pudiera impactar profundamente el estudio de las culturas del periodo Woodland (específicamente, circa 300 a.C. hasta 500 d.C.) del medio oeste de los Estados Unidos Americanos.

Type
Articles
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 76 , Issue 4 , October 2011 , pp. 667 - 689
Copyright
Copyright © Society for American Archaeology 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References Cited

Abrams, Elliot M. 2009 Hopewell Archaeology: A View from the Northern Woodlands. Journal of Archaeological Research 17:169–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, Jerrel C. 1980 A Recent Discovery-The Anderson Earthwork. Ohio Archaeologist 30(1): 31–35.Google Scholar
Aspinall, Arnold, Gaffney, Chris, and Schmidt, Armin 2008 Magnetometry for Archaeologists. AltaMira Press, Lanham, Maryland.Google Scholar
Atwater, Caleb 1820 Description of the Antiquities Discovered in the State of Ohio and Other Western States. Transactions and Collections of the American Antiquarian Society 1:105–267.Google Scholar
Bernardini, Wesley 2004 Hopewell Geometric Earthworks: A Case Study in the Referential and Experiential Meaning of Monuments. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 23:331–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burks, Jarrod 2005 Results of a Small Geophysical Survey in the Area of Structure 8, Seip Earthworks, Ross County, Ohio. In Field Report for the Arizona State University Archaeological Field School Summer 2005 Excavations at Seip Earthwork (33Ro40), by K. Spielmann, J. Burks, S. L. De Vore, S. In gram, S. Keily, M. Kruse, and M. S. Thompson, pp.46–66. Report submitted to the Ohio Historical Society, Columbus.Google Scholar
Burks, Jarrod 2006a Geophysical Survey Results from Five Areas at the Fort Ancient Hilltop Enclosure (33Wa4), Warren County, Ohio. Contract Report # 2005–10. Ohio Valley Archaeology, Inc. Report submitted to the Ohio Historical Society, Columbus.Google Scholar
Burks, Jarrod 2006b Geophysical Survey at the Junction Group (33Ro28) Earthworks in Ross County, Ohio, 2005: A Progress Report. Contract Report # 2005–12. Ohio Valley Archaeology, Inc., Columbus, Ohio.Google Scholar
Burks, Jarrod 2007 Geophysical Survey in the Middle Fort (Areas G & H) at Fort Ancient. Contract Report # 2006–45. Ohio Valley Archaeology, Inc. Columbus. Report submitted to the Ohio Historical Society, Columbus.Google Scholar
Burks, Jarrod 2008 Fort Ancient Earthworks: The 2007–2008 Kettering Geophysical Survey. Contract Report # 2008–1. Ohio Valley Archaeology, Inc. Report submitted to the Ohio Historical Society, Columbus.Google Scholar
Burks, Jarrod 2010a Discovering the Moorehead Circle: Continuing Geophysical Survey of a Provocative Hopewell Enclosure at the Fort Ancient Site. Paper presented at the 56th Annual Meeting of Midwest Archaeological Conference, Bloomington, Indiana.Google Scholar
Burks, Jarrod 2010b Recording Earthworks in Ohio-historic Aerial Photography, Old Maps and Magnetic Survey. In Landscapes through the Lens: Aerial Photographs and the Historic Environment, edited by D. C. Cowley, R. A. Standring, and M. J. Abicht, pp. 77–87. Oxbow Books, Oxford.Google Scholar
Burks, Jarrod, and Pederson, Jennifer 2006 The Place of Nonmound Debris at Hopewell Mound Group (33Ro27), Ross County, Ohio. In Recreating Hopewell, edited by D. K. Charles and J. E. Buikstra, pp. 376–401. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.Google Scholar
Byers, A. Martin 1987 The Earthwork Enclosures of the Central Ohio Valley: A Temporal and Structural Analysis of Woodland Society and Culture. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, State University of New York at Albany.Google Scholar
Byers, A. Martin 1996 Social Structural and the Pragmatic Meaning of Material Culture: Ohio Hopewell as Ecclesiastic-Communal Cult. In A View from the Core: A Synthesis of Ohio Hopewell Archaeology, edited by P. J. Pacheco, pp.174–192. The Ohio Archaeological Council, Columbus.Google Scholar
Carr, Christopher 2005 Salient Issues in the Social and Political Organizations of North Hopewellian Peoples: contextualizing, personalizing, and Generating Hopewell. In Gathering Hopewell: Society, Ritual, and Ritual Interaction, edited by C. Carr and D. T. Case, pp. 73–118. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York.Google Scholar
Carr, Christopher, and Hass, Herbert 1996 Beta-Count and AMS Radiocarbon Dates of Woodland and Fort Ancient Period Occupations in Ohio 1350 B.C.-A.D. 1650. West Virginia Archeologist 48 (1–2):19–53.Google Scholar
Clark, Anthony 2000 Seeing Beneath the Soil, Prospecting Methods in Archaeology, New Edition. Routledge, London.Google Scholar
Clay, R. Berle 1987 Circles and Ovals: Two Types of Adena Space. Southeastern Archaeology 6:46–56.Google Scholar
Clay, R. Berle 2001 Complementary Geophysical Survey Techniques: Why Two Ways are Always Better Than One. Southeastern Archaeology 20(1):31–43.Google Scholar
Clay, R. Berle 2002 Geophysical Survey at the Shriver Circle Earthwork, 33Ro347, Near Chillicothe, Ross County, Ohio. Cultural Resource Analysts Contract Publication Series 02–90. Report prepared for MS Consultants, Inc., Canton, Ohio.Google Scholar
Chase, Arlen F., Chase, Diane Z., Weishampel, John P., Drake, Jason B.. Shrestha, Ramesh L., Clint Slatton, K., Awe, Jaime J., and Carter, William E. 2011 Airborne LiDAR, Archaeology, and the Ancient Maya Landscape at Caracol, Belize. Journal of Archaeological Science 38:387–398.Google Scholar
Ciminale, M., and Lodo, M. 2001 Aspects of Magnetic Data Processing. Archaeological Prospection 8:239–246.Google Scholar
Cockrell, Ron 1999 Amidst Ancient Monuments, The Administrative History of Mound City Group National Monument/Hopewell Culture National Historical Park. Midwest Support Office, National Park Service, United States Department of the Interior, Omaha, Nebraska.Google Scholar
Connolly, Robert P. 2004 The Evolution of Port Ancient Embankment Wall Form. In The Fort Ancient Earthworks: Prehistoric Lifeways of the Hopewell Culture in Southwestern Ohio, edited by R. P. Connolly and B. T. Lepper, 35–50. Ohio Historical Society, Columbus.Google Scholar
Cowan, Frank L. 2004 An Ohio Hopewell “Woodhenge”: Stubbs Earthworks. In Ohio Archaeology: An Illustrated Chronicle of Ohio’s Ancient Indian Cultures, by Bradley T. Lepper, pp. 148–151. Orange Frazer Press, Wilmington, Ohio.Google Scholar
Cramer, Ann C. 2008 The Dominion Land Company Site: An Early Adena Mortuary Manifestation in Franklin County, Ohio. In Transitions: Archaic and Early Woodland Research in the Ohio Country, edited by M. P. Otto and B. G. Redmond, pp. 284–333. Ohio University Press, Athens.Google Scholar
Dancey, William S. 1984 The 1914 Archaeological Atlas of Ohio: Its History and Significance. Paper presented at the 49th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Portland, Oregon.Google Scholar
DeBoer, Warren R. 1997 Ceremonial Centres from the Cayapas (Esmeraldes, Ecuador) to Chillicothe (Ohio, USA). Cambridge Archaeological Journal 7:225–253.Google Scholar
DeBoer, Warren R. 2010 Strange Sightings on the Scioto. In Hopewell Settlement Patterns, Subsistence, and Symbolic Landscapes, edited by A. M. Byers and D. Wymer, pp. 165–198. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeVore, Steven L. 2004 Interim Report of the Magnetic Gradient Survey of the Proposed Trail Project Area at Seip Earthworks, Ross County, Ohio. Report on file, Hopewell Culture National Historical Park, Chillicothe, Ohio.Google Scholar
DeVore, Steven L. 2005 Geophysical Investigations of the House 4 Area of Structure 8, Seip Earthworks, Ross County, Ohio. In Field Report for the Arizona State University Archaeological Field School Summer 2005 Excavations at Seip Earthwork (33Ro40), by K. Spielmann, J. Burks, S. L. DeVore, S. Ingram, S. Kelly, M. Kruse, and M. S. Thompson, pp. 16–46. Report submitted to the Ohio Historical Society, Columbus.Google Scholar
Evans, Michael E., and Heller, Friedrich 2003 Environmental Magnetism: Principles and Applications of Enviromagnetics. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Fowke, Gerard 1902 Archaeological History of Ohio. Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Society, Columbus.Google Scholar
Gaffney, C. F., Gator, J. A., Linford, P., Gaffney, V., and White, R. 2000 Large-scale Systematic Fluxgate Gradiometry at the Roman City of Wroxeter. Archaeological Prospection 7(2):81–100.3.0.CO;2-6>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodman, Dean, Nishimura, Yasushi, Hongo, Hiromichi, and Higashi, Noriaki 2006 Correcting for Topography and the Tilt of Ground-penetrating Radar Antennae. Archaeological Prospection 13:157–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greber, N’omi 1984 Geophysical Remote Sensing at Archaeological Sites in Ohio: A Case History. Invited paper presented at special session Archaeology and Geophysics at the Annual Meeting of the Society of Exploration Geophysics, Atlanta, December 1984. Published in volume of the proceedings.Google Scholar
Greber, N’omi 1991 A Study of Continuity and Contrast between Central Scioto Adena and Hopewell Sites. West Virginia Archeologist 43(1–2):1–26.Google Scholar
Greber, N’omi 1999 Combining Geophysics and Ground Truthing at High Bank Earthworks, Ross County, Ohio. Ohio Archaeological Council Newsletter 11:8–11.Google Scholar
Greber, N’omi 2003 Chronological Relationships among Ohio Hopewell Sites: Few Dates and Much Complexity. In Theory, Method, and Practice in Modem Archaeology, edited by R. J. Jeske and D. K. Charles, pp. 88–113. Praeger, West-port, Connecticut.Google Scholar
Greber, N’omi 2005a The 2004 Field Season at the High Bank Works, Ross County, Ohio. Hopewell Archeology Newsletter 6(2). Electronic document, http://www.nps.gov/history/mwac/hopewell/v6n2/three.htm, accessed February 7, 2010.Google Scholar
Greber, N’omi 2005b Adena and Hopewell in the Middle Ohio Valley: To Be or Not to Be? In Woodland Period Systematics in the Middle Ohio Valley, edited by D. Applegate and R. C. Mainfort, Jr., pp. 19–39. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.Google Scholar
Greber, N’omi 2006 Enclosures and Communities in Ohio Hopewell. An Essay. In Recreating Hopewell, edited by D. K. Charles and J. E. Buikstra, pp. 74–105. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.Google Scholar
Greber, N’omi, and Seeman, Mark F. 1993 The 1992 Field Season at the Hopewell Site: Ross County, Ohio. Report on file, Hopewell Culture National Historical Park, Chillicothe, Ohio.Google Scholar
Greber, N’omi B., and Shane, Orrin C. III 2009 Field Studies of the Octagon and Great Circle, High Bank Earthworks Ross County, Ohio. In Footprints, In the Footprints of Squier and Davis: Archaeological Fieldwork in Ross County, Ohio, edited by M. J. Lynott, pp. 23–48. Midwest Archeological Center Special Report No. 5. National Park Service, Lincoln, Nebraska.Google Scholar
Hively, Ray, and Horn, Robert 1982 Geometry and Astronomy in Prehistoric Ohio. Archaeoastronomy 4:S1–S20.Google Scholar
Hively, Ray, and Horn, Robert 1984 Hopewellian Geometry and Astronomy at High Bank. Archaeoastronomy 7:S85–S100.Google Scholar
Hively, Ray, and Horn, Robert 2006 A Statistical Study of Lunar Alignments at the Newark Earthworks. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 31:281–321.Google Scholar
Hively, Ray, and Horn, Robert 2010 Hopewell Cosmography at Newark and Chillicothe, Ohio. In Hopewell Settlement Patterns, Subsistence, and Symbolic Landscapes, edited by A. M. Byers and D. Wymer, pp. 128–164. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.Google Scholar
Jones, Geoffrey, and Maki, David L. 2005 Lightning-induced Magnetic Anomalies on Archaeological Sites. Archaeological Prospection 12(3): 191—197.Google Scholar
Kvamme, Kenneth L. 2006a Magnetometry: Nature’s Gift to Archaeology. In Remote Sensing in Archaeology: An Explicitly North American Perspective, edited by J. K. Johnson, pp. 205–233. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.Google Scholar
Kvamme, Kenneth L. 2006b Data Processing and Presentation. In Remote Sensing in Archaeology: An Explicitly North American Perspective, edited by J. K. Johnson, pp. 235–250. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.Google Scholar
LeBorgne, E. 1955 Susceptibilite magnetiques anomale du sol superficial. Annates de Geophysique 11:399–419.Google Scholar
Lepper, Bradley T. 2004 The Newark Earthworks: Monumental Geometry and Astronomy at a Hopewellian Pilgrimage Center. In Hero, Hawk, and Open Hand: American Indian Art of the Ancient Midwest and South, edited by R. F. Townsend, pp. 73–82. Yale University Press, New Haven.Google Scholar
Lynott, Mark J. 2004 Earthwork Construction and the Organization of Hopewell Society. Hopewell Archaeology Newsletter 6(1). Electronic document, http://www.nps.gov/history/mwac/hopewell/v6nl/six.htm, accessed February 28, 2010.Google Scholar
Lynott, Mark J. 2007 The Hopeton Earthworks Project: Using New Technologies to Answer Old Questions. In Seeking our Past: An Introduction to North American Archaeology, edited by S. W. Neusius and G. T. Gross, pp. 550–559. Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Lynott, Mark J., and Mandel, Rolfe D. 2009 Archaeological and Geoarchaeological Study of the Rectangular Enclosure at the Hopeton Works. In Footprints, In the Footprints of Squier and Davis: Archaeological Fieldwork in Ross County, Ohio, edited by M. J. Lynott, pp. 159–177. Midwest Archeological Center Special Report No. 5. National Park Service, Lincoln, Nebraska.Google Scholar
Lynott, Mark J., and Weymouth, John 2002 Preliminary Report, 2001 Investigations, Hopeton Earthworks. Hopewell Archeology Newsletter 5(1). Electronic document, http://www.nps.gov/history/mwac/hopewell/v5nl/one.htm, accessed February 28, 2010.Google Scholar
MacLean, John P. 1879 The Mound Builders. Robert Clarke & Company, Cincinnati.Google Scholar
MacLean, John P. 1886 Ancient Remains in Ohio. Smithsonian Institution Annual Report, 1885:893–900. Washington, D.C. Google Scholar
Marshall, James A. 1996 Towards a Definition of the Ohio Hopewell Core and Periphery Utilizing the Geometric Earthworks. In A View from the Core: A Synthesis of Ohio Hopewell Archaeology, edited by P. J. Pacheco, pp. 210–220. The Ohio Archaeological Council, Columbus.Google Scholar
McCord, Beth K., and Cochran, Donald R. 2008 The Adena Complex: Identity and Context in East-Central Indiana. In Transitions: Archaic and Early Woodland Research in the Ohio Country, edited by M. P. Otto and B. G. Redmond, pp. 334–359. Ohio University Press, Athens.Google Scholar
McKee, Arlo 2005 Geophysical Investigations of the Hopewell Earthworks (33Ro27), Ross County, Ohio. Hopewell Archeology Newsletter 6(2). Electronic document, http://www.nps.gov/history/mwac/hopewell/v6n2/four.htm, accessed February 7, 2010.Google Scholar
Mills, William C. 1914 Archaeological Atlas of Ohio. The Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Society, Columbus.Google Scholar
Mullins, C. E. 1977 Magnetic Susceptibility of the Soil and Its Significance in Soil Science—A Review. Journal of Soil Science 28:223–246.Google Scholar
Murphy, James L. 1987 An Archaeological History of the Hocking Valley, revised edition. Ohio University Press, Athens.Google Scholar
Nolan, Kevin C. 2011 Distributional Survey of the Reinhardt Site (33Pi880), Pickaway County, Ohio: A Strategy for Deciphering the Community Structure of a Fort Ancient Village. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 36:105–130.Google Scholar
Nolan, Kevin C., Burks, Jarrod, and Dancey, William S. 2008 Recent Research at the Reinhardt Site. Current Research in Ohio Archaeology 2008. Electronic document, http://www.ohioarchaeology.org/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=236&Itemid=32, accessed February 7, 2010.Google Scholar
O’Neal, Michael A., O’Mansky, Matt E., and Mac-Gregor, Joseph A. 2005 Modeling the Natural Degradation of Earthworks. Geoarchaeology 20:739–748.Google Scholar
Overman, Henry W. 1888 Fort Hill, Ohio. Ohio Archaeological and Historical Quarterly 1:260–264.Google Scholar
Pärssinen, Martti, Schaan, Denise, and Ranzi, Alceu 2009 Pre-Columbian Geometric Earthworks in the Upper Purús: A complex Society in Western Amazonia. Antiquity 83:1084–1095.Google Scholar
Peck, G. Richard 1972 The Rise and Fall of Camp Sherman: “Ohio’s World War I Soldier Factory”. Pamphlet, second edition. Privately published, Chillicothe, Ohio.Google Scholar
Pederson Weinberger, Jennifer 2006 Ohio Hopewell Earthworks: An Examination of Site Use from Non-Mound Space at the Hopewell Site. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.Google Scholar
Pederson Weinberger, Jennifer 2009 Non-Mound Space at the Hopewell Mound Group. In Footprints, In the Footprints of Squier and Davis: Archaeological Fieldwork in Ross County, Ohio, edited by M. J. Lynott, pp. 13–21. Midwest Archeological Center Special Report No. 5. National Park Service, Lincoln, Nebraska.Google Scholar
Pederson, Jennifer, and Burks, Jarrod 2001 Recent Remote Sensing at the Hopewell Mound Group (33Ro27), Ross County, Ohio. Paper presented at the 66th annual meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, New Orleans, Louisiana.Google Scholar
Pederson, Jennifer, and Burks, Jarrod 2002 Detecting the Shriver Circle Earthwork, Ross County, Ohio. Hopewell Archeology [newsletter] 5(1):10–11.Google Scholar
Pederson, Jennifer, Burks, Jarrod, and Dancey, William S. 2001 Hopewell Mound Group: data Collection in 2001. Current Research in Ohio Archaeology 2001. Electronic document, http://www.ohioarchaeology.org/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=46&Itemid=32, accessed February 7, 2010.Google Scholar
Pickard, William H., and Weinberger, Jeffrey W. 2009 Falling Through a Crack in the Core: The Surprise and Demise of Anderson Earthwork. In Footprints, In the Footprints of Squier and Davis: Archaeological Fieldwork in Ross County, Ohio, edited by M. J. Lynott, pp. 67–75. Midwest Archeological Center Special Report No. 5. National Park Service, Lincoln, Nebraska.Google Scholar
Picklesimer, John W. II, Cowan, Frank L., and Burks, Jarrod 2006 Addendum to: Phase I Cultural Resource Survey for the Ros–104–14.26 (PID 21250) Road Widening in Scioto and Union Townships, Ross County, Ohio. Project No. 05—45001. Gray & Pape, Inc., Cincinnati, Ohio. Report submitted to Ross County Engineer’s Office, Chillicothe, Ohio.Google Scholar
Reeves, Dache M. 1936a Aerial Photography and Archaeology. American Antiquity 2:102–107.Google Scholar
Reeves, Dache M. 1936b A Newly Discovered Extension of the Newark Works. Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Quarterly 45:187–193.Google Scholar
Riordan, Robert V. 2006 Altering Middle Woodland Enclosures, Questions of Design and Environment. In Recreating Hopewell, edited by D. K. Charles and J. E. Buikstra, pp. 146–157. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.Google Scholar
Riordan, Robert V. 2007 2007 Report on the Excavations of the Moorehead Circle at Fort Ancient, 2006. Reports in Anthropology No. 9. Laboratory of Anthropology, Wright State University, Dayton, Ohio. Submitted to the Ohio Historical Society, Columbus, Ohio.Google Scholar
Riordan, Robert V. 2010 Where We Stand: The Moorehead Circle in 2010. Paper presented at the 56th Annual Meeting of Midwest Archaeological Conference, Bloomington, Indiana.Google Scholar
Romain, William F. 1996 Hopewellian Geometry: Forms at the Interface of Time and Eternity. In A View from the Core: A Synthesis of Ohio Hopewell Archaeology, edited by P. J. Pacheco, pp. 194–209. The Ohio Archaeological Council, Columbus.Google Scholar
Romain, William F. 2000 Mysteries of the Hopewell Astronomers, Geometers, and Magicians of the Eastern Woodlands. University of Akron Press, Akron, Ohio.Google Scholar
Romain, William F., and Burks, Jarrod 2005 Mapping of the Fort Hill Perimeter Walls: Final Report. Report submitted to the Ohio Historical Society, Columbus.Google Scholar
Romain, William F., and Burks, Jarrod 2008a LiDAR Analyses of Prehistoric Earthworks in Ross County, Ohio. Current Research in Ohio Archaeology 2008. Electronic document, http://www.ohioarchaeology.org/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=233&Itemid=32, accessed February 7, 2010.Google Scholar
Romain, William F., and Burks, Jarrod 2008b LiDAR Assessment of the Newark Earthworks. Current Research in Ohio Archaeology 2008. Electronic document, http://www.ohioarchaeology.org/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=232&Itemid=32, accessed February 7, 2010.Google Scholar
Ruby, Bret J., Carr, Christopher, and Charles, Douglas K. 2005 Community Organizations in the Scioto, Mann, and Havana Hopewellian Regions: A Comparative Perspective. In Gathering Hopewell: Society, Ritual, and Ritual Interaction, edited by C. Carr and D. T. Case, pp. 119—176. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seeman, Mark F. 1986 Adena “Houses” and Their Implications for Early Woodland Settlement Models in the Ohio Valley. In Early Woodland Archeology, edited by K. B. Farnsworth and T. E. Emerson, pp. 564–580. Kampsville Seminars in Archeology No. 2. Center for American Archeology Press, Kampsville, Illinois.Google Scholar
Shetrone, Henry C. 1925 Explorations of the Wright Group of Pre-Historic Earthworks. In Certain Mounds and Village Sites in Ohio 4(2):41–58. Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Society, Columbus.Google Scholar
Somers, Lewis 2006 Resistivity Survey. In Remote Sensing in Archaeology: An Explicitly North American Perspective, edited by J. K. Johnson, pp. 109–129. The University of Alabama Press. Tuscaloosa.Google Scholar
Squier, Ephraim G., and Davis, Edwin H. 1848 Ancient Monuments of the Mississippi Valley. Contributions to Knowledge, vol. 1. Smithsonian Institution. Washington, D.C. Google Scholar
Thomas, Cyrus 1889 The Circular, Square, and Octagonal Earthworks of Ohio. Bulletin 10:7–33. Bureau of Ethnology, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Google Scholar
Thomas, Cyrus 1894 Report on the Mound Explorations of the Bureau of Ethnology. Twelfth Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, 1890–1891. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Google Scholar
Thomas, David C., Kidd, Fiona J., Nikolovski, Suzanna, and Zipfel, Claudia 2008 The Archaeological Sites of Afghanistan in Google Earth. AARGnews 37:22–30.Google Scholar
United States Department of Agriculture 2007 Glynwood Series. Soil Survey Staff, National Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture, Official Soil Series Descriptions. Electronic document, http://soils.usda.gov/soils/technical/classification/osd/index.html, accessed March 6, 2010.Google Scholar
United States Department of Agriculture 2008 Blount Series. Soil Survey Staff, National Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture, Official Soil Series Descriptions. Electronic document, http://soils.usda.gov/soils/technical/classification/osd/index.html, accessed March 6, 2010.Google Scholar
United States Department of Agriculture 2009a Fox Series. Soil Survey Staff, National Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture, Official Soil Series Descriptions. Electronic document, http://soils.usda.gov/soils/technical/classification/osd/index.html, accessed March 6, 2010.Google Scholar
United States Department of Agriculture 2009b Warsaw Series. Soil Survey Staff, National Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture, Official Soil Series Descriptions. Electronic document, http://soils.usda.gov/soils/technical/classification/osd/index.html, accessed March 6, 2010.Google Scholar
Webb, William S. 1941 Mt. Horeb Earthworks, Site 1, and the Drake Mound, Site 11, Fayette County, Kentucky. University of Kentucky Reports in Anthropology and Archaeology 5(2). Lexington, Kentucky.Google Scholar
Webb, William S. 1942 The C. and O. Mounds at Paintsville, Sites Jo2 and Jo9, Johnson County, Kentucky. University of Kentucky Reports in Anthropology and Archaeology 5(4). Lexington, Kentucky.Google Scholar
Webb, William S., and Snow, Charles E. 1945 The Adena People. University of Kentucky Reports in Anthropology and Archaeology 6. Lexington.Google Scholar
Weymouth, John, Bevan, Bruce, and Dalan, Rinita 2009 Geophysical Investigations at the Hopeton Earthworks. In Footprints, In the Footprints ofSquier and Davis: Archaeological Fieldwork in Ross County, Ohio, edited by M. J. Lynott, pp. 145–158. Midwest Archeological Center Special Report No. 5. National Park Service, Lincoln, Nebraska.Google Scholar
Whittlesey, Charles 1850 Descriptions of Ancient Works in Ohio. Contributions to Knowledge 3, Article 7. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Google Scholar
Williams Brothers 1880 History of Franklin and Pickaway Counties, Ohio, with illustrations and biographical sketches. Williams Bros., Cleveland, Ohio.Google Scholar
Wright, Gary A. 1990 On the Interior Attached Ditch Enclosures of the Middle and Upper Ohio Valley. Ethnos 55(1&2):92–107.Google Scholar