Ohio Archaeology Blog

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 to 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

IMAGINING MARIETTA

2013-04-23T13:55:00.000-04:00

As part of the celebration of the 225^th anniversary of the founding of Marietta, the Campus Martius Museum is featuring an exhibit of spectacular murals painted in 1935 by William Mark Young (1892-1948) for the City of Marietta. The series of murals features landmark historic events in the history of Marietta.

The highlight of the exhibit for me is the "Mound Builder" mural. It features a highly romanticized view of a visiting dignitary, clad in a glorious feathered cape, approaching the Marietta Earthworks, one of the grandest ceremonial centers of the ancient Hopewell culture. He stands in his canoe, normally an ill-advised procedure, as it approaches the dock where parallel earthen embankments lead from the river to the monumental earthen enclosures.

The Campus Martius Museum provides the following description of the mural:

"In the foreground, William Mark Young depicts the Sacra Via or 'Sacred Way,' a ceremonial highway leading from the Muskingum River to the Quadranaou Mound, seen in the background. Beside the Quandranaou Mound stands the Conus Mound, currently the site of Mound Cemetery. ...Rufus Putnam, a founding settler of Marietta, described the local Mound Builders as people of 'ingenuity, industry, and elegance.' A surveyor and engineer himself, he had a great appreciation for the architects of such impressive structures.

In this mural, Young channels Putman’s high regard for the Mound Builders. He focuses the majority of his attention on depicting the people themselves, and not just their earthworks. It is a work of sheer imagination, and the Mound Builders hold center stage. A party of moundbuilders in elaborate canoes and costumes has come to the Sacra Via, perhaps for a religious pilgrimage. ... In combining both ancient and modern elements, Young presses his viewers to imagine Marietta as a home to vibrant civilizations both in the past and in the present."

Accompanying the various murals are an assortment of artifacts from the historic periods represented. The case dedicated to the Mound Builders contains prehistoric artifacts from local private collections, a copy of Putnam's sketch of the Marietta Earthworks, a copy of 'A Bird's Eye View of the Ancient Works on the Muskingum,' and an early photograph of Mound Cemetery.

My biggest problem with the painting is the portrayal of the caped figure as if he were a king or a great chief with slavish minions fit to paddle his canoe, but not to gaze upon his magnificence. Such lords may have stood atop the great temple mounds of the Mississippian era -- but our best evidence now indicates that Hopewell leaders were "first among equals," rather than in any way king-like. Young, however, could not have known this in 1935.

What the painting lacks in strict attention to historical details it makes up for in its exuberant celebration of Marietta's ancient grandeur. And I agree whole-heartedly with the idea that the great Hopewellian ceremonial centers, such as Newark, Fort Ancient, and Marietta, were places of pilgrimage. Most importantly, however, is the very fact that Young and the City of Marietta chose to include Ohio's Native American heritage in this series of murals and that the citizens of ancient Marietta are not depicted as naked savages inhabiting a howling wilderness.

"Imagining Marietta" opens on May 18th and will run through December 2015

Brad Lepper

RENDEZVOUS AT THE ROCK -- LEO PETROGLYPH CELEBRATION

2013-04-23T10:33:00.000-04:00

Join OHS archaeologist Chandler Herson at the “Rendezvous at the Rock” Native American Celebration at Leo Petroglyph. Chander and other OHS staff will be on hand displaying selected artifacts from our archaeological collections and answering your questions about local archaeology, artifacts you may have found, and, of course, the rock itself -- Leo Petroglyph.

Hope to see you there!

Chandler Herson

More on the Lithic Lab and French Flint

2013-04-22T10:38:00.000-04:00

As a follow up to our guest blogger Erin Claussen’s excellent posts about the Ohio State Museum Lithic Lab, the following is a bit of foundation concerning the French Flint Industry that HH Ellis and Don Crabtree found so fascinating. Thanks Erin for all your help and hard work.

The French flint industry is or was centered in the village of Le Grand Pressigny in the Indre-et Loire region of central France, about 150 miles southwest of Paris. In geologic terms Grand Pressigny Flint dates back to the Upper Cretaceous Period of about 65 million years before present and occurs in irregular nodules and as strata in the bedrock. By contrast, Ohio’s deposits of Flint Ridge and Upper Mercer or Coshocton Flints are upwards of 300 million years old. Grand Pressigny Flint has been utilized for tens of thousands of years in areas of Western and Central Europe during the Middle to Upper Paleolithic periods, which is from about 100,000 to 10,000 years ago and has even been found in very specific historic contexts in North America. During the Neolithic period beginning about 10,000 years before present Grand Pressigny flint entered into its “Golden Age” and became extremely popular as an exceptionally high quality tool stone. During the 4^th and 3^rd millennia BC the region of Le Grand Pressigny became a center of both flint mining and the production of long, dagger-like blades that were distributed by the thousands throughout Europe. This vibrant industry continued until the flint axes and blades produced near Le Grand Pressigny were replaced by more durable bronze and iron implements. More recently the Le Grand Pressigny region was revitalized as the home to a flourishing gunflint industry that supplied the French armed forces in actions around the globe or wherever flintlock muskets and rifles were used either in warfare or as a tool of the day. It was thought by many that these gunflints were superior to all others and has even been hinted at that during the Revolutionary War that the British soldiers whose life actually depended on a reliable gun flint favored the high quality, honey-colored French gunflints over their domestic Brandon gun flints. French gunflints have been found on archaeological sites throughout northern Africa, Europe and North America including many 17^th and 18^th century sites in Canada and the United States east of the Rocky Mountains. In Ohio, French gunflints have been found at Pickawillany, Ft. Meigs and Ft. Laurens and numerous other sites from the Late Colonial period through War of 1812.

The blade production process is fascinating to watch. The flint worker or knapper first selects a large block of raw flint, termed a core, suitable for his purpose. Once a core is properly prepared a master knapper can detach quality blades in quick succession and easily produce dozens of blades from a single specialized core referred to in the local vernacular as a livre de beurre or a pound of butter for their distinctive shape. In form the blades are long and narrow with mostly parallel edges that are razor sharp and ready to reshape and refine into a very functional knife known as a Charavines dagger. Just like there are flint knappers in the United States and Canada attempting to recreate ancient crafts that have their roots so to speak in the Lithic Lab, there are practitioners in Europe that have over the years toiled to rediscover the ways of the ancients in their part of the world.

Attached are a couple of links that highlight blade making in the style of the Le Grand Pressigny flint industry and recreating the Charavines dagger by modern French flint knappers.

Bill Pickard

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRHWjgDKxjE

http://www.ginellames.fr/us/accueil/index.php

Volunteer Contributions Noted at the Medical Mutual 2013 Outstanding Senior Volunteer Awards

2013-04-19T14:49:00.002-04:00

Our volunteers at the Ohio Historical Society are all amazing people who are the life blood of the department. They do a variety of valuable jobs such as labeling artifacts, sorting through years of documentation, creating databases, researching collections, making copies, cataloging and packaging artifacts, just to name a few. Their individual skills, experience and personalities enliven and energize us and we are eternally grateful. Without them we simply could not function as well as we do.

Recently we were able to recognize one of them in a very public way when were found out about the Medical Mutual Outstanding Senior Volunteer Award. Below is her nomination and we want to share it with you so you can understand why, for a variety of reasons, we wanted to honor Michael.

The Ohio Historical Society would like to nominate Michael Dion for the Medical Mutual 2013 Outstanding Senior Volunteer Awards.

It is for her work at OHS and around the world that we nominate Michael Dion! Since 2007, Michael has been an instrumental Archaeology volunteer at OHS, fulfilling our mission to connect with the past, learn from the present, and create a better future. She averages over 100 hours a year! Previous archaeology volunteering with universities and Earthwatch Institute took her to St. Lucia, Dominican Republic, Jamaica, Trinidad, Chile, Macedonia, Russia, Wales, Israel, Romania, South Africa, Thailand, and Poland. The skills she learned from these projects make her an invaluable member of the team. She enhances the well being of OHS by cataloging and processing new collections; allowing staff to accommodate more items and offer expanded opportunities for research. Michael also organized and cataloged the research library.

Michael contributes to the well being of many individuals and many groups across the world! Michael is a member of Habitat for Humanity and several times a year participates in projects across the globe. She traveled to Guatemala, Haiti, Jordan, Ethiopia, New Orleans, Tibet, Hungry, Mississippi, and Tajikistan! Michael assisted with Hurricane Katrina cleanup in New Orleans, traveling to the city on three separate occasions and driving to Mississippi to ensure homes and communities were re-built.

She enhances the well being of children and the elderly across the world. Working with Cross Cultural Solutions as a volunteer, Michael traveled to Russia, Costa Rica, and Brazil to assist orphanages and elderly care centers. She was a member of Global Volunteers and went on expeditions to Mississippi, China, and Ghana to promote education amongst elementary and middle school children. Michael still found time to volunteer within her community at the Bexley Methodist Church. She participated in textile ministry; working with healing hands quilts and nativity pageant costumes. She also taught children’s Sunday school, coordinated the eastside Hispanic ministry, and volunteered at Highland Avenue Elementary.

Michael is extremely cheerful and giving. Her focus is on what can be learned or achieved through her work. She possesses a calming effect for other volunteers, making any work process easier. She is methodical, detail oriented, and very capable of starting and completing projects on her own. She is motivated by a desire to help others, no matter what. She lives a GIVING LIFE. Michael executes every job with a positive attitude, thinking only of how her actions will benefit others.

Michael meets challenges head on and moves right past them! She focuses on the larger picture of helping people around the world. The personal sacrifices she makes to fulfill her mission are many. Michael pays for her own transportation, food, and lodging while she is traveling for volunteer work. During her third trip to New Orleans Michael was quoted in the April 28, 2008 edition of the St. Petersburg Times, “I felt this need to help. Point me where you need something done, I’ll do it.” The selfless donation of time, energy, and resources to strangers across the globe and members of her own community make Michael an outstanding volunteer.

Joining her at the recognition luncheon this past Tuesday were Joe Dunn (volunteer), Martha Otto (Curator of Archaeology, Emerita), Brad Lepper (Curator of Archaeology), Linda Pansing (Curator of Archaeology), Kit Kilen (volunteer) and Annamae Kacsandi (Volunteer Coordinator [not pictured]).

As a side note, after the nomination had been sent in Michael pitched joined another charitable organization as a volunteer helping build houses for earthquake victims in Haiti and has been there several times since. She Rocks, literally. The final picture is from her last trip to Haiti in April. She is shown making gravel by hammering rocks.

Thank you Michael, not only for what you do for us, but what you do for everyone throughout the world!

The Ohio Historical Society's Lithic Laboratory – An Experiment in Experimental Archaeology: Part 4

2013-04-18T09:58:00.000-04:00

A Changing World and The Laboratory’s Legacy

by guest blogger Erin Claussen

1939, the year following the founding of the Lithic Laboratory, saw the focus of the nation shift from domestic economic recovery to the outbreak of a war that would eventually envelop much of the northern hemisphere. In a letter from Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Society Director, H. C. Shetrone to Harper Kelley of the Musée de l’Homme in Paris requesting lithic materials, discussed in the previous post on the Laboratory, he alluded to the troubles that were already brewing in Europe: “Just now we are much concerned with the status of World Affairs and assume that there is equal or greater anxiety in France.”

But the Laboratory continued to execute its purpose of better understanding the past, even as the momentous history of the next several years was simultaneously being written.

By fairly early in 1939, H. Holmes Ellis had completed his master’s thesis for the Ohio State University entitled Flint Working Techniques of the American Indians: An Experimental Study, ultimately the only formal publication resulting from the Laboratory’s efforts to better understand the methods used to produce various lithic artifacts. He stated in a letter dated March 14^th that the monograph was ready, but had been delayed in going to the printer due to the ill health of Shetrone who was to write a preface. This seems to suggest that at this point much (though not quite all, see below) of the Laboratory’s work in the realm of Experimental Archaeology was considered complete.

The majority of the Laboratory’s continued efforts focused on the building of its comparative collection of flint materials from around the country and the world. In April of 1939, the requested shipment of flint from France arrived, and in the summer of the same year H. Holmes Ellis, the Laboratory’s Research Associate, took a trip to Indiana, Illinois and Oklahoma to bring back additional specimens.

“The ultimate aim [of the comparative collection] is to assist the archaeologist in identifying materials and their specific sources. Such information should throw light upon trade and migration routes of various prehistoric tribes. It should also be of value in indicating cultural relationships and may even furnish additional evidence along chronological lines.”

In late 1938, the Lab had acquired a petrographic microscope, for studying thin sections of these samples to better understand their composition and thereby aide in their identification.

Correspondence and other archival materials relating to the Lithic Laboratory are virtually non-existent for 1940. It’s not known precisely why, but it is mentioned in the preface that Shetrone eventually wrote for Flint Working Techniques that “In July of 1939, the Lithic Laboratory became a division of the Department of Archaeology, R. G. Morgan, Curator, with Mr. Ellis continuing the research as Assistant Curator of the department.” The Laboratory more or less ceased to function as a separate entity in July, which corresponded with the end of its initial one-and-a-half year funding period by two Ohio Archaeological and Historical Society officers. The activities of the Laboratory appear to have declined after this point.

In April 1942, however, H. Holmes Ellis compiled an annual report for the period from the previous April through that month detailing “a fairly busy year.” He even inserted images (literally cut-and-pasted) into the text to illustrate the various accomplishments, giving the report a rather modern blog-post like feel.

First, under the category of “Research,” he describes the Lab’s return to Experiment-al Archaeol-ogy with Don Crabtree’s visit as detailed in a previous blog post “Don Crabtree at the OHS Lithic Laboratory.”

Second, there is a note that the Society for American Archaeology had formed a “Committee on Stone Artifact Terminology,” which the Lithic Laboratory had been invited to oversee as chair.

Third, Holmes noted that an index of archaeological sites around the state had been kept up to date during the proceeding year with over 100 sites having been added. Included in the report was a 3x5 inch sample site card. These index cards would eventually evolve into two and then ten page Ohio Archaeological Inventory site forms that are used today to record and then plot sites in the Ohio Historic Preservation Office’s GIS system, available online to registered users.

Finally, Ellis described fieldwork in the form of the excavation of two mounds, the creation of a prehistoric culture map of Ohio based on archaeological sites with known affiliations, the making of photographic prints of all the Department’s archaeology-related negatives, expansion of the Society’s archaeological bibliography file, reports written, scientific meetings attended, exhibits assisted with, lectures given, courses taught, radio programs participated in, collections acquired, and cooperation with other departments and institutions.

Ellis concluded his report by stating “We can only hope that circumstances will allow that the coming year will be even more fruitful for both the Lithic Laboratory and the Museum.”

Unfortunately, circumstances seem not to have allowed this fruitful outcome. By this point, the U.S. already had been drawn into World War II, and later that year Ellis would leave his position at the museum. From the Society’s 1943 Annual Report: “H. H. Ellis, Assistant Curator of Archaeology, resigned last November to accept a position in war production. His position will not be filled, at least for the present.”

Nevertheless, there is still a good deal of the Lithic Laboratory’s legacy still present and of use in the Ohio Historical Society’s collections today. Beyond the crate of flint from France currently on display in the entry hall of the Ohio History Center, the comparative collection of flint assembled by Shetrone, Morgan and Ellis is intact and has even been supplemented over the years by additional material. This collection is available for the use of researchers.

In 2003, OHS Curator of Archaeology Martha Otto arranged for the collection to be cataloged and this catalog has since been digitized. One goal of the current curators is to make this catalog and selected images available online so that, as Otto hoped, the mission of the Lithic Laboratory, “a project that had tremendous potential but that was cut short by World War II, could be revived, at least in a small way.”

We may have come a long way in understanding the cultures and lifeways of those that created them, but the study of stone artifacts still has much to contribute to our understanding of the first peoples of North America.

Erin Claussen

The Ohio Historical Society's Lithic Laboratory – An Experiment in Experimental Archaeology: Part 3

2013-04-15T14:21:00.001-04:00

A Case Of and With Excellent Provenance

by guest blogger Erin Claussen

Sometimes when conducting research, if you’re really lucky, you get to say, “Wow! If that file drawer full of information on the topic at hand had been a snake in the grass…” Such was the case a couple of weeks ago when such a drawer clearly labeled “Lithic Lab” “surfaced” at the OHS collections center (it was more at foot level, than eye level…), and the information contained therein, including additional correspondence, financial records and photographs, has helped to fill in even more of the story of the Lithic Laboratory for the Eastern United States.

For instance, it verified that Ohio Historical and Archaeo-logical Society Director, H. C. Shetrone’s trip to Brandon, England to study flint-knapping, discussed in the previous post on the Laboratory, occurred in 1937, prior to the official launching of the Lab. A letter dated February 23^rd, 1938 from Shetrone to Mr. Harper Kelley of the Museé de l’Homme, expressing “appreciation of your hospitality on the occasion of my visit to Paris last June,” clearly indicates that he journeyed to the European continent as well.

In this letter, Shetrone also places a request that would ultimately be a year in fulfillment. “I recall that during my visit with you, you were so kind as to suggest that you might be able to furnish the Laboratory with a few specimens from the Paleolithic in France. We should like particularly a bit of Prëssigny flint and, if possible, a core and flake of the same material. We should like a piece or two of the raw material for purposes of comparison with other materials in the matter of 'workability' if I may coin a term.”

On the 15^th of February 1939 a letter was sent to “Monsieur le Dr. H. C. Shetrone” from Chenue, Emballeur informing of the shipment, per the instructions of Mr. Kelley of the Museé de l’Homme, from Le Havre, France on the s/s “Ile de France” of the company Générale Transatlantique two cases silex stone, weighing a total of 225 kilograms and valued at 500 francs. It seems in the end Mr. Kelley went above and beyond fulfilling Shetrone’s request, as the material contained in these two cases was all unworked flint nodules. The shipment arrived in New York on the 27^th of February according to another letter from the Halperin Shipping Co., though according to them it arrived on the SS “President Roosevelt”, and after some effort was expended to settle charges and customs dues, ongoing in March, it probably arrived in Columbus in early April 1938.

It is assumed that the contents of one of the two cases was used in the course of the Lithic Lab’s experimentation or perhaps shared among other institutions wishing to establish comparative collections of their own. However the other case, a pristine shipping crate with “Handle With Care” and “This Side Up” scrawled on one side, remained untouched and in the Historical Society’s collections. This crate and it’s original contents are currently on display in the newly opened “Explore” exhibit in the Ohio History Center’s entry hall.

Erin Claussen

NEWARK'S OCTAGON EARTHWORKS -- "IT'S A MAGICAL PLACE!"

2013-04-15T09:12:00.000-04:00

The Newark Advocate posted a few video clips from one of the tours we offered at yesterday's Open House at the Octagon Earthworks.

Take a look to see what y'all missed.

Video: Unravelling Hopewell history

AMUNET AND NESKHONSUPAKHERED: AMBASSADORS FROM THE UNDISCOVERED COUNTRY

2013-04-14T08:37:00.000-04:00

The Ohio Historical Society has an Egyptian mummy. You may already be aware of that fact, because it's one of our most popular exhibits. People who visit the museum invariably remember seeing the mummy – even decades later.

I find it somewhat embarrassing to admit, but I've never paid too much attention to it before. My lack of interest could be considered surprising, because you would expect a mummy, the ultimate icon of hoary antiquity, to be high on any archaeologist's list of favorite things.

I suppose my lack of interest has been due, first and foremost, to the fact that I am not an Egyptologist, so I have had no research interest in the mummy. In addition, Egyptian mummies would appear to have little to do with the mission of the Ohio Historical Society. As a result, the institution hasn't quite known what to do with it. Currently, it's displayed alongside of a two-headed calf as curious examples of the sorts of things museums displayed back when they were little more than super-sized cabinets of curiosity.

The results of new research, however, have changed all of that for me. In partnership with the Ohio State University's Wexner Medical Center, we have obtained amazing, state-of-the-art CT scans of the mummy, which make it inescapably clear that we don't have "a mummy"; we have the mummified remains of a woman – a woman who had a life 2,000 or so years ago.

Thanks to the work of Dr. Joseph Yu and the OSU Wexner Medical Center team, described in an article, a video and a slide show of images in today’s Columbus Dispatch, we are learning intimate details of that life. She is now a woman with a story. She can never again be an object for me.

At the same time, historical research by the Egyptologist Cynthia May Sheikholeslami, also discussed in today’s Dispatch, has made it clear that we don't have just one story – we have two. The coffin belonged to a woman named Neskhonsupakhered. Hieroglyphics on the coffin tell us not only her name, but also that she was the "daughter of the Doorkeeper of Amun Bakakhonsu and the House Mistress Heres." Apparently, when J. Morton Howell, America’s first Ambassador to Egypt, acquired Neskhonsupakhered's splendid coffin, her mummy already had been removed from it. Howell planned to donate the coffin to a museum in his home state of Ohio and felt it needed a mummy to be complete. He asked French archaeologists working at the site of Deir el-Medina near Thebes if they had one they could spare. They did. It was delivered, placed in Neskhonsupakhered's coffin and presented to the Ohio Historical Society as a set.

Once we realized that the woman in our coffin was not Neskhonsupakhered, my colleagues and I decided to give her a name. It was important to us that she be more than "that mummy" – an object. We wanted to give her some dignity. We chose the name Amunet for her. It's an Egyptian name that means the "hidden one." We thought it was appropriate, because although we have been able to learn much of her story and we may learn more, Amunet's true identity will be forever hidden.

So we now have two stories – Amunet's and Neskhonsupakhered's. And we have a better idea of how their stories are linked to the story of Ohio and the Ohio Historical Society's mission.

Amunet and Neskhonsupakhered's coffin were gifts to the Society from the United States’ first ambassador to

Egypt

. Howell, an Ohio native, could not have known the true value of these gifts. Shakespeare’s Hamlet refers to death as the “undiscovered country from whose bourn no traveler returns.” Neither Amunet nor Neskhonsupakhered, wherever she is, can return to life and share their stories with us directly, but the scientific study of the physical remains of Amunet can allow us to listen to what the Choctaw archaeologist Dorothy Lippert has so aptly referred to as her “voice made of bone.” Amunet and Neskhonsupakhered are not curiosities with no relevance to Ohio. Rather they are ambassadors to Ohio from the undiscovered country revealing facets of their ancient lives through the lens of scientific inquiry.

Hamlet's last request of Horatio was for him to "tell my story." The challenge of archaeology lies in finding new ways to retrieve lost stories. Medical CT scanning isn't all that new, but it has provided a new look at Amunet and it has gifted me, as a museum curator, with details of her story that we're now sharing with the world.

When next you come to see Amunet and Neskhonsupakhered I hope you see them with new eyes and treat them with the respect due to ambassadors – ambassadors from the distant past.

"The past is a foreign country: they do things differently there."

L. P. Hartley

Brad Lepper