Ohio Archaeology Blog

ADENA PIPE MADE FROM SCIOTOVILLE CLAY

2013-06-16T10:58:00.000-04:00

In today’s Columbus Dispatch, Dale Gnidovec, curator of the Orton Geological Museum at the Ohio State University, describes the source of the raw material from which some exceptional ancient Native American artisan carved Ohio’s State Artifact.

The Adena Pipe is made from Sciotoville clay, a kind of flint clay, which formed in Ohio's tropical forests 320 million years ago!

The flint clay was quarried from along the Scioto River near Portsmouth about 2,000 years ago.

Brad Lepper

2013 ROBERT L. HARNESS SUMMER LECTURE SERIES AT HOPEWELL CULTURE NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK

2013-06-13T17:18:00.003-04:00

Hopewell Culture National Historical Park is pleased to host the summer 2013 archeological lecture series. The following is a list of speakers and titles of topics to be presented. The programs will be held at the Mound City Group Visitor Center located at 16062 St. Rt. 104 just north of Chillicothe. Each lecture will start at 7:30 P.M.

______________

June 20: Hearth Features, Land-Use Intensification, and Archaeological Preservation Bias: A Case Study from Northwest Texas

Laura R. Murphy, Department of Anthropology, University of Kansas

Archaeologists assume a strong link between increasing hunter-gatherer populations, decreasing territories, and an increase in plant cooking facilities on the landscape. Fire-cracked rock (FCR) features such as hearths and earth-ovens used to process plant foods with lower caloric values reflect an intensified use of the land. Because the link between FCR features, population, and land-use intensification depends on locating hearth features and establishing a radiocarbon chronology, it is critical to measure erosion bias and correct population estimates based on sites lost. I present a method for calculating demographic changes where we correct for preservation bias after determining the density of hearth features from landform surfaces of known ages. I test the model in northwest Texas where surface survey yielded 385 hearths. When we understand the extent to which the archaeological record has been affected by erosion, we can make more substantiated conclusions about the archaeological patterns on the surface that inform us about human behavior.

June 27: The Circleville Earthwork and Hopewell

Jerrel Anderson

The Circleville earthwork was one of the great Hopewell works of Ohio, but it was unfortunately lost to history by destruction in the early 19th century by the rapidly growing village of Circleville, and also by Squier's and Davis's cursory treatment of it in their 1847 book, "Ancient Monuments of the Mississippi Valley". Because of these factors, it has been largely ignored in discussions of the Hopewell phenomenon. This great work and its surroundings have much to teach us about the Hopewell: the work shared many features with other Ohio earthworks but it had some unique attributes too, it was geographically isolated from the concentration of works around Chillicothe and so can serve as a model for settlement and population patterns associated with a major work, and it serves as a sad reminder of how much can be lost to unwitting progress. This presentation will cover the work itself, compare it with other Ohio earthworks, present currently known Hopewell settlement patterns around Circleville, and encourage preservation of knowledge by all devotees of archeology.

July 11: Hopewell Copper in Ohio,Wisconsin and Illinois

Cindy Kocik

Hopewell material culture and ideas played a prominent role and spread widely in the Middle Woodland period of Midwest prehistory. During this time of voluminous trade in a number of materials, copper procured from the Lake Superior area was transported to the Hopewell core in Ohio, and the metal was fashioned into a variety of artifacts. This lecture focuses on research comparing copper use in Ohio, Hopewell-related sites in southwestern Wisconsin, and Havana Hopewell sites in the Illinois River Valley. The form and type, context, and, when available, the metric attributes of copper artifacts were analyzed in order to more fully understand the nature of copper use and what this suggests regarding Wisconsin and Illinois Hopewell connections.

July 25: Results of a Large Scale Geophysical Survey at Hopewell Culture National Historical Park

Jarrod Burks

Over the last year large scale magnetic surveys have been underway at three of the sites in Hopewell Culture National Historical: Hopewell Mound Group, Hopeton, and High Banks. Making such a survey a reality has been a goal of mine for years and I have finally found the scientific equipment that can make it happen. In this talk I explore some of the results from the survey. Every day of the survey brought new surprises as we battled with the uncertain weather and vigorous vegetation that covers the sites. Looking at the resulting data at the end of each day was a real treat as I never knew what might have been found. From buried earthwork ditches and large pit features to lines of posts following earthwork edges, there are many interesting features in the new data that should launch decades of exciting excavations. These data are so new that you will be some of the first people on the planet to see signs of these buried features since the Hopewell created them some 2000 years ago. Come join us in discovering what lies beneath at Hopewell Culture NHP!

______________

For more information about these programs, please call 740-774-1126 or visit the Hopewell Culture National Historical Park website at www.nps.gov/hocu

Hopewell Culture National Historical Park

National Park Service

U.S.

Department of the Interior

CSG TEACHERS DESCRIBE HOW THE ADENA PIPE BECAME OHIO'S STATE ARTIFACT

2013-06-11T20:55:00.000-04:00

On the Ohio Archaeological Council's website, Columbus School for Girls' teachers Charlotte Stiverson and Tracy Kessler describe how their students persevered over three years to make the Adena Pipe Ohio's State Artifact.

"This project was more than just an exciting example of project-based learning. It served as a successful quest to bring public awareness to something of tremendous importance to our history as human beings. Through this process, we witnessed bipartisan agreement among legislators, a strong sense of community among students, parents, and teachers at CSG, the support from organizations such as the Ohio Historical Society and the Ohio Archaeological Council, and a passion among children for lifelong learning. We hope that this project has inspired some of our young female students to someday become legislators, archaeologists, or lobbyists. Through this experience, they have learned that, much like the Adena people, their voice can be heard whether they are a child or a long lost prehistoric culture..."

WORLD HERITAGE CELEBRATION AT THE GREAT CIRCLE - JUNE 24, 2013

2013-06-11T12:03:00.000-04:00

I LOVE ARCHAEOLOGY BECAUSE…

2013-06-06T19:21:00.001-04:00

The May issue of the SAA Archaeological Record, the magazine of the Society for American Archaeology, has a terrific “Special Forum,” which the editor, Jane Eva Baxter, describes as “a series of love letters to archaeology from people at all ages and stages of life and career, from different countries and backgrounds, and with different working relationships to archaeology.”

Baxter invited 25 colleagues and friends to contribute one page essays that began with the line “I love archaeology because…”

The result is a wonderfully kaleidoscopic collage of all kinds of reasons to love archaeology.

Ashley McCuistion celebrates archaeology as “an honest science, dedicated to finding the truth as it is written in the soil.”

John C. Whittaker reminds us that “we speak for the value of diverse cultures, for remembrance of the ancient messages, for the voice of those who can no longer speak themselves.”

Jessica Goodwin concludes her essay with the following poignant declaration: “I love archaeology, and with it I embrace the forgotten and the lost, the sorrow and the joy of the past.”

I encourage you to read all of the essays in the forum and maybe think about writing your own love letter. I'd be happy to consider posting it here on the Ohio Archaeology Blog.

It’s important to share our passion for this remarkable science so that, in E. O. Wilson’s words, people can see "that scientists are people, that science is an honorable, trustworthy, and powerful endeavor that people should look to for answers...”

Thank you Jane Eva Baxter for this very Special Forum!

Brad Lepper

OHS HAS A NEW HISTORY CURATOR!

2013-05-30T11:48:00.003-04:00

The Archaeology and Natural History Staff is pleased to welcome Emily Lang to the Ohio Historical Society as a new Curator of History. Actually, Emily is not entirely new to OHS. As a student she interned with us for two summers assisting in the development and installation of multiple exhibits.

Here is Emily’s own story of how she decided to pursue a career in museums:

"Appreciation for Ohio history runs deep in my family; my grandfather was a local politician who not only attended the opening of the Ohio History Center in 1970, but also donated his papers to OHS. I grew up in Columbus, so every summer, my family would visit OHS, COSI, and the Columbus Museum of Art. One of my earliest museum memories is walking around Ohio Village with a root beer flavored candy stick and watching the blacksmith work away in his shop.

When I went to Kent State University, I decided to major in history, not knowing what else I could do with a history degree other than teach. After interning with the Kent State University Museum, I stumbled across an opportunity to intern with OHS in collections and curatorial. My first day included a tour of the warehouse where I got to see an airplane and a plethora of Miss American Gowns, which left me wondering where I was and how I had ended up there. I fell in love with the interesting, and often very bizarre, opportunities with museum work and decided to pursue a career in it.

I attended graduate school at the Cooperstown Graduate Program, pursuing my M.A. in History Museum Studies, after working with CGP alum Cameron Wood and Lesley Poling at OHS. I spent a summer at the Museum at Bethel Woods (the home of the 1969 Woodstock Festival) as a curatorial assistant where I got to work with music, clothing, and other artifacts from the 1960s (I even got to meet Ringo Starr!) I was also fortunate to spend a year and a half at the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum in photo archives and curatorial, where I most recently worked on an exhibition about baseball scouts.

I look forward to the challenges and opportunities as a curator at OHS; hopefully someday, I will even get to work with my grandfather’s donations in the collections!"

Welcome to OHS Emily!

FURTHER THOUGHTS ON LETTERS TO A YOUNG SCIENTIST

2013-05-28T12:02:00.000-04:00

Letters to a Young Scientist: A Response to Brad’s Blog Post:

I’ll have to add this book to my reading list. I thoroughly enjoyed Wilson’s 2006 autobiography, Naturalist, as well as several other books by Wilson.

I agree with Brad's comments on communication and I would offer a couple of additional points on this topic.

Scientists generally desire to evaluate situations with a cool and objective mind, not wanting to bias their findings with their own emotions or pre-conceived ideas. In reality, this is a worthy goal but not entirely attainable. We are human of course. But more importantly, it may often be critical for a scientist’s to share their passion for their subject. Naturally, scientific knowledge must be shared with other scientists so that our understanding can be reviewed, critiqued and then multiplied and expanded upon by other scientists. It must also be shared with the general public. One major reason for this is that unless the public can see and appreciate the need for such research, that research will never be funded. As a biologist, that can translate to lack of funding for conservation for the very thing we wish to study, which could ultimately result in the loss of that resource through extinction. Why would any person support conservation funds to save a rare orchid unless they learned to appreciate the beauty and the ecological role of that orchid and the equally rare moth or mosquito (for some orchids) that pollinates it? This too holds true for archaeology, as if the resources are not appreciated for their scientific value and what they can teach us, they will only be valued for whatever monetary value they may offer for looting of archaeological sites. Sharing scientific findings with the public in an understandable and passionate manner is the first step in building a knowledgeable, concerned and supportive constituency.

From my perspective, there is another equally important motive for sharing. Sharing scientific findings with the general public is one of the greatest highs I get in life. To see people get excited about what you are already passionate about reinforces your own enthusiasm for the work you are doing. This non-chemical high stimulates continued work. The work of a scientist can at times be methodical, difficult, dirty, exhausting and even boringly repetitive, but the sharing of the findings can be a great help to encourage us to continue such work. Often the audience (whether young or old) ask questions that approach things from a fresh perspective. While sometimes their questions are simple and easy to answer, other times their insight can be amazing, challenging and can lead you to a totally new approach to your work. Having not yet read Wilson’s newest book, I find it interesting that you indicate that he did not include this aspect in this book. In his autobiography, Wilson refers to maintaining teaching introductory classes in college biology when as a senior professor he could have easily opted out from introductory classes to concentrate on his own research and graduate students. Wilson indicated that the fresh views from students who were not majoring in the sciences often offered insights that stimulated his thought and his own studies. Wilson cherished the opportunity to teach these students, as I believe he has cherished the opportunity to publish books for both scientists and the general public.

It comes down to this: If we love what we do, sharing that passion benefits both our audiences, our work and our own mental health. The results are positive in every direction!

Bob Glotzhober, Senior Curator of Natural History

LETTERS TO A YOUNG SCIENTIST

2013-05-26T19:23:00.000-04:00

I highly recommend E. O. Wilson’s latest book, Letters to a Young Scientist, to any young scientist, anyone contemplating a career in science, anyone currently engaged in science regardless of whether they’re young or not, as well as anyone in a relationship with a scientist who wants to better understand why their wife, husband, boyfriend, girlfriend, daughter, son, or whatever, is so passionately committed to their job.

There is much between the pages of this short book to engage and inspire anyone involved in the scientific enterprise though it was clearly Wilson’s intent to focus on providing counsel and encouragement to young scientists:

“First and foremost, I urge you to stay on the path you’ve chosen, and to travel on it as far as you can. The world needs you – badly.”

The book is not just for young biologists, though obviously most of the book’s examples are drawn from biology. Even archaeology is mentioned two or three times!

As the title suggests, the book is written as a series of letters and in reading them you feel privileged to be having this exchange with one of the world’s greatest living scientists.

Each letter addresses a different aspect of a life in science ranging from “First passion, then training” to “The scientific ethic.”

I agree with just about everything Wilson writes with a few exceptions.

First of all, I think Wilson mistakes passion for zealotry when he says that “real scientists don’t take vacations” (page 81). For those young scientists who are hoping to have reasonably healthy personal relationships and possibly even be somewhat involved in raising a family, I respectfully suggest that real scientists can, and should, take vacations. In my experience, vacations not only provide quality time with your family they also allow you to return to your scientific work with renewed energy and enthusiasm.

Also, nowhere in these letters does Wilson suggest that scientists have an obligation to share their discoveries and their passion for science with the general public. Granted we all can’t be Carl Sagan or Brian Cox, but we all should recognize the vital importance of communicating with the broader public. And even if that’s not where our particular talents lie, we can at least support our colleagues that do engage with the public instead of looking down on them. Outrageously, Carl Sagan was denied membership in the prestigious National Academy of Sciences because he devoted too much of his time to popularizing science instead of doing science.

Carl Safina, in answer to the question “why communicate science?,” argues persuasively that people desperately need to know "that scientists are people, that science is an honorable, trustworthy, and powerful endeavor that people should look to for answers, and as a way to help think through decisions.”

Wilson's Letters make all of this abundantly clear, but it would have been nice if he had urged young scientists to make communicating science almost as much of a priority as doing science.

Brad Lepper

3D PRINTING OF AMUNET'S SKULL

2013-05-22T14:33:00.001-04:00

Thanks to the careful work of Mallory Busso, a biomedical engineering student at Case Western University, and the Technology House in Solon, Ohio, we now have a 3D representation of Amunet's skull.

Mallory was able to use the CT-scan data obtained by the Ohio State University's Wexner Medical Center to create the digital model and the Technology House used its 3D printing capability to make the physical recreation of Amunet's skull.

We now can use this model as a teaching tool as well as the basis for a forensic reconstruction of Amunet's face – a face which the world has not seen for more than 2,700 years!

Brad

ODOT Project near U.S. Grant Birthplace at Point Pleasant, Ohio

2013-05-21T14:59:00.001-04:00

From May 6-9, 2013, the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) was recently performing some repair and replacement of Works Progress Administration (WPA) gutters with a more modern gutter and drainage system as well as upgrading a sidewalk. The work was located near the Ulysses S. Grant birthplace in Point Pleasant, Ohio in Southern Ohio.

During recovery efforts, nearly 100 artifacts were recovered, including pipe fragments, ceramics, a glass medicinal bottle and sagger fragments. Saggers are defined as large cylindrical fired ceramic vessels, with or without holes in the sides, used to contain unfired pots (especially glazed ware) or other kinds of ceramic products (e.g. clay pipes). All of the materials, while postdating the Grant's occupation of the home, came from a few of the pipe making factories that played an important part of industry in the town of Point Pleasant, Ohio. A number of different pipes had been recovered previously back during the replacement of the Original Grant Memorial Bridge in 1984 and during archaeological investigations by ODOT on Lot 37 in 2011.

Many of the pipe fragments resemble the Milled Chesterfield Diagonally Ribbed type and the Ribbed Elbow type. According to previous research, these two types of pipes were produced by the Lakin-Kirkpatrick-Davis-Peterson (LKDP) Pottery, which was the longest operating pottery plant in Point Pleasant, Ohio. While many of the pipes are only fragments, approximately four pieces were complete. However, it appears that the complete pieces (and likewise the fragments) were discards due to a warped shape or other abnormality during the firing process.

Of special interest were sagger fragments and a medicine bottle that were recovered near the Grant Birthplace. The saggers, like a majority of the clay pipes, were found in fragments.

The final artifact of interest was a medicine bottle that was recovered during trenching efforts in front of the Grant Birthplace home. The medicine bottle had embossing on it that read: “Peter Nodler Pharmacist, Covington, KY.” Nodler was a prominent druggist in Covington during the last third of the 19^th century with a store at Fifth and Madison Streets in that city. He was also well known as a dealer in all sorts of lamps and accessories as well as doing a good trade in ginger ales and soda waters that he supplies to retail dealers. He seemed well established in Covington about the same time the LDKP Pottery was in business. Stay tuned for more discoveries!

Chandler Herson

"FOOTPRINT ROCK" FROM CLINTON COUNTY

2013-05-21T10:51:00.000-04:00

In March of 1941, the Ohio Historical Society's Curator of Archaeology Richard Morgan received a remarkable letter. Employees of Ohio’s Department of Highways had made what they felt was a momentous discovery. According to a report enclosed with the letter, workers repairing a bridge on State Route 350, near Clarksville in Clinton County, had uncovered “a rock that is evidently the handiwork of prehistoric civilization.”

This rock appeared to be in the shape of “the bottom of a mocca-sined foot,” estimated to be about a size six. The shape of the foot was said to differ “from our present civilization in that there is a distinct curve in the foot at the point we know and call the instep.”

The proximity of the Fort Ancient Earthworks suggested to the author of the report that “this piece of work” might be “a remnant of the Mound Builders’ art.”

Morgan looked over the pictures and immediately realized the discovery was not what it appeared to be.

In his reply to the Highway Department, he tried to be diplomatic:

"In my opinion, the object is not the work of the prehistoric Indians but is a natural rock formation. Such formations are known to geologists as concretions. …

We appreciate your interest and courtesy in bringing the object to our attention and wish to thank you for your co-operation."

The Footprint Rock sure looks like a human footprint, but it surely is an entirely natural formation. It's a good example of how easy it is for your brain to fool you by finding apparent meaning in the seemingly infinite variety of nature. There's even a word for it – pareidolia. It's why we sometimes see a man in the Moon or camels and whales in the clouds.

Brad Lepper

OHIO'S NATURAL HISTORY: Introducing Our New Natural History Curator

2013-05-21T09:50:00.000-04:00

Introducing Our New Natural History Curator

This Blog is an introduction and a welcome to the Ohio Historical Society for our new curator of natural history, David L. Dyer. Dave brings to our museum an enthusiasm and energy for natural history, museums and wild, natural landscapes such as the natural history sites OHS operates.

Most recently, Dave was curator of the zoology collections and herbarium at the museum of the University of Montana in Missoula, where he worked with their collections for twenty years. He has a master’s degree from the University of Nebraska in museum studies, with an emphasis in natural history. Prior to working on his MS, Dave spent four years working as a museum preparator for the Ice Age Exhibit at the Cincinnati Museum Center. Somewhat serendipitously, prior to that Dave spent 12 years right here at the Ohio Historical Society, first as a high school student intern and part-time while working on his BS at Ohio State, then full time as our Collections Manager. While Dave, his wife and two sons loved the wilderness hiking opportunities of Montana, roots in Ohio and family still living here motivated Dave to apply for the position here at OHS. I am excited about “turning over the reins” to such a passionate and dedicated natural history museum person. You’ll get a small sense of Dave’s commitment to this sort of work as you read his own introduction below. As you get the opportunity, welcome Dave back to Ohio and to the Ohio Historical Society.

Bob Glotzhober, Senior Curator of Natural History

David Dyer: In His Own Words.

As a school child I loved museums. The most anticipated days of the year were the annual spring tours to various Columbus museums. It was a chance to get out of the classroom, to see exciting objects on exhibit, and to have new experiences. Most memorable were the trips to COSI, when they were at their old location on East Broadway, and of course the “Ohio State Museum” in Sullivant Hall at 15^th and High. That, as you may know, was the home of the Ohio Archaeological and Historical Society before it changed its name to the Ohio Historical Society and then moved to 17^th Avenue.

The exhibits were fascinating of course. Who doesn’t want get out of school and get to see the huge swinging Foucault’s Pendulum at COSI or the grizzly bear diorama and rooms full of artifacts at OHS!? Yet it was the doors from the exhibit halls to the unknown back rooms that fascinated me. What was going on behind those doors?! What were those people doing who came and went through those “Staff Only” doors? What amazing things were back there that we could not see? I knew there were large rooms that we could not access and that they MUST have held the coolest stuff in the world! I would stray from my group and sneak a look through the crack between the doors…what would I see? Dinosaur bones? Mummies? All manner of stuffed animals peering back at me? You guessed it; I saw filing cabinets, cinder block walls, and cement floors!

Fast-forward about a decade. As a junior in high school I had the chance to get a behind-the-scenes tour at one of my favorite museums: the Ohio Historical Society! (I still like that phrase: “behind-the scenes”! Who doesn’t want to get to see behind the scenes of almost anything!? I still enjoy watching the how-it’s-made short videos that come with feature film DVDs, usually more than the actual films themselves!). Finally, I was going to see what went on in those long halls and rooms behind the exhibits. As the door swung open from the exhibit hall it was just a little disappointing at first; indeed it was a typical office environment… filing cabinets and all. However I held out hope for more when I saw the endless rooms that lined the long hallway. Our small group met with Dr. Carl Albrecht, the Curator of Natural History at the time. After a short orientation we started off down the hall (and as it were, toward my future). We approached a set of dark wooden doors with the intriguing room title on the wall “Synoptic Room”*! I had NO idea what that meant, but with a title like that –sounding all scientific yet a bit mysterious – it HAD to be awesome! Sure enough it was a jaw-dropping experience: row after row of cabinets with signs that hinted at amazing things within: Minerals, Insects, Birds, Mammals, Skeletons, and Fossils. And on top of the cabinets large, fascinating objects loomed overhead... huge skulls, giant bones, and long tusks that I knew must be from Ice Age mastodons or mammoths.

One glimpse into a museum collection and I knew then and there that this was to be my life’s work. Growing up I had always collected various natural history objects, and my brothers and I even operated a small “museum” in our basement for the neighborhood kids. So on this day, when I realized that working in a museum was an actual career possibility, I knew that I had to do it. I quickly begged to be allowed to work on any task that needed doing, and ended up volunteering in natural history during my senior year of high school. I was then privileged to continue part-time during my college years.

I am now honored to be given the opportunity to follow the previous natural history curators; Carl Albrecht, William Schultz, and Bob Glotzhober. They had faith in me when I started in museum work, shared their amazing knowledge, and opened those doors for me, both literally and figuratively.

*Want to know what Synoptic Room means!? Email me!

David Dyer. Ddyer@ohiohistory.org

People of the Forest: the Arc of Appalachia’s 2013 Summer Lecture Series at Serpent Mound

2013-05-19T16:27:00.001-04:00

People of the Forest

The Arc of Appalachia’s 2013 Indigenous Legacies Summer Lecture Series

Exploring Eastern America’s Cultural Roots

Three Archaeological Lectures on Ohio Valley’s Mound-builders
Sunday July 14, Saturday August 3, Saturday August 31, 2013;
1:00 pm, at the Serpent Mound shelter house.

Free to the public, no registration required, parking fee $7.00 per car

For no less than 12,000 years preceding European contact, Native Americans were an integral community member of the rich and complex ecology of

America

’s Eastern Forest. This lecture series will explore three different ancient woodland cultures: the Adena Culture, the Hopewell Culture, and the Fort Ancient Culture.

In these presentations we will step back in time, and take in a broad sweeping perspective. From this holistic view, within the limitations of the archaeological evidence we have, these lectures will address: Who were these peoples, what distinguished their cultural eras, what was each culture’s geographic reach, who were their contemporaries elsewhere in the continent and the world, and what were each culture’s most distinguishing artistic and cultural contributions?

Program One: People of the Forest – the Adena Culture
Epic Mound Builders: 1000 to 200 CE
Sunday July 14 at 1:00 pm
Presented by Elliot Abrams, Professor of Anthropology, Ohio University

Program Two: People of the Forest – the Hopewell Culture
Geometry & Astronomy – Written on the Land: 100 BCE to 400 CE
Saturday August 3 at 1:00 pm
Presented by Bradley Lepper, Curator of Archaeology for the Ohio Historical Society

Program Three: People of the Forest – the Fort Ancient Culture
Farmers of the Ohio Valley: 1000-1750 CE
Saturday August 31 at 1:00 pm
Presented by Robert Allan Cook, Associate Professor of Anthropology, Ohio State University

More information on each lecture can be found here: http://arcofappalachia.org/events/people-of-the-forest.html.

DID JAPANESE FISHERMEN DISCOVER AMERICA 5,000 YEARS AGO?

2013-05-19T08:41:00.001-04:00

The possibility that various European, African, or Asian cultures might have “discovered” the Americas centuries or even millennia before Columbus is a wildly popular idea. Numerous books, magazines, and television programs have been devoted to the topic. Most of these claims are complete nonsense, but at least one has the distinction of having been championed by a respected archaeologist who works for the normally reputable Smithsonian Institution.

In my May column for the Columbus Dispatch, I consider the hypothesis, championed by the late Betty J. Meggers, that fishermen from Japan's Jomon culture, perhaps swept out to sea by a major storm, survived a prolonged sea voyage to end up on the shores of Ecuador where they introduced their ideas about how pottery should be made.

Meggers, writing in the Winter 1980 issue of the unfortunately short-lived magazine Early Man, described how Emilio Estrada, “a young Ecuadorian businessman” and dedicated avocational archaeologist, along with Clifford Evans, a fellow Smithsonian archaeologist, and Meggers came up with the “hypothesis of a pre-columbian introduction of pottery making from Japan to Ecuador.”

Here, in her own words, is a brief summary of how they came up with the idea:

“During late 1960, Estrada undertook a large excavation at Valdivia, which provided a much bigger sample of pottery from the earliest levels. The following spring, he wrote us a letter with a novel suggestion. He had encountered a report on the Jomon pottery of Japan and observed that many of the techniques and motifs of decoration were similar to those of Valdivia.

Having been taught in graduate school that transpacific contacts were irrelevant to explaining the origins of New World traits, we reacted with skepticism. When we examined his sources, however, we found to our surprise that the similarities were closer and more numerous than anything we had been able to find within the

Americas

. Following the rules traditionally employed by archeologists for establishing affiliations made it necessary to infer that Jomon and Valdivia were related. This implied a transpacific contact about the beginning of the third millennium B.C.”

Among the specific decorative traits and rim treatments shared by Jomon and Valdivia pottery are the following:

1. Broad-line incision

2. Excision

3. Red slip

4. Finger grooving

5. Shell stamping

6. Combing

7. Cord impression

8. Rocker stamping

9. Folded-over rim

10. Short spout

There are essentially two alternative explanations for the similarities. Either the two traditions developed independently and the similarities are entirely coincidental, or one gave rise to the other through the direct transfer of knowledge via transpacific contact.

For Meggers, the “rules traditionally employed by archaeologists for establishing affiliations” required accepting the transpacific contact hypothesis as the preferred explanation for the facts.

Those “rules,” at the time Meggers and her colleagues were developing their hypothesis, were based on the view that similarities and differences in artifacts were a simple reflection of the social identities of their makers. Therefore, the degree of similarity between artifacts at different sites provided a direct measure of the degree of the social relationships between the people living at those sites. Lewis Binford and others subsequently challenged this “cultural historical” approach to the analysis of artifacts and assemblages, but without going into this debate it seems surprising to me that Meggers could not see the difference between applying this line of reasoning to assemblages of artifacts from neighboring valleys and applying it to assemblages on opposite sides of the Pacific Ocean in the absence of other convincing evidence of contact between those distant places. Isn’t it obvious that, as a general rule, the plausibility of an argument for a cultural relationship between groups of people making similar looking artifacts would decrease with increasing geographic distance between the groups?

Given the strong arguments against the idea of pre-Columbian contacts between the Americas and the rest of the world and the long history of failure of all such arguments that had been proposed up to that time, it seems to me that Meggers and her colleagues were extraordinarily naive to think their data constituted a strong case for transpacific contact or that their arguments would convince the archaeological community.

The new genetic evidence for a possible connection between Jomon

Japan

and Valdivian Ecuador, which I discuss in my Dispatch column, provides a measure of vindication for Meggers, but it does not mean that the archaeological community should have accepted the evidence as it was presented in the 1960s.

Robert Pirsig has written that “the real purpose of the scientific method is to make sure Nature hasn’t misled you into thinking you know something you don’t actually know.”

Meggers thought she knew something back in 1965. She may, indeed, have been on to something, but she actually didn’t know it. The evidence was not sufficient to support her extraordinary claim.

Oddly enough, another Smithsonian archaeologist, Dennis Stanford is now making the even more extraordinary claim that the Paleolithic European Solutrean culture colonized eastern North American introducing the Clovis point to this hemisphere. The hypothesis is not widely accepted and, unlike the Jomon hypothesis, it is not supported by the genetic record.

Finally, it should go without saying (but won’t) that even if it can be confirmed that the Jomon culture did, indeed, make contact with ancient Ecuadorans, that would in no may make any of the other claims for pre-Columbian contact any more plausible. Each such claim must stand or fall on the merits of the evidence marshaled for that particular claim.

FOR FURTHER READING

Craig, O. E., et al.

2013 Earliest evidence for the use of pottery. Nature, Volume 496, pages 351-354.

Daggett, Richard E.

1978 The life cycle of an idea: transpacific voyages and American archaeology. Journal of the Virgin Islands Archaeological Society No. 6, pp. 13-22.

http://www.stcroixarchaeology.org/files/Transpacific_Voyages_-_Daggett.pdf

Ebbesmeyer, Curtis and Eric Scigliano

2009 Borne on a Black Current. Smithsonian.com

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/Borne-on-a-Black-Current.html

Estrada, Emilio and Betty J. Meggers

1962 Possible transpacific contact on the coast of

Ecuador

. Science, Volume 135, Number 3501, pages 371-372.

McEqan, Gordon F. and D. Bruce Dickson

1978 Valdivia, Jomon fishermen, and the nature of the North Pacific: some nautical problems with Meggers, Evans, and Estrada's (1965) transoceanic contact thesis. American Antiquity Volume 43, Number 3, pages 362-371.

Meggers, Betty J.

1972 Prehistoric America. Aldine, Chicago.

Meggers, Betty J., Clifford Evans and Emilio Estrada

1965 Early Formative Period of Coastal Ecuador: The Valdivia and Machalilla Phases. Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology, Volume 1: http://www.sil.si.edu/smithsoniancontributions/Anthropology/sc_RecordSingle.cfm?filename=SCtA-0001&CFID=16241102&CFTOKEN=22089688

Roewer, Lutz, et al.

2013 Continent-wide decoupling of Y-chromosomal genetic variation from language and geography in Native South Americans. PLOS Genetics, Volume 9, Issue 4: http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pgen.1003460

Brad Lepper

THE ADENA PIPE -- JUST ANOTHER “STATE THING”?

2013-05-17T22:31:00.000-04:00

The Adena Pipe is now Ohio’s State Artifact.

So what?

As a friend of mine implied in a comment to my announcement on Facebook, is it just another meaningless exercise in naming “State Things”?

I don’t think so. And I don’t think you would think so either if you had been in the room at the Ohio Statehouse listening to Governor John Kasich talk to the students from the Columbus School for Girls who have been fiercely persistent in their effort to have this unique effigy pipe recognized as the State Artifact.

It certainly isn’t meaningless to those young women and their teachers.

In their joint statement at the ceremony, Charlotte Stiverson and Tracy Kessler told their students the lesson they hoped everyone would remember –

“Your voice can be heard – whether you’re a child or a long, lost prehistoric culture.”

These young women did their best to help give a sort of voice to Ohio’s ancient peoples. One of their most magnificent works of art now represents the State of Ohio.

You might say it’s only a symbol, but symbols can be extraordinarily potent.

Think about it.

Our State Artifact is a small masterpiece carved by a Native American artisan more than 2,000 years ago.

It’s not a rubber tire, a light bulb, or an astronaut’s space helmet. It’s not a soldier’s saber, a judge’s gavel, or a politician’s pen.

Unanimous votes from both the House and Senate declared in one voice that Ohio would pay homage to our Native American heritage with this symbolic honor.

I don’t think that’s meaningless. I think it’s a miracle.

Thank you to Charlotte and Tracy, to the students at the Columbus School for Girls, to the State Representatives and Senators who sponsored the bills and all of them that voted for both versions, and to Governor Kasich for signing the final bill into law!

Brad Lepper

OHIO'S NATURAL HISTORY: SERENDIPITOUS WILDFLOWER PEAK

2013-05-14T12:55:00.001-04:00

Spring is an exciting and yet also frustrating time of year. After months of dreary, cloudy, cold, rainy and snowy weather, we deeply yearn for sunshine and warmth. Many of us with leanings toward the natural world are eager to see spring wildflowers. An early warm spell catches us off guard, but we are committed to other tasks and cannot find time for woodland walks. Or we plan a day to be afield, and when the calendar turns, the ever present battle of spring between winter and summer bounces back to one of those cold and dreary days! Often it seems our timing cannot win.

As a naturalist, looking months ahead and trying to schedule a public wildflower walk, this dilemma can be even more frustrating. Every spring for the last 33 years I’ve led public hikes along Fort Hill’s Gorge Trail to share the beauty and fascinating ecology and geology of that site with folks. Those hikes can at times offer abundant wildflower displays and I can share the wonders with an enthusiastic group of hikers. Other times, I’ve walked alone in the rain and wind – still enjoying the serenity and peace that a wild area like Fort Hill can offer, but feeling disappointed that the weather had discouraged both the wildflowers and the visitors. Some of those times, the wind howling through the gorge of Fort Hill and the bleak skies with scurrying dark clouds makes one feel like a hobbit on a less than welcomed journey through some darkly enchanted forest.

Sometimes, however, our busy schedules, our calendars and the weather seem to blend perfectly. Wow! What excitement such seemingly rare occurrences bubble into our souls and lift our spirits.

May 4^th this spring was one of those serendipitous happy times. The early morning drive of almost two hours from Columbus started out as cool 58 degrees – but the sun was out and air was warming! By mid-afternoon it was in the mid-70s and balmy. Perhaps due to a few previous cool days, and cool morning, only four visitors joined me. All were from Cincinnati and three of them had been on my walks before. With nearly 20 species in bloom right in the Fort Hill parking lot, we were all excited and anticipating a glorious day in the rapidly greening woods. While a larger group is always more appreciated by a naturalist’s supervisors (numbers of contacts help justify time and costs), this small group was able to interact in a special way that can never happen in a large group.

The wildflowers did not disappoint us! Three weeks earlier, leading a group for the Arc of Appalachia’s Wildflower Pilgrimage, we found 27 species in bloom. Last year with the early warm spring, by early May many species were past – but this May Fourth was magical. By the end of the day we had observed and recorded 52 species in full bloom – not counting those that had already set seed or were not quite open yet. I’d have to confess that I have had one or two hikes at Fort Hill with a higher count, but those were in the early to mid-1980s, before the explosion of the deer herd impacted what is still a magnificent display of wildflower. Fort Hill may be one of the best displays of spring wildflowers in the state! Sorry, perhaps I’m prejudiced on that opinion.

What were the highlights of the trip? I’m sure that varied with each of hikers and their past experiences and preferences. I’d have to include the Dwarf Crested Iris – which we usually find in one nice large patch, but this year we found three good clusters – one in a place I’ve never seen them before. Then there were several spots with Goldenseal which is always a treat. I think many of my visitors were really thrilled with the Showy Orchis and the Large Yellow Lady’s-slipper orchids – especially these two orchids were found within twenty yards of the best patch of the Dwarf Crested Iris. What a magnificent display for form and color and rarity all in one small area of this huge semi-wilderness area. Another favorite for me is the lone Red Buckeye tree (Aesculus pavia) which was in full bloom and in obvious contrast the more abundant Ohio Buckeye. In her detailed 1969 publication on the ecology and vascular plants of Fort Hill (published by the Ohio Biological Survey) E. Lucy Braun lists only the Ohio Buckeye among her 650 species of herbaceous plants she records. In Braun’s 1961 The Woody Plants of Ohio (Ohio State University Press) she does not even list the Red Buckeye as being found anywhere in Ohio. Even the 2001 publication, Seventh Catalog of the Vascular Plants of Ohio by Cooperrider, Cusick and Kartesz does not list the Red Buckeye as being found among the nearly 3,000 species of plants recorded for Ohio. And yet this tree grows on a low promontory thirty feet above Baker Fork at a spot at least a mile from the closest residence. ODNR botanist Jim McCormac tells me that Red Buckeye grows in Kentucky and so might not be unexpected here in southern Ohio – but it is still a neat find here at Fort Hill.

Fort Hill has 11 miles of hiking trails, and on May Fourth, my group hiked only four – through the gorge of Baker Fork and looping back to our vehicles. At the end of the day, all were tired, but it was a pleasant tiredness full of great memories and photos. As you read this blog, most of the blooms we saw that day will be past. But perhaps you can make a note for next April and early May to schedule a hike through the scenic gorge at Fort Hill. The four folks on my May Fourth hike all urged me to come out of my pending retirement and lead a public wildflower hike next spring at Fort Hill again – so perhaps I’ll follow that thought and you could join us!

To learn more about Fort Hill State Memorial – a National Natural Landmark – go to one of the following web pages. The OHS page is at: http://www.ohiohistory.org/museums-and-historic-sites/museum--historic-sites-by-name/fort-hill/fort-hill Our partner that handles the daily operation of Fort Hill is the Arc of Appalachia, and they have a great web page at: http://www.arcofappalachia.org/visit/fort-hill.html

For those who wonder what species made up those 52 plants in bloom that we saw, following is my list – in no specific order.

Bob Glotzhober

Senior Curator of Natural History

Fort Hill Blooms Observed May 4, 2013

Trees & Shrubs: Dogwood, Redbud, Pawpaw, Bladdernut, Ohio Buckeye, Red Buckeye, Black-haw (V. prunifolium);

Herbaceous Flowers: Blue Phlox, Common Blue Violet, Pale Violet, Canada Violet, Yellow Violet, Three-lobed Violet, Walter’s Violet, Green Violet, Golden Ragwort, Golden Alexanders, Bluets, Spring Beauty, Dwarf Larkspur, Early Meadow Rue, Large-flowered Bellwort, Wood Betony, Wood Poppy (Celandine Poppy), Virginia Bluebells, Seneca Snakeroot, Columbine, Smooth Sweet Cicely, Philadelphia Fleabane, White Baneberry (Doll’s Eyes), May Apple, Dandelion, Rue Anemone, Wild Ginger, White Trillium (Large Flowered Trillium), Drooping Trillium, Wild Geranium, Jack-in-the-Pulpit, Star Chickweed, Swamp Buttercup (Hispid Buttercup), Small-flowered Buttercup (Hooked Crowfoot), Bishop’s Cap, Dwarf Crested Iris, Showy Orchis, Large Yellow Lady’s-slipper, Violet Wood Sorrel, Goldenseal, Squawroot, Solomon’s Seal, Solomon’s Plume, Greek Valerian, Ohio Spiderwort.

Other notes: We also saw and heard a number of birds, including a large number of Scarlet Tanager’s calling with their “Chick-Burr” notes, and a group of six baby Wood Ducks scurrying up the creek way below us toward the frantic whistle-call of the adult female, which remained concealed.

IS THE MAN ON THE ADENA PIPE A DWARF?

2013-05-14T12:07:00.000-04:00

In March of 1942, Charles Snow, a Harvard-trained physical anthropologist at the University of Kentucky, sent a letter to Richard Morgan, then the Ohio Historical Society's Curator of Archaeology, asking permission to reproduce an image of the Adena Pipe for a paper he was writing about two "Indian Dwarfs from Moundville." He expressed his opinion that "in its realistic treatment the figurine appears to be that of an achondroplastic dwarf."

Richard Morgan, then Curator of Archaeology for the Ohio Historical Society, readily granted permission for Snow to use the image, but expressed his doubts that the man on the pipe actually represented a dwarf:

"I was talking to Dr. Frank Roos (Dept. of Fine Arts, Ohio State Univ.) who is making a study of primitive art throughout the world. He remarked that the Adena figurine was like other representations of the human figure in primitive art. He stated that squatty figures with large heads were typical of such art and that it would be dangerous to draw definite conclusions concerning the physical type represented."

This argument didn't persuade Snow. He replied on 10 March:

"Several persons have remarked about the pipe-figurine and its figure which in its realism suggests to some that the model may have been an achondroplastic dwarf. Of course, it is very difficult to assert that any such art reproduction represents all of the things artists read into them. In this case, the proportions of the arms, the elbow level, the short, heavy legs the protruding buttocks are all too suggestive in my opinion. Furthermore, the little Indian reported by Fowke, buried at the center of Mound 4 Waverly Group probably was an achondroplastic dwarf. Thus the Adena artist may well have used an actual model… I am using the figurine purely as suggestive."

Snow makes some good points, but I think the issue is not what "artists read into" ancient artifacts such as the Adena Pipe, but what physical anthropologists read into them.

While doing research on the Adena Pipe for my 2010 Timeline article, I contacted the Pre-Columbian Art Historian Johanna Minich and asked her for her views. She is "not entirely convinced" that the man on the pipe was intended to represent a dwarf. For example, the arms are roughly in proper proportion to the body, and the seemingly shortened legs are bent, which may have made it difficult for the sculptor to get the proportions right. She concluded that "if the artist of the Adena man was trying to show us a dwarf, in my mind, it would be more obvious."

So, the man on the Adena Pipe may be a dwarf, but sculpture is not photography and we simply don't know enough about the art of the Adena culture to make such a claim with any degree of confidence.

Brad Lepper

Note: Thanks to OHS volunteer Sara Nuber Thomas for discovering the Snow-Morgan correspondence in the Archaeology files and for recognizing its timeliness!

HUMANS MAKE ART

2013-05-10T13:06:00.001-04:00

Johanna Minich is a Pre-Columbian Art Historian. Her 2004 dissertation, Hopewell Stone Carvers: Reinterpreting the Roles of Artist and Patron, is an insightful study of the magnificent Hopewell effigy pipes from Mound City and Tremper Mound.

I have known Johanna since 2006 when we began working together on the Hopewell Iconographic Workshop, hosted by Kent Reilly at the Center for the Arts and Symbolism of Ancient America, Texas State University, San Marcos, Texas.

In preparation for my upcoming talk on the "Indigenous Art of Ancient Ohio," I asked her whether it was valid to use the term "art" for artifacts created by non-Western cultures and particularly prehistoric societies where the intended meanings of artifacts either have been lost entirely or are, at best, much less obvious.

I am happy to share her thoughts in this guest blog post.

_____

Art is a word used to describe the array of material remains from New World peoples and is a concept that is embraced with varying degrees of enthusiasm by scholars. Some of the common arguments against the use of this term are 1) non-Western creative output is really so different from "traditional" art forms, how can it be considered the same? and 2) it imposes a Western perspective of what art is onto people who may or may not have shared that view.

I think it’s instructive to break down these two points and see where the perspective might be skewed.

It is a matter of contention among art historians for a long time that certain cultures are privileged in our program of study over others. We term everything that did not have a direct effect on the collective Western aesthetic as "non-Western," meaning of course, everything ever produced by anyone, at any time, that came from anywhere besides Europe. The Ancient Near East and Egypt are also included in the study of Western art, but why? They wrote things down, and they kept records. So it would seem that what we really place the most importance on is a culture’s ability to maintain written records about themselves. New World cultures such as the Maya, we now know, kept extensive and detailed records. However, these weren’t discovered or understood until the art historical canon had already been set in stone.

Art historians are trained to look at the big picture in terms of artistic production.

Who made it? In the case of non-Western material output, we are looking at objects crafted, for the most part, by people whom we don’t know much about. Does that negate it as art? Arguments about defining what art is from a Western perspective, in my opinion, are useless here. I agree that we make aesthetic judgments from our cultural perspective but by saying "we can’t call it art," we are in effect saying "these people are less human than we are." Humans make art. It really matters very little if we like it, hate it, or even understand it, as long as we accept that basic premise.

What are we looking at? The vast majority of objects that survive in an archeological context from prehistoric cultures are objects that we are more comfortable defining as “craft.” This includes ceramics and carved stone. How do we differentiate between that which is described as “craft” and that which is considered "fine art"? Maybe it would be easier to use material as a starting point. We are quick to define ceramics, particularly indigenous pottery, as craft. If we turn back to our art history textbook for some guidance, we find pages of beautiful, full-color, Greek pottery. The Greek mastery of black-figure and red-figure techniques, combined with their use of detailed narrative, later inspired Renaissance and Neo-Classical masters. Ceramics are fine art. The Ohio River Valley produced some of the greatest prehistoric stone carvers on the North American continent. But stone carving is a craft, right? Michelangelo didn’t think so.

Why is the object created? This is question that reaches deeper into the heart of the issue. Is the impetus for non-Western production of things so much different from the Western? F. Kent Reilly introduced the idea of how material objects are capable of embodying the social and cultural phenomena developed during the ancient period. He writes:

"The function of art as a material expression of cultural (and therefore mental) constructs is a well-documented phenomenon among ancient civilizations as well as contemporary small-scale societies. A common characteristic of such societies is the construction of analogies between the social order and the natural world, expressed in religious beliefs and practices (i.e., ritual) and given tangible form in art."

In short, art has always served the religious, political, sexual, and economical needs of the cultures that produced it. The material remains of cultures around the world give testament to both the individual desire and the collective ideal.

Johanna Minich

INDIGENOUS ART OF ANCIENT OHIO -- SATURDAY MAY 18TH AT OHS

2013-05-10T12:12:00.001-04:00

On Saturday, May 18^th at 2:00 PM I'll be giving a program on the "Indigenous Art of Ancient Ohio" here at the Ohio History Center.

Here's a brief description of the program:

Ohio's Adena Effigy Pipe is about to be recognized as our official State Artifact. It has been called the finest known example of prehistoric stone sculpture north of Mexico. It may be the most spectacular example of ancient art in Ohio, but it is certainly not the only one.

The Ohio Historical Society's Curator of Archaeology Brad Lepper will share the stories behind the Adena Pipe and several other extraordinary works of indigenous art in our collections -- from an exquisitely crafted spear point made when mastodons were tromping through Ohio's forests to a pair of rare stone carvings of women from the period just before the arrival of Europeans in our state.

I hope you will be able to join me for this timely look at Ohio's ancient masterpieces and why one of them absolutely deserves to be our State Artifact!

Brad Lepper

ROBERT GOSLIN -- ASSISTANT IN ARCHAEOLOGY AND NATURAL HISTORY

2013-05-09T16:04:00.000-04:00

Robert M. Goslin was an important figure in both Archaeology and Natural History at the Ohio Historical Society (OHS) from the late 1920s through the early 1960s. His name shows up wherever anything interesting was going on and it's clear that he often contributed greatly to the success whatever project the staff was working on.

Goslin began his career in museum work at the tender age of 11 when he established his own museum consisting largely of ancient Native American artifacts he had collected from the fields around his Lancaster home.

In High School, he and his brother conducted excavations into several rockshelters in their neighborhood, including Kettle Hill Cave. The Kettle Hill mummy was among their more important discoveries, which they donated to OHS.

Goslin worked as a volunteer for Henry Shetrone during the Ohio Historical Society's excavations at Seip Mound between 1927 and 1928. In 1929, he was hired as an Assistant in Archaeology and he worked in that capacity until 1932. Between 1936 and 1942, he worked as an archaeologist with the WPA in Tennessee. He returned to Ohio in 1942 and worked as a technical assistant in the Physiology Department at the Ohio State University until he was appointed Assistant in Natural History at OHS in 1948. In subsequent years, he was identified in OHS publications as an Assistant in Archaeology and Natural History.

Robert and his 12-year-old son died in a tragic fishing accident in 1964.

Brad Lepper

ARCHAEOLOGY CURATOR INTERVIEWED IN MUSEUM MINUTE

2013-05-06T21:49:00.000-04:00

Curator Brad Lepper is interviewed in the May 6th Museum Minute blog.

Museum Minute is the good work of Jamie Glavic, Strategic Projects Coordinator at the Ohio Historical Society.

If you have any interest in museums and what they do, you'll enjoy following Museum Minute.

Check it out!

LOST ARTS OF THE STONE AGE

2013-05-02T15:45:00.001-04:00

While doing research on the Ohio Historical Society's Lithic Laboratory, which has been the subject of several recent blog posts, we came across a transcript of a remarkable radio program featuring Henry Shetrone, one of our most famous archaeologists.

The program was originally broadcast on May 19^th, 1938 by Science Service. It was one of a series of marvelous programs on science produced in collaboration with the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the National Academy of Sciences, and the National Research Council.

Shetrone mainly talked about our then new Lithic Laboratory and the important contributions it was beginning to make to our understanding of what he referred to as "primitive man." He also made many more general points that are well worth remembering.

The following excerpts are among the more important messages he shared with his radio audience. ________________

MR. DAVIS – I thought there were already thousands of stone arrowheads and relics in museum collections?

DR. SHETRONE – There are. And unfortunately, a great many of them are just curios, interesting to look at, but with no proper scientific record to show where they were found and the type of Indian life they belonged with.

But – here's the point – finding such things is just the beginning of archaeological science. Digging up possessions of ancient men may be exciting. But often the relic thus found becomes far more important when it's taken to a museum or laboratory and studied under a microscope or put to chemical tests, to determine just how and by what tribe it was made.

…

DR. SHETRONE – There's a good deal of significant evidence like that, to be interpreted at an Indian site, but it takes training and experience. That's why we archaeologists urge the amateur not to damage a site by moving and destroying the evidence. We feel a good deal the way a detective does, when he comes to a scene of a crime and finds the clues all messed up.

MR. DAVIS – Once an Indian site is disturbed, there's no way of putting the evidence back--

DR. SHETRONE – That's just it. It's a page of history that we can't ever read. …

________________

Due to the continuing relevance of Shetrone's educational messages and also to the long neglected historical significance of OHS's Lithic Lab, we decided to have a little fun and recreate the original broadcast with Linda Pansing playing the part of Mr./Ms. Davis and me playing the part of Dr. Shetrone.

We hope you enjoy the result!

Do keep in mind that the interview took place originally in 1938 and some things have changed in the decades between then and now.

For example, it is no longer considered proper to refer to ancient peoples as "primitive man." The use of the word "primitive" is now considered to be insulting to those cultures; and the use of "man" for "people" is now recognized to be sexist. Nevertheless, in the interests of historical accuracy, we have retained these terms in our re-enactment.

Also, in the program, Shetrone consistently is referred to as "Dr. Shetrone," however, his PhD was an honorary degree conferred by Denison University. It is now generally considered appropriate to make that qualification clear.

At one point in the program, Shetrone refers to the "Folsom" culture, which, at the time he was speaking, included what we now recognize as two ancient cultures – the earlier Clovis culture and the somewhat later Folsom culture.

Finally, Shetrone's references to what contemporary flintknappers could and could not do are no longer accurate. Thanks, in part, to the work of the Lithic Laboratory, flintknappers, such as Don Crabtree, learned how to replicate Clovis and Folsom points as well as the cores and bladelets of the Hopewell culture.

Brad Lepper

OHIO SENATE PASSSES BILL TO DESIGNATE THE ADENA PIPE AS OHIO'S STATE ARTIFACT!

2013-05-02T12:21:00.004-04:00

On Tuesday April 30th the Ohio Senate passed Senate Bill 33 -- the bill to designate the Adena Pipe as Ohio's State Artifact! The vote was unanimous!

Now the bill goes to Governor Kasich for his signature.

Get ready to celebrate!

Thank you to all the teachers and students of the Columbus School for Girls for all your hard work and persistence over the past four years!

And thank you to Senators Bacon and LaRose and Representatives Duffey and Carney for co-sponsoring the respective bills in the Senate and House!

WHAT BIG TEETH YOU HAVE: A TLINGIT FISH CLUB FROM THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST

2013-04-26T11:07:00.001-04:00

Another very interesting object from the OHS Ethnographic Collections is this very nice example of a Tlingit fish club (object # 864/7). It was originally meant to be part of the EXPLORE exhibit but there is only so much room in the exhibit case. It is part of a collection donated to OHS in 1927 by Dr. F.W. Scheuller.. The Tlingit, whose name means “People of the Tide” are one of a number of indigenous groups native to the Pacific Northwest region of North America, particularly the coastal areas of British Columbia between Puget Sound and southern Alaska. As can be expected the Tlingit make their living from the sea by fishing and the hunting of marine mammals. The fish club was an important part of the Tlingit fishing kit. It was used to dispatch large salmon and halibut still on the hook before attempting to pull them in their canoes. Halibut in particular can weigh in excess of 100 pounds and the uncontrolled movement of a huge fish in a light canoe could spell disaster for its occupants. The club made of darkly stained Yew wood and probably dates to the late 19^th Century. Yew is a dense and tough wood and well suited for such uses. Carved fish clubs are an excellent example of how Tlingit carvers created art out of everyday objects and their styles can range from rather simple to very elaborate depending on a number of cultural factors. This particular object can probably be considered better than average. Aside from the artistic side there is a spiritual side as well. The use of a predatory image like a sea lion or killer whale was believed to bring the predator’s and power to bear on the fisherman’s efforts by calling on its spirit to aid him in a successful hunt. These elaborately carved wooden clubs are used instead of stone clubs as the Tlingit believe that killing a fish with a stone would bring on storms and bad weather

The club is robust, about the size of a baseball bat or slightly smaller. It is weighted toward the head and carved in the likeness of a sea lion as represented by a mammalian head with a strong jaw line, large eyes, a short nose with large nostrils and small ears (sea lions have small visible ears, not so for seals). The mouth is portrayed with a double row of large teeth and protruding canines. The pectoral and rear flippers are represented by slightly curved, finger-like carvings on either side of the club behind the head. There is also an indication of the sea lion’s short tail carved into the top of the club just forward of the handle. The handle itself is cylinder shaped with a slight bulb-like finial and decorated with a numerous small, elliptical chip carvings to improve the grip.

ANOTHER STEP ALONG THE ROAD TO STATE ARTIFACT

2013-04-23T21:58:00.001-04:00

This afternoon, the House State and Local Government Committee voted unanimously to designate the Adena Pipe as Ohio's official State Artifact and to send Senate Bill 33 on the full House of Representatives.

I am appending the testimony I presented before the committee -- but I'm not sure it was needed. The Committee already seemed convinced by the dedication and perseverance of the students from the Columbus School for Girls.
__ __ __ __

Chairman Blair and distinguished members of the House State and Local Government Committee:

My name is Brad Lepper and I am the senior curator of archaeology at the Ohio Historical Society. I am here on behalf of the Ohio Historical Society to offer our support for Senate Bill 33, which seeks to honor Ohio's American Indian heritage by recognizing the Adena Pipe as Ohio's official State Artifact.

It would hard to find a more appropriate artifact for this purpose. The Adena Pipe is the earliest known rendering of a human in the entire corpus of the indigenous art of Ohio. The special importance of a human effigy is that it allows us to make a personal connection with this person from Ohio’s ancient past. And what better artifact to represent our Native American heritage than an actual representation of an ancient Native American?

The Adena Pipe was carved between 20 BC and AD 40. It appears to represent a man engaged in a ceremony of some kind. His mouth is open as if in song and his legs are bent as if he were dancing. He is wearing a feather bustle that likely represents regalia for a particular sacred ceremony.

It is one of the most famous artifacts in the collections of the Ohio Historical Society and the author of the book Indian Art in the Americas, which has been described as the definitive book on Native American art, described the Adena Pipe as “the finest known example” of prehistoric stone sculpture north of Mexico.

Another reason why the Adena Pipe is the perfect candidate for Ohio's State Artifact is that it has a special connection to Ohio’s 6^th governor Thomas Worthington – who is known as the Father of Ohio Statehood. The Adena Pipe was found in the Adena Mound, located on Worthington’s Chillicothe estate.

In summary, recognizing the Adena Pipe as Ohio's State Artifact would honor our indigenous heritage by giving a face to the too often forgotten American Indian people who were the first Ohioans. It would, moreover, honor Governor Worthington and his family for preserving the mound, which later would provide us with such an amazing record of the achievements of Ohio's indigenous people.

Finally, I am sure the Committee has recognized the effect this artifact has had upon the students and teachers of the Columbus School for Girls. The passion and persistence of these young women has been an example to us all –but remember that it was the power of the 2,000-year-old Adena Pipe that inspired, and continues to inspire, them. By designating the Adena Pipe as Ohio’s official State Artifact, you will be honoring Ohio’s first people, one of Ohio’s first senators, these extraordinary young women and their dedicated teachers.

Thank you for this opportunity to speak on behalf of Senate Bill 33. I thank especially Senators Bacon and LaRose and Representatives Duffey and Carney for co-sponsoring the respective bills.

At this time, I would be happy to address any questions you might have for me regarding this remarkable artifact.

Brad Lepper