Archaeological landscapes with dispersed settlements often contain widely spaced, morphologically similar, non-residential monuments (e.g., Neolithic megaliths and enclosures, Eastern Woodlands conical burial mounds, Southwestern great kivas, and Hopewell geometric earthworks). These monuments are commonly interpreted as “village surrogates,” places at which members of a local, dispersed community gathered to express and reproduce social ties. Some applications of the village surrogate model have privileged referential meaning (what a monument symbolized) at the expense of experiential meaning (how monuments were experienced), obscuring important variability in relationships between monuments and use-groups. Focusing on a cluster of five likely contemporary Hopewell geometric earthworks in south-central Ohio, this paper emphasizes that the construction of monuments in dispersed settings was not always experienced as the aggregation of autonomous, isomorphic communities. An analysis of labor involved in earthwork construction demonstrates that in the Hopewell case, a very widely dispersed population, not exclusively affiliated with individual monuments, gathered repeatedly to build a related set of ceremonial centers. Parallels with the Chaco Phenomenon of northwest New Mexico are explored, and the importance of distinguishing between referential and experiential meaning in the broader study of prehistoric monuments is discussed.
Read full abstract