Advertisement

Definition of Variables and Variable States

  • D. Troy Case
  • Christopher Carr
  • Ashley E. Evans
Part of the Interdisciplinary Contributions to Archaeology book series (IDCA)

Abstract

This chapter continues from the previous in familiarizing the reader with the observations and variables – the rows and columns – in the HOPEBIOARCH data base. Here, we consider the 545 qualitative and quantitative variables used to describe the burials and ceremonial deposits within the ceremonial sites described by the data base. The variables in the data base are of roughly six kinds (Table 8.1). The first 13 define the provenience and context of each observation: the site, mound, burial or ceremonial deposit designation, the primary source of information about the provenience, whether it is a burial or deposit, whether human remains in burial contexts were cremated, inhumed, or burned, the spatial cluster of graves in which it occurs within the mound, and associations among individuals within graves that contain multiple persons.

Keywords

Field Note Specific Number Human Remains Physical Anthropologist Power Part 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Atwater, Caleb 1820 Description of the Antiquities Discovered in the State of Ohio. The Transactions and Collections of the American Antiquarian Society 1:109–251.Google Scholar
  2. Bernardini, Wesley, and Christopher Carr 2005 Hopewellian Copper Celts from Eastern North America: Their Social and Symbolic Significance. In Gathering Hopewell: Society, Ritual, and Ritual Interaction, edited by C. Carr and D. T. Case, pp. 624–647. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York, NY.Google Scholar
  3. Greber, N’omi 1976 Within Ohio Hopewell: Analysis of Burial Patterns from Several Classic Sites. Ph.D. dissertation, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH.Google Scholar
  4. Greber, N’omi, and Katharine Ruhl 1989 The Hopewell Site: A Contemporary Analysis Based on the Works of Charles C. Willoughby. Westview Press, Boulder, CO.Google Scholar
  5. Griffin, James B. 1965 Hopewell and the Dark Black Glass. Michigan Archaeologist 11(3-4):115–155.Google Scholar
  6. Hall, Robert L. 1976b Ghosts, Water Barriers, Corn, and Sacred Enclosures in the Eastern Woodlands. American Antiquity 41(3):360–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hall, Robert L. 1977 An Anthropocentric Perspective for Eastern United States Prehistory. American Antiquity 42(4):499–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Magrath, William H. 1945 The North Benton Mound: A Hopewell Site in Ohio. American Antiquity 11(1):40–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Metz, C. L. 1882 Field Notes: Mounds 3 and 4, Mound 5, Mound 7, Mound 8, Mound 12, and Mound 13. Document on file at the Peabody Museum, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA (X-File 32–25A(2)).Google Scholar
  10. Mills, William C. 1907 The Explorations of the Edwin Harness Mound. Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Quarterly 16:113–193.Google Scholar
  11. Mills, William C. 1916 Exploration of the Tremper Mound. Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Quarterly 25:262–398.Google Scholar
  12. Mills, William C. 1922 Exploration of the Mound City Group. Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Quarterly 31:423–584.Google Scholar
  13. Moorehead, Warren King 1891–1892 Record of Warren K. Moorehead, Explorations, Little Miami Valley, Ohio, April 1891–Jan. 1892. Field notes on file, File A-17, Folder 6, Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago.Google Scholar
  14. Moorehead, Warren King 1897b Report of Field Work Carried on in the Muskingum, Scioto, and Ohio Valleys during the Season of 1886. Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Quarterly 5:165–274.Google Scholar
  15. Moorehead, Warren King 1922 The Hopewell Mound Group of Ohio. Field Museum of Natural History, Publication 211; Anthropological Series 6(5):73–184, plates 51–83. Chicago, ILGoogle Scholar
  16. Putnam, Frederick W. 1886c The Altar Mounds of the Turner group in Ohio. Eighteenth and Nineteenth Annual Reports of the Trustees of the Peabody Museum 3(5–6):554–562.Google Scholar
  17. Ruhl, Katharine C. 2005 Hopewellian Copper Earspools from Eastern North America: The Social, Ritual, and Symbolic Significance of Their Contexts and Distribution. In Gathering Hopewell: Society, Ritual, and Ritual Interaction, edited by C. Carr and D. T. Case, pp. 696–713. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York.Google Scholar
  18. Saville, M.H. 1889 Field Notes: Excavation of Graves at Turner. Document on file at the Peabody Museum, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA (File 89–15, Document A-521).Google Scholar
  19. Saville, M.H. 1890 Field Notes: Turner Group Field Work 1889–1890. Document on file at the Peabody Museum, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA (X-File 90–37).Google Scholar
  20. Seeman, Mark F. 1995 When Words Are Not Enough: Hopewell Interegionalism and the Use of Material Symbols at the GE Mound. In Native American Interactions: Multiscalar Analyses and Interpretation in the Eastern Woodlands, edited by M. S. Nassenay and K. E. Sassaman, pp. 122–143. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville, TN.Google Scholar
  21. Seeman, Mark F., and Frank Soday 1980 The Russell Brown Mounds: Three Hopewell Mounds in Ross County, OH. Mid-Continental Journal of Archaeology 5(1):73–116.Google Scholar
  22. Shetrone, Henry Clyde 1922 Field Notes: The Hopewell Group (Accession #283). Document on file at the Ohio Historical Center, Columbus, Ohio.Google Scholar
  23. Shetrone, Henry Clyde 1924 Field Notes: The Hopewell Group (Accession #283). Document on file at the Ohio Historical Center, Columbus, Ohio.Google Scholar
  24. Shetrone, Henry Clyde 1925 Field Notes: The Hopewell Group (Accession #283). Document on file at the Ohio Historical Center, Columbus, Ohio.Google Scholar
  25. Shetrone, Henry Clyde 1926a Explorations of the Hopewell Group of Prehistoric Earthworks. Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Quarterly 35:1–227.Google Scholar
  26. Shetrone, Henry C. and Emerson F. Greenman 1931 Explorations of the Seip Group of Prehistoric Earthworks. Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Quarterly 40:343–509.Google Scholar
  27. Squier, Ephraim G., and Edwin H. Davis 1848 Ancient Monuments of the Mississippi Valley Comprising the Results of Extensive Original Surveys and Explorations. Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge, 1. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  28. Turff, Gina, and Christopher Carr 2005 Hopewellian Panpipes from Eastern North America: Their Social, Ritual, and Symbolic Significance. In Gathering Hopewell: Society, Ritual, and Ritual Interaction, edited by C. Carr and D. T. Case, pp. 648–695. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York, NY.Google Scholar
  29. Volk, Ernest 1905 Field Notes: Explorations on Turner Farm, Ohio. Document on file at the Peabody Museum, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA (X-File 05–5).Google Scholar
  30. Whitman, Janice 1977 Kohl Mound, A Hopewellian Mound in Tuscarawas County. Ohio Archaeologist 27(3):4–8.Google Scholar
  31. Baby, Raymond S. 1948 Field Notes: Ohio State Museum Archaeological Expedition (Site Ro 63). Document on file at the Ohio Historical Center, Columbus, OH, (Envelope 18).Google Scholar
  32. Carr, Christopher 1998/1999 Reconstructing the Cosmology of Prehistoric Ohio Hopewell Peoples, and Its Rolei in the Development of Supralocal Leadership (50 B.C. – A.D. 350). Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research, Incorporated, Biennial Report for 1998–1999. Wenner-Gren Foundation, New York, NY.Google Scholar
  33. Cowan, Frank L. 2005 Black and White and Buried All Over. Presented at the 52nd annual meeting of the Midwest Archaeological Conference, Dayton, OH.Google Scholar
  34. Prufer, Olaf H., Douglas H. McKenzie, Oriol Pi-Sunyer, Hugh C. Cutler, Richard A. Yarnell, Paul W.Parmalee 1965 The McGraw Site: A Study in Hopewellian Dynamics. Cleveland Museum of Natural History, Scientific Publications 3(1).Google Scholar
  35. Mortine, Wayne A., and Doug Randles 1978 The Martin Mound: An Extension of the Hopewell Interaction Sphere into the Walhonding Valley of Eastern Ohio. Occasional Papers in Muskingum Valley Archaeology, 10. The Muskingum Valley Archaeological Survey, Zanesville, OH.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • D. Troy Case
    • 1
  • Christopher Carr
    • 2
  • Ashley E. Evans
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Sociology and AnthropologyNorth Carolina State UniversityRaleighNorth Carolina
  2. 2.Anthropology Program, School of Human Evolution and Social Change, Arizona State UniversityTempeArizona

Personalised recommendations