A Preliminary Survey o f Middle W o o d l a n d
Prehistory in Licking C o u n t y , O h i o
By Jack E. Bernhardt*
ABSTRACT
The largest Hopewellian earthwork complex was
constructed in the Licking Valley at Newark, Ohio.
The Middle Woodland communities in the valley
occupied a crucial role in the Hopewell Interaction
Sphere through the exchange of multicolored flints
from nearby Flint Ridge. Review of the extant
literature and the results of a recent site survey in
the valley point toward craft specialization and
inter-site stratification within the Middle Woodland
period in Ohio.
Introduction
EW areas of the United States are as
Frich in prehistoric remains as the river
valleys which drain the southern regions
of Ohio. The geometric earthwork and burial
mound complexes erected by Adena and
Hopewell residents o f the Scioto, Miami, and
Licking valleys have excited the imaginations
of Euro-Americans since the first white explorers encountered them in the mid-18th
Century.
The history of archaeology in Ohio is largely the story of work carried out upon the
fantastic mortuary centers in the southern
Ohio drainages, particularly within the Scioto
Valley and its tributaries. With the exception
of the work by Prufer, et al. (1965) a t the
McGraw site in Ross County, Ohio, no serious
attempt has been made t o excavate the habitation sites belonging t o the builders of the
mortuary-ceremonial centers. Our understanding of subsistence-settlement systems and of
' culture processes within the Adena-Hopewell
sequence is woefully limited.
While the Ohio Hopewell phenomenon
achieved its greatest expression in the fertile
Scioto Valley, the Scioto Hopewell centers are
not the largest nor the only important such
localities in the state. It is not fortuitous that
the largest and second-largest Ohio Hopewell
ceremonial centers were constructed at Newark and Portsmouth, Ohio, respectively: each
of these centers commanded access to 1 of
the 2 Ohio mineral resources which were
moved as key trade items through the northern sector of the Hopewell Interaction Sphere
(Caldwell 1964). The Newark Works are situated close t o the jewel-flint outcrops on Flint
Ridge in Licking and Muskingum counties,
while the Portsmouth Hopewellians mined
pipestone near the confluence of the Scioto
and Ohio rivers. Given the importance of
these 2 resources in the Ohio Hopewell sociocultural system, it is surprising that archaeologists have ignored these areas in their researches and have made no concerted effort t o
determine the relationships of these prime
industrial nuclei t o other centers in the exchange network.
*Jack E. Bernhardt, Adjunct Lecturer in Anthropology, Baruch College (City university ofNew York),
and Ph.D. candidate, Department of Anthropology,
Columbia University, New York, New York 10027.
The author wishes t o thank Evert Albyn and Norman Drake, Newark, Ohio, for their generous hospitality in making their land available for survey; Jeff
Carskadden of Zanesville, Ohio, for his helpful comments on Muskingum Valley prehistory; Olaf H.
Prufer, Department of Anthropology, Kent State
University, for stimulating interest in Ohio Hopewell
prehistory; and Richard Drechsler of Baruch College,
for his assistance in the initial stages of the survey.
December 1974
40
PENNSYLVANIA ARCHAEOLOGIST
For example, in a recent paper by Struever
and Houart (1972), the exchange aspects of
the Hopewell Interaction Sphere are analyzed.
The authors examine the major Middle Woodland (Hopewell) sites in the Great LakesRiverine areas with respect t o size, complexity, quantities, and kinds of material remains and place these centers into taxa according t o role-involvement in the exchange
network. The authors tentatively include the
Newark Works (Fig. 1 ) among those site complexes designated regional transaction centers
which are said t o function as redistribution
centers into which quantities of raw materials
and finished goods were channeled and in turn
moved o u t to the Middle Woodland communities economically dependent upon them thus
uniting the Middle Woodland communities
within a region t o each other and these populations with groups from neighboring regions
(1972:60-61). Accordingly, regional transaction centers may be recognized on the basis
of "their size and complexity [which] in each
case sets them apart from the remainder of
the regional population of Middle Woodland
sites t o which they belong." These centers are
designated upon the criterion that they "share
the fact that they are larger, more internally
complex, and often yield a significantly greater quantity of Interaction Sphere goods than
the remaining Middle Woodland sites in their
particular region" (1972:52).
Within Ohio Newark is mentioned as a
possible candidate for regional transaction tenter status; then it is ignored as the analysis
focuses upon the Scioto Valley and, specifically, the Hopewell Mound Group as the major
center for Hopewellian interactions within the
state. While it is true that the Hopewell site
excavations by Moorehead (1922) and
Shetrone (1926) produced the largest and
most diverse single-site assemblage of Interaction Sphere goods, the representation of this
site as the largest and most complex Ohio
Hopewell center is misleading. This deemphasis of the importance of the Newark
Hopewellian populations to the Interaction
Sphere must, in fairness to the authors, be
attributed t o the paucity of information
which exists for this region.
In August 1974 the writer conducted a
~reliminary survey of the ~ i c k i n g ValleyNewark area in order t o obtain an understanding of the prehistory of the valley and to
locate Middle Woodland Hopewell sites which
may be excavated over the next few years. It
is the purpose of this paper t o present the
results of the survey and t o examine the role
of the Licking Valley Hopewellian communities at this end of the Interaction Sphere.
Background
The Licking River is a Late Wisconsin
outwash stream which is formed at ~ e w a r kby
the junction of the North Fork and South
Fork. The river flows east and southward to
unite with the Muskingum River a t Zanesville.
The Newark Works cover an area of approximately 10.4 km2 ( 4 mi2) immediately west of
the Racoon Creek-South Fork confluence
(Fig. 1).
The construction of the Ohio canal through
Newark (1825-1832) and resultant destruction
of several mounds and much of the eastern
portion of the earthworks stimulated interest
in the prehistoric heritage of the Licking
Valley. In the following decades several papers
appeared describing the works and the material remains which were extracted from them
(e.g., ~ a r s h 1866; Whittlesey 1872; and
Smucker 1873, 1875, 1885). Over half the 6 4
entries in the Morgan and ~ o d a b a u g h(1947)
bibliography which refer to Licking County
predate 1900. Only 1 2 papers were published
after 1930. Many of these writings
- are of little
or no value t o professional archaeologists as
they constitute secondary-source scholarship
recapitulating the descriptions and accounts of
earlier researchers. Others consist of travelogues which recount the experiences of voyagers through the Licking County environs,
such as Sifford's (1936) "Rambling Through
Ohio's Valley of the Kings," or Latrobe's
(1892) The Rambler in North America, and
the Anonymous (1834) "Ten Days in Ohio;
from the Diary of a Naturalist."
Most of our knowledge of Licking County
archaeology is derived from the extensive collections of A. T. Wehrle, a former resident of
LICKING COUNTY
Fig. 1. The Newark Works-After
Fowke (1902) and Reeves (1936).
LICKING COUNTY
43
44
PENNSYLVANIA ARCHAEOLOGIST
generally refers t o this latter locality as the
region of Clark's blacksmith shop, a t the
crossroads 4.8 km ( 3 miles) north of Brownsville. The most extensive investigations have
been carried out in this area, and it appears
that these deposits were most heavily relied
upon for Hopewell quarrying activities). According t o Mills, he flint occurring outside
of these two places was o f n o practical use t o
primitive man, because o f its unfitness for
chipping into form o n account of impurities"
(Mills 1921: 94-96). Mills reports that all the
quarries at the western end of the ridge lay
within a 1.6 k m ( 1 mile) radius of the crossroads and that the quarry activities utilized
approximately 40.5 ha ( 1 0 0 acres) of flint
(1921), a n estimation arrived a t earlier by
Fowke (1902). Fowke informs us that the
quarry pits "vary from twelve t o eighty feet
in diameter and from three o r four t o at least
twenty feet in depth; continuous trenches
sometimes having a length of fifteen or
twenty rods" (1 902:621). Local informants
recall that the fields in the vicinity o f the
great quarries were once covered with lithic
debris; however, the intensive collecting- activities o f relic searchers has effectively depleted
the archaeological resources from the cultivated fields.
~ l t h o u-g h numerous sites have been reported from the ridge, with distressingly few
exceptions these important localities have not
been excavated by professional archaeologists.
Mills' excavation o f the partially looted
Hazlett Mound produced 2 burials at the base
of the tumulus with a wall of flint blocks
enclosing the structure. While grave offerings
o f copper, textile, and colummella beads were
recovered, n o artifacts o f Flint Ridge flint
were noted (Mills 1921).
More recently a highly regarded amateur
archaeologist excavated a burial pit containing
a cache of 37 prismatic cores and over 1 0 0
Hopewell blades. The author concludes:
So far as I can learn this is the only known
instance of a cache of cores, flake knives and tools
ever recorded, although caches of other artifacts
are rather common. Nor have I been able to find
any more burials in the workshops although I have
hunted and dug on it for more than 25 years
(Magrath 1959:94).
The Dodson Village site was "excavated" in
1 9 3 2 by John and Paul Loughman, in the
employ o f A. T. Wehrle. his was apparently
a rich site which yielded quantities o f fauna,
pottery, mica, and flint tools. he excavators
placed t h e location o f the site 4 km (2%
miles) north of Brownsville. In their summary
report they remark that the Dodson Village
site "has been known for years as one o f the
greatest
core fields in the state. As there have
been thousands o f cores picked up on this
village site" (Loughman and Loughman n.d.).
Several cases may be cited in which the
locations of the prehistoric localities are not
$ven or are so general as t o be of little value
in attempting t o re-discover the sites in question. For example Mills (1921) records the
following observances for workshop sites o n
the ridge:
[The core industry 1 was confined for the most
part to the workshops south and southeast of the
blacksmith shop. At no other point have many of
the specimens been found, the form being considered rare when found outside this region
(1921:137).
Knives flaked from cores are found in great
numbers in the workshops, especially in those
south and east of the crossroads at the blacksmith shop.. . The workshop at the end of the
Mary Loughman woods and the workshop directly south of the Graham Farm are both very rich
in knives and cores.. . . The workshop on the
Graham place is practically the only place on the
Ridge showing a continued habitation. Broken
pottery, animal bones of many kinds, and other
general indications show a more or less permanent habitation. This workshop has been under
cultivation for many years. . . (1921:141).
.
Although the literature is unappealing in
terms o f modern research requirements,
limited insights may be grasped through careful perusal of the extant reports. F o r instance
it is evident that lithic workshops were abundant o n the ridge, especially in the immediate
environs of the quarry pits. It may be suspected that the sites which produced ceramics,
fauna, and other occupation debris represent
brief excursions t o the ridge from the valley
below for the purpose of mining and manufacturing flint products for export into the
Hopewell Interaction Sphere. Mills, for one,
does not seem t o be in command of this
45
LICKING COUNTY
problem in light of his apparent uncertainty
whether the Graham site represents a "workshop," a locus of "continued habitation," or a
situation of "more or less permanent habitation." Certainly one would expect these sites
t o represent loci of brief, industrial occupations if it is accepted that the economy of the
Middle Woodland peoples of the region was
based upon maize agriculture; poor soil conditions on the ridge would obviate the growing
of crops there. While it is possible that permanent settlers on the ridge exchanged the
products of their lithic labors for comestibles
provided by the communities in the valley
below, the investigations conducted by Mills
and Magrath suggest that the ridge was n o t
permanently settled but rather was the scene
of cyclical forays t o select quarry and workshop sites by parties of laborers who transferred the raw materials and finished products
t o their settlements in the valley and later
into the interaction network.
Although no serious attempt has been
made t o trace the flow of Flint Ridge
- flint
from its source t o its ultimate destination, the
initial stages of the circuit can, I believe, be
established with some degree of certainty.
Mills refers t o the absence of suitable waterways which might have offered convenient
avenues of transportation t o and from the
quarries and postulates that "the only way to
reach the 'Ridge' was by trails through the
deep, tangled forests. . . ." (1921:94), though
it is not clear whether evidence of these
"trails" existed a t the time of Mills' investigations, nor does the author inform us where
the trails begin o r end on the ridge or in the
surrounding bottoms. In any case considering
the extensive length of time the quarries were
in use, it is probable that several routes were
traversed t o and from the quarries a t various
times in prehistory. The recent Licking Valley
survey has established that a t least 2 avenues
of travel were probably utilized during Hopewellian times.
The Little Claylick Creek is a small perennial feeder which arises about .8 k m (% mile)
northwest of the main quarries a t the Flint
Ridge museum. The shallow stream gently
meanders over 7.2 km (4% miles) before com-
bining with the somewhat larger Claylick
Creek which originates about 1.6 k m (1 mile)
south of the pits. The 2 streams dump into
the Licking River 11.3 km ( 7 miles) northwest
of Flint Ridge and 6.4 km ( 4 miles) east of
the Newark Works. The narrow Claylick conduits would have offered relatively easy passage from the flood plain and terrace settlements t o the flint outcrops and down again
with loads of blanks, tools, and core chunks
t o be used locally or exported into the exchange network.
I t may be argued that the Claylick valleys
were not the only. important
routes of transmission t o and from the ridge and that not all
the flint traffic moved toward the Licking
River. It is possible that the Scioto Valley
communities or their intermediaries dispatched
parties of quarry and craft specialists who
ascended t o the ridge
- from t h e southwest and
returned by the same route with masses of
lithic cargo. In historic time the Coshocton
Trail passed over Flint Ridge from the southwest uniting Circleville in the Scioto Valley
with Coshocton in t h e Muskingum Valley
(Wilcox 1933:173-5), but it remains t o be
proven whether this trail was used by the
earlier occupants of the region.
Site Survey
The 1974 survey did not concentrate on
locating sites within the Licking Valley east of
Claylick Creek. Local informants report that
Hopewellian farmsteads occur in t h e valley
between the Claylick and the Muskingum
River, although these sites are generally smaller and fewer than those occurring in the
Scioto Valley.
illthough Flint Ridge flint was undoubtedly transmitted into t h e Muskingum Valley
along the Licking River thoroughfare, it is
probable that the major orientation of the
flint traffic was westward from the Claylick
toward the ceremonial center, then down the
South Fork moving- ever southwestward toward the great Hopewellian redistribution centers in the Scioto Valley. Over a distance of
6.4 km ( 4 miles) on either side of the river,
the survey located a dozen sites between the
46
PENNSYLVANIA ARCHAEOLOGIST
surface was littered with chippage and manufacturing debris of Flint Ridge and Upper
Mercer flints. The most notable topographic
feature is the presence of a gravel ridge which
extends east-west at the northern terminus of
the occupation zone. The cultural remains
extend up to and rest against the southern
and eastern slopes of the ridge and continue,
diminished, around the northern margin. Artifacts were not recovered from atop the gravel
bar. The confguration of this locality is
strongly suggestive of the layout of the
McGraw site in Ross County (Prufer 1965)
which revealed a Middle Woodland occupation
zone resting against a gravel bar in the flood
plain of the Scioto River. It is significant that
at least 2 Middle Woodland points were recovered from the Albyn Nursery site, 1 of which
has a counterpart in the flint industry from
McGraw (Fig. 3b). The complete inventory of
artifacts retrieved during the survey is recorded in Table 1.
Claylick and South Fork. Most of the sites
were found in tall stands of corn or beans,
but 2 were relatively open and were intensively examined over the 2 week period.
The Albyn Nursery site (33LI1) is located
on land owned by the H. A. Albyn Nursery in
Madison Township, Range 11W, Section 2N.
It occupies an area of about 1.2 ha ( 3 acres)
on the 800-foot contour line within a wide
meander loop of the Licking River which
flows .8 km (% mile) south and east of the
site. The eastern perimeter is marked by
Shawnee Run, a small tributary of the Licking. O n the west the site continues onto
property owned by the Newark Sewage Disposal plant (33LI3).
The scatter of cultural remains over the
surface of this site indicates an extensive
occupation during Woodland times. Remarkable quantities of fuecracked rock were noted
along with fragments of cordmarked pottery
and diagnostic projectile points. The entire
Table 1
Artifact Inventory from Licking Valley Survey
Site
33Lll
Period
Palaeo-Indian
Middle Woodland
Indeterminant
Tools
( 1 ) McConnell Lanceolate
( 1 ) Middle Woodland Point
( 1 ) Stemmed Point
( 1 ) Corner-notched Point
( 3 ) Drills
(2) Knives
(4) Side Scrapers
( 1 ) End Scraper
( 3 ) Cores
( 2 ) Pottery Sherds
( 1 ) Cupstone
(1) Adze
-
Raw Material
Upper Mercer
Upper Mercer
Flint Ridge
Flint Ridge
Flint Ridge
Flint Ridge ( 1 )
Upper Mercer (1)
Flint Ridge ( 3 )
Upper Mercer (1)
Flint Ridge
Flint Ridge
Cordmarked
Sandstone
Siltstone
21
33L12
Archaic
( 1 ) Corner-notched Point
Local
33LI3
Middle Woodland
Indeterminant
( 1 ) Snyders Point
( 1 ) Tip Fragment
( 1 ) Knife
(1) Side Scraper
Flint Ridge
-
Local
Flint Ridge
Flint Ridge
4
33LI4
Indeterminant
( 1 ) Blade Fragment
(1) Tip Fragment
-
Local
Local
47
LICKING COUNTY
Table 1 (Continued)
Site
33LI5
Period
Tools
Raw Material
Fort Ancient
Indeterminant
(2) Bird Points
(1) Ovate Base
(1) Core
(2) End Scrapers
Flint Ridge
Flint Ridge
Flint Ridge
Flint Ridge (1)
Upper Mercer (1)
Palaeo-Indian
Archaic
(1) Lanceolate Base
(1) Lamoka Point
(1) Newton Falls Side-notch
(1)Adena Ovate-base Stemmed
(1) Snyders-type Point
(3) Middle Woodland Points
(3) Hopewell Blades
(1) Concave-base Triangle
(4) Projectile Points
Flint Ridge
Flint Ridge
Flint Ridge
Flint Ridge
Flint Ridge
Upper Mercer
Flint Ridge
Upper Mercer
Flint Ridge (3)
Upper Mercer (1)
Flint Ridge
Upper Mercer
Flint Ridge
Flint Ridge
Flint Ridge ( 8 )
Upper Mercer (5)
Flint Ridge (1)
Upper Mercer ( I )
Flint Ridge ( I )
Upper Mercer (1)
Granite
Early Woodland
Middle Woodland
Late Woodland or Ft. Ancient
Indeterminant
Indeterminant
(3) Knives
(3) Drills
(1) Tip Fragment
(3) Blades
(13) Side Scrapers
(2) End Scrapers
(2) Cores
(1) Hammerstone
44
(1) Straight-base Drill
(1) End Scraper
Flint Ridge
Flint Ridge
Indeterminant
(1) Tip Fragment
Flint Ridge
Archaic
(1) Kirk Corner-notched
(1) Serrated Point
(1) Weak-shouldered Lanceolate
(2) Middle Woodland Points
(1)Obsidian Fragment
(4) Chesser Notched Points
( 2 ) Projectile Points
(2) Knives
(1) Expanded-base Drill
(1) Drill
(1) Celt
-
Flint Ridge
Flint Ridge
Local
Flint Ridge
Yellow stone
Flint Ridge
Upper Mercer
Flint Ridge
Upper Mercer
Flint Ridge
Greenstone
Indeterminant
-
Early or Middle Woodland
Middle Woodland
Middle or Late Woodland
Indeterminant
17
Total Artifacts:
The Weiant Gardens site (33LI6) is located
in Madison Township, Range 11W, Section
2N, between State Route 1 6 and Mount
Vernon Road. The site is situated upon a
second terrace of the Licking River less than
. .8k m (54 mile) north of the present stream
channel. The occupation area is delimited on
98
the southern and western margins by breakovers of fossil meander bends and on the
eastern margin by the !greenhouses which form
part of the Weiant Gardens complex. The
northern boundary of the site is marked by
Mount Vernon Road which runs east and west
a t the base of the hills which rise sharply
48
PENNSYLVANIA ARCHAEOLOGIST
u
cms
Fig. 3. Artifacts from Licking County survey. a, Middle Woodland point, 33LI1; b, Stemmed point, 33LI1; c,
Corner notched point, 33LI2; d, Expanded-base drill, 33LI1; e , Middle Woodland point, 33LI6; f, McConnell
Lanceolate, 33LI1; g, Adena ovate-base stemmed point, 33LI6; h , Newton Falls Side-Notched point, 33LI6; i,
Middle Woodland point, 33LI6; j, Lamoka point, 33LI6; k, Concave-base triangle point, 33LI6.
LICKING
from the terrace t o an elevation of 3 3 5 m
(1100 feet) on the north side of the valley.
The limits of this site are well-marked although it is probable that a portion of the
habitation area was destroyed during the construction of the geenhouse. At present habitation debris is scattered over an area of about
.4 ha ( 1 acre).
The configuration of the Weiant Gardens
site differs from that on the Albyn property
less than 3.2 k m ( 2 miles) t o the southwest.
Here the occupants were sheltered from the
bitter north winds by the hills behind their
settlement which extended u p to the terrace
edge o r riverbank. The site is situated upon an
east-west gavel bar which would have offered
good drainage in case of floods o r excessive
run-off from the bordering hills.
Surface collections yielded a wide range of
projectile point types including Middle Woodland forms (Fig. 3e, i) a n d a variety of additional flint tools which includes a few fragments of Hopewell blades (Fig. 4b, c). The
Weiant Gardens site appears t o be a multicomponent locality with a Middle Woodland
occupation zone.
One striking feature of the survey data in
this region of the valley is the limited occurrence of Hopewell blades a n d the total absence of Hopewell blade cores. It is unlikely
that these classic collectors' items have all
been removed from the sites. It seems more
probable that the Hopewell blade-and-core
industry was a specialized enterprise which
may have been localized within certain communities not examined during our survey of
this portion of the valley or within communities along the South Fork.
Few data are on record for the presence of
Hopewellian settlements within the South
Fork valley. The survey examined a rich site
( 3 3 L I l l ) immediately north of the junction
of the South Fork a n d Ramp Creek. It is
situated upon the 850-foot contour line on
property owned by Mrs. Leonardo DiGiondomenico, 45.7 m ( 5 0 yards) south of St.
Leonard School, Village of Heath, Union
Township. I t is loated in Range 12W, Section
. I N . The site was planted in soybeans a t the
time of the survey so that only cursory in-
(
vestigations could be carried out. Even with
this limitation a significant quantity of artifacts was collected including projectile point
types which are present in the cache of Hopewellian flint tools recovered from Newark and
on display in Mound Builders State Museum
(Fig. 4e). In addition a small fragment of
obsidian was retrieved from the surface of the
site. Obsidian is extremely rare as surface
finds in Ohio and was used as an accoutrement of the Hopewell mortuary-ceremonial
complex.
The DiGiondomenico site is strategically
situated a t the confluence of the South Fork
and Ramp Creek. One and two tenths kilometers (% mile) northwest of this point a
parallel ramp, or "sacred way," was observed
by Reeves (1936) t o extend north from the
creek t o the southeast segment of the octagon
(Fig. 1). This "sacred way" was apparently
the path of procession from Ramp Creek t o
the ceremonial grounds. The inhabitants of
the DiGiondomenico site would have commanded access t o and from the ceremonial
complex and may have enjoyed a central role
in the Hopewell religious (and political?)
system.
The Ohio State Museum contains a n assemblage labelled Dickens Farm Village Site
(O.S.M. Accession Numbers 34011 98-209).
The site is located 3.2 km ( 2 miles) southwest
of Newark in Licking Township, Licking
County. It is not clear whether this material
was obtained through surface collecting or
excavation. I was unable t o find any notes for
this assemblage and the cultural affiliations of
this material are unclear.
However it appears that ~ o ~ e w e l l i a n
peoples did inhabit this site during a t least a
portion of its history. The assemblage includes
1 0 6 flint "blanks" and leaf-shaped blades, 8
flint cores, a Snyders point, small fragments
of mica, and 4 fragments of pottery. The flint
cores are typical of the Hopewell core-andblade industry, and the pottery bears strong
resemblances t o Middle Woodland McGraw
Cordmarked ware (Prufer and McKenzie
1965). Thus it is possible that a portion of
the raw flint, and perhaps cores and blanks as
well, were distributed to select communities
PENNSYLVANIA ARCHAEOLOGIST
u
cms
Fig. 4. Artifacts from Licking County survey. a, Lanceolate point base, 33L16; b & c, Hopewell blades, 33LI6;
d, Retouched blade, 33LI6; e , Middle Woodland point, 3 3 L I l l ; f, g, & h, Chesser notched points, 3 3 L I l l ; i,
Kirk Corner-notched point, 3 3 L I l l ; j, Expanded-base drill, 3 3 L I l l ; k, Weak-shouldered lanceolate, 3 3 L I l l .
LICKING COUNTY
along the South Fork for refinement into
finished products before being transferred
southwestward t o the Scioto Valley Hopewell
centers.
It may be possible t o test this hypothesis
with a comparative analysis of the core-andblade tool assemblages recovered from Scioto
and Licking Valley Hopewell sites. Already
Pi-Sunyer (1965) has analyzed the blade industry from McGraw comparing the statistical
data with those from the Brown's Bottom and
Russel Brown Mounds sites in Ross County
and the Turner Group in Hamilton County,
Ohio (Willoughby and Hooton 1922). Finally
the Ohio collections were compared with the
blade industry from the Snyders site in Illinois
(White 1963). Although suffering from a lack
of precise chronological ordering of his comparative materials, Pi-Sunyer concludes that "a
very good case can be made for regional
differences in Hopewell blade assemblages.
Certainly within the Scioto Valley (judging
from our samples) there is a good deal of
homogeneity, and there is n o doubt that the
Scioto Valley series as a whole is markedly
different from the material recovered from the
Snyders site in Illinois" (Pi-Sunyer 1965:78).
It would be instructive t o learn how the
Hopewell blade collections from Licking
County conform to the regional differentiation which Pi-Sunyer has determined for the
Scioto blade industry. An analysis focusing on
whether the materials from the 2 valleys
represent distinct manufacturing traditions or
whether the Scioto Valley communities were
receiving a portion of their flint from the
Newark populations in the form of finished
goods would contribute toward an understanding of the degree of interrelationship between
these important Hopewellian centers and help
clarify the nature of exchange dynamics at
this end of the Interaction Sphere.
The southwestern orientation of the flint
trade, and of Ohio Hopewell generally, is
witnessed in the distribution of the major
Hopewellian ceremonial centers throughout
the state. T o the north, south, and east of the
great center at Newark, few Hopewell mounds
or earthworks are found. The area east of the
Claylick Creek-~icking River confluence has
51
~ r o d u c e d a few Hopewell sites (carskadden
1972), but with the exception of the major
center in Marietta a t the confluence of the
Muskingum and Ohio rivers (Squier and Davis
1848), the Hopewellian manifestations appear
as local parodies of their more affluent
neighbors, marginal t o and outside the mainstream of the interaction network. These sites
appear as small isolated (by Ohio Hopewell
standards) mounds or in groups of u p to
4 , without
attendant geometric earthworks and lacking the elaborate ceremonialmortuary features which characterize the
Hopewell centers at Marietta,
"classic"
Newark, Portsmouth, and elsewhere (Jeff
Carskadden 1974, per. comm.). It is significant that the Licking River empties into the
Muskingum only 46.7 km (29 miles) from
~ e w a r k and would have provided a major
artery for interaction between the 2 valleys.
Jeff Carskadden of Zanesville, Ohio, has informed me (1974, per. comm.) that several
Middle Woodland farmsteads have been located along the Muskingum between the Licking River and Zanesville, but surveys in the
valley between Zanesville and Marietta have
failed to identify Middle Woodland sites. Thus
the recent suggestion by Struever and Houart
that the Hopewellian communities at Newark
and Marietta were involved in an exchange
relationship which moved u p and down the
Muskingum Valley, while theoretically reasonable, is not confirmed by current evidence. It
may be that Marietta was interacting with
other Hopewell centers along the Ohio River
rather than u p the Muskingum t o any appreciable extent, although these relationships require further investigation. The exact relationship of the Muskingum Valley communities t o
the Hopewellian populations a t Newark and
Marietta is not clear, although the Upper
Mercer flint deposits in the Muskingum Valley
may have provided a resource for exchange.
Upper Mercer flint has been recovered as a
minority variety from the McGraw site
(Pi-Sunyer 1965:79) and from all the Licking
Valley sites surveyed by this writer in 1974.
Northwest of the Newark Works a number
of sites have been reported by Moorehead
(1892) and Fowke (1902) on the terraces and
52
PENNSYLVANIA ARCHAEOLOGIST
hilltops adjacent to Racoon Creek. Racoon
Creek originates in Monroe Township approximately 48.3 km ( 3 0 miles) northwest of Newark, flows gently past the town of Granville,
and enters the South Fork at Newark. The
Newark Works were constructed upon the
peninsula formed by the confluence of the 2
streams, and the shifting of the creek channel
has caused the destruction of the eliptical
embankment in the northeast portion of the
complex as illustrated by Squier and Davis
(1848:Plate XXV).
On the north side of the creek, within
8 k m ( 5 miles) of the earthworks, the famous
"Alligator" or "Opposum" effigy mound resides upon the summit of 1 of the highest
hills in the valley. Opposum Mound has been
investigated by Squier and Davis (1848),
Moorehead (1892), and others, but excavations have never been carried out into the
figure itself so the cultural affiliation of the
structure has never been firmly established. In
August 1974 the writer and Donald Valdez of
Denison University visited the site and recovered about 32.3 cm2 ( 5 square inches) of cut
sheet mica which had been thrown out of the
body of the figure by a woodchuck. Included
with the mica were diffuse particles of charcoal and fire-cracked rock. The association of
the mica with the effigy tentatively identifies
the mound as Hopewell.
Moorehead describes an extensive village
site littered with tools, cores, and core chunks
of Flint Ridge flint "two miles east of Granville within site of the famous Opposum
Mound" (1892:16-17) as well as additional
village sites and "fortified hills" throughout
the Racoon Creek valley, but the cultural
relationships of these localities are uncertain.
The prehistory of the regions north and
south of Newark is less well-known, but generally these areas were outside the mainstream
of Hopewellian interactions. At least the
mound sites occurring in these regions are
more similar t o those in the Muskingum Valley than those which glorify the landscape in
Newark and Ross County. In short the ceremonial center at Newark is the northernmost
major Hopewellian earthwork structure, and
its size and complexity suggests its builders
played a strategic role in the Hopewell Interaction Sphere. This role consisted of exploiting the jewel-flint deposits on Flint Ridge
and transforming the raw material into cores,
blanks, and tools to be used in exchange for
Interaction Sphere products with the Hopewellian communities in the Scioto Valley and
beyond.
Conclusions
The 1974 survey in Licking County was
directed toward a more thorough understanding of the Hopewell phenomenon in the eastern United States. In view of the widespread
distribution of Flint Ridge flint throughout
the northern circuit of the exchange network,
and the proximity of the Newark Hopewellians to the source of this commodity, the
investigation of Middle Woodland sites within
the Licking Valley will contribute substantially to our understanding of cultural dynamics
within the Middle Woodland period. A research design is being formulated which will
focus upon the examination of sites on Flint
Ridge and along the Licking River and its
tributaries to determine the nature of the
Hopewellian settlement within this region and
the relationship of these communities to other
major Hopewell centers in Ohio.
While the conclusions reached from this
initial venture must be approached with caution, a more lucid image of Middle Woodland
prehistory in the Newark area is beginning to
emerge. First, it appears that craft specialization was a feature of Hopewellian social
organization and, at least within the Licking
Valley, lapidary craftsmanship was a dominant
form. Second, if our interpretation of the site
configurations in the valley is correct, intersite
variability characterizes the settlement systems
within this period. This variability is related to
functional factors within the communities supporting the ceremonial-mortuary center. Third,
inter-site stratification is suggested by the
placement of the DiGiondomenico site which
may have controlled or "protected" access to
the sacred ceremonial gounds. Fourth, the
size and complexity of the Newark Works
indicates that they held an important position
LICKING COUNTY
within the Hopewell Interaction Sphere. This
complex may represent a regional transaction
center, as Struever and Houart suggest, which
contributed Flint Ridge flint as raw material
or finished products to the exchange network.
In addition although
- the earlier Adena
manifestations have not been treated in this
paper, it is apparent from both site survey and
examination of the Wehrle materials that the
Licking Valley was extensively inhabited during Early Woodland (Adena) times. While the
processes of transition from Early to Middle
Woodland cultural forms have been investigated by Struever in the Illinois Valley, this
important problem has n o t been systematically approached within Ohio. The excavation of
sites in the Licking Valley which show evidence of Early and Middle Woodland occupations will provide valuable insight into this
complex problem of culture change.
It is fair to say that the Hopewell problem
in Ohio represents one of the most promising
aspects of archaeological research in the eastern United States. It is only through
- the
extraction of additional empirical data that
theoretical formulations of the kind attempted
by Struever a n d Houart for the Hopewell
Interaction Sphere may be examined and new
insights into the cultural dynamics of the
Middle Woodland period may be gasped.
REFERENCES
Anonymous
1834 "Ten Days in Ohio; from the Diary o f a
Naturalist." American jottrrlai o f Sciencc
and Arts XXV:217-57.
Caldwell, Joseph R.
1964 "Interaction Spheres in Prehistory." In
Hopewellian Studies edited by J. R. Caldwell and R. L. Hall, Illinois State Museum, Scientific Papers, 12.
Carskadden, Jeff
1972 "An Analysis of Blades from Three Hopewell Sites in Muskingum County, Ohio."
Ohio Archaeologist 22(2):8-10.
Fowke, Gerard
1902 Archaeological History of Ohio; The
hlound Builders and Later Indians. Ohio
State Archaeological and Historical Sc+
ciety, Columbus.
53
Latrobe, Charles J.
1892 The Rambler in North America 18821883, second edition, Seeley and Burnside. London.
Loughman, John and Paul Loughman
n.d.
Reports of work carried out for A. T.
Wehrle in Licking County, Ohio. Notes
on f i e in Ohio State Museum, Columbus.
Magrath, Willis H.
1959 "A Hopewell Burial on Flint Ridge."
Ohio .4rchaeologist 9(3):92-94.
Marsh, 0. C.
1866 "Description of an Ancient Sepulchral
Mound Near Newark, Ohio." American
Joitrnal of Sciozce and Arts XLI1:l-11.
Mills, William C.
192 1 "Flint Ridge." Ohio State A r c h a e ~ l o ~ i c a l
atld Historical Quarterly 30:90-161.
Moorehead, Warren K.
1892 l'rimitive Marl in Ohio. The Knickerbocker Press, G. P. Putman's Sons, New
York.
1922 "The Hopewell Mound Group of Ohio."
1:ield AIuseum of Natural History, Publi21 1 .
Anthropological Series,
cation
VI(5):73-181.
Morgan, Richard G. and James H. Rodabaugh
1974 Bibliography of Oliio A r c h a e ~ l o g ~The
,
Ohio State Archaeological and Historical
Society, Columbus.
Pi-Sunyer, Oriol
1965 "The Flint Industry." In 0. H. Prufer,
7 h e AlcGraw Site: A Study in Hopewellian Dynamics. Scientific Publications of
the Cleveland Museum of Natural History,
n.s. 4(1):60-89.
Prufer, Olaf H.
1965 The AlcGraw Site: A Study in Hopewclliaii Dy~ramics. Scientific Publications
of the Cleveland Museum of Natural History, n.s. 4(1).
Prufer, Olaf H. and Douglas H. McKenzie
1965 "Ceramics." In 0. H. Prufer, 7'hr AfcGraw
Site: '4 Study in Hopelueliian Dynamics.
Scientific Publications of the Cleveland
n.s.
Museum
of
Natural
History,
4(1):18-59.
Reeves, Dache M.
1936 "A Newly Discovered Extension of the
Newark Works." Ohio State Archaeological anri Historical Quarterly 45: 187.193.
54
PENNSYLVANIA ARCHAEOLOGIST
Shetrone, Henry C.
1926 "Exploration of the Hopewell Group of
Prehistoric Earthworks." Ohio State .4rchaeological and Historical Quarterly
35:l-227.
1930 The Mound Builders. D. Appleton & Co.,
New York.
Sifford, Joseph
1936 "Rambling Through Ohio's Valley of the
Kings." Hobbies 40(11):96-97.
Smucker, Isaac
1873 ' T h e Mound Builders' Works in Licking
American Historical
County, Ohio."
Record 11(23):481-485.
1875 "On the Mounds and Earthworks of Licking County." State Archaeological Association of Ohio, Minutes o f the Ohio State
Archaeological Convention, Held at Mansfield, Ohio, September 1 & 2, 1875. pp.
22-30.
1885 "Alligator Mound. An Effigy or Symbolic
Mound in Licking County, Ohio." American Antiquarian VII:349-355.
Squier, Ephraim and Edwin Davis
1848 Ancient Monuments o f the Mississippi
Valley. Smithsonian Institution, Contributions to Knowledge, I, Washington.
Stout, Wilbur and R. A. Shoenlaub
1945 7 h e Occurrence of Flint in Ohio. State of
Ohio, Department of Natural Resources,
Division of Geological Survey, Fourth
Series, Bulletin 46.
Struever, Stuart and Gail Houart
1972 "An Analysis of the Hopewell Interaction
Sphere." In Social Exchange and Interaction, edited by E. N. WiLnsen. Museum
of Anthropology, University of Michigan,
Anthropological Papers 46.
White, Anta M.
1963 "Analytic Description of the Chipped
Stone Industry from Snyders Site, Calhoun County, Illinois." Miscellaneous
Studies in Technology. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Anthropological Papers 19: 1-70.
Whittlesey, Charles
1872 "Topographical and Historical Sketch of
the State of Ohio." In N e w Topographical Atlas of the State of Ohio, edited by
H. F. Walling and 0. W. Gray, Stedman,
Brown, and Lyon, Cincinatti.
Wilcox, Frank
1933 Ohio Indian
Cleveland.
Trails. The Gates Press,
Willoughby, Charles C. and E A. Hooton
1922 "The Turner Group of Earthworks,
Hamilton County, Ohio." Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology, Papers 8(3).