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

Wright, Alice P.; Loveland, Erika K

doi:10.15184/aqy.2014.34

Cited by 24 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Historically, the inferred linkages between the Southeast and the Ohio Valley during the Middle Woodland period have derived from the identification of particular raw materials in ritual assemblages in the Hopewell heartland. Marine shell, shark teeth, galena, quartz, mica, and possibly copper are all sacred Hopewell exotica that originated in the Southeast or along its margins (Bernardini and Carr 2006;Blankenship 2013;Chapman and Keel 1979;Ehrhardt 2009;Goad 1976;Ruhl 2006;Seeman 1979a;Trubitt 2003;Walthall 1981;Wright and Loveland 2015). However, the overwhelming concentration of these raw materials at Ohio Hopewell earthworks relative to contemporaneous sites elsewhere in eastern North America has proved to be a persistent challenge to attempts to model Hopewell exchange in general, and Hopewell activities at the so called periphery in particular (Carr 2006a).…”

Section: Some Archaeologists Disagree With This Model's Characterizatmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…With some important exceptions, Hopewellian material culture at southeastern sites is often limited to small quantities of artifacts made of exotic raw materials-e.g., Flint Ridge chalcedony bladelets at Garden Creek (Keel 1976) or single copper ear spool at Armory (Eubanks 2013)or varying amounts of Hopewell-style ceramics (e.g., Stoltman 1999;Toth 1988). Furthermore, the prevailing view of Hopewellian craft production is that it occurred in the Ohio Hopewell core at the hands of Hopewell ritual specialists, even when the raw materials for these crafts originated far from this area (Spielmann 2008(Spielmann , 2009; but see Greber 2009;Wright and Loveland 2015).…”

Section: Some Archaeologists Disagree With This Model's Characterizatmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Local and “Global” Perspectives on the Middle Woodland Southeast

Wright

2016

J Archaeol Res

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

During the Middle Woodland period, from 200 BC to AD 600, south-eastern societies erected monuments, interacted widely, and produced some of the most striking material culture of the pre-Columbian era, but these developments are often overshadowed by the contemporaneous florescence of Hopewell culture in Ohio. I argue that the demonstrable material links between the Middle Woodland Southeast and Midwest demand that we cease to analyze these regional archaeological records in isolation and adopt multiscalar perspectives on the social fields that emerged from and impacted local Middle Woodland societies. In synthesizing recent research on Middle Woodland settlement, monumentality, interaction, and social organization, I make explicit comparisons between the Middle Woodland Southeast and Ohio Hopewell, revealing both commonalities and contrasts. New methodological approaches in the Southeast, including geophysical survey techniques, Bayesian chronological modeling, and high-resolution provenance analyses, promise to further elucidate site-specific histories and intersite connectivity. By implementing theoretical frameworks that simultaneously consider these local and global dimensions of Middle Woodland sociality, we may establish the southeastern Middle Woodland period as an archaeological context capable of elucidating the deep history of the Eastern Woodlands as well as long-standing issues surrounding middle-range societies.

show abstract

Section: Some Archaeologists Disagree With This Model's Characterizatmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Some Archaeologists Disagree With This Model's Characterizatmentioning

confidence: 99%

Local and “Global” Perspectives on the Middle Woodland Southeast

Wright

2016

J Archaeol Res

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While the former are discussed elsewhere (see Horsley, Wright, and Barrier 2014;Wright 2014;Wright and Loveland 2015), here, I summarize a few of the anticipated challenges of engagement with this resident community and the strategies developed by GCAP to mitigate their negative dimensions and capitalize on their positive potential. Specifically, GCAP's public archaeology efforts sought to expand the terms of public engagement beyond obtaining permission from landowners to conduct archaeological research by taking seriously residents' emotional connections to the landscape and attempting to extend those connections into the past.…”

Section: Challenges and Opportunities Of Resident Community Engagementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Private property, public archaeology: resident communities as stakeholders in American archaeology

Wright

2015

World Archaeology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the United States, archaeological sites on private lands have few legal protections, and are thus at risk of damage or destruction. To alleviate these risks, archaeologists must engage thoughtfully with private property owners and develop strategies to promote site stewardship. In this article, I identify the resident communitythose people who live on archaeological sites, regardless of their ancestral ties to those sites -as an important stakeholder in archaeology. Based on recent fieldwork experiences on a privately owned site in the southeastern US, I discuss the unique challenges of engaging a resident community in archaeological research, and the potential of such engagement for fostering archaeological stewardship. Specifically, I use theories of place attachment derived from environmental psychology to explore how resident communities may be encouraged to empathize with and protect the archaeological records of past people.

show abstract

“…This method of assessing the organization of production works very well for stone artifacts which have durable, plentiful, and easily identifiable production remains (e.g. Charlton et al 1993;Hartenberger and Runnels 2001;Hogberg 2009;Schafer and Hester 1991;Wright and Loveland 2015).…”

Section: Direct Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Perspectives include: overviews or collected works aiming to focus the theme(s) (Insoll 2004(Insoll , 2011Kyriakidis 2007, Rowan 2012Whitley and Hays-Gilpin 2008), studies of religious change (Graham et al 2013;Shaw 2013a,b); ritual and religion as a source of power or social strategies (Adams 2004;Grau Mira 2016;Janusek 2006;Kovacevich 2007), material expression of religion (Droogan 2013;Fogelin and Schiffer 2015;Wells 2006), the process of ritualization (Bradley 2005;Humphry and Laidlaw 2007) and of course the intersection of ritual and production (Austin 2015;Hruby 2007;Inomata 2001;Spielmann 2002;Wright and Loveland 2015).…”

Section: Ritual and Religion In Archaeologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Beyond Prestige: A Ritual Production Model for Stone Tool Specialization in Naqada Period Egypt

Skarzynski¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This dissertation looks at the organization and development of specialized production in 4th millennium BCE Egypt. At the outset of this period northeastern Africa was occupied by small-scale groups of pastoralists and early agriculturalists. By the close of the 4th millennium BC, the Nile Valley was one of the earliest instances of a society with centralized political organization, extensive labor division, and institutionalized inequalities.This research brings data on stone tools and settlement sites to bear on competing models of specialization. Many models of specialized production have focused either on the production of symbolically meaningful goods for the elite, or the production of utilitarian goods for the masses; they have not considered the production of symbolically meaningful goods for commoners. In Egypt the prevailing theory for the development of specialized production is a prestige-goods model, where elites sponsored the production of items used to display status and which were not available to all. However, this model does not account for all specialized production. A review of the evidence for specialization in Egypt shows that some items made by specialists were quite widely used (e.g., lithic blades, black-topped red ware ceramics), and so do not fit a prestige-goods model. To explore how the production of various stone tools was organized and developed, a model of ritual production outlined by Spielmann (2002) was considered. This model recognizes that people have often increased their economic production in order to make items needed for ritual activities, such as life cycle events (e.g., birth, marriage, death) and community-encompassing rituals. These ritual activities involved many members of society, not a restricted subset. Expectations were developed for archaeological patterns of raw material choice, production locations, and find contexts that should be observed if the ritual production model can account for the development of some aspects of specialized production in -ivEgypt. These expectations were evaluated based on examination of lithic artifact collections from the settlement sites of el-Mahâsna, Abydos, and Nag el-Qarmila, and comparison to published data from other sites and online museum databases. This research showed that there were many different ways that stone tool production was organized at the intra-site and regional levels. Some of stone tools-early fishtail knives, axes, large-blade knives, and microendscrapers-fit the ritual production model for the development of specialized production quite well. Preferences for certain raw materials were evident, and these preferences could not be accounted for by functional considerations or access to local resources. Instead, the raw material choices probably related to the symbolic significance of their colors, which can be traced from the Pharaonic back to the Predynastic periods. These tools were produced in conjunction with ritual activity areas, and the tools themselves were found in ritually significant cont...

show abstract

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

Abstract: Abstract

Cited by 24 publications

References 22 publications

Local and “Global” Perspectives on the Middle Woodland Southeast

Local and “Global” Perspectives on the Middle Woodland Southeast

Private property, public archaeology: resident communities as stakeholders in American archaeology

Beyond Prestige: A Ritual Production Model for Stone Tool Specialization in Naqada Period Egypt

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About