1. Correlating Maps of the Hopewell Site,
1820-1993 By N'omi B. Greber, Ph.D. Curator of Archaeology
Cleveland Museum of Natural History
Eight maps, covering nearly two hundred years of research at the Hopewell
site, were used to make a "best guess" reconstruction of the site as
it was seen in 1800, just before human activities considerably accelerated
erosion and other natural processes that altered the original Hopewellian
landscape. Information from extant associated field notes, publications,
museum curation records, modern aerial photographs, and limited ground
survey provided additional data. Using both Geographic Information Systems
(GIS) software and oldfashioned paper maps, correlations have been estimated
among the maps.
The Hopewell site (33R027), the type site for the Hopewell culture, covers
extensive areas of the second and third terraces above the active flood
plain of the North Fork of Paint Creek. In 1800, more than three kilometers
of earthen and stone walls formed a two-part enclosure: the Great Enclosure,
encompassing more than 40 hectares, and the adjoining Square Enclosure,
which could hold the entire Mound City monument with room to spare. Inside
the Great Enclosure were two smaller enclosures: the D-Shaped Enclosure
and the Circular Enclosure. At least 40 mounds were scattered within and
outside the enclosures. They ranged in size from the largest constructed
by any Hopewellian people to some of the smallest. Overall, the quality
and quantity of cultural remains recovered from, and extant at, the site
form the most striking representation of the Hopewell culture in eastern
Three major excavations at the site were separated by many decades:
Ephraim G. Squier and Edwin H. Davis in 1845, Warren K. Moorehead in
1891 and 1892, and Henry C. Shetrone from 1922 to 1925. Six maps based
on their findings have been used in this project.
There are at least seven obstacles associated with attempts to correlate
specific mounds and other excavated areas as described and mapped by
the three expeditions: (1) the lack of exact location data in extant
field notes; (2) the use of the same number by a given excavator to refer
to different mounds; (3) the lack of consistent changes in references
if numbers are reused or reassigned; (4) possible misidentification by
subsequent excavators of the location of previously excavated mounds;
(5) ambiguities in field notes; (6) ambiguities in catalogs; and (7)
loss of records. Despite these problems, it is possible to correlate
published references, field notes, catalog entries, and often the specimens
themselves for some recorded mounds. Research projects using such correlations
have b een published (e.g., Greber, Essenpreis, and Ruhl 1995; Greber
and Ruhl 1989; Ruhl and Seeman 1998; Seeman and Greber 1991). Two additional
maps were added to those from the major excavations, the oldest by Caleb
Atwater (1820) and the latest by James Marshall done in 1979.
Each map contributed information to the project's data base, albeit
in varying degrees. A summary of the history and tenor of each map follows
in chronological order of publication.
The drawing in Atwater's map is crude, but two points have proven useful.
First, the overall shape of the Great Enclosure is more realistic than
it is in the later Squier and Davis volume. Second, six mounds are shown
as a group south and east of the D-Shaped Enclosure, where the Squier and
Davis published map shows only four. The accuracy of the map was not suitable
for geographic registration, thus it could not be entered into a Geographic
Information Systems file.
|Two Squier and Davis maps have been used: the well-known plate
from the Ancient Monuments of the Mississippi Valley (Figure
1 ) and a draft of this map recorded on a microfilm copy
of the Squier papers in the Library of Congress. The general shape
of the embankment walls is the same in both maps. The mound numbering
varies between the two maps, and a very important mound (Warren Moorehead
Field Notes Mound 17) is on the manuscript map but was apparently
missed on the final lithograph. The walls of the Great Enclosure
on both maps do not match the shape seen on aerial photographs or
on other earlier and later maps. The north-south distance is too
short. I have not yet been able to find a coordinate transformation
that would stretch
the north-south distance and still maintain a reasonable east-west
click on image to enlarge
1. Map of the Hopewell site by Ephraim Squier and Edwin Davis
(1848). The map is entitled "North Fork Works" and shows the
D-Shaped and Circular Enclosures within the Great Enclosure,
while the Square
Enclosure adjoins the Great on the east. (Click on the image
for a larger (40 KB) version.)
Thus, neither of the Squier and Davis maps could
be geographically registered. They were used in three cut sections
make an estimated location "point map" for comparative purposes.
|The map in Moorehead's
1922 report on his work in 1891 and 1892 also could not be
geographically registered. In his report,
Moorehead attributes the map to Clinton Cowen, but it has no
apparentrelationship to the Cowen map used for the present
study (Figure 2). The Moorehead 1922 map appears to be based
on the Squire and Davis 1848 map with some additional mound
numbers and a few mounds added. The road through the southern
portion of the site is shown as it was in 1848, not as it was
in 1891 when both a straightened road and a parallel railroad
track crossed the site. The shape of the Great Enclosure follows
that shown on the Squire and Davis map. Additional problems
in correlating field records, published records, and on-the-ground
locations for this survey
come from inconsistencies in mound numbering in the field notes
and missing or poor descriptions of mound locations in the
on image to enlarge
2. Drawing based on Clinton Cowen's 1892 map of the Hopewell
site. This map provides a better approximation
of the shape of the Great Enclosure and the locations of
the six mounds immediately southeast of the D-Shaped Enclosure.
NORTH FORK WORKS, Surveyed by C. Cowen in 1892. (Click on
image for a larger (28 KB) version.)
Although the map could not be geographically
registered, information from the 1891-1892 work was included
in the study.
Such information is essential for correlating records and artifacts
across the Moorehead and Shetrone excavations.
Two Shetrone maps have been used: a map found in the archived
field notes file and the map published in 1926. Some sections
of the archived field map have been traced over in ink. It
is likely that this map was made by the professional surveyor,
F.R. Jones, listed on the published map. There are some differences
between the maps. For example, two small mounds noted as
being on the upper terrace are not on the field map but are
on the published map as Mounds 36 and 37. Locations given
in the field notes are not explicit enough to map them accurately.
A major problem in compiling information was the confusion
in mound numbering within the field notes. Shetrone changed
mound numbers, but he did not always make consistent changes.
This is similar to the problem one has in dealing with records
from Shetrone's work at the Seip Group.
The map made in 1892 by surveyor Clinton Cowen, apparently
as part of the documentation of the 1891-1892 Moorehead excavations,
is curated at the Harvard Peabody Museum of Archaeology and
Ethnology. It is large, torn, and fragile and cannot be directly
scanned. A full-size copy was made for my files and was used
for this project. The first publication of a simplified reproduction
of the map is in Greber and Ruhl (1989:Fig. 2.1), a version
of which appears above as Figure 2. The map's format is the
same as that used for other projects directed by Frederick
Putnam; that is, walls and mounds are stylized and features
such as fences and roads are not entered onto the map. The
differences in diameters of the mounds appear to be deliberate.
We found that, overall, the sizes by general class match
those recorded by other workers at the site.
The work of James Marshall has been an essential part of
this project. Marshall, a civil engineer, has used his professional
skills for many years to map prehistoric enclosures found
in eastern North America (e.g., Marshall 1979). Over these
years he has graciously shared information with archeologists
and others. The Hopewell site map he made available for this
project combines his on-the-ground survey points with his
study of archived aerial photographs. Marshall also supplied
additional on-the-ground reference points that aided in making
reasonable geographic registration of other maps.
READING THE MAPS
Two techniques were used to obtain data from the maps. One
centered on computer images and software manipulations using
Environmental Systems Research Institute GIS programs; the
other centered on hand measurements made on paper maps. This
dual approach allowed some integration of data of varying
accuracy and also some cross checking of results. Both methods
checked against aerial photographs and limited available
modern ground survey. Aerial photographs can, when photographic
are appropriate, show landscape features visible in 1800
that are no longer visible at ground level.
The computer work began as usual by transferring scanned
copies of maps into GIS files. "Layering" then placed in
separate files mounds, wall segments, and other natural and
built features appropriate for each map. The hand measurements
were made on copies of maps that had been photographically
adjusted to the same scale using the various original map
scales. Using a light table, each map was matched to the
Marshall map, and the grid was then transferred.
on image to enlarge
|| The matching was a "best visual estimate," heavily
weighting extensive features that have been visible to
all field workers, the northern and eastern walls of
the Great Enclosure. Information from both approaches
is available on-screen for interactive use on a need-to-know
basis. Because of the technical difficulties encountered
using computer software to register antique maps, I was
pleased that, in general, the locations measured by hand
and those read by software from a computer image matched
fairly well. For mounds actually seen in the field by
a given researcher and apparently mapped with reasonable
accuracy, the majority of the locations overlap within
the recorded mound size. The differences tend to be less
for readings from the Cowen and Marshall maps.
3. The Shetrone field map of the early 1920s. It
proved suitable for geographic registration and served
as a base map for part of this study. The Shetrone
map shows mounds on the upper terrace and conveys a
sense of the topography. (Click on the image for a
larger (44 KB) version.)
on image to enlarge
4. Geo-referenced Shetrone map showing points
attached to the Location Data Base File developed
during this map correlation project. (Click on
the image for a larger (44 KB) version.)
||This is at least partly due to the
differences in drawing style. It is easier, particularly
computer screen, to determine "mound centers" for
line drawings than for the more realistic style of
the Shetrone map (Figures 3 and 4).
However, even this overlap cannot always determine
a match among field, research, and museum records
of a particular ground location (usually labeled
as a mound). Thus, I still prefer to attach a prefix
to identify the excavator when noting, for example,
that Moorehead Mound 17 is clearly not the same mound
as Shetrone. Mound 17. I also have concluded that
the mound labeled "../index.html" on Moorehead's
published map does not indicate the location of this
mound, nor does the location that Shetrone provides
on his published map. Rather, the best approximation
to the original location is apparently found on the
Squier and Davis manuscript map and on the Cowen
The present project has formally organized data that
may aid in finding a path through the maze of number
jumble that has accumulated over many decades in
descriptions of the Hopewell site. "New" data that
might clarify matters can appear from private or
museum archive sources, as did the Cowen map, but
the best additional data will come from modern ground
surveys. It is hoped that the recently organized
data will aid in planning cultural resource protection
and future research projects that will enhance the
public appreciation of the remarkable legacy left
by the ancient builders of the Hopewell site.
Acknowledgments I thank the Eastern National Park and
Monuments Association; the Kirtlandia Society of the Cleveland Museum
of Natural History; Hopewell Culture National
Historical Park; the GIS Office, Cuyahoga Valley National Recreation Area;
the Department of Anthropology, Kent State University; and the Department
of Geography, University of Akron, for support. I extend special thanks
to those who worked on the project: Michael DiPaolo, Anthony Gireau, Bret
Ruby, John Yaist, and as we came to the end, Jennifer Pederson. As always,
I acknowledge personal thanks to those who care for and graciously give
access to the collections that form the basis for all Hopewell research.
1820 Description of the Antiquities Discovered in Ohio
and Other Western States. Archaeologia Americana I:105-267.
Greber, N'omi B.
1995 The 1993 Field Season at the Hopewell Site, Ross
County, Ohio. Report to the Archaeological Conservancy, Inc., Santa
Fe, New Mexico. Submitted by N'omi Greber and Mark Seeman.
Greber, N'omi B., Patricia Essenpreis, and Katharine C. Ruhl
1995 The Hopewell Site: Realm of Hopewellian Artisans
and Architects. On CD, The Hopewell Mound Group: Its People
and Their Legacy. Presented by the Ohio Historical Society.
Greber, N'omi B., and Katharine C. Ruhl
1989 The Hopewell Site: A Contemporary Analysis Based
on the Work of Charles C. Willoughby. West View Press, Boulder.
Marshall, James A.
1978American Indian Geometry. Ohio Archeologist 28(1):29-33.
Moorehead, Warren K.
1896The Hopewell Find. American Antiquarian 18:58-62.
1922 The Hopewell Mound Group of Ohio. Field
Museum of Natural History Anthropological Series 6:73-184.
Moorehead, Warren K., Hilborne T. Cresson, and Clinton Cowen
1891-1892 Field notes from excavations at the Hopewell
Mounds, Anderson, Ross County, Ohio. On file, Department of Anthropology,
Field Museum of Natural History.
Ruhl, Katharine C., and Mark F. Seeman
1998 The Temporal and Social Implications of Ohio Hopewell
Copper Ear Spool Design. American Antiquity 63(4): 651-678.
Seeman, Mark F.
1981 An Archaeological Survey of the Hopewell Site (33Ro27)
and Vicinity. Submitted to the Ohio Historic Preservation Office,
Seeman, Mark, and N'omi Greber
1991 Flames of Reverence: Variations in the Use of Prepared
Clay Basins Within Ohio Hopewell. Midwest Archaeological Conference,
Shetrone, Henry C.
1922-1925. Field notes from excavations in the Hopewell
Group. On file, Ohio Historical Society, Columbus.
1926 Exploration of the Hopewell Group of Prehistoric
Earthworks. Ohio Archaeological and Historical Quarterly 35:5-227.
Squier, George E.
The Papers of Ephraim Squier. Microfilm (Series IV Vol. 9, Shelf
No: DM15, 116, Reel No: 12 of 14). On file, The Library of Congress,
Squier, E. G., and E. H. Davis
1848 Ancient Monuments of the Mississippi Valley. Smithsonian
Contributions to Knowledge No. 1. Washington, D.C.