Ceremonial Centres from the Cayapas (Esmeraldas, Ecuador) to Chillicothe (Ohio, USA)

Abstract

Although they are some of the most impressive archaeological monuments in North America, the geometric earthworks of Ohio Hopewell remain poorly understood. By incorporating multiple lines of ethnographic and archaeological evidence an interpretation of the meanings congealed in these ancient earthworks can be offered.

Hopewell Archaeology: A View from the Northern Woodlands

“…Specific analogs for Hopewellian society have been drawn most often from indigenous North American societies and mound-building South American tribal societies (Brown 2006;Callender 1978aCallender , b, c, 1979DeBoer 1997;DeBoer and Blitz 1991;Dillehay 1990;Hall 1997). In fact, much of the recent research in Carr and Case (2005a) strives to match archaeological data against structural and behavioral analogs from historically described North American (principally Algonquian) populations.…”

Variation in Ohio Hopewell Political Economies

“…As a result, while features within the sites may be radiometrically dated, the amount of separation between and overlap among dates and temporally diagnostic artifacts at the various centers does not allow the construction of a simple chronology of sites as wholes (Carr 2006). Nevertheless, seriations based upon ceramics (Prufer 1968), and architecture (DeBoer 1997), as well as a rank ordering of ear spool styles (Greber 2003;Ruhl 2006;Ruhl and Seeman 1998), demonstrate a general agreement, despite various discrepancies. There is some indication that activity at the Hopewell site began earlier than at Seip (and presumably the other tripartite enclosures), and that the Seip-Conjoined mound was in use after the Seip-Pricer mound (Carr 2006).…”

“…he long-standing recognition that Ohio Hopewell differs markedly from other Hopewellian areas with respect to the intensity of long-distance interaction, acquisition of exotic materials, production of craft items, and architectural design and construction of ceremonial centers resulted in a historical tendency to treat all manifestations of Hopewell in Ohio as one cultural unit, generally in distinction from other regional Hopewellian manifestations. Variation among Hopewell groups in Ohio with respect to ceramic production (Hawkins 1996;Pickard 1996), stone tool production (Harkness 1982), copper ear spool production (Ruhl 1992(Ruhl ,2006, settlement patterns (Pacheco 1996), and the distribution and architectural forms of ceremonial centers (Byers 2004;DeBoer 1997) suggests that the cultural landscape was far from uniform, and researchers are increasingly focusing upon these intra-regional differences. In this spirit, I examine several prominent Ohio Hopewell sites from south-central and southwestern Ohio from the interpretive standpoint of the Dual-Processual model of political economy.…”

Visualization and Movement as Configurations of Human–Nonhuman Engagements: Precolonial Geometric Earthwork Landscapes of the Upper Purus, Brazil

“…100 BC and AD 500 in the southeastern United States, were expressions of temporality and places of gathering and feasting (Carr and Case ; Jones and Shields ). DeBoer () suggests, using ethnographic analogies, that Hopewellian circular and square earthworks reflect the paired oppositions of social order and symbolism, where the square stands for such elements as “new,” “untraditional,” and “foreign.” The design precision of the Acrean geometric earthworks also displays carefully planned practices of human land use and spatial organization (Saunaluoma and Virtanen ), although the precise significance of the different earthwork outlines and forms in terms of relations with nonhumans has not yet been established.…”