CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 39Archaeological and Geological StudiesArchaeology and ancient environmental studiesAmazonian Archaeology and Ethnohistory

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 48 of the 52 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Ritual economy and craft production in small-scale societies: Evidence from microwear analysis of Hopewell bladelets

Miller, G. Logan·2015·Journal of Anthropological Archaeology
DOI 10.1016/j.jaa.2015.03.005
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Ritual economy provides a powerful framework for examining aspects of the organization of craft production, especially in the absence of a strong, centralized political economy. This paper outlines the basic tenants of ritual economy and describes how this framework can expand the understanding of the organization of production in small scale societies. I apply these concepts in a case study based largely on microwear analysis of Hopewell bladelets from the Fort Ancient earthworks in southwest Ohio. Microwear analysis from many different localities excavated within and near the earthworks demonstrates that craft production was an important activity conducted using bladelets. Each of the localities in which crafts were produced concentrated on media distinct from the others. These findings have important implications for our understanding of Hopewell economy and social structure as well as craft production in general.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jaa.2015.03.005

Cites

48 of 48 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

4 of the 52 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 9

  1. Connolly, Robert P., 1991. Prehistoric Site Structure at the Fort Ancient State Memorial: New Evidence from Lithic Analysis. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati.
  2. Essenpreis, Patricia, Moseley, Michael E., 1984. Fort Ancient: Citadel or Coliseum? Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin June, pp. 5–10, 20–26.
  3. Kozuch, Laura, 1998. Marine Shells from Mississippian Archaeological Sites. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville.
  4. Minich, Francis J., 2004. Hopewell Stone Carvers: Reinterpreting the Roles of Artist and Patron. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Department of Art History, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond.
  5. Pennefather-O’Brien, Elizabeth, 2006. Biological Affinities Among Middle Woodland Populations Associated with the Hopewell Horizon. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Indiana University, Bloomington.
  6. Pi-Sunyer, 1965, The flint industry, vol. 4, 60
  7. Snyder, 2008, Brown’s bottom #1 (33Ro1104) bladelet assemblage: an experiment in use-wear analysis, Penn. Archaeol., 78, 41
  8. Spielmann, Katherine A., 2009. Ohio Hopewell ritual craft production. In: Lynott, Mark (Ed.), The Footprints of Squier and Davis: Archaeological Fieldwork in Ross County, Ohio. Midwest Archeological Center Special Report No. 5, pp. 179–188.
  9. Yerkes, Richard W., 1990. Using microwear analysis to investigate domestic activities and craft specialization at the murphy site, a small Hopewell settlement in Licking County, Ohio. In: Gräslund, B., Knutson, H., Knutson, K., Taffinder, J. (Eds.), The Interpretive Possibilities of Microwear Analysis. Societas Archaeologica Upsaliensis, Aun 14, Uppsala, Sweden, pp. 167–176.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Metadata

Authors
Miller, G. L.
Affiliations
Illinois State University (US)
Corresponding author
Miller, G. Logan
Venue
Journal of Anthropological Archaeology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-09
Volume
39
Pages
124-138
ISSN
0278-4165 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.jaa.2015.03.005
OpenAlex
W2005874474
Cited by
39
References
52
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 2
FWCI
25.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • Journal of Anthropological Archaeology (publishedVersion)
  • ISU Red - Research and eData (Illinois State University) (submittedVersion)
  • Journal of Archaeological Science
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Archeology (arts and humanities) › Archaeological and Geological Studies
  • Social Sciences › Archeology › Archaeology and ancient environmental studies
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History › Amazonian Archaeology and Ethnohistory
Keywords
ritual economy, craft production, microwear analysis, small-scale societies, social structure, lithic technology

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review