Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-59b7f5684b-j4fss Total loading time: 0.267 Render date: 2022-09-27T04:39:53.866Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "displayNetworkTab": true, "displayNetworkMapGraph": false, "useSa": true } hasContentIssue true

Article contents

Ritualised craft production at the Hopewell periphery: new evidence from the Appalachian Summit

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 January 2015

Alice P. Wright
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, Appalachian State University, ASU Box 32016, Boone, NC 28608-2016, USA (Author for correspondence; Email: wrightap2@appstate.edu)
Erika Loveland
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, Western Michigan University, 1903 W Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, MI 49008-5433, USA

Abstract

Ritual items made of thin mica sheet are among the most spectacular of the special objects from the Hopewell sites of the Ohio Valley. Hitherto it has generally been believed that the mica was imported in raw material form from sources in the Appalachian Summit and cut into shape in the Hopewell core. Recent excavations at Garden Creek, a ritual enclosure on the margin of the source area, throws doubt on this model through extensive evidence for mica-working at this site. The Garden Creek community may have been drawn into the Hopewell sphere through its proximity to the mica sources, and the people of Garden Creek may have carried cut mica and crystal quartz as offerings to the major Hopewell centres in the course of pilgrimage.

Type
Research
Information
Antiquity , Volume 89 , Issue 343 , February 2015 , pp. 137 - 153
Copyright
Copyright © Antiquity Publications Ltd., 2015 

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

Andrefsky, W. Jr., 2005. Lithics: macroscopic approaches to analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511810244 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baby, R.S. & Langlois, S.M.. 1979. Seip Mound State Memorial: nonmortuary aspects of Hopewell, in Brose, B. & Greber, N. (ed.) Hopewell archaeology: the Chillicothe Conference: 1618. Kent (OH): Kent State University Press.Google Scholar
Bradley, R. 2000. An archaeology of natural places. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Brown, J.A. 2012. Mound City: the archaeology of a renown Hopewell mound center. Lincoln (NE): Midwest Archeological Center, National Park Service, US Department of the Interior.Google Scholar
Burks, J. & Cook, R.A.. 2011. Beyond Squier and Davis: rediscovering Ohio’s earthworks using geophysical remote sensing. American Antiquity 76: 667–89. http://dx.doi.org/10.7183/0002-7316.76.4.667 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carr, C. 2006. Rethinking interregional Hopewellian ‘interaction’, in Carr, C. & Case, D.T. (ed.) Gathering Hopewell: society, ritual, and ritual interaction: 575623. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Carr, C. & Case, D.T.. 2006. The nature of leadership in Ohio Hopewellian societies: role segregation and the transformation from shamanism, in Carr, C. & Case, D.T. (ed.) Gathering Hopewell: society, ritual, and ritual interaction: 177237. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Carr, C., Weeks, R. & Bahti, M.. 2008. The functions and meanings of Ohio Hopewell ceremonial artifacts in ethnohistorical perspective, in Case, D.T. & Carr, C. (ed.) The Scioto Hopewell and their neighbors: bioarchaeological documentation and cultural understanding: 501–21. New York: Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-77387-2_11 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapman, J. & Keel, B.C.. 1979. Candy Creek- Connestee components in eastern Tennessee and western North Carolina and their relationship with Adena-Hopewell, in Brose, D. & Greber, N. (ed.) Hopewell archaeology: the Chillicothe Conference: 157–61. Kent (OH): Kent State University Press.Google Scholar
Coon, M.S. 2009. Variation in Ohio Hopewell political economies. American Antiquity 74: 4976. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/25470538 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Costin, C.L. 1991. Craft specialization: issues in defining, documenting, and explaining the organization of production. Archaeological Method and Theory 3: 156.Google Scholar
Cowan, F.L. 2005. Black and white and buried all over. Paper presented at the Midwest Archaeological Conference, Dayton, Ohio, 22 October 2005.Google Scholar
Dickens, R.S. Jr. 1976. Cherokee prehistory: the Pisgah phase in the Appalachian Summit region. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press.Google Scholar
Ferguson, L.G. 1974. Prehistoric mica mines in the Southern Appalachians. South Carolina Antiquities 2: 211–17.Google Scholar
Gell, A. 1992. The technology of enchantment and the enchantment of technology, in Coote, J. & Shelton, A. (ed.) Anthropology, art, and aesthetics: 4063. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Greber, N.B. 2009. Final data and summary comments. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 34: 171–86. http://dx.doi.org/10.1179/mca.2009.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greber, N.B. & Ruhl, K.C.. 1989. The Hopewell site: a contemporary analysis based on the work of Charles C. Willoughby. Boulder (CO): Westview.Google Scholar
Griffin, J.B. 1967. Eastern North American archaeology: a summary. Science 156: 175–91. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.156.3772.175 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Helms, M.W. 1988. Ulysses’ sail: an ethnographic odyssey of power, knowledge, and geographical distance. Princeton (NJ): Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Helms, M.W. 1992. Political lords and political ideology in southeastern chiefdoms: comments and observations, in Pauketat, T. & Barker, A. (ed.) Lords of the southeast: social inequality and the native elites of southeastern North America (Archeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association 3): 185–94. Washington (DC): American Anthropological Association.Google Scholar
Helms, M.W. 1993. Craft and the kingly ideal: art, trade, and power. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Heye, G.G. 1919. Certain mounds in Haywood County, North Carolina. New York: Museum of the American Indian Heye Foundation.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmes, W.H. 1919. Handbook of aboriginal American antiquities, part I: introductory, the lithic industries. Washington (DC): Bureau of American Ethnology, Smithsonian Institution.Google Scholar
Horsley, T.J., Wright, A.P. & Barrier, C.R.. 2014. Prospecting for new questions: integrating geophysics to define anthropological research objectives and inform excavation strategies at monumental sites. Archaeological Prospection 21: 7586. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/arp.1476 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jefferies, R.W., Milner, G.R. & Henry, E.R.. 2013. Winchester Farm: a small Adena enclosure in central Kentucky, in Wright, A.P. & Henry, E.R. (ed.) Early and Middle Woodland landscapes of the Southeast: 91107. Gainesville: University Press of Florida.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, B.C., Penton, D.T. & Tesar, L.D.. 1998. 1973 and 1994 excavations at the Block-Sterns site, Leon County, Florida, in Williams, M. & Elliott, D.T. (ed.) A world engraved: archaeology of the Swift Creek culture: 222–46. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
Keel, B.C. 1976. Cherokee archaeology: a study of the Appalachian Summit. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press.Google Scholar
Keith, S.J. 2010. Archaeological data recovery at the Leake site, Bartow County, Georgia. Vol. 1. Atlanta: Georgia Department of Transportation.Google Scholar
Kimball, L.R., Whyte, T.R. & Crites, G.D.. 2013. Biltmore Mound and Appalachian Summit Hopewell, in Wright, A.P. & Henry, E.R. (ed.) Early and Middle Woodland landscapes of the Southeast: 122–37. Gainesville: University Press of Florida. http://dx.doi.org/10.5744/florida/9780813044606.003.0008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lepper, B.T. 2004. The Newark earthworks: monumental geometry and astronomy at a Hopewellian pilgrimage center, in Townsend, R.F. & Sharp, R.V. (ed.) Hero, hawk, and open hand: American Indian art of the ancient Midwest and South: 7381. Chicago (IL): Art Institute of Chicago.Google Scholar
Lepper, B.T. 2006. The Great Hopewell Road and the role of the pilgrimage in the Hopewell Interaction Sphere, in Charles, D.K. & Buikstra, J.E. (ed.) Recreating Hopewell: 122–33. Gainesville: University Press of Florida.Google Scholar
Mainfort, R.C. Jr. 1996. Pinson Mounds and the Middle Woodland period in the Midsouth and Lower Mississippi Valley, in Pacheco, P.J. (ed.) A view from the core: a synthesis of Ohio Hopewell archaeology: 370–91. Columbus: Ohio Archaeological Council.Google Scholar
Margolin, P.R. 2000. The sink hole at Bandana: an historic Blue Ridge mica mine reveals its past. North Carolina Archaeology 49: 4358.Google Scholar
Mertie, J.B. Jr. 1959. Quartz crystal deposits of southwestern Virginia and western North Carolina. Washington (DC): Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Olson, J.C. 1944. Economic geology of the Spruce Pine pegmatite district, North Carolina. North Carolina Department of Conservation and Development Bulletin 43.Google Scholar
Ruby, B.J. & Shriner, C.M.. 2006. Ceramic vessel compositions and styles as evidence of the local and nonlocal social affiliations of ritual participants at the Mann site, Indiana, in Carr, C. & Case, D.T. (ed.) Gathering Hopewell: society, ritual, and ritual interaction: 553–72. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Schroeder, D.L. & Ruhl, K.C.. 1968. Metallurgical characteristics of North American prehistoric copper work. American Antiquity 33: 162–69. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/278518 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seeman, M.F. 1995. When words are not enough: Hopewell interregionalism and the use of material symbols at the GE Mound, in Nassaney, M.S. & Sassaman, K.E. (ed.) Native American interactions: multiscalar analyses and interpretations in the Eastern Woodlands: 122–43. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press.Google Scholar
Spielmann, K.A. 2002. Feasting, craft specialization, and the ritual mode of production. American Anthropologist 104: 195207. http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/aa.2002.104.1.195 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spielmann, K.A. 2008. Crafting the sacred: ritual places and paraphernalia in small-scale societies, in Wells, E.C. & McAnany, P.A. (ed.) Dimensions of ritual economy: 3772. Bingley: JAI Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spielmann, K.A. 2009. Ohio Hopewell ritual craft production, in Lynott, M.J. (ed.) Footprints: in the footprints of Squier and Davis: 179–88. Lincoln (NE): Midwest Archeological Center, National Park Service, US Department of the Interior.Google Scholar
Spielmann, K.A. & Livingood, P.. 2005. Ritual, politics, and the ‘exotic’ in North American prehistory, in Hegmon, M. & Eiselt, B.S. (ed.) Engaged anthropology: research essays on North American archaeology, ethnobotany, and museology: 155–73. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology.Google Scholar
Stein, J.R. & Lekson, S.H.. 1992. Anasazi ritual landscapes, in Doyel, D.E. (ed.) Anasazi regional organization and the Chaco system: 87100. Albuquerque (NM): Maxwell Museum of Anthropology.Google Scholar
Sterrett, D.B. 1923. Mica deposits of the United States. Washington (DC): United States Geological Survey, Department of the Interior.Google Scholar
Sullivan, A.P. & Rozen, K.C.. 1985. Debitage analysis and archaeological interpretation. American Antiquity 50: 755–79. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/280165 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, A.P. 2013. Under the mound: the early life history of the Garden Creek Mound No. 2 site, in Wright, A.P. & Henry, E.R. (ed.) Early and Middle Woodland landscapes of the Southeast: 108–21. Gainesville: University Press of Florida. http://dx.doi.org/10.5744/florida/9780813044606.001.0001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, A.P. 2014. History, monumentality, and interaction in the Appalachian Summit Middle Woodland. American Antiquity 79: 277–94. http://dx.doi.org/10.7183/0002-7316.79.2.277 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Ritualised craft production at the Hopewell periphery: new evidence from the Appalachian Summit
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Ritualised craft production at the Hopewell periphery: new evidence from the Appalachian Summit
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Ritualised craft production at the Hopewell periphery: new evidence from the Appalachian Summit
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *