A. Martin Byers. The Ohio Hopewell Episode: Paradigm Lost and Paradigm Gained.

A. Martin Byers. The Ohio Hopewell Episode: Paradigm Lost and Paradigm Gained. A. MARTIN BYERS. The Ohio Hopewell episode: paradigm lost, paradigmgained. xvi+674 pages, 52 figures, 16 tables. 2004. Akron (OH):University of Akron Press The University of Akron Press is a university press that is part of the University of Akron. External linkUniversity of Akron Press ; 1-931968-00-4 hardback $59.95. 'Hopewell' refers to a particular array of social andceremonial relations present in the Woodland societies of the Midwestand Middle South of North America North America,third largest continent (1990 est. pop. 365,000,000), c.9,400,000 sq mi (24,346,000 sq km), the northern of the two continents of the Western Hemisphere. from c. AD 1 to AD 400. Along the OhioValley, the Hopewell evidence is particularly extensive, ensuring thatthe complexity of its earthworks, the distinctiveness of its imagery,and the sophistication so��phis��ti��cate?v. so��phis��ti��cat��ed, so��phis��ti��cat��ing, so��phis��ti��catesv.tr.1. To cause to become less natural, especially to make less naive and more worldly.2. of public ceremony are known, at leastsuperficially, to archaeologists around the world. A. Martin Byers haswritten the longest single-authored book on this subject ever written.Twenty-four chapters are devoted to four main topics: earthwork earth��work?n.1. An earthen embankment, especially one used as a fortification. See Synonyms at bulwark.2. Engineering Excavation and embankment of earth.3. construction and use, settlement, altar ceremonialism, and decline. The Hopewell episode adopts a theoretical perspective that isunique and hard to penetrate. On the one hand, the author is committedto identifying structural relationships; thus the book relies heavily onidentifying dualities that lie below the surface of ritual andconstructive efforts--circle/octagon, copper/shell, room/section,sun/moon, clan/cult, junior/senior, laity/clergy, or upper world/lowerworld to name but a few. On the other hand, hermeneutics are invoked,more in line with post-structural approaches. In combining the two,Byers is intent on developing his own theoretical stance, or'symbolic pragmatics' (p. 63), premised on the indivisibility in��di��vis��i��ble?adj.1. Incapable of undergoing division.2. Mathematics Incapable of being divided without a remainder: The number 15 is indivisible by 7. of the symbolic and the utilitarian, as well as the primacy of context.This thinking is sometimes associated with agency theory and/or practicetheory in a larger arena. Byers uses symbolic pragmatics pragmaticsIn linguistics and philosophy, the study of the use of natural language in communication; more generally, the study of the relations between languages and their users. to address oneof the central concerns of the book, the means by which Ohio Hopewellpractice revitalised the cosmos and reproduced itself through the use of'warrants' (following from the work of Mary Douglas).'The symbolic pragmatic powers of artefacts, facilities, andfeatures that are perceived as iconic in nature can be deliberatelyproduced by "fitting" their forms, raw materials, decorativeelements, color, texture, and other tangible properties, to constituteexpressive relations with what they are perceived to represent' (p.70). Although this approach is mainly post-structuralist, Byers alsosometimes appeals to notions such as rejecting null hypotheses andcollecting 'empirical data'. The result is confusing; ofcourse, Byers would not agree, arguing that symbolic pragmatics revealthe inadequacies in the thinking of other Hopewell researchers. Section two deals with the relations linking settlement and publicceremony. Here Byers argues that Hopewell societies were organisedessentially as foragers, whereby all groups had equal access to'common' lands and shared access and complementaryresponsibilities at Hopewell ritual centres. This model is contrastedwith one based on farming, territoriality TerritorialityBehavior patterns in which an animal actively defends a space or some other resource. One major advantage of territoriality is that it gives the territory holder exclusive access to the defended resource, which is generally associated with , and the centrality ofparticular earthwork centres for specific groups, a 'vacantcenter/hamlet' model Olaf Prufer first put forward. In Byers'view, kinship as a vehicle for participation is less important thanmembership in other groupings such as military sodalities, religiouscults, and initiation groups, each with its own ritual responsibilitiesfor the well-being of the regional whole (p. 150-1) via something termed'cooperative inclusiveness' (p. 217). It should be noted thatidentifying sodalities in eastern North America is archaeologicallyexceedingly difficult, even where a direct historical approach ispossible. Byers provides no real evidence for the existence of Hopewellsodalities, but assumes that ceremonialism at the major Ohio centres wasthe result of their activities. Further, the junior/senior agestructure, so prominent in Byers' model of ceremonial performance,bears little resemblance to the sodalities or societies thatcharacterised the ethnographic Plains and Prairies; in fact many of thecitations used in this section come from Africa. As the mortuary ritesassociated with the two posited age grades attain such prominence inthis model (pp. 263-8), the available age and sex data should have beenreviewed. In contrast to sodality-based ceremony, mortuary ceremoniesbased on kinship principles are thought to have taken place well awayfrom the major Hopewell earthworks. Byers' choice of mounds andmound groups in the uplands east of Chillicothe as possible examples forthese kin-based practices is however a poor one, since mostarchaeologists would see these sites as significantly earlier than theHopewell episode. It is also hard to see how Byers' kinship-basedclans and clan-networks were generated by mobile foragers unconcernedwith the kinds of claims to land that the very existence of unilinealdescent groups (such as clans) imply. The most interesting discussion inthis section proposes a chronological sequence from a fire-clay funerary fu��ner��ar��y?adj.Of or suitable for a funeral or burial.[Latin fner rite to a split-log rite at the Harness and Seip sites. It should benoted that in this dichotomy, the diversity of mortuary'rites' in both cases is minimised, and that fire-clay/splitlog differences need not hold chronological implications. Part three is concerned with the use of ritual facilities,variously interpreted as altars and/or crematory cre��ma��to��ry?n. pl. cre��ma��to��riesA crematorium.adj.Of or relating to cremation.crematorium, crematorya place where cremations are done. basins and also withcertain tomb structures, seen as central to World Renewal. Byersidentifies four classes of material symbols as appropriate for curationor transformational sacrifice in associated rites, but does not specifywhich artefact See artifact. types fit into these classes, though he does acknowledgethat certain artefact types may fit into multiple categories (p. 382).The concept of 'set pieces' is introduced to account for thegenerative and dramatic performances so important in Hopewell ritual. Incontrast to much of the book, this section contains considerable detailof grave assemblages, but little interpretation. Byers correctlyrecognises that a sociological model that presumes that the status of anindividual in life will be restated in death does not capture theessential nature of Hopewell ceremony (p. 421). The book concludes with a discussion of the end of the Hopewellepisode. The author argues that factional disputes between clan and cultpromoted nuclear settlement, emerging territorialism ter��ri��to��ri��al��ism?n.1. A social system that gives authority and influence in a state to the landowners.2. A system of church government based on primacy of civil power. , the dissolution ofautonomous clans and ultimately the end of Hopewell. The causation hereappears to be a 'cascading series of ruptures' in the evolvingsocial relations among senior/junior age sets and clergy/laity,something akin to suggesting that the time was right. In this review, I have not concentrated on the specific evidenceByers has used to support his view of Ohio Hopewell, but on theorganising principles of this ambitious study. Any reading of theHopewell 'facts' is made difficult by their collection 50 to150 years ago and they are open to several different readings. Thisbook, however, is not a successful reading. It is short on analysis inthe traditional sense and verbose Wordy; long winded. The term is often used as a switch to display the status of some operation. For example, a /v might mean "verbose mode." . Removed from the 'hard'archaeological record, the logic of this work is difficult to grasp. Onecomes away with the feeling that Hopewell ritual was so complex,convoluted, and demanding that the people described could not possiblyhave had time to live real lives. MARK F. SEEMAN Department of Anthropology, Kent State University, Kent (OH), USA