A Contextual and Iconographic Reassessment of the Headdress on Burial 11 from Hopewell Mound 25

Sometime in 1924 or 1925, Henry Shetroneexcavated a richly endowed burial that waswearing a very elaborate headdress (i.e.,

Hopewell Burial 11) and interred under HopewellMound 25. Shetrone (1926:68–72, 178) arguedthat it was an avian headdress because he foundabundant feathers and the heads of two small rap-torial birds attached to it. While CharlesWilloughby’s (1935) subsequent interpretationsupplanted this interpretation, I contend thatShetrone’s (1926:68–72) initial characterization ofthe headdress was essentially correct, but that itmore specifically represented a two-headed raptor.I develop this argument by reassessing Shetrone’s(1926) original descriptions of the headdress incomparison to the evidence employed byWilloughby (1935) and others (cf. Carr 2008; Gre-ber and Ruhl 1989:277). In particular, I describehow Willoughby (1935) connected this headdressto the imagery engraved on a human or bear femur(see Johnston 2002). I assert that Willoughby’s(1935) interpretation of both symbols is flawedand demonstrate that there is a double-headed

raptor depicted on this femur. I discuss how thesetwo-headed raptors are related to particular othersymbols from the Central Ohio River Valley(CORV). I conclude by exploring what these two-headed raptors might have meant and their conti-nuity with subsequent visual lexicons.

The Hopewell HorizonHopewell societies are often remembered for theirlarge mounds, earthworks, elaborate burials, andprovocative symbols. This perspective derives inpart from the mid-nineteenth century excavationsof large Middle Woodland mound complexes inthe CORV. It resulted in designating the Hopewellsite as the archetype for the Middle Woodland pe-riod (Brown 2004; Greber 1991). Emerson Green-man (1932) then employed Adena as the type sitefor the preceding Early Woodland period. Thecurrent context of these two taxonomic units is astudy in contrasts. While Berle Clay (2005:108)has stated “read my lips: Adena does not exist,”work on Hopewell has accelerated, marked by the

A CONTEXTUAL AND ICONOGRAPHIC REASSESSMENT OF THE HEADDRESS ON BURIAL 11 FROM HOPEWELL MOUND 25

Bretton T. Giles

I explore in this paper the significance of the headdress interred on Burial 11 under Hopewell Mound 25 by reexamining itsarchaeological context and the history of its interpretation. Following Shetrone’s (1926) initial interpretation, I argue thatit was an avian headdress that specifically portrayed a two-headed raptor. I support this reassessment with an iconographicanalysis of related representations from the Central Ohio River Valley, especially the imagery engraved on a femur fromHopewell Mound 25. I also delve into what these two-headed raptors might have meant to people in the Eastern Woodlands.

Con el fin de determinar su importancia, el presente estudio examina la historia y el contexto de los tocados encontrados enel entierro 11 del túmulo Hopewell 25. Basándome en la interpretación inicial de Shetrone (1926), propongo que uno de estostocados representa una ave raptora de dos cabezas. Esta interpretación se fundamenta no sólo en este tocado, sino tambiénen en el análisis iconográfico de otras representaciones que provienen del Valle Central del Rio Ohio. Entre ellas destaca laimagen en bajo relieve tallada en un femur del Túmulo Hopewell 25. El presente estudio indaga además en el posible signi-ficado que estos motivos de pájaros de dos cabezas pueden haber tenido para los grupos del Woodland Oriental.

Bretton T. Giles � CEMML, Colorado State University, 407 Pershing Court, Fort Riley, KS 66442–6016([email protected])

American Antiquity 78(3), 2013, pp. 502–519Copyright © 2013 by the Society for American Archaeology

502

Del

iver

ed b

y ht

tp://

saa.

met

apre

ss.c

om

Soci

ety

for

Am

eric

an A

rcha

eolo

gy -

Am

eric

an A

ntiq

uity

acc

ess

(392

-89-

746)

IP

Add

ress

: 140

.153

.68.

94

Wed

nesd

ay, F

ebru

ary

19, 2

014

1:49

:01

PM

Giles] REASSESSMENT OF THE HEADDRESS ON BURIAL 11 FROM HOPEWELL MOUND 25 503

publication of numerous books in the last decade(Charles and Buikstra 2006; Byers 2004, 2011;Byers and Wymer 2010; Carr and Case 2005a;Case and Carr 2008; Connolly and Lepper 2004).Perhaps not surprisingly, the Early to Middle

Woodland sequence in the CORV, the location ofthe archetypical Adena and Hopewell sites, re-mains troublesome because there is little consen-sus about the archaeological materials that aretemporally sensitive in different river valleys(Brown 2004, 2005; Clay 2005, 2009; Greber1991; Mainfort 2005). The use of Adena andHopewell as broad taxa is also associated with theassumption that the lifeways of these peopleschanged at a constant rate (cf. Seeman 1992).Consequently, Adena sites are assumed to date tothe Early Woodland period, before Hopewell sitesthat were constructed during the Middle Wood-land period. However, radiocarbon assays suggestthat many sites in the Lower Hocking River Val-ley, the Kentucky Bluegrass Region, and theMuskingham River Valley that have been classi-fied as Adena date to the Middle Woodland period(Abrams 2009; Abrams and Freter 2005; Carskad-den and Morton 1996; Clay 2009; Cochran 1996;Greber 1991; Murphy 1989; Railey 1996; Seeman1996). It would therefore be useful to develop analternate nomenclature to refer to different re-gional clusters of Middle Woodland sites, whichwere formerly known as Adena. The temporal separation of Adena and

Hopewell sites has also been reified by icono-graphic analyses. For example, Christopher Carrand Troy Case (2005b) have argued that there is adevelopmental sequence from Adena to Hopewellimagery. They contend that the earlier Adenatablets depict “classic” shamanistic themes, whileHopewell imagery represents the development ofa more formalized religious tradition. However,Carr and Case (2005b:202) imply some overlapbecause both Adena and Hopewell imagery em-ploy “perceptual-mental ambiguities” (sensu Roe1995). They argue that these “perceptual-mentalambiguities” indicate the pervasiveness ofshamanistic themes that stress transformation. YetCarr and his colleagues do not define any sharedAdena and Hopewell iconographic themes, al-though they note similarities in the structure andtechniques used in these groups’ imagery (Carr2008; Carr and Case 2005b).1

I argue that the depiction of two-headed raptorsconstitutes a shared iconographic theme. Whiledouble-headed raptors, especially the examplesdepicted on tablets, have often been consideredcharacteristic of Adena representations (Webband Baby 1957), the importance of this theme atthe Hopewell site has been obscured byWilloughby’s (1916, 1935) interpretations of theheaddress interred on Burial 11 and the engravedfemur found with either Burial 281 or 260/261 inHopewell Mound 25 (Greber and Ruhl 1989).2

Archaeological Context of Shetrone’s Burial 11 from Hopewell Mound 25

Hopewell is a massive site composed of four en-closures and at least 40 mounds located on theNorth Fork of Paint Creek (Figure 1). The fortymounds range in size from several that were 3 min diameter and 30 cm high to the massiveHopewell Mound 25 (Greber and Ruhl 1989;Moorehead 1922; Shetrone 1926; Squier andDavis 1998 [1848]). Hopewell Mound 25 wasoriginally probably about 33 ft (10 m) high, 500ft (152 m) in length, and 180 ft (55 m) wide be-fore it was extensively plowed. Hopewell Mound25 probably covered several wooden charnelhouses (Greber and Ruhl 1989). The wide rangeof radiocarbon dates from Hopewell Mound 25indicates that the space was used over an ex-tended period (Greber 2003).Scioto peoples interred Burial 11 wearing an

elaborate headdress that consisted of a number ofdifferent components (Shetrone 1926: 68–72,178). Cheryl Johnston (2008:499, Table 10.5) es-timates that this individual was a 20–30-year-oldmale. Yet despite his youth, he received an elab-orate interment at Hopewell, given the headdressand objects interred with him, some of whichmay indicate membership or leadership in partic-ular Ohio Hopewell sodalities (Carr 2008:69).Copper earspools were placed on both his earsand two were positioned near his left hand,3 whilesix bear incisors were set in his right hand.Bracelets of shell beads encircled his neck andwrists. Four large bear canines were found aroundhis neck, two of which were cut and had a miteredjoint set with a pearl. Hopewell peoples placed alarge conch shell in the left center of the grave,two copper plates at the right center, and eight

Del

iver

ed b

y ht

tp://

saa.

met

apre

ss.c

om

Soci

ety

for

Am

eric

an A

rcha

eolo

gy -

Am

eric

an A

ntiq

uity

acc

ess

(392

-89-

746)

IP

Add

ress

: 140

.153

.68.

94

Wed

nesd

ay, F

ebru

ary

19, 2

014

1:49

:01

PM

large sharpened deer bone awls in the lower leftcorner of his tomb. Burial 11 was also interred ina log crypt approximately 10 ft (3 m) long by 6 ft(1.8 m) wide that was placed on a low earthenplatform. His grave was capped by a small moundand later covered by Hopewell Mound 25(Shetrone 1926:68–72).His headdress consisted of a rectangular copper

headplate with large, oval copper flaps on eitherside that was assembled on a saucer-shapedwooden base (Figure 2.1). It was attached to a bon-net-like appendage of fabric to which large pearlbeads, bear claws, bird feathers, and the heads oftwo small raptoral birds had been sewn (Shetrone1926:68–72, 178). There have been a series ofnotable interpretations of Burial 11 from HopewellMound 25 that have emphasized the significanceof this headdress (Carr 2008; Greber and Ruhl1989; Willoughby 1935; Shetrone 1926).

Willoughby’s 1935 paper has been the most in-fluential interpretation and suggests that the head-dress was a representation of Michabo the GreatHare, a mythic Algonquian hero, with the copperflaps of this headdress portraying the floppy earsof a rabbit/hare. Additionally, Willoughby (1935)associated the headdress on Burial 11 with the de-sign engraved on the femur (Figure 2.2). Since in-terpretations of Burial 11’s headdress rely onWilloughby’s (1935) analyses, it is instructive toreview the historical development and limitationsof his work. Willoughby’s perspective developedfrom analyzing the collections from the Hopewellsite, which were the result of Moorehead’s (1897,1922) late nineteenth-century excavations. Heconducted these analyses under the direction ofFrederick Putnam, and they published an abstracton moundbuilder art (Putnam and Willoughby1896). In fact, even though Shetrone found Bur-

504 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 78, No. 3, 2013

Figure 1. A map of the Central Ohio River Valley that illustrates the locations of the sites from this area mentioned in thetext: (1) Crabb Orchard Springs Mound; (2) Hopewell; (3) Liberty; (4) Low Tablet (amateur mound excavation); (5)Meigs Tablet (Mound); (6) Mound City; (7) Seip; (8) Tremper; (9) Turner; (10) Wilmington Tablet (Mound).

Del

iver

ed b

y ht

tp://

saa.

met

apre

ss.c

om

Soci

ety

for

Am

eric

an A

rcha

eolo

gy -

Am

eric

an A

ntiq

uity

acc

ess

(392

-89-

746)

IP

Add

ress

: 140

.153

.68.

94

Wed

nesd

ay, F

ebru

ary

19, 2

014

1:49

:01

PM


Figure 2. Comparison of the headdress interred on Shetrone’s (1926) Burial 11 from Hopewell Mound 25 to the imageryengraved on a femur that Moorehead (1922) found in the same mound: (2.1) copper, pearl, and mica headdress foundon Burial 11 under Hopewell Mound 25 (Image Courtesy of the Ohio Historical Society); (2.2) design engraved on afemur from Hopewell Mound 25 (Putnam and Willoughby 1893:303, Figure 2); (2.3) visages produced by Willoughby inthe 1890s from the design on the femur (Putnam and Willoughby 1896:304, Figure 3).

Del

iver

ed b

y ht

tp://

saa.

met

apre

ss.c

om

Soci

ety

for

Am

eric

an A

rcha

eolo

gy -

Am

eric

an A

ntiq

uity

acc

ess

(392

-89-

746)

IP

Add

ress

: 140

.153

.68.

94

Wed

nesd

ay, F

ebru

ary

19, 2

014

1:49

:01

PM

ial 11 in the 1920s, Willoughby’s interpretation ofits headdress began gestating approximately thirtyyears earlier as a result of his analysis of an en-graved femur (Figure 2.2) from Hopewell.Willoughby’s (1916, 1935; see also Greber

and Ruhl 1989; Putnam and Willoughby 1896)critical insight was that this engraved femur de-picted many of the “masks” (e.g., headdressesand ceremonial regalia) found with burials and inritual deposits under Hopewell Mound 25.Willoughby recognized in even his earliest workin the 1890s that the imagery it depicted (Figure2.3a–e) visually referenced the copper, antleredheaddresses that Moorehead (1922) found withburials. Later Willoughby (1935) linked the head-dress on Shetrone’s Burial 11 to one of the visageshe had produced from the design incised on thisfemur approximately 40 years earlier (Figure2.3e) (cf. Putnam and Willoughby 1896;Willoughby 1916; Willoughby 1935). He arguedthat the floppy “ears” (e.g., copper flaps) on eitherside of the heads of these individuals representedthose of rabbits and that this visage portrayed theAlgonquin hero “Michabo the Great Hare.” Willoughby (1935:285) brushed aside aspects of

the headdress’s context by stating that “the pearlbeads, bear claws, feathers, and the head of a smallhawk-like bird had, apparently, been used in or-namenting the woven fabric which, according toMr. Shetrone, had apparently formed a part of theheadpiece” (emphasis added). So Willoughby(1935) casts doubt on Shetrone’s (1926) descriptionof the headdress and dismisses aspects of its ar-chaeological context. This is because Willoughbyalready had a visual image with which he associ-ated the headdress. In fact, Willoughby (in Greberand Ruhl 1989:251) stated in regard to this en-graved femur “that of course other combinationscan be made from this ingenious design but I haveonly reproduced the heads and faces which wereevidently in the primitive artist’s mind when he ex-ecuted this remarkable carving.” Willoughby pri-oritized his own interpretations and did not reeval-uate them based on the contextual evidenceassociated with Burial 11.Subsequent interpretations were inordinately

influenced by Willoughby’s (1935) paper. For ex-ample, N’omi Greber and Katherine Ruhl(1989:277) suggest that the proportions of the“ears” depicted are more akin to those of a deer

than a rabbit. In fact, in order to support inter-preting these flaps as deer’s ears, AmeliaTrevelyan (2004) depicted the copper flaps aspointing up, rather than how they were originallyoriented along the sides of the head of Burial 11.Carr (2008:187–188) has also made a passing al-lusion to the headdress on Burial 11 fromHopewell Mound 25 as representing “a shimmer-ing flying creature (insect?, cicada?, or hum-mingbird?),” while acknowledging that they mightalso be a deer’s ears. Carr’s (2008:187–188) in-terpretation references the shiny or bright copperand mica in this headdress, especially the parts cu-rated at the Ohio Historical Society. Regrettably,Carr (2008) overlooks that Shetrone (1926:178)found feathers and the heads of two small raptorswith the headdress. Ohio Hopewell archaeologists, in general, seem

to have forgotten that Shetrone (1926:178) inter-preted the ceremonial regalia on Burial 11 as a rap-torial headdress. Shetrone (1926:68–72, 175–178)even talked about how well preserved the “vestigesof the feathers and the beaks of two birds, apparentlysmall hawks” were, as well as the way its copperflaps served as wings. The fact that Shetrone’s in-terpretation of Burial 11 was virtually never cited af-ter Willoughby’s (1935) paper was published illus-trates how completely it was supplanted.I argue that there is a two-headed raptor em-

bedded in the design, engraved on the femur fromHopewell Mound 25 (cf. Greber and Ruhl 1989;Putnam and Willoughby 1896; Willoughby 1916,1935). While this two-headed raptor has not beenrecognized, once identified, it ameliorates a greatdeal of the confusion regarding the significance ofthe headdress on Burial 11. The beaks of the dou-bled-head raptor are formed by three curved lines,one of which is shorter than the others (Figure 3a),which attach to the central circular eyes of the de-sign (Figure 3b). The body of the bird is formed bya long axial element (Figure 3c) that expands intoa fan-shaped motif that probably portrays its tailfeathers (Figure 3d).4 The wings of the bird cor-respond to the appendages located on either sideof the design that parallel the copper flaps of theheaddress on Burial 11 (Figure 3e). There also ap-pears to be a possibly anthropomorphic face rep-resented in profile on these wings (Figure 3f).The two-headed raptor in the design is im-

plicitly portrayed superimposed on a human face.


Del

iver

ed b

y ht

tp://

saa.

met

apre

ss.c

om

Soci

ety

for

Am

eric

an A

rcha

eolo

gy -

Am

eric

an A

ntiq

uity

acc

ess

(392

-89-

746)

IP

Add

ress

: 140

.153

.68.

94

Wed

nesd

ay, F

ebru

ary

19, 2

014

1:49

:01

PM

This human face is recognizable by the presenceof a mouth with square teeth within it (Figure 3g).This human face probably prompted Willoughby(1916, 1935) and others (Greber and Ruhl 1989)to interpret these headdresses and ceremonial re-galia as “masks.” But it might be more appropri-ate to conceptualize this iconographic imagery asreflecting complex visual puns, since both thehuman face and the two-headed raptor share thesame large circular eyes (Figure 3b) (Giles 2010).This use of visual puns probably points to aclosely related emphasis on transformation (seeCarr 2008; Carr and Case 2005b; Giles 2010).This association was maintained in the intermentof Burial 11 because the two-headed raptorialheaddress was placed on the aforementionedman’s head. These two-headed raptor icons havecounterparts in other Early-Middle Woodland de-pictions from the CORV.

A Comparison of Two-Headed Raptor Depictions from the CORV

The recognition that Burial 11’s headdress and theengraved femur from Hopewell Mound 25 repre-sent two-headed raptors offers an opportunity toassess whether they have connections to other

icons from the CORV. While a discussion of allthe similarities between representations of double-headed raptors in the CORV is beyond thepurview of this paper, I will discuss how fiveicons (the Low Tablet, three copper cutouts fromBurial 2 under Mound City Mound 13, and theCrab Orchard Shell Gorget) have unrecognizedsimilarities to the two aforementioned examplesfrom Hopewell. One representation that has close iconographic

similarities to the two-headed raptors fromHopewell Mound 25 is the Low Tablet, whichwas found by an amateur archaeologist in a smallmound in northern West Virginia (Figure 4.1)(Otto 1975; Penney 1982). The Low tablet is in-scribed with two sets of double-headed raptors(Figure 4.1a) that are positioned above the twocentralized human faces (Figure 4.1b), which aresurrounded on either side by wings (Figure 4.1c).These birds have long curved beaks and roundedheads, which have been interpreted as represent-ing vultures, similar to several of the other en-graved tablets (Webb and Baby 1957; Webb andSnow 2001 [1945]). Below these designs, there arestylized feet, talons, or plumes (Figure 4.1d). Theimagery on the Low Tablet therefore parallels thedepiction of a two-headed bird overlaid on a hu-


Figure 3. Design engraved on a femur from Hopewell Mound 25 (Putnam and Willoughby 1893:303, Figure 2): (a) thebeaks of the double-headed bird; (b) large shared eyes of the visages; (c) axial motif that forms the body of the two-headed bird; (d) fan-shaped motif that depicts its tail feathers; (e) wings of the bird, (f) circular and bar shaped elementsthat form the eye and mouth respectively of the “face” portrayed in profile; (g) central human mouth with square teeth;(h) curved motifs at the bottom of the wings; (i) teardrop-shaped elements incorporated into the wings.

Del

iver

ed b

y ht

tp://

saa.

met

apre

ss.c

om

Soci

ety

for

Am

eric

an A

rcha

eolo

gy -

Am

eric

an A

ntiq

uity

acc

ess

(392

-89-

746)

IP

Add

ress

: 140

.153

.68.

94

Wed

nesd

ay, F

ebru

ary

19, 2

014

1:49

:01

PM

man face from the aforementioned engraved fe-mur, as well as Burial 11.There are some differences between the im-

ages portrayed on the Low Tablet and on the en-graved femur from Hopewell Mound 25. For ex-ample, it is notable that instead of one humanface, as appears on the engraved femur fromHopewell, the Low Tablet features two sets thatgenerally mirror one another. This difference isprobably meaningful, but it does not underminetheir similarities. Along these lines, the configu-ration of the Low Tablet is similar to how two setsof double-headed raptors are portrayed on a re-poussé plate interred with Burial 2 under Mound7 at Mound City (Figure 4.2). Despite these differences, the images inscribed

on the Low Tablet and the Hopewell femur havea striking resemblance. Is this resemblance be-cause one of the artisans was familiar with an ex-isting design and produced an iterative depictionbased on it? I believe this scenario is possible, butit is also feasible that one or both of the artisans

produced these representations by depicting ritualspecialists who wore regalia similar to the illus-trated examples. For example, we know fromWilloughby’s (1916; see also Greber and Ruhl1989; Putnam and Willoughby 1896) work onthe engraved femur from Hopewell Mound 25that it depicts other ceremonial regalia that wereprobably also worn as costumes. The depiction ofa double-headed bird headdress on the Low Tabletcertainly could have been the example interred onBurial 11 under Hopewell Mound 25, although itis equally possible that it represented an analo-gous example.The convention of depicting double-headed

raptors around the human face may hold impli-cations for how the three copper cutouts found inBurial 2 under Mound 13 at Mound City wereworn (Figure 4.3). These three copper cutoutsportray stylized double-headed raptors with long,hooked beaks (Figure 4.3a) that are very similarto those depicted on several of the engravedtablets, including the Low Tablet (Figure 4.1a).


Figure 4. Comparison of the Low Tablet to a rectangular copper plate and copper two-headed bird cutout from MoundCity: (4.1) sketch of the Low Tablet: (a) two-headed birds with hook-like beaks and bulbous heads; (b) two centralhuman faces; (c) conventionalized wings; (d) stylized feet, talons, or plumes; (4.2) tracing of the rectangular copper platefrom Grave 12 under Mound 13 at Mound City (after Webb and Baby 1957:101, Figure 49); (4.3) two-headed bird cop-per cutout from Burial 2 under Mound 7 at Mound City: (a) hook-like beaks on this two-headed bird; (b) bulbous headsof this bird.

Del

iver

ed b

y ht

tp://

saa.

met

apre

ss.c

om

Soci

ety

for

Am

eric

an A

rcha

eolo

gy -

Am

eric

an A

ntiq

uity

acc

ess

(392

-89-

746)

IP

Add

ress

: 140

.153

.68.

94

Wed

nesd

ay, F

ebru

ary

19, 2

014

1:49

:01

PM

These hook-like beaks and rounded, bulbousheads (Figure 4.3b) have been taken to indicatethat these copper cutouts, like the Adena tablets,portray vultures (Webb and Baby 1957). Conse-quently, these three copper cutouts from MoundCity provide an apropos link between the morefalconoid imagery from Hopewell sites and thevulture-like representations depicted on severaltablets. These beaks are also visible on the rec-tangular copper plate found with Burial 2 underMound 7 at Mound City (Figure 4.2).The Crab Orchard Shell Gorget (Figure 5) is

another representation from the CORV that hasiconographic similarities with the two-headedraptor engraved on the femur from HopewellMound 25. It was found with a burial in a moundin southern Kentucky near Crab Orchard Springs(Webb and Baby 1957; Young 1910). A double-headed raptor or eagle, with stylized faces por-trayed in profile on its wings, is engraved on itssurface (Phillips and Brown 1978; Webb and

Baby 1957; Young 1910). While Webb and Baby(1957:94, 107) attributed this large shell gorget toAdena, Phillips and Brown (1978) argued that itwas a member of the late Middle Woodland Fair-field group of shell gorgets, based on the absenceof other comparable examples from Adena sitesand its stylistic and morphological similarities tothe rest of the group. In this sense, it is notable thatMills (1922:434, 557–558) found a cache of shellgorgets with Burial 2 under Mound 8 at MoundCity, one of which depicted a stylized bird head. The design on the Crab Orchard Springs Shell

Gorget is similar to a number of the aforemen-tioned double-headed raptorial images, whichsuggests that Phillips and Brown (1978) werecorrect to attribute it to the Middle Woodland pe-riod. For example, it clearly portrays a double-headed raptor that has long hook-like beaks (Fig-ure 5a) similar to those illustrated on the coppercutouts from Mound City (Figure 4.3a) and onseveral engraved tablets.5 However, the crests on


Figure 5. Sketch of the Crabb Orchard Shell Gorget (based on Young 1910:240): (a) hook-like beaks of this two-headedbird; (b) crest of these bird heads, similar to the caracara; (c) circular eye of the visage in profile on the wing of this bird;(d) curved lobe-shaped motifs at the bottom of these wings, similar to the wings of the two-headed raptor engraved onthe femur from Hopewell Mound 25; (e) teardrop-shaped elements similar to ones that appear on the wings of the two-headed raptor engraved on the femur from Hopewell Mound 25.

Del

iver

ed b

y ht

tp://

saa.

met

apre

ss.c

om

Soci

ety

for

Am

eric

an A

rcha

eolo

gy -

Am

eric

an A

ntiq

uity

acc

ess

(392

-89-

746)

IP

Add

ress

: 140

.153

.68.

94

Wed

nesd

ay, F

ebru

ary

19, 2

014

1:49

:01

PM

these raptor heads (Figure 5b) are not comparableto any motif on the other representations (cf. Fig-ure 4.1a and 4.2 to Figure 5b). The crests on thesebird heads could be drawn from caracaras, whichhave pronounced black crests on their heads anda semitropical distribution that includes Texas. Yetthere are features on this depiction that do not fitthe morphology of the crested caracara, such asthe fairly narrow, hook-like beak; caracara havelarge, thick, prominent beaks that almost jut outfrom their foreheads. So it is feasible that theCrab Orchard Springs Shell Gorget may portrayan avian creature with various stylized features,which was part of the mythos of Middle Wood-land people in the CORV. Moreover, the design onthe Crab Orchard Springs Gorget lacks the humanhead(s) depicted in several of the other represen-tations that could indicate that they illustrate elab-orate headdresses. The shared talons, body, andtail feathers on the Crab Orchard Springs Gorgetalso indicate a mythic figure (e.g., a raptorial birdwith two heads) more clearly than the Low Tabletand femur from Hopewell Mound 25. The two-headed raptor on the Crab Orchard

Shell Gorget does share a number of importantfeatures with Hopewell representations, espe-cially the femur from Hopewell Mound 25. Inparticular, the faces depicted in profile on thisdouble-headed raptor’s wings are similar to thosepresent in an analogous position on the engravedfemur. In fact, there are similarities between thewings on the two-headed raptors for the Crab Or-chard Shell Gorget and the engraved femur fromHopewell Mound 25 that extend to the shape,position, and presence of the particular motifs. Forexample, both of these double-headed raptorshave circular motifs on their wings that appear toportray eyes (cf. Figures 3f and 5c), curved lobeshaped motifs at the bottom of their wings (cf.Figures 3h and 5d), and teardrop shaped elementsthat are located in roughly analogous positions (cf.Figures 3i and 5e). I therefore agree with Phillipsand Brown (1978:158–159) that the Crab Or-chard Springs Gorget should be included in theFairfield style of shell gorgets.Collectively, the similarities between these

Middle Woodland double-headed raptor repre-sentations from Ohio, West Virginia, and Ken-tucky suggest that this imagery constitutes a wide-spread, shared iconographic theme. The

overlapping iconographic imagery found at Mid-dle Woodland sites, traditionally labeled asHopewell and Adena, suggests a complex politi-cal and social landscape in which spatial prox-imity in the CORV did not have a straightforwardor simplistic relation with similarity/difference.Likewise, the absence of representations of dou-ble-headed raptors at Seip, Liberty, and Turner isitself notable. Their absence highlights DavidBrose’s (1985) point that there are notable dis-continuities in Hopewell exchange patterns,which suggest sporadic, fluid, and contingent in-teractions between different communities. Based on the distribution of these two-headed

raptor images, it would appear that there were im-portant relationships between the Ohio Hopewellgroups that claimed Hopewell and Mound Cityand certain Middle Woodland folk from northernWest Virginia and Kentucky.6 These relationshipsmay also be indicated by other types of artifacts(Applegate 2008). For example, Squier and Davis(1998 [1848]) documented four engraved sand-stone rattlesnake tablets from Hopewell Mound 1,objects that often seem to have been ignored indiscussions of this artifact type in the CORV (cf.Penney 1980, 1982). Given that two snake effigyplatform pipes were also found in HopewellMound 1 (Giles 2010:348; Stevens 1870),7 thismound most likely dates to the Middle Woodlandperiod, although it could be early in the sequenceanalogous to the dates for the large pipe cachesunder Mound 8 at Mound City and the TremperMound (Brown 2004; Emerson et al. 2005). It istherefore important that Hopewell is the onlyOhio Hopewell site with engraved tablets, whichcould indicate this group’s relationship with par-ticular Middle Woodland peoples from northernWest Virginia and Kentucky. Moreover, the con-ceptually similar rectangular repoussé and fenes-trated copper plates, found with Burial 2 underMound 7 at Mound City (Figure 4.2), may indi-cate a similar axis of interaction. There are other interesting connections as well.

For example, there are morphological similaritiesbetween the Crab Orchard Shell Gorget and thecache of shell gorgets interred in Mound CityMound 8, while there are no other comparableshell gorgets found in Early or Middle Woodlandcontexts in Kentucky (Phillips and Brown 1978).Similarly, Burial 11 from Hopewell Mound 25


Del

iver

ed b

y ht

tp://

saa.

met

apre

ss.c

om

Soci

ety

for

Am

eric

an A

rcha

eolo

gy -

Am

eric

an A

ntiq

uity

acc

ess

(392

-89-

746)

IP

Add

ress

: 140

.153

.68.

94

Wed

nesd

ay, F

ebru

ary

19, 2

014

1:49

:01

PM

was found with a series of bone awls, and boneawls are sometimes associated with whetstones inthe CORV, such as within the Adena mound(Mills 1902:470–471). Martha Otto (1985),among others, has suggested that the grooves onstone tablets from the CORV are the result ofsharpening these bone awls, which were thendipped in the pigments often found with thesetablets and used in tattooing.8 The deposition ofeight deer bone awls in the lower left corner ofBurial 11’s tomb may therefore be significant.For instance, it is possible to envision a scenarioin which these bone awls were offered as “gifts”by a Middle Woodland group from northern WestVirginia or Kentucky to mark the passing of thisimportant man. Alternately, this individual (Bur-ial 11) could have been connected to tattooing asa specialized activity in the CORV.9 One way oranother, it is time to break up and “deconstruct”the pervasive notion that the CORV was com-posed of bounded, culturally homogeneous socialgroups during the Middle Woodland period bylooking for interesting convergences across the re-gion (Brown 2005; Clay 2005, 2009; Mainfort2005; Sieg and Hollinger 2005).

The Meaning and Significance of Double-Headed Raptors

Depictions of double-headed raptors occur over along period in the Eastern Woodlands and a broadgeographic range. Penney (1985:183) has arguedthat the earliest two-headed bird was engraved ona Poverty Point era plummet from the LowerMississippi River Valley. During the MiddleWoodland period, representations of double-headed birds occur on pots from the Lower Mis-sissippi River Valley and Illinois River Valleys(Giles 2009; Kidder 2004). A double-headed rap-tor is portrayed on the copper cutout found inBedford Mound 8 with Burial 1 (Hall 2006;Perino and Farnsworth 2006:252). There are alsorepresentations of double-headed birds depictedon pipes, stone tablets, copper plates and cere-monial regalia from the CORV, including some ofthe aforementioned examples (Giles 2009; 2010).It is possible that some of the two-headed bird de-pictions engraved on stone tablets from the CORVcould date to the Early Woodland period, but it isdifficult to assess this possibility with the current

evidence (cf. Penney 1982; Webb and Baby 1957;Webb and Snow 2001 [1945]). Two-headed birds continued to be portrayed

after the Middle Woodland period, although thedistribution of these symbols no longer seems tohave included the CORV. From the Late Wood-land period, there is a double-headed falcon shellpendant from the Liverpool Lake site in Illinoisand a mussel shell effigy from the MauriceThompson Mound in Illinois (Sank and Sampson1994). Later, Mississippian people portrayed dou-ble-headed birds in many of the same materialmedia as earlier Hopewellian people, such as onpots, shell cups, shell gorgets, and copper plates(Phillips and Brown 1978; Sank and Sampson1994). Robert Hall (2006:467) documented aPawnee two-headed eagle war charm, while War-ren Wittry (1962) described a two-headed ravenheaddress that was found on a burial in a moundin Sauk County, Wisconsin. So while double-headed bird representations are rare, they have along history in the Eastern Woodlands that ex-tends into the historic period, since the Pawneewar charm is “perhaps a century and a half old atmost” (Hall 2006:466). The similarities between the two-headed raven

headdress that Wittry (1962) describes and the ex-ample on Burial 11 from Hopewell Mound 25 areparticularly noteworthy. This headdress, madefrom the heads and feathers of two commonravens, was interred on a subadult in a conicalmound with a circular ditch. The braincases ofeach of these two birds were removed, and theraven heads were perforated for attachment tothe headdress (Wittry 1962:91–92). This two-headed raven headdress is conceptually quite sim-ilar to the composite copper, mica, and raptorialheaddress interred on Burial 11 in HopewellMound 25. Yet its date is unclear and Wittry(1962) suggests that it falls within the Late Wood-land to Precontact period. Nevertheless, theseheaddresses seem analogous to the regalia de-scribed by James Howard (1968:44) as consistingof a split hawk’s skin that was worn as a turbanwith the bird’s head positioned in front, the wingsalong the sides of the wearer’s head, and the tailfeathers draped over their neck.The ethnohistoric literature is strangely quiet

about the meaning of double-headed raptors. How-ever, James Duncan (2011:22) has recently de-


Del

iver

ed b

y ht

tp://

saa.

met

apre

ss.c

om

Soci

ety

for

Am

eric

an A

rcha

eolo

gy -

Am

eric

an A

ntiq

uity

acc

ess

(392

-89-

746)

IP

Add

ress

: 140

.153

.68.

94

Wed

nesd

ay, F

ebru

ary

19, 2

014

1:49

:01

PM

scribed the importance of a two-headed eagle inOsage cosmology, where it is associated with thefirst or primal being (Hoᵑ-ga A-hui-toᵑ), who is alsoreferred to as a “young mottled eagle.” Duncan(2011:22) states that this two-headed eagle “rep-resents the risen sun and its red color is an allusionto the rays reflecting from the mottled eagle’sbody,” which is a pertinent association becausethis imagery was often portrayed in copper or withcopper embellishments. The Osage consider Hoᵑ-ga A-hui-toᵑ’s two eagle heads to “illustrate itsdual female/male nature, the all powerful spirit re-siding within its body” (Duncan 2011:22). More-over, the associations of Hoᵑ-ga A-hui-toᵑ are com-plicated because he and then his sons seriallyassume several roles linked to the sun and morningstar (Brown 2007:93–95; Duncan 2011:26).One of Duncan’s (2011) entry points into this

double-headed eagle is the cosmogram presentedto J. Owen Dorsey in 1883 by William Matthews(Red Corn), a member of the Osage (cf. Dorsey1885:377–378). Moreover, Dorsey’s cosmogramcorresponds to a modern chart that is a transcrip-tion of the Tsi-Zhu tattoo that was provided toDuncan (2011:19) by Bud Red Corn (Figure 6.1).Bud Red Corn identifies this two-headed raptor,Hoᵑ-ga A-hui-toᵑ, at the top of the Dorsey’s cos-mogram and the Tsi-Zhu tattoo (in Duncan2011:22). Tsi-Zhu is the name of the Dhegihan“Sky” moiety (Bailey and La Flesche 1995:41),but this tattoo is described as adorning the upperchest of the “Man of Mystery.” It is clear fromother sources that this “Man of Mystery” stood for“the unification of the two great tribal divisions,representative of the sky with its cosmic bodiesand the Earth, the earth into which life descendsto take on bodily forms” (Bailey and La Flesche1995:137). In other words, he represented an im-portant microcosm for the larger cosmos. The Tsi-Zhu tattoo has a series of very inter-

esting concurrences with two-headed raptor rep-resentations from the Hopewell site and thebroader CORV. First, there is the possibility thatrepresentations of double-headed raptors are con-sistently associated with tattooing, since Otto(1975) and Lepper (2005) suggest that the en-graved stone tablets, pigments, and sharpenedbone awls composed tattooing kits. Several ofthe engraved tablets also portray two-headed rap-tors, including the Low, Meigs, and Wilmington

Tablets. Furthermore, there are the eight deerbone awls, which could have possibly been usedin tattooing, that were found in the lower left cor-ner of Burial 11’s tomb (Shetrone 1926:68). Ac-cordingly, Aaron Deter-Wolf (2009) has suggestedthat sharpened bone awls were the most likelyprehistoric implements to be used in tattooing. The second similarity is the portrayal of these

double-headed raptors as part of cosmograms(Figure 6.1a), although the information conveyedin the designs is quite different. In many ways,cosmological knowledge is presented in a muchmore straightforward manner on the Tsi-Zhu tat-too because it depicts the number of cosmologi-cal levels, which sit or pivot on the world tree(Duncan 2011) (Figure 6.1b and c). Other parts ofthe design also convey information about signif-icant other-than-human persons or allude to im-portant events (Duncan 2011). Similarly, the design on the engraved femur

from Hopewell Mound 25 contains significantcosmological knowledge (Figure 6.2) (Giles2010:58–59). For example, it depicts a stackedcosmos as well, with a circular motif (Figure 6.2a)that may represent a celestial orb above the humanhead (Figure 6.2b). The human head has antlers onit (Figure 6.2c), and on his face is a two-headedraptor (Figure 6.2d) (Giles 2010). This spatial or-der may be apropos, since it includes mythic andother noteworthy animals. Along these lines, itcould portray the branching antlers of an elk orwapiti, which extended higher than the heads ofmost human beings. 10 In addition, celestial orbs,such as the sun and the moon, rotate in the skyabove our heads, which establishes an importantsimilarity between these cosmograms (cf. 6.1 and6.2). Other parts of this design, such as the double-headed raptor on the human face, may also havea spatial logic that visually puns or plays on theirrelative position in the cosmos (see below). ThisOhio Hopewell design therefore seems to con-dense a perspective of the cosmos that emphasizesaspects of different human/animal bodies (Giles2010:558–559).Third, these cosmograms with two-headed rap-

tors are portrayed on human (possibly men’s) bod-ies, while some of the other ceremonial objects,such as the copper cutouts, were probably alsoworn. Along these lines, Charles Hudson(1984:12) and James Brown (1997:476) have


Del

iver

ed b

y ht

tp://

saa.

met

apre

ss.c

om

Soci

ety

for

Am

eric

an A

rcha

eolo

gy -

Am

eric

an A

ntiq

uity

acc

ess

(392

-89-

746)

IP

Add

ress

: 140

.153

.68.

94

Wed

nesd

ay, F

ebru

ary

19, 2

014

1:49

:01

PM

pointed out that the human body was conceived bysome communities in the Eastern Woodlands as amicrocosm that embodied the macrocosm. Hudson(1984:12) argues that the Cherokee thought of thehuman body and community as “models by whichthe earth and cosmos were conceived.” Thus, over-laying double-headed raptors on human faces dur-ing the Middle Woodland period was intendednot only to portray particular ceremonial head-dresses, but also to articulate a visual pun that as-sociated the cosmological position of birds in thesky to the human face at the top of the body. Thus,it is possible that the depiction of avian character-istics on human faces articulated that at least par-ticular human bodies were relational models of thecosmos and vice versa.It is thus significant that the ancient cotton

wood pole referred to as the “Venerable Man” inOsage ritual practice represents the resurrectedHoᵑ-ga A-hui-toᵑ (Duncan 2011:26). Conse-quently, the long linear body depicted for thesedouble-headed raptors may reference the ceremo-

nial pole/world tree, as hypothesized by Carr andCase (2005b:193–197). These representations ofdouble-headed raptors may be an important ele-ment of a mythic hero narrative in which Hoᵑ-gaA-hui-toᵑ dies and is then reborn “as the axis of theuniverse along with the shining abode of the sunin the daytime sky (Duncan 2011:26; see alsoDiaz-Granados and Duncan 2004:207–211). Sincethe human body may have served as a model forthe cosmos and vice versa (Brown 1997; Hudson1984), donning these double-headed raptor head-dresses may have converted this ritual agent intoa living axis mundi, where his head was the equiv-alent to the reborn/risen sun. Portraying double-headed raptors on human

faces may exemplify analogous cosmograms be-cause Native American groups like the Osage be-lieved that all life descended from the sky to takeon bodily form on the earth. This association isanalogous to the complementary roles played byrepresentatives of the earth and sky moieties inearly Osage rituals (Bailey and La Flesche 1995).


Figure 6. Comparison of the Osage Tsi-Zhu tattoo to the design engraved on the femur from Hopewell Mound 25: (6.1)Tsi-Zhu tattoo on “Man of Mystery” clan male (image reproduced with the permission of James R. Duncan): (a) two-headed eagle at the top of this cosmogram; (b) three (stacked) cosmic levels; (c) world tree that serves as a support oraxis mundi for the cosmos; (6.2) design engraved on a femur from Hopewell Mound 25 (Putnam and Willoughby1893:303, Figure 2): (a) circular motif that may represent a celestial orb (sun/moon?); (b) central human visage in thedesign; (c) antler-like motifs on the top of the figure’s head; (d) two-headed raptor overlaid on this figure’s face.

Del

iver

ed b

y ht

tp://

saa.

met

apre

ss.c

om

Soci

ety

for

Am

eric

an A

rcha

eolo

gy -

Am

eric

an A

ntiq

uity

acc

ess

(392

-89-

746)

IP

Add

ress

: 140

.153

.68.

94

Wed

nesd

ay, F

ebru

ary

19, 2

014

1:49

:01

PM

Emphasizing ritual complementarities may havebeen a way in which Hopewell people establishedpeaceful relations with distant peoples, analogousto the Calumet and other adoption rites during theContact and early Historic Periods (Hall 1997).There remains the question of why there

should be analogous cosmological imagery forCORV among the “Plains” Dhegihan Sioux peo-ples (e.g., the Kaw, Osage, Omaha, Quapaw, andPonca). However, many Dhegiha Siouan speakershave claimed that they are recent migrants to thePlains and other archaeologists have argued thatthe Osage originally lived in the American Bot-tom (Brown 2011; Diaz-Granados and Duncan2004; Duncan 2011; Duncan and Diaz-Granados2004). Some Dhegihan Siouan peoples contendthat they came from even farther east. As JamesMarshall (2006:220) states, “The five related(Dhegihan Sioux) tribes, particularly the Omahaand Quapaw, have a tradition in which they speakof the Ohio River Valley in Kentucky and South-ern Indiana as their ancient homeland.” John Swanton (1923, 1943) argued quite

strongly based on early historic accounts thatSiouan speakers lived in the CORV at contact(see also Griffin 1943:23–25). Swanton (1923,1943) believed that it was the Siouan Mosopelea,based on Jean-Baptiste-Louis Franquelin’s 1683map, who lived in the area around Chillicothe,Ohio, near Hopewell and Mound City. TheMosopelea may have been later referred to as theOfo, who (re)appeared in the Lower MississippiRiver Valley, where they lived in close associationwith the Biloxi and Tunica peoples (Swanton1923, 1943). Robert Rankin (in Brain et al.2004:596) has presented a phonological argu-ment for how “Mosopelea” could have been trans-formed to “Ofo,” which supports Swanton’s hy-pothesis. It is thus possible that Siouan cosmologyand ceremonies may be a useful source of analo-gies for Ohio Hopewell ritual regimes. Even if a historical association between Siouan

communities and Ohio Hopewell peoples exists,there likely were changes in beliefs about two-headed raptors through time. Moreover, it is diffi-cult to tie all these representation of double-headedbirds to Siouan groups, since they were foundover a broad geographic region. It therefore seemsapparent that this iconographic theme was sym-bolically important for other groups as well. Thus,

we should probably hedge our bets and comparethese two-headed raptors to other Mississippianfalconoid imagery, especially since Brown (2009)has argued that the Mississippian birdman alsoportrays Morning Star (see also Duncan 2011:22).Yet the identification of specific representations asdepicting particular mythic characters and/or starsmay not be the only way of pursuing this research.Subsequent analyses should historically contex-tualize this double-headed raptor imagery and ex-amine how it drew on earlier representations andcontributed to later ones.

ConclusionShetrone’s (1926:68–72) Burial 11 from underHopewell Mound 25 has always been consideredsignificant due to its elaborate headdress and ex-tensive grave goods. Yet its connection to a wide-spread iconographic theme was obscured byWilloughby’s (1935) problematic interpretation ofit (cf. Shetrone 1926; Webb and Snow 2001[1945]:94). A careful review of the history of itsinterpretation, its archaeological context, and thereanalysis of the engraved femur that depictsmany of the ceremonial regalia found in HopewellMound 25 reveals that it was a double-headedraptor headdress. It is noteworthy that Moore-head (1922), Shetrone (1926), and Mills (1922)found other representations of double-headedbirds at Hopewell and Mound City (see also Giles2009, 2010). Moreover, particular representationsof double-headed raptors at these two OhioHopewell sites closely correspond to certain de-pictions on engraved stone tablets that have tra-ditionally been assigned to the Adena Culture. Forexample, the portrayal of double-headed raptorsover the heads of two individuals on the LowTablet is remarkably similar to the design en-graved on the femur from Hopewell. It thereforeappears (contrary to previous thought) that theHopewell site is at the heart of this double-headedraptor theme that parallels the imagery engravedon particular Woodland (Adena) tablets.The parallels between the iconography on the

aforementioned tablets and certain symbols fromHopewell and Mound City suggest that similarityand difference in the CORV did not have a sim-ple linear relationship to distance. In contrast, theabsence of double-headed raptorial depictions at


Del

iver

ed b

y ht

tp://

saa.

met

apre

ss.c

om

Soci

ety

for

Am

eric

an A

rcha

eolo

gy -

Am

eric

an A

ntiq

uity

acc

ess

(392

-89-

746)

IP

Add

ress

: 140

.153

.68.

94

Wed

nesd

ay, F

ebru

ary

19, 2

014

1:49

:01

PM


other large Ohio Hopewell sites, such as Turner,Liberty, and Seip, is itself noteworthy. It is there-fore possible that the Middle Woodland peoplewho claimed Hopewell and Mound City devel-oped more extensive relationships with particularMiddle Woodland groups from northern WestVirginia and/or Kentucky than other OhioHopewell folk. There are probably other types ofartifacts from Hopewell and Mound City that alsosignify these connections, such as the engravedserpentine tablets found in Hopewell Mound 1(Squier and Davis 1998 [1848]) and the copperplates from Burial 2 under Mound 7 at MoundCity (Mills 1922) that are conceptually similar tothe engraved tablets. The bone awls found in thebottom left corner of Burial 11’s tomb may alsobe significant in this sense because analogous in-struments were often deposited with the engravedstone tablets. Similarly, Otto (1975) and Lepper(2005) have hypothesized that the stone tablets,bone awls, and pigments found together in theCORV were part of tattooing kits. So the presenceof eight sharpened deer bone awls with Burial 11may offer a window into a possible and intriguingconnection between double-headed raptors andtattooing during the Middle Woodland period inthe CORV. One way or another, these Middle Woodland

representations of double-headed raptors had con-siderable continuity with earlier and later icono-graphic imagery. Yet there is very little ethnohis-toric information about the importance oftwo-headed raptors birds in the Eastern Wood-lands, even though these representations constitutea widespread and durable iconographic theme.However, Duncan (2011) has recently documentedthe importance of a double-headed eagle in Dhegi-han Sioux cosmologies based on his interactionswith members of the Osage Tribe and on Dorsey’s(1885) ethnographic work. He states that this dou-ble-headed eagle was Hoᵑ-ga A-hui-toᵑ, who per-sonified the risen sun, while its two heads portrayits dualistic masculine/ feminine nature and all-powerful character as the first being (Duncan2011:22). Moreover, the associations of Hoᵑ-ga A-hui-toᵑ are complex, and he is tied to stories inwhich he and then his sons serially assume severalroles linked to the sun and morning star (Brown1997:93–95; Duncan 2011:26), which may have

justified the inheritance of particular positions(Duncan 2011:20; Hall 1997).There are interesting correlations between

these Osage beliefs and the prehistoric represen-tation of double-headed raptors in the EasternWoodlands. For example, Hoᵑ-ga A-hui-toᵑ isconnected with the color red, and copper was of-ten used in the portrayal of this iconographictheme. Similarly, Dhegihan Sioux people rituallyassociated Hoᵑ-ga A-hui-toᵑwith the cotton woodpole that served as an axis mundi, and many ofthese Middle Woodland double-headed birds weredepicted with a long linear body that may illus-trate a similar axis mundi (e.g., World Tree) (seeCarr and Case 2005b:193–197). In addition, Ihave pointed out that representations of two-headed raptors may have been connected withtattooing and wearing ceremonial regalia in waysthat played on the symbolism of the human bodyin the Eastern Woodlands. These double-headedraptors also seem to have been often incorpo-rated in the design of cosmograms. Nevertheless, a great deal of time has passed

since the Hopewell fluorescence, so we need to becareful in our use of analogies and probablywiden our comparative framework. We will alsoneed to work at contextualizing these double-headed raptor representations as part of an itera-tive sequence of image making in which earlierdepictions contributed to the form and content oflater ones (Giles 2010). Nevertheless, the historiccontinuity of this iconographic theme is intrigu-ing, especially how it was probably reconceptu-alized at various times by different Native Amer-ican peoples.

Acknowledgments. I express my gratitude to the Ohio Histor-ical Society, the British Museum, the Field Museum, and theHopewell Culture National Historical Park for granting accessto their collections. Martha Otto, Bradley Lepper, Ian Taylor,Kathy Brady Rawlins, Jennifer Pederson, and Jamie Kellywere kind, patient, and tolerant in guiding me through the col-lections at these institutions. I also want to thank Marta Al-fonso Durruty, Shannon Koerner, Jessica Falcone, and CharlesCobb for reading and commenting on drafts of this paper.Shannon Koerner produced the map of the Central Ohio RiverValley, while James Duncan graciously allowed me to use hisimage of the Tzi-Tsu tattoo. I also thank the three anonymousreviewers for their comments, which served to make this pa-per better.

Del

iver

ed b

y ht

tp://

saa.

met

apre

ss.c

om

Soci

ety

for

Am

eric

an A

rcha

eolo

gy -

Am

eric

an A

ntiq

uity

acc

ess

(392

-89-

746)

IP

Add

ress

: 140

.153

.68.

94

Wed

nesd

ay, F

ebru

ary

19, 2

014

1:49

:01

PM

References CitedAbrams, Elliot M. 2009 Hopewell Archaeology: A View from the NorthernWoodlands. Journal of Archaeological Research17:169–204.

Abrams, Elliot M., and Ancorinne Freter 2005 Emergence of Moundbuilders: Archaeology of Trib-al Societies in Southeast Ohio. Ohio University Press,Columbus.

Applegate, Darlene 2008 Woodland Period. In The Archaeology of Kentucky:An Update, Volume 1, edited by David Pollack, pp.339–604. Kentucky Heritage Council State Historic Com-prehensive Plan Report No. 3, Frankfort, Kentucky.

Bailey, Garrick, and Francis La Flesche 1995 The Osages and the Invisible World. From the Works ofFrancis La Flesche.University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.

Brain, Jeffrey P., George Roth, and Willem J. De Reuse 2004 Tunica, Biloxi, and Ofo. In Southeast, edited by Ray-mond D. Fogelson, pp. 586–597. Handbook of the NorthAmerican Indians, Vol. 14, Smithsonian Institution, Wash-ington D.C.

Brose, David S. 1985 The Woodland Period. In Ancient Art of the AmericanWoodland Indians, edited by David S. Brose, James A.Brown, and David W. Penney, pp.43–92. Harry N. Abrams,New York.

Brown, James A. 1979 Charnal Houses and Mortuary Crypts: Disposal of theDead in the Middle Woodland Period. In Hopewell Ar-chaeology: The Chillicothe Conference, edited by DavidS. Brose and N’omi Greber, pp.211–219. Kent State Uni-versity Press, Kent, Ohio.

1997 The Archaeology of Ancient Religion in the EasternWoodlands. Annual Review of Anthropology 26:465–85.

2004 Mound City and Issues in the Developmental Histo-ry of Hopewell Culture in the Ross County Area ofSouthern Ohio. In Aboriginal Ritual and Economy in theEastern Woodlands: Essays in Memory of Howard DaltonWinters, edited by Anne-Marie Cantwell, Larry A. Conrad,and Jonathan E. Reyman, pp.147–168. Kampsville Stud-ies in Archaeology and History Vol. 5. Center for Ameri-can Archaeology, Kampsville, Illinois.

2005 Reflections on Taxonomic Practice. In Woodland Pe-riod Systematics in the Middle Ohio Valley, edited by Dar-lene Applegate and Robert C. Mainfort Jr, pp. 111–119. Uni-versity of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

2007 On the Identity of the Birdman within MississippianPeriod Art and Iconography. In Ancient Objects and SacredRealms. Interpretations of Mississippian Iconography, edit-ed by F. Kent Reilly III and James F. Garber, pp. 56–106.University of Texas Press, Austin.

2011 The Regional Culture Signature of the Braden Art Style.In Visualizing the Sacred: Cosmic Visions, Regionalism, andthe Art of the Mississippian World, edited by George E.Lankford, F. Kent Reilly III, and James F. Garber, pp. 18–36.University of Texas Press, Austin TX.

Byers, A. Martin 2004 The Ohio Hopewell Episode: Paradigm Lost, Para-digm Gained. University of Akron Press, Akron, Ohio.

2011 Sacred Games, Death, and Renewal in the Ancient East-ern Woodlands: The Ohio Hopewell System of Cult SodalityHeterarchies. AltaMira Press, Lanham, Maryland.

Byers, A. Martin, and DeeAnne Wymer 2010 Hopewell Settlement Patterns, Subsistence, and Sym-bolic Landscapes. University of Florida Press, Gainesville.

Carskadden, Jeff, and James F. Morton 1996 The Middle-Late Woodland Transition in the CentralMuskingham Valley of Eastern Ohio. In A View from theCore: A Synthesis of Ohio Hopewell Archaeology, editedby Paul J. Pacheco, pp.316–338. Ohio Archaeological Coun-cil, Columbus.

Carr, Christopher 2008 Social and Ritual Organization. In The Scioto Hopewelland their Neighbors: Biological Documentation and Cul-tural Understanding, edited by D. Troy Case and Christo-pher Carr, pp. 41–100. Springer, New York.

Carr, Christopher, and D. Troy Case 2005a Gathering Hopewell: Society, Ritual, and Ritual In-teraction.Kluwer Academic/ Plenum Publishers, New York.

2005b The Nature of Leadership in Ohio Hopewellian So-cieties: Role Segregation and the Transformation fromShamanism. In Gathering Hopewell: Society, Ritual, andRitual Interaction, edited by Christopher Carr and D. TroyCase, pp. 177–237. Kluwer Academic/ Plenum Publishers,New York.

Case D. Troy, and Christopher Carr2008 The Scioto Hopewell and Their Neighbors: Biologi-cal Documentation and Cultural Understanding. Springer,New York.

Charles, Douglas K., and Jane E. Buikstra2006 Recreating Hopewell. University of Florida Press,Gainsville.

Clay, R. Berle 2005 Adena: Rest in Peace? In Woodland Period System-atics in the Middle Ohio Valley, edited by Darlene Apple-gate and Robert C. Mainfort Jr, pp 94–110. University ofAlabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

2009 Where Have All the Houses Gone? Webb’s AdenaHouse in Historical Context. Southeastern Archaeology28:43–63.

Cochran, Donald R. 1996 The Adena/Hopewell Connection in East Central In-diana. In A View from the Core: A Synthesis of OhioHopewell Archaeology, edited by Paul J. Pacheco,pp.340–353. Ohio Archaeological Council, Columbus.

Connolly, Robert P., and Bradley T. Lepper 2004 The Fort Ancient Earthworks: Prehistoric Lifeways ofthe Hopewell Culture in Southwestern Ohio. Ohio HistoricalSociety, Columbus.

Deter-Wolf, Aaron 2009 Needle in a Haystack: Examining the Methods and Ma-terials of Prehistoric Tattooing in the Southeast. Paper pre-sented at the 66th annual meeting of the Southeastern Ar-chaeological Conference, Mobile.

Diaz-Granados, Carol, and James R. Duncan 2004 Reflections of Power, Wealth and Sex in Missouri RockArt Motifs. In The Rock Art of Eastern North America, edit-ed by Carol Diaz-Granados and James R. Duncan, pp.145–158. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Dorsey, James Owen1885 Osage Traditions. Bureau of American Ethnology, SixthAnnual Report. Government Printing Office, Washington,D.C.

Dragoo, Don1961 Mounds for the Dead.Annals of the Carnegie Muse-um, Pittsburg, Pennsylvania.

Duncan, James R. 2011 The Cosmology of the Osage: The Star People and TheirUniverse. In Ancient Objects and Sacred Realms. Inter-pretations of Mississippian Iconography edited by F.Kent Reilly III and James F. Garber, pp. 18–36. Universi-ty of Texas Press, Austin.


Del

iver

ed b

y ht

tp://

saa.

met

apre

ss.c

om

Soci

ety

for

Am

eric

an A

rcha

eolo

gy -

Am

eric

an A

ntiq

uity

acc

ess

(392

-89-

746)

IP

Add

ress

: 140

.153

.68.

94

Wed

nesd

ay, F

ebru

ary

19, 2

014

1:49

:01

PM

Duncan, James R., and Carol Diaz-Granados 2004 Empowering the SECC: The Old “Woman” and OralTradition. In The Rock Art of Eastern North America edit-ed by Carol Diaz-Granados and James R. Duncan, pp.190–215. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Emerson, Thomas E., Randall E. Hughes, Kenneth B. Farnsworth,Sarah U. Wiseman, and Mary R. Hynes

2005 Tremper Mound, Hopewell Catlinite, and PIMATechnology. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology30:189–216.

Giles, Bretton 2009 Iconographic Reflections: The Two-Headed-Birdsof the Hopewell Horizon. Paper presented at the 66th An-nual Southeastern Archaeology Conference, Mobile.

2010 The Ritual Mnemonics of Hopewell Symbols: AnAnalysis of Effigies and Ceremonial Regalia from Trem-per, Mound City, and Hopewell. Ph.D. dissertation, De-partment of Anthropology, State University of New Yorkat Binghamton.

Greber, N’omi 1991 A Study of Continuity and Contrast between CentralScioto Adena and Hopewell Sites. West Virginia Archae-ologist 43:1–26.

2003 Chronological Relationships among Ohio HopewellSites: A Few Dates and Much Complexity. In Theory,Method and Practice in Modern Archaeology, edited byRobert J. Jeske and Douglas K. Charles, pp. 88–113. Praeger,Westport, Connecticut.

Greber, N’omi, and Katherine Ruhl 1989 The Hopewell Site: A Contemporary Analysis Basedon the Work of Charles Willoughby.Westview Press, Boul-der.

Greenman, Emerson F. 1932 Excavation of the Coon Mound and an Analysis of theAdena culture. Ohio Archaeological and Historical Quar-terly 41:366–523.

Griffin, James B. 1943 The Fort Ancient Aspect, Its Cultural and ChronologicalPosition in Mississippi Valley Archaeology.Anthropolog-ical Papers No. 28. Museum of Anthropology, Universityof Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Hall, Robert L. 1997 An Archaeology of the Soul: North American IndianBelief and Ritual. University of Illinois Press, Chicago.

2006 The Enigmatic Copper Cutout from Bedford Mound8. In Recreating Hopewell: New Perspectives on MiddleWoodland in Eastern North America, edited by Douglas K.Charles and Jane E. Buikstra, pp. 464–474, University ofFlorida Press, Gainesville.

Howard, James H. 1968 The Southeastern Ceremonial Complex and Its In-terpretation. Missouri Archaeological Society Memoir No.6, Columbia, Missouri.

Hudson, Charles 1984 Elements of Southeastern Indian Religion. E. J. Brill,Leiden.

Johnston, Cheryl A. 2002 Culturally Modified Human Remains from theHopewell Mound Group. Ph.D. dissertation, Departmentof Anthropology, Ohio State University, Columbus.

2008 Aging and Sexing Human Remains from the HopewellSite. In The Scioto Hopewell and Their Neighbors: Bio-logical Documentation and Cultural Understanding, edit-ed by D. Troy Case and Christopher Carr, pp. 485–500.Springer, New York.

Kidder, Tristam R. 2004 Prehistory of the Lower Mississippi River Valley af-

ter 800 B.C. In Southeast, edited by Raymond D. Fogel-son, pp. 545–559. Handbook of the North American Indi-ans, Vol. 14, Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C.

Lepper, Bradley T. 2005 Ohio Archaeology. An Illustrated Chronicle of Ohio’sAncient American Indian Cultures. Orange Frazer Press,Wilmington, Ohio.

Mainfort, Robert C. 2005 Some Comments on Woodland Taxonomy in the Mid-dle Ohio Valley. In Woodland Period Systematics in the Mid-dle Ohio Valley, edited by Darlene Applegate and RobertC. Mainfort Jr, pp. 221–230. University of AlabamaPress, Tuscaloosa.

Marshall, James O.2006 The Kansa. In Kansas Archaeology edited by RobertJ. Hoard and William E. Banks, pp. 219-232. UniversityPress of Kansas, Lawrence.

Maslowski, Robert F., Charles M. Niquette, and Derek M. Wing-field

1995 The Kentucky, Ohio and West Virginia Database. WestVirginia Archaeologist 47:1-75.

Mills, William C. 1902 Excavations of the Adena Mound. Ohio Archaeolog-ical and Historical Quarterly 10:452–485.

1922 Exploration of the Mound City Group. Ohio Archae-ological and Historical Quarterly 31:423–584.

Moorehead, Warren K.1897 The Hopewell Group. The Antiquarian 1:113–158,178–184, 208–214, 236–244, 254–264, 291–295, and312–316.

1922 The Hopewell Mound Group of Ohio. Field Musuemof Natural History Publication No. 211, Chicago, Illinois.

Murphy, James L. 1989 An Archaeological History of the Hocking River Val-ley. Revised Edition. Ohio University Press, Akron.

Otto, Martha Potter 1975 A New Engraved Adena Tablet. Ohio Archaeologist25(2):21–36.

Penney, David 1980 The Adena Engraved Tablets: A Study of Art Prehis-tory. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 5:3–38.

1982 The Adena Engraved Tablets: A Study of Art Prehis-tory. In Native North American Art History, edited by ZenaP. Mathews and Aldona Jonaitis, pp. 257–279. Peek Pub-lications, Palo Alto, California.

1985 Continuities of Imagery and Symbolism in the art ofthe Woodlands. In Ancient Art of the Woodland Indians, edit-ed by David S. Brose, James A. Brown, and David W. Pen-ney. Harry N. Abrams, New York.

Perino, Gregory, and Kenneth B. Farnsworth 2006 Illinois Hopewell and Late Woodland Mounds. The Ex-cavations of Gregory Perino 1950–1975. Studies in Ar-chaeology No. 4. Illinois Transportation Archaeological Re-search Program, University of Illinois, Urbana.

Phillips, Philip, and James A. Brown 1978 Part 1 Pre-Columbian Shell Engravings from the CraigMound at Spiro Oklahoma. Peabody Museum of Archae-ology and Ethnology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass-achussetts.

Putnam, Frederick W., and Willoughby, Charles C. 1896 Symbolism in Ancient American Art [Abstract]. Pro-ceedings of the American Association for the Advancementof Science Vol. XLIV. Aylward, Huntress, and Dennis, Salem,Massachusetts.

Railey, Jimmy A. 1996 Woodland Cultivators. In Kentucky Archaeology,


Del

iver

ed b

y ht

tp://

saa.

met

apre

ss.c

om

Soci

ety

for

Am

eric

an A

rcha

eolo

gy -

Am

eric

an A

ntiq

uity

acc

ess

(392

-89-

746)

IP

Add

ress

: 140

.153

.68.

94

Wed

nesd

ay, F

ebru

ary

19, 2

014

1:49

:01

PM

edited by R. Barry Lewis, pp.79–125. University of Ken-tucky Press, Lexington.

Roe, Peter 1995 Style, Society, Myth, and Structure. In Style, Society,and Person: Archaeological and Ethnological Perspectives,edited by Christopher Carr and Jill Neitzel, pp. 27–76.Plenum Press, New York.

Ruhl, Katherine C.2005 Hopewellian Copper Earspools from Eastern NorthAmerica: Their Social, Ritual, and Symbolic Signifi-cance. In Gathering Hopewell: Society, Ritual, and Ritu-al Interaction, edited by Christopher Carr and D. Troy Case,pp. 696–713. Kluwer Academic/ Plenum Publishers, NewYork.

Ruhl, Katherine C., and Mark F. Seeman1998 The Temporal and Social Implications of OhioHopewell Copper Earspool Design. American Antiquity13:651–662.

Sank, Karen, and Kevin Sampson 1994 A Falcon from the Depths. Illinois Antiquity 29:4–8.

Seeman, Mark 1992 Woodland Traditions in the Midcontinent: A Com-parison of Three Regional Sequences. Research in EconomicAnthropology, Supplement 6:3–46.

1996 The Ohio Hopewell Core and Its Many Margins: De-constructing Upland and Hinterland Relations. In A Viewfrom the Core: A Synthesis of Ohio Hopewell Archaeolo-gy, edited by Paul J. Pacheco, pp.304–315. Ohio Archae-ological Council, Columbus.

Shetrone, Henry C. 1926 Explorations of the Hopewell Group of PrehistoricEarthworks. Ohio Archaeological and Historical Quarterly34:1–227.

Sieg, Lauren E., and R. Eric Hollinger 2005 Learning from the Past: The History of Ohio HopewellTaxonomy and Its Implications for Archaeological Prac-tice. In Woodland Period Systematics in the Middle OhioValley, edited by Darlene Applegate and Robert C. Main-fort Jr, pp. 120–133. University of Alabama Press,Tuscaloosa.

Squier, Ephraim, and Edwin H. Davis1998 [1848] Ancient Monuments of the Mississippi Valley, edit-ed by David J. Meltzer Smithsonian Institution Press, Wash-ington, D.C.

Stevens, Edward T.1870 Flint Chips: A Guide to Prehistoric Archaeology as Il-lustrated by the Collection in the Blackmore Museum, Sal-isbury. Brown and Co. & F.A. Blake, London.

Swanton, John R. 1923 New Light on the Early History of Siouan People. Jour-nal of the Washington Academy of Sciences 13(3):33–43.

1943 Siouan Tribes of the Ohio Valley. American Anthro-pologist 45:49–66.

Trevelyan, Amelia 2004 Miskwabik, Metal of Ritual: Metallurgy in PrecontactEastern North America. University of Kentucky Press, Lex-ington.

Webb, William S., and Raymond S. Baby 1957 The Adena People No. 2. The Ohio Historical Soci-ety, Columbus.

Webb, William, and Charles E. Snow 1945 [2001] The Adena People. University of Kentucky Re-ports in Anthropology and Archaeology No. 6, Lexington,Kentucky.

Willoughby, Charles, C. 1916 Art of the Great Earthwork Builders of Ohio. Annu-

al Report of the Smithsonian Institute. Smithsonian,Washington D.C.

1935 Michabo, the Great Hare: A Patron of the HopewellMound Settlement. American Anthropologist 37:280–286.

Wittry, Warren L. 1962 A Raven Headdress from Sauk County, Wisconsin. Wis-consin Archaeologist 43(4):87–94.

Young, Colonel Bennett H. 1910 Prehistoric Men of Kentucky. John P. Morgan and Com-pany, Louisville, Kentucky.

Notes1. Carr (2008:183) notes similarities between the organi-

zation of a copper repoussé plate from Mound City (Figure 4.2in this paper) and the Adena Tablets.

2. Greber and Ruhl (1989) note that two engraved femurswere found with different burials in Hopewell Mound 25 andit is possible that they were mixed up or incorrectly prove-nienced. This engraved femur has generally been attributed toBurial 278, but it could have been found with Burial 260/261(Moorehead 1922).

3.Katherine Ruhl’s (2005, Appendix 19.3) analysis of twoof the copper earspools found next to the left hand of Shetrone’sBurial 11 assigns them seriation values of 53 and 59. Since theaveraged seriation values for earspools from Mound City is 16(early), Hopewell is 165 (middle), and Seip is 153 (middle)(Ruhl and Seeman 1998), it seems very possible that Burial 11under Hopewell Mound 25 was interred relatively early in theuse of this ritual precinct. This temporal placement is generallycompatible with the two radiocarbon dates (cal A.D. 120 ± 50and A.D. 210 ± 140 with three intercepts at A.D. 264, 281, 329)from the Middle Woodland (Adena) Wright Mound in centralKentucky, which also produced a fragment of a tablet with anengraved avian design on it (Maslowski et al. 1995).

4. It is important to note that elements/motifs on this en-graved femur were probably intended to be visualized as partof multiple images (see Giles 2010). This visual punning mayrelate to an ontological emphasis on transformation in OhioHopewell representations (see Carr 2008; Carr and Case 2005b;Giles 2010). Along these lines, the central axial element— twolarge circular elements (eyes) and expanding fan-shaped motifs— was almost certainly intended to also portray the faceof a (spoonbill?) duck, since this part of the design was depictedas two copper cutouts (see Willoughby in Greber and Ruhl1989:251).

5. The engraved tablets from the CORV with raptor headsthat have long curved beaks include the Berlin, Low, Wright,Wilmington, and Meigs Tablets (Penney 1980, 1982; Webb andBaby 1957). The raptor engraved on the cut human calvariumfrom the Florence Mound has a similar curved hook-like beak(Webb and Baby 1957:94).

6. However, it seems likely that groups at Hopewell andMound City maintained extensive social relationships withthe people who used other Ohio Hopewell sites, such as Seip,Edwin Harness, and Turner. For example, I have highlightediconographic similarities between the imagery at Mound City,Hopewell, Edwin Harness, and Turner in my dissertation (Giles2010). I argue that the absence of double-headed bird imageryat these other Ohio Hopewell sites may indicate that people


Del

iver

ed b

y ht

tp://

saa.

met

apre

ss.c

om

Soci

ety

for

Am

eric

an A

rcha

eolo

gy -

Am

eric

an A

ntiq

uity

acc

ess

(392

-89-

746)

IP

Add

ress

: 140

.153

.68.

94

Wed

nesd

ay, F

ebru

ary

19, 2

014

1:49

:01

PM


from Mound City and Hopewell established social ties withcertain Middle Woodland peoples from northern West Vir-ginia and central Kentucky, while other Ohio Hopewell groupspossibly did not.

7. These two snake effigy pipes have often been attributedto the cache of effigy platform pipes in Mound City, Mound 8,but the British Museum catalog and Edward Stevens’s (1870)illustrated guide to the collections from the Blackmore Mu-seum attribute them to Mound 1 at the earthworks on theNorth Fork of Paint Creek (e.g., the Hopewell site).

8. This inference is supported by the lumps of hematitefound in the grooves of a whetstone/tablet in the Natriummound in West Virginia (Otto 1985:32). In addition, Dragoo(1961:99) found red ocher and what seemed to be ash cakedwithin the grooves in most of the formal whetstone/tablets dis-covered in the Cresap Mound. How often bone awls were as-sociated with the Early/Middle Woodland stone and clay tabletsencountered in the CORV is difficult to address because manyof these tablets are surface finds, the result of less than pro-fessional excavations, or decontextualized mound fill (Otto1985; Penney 1980, 1982).

9. The use of bone awls for tattooing is certainly not theonly function that these tools could have served. For example,

Carr and Case (2005b) have suggested that the bone awlsfound at Ohio Hopewell sites were used by “bone pickers” todeflesh the dead. It also seems possible that bone awls couldhave been used for fine engraving and punching holes inleather. Bone awls were employed to peg down covers overparticular burials as well, especially in Illinois Hopewell bur-ial mounds (Brown 1979:217). However, the deposition ofthese bone awls in a line and particular corner of this tombstrongly suggests that the examples from Burial 11 in HopewellMound 25 did not fulfill this particular function.

10. A male bull elk’s antlers can reach 1.2 meters (4 feet)above its head, so that the animal can tower around 2.7 meters(9 ft) tall in total height. Moreover, Dragoo (1961) found a cer-emonial elk headdress in the Cresap Mound in northern WestVirginia, while the elk plays an important role in the Omahaorigin myth (Hall 1997:55).

Submitted July 12, 2012; Revised December 27, 2012;Accepted February 26, 2013.

Del

iver

ed b

y ht

tp://

saa.

met

apre

ss.c

om

Soci

ety

for

Am

eric

an A

rcha

eolo

gy -

Am

eric

an A

ntiq

uity

acc

ess

(392

-89-

746)

IP

Add

ress

: 140

.153

.68.

94

Wed

nesd

ay, F

ebru

ary

19, 2

014

1:49

:01

PM

A Contextual and Iconographic Reassessment of the Headdress on Burial 11 from Hopewell Mound 25

Documents

Transcript of A Contextual and Iconographic Reassessment of the Headdress on Burial 11 from Hopewell Mound 25