Hopewell

Tankersley et al. 1 claim a cosmic airburst over modern-day Cincinnati, Ohio in the 3rd or fourth century CE catalyzed the decline of Hopewell culture. This claim is extraordinary in the face of hundreds of archaeological investigations in the Middle Ohio River Valley (MORV) that have heretofore provided no evidence of a widespread cataclysm or "social decline" in need of explanation. Tankersley et al. misrepresent primary sources, conflate discrete archaeological contexts, improperly use chronological analyses, insufficiently describe methods, and inaccurately characterize the source of supposed extraterrestrial materials to support an incorrect conclusion. While charcoal and burned soils are found on virtually all excavated Middle Woodland archaeological sites in the region, these have prosaic explanations. Many of the burned "habitation surfaces" mentioned are actually prepared surfaces for ceremonial fires, not the result of a synchronous regional catastrophe. Radiocarbon dated samples from one context are mistakenly attributed to distinct and unrelated contexts. The chronological analysis does not support the notion of a single event spanning 15,000 km 2. The composition of their supposed extraterrestrial materials is inconsistent with an origin in comet or asteroid events. In sum, there is no evidence to support the conclusion that a comet exploded over modern-day Cincinnati in the third or fourth century CE. Attempts to associate extraterrestrial events as the direct cause of various ancient cultural declines, i.e. "cosmic catastrophism, " have appeared in several recent papers 2,3. These catastrophist narratives have met consistent challenge on evidentiary, methodological, and theoretical grounds 4,5. These scenarios oversimplify complex and dynamic human-environment interactions and are steeped in pseudoscientific beliefs rather than anthropological theories of social decline that can be tested using the archaeological record. Tankersley et al. 's proposition that a comet or meteor airburst caused the decline of the Hopewell culture is the latest example of a cosmic claim dooming a culture with no substantive archaeological or geologic evidence. Instead, the Hopewell archaeological record demonstrates continued habitation with gradual sociopolitical and economic reorganization (e.g., a cessation in large ceremonial earthwork construction) and changes in settlement patterns within the MORV 6-11. Tankersley and colleagues' argument depends on several misinterpretations and mischaracterizations of the Hopewell archaeological record to arrive at their conclusion. There are no catastrophically burned, fire-hardened, charcoal-rich habitation surfaces documented at any Hopewell site. The soil profiles published in the body of the article (Figs. 2-12 in 1) and the soil descriptions in their supplemental material (Tables S5,

The Sexton Site (8IR01822) is situated on a slightly elevated limestone hammock in Indian River County, Florida. Extensive geophysical prospection, shovel probing, and subsequent block excavations in 2019 revealed the presence of a midden with a possibly contiguous seasonal village or hamlet of probable Woodland age. Nine hundred ninety-two ceramic sherds were recovered, including St. Johns Plain, Dunn’s Creek Red, and sand-tempered plain wares. Twenty-four samples were selected for petrographic analysis, highlighting various aspects of pottery manufacture from the procurement of raw materials to pyrotechnology. The results are summarized and compared to other previously studied localities in the region, in turn demonstrating how the Sexton Site can make an important contribution to understanding the prehistory of south Florida and beyond.

Additional information has been identified concerning a fired-clay human figurine analyzed and reported by Bebber and colleagues (2018). Despite this figurine having been discovered within a box labeled “Hopewell Figurine—Hopeton Earthworks,” they argue against a Hopewellian affiliation based on Thermoluminescence (TL) dating, a comparative study, and the inability to firmly establish the specimen’s provenience. A rediscovered letter from Olaf Prufer offers a new site of origin and a more complete chain of custody, which is partially corroborated by photographs curated at the Ohio History Connection and a 1925 Boston Evening Transcript article. With this new information, we dispute Bebber and colleagues’ (2018) interpretation of the figurine’s acquisition, its alleged site of origin, and the conclusions of their comparative analysis. This case study does not support their call for more rigorous authentication of collector-acquired objects; rather, it documents the difficulty in reestablishing the provenience of objects once they have become disassociated.

The Old Fort Earthworks in Greenup County, Kentucky, represents the westernmost segment (Group A) of the Portsmouth Works. It consists of a square earthen enclosure with linear arms extending from its eastern and western walls. WPA (Works Projects Administration) investigations at the site in the late 1930s, directed by C.T.R. Bohannan, documented the manner in which this important Hopewellian earthworks was constructed. The enclosure builders manipulated the site area to fit their plan for the enclosure's dimensions and orientation, filling ravines and cutting existing slopes to fit the plan.

As part of a larger project, Scale and Community in Hopewell Networks (SCHoN), we submitted a series of 19 dates from seven Scioto Valley Hopewell sites. The larger project focuses on attribute analysis and source identification of copper, ceramic, and lithic artifacts. Our first batch of dates begin to shake up previous narratives on the arc of Hopewell history. Here we present raw measurements and calibrated dates with minimal commentary. Future work will delve into the meaning of these and another batch of dates yet to be submitted. We submitted our dates to the CAIS laboratory at the University of Georgia for AMS analysis.