TOWARD A MORE COMPREHENSIVE UNDER-STANDING OF ARCHAIC SETTLEMENT PATTERNS FOR EASTERN OHIO

Brian DaRe

Ohio Archaeological Council © 2002

Introduction

In 1994 I delivered a paper to the Poster Section of the Forth OAC Conference on the Archaic at Cleveland State University. The short of the paper "When Harry Heckman Talks, People Listen!" was that much might be learned from the surface collections of the amateur in eastern Ohio if a survey could be done. I pointed out to the reader that measures were taken that greatly improved the attitude of the amateur that allowed them to share site information with a researcher.

The amateur in eastern Ohio was receptive to the notion that preparation of articles using amateur information needed to be made to the Ohio Archaeologist, which was the publication that they paid their dues to receive. The principal of fair play was effective. An amateur's strong points were always placed towards the positive regardless of personalities. The amiable qualities of properly recording the provenience of each artifact found, securing permission from the farmer or landowner before looking for artifacts, displaying artifacts for educational purposes at public events including ASO functions, and permitting the researcher to have access at their surface collections were always brought to the forefront in the articles that I prepared for publication. Perhaps equally important to this organization is that the articles should be viewed as an'outreach' on the part of the amateur to find a common ground in which to work with the professional.

The net result of the initial survey in eastern Ohio was 18 articles being produced for the Ohio Archaeologist either through my penmanship or others that picked up the slack. This roughly doubles the output of the previous years 35 years in eastern Ohio.

The balance of the initial survey for eastern Ohio which has not as yet made it to publication represents about 4000 diagnostic artifacts comprising flint and stone tools at a number of sites along the interior streams, at stream divides, at the drainage divide (Flushing escarpment), or along the main trunk of the Ohio River. This constitutes the largest sample of artifacts known for the region of eastern Ohio that has provenience to a specific location.

While this sample certainly represents a study in itself and is relevant to comparable locations in the unglaciated region of Ohio, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania (i.e. Cross Creek drainage of West Virginia and Pennsylvania, central Muskingum through the Tuscarawas Valley), the main thrust of the survey is now geared toward developing a Share Program which could place the surface collections of the amateur into the college classroom or the museum's study table in order to promote articles to the archaeological community.

The Share Program

The share program should help to distribute previously unpublished raw data from sites in eastern Ohio that is in the hands of the amateur/avocational or farmer to the professional in order to develop articles for eventual use to an interested general public, including the amateur/ avocational. I believe that a program such as this not only stands a reasonable chance of creating a continued stream flow of significant site data for future use but should also meet the expectations of all concerned parties in the archaeological community by developing a team of writers who would use the information supplied by the amateur/avocational or farmer and post articles on the OAC Website and /or the OAC Newsletter but also submitted to the Ohio Archaeologist in some form.

I am not just asking the 100 plus membership of the OAC to consider the merits of this proposal but also the professional organizations that are represented by this membership, including museums and universities. This should have both immediate and long-term benefits to all that we place under the umbrella of archaeology in Ohio. For instance, this would allow the universities and museums to be at the cutting edge of late-breaking site information for use with their students or staff in the form of special classroom projects for interested anthropology or archaeology majors, etc. and special assignments for those who would promote the goals of their own organization. This could quickly expedite new information while giving some the opportunity to contribute published articles to the archaeological community. Another advantage to this program is that it could give the college student an opportunity to view the surface collections of the amateur/avocational or farmer and learn valuable insights about site location, lithic material, and overall collecting strategies in a localized area. By going directly to the strength of the amateur I think would help the next generation of archaeologists to be better trained to enter a field with increasingly diminished cultural resources due to urbanization and industrialization, and other means. By working within a system that can easily disseminate information, department researchers and degree candidates, etc. should be able to more easily reconstruct settlement patterns on a regional base for our lesser-understood prehistoric peoples, including that of the Archaic.

By pursuing a program like this, the OAC can more effectively be able to formulate public attitudes in light of existing laws while promoting the importance of our prehistoric heritage to Society before the landscape is completely destroyed by man's land use. Equally important in the view of this Regional Collaborator for the Ohio Archaeologist is that the mission of archaeology toward the general public can best be served when there is coordination between its components. The Share Program, as outlined above, has the theme of 'education' heavily imprinted upon it and it is the indelible stamp of 'education' that will be the bond of common ground that will allow the amateur and the professional to join hands and cross the bridge of learning together toward a very interested general public. Only in this way can the present state of archaeology in Ohio be better today than yesterday and then better tomorrow than it was today.

At the 1994 OAC Conference on the Archaic at Cleveland State University, the keynote speaker, Dr. Brian Fagan was asked the question "What is the future of archaeology in Ohio?" by Robert Converse of the Archaeological Society of Ohio. The response to that question was "The future of archaeology in Ohio will depend upon the ability of the professional and the amateur to find ways in which to work together." Perhaps a pin drop might have been heard in the silence that fell upon the room that day.... Perhaps history will say that we were not as silent today. I ask the professionals of the OAC to consider "that the Share Program will be a way in which we can work together." I ask the college professor to consider "that the information that remains in the hands of the amateur could fill a thousand books...nor will it cost the price of one of them." I ask the student of archaeology or anthropology to consider "that if we are going to 'outreach' to the general public shouldn't we be bringing the amateur with us?"

I would like to take just a moment to dedicate the spirit of the Share Program that is coming out of eastern Ohio to a very special individual who first gave the amateur in eastern Ohio a glimpse of how archaeology should be and in time we became better at it. This was an individual who chose to work in the imperfect world of the amateur and had the God given talent to learn from and teach to the amateur in the same breath. This was an individual whose masters theses stood the test of time and along with a short article in SPAAC Speaks is still quoted from by nearly every professional and amateur writing on the Late Prehistoric period in the Ohio region. This individual was Janice Whitman of Kent State University.

[See reply by Al Tonetti]

The Sites

An approximate number of diagnostic artifacts are given for each site along with artifact type names for artifacts observed in the surface collection from that site.

  1. Lithics from the Rayland site (33Je109). 279 diagnostic artifacts including Late Brewerton Corner Notched, Late Archaic Stemmed, Perkiomen Broad, Early Adena Stemmed, Late Adena Robbins, Levanna Triangle, Jack's Reef Corner Notched, Chesser Corner Notched, Hopewell bladelet, triangle point (Railey type #2, #4, #5, #6), full groove axe, nutting stones, abrader stone, pottery types.

  2. GFCB site an historic site at the probable location of an early warehouse. 38 historic artifacts including gunflints both English and French, old coins, old metal buttons, tokens, etc.


  3. Knob Hill site (33Je85). Over 2000 diagnostic artifacts including Kirk Corner Notched, Large Bifurcate- MacCorkle, Small Bifurcate, Big Sandy, Brewerton Side Notched, Brewerton Corner Notched, Brewerton Eared Triangle, Lamoka, Perkiomen Broad, Late Archaic Stemmed, Ashtabula, Amos, Early Adena Stemmed, Late Adena Robbins, Chesser Corner Notched, Levanna triangle, Jack's Reef Corner Notched, Jack's Reef's Pentagonal, Raccoon Notched, Levanna Triangle, Late Prehistoric triangle (Railey type #4, #5, and #6), stone tools including celt and full groove aze, pottery types, hafted scrapers about 10 to 1 compared to thumb scrapers. This site is at the present location of the Buckeye Local High School near Rayland, Ohio.


  4. Lithics from the Zunich site along Short Creek. Over 600 artifacts including Clovis Fluted, Archaic Bevel, Archaic Dovetail, Kirk Corner Notched, Stanley Stemmed, Big Sandy, Large Bifurcate- MacCorkle, Small Bifurcate, Late Archaic Brewerton Corner Notched, Late Archaic Stemmed, Early Adena Stemmed, Late Adena Robbins, Jack's Reef Side Notched, Jack's Reef Corner Notched, Jack's Reef Pentagonal, Levanna Triangle, Late Prehistoric triangle (Railey type # 4 and #5). Drills, more thumb scrapers than hafted.


  5. Baumberger Hamlet (33Je108). 76 artifacts including Early Archaic Side Notched, Early Archaic T-Drill, Brewerton Corner Notched, Late Archaic Stemmed, Late Adena Robbins, Jack's Reef Corner Notched, Levanna Triangle, Madison Triangle (Railey type #4, #5, and #6), full groove axe, discoidal, pottery types.


  6. Upper Baumberger Hilltop site. 32 artifacts including Kirk Corner Notched, Brewerton Corner Notched, Late Archaic Stemmed.


  7. Artifacts from the Zerger site. 89 artifacts including Large Bifurcate- MacCorkle, Small Bifurcate, Brewerton Corner Notched, Ashtabula, Levanna Triangles, Madison Triangle (Railey type #4 and #5).


  8. Valley Home Gardens- historic and prehistoric artifacts. 60+ artifacts including Late Archaic Brewerton Corner Notched. Late Archaic Stemmed, Early Adena Stemmed, Late Adena Robbins, Levanna Triangle, historic tokens and coins, clay marbles, 38 cal. Bullet.


  9. Artifacts from the Sutak Farm site. 86 artifacts including Late Archaic Brewerton Corner Notched, Brewerton Eared Triangle, Late Archaic Stemmed, Late Adena Robbins, many performs, full groove axe, nutting stones.


  10. Artifacts from the Smitty Hill site. 10 artifacts including Late Archaic Brewerton Corner Notched.


  11. Dillonvale Ball Field site. 26 artifacts including Big Sandy, Small Bifurcate, Late Archaic Brewerton Corner Notched, Levanna Triangles, full groove axe.


  12. Riverside Drive-In site. 20+ artifacts including Jack's Reef Corner Noted, Jack's Reef Pentagonal, Jack's Reef drill, Levanna Triangle, Early Adena Stemmed, Madison Triangle (Railey type #4 and #5), discoidal, pottery site.


  13. Litva site along Short Creek in Jefferson County, Ohio. Nine artifacts including Late Archaic Stemmed, Jack Reef's Corner Notched, Jack's Reef Pentagonal, full grooved axe, pottery site.


  14. The Tom Goff Farm site along Wheeling Creek in Belmont County, Ohio and isolated finds within a half-mile. 115+ artifacts including Dalton-like drill, Kirk Corner Notched, Early Archaic Side Notched, Archaic T- Drill, Early Archaic knife, Brewerton Side Notched, Brewerton Corner Notched, Brewerton Eared Triangle, Late Archaic Stemmed, Early Adena Stemmed, Late Adena Robbins, Jack's Reef Corner Notched, Jack Reef's notched drill, Levanna Triangle, Madison triangles (Railey type # and #5), celts and full grooved axes, nutting stones, abrader, flint reduction flakes, hammer stones, mussel shell fragments.


  15. A Petroglyph in Soaptown Hollow (33Bl 202). For those who like petroglyphs this is a good one in a very secluded spot with four glyphs on a flowstone that could be the head of a turtle. Field trips are available in small groups on private ground with landowner permission. This is a landowner-protected site. No artifacts have been collected at this site. (Not shown on map)


  16. Artifacts from the Ralph Zeyer Farm. Small collections near an upland springhead mostly Early Archaic including Archaic Dovetail, Late Archaic Brewerton Corner Notched. Early Adena Stemmed, Late Adena Robbins3/4 grooved axe, etc.


  17. History and Preservation join hands at the Barnesville Track Rocks Petroglyph site with diagnostic artifact from ground zero out to 3 miles. This would be a major project that highlights the preservation project that placed the property in the hands of the Archaeological Conservancy. The Wood family who owned the property prior to R & F Coal Company had collected several hundred artifacts. About everything had been noticed from ground zero out to 1 mile with the exception of a fluted point and late prehistoric triangles. The highest frequency of artifacts seems to be at the juncture of the Late Archaic to Early Adena. Interested parties can inquire for details.


  18. Shannon Cave near Track Rocks west of Barnesville, Ohio. I would like to see some university send an archaeologist down to see if an excavation could be done here as was done at the nearby Raven Rocks. I have jpegs for those interested and Paul Gardner of the Archaeological Conservancy saw the site. I suspect that two of the main glyphs at the nearby Track Rock Petroglyph site line up with Shannon Cave and could have symbolic meaning to the petroglyph. Please inquire if interested!

Acknowledgement

I would like to thank the following amateurs/avocationals or farmers for allowing me to view their surface collections or directing me toward an important site. Without their help this paper would not have been possible. They are Fred Posgai, Ron Gordon, Thomas Zani, Glenn Zeyer, Glenn Balk, Karen Arbenz Greenlee, Bill Farson, Ruth Wood Smith, Tim Smith, Mitch Smith, Scott Smith, Suzan and Jim Carpenter.