Information to Users

Home , Adena Mound, Alligator Effigy Mound, Les Wexner, Newark Earthworks, Now I Run, Pinson Mounds

INFORMATION TO USERS

This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer.

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.

Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand corner and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book.

Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9" black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order.

UMI University Microfilms International A Bell & Howell Information C om pany 300 Nortfi Z eeb Road. Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 USA 313/761-4700 800/521-0600

Order Number 9325510

Preserving the ancient past in Licking County, Ohio: A case study

Hooge, Paul Eric, Ph.D.

The Ohio State University, 1993

UMI 300 N. Zeeb Rd. Ann Arbor, MI 48106

PRESERVING THE ANCIENT PAST IN UCKING COUNTY, OHIO: A CASE STUDY

DISSERTATION

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University

Paul E. Hooge, B.A., B.S., M.A.

*****

The Ohio State University

1993

Dissertation Committee: Approved by K. A. Marantz W. S. Dancey Advimr P. L. Stuhr Department of Art Education To The Children of Licking County

11 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I thank the following individuals:

Ken Marantz - Guidance and inspiration.

Bill Dancey - Knowledge of the resource and methods for discovery and

recovery.

Pat Stuhr - Sensitivity to Native American issues and knowledge of the

interview process.

Kathy Easter - opening the door.

Brad Lepper and Paul Pacheco - advise, encouragement and additional

references.

Kent Bowser - Partner in visual adventures.

Ed Friedman - Organizing the troops.

Cindy - Consulting.

Stan - Confident of the possibility.

Shari - Excellence, dependability and always a smile.

My Parents - The source.

My Children - Patience.

Kathy - Love

All of the Above - Friendship

A special thanks to those who participated in this study through interviews or

the questionnaire.

Ill VITA

1993...... Ph.D., Art Education, Department of Art Education, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, June.

1988...... M.A., Art Education, Department of Art Education, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, December.

1982...... B.S., Education, College of Education, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, June.

1970...... B.A., Anthropology, Department of Anthropology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, March.

PUBUCATIONS

Hooge, P. E (1992). Archaeology and Preservation in Licking County: A Case Study of The Alligator Mound. In P. E Hooge, B. T. Lepper (Ed.), Vanishing Heritage (pp. 65-73). Newark, Ohio: Licking County Archaeology and Landmarks Society.

Hooge, P. E (1992). Preserving the Past for the Future. In P. E Hooge, B. T. Lepper (Ed.), Vanishing Heritage (pp. 74-92). Newark, Ohio: Licking County Archaeology and Landmarks Society.

Hooge, P. £ , Wymer, D. A. (1992). Licking County's First Farmers. In P. E. Hooge, B. T. Lepper (Ed.) Vanishing Heritage (pp. 51-57), Newark, Ohio: Licking County Archaeology and Landmarks Society.

Hooge, P. E (1985). Discovering the Prehistoric Mound Builders of Licking Countv. Licking County Archaeology and Landmarks Society.

Hooge, P. E. and Desmond, K. K. (1984). "Discovering the Prehistoric Builders of Licking County Through Art and Archaeology." Columbus Art. Fall 5 (3) 14-15.

Hooge, P. E., Smith, K. A., and Wymer, D. A. (1988). Ohio Prehistoric Chronologv. Newark, Ohio: Licking County Archaeology and Landmarks Society.

Hooge, P. E (1990). First Farmers of Licking County, Ohio. Newark Advocate. November 1.

Fisher, D. C., Lepper, B. T., Hooge, P. E. (1991). Taphonomic Analysis of The Burning Tree Mastodon, Current Research in the Pleistocene. Lepper, B. T., Hooge, P. E, et al. (1991). Intestinal contents of a late Pleistocene Mastodon from Midcontinental North America. Quaternary Research (accepted for 1991 publication).

Hooge, P. E (1991). Granville Area Mound has Rich Heritage. Newark Advocate. March 3, 1991-

VIDEOS PRODUCED AND DIRECTED

Licking County Archaeology and Landmarks Society (Producer) and Hooge, P. E. (Director) (1986). Ethics and Archaeology Part I: Conflicts in Collecting [Videotape]. Newark, Ohio: Licking County Archaeology and Landmarks Society.

Licking County Archaeology and Landmarks Society (Producer) and Hooge, P. E. (Director) (1986). A History of Ohio Archaeology [Videotape]. Newark, Ohio: Licking County Archaeology and Landmarks Society. Licking County Archaeology and Landmarks Society (Producer) and Hooge, P.E (Director) (1986). Human Values and the Future of Ohio's Prehistoric Earthworks [Videotape]. Newark, Ohio: Licking County Archaeology and Landmarks Society. REPORTS Hooge, P. E, Pacheco, P. J., Smith, K. A., Wymer, D. A. (1986). Cultural Assessment of the Blackhand Gorge Nature Preserve. Licking County. Ohio. Unpublished report for The Ohio Department of Natural Resources. Hooge, P. E. (1986). The Toboso Elementary School Archaeological Discovery Project. Unpublished report for the Jennings Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio.

Hooge, P. E (1988). Prehistoric Art in a Changing Environment. Unpublished report for The Ohio Arts Council. Pacheco, P., Hooge, P. E. (1990). Phase I and Phase II Archaeological Survey for the Proposed Branstool Well Gathering line #1. Utica. Ohio. The licking County Archaeology and Landmarks Society, Newark, Ohio. Hooge, P. E. (1991). Excavations at the Min thorn Canal Lock. Fairfield County. Ohio. Unpublished report for The Ohio Department of Natural Resources. TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...... iii VITA...... iv

UST OF TABLES...... ix

UST OF FIGURES...... x CHAPTER PAGE I. INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY...... 1

A Brief Overview ...... 1 O bjectives ...... 4 The Archaeological Resource Defined ...... 6 Addressing The Problem ...... 9 American Perceptions of Native Americans ...... 14 Archaeological Preservation - An International Overview... 17 Priorities in Preservation and Conservation ...... 21 Aesthetics And The Archaeological Resource ...... 24 A Brief Introduction To The Study Area ...... 27 The Environmental Setting - Lots 1-13 Of the Original Granville Purchase ...... 27 Who Were the Moundbuilders ...... 33 Recent History of the Study Area ...... 38 II. METHODS...... 46

Introduction ...... 46 Data Collection Strategies And Tactics ...... 47 Literature Review ...... 47 Photography...... 48 Field Reconnaissance ...... 50 Personal Observations ...... 51 Interview Study ...... 51 Introduction ...... 51 Available Studies of a Similar N ature ...... 52 Private Ownership and the Preservation of Archaeological Sites ...... 54 Design of the Interview Study ...... 55 Selecting Sites - Conducting Interviews ...... 56 Overview Questions for the Interview Study ...... 60 Participants ...... 61

vi Hypothesis and Question Formulation ...... 63 Interview Questions ...... 66 Analysis and Treatment of Information ...... 68 Questionnaire Study ...... 70 III. REDISCOVERING THE PREHISTORIC BUILT ENVIRONMENT OF THE GRANVILLE AREA...... 76 Introduction ...... 76 Chidlaw Enclosure ...... 77 Crescent Earthwork ...... 83 Hill Earthwork ...... 84 Granville Circle ...... 86 BushnelTs Circle and Mounds ...... 94 Haskell Mound ...... % Mt. Parnassus M ound ...... 97 Munson Enclosure ...... 99 Deeds Mound ...... 100 Reservoir Mound ...... 102 Reservoir Pond Site ...... 104 Munson Spring Mound ...... 105 Other Mounds ...... 105 Old Granville Fort ...... 106 Description ...... 106 Interior Features ...... 114 Stone Mound ...... 117 Personal Observations ...... 118 The Alligator Mound ...... 125 Overview ...... 125 Theories About Zoomorphic Artifacts ...... 128 Speculation About The Mound ...... 135 Preservation Background ...... 141 Reconstructing The Prehistoric Built Environment of the Granville Area ...... 156 Introduction ...... 156 The Old Granville Fort ...... 161 Bushnell's Enclosure ...... 178 Hill Enclosure ...... 179 Defining Aerial Evidence ...... 187 Bushnell's and Other Mounds ...... 194 Granville Circle Parallel Embankments ...... 195 Speculation ...... 1% Conclusions...... 197 IV. DEVELOPMENT-LAND USE AND THE PRESERVATION OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES...... 199

Development and Land Use in Granville, Ohio ...... 199 Interview Study - Part 1...... 206 H irshler ...... 206 M cPhail ...... 208 L ucks...... 211

vii Dennison ...... 215 Sochor ...... 217 M urphy ...... 218 Larson ...... 221 Frey and Bacom...... 223 Smith ...... 231 Keys...... 233 Interview Study - Part II ...... 238 McCoy...... 238 Site Description and History ...... 238 Interview Summary ...... 241 G rapevine ...... 243 Site Description and History ...... 243 Interview Summary ...... 250 Morgan ...... 252 Site Description and History ...... 252 Interview Summary ...... 259 Dixon ...... 262 Site Description and History ...... 262 Interview Summary ...... 264 VanVoorhis ...... 266 Site Description and History ...... 266 Interview Summary ...... 270 S tie rs...... 271 Site Description and History ...... 271 Interview Summary ...... 272 Cooperrider ...... 273 Site Description and History ...... 273 Interview Summary ...... 277 Discussion - A General Overview ...... 279 Analysis of the Property Owner Interviews ...... 285 Some Assumptions ...... 288 Public Opinion Surveys ...... 292 Questionnaire ...... 297 V. REFLECTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS...... 327 Reflections ...... 327 Implications for Art Education ...... 342 Recommendations ...... 344

REFERENCES ...... 356

Vlll UST OF TABLES

TABLE PAGE

1. Key for Maps and Aerial Photographs ...... 181 2. Key for Maps and Aerial Photographs ... 182

IX LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE PAGE 1. Six miles of the Newark Valley by Squier and Davis showing the location of the Old Granville Fort, Granville Circle and Alligator M ound ...... 36 2. Bushnell's 1889 Map of Archaeological Sites around Granville Township ...... 4 0 3. Chidlaw's Drawing of the Chidlaw Enclosure south of Granville off State Route 79 ...... 78

4. 1930 Aerial showing area South and East of Granville, Ohio 80 5. 1930 Aerial Photograph of area South and East of Granville showing the location of the Granville Circle, Chidlaw Enclosure and the Deeds Mound ...... 82 6. Location of the Granville Circle North of Route 1 6 ...... 88

7. Granville Circle passes through the back yard of two residences west of Clouse Land and into the field at the right 91

8. View of Mount Parnassus East along Elm Street in Granville, Cir. 1900 (Bud Abott Collection) ...... 98 9. Map of Granville and Township Area from the 1875 Licking County A tla s ...... 107 10. 1940 Aerial Photograph (CLX-4A-45) showing the study area and surrounding Granville Township ...... 108 11. 1940 Aerial Photograph (CLX-4A-47) showing Granville Granville and areas both North and East ...... 109 12. 1940 Aerial Photograph (CLX-4A-47) showing Earthwork Remants visible at that tim e ...... 110 13. Old Granville Fort from Squier and Davis 1848 ...... 112 14. House located at the Southeast Comer of the Old Granville Fort (Hooge) ...... 120

X 15. House located on small circular enclosure and mounds at The Old Granville Fort (Hooge) ...... 123 16. Alligator Mound from Squier and Davis 1848 ...... 127 17. Old Photograph of the Alligator Mound and Hill, note elm tree in Old Qjiariy Pit - Cir. 1900 (The Ohio Historical Society) ...... 129 18. View Southeast from the Alligator Mound, Cir. 1930 (C.R. Jones Collection)...... 138

19. View West from the Alligator Mound toward Bryn Du Farm Structures - Cir. 1930 (C.R. Jones Collection) ...... 153 20. Aerial view of the Alligator Mound by Warren Weiant-1928 154

21. The Old Tannery House - Home of Minnie Hite Moody (Hooge) ... 157

22. Aerial View of the Alligator Mound - Spring 1985 (Bowser) 158 23. Map of the Alligator Mound by Dancey - 1988 ...... 162

24. Artist Group at the Alligator Mound - 1987 (Bowser) ...... 163 25. Late night visit to the Alligator Mound - Autumn 1984 (Bowser). . 164 26. View toward West from Bryn Du Farm toward Bryn Du Woods development and Alligator Mound (Hooge) ...... 165 27. Oak, Alligator, and Elm - Summer 1985 (Bowser) ...... 166 28. Oak, Alligator, and Elm - Winter 1985 (Bowser) ...... 167

29. Aerial view of the Alligator Mound - Summer 1989 (Hooge) 168 30. Aerial view of the Alligator Mound - Summer 1989 (Hooge) 169 31. Road construction West of Alligator Mound - 1989 (Hooge) 170 32. Elm Tree in Qparry Pit below Alligator Mound - 1991 (Hooge) 171

33. Intersection facing South toward Alligator Mound - Spring 1991 (Bowser) ...... 172 34. Aerial view of the Alligator Mound - April 1992 (Bowser) 173

35. Facing North from the tail of the Alligator Mound - Summer 1992 (Bowser)...... 174 36. Intersection North of Alligator Mound - Spring 1992 (Bowser). . . 175

xi 37. Oak on the ground South of Alligator Mound - Summer 1992 (Hooge)...... 176 38. Spring flowers East of the Alligator Mound on undeveloped land - Spring 1992 (Hooge) ...... 177 39. 1940 Aerial Photograph (CLX-4A-45) with Mounds and Earthworks superimposed ...... 183

40. 1940 Aerial Photograph (CLX-4A-45) with extension of Feature C and possible Feature R ...... 184 41. 1989 Aerial Photograph with Earthworks superimposed ...... 185

42. Hull Place Circle with residence - Spring 1991 (Bowser) ...... 240

43. Yost Works from Martzoloff - 1902 ...... 246 44. Yost Works by Salisbury - 1862 ...... 247

45. Circular Earthwork at the Yost Works - Spring 1991 (Bowser). . . . 248

46. Brownsville Earthworks by Salisbury - 1862 ...... 255 47. Enlarged section of 1930 aerial photograph showing the Brownsville Earthworks ...... 256

48. Williams Mound, Homer, Ohio (C.R. Jones Collection) ...... 263 49. Lepper, Mickelson and Hooge on the VanVoorHis Walls - Spring 1991 (Bowser) ...... 267

50. South extension of the graded way or the ancient road to Chillicothe with small connected enclosure - 1930 aerial photograph ...... 268 51. Salisbury's 1862 drawing of the Glenford Ford in Perry County, Ohio ...... 275

52. Years lived in Licking County ...... 317 53. Education and Degree Earned ...... 317 54. Interest in Archaeology ...... 318 55. Knowledge of Pre-History ...... 318 56. Knowledge of Pre-History ...... 319

57. Knowledge of Pre-History ...... 319

Xll 58. Knowledge of Pre-History ...... 320

59. Knowledge of Pre-History ...... 320 60. Knowledge of Pre-History ...... 321

61. Knowledge of Pre-History ...... 321 62. Archaeology Sites Visited in Ohio...... 322 63. Percent Visited the Ohio Historical Society ...... 323

64. Preservation Attitudes ...... 324 65. Preservation Attitudes ...... 324 66. Preservation Attitudes ...... 325

67. Preservation Attitudes ...... 325 68. Preservation Attitudes ...... 326 69. Preservation Attitudes ...... 326

70. uses Map with Prehistoric Sites Located - Pacheco ...... 337 71. Munson House and Buildings from the 1875 Atlas of Licking C ounty ...... 350

72. The Munson House and Bam - Summer 1992 (Hooge) ...... 351 73. Munson House being prepared for moving - Summer 1992 (Hooge)...... 352 74. Munson Bam and House - Summer 1992 (Hooge) ...... 353

75. Murphy Property, Munson House and Murphy Site (33-LI-212) - Summer 1992 (Hooge)...... 354 76. Entering Granville ...... 355

Xlll CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION OF THE STUDY

A Brief Overview

Jesse Walker sits on the step behind his garage and with a heavy moose antler billet he strikes a rainbow colored piece of flint and a long sharp thin blade is dislodged. He looks up with a grin and says "I figured out

how the Indians did it from studying pieces I found in the field" (Walker, 1986). Walker was a master flint knapper and at 86 he could still produce projectile points that only experts could differentiate from those made by

prehistoric craftsmen. For over two decades Walker had stalked the Helds on almost every farm in Licking County hunting for artifacts and looking for mounds and earthworks. During the 1920s and 1930s he had kept a journal with notes, maps and photographs, but it had been lost years ago and the only portion of that record that remained was inventoried in his mind. Jesse said he had

excavated 21 burial mounds, and all were in Licking County except one. Some of the mounds and earthwork sites that Jesse Walker knew about and had visited had since been destroyed. Driving around the county with

Jesse I recorded the location of as many sites as possible before he died in

1989.

1 2 At about the same time Jesse Walker was exploring the area, A.A. Wilson excavated 13 burial mounds in Licking County. The only published account of his digging episodes was recorded in The Cleveland Plain Dealer in 1934. 1 had tried to find out something about Wilson and the mounds he had

opened, but there were no records that identified his heirs. Later, I

discovered 1 had been sitting next to his son, Richard Wilson, for an entire summer as we watched his grandchild and my children play little league

baseball. There is no accurate record of how many mounds were excavated in

Licking County from the early 19th century to the present. Moorehead excavated several and others were excavated by Greenman and Shetrone. 1

visited the remnants of many burial mound sites with Jesse Walker. Perhaps the most memorable was the Deeds mound. A house now sits atop what

remains of the site and the basement of the structure protrudes into the burial chamber of the mound. The lady who used to live next door in an old

trailer had a mason's jar full of cremated remains that the builder had given her. She delighted in sharing the jar and its contents with anyone curious enough to knock on her door and ask to see it. Using old maps and aerial photographs I tried to locate circles, squares and low earthen burial mounds, but few could be found, the majority having been plowed level with the surrounding topography or lost to housing projects and commercial development. My exploration of the county's archaeological resources had perhaps come too late, having started only in

1982. 1 wondered why more had not been saved? I asked myself why weren't more people interested? Why did so few people even visit the sites that had 3 been preserved? Finally, why had one of the largest and most spectacular sites become a private country club? These questions in part, became the foundation of this dissertation. 1 selected an area that had previously been known to have a rich archaeological heritage and where the current residents knew little or

nothing about that heritage. Granville was a perfect site. My investigation

focused first on identifying the resource—what is known today about the resource and what remains of that resource that can still be identified. Second, I attempted to discover why the sites had not been preserved. To accomplish this old records were studied, similar case studies were consulted (although only one was found) and people in the Granville and surrounding areas were interviewed in order to collect data about: site preservation, attitudes toward site preservation; and information concerning the public's knowledge about the archaeological resource in general. It is my hope that this study sheds some valuable light on the subject of preservation and how preservation can become part of the planning process in communities such as Granville, Ohio. Certainly the study adds new knowledge about the archaeological resource itself in Granville as well as in other parts of Licking and Perry counties. We now have volumes of information about the archaeology of the region, but know almost nothing about the relationship of the contemporary population to those sites. This study provides a beginning, a foundation for future studies—it does not answer all the questions-in fact, it raises more questions than it answers. 4 O bjectives

It is widely recognized among professional archaeologists, preservationists and serious avocational archaeologists that the archaeological resource in North America and especially within the United

States is in serious danger of being lost to agriculture, development and other

land altering processes (McGimsey, 1972; Fagan, 1989; King, 1989; and Hooge, 1992). The loss of archaeological sites to casual collectors and organized looters is also a serious problem, especially on federal lands in the American

West (King, 1989). Solutions for the problem on state and federal lands is currently being addressed across the country. However, the protection and preservation of

archaeological sites on private land has yet to be seriously addressed on the national, state or even the local levels. It is true that some states like

Washington provide a degree of protection for all archaeological resources

whether on public or private land; but in many states such as Ohio almost no protection is afforded archaeological sites, even the most significant ones (Hooge, 1992).

My interest in the problem of preserving prehistoric archaeological sites on private property began in 1979 when my children were in school and 1 was trying to locate educational materials about the archaeological resource (mainly the mounds and earthworks) in Licking County, Ohio. My preliminary study of the archaeological resource in this area eventually led to the formation of The Licking County Archaeology and Landmarks and the conception of this dissertation project. 5 The archaeological resource in Licking County, Ohio is internationally known for its important prehistoric sites, especially its mounds and earthworks from the Early and Middle Woodland periods. Most of the remaining unprotected sites are on private property and as such are not protected by any means other than the goodwill of the property owner,

licking County is now being pressured by the development of the metropolitan Columbus and Franklin County area.

The goal for this study is to come to a more profound understanding of the human dynamics at play in efforts to preserve prehistoric and historic

archaeological sites on privately held property. Objectives related to this goal include:

1. providing a thorough background on the archaeological- preservation problem locally and nationally.

2. providing a thorough background on what is currently known about the archaeological resource in the study area.

3. providing additional information that would be useful in understanding public attitudes toward the archaeological resource.

4. providing a better understanding of how property owners who own archaeological resources respond to that resource.

5. providing information concerning previous preservation efforts in the study area.

6. reflecting on the future of the preservation of prehistoric and historic cultural resources on privately held properties. 6 The Archaeological Resource Defined

The archaeological resources of Eastern North America have long been recognized as significant and important. The resources in Ohio have been described b>' many writers as some of the most significant in the region

east of the Mississippi (Atwater, 1820; Squier and Davis, 1848; Fawke, 1902; Mills, 1914; Silverberg, 1986; Dancey, 1988). Squier and Davis (1848) estimated

that over ten thousand prehistoric mounds existed in Ohio with between one

thousand and fifteen hundred enclosures of various types. The two areas with the most numerous and important prehistoric built sites in Ohio are Ross

County and Licking County (Squier and Davis, 1848). As Dancey (1988) points out, what we know about the archaeological resources in Ohio has been limited by the scope and extent of the research conducted. It is painfully obvious to almost all researchers in the field of

archaeology today that what we do know about the fourteen thousand years of human habitation in the state is generally biased toward mortuary sites of the Early and Middle Woodland periods (1600-3000 years ago). A more

complete understanding of the cultural complexities and changes that have occurred since the end of the Pleistocene period in Ohio 10,000 years ago (and other states in the region up to the period of contact with Euro-Americans by the mid-seventeenth century) will involve considerable research based on human and financial resources that are not currently available.

If a significant and culturally representative portion of the remaining unprotected prehistoric archaeological sites in Ohio is to be added to the handful thus far preserved, something must be done and soon

(McGinsey, 1972; Fagan, 1988; Knudson, 1988; Arden, 1988; Hooge, 1992). It is 7 unfortunate that in many cases a situation may need to reach a crisis level before serious attention is given to the problem. Although there have been calls for the preservation of archaeological sites in the past, these calls were usually limited to the prehistoric built environment (mounds and earthworks) because this type of site had a greater visual and aesthetic impact than did other types of sites, especially habitation sites. Habitation

sites lie buried under the surface and generally are not in evidence except for traces that appear after cultivation. A call to preserve even the most obvious of the built sites has generally gone unheeded throughout the years.

An example of this kind of benign neglect is the Alligator Mound in Licking County (Hooge, 1988; Hooge, 1992). Recently individuals worried about the rapid destruction of archaeological sites throughout North America began to voice their concern. Archaeologist C. R. McGimsey (1972) notes that:

the next fifty years - some would say twenty-five - are going to be the most critical in the history of American archaeology. What is recovered, what is preserved and how these goals are accomplished during this period will largely determine for all time the knowledge available to subsequent generations of Americans concerning their heritage from the past... the next generation cannot study or preserve what already has generation cannot study or preserve what been destroyed (p. 15).

By the beginning of the 1980's archaeologists were expressing their concerns on a regular basis about a variety of ethical and preservation topics including Native American rights related to human burial remains and access to ceremonial objects (Gorospe, 1983; Talmage, 1982; Green, 1984), the raiding of prehistoric sites and the trafficking of aesthetic objects from 8 these sites (Meyer, 1977; Arden, 1988; Fagan, 1986; Knudson, 1989; Herscher, 1989; Fagan, 1988; Graham, 1986; Shelton, 1986; Topsey, 1988; Leverett, 1985). The latest focal point for this new legislation and preservation movement has been the Slack Farm Site in Northwestern Kentucky (Fagan,

1988; Arden, 1988). The Slack Farm Site was an important transitional late prehistoric period (1450 AD to 1650 AD) village! The site had always been protected by the Slack family while the farm was in their name, but when

Mrs. Slack died the property changed hands and the new owner sold rights to dig the site to a group of ten collectors for ten thousand dollars. The total desecration of the site and of human remains buried there,

created an outcry from the local community, archaeologists and Native Americans. The courts ordered the "excavation" stopped and the sheriff arrested the collectors and charged them with a misdemeanor. Brian Fagan (1988) observes.

Today, Slack Farm looks like a battlefield, a morass of crude shovel holes and gapping trenches. Broken human bones litter the ground and fractured artifacts crunch underfoot (p. 15).

Although the Slack Farm disaster is an important example of wanton destruction by relic collectors and dealers, it is by no means a unique incident. Sites all over North America and especially Arkansas, Mississippi, New Mexico and Arizona have been looted to the point of total destruction

(Meyer, 1977; Leverett, 1985). One can add to this the daily occurrences of prehistoric site destruction across North America by less overt but none-the- less destructive means such as highway construction, housing and in general the urbanization of large segments of the American landscape. 9 The question of who owns the prehistoric past is one of ethics, human values and the law (Leverett, 1985). The problem, in terms of sites on private land, can be broadly divided into two parts. The first part deals with the archaeological sites themselves and the second part deals with the artifacts located on these sites. Sites are frequently seen by collectors (and some property owners) as simply locations where artifacts can be obtained.

Consequently the object becomes the focus of attention and the site itself become secondary. Archaeologists see sites as being primary and the individual artifacts as representative pieces, or fragments, of the site itself.

The object or artifact is valuable mainly because of its defined relationship to the site and not because of some aesthetic or monetary value it might have

beyond that. Some archaeologists, preservationists, and many Native Americans argue that certain sites should be preserved and never excavated; others want to reserve the rights to excavate for specified or unspecified periods of time. The issue here is between the value of knowledge obtainable vs. the value of the sites as undisturbed and intact examples of human occupation.

For the relic collector, the argument is almost always one of who has the right to dig or own the object. Had burials not been involved at Slack Farm, the courts would have been hard-pressed to find a reason to stop the destruction.

Addressing the Problem

The problem of how to deal with the loss of archaeological and other heritage resources has become extremely complex. According to Thomas

King (1989) the magnitude of the problem on federal properties alone is 10 monumental. King states that of the more than two million archaeological sites on federal land at least one third have been looted. In some areas up to ninety percent of the sites have been looted to some extent. Because the antiquities market is now a billion dollar a year business the problem of looting on federal, state and private lands in some areas of the country has become epidemic. As King sees the situation, public attitude is the major problem.

Simply put, to most people pot hunting is ok. Amassing and maintaining collections of beautiful and exotic artifacts, to most people is more than ok; it's something that cultured, educated, upper class people do and gain status and prestige by doing (King, 1989).

Fagan (1989) states that the public value system must be changed if a solution to the looting and preservation problem is to be found. However, he notes that this value system is assumed and not clearly defined through research. Fagan states "We must carry out basic research on public attitudes, values and perceptions of the past...." In his presentation at the Society for

American Archaeology Conference in Atlanta in 1989, Fagan noted three major problems that those desiring to preserve sites face: 1. Very few people are profoundly interested in North

American Archaeology, and of those who are, a large percentage are artifact collectors. 2. Americans lack a sense of cultural identification with the past. Prehistoric (and historic) Native Americans are not "our ancestors."

3. Our society is a materialistic one which tends to

place financial value on "everything from historic 11 barbed wire and beer cans to prehistoric artifacts." We have a value system oriented toward profit and exploitation and not toward preservation. Fagan sees a major problem within the field of archaeology as the "intellectual myopia" of the academic community. Because archaeologists publish mostly for themselves and are not concerned with the public in

general they have produced an intellectual elitism that prevents them from either understanding or being able to deal with the looting or preservation

problems. Writing for a broader audience, according to Fagan, is considered to be a second rate activity for professional archaeologists. Dr. Frederick Starr (LCALS, 1986a), President of Oberlin College, states

that part of the problem in archaeology lies with the archaeologists. Today archaeology is a modem and nationally recognized science. The emphasis in this field is on research and not on preservation. Because the public has been so poorly informed about this subject they assume that the archaeologists are responsible for all the sites. "And so maybe that is what gave rise to this vacuum that you see now in which the community as a whole takes no leadership and the archaeologists don't either" (LCALS,

1986a). On December 12, 1989 a mastodon was discovered and successfully removed from a bog south of Newark, Ohio. The specimen is one of the most complete and best preserved on record. Although this discovery was at first considered to be more paleontological than archaeological, the fact that it may have been butchered by humans does put the mastodon and the site where it was discovered into the archaeological category. The inability of the individual who owns the mastodon and the community to deal with the 12 situation comes as no surprise. One only has to go back to Fagan's three points to discover at least part of the problem. The owner says he wants to do the right thing for both the mastodon and the community, but because the specimen has a fairly substantial monetary value and because of the tradition in America of "whatever is found on my property therefore belongs

to me" the problem becomes difficult to resolve. Similar situations have occurred in Licking County with the Johnstown Mastodon (Wesley, 1989) and the Alligator Mound(Hooge, 1988).

The Burning Tree Mastodon dilemma may eventually be resolved. However, it seems to me that with this and other experiences that Fagan and

Starr are correct and that there is a void with regard to who takes responsibility for archaeological resources. It also seems to be true, as Fagan notes, that unless we study and better understand the public's values and opinions we won't be able to address the problem of archaeological resources

intelligently and systematically. T. L Hoffman (1989) notes that the preservation of archaeological sites on private property in Arizona has been largely neglected. No surveys or studies have been made of individuals who own archaeological sites. Hoffman believes that a better understanding of the private land owner would lead to more effective ways of preserving sites in the future.

The archaeological community is now trying to address the problems of looting and preservation. I attended a conference near Taos, New Mexico in May 1989 in which individuals representing various segments of the archaeological community gathered to define, discuss and seek solutions to the problems now facing archaeology. A primary conclusion of the conference was that more research needed to be done concerning the 13 relationship between the public and the archaeological resource. In addition, a number of educational programs need to be designed to bring the issues and information about archaeology to all segments of the population. An exhaustive search of the literature produced no information about opinion surveys, ethnographic studies or interview studies that have been conducted regarding public opinion sentiment, or views on the

archaeological resource. However, while attending Taos conference Nancy Hawkins, an archaeologist with the Louisiana State Historic Preservation Office told me that Gwynn Henderson had conducted a study for the Kentucky

Nature Preserve's Commission in 1987/1988. Ms. Henderson was kind enough to send me a copy of the report Citizen-Based Preservation for Kentuckv's Archaeological Sites.

Henderson states that there is no strong tradition of active private involvement in archaeological site protection and preservation. Indeed, at least in Kentucky, site protection, preservation and management are the biggest challenges for the future. Henderson's contract with the Kentucky Nature Preserve's Commission was to design a program through which owners of archaeological sites could participate in the preservation of those sites. The only organization she could find that already worked with the private land owners was the Archaeological Conservancy of America, a private non-profit group that saves sites through purchase or easements.

However, Henderson found that the best model for site preservation was based on one developed by The Nature Conservancy. The Nature

Conservancy's model was based on the work of Philip Hoose (1981).

Hoose provides information about property owners, how they perceive themselves with relationship to their property and what they expect from 14 their property. Using this and other information provided by Hoose, Henderson designed and tested a program and materials for archaeological preservation. 1 discussed Henderson's program with her and found that her project had not allowed her the opportunity to gather in-depth information about the land owners perception of their relationship to the archaeological

sites, and in their opinion, feelings and knowledge about archaeology in

general. It is clear from the literature that no comprehensive studies have

been conducted concerning individuals who own archaeological properties. It is also clear that there is a need for such a study to be conducted if

effective means are to be found to preserve archaeological sites on private property.

American Perceptions of Native Americans

Over the past few centuries, Americans have had conflicting views of Native Americans. On the one hand seen as the "Noble Savage" and keeper of

the forest, the Indians were more frequently portrayed as primitive savages unsuitable as stewards and managers of the vast and richly endowed American landmass. When asked whether Native Americans were perceived by Euro-Americans to be a part of their past Smithsonian Scholar Dr. James B. Griffin replied:

Only when they neglected to give up their land easily. They had a strange idea that this country belonged to them, you see. It seems absurd but they did have that feeling about their homes. The European treatment of the Indians has been a great tribute to the real values of Christianity [which are] grab it, if you can take it, take it. It was God’s will that these heathens should have to give up their land (LCALS, 1986b). 15 Trigger (1986) points out that despite the massive pandemic of European diseases that in some cases all but eliminated native populations, the Indians continued to fight White expansion and military force tenaciously and refused to have their lives dominated by an invading force. The peaceful settlement of the 'virgin' and 'empty land' was hardly that. Most of the historic record identifies the Native American as a hunter, bold, wild, independent, and also savage, hostile and frequently cruel. They are seldom shown as farmers tending crops, with complex social and political structures, or as creative in the arts and capable of implementing abrupt changes in concepts and lifestyle. It was not until the mid-twentieth century that archaeologists began to realize that all the major advances in agriculture, pottery, architecture, metal working and textiles were not imported from Mesoamerica or Siberia and that our (United States) Indians were not "uncreative and stupid" (Trigger, 1986). Many writers (Trigger, 1986; Gruber, 1986; Stanton, 1960; Monkman,

1981; Silverberg, 1986) agree that it was not in the interest of the United States of America to portray the Indian as civilized, cultured or capable of properly managing the lands on which they lived, and in some cases had lived for unknown centuries. It was far easier to see them as nomadic, unsettled hunters whose demise and subgegation was only part of the natural process of the advancement of civilization; western civilization.

The 'discovery' of the mounds provided problems for the majority of Americans who saw the Indians as savages, or as in the way of progress. Few Euro-Americans were prepared to interpret these finds as evidence of the creative abilities of North American Indians. The mounds and earthworks were accommodated with a primitive view of these Indians by claiming that they had been built by some vanished people, variously identified 16 as Scandinavians, Hebrews, Toltecs, or Israelites. Such speculations easily became part of white American folklore in the nineteenth century since they accorded with the popular image of native people as blood thirsty savages (Trigger, 1986, p. 190).

I don't believe that Americans want to feel any guilt about the past. In

my experience in discussing the issue with people from Ohio to New Mexico, I discovered that the perception that this was simply an evolutionary process, one that was ordained by either God or destiny, is still imbedded in the

American psyche and today serves as a defensive mechanism. The wounds are still deep and in some places open. In Wisconsin, Minnesota, Alaska and Washington hatred still exists between whites and Indians over fishing and

hunting privileges extended to Indians in treaties, some a century old. If one wants to comprehend how Americans either perceive or want to perceive Indians simply travel along the tourist routes anywhere close to the

Navajo, UT or other reservations in the Southwest. We see the "noble savage" in plastic on a plastic palomino, frequently white-owned trading posts crammed with an "interesting" array of material meant to bring forth some image of a colorful, peaceful, primitive but culturally static race. How all of this translates into how archaeological sites in Ohio are perceived by their owners shall be of interest. It is interesting that the

owner of the Fort Glenford hilltop enclosure was studying books that lent credibility to the "Hebrew connections" of the Mound Builders. Mormons frequently visit Moundbuilder's Park at Newark and want to know about the

"Holy Stones" discovered by David Wyrick. A local Newark resident who lives next to the Octagon was interviewed by LCALS in 1986 and expressed the view 17 that the evidence for the "Hebrew connection" was significant and he could not understand why we were not willing to give this view credibility. The residents of Licking County don't seem to have even a basic background in prehistory and what they do know is mainly out-of-date

information (LCALS, 1986a) or as Trigger puts it, "folklore handed down from

the nineteenth century. '

Archaeological Preservation - An International Overview

Strictly speaking, therefore, there has never been in this countiy a dependent peasantry. The yeomanry are absolute owners of the soil on which they tread; and their character has from the circumstance been marked by a more jealous watchfulness of their rights, and by a more steady spirit of resistance against every encroachment, than can be found among any other people. (Qpoted irom Haar, 1976 from Story, 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States.)

The founding fathers clearly wanted to avoid the pitfalls of English common law when they wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The right of the property owner to plan and execute in the best interest of his own future was sacred from the very beginnings of nationhood and this continues, at least in principle, to be the prevailing attitude among most Americans. Under English common law the Crown reserved the ownership of all heritage resources including those on private land. In America, because of the problems intrinsic to English Royal rights, the designers of the

American Bill of Rights clearly defined the rights associated with private ownership as the "Taking Clause" in the Fifth Amendment. The Taking Clause 18 States "nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation" (cited in Knudson, 1986). Thus the archaeological heritage became part of the land and was held by the land owner. The Fourteenth Amendment applies this law to all states. Although there have been laws implemented that provide for the

protection of archaeological sites on federal and state land, only a few states have laws that protect archaeological resources on private land. Knudson

(1989) points out there has been no legislation or policy statement that protects archaeological sites of any type as part of the constitutional guarantee for the peoples' general welfare. The National Environmental Policy Act of 1979 does affirm that it is in the interest of the nation to preserve important historic, cultural and natural sites, but archaeological resources are not clearly defined beyond this. Knudson also states that "the archaeologists themselves have not understood the need to clarify the public nature of the resource base" (1989, p. 73). The public ownership of heritage resources (and especially prehistoric heritage resources) occurs most frequently in countries where the current inhabitants are the descendants of those who occupied the area over a long period, perhaps over several millennia. Many countries have worked to protect their historic and prehistoric patrimony far longer than the United States; however, most efforts to insure long term preservation have occurred within the past two hundred years (Fowler, 1986). In Czechoslovakia, historian Frantisek Palacky devised a plan for preservation of the country's prehistoric sites, fortifications, burial sites, castles and buildings in 1839. He demanded that careful records be kept because historic monuments cannot be recreated once destroyed. His 1841 19 plan of action was unique at the time and served to organize the collections at the national museum and provide a foundation for the preservation of sites in that country (Kristiansen, 1984). In 1807 the Crown Prince of Denmark signed a series of recommendations to protect the country's prehistoric and historic heritage. His recommendations suggested that prehistoric sites be divided into two categories: those that had state protection and those that were to be left to

the land owner's discretion. In addition, he stated "Some appropriate way

must be found of informing the peasantry of the value of archaeological

finds (Kristiansen, 1984, p. 21). This education message for archaeology is probably the earliest known. However, the Prince did not stop with just these farsighted recommendations; he also proposed that a state museum be built to house the nation's archaeological objects to benefit the general

populace. Today Danish citizens protect their archaeological resources with strict laws that are almost impossible to change through a variance.

Denmark's strong tradition of public support for archaeology and community respect for the resource is perhaps the strongest anywhere. Today, one out of every one hundred Danes subscribes to the popular archaeological

periodical, 'Skalk'. Archaeologists are held in high esteem among the

population and laws are generally respected. And it is worth noting that in

Denmark archaeological publications became widely read and available

shortly after the turn of the century. Archaeology became part of the school curriculum and appeared in popular literature at this time. Mass media was also used to transmit messages and information about archaeology beginning with radio programming and then through the use of television after 1950 (Kristiansen, 1984). 20 The picture in France has not been as positive. The first attempt to protect any of France's patrimony came in 1913 when a law was enacted to try to provide some security for built sites. Sites that were buried received no protection. A 1941 law did little to correct the situation and "tried to endow France with a cultural policy that exalted a chauvinistic and authoritarian

nationalism" (Schnapp, 1984, p. 49). The law was enacted mainly to regulate excavations and made excessive compensation of the land owner mandatory, thus making most excavation unaffordable. It was not until recently that

France took more serious legal steps to protect archaeological sites (Schnapp,

1984). Although one might have expected that Great Britain would have been

a leader in the preservation of its own archaeology (while it looted much of the rest of the world), such is not the case. Attempts were made by Sir John Lublock as early as 1873 to pass protective legislation and he did manage to

have a rather weak law enacted in 1882. Lublock wanted to restrict the landowners from destroying sites and to give the state authority to acquire

them using public money (Cleery, 1984). By 1913, stronger legislation had

been passed and a 1931 act strengthened the protection by insuring that each preserved site would have an adequate perimeter surrounding it. However, it

was not until 1982 that significant legislation was passed to protect sites on private land. The new legislation was passed to protect sites on private land.

The new legislation provides for land management agreements with owners of registered sites, provides adequate boundaries to protect sites, defines

areas of importance in which no construction can take place without a permit, and provides a four month term in which archaeologists can work on a site without compensating the land owner (Cleery, 1984). Cleery points out 21 that one of the major problems in Great Britain is a negative or complacent public attitude toward archaeology and he says education is an area that has been grossly neglected by professional archaeologists and conservationists. Steps have been made in the last few years to correct these problems.

It can be seen from these few examples that the preservation of archaeological sites in other western nations does not follow any consistent or predictable pattern. It does seem as if smaller and more ethnically

homogeneous populations might be more prone to preserve cultural sites especially the more ancient ones because they would perceive that the individuals who had occupied the sites were their direct ancestors (Fowler, 1986; LCALS, 1986a)

If one is willing to accept this proposition it makes sense that the preservation problems in America result in part from a hugely non-

homogeneous population that is scattered over an immense land mass. The problems of preservation in America are discussed more in depth later.

Priorities in Preservation and Conservation

One of the most difficult questions in site preservation or conservation

is determining what to save. The significance of a site can vary depending

on who defines the term significance. Significance became a major issue during the development of federally mandated and funded cultural resource

management programs. What happens to a site that is part of a federally mandated program under the 106 review process depends upon the site's significance. Whether the site is tested, excavated or preserved will be decided on this basis (Dunnell, 1984). 22 Under most circumstances significance is determined on scientific potential: what can be learned from a site. However, there are other types of significance to be considered. Humanistic significance, the value of the site as a tangible part of the human past, as a temporal marker, as a material reminder that other humans once passed this way, is one form to be considered as is aesthetic significance. One could infer that all sites are

important and all should be preserved. The economic potential of a site is

another consideration. A habitation site in a bean field certainly has less

appeal to the tourist than a mound or earthwork. The economic significance of the Cahokia Mound Group in Illinois is far greater than that of small habitation sites like the Murphy Site in Granville, Ohio (Dancey, 1991) because of the visible nature of the Cahokia resource.

Significance can also be determined on the basis of rarity. Certain types of sites like rock shelters, burial mounds and flint quarries are less common than occupation sites in agricultural fields. McGimsey and Davis (1977) argue that because sites are the only clues to the past then they are all important. The assertion that, because an earthwork has a greater visual impact and potential for developing tourism, it is consequently more significant reflects a bias. Significance implies a frame of reference and problem orientation against which an archaeological situation or problem is to be evaluated. Thus there must be a set of criteria or a criterion against which the potential of a site is evaluated and judged against other sites. Scientific value is the basis upon which most sites are evaluated today, and it is the empirical information derived from scientific study of archaeology that provides the information needed to expand our understanding of humanity (Dunnell and Dancey, 1978). 23 There are several criteria used in determining scientific site significance according to Schiffer and Gumerman (1977). The broad criterion used to judge sites is the site's potential to provide significant new information about the past. This information may be obtained through a surface survey of the site or through the excavation of test pits. Further information is frequently available in the historic record or from local collectors or the land owner. The condition of the site (general state of

preservation), period of occupation, condition of deposits, as well as regional, state and national interest are all criteria that help determine overall scientific significance.

Beyond the scientific value of a site other significance factors must still be considered. The Alligator Mound in Licking County may have the potential for yielding some important information; however, the major

criterion for its preservation would be that it is an extremely rare mound type in Ohio. In addition, the mound is one of the few remaining built sites that were once part of a complex mound and earthwork system in the

Raccoon and Licking drainage areas. Preserving any of the remaining examples of this system or group should be considered a high priority. It would seem to me that one would want to employ all the available

resources when trying to conserve or preserve a site. Sites may be overrated or underrated in their significance depending on the values of those individuals involved in the evaluation process. A developer trying to get a project underway would likely want to see sites written off as insignificant while a group of Native Americans might suggest that an entire region is significant because of the existence of one single site. 1 have experienced both of these situations. When money or emotions become involved it is 24 frequently difficult to arrive at a rational decision on the significance issue, but one must always consider what is best for the resource and then work to meet the needs of those involved in the most equitable manner.

Aesthetics and the Archaeological Resource

There are two distinct areas in which the term aesthetic is useful for

this study. One refers to an aesthetic in real property or its aesthetic significance or value and the other use of the term is related to objects, or more specifically, prehistoric material culture. Aesthetic is a term that has frequently appeared in the legal jargon related to real property. The difficulty in nailing the term down appears in the case of The Lutheran Church in America v. The City of New York (1974):

Just what is meant by the use of the term aesthetic is not entirely clear; but apparently it is intended to designate thereby matters which are evident to sight only, as distinguished from those discerned through smell and hearing (Cited in Haar, 1976).

The case of Cohran v. Preston (Maryland, 1908) struggles with the concept of aesthetics:

It is obvious that matters of taste cannot be crystallized in terms, but the desire for beauty is a fundamental urge whose satisfaction is essential to healthy living in the full sense of the term (Cited in Haar, 1976).

Finally, the problem of defining aesthetic is clearly stated in Youngstown v. Kahn Bros. Building Company (1925):

The public view as to what is necessary for aesthetic progress greatly varies. Certain legislators might consider that it was more important to cultivate a taste for jazz than 25 for Beethoven, for posters than for Rembrandt, for limericks than for Keats (Cited in Haar, 1976).

Aesthetics do become an issue when trying to define what should be part of the public domain and what should remain with the private owner. In Berman v. Parker (1954) it is argued that

It is within the power of the legislature to determine that the community should be beautiful as well as healthy, spacious as well as clean, well balanced as well as carefully patrolled.... here is nothing in the Fifth Amendment that stands in the way (Cited in Berger, 1983, p. 821).

Berger states that it is permissible to achieve purely aesthetic goals

through eminent domain the conflict comes in regulation (legislation) which implies getting properties for free. It is clearly stated in the legal record that aesthetics are a viable reason for acquiring properties. Thus

acquiring archaeological properties is reasonable if it achieves the end of aesthetic enhancement in the public interest.

In the case of The Lutheran Church v. The City of New York it is stated

that aesthetic is a word that refers to the visual; but in Youngstown v. Kahn Bros. Building Company the aesthetic is clearly seen as a term with many possible definitions reaching beyond the visual. Finally in Berman v. Parker it is implied that the Fifth Amendment can't stand in the way of "beautification" of a city or municipality and beautification is an aesthetic concept.

One can extrapolate from all of this (as was the case in The Lutheran

Church V. The City of New York) that properties are part of the aesthetics of a community and as such can enhance the quality of life which all citizens are 26 entitled to, consequently properties can be protected legally if they can be proven to meet the criteria of being aesthetic. In the case of Sundeem v. Rogers the concept of preservation for aesthetic reasons becomes more specific:

It may be that in the development of higher civilization, the culture and refinement of the people has reached the point where the educational values of the fine arts, as expressed and embodied in architectural symmetry and harmony is so well recognized as to give sanction under some circumstance to the exercise of this power even for such purposes (Cited in Haar, 1976).

We regulate the placement and size of signs, the location and appearance of buildings, the appearance and upkeep of properties, the

appearance of transportation corridors, the removal of topsoil; we prevent the accumulation of junk in varying degrees and determine where junk can be dumped, we define trash and prevent its accumulation. The concept is to create an environment that is enjoyable, visually pleasing, and clean—in a sense aesthetic. If we go to great efforts to regulate the size and placement of signs, it does seem to be at least equally important to protect important remains of the past, which also have aesthetic qualities as defined above.

The concept of aesthetics as an important element in the quality of life of Americans was directly addressed in the National Environmental Policy

Act of 1979. With regard to archaeological and historic sites it states...

[to] assure for all Americans safe, healthy and aesthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings... [to] preserve important historic, cultural and natural aspects of our national heritage and maintain wherever possible an environment which supports diversity and variety of individual choice (quoted in lüiudson, 1986, p. 398). 27 The Alligator Mound certainly fits into the visually aesthetic classification, but it also fits into a more cognitive classification. The mound's relationship to the past and present, as a connection to the builder's intellect, the mound builders concept of time, space and universe is worth

preserving in the conceptual form of the mound as well as its physical form. It is true that we may not be able to, at this time, define exactly the builder's concept of time, space and universe was, but preserving the potential to

know is, for a truly intellectual and enlightened people, a worthy thing to do. Preserving the potential for what may be learned later is a concept that is

finally beginning to reach the public. Saving a mound because future

accumulated knowledge will make it more significant to future generations is a generous statement. To save a buried site where people once Uved so that its potential is preserved is also a generous intellectual statement.

A Brief Introduction To The Studv Area

The Environmental Setting-Lots 1-13 of the Original Granville Purchase

The Raccoon Valley east of Granville, Ohio, has a complex geological stratigraphy that is the result of millions of years of sediment deposition, compaction, uplifting and erosion. Recently, during the Pleistocene Period which ended about 10,000 years ago, the area was covered several times by a thick mantle of ice which scoured the existing landscape and left rich deposits of sand, gravel and other sediments. Glacial deposits provided the foundation on which rich soils would form and diverse flora and fauna could prosper again. Here Native Americans built their homes and lived for thousands of years before the arrival of people of European and African descent. 2 8 The highly eroded but relatively steep sandstone slopes of the valley rise to an elevation of approximately 1,100 feet above sea level. The northern part of the valley is composed of gently southward sloping well-drained terraces. The valley east of Granville varies in width from 1 km to .75 km. The terrace is about 8 meters higher than the channel of the Raccoon Creek

(Dancey, 1991). The interbeded sandstone's along the foot of the north slope of the valley foster perennial springs that chart shallow channels along the outwash terraces down to the Raccoon Creek. The Raccoon Creek flows eastward through the valley in a meandering path and eventually empties into the Licking River at Newark. The Licking flows to the Muskingham which empties into the Ohio at Marietta. The glaciers that produced the underlying sediments of the valley moved out of the area leaving it totally ice-free by 15,000 years ago. The impact of the Ice Age on Licking County and almost all of North America cannot be underestimated in terms of its effect even today on the fauna and flora of the region.

At their maximum extension, the late Pleistocene glaciers of North America covered 16.2 million km2 of surface. The Laurentide Ice Sheet, which covered most of Canada and the north eastern United States, had an estimated maximum thickness of 4,950 meters, or almost five km. The maximum ice thickness was centered over what is now Hudson Bay (Sharp, 1988). We do not know what the ice thickness was in the Licking County area, but it certainly did not approach the depth of the ice further to the north where the greatest accumulation of snow and ice were occurring. 29 The edge of the ice sheet along its southern perimeter would have been highly irregular and strong lobate. One of these fingers, or lobes extended laterally through Ohio, through the eastern two-thirds of Licking County and on down to Cincinnati where the ice sheet terminated.

Exactly what caused the Ice Age is still being debated. Some scientists believe that we are currently in an interstadial period between developing

continental ice sheets, or still in an ice age whose terminal point is unknow n. The average temperature of the planet during this ice age has been 14

degrees Centigrade (58 degrees Fahrenheit); however, for 90% of the past 600

million years the average temperature has been about 22 degrees Centigrade (72 degrees Fahrenheit). Consequently we are living in a relatively cool phase in the planets climate cycle (Sharp, 1988).

The most recently phase (Wisconsin) of the Pleistocene established the geological framework for environmental change and eventual stability in the area. As the glaciers receded, they left a mantle of gravel, sand and silt

on the surface some of which was rearranged by erosion resulting from glacial meltwater, stream action, precipitation and wind.

The post glacial topography of the Granville area was (and is)

dominated by three main types of features: glacially rounded till covered hills and uplands that frequently terminate in south facing hollows and amphitheaters, outwash terraces underlain by deep deposits of glacial sands and gravels and stream basins that transported run-off and groundwater seepage to larger tributaries to the East.

On this largely barren rocky glacial surface 15,000 years ago forests of cedar, spruce fir and occasionally birch trees colonized the area almost 30 immediately. The cool moist climate of this late glacial period was ideal for this type of forest growth. The spruce and cedar were well adopted to the wet swampy environments that remained after the glaciers melted and receded to the north (Woltemade, 1987). By 11,000 years ago pine trees would have been common on the dry

uplands and slopes with some oaks in the same areas. Humans shared the

changing forest environment with a variety of species of fauna and mega fauna that have since become extinct. Based on current evidence (Fisher, et

al., 1990; Hansen, 1990; MacDonald, personal communication) large mammals like the mastodon, mammoth, short-faced bear, giant ground sloth, horse, bison, elk-moose or Scotts moose, tapir, giant beaver and perhaps saber tooth

cat were present in Ohio at the end of the Pleistocene and all became extinct at about that time.

Two almost complete mastodons have been recovered from Licking

County; one northwest and one southeast of the study area. In addition, a woolly mammoth tusk was recovered from a site in Perry County, just south of licking County in 1990. The Burning Tree Bog in Licking County not only produced the Burning Tree Mastodon (Lepper, et al., 1991; Fisher, et al., 1991), but evidence for Cervalces Scotti (extinct moose) and giant beaver.

Lithic (stone) evidence for early human occupation in the Granville area is common in the projectile point collections of amateurs all over Licking County. However, the strongest evidence for Paleo Indian presence in Granville Township comes from Murphy Site II (Munson Spring Site) (Frolking & Lepper, 1989) discussed later in this chapter.

With the evidence described above it is possible to reconstruct what the study area might have looked like 11,000 years ago to the first human 31 occupants living at what we now refer to as the Munson Spring Site (33 Li

251). These people were the first, or among the first, individuals to live in the area and although we have no physical evidence that would describe what their homes or shelters looked like, they were probably the first to

erect some kind of structure on the teiraces in the valley along the Raccoon Creek. By 11,000 years ago the area would be completing its phase as a predominantly cedar-spruce forest. Other trees including oak, pine and birch would have begun to establish themselves along the upland slopes and ridges on both sides of the valley floor. Openings in the mainly conifer forests on the terraces existed around wetlands like the one along the northeast edge of Murphy Site I (33 Li 212). The cool-wet post glacial environment helped to maintain moisture in the many wetlands and glacial ponds along the valley. In addition to animal species common to North America today, the early Indians could have hunted any of the mega-fauna mentioned above.

Preliminary evidence suggests that the Burning Tree mastodon was butchered by Paleo Indians (Lepper, et al., 1990), but we still do not know if they actually killed the animal. Certainly the mastodon, sloth, elk-moose and other extinct species of fauna were present in the same environment as early residents of the area and perhaps hunted by them.

Life in the Raccoon Valley for the first human occupants certainly presented challenges and hazards; these people were not only hunters, but at times perhaps the hunted. The presumed abundance of edible foods in the forests and wetlands combined with a richly diverse fauna probably 32 guaranteed enough food to sustain early populations of hunters and gatherers in the area (Pielou, 1991). The area that was to become Lots One through 13 of the original

Granville Purchase would not be recognizable as the same place that it is today. Tall cedars and spruce trees grew on a thin lens of soil over a thick

bed of glacial till all along the terrace above the flood plain of the Raccoon Creek. The forest floor would have been covered with a soft mat of conifer needles and mosses, in places forming a soft spongy surface not unlike those found south of the glacial margins in southern Alaska. Rotting logs from

fallen trees would obstruct ones path along the terrace floor. Stream courses found by early historic settlers were probably relatively unchanged from those established at the end of the Pleistocene and well known to the Paleo Indian residents at the Munson Spring Site (Lot #Two). This site is situated on a slight slope at the base of large south facing amphitheater-shaped valley. On the upland slopes above the valley a mixed

forest environment of spruce, cedar, oak and some birch dominated the slopes above the spruce-cedar forest below.

From the Munson Spring site looking south down a slight slope, parallel running streams joined 100 meters away and formed a marshy wetland with sedges, cattails, swamp grasses and naiads (Pielou, 1991). East of this wetland and around the hill a shallow pond had formed, fed by springs at the base of the hill and around the valley to the west. This wetland area and pond drained to the south into the Raccoon Creek.

Further to the west along the terrace (between Lots Four and Eight), springs and run-off drained into a channel that had its origin in the valleys on Lots Eight and Six. The streams joined on the east half of Lot Six and 33 traversed the valley terrace southeast through the cedar-spruce and cedar forest where the channel turned south at the junction of Lots Three and Four and meandered south to the Raccoon Creek (1876 Atlas). The spruce and cedar forests, wetlands, broad terraces and protected hollows were home to the areas first people over 11,000 years ago. These were the first past glacial pioneers of what would later become Granville, Ohio.

Who Were The Mound Builders The Early Woodland people, also called the Adena, continued the development of technological and cultural coplexity that is seen in the Late

Archaic. Three areas of development and change are characteristic: the wide use of ceramics, the practice of covering graves, tombs and charnel houses with earthen (or, more rarely, stone) mounds, and the increased use of cultivated plants in what were probably small garden plots. The introduction of ceramics during the Late Archaic was an important event which led to a greatly increased ability to both store and prepare certain kinds of foods, especially seeds and nuts.

There is still a difference of opinion concerning the status of cause- and-effect that both ceramics and gardening had on the prehistoric lifestyle. One school of thought suggests that life became more sedentary, resulting in larger populations in dispersed hamlets; these more sedentary people then had the time and human resources that were eventually expressed in the construction of the complex earthworks of the Middle Woodland period.

Another school of thought is that Early Woodland populations maintained the 34 same mobile lifestyle of the Late Archaic, moving to established locations within a given territory on a seasonal basis. The Early Woodland pottery is increasingly sophisticated, both in technology and in decotration. There is a developing horticultural (i.e., small gardens, as opposed to agricultural, or large field crops) practice, which is not sufficient to maintain large populations on a year-round basis.

In addition to squash and sunflower, plants being grown for their seeds are species we now consider to be weeds: these include sumpweed, may grass, goosefoot, and knotweed. These gardens, however, only supplemented a diet that was still primarily provided by hunting and gathering (Hooge and Wymer, 1992). The distinctive activity of burial mound construction began during the Early Woodland period. Beautiful artifacts made from copper, ground stone, flint, and shell are common; they demonstrate not only skill in manufacture, but also an appreciation of aesthetics. Such objects, along with a highly ritualized method of burial in earth mounds, indicates that the Early Woodland world view was in transition.

The period between 500 EC and AD 500 was, in fact, one of transition and development. Regionally distinct patterns of economic subsistence and styles of material culture appear throughout the midwest and southeast. Patterns of mortuary ritual emerged that created the foundations of funerary ceremonialism throughout the area for the next two thousand years. Yet early Woodland ceremonial activities did not only involve a continuation of late archaic traditions. New artifact styles and raw materials and innovations in mortuary ritual reveal significant shifts in exchange networks and concomitant inter-regional cultural relationships (Brose, Brown and Penney, 1986, p. 460). 35 The Early Woodland people also introduced another form of earthwork that was not itself used for burial, but often was found in close proximity to burial mounds: this new form (earthwork) is the circular enclosure. Small circular enclosures were the forerunners of the larger and more complex

geometric earthworks of the Middle Woodland period.

Middle Woodland (100 DC - AD 400)

The great cultural flowering of the prehistoric period occurred during the Middle Woodland period, among the people whom we now call the

Hopewell. Perhaps the most distinctive, and certainly the most noticeable,

class of remains from the Middle Woodland period is the earthworks. Major earthwork complexes are located in Ross and Licking Counties and consist of circles, octagons, squares, and other geometric features. Some are located on

terraces above the floodplain, like those at Newark, Ohio; others are on bluffs overlooking valleys. These earthworks are regarded as the largest of their

kind in the world. The Newark Earthworks, little of which remains, was the

largest single massive earthwork complex ever built once covering almost five square miles (Figure 1). In addition to geometric works, the Middle

Woodland peole produced several effigy mounds. One example is the Alligator Mound.

There usually are burial mounds near earthworks, but just as often they are found individually away from them. These Middle Woodland burial

mounds have been extensively researched, and their artifacts have been displayed since the early 19th century. The focus on the burial mounds of this period occurred for the same reasons that apply to the investigation of .s : -t.

Fpi ttf'ifd Util,

s \ * A ■ ; «nwAaii. \r**'urJc WorfiS I ll

/ 0rfiftrü Util.

wtrt» il* ^nc'S^nl M o H u m r n ln

/jy /: f} S ytfrr'r' .

Figure 1. Six miles of the Newark Valley by Squier and Davis showing the location of the Old Granville Fort, Granville Circle and Alligator Mound. w o\ 37 Early Woodland mounds, and it produces a similar bias in knowledge of the Middle Woodland. The artifacts produced during this period are nothing less than spectacular. The Middle Woodland people participated in an extensive exchange network that included most of what is now the United States. Many exotic materials and the artifacts made from them are found in Middle Woodland sites; these included marine shell (Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic

Coast), meteoric iron (Southeastern U.S.), shark teeth (Florida), mica (North and South Carolina), pipestone (Minnesota), grizzly bear teeth and obsidian (Wyoming), and copper (Lake Superior region).

The raw materials were used to produce plain and effigy pipes, necklaces of shell and copper, copper headdresses and bracelets, geometric cutout designs in both mica and copper, and spectacular ceremonial knives of obsidian. In addition, some of these materials were used to make everyday tools and ornaments.

The Middle Woodland people also produced textiles from a variety of plant fibers. These textiles were used for various purposes, including clothing. Garments have been found that were decorated with stamped designs and with beads, mica, and other decorative items attached to them (Otto, 1968).

The Middle Woodland period represents the peak in Ohio prehistory of religious, ceremonial, and artistic expression. The habits of the people appear to have changed little in terms of daily life, food acquisition, and general lifestyle, however. Pottery styles become technically more sophisticated but remain rather plain in appearance, with the exception of highly crafted ceremonial pieces. Hunting and gathering remain the chief 3 8 subsistence activities. Advances in horticulture are expressed in terms of a greater variety and amount of seeds being cultivated. Corn is introduced about 100 AD but does not become significant as a food resource until the Late Woodland. The exact impact that gardening had on the life of the people is still under study and does not appear to provide a basis for an increasingly

agricultural lifestyle (Wymer, 1987). One rather interesting, and poorly understood, characteristic of this

period is that special attention was being given to the production of aesthetic

artifacts. The same level of aesthetic production is not seen after about AD 400 when, for some unknown reason, the culture that we call the Hopewell

changes significantly; and the prodution of beautiful artifacts made from exotric materials and the construction of the earthworks decline in significance (Prufer, 1965).

Recent History Of The Study Area Native peoples living in the Ohio Valley during the sixteenth century had no idea that foreigners (from Spain) had entered North America and that they had laid claim to all the territory that was drained by the Mississippi River and its tributaries. During the late seventeenth and early eighteenth century as Spanish influence dwindled, France laid claim to the Ohio Valley (Bushnell, 1889).

Most of the Indians never saw the Spanish or the French; they died of European diseases spread by native American traders and travelers

(Ramenofsky, 1987), For a short time, the British claimed the Ohio Valley and by the middle of the eighteenth century the area was populated by tribes of 39 Native Americans who had been pushed west by expanding populations of white settlers, most from England, but also others from Germany and Holland. After the Revolutionary War, the new American citizens wanted to open up the west, Ohio at that time, but first it had to be 'made safe' so the Native populations were again moved out by force and by 1794 the state was largely open for White settlement. By 1801 the area that was to become Granville Township had its first White settlers-John Jones, his family and friends. Jones built a log cabin on what became lot 2 of the Granville

Purchase (Figure 2). The cabin was located north of the Newark Granville

Road and 165 feet from the base of the hill (Bushnell, 1889). A spring that originated from the base of the hill provided water for the new residents. It was on this site that Mrs. Jones gave birth to the first white child bom in Granville Township.

Shortly after Jones built his cabin, Patrick Cunningham constructed another one in the amphitheater shaped valley on Lot Two. The cabin was

said to be located 825 feet northeast of the Jones cabin and near another spring (Bushnell, 1889). This would place the Cunningham cabin close to the Munson Spring that emerges from the hill all the way up into the valley.

Cunningham planted an orchard and vegetable garden. Bushnell reports that remnants of his cabin could be seen at the time his book was being published in 1889. Bushnell also mentioned that two other cabins were constructed to the east of Cunninghams, but he provides no specific information about them.

The period 1800-1805 was an important one for historic settlers in the area. In 1800, Lancaster was settled; 1801 marks the founding of Newark.

Granville followed four years later in 1805. The Scioto Land Company was OlUMVIUf TOWNSHir

A ÿ « r c n c < « . Si

if.Tmo fbun^ Men's» %. OfOtitterÂe* iSPcn) /«. PA#jÿ)a'gQw&ùU: *a jrtt ; / / . Crmcr^ w H:U- 5 ^?4 &ÊSS

CDMouAift. P

Mwa i*(ü

Figure 2. Bushnell’s 1889 Map of Archaeological Sites Around Granville Township. 41 formed in 1804 in Granville, Massachusetts, but changed its name to the Licking Land Company. Levi Buttles, Timothy Rose and Job Case traveled to the Ohio County to purchase land. Altogether they acquired 29,040 acres at an average of one dollar and sixty-seven cents per acre. Most of the land purchased by the Licking Land Company would become Granville and Granville Township. One reason for selecting this

parcel was its proximity to Worthington, Ohio, which was expected to become the capital of the new state and it was hoped that the major highway through the state would go directly through the new town of Granville and guarantee

prosperity for those who invested in the land purchase (King, 1881; Bushnell, 1889).

Development in Granville, Ohio was, at least in part, mitigated by the location selected because Columbus became the capital and not Worthington. Bushnell writes:

An illustration of the failures of the early settlers of a county to realize their expectation may be seen in the fact that the road from Granville to Worthington [State Route 161], opened at that early day and with such anticipation of its use, continues at this present writing in many of its sections one of the poorest for its age in all of the region. Columbus instead of Worthington became the capital, and the National Road long ago took carriage travel eight miles to the south. The railroad of later date connecting Zanesville and Columbus passes also three miles away through the Ramp Creek Valley (pp. 28-29).

The isolation of Granville, its location (at least until recently) off the beaten path, served to shape the history of development in the area. Instead of becoming a center of commerce and industry, Granville remained a rural community which focused much of its energy on education, which became 4 2 its hallmark. The character that Granville developed was in part based upon

its slow-paced development and the beauty of its setting. Land purchased by the Licking Land Company was divided into 100 acre plots and sold off to subscribers in the venture. Seventy-nine individuals made up the original land company (Cole, 1905). The original

settlers were an industrious, inventive and hard-working group of individuals who brought with them values and ethics which were rooted in

their New England heritage. A road called Centerville Street (Newark/Granville Road) was established to the east of the village and along this road prosperous farms

were established by founders of the Licking Land Company. This stretch

from just East of what is today Cherry Valley Road, and west to Granger Street, made up Lots One-13 of the original purchase. This stretch of land comprises

most of the study area for this dissertation with a few exceptions where noted.

All of the lots in the study area became well maintained farms and

according to Bushnell (1889) they were perceived by those living in the area as the pride of the Township. The Munsons (Jesse, Augustine, Jeremiah) purchased several lots in the township including Lots Two and Three in the study area. Timothy Spellman purchased what is today the Granville Golf Course for $138.00.

Levi Hayes built a house on lot 1 in 1808, it was later known as the 1810 house (Moody, 1967). Jesse Munson built the farm house on lot 2 in 1810 (Bushnell, 1889). Stone for the Munson house basement may have come from a quarry on the hill behind the house to the north. 43 The mansion (now Qjiest International) on Lot Five was originally designed as Italian architecture and built for Henry D. Wright in 1865, but he sold the property to Jonas McCune and it became known as McCune's villa. John Sutphin Jones purchased the property in 1905. Some industry did develop along the Centerville Street corridor and

much of that industry was the product of the Munson family. In 1806, Jesse

Munson built a sawmill along the Raccoon Creek near Cherry Valley Road. The mill provided lumber for residential and commercial construction in the

Granville area. In 1817, Augustine and Jeremiah added a forge and a water

powered hammer mill to the sawmill. Augustine Munson and William Stidman built a brick factory and kiln on lot 12 or 13 in 1809 and sold bricks for $5.00 per 1,000. Southwest of the brick factoiy at the base of Mt. Parnassus, the Munsons and other investors constructed a furnace for smelting bob iron and cast it into items to be used

mostly by local residents. The water from Clear Creek was diverted to charge

an overshot wheel to power the furnaces forge bellows (Bushnell, 1889; King, 1933).

A tannery was built along Clear Run on lot 12 by Spencer Wright in

1817. Wright also built a small wooden frame and brick house along Centerville Street just east of the tannery. Minny Hite Moody lives in this house today. Later Wright built a large brick house in 1830 further to the northeast of his first home. This house is called Maplewood (King, 1933). The railroad arrived at Granville in 1880 and by 1900 the village was on the interurban route with a line running down Centerville Street.

Although the arrival of mass transit was a benefit to the people of Granville it was more of a convenience than a stimulation for commercial 4 4 development. Granville continued to excel in the area of education having a tradition that started in 1827 with the Granville Female Academy and culminating with the founding of Denison University and the establishment of excellent public schools (King, 1933).

Few streets intersect the old Centerville Street (Newark/Granville

Road) between Lots One and 13. Jones Road and Clouse Lane were added prior to 1860 as was Cherry Valley Road. Clouse Lane led to the old woolen mill

along the south edge of the terrace overlooking the Raccoon Creek. An early house (cir. 1830) sits at the end of the road on the west side. Water from the Raccoon was impounded and diverted to a feeder canal

at Lots Eight and Nine along the creek. The feeder passed by the mill and house along Clouse Lane and headed east and south toward the Ohio and Erie Canal bisecting Lots One through Eight along the floodplane at the base of the terrace.

After the turn of the century more houses were built along the south side of the Newark Granville Road and along Clouse Lane impacting the archaeology in that area. However few changes occurred north of the

highway until after 1976 when Sallie Sexton lost her property at sherifs auction. The map of Granville Township from the 1876 atlas shows 13 houses on the north side of the Newark Granville Road and only ten on the south

side for a total of 23 homes between Lots One and 13 of the original Granville purchase (Figure 9).

Development south of the highway was dramatically expanded during the period 1960-1980 with the addition of several streets and cul-de-sacs (New Gran, Fairview, Vill Edge and Denison Drive). 4 5 The most recent surge in development in Granville marks a period in which significant information concerning the areas archaeology could still be recovered if efforts to do so were initiated. Although most of the major earthwork complexes in the area had been reduced to untraceable levels, habitation centers and some other specialized types of sites like Murphy Sites I-V would yield valuable information about the lives of the Native Americans who built the mounds. CHAPTER II

METHODS

Introduction

There is, as has been previously mentioned, no significant body of research related to the preservation of archaeological sites on private property. There is no consensus on the best approach to the preservation problem unless it would be simply to legislate a solution. The most effective method to preserve archaeological sites, other than legislation, that everyone seems to agree on is the outright purchase of these properties

(Sylvia Ball, 1991, personal communication). Although legislation and outright purchase of properties are ultimately the best possible avenues (if one considers only the preservation of the resource), there are obvious problems to these solutions that have been discussed in Chapter 1.

Describing and evaluating the complexities of the preservation problem as they exist within a single community has been a challenge.

These complexities include: education of the populace about the resource, attitudes toward the resource, public interest in preserving the resource, availability of information about the resource and the track record of a community in preserving the resource. The preservation problem, which also becomes a political issue frequently, is overwhelming in scope if one looks at it in all of its political, ethnic, and regional perspectives. Few

4 6 47 regions in all of the North and South American Continent are able to protect even the most significant sites, let alone those that are equally important scientifically, but much less obvious to even the interested observer. In order to limit the scope of the problem to something that was

manageable 1 selected a small area for analysis and tried to look at as many of the factors as possible that enter into the preservation issue. 1 selected a small portion of the Granville, Ohio area east of the center of the town

because 1 have been seriously engaged in both research and preservation in this area since 1983. 1 also expanded the interview portion of the dissertation

to include individuals in the surrounding county. These additional

interviews provide a more diverse opinion base that effectively represents the range of view and opinions that landowners hold concerning the archaeological resources that exist on their properties. Because this dissertation looks at the problem from several perspectives, the methods for the collection of data had to be adapted to the specific objective.

Data Collection Strategies and Tactics

Literature Review The literature related to this study provides the foundation on which much of the study is based. Chapters 111 and IV rely on the literature to provide clues concerning the location of prehistoric sites (mainly mounds and earthworks) that are in most cases no longer visible on the surface. Squier and Davis (1848), Salisbury (1862), Parks (1870), Hill (1881) and Bushnell (1889) provide critical information that is used to target areas for more thorough investigation and potential discovery. Newsprint sources also 48 provided important information especially with regard to the preservation issue in the study area.

Photography Photographs play an important role in the methodology of this study.

Two types of photographs were used: aerial and surface. Aerial photographs

were instrumental in helping locate and identify sites in the study area and at several of the sites where interviews were conducted. Dozens of studies document the importance of aerial photography in archaeological research

(Bridges, 1986; Morgan, 1980; Joukowsky, 1980; Gabriel, 1991). Aerial photographs for this study were obtained from a variety of

sources. The single oldest aerial photograph (1928) was of the alligator mound (Figure 20) and we obtained permission to reproduce it from the Photographer, Warren Weiant. Aerial photographs that were produced by federally and state funded surveys were located in the Licking County

Engineers office, both in Newark, Ohio. Of particular value were the 1930 and 1940 aerial series, both provide comprehensive coverage of the entire

county. The 1930 series was available only from the county engineer's office so negatives were made of each needed print and new prints for the study were made from the negatives. Copies of the 1940 series were obtained through the Ohio Department of Natural Resources. ODNR ordered them from the federal government's archives. These 1940 series proved to be the most useful in identifying sites in the study area. Of particular value were photos

CLX-4A-45 and CLX-4A-47 (Figures 10 and 11). Using this pair of photographs the complete study area was covered. Aerial Photographer Dash Reeves conducted an aerial archaeological survey of Ohio sites, especially those in 4 9 Ross and Licking Counties, in the late 1930's. Copies of these photographs were obtained from the photographic archives of the Smithsonian Institutions in Washington, D.C. The most current comprehensive aerial photographs available for the study area were taken for licking County by

Photogrammetric Services Inc. of Reynoldsburg, Ohio. Permission to obtain

prints for this study was granted by the Licking County Engineers Office. Using written descriptions from sources such as Squier and Davis (1848), Salisbuiy (1862), Parks (1871), Hill (1881), and Bushnell (1889) and

maps from Squier and Davis and Bushnell, a preliminary archaeological resource map was made using the current U.S.G.S. quadrangle as a base from

which to work. Other information from The Ohio Historical Society archives

and records and information from research conducted by LCALS was added to the resource map. Using this resource map as a key, aerial photographs from 1930

(Figure 4), 1940 (Figures 10 and 11), and 1989 (Figure 41) were searched to try to locate traces of the sites. This method worked extremely well (See Chapters

III and IV). Information from all sources was transferred to both the

resource map and the 1989 aerial photograph. The method used for transferring information from the 1940 aerial to the 1989 was projection transfer. A large vertical projection device called a "Lucy" projected the

1940 image to scale upon the 1989 image. A piece of clear acetate was used to transfer information onto the original aerial without marking the photograph. The 1989 aerial by Photogrammetric Survey Inc. was also very useful.

Surface documentation of sites was accomplished through the use of maps and surface photographs. Photographs of the study area taken from 5 0 1983 to 1992 were utilized. These photographs document changes in landscape, site locations and site features. Additional photographs of historic value were obtained through research from individuals who volunteered this type of information. Photographs were obtained from The Ohio Historical Society (Figure 17), Bud Abbot of Newark, Ohio (Figure 8), and the photographic collection C.R. Jones (LCALS archives) (Figures 18 and 19). These photographs, along with aerial photographs help describe, in a

visual way, the changes that have occurred in the study area over perhaps the past 80-100 years. They help define changes that have caused damage to, or the destruction of, the prehistoric and historic archaeological resource.

Field Reconnaissance

Once sites were researched through the literature and photographs

(and also from interview information) and approximate or exact locations were known, then they were field checked and observations and descriptions were recorded in a field notebook. Any features were recorded on a USGS quadrangle and if appropriate on a photocopy of the 1989 aerial photograph of the specific area. Field methods for archaeology are clearly described in

Dancey (1981) and Joukowsky (1980).

In many cases measurements are given in metric units, however historic references to English units are not converted. In some, English units are left or both the metric and English are used to make this study more useful to the non-academic reader in public libraries who have already requested copies of the study. 51 Personal Observations

Since this study has been an intimate part of my life for over ten years, many observations have been made in notebooks and unpublished reports. These notes and miscellaneous writings constitute a resource

valuable to this study and one that in some sections is fully utilized. The observations made in this document do not in all cases provide

conclusive evidence for site locations. In most cases, like the Chidlaw

Enclosure, more research needs to be done, especially field work at proposed

site locations.

Interview Study

Introduction Research studies about people who own archaeological properties are

limited to Henderson's (1988) Kentucky Registry Program. There are no in- depth interview studies on the subject. 1 looked at the literature compiled by the Nature Conservancy and discovered that this area of inquiry was omitted here also. Property and demographic studies that would have some kind of bearing on the dissertation research being proposed here were not available.

Thus, I did not have much with which to directly compare or contrast.

Systematic fieldwork approaches and an analysis for interview studies have a wealth of related literature. There are a myriad of interview and ethnographic studies available for consideration. Using this available literature has helped to build a foundation for the study. However, in some ways 1 think that I was on my own, especially when one considers the group of people I had to interview, how these individuals were selected and the kind 5 2 of questions I asked to try and provide support for several hypotheses I had developed.

Available Studies of Similar Nature To try to obtain more information about land owners in general I

spoke with several archaeologists who have worked on projects where land owner contacts were a necessity. 1 interviewed Ann Early from the Arkansas Archaeological Survey, Sylvia Ball from the Archaeological Conservancy,

Gwyn Henderson from the Kentucky Archaeological Registry and Jeff Knoop, Ohio Director of Protection for The Nature Conservancy. 1 asked each of

these individuals if they or their organizations kept detailed records on site

owners or if they or anyone had conducted interview studies of property owners. The reply was negative from all except Gwyn Henderson from Kentucky.

1 was especially surprised that The Nature Conservancy had never

developed profiles of owners to leam more about predicting who might be willing to preserve a natural area or endangered species and why.

Henderson had used questionnaires as the primary method of acquiring information and used unrecorded interviews as a follow up. She explained that in her study there were no educational or economic barometers that seems to indicate who might preserve a site. Sylvia Ball conveyed the same information. Henderson developed a profile of owners based on her questionnaire. One of the Registry's objectives in Kentucky was to inform property owners about prehistory and archaeology and to help them develop a preservation ethic. 53 Halfway through the first year the Kentucky Registry Program, Henderson had contacted sixteen land owners (or fifty-nine percent) who had agreed to participate on a voluntary basis. Eighteen archaeological sites totaling two hundred and ninety four acres had been given some margin of protection through the Kentucky Registry Program. Henderson credits the success of the Registry program to the use of the Nature Conservancy's successful model. Although detailed information

on land owners was not kept by the Conservancy, the process that has been successful is thoroughly described. Henderson adapted the process to her research. The Kentucky Registry Program was also successful because of the

strong effort to educate the land owners during the process. A variety of materials were used and are documented in Henderson's report (1988).

Henderson believes that a stewardship ethic for the protection of

archaeological sites does exist, but it exists mainly among landowners who have a family tradition of caring for a property. As properties are sold and

new owners become responsible for the land this stewardship ethic breaks

down. Henderson (1988) states that in Kentucky the demographics of the land ownership is changing as a result of land sales.

Henderson (1990), Ball (1990) and Early (1990) all agree, based on their experiences in the field, that demographic information may be used as predictors for stewardship ethics and site responsibility, but that no statistics exist at present to determine what those predictors might be. Early (1989) states that the ability to save sites is directly related to the education of the landowner. If landowners are educated about the scientific and other values of cultural resources they will be more inclined to take positive steps to act in 5 4 behalf of the resource. Henderson's (1988) work with the Kentucky Registry Program seems to provide favorable evidence for this hypothesis. Early (1989) states, "This takes time and sustained personal contact between archaeologists and land owners. It also takes archaeologists willing

to support their arguments by repairing mounds and other sites damaged by looters, by putting important sites on the National Register, by mediating between conservation groups like the Archaeological Conservancy and

owners of important sites and by teaching landowners what constitutes a significant archaeological site" (p. 46).

Private Ownership And The Preservation of Archaeological Sites In 1988 Gwyn Henderson and I had a long discussion on the telephone about how critical the relationship is between the land owner and the

preservation of the archaeological sites that they have on their property. What we both had concluded from observations and interviews with land

owners was that there appears to be a desire among most of the individuals

we had worked with to preserve the sites that are on their land. However, there did not appear to be any single factor that determined whether or not the owner would be predisposed to preserve sites.

Henderson (1988) had conducted extensive research into the landowner/heritage preservation relationship for the Kentucky Heritage

Council. Most of her research was focused on questionnaires that the land owners had filled out and on data collected concerning the past histories of preservation on specific pieces of property that were defined as "significant" by other archaeologists. The objective of Henderson's work in Kentucky was 55 to encourage people who owned "significant" archaeological properties to register these properties with Kentucky Archaeological Registry. The study conducted by Henderson did not include recorded

interviews, although she had contact with the owners throughout the study. This study differs considerably from Henderson's in that it does not seek to

encourage land owners to register sites. There is no active archaeological

registry program in Ohio other than the Ohio Archaeological Inventory which is a data collecting program and not a preservation oriented program. The interviews conducted as part of this study, and which are included in this

chapter are valuable in helping to define owner attitudes toward the

resource and to define their predisposition toward preserving the sites they

own. These interviews help to broaden our understanding of the situation

that exists in the main study area - Lots One-13 of the original Granville Purchase. This will be discussed more in depth in the conclusions for this chapter.

Design Of The Interview Study

The methodology for part of the interview portion of this study has been adapted from: Wemer and Schoepfle (1987) Systematic Fieldwork: Foundations of Ethnography and Interviewing: Spradley (1979), The

Ethnographic Interview; and Gay (1987) Educational Research: Competencies

for Analysis and Application. Wemer describes an ethnography as a study

based upon field work that describes a group of people. In this dissertation research, the groups selected for study are limited to owners of real property in Central Ohio where, or adjacent to where, important archaeological sites are located and to individuals involved in preserving or developing 5 6 archaeological properties. These groups of individuals are considered significant because in Ohio they can, and often do, determine the fate of archaeological sites as has been demonstrated at the Slack Farm Site (Fagan,

1988). The use of the descriptive approach is described in L R. Gay's (1987)

text on approaches to education research. According to Gay, descriptive research involves collecting data in order to test a hypothesis or answer questions concerning the current status of the subject of the study. This type of study determines and reports the way things are. However, Gay's approach to what we refer to as "descriptive research" is not explained as

thoroughly as work by Wemer and Schoepfle (1987) and Spradley (1979).

Spradley (1979) explains the ethnographic interview while Wemer and Schoepfle (1987) discuss the entire field of ethnographic studies and data analysis in detail.

Approaches to the preservation of archaeological sites on private property have not been developed in part because no in-depth studies have been made of property owners. The purpose of this study has been to

contribute information about these private land owners by interviewing them and to propose possible avenues through which archaeological sites of this nature can be saved.

Selecting Sites - Conducting Interviews

A list of sites for the interview portion of this study was developed based upon the significance of those sites. The significance of site selection was discussed previously under methods in this dissertation. The list of sites that was finally gathered was based in part upon the recommendations of 5 7 other professionals and organizations familiar with the area being studied. Individuals consulted included Paul Pacheco, Dr. Bradley T. Lepper and A1 Tonetti. Mr. Tonetti and Mr. Lepper both work for the Ohio Historical Society. Paul Pacheco's work with LCALS was important in the decision making process as was that of Sylvia Ball, an employee of the Archaeological Conservancy of the United States.

Twenty sites in Licking, Perry and Knox Counties were finally identified. Most sites outside the county were eliminated to keep the focus as close to the main study area as possible. A site called Ll-7 was seriously considered, but dropped because the owners lived outside the area and access would have been difficult. In addition, the Archaeological Conservancy was discussing the purchase of this site with the owners and additional parties entering into a discussion might have interfered with the process.

Two sites were eliminated because the owners were not interested in discussing the subject. Another site, the Shelley Mound and habitation sites, was eliminated because the owner moved to Florida and the property was up for sale during the site selection process.

Nine sites were finally included in the list and seventeen individuals took part in the interview process. These sites are:

1. The Alligator Mound 2. The Brownsville Earthworks 3. Glenford Fort 4. Hull Place Enclosure 5. The Old Granville Fort

6. The Stiers Mound and Sites

7. The VanVoorhis Walls 5 8 8. The Williams Mound 9. The Yost Works All of the sites selected were mounds or earthworks, however, other types of sites (habitation, workshop area, etc.) were known to exist on all of

the properties in question except the VanVoorhis trust property and the Hull Place. Sites in all probability exist on the VanVoorhis trust property, but no survey was conducted to locate these sites and no local artifact collectors had reported any. The adjacent property to the east where the Indian Mound

Mall is now located, had several habitation sites located on it and the family who had owned the site prior to its development had accumulated a large collection of artifacts (Gary MacDonald, personal communication, 1988). In all cases except one, the informants were aware that an important site existed on their property. Mrs. VanVoorhis was the exception. She was the only family member that 1 could contact who was connected with the family trust that her husband had established. The bank that administered the trust did not want to discuss the subject of preservation or provide me with names of family members because they were looking for a buyer who would develop the property and they perceived that efforts to preserve the site would become a liability.

Letters informing the property owners about this study were sent to each potential participant. The letter was followed up with a phone call at which time a preliminary meeting was scheduled. In several cases only one meeting was needed to obtain the information needed for this study. Additional questions that remained after the interviews were completed could usually be answered with a phone call. 5 9 I had a prepared set of questions for the interviews, but it was frequently difficult to maintain any specific order in questioning process. As long as the subject was generally staying on the subject, and questions were being answered during the course of the conversation, I did not interfere with the subject's train-of-thought. At appropriate times I did

redirect the conversation in order to have a specific question addressed. Henderson (1988) noted that her subjects preferred to talk about a

variety of topics including family, pets, crops, the weather, life experiences and occupational experiences. Henderson states "....the site was rarely a major topic of conversation..." (p. 61). This was in part my experience also, especially when Burl Morgan and Bill Stiers were interviewed. These were wonderful and revealing interviews, but so much of the information was not germane to the topic and is not included in the body of the interviews presented here.

Two categories of information were generally targeted for this study: site specific information and owner perceptions and attitudes toward the

resource. Two tables (1 and 2) generally outline this information. Of primary concern were the long and short term preservation situation of each site and the current owner's attitude toward the preservation of the site.

The short term preservation situation is one that is determined by the present owner, or the interview informant. The long term presentation situation is determined in part by what the present owner intends to do with the site and what steps they proposed to take (if any) to preserve it permanently.

All of the interviews were conducted between 1988 and 1992, with most taking place between late 1991 and the first quarter of 1992. The interviews 6 0 with Mrs. Cooperrider were held in 1988 and 1989 and are summarized at the end of the interview section. The Cooperrider interview summary was included as part of this study only after all of the other interviews were completed and I had reviewed Henderson's conclusions. The situation at the Glenford Fort (Mrs. Cooperrider's property) was

seen by this researcher to be significant and provided an example of the unpredictable nature of preservation with regard to those sites that are privately owned. Henderson's study demonstrated that preservation attitudes

can vary among owners and can be influenced positively or negatively by

the children of the owner. This is the situation at Glenford as will be pointed out later in this chapter.

I have already pointed out that site registration was not an objective of this study, nor was site preservation itself a specific objective. Gathering information about the owner's attitude toward the site and preservation is the objective that is being pursued here.

Overview Questions For The Interview Study

1. How much do property owners know about prehistory and archaeology and how much factual information do the owners have about their sites?

2. Does length of ownership of a site in any way influence the owner's attitude toward the preservation of the site? 3. How has the owners' experience with this site influenced or altered their views on archaeology or preservation? 4. How much do they know about research procedures for archaeology? 61 Participants It is common today for researchers to study their own culture through interview studies (Spradley, 1980; Spradley and McCurdy, 1972). The subjects for this study are from Licking County, Ohio or the surrounding counties.

The method for the selection of participants are based on the properties these individual's own or live in the vicinity of. This is discussed under the section on sites.

Participants were first contacted through a letter. This letter introduced the researcher, defined the objectives of the project, provided information about what would be done with the information that is gathered, discussed the time obligations (number of visits, visit duration) and thanked them in advance for their cooperation.

Henderson (1988) advises that if the individuals are informed that their property is unique and that their participation will add important information to the archaeological and historic record, they will be more likely to participate.

The letter was followed up with a phone call (mentioned in the letter).

If the individual chose to participate, then a preliminary interview was arranged. As Spradley (1979) points out, establishing a good impression at the very beginning is important. An informal atmosphere was maintained and the first interview used to gather basic information and clarify the ground rules for further interviews. The interview phase of this project began in April of 1990 and continued through July of 1991, although some earlier interviews were used.

Prior to the selection of sites for this study, an inventory of known sites in the target area (Licking, Knox, Coshocton, Muskingum Counties) was 6 2 established. Two sources of information were used for this inventory: the Ohio Archaeological inventory forms on file at the Ohio Historical Society in Columbus, Ohio and the site files of the Licking County Archaeology and Landmarks Society. A file was maintained on each site which included copies

of the OAl forms, maps, photographs and other information. Interviews with a previous informant, Jesse Walker, provided information on unrecorded sites, some of which was included in the information gathering process.

Wherever possible, the owner and type of ownership (private, partnership, corporate, probate controlled) was established from the records.

Since ownership can change hands. County records were used to establish

current ownership of the sites that met the criteria for this study.

Criteria for sites in this study include: 1. The potential to yield important archaeological information. 2. Good state of preservation with minimal disturbance.

3. A potentially cooperative owner. 4. Confirmation that the site still exists in a reasonable state of preservation.

A group of 30 sites that met the criteria were established; they were evaluated according to the type of site and type of ownership. Sites were separated into

categories: individual or group owned, owner on site or off site, and site type.

Only the most significant habitation sites were included for this survey. Final selection was made according to: who was willing to participate, location, type of site, and condition of the site. 6 3 Since built sites (mounds and earthworks) in Licking and surrounding counties are in the greatest danger of being destroyed through cultivation and development, 1 gave these sites priority in the selection process. This does not mean that habitation sites, quarry sites, rock shelters, or other classifications are less important than built sites. These other sites,

generally, are more plentiful, and for this reason, in less danger of being eliminated as a classification in the near future. The selection process focused on mounds and earthworks for another reason, owners are usually aware of their presence and consequently have something significant to say about them. Property owners may be unaware of other habitation sites or even rock shelter sites and interviewing these individuals may provide little useful information.

I also targeted individuals who jointly own earthwork sites, like the old Granville Fort or the Alligator Mound because they provide a somewhat different perspective on the preservation issue, they have a very different perspective as the interviews will demonstrate.

Hypothesis And Question Formulation

Wemer and Schoepfle (1987) and Spradley (1979) both provide excellent background for question formulation and interview procedure regarding questions.

The formulation of appropriate questions on a given topic is not a trivial matter. In order to obtain a meaningful answer, the ethnographer must first ask a meaningful question. Unfortunately, many, perhaps most, questions that the ethnographer brings to the field from personal study at home are unsuitable for presentation to consultants (Wemer and Schoepfle, 1987, p. 319). 64 Wemer and Schoepfle define two major question groups: grand tour and minitour. The process in developing questions is referred to as elicitation. Through this process one develops successively more complex questions of a hierarchical nature. Each question area should be developed in advance and if possible tested to determine effectiveness. Grand tour

questions set the stage; they develop the basis from which one proceeds to explore in depth in various areas using minitour questions. Wemer and Schoepfle (1987) provide a standard interview question

sequence suggesting that the researcher begin with questions about space. Space (the living area, form, property or community area) is something that most people are familiar with; they feel comfortable in talking about the place where they live. It is a non-threatening topic. The author proceeds with this sequence. I found their discussion of the topic useful and in most cases germane to my interview program.

Questions formulated for this study accept several primary hypotheses: 1. property owners' education does not determine whether they will have a preservation-conservation ethnic with regard to archaeological sites.

2. a property owner will probably have little knowledge about local prehistory or archaeology.

3. preservation and conservation ethics for archaeological sites will most likely exist among individuals who have a family history of preservation on a specific property. 4. property owners will strongly believe that preservation of archaeological sites on private property should be up to the owner.

These assumptions are based on my findings in the literature and on personal communication with professionals who have extensive experience 65 in working with land owners, and on my own observations and research over the past seven years. The purpose of the interviews therefore was to explore these hypotheses and see if they were valid. I anticipated that a great deal of other

useful information would also result from the interviews. As Wemer, Schoepfle (1987) and Spradley (1979) all point out, the development of useful interview questions is difficult and I have certainly

found this to be true. In reviewing interview work I conducted over several years with an informant named Jesse Walker, but Jesse died about a year ago. I made two mistakes in my interview procedure. First I did not prepare my

questions well in advance; I knew basically what I wanted from Jesse and we just had these long interesting talks. The second mistake was that I did not review my tapes to make sure 1 had the answers desired in order to use the

information to formulate new questions or new ways of asking old ones to get more precise data. My informant also enjoyed telling the same stories over

and over; these were his stock inventory and he was quite comfortable when

relating them. I discovered later that Jesse needed to be constantly reminded of the direction of the conversation. By not being prepared (and also inexperienced) much of what he could have told me is now lost.

Evidence for the assumption that "preservation and conservation ethics for archaeological sites will most likely exist among individuals who have a family history of preservation on a specific property" was gathered during the interview process through this series of questions. Wemer and Schoepfle's grand tour/minitour procedure for interviewing was used to formulate the questions. 6 6 The questions that can be asked of a landowner living on the site are

different than those asked of a landowner who does not. The owner may have never lived on the site and may have only seen the property during the process of purchasing it. Absentee owners may have lived on their properties during their youths and could be currently renting. What the individual knows about the site will probably play a role in how they respond

to most questions in that category. The variability in site ownership was a problem because each situation had to be addressed differently in the

questioning process.

Interview Q.uestions

The first interview questions asked focused on those that built a basic profile of the property owner. As the interviews proceed, questions began to probe more deeply into the feelings and convictions of the subject. It was the objective of this researcher to leam more about how ideas and opinions of the subjects being studied here were formed. Is the knowledge that the subjects have about prehistory and archaeology based upon first hand observations, reading research, rumors, folklore, information obtained in school or from friends or from other sources?

The questions that 1 asked the property owners in the interviews are generally reflected in the questionnaire that was distributed to residents living in the area near the Alligator Mound and The Old Granville Fort. The questionnaire is very specific, however, and frequently the interviews focused on general question, or in some cases only on those related to the preservation issue. Much of what transpired in the interviews depended on the knowledge and life experience of each individual. A brief introduction is 67 provided prior to each interview transcript. This introduction describes each circumstance independently. The interview questions and the questionnaire data compliment each other and fill in significant voids in the record that would be left if only one of these data gathering procedures had been used. 1. How long have you owned this property? 2. How long has the property been in your family?

3. How long have you and your ancestors lived in this area?

4. Where are you employed?

5. When and where did you attend school? 6. How is the property currently being used? 7. Could you explain how the property has been used in the past?

8. What can you tell me about the archaeological

sites on your property?

9. Could you tell me about the prehistoric or historic Native American groups that lived here and when did they live here?

10. What, if any, efforts have been made to study the site?

11. Do you have a collection from the sites on your property or any other properties in the area that you could show me?

12. Do you have any thoughts about the value of

preserving sites like the one on your property? 68 13. Do you know anyone of Native American descent?

When I use the term Indians, what images come to mind? 14. How do you think prehistoric burial sites should be treated: private or public property?

15. Do you think Native Americans today should have access to their heritage?

16. How would you respond if legislation were passed that protected prehistoric sites on private property like yours and it meant that you would

be restricted from damaging or destroying these sites? The interview questions provided here are examples of the types of

questions asked. In most cases the questions were asked in more indirect ways. For example, question number 16 was asked, but as part of a more in- depth conversation on the question of site preservation in general. The objective here was to steer the conversation in a more subtle and natural way as opposed to being abrupt. Being too abrupt can destroy the relationship

between subject and researcher (Spradley, 1979).

All interviews were tape recorded and then transcribed. Both the tape and the transcription were kept in the site file with the background information.

Analysis and Treatment of Information

Methods for analysis, interpretation and the general treatment of the data for this dissertation are based upon three sources previously mentioned 69 (Wemer and Schoepfle, 1987; Gay, 1988; and Spradley, 1979). Each of these sources offers useful information and tools for analysis. The main advantage to be derived from Spradley (1979) is his procedures for the analysis of cultural data and especially language. Gay (1988) provides general tools for the statistical analysis of data some of which will be useful. The same is true of Werner and Schoepfle.

A descriptive introduction provided opportunity to present the bulk of

the interview information, much as it was received from each informant. A description of the site itself has been developed from all of the accumulated information. Included here are maps, photographs, documentation of archaeological activity, dates where possible and other information pertaining to the site. Information and general analysis of each interview are provided as part of the descriptive presentation. Included are my observations and responses during and after the interviews.

Specific areas analyzed were: a. Site specific information

- County, township, zone, age of site, collections, excavations, current use of land, previous cultivation, land form type, glaciated or unglaciated

b. Owners' knowledge of prehistory and archaeology - chronological information, terms, cultural information, sites in county

c. What mound or site means to owner

- status, aesthetic form, value added to land. 7 0 useless obstruction, historical, heritage, emotional d Perceived relationship to site - stewardship, possession, part of land form, no

relationship

e. Landowner profile - type of ownership, number of owners, disposition toward preservation, age, education, occupation,

general level of interest Each visit to a site was recorded in a journal. This journal served to keep

information in an organized manner for later use. The log documents dates of visits, materials used, mileage logged, activities that took place, photographs taken, tape cassettes used, time spent, name of informant,

locations of property and notes and comments.

Questionnaire Study

As the interview process progressed, it became apparent that some comparative information would be valuable for the study. The interviews demonstrated that there were two interesting trends developing: first, most of the informants were not well-informed about the archaeological resource or about local prehistory; and second, most were very supportive when it came to the question of preserving sites, including those that they owned. I wanted to know if the general population in the primary study area

(lots 1-13 of the original Granville Purchase) were generally uninformed about the resource, but supportive when it came down to the question of preserving sites. 71 Using many of the same questions that I had asked my interview informants, I prepared a questionnaire made up of 21 questions. The questionnaire was three pages long and 100 were prepared and distributed to residents in the study area. Some questionnaires were mailed and others

were hand delivered door to door. If there were two adult members of a

household, 1 provided a questionnaire for each individual. After 30 days, 64 questionnaires were returned and these were analyzed and evaluated. A 64 percent return on a questionnaire is considered acceptable for providing statistically valuable data (Veestra, Personal Communication, 1992). Six questionnaires were returned through the mail due to either incorrect addresses or because former residents did not have a current forward address.

The questions were grouped into three specific areas: personal information (how long have you lived in the village?, educational background, etc.); knowledge of the resource and prehistory; and questions to determine how much individuals supported or did not support the preservation of heritage resources in general (most specifically prehistoric archaeological resources).

I anticipated that respondents might want to comment on the questions so space was provided. This was especially true for questions 15-21. Question 21 required a written response. Analysis and evaluation for the questionnaire is provided in Chapter IV. Group A

1. How long have you lived in Licking County?

2. Please list below the institutions where you

received your education and any degrees earned. 72 3. How would you classify your interest in archaeology? “ Very interested - Moderately interested - Have little or no interest

4. Have you visited any archaeological sites in

licking County or Ohio? - Octagon State Memorial - Alligator Mound

- Others (please list)

5. Have you ever taken any courses in archaeology or

participated in an excavation? Please describe? 6. Have you ever visited the archaeological museums at:

- Flint Ridge? Approximately when?

- Moundbuilders? Approximately when? 7. Have you ever visited the archaeological exhibits

at The Ohio Historical Society in Columbus? - Yes - No

- How long ago? Group B

8. The first Native People arrived in what we call North America from ....

- Europe - Asia 7 3 - India - Japan 9. Twenty thousand years ago most of Ohio was covered by ....

- Ice - Broadleaf, deciduous forest - A shallow inland sea

- Grasslands 10. A major reason that Native Americans were not able

to repel Europeans when they arrived here was

because.... - They had inferior technology - Diseases had dramatically reduced populations

- Population centers were too dispersed - They trusted the Europeans

11. Approximately how long ago were the geometric

mound and earthworks in Ohio constructed? - 500 years ago - 1000 years ago

- 2000 years ago - 3000 years ago

12. What cultural group do we credit with the construction of the Alligator Mound and the Newark Earthworks? - Archaic

- Hopewell 74 - Seneca - Delaware 13. The Octagon and Circle Earthwork off of 30th Street in Newark is owned by ....

- The Moundbuilders Country Club - The Licking County Historical Society - The Ohio Historical Society - Do not know 14. The Ohio Historical Society is ....

- A state agency

- A private non-profit organization - A private for profit organization - Do not know Group C

15. Under what circumstances should individuals be permitted to excavate prehistoric burial sites?

- If the site is on their property - Only if the excavators are qualified

professional archaeologists

- Only with a permit from the state or federal government - Under no circumstances

16. Would you be willing to use public funds to support education, research and preservation in archaeology for Licking County? 7 5 17. Do you support preserving important archaeological sites in Licking County? 18. Do you believe that archaeological sites should be granted legal protection in Ohio?

- Only on public land - On all land - On no land

19. Should a public agency try to obtain important archaeological properties in order to protect them?

- Yes - No 20. In cases where an important site is going to be

damaged or destroyed, should eminent domain be used to obtain the site in the public interest?

21. The Alligator Mound has been set aside and not

destroyed. If you could have planned for the preservation of this site (10 years ago), what

if anything would you do differently? CHAPTER III

REDISCOVERING THE PREHISTORIC BUILT ENVIRONMENT OF THE GRANVILLE AREA

Introduction

Rediscovering the prehistoric built environment of the area east (and south) of Granville, Ohio was accomplished mostly with assistance from publications and aerial photographs. The standard literature resource used by almost all students of Early and Middle Woodland Prehistory is Ancient Monuments of the Mississippi Valiev (Squier and Davis, 1848). Plate XXXVI in Ancient Monuments includes a map of the "six miles of the Newark Valley" drawn by E. G. Squier (Figure 1). In addition to showing the location and extent of the Newark Earthworks, Squier also provides locations and drawings of earthworks and mounds to the east and south of Granville.

Squier prefaces his map stating "but a small portion of the mounds and earthworks occurring within this range are shown on the map." Four prominent earthworks in the Granville area are located by

Squier: the Alligator Mound, a fortified hill (Old Granville or McCunes Fort) northeast of Granville, a large circle to the southeast (Granville Circle) and another "fortified hill" to the south. The Alligator Mound and the Old Granville Fort are well known and described extensively in this chapter. The large circle shown between the "Branch Canal" (feeder) and the "Road" (Newark-Granville Road) is undocumented except through descriptions in

76 77 the literature. "In the Valley immediately opposite, and less than half a mile distant [from the Alligator Mound] is a large and beautiful circular work. To the right, three fourths of a mile distant, is a Fortified hill, and upon the opposite side of the valley is another entrenched hill; all of which together with numerous mounds on the hill-tops and in the valley, are commanded

from this position" [the Alligator Mound] (Squier and Davis, 1848).

Chidlaw Enclosure

The "fortified hill" across the valley from Granville was never described in any depth to date, and had not been located on an aerial photograph. Finding out more about this site and the other lesser known ones, like the circle located by Squier was a major objective for my research. This research was assisted by Dr. Bradley T. Lepper who discovered an unpublished drawing of an earthwork said to be near Granville (Figure 3).

The drawing came from the Walter Havinghurst Special Collections Library at Miami (of Ohio) University.

The drawing had a striking resemblance to the one sketched by Squier south of Granville. The 1829 drawing was titled "Platt of an old fortification near Granville Ohio." The text below the drawing states:

This enclosure is supposed to contain twenty acres of land generally level, in the west part it is a little rolling. The spring near the SW comer is a very large one. The circle near the Middle contains nearly 1/2 of an acre the entrance is about 12 feet wide, and the gates entering into the large enclosure are about the same size, it is now covered with large trees as any in woods. A short distance east from the fort is a large mound of earth thrown up in a circular form but not very high (Barry H. Chidlaw, June 21, 1829). 78

i'Lrll pu i/pesait»itnfi^r Cÿfâiivilh (t^/tiOf %

'( ///y y/f /c //'y* /t'>r/’^iA » . / / r !' ' . / / ' ^ . //f^ H Yy / p f / / /./ (/

./’/'///'/ pi p p / t (fc/^ . /{e ^ i i^r i r/ f/ /■■} .-7//s'* ^ ///< '//'/7 /’Zf ,7/7 ( ft'

('y //f 'ÿj f/^ / y r Z i> y.'ff /. '7f i/f r. '.'fj/i f yf z;i,-/f'./z/t;ftrt (//c/t //Zt f/z/1 (•.■'’/y y ^ / y Zt'ir/v../' (ft Z/( /{ifoz /} s-yy .yy,} , ! ^ f/t //f t (/■‘'<7.///, st .-../{, y -/ i/e y/te 7t yy z./y/c-/// '-//Cpfj/ x / V ? ■■'y/yytuy. //•>)

z y y t/i /X rtz z'/y z /-!t/ y 'c- 7 / i /^y// vZ/'r-//‘zy^

Figure 3. Chidiaw's Drawing of the Chidlaw Enclosure South of Granville off State Route 79. 7 9 Notes around the drawing provide information about the topography and height of the walls. Generally the walls of the enclosure are one foot to four feet in height. The interior circle has an embankment about two feet high. Four gates or openings were located around the large feature, with two

facing west, one south and one at the northeast comer. The southern entrance is in the same location approximately as one placed on the "fortified hill" in the Squier drawing. The north indication is placed at the bottom of

the drawing which is a little confusing, but the description indicates that the top of the drawing is north. The mound in the northeast comer has "burials" written next to it, but

this may be an implied designation; the author provides no indication that the mound was excavated or that burials were discovered. There are some interesting similarities between the Old Granville Fort

and the Chidlaw enclosure. Both are irregularly shaped, located on bluffs or

hilltops overlooking the valley, and contain approximately the same number of acres (17-20). Both have smaller circular enclosures within the larger one. Both are located adjacent to large springs (to their west), and have openings toward those springs. Each earthwork is associated with a mound outside the enclosure and has an opening in the vicinity of that mound.

The Chidlaw enclosure (as 1 will refer to it from this point on) is probably shown on Bushnell's 1889 map as Figure 5 of archaeological and historic sites. Bushnell places the enclosure a little further to the south, but in about the same vertical line as Squier. Bushnell places the Chidlaw enclosure "crossed by the division line between the farms of Mr. Ruben

Linnel and Mr. Howard Howe" (p. 13). linneTs and Howe's properties are shown as Lots 10 and 11 respectively, south of Granville along the Lancaster Figure 4. 1930 Aerial showing area South and East of Granville, Ohio. § 8 1 Road (State Rt. 37) where Silver Street intersects. To the northeast of this

intersection is a prominent hill with a spring running to the west just at the base of the hill. The location indicated by Bushnell was found on the July 14, 1940

aerial photograph (CLX-4A-45) (Figure 10). There seemed to be a trace of the site at this location, but it was not defined well enough so I referred to the 1930 series (No. 2341) (Figure 5). The Chidlaw enclosure shows up completely

as a dark line, faint but distinct, with the smaller circle inside, exactly where Chidlaw places it.

Today, the property is owned by John J. O'Neill. Mr. O'Neill has a

residence at another location south of this site. 1 visited the site and

discussed my research with the gentlemen who rents the property from Mr. O'Neill. Chidlaw describes the property as generally level, but rolling somewhat to the west. I found that the eastern half of the site sloped somewhat to the west, and continued to increase in inclination the further

west one progressed. Generally Chidiaw's description was correct, however, it appears to slope more than he indicates. The spring described as being

near the southwest comer of the site was in that location although it was dry,

having been tiled in another direction at some point when the drive onto the property was re-routed. Within the area that the enclosure once occupied is a high point on

the topography. Both Chidlaw and the aerial photograph suggest that the interior circle was once located on this spot. An opening is evident about 2/3 of the way up the east wall. A dark spot outside of the enclosure could possibly be the other circular mound noted by Chidlaw. Figure 5. 1930 Aerial Photograph of area South and East of Granville showing the location of the Granville Circle, Chidlaw Enclosure and the Deeds Mound. 8 8 3 The field to the east of the Chidlaw enclosure is reasonably level. Both the 1940 aerial (CLX-4A-45) (Figure 10) and the 1930 Aerial (2341) (Figure 5) show a trace of the circle noted by Chidlaw in the north west comer of this

field. More research needs to be done at this and other sites noted here to determine exact locations and possible remains of the site walls. On-site testing is essential at all proposed site locations.

Crescent Earthwork

Hill (1881) and Bushnell (1889) both describe a crescent shaped

earthwork on the terrace just south east of the Alligator Mound. Hill describes the site as:

A curiously shaped mound....It is an immense pile of dirt, which seems to lie upon top of the ground as if it had been transported from a distance, thrown down there and fashioned into the shape of a half-moon or crescent. It is composed largely of gravel, and in its composition differs largely from the dark loamy earth around it. This mysterious crescent-shaped pile has been plowed over for fifty or more and of course is much reduced in height, but as yet probably six or seven feet high. It is located on lot number eight of the Granville Purchase, now owned by D. M. Knapp (p. 46).

Bushnell provides measurements for the crescent, ten rods (165 feet)

from tip to tip, and six rods (99 feet) across from the exterior to the interior of the curve. He gives the height at the highest point as seven feet. On the

north side Bushnell describes a "large quadrangular stone two or three feet across and sinking deep into the earth. By digging, the ground beside it has been found to be mixed with bits of charcoal" (p. 12).

A thorough examination of the area where the crescent is reported to have been located revealed nothing that would indicate its former presence. 8 4 The 1930 aerial photographs of the area also provided no information. However, the 1940 aerial (both CLX-4A-45 and CLX-4A-47) (Figures 10 and 11) shows a dark crescent shaped feature in approximately the location indicated on Bushnell's map of Granville Township. The feature on the aerial photograph, however, looks as if it may have been an ovoid earthwork at one time and some remnant part of this oval may have been what was describes as the crescent.

Bushnell's information concerning other site locations has proven to be very dependable; the only question here is whether the feature on the 1940 aerial is or is not the same thing that Bushnell, and Hill, were describing. Testing with trenches might provide some useful information with regard to the original location of the crescent. The area is going to be developed and any evidence that does remain may be destroyed.

Hill Earthwork

South of the crescent earthwork. Hill (1881) describes a large circular earthwork that once enclosed 75 to 80 acres:

Another very extensive earthwork once occupied the bottom land near the crescent, and to the south of it. When the first settlers entered this valley, and for several years afterward, this immense circular wall was plainly visible and was two or three feet high in places. It enclosed seventy five or eighty acres of beautiful bottom land and, like the crescent, the embankment seemed to have been made without digging the earth from either side of it, no ditch appearing. This work covered portions of lots seven, eight, nine and ten of the Granville purchase, and the larger part of it was between Centerville Street [Newark-Granville Road] and the bluffs on the north of the valley, though it extended, probably, slightly south of Centerville Street. The 'savage plowshare' has long since done its work and this work of antiquity has probably entirely disappeared. It is said that the embankment was without a break or gateway and no mound or other work appeared within the circular enclosure (Hill, 1981, pp. 426, 427). 8 5 This earthwork will be referred to as the Hill Earthwork (Figures 12, 39, 40). Bushnell describes this work as a parapet that sweeps "eastward and southward in a semicircle to a point half a mile south of the crescent, where it connects with a circular fort" (p. 12). Thus, Bushnell describes a giant arc

or semicircle as opposed to Hill's huge circle. The 75-80 acre circle described by Hill would have been over three thousand feet in diameter. The distance from the Bushnell arc where it joins

the crescent south to the point where it joins the Granville Circle is almost

exactly three thousand feet. The Hill earthwork would have enclosed an area larger than this and from east to west it would have included portions of Lots

Five through Ten and not only Lots Seven through Ten as Hill states. It is reasonable to conclude that a large earthwork of some type dominated the valley at this location, but determining its size and exact

location has proven to be a difficult task. The distance from the Granville Circle (described below) to the crescent is approximately 2,250 feet. A

circular earthwork of the size Hill describes would dwarf anything else

known in Ohio to date. Squier and Davis describe and illustrate dozens of circular enclosures in Ancient Monuments of the Mississippi Valiev 11848).

the largest of which is located in Liberty Township, Ross County, Ohio (Plate

XX). The Liberty Township Circle is 1,790 feet in diameter and encompasses 40 acres, half of the acreage Hill says the Granville site contains.

The only tool available that provides reasonable evidence for this and other described earthworks are aerial photographs. I have spent hours looking at various prints from 1930 to 1989 in order to clarify or prove the evidence provided by both Hill (1881) and Bushnell (1889). The Granville

Circle shown in the 1930 and 1940 aerials leaves no question concerning its 8 6 authenticity. However, other works, like the Hill earthwork are not clearly visible and to be honest, it takes some imagination to see what the authors describe. My research for this elusive earthwork continued only because the information provided by individuals like Squier and Davis (1848), Hill (1881) and Bushnell (1889) has proven to be reliable and relatively consistent in the

past. Evidence in the aerial photographs is not conclusive, but at the end of this section a theory concerning what is visible will be presented.

Granville Circle

Hill (1881) describes an earthwork at approximately the southwest comer of the intersection of Clouse Lane and the Newark-Granville Road:

...very near and just south of Centerville Street is a curious heap of sand which is hard to account for, unless it be that the Mound Builders placed it there. It is in the center of a fine alluvial bottom, and is irregular in form, appearing to have been brought from a distance and throw off there for some purpose (p. 248).

This is the location where Bushnell places a small circular enclosure

(described later). South of this point Hill describes a larger enclosure (Granville Circle):

Immediately south of this sand pile and a few rods [16.5 feet = 1 rod] from it, yet exists the walls of a large circular work, enclosing, probably, twenty- five acres. The whole of this land has been under cultivation since the first settlement of the county and the embankment is nearly plowed away in places, though still visible and generally two or three feet above the surface of the ground. This appears to have been a perfect circle, without a ditch on either side, and without any opening or gateway. Its location is near where the old Granville [feeder] joins the Raccoon. It is close to, and evidently connected with. 8 7 the very large circular work before mentioned as covering seventy- five or eighty acres, and which has entirely disappeared (Hill, 1881, p. 428).

Bushnell says the circle was about 60 rods in diameter and contained over seventeen acres. Squier and Davis provide little information on this site other than to describe it as "a large and beautiful circular work" (p. 99). On his map of Granville Township Bushnell places the Granville circle

north of the railroad, slightly west of, but almost intersecting Clouse Lane and south of the Newark-Granville Road. The circle is connected to the

crescent to the north, by a long arcing earthwork (Hill earthwork) that he

refers to as a parapet or defensive wall. These features would have created an artificial a barrier across the entire terrace above the Raccoon Creek. Since the Granville Circle was no longer considered to be visible on the surface 1 used the aerial photographs to try and discover its exact location. The 1930 aerial series (Print 2341) (Figures 4 and 5) showed what looked like a trace of the earthwork south of the old railroad cut (which is now the bicycle path) and west of Clouse Lane. The 1940 aerial (CLX-4A-47 and CLX-4A-45) (Figures 10 and 11) captured almost the entire feature as a bright white line. Its location extends about 30 feet west of Clouse Lane on its eastern extremity and approximately 1,000 feet west of that point toward Fairview Avenue. The bike path bisects the circle so that about 1/5 of its total acreage is now south west of the path. mm

Figure 6. Location of the Granville Circle North of Route 16. 8§ 8 9 Upon investigating the site I found that the entire area occupied by the former embankment was undeveloped agricultural land. The reason for the lack of development in this area is that it is in Granville Township and not in the village of Granville. Consequently city water and sewer have not as yet been made available in the area.

Once 1 had located all the historic descriptions and aerial photographs

about sites in the area 1 proceeded to reconstruct site locations using techniques described in the chapter on methodology. With all the

accumulated information transferred to a large print from the 1989 aerial series (Figure 41) I was prepared to look more closely for traces of the Granville Circle, and other sites in the area.

I visited the Granville Circle on several occasions and spoke with some of the neighbors and property owners. None of these individuals had any knowledge that the Granville Circle was located on their property, or that the area they lived in was archaeologically significant in any way. None of the individuals 1 met had collections of artifacts from their property. On smaller aerial photographs it was difficult to tell if the enclosure passed through the houses (Paul Kent [Cordray] and Thelma Craeger) on the Clouse Lane just north of the bicycle path. If the earthwork passed behind the houses then this would be a place where some of the wall could have been preserved.

About 15% of the enclosure passes through Paul Kent's property. This area includes the portion of the wall from the bicycle path just west of where it intersects Clouse Lane to the farmhouse along Clouse Lane that Kent rents to E Cordray and family. About three hundred feet of the enclosure 9 0 continues from the Cordray's house through the neighboring house and property owned by Thelma Craeger. I visited both the Cordray's and the Craeger's on two separate occasions in 1992 (Figure 7). Neither family knew about the earthwork or other archaeological sites in the area except the Alligator Mound. North of the

Craeger home the field is vacant and mowed. An arcing arm of earth extends from the bushes and shrubs by the Craeger house and curves around to the northwest. This section of wall is about a foot in height and tapers to nothing

about 30 feet from the adjoining field owned by Thomas Hill. Behind the Craeger home, between the house and a small shed, the land is higher-in some places (18 to 24 inches higher than the surrounding

topography). The ground is broken up and pitted in places due to activities around the house. This elevated land is a continuation of the earthwork that extends into the field. Mrs. Craeger said "I always wondered why the ground was so bumpy in the back yard."

The Cordray home (Kent's property) is situated directly south of the Craeger home and both homes are on about the same line north to south. The

same condition that exists behind the Craeger home is present behind the Cordray's shed, or small bam and com crib are set back about thirty feet from the house. Both the com crib and bam sit on the west edge of the

enclosure wall. An old swing set sits on a high point on the slightly undulating ground.

The Granville Circle sits on the edge of the terrace above the Raccoon

Creek flood plain. From a point just west of Clouse Lane along the bicycle path where the terrace cuts diagonally across the Paul Kent land I searched for the enclosure wall. Although almost completely plowed down it is still M l

,/'r

Figure 7. Granville Circle passes through the back yard of two residences west of Clouse Land and into the field at the right. \o 92 faintly visible on the surface and can be traced from the north east comer of

the bicycle path north east toward the Cordray residence. In some places it is about eight inches high and spread so it appears as a wide flat area. The clarity of the enclosures outline in the 1940 aerial photograph indicated that some remnant of the wall probably still existed on the surface

at that time. From the opposite side of the bicycle path I looked into the field to the southwest. The field has a high fence and cattle currently occupy the

space. The property is owned by Kenneth and Patricia Nigg. A trace of the earthwork can be seen beyond the south edge of the bicycle path, where the enclosure intersects the modern (but currently unused) horse training track. It then arcs around toward the northwest and the wall can be seen distinctly. From the northwest comer of the earthwork and the bicycle path the earthwork wall curves around through the Niggs field and onto property owned by Thomas Hill. Conditions in these areas presented poor visibility, being either crops or long grass. The west side of the line is faintest on the aerial photographs from 1940, indicating that at that time the wall was almost worn flat.

Hill (1881) was quoted earlier as saying that part of the Granville Circle was still visible in 1881. However, Bushnell (1889) indicates that the earthwork was no longer visible on the surface. This leads one to believe that he never looked at the site carefully; or perhaps not at all. Bushnell also leaves no indication that he personally visited the site. Since the time that Hill and Bushnell wrote their histories, it appears that no one conducted any additional research in the area to try and locate the Granville Circle, the crescent or any of the other sites documented here. 93 The fact that parts of the Granville Circle can still be traced in yards,

behind historic buildings and in agricultural fields comes as no great surprise. Research into the Newark Earthworks currently being conducted by Dr. Bradley T. Lepper and myself produced a similar discovery. While

investigating a wooded area southwest of the Octagon in Newark, we discovered a segment of intact parallel earthen walls that are a remnant of an ancient road that possibly led to the earthworks at Chillicothe. Traces of

this walled road were visible on the 1930 and 1940 aerial photographs of Licking County. The woods north of the Licking County Airport had not been under cultivation for over a half century, thus protecting portions of the earthwork from destruction.

A circular enclosure discovered by Newark resident Warren Weiant just south of the woods mentioned above and in the cultivated field was also

assumed to have been destroyed by cultivation, but a significant portion of that earthwork is still also visible on the surface. Squier and Davis indicated that the earthworks at Newark were in danger of being destroyed in 1848. The authors note "The ancient lines can

now be traced only at intervals, among gardens and outhouses" (p. 71).

This quote is indicative of the situation today in both Newark and Granville. Today these fragile and frequently isolated pieces of earthwork are tools we can use to create new maps and reconstruct entire segments of earthwork whose locations are not known, or perhaps were never known.

Bushnell reports that to the west of a stone wall, located 111 feet south of the center of the railroad track (bike path) and therefore near the southwest extremity of the Granville Circle, were two parallel earthen walls.

The 1940 aerial (CLX-4A-47) (Figure 11) shows these two parallel walls 9 4 clearly. One wall originates at the base of the circle and runs north west toward a meander of the Raccoon Creek for approximately 250 feet. The second wall is exactly parallel and about 125 feet south west of the first. Parallel walls frequently accompany the geometric earthworks of the Ohio Hopewell culture. Examples can be seen at the Newark Earthworks

(Squier and David, 1848; Wyrick, 1866; Salisbury, 1862) (Figure 50). Often, these walls seem to indicate a direction or define a destination, but do not terminate at a specific earthwork or mound. Other examples of similar

situations have been noted by Squier and Davis at the Portsmouth, Ohio works, the Marietta, Ohio works and various works in Ross County, Ohio.

Bushnell's Circle and Mounds

To the north of the Granville Circle Bushnell describes a smaller circular work which 1 will refer to as the Bushnell Circle:

Midway between the crescent and the large fort with which it is joined by the semicircle, is a smaller circular fort containing about eight acres. The Centerville street has always run through it just north of its center and the road to the old-time factory [Clouse Lane] started just at its eastern side. About the only part of the outline discernible is at the northeast comer of the lot where the fence on the west side of the north and south road stands to protect it (p. 13).

If the Bushnell Circle enclosed approximately 8 acres, then it had an approximate diameter of 330 feet or about one third the diameter of the Granville Circle, which when measured to the scale of the 1940 aerial photograph used in this research, had a diameter of about 1,000 feet. This supports Bushnell's statement that the Granville Circle had a diameter of 980 feet. 9 5 Bushnell places the Granville Circle vaguely as being a half mile south of the crescent. On his map of Granville township he places the large circle too far to the north. However, he seems more certain about the location of this smaller circle and even identifies where a trace portion of it could be seen in his lifetime, or even perhaps by him personally. Surrounding the Bushnell circle on the author's map, he located five conical mounds, probably burial mounds. Two lie slightly to the northeast of the small circle, one is just on the northern edge of the Newark Granville road east of the circle, and two others are situated, according to Bushnell, south of the circle; one being on Clouse Lane while the other is located just to the east of Clouse Lane and almost in line with the one on the Lane. These mounds are drawn on the map, but are not specifically described in the text. However, Bushnell states on page 14:

of Mounds there were 'a great many'. A dozen or more used to lie in the vicinity of the crescent and its connected works.

The aerial photographs revealed very little in the way of useful information regarding the Bushnell circle or the surrounding mounds, just as no trace of the arcing earthwork connecting the crescent and Granville circle could be found on the surface. By 1930, when the first aerial photograph was taken three of the four comers at the intersection of the

Newark-Granville Road and Clouse Lane had been developed. The only undeveloped lot was the north west one. Bushnell indicates that the circle extended into this area, but no trace could be seen. Nor could any trace of the burial mounds be found in the 1930 or 1940 aerial photographs. 9 6 When I superimposed a 330 foot diameter circle on the 1989 aerial photograph where Bushnell clearly describes it, the southern-most arc of the circle passed through four properties on the southwest comer of the Newark Granville Road at Clouse Lane. 1 spoke with Barbara and John Yoho

who live at 1400 Newark Granville Road, the second house from the comer at Clouse Lane ana obtained permission to look at the lot behind their home where the circle would have passed through. No trace could be seen there, or on the adjoining properties on either side. Other than knowing about the

Alligator Mound and excavations by LCALS on the Murphy property, the

Yoho's were unaware of any other archaeological sites in the area. Barbara Yoho was delighted at the prospect that their home was built inside of an ancient earthwork. Besides the earthworks described thus far there are a few mounds mentioned in the literature and identified by other sources that need to be reviewed. Some of these mounds are part of the resource that Squier and

Davis (1848), Hill (1881) and Bushnell (1889) refer to as "too numerous to describe."

Haskell Mound

Hill mentioned a mound on the property of E Haskell at the south end of Lot 11 and perhaps only one or two hundred feet from the Raccoon Creek. This mound is marked in the Atlas of Licking County Ohio (Beers, 1866) lying along the east edge of the property line. A trace of the mound shows up on the 1940 aerial photograph (CLX-4A-47) as a faint circle actually overlapping onto the adjoining property to the east (Lot 10). Its location is almost due south of the Alligator Mound. 97 Mt. Parnassus Mound

To the northeast of the Haskett mound, Bushnell briefly describes another mound on Mount Parnassus, within the village limits. According to

Bushnell, the mound was excavated in 1887 and several skeletons were found buried in the mound. The mounds' exact location is not known, but it would have commanded a beautiful view of the valley, including the bluffs on both

the north and south sides of the Raccoon Creek. A somewhat lower hill to the east of Mt. Parnassus blocks the view somewhat; however if the trees had been cut down, all the earthworks discussed above would have been visible

from this point. The Alligator Mound is within plain view, facing almost directly at Mt. Parnassus. According to Minnie Hite Moody, the mound on Mt. Parnassus was excavated perhaps a second time by a Professor White, son-in-law of Granville physician Dr. Sinnett.

Moody: "There was what he called a mound builder's grave [on Mt.

Parnassus], but there wasn't anything in it, anyway; 1 was present when it was excavated about 1907 or 1908 maybe."

Hooge: "Who was the person who conducted the excavation?"

Moody: Well, Professor White, who was the son-in-law of Dr. Sinnett. Oh, that skeleton was up there in the basement for years. There was a skeleton, they took it out, but it wasn't anything, they just put it in the basement. They were all professional men, and uh, they were going to do something with it, but they just left it in the basement." Hooge: "You don't know what happened to the skeleton after that?" ; ^ I, <ÜCü*(%

Figure 8. View of Mount Parnassus East along Hm Street in Granville, Cir. 1900 (Bud Abott Collection). 99 Moody: "No, but I presume they threw it out after he got dead. His mother-in-law didn't like it in the house anyhow." North of the Mt. Parnassus mound in what was called the Granger

addition (now Granger Street) Bushnell reports another mound. This mound was in the north east quarter of the addition which would place it close to Clear Creek and Welsh Hills Road. A mound also was located in front of the

town hall at about the intersection of Main and Broadway, according to Bushnell.

Two other mounds are shown on Squier's 1848 map on the bluffs above the town where Denison University is located.

Munson Enclosure

A circular enclosure is mentioned by Bushnell overlooking the valley on the south side of the Raccoon Creek and almost in a north south line with

the old Granville Fort. The author says very little about this site, other than

that it was on M. Munson's property and in line with lots three and four of the Granville purchase.

Squier shows a mound in the general area, but his map was not drawn

to any useful scale and was meant to fix the location of sites generally, not specifically. The 1940 aerial photograph (CLX-4A-45) proved to be a useful tool again in locating this site. A trace of half a circle can be seen in an uncultivated field almost exactly where Bushnell's map shows the location to be. The other half of the enclosure is not visible in the cultivated field to the west. To facilitate describing this site in the future, I will refer to it as the Munson enclosure. 100 Whether the trace seen on the aerial photograph is actually the remains of a prehistoric earthwork is, at this point, almost impossible to say. Paul Pacheco conducted a visual survey of the area and found no evidence of

this or any other enclosure or mound on the surface (Pacheco, personal

communication). However, the coincidence of finding this half circle at the edge of a similarly shaped wooded area and at the location specified by Bushnell does lend strength to the argument that this feature is part of an

earthw ork.

Deeds Mound

To the south west of the Munson enclosure on a high point overlooking the entire valley is a mound identified by Hill as being located on the farm of H. J. Little. The mound is recorded at this location on the 1866

atlas (Beers, 1866). More recently, this same mound has been referred to as the Deeds Mound, a reference that will be used in this dissertation.

The Deeds Mound was excavated during the 1930's by Jesse Walker and

John Loughman for A. T. Wehrle. Wehrle was a Newark manufacturer and businessman whose holdings included large tracts of land and oil and gas wells. He is perhaps best known for being half owner (with his brother) of the Newark Stove Works, manufacturers of heating and cooking stoves. I interviewed Jesse Walker on several occasions over a period of almost five years. Walker passed away in 1989 at the age of 88. Concerning the Deeds Mound, Walker remembers some details of the excavation: Hooge: "You know the house near Granville that's built on top of a mound, what's the name of that mound? Was it the Deeds Mound?" 101 Walker: "Oh, up there on the other side of Granville, a house is built on that. That's where I found that skull, cut off and made a bowl out of it, been cut off all around here and all browned. There was a spring down below there with some of that potters clay, so 1 sealed all the cracks there was

on that one and A. T. came up there on one Sunday, bringin' a pack of beer, all iced. So I went and got that cup, 1 said 'wait till 1 get my cup', and uh, that skull, and poured the beer in it like this, and A. T. just shook his head; I said 'that won't hurt you' and drank the beer.

That was Adena mound too, you know where its at? It's up there by Granville on the back road where you come up and go up on to of the hill, it

lays right on top; and you talk about hard digging, that one, that's the hardest ones we ever had to, you had to dig and pick, they had puddles of clay; like this, it had streaks where they'd puddled that clay there in the bottom, and

there were fourteen burials in there, one place, and part of em had been cremated."

Hooge: "Did you ever find any cores or blades in Adena Mounds?"

Walker: "In the Deeds Mound, a few in the Deeds Mound, the blades was all rough though, I wouldn't even call 'em blades, I call 'em plates, but they was sharp. There was a bundle burial in the top of it and an old obsidian core in that. It's intrusive too. We got around thirty willo leaf spears out of that one and one Celt was partially finished and that was about all, we didn't get very much, we didn't get any copper."

Hooge: "Which mounds did you find the com in?" Walken "In the Deeds Mound. John found that, hit it with a pick and it all went to fragments, but we picked it up, had been com, an ear of com charred. Nothing surrounding that one, no pottery, there was a burial pretty 102 close to it. Ain't it funny they built that house - you ever talk to them people at Deeds?" Hooge: "The lady in the trailer next door had a masons jar full of bone fragments and teeth, that's all." Walken "See, we never took stuff like that out, A.T. wouldn't stand for that. I did get some skulls for a museum in Buffalo, New York." The mound, as mentioned above, had a house built on it sometime after

Walker and John Loughman had excavated it. The basement of the house was sunk into the mound. Such was the fate of the Deeds Mound.

Reservoir Mound

The possible location of the Reservoir Mound found on both the 1930

aerial (shown as circular) and the 1989 aerial (shown as a dark spot) was checked in the field in October of 1992. The site could not be easily approached from Milner Road so the road through Erinwood Estates was used

instead. This part of Erinwood Estates has not been developed leaving the potential mound site untouched.

To the east of the site about 200 feet, two utilities cut through the

property, a high tension electric service cuts through with two power poles placed on the Erinwood or south side of the Milner Road. A propane gas line uses the same path under the electric line. It is fortunate that the placement of these services did not disturb the site. It was not expected that the mound would still have any relief, and there was some question as to whether this was even the mound site.

However, after inspecting the site, there was no question left concerning the interpretation of the aerial photographs. The mound stood out clearly still 103 about 2 1/2 feet in height at the center and about 50 feet in diameter. It was built on the edge of a bluff above the drainage that ran from northwest toward the "reservoir" site to the southeast. The site is currently in grass and clover and has not been cultivated for six or seven years. There is no record of this site having been excavated. In fact, there are few records of excavations for most of the mounds in Licking County.

Hill records that the mound was still intact in 1881, but Bushnell does not

mention the site. Warren K. Moorehead was busy digging up mound sites in the area after 1885 and he may have done something with this site, but it is

not clear and he left no record that is presently known, although it may be

with his papers archived at the Philips Academy in Andover, Massachusetts.

It is also possible that the mound was simply plowed down from its reported height of approximately 15 feet (Hill, 1881). However, it is unusual that Bushnell neglects to report the mound in 1889, possibly indicating the demise of the mound prior to that date.

The 1940 aerial photographs show no trace of the mound; however, the 1930 series aerial photograph of the area east of Granville provides evidence. Hill says the mound was north of the "reservoir" on Lot #2 of the Granville purchase. This would place the mound close to Milner Road. A dark circle with a dark spot in the center is located along the road just north of the area referred to as the 'reservoir' and about 1/4 mile east of Jones Road and one lot

#2 where Hill says it should be situated. The mark is very distinct and would be approximately 40-50 feet in diameter which is what Hill and Bushnell say the diameter of the mound was. 104 Reservoir IPond) Site

The "reservoir" site was visually checked by this writer at the same time as the Reservoir Mound. Hill notes that the mound was northeast of a

pond-like depression and toward the east edge of Lot Two. Today the only wetland area is on the extreme east edge of Lot Two and extends some distance onto lot 1. The area is surrounded by brush and young trees on the perimeter

and filled with aquatic plants, mostly cat tail with sedges along the edge. The western part of the drainage area on Lot Two is lower and does appear to have been a pond at one time.

According to Hill, the wetland should be west and south of the mound not east and south. The drainage stain on the 1930 aerial photograph shows a dark circular spot, southwest of the mound site. This bulge in the stain is approximately where Hill states the reservoir should be located, perhaps extending somewhat further to the west. If this bulge represents the location of the reservoir, then the mound is located where Hill places it.

The soil in the drainage area where this feature lies has a wide and very dark stain that begins north of Milner Road and crosses onto Lot Three and extends southeast across all of Lot Two and onto Lot One. This dark patch of soil exhibits the same characteristics as a wetland would on an aerial photo. This was an important drainage until it was tiled leaving only the pond described above on Lots One and Two. The builders may have constructed a dam approximately where the bulge is and backed the water up on the slightly sloping topography. It is difficult to imagine exactly what Hill saw because the land has been adapted to meet the needs of individuals who wished to cultivate the land. 105 Munson Spring Mound

Research on the Murphy property resulted in the discovery of another mound. In all probability, this mound would never have been discovered because its elevation was so imperceivable from the contour of the surrounding topography. The Munson Spring Mound, unfortunately, is the only thoroughly studied and dated mound in the study area, at least in terms of the internal structure and nature of the site.

Other Mounds

Bushnell (1889) states that there are 12 or more mounds in the vicinity of the crescent mound. Hill (1881) and Bushnell (1889) both emphasize that the study area had been under cultivation since the early years of the nineteenth century and as a result many, if not most, of the remnants of the prehistoric built environment of the area had been reduced to, or almost to, the level of the surrounding land. The Munson Spring Mound survived because it was at the bottom of steeply sloping terrain and the area had been used almost exclusively for grazing cattle and not for crops.

Parks (1870) speculates that within the townships in and around Granville there were hundreds of burial mounds:

I do not believe that within the bounds of my research there can be found a single fifty acre lot that cannot be viewed from some one or more of these artificial mounds. I have examined the location of more than one hundred and have not found a single exception to the rule that each one is so situated as to command a view, more or less of which cannot be seen from any other, except in a few instances where they were double or in pairs. This rule, however, would not hold good where they are found on a level plain in clusters, which is sometimes the case (p. 41). 1 0 6 The mounds that survived cultivation or other destructive forces employed by our contemporary society are few, however aerial photographs can frequently assist in the location of mounds and earthworks, especially if their approximately location is known. This has been demonstrated several

times already in this dissertation.

The Old Granville Fort

Description

Squier and Davis (1848), Parks (1870, Hill (1881), Moorehead (1886), and Bushnell (1889) all discuss and describe a site referred to as "The Old

Granville Fort," "The Old Fort," "Fort Hill," or Fortified Hill near Granville. The latter descriptive reference was used first in the literature by Squier and Davis. For the purpose of this dissertation the site shall be referred to as the

Old Granville Fort in order to eliminate confusion with the Great Circle (also occasionally referred to as the old fort) at Newark. The Old Granville Fort (33 Li 6) is located on the Newark Quadrangle 0

.6 miles north of the Newark-Granville Road (Co. Rd. 539), immediately west of Jones Road (Twp. Rd 126). The site was developed for housing in the late 1970's by William Wright. Rees Road (Twp. Rd. 826) now bisects the site east and west while Thomas Road (Twp. Rd. 827) parallels the site's western wall running north and south. Approximately 95% of the site lies within the Wright development while the remainder extends slightly north onto property owned by Fanchon Lewis. / / . n. IÎ (>tfc ri 'J » h r r f .:•> Ii: .if/ ^ n r,ri//ir/i\ K U l \ " - ' / / (k Iic r /-■■■ i - I- s’""

f, r/ h (I r t h o n :(r.j*iffilh

WWrlii ns I

Iliitihrs I'ntnrrttif

•(•.li.tftih nsf>/t '

r z/z

n . n: n D 'u <■• n) ^Crr,

Figure 9. Map of Granville and Township Area from the 1875 Licking County Atlas. Figure 10. 1940 Aerial Photograph (CLX-4A-45) showing the study area and surrounding Granville Township. § Figure 11. 1940 Aerial Photograph (CLX-4A-47) showing Granville and areas both North and East. Figure 12. 1940 Aerial Photograph (CLX-4A-47) showing Earthwork Remnants visible at that time. I l l The first description and plan (Figure 13) of the Old Granville Fort in the literature is by Squier and Davis (1848). The site is referred to as "Fortified Hill, near Granville, Licking County, Ohio." Squier and Davis describe the site in some detail:

It encloses the summit of a high hill, and embraces an area not far from eighteen acres. The embankment is, for the most part, carried around the hill at a considerable distance below its brow, and is completely overlooked from every portion of the enclosed area. Unlike all other hill-works which have fallen under notice, the ditch occurs 'outside' of the wall; the earth in the construction of the latter having been thrown upwards and inwards...The height of the wall varies at different places; where the declivity is gentle and the approach easy, it is highest, perhaps eight or ten feet from the bottom of the ditch; elsewhere it is considerably less. It is interrupted by three gateways, two of which open towards springs of water, and the other, or principal one, upon a long narrow spur, which subsides gradually into the valley of Raccoon Creek, affording a comparatively easy ascent (p. 24).

Several features within the walls of the enclosure are described. One is a small circle 100 feet in diameter within which there were two small mounds. Slightly north of the circle is a single truncated mound. The mounds within the enclosure are said to have contained altars. This information is based on excavations the authors apparently had conducted. They continue:

No enduring remains seem to have been deposited upon these altars, which were covered with ashes, intermixed with small fragments of pottery...lf we concede, what can hardly admit of doubt, that the minor structure had a sacred or superstitious origin, we must of necessity arrive at the conclusion that the altars of the ancient people sometimes accompanied their defenses (pp. 24, 25).

The Old Granville Fort is classified by the authors as "one of the

Newark group." Squier and Davis believed that many of the enclosures they 112

VWIIft: ■ " ' '"J

SioUH(/

S«’viion .

I'C i> r> i}t< !ii( Il

■ C! t-'-i ‘ ‘

S L A

\ f// I , r*/ 4i / f/ ft //.'I ' ' Figure 13. Old Granville Fort from Squier and Davis 1848. 1 1 3 surveyed and described were defensive in nature and that the country around Newark was once densely populated. The illustration of this earthwork provided by the authors indicates that the wall of the earthwork on the extreme west side did extend down over the edge of the hill some distance. Unfortunately, more detail is not provided and one is left to speculate about some aspects of the construction now that most of the walls have been destroyed by development, agriculture or the natural effects of erosion over perhaps two thousand years.

James H. Salisbury (1862), who wrote a thorough description of the

Newark works, only mentioned the "Old Granville Fort" while describing the "Alligator Mound." "To the northeast upon the summit of the next main spur is an irregular Hill Fort enclosing about seven acres within which is a circular enclosure containing two mounds." From this description one could speculate that Salisbury never actually visited the Old Granville Fort. He illustrated almost every other site described, but for one reason or another neglects this one. Parks (1870) provides some additional information. He states:

On the top of this hill we found a fort enclosing some fourteen sixteen acres of land, and in the middle of it another with a deep moat inside of the wall, which was less than one hundred feet in diameter. The inside of this is considerably elevated, but appears to have been dug down by some person seeking for treasure or curiosities.

It is all lost labor to seek in such places for treasure or valuable jewels, for they are not there. These works were raised for no such purpose. There may be found a few trinkets, placed there with the dead, a thousand years since the erection of the mounds... we shall assume that they are the monuments civil government, but little of military or mortuary character about them, and will try our theory by the works themselves and leave it to others to judge of its plausibility (p. 38). 114 The author describes the mound based on observations he made while on a visual survey of the area. He presented his observations, findings and opinions to a joint meeting of the Pioneer Associations of Franklin, Muskingum and Licking Counties in 1870. One of the most prolific writers of Ohio history was N. N. Hill, Jr. (1881). Hill devotes considerable space in his Historv of Licking Countv to

the topic of archaeology, and about the Old Granville Fort he says:

...east of the crescent and about the same distance and upon a 'spur' of the bluffs, on the 'Fort Hill' of McCune farm is one of the most wonderful of all the ancient works in this section — wonderful from its size, peculiar shape and internal arrangement. It is situated upon lots five and six of the Granville Purchase, extends a little into the Welsh Hills Purchase, and was evidently intended, from its outer side ditch and high embankment, as a military work. Even to this day the embankment is in place, measuring from the bottom of the ditch to the top of the embankment, ten feet in height, though generally it is much lower than this; but when first erected it must have been a work of considerable magnitude. It encloses about fifty acres of ground. The embankment, evidently a breastwork, is a perfect piece of engineering skill, following closely the sinusitis of the brow of the hill, and wherever there is a ditch or depression in the hill, the embankment is higher than in other places. Conforming as it does to the form of in other places. Conforming as it does to the form of the surface of the hill it is irregular in shape (p. 427).

Interior Features

Hill notes that there are two circular works within the enclosure which had been plowed down considerably, but were at that time (1881) still three or four feet in height. Both circles are said to be continuous and without any breaks in the walls. The circle to the east is said to contain two small mounds, "or lookout stations," aligned in an east-west orientation just as the two circles themselves are noted to be. The circles are placed on the highest part of the hill and near its northern extremity, or at least somewhat 115 north of the center of the work. Hill concludes, "The whole surface of the hill is under cultivation, and this great work of antiquity is slowly disappearing in consequence" (p. 427). Moorehead may have excavated this site while a student at Denison University. He describes the "butterfly" mound in his correspondence with

the Smithsonian Institution.

Besides Squier and Davis the only reference to an archaeological investigation in the Old Granville Fort is that of work done by E P. Appy in 1887 1Granville Times. 1887). Appy presented his findings before the Licking

County Pioneer Association at the Newark Fair Grounds (Moundbuilders Park), July 13, 1887. Appy's comments were brief and minimal, but

interesting.

From a mound within the 'Fort' on the McCune farm near Granville I exhumed the entire skeleton of a bison (Bos Americanns). The bones are in a good state of preservation.

Appy excavated several mounds in the Granville area, but left no field notes or records of his work. The bison discovery is significant, but these remains and any other materials discovered on the McCune farm, or from any of Appy's other digs, also appeau" to have been lost.

Bushnell (1889) provides a brief description of "Fort Hill." Bushnell states:

It (Fort Hill) follows in outline the curvature of the hill-top, but is very nearly a circle. It is about 970 feet across, enclosing about 17 acres, with embankments 6 feet high, made by throwing the dirt upward and inward. Southwest from the fort, on the point of the hill, and 50 rods distant, was a stone mound about six feet high and eighteen feet wide. This mound has been destroyed by the quarrying of stone underneath it. As it fell from time to time, into the quarry, it was found to be full of bits of 1 1 6 charcoal throughout. The western and northwestern openings of the fort looked each toward a copious spring of water (p. 10).

It is obvious that Bushnell has read the description in Squier and Davis ( 1848), but he does not appear to have visited the site personally, and

mentions on page ten that "a brief description of these works is due to the memory of those who first made this ground historic." One can see that the

site is not circular, but heart shaped. Bushnell makes no mention of the mounds within the enclosure, however, he adds new information about the stone mound at the southwest end of the ridge.

Bushnell's 1889 description of the Old Granville Fort appears to be the last that contributes in any substantial way to our understanding of the site. Although Hill makes a plea for the earthworks’ preservation and all the authors seem to be impressed with the site in general, no effort is made to preserve it and it was eventually plowed to a very low relief and forgotten by all but a few. Moorehead (1886) mentions the Old Granville Fort in the American

Antiquarian. His description offers little in the way of new or important

information. However, Moorehead does describe the mound inside the interior circular enclosure as an effigy "in the shape of a butterfly, or double bladed mace" (p. 297). No one else sees the mound as the feature described by Moorehead. Parks does mention in 1870 that this feature had been dug into and defaced by treasure seekers. Perhaps the shape was altered enough so that by 1886 it appeared to be, as Moorehead describes, an effigy.

There is not complete agreement among the authors, whose descriptions are presented above, about the size of the earthwork or the exact 117 configuration of the complex itself. The acreage varies from seven to 50, but Squier and Davis seem to be about right at approximately 18. The acreage is difficult to compute because most of the walls have disappeared and the shape

itself offers some challenges when one tries to accurately determine the internal volume in acreage. Hill and Squier and Davis differ in their placement of the two internal works. In addition, Hill describes both as circular enclosures, while Squier

and Davis note one as circular and the other as a truncated mound. The 1940

aerial photograph (LX-4A-47) from the Licking County Soil Conservation

Office sheds some light on the mystery. Both works appear clearly on the photograph. The southern-most feature is a circle while the one in the northeast looks more like a mound. It is possible that the northern-most mound was cratered by treasure hunters, or perhaps in part by Squier and

Davis when they investigated the site in 1847. Squier and Davis clearly show the northern feature as a mound on their illustrations of the site, but digging

into the center of the mound combined with cultivation may have created a circular feature which Hill then comments on later in 1881. Parks reports that the small circular earthwork was elevated at the center, but not identifiable as two separate mounds. Perhaps the two small mounds had been so disturbed by 1871 that they appeared as a singular feature.

Stone Mound

The Stone Mound reported by Bushnell is a significant addition to the earthwork complex in general. Although it lies outside of the main enclosure it should still be included as part of the whole site. The mound was 118 situated at the end of the ridge and just beyond the opening at the southwestern end of the enclosure, that portion of the hill that Squier and Davis note as providing the easiest access to the site. This mound could have been destroyed prior to Squier and Davis' investigation and Bushnell may have acquired the information about this mound through an informant in

one of his interviews. The idea that the Old Granville Fort or other earthworks of a similar nature were forts or defensive structures has no foundation in the archaeological record. However, it does seem likely that these sites were

connected to the ceremonial and mortuary practices of the Early and Middle Woodland people. Evidence of burned stone and charcoal could indicate

cremation or could have resulted from the burning of a ceremonial structure (Webb and Snow, 1974; Dragoo, 1963).

Personal Observations

My introduction to this site in 1983 was through Richard Stallings. Stallings was an employee of William Wright, the individual who had

purchased most of the Jones estate at the sheriffs sale in 1975. The Wright purchase included Lots Five through Ten of the original Granville Purchase. The Old Granville Fort lies on Lot Five (and a small portion of four along Jones Road at the south west intersection with Milner Road).

This first visit to the site occurred in June of 1983. Although the site had already been developed and three houses had been constructed on the interior portion of the enclosure, some sections of the original walls could still be traced along Jones Road (across the Smith property) (Figure 14) and onto the Lewis property to the north. In the winter or early spring when 119 the grass is low one can see the low relief of the wall on Lewis property close to the fence that separates the Wright development from the Lewis property. Stallings pointed out two possible sections of wall in the woods at the western extreme of the site. No trace of the internal circle or mound could be found. By 1984 research in the Raccoon Creek drainage had become a cooperative effort between the Licking County Archaeology and Landmarks Society and members of the Anthropology Department at the Ohio State

University. LCALS had also received a grant from the Ohio Arts Council/Ohio Humanities Council Joint Program for the Built Environment in 1984 to expand its archaeological resource study to include most of Licking County.

The focus of this study was directed at the prehistoric-built environment, or

mounds, earthworks, and habitation sites of the Early and Middle Woodland occupants of the region.

A main priority of this 1984 study was to identify and locate sites in the Raccoon and Licking drainage. This was to be accomplished through a literature search, informant's interviews, and the examination of sites in the field. Kent Bowser, a photographer from Santa Fe, New Mexico and an OSU graduate, was given the task documenting these sites photographically.

The 1984 study produced resources that were invaluable to this research. One of these resources was the 1930 aerial photographic collection of Licking County. These large photographs had been kept in drawers at the

Licking County engineers office and were used infrequently, but were kept for reference work when needed.

Photographs A-2296 of the 1930 series (the first flight for Licking

County conducted by the Federal Government) clearly shows a section of the Figure 14. House located at the Southeast Comer of the Old Granville Fort (Hooge). 121 main enclosure wall from the Old Granville Fort that cuts diagonally southeast to the property just west of Jones Road and then follows Jones Road a short distance north. The small circle is barely visible and the mound to its

north can't be clearly seen at all. The 1940 series of aerial photographs provide far more detailed information. Photo LX-4A-47 clearly shows the same wall section along the southeast perimeter of the earthwork, the small circular enclosure and the mound to its northeast. With this information I was able to project the 1940 aerial photographic information onto the most recent county aerial photograph taken in 1989 by Photogrammetric Services, Inc. of Columbus, Ohio. In 1985 I spoke with Bill Wright about this site. He said he was totally unaware that there was any earthwork or significant archaeology in that area when he stated the project in 1977. Stallings had not become an employee of Wright's until after the project had been completed, lots sold and houses constructed. No local or state organization had provided information or advice for Wright at the time he was developing the property.

I visited two houses in the Wright development in 1985 and asked the owners if they had found any artifacts when their homes were being built.

Both the Smiths and the Kosanchecks had collections of artifacts from their sites. These collections consisted of flint debatage, bifaces, and several projectile points almost all of which were Early Woodland stemmed types including both cresap and Robbins types (Justice 1987). Both the Smith (Figure 14) and Kosanchecks (Figure 15) homes are built on the higher ground within the enclosure. 1 interviewed Mrs.

Kosanchecks in 1985. She said they had no idea that they were building on 122 an old prehistoric site; Smiths had no knowledge of the sites' past either. At the time each party was interviewed they said they had no knowledge of the site's prehistoric significance. The Kosanchecks property and house now are owned by Thomas Sunkle who, when interviewed, said he had heard nothing about the site's significance archaeologically. Mr. Sunkle indicated that he had little

knowledge concerning the prehistory of the area and was only moderately interested in the subject.

I never saw the site undeveloped and have not spoken to anyone else who has. Consequently there is no basis to compare the before and after, as was done with the old Munson (Murphy) property on Lots Two and Three

and Lot Ten (Bob Kent/Alligator Mound) and Lots Six through Nine (William Wright). However, the county aerial photographs from 1940 and 1989 provide a very graphic view of the overlay from rural landscape to urban development. The western half of the enclosure wall lies in the wooded area downslope from the crest of the hill. This area does not show on the aerial photograph due to the foliage, but traces of the wall can be seen north of the Schuster home and south of the Lewis property. A slight rise along Thomas

Lane north east of the Frey home may be part of the terminating portion of the west wall at its southern most extension. The Schuster home sits below the extension of the west wall and the home's entry drive bisects the wall at one point. The McConnell home is situation approximately on the site of the west wall. The Frey home is located south west of the wall and outside of the enclosure. The Bascom home is situated at the southern point of the hill and very close to the location where ; -T' = ' " '

'‘.‘ '-r./|V 1>,1

Figure 15. House located on small circular enclosure and mounds at The Old Granville Fort (Hooge). Ü 124 Bushnell says the stone mound was located. The Hardy home sits along the southern edge of the east wall where the wall curves toward the south west and to its terminal point. The driveway and landscape excavation at the Hardy's interrupted the wall at this point. The Smith home is located within the enclosure and does not disturb any known feature of the earthwork.

The home built by Mel Kosancheck is situated directly over the southeastern comer of the small circular enclosure that reportedly had two small mounds within it. At least one half of this small earthwork and its interior area have been destroyed by the Kosancheck house. Grading for the home does not appear to have impacted all of the site because the balance of the circle shows up faintly in the 1989 aerial photograph. Rees Road bisects the eastern wall of the main earthwork and Thomas

Road has eliminated the terminal end of both the east and west walls.

Visible remains of the main earthwork that can still be seen in relief exist on the Smith property, the Lewis property and in small sections on Schusters and McConnells . As one enters the development from Jones Road a section of wall can be seen along the fence row paralleling Jones Road on

Smith's land. Another barely visible section of wall is also located on Smith's land in the north east corner where the wall turns to the north west and enters the Lewis property. The walls on the Lewis property although visible were not thoroughly traced and some questions remain concerning the extent of the preservation in that area.

Short sections of the west wall, now almost level with the ground can still be found in the wooded area between the houses. 125 Areas where truncated wall sections may still remain are the Smiths property where the wall leaves the fence row parallel to Jones Road and traverses southeast across the yard to Rees Road. Another section of the east wall may exist in a truncated state between Thomas Road and the Hardy home. The truncated mound described by Squier and Davis shows up as a

white area slightly northeast of the former Kosancheck home (Sunkle). The truncated remainder of the small circle has already been described. The reason that any of this earthwork complex still exists is due to the fact that lots in the township had to be five acres. If one acre or even two

acre sites had been permitted by the zoning regulations, the site might have been completely destroyed.

The Alligator Mound

O verview

The best known of the mounds and earthworks in the Granville area is the Alligator Mound. The mound has been described extensively (Hooge,

1988; Hooge, 1992; Squier and Davis, 1848) (Figure 16), and numerous efforts

have been made to preserve it (Hooge, 1992). However, the circumstance of its preservation is important to this dissertation because it characterizes the problems that archaeological preservation has faced generally in the Granville area. Consult Hooge (1988 and 1992) for an in-depth study of the mound and its preservation dilemma. The Alligator Mounds significance to this dissertation extends beyond its preservation history. The Alligator, and the Great Serpent Mound in

Adams County, Ohio are two of the best known and most frequently speculated about earthworks in the Ohio Valley. They are also the two most significant 126 effigy mounds in Ohio. It is possible that the Alligator Mound survived only because of its uniqueness and a kind of reverence that some individuals have had for it in the past. Individuals like Minnie Hite Moody, Smucker and others wrote about the mound and helped to keep it from falling into almost

total obscurity like the Granville Circle, and the Old Granville Fort and other important geometric enclosures.

Although the Alligator Mound is itself unique among the mounds in

Ohio, the significance of the site in part lies in contemporary societies response to it. The first individuals to document the mound felt compelled to

speculate about its meaning (see Squier and Davis, 1848). Later individuals

saw the mound as art (Brown, 1986; Feet, 1886; lippard, 1984). It is with the Alligator Mound and perhaps the Great Serpent Mound that contemporary writers and intellectuals began to speculate about the aesthetics of the moundbuilders. Unfortunately as was discussed in Chapter I, Euro-Americans in general never saw the earthworks themselves for an important expression of aesthetics in prehistory.

I have included information about the "meaning of the Alligator Mound" here to provide a point from which one might begin to see all of the earthworks in a new light. Minnie Hite Moody's insights about the mound are unique and demonstrate the relationship that this individual has maintained with the mound for most of her life. My personal reflections on the mound and comments concerning its demise are included in the final chapter. 'W- ■"''■***

<■ t l i u i l .

,7 - ///; OHKl. h .// \y///,V t i n t / . I f . Jhf t ' rA'// / 1 v;/ r

Figure 16. Alligator Mound from Squier and Davis 1848. 128 Theories About The Meaning of Zoomorphic Artifacts Theories about zoomorphic artifacts in general may provide some basis for understanding the Alligator Mound. Brose (1986) suggests that naturalistically curved and molded effigy pipes and statuettes of the Middle Woodland period reflect group beliefs and practices that were shared, '...they

were widely perceived as carrying a powerful and commonly accepted

ideological message concerning relationships between society and the

natural and supernatural worlds" (Brose, 1986, p. 67). Brose, Brown, and Penney (1986) speculate on the relationship of world view and cosmology in prehistoric North American societies. He explains that the artistic continuities that have survived over several millennia are used ". . .to describe the complexities and mysteries of a religious concept of a world during moments of social and personal ritual" (p. 180). The universe for Native Americans, according to Penney's hypothesis was perceived as being a layered structure composed of three parts: the celestial vault of the sky world, the humans terrestrial world, and the watery underworld. The sky and the underworld are represented by birds and underwater monsters. Humans act to maintain a balance between both worlds to preserve health and well-being. Both the sky forces represented by birds and the underwater forces represented by mythical monsters can be manipulated or used by people to achieve success in healing, hunting, war, or sorcery (Penney, 1986).

It would certainly be conjecture if we tried to place the Alligator Mound within this particular world view, given that we know very little about the world view of the mound builders. One can speculate that the Figure 17. Old Photograph of the Alligator Mound and Hill, note elm tree in Old Quarry Pit - Cir. 1900 (The Ohio Historical Society). 130 mound, like a messenger, might have been linked to one of these other worlds of the prehistoric Native American. Like that of the Great Serpent, its position on a high point overlooking a broad expense might have been thought to facilitate interaction with the upper world or with the world

below. Penney continues:

Images of celestial birds and underwater monsters, serving as metaphorical references to the powers of the sky and underworld, have functioned as symbols of special status or as ceremonial objects made to be manipulated during episodes of religious ritual. In all cases these images refer to religious mysteries and powers beyond man's everyday experience (Penney, 1986, p. 183).

Pipes for smoking appear to have had importance for religious and ceremonial purposes among prehistoric Native Americans (as they have been among historic Native Americans past and present). They can be physically manipulated simply by burning organic material of some kind in them, thus producing smoke. The Alligator Mound may also have been manipulated, perhaps metaphorically, in a similar way. The creators of the mound had constructed an "altar" described by early researchers as having stones showing signs of having been burned (Squier and Davis, 1848; Smucker, 1875b); this would have produced smoke. Again, it is somewhat conjectural to assume a purpose similar to that of a pipe, but given the evidence provided by Penney, one could speculate (on a limited basis) on such a similarity of purpose.

Brose, Brown, and Penney (1986) point out that monster representations have been found in burial mounds at the Turner Site in Hamilton County and also are present in historic Native American mythology. The original form of the Alligator Mound has been badly eroded. 131 so it is not known whether it formerly had identifiable physical traits that would have defined it more definitely as a monster. The possibility that the mound represented an underworld monster is simply a possibility; there is no way of knowing this. Peet (1886) discussed whether zoomorphic artifacts are symbolic or

simply imitative. He considered them to be art, as do Brose (1986), Brown (1986), and Penney (1986). The Alligator Mound as art, artifact, or aesthetic object on the landscape will be discussed later in this chapter. Peet expresses

the opinion that animal figures, including effigy mounds, often have religious sentiment connected to them. The animal being represented does not have to be perfectly reproduced to induce the desired response. Peet

bases his assumptions on speculation and the religious practices of historic Native American groups.

Archaeologists such as Brose (1986), Brown (1986), and Penney (1986) are not the only individuals who have made statements about the prehistoric built environment. Artists, architects, scientists in fields other than archaeology, and some educators also comment from their own perspectives on the mounds. Art critic Lucy Lippard admits that some of what she has to say about prehistory is based upon speculation that she and others writers have proposed. She says she tried to balance speculation with archaelogically sound information (Lippard, 1983).

Lippard visited the Alligator Mound in 1985 with this researcher. She commented that both the space it occupies and the space it overlooks are as important as the mound itself, because they are inseparable and related through the builders' intent. Lippard states, "The marks [i.e., mounds, lines, 132 earthworks, etc.], intentional or random, reveal the symbolic nature of man's relationship with the landscape" (cited in Bridges, 1986). Is the Alligator Mound artifact, art, or aesthetic object on the landscape or all of the above? Brose et al. (1986) and other contemporary archaeologists view mounds more as artifacts and seldom comment on them

beyond their existence as archaeological features. Marilyn Bridges (1986)

sees the prehistoric built environment as existing in harmony with the landscape, while modem people manipulate the landscape and impose alien forms upon it. Linda Conner (1988) agrees that the mounds not only exist in a more harmonious way than most of our historic structures, but the mounds

also exist in a very fragile way with contemporary culture. When asked how she viewed the Alligator Mound, she said she considered it to be prehistoric art. Like Lippard, Conner believes that the space surrounding a prehistoric mound or panel of prehistoric inscriptions on rock is intimately related to the work of art itself. Placing fences, barriers, or obstructions around them destroys their natural and humanly imposed integrity (Linda Conner, personal communication, 1988).

Not all artists or art critics would consider prehistoric monuments such as the Alligator Mound to be art. Some individuals in the field of art, such as Lippard and Conner, do consider at least some parts of the prehistoric built environment to be art in a contemporary sense. Lucy Lippard (1983) devotes her book Overlav to the discussion of the relationship between the art of prehistory and that of contemporary society.

The question, as Lippard points out, is not so much one of definition as it is one of meaning. To call the Alligator Mound simply a piece of art places it into the classification of museum hanging art or sculptures on pedestals. The 133 Alligator Mound is what it is mostly because of where it is and who built it. It cannot be separated from its place and survive the dislocation, either physically or aesthetically. It is permanent, and that permanency of place is its strength.

Lippard (1983) believes that the symbolism intended in prehistoric art, although not necessarily understood by the contemporary viewer, still

provides an inner strength to the work that is felt and can be responded to.

Contemporary artists are becoming increasingly sensitive to the symbolic relationship they have to place that are no longer understood in explicit

terms. "Even if we as individuals are cut off from any commercial belief

system of any collective work system, something seems to flow back to us through these places — which we see perhaps as symbols of lost symbols, apprehended, but not specifically comprehended in our socioreligious context" (p. 8). The contemporary artist responds to a prehistoric site that may result in a contemporary metaphor on a prehistoric metaphor. Michelle Stuart actually uses soil and stones from various archaeological sites (but only with permission) as part of her contemporary work. Both Stuart and Dennis

Oppenheim (Lippard, 1983) try to make statements about our culture that are intended to have meaning and to make a social statement rather than to simply provide a visual experience.

Henry Glassie (1986) tries to define folk art in clearer terms and to place it in perspective and on equal footing with modem art. I found his discussion useful for helping to discuss the Alligator Mound. Glassie begins by stating that folk art needs to be understood and appreciated within its own 134 environment: . .a universal definition of folk art will never be derived from collections of objects assembled to meet the sensibilities and needs of the modem western bourgeoisie. . .Art represents a triple reality: It is personal (aesthetic), social (ethical), and aware of human limitations (teleological)” (Ulach & Bonner, 1986, pp. 269-70). If a work or project, individual or communal, achieves these three realities, then it can be

considered art. Glassie continues:

The result of artful action is a work that can be sensed by others. It becomes a communication. As a communication, the work is an element in a cooperative action within which the creator discovers the value of responsibility and the creation becomes a social fact, an aid to the construction and betterment of the creator's community. . .gathering the individual into its creation, arriving as a communication among people, referring beyond to the all, a project claims the power we have built into the word art (1986, p. 270).

The description of prehistoric art that lippard provides fit Glassie's

definition, especially in regard to the elements of the ethical and the teleological. Both individuals see the problems of ethnocentrism in defining

art. The dichotomies of individualistic versus communal, progressive versus conservative, and secular versus sacred present problems in viewing and describing what another culture has done artistically.

How contemporary society sees or defines the Alligator Mound could

be related to how it has been treated. The artists that have taken to see the mound are always impressed by it as a larger reality than its mere physical presence would dictate. They speak about its relationship with its surroundings, the probable importance that it had to its builders as a sacred thing, and its potential for stimulating contemporary society artistically and intellectually. 135 Archaeologists, artists, and people with varying backgrounds and education respond to prehistoric built sites like the Alligator Mound. It is important that the mound remains undisturbed so that it is there for

everyone to respond to in their own way now and for future generations.

Speculation About The Mound

Speculation in the literature concerning the Alligator Mound begins, at least as far as we know, with Squier and Davis. This speculation about the origin, purpose, or function of the mound continues even today. As was

pointed out earlier, individuals still insist that the mound represents this or that four-legged creature.

Squier and Davis comment on the function of the mound in prehistory stating:

It seems more than probable that singular effigy, like that last described, has its origin in the superstitions of its makers. It was perhaps the high place where sacrifices were made, or stated on extraordinary occasions and where the ancient people gathered to celebrate the rights of their unknown worship. Its positions, and all the circumstances attending to it, certainly favor such conclusions (pp. 99-100).

Most writers, including Smucker, believe that the mound was important as a lookout point. Smucker points out that ten or more mounds would have been within view and that if one cuts down the trees on the neighboring hill to the south east, one could have been the Newark works from the Alligator Mound (Smucker, 1882).

Frederick Larkin, M.D. speculates wildly about the mound in his book Ancient Men in America (1880). To Larkin the mound is the effigy of an 136 "alligator." Larkin's description is so wildly speculative it is worth repeating if for nothing else than entertaining reading.

Why those ancient people should construct an effigy at so much cost of labor of one of the most contemptible animals that crawls upon the face of the earth is truly wonderful. The Reverend Mr. Maclean is of the opinion that the altar of burnt stones points to its having once been devoted to human sacrifice by the action of fire. That might be the case...some have suggested that those symbolic structures, which represent such low and degraded animals were devoted to the punishment and destruction of heretics... It has been the custom with nearly all religions to inflict upon unbelievers in the true faith the most excruciating torture which their fiendish cruelty could devise and degrade the heretic even below the vilest of animals... it is very likely that some of the intellectual of their race threw off their shackles of ignorance by which they were bound and denied the gods...even females, that gentle sex whose very nature overflows with benevolence and sympathy, have looked with composure upon a heretic chained to a stake and withering in consuming fire (pp. 164-166).

Fowke (1902) describes writers like Larkin as wondermongers and points out that they do more damage than good with their ridiculous claims. Today, work like Larkin's generally appears in the National Enquirer.

The most intellectual account pertaining to effigy mounds in general and the Alligator Mound in particular comes from Feet's Religious Character of the Emblematic Mounds (1884). He bases his conclusions on four sources of evidence: the location of the mounds, the particular conformation of the effigies to the surroundings, the relative position of the effigies, and the contents of the mounds. In considering the potential use and meaning of an effigy mound. Feet suggests that location could represent several purposes, including signal mounds, beacons, burial places, lookouts, or spiritual guardians. 137 Peet prefers the theory that the mounds were more directly related to religious practice or purpose: "The fact that the effigies are so connected with the scenery as to give the idea that there was a kind of nature religion which prevailed among the builders of them" (1884, p. 394). Peet states that

the sense of beauty felt by prehistoric people was the same in everyone and

that the intensity of their experience living in such a natural and beautiful environment must have caused them to create their religion around this love of beauty and natural things.

That animals were considered divinities was logical to Peet, and for the prehistoric people to place the effigies in conspicuous places on the landscape only made sense. Location, animal semblance, and supernatural power were unified in the effigy mound. Peet tries to support his theory by making references to similar situations among existing Native American peoples. He uses, among others, the Pacific Northwest and Navajo groups as examples. Peet concludes that the location of mounds like the Alligator provides them with an air of sacredness. He also concludes that evidence in

Ohio and in Wisconsin confirms that the mounds were places of sacrifice or of cremation. He leaves the door open for further thought and does not go beyond speculation.

Smucker (1885) notes that the President of Toronto University visited the mound and proclaimed that the mound "undoubtedly served a purpose in the religious worship of its constructors, if indeed it was not itself an object of worship and adoration (p. 352, Smucker quoting the above noted party). Not to be outdone in this business of speculation Smucker states: w Figure 18. View Southeast from the Alligator Mound, Cir. 1930 (C.R. Jones Collection). 00 139 History informs us that the ancient Egyptians were worshipers of the crocodile and other animals, and it is quite probably that the mound builders of North America were worshippers of the American Crocodile, seeing that they were certainly a supersti tious people, an indolatrous race - a people who cherished a religious system that was marked by sacrificial characteristics. They offered sacrifices, human sacrifices there is reason to believe, the requirements of their religion could probably not be met without sacrifices, animal sacrifices, if not human - hence the necessity of altars, therefore they erected them (p. 352).

It is difficult to determine exactly how Larkin, Smucker and others

came to these outrageous conclusions about the Middle Woodland people who apparently built this mound; for all we know they could have been roasting marshmallows and not heretics. Later in his American Antiquarian article,

Smucker tones down the rhetoric about the mound and its purpose in prehistory and indicates that the mound may not even represent an alligator;

"I call it an 'alligator effigy,' because it is known almost universally by that name" (p. 355). Stallings (1984) argues that the mound may actually be three or four separate mounds or altars that were connected to form one central altar. The fact that fire-cracked stones, mostly burnt local sandstone has been found in most locations where people have dug into the mound does not provide strong evidence that these locations were all at one time altars or locations where

"signal fires" were burned. The area in fact may have been a site where fires for some purpose had been burned for perhaps decades or even centuries. It may also be that the stones were burned as the result a forest fire, or perhaps where prehistoric people cleared the hill of timber and burned the dead brush and logs. 140 Fire scarred and cracked stones resulting from any of these events could have been gathered together with surrounding soil and piled up to make the mound. No scientific investigation has ever been mounted to address these or other 'burning questions' about the mounds, and all those investigations that were carried out prior to the OSU survey in 1988 produced no conclusive evidence, and unfortunately no notes or published documentation. It therefore becomes impossible to draw any conclusions

about the mound that are based in fact rather than in the imaginations of numerous individuals who have written and commented on the subject of this mound. I personally have observed chips of flint from the Vanport outcrop (Flint Ridge) in the backdirt of several ground hog excavations at the mound, but I do not conclude that this means that this was a location where male bonding took place and participants sat around and knapped out projectile points to skewer enemies or terrorize the heretics who were about to be burned at the stake and eaten as part of Sunday's evening meal. I have also seen fire-cracked rock from these same ground hog holes and yet I do not think that it is valid to conclude that they are part of an ancient Hebrew temple that had been burned at this site by rampaging heathen, idolatrous, cannibals.

Speculation usually exists where knowledge is lacking. What we can say about the Alligator is, unfortunately, very little; because much of the focus of archaeological exploration until recently (and especially prior to 1900) has been on obtaining artifacts for display (Silverberg, 1986; James B. Griffin, personal communication, 1986). Other statements about the Alligator

Mound are not speculation, but instead they are based upon a belief that 141 ancient monuments, art, meeting places and living spaces of past cultures should be studied and preserved for a variety of reasons (Hooge, 1988).

Preservation Background The decision to preserve the Alligator Mound and to set it aside was made by developer Robert Kent in 1987. However, interest in seeing the

mound preserved begins with Squier and Davis in 1848, about 140 years earlier than Kent (Hooge, 1987). Squier and Davis report in Ancient Monuments of the Mississippi

Valiev that the mound was in danger of being destroyed by its owner at that time. Ashel Aylesworth, it seems, had decided to quarry sandstone at the mound site and this activity, by Squier and Davis' time, had already destroyed about one third of the left front leg of the Alligator Mound. A footnote at the bottom of page 99 states:

The proprietor of this structure, Ashel Aylesworth, Esq., we are happy to say, has determined to permit no further encroachment upon it. It is hoped that the citizens of Granville will adopt means to permanently and effectively restore it from invasion.

Although no one proceeded to further damage the mound through quarrying, other destructive forces were at work. Licking County historian

Isaac Smucker made observations concerning the mound's condition in 1875. He notes that:

The mound has become somewhat unsymmetrical and uneven on the surface under the operation of the plow as well as the previous process of clearing of the land and the cutting down of trees that had grown upon it. Winds blowing down the trees, the roots thereby tearing up the earth and stones of the effigy 142 and placing them, also doubtless tended to deface, deform and practically obliterate it in places.

Frederick Putnam also expressed concern about the mound's future in 1885. Putnam was the Curator of Archaeology at Harvard University's Peabody Museum and a highly respected individual in his field. In an 1885

letter to the Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Society Putnam states "The two famous effigy mounds of the state, the 'Serpent' and the "Alligator,'

should be saved at once from further destruction" (Putnam, 1898, p. 57). The

Serpent Mound was purchased with funds raised by Putnam through a group of philanthropic women in Boston, Massachusetts (Silverberg, 1986).

Unfortunately, the Alligator Mound was passed over at this time, and no new effort was considered to save the mound until the 1970's. The condition of the mound has been the concern of interested scholars and preservationists since Squier and Davis. Historian Frederick

Wright was employed by the Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Society in 1885 to evaluate the condition of the major mound sites in Ohio and to comment on their condition. Concerning the Alligator Mound Wright notes:

Near Granville....the Alligator Mound is still in pretty good condition. But one of the most vivid things in my memory is the picture of sheep, cattle and horses which I saw stamping flies under the shade cast by a solitary tree upon the Alligator Mound. Their busy hoofs will not long suffer any remnant of it to continue visible. (Cited in Putnam, 1898, p. 346.)

Whether or not Warren K. Moorehead excavated at or around the

Alligator Mound is unknown. Moorehead served as the first Curator of

Archaeology for the OSAHS from 1895 until 1898. He was active in Ohio during his college days at Denison University. Moorehead was enrolled in 143 the Preparatory Department at Denison University from 1884 through 1886, but never took the regular classical or scientific courses (Chessman, 1986). While at Denison, and as he was completing his last year there, Moorehead wrote several letters to Cyrus Thomas at the Bureau of Ethnology, Smithsonian Institution, seeking employment as an archaeologist. Moorehead lists mounds and earthworks in the Granville and surrounding area that he feels would be productive if "opened."

These six mounds would certainly pay the explorer well. Two or three men could examine one a day, and the whole lot, at this rate could be explored in a week. I should like very much to open these mounds myself on 'my own hook,' if there is no one connected with the institution who will. Licking County is a splendid place for archaeologists and it is surprising that you do not send some one out here to buy relics for you (Moorehead, 1885).

By June of 1886 Moorehead had not heard from Thomas at the Smithsonian so he wrote a follow-up letter dated June 7, 1886 indicating that he had already 'opened three mounds finding bones, shell beads, bone awls, a few ornaments, etc." Moorehead continues:

I intend to push the work so as to get through as soon as possible. I shall probably hire two men and carefully level each mound, keeping a clear record of each step of the work. After June 25th I shall be free from college work for the remainder of life, and expect to donate (at least the Summers) much time collecting. My collection now numbers over 3000 Indian and Mound Builder pieces (Moorehead, 1886a).

No one knows which mounds in the Granville area were excavated by Moorehead. No field notes or specific inventory of artifacts remain today.

Moorehead did finally find employment in the field of Archaeology in 1892 under Dr. Frederick Putnam of the Peabody Museum. Putnam hired 144 Moorehead as the field representative for Ohio to put together a collection for

the Chicago Colombian Exposition. Moorehead's work for this project was focused in the Ross County area, and especially at Mound City. Denison University awarded Warren K. Moorehead an Honorary Doctorate of Science in 1930 for his contributions to the field.

Although Squier and Davis and other individuals are reported to have excavated into the Alligator Mound, Dr. Frank Carney's intrusion seems to have been the most extensive. As was mentioned earlier Dr. Camey, a

Denison University professor, and some of his students excavated a long trench along the axis of the mound's body between the head and the tail. No notes from Carney's dig exist and a report on the findings was never published and was probably never written (Hoffman, 1992). It would be difficult to estimate the archaeological damage done to the mound by Camey, but certainly it exceeded anything that Frederick Wright's

"sheep, cattle and horses" could have accomplished over many decades. We don't know how wide this trench was or exactly where it was placed; however, if Moody's memory is accurate the trench damaged the central part of the mound.

Wright's and Putnam's pleas to the OSAHS to preserve the Alligator Mound was not heeded even though the need for it was articulated by prominent people in the field. Legislation that would have enabled OSAHS and other agencies to preserve sites like the Alligator Mound was passed in 1913 as Section 1743.07 of the Ohio Revised Code. The law states: 145 Any incorporated association or society maintained by or operating in behalf of the state for the preservation of historic or prehistoric sites or monuments, the exploration, examination, improvement or preservation of such sites or monuments for educational, scientific or memorial purposes or the collecting of relics or artifacts therefrom and the placing of such relics in public museums, may acquire and hold any real estate in this state (p. 513).

Under this law organizations fulfilling the above requirements can purchase a property at a fair market value. To date the law has never been

used to acquire an archaeological property; however, it could have been used

at any time to permanently set the Alligator Mound aside.

Ownership of the mound passed into the hands of John Sutphin Jones

in 1905, and remained in the hands of family members until his daughter, Sallie Sexton (Jones) went bankrupt in the early 1970's. The property was sold at Sheriffs Sale in 1976. During the time the Jones family owned the mound it remained obscure to most of the surrounding community, except to a few like Minnie Hite Moody. Mrs. Moody spent almost all of her childhood in the shadow of the mound; it was not just an object of curiosity and discussion, but a place to play, a personal part of her young world. At 92 Mrs. Moody is still intellectually active, although she has some physical restraints that keep her confined to the historic old house where she has spent both her early and later life.

The following are excerpts from both my conversations with Mrs. Moody and written correspondence.

Hooge: When you were a young person, was the mound well known in the community? 146 Moody: Oh, the community knew about it and they didn't give a hoot, they just weren't interested. There were new people coming into the neighborhood. My people, you see, moved here in 1870 and the Wrights were here before we had the tannery, they came in 1805, and nobody else has ever lived here [in this house]. The people who built the house were from New England and the stones, all the stones of the downstairs, I want you to go down and look at them, they came from the Alligator. Hooge: Do you remember John S. Jones?

Moody: Oh sure, he was up there on the Alligator, he owned it at the time I was telling about that 1 was up there and walked in the ditch, I knew him well.

Hooge: What kind of person was he? Moody: The kind that everybody hated because he had so much money. Hooge: What did he do with that money that offended people?

Moody: Well, he bought good riding horses for his daughters, and incidentally 1 learned most of my horse womanship on his horses. He was a nice man, I liked him, but everybody else hated him because he had money.

Jones built onto it [the old McCune Mansion]. 1 guess I know everything about that house, I could go from cellar to attic in it. The first family that lived there built the house and he bought it because he wanted to get out of

Monomoy Place in Granville, and also he traveled in Europe and England and the eastern part of the United States where people had estates they could be proud of. He wanted something that looked like that. Hooge: What about Sallie? 147 Moody: I was very fond of Sallie but I was about the only one who was. People around here mistrust people with money. Sallie was just like me, the last generation that cares for family land. Hooge: Do you have any idea why people haven't considered the

archaeology, the mounds and earthworks as part of their own history, their own past? Moody: It isn't part of their history, they've come here from somewhere else.

Hooge: But they adopted the land, why couldn't they adopt the past that was already here?

Moody: Too busy doing something else. Admiring Granville and what a cozy little town it is and so on. Granville's not as sweet and innocent as it appears on the surface.

Hooge: In your recollections as a child what was it like going up to the Alligator Mound?

Moody: Oh, just a lovely hillside with nice weeds and flowers.

Hooge: And what would you do when you got up there to the mound? Moody: Just sit and marvel; my brother and I stayed up there half of our childhood.

Hooge: And just played? Moody: Well, we just sat.

Hooge: Why did you like it up there, what was so great?

Moody: You could look, you could see so far in so many directions you could see the roofs of different houses and wonder why these people never came up there. My grandfather did and my mother did. 148 Hooge: So why do you suppose they built that very special mound in that spot? Moody: Do you have any idea why anybody other than yourself does anything. It was just something...! think it was a signal station, and a little girl classmate at school who lived on the hilltop was over that way [north

west] had the same idea and there weren't so many houses and the trees had

all been cut down. There was a time in my early childhood when every tree around here had been cut down by anybody who could lay an ax to it. They thought that would make it civilized. And that little girl stood on her hilltop

over there and I stood on Mount Alligator and we signaled to each other and we could make messages that we could interpret. We had an idea that that's

what the people did in the old days and its as good a theory as any. The eminence, the tall hill was there, and why they would make an effigy, if you can call it that, presumably an alligator, heaven only knows. Where did they come from?

Hooge: Did you as a child think it was an alligator? Moody: I had seen alligators, it didn't look a bit like an alligator.

Whoever thought they made it to look like an alligator was a big bunch of fools.

Hooge: Did you have any other ideas about what it might be?

Moody: Oh, everybody, 1 mean the people upon Mt. Parnassus, and

Sinetts, and my family here we just had the ideal, well, we didn't think it was an alligator, nobody knew what it looked like.

Hooge: Did people go up there and picnic?

Moody: No, I've never known anybody to go up there and picnic except my brother and me, we would take a sack of something. 149 Hooge: So for the past 80 years or so, according to your recollection, people have basically ignored the mound? Moody: They've always ignored it. My grandfather who lived here couldn't understand that, couldn't understand. He talked to men in Granville who had never heard of it. It was just Alligator Hill. It was just a name, why did it have that name. Hooge: Did anybody ever try to save the mound? Moody: No, I don't think so, it was just there and whatever happened to

it was its fate. And then J. S. Jones went into the dairy business and had a wonderful imported herd of cattle, they stayed on the mound until they got it trampled on down to the present level, they just stood on the mound, it wasn't very high. Hooge: When you were a little girl it was just pasture; grass and no cattle?

Moody: I don't think it was ever a pasture, the grass was deep, Tom and I were little and the grass would be up this high [waist] on us. The only thing we were told to be careful of was snakes, never saw a snake up there.

Hooge: Did the grandfather that was interested in the mounds ever try to do something to get other people interested?

Moody: Oh no, once in a while somebody would say "I'd like to go up there sometime" and he would walk up there with them and all they admired was the view, and they didn't see anything that looked like an alligator or why anybody called it Alligator Hill.

Hooge: That was because the grass was so long, or they couldn't recognize what it was? Moody: Both! 150 Hooge: When you stood on the Alligator Mound could you see the Interurban along the Newark-Granville Road? Moody: Oh sure, that's how you knew what time it was, when it was time to come home for supper or something like that, if you were up there having a good time,

Hooge: As you stood on the mound, what were the things you could see? Moody: You could see all the houses on Granger Street and along here

[Newark-Granville Road] all the houses down that way (east) are more recent. 1 would say thirty years. There used to be lots of big trees on Alligator Hill - the trees only went three quarters of the way up there to it, then it was grass from then on. Concerning the Alligator Mound, it's a memory, a myth, it's a sort of a spirit, but I will say there was something fascinating about it, and once you got up there you didn't want to leave. Tom loved it, but after he was grown up I don't think he cared much about it. Tom and 1 had a happy childhood. In her responses to my written questions Mrs. Moody was direct and to the point. When asked what the mound means to her she said: "A happy childhood, with the Alligator as our most interesting neighbor. My brother and I claimed it as our special play place, and early identified ourselves with its myths and mysteries. Grandpa Washington Evans in whose house I was bom and in which 1 am living now, was especially interested in the Alligator, and I suppose his curiosity about it helped us to be interested. Grandpa brought us books from the State Library, better, he brought men of learning here from all over. But there was just so much to be learned about it, and the story had no ending." 151 I asked Mrs. Moody why the mound wasn't saved earlier considering its importance and she responded: "Nobody considered it important; it was always 'just there.' Professor Charles Browne White of Mt. Parnassus always was interested, but like all the rest of us, baffled."

When asked if sne thought the mound had been preserved in an appropriate way she stated "No, but who cares? I'm somewhat cynical about the way it is taken for granted."

With Mrs. Moody's permission I explored the house. The stone for the walls which she said had been quarried from the pit below the Alligator Mound's left front leg may indeed have come from that location. The rough blocks of sandstone made up the walls for the houses lower level. If the house had been built in 1805, then the quarrying of stone from Alligator Hill must have taken place in brief episodes over a period of perhaps 35 or 40 years; otherwise Squier and Davis were simply repeating a story about the quarry which was passed on to them by some local individual.

It is also unclear concerning the arrangement that would have been made between the original builder of the Evan's house in which Moody lives and the owner of the Alligator Hill quarry where the foundation stone for the house is reported to have come from.

To clarily this entire situation I called Mrs. Moody again on September 25, 1992. Her house and groundskeeper John answered the phone and relayed my questions back and forth. The stones, according to Mrs. Moody did not actually come from the quarry, but from the "mound builders altar" on the Alligator Mound. 152 I also inquired about the origin of this information and Mrs. Moody said "all the old timers who were here knew" and that she had heard the story from them. Squier and Davis note "upon the inner side of the effigy is an elevated circular space, covered with stones which have been much burned" (p. 99). How much stone was originally there is unknown, however, the volume of stone in the [Tanner's or Spencer Wright's house] lower level is considerable

if taken as a whole. However, Mrs. Moody did note that the west portion of

the basement was original to the house in 1805 and that the structure had been hurriedly built and completed only up to the lower level ceiling before winter set in and the family or the builder spent their first winter in this portion of the house. Wood for siding and finishing the house was available, but there was no saw mill; consequently milled wood was brought in by ox cart from Massachusetts to complete the construction, according to Mrs. Moody.

Timber used as floor joists for the main floor above the lower level are different in the two rooms of the lower level. Beams in the west room were hand hewed square while those in the east half were round logs that had the bark removed prior to being set in place. Thus it appears that one side of the lower level of the house was constructed perhaps to allow the family to settle in and the east half was finished later. If stone needed to be quickly obtained to get the house underway then it is possible that the "altar" stone on the mound was seen as a quick and expeditious alternative to quarrying, and some of the stone for part of the basement could have been obtained from this location. Figure 19. View West from the Alligator Mound toward Biyn Du Farm Structures - Cir. 1930 (C.R. Jones Collection). Figure 20. Aerial view of the Alligator Mound by Warren Weiant - 1928. 155 The Native American builders of the Alligator Mound would have had to quarry stone in much the same manner as later historic people if they wished to obtain stone in large quantities. A possible hypothesis is that Native Americans were the individuals who started the quarry which Ashel Aylesworth continued to use and expanded to a point where he or other

individuals eventually destroyed part of the mound. There were apparently a large number of stones left on the "altar" when Mrs. Moody was a child. Concerning this she states:

"The altar was there, and you could tell it was an altar, couldn't have been anything else. It had a roof, I do not know what the roof was made of, but I know one day my mother and brother and I were up there and it rained and we all got up there on the counter of the altar, if that's a proper name for it, and sat there in the rain. There were stones around it, the stones were the base of what we were setting on" (1992 interview).

The time frame for the experience described above was about 1908, or about one hundred years after the Tanners house had been built. If the story about the "altar" stones being used as house masonry is true and Mrs.

Moody's recollection of a large quantity of stone still being present a hundred years later is accurate then either there was a very large quantity of stone originally on the mound altar or they only used part of the stone from that location, obtaining the rest from some place else, or the story about the house and the stone is perhaps that, a story. Although Mrs. Moody is 92 years old, she is still able to accurately remember events. I am inclined to trust her recollection of experience and facts, but there is no way at this point to validate the story about the house 156 masonry, unless one could find evidence of burning on the stones in the house. But even this does not prove the story. Today there is no stone on the "altar" at the Alligator Mound. The 1987 excavation by The Ohio State University found no large stones in the trench they excavated across a section of the altar. All of the stones that Squier and Davis, Moody and others observers have been removed.

Reconstructing The Prehistoric Built Environment of the Granville Area

Introduction

We stand in awe of the vault in sophistication, the frame with which the architecture was constructed, the sheer tonnage of earth and stone. We are incredulous of the human capability to perform such a feat at any other time but the present (Gabriel, 1991).

The early Euro-American inhabitants of what is now Granville, Ohio proudly named the main road leading into their town Centerville Street. For these individuals the street was a focal point and it led to the center of their new community in the wilderness and what they felt would be a thriving urban center on the main route to the unsettled (by their accounts) west beyond.

Mannaseh Cutler puts the perceived reality and the dream into perspective from his pulpit in Massachusetts. He speaks about the Ohio country.

To behold a country which was lately, very lately, a howling wilderness, the gloomy abode of numerous savage tribes, the haunts and lurking places of the cruel invaders of our defenseless frontiers, regardless of age or sex, sporting with the agonies of Figure 21. The Old Tannery House - Home of Minnie Hite Moody (Hooge). Figure 22. Aerial View of the Alligator Mound - Spring 1985 (Bowser). 88 159 captives while expiring under their infernal tortures... a people ignorant of the true God and devoted to their heathen rites and barbarous superstitions; to see this country so rapidly changing into cultivated fields, inhabited by civil and well-regulated societies, peaceably enjoying the fruits of their enterprise, industry, culture and commerce... (Cited in Cutler and Cutler, 1888, p. 13).

Perhaps the Reverend Cutler's statement explains in part why the early white settlers had little interest in the legacy, the monumental architecture, left behind by the ancient Native American residents of the area. As the virgin forests were clear cut to create agricultural fields and pastures the full extent of the mounds and earthworks became known. But it was not until Parks (1870), Smucker (1881), Hill (1881) and Bushnell (1889) began trying to reconstruct the history of the Granville and other areas that anything was recorded that would provide the reader with some idea of how extensive the works in the Granville area might have been.

Bushnell (1889) provided a map which reconstructs and places prehistoric sites based on the memories of those who had seen the mounds and could recall the places that they occupied after the fields had been opened and cultivated for only few decades. Hill (1881) provides no map, but a careful reading of his description of the earthworks provides additional information not cited by Bushnell.

From 1889 until the present everyone interested in the archaeology of this area basically accepted Bushnell's interpretations. Squier and Davis (1848) provided more specific information about the Alligator Mound and the Old Granville Fort, but their map of "the set miles of the Newark Valley" was lacking in details that Bushnell later provided.

One hundred and eight seven years have passed since the emigrants arrived in the area now called Granville, Ohio. Along fertile terrace above 160 the Raccoon Creek cultivation has been eroding remnants of the prehistoric

built environment for most of that time. Quoting Hill (1881) again: "No particular care seems to be taken to preserve these mounds and works. Wherever they are in the way of the tiller of the soil, they are ruthlessly plowed down or dug away" (p. 426). Why Squier and Davis (1848) did not take the time and effort to more accurately describe the Granville earthworks is not known. It may be the

complex and extensive earthworks at Newark preoccupied them so much that they simply ignored much of what was at Granville. Or it may be that as Hill notes above, so much was destroyed prior to their visit that other sites were not recorded. It is also possible that there are inaccuracies in the work of Hill and Bushnell, especially since they were, to a large extent, working with oral histories and the recollections of individuals whose memories could have been incorrect where certain details were concerned.

Aerial photographs provide a missing link of sorts between the written history and the reality on the ground. In order to establish a place to begin reconstructing the Granville works 1 decided to take each site description by Squier and Davis (1848) and Bushnell (1889) and to locate it on both the 7.5 minute quadrangle and the 1940 aerial photographs using an acetate overlay for each author's descriptions (see methodology). Using a separate acetate sheet over the 1940 aerial photographs (CLX- 4A-45, CLX-4A-47) 1 transferred any evidence of mounds or earthworks that could see on the photograph onto the acetate. To help in defining some sites 1 enlarged the aerial photographs X50 and XlOO on a Honeywell color copier. 161 In addition a Luxe florescent magnifier was used in the process to assist analysis. Discovering and recording the Alligator Mound was obviously no problem, although it shows up almost imperceptibly in all aerial photographs except the 1989. The 1989 aerials have superb clarity and resolution even when enlarged X400 or more. The Alligator Mound has been thoroughly discussed in another section of this dissertation.

The Old Granville Fort The Old Granville Fort provided the first challenge. The drawing by Squier and Davis (Plate IX #1) (See Figure 13) is the only early illustration that is in any way accurate. Bushnell simply shows the site as a circle. The site location was easy to verify because the east wall still can be seen distinctly on the 1930 aerial photograph and even more clearly on the 1940

(CLX-4A-47) aerial. The 1940 aerial also reveals the location of the two interior features described by all three authors listed above.

Squier and Davis' illustration places the two features accurately, although the interior circle is somewhat larger than the reality. Enlarging the 1940 aerial helped to more clearly define the smaller mound, which appears to be a small circle and not a mound as described by Squier and Davis.

The mound could have been dug into later leaving the circular appearance as the dirt was thrown to the outside. Superimposing the 1940 aerial information onto the 1989 aerial was accomplished using methods described in the chapter on methodology (Figure 41). The east wall is bisected by a house toward its southern extremity. The large interior circle is invaded by a home and drive. The GN

M a g N Disturbed; /

M o u n d E d g e

S t o n e Q u a rry ALLIGATOR MOUND 3 3 -L Î-0 5 m e t e r s Mapped August, 1988 W. Dancey

Figure 23. Map of the Alligator Mound by Dancey - 1988. a Figure 24. Artist Group at the Alligator Mound - 1987 (Bowser). s Figure 25. Late night visit to the Alligator Mound - Autumn 1984 (Bowser). m

Figure 26.. View toward West from Bryn Du Farm toward Bryn Du Woods development and Alligator Mound (Hooge). S; ' r c ^ ' - -%r rnsmg' ' fy '' - .

Figure 27. Oak, Alligator, and Hm - Summer 1985 (Bowser). » Figure 28. Oak, Alligator, and Elm - Winter 1985 (Bowser). 25 'Y

Figure 29. Aerial view of the Alligator Mound - Summer 1989 (Hooge). Figure 30. Aerial view of the Alligator Mound - Summer 1989 (Hooge). Figure 31. Road construction west of Alligator Mound - 1989 (Hooge). Figure 32. Elm Tree in Quarry Pit below Alligator Mound - 1991 (Hooge). Figure 33. Intersection facing South toward Alligator Mound - Spring 1991 (Bowser). Figure 34. Aerial view of the Alligator Mound - April 1992 (Bowser). Figure 35. Facing North from the tail of the Alligator Mound - Summer 1992 (Bowser). Figure 36. Intersection North of Alligator Mound - Spring 1992 (Bowser). Figure 37. Oak on the ground South of Alligator Mound - Summer 1992 (Hooge). o\ Figure 38. Spring flowers East of the Alligator Mound on undeveloped land - Spring 1992 (Hooge). 178 small circle or mound has not been affected by contemporary construction and still appears as a dark spot on the 1989 (89-0120) aerial photograph. A small section of the east wall can still be seen to the ground as was discussed

in a previous chapter. The Old Granville Fort and the Alligator Mound are both well

established as to location and extent. The Granville Circle has already been

thoroughly evaluated, as have the parallel lines emanating at its southwestern extremity. The Bushnell enclosure was more difficult to define.

Bushnell's Enclosure In an earlier section, I described Bushnell's Enclosure and assumed

that it had been destroyed by cultivation and development, however, further examination of the area on the 1940 aerial photograph produced some new and surprising information. Bushnell gives the size of the earthwork as approximately eight acres, but it is obvious from his description that he is not certain about the size, but quite definite about its location. The aerial photograph reveals the outline of another circle, somewhat smaller than the Granville Circle to the north and intersecting the Granville Circle at a point on Thomas Hill's property, approximately halfway between the Newark- Granville Road and the bicycle path.

Bushnell's Enclosure remains approximately within the area that he described on the east side, but barely intersects the road to the north. The visible line is weak, but does reveal that at least in 1940 some remnant of the wall remained. The intersection of the two circles is indistinct and it is difficult to determine whether they overlap or simply touch. It appears as if they overlap; Bushnell's Enclosure intruding slightly inside of the Granville 179 Circle and the Granville Circle terminating at the edges of the Bushnell Enclosure.

Hill Enclosure

Squier and Davis (1848) provide dozens of examples of circles and arcs being used individually or as groups or clusters on the prehistoric landscapes in Ohio. Early and Middle Woodland inhabitants who built the earthworks during this period are noted for large scale building projects using not only circles and arcs, but squares, rectangles, and octagons. The most complex combination of these geometric earth embankments was located at Newark, Ohio, only 2.5 miles from the center of the Granville works. The Newark works extend over two miles to the south and range two miles in width east to west. If a road had been identified that connected the

Newark works with those at Granville, their close proximity would have possibly prompted Squier and Davis to refer to them as a single entity. Examples of geometric enclosures that make use of circles and arcing embankments can be found not only at Newark, but in dramatic clustered configurations at the Liberty Township works, Ross County (Squier and Davis, Plate XX, p. 56), the Junction Group (Squier and Davis, Plate XXII, p. 61); the Portsmouth works (Squier and Davis, Plate XXVIII-C, p. 81; Morgan, 1980, pp. 18, 19), the Bainbridge works (Squier and Davis, Plate XXXlI-5, pp. 92, 93; Morgan, 1980, p. 29) and four works along Paint Creek (Squier and Davis, 1848, Plate XXI, pp. 57-59). These are a few striking examples, but there are many others of significance including the Highbanks works at Chillicothe,

Ross County, Ohio (Squier and Davis, 1848, Plate XVI, pp. 50, 51). 180 All of these sites demonstrate the diverse use of circles and arcs and how they have been joined in a variety of ways using the circles as connecting points or joining with arcs or linear walls which are usually paired and parallel. The most confusing element in the Granville works is the feature

described by Hill (I 881) as a giant circle enclosing 75-80 acres and by Bushnell as a long bending arc that connects the crescent with the Granville

Circle (Hill Earthwork). Tracing this feature on the 1940 aerial photograph was difficult and my conclusions uncertain. I do believe that the feature did

exist, although it was probably not as large as Hill proposes. From the examples mentioned above it should be clear that an earthwork of this size and scope would not be unusual and easily within the scope of what the Middle Woodland (or perhaps Late Early Woodland?) people were capable of doing. Again, just look to the Newark Earthworks for an example of a large scale project of monumental proportions.

I have discovered the best evidence to support the presence of the Hill Enclosure on the 1940 aerial photographs (both CLX-4A-47 and CLX-4A-45). A light trace of possible earthwork begins on the eastern edge of Lot Seven on the old Bryn du Farm, or along what is (at least at this time) still the north- south service road that enters the property west of Jones Road on the

Newark-Granville Road. The arc cuts diagonally toward the north west and below what I have referred to as possibly the crescent earthwork. A faint trace of the Hill Enclosure continues on Lot Eight just south of the east-west

Bryn du Farm service road. The evidence becomes more prominent on Lot

Nine where the service road ends and continues arcing to the south west as a 181

Table 1 Key for Maps and Aerial Photographs

A Alligator Mound B Crescent Mound

C Hill Earthwork D Bushnell Mound Group E Bushnell Circle

F Granville Circle

G Parallel Embankments H Old Granville Fort I Reservoir Mound

J Munson Mound K Bushnell Mound

L Bushnell Mound M Haskell Mound

N Mount Parnassus Mound

P Stone Mound (Bushnell)

R Possible Earthwork S Munson Circle T Chidlow Enclosure U O'Neill Enclosure V Deeds Mound 1 8 2

Table 2

Key for Maps and Aerial Photographs

I The Murphy Site

II Munson Spring or Pigsite

III Murphy Site IV Murphy Site

1-11,17 Archaeological Sites on the Murphy Property (Lots 2-4) and Lot 1 Owned by Reese 3 Reese Site #1

8 Munson Brick Site X Munson House and Bam Site

Y Robinson House Site (Detroyed 1979) 12 Lewis Site

13-16 Sites Identified Around

Bryn Du Woods (Farm) Figure 39. 1940 Aerial Photograph (CLX-4A-45) with Mounds and Earthworks superimposed. 83 Figure 40. 1940 Aerial Photograph (CLX-4A-45) with extension of Feature C and possible Feature R. .

"if. rsT-- fr,;»,.

Figure 41. 1989 Aerial photograph with Earthworks superimposed. 186 white trace on the dark soil on Lot Ten south of the Alligator Mound. It is at this point that the trace fades and is no longer visible. Lot Ten below the Alligator Mound has been subdivided and the western half appears to have undergone more alteration. A pond appears

northwest of where the earthwork would pass and a horse training track has been built to the south. The area has not been cultivated for some time and is in grass. The east edge of Lot 12 where the arc would continue around to the

south west is covered by foliage and then disturbed by the road, housing and yards.

Moving back to where the Hill Enclosure disappears in the service

road at the junction of Lots Six and Seven north of the Newark-Granville Road, no trace can be found of the arc as it would turn south west. Bushnell shows the arc terminating on the east side of the Granville Circle, Hill is

vague concerning where the exact location of the circle was, and admits that he was dealing with oral accounts, no trace of the earthwork being left to observe first hand.

Hill refers to this feature as "an immense circular wall" (p. 427), but does not specifically refer to it as a circle. He also states that "the larger part of it was between Centerville Street and the bluffs above on the north of the valley, though it extended slightly south of Centerville Street" (p. 427). Here the implication is that indeed it is not a complete circle, but an arc. This is

Bushnell's interpretation and he illustrates the Hill Enclosure as an arc. Arcing earthworks (as opposed to complete circles which may have openings) sometimes connect specific built features (square, circles, etc.) but they also may appear to have an open end. Arcs frequently define a space on a bluff overlooking a river like those at Alexandersville south of Dayton, Ohio 187 (Squier and Davis, Plate XXIX, pp. 82, 83). Arcs can enclose or define a space where other earthworks are situated like the one at the Portsmouth works (Squier and Davis, Plate XXVII, Group B, pp. 80, 81). Finally, arcs may connect other geometric features and as a group, enclose a large and well defined space (Squier and Davis, Plate XXI, 1-3, pp. 57-59). Bushnell's placement of the arc helps to define it as a connector of two important points, the crescent and the circle. However, since the arc spans

the entire valley it can also be said to define an important space, or one might interpret it as a barrier between two spaces east and west.

Bushnell calls the arc a parapet (placed in italics by the author), an embankment used as a defense against intruders. Bushnell does not try to argue that these were defensive works or of a specific military nature, but by using the word parapet he does imply the usage. Based on the evidence available it does appear that the Hill Enclosure does exceed the scope the limits that Bushnell defines, and the earthwork continues around to the west-southwest. But where does it end? There is some evidence on the 1940 aerial photographs that the Hill Earthwork may terminate at another circle located to the north west of the Bushnell

Enclosure on Lots 10 and 11. Evidence for this earthwork is questionable, but arguable if all potential sites in the area are to be discussed.

Using the 1940 aerial photograph CLX-4A-47, a dark arcing trace appears on the surface just east of the Lot 11 boundary and south of the Newark-Granville Road 400 feet. The arc is well defined where it curves around toward the east. On both the east and west sides of the arc and just south of the Newark-Granville Road, driveways and vegetation follow a 188 contour that could be interpreted as following the arc that appears on the soil. This possible enclosure would continue north of the highway which bisects the circle at two points. This circle which is simply referred to as Figure "G" provides a logical termination for the Hill Earthwork where it

seems to complete its curve around toward the south. One can easily argue against Figure "G" as simply being a coincidence. The dark arcing stain noted above is not entirely consistent with the best examples of well defined and verified earthworks which usually show up as white lines. But this is not always the case. Even the Granville Circle appears as a narrow dark stain at the north west comer on 1940 photo CLX-4A-47.

Defining Aerial Evidence Looking at other examples of earthworks that are visible in aerial photographs is useful. The 1930 aerial series, prints A-2344 and A-2384, show traces of the ancient road toward Chillicothe as bright white to faint white lines, depending upon the soil conditions and land use in the area through which the lines pass. If my theory that white lines indicate visible traces

(elevated contour) on the surface is true, then most of the parallel earth embankments that defined this pathway or road were still visible on the surface in 1930.

The VanVoorhis walls north of the Newark Airport (Figures 49 and 50) are a portion of this road and the associated circle with the interior crescent is also a part of this feature that is visible as a bright white line on the 1930 aerial. As mentioned earlier, the circular work is still visible on the surface. 189 Photo A-2344 provides an excellent view of the octagon earthwork and accompanying circle. These features appear as dark lines generally, but with the interior surface of the mound being somewhat lighter where the light strikes it on the sloping surface. Cultivation and the height of the embankment, season, time of the day, angle and intensity of the sun, and the

angle the photographs is taken from combine to determine how the feature will appear on the aerial.

Photos that seem to display archaeological features best are not necessarily taken during the cold months when all the vegetation is down and surface exposure is optimal. The most useful aerial photos for the study of sites mentioned in this dissertation are those taken in late spring or during the summer. This lends credibility to the argument that exposure to the suns warmth may be one significant factor in earthwork visibility on the surface.

Experimentation with both color and black and white infrared photography by Kent Bowser and this author did not provide evidence that infrared film would provide any more information than black and white film. The older aerial photos are useful because less damage has occurred to the sites as a result of continued cultivation and urban development. It is also important to note that earlier photographs do not always provide the best image. For example, the 1930 aerial series shows only a minute trace of the Granville Circle while the 1940 series shows almost the entire earthwork. In contrast, the best image of the ancient causeway from the Octagon to the airport is found on the 1930 series, although it also shows up well on the 1940 aerial. 190 Another advantage of the 1940 aerial photographs is that they were taken with better equipment and the image is sharper. Finally, the only copies of the 1930 series obtainable were old, well used, and were marked up significantly with pencil lines and numbers. I was able to obtain fresh

prints from original nitrate negatives for the 1940 series through the Ohio Department of Natural Resources.

Many circular dark lines on aerial photographs are related to

drainage and soil conditions. Other lines, some what look like the white traces of earthworks are cattle or tractor paths through fields. Excellent examples of these types of marks can be seen passing by the east edge of the crescent shaped feature on CLX-4A-47 and following the ridge around and directly onto the Alligator Mound on Lot 10.

To further demonstrate how difficult interpreting archaeological information from aerial photographs can be I refer again at the evidence on CLX-4A-47 for the Old Granville Fort. The clearly displayed line along the south east comer and the two circular works all exhibit light and dark traces.

Squier and Davis describe the perimeter wall of the main work as being "unlike all other hill-works which have fallen under notice, the ditch occurs outside of the wall." In the aerial photograph the outer portion of the wall, or the ditch, appears as a dark line, while the raised portion of the earthwork is a bright white line. This supports the idea that the white lines indicate possible earthworks that have some recognizable remnant still on the surface.

The dark stain that appears in a circular form around a bright white center in the above mentioned photograph are remnants of the two interior features noted by Squier and Davis (1848), Hill (1881), and Bushnell (1889). 191 The darker stain could be either a ditch or low area from which earth was excavated to produce the surrounding wall, or it could be an area where the soil has been spread nearly level. A white area appears over the north edge of the larger circle, indicating that in 1940 some relief still remained. My hypothesis is that the dark areas associated with the two interior

earthworks at the Old Granville Fort represent low areas or shallow ditches

from which earth had been removed. Squier and Davis show the outer ditch of the main earthwork as a dark line. They also use the same treatment on the inner part of the large circle inside the earthwork which could indicate an interior ditch. These authors consistently shade ditches dark in all their illustrations. According to the above evidence the dark circular stain should therefore be a remnant ditch.

In some cases the remains of the raised walls of earthworks may have been completely obliterated through cultivation, leaving shallow and possibly enlarged ditches that appear as darker stained areas. In cases where the surface is covered by heavy vegetation, and consequently dark in

appearance, these ditches may fail to show up at all, or appear only faintly.

One of the best examples of how various mounds and earthworks are

revealed in aerial photographs is at the Brownsville Earthworks in Bowling Green Township (Figures 46 and 47), Licking County, Ohio. The group is

described in some detail by Salisbury (1862) and Fowke (1902). The site consists of two mounds constructed of earth, one of stone and a circular earthwork enclosing a mound. The circular work has a low ditch which Fowke says was about one foot deep sometime prior to 1902 when he made his observations. 192 I have visited the site on a number of occasions and have been working with the property owner on methods through which the site could be saved. The text of an interview with the owner, Mr. Burl Morgan, is included with other interviews in this dissertation. The large earth mound Number One (Fowke) is still about ten feet high, but has been dug into on several occasions leaving pits on the surface. The mound and circle listed as

Number Two by Fowke is barely visible today. Fowke describes the mound as being about five feet high and the surrounding embankment as two feet in height. Today the mound and embankment are no more than one foot to

eighteen inches high and the other ditch is still discernible most of the way around.

Mound Number Three was excavated by Jesse Walker during the 1930's (see interview), but all the stone is still there; or at least it appears to be.

Mound Number Four would not be noticed by the casual observer and appears as a very low rise. An unusual situation does, however, occur with this

mound; a lush bed of grass grows on the site with little other vegetation occurring, the remainder of the site is covered with thick brush, young trees and poison ivy.

In the space at the intersection of Mounds One, Two, and Four is a salt

lick on which there is sparse vegetation and the area is always covered with the tracks of deer and other small mammals.

The Brownsville Earthworks show up clearly on the 1930 aerial photograph (Figure 47). At this time, and for an unknown period until about twenty years ago, the site was under cultivation. The only portion of the

enclosure that shows up clearly is the ditch, a dark and well defined line. An opening appears on the east side of the ditch. 193 The other three mounds appear as dark smudges, the stone mound being somewhat darker. An interesting series of small dark stains, almost like dots, could indicate that some kind of cultural features were still present at the time this photograph was taken.

The circular ditch at the Brownsville works provides an excellent, and still existent example of how a shallow prehistoric trench or ditch shows up on an aerial photograph. It is also useful to note that the three mounds

appear as dark spots while low-lying earthworks at other locations appear as white lines. Two of the Mounds (One and Three) have not been cultivated

over, while Mound Four has and it still appears as a dark spot. It is possible

that vegetation on Mound Four may give it a dark appearance, and the same may be partly true for large earth Mound One. Applying the above information to sites in the study area could result in the discovery of new sites, or change opinions about others. It is always easiest to work with sites where some information is available even if the site no longer appears on the surface. Evidence at the Old Granville Fort is fairly easy to interpret and defining ditches and embankments is not a great challenge, especially given the drawing and description that Squier and Davis ( 1848) have provided. The center of the two circular shapes at this site appear, as noted previously, as white spots. Whether this indicates that they have been plowed flat and only the ditch remains, or that they could still be seen in relief in 1940 is uncertain and one could argue both ways.

The proposed crescent offers other problems that need to be dealt with further. Bushnell notes that the crescent faces or arcs to the south. The huge crescent in the 1940 aerial photograph arcs toward the north east. The feature has the characteristics of a ditch or trench, which it could represent. 194 I also mentioned earlier that the feature appears as if it might originally have continued around, but not following the same line. Instead it seems to flatten out along the east side of the work. It is possible, but not possible, that this is a remnant of an old training track for horses. The trees that the work passes through are mature and

could have been 50-150 years of age at the time of the photograph.

Perhaps the ditch, if it is indeed one, represents a remnant of a former enclosure, like the one at the Brownsville Works, where only the ditch shows

up clearly. The crescent described by Hill (1881) and Bushnell (1889) may have been part of a wall that accompanied this ditch. It is clear that the feature described as the crescent does not manifest itself as such in any of

the aerial photographs surveyed, nor does it show up on the surface, at least it did not during my trips to the sites.

1 believe that feature V on Figure 39 which has previously been

referred to as the crescent earthwork might be considered an entirely new earthwork for which only a remnant ditch remains to remind us of its

former existence. If the crescent earthwork were at one time a part of this

feature, which Bushnell's map and description indicated it might be, then it should be reevaluated in light of the evidence presented here.

Bushnell's And Other Mounds

Locating the mound sites mentioned by Hill (1881) and Bushnell (1889) within the area near the Granville earthworks is difficult. The Reservoir mound and the Haskell mound presented less challenge because the historic record provides reasonably accurate information about their locations. The five mounds shown on Bushnell's map east of the Bushnell Circle are in 195 fairly heavily developed areas north and south of the highway and no evidence for their location was discovered on the aerial photographs. Several white or gray spots show up on the 1930 and 1940 aerial photographs. These areas could define former locations of mounds or perhaps other occupation sites, or they may have some other significance.

Both "M and N' (Figure 39) are located within the site defined as Murphy V (Pacheco, 1992). Location A is the same as Pacheco's Murphy Cluster Ten. Hilltop sites C, D, and J (Figure 39) are located on high points on the ridge overlooking the Murphy sites. Both H and I are located in an area where Hill and Bushnell both said mounds were located. E is located in an area where several sites were identified during the construction of Phase I of the

Erinwood subdivision during 1984-1986 (Lots 2-4). Housing now occupies the areas where these sites were situated, although remnants of these sites are known to exist in backyards and vacant areas.

Granville Circle Parallel Embankment Since the study area had a significant number of earthworks and because they are located relatively close to the Newark works, one might speculate about the existence of a road between the two sites. One small set of parallel embankments are known at the southwest side of the Granville Circle.

The Granville Circle parallel embankments (Feature 6, Figure 39) do not seem to lead to any specific feature or destination; however, they do generally open in the direction of the Bushnell Circle to the south east across the Raccoon Creek and north west toward Mount Parnassus. They also connect edges of the terrace above the Raccoon Creek flood plain and lead 196 toward a curving meander in the creek to the northwest. This embankment did not lead toward Newark to the east.

Speculation A road to the Newark Earthworks probably did exist, but the direction it took is not known. No definite evidence can be found that there was a set of parallel embankments that led from the Granville to the Newark earthworks, although an interesting pair of trace white lines can be seen

heading southeast across Lots Five and Six just north of the Newark-Granville

Road. One of these lines can be picked up as a very faint white line heading in the same direction and in the same line on Lots Three and Four.

Many paths used by Native Americans were probably established early in prehistory and may continue to be used today, in part, as modem roads

(Wilcox, 1933). It is at least interesting that both Native Americans and early historic residents in the study area had good reason to travel the same

established pathway. The Native American interest would have been to reach the Newark earthworks and the Euro-Americans would have traveled to Newark, the county seat of Licking County. It is also of interest that this

proposed route to the Newark earthworks passes through Lots Two-Five, an

area known to be occupied during the Middle Woodland period, although the entire area around what is known today as Granville has evidence for dozens of Middle Woodland settlement sites (Pacheco, 1992). Whether a road or pathway would have remained intact over almost twenty decades at this location is not known, but the fact that recognizable pathways from this period did remain is known (Wilcox, 1933). Parks (1871) 197 spoke with Jesse Thompson who used to live along Walnut Creek in Fairfield County in about 1800. Parks notes:

There was a graded road, easily traced in the timber; that it was some thirty or forty feet wide between the ditches, and appeared to be as old as the forts and mounds, and he always thought it to be a road leading from the works near Newark to those at Circleville, as it was on a line between those points (p. 41).

Conclusions It is unfortunate that better records were not kept regarding the

earthworks and places of prehistoric occupation around Granville, but the same can be said for most of North America as a whole. What we do have is important evidence that still remains on (or under) the surface which has

been recorded in aerial photographs that are available to any interested

party willing to search them out.

Squier and Davis (1848), Parks (1871), Hill (1881), Smucker (1881) and

Bushnell ( 1889) all made contributions to our knowledge of prehistory in the Granville area, but even they admit that the source of most of their information was from oral histories and not from serious studies and documentation of the archaeological resource. As thorough as Squier and

Davis' study was, and as accurate as their drawings of other sites were, they seem to have spent little time and energy fully exploring the prehistoric built environment of the Granville area. Instead they focused on two prominent features on the bluffs overlooking the valley (the Alligator and Old Granville Fort) while appearing to bypass the sites on the terrace below. 198 (Although they did note the Granville Circle on the map of "the six miles of the Newark Valley." [Figure 1])

It must be concluded that much of what Hill and Bushnell described is lost forever, unless traces appear and are documented during the construction of roads and houses over the next few years. What little does

remain, mainly the Granville Circle and the parallel embankments below the circle and possible traces in the fields around Farmington development, will disappear within the next decade.

This study has provided some new information about the prehistoric built environment of Granville, Ohio, but as is the case with most studies of this type, it has raised more questions than it has answered; questions that for the most part can only be addressed through field work. CHAPTER IV

DEVELOPMENT LAND USE, AND THE PRESERVATION OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES

This section introduces the second major part of the dissertation. The previous section dealt with the archaeological resource in the Granville area, identifying major components of that resource, while the following deals

specifically with the ownership of important archeological properties and the preservation of archaeological resources. As previously stated, the archaeological sites in question are, with two exceptions, in Licking County.

Granville, Ohio in Licking County is the focus of the study and 1 concentrated

primarily on the process and politics of preservation in that area. The following chapters tie the archaeological resource in Granville to the people who live in the area today. (How previous generations dealt with and identified the resource was covered in the previous chapters.)

Development And Land Use in Granville. Ohio

What has happened to the archaeological resource in Granville, Ohio can be traced in part to land use practices and development philosophies. Archaeological sites have been seen as relatively unimportant features on the landscape; features that were a curious reminder of past cultures, but nothing more than that.

199 200 The largest complex of prehistoric earthworks in Licking County, besides the Newark Earthworks, were those in the area generally defined as within Lots One-13 of the original Granville Purchase, or the area between the village's east edge (prior to 1990) and Cheny Valley Road about a mile

and half to the east of that boundary. Before 1976, this land has remained in the hands of heirs to the J. S. Jones estate, specifically Sallie Jones Sexton and her sister, Alice Virginia.

Pressure for development in the Granville area began in the late 1960's and intensified greatly in the early 1970's. The Jones property north of the Newark-Granville Road was the crown jewel of potential development land. It is difficult to predict, but had Sallie Jones Sexton remained solvent, the development east of Granville and what would later become part of Granville, might have happened in a very different way. According to

Fanchion Lewis (1988) and Minnie Hite Moody (1992) and reports in the press, Mrs. Sexton was interested in the breeding and showing of hunting horses and also in supporting theater productions at Playhouse on the Green, south of Delaware, Ohio. The family fortune had been based on investments made by J. S. Jones and some of these investments, mainly coal related, were in a state of decline. Because Sallie Sexton was not a very good manager of her estate she eventually went bankrupt. Minnie Hite Moody comments on Sallie Sexton stating:

1 was very fond of Sallie, but 1 was about the only one around here who was. People around here mistrust people with money. Sallie's just like me, we're the last generation that cares for family land.

By 1974 rumors about Sallie Sexton's financial condition were rampant. Creditors were suing her and all her properties including the 201 Granville Inn were in jeopardy. Sexton had to dispose of the Granville Golf Course earlier in order to stay out of trouble. The company which owned the Golf Course, Equities Diversified Incorporated, wanted to develop 300 condo units and 50 house lots along the golf course. The Granville Development

Commission approved the project. The Granville Inn, which had been purchased by Equities Diversified,

was deeded back to Sexton because of debts she owed on the business,

including $40,000 in back taxes. She secured a $100,000 loan to clear the debt, but this did not solve any of her troubles.

The courts took control of Sexton's assets and a sheriff's sale was ordered in March, 1974 (Sentinal. 1974a). The appraised value of seven

parcels of land Sexton owned was finally set at $1,055,000. However, by now creditors' claims had reached $1,645,178 and a new sale date was set for September of 1974. The September 18, 1974 Sentinal headline read "Bryn Du Farm Earns

Reprieve." The September 13 sale date was canceled by Judge Walter Bolton due to the cancellation of a $866,032 mortgage against Sexton. Sexton had, according to the report, been trying to settle with her creditors since August 7,1972.

The first community forum designed to address the development crisis in Granville was held in September, 1974. The forum's title was "How Shall

Granville Grow." At this meeting Sallie Jones Sexton spoke out in person:

You have the Advocate's stoiy, it's time you had mine. The Sheriffs sale is halted permanently as long as I can show I am making headway toward improving my financial condition.

I have resolved some of my financial difficulties, but not all of them. I did sell the Golf Course not by choice; I sold it by 202 necessity. I don't want to sell Bryn Du I don't want a bulldozer in the fields. I have had opportunities to sell, some of them to people you wouldn't want to sell to. Some of them didn't have the right attitude toward the community. Some of those people would have curled your hair. (Sentinal. September 25, 1974).

The forum's addressed the zoning situation from many perspectives. Concerning the Granville Community's Zoning laws developer Robert Kent stated:

The individual has the right to put his land to the highest and best use-but he has the responsibility to the surrounding area. The individual must use good judgment in developing land. Zoning laws are important and the ways we have to solve zoning problems are adequate for the present. (Sentinal. September 25, 1974)

Two sides developed in the zoning and planning issue; one side saw Kent's view; if it works, don't fix it; while others saw a need to plan using zoning as a tool to either control or limit growth. At the second forum (September, 1974) it was noted that the planning that was currently being addressed should have been in place ten years earlier. People were afraid that developers, mostly from Columbus, were going to forever change the lifestyle in their small New England-like community. It was recommended that the entire township be annexed and zoned to control development. Denison University Professor Don Valdez stated that:

Looking back to 1959, the issues then were essentially the same as they are today. Unless we work together the green hills which surround Granville and contribute so much to it may vanish. (Sentinal. October 9, 1974) 203 A green belt and tax exempt gifts of land were discussed. Richard Paugh noted that if a 2 mill levy were passed to acquire green space it would produce $40,000 a year for that purpose. By mid-November 1975, Sexton was in court again and her property was rescheduled for Sheriffs auction on December 5. Her financial problems

were so serious that she could not resolve them unless she could find a private buyer and sell the property prior to that date. (Sentinal. November

26,1975)

Ways to prevent the sale of property to a developer were discussed among interested and concerned Granville residents, including Dr. Robert Alrutz, a professor of Biology at Denison University. In a last-ditch effort this group tried to develop a plan through which the Granville Community could acquire Sexton's land. The Nature Conservancy was asked if they would be willing to buy the land for $ 1,112,000 as a holding action. It was felt that grants of up to $800,000 and local funds totaling $320,000 could be raised. The community was given a maximum of 14 days to secure the deal. As part of the arrangement, Sexton would have life tenancy of the mansion and a $20,000 annual stipend for 10 years. All farm machinery, equipment and household furnishings would become the property of the Granville Community.

The Granville Preservation Association (GPA), led by Alrutz tried to raise the needed capital. Various ideas to save the situation were considered including bonds, taxes and using a corporation to purchase and hold the land in trust. (Sentinal. January 2, 1976)

All these efforts failed and so the GPA started to work toward controlling the development that was sure to take place. The public was made aware of the potential hidden costs of development which were said to 204 include: increased stress on public education, public utilities, police, fire, waste disposal, parking, government staff and recreational facilities (Sentinal. February 5, 1976).

On February 19, 1976 the Sheriff again tried to sell the land, but only spectators showed up. Those interested in the property considered it to be overvalued so Judge Bolton had the property reevaluated again and divided

the land into three parcels with a total of 315 acres.

In the meantime, Sexton had gone to Florida to attend a horse show and while she was away the employees at her Granville Inn walked off the job. It

seems they had not been paid for several weeks. Sexton had also been arraigned in Licking County Common Pleas Court for writing bad checks (Sentinal. April 1, 1976).

With no more cards to play and debts accumulating, the property was

finally sold in June 1976. The large tract and another smaller one were purchased by the P. E. Grubb, Incorporated Seed Farms of Johnstown, Ohio for

over $700,000. The major stockholder in the company was a Pataskala resident, William Wright.

The Granville Inn was purchased by Robert Kent through his attorney (Sentinal. April 12, 1976). The contents of Sallie Sexton's mansion were sold

at a giant tag sale in September 1976. But even this event did not pass without controversy. Thousands of buyers and spectators waited outside the giant stone structure only to find that nearly everything on the first floor had already been marked sold. One irate man ran through the crowd waiting

outside screaming "Rip off, rip off, don't pay $5.00 to get inside!" A colossal traffic jam resulted as many unhappy customers left while others tried to enter the parking lot. 205 Thus, an era ended with Sallie Jones Sexton losing her inheritance to bankruptcy, and Alice Virginia, Jones' other daughter, eventually selling her land (Lots One-Four) to developers Herb and Frank Murphy later. The stage was set for radical changes in the pastoral setting along the Newark- Granville Road; it was only a matter of time now until development would take place. What this new situation meant to the archaeological resource was fairly obvious. However, there seemed to be little interest in the Old

Granville Fort, the crescent (if it could have been located) or habitation sites that were in the area, like the Murphy Site or the Munson Spring Site. The only interest appeared to be in the Alligator Mound, as was mentioned in

area, as well as other descriptions (Hill, Senifer and Davis, Parks), had not inspired further investigations by professional archaeologists working in the mid to late 20th centuty. Nor had the curiosity of the local community

been stimulated to try and obtain further documentation and to locate

remnants of the old earthwork sites. Local historical societies had focused all their energy on historical sites, and prehistoric archaeology had only been addressed in a few poorly documented stone tool collections located in exhibit

cases. Surprisingly, even local institutions of higher learning, mainly Denison University, had all but ignored the resource (see Chapter on The

Alligator Mound) except for a few treasure hunting expeditions by faculty and students. Individuals involved in the preservation movement in Granville were poorly equipped to protect archaeological sites, or to include them in any

plan. The Alligator Mound was the only site known in the area and everyone had assumed someone else would protect it since it had been placed on the 206 National Register of Historic Places. Perhaps more significantly though is the fact that most of the GPA members and all of those working to preserve green space knew little about the archaeological sites and had far less interest in them than they did in historic buildings and open spaces. This is

evident in the planning documents of the community and does not change until the new long range plan (1990) was introduced. Had archaeology been part of the planning process of the late 1960's and early 1970's sites like the Old Granville Fort, and the Granville Circle might have been addressed. The following documentation which includes interview and questionnaire summaries will help to define further why the archaeological resource has been largely ignored and what, in general, the attitude of the public is today toward that resource.

Interview Study - Part I

H ir s h le r

Marilyn Hirshler had worked for Granville and Licking County

Preservation issues for two decades. By the late 1980's she was frustrated and tired of the conflict as she states in her letter to me:

1 have to say that 1 was devastated by what happened in Granville, that 1 had fought and lost so many times, that when the opportunity came with Eric’s retirement to GET OUT and leave all the stress behind, we did so and are happy to be living in Maine.

Marilyn was a founding member of the Granville Preservation Association and the Licking County Archaeology and Landmarks Society and served as a Board Member of LCALS and the GPA. Her main interest was in preserving the architectural integrity of Granville, and by associating herself with 207 LCALS and GPA she was labeled an activist radical by some individuals who worked with, or for, the established historical societies within Licking County. Hirshler answered several questions that I had presented to her in our correspondence. Some questions and responses are provided below. 1. What do you perceive the problems with Granville planning to be? "GREED, inability of the council to withstand economic interests of a few

individuals. IGNORING the expressed desires of the citizens, as in the GASP survey which was never used. Governing bodies favor the wishes of the few - look at the federal government."

The GASP Survey indicated that the majority of the Granville residents who responded to the survey did support, at least in principal, the preservation of heritage sites. However, unless surveys provide specific case

situations in which the site, purpose, and cost of the preservation effort are well defined it is difficult to predict the actual overall support for a given project. This is especially true where economic support is involved. The

Hooge survey does at least support the conclusions of the GASP Survey. The Hooge survey is also more specific with regard to support for funding preservations.

2. Why weren't more efforts made to recognize the diverse assets of the community and to try to address the needs for preserving them? "APATHY on the part of the public. Granville became a bedroom community and people were not as much interested in local matters." Hirshler's conclusion that changes in the demographics of the Granville community led to increased apathy about local matters is shared by

other individuals interviewed for this dissertation including Dennison, Smith, and Larson. This subject is discussed later in my summarized remarks. 208 Apathy was also mentioned by others that were interviewed. They saw it to be a problem generally for preservation projects. Melody Frey suggests that apathy is directly linked to a general lack of education concerning the subject of prehistory and archaeology.

3. What were the difficulties in getting on boards? "They were afraid to appoint me because of my ACTIVISM. 1 went to meetings and spoke up anyway and they didn't care for it a bit. Maybe they like submissive women

- maybe they don't like Jews - or 'newcomers' (only 30 years in town!) Granville planning was dominated by developers and Realtors and the business community. They were glad when GPA got them on The National

Register because that made real estate more valuable and was a drawing card for visitors to the inns. National Register status spells prestige to Realtors. Landowners kept insisting on their rights to do as they wished with their property and our group - or 1 - had no business telling them what they could or couldn't do.

Marilyn Hirshler's comments above demonstrates her strong feelings and resentment, feelings shared by Tim Dennison and others who have worked to include preservation and green space in the planning process. However, resentment was also expressed by those who wish to develop land and realize a profit from their investment. Developer Jack Lucks speaks for many of these individuals.

M cP hail

Hirshler and others were critical of the village government and of developers. I wanted to get other views in order to be as objective as possible.

I found that many of the developers did not want to discuss the subject, but 209 several individuals suggested I interview Angus McPhail, owner and editor of the local community newspaper, the Sentinal. McPhail was generally viewed

as fair in his opinion and extremely well informed. McPhail and 1 met in his office on Elm Street in July 1992. 1 found he was quick to get to the point and was not afraid to express his views on the topic of development and preservation, although he was aware that by being outspoken he would possibly risk offending some individuals whom he depended on for advertising in his newspaper. McPhail stated that controversial issues, especially those having to do with development and the planning process had been avoided in the press and especially the Granville Sentinal prior to his purchase of the paper.

When we bought the newspaper three years ago, none of these things had been covered in the press. They resented the fact that we were coming in and writing about what was going on. They had a 10 year period of free rein; nobody watching. Every now and then the Advocate would come in, but they pretty much did exactly as they pleased.

The realities of planning and preservation in America and the concept of the individuals right to develop their property in a way that they desire became subjects of news stories in the Sentinal under McPhail's direction. McPhail recognized the conflicts of interest articulated by Hirshler, Dennison and others and the compromised position of the Planning Commission in the decision making process in Granville.

They started out well, with the Master Plan. They wanted to have New England style village and surroundings, preserve the green space around Granville, squeeze everything into quasi-hamlets, preserves; the concept's great, but this is America; you buy your 3 acres on the road and put your ranch right in there where you want it. Nobody is really concerned with aesthetics. It's already gotten to the point where there 210 are people living in those developments in and around Granville who have no sense of 'downtown Broadway'; they're using it as a bedroom community. We have friends who work in Columbus who don't even get a subscription to the newspaper because t hey don't consider this their 'home." They don't care about the school district, Broadyway, ....

McPhail sees the Alligator Mound as an example of poor planning and the result of a population that is generally disinterested and uninvolved in the planning process.

As far as the Alligator is concerned, there are houses built right on the northern side of it. If there was a concerned effort to plant trees and block those houses and leave the western and southern exposures open and make a parking space for 5-6 cars to open it up for the public. 1 think the whole thing's a disgrace. The houses are being built on lots up there that are non-buildable; I have no idea who called those 'lots'; you shouldn't be able to build on that. They were approved. These houses have no yard, you can't even mow the lawn, you can't stand on them! You'd be scraping the hill. The mound is surrounded with a road, the base has been cut out of it, I just think it's a disgrace. Accessibility; you have to drive all the way through the development before you get to it, it's got a dead end street, (I guess it encircles it); there's no parking. 1 can't see anyone going there to have a picnic. 1 guess the only good thing you can say about it is that it's still there. The purpose of the mound, 1 think, was to stand up there and look at the view (it had one of the best views in Granville) but now if you

look at the view you see lots of houses. But like I said, it's still there. He could have bulldozed the whole thing. We have a Village government that says you have to have a wide road to get fire trucks and emergency vehicles down, calls for a 60' roadway. A 60' roadway surrounded by no trees and sidewalks are not attractive. What's attractive about Granville is there are narrow roads with trees right next to them. But you can't have a narrow road with trees next to them because people can drive off the road and smash into them and kill themselves. Public welfare. Bryn Du looks like something out of California. The worst of California. You've got to have the wood door, varnished the same, the brass lamp and everybody's mailboxes 211 exactly the same. There's no accounting for taste. If public welfare and safety call for certain things, the bureaucrats are going to say that's what they want.

Lucks

McPhail points out the differences among developers, planners, and the public concerning the nature of planning. Some individuals like Jim Bascomb believe that 5 acre lots are needed to guarantee green space while

McPhail thinks that clusters reflecting the current layout of the village might be more desirable. Developer Jack Lucks would agree. 1 interviewed

Lucks at his office in Columbus, Ohio. Lucks was one of the few developers

who agreed to an interview. Lucks believes that developers have been given a bad name by the media.

Well, they've [the public] been conditioned by television, the movies. It's almost like lawyer jokes. All of it is negative. You're conditioned very young. It's the big developer going after the little farmer man. The farmer man becomes richer than everyone who has worked the land for the last 300 years. It's so political.

Lucks tried to dispel the notion that development always means big money or easy money. He also contends that too few people are involved enough in planning to understand how or why it works best and why it sometimes doesn't seem to work at all.

I have invested millions and millions of dollars and have taken no services from Granville and only give them money in the way of taxes. Therefore 1 feel I have paid more than my dues in Granville and I am very bitter about the way we have been treated. I became enraptured with the beauty of Granville and that's why 1 bought here. I've spoken at council meetings for 17 years. Look at these surroundings. I know what is here. I know what good is. Better is nothing at all. Best of all is nothing. Everyone wants that. There's not one person who has ever gone to the meeting and said lets pass the hat for 212 hundreds or millions of dollars and buy it all and buy out the Bill Wrights, the Jack Lucks, the Bob Kents and keep it exactly as it is. What they say is I bought a house in 1947, 57, 67 whatever for $37,000 and don't take your 11/2 million dollars and develop the land so others can use it. Keep it valued at $100,000 dollars. It's a terrible economic issue. It's a shame the country isn't owned by kings. That's why England is so beautiful. Sally Jones, who they ran out of town, she inventoried approximately 500 hundred acres with the house and bams etc. She kept it the way they all wanted it. She is a public servant and they ran her out. I sent her flowers, because 1 felt so sorry for her. Those people had no concept of what she did for them. She maintained the Granville Inn the old way before they redid it. So you can see how acid and bitter I am. 1 couldn't agree more until its time to belly up to the bar and put your money where your mouth is. None of them do it. They just holler and bite. They don't do any thing to help the cause. In fact, when they finally beat the thing to a pulp and they get the economics so poor in the deal, pretty soon the value of the houses that you put on them is greatly reduced. In order to seek out what you have to have to break even after they change the densities etc. You have to change the quality of the architecture you can put on the site. So there are huge problems with this. What I have learned in 17 years there [Granville] and a few other zoning [situations] is that common opinion is always wrong. I'd like to say sometimes wrong. ...but democracy seems to work, 1 haven't seen it work in zoning anywhere. 1 have not seen it work. 1 see it totally driven on emotion and on politics. The result is why everyone gets on a 747 and flies to England and flies to Austria or someplace where it hasn't been messed up. We keep ruining everything. I'm trying not to ruin things. Its not easy. Everything we've built is built with an apology, it's not the best we could have done. It's infinitely better than any of our competitors around it. It gets less of a return than if it were something less. Its not as good as it could be, because unfortunately the world just doesn't pay you. In America there are no values for good architecture, good land layout. They won't pay you enough for it. We put more into cars than we do for houses. We lease cars, like the Infiniti cars that lease for $600 per month. We say oh, we could get a house for around $900 per month. That's where our values are. We aren't trying to do slate roofs, real handmade brick. We did hand made brick on our condos last year; it didn't cost that much more. Look at Les Wexner's development. He's using handmade brick and beautiful landscaping and cluster development to leave green space. 1 doubt if he's making much. I spend more time and energy on the street design than the Granville Village Manager has in his life time and worried for 213 two years and worked on it for two years and the planning commission looks at it for 1/2 hours with their doctors, lawyers, etc. and they have all good intentions and then they have OSU study it for 12 minutes and they think they know as much as we do. I've spent thousands of hours and I don't think its fair that some elected official who doesn't know anything about this type of thing and they can say what is better for this subdivision. They think they do, because the press has programmed them since they were 3 years old not to trust the developer because he's greedy. He must want narrower streets because there's something in it for him, other than to make the street scape look better and so the kids don't get run over. Remember the 50's when the streets were narrow and their was a sense of community and the paper boy could throw the paper from the middle of the street for houses on both sides. Then you had the big open area. Instead what we've done is do away with the open spaces and give everybody an acre or 1/2 acre. Everybody thinks that if you have 1 acre or 5 acre plots, its better for everyone.

They got their streets wider but what did they win. You can do 100 miles an hour on Bryn Du's streets they're so wide. It looks like anywhere's villa. Does it look like Granville. I lived in Bexley and we had narrow streets and old alleys and it was great. They were 14' wide. When we went to put in an addition, they said we had to widen the alleys in this one area to 22'. It ruins the character of the neighborhood. How did they get along since 1910 up to now?

In an attempt to try and define a planning system or procedure that would actually work Lucks becomes frustrated and throws his hands in the air. He concludes that only a king can do the job correctly because a king has no competing groups lobbying for this or that modification or change.

He described Developer and limited Owner Les Wexner as a metaphorical king — since he purchased all the land he could (within certain limits) pan as he wished and produced a development that conformed mostly to his own standards aesthetically. Lucks pointed out that under the current system, Americans haven't planned very effectively.

It will happen in New Albany because of the King. He has no town. But they're beginning to see how beautiful it is. He had planners from Harvard lay this out and they can see that its good. I hope they'll retain their good planning. 214

Signage - we've polluted the world with signs by the time you get to work because you've probably driven by hundreds of signs. It's not pleasant. What have we done to ourselves. Its amazing that in 80 or 90 years we could have made the United States as ugly as we've made it. We seek to go back to a less polluted time, or we get on an airplane and go somewhere where they haven't screwed it up. I don't think they appreciate their environment, do they? How many people recycle their cans. We went from one end of the country to the other and kept throwing away until we got to the Pacific Ocean and then we said, Oh, maybe we better do something. That seems to be the flaw in the Free Market theory (Adam Smith's theory I think). That there will be just the right amount of eggs and milk coming to market each morning. Because if he has any left over one day, he'll decide not to bring as much tomorrow. If the government tries to run it, it won't work. There has to be something about economics though that there has to be some bigger thing like the King who used to be able to say - Let's (start) with 5000 acres. He's the king. Because he's going to run it. It can't be some city manager that bends to what everyone in politics wants, or any of them, because they are all corrupt. The government in general is corrupt. Except the King. It's a kind of elitess kind of thought isn't it? After all, when you think about it, we're just leasing the land so to speak in our lifetime. If 1 get 30 years out of this piece of land we purchased from Bill Wright. Just like the farm on the right. All of us are really just leasing, we don't really own anything. If there is some unbelievable, extraordinary discovery and then if you destroy it to build something else on it, that's wrong. You've destroyed it forever. If its to document an area that had been occupied, such as the site in Chillicothe; it was a site where people lived everywhere, then drawing a map and recording as the developer goes along is what should be done, so we know a little more about these people from thousands of years ago. I think that's very compatible. The developer just works around this and programs his day to coordinate his work schedule. If its some incredible find, like the Alligator Mound, you shouldn't build on it.

Lucks believes that developers should work with archaeologists, but that planning should be part of the whole process and sites could be mapped in as part of the general earth moving and land alternation. LCALS has had 215 considerable success over a 10 year period in working with developers and in only one instance did the developer refuse to cooperate.

D en n iso n The interview with Tim Dennison took place at his house. Tim teaches

at the Granville Elementary School. He was an active founding member of the Granville Preservation Association and an outspoken proponent of planning. His views help to define the difficulties he and others were confronted with while trying to preserve the areas historical integrity and greenspace. Dennison and other activists who fought for planning and preservation in Granville all eventually gave up or changed strategies dramatically during the last half of the 1980s. There seemed to be a resignation among them. Dennison states:

I can't wait to get out. Run away. I'm waiting for the kids to be done with school, in 7 years. I have no plans to retire here though.

Tim Dennison generally concedes that the preservation efforts of the 1970s and 1980s were only marginally successful and that even when evidence was gathered that documented public interest in preservation it was ignored by the decision makers in the community.

We had heightened the awareness of development in this community and fought the good fight and it was time to let somebody else take over and no one did. The meetings were very well attended and there was vocal opposition, however, the council difi^used the anti-voices by appointing a joint committee to study the issues of zoning, planning for not only the village, but township as well. That was a bi partisan, multifaceted 17 member group called the Granville Area Study and Planning Committee (GASPC); 216 they kind of asked for the developers to wait before proposing any more subdivisions until our report was complete. Our report was not submitted until 1982; by that time Hilengreen [development] had already been passed again and no referendum was forthcoming. Results of the questionnaire were never really considered. In my opinion, it was a complete smoke screen. There are questions on here that deal directly with the issue of greenspace, historical and archaeological landmarks.

This was an incredibly well-responded to effort to get 1323 respondents out of I think 2500 households to which it went. We considered it useful and successful, however, it was not relevant. Council and the township trustees never responded to the findings. At that point I personally dropped out completely of the community savior mode and made a conscious effort to not get involved and spent the next 5 years in hibernation. I was very personally and professionally hurt by the going-ons in this community.

The late 70's and early 80's also marked a period of changing demographics in the Granville community according to Dennison. These changes influenced the direction of and type of development that was to take place.

I think the whole community environment and social structure has changed drastically in the last 6 years. The differences 1 see physically are traffic, direct, living on this main road it's incredible how much filth the road kicks up. The subdivision across the street with the mound in it, though by some standards are attractive, I find repulsive, I find it to be a hodge-podge of opulence and I think the lack of consideration for the historic nature of the mound is evident. By that, they encased it in asphalt, an asphalt girdle and there's no way to walk up to it, nothing describing it, no explanation of why this turn around is there or any other cul-de-sac; maybe that lack of advertisement is good. So these poor rich people don't get a lot of traffic up there. I have mixed feelings; I must say I don't like the commercialization of history. I'm not real fond of the Sturbridge Villages and Roscoe Villages, but 217 if that's the only way to show the masses what life was like then, then I must favor them because I think history is very important. I've been teaching American History for 19 years now and I think it's extremely important to know what our mistakes and successes were. The efforts that have been made at the Alligator Mound have been very elementary and I hope the community leams how to preserve future sites. Dennison sums up his feelings about planning, development, and preservation in the following statement:

As in what Deep Throat told Woodward and Bernstein; 'follow the money.' I'm not saying bribes or kick backs, but follow the money and you will known why village leadership is pro-development. From insurance, real estate developers, attorneys and an occasional educator. Follow the money.

Sochor

Bob Sochor has built several houses in Bryn Du Woods. I wanted to speak with him and we met by accident. Sochor wasn't real enthusiastic about discussing the planning and development, or related issues. Sochor was interested in archaeology; he has spent a week visiting sites in Mexico and expressed concern about the preservation of some sites. With regard to one's ability to develop their land, Sochor was quite outspoken. He felt it was discriminatory to take away the value of someone's property when their neighbor can profit from theirs. Public apathy about community planning and other community projects is a problem, according to Sochor. He cited the

Burning Tree Mastodon as a case in point. The Mastodon is for sale to foreign buyers because of "a basically disinterested public who were not willing to support the project." 2 1 8 The situation concerning the Alligator Mound was also one in which Sochor said the community showed disinterest and the Granville Planning Commission failed to take any lead. Consequently, we ended up with a problem where the property owners are hurt because of poor planning. "It is an extremely difficult problem with no easy solution" Sochor stated.

Murphy

Jim Murphy is a horticulturist and tree specialist. He has been in the business in the area for about two decades and knows the environment as well as the business climate. Most of his work is done as a contractor to individuals or businesses.

Murphy has spent considerable time in Bryn Du Woods subdivision and he is very familiar with the flora on the golf course and the residential lots.

He has been hired by both entities to consult on trees and landscaping in the

area. I was especially interested in Jim Murphy's ideas and perceptions concerning the space around the Alligator Mound and how the space changed because of the residential impact on plant diversity.

The interview became very philosophical and at times seemed to stray from the topic. However, what I found that Murphy was trying to do, and I encouraged it, was to explain why the problems we were discussing existed.

We met at Murphy's remote cabin where he lives with his dog on about twenty acres of land. Murphy had restored the cabin and added a log addition made with locally cut timber. The drive into his place can require a four wheel drive vehicle at times, but Murphy isn't too concerned about the situation. 219 Jim Murphy believes that the whole development-planning- preservation issue boils down to a single issue-money, and even though there may be interest in the mounds the economics of land use takes precedence. When money is involved it provides the stimulus to sustain

movement in a specific direction.

The more active people dealing in this process are the people that have something to gain. Others, with nothing to gain may do nothing. Extraordinary effort is put out when profit is to be made! Profit creates stamina, undoubtedly! If someone falls off, someone will take his place; if someone gets a chance to weasel someone else out. A real cumulative tag- team affect there. Now someone seeking to be benevolent, when they drop off, there's no one to take his place. But plenty of profit-seekers. Not to say that good things can't happen. I would think that would be a pretty accurate generalization.

Education is also a factor and Murphy points out that in our society there is no real incentive to leam just for the sake of knowledge. Concerning the mounds and archaeology in general Murphy states:

Eveiybody is fascinated by it but, if it isn't presented and made available and made palatable, there sure are plenty of other distractions. Just an hours worth of TV gives kids plenty of ideas. He's not going to miss the mounds any. He's encouraged to do the things that make money for someone. Nobody makes money off a kid who wants to go look at the mounds. I doubt that's done on purpose. But there again is that tag-team effect of certain persons making money off something or someone. No one advertises the other things, no one encourages visitation of the mounds. Very curious having grown up around it here. I used to look through the encyclopedias and get foreigner's notions of what the mounds were about, back when I was going to school in the late '50s and '60s. Very distant kind of information. 1 was curious that there wasn't anything local about 220 what seemed to me extensive compared to other parts of the country. I used to hike to Moundbuilder's Golf Course, just to play around on them and feel some of the "vibes" from the monstrous impressive structure. Every few years there might have been a group of students go out and look at the mounds. I can't recall anything approaching real education.

Trees and landscapes are Jim Murphy's specialization and he has consulted on several situations dealing with large mature trees surrounding the Alligator Mound. Murphy noted that the huge oak north of the mound was doomed when the utility ditches cut the roots around 50% of the tree. No consideration was given to the tree in the planning process although it was considered a major asset to the lot and was a factor in the sale of the lot. Murphy explains:

...often I would say take trees out, make room. Building has to go on, hospitals for example. To try to work with the trees is expensive but can be done. Maybe have to do different grading, move the roadway, maybe leave it alone. It costs more to have to adapt it than not. In our society, we leave problems. Problems that won't surface for a couple years, people don't have any qualms at all about leaving them for future generations. Some responsibility is given away there, walking away from an expense. Not very benevolent, decent, or any number of descriptions.

North west of the Alligator Mound another massive ancient white oak was incorporated into the lot and house plan:

It's dangerous. The lot wasn't sufficient size to have the house built proportionately away from the tree. That tree is on borrowed time. It should be in a park or in a field with no one allowed under neath it within inches of it. The fact is we've worked on the tree several times. It's neat looking. 221 but not practical or safe. It's an example of how we're trying to force our desires and wishes about wanting to have aesthetics, when it's totally contrary to appropriate to healthful conditions on behalf of the plant. It doesn't fit in their logic or purpose, so it doesn't compute, it doesn't fit in their mental framework. Something is lost there.

L arson There are a few individuals in Granville who decided on their own to

preserve green space and to include archaeological and historic places in this green space preservation. The leader of this group is Kathy I^son. She has been an activist in Granville for over two decades. In 1989 Larson and a small group of like-minded green space advocates formed the Granville Land Conservancy (GLC) in order to encourage private land owners to permanently set aside plots of land that would help preserve some of the rural nature of their community.

Although the GLC does not specifically target archaeological sites for preservation, they do see their organization as a mechanism in which multiple objectives can be reached. Thus the preserved green space may preserve archaeology as an unintentional bonus or an archaeological site may serve as the catalyst to preserve additional green space. Preserving any open space in Granville has been a problem, according to Larson, because everyone has expected someone else to take on the responsibility.

...The community likes the open spaces and trees. They don't think about it till they're about to lose it. The other thing about the Granville Community is there are a lot of organizations and people are very busy and think someone else will take care of it. I'm interested in doing this other thing and someone else will take care of it, till they finally realized nobody is taking care of anything. When the Sexton farm was sold at auction Bob Alrutz tried to get people to put up money to buy the farm and preserve it. But people didn't have the vision of what the possibilities were. It wasn't unique enough for the Nature Conservancy to come in, because they were approached. The other thing is there are communities in this country where people really care about what is going on. It's frustrating to live where they don't. We read the daily newspapers and see something going on locally that would never be allowed to go on elsewhere. In New Hampshire the people are up in arms about a developer who is going to put 14 houses in a small town.

Larson believes that, generally, the community is not concerned about the environment around them. She notes:

Licking County is the 42nd worst poliuted county in the country. There was a recent publication in USA Todav that ranked counties across the country.

Another problem that Larson brought up has to do with public information about developments that will create more crowding and possibly pollution.

Bryn Du was approved while we were away, so 1 don't have first hand experience but he had been turned down at one point and the redesigned and the public hearing was held when we were on vacation; about the same time as a lot of people were out of town. A complaint often made at public meetings is that these governmental bodies published there legal notice in the paper with no other information as to how important the issue is that is to be brought up. 'We will be discussing thus-and-so' unless people have been actively pushing the Letters to the Editor. You can easily miss that tiny print Legal Notice in the back of the paper. Time has come and gone and you missed it. But the develops and their supporters are there every time. People are 223 frustrated by this. People want input and to have their say, but it is not made convenient for them to do so. Maybe its because these people are just volunteers and are pressed with work, and they figure there is no interest. It's a shame there's not a mechanism in place to get this out to the public so they have ample time.

With regard to archaeology, Larson, like Melody Frey, believes that education is a key to the problem and a solution.

1 think it goes back to education. I've lived in Granville for 26 years. 1 wanted to go to it [The Alligator Mound], but nobody seemed to know how to get there. Or people would say, its all covered over with brambles and when you get there, it's hard to see. Nobody was writing about it. It would have made a great field trip for the elementary school. They could have studied the archaeology, the science, the Indians and walked the area, etc. The massive mound itself, I think would have impressed a child. Nothing was done. There didn't seem to be interest. I don't know why. When you have a building, its there, it's visible. Someone has taken care of it and its easier for them to do something about it. Take the Opera House. There was a movement to save it when it became run down, because it was there and visible everyday... A feature such as the Alligator was removed, not noticeable unless you went there. So, it became not important.

Frey and Bascom

Dennis and Melody Frey and Jim and Charlene Bascom live along the edge of the Old Granville Fort (Figure 13). The Bascom's are Melody Frey's parents as well as next door neighbors. The Freys and Bascoms own part of or live adjacent to an earthwork, the Old Granville Fort. This enclosure is

thoroughly described in another section of this dissertation so nothing additional will be added here. 224 The Freys and Bascoms built their homes between 1986 and 1988. The Frey's home is located along the west edge of the west outer wall of the main enclosure at its southern most point. The Bascom's home is situated just south of the enclosure opening and in the general area where Bushnell (1889) reported a stone mound. I interviewed both couples at the Frey's home on

May 2,1992. The Frey's home commands a beautiful view of the valley and

especially of the Alligator Mound and Bryn Du Development. I used the walk behind the Frey's house as one of the locations for photographing the surrounding landscape and the Alligator Mound. The valley below their home will be developed at some point after the negotiations between the

Village and the developer are completed. Dennis Frey is a Newark, Ohio police offer and Melody Frey is an elementary teacher in one of the Licking County Schools. Jim and Charlene

Bascom are retired chicken farmers from Pataskala, Ohio. Jim Bascom holds a degree from The Ohio State University. Both Jim Bascom and Dennis Frey have been active in monitoring the planning process for the expanded village of Granville.

When the Freys and Bascoms purchased their property from William Wright they had no idea that the site was an ancient ceremonial enclosure.

However they were aware that many artifacts had been found during the construction of the Kosancik's residence. They had heard about the discovery from the excavator. Consequently they were interested in what had been found and investigated their own properties for signs of prehistoric occupation during the excavations for their homes. Only after construction had started and their curiosity had been aroused did they learn 225 that there had once been an ancient earthwork in the area and that the valley had a rich archaeological history. Jim Bascom comments:

I can see it now that we're here, but now 1 could question whether this area should have been developed. It had already been here for 8-10 years before we built. We weren’t made aware from anybody until we talked to that excavator that this was a rich archaeological area.

We have lovely building sites here, all four of us. 1 think that if we had known how important the site was here we wouldn't wanted it to have been developed. If we had known that we were destroying someone else's history, we would have wanted to find another place to build. 1 think that it was significant enough that this site shouldn't have been developed.

Melody Frey wondered why the Kosanciks had halted excavation for a period of time to investigate possible features and artifacts that had been found. She and everyone else wondered exactly what was found. All four of the individuals who participated in this interview expressed disappointment that something had not been done to save important aspects of the archaeology at the Old Granville Fort. Dennis Frey stated that he wished people had been more aware over the past 20 years so something might have been done then to address the broader question of saving archaeological sites and setting aside green space; in general, better planning.

Dennis Frey:

I think its difficult, because we're not a homogeneous society, whereas you look at Germany and the older countries they've been there for years, maybe there tends to be more of a sense of history. We've only been here for a couple of hundred years. 226 Charlene Bascom:

So many things are now being destroyed and the populations are growing so fast and Ailing in on these sites that have been here for so long and now they’re disappearing quickly and if someone doesn't study them or talk about them, then the information will be destroyed and nothing, not even the knowledge, will be left. So I think it becomes more important to us as people coming closer to the resource being gone.

Jim Bascom:

When I think about the archaeological things, evidently we haven't had the leadership we need. One step further, that mass that follows has to be not only able to give of their intellect, but give of their pocket too. In this capitalistic society, good ideas have to be backed up with capital. You just can't do anything without it. By being a lifelong church member, people will jump on an issue and gather around, but then when you want them to give of their resources, (time or money), boy, that's difficult. It should start in grade school. You have to educate the students at that point, so that when they grow up as adults, they'll be more aware. You take some of us adults and we have become so hardened that its hard to introduce something and hard to get something done.

Having spent most of their working lives in farming, the Bascoms

(including Melody) were aware of the prehistoric past from the artifacts that were turned up after the cultivation of the fields. They held these artifacts to be special and as Charlene Bascom put it, "the arrowheads were a link to the Indians, a link to our past."

Melody Frey first addressed the problems of preservation from the viewpoint of an educator. She said that there were two basic problems for those who want to teach about Americas ancient past: first, there are not enough materials and second, the school curriculum is suffering from mandated program gridlock. If you wanted to teach more about the past, than 227 is in the textbook, you have to sneak it in under something like cultural or ethnic diversity. Melody continues:

In looking at it from an educational perspective, it is a shame that we treat these sites in the fashion that we have; that we see them for another use such as a golf course or just a little green space to save back to just say its there. We can't really use it. As an educator, there might be some guilt, because I know I haven't talked about it either. There is an excellent opportunity there and 1 don't think we are doing that. Most of the field trips I took were to Columbus, never around here. You wouldn't go to Moundbuilders Park or Flint Ridge. It seemed like the interest was outside of licking County... If there was anything prehistoric, then it seemed like you went to the Ohio Historical Society Museum.

Charlene Bascom added:

1 graduated from Pataskala High School and I can't remember anything ever being mentioned about the mounds. Maybe when we studied Ohio History, the mounds may have been mentioned. Back when 1 went to school, field trips weren't even thought of. We usually used even old literature at that time. The teachers didn't seem to be interested in history that is close to us. But don't you think that's the way it always is. Things that are so close to you, you tend to overlook. That was back in the 30's and 40's.

The lack of consciousness or awareness that the public has concerning Native American prehistory was discussed at length. Jim Bascom attributes the seeming lack of interest in the past with the individuals more immediate concerns with the future. Dennis Frey mentioned that part of the difficulty can in part be attributed to the lack of homogeneity in our society — we are many people and therefore not really one. Melody Frey adds:

And that seems to be where it always begins in our textbooks, with the European invasions of North America. If an Indian culture is included in the story, its included in the context of how Europeans reacted to them. Anything that happened prior to that is peripheral. If it seems to have an interesting side line to it, it might be included, but its not often included.

There was a general consensus also concerning the treatment of Native Americans. Charlene summed up the treatment of Native American historically by saying "I think they've got a bum deal." Melody Frey added,

"There was a viable culture that was on this continent that had been going on for a long time and we don't talk about that. Even the world discovery

connotes that there was nothing of value here until we arrived on the

scene." The views of Dennis and Melody Frey and Jim and Charlene Bascom help to explain the frustration many people have with the planning process in Granville, Ohio. These individuals feel that the process has been historically insensitive to the wishes of the majority of the home owners in the Granville community and that special interests get their way by dominating the planning process and through pressure and perseverance. Jim Bascom summarized the feelings of the group in general:

Coming from the Pataskala/Kirkersville area we could see that the area was becoming part of the Reynoldsburg area. Because of various reasons, we moved to Granville. We viewed Granville as an Old New England, tranquil kind of place; a desirable place to live and retire. 1 was amazed that the professors and professionals in land planning, that they couldn't see that they should put definite limits on. I went to Planning meetings where Bill Wright's planners said you can stop development, but you have to stop it all over; have the same rules. But the Granville Planners didn't want to do that. I spoke up and said, once you allow them to do it in one area, the land owner next door then has the same right and so on. It multiplies. Once you start, you let the fox in the chicken house; you're in trouble. You put a stop to it now. 1 said that property values will only go up, you'll still have a tax base, because you'll always have people like us who are willing to pay more for that type of planning that has preserved 229 what was there. This will become another Reynoldsburg. When I was younger and had to drive from Kirkersville to the airport at Columbus, I had one traffic light; look at it now. The dollar signs flash and the land becomes too valuable. We stopped going to the meetings after a while because we could see there was no point in it.

My impression is that when you talk about the shakers and movers, it IS a very political process and you are up against a lot. Even the newspaper can't print the way they may really feel, because they have all of the Realtors who advertise and that could be 4096 of their business. So you're up against a lot of coalitions which may not be formal and they all recognize their own importance in the ladder. I don't know if just a private owner, who owns a five acre lot if we have any clout. They would t^ e your proposal and keep making amendments and each time watering it down. If they wanted greater density, they would eventually get it. They started out saying you're not getting an honest view from our officials because of their ties. 1 was told as soon as we found out; they were going to incorporate this area in Granville the reason was the building lots had to be 5 acres, in the township; if you put it into Granville Village, it can be 5 houses per acre; 25 in five acres. They told me there's no way they're not going to incorporate that; the developers want it so they can develop it, the sewer and water fecility are not operating at full capacity and can handle more. Federal and state aid can be had to build utilities. Growth is the only thing they know. If you aren't growing you aren't making progress. 1 quickly found out you were up against a brick w^l. TTie Realtors have a large sway, even to the local newspaper.

I suppose many of the people that live in the downtown area, don't have the kind of income that they need to keep these old houses up. So we don't even restore what we've done to the land. We just keep moving on. In your area of expertise, you're up against a tidal wave of trying to protect anything. In your questionnaire you asked about eminent domain, etc. We're in favor. You have to have a greater power or else the develop will just, they've just completely gotten their way here in Granville. 1 don't know if the people in Granville realize that or not. They got exactly what they wanted and they knew exactly how to get it. The people here were novice.

Melody Frey concluded with the following interesting remarks:

1 was talking to a lady 1 take art lessons with over at the Sinnet House last week and we were discussing that and 1 said '1 just wish that all of the building would stop now that I'm here, 1 don't want anyone else moving in.’ 230

They're older members that live in town. So they agreed with me completely. Here I am saying that now that I'm here 1 don't want anyone else moving in.

Most of the people in Granville that I talked to wanted to see slow growth, or no growth and the rural nature of the community preserved. Jim Bascom commented that its hard to get people to fund what they seem to

believe to be desirable. Jack Lucks makes the same point. The Nature Conservancy and The Archaeological Conservancy of the United States both have found that the only way to preserve sites is to buy them. It's a catch 22-

-people say they want preservation and green space, but generally don't want to fund it—at least that's what these interviews point to. These four individuals are among many in the Granville community who believe that the five acre lot regulation that was generally enforced in Granville Township was in the best interest of the people. Developers argue that clustering combined with common green space areas provides more

effective use of green areas and resources. Jim Bascom and Dennis Frey argue that the greenspaces that are finally set aside are usually steep slopes or unbuildable lot sites that are of little recreational value and that the real

objective of the developer is to maximize the number of lots for sale.

Another interesting point that the Frey's and Bascom's brought up was biodiversity. Dennis Frey said that he has noticed that there are fewer

animals and birds in the area since so much development has taken place. Jim Bascom used the chicken farm business to emphasize that the priorities of business is to maximize profit no matter what the consequence.

This attitude about maximum profits makes it almost impossible to preserve 231 archaeological sites since they would reduce the number of lots available and thus reduce profit.

Smith One of the few remnants of the Old Granville Fort that is still visible on

the surface is on Glen and Jan Smith's property . They own the lot in the extreme northeast portion of the Bryn Du Estates development along Jones Road and North of Rees Drive . Glen Smith is a local businessman and Jan is a

medical professional. I interviewed Glen in April of 1992 at their home. When the Smiths built their home in 1978, they had no idea that it was located on a prehistoric ceremonial site. Developer Mel Kosancik pointed this

fact out to him after they had built. Glen knew very little about prehistory or the Native Americans who had built the earthwork, but he said that "It gives

me a little bit of pride of ownership that I'm here."

When the Smiths put in a garden behind their house they discovered a prehistoric site, most of which dated to the late early Woodland period, or about 2200 years ago. At one point Glen said he was considering leveling a rise in the ground along the road, but reconsidered when he found out it was part of the earthwork. The Smiths are pleased to have a significant archaeological site on their property and want to protect what remains from destruction. Glen Smith suggested that we face two problem in preserving sites in Granville; first, people are very transitory and educating them is more difficult; second, the Granville area is becoming a bedroom community and people are less interested in preservation when they are less committed to what is happening in the community they live in. In addition. Smith noted 232 that our society has so many people with so many cultural and ethnic backgrounds, that it is difficult to develop a broad-base of appreciation for a small group, especially when the majority cannot relate to the cultural traits of people who are no longer even living. Smith also seemed jaded by the local political process and by the process of planning where he believes developers with finely honed skills manipulate communities so that their objectives can be achieved. He seemed resigned to the fact that developers had achieved their goal and there was basically nothing he or anyone else could do about it.

Glen Smith comments:

I’m against development. I think it’s just an evil you really can’t stop. This is a very desirable area for people to live in. Columbus is starting to grow east. But for years it didn't. People work for The Limited and live in Granville, some who are our friends.

You can go to the meetings. It’s amusing to me how the political groups say 'We're going to have a town meeting' and go up there and have everybody an opportunity to have their say and the developers come too. You say your piece and have a rebuttal and they go off and decide. Just like the Bill Wright thing. It would be interesting to lay out from the first to the final meeting to see what actually was done from beginning to end. Politics have to soft-shoe. 1 don’t think there's too much they can do to stop it. I've never been involved in development or politics. I just read the paper.

The power and money have so much influence that people might not want it but there's not too much they can do about it. I'm kind of discouraged about what happened across the street, the one and only time 1 got involved. You watch the others and get jaded. You know how it's going to end up. One thing concerned me was when Jan and I saw this property, how are people going to know mounds are part of this unless I tell them? It has a lot to do with the individual. How to preserve that?

After we moved out here we had to build on five acres. Shortly after the rule was changed to only 2 acres to accommodate 233 across the street. Now we're getting Bill Wright down here and it's closing up further. The smaller the lots the less earthwork will be preserved. On five acres here, a little bit is preserved. We've got the Murphy's and Bill Wright's developments, and a Wendy's going in, just more people. It isn't going to be the nice community we moved into in 1978.

Smith's resignation about the direction of development and urban growth in Granville seemed depressing, but not unusual. Almost everyone interviewed about the subject of development was angry and most felt there was little hope in changing either the system or the direction of development. Of one developer Smith noted "he knows the system, what buttons to push, what he has to do and can get away with."

Skip Keys

Skip Keys and his wife built a home on lot 59 just northeast of the

Alligator Mound (Figure 34) in 1991. Keys served on the committee that developed proposed guidelines for the mound covenants. He told me that one reason he purchased lot 59 was its proximity to the mound. In an earlier conversation Keys said that although he did not necessarily agree that the preservation situation of the mound it was a reality, and he wanted to build close to it so that people who appreciated the mound would be living there.

Keys, a corporate executive from Columbus, designed their home so that, to the greatest degree possible, it would blend into the landscape and not overpower or obstruct the view from, or of, the mound. The driveway windows, stairway, and other interior architectural features were designed to reflect the curves and contours of the Alligator Mound. While other homes close to the mound do tend to dominate and overpower the surrounding 234 landscape, the Keys home does succeed in remaining more discreet and less subjugating. It is interesting that the Keys home provides a conceptual element that ties it to the mound. By addressing the presence of the mound through architectural design and intellectual appreciation, the Keys home strives for linkage to the past rather than an estrangement from it. In the interview. Skip Keys tried to find a middle ground between the

developers need to make a profit and the public's need to preserve important and irreplaceable remnants of the past. He said that in the best of all worlds the loop around the mound should have been eliminated, the space for the mound expanded and access guaranteed for the visitor without compromising the privacy of the property owner:

I always try to put myself in the other person's position. What would I think is fair and right. Frankly, if I were Jones and had owned all of this property at one time and was not looking at this property as a source of revenue and this was his personal property that he enjoyed living on and using. My intuition tells me that he was not thinking of this as a money making piece of property. That would have been the ideal time and climate to have preserved this mound for all time. Once people like Bill Wright or Bob Kent become involved, they would obviously have a different view of this land. They acquired it for the purpose of making a profit from the land. This was an investment-they bought stock so to speak. They didn't acquire the property with the same purpose that the Jones family had. Therefore, it's hard for me to imagine a scenario where you say O.K. Bill or Bob, even though your motivation was for profit, we're now going to tell you, you can't do a part of what you thought. That runs counter of my definition of fair.

1 don't think that you can afford to rely on the good will of someone like Jones to say, yes indeed. 1 have lots of land and I don't need this piece to generate any profits for me. I'm independently wealthy and I can afford to set aside the 10 acres around the mound and that for all history that land cannot be touched for any other purpose other than to be looked at. If that had been written into the deed in the early 1900's. But that's relying on the fact that Mr. Jones would have taken that step which is like playing roulette. The only way it works 235 with consistency is to have a process in place that involves the federal government in which we take a step to say that we are going to protect our nonrenewable or hard to renew resources and lets identify what we think those things should be and then lets have an equitable developed strategy to implement these decisions. It can’t be done at the local level because there are too many variables. Who makes up the local zoning and planning boards. It would be different types of people in all communities. These resources are national and international significance. We can't let it fall to whoever is in a local office at the time to make these decisions.

Like I say, the only way to make it work is to have a national policy or law that all of the planning commissions and boards around the country have a set of laws to abide by. An examples - Licking County has electrical code laws (local), Ohio has electrical code laws (state) and the federal government has general laws also that apply to electrical code. Therefore Licking County can't override the state or federal laws and the state can't override the federal, etc. They can supplement or customize, but they can't alter basic provisions. I would think that you would want the same thing for land use so that local governments can't say, well, we don't want to worry about that. Again if you only have to variability - We can go to local communities and get different responses. Let's say the Country Club no longer wants the mound complex to play golf. Is there something firm that's in place to keep that from being developed?

The only thing that saved the Alligator Mound from being a house site was your individual effort and Bob Kent's willingness to go along. Nothing is still in place. Any of the sites in Licking County could be developed because local people are in charge and the make-up changes. Therefore federal standards have to be in place or things will be open ended. The only other way is to get a grass roots group of people that help pass a law statewide or countywide so that those nonrenewable land pieces can be set aside. That would be difficult.

I can't imagine that if it weren't for people like Roosevelt at the federal level, we wouldn't have the park system set aside. If, for relied upon the state of Montana to have created their piece of Yellowstone, I don't think it would have happened. To simply rely on someone in Licking County to look around and recognize the things that are important to us and they need to protect them, do whatever you have to do to do that, I think, not likely to spread and have much effect. It has to be more mandated. Again, you can't tell someone like Jones that his property has to be regulated and then Wright, etc. I think at the point at which the piece of ground is going to change and that a site is going to be destroyed by, let's say, carving up a piece of ground for development; at that point, the laws have 236 to be in place that say that a certain amount of land has to be set aside. I'd probably wouldn't do it a lot different today using today's standards than Bob Kent did. If you asked 'What things should be in place and if certain things were in place, what effect might that have on this development that's here today?' One of the things that 1 think in order to protect and preserve the hard to renew or non-renewable resources such as the mound, like virgin forests, the Coliseum in Rome, the Pyramids, there has to be a financial insensitive for the business person or the group that owns or acquires those sites. I don't find it palatable to think that Bob Kent in this case, out of kindness or out of an insensitive to further protect the mound, should forego the financial profit he could realize from placing the lots around the mound. What 1 think should happen, this mound should have been protected by government policy, not unlike we protect the federal forests today, and at the point in time when Bob Kent went before the Zoning and Planning Board, there should have been a proposal that treated the property around the mound, consistent with the rest of the development and then an exchange on the part of the federal government through the local government money to acquire the lots that Bob Kent would have put into the development or perhaps a little less because he wouldn't have to put a street in for example. There might have been some saving for utilities etc. Approach it from the standpoint of all else being equal, this is a consistent way to develop that land.

But all else isn't equal now. We've got this site that's significant and perhaps a better result would have been to have the street stop at one side of the mound, maybe not have had the loop around the mound. I think the condition that makes that happen first of all dictates that there must be some financial exchange between the government agency and Bob Kent, that way you don't have to rely on the graciousness of Bob Kent, nor using eminent domain to acquire that property, because 1 think that would be unfair too. So if the policy had been in place. Bob Kent could have been reimbursed for his lots, less the utility and street work that didn't have to be done and the mound would have been protected on not only the 1 1/2 acre, but more land. I'hat's not to say that Bob Kent would have been forced to sell it, but at the point in time when he was dividing the land into lots, there would have been legal intervention. If 1 had my way this type of process, in my mind, would be one way of saving those types of sites. What if Bob Kent never buys from Bill Wright and Bill Wright decides just to sit on the property for a long period of time. Is there then some way that 1 would suggest somebody would come in and take over this piece of property, I would like to think that this is possible, but I can't envision a fair way that this could happen. 237

Given the circumstance, Keys said that Robert Kent was justified in doing what he did because as a businessman, he had the right to develop the

land and make a reasonable return. Yet, he still preserved the mound with no law on the books saying he had to. Keys believes that Robert Kent did all that could be expected and should be thanked for preserving the mound.

The initiative to preserve the mound with more acreage included should have been taken when Mr. Jones owned the land, Keys said. Jones had no expectation to develop the land and would not expect the same compensation or return as a developer would. The solution as Keys sees it is for the Federal government to enact legislation that mandates the preservation of archaeological sites like the Alligator Mound so everyone would be aware that they are protected and cannot be developed. However, Keys suggests that the land owner be compensated at a fair market value of the land. So, in Kent's case he would be paid for the value of the lots that would be lost, minus the value added by roads, utilities and other improvements that would not have to be made since they would not be necessary.

Otherwise, if Federal legislation could not be passed to protect "significant" archaeological properties then it should be passed at the state or local level and with the same provision for compensation.

The "Keys Plan" and others will be discussed later at the end of this chapter. 238 Interview Study - Part II

The interviews with site owners who were not associated with the Granville Development and political situation were quite different. They focused more specifically on their site and the preservation of that site. However, these interviews also tended to stray off the subject more frequently and onto seemingly unrelated areas. The Grapevine Family, Burl

Morgan and Bill Stiers all seemed most comfortable talking about farming, related land uses and preserving family farms rather than preserving archaeological sites. Individuals who saw the preservation of green or open spaces as important issues also tended to be more supportive of preserving archaeological sites in general because this served to help preserve the open areas.

McCoy

Site Description and History The Hull mansion and earthwork are located in Newark, Ohio on West Main Street (686) between Lindon and Neil Avenue. The property is presently owned by Carl and Jill McCoy who live in the residence with their four children.

The Hull earthwork (Figure 42) is part of the Newark Earthworks and consists of a circular enclosure with a crescent inside. Salisbury (1862) shows this enclosure as feature V on his map of the Newark Earthworks. Wyrick (1866) places the Hull enclosure in roughly the same location as Salisbury, but does not provide a feature designation. Squier and Davis list the site as feature G (one of four feature G's). The circle has an opening to 239 the northeast. All of the surveys show the Hull earthwork located between the two sets of parallel embankments and between the Octagon earthwork and the Cherry Valley elliptical work where most of the burial mounds were located. Squier and Davis and Wyrick show the Hull enclosure just north of a road which is Main Street today. Squier and Davis note the following about feature G:

The circles indicated by the letter G are of much larger dimensions and are characterized by ditches interior to their walls. They each have a diameter of about two hundred feet and have elevated embankments constructed interior to the ditch, as seen in the plan. This peculiarity has been already remarked in some of the works of the Scioto Valley (pp. 70-71).

Construction on the Hull mansion was started by Eli Hull in 1873 and completed by 1876. The house and earthwork are illustrated in the Licking

County atlas of 1876. The construction of the house did not in itself appear to have damaged any of the earthwork, the structure having been carefully placed at about the center of the enclosure. According to Carl McCoy, the Hull mansion served as a temporary residence for the Ku Klux Klan, the

Business and Women's Professional Club, and a catering service.

Documentation of the Hull enclosure by LCALS and this writer started late in 1983. A colored pen and ink drawing of the Hull mansion and enclosure was commissioned by LCALS and completed by Randy Rose in 1984. The artwork became part of the Archaeological Atlas of Licking County (Hooge, 1984).

After the turn of the century, streets were laid out and houses constructed both east and west of the Hull place. This development destroyed ;

to Figure 42. Hull Place Circle with residence - Spring 1991 (Bowser). 2 4 1 parts of the earthwork in back yards off of Lindon Avenue and Neil Avenue east of 21st Street and north of West Main Street. Today remnants of the enclosure can still be traced in the front and side yard of the Hull mansion and into the adjoining back yards to the east and west. A small segment of the interior crescent wall is still intact along the west edge of the Hull lot and

into the adjoining lot. No research or excavation has been conducted at this site to my knowledge. I briefly interviewed former owner Robert DeBenedictis who was responsible for much of the restoration of the Hull residence. Mr, DeBenedictis reported that he had never found any artifacts at the site during the time he owned the place.

Interview Summary

The current owners, Carl and Mill McCoy, were interviewed in March of 1992 at the residence. Both McCoys hold university degrees and work in Columbus and Newark. They purchased the mansion because it seemed like a great place to raise their four children.

Carl McCoy collects prehistoric artifacts and is a member of the state's collector's organization. The Archaeological Society of Ohio. Jill McCoy grew up in Nebraska and has had some exposure to archaeology through travel experiences. Carl McCoy grew up in Coshocton County, Ohio and began collecting artifacts there. He was aware of the rich archaeological heritage of Newark and knew the Eli Hull Mansion was located on an archaeological site, but this was not the reason the couple purchased the property; they considered it a "bonus." 242 Both Carl and Jill McCoy said that they have a limited knowledge of the area's prehistory and little knowledge specific to the Newark Earthworks. Carl felt somewhat guilty for not having read more, but his law practice and

family activities keep him too busy to pursue the subject in depth. Jill said she grew up with a relatively stereo typed view of Native Americans and had no exposure to Blacks or Native Americans when she was growing up in

Nebraska. Carl said his impression about Native American culture was based on a trip to Cherokee North Carolina when he was young. He remembers

souvenir rubber hatchets, knives and spears. 1 asked the McCoys why people did not preserve more archaeological sites in the past or why there was not more being done today. Carl was very concerned about this problem and said that generally there is a great disinterest and lack of caring about the past:

Carl: They don't care about preserving the present, let alone the past and that is very indicative of our society. Life is too easy for them [young people]; everything is given to them. They are not held responsible for their actions and they don't see other people being held responsible for their actions.

Jill: Personally, I think you could go any place else in the country and find the same thing. Carl: If it were baseball or basketball or football or anything like that, you would find local people interested.

The McCoy children do not have access to television at home, although they have a video player for limited use. Carl and Jill McCoy believe that some of the problems that American youth experience today can be attributed to the kinds of programs kids watch on television and the amount of time they spend watching these programs. 243 The McCoys see the preservation of the Hull mansion and the earthwork as their obligation and plan to protect the site from further destruction. They have welcomed visitors whenever someone wants to see the earthwork, and as long a there are no problems, they plan to continue to keep the site accessible.

G rap evin e Site Description and History

The Yost Earthworks (or Yost Works) (Figures 43 and 44) are located in

Perry County 0.4 miles (0.7k) south of State Route 204 and 1.5 miles (2.7K) northwest of Glenford (Glenford Qpadrangle). The site lies on gently rolling uplands along the east edge of the glaciated margin. The specific site topography could be described as level to moderate slope. Squier and Davis (1848), Thomas (1885) and other early writers omit this site from their descriptive texts. The first published account of the site is by Moorehead (1897); however, the earliest known unpublished documentation of the Yost works is by Dr. James A. Salisbury (1862).

Salisbury was a physician who, along other claims to fame, invented Salisbury steak during the Civil War period. His contributions to archaeology were written in 1862, but remained unpublished in the archives of The

American Antiquarian Society in Worchester, Massachusetts where they were recently recovered by Dr. Bradley T. Lepper and this writer. Lepper and Hooge will publish Salisbury's work along with notes and comments in

1993. Salisbury's survey work was comprehensive and accurate. Drawings and measurements accompanied site descriptions. In cases like the Yost 244 Works and the Newark Earthworks, Salisbury adds new information which provides a more comprehensive picture of these sites. Current research by Lepper and Hooge are helping to verify the completeness and accuracy of Salisbury's descriptions. Lepper's work during the summer of 1992 at The Newark Earthworks proved that Salisbury's outer wall around The Great Circle at Newark did exist.

Concerning the Yost Works, Salisbury states:

These beautiful and complicated ancient earth works are situated upon one of the gently undulating and fertile hills bordering the productive valley of Jonathan Creek, which winds around its base on the north and east. It is located upon the lands of Geo. Michlings and Austin Cooperrider, in Hopewell Township, Perry County, nearly three miles distant-to the northwest-from the Great Cooperrider Stone Fort. These works are represented at Figure 39, Plate XII. They consist of rectangular and circular embankments-without ditches, constructed of fine clay loam; two symbolic mounds and an excavation (p. 23, transcript). Salisbury's drawing of the Yost Works is striking and unique given its complex configuration of linear walls, circles and mounds. Other complex earthwork sites using linear walls exist in other parts of Ohio and Northern Kentucky (Squier and Davis, 1848, Plate XXXIV-1, Plate XXVIII-1), but there is nothing shown that quite compares to the Yost Works. Martzolff (1902) in his description of the Yost Works provides a drawing of the site that reflects only part of what Salisbury offers. The

Martzolff drawing omits one feature that remains today, and that also appears on the Salisbury illustration: a small mound northwest of the large circle. Martzolff describes the Yost Works stating: 245

Just north of Glenford on a hill about 100 feet in height is a fortification and several mounds. South of the fortification is a circle enclosing a bird with wings outspread. The circle is 652 feet in circumference, 31 feet wide and 4 feet high. The gateway, 23 feet wide faces to the north. The bird effigy from head to tip of tail is 48 feet; one wing is 122 feet while the other is 111 feet. The body is 2 feet wide. The total length from top to tip is 253 feet. Excavations were made in the bird effigy and ashes were found (p. 46).

Salisbury's measurements differ from those provided by Martzolff; however, we do not know if the measurements were taken at the same points. Salisbury gives the large circles total circumference as 573 feet and the opening as 45 feet. The wall is said to be 20 feet wide and 4 feet high.

Warren K. Moorehead (1897) conducted an excavation at the Yost Works in 1896. Moorehead writes:

A large fortification and three mounds occur upon the farm of Mr. Frank Yost... South of the fortification and almost joining it is a circle enclosing a bird with wings outspread. A small mound 100 feet northwest of the circle was opened and in it was found much burnt earth, charcoal and calcimined stones, but no specimens. There was a large deposit of burnt clay in the bottom. We excavated in the bird effigy, finding ashes (pp. 174-175).

Martzolff (1902) obtained all of his information about the Yost Works from Moorehead (1897). Moorehead provides little detail concerning procedures used while excavating the site, which is true of most sites he excavated. Moorehead does note that:

Some time was spent in surface hunting over neighboring village sites with profitable results (p. 175).

There is no record of exactly what was found or exactly where "neighboring village sites" were located. c *rt' ip'vr'vi* "/T»*''/i'V r' '/IO 'f)i>/ti'*"v,r'vf'' 7/1'''VI'''’vii'* 'T * r i/,.' v i _ %.,

S hc K k o gAf ^ ,ycTt^t^ On* anb o n e h> a.1 V rr\ « \ e ^ r O O t-i » o

Figure 43. Yost Works from Martzoloff - 1902. È 247

m II ? 0

,1 , ' A . , '

> -E

Figure 44. Yost Works by Salisbury - 1862. m

Figure 45. Circular Earthwork at the Yost Works - Spring 1991 (Bowser). 249 Salisbury portrays the interior arc within the larger circle as a crescent, but for Moorehead it becomes a bird effigy. Based upon the drawings and on field observations it appears to be a crescent with a mound placed along its interior axis. I visited the Yost Works on three separate occasions in 1990, 1991 and 1992. Photographer Kent Bowser and Archaeologists Brad Lepper and Paul

Pacheco accompanied me each on separate occasions. The site visits occurred consecutively in winter, spring and early summer. The large circle is currently in a wood lot with about thirty years of growth. Maples, ash, elm

and cherry trees are dominant with thickets of berry, multi-flora rose, and poison ivy on the entire perimeter. Grapevine is common throughout the woods.

The circle and interior crescent are visible and appear to be completely preserved, if not slightly lower in height than reported by Salisbury and Moorehead. The small mound to the northwest of the circle is still in place, and some trace of its accompanying embankment appears slightly to the north. Holes possibly left by Moorehead are visible in the small mound mentioned above and in the mound at the center of the crescent. Part of the embankments marked h, i and j by Salisbury (Figure 44) are still visible in another wooded area between the agricultural field to the southwest and a clearing for an oil well to the northeast. A trace of embankment j-k can be seen in the field which was in hay when observed by this writer. An equipment path cuts across embankments j-k and g-h approximately paralleling h-j. This path continues a few feet past g-h and turns northeast where it becomes a service road for both farm equipment 250 and service vehicles for the oil wells. This road ends at a trailer and bam currently used by the Grapevine family for storage and temporary residence when working at the site. Near the earthwork and along the service road, flint artifacts (flakes) were noted where the surface has been eroded away. Surface visibility was poor on and around the earthwork itself so no investigation was conducted.

Interview Summary

The Yost Works are situated on a farm owned by the Grapevine family (Bruce, Dorothy and sons, Pat and Mike) Bruce, Dorothy and Pat live near Cincinnati where they operate another farm. Mike works and lives in Knox County, Ohio. The entire family participates in the farming operation on their Perry County property. Pat has a degree in horticulture from Colorado

State University.

The Grapevine's Perry County farm on which the Yost Works are situated has 364 acres. An old bam occupies a portion of level ground along the lane leading onto the property and a house trailer behind the bam provides temporary residence for the family during their frequent visits.

The interview with the Grapevines was held in July 1992 in the living room/kitchen area of the trailer.

The Grapevines purchased the property in 1974 and Pat Grapevine had intended to convert the property into a livestock farm. However, they found that raising com and beans was presently more profitable given the expense of converting the place over to livestock. They continue to raise crops on the farm to date, but Pat still wants to raise cattle eventually. 251 Although Bruce, Pat and Mike are all familiar with the prehistory of

Ohio, Pat is particularly knowledgeable and has dome some reading on the subject. They live near Fort Ancient and are aware of the cultural connections at that site. All three men have participated in collecting artifacts from the Perry County farm and other properties. They shared some artifacts with me that were found in the fields surrounding the trailer and bam. Pat knew which types were Middle Woodland, Archaic or

representative of other cultural groups. They knew that the property was archaeologically significant when

they purchased it and have spent time exploring the existing remnants of

the original complex of mound and earthworks. Whenever they discussed the site, it was with a certain respect, if not reverence. The question of stewardship did not need to be asked; the Grapevines brought it up themselves. They were concerned that drilling for oil and gas had impacted the site and emphatically stated that drilling would be kept away from the site.

The family had been approached at one time by The Archaeological Conservancy of The United States to discuss a preservation plan for the site. Consequently, they were aware of some of the alternatives for preservation.

Bruce Grapevine expressed some serious concerns about allowing the public to have access to the site. It was not simply a matter of maintaining ownership of the site, the questions Bruce asked had more to do with crop destruction, liability and hunting.

The Grapevines all expressed a sincere concern for the protection of the site and said that while they owned it, the condition of the site would not 252 be allowed to deteriorate. They also said that they would not allow private excavations or relic hunters to disturb the site. They left certain future preservation options open, like a land trade or purchase. They encouraged further research by qualified individuals and would not oppose an annual or semi-annual public field trip to the site.

Dorothy Grapevine said little until the end of the discussion when I asked if they were sensitive to Native American viewpoints or problems. At

this point Dorothy explained that as Qpakers, they were aware of and supportive of Native American groups in the West. The Grapevines were eager to talk about the local prehistory and were

fairly knowledgeable about it. They wanted to see the Yost Works preserved and would permit limited access in the future if a plan were presented. There never was any question about whether they wanted to preserve the site, it was only one of finding a fair and equitable way to proceed.

M organ

Site Description and History

Another site that was never explored by Squier and Davis (1848) is the Brownsville Earthworks (33-L1-17). The site is located in southeastern

Licking County 1.9 miles (3.1 K) north of the Perry County line. The site

occupies a prominent point 0.3 miles east (0.65K) of Township Road 334 and 0.6 miles (l.OK) south of State Route 40. Flint Ridge State Park is located 4.2 miles (6.3K) to the northeast of the Brownsville Works.

The topography is similar to that found at the Yost Works except the slopes are somewhat steeper and the valleys not as broad. The site is situated 253 along a series of ridges and commands a broad view of the valley and hills to the north, east, and west. Salisbury (1862) documents the site in his unpublished manuscript. The earliest published information concerning the site appears in Cyrus Thomas' (1894) Report on the Mound Explorations of the Bureau of Ethnology. Fowke (1902) cites from Thomas in his Archaeological History of Ohio.

Thomas describes the earthworks:

The most prominent mound, no. 1, is 120 feet in diameter with a present height of 15 feet; it has been considerably lowered by persons digging into the top of it. Fifteen feet southwest of this (measuring from margin to margin) is mound 3, 80 feet in circumference about 8 feet high. like No. 1, it has been lowered by searchers. The first five feet from the bottom was found to be a mingled compact mass of earth and stones; above that, stones only. Possibly the entire mound was of earth and stone at first, the former having gradually settled into the spaces between the latter. An elevation around the margin of this mound indicates an encircling wall of earth. East of 3 is an earth mound (2) 100 feet in diameter and 5 feet high. Surrounding it is a circular ditch, 1 foot deep and outside of this is a circular embankment 2 feet high. The slope from the top of the embankment to bottom of the ditch is unbroken, the plow having destroyed the original lines. From one center of the included mound to the top of the wall surrounding it is 120 feet, showing the diameter of the enclosure to be 240 feet.

Northwest of 1 is 4, an earth mound 2 feet high and 50 feet in diameter. It has also been long cultivated. Large trees are growing on the stone mound, but not even a bush on the largest earth mound (pp. 458-459).

Salisbury calls the Brownsville earthworks the "Lynnville Ancient Works." Lynnville is a small town northwest of the site and several miles west of Brownsville. The mounds are numbered differently on Salisbury's map, but the layout of the sites is the same. Mound 1 is the same mound for 254 both writers. Mound 1 according to Salisbury was 20 feet high in 1862 and undamaged by looters. However, he notes that plowing over the mound had reduced its height somewhat and broadened the base. Salisbury Mound Two (Thomas's Three), or the Stone Mountain stood nine feet high, or about what Thomas reports. Thomas mentioned that there

was evidence for "an encircling wall of earth" around the stone mound. Salisbury says "Surrounding its base is a band of flint rock 12 feet wide." Damage to the stone mound mentioned by Thomas was present in 1862 according to Salisbury. Salisbury mentions that small hematite celts about two inches long were recovered from the mound by "treasure seekers." Salisbury's Mound Three (Thomas's Four) is said to have been

composed of small angular fragments of stone and very black soil... It contains many fragments of broken and charred bones, both of animals and men. We picked up on its surface a small stone chisel, many broken arrowheads, a bone awl, bones of human feet and hands, and a lower jaw bone almost entire. These bones are probably part of an Indian occupation (p. 35).

The circular enclosure with the mound inside (Salisbury's Four,

Thomas's Two) is said by Salisbury to have an opening or gateway opening to the southeast and the mound is described as being five feet in height, or the same as Thomas describes.

Thomas does not show an opening in the enclosure; however, the 1930 aerial photograph of the site (Figure 47) shows the opening clearly and at the location that Salisbury indicated. Another interesting feature described

by Salisbury is a spring and house near the opening of the circle. These are not mentioned by Thomas and cannot be traced on the aerial photograph. ' ------

/ '/ / ■- , I / ;; ;

Figure 46. Brownsville Earthworks by Salisbury - 1862. g 256

Figure 47. Enlarged section of 1930 aerial photograph showing the Brownsville Earthworks. 257 When I started trying to locate and document sites in licking County in 1983, I found the Brownsville Works to be difficult to find. One reason for this difficulty was that the site was improperly located to the east more than one mile on the quadrangle at the Ohio Historical Society. Jesse Walker took

me to the site in 1985. Walker, 85 years old at the time, had agreed to help us locate archaeological sites based on his memory and almost 75 years of experience roaming the county investigating sites and collecting artifacts. Walker knew Burl Morgan and the exact location of the earthwork complex. Morgan was cutting hay west of the mound on the day we arrived and told us what he knew about the site (see interview). He gave me

permission to visit the site whenever 1 wanted as long as no excavation took place. A long lane up a slight grade lead back past the site. An oil well and

storage tank occupied a spot just off the main road. Morgan complained about the mess the drilling company had made of the road a few years before. The mounds were not visible from the road because the area had been allowed to grow over just as the Yost Circle had. The same types of vegetation were present and the trees were about the same age (20-30 years old) as those at Yost. A wall of multi-flora rose, poison ivy and brush surrounded the site on two sides making it almost impossible to penetrate. Walker found a deer trail and we followed it in. The mounds were all still visible, including the low mound in the northeast comer (Salisbury, Mound 3) (Figure 46). Earlier that year, Walker had told me about excavating at the Brownsville site in the 1930's: 258 Walken There was a stone mound, I excavated it and John helped me, if he didn't get tight [intoxicated],and why A,T. [A.T. Wehrle] put up with it 1 don't know. 1 said 'John, you ain't gonna get tight today I' and that was hard work to take them stones outta there and go down and dig it... Didn't get very much only three burials and a few artifacts. There was a big dirt mound right beside it; I was gonna open that and never got to it. It’s been worked, fired, clay and there was a big workshop right beside it and an habitation site just left of it, there's all kind of bones in there. You want to know where it is, want to see it someday? Now it ain't under cultivation anymore, all growed up with briars. You ought to see that spot! Now that one dirt mound, they plowed it all down, a small tumult mound. But there was another dirt mound in a field, stone and would you believe it, in that stone mound there's a piece of flint, boulder that will weigh I'd say close to half a ton. Hooge: How in the world did they get in there? Walker: How did they get it? It's six or seven miles from the Flint Ridge. You can't hardly believe it. Now that field used to be all cultivated. Hooge: They had to skid it? Walker: They had to either skid it, gosh I don't think enough men could get it tied in a deer skin or anything like several deer skins and get it up, haul it on their shoulders to get it over there if they put it on poles. They had to skid it over. Listen, that's rough terrain. How far do you think you can see from the top of that mound? Now I run into some guys making survey up there, oil crew, and had sextants and everything. The atmosphere was so clear and blue I said 'That furthest range of hills you could see. How far do you think that is?' He said 'I'll set up and see if I can figure it out.' How far do you think he said? It's on the other side of Zanesville. Seventeen miles! He said its approximately seventeen miles over there, you can see from the top of the mound on a clear day. You can see all over that country. Now I used to watch that mound out there, groundhogs burrow in there, dig in there. 1 don't know how many beads that 1 found, and I found a couple of pieces of human vertebrae, and fragments of copper too, that they dig out. Now that's been cremated. Somebody started to dig a trench in it and I seen a piece of log in there about that ( .... ) big 259 around, it was charred, and see some of that dirt was almost like brick, charred. You never visited that site? Hooge: No. Walker: There a road run up to it, runs back in a field, you can drive clear back to it. Now its all grown all up to trees and brush; there's a sapling growing on top of that mound. The tops like this, its caved in after they put that log structure over there where they camped out there. I showed it to a deputy sheriff and 1 said 'you want to do any digging, go out there in that campsite, where they had there big figures and cooked.' You'd be surprised the different kinds. I found bones of prehistoric elk out there with part of a horn.

Kent Bowser and 1 visited the Brownsville Works several times

between 1984 and 1990 to document the site photographically. An old (Cir. 1930) photograph was obtained from The Ohio Historical Society.

Interview Summary

Mr. Burl Morgan is a very private man who at 74 years has never been married and continues to live alone. His house is isolated at the end of a long rutted lane. Two dogs keep watch over his house which has no gas or central heat and no plumbing.

I called Morgan (he does have a phone), and he agreed to meet me along the highway in front of his property. We held the interview in my vehicle in April of 1992. Morgan was a pleasant man and at the end of our conversation he asked if I would come and talk with him again. Morgan owns three pieces of property, two are along County Road 334 where the Brownsville works are located, but this other farm and residence are situated on State Route 40. Morgan is the sole owner of his three farms. 260 The Brownsville Works farm has not been placed in crops for years and the fields to the north and west are used for hay. The remainder of the property is in woods or brush. I asked Morgan several questions about prehistory and Native

American to see if he had any knowledge of the subject. He admitted he knew little, almost nothing. However, he did suggest that he was part Indian, but seemed to be somewhat indifferent about it. Morgan and his father had picked up artifacts in the fields for years and he still keeps them. But Morgan expressed no interest in learning about prehistoric cultures or identifying the various types of flint projectile points that are in his collection.

Having good farmland and keeping it in the family seemed to be a primary concern expressed by Burl Morgan. What happened to archaeological sites that were on the property was secondary. Morgan admitted that he once contemplated using the stone from one of the mounds to build a building foundation and using the dirt from another to fill in ditches.

Well, I just thought it was an Indian mound and a pile of stone. A guy back here was helping deliver farm machinery and working on machinery. I told him I'm thinking about hauling out a pile of stone over here and building a bam with it. He said no, that won't pay. Reason 1 didn't do it was I didn't have no money to do it with. I told my sister if 1 can get my back good enough 1 think I'll just move that mound down the hill farther and fill up some big ditches there. She said 'you don't want to move the mound!' I went over there one day and seen where a couple of guys was digging into it with a pick and shovel and wheelbarrow. They dug a pretty good sized hole there. 1 laid for them 5 days, and they didn't show up. I asked a friend of mine what he would do in a case like that? He said 'I'd take the pick and shovel and wheelbarrow home with me and lock it up.' So that's what 261 I did and I've been using the shovel but broke the handle out of it one afternoon. The apparent lack of concern that Morgan expressed for the archaeological sites on his property seems to stem more from a lack of understanding of what was there and what it all means. In short, he just did

not have the education or knowledge to evaluate the situation and make decisions based on that knowledge. Fortunately, at least up to the time of this analysis, he has for one reason or another refrained from destroying the sites. Morgan said he did not like to see farm land developed. This point was

brought up several times during the interview. Morgan states:

1 say 99 out of 100 think only about money. They don't care what they got to do to get it, they are going to get it; to hell with everything else. 1 hate these real estate people. They chop up farms and everything. Guys have called about selling real estate, say they make $3-4,000 dollars a day selling real estate.

My conversation with Burl Morgan convinced me that he is genuinely interested in and concerned about what happens to the land he farms. Later, when 1 told him more about the sites on his Mount Hope Road, he seemed interested and at times excited about the significance of the sites and the fact that these sites were on property he owned. Morgan also said he would be interested in working out an agreement to sell the land if an arrangement could be made so he could continue to take hay from the fields for the remainder of his lifetime. 262 D ixon Site Description and History The Williams Mound (Figure 48) is located in Homer, Ohio. Homer is a small crossroads town in north-central Licking County north of Johnstown and west of Utica. The mound is named after P. Williams who owned the property in the middle of the nineteenth century. The 1875 atlas shows the Williams House (still occupying the same location) and the mound which is identified as "ancient mound." The mound and house do not appear on the 1866 atlas of Licking County.

The Williams mound and the house are located north of a lane referred

to as Back Street, about 1/4 mile (4.0 meters) west of State Route 661. Main Street passes to the north of the house and mound and the town cemetery lies about 60 yards (56 meters) to the north on the other side of Main Street. The house is situated fifty feet north of the mound and a small shed stands between the house and the mound. A small bam lies slightly to the southwest and a new garage has been constructed about one hundred feet to thenorthwest. To the east of the mound on the adjoining property is the Homer Presbyterian Church and to the west a new library and firehouse have been built. The area behind the house and mound remains undeveloped and is used for agricultural purposes. According to Mills (1914) the mound is twenty-five feet high and one- hundred feet in diameter and lies 1000 yards south of the North Fork of the Licking River. There has been speculation about who built the mound, but there is no physical evidence to confirm it as Adena or Hopewell. The

Williams' mound is about the same size as the Fairmount Mound which is Figure 48. Williams Mound, Homer, Ohio (C.R. Jones Collection). g 264 located along State Route 40 (Old National Road) two miles east of

Jacksontown, Ohio.

Interview Summary Mrs. June Dixon presently owns the house and mound property and plans to pass it along to her sons and grandchildren. I interviewed Mrs. Dixon in the kitchen of the old Williams house in May of 1992. She has lived in the area all of her life and attended school in the Homer community. Mr. Dixon is deceased and is survived by Mrs. Dixon and her two sons. Both sons

live and work in Licking County and help Mrs. Dixon with the property. Although Mrs. Dixon has a sincere interest in the history of the mound and is concerned about its future preservation, she is relatively uninformed about Ohio prehistory in general. She does have some knowledge related to historical events surrounding the mound (see interview). I found it to be of interest that Mrs. Dixon has no serious interest in reading more about prehistoric or exploring the subject much beyond its relationship to the mound on her property. However, her lack of in-depth knowledge in this subject area has no apparent effect on her desire to see the mound protected and preserved.

I think they should be protected. When we first moved here we were told the mound didn't belong to us; it was on our property but we couldn't go on it. I don't remember who but we were told that. Later on 1 found out that wasn't right. It's been several years ago. Mr. Grubb said that would be tax free. So we got into that under an acre was all it was listed at. I've got 95 acres here. I don't think they should be destroyed. If they have to destroy them to find out, then let's just not find out. There used to be a lot of mounds (small) around here and they've all been destroyed; farming plows over them year after year 265 and they're leveled. Well what could they learn from some of these? Except what's in there. All my life I've lived here and we've all played on that mound and kids still do. It's sacred to me. 1 feel very strong about it; that it should never be disturbed. Although someday it probably will be but then 1 won't know it.

Even though the Dixon property is privately owned, Mrs. Dixon feels

an obligation to allow the public relatively free access to approach and view the mound as long as they do not intend to dig into it or cause it harm in any other way. She has for years allowed classes of school children to cross her property and climb the steep sides of the mound. She said that at times it has been necessary to prevent people from digging the mound up.

They even came with shovels ready to open it up. Well, they felt faster than they came! They were people traveling. So many people through the summer. I'll get people from California and all over that go by and see that drive on in and say 'what is that hill?' and you tell them and 1 don't think they believe you and some will say 'I'll go get a shovel, do you care if we dig?' and yes 1 care; nobody digs. As long as I've been here I've never let anyone dig nor will 1. 1 think the historical value is gone once you open up a mound. 1 have no idea what's there; I'm sure there's something; it could be burial.

Mrs. Dixon personally has kept the mound free of weeds, woody vegetation and ground hogs and has purchased equipment specifically to maintain the site. She mows the mound up as far as she can with a power mower and trims the remainder to the best of her ability with a gas powered weed eater.

The Dixon family, according to Mrs. Dixon, is committed to the preservation of the mound as long as they hold title to the property. This 266 family tradition was established forty-two years ago in 1950 and Mrs. Dixon hopes it can continue after she is gone.

V an V oorhis Site Description and History

The VanVoorhis walls (Figures 49 and 50) are a pair of parallel

embankments that were once part of what Squier and Davis (1848) refer to as a "graded way" or road. This road has been reported to extend several miles from its point origin (Octagon Earthwork at Newark) southwest toward Chillicothe or Circleville (Salisbury, 1862; Jim Marshall, personal communication; Parks, 1871; Lepper, 1991).

The section of this road that is referred to as the VanVoorhis walls is preserved in a woods 4000' (1.25K) west of State Route 79, 1400' (0.4K) north of the Newark/Heath Airport runway and 2000' (0.6K) east of the old Pure Oil refinery (see Newark 7.5 min quadrangle). The preserved walls stretch about 450' running northeast to southwest. The walls are visible throughout and range from about one foot to 2.5 feet in height and 15-20 feet wide. The distance between the walls is approximately sixty feet measuring from the ridge of each wall. The surrounding woods has several large mature beech, oak and maple trees. Two of the beeches are situated on the earthwork (Figure 49). Many of the smaller trees are between 30 and 50 years in age, while the big beech trees could be over a century old.

The 1930 aerial photograph of the area (Figure 50) indicates that the woods were mature at that time. There was a bam located at the site's northeast comer; it shows up indistinctly on the county's 1930 aerial, but clearly on the Dash Reeves photograph (#134, 1939). Figure 49. Lepper, Mickelson and Hooge on the VanVoorffis Walls - Spring 1991 (Bowser). a If » h

Figure 50. South extension of the graded way or the ancient road to Chillicothe with small connected enclosure - 1930 aerial photograph. 8 269 Southeast of the woods and along the edge of the west wall of The Road is a circular earthwork with an interior crescent earthwork. This work is connected to the main road or embankments by another parallel set of embankments . This circular feature was first documented by Warren Weiant

in 1928. I interviewed Weiant on several occasions from 1985 until about the time of his death in 1989. He flew over the site taking pictures with a movie camera and captured the site on film. He, however, did not find the existing

walls in the woods to the northeast, nor was he able to see the circular work on the ground probably because the field was cultivated at the time and

difficult to make out, yet visible from the air.

The walls were discovered in 1990 by Hooge and Lepper who were checking out places where parts of the Newark Earthworks might be preserved. This particular site is surrounded on three sides by corn fields

and on the west by woods and the old Pure Oil Refiner (now part of Ashland Chemical).

The entire property (east to the Indian Mound Mall, south to the

Airport, west to the Refinery and north to the Heath City Park), is part of the VanVoorhis estate trust (247.05AC). Hooge and Lepper were concerned that the site was going to be developed and decided to explore the area prior to any disturbance and this lead to the discoveiy of the preserved section of walls.

The site has no formal or informal protection at this time and it is up to the trustees of the state to determine the fate of this unique earthwork. Lepper (1991) and Hooge believe that these walls are part of an ancient road to Chillicothe and have been conducting research in four counties to obtain evidence to substantiate the hypothesis. 270 I met with Mrs. Robert F. VanVoorhis whose husband established the

VanVoorhis trust. The interview was short due in part to Mrs. VanVoorhis's poor health. She seemed somewhat reluctant to discuss the property in any detail.

Interview Summary Mrs. VanVoorhis had almost no local knowledge of prehistory

although the subject was of interest to her. She lives only a block away from the publicly held Octagon State Memorial and is a member of the private Mound Builders County Club, show fairways stretch in and out and over the mound's embankments (Lepper, 1992; Hooge, 1992).

Mrs. VanVoorhis was totally unaware that the walls existed, nor did she believe that her husband or any other members of the family were aware of

them. She also knew nothing about the circular enclosure that Warren

Weiant had discovered, but she had heard of Weiant. About a year prior to my interview with Mrs. VanVoorhis, 1 had

presented documentary information concerning the site to William Baker,

trust offer with the then Central Trust Bank (now Bank One). Mr. Baker had promised to discuss the situation with the trustees of the trust, but Mrs.

VanVoorhis had heard nothing from Mr. Baker or anyone else concerning the discovery. Discussions were held by the bank with their attorney, Mr. Tom Norpell, and copies of correspondence were obtained by this writer. It appears that the discovery was at first seen as a possible detriment to the sale of the property; however, it only added a small complication to the more 271 monumental problems of severe ground water pollution by the refinery and difficult access due to the property's "land-locked" situation. The land around the embankments continues to be leased for farming. No public decisions have been made to my knowledge that would protect the

site from future destruction. Dr. Lepper has recently (November 1992) received correspondence from the bank attorney concerning the airport authority's request to cut down trees in the area and it appears as if the trust does not want to permit anything that would harm the VanVoorhis walls.

This is a very positive development (Lepper personal communication, November, 1992).

S tie rs Site Description and History Bill Stiers (now deceased) and his wife and son, John, farm several

hundred acres of bottom land along Hardscrabble Road four miles southeast of Johnstown and five miles northwest of Granville. The house and

associated structures lie 0.6 miles southeast of the intersection of Hardscrabble Road (Township Road 18) and Northridge Road (County Road

21).

The terrain is gently rolling glaciated hills and terraces. The property is unique in that over one hundred acres are almost level bottom land that once swamp and wetland with at least two bogs or peat lands (Stiers

Interview). The hill to the northeast of the house has a small mound that Stiers refers to as a signal mound. The mound has not been recorded on any of the archaeological maps available and is not recorded on an archaeological inventory form at The Ohio Historical Society's archive. 272 Over 90% of the Stiers property north of Hardscrabble Road is under cultivation. Mr. Stiers had been collecting artifacts from the site for sixty years. In addition to raising crops (mostly com and beans) and cattle, the Stiers also produce maple syrup and sell it to the public. The sugar maple trees are on the south side of the road between the main residence and

Northridge Road. I have been purchasing maple syrup from the Stiers for about a decade.

Interview Summary

1 interviewed Mr. and Mrs. Stiers in October of 1991 at their home. Mr. Stiers passed away about three months later. We had planned to meet again

in May to finish our discussion. The Stiers property has never been surveyed for archaeological sites, although Mr. Stiers had invited LCALS to do so whenever it would be convenient. Like so many other farming families in Licking and

surrounding counties, the Stiers were not only interested in the prehistory of their property, they welcomed the opportunity to have someone investigate it more in-depth. Mr. and Mrs. Stiers remembered many stories about not only their property, but also about visits to the great circle when it was the county fair grounds. Some of those recollections are included in the interview that follows.

Since no formal archaeological survey had been conducted on the Stiers property, I let Mr. Stiers establish a record as part of his oral history of the farm. It would be productive for someone in the future to follow up and document the location of sites and record information concerning the extensive lifetime collection of artifacts that Mr. Stiers had accumulated. 273 The Stiers family has been farming in Licking County for three

generations starting with Mr. Steier's father who began buying property in the area in about 1904. Like Burl Morgan, Mr. Stiers hopes that family will continue to carry on the farming tradition. Although Mr. and Mrs. Stiers had little knowledge of prehistory, they seem to appreciate the Native American heritage that is part of the legacy of their farm. They also appear to respect contemporary Native Americans as a

people who Mr. Stiers says "got the butt end of the deal." We did not discuss the stewardship issue as much as would have been desired. The mound Mr. Stiers refers to as a "signal mound" is probably a

small burial mound. The preservation of the mound at least as long as the family owns it is guaranteed, but the long term preservation of the site is left to future owners or state or federal legislation.

Ownership of these prehistoric sites and artifacts has not dramatically affected the Stiers family's view of the place they live. However there is a respect for the sites and the people who once occupied them that is obvious and there is a desire to know more that seems unfulfilled.

Cooperrider

Site Description and History South of Glenford, Ohio in Perry County (Hopewell Township, section

21, range 16), there is a large stone enclosure situation on a relatively flat hill. The enclosure wall follows the edge of the hill all the way around with several openings. Within the enclosure is a stone mound.

Caleb Atwater (1820) is the first to describe the site in the literature.

Squier and Davis (1848) omit the site from their study in Ancient Monuments 274 of the Mississippi Valley. James Salisbury (1862) provides the most complete map of the site (Figure 51) and the most complete description.

This extensive hill fortification is situated 24 poles west of the southeast corner of S.17-T.-17-R. 16-Hopewell Township, Perry County, Ohio, upon the lands of Jacob Cooperrider and Austin Smith. The hill is one of the highest in the vicinity, rising about 300 feet above the broad and fertile valley of Jonathans Creek and capped by a thick stratum of conglomerate sandrock that underlies the Ohio coal fields. A few feet below the nearly level summit-the rock crops out around the brow of this hill, forming cliffs in many places, from 10 to 12 feet in height. The area within the artificial wall is mostly composed of a rich clay loam, so common in this part of Ohio - a large portion of which area has been cleared and is now under cultivation. At some remote period, the crowning rock of this hill, like that of many others along this conglomerate ridge, being undermined by the action of water along its outcropping edges - slid from its native bed - or tumbled down the steep declivity in huge masses - thus forming fossils, fissures and cliffs, which when improved by art, as in this case afforded a stronghold of no mean character - considering the arms used in ancient warfare. Just below the brow of the hill and along the edge of the out cropping rock - an artificial wall of masses of sandstone - in the rough - extends around the entire summit area. This wall, at the present time, presents no apparent order, exhibiting no signs of the use of the gavel, chisel, trowel or the plummet in its construction, being simply a long pit of rough stones - such as a single individual could easily handle. The base of the wall is generally about 20 feet in breadth, and its height from three to six feet. Composing its circumference, there are 48 different courses, its longest diameter extending north and south (p. 18).

Salisbury's description continues, documenting minute details of the site. In the southwest area of the enclosure's interior, there is or was a large stone mound. Salisbury describes the mound as:

110 feet in diameter and 15 feet high - around which is a broad band of sand rocks, piled from one to two feet high and 15 feet wide (p. 20). 275

.H- ■ : ’

^c.'.,•«>• «*'. <■ « m r KM

« X 9 .

Î»' tf- v> » s* c .0 ft c c e ®

t e i

I o \ V

A*4& m«A>

Figure 51. Salisbury’s 1862 drawing of the Glenford Ford in Perry County, Ohio 2 7 6 In addition, Salisbury describes other features not mentioned by Atwater (1820), Thomas (1885), or Fowke (1902):

Directly fronting the southeastern gateway, 75 poles distant is a rectangular earth enclosur e, with rounded comers, in which are narrow openings. Its main gateway is in its northwest side, near north comer opening, towards the entrance of the stone fort. It is formed of an earth embankment now 2 feet high, and a ditch within - enclosing an area 40 paces in diameter from the center to center of its walls. East of this enclosure, 27 paces is an earth and stone mound 48 feet in diameter and 6 feet high, a short distance southeast of which is a large rock, upon which are piled stones (p. 21).

The Fort Glenford Site was one of the best preserved Hopewell stone enclosures in the Central Ohio area. Kent Bowser and 1 became interested in

the site in 1984 and began to document it photographically at that time. On April 10 of 1985, the site was video taped by a crew from Denison University. This documentation was part of a grant project 1 was directing at that time. Video documentation was also completed at the Murphy Site, Alligator Mound,

Brownsville Earthworks, Hull Place Earthwork and the Williams Mound during the period from April 1985 through December 1987. Aerial

photography at the Fort Glenford Site was limited to one flight in 1985.

During the many trips we made to the Fort Glenford Site, several were scheduled in late spring after the fields had been plowed. Artifacts were recorded on each occasion, but none were collected and no diagnostic artifacts were discovered. Prehistoric sites were noted in several locations with the enclosure.

The stone walls of the enclosure were generally in good condition although the stones had been spread out considerably at a few locations. The stone mound found inside the enclosure was grown over with young trees I l l (mostly 20-30 years old), multi-flora rose and poison ivy. A pit had been excavated into the center of the mound by looters, but they had apparently quit prior to reaching ground level, where, theoretically, any burials would be located.

Interview Summary My discussions with Mrs. Cooperrider began in 1984 when we received permission to document the site. Infrequent meetings were held either outside in the yard or in the living room of the old Cooperrider home. Most of our conversations took place in 1986 and 1987. None of the meetings were

recorded except for the last one on October 17, 1987. This tape was loaned to the Archaeological Conservancy of the United States in whose possession it still remains.

Mrs. Cooperrider retired from teaching school over a decade ago and has remained on the farm which had been in her husband's family since

1840. Her son, Dennis, will inherit the farm from her. Dennis Cooperrider

lives on the property in a new home that he built in about 1980. 1 spoke with Dennis briefly on two occasions, both in 1987. Although Mrs. Cooperrider had a great deal of interest in the

archaeology of her property, she actually commanded only a small amount of factual information concerning the prehistory of the are, and was basically uninformed about scientific archaeology or the process of excavation. She

mentioned to me during our October 17, 1987 meeting that her knowledge of the past had been learned mostly from a church discussion group and class. Mrs. Cooperrider was curious about the Newark Holy Stones (frauds created 278 and unearthed during the late 1850's and early 1860's) and wondered if such objects might not be discovered in other mounds in the area.

Concerning the preservation of the Glenford Fort Site, Mrs. Cooperrider noted in 1985, 1986, and 1987 that her husband and his ancestors had preserved the site and that her husband and she had both turned down

offers from a mining company that wanted to purchase the site and quarry the sandstone. The quarry would have destroyed the entire Glenford Fort Site.

1 had several meetings with Mrs. Cooperrider late in 1987 and in the early spring of 1988. On October 17, 1987 Mark Michael of the Archaeological Conservancy of the United States accompanied me. The Conservancy was interested in obtaining the site at that time. Mrs. Cooperrider reiterated her concern for the site and again vowed to continue to protect it as other members of the family had done. What we did not discover until the following spring was that Dennis Cooperrider had agreed (and we can only assume that Mrs. Cooperider also agreed) to allow a local avocational archaeologist access to the site in order to excavate the large stone mound that was inside the enclosure. We asked Mrs. Cooperrider why she has permitted this to take place and she said it was her son's wish, but that she was also curious about what they might discover. We visited the site again and photographed the damage. A back hoe sat at the south end of the mound and had been used to pull all of the stone away from the center of the mound site so that it could be easily excavated. A crude grid had been established within the mound chamber and pits had been excavated at two locations. 279 The report on the damage to the site caused the Archaeological

Conservancy to withdraw its interest in obtaining and preserving the site. My personal opposition to the excavation resulted in the loss of access to the site and ended our documentation and information gathering efforts.

Discussion - A General Overview

Its true, in pursuing Fridays' paycheck we discard the past like garbage (Jim Murphy, 1992).

Throughout the process of preparing this dissertation a total of twenty-four individuals were interviewed and one individual was

corresponded with. Interviews (including correspondence) were separated into two groups: Part I included interviews that described and commented on

the development process and preservation in Granville, Ohio; Part II

investigated views and opinions of individuals who own important archaeological properties or sites. Some individuals shared ownership or control of an archaeological property (Freys, Bascoms, Smith, and Keys) also live in Granville.

Consequently they comment on many of the same problems and preservation situations that those in Part II do.

Cooperrider, Dixon, the Grapevines, the McCoys, Morgan, Stiers and VanVoorhis all own archaeological properties that are not associated with the Granville area. The views of these individuals differ in many ways because each situation is in itself somewhat unique. However, there are many viewpoints that are shared by almost all the individuals interviewed. 280 For those individuals living in the Granville area and who were interviewed for this study there were six reasons given to describe why archaeological sites had generally not been preserved; these are listed below.

1. A lack of education about the resource (most frequently mentioned). 2. A transient population that generally had little interest in the

community's past. 3. A preoccupation with present and future.

4. A non-homogeneous society in which few individuals (except

perhaps Native Americans and a few non-natives) are interested in the others' culture. 5. A flawed decision-making process in which specific priorities of developers superseded those expressed by the public. 6. The failure of Granville to include the preservation of

archaeological sites in the planning process. Solutions to the problem of preservation for prehistoric sites included: 1. Education (kids and teacher education). 2. Purchase of sites.

3. Legislation to protect sites. The preservation of the Alligator Mound was a concern for a short

period of time from 1974 until 1976, while the Sexton (Jones) property was

going through bankruptcy and eventually sold. However, no interest was shown for any of the other potential sites like the Old Granville Fort and the Granville Circle, This lack of interest was attributed to lack of education.

Denison University Professor Don Valdez pointed out that the problems that Granville was experiencing should have been addressed back in 1959 or 281 earlier. Efforts to preserve Saille Sexton Jones' estate were addressed between 1974 and 1975; however, the solutions arrived at by Robert Alrutz and others (public acquisition through purchase) needed far more time in order to raise the needed funds, perhaps three to five years. Granville failed to positively respond to Richard Paugh's idea of creating a tax levy to raise funds to purchase land for green space. While one group of individuals led by Alrutz tried to find quick solutions to save the Sexton property, other individuals like Robert Kent held the view that any changes that took place should be accomplished within the existing structure and that no new regulations were needed.

Two individuals (Moody and Lucks) pointed out that the failure of the community to work with Sallie Jones Sexton was an important factor in the final outcome of the problem, which was the sale of the property to developers. Lucks suggests (as does Valdez) that if Granville had approached Sexton and offered her a way out she would probably have gladly accepted.

The GPA effort headed by Alrutz was simply too little too late.

All of these events both directly and indirectly affected the archaeological resource. As Hirshler, Dennison and others point out in this study, planning for the future has been a difficult and painful experience for Granville. A community that has so much difficulty making basic decisions about its future is going to find planning for archaeological resources even more difficult.

All of the individuals that I spoke with who had participated in the planning process in Granville said that they became exhausted and disappointed with the entire process. Three of the most active individuals

(Hirshler, Dennison and Larson) all said they intended to leave Granville 282 when the opportunity presented itself and indeed one (Hirshler) has already

moved to Maine. All of these individuals also stated that the developers always came out

on top because (1) they were persistent, (2) they had excellent skills in negotiating their objectives, (3) they could afford to hire skilled attorneys to present their plans and to continue filing alternative plans until their ends were met, and (4) the boards and commissions that reviewed the plans were

sympathetic to the developers or gave in under constant pressure to their

demands. The people interviewed for this study were not selected because of any particular view that they had; many simply happened to live in an area that was important to the study. The informants represent a cross section of the population which included working and retired individuals, farmers, teachers, business and professional people and developers or builders. Generally, there was great dissatisfaction expressed with the entire

planning process in Granville, and this included those associated with commercial development. Some individuals were not only discouraged or upset, but bitter. The development of a new master plan for Granville has been seen by some individuals as an important step forward, but every informant who participated in this study who lived in the Granville area expressed some reservations about the new plan, and several stated that until a plan can effectively be enforced, it is just that, another plan. 1 asked everyone how they thought archaeological sites could be preserved and I received several responses. As was mentioned above the primary and almost universally agreed upon method for site preservation was education. Although no one had a plan that would solve the problem 283 through education there were suggestions. Melody Frey said that teachers can't teach about the past if the materials are not available and Tim Dennison agreed. (Both Frey and Dennison are teachers.) Another education related problem that was discussed had to do with curriculum priorities. Melody Frey expressed a concern that almost all the teachers in the LCALS Summer

Teacher Education Program have also expressed for years; how, when and where can I introduce prehistory and archaeology into my lessons given state mandated priorities, and almost no time available to introduce new material, no matter how exciting or educationally useful if might be? This is

not a problem that can be thoroughly addressed here, but it is one that merits serious consideration given that the public schools have the best opportunity

to introduce these subjects. None of the individuals 1 interviewed could remember any lessons on prehistory or archaeology being taught when they were in school, although

some did recall a field trip to some particular site. Those individuals who did

have some knowledge of prehistory obtained that knowledge during their adult lives and not in school. The only individual interviewed for this study

who had a basic knowledge of Ohio prehistory was Pat Grapevine. In contrast, interest in preserving archaeological sites was extremely high among the informants. Only Burl Morgan and Mrs. VanVoorhis had no particular interest in the preservation of prehistoric sites, and 1 conclude

that this is more a result of being uninformed than anything else. Mrs. Cooperrider expressed great concern over the preservation of the Glenford

Fort, but in the end, she allowed the stone mound to be destroyed.

The Grapevines, Mrs. Dixon, the McCoy's and Mr. Steirs were all very protective with regard to sites on their properties and wanted to see them 284 preserved. The Grapevines and Mr. Stiers expressed some concern about losing control of their land, as did Burl Morgan. These are all people who earn their living from farming and see their land as their livelihood and integral to their future well-being. Bruce and Pat Grapevine both expressed some reservations about letting their land be opened up to the public or turning over a deed to the Yost site to a preservation oriented organization. Pat expressed their main concern which was keeping people off the land that they cultivate or might be raising livestock on in the future. "We have

enough trouble right now with mushroom and deer hunters and everything else" Pat said. The Grapevines were interested in the possibility of restoring the earthwork though, and did not close the door to the possibility of giving

up the site if the arrangement were fair to them. Mr. Morgan (Brownsville Earthworks) said that he would be willing to sell his property to a preservation or public concern if he could continue to keep taking hay off

the open fields for the remainder of his life. His interest was not so much in saving the earthworks, but in being able to keep some access to the property and not losing the hay which he needs for his cattle. He was not concerned about public access to the site. Mrs. Dixon said she believes that all the sites

like hers (Williams Mound) should be protected by legislation. She has some concern for the long-term preservation of the Williams Mound, which she

believes is a sacred place. The reality that the place could be sold eventually to someone who did not care about the mound was a concern Mrs. Dixon expressed.

The future of the VanVoorhis walls is at this time not predictable. No laws protect this or any of the other sites on private property. Since the

VanVoorhis site is in a trust and the bank that administers the trust is in the 285 process of offering the land for sale to developers, the site itself must be

considered in danger of being destroyed. I discussed the situation with the bank trust offer and he would offer no commitment, written or verbal, to preserve the site. Mr. Stiers had never considered the long term preservation of the mound or other sites on his property. He simply assumed that his son, John, would continue to farm it and that was all he really needed to know. Mr. Stiers also did not know that there were no laws regarding the preservation of burial or other prehistoric sites on private property in the State of Ohio.

He had assumed that there was such legislation on the books. I had planned to discuss further the long term preservation of sites on his land, but Mr. Stiers passed away and the property is now his wife and children's.

Analysis of the Property Owner Interviews

Information gathered during the interview process provided valuable data concerning the informants' attitudes toward preservation. Nine questions regarding eduation and preservation were asked of each participant who owned or shared ownership of an archaeological property.

Analysis of this information provides a clearer perspective concerning site owner's attitudes toward, and willingness to preserve prehistoric sites. The questions asked here parallel those asked in the questionnaire which is included at the end of this chapter. 286 Informant Responses Education:

Level Achieved: College 46.7% High School 53.3% Overall Preservation

Attitude: Favorable 80.0%

Conditional 20.0% Interest in Prehistory: High 53.3% Moderate 33.3%

Low 13.3% Knowledge of Prehistory: High 6.7%

Moderate 66.6% Low 13.3%

Knowledge of Archaeology: High 0.0%

Moderate 20.0% Low 80.0%

Willing to Use Public Funds

to Preserve Sites: Yes 73.3% Conditional 26.7%

No 0.0% Willing to Use Eminent

Domain to Save Sites: Yes 33.3% Conditional 53.3%

No 13.3% 287 Should Public Agencies Try to Preserve Sites: Yes 80.0% Conditional 20.0%

No 0.0% Should Archaeological Sites on Private Property

Have Legal Protection: Yes 86.7%

Conditional 13.3% Property owners in this study demonstrated strong support for

preservation as did individuals who returned the questionnaire. Of the 15 individuals included in the owner interviews, 80% had favorable attitudes toward preservation while 20% offered conditional support. Property owners

were more reluctant to endorse the use of eminent domain (53.3% offered conditional support, 13.3% no support and 33.3% said they supported its use as

a preservation tool). While the owners generally demonstrated a high interest in prehistory (53.3%), they had a generally moderate understanding of local prehistory (66.7%) and a low (80%) understanding of the scientific

aspects of archaeology. Consequently, one could conclude that education level achieved is not the most important factor in a property owners' decision to be supportive of site preservation. But that having an interest in and basic knowledge of prehistory is important.

Participants strongly supported both public funding of (73.3%) and public acquisition of (80%) significant archaeological sites. Some property owners (Morgan, Grapevines, Stiers) expressed moderate concern over the use of eminent domain, but no participant said they would refuse legal protection to sites on private property. Overall site owner response parallel 288 those from individuals who responded to the questionnaire and demonstrate that there is possibly a strong preservation ethic among individuals living in the study area. A conclusion that Henderson arrived at as a result of the

Kentucky Heritage Study.

Some Assumptions Based on these interviews and related experiences some assumptions can be made about the private property in the study area.

1. Predicting land owner interest in preservation is difficult if not

impossible because of the number of factors that enter into site owner attitudes and perceptions about the past and about preservation. 2. A university education does not seem to instill any greater or lesser tendency toward heritage preservation in a site owner. 3. The owners present or proposed future use of the land may be an

important factor in how they perceive the preservation issue for sites on their land. 4. A tradition of site protection or preservation within a family, regardless of how long that tradition has been in place, does not guarantee that present or future family members will honor that tradition. 5. Education is an important element that can be used to enhance site owner interest in preservation, but it does not guarantee that increased knowledge will result in a positive preservation attitude. 6. The only certain way to guarantee site preservation on private property in Ohio at this time is for a concerned group or organization to obtain the deed to the site either through purchase or as a gift. 289 Henderson's (1988) experience with land owners is similar to mind if not, in many cases, parallel. This comes as no great surprise and simply implies that people in Kentucky are generally the same as those in Ohio. Henderson also discovered that predicting attitudes about preservation

among land owners was risky at best. Factors that were discovered to be

variables when considering one's attitude toward preserving archaeological resources included: 1. How the owner/owners used (or wanted to use) the land (farming,

development, investment, recreation). 2. The number of individuals involved.

3. The type of ownership (individual, family, group, investors, trust, business). 4. The owner/owners knowledge of prehistory, archaeology and their understanding of the heritage/preservation issue in general.

5. Individual personality traits based on heredity and life experience. This mix of potential factors that can, and do, influence a property

owners attitude toward heritage resource preservation presents a difficult situation for parties interested in preserving a specific site. Without background information about the owner, preferably based on interviews

with the individual involved, it is possible to create a negative response toward preservation. It is clear from Henderson's study and this study that each preservation situation should be handled separately and without preconceptions.

Henderson noted that some of the individuals she worked with had no interest in preservation, or no conservation ethic with regard to the resource, or may have a negative view of anything that is affiliated with 290 government, or that might imply a taking of property through eminent domain.

The hypothesis that having a university education does not influence one to place any greater or lesser value on heritage preservation or the conservation ethic is supported by both this study and Henderson’s. Henderson's Table #5, Profile of Landowners Visited During Project, clearly points this out. One of the eight individuals surveyed who had college education's, four were very interested in their site, three had a casual

interest, and two had little interest. Of the eight individuals who Henderson

identified as having a high school, or no high school education, four said they were very interested in their sites, and four were casually interested. A similar situation can be seen on Table 1 of this study. The Glenford Fort Site (Cooperrider) provides an example of a site that was owned by a college educated teacher who made a decision to allow an extremely

important part of the site be destroyed. Her decision was heavily influenced by her son who wanted to give a friend permission to dig up the mound. In this case no amount of counseling or pleading could have altered the course of events. Only legislation could have prevented the situation, at least in this researcher's opinion. For the property owner who wants to develop the land or sell it for development preservation can be viewed as a negative. When William Wright owned the Alligator Mound he refused to consider selling it to LCALS, but later sold it to Robert Kent who developed the property. Mr. Wright may have decided not to separate the mound from the main acreage because it would have devalued the surrounding land; it was basically a business decision. The situation with the VanVoorhis Walls is similar to that of the 291 Alligator Mound. The archaeological site may be seen as a detriment to the

sale of the surrounding land if it is separated and preserved as an island within the larger area. The objective here is an economic one, not a social or community oriented one.

Jim Murphy kept going back to the economic issue when he said "it's all tied to Friday's paycheck..." and has very little to do with the rights and wrongs of the preservation issue. Lucks and Keys also expressed the same

opinions if not in different ways. Hirshler and other informants call it greed, but it doesn't appear to be as simple as black and white-economic or greed. The reason why someone buys a piece of land is critical to the preservation issue. If someone like Robert Kent, William Wright or Jack

Lucks buys a property and they intend to develop it or hold on to the land and sell it for a profit later, then their motivation is going to be different than

someone like the Grapevine's who see the profit in the land as a result of crops or cattle. Burl Morgan expressed a willingness to sell his property if he could

realize top dollar for it as agricultural land, and as long as he could continue

to take hay off the fields each year. The result of such an arrangement would be the preservation of the Brownsville Earthworks, but that would not be Mr. Morgan's reason for selling. His reason is one of economics. He comes out of it with his needs met, and perhaps a little more. The concept of fair compensation vs. the public good is a controversial one and no place is it more clearly defined than in the Granville area. Although this study specifically focuses on the archaeological resource and the preservation of the resource in the study area, it is clear that the issues involved go beyond those of preservation. The broader issues are the 292 preservation of green space and the public's right to define for property owners and developers how they may use their land or what they can build on it. This issue is at the center of the individual rights vs. the public's rights controversy.

Public Opinion Surveys Skip Keys suggested that a law be enacted that would guarantee the preservation of archaeological sites like the Alligator Mound and that as part of this legislation the land owner would be guaranteed compensation for the real value of whatever their loss might be. The question here would be how does one determine that value? Is it the value of the land at the time the developer purchases it, or is it the value of the land after the land has been developed into lots? In the case of Granville, the community never decided that green space or archaeological sites were worth paying for with tax dollars. At least they were not willing to support the GPA - Alrutz's effort to raise public and private funds to save the Sexton (Jones) property. A study mentioned by Tim Dennison (The Granville Area Study and Planning Committee Questionnaire of 1981) clearly indicated that there was support for preservation in Granville. Questions and responses for #31 and #32 on the Questionnaire are listed below: 31. What degree of interest do you have in preserving the Granville area landmarks?

Greatly interested 612 Somewhat interested 554 Not interested 74

N/A 78 293 32. If interested in preservation of Granville area landmarks would you be willing to contribute any time and/or money to such projects? Yes 706

No 347 N/A 267 As Tim Dennison pointed out, there was, according to the 1981

Questionnaire, an interest in not only preserving sites, but also in some way supporting the preservation effort. Dennison says the village administration

ignored the study and other individuals interviewed in this study (Hirshler,

Bascom, Frey, Smith) support his view. The pretense is that the village ignored the study because the administration favored a pro-development view. The need for a new comprehensive plan for Granville became obvious

to almost everyone knowledgeable about the village expansion and new

development. The new plan was available in 1990. This new plan reflects the

1981 survey in that it addresses the treatment and preservation of archaeological and historic resources. Archaeology is addressed in several sections:

A-38 indicates that there is, because of the rich archaeological past in the area the potential for discovery. The Alligator Mound is referred to as is the 106 Federal process that stipulates that archaeological studies will be done whenever federal funds are involved in a project. A-41, Item 10 states: "The strong commitment to historic preservation should continue. All eligible sites should be nominated for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The preservation of Historic sites in 294 Granville Township will help to ensure that the image of the region is not diminished by new development." A-41, Item 11: "Ordinances and zoning codes that will preserve and protect cultural resources from private development should be established, particularly for those sites already listed or sites eligible for listing on the National Register." A-41, Item 13: "Prime agricultural land should be preserved for

agricultural uses, protecting these areas will also preserve visual open

spaces [and archaeological sites] and the rural character of the township. Clustering development in rural areas and encouraging in fill and reuse of previously developed areas can be one way of protecting these areas.

Another way is through a current use value assessment program." A-15 - Appendix:

Natural Areas/Open Space Goal: Protect important natural, cultural and historic resources. "Preservation of natural areas is a priority with Granville residents. Granville also has a rich history and many cultural resources. When asked if Granville should create a land trust or similar mechanism to purchase or otherwise preserve natural areas, 81.3 percent of the respondents answered

'yes.' When asked to identify land uses with a positive potential for growth, 86.7 percent of the respondents ranked parks, open space as the use with a positive potential for growth." Objectives (under A-15)

1. Establish a land trust or similar mechanism for preserving unique natural, historic and cultural resources. 295 2. Establish and enforce tree preservation regulations for new developments and major redevelopment. 3. Prohibit development in unserviced areas where soil conditions

are unsatisfactory. 4. Preserve remaining prime farm land for agricultural purposes. 5. Limit development to open space or similar low intensity uses within identified flood plains.

6. Prohibit development on steeply sloped areas within Granville. 7. Preserve the rural character of Granville through development

controls. The new 1990 Comprehensive Plan for Granville makes a powerful statement about preservation. The plans recommendations were based upon public responses to questionnaires, discussions at public meetings and

interviews with various individuals and organizations. The question is, will the new comprehensive plan be adopted? Will zoning regulations and laws

be enacted that reflect the stated wishes of the community, and will the village administration and various boards enforce the new regulations? As yet it is unclear.

In order for the community to be responsive to their own plan with

regard to the preservation of important archaeological sites it must first have an archaeological survey conducted that would identify in very specific terms what that resource is, and where it is located. This dissertation should help in that effort. If the spirit of the new plan is acted on, much of the development that is planned for Granville will not take place, or will occur in a modified version. It is clear from the interviews that there are differing opinions 296 concerning the topic of development. Some individuals have already invested thousands of dollars in planning, architectural and legal fees. The argument here is should individuals be denied the right to profit from the development of their land, especially if they had purchased that land with the intent to develop. Is it fair for Robert Kent to be allowed to profit from

his development and for William Wright, who owns the adjoining property to the east, to be denied that right? Some would argue (and have) that it is not a right at all, but a privilege which the community approves in specific

instances. The result of the above situations is the "domino theory of land

development." Robert Kent was allowed to develop and William Wright is his

neighbor to the east and therefore he should have the same right. Jack

Lucks owns property adjoining both Kent and Wright to the north so he should also have the same right. And so it goes; each neighbor with a few

acres (or a few hundred) presses the village government with the "fairness" issue. This makes it extremely difficult to say "no" to enforce the regulations

that the majority living in the village have said they want.

Going back to the proposed regulations of the master plan, it says that heritage sites (Historic and Prehistoric) should be preserved in the interest of the community. The discovery's outlined in this dissertation provide

serious incentives for preservation if the guidelines in the plan are followed and implemented. One could perhaps justify preserving (and maybe even

restoring) the Granville Circle, the reservoir mound and possibly the

Crescent Mound. What all of this leads to is some very unhappy people; some perhaps upset because of the loss of potential income and others (as is the case with 297 William Wright and Farmington Edition) upset because of the loss of thousands of pre-development expenditures. It is not the purpose of this dissertation to argue the rights and wrongs of this situation. The interview

informants did this very well on their own. The important point is to understand the dynamics of community development and how it affects the preservation of archaeological sites.

Questionnaire

During the course of my study I did find myself asking certain

questions about public support for archaeology in the study area. I had been told by informants and other individuals that there just was not much support for archaeology in Licking County and after ten years of raising funds for archaeology I was somewhat inclined to believe that this was the case. Then I met with Tim Dennison and he related the information about

the 1981 Questionnaire to me (see Discussion and Conclusions) and 1 started to

rethink the situation and decided to construct a Questionnaire for this study that would provide more concrete evidence for or against the questions of

public support for archaeology and archaeological preservation. The 1981

questionnaire had focused its attention on historic preservation rather than on archaeological sites so a new questionnaire was really necessary. The background on the questionnaire is covered in the Chapter on

Methodology and will not be repeated here except to mention that 100 individuals received the questionnaire and that 64 returned it providing for

a response of 64%. The questionnaires were distributed to individuals who lived generally on the east side of the Granville village and especially along the Newark-Granville Road and in Bryn Du Woods. 298 The questions were divided into three categories: (1) background, (2) knowledge of the past, and (3) preservation attitudes. Analysis and comments on the results follow below.

Background Information — Group A Questions Analysis and comment for the questionnaire has been broken down

into the three sections (A-Background Information, B-Knowledge of the Past, C-Preservation Attitudes). Conclusions are presented at the end of each section.

Questions, answers and responses to answers are presented with each section analysis.

Group A questions provide background information that is valuable in determining length of residence, education and general interest in the subject of archaeology. Responses to questions 1 and 2 indicate that the people living in this part of Granville are highly educated (70.9% have college degrees) and the majority of them have lived in the area for over ten years (69%). The fact that so many individuals have a college education may have a significant

impact on their response to some questions. However, Henderson (1988) and 1 both conclude that education is not necessarily the only factor that determines interest, or lack of interest in archaeology, or in the preservation of heritage resources. More studies in this area should be undertaken to provide a better understanding of the relationship between education and attitude toward preservation. A discussion of responses to questions 20-24 by the nine individuals who indicated they had no college 299 education is provided in the analysis and discussion of preservation attitudes (Group 3). Only a small percentage (4.7%) of the 64 individuals who responded indicated that they were very interested in archaeology; however, 64% indicated that they were moderately interested, and only 19% stated they had little or no interest. There was no difference in responses to this question

between the degree holding and the non-degree holding individuals. An

insignificant (3.1%) number of respondents had taken a course in archaeology in college.

Visitation to archaeological sites was also used as an indicator of

interest in the topic of archaeology. Significantly, over half of those who responded had visited local archaeological sites. Almost everyone (91%) who responded had visited the Alligator Mound. The next most visited site (69%)

was Octagon Memorial. This high visitation is probably the result of individuals who had played golf at the Country Club site which is laid out over the mounds. Mound Builders Park had a visitation by 60% of the respondents. Sites located outside of Licking County were seldom visited

demonstrating an interest limited to the Licking County area, or a strictly local archaeological interest. Over half of those responding (58%) had visited the archaeological exhibits at the Ohio Historical Society in Columbus. Certainly one could conclude from the data provided above that there is some interest in the archaeological sites of the region. One could also conclude that the closer these sites are to the respondents the more likely they are to be visited. 300 Sample - 64 returned, 100 sent - 64% GrouD A - Background Information

1. How long have you lived in Licking County? (Figure 52)

50 or more years 40-49 30-39 20-29 5 5 10 12

7.81% 7.81% 15.16% 18.75%

10-19 4-9 1-3 Less Than 1

12 11 8 1 18.75% 17.18% 12.5% 1.6% Least amount of time as resident - ■ 10 months Longest resident - 94 years More than 20 years - 32 (50%) Less than 20 years - 32 (50%)

More than 10 years - 44 (68.75%) Less than 10 years - 20 (31.25%) 2. Education and Degree (Figure 53)

High School only 9 14.06% High School Plus Some College 9 14.06% BA or BS 28 43.75%

MA 9 14.06%

Ph.D. 8 12.5% NA 1 1.6%

College Degree 45 70.31% Degree or Some Higher Education 58 90.62% 301 3. How would you classify your interest in archaeology? (Figure 54) Very interested 3 4.68% Moderately interested 49 64.0%

Have little or no interest 12 18.75% 4. Have you visited any archaeological sites in Licking County or Ohio? (Figure 62)

Octagon Memorial 44 68.75% Alligator Mound 58 90.62% Mound Builders 38 59.37%

Flint Ridge 36 56.25% Murphy Site 2 3.13% Serpent Mound 3 4.70%

Seip Mound 2 3.13%

Fort Ancient 1 1.6%

Mound City 1 1.6% 5. Have you ever taken any courses in archaeology or participated in an excavation?

Courses 2 3.13% Excavation 0 0.0% 6. See question #4. 302 Have you ever visited the archaeological exhibits at the Ohio Historical Society in Columbus? (Figure 63)

Within the past 5 years 18 28.12% Between 6-9 years 5 7.81%

Over 10 years 14 21.87% Total who have visited 37 57.81% Total who have not 27 42.18%

13. The Octagon and Circle Earthworks off 30th Street in Newark is owr by: (Figure 60) The Mound Builders Country Club 10 15.62%

The Licking County Historical Society 8 12.50%

The Ohio Historical Society 32 50.0% Do Not Know 12 18.75% Correct Answer = The Ohio Historical Society

14. The Ohio Historical Society is: (Figure 61)

A state agency 12 18.75%

A private non-profit organization 38 59.37% A private for profit organization 1 1.6% Do Not Know 11 17.18%

Correct Answer = Private Non-Profit Organization

Knowledge of the Past - Group B Ouestions

Five questions (8-12) were asked that provided some indication of the basic knowledge respondents had concerning local prehistory. One question (10) was more difficult to answer because all of the answers were to some 303 degree correct. It appears that those who responded guessed at the answer, or answered based on their particular understanding of the contact period. 8. The first native people arrived in what we call North America from:

(Figure 55) Europe 10 15.62%

Asia 52 81.25% India 1 1.6%

Japan 1 1.6% Correct Answer = Asia

9. Twenty-thousand years ago most of Ohio was covered by: (Figure 56 Ice 38 59.37% Broadleaf deciduous Forest 7 10.94% A shallow inland sea 4 6.25% Grasslands 9 14.1%

Do Not Know 3 4.7% Correct Answer = Ice

10. A major reason that Native Americans were not able to repel Europeans when they arrived here was because: (Figure 57)

They had inferior technology 15 23.43% Disease had dramatically

reduced populations 12 18.75%

Population centers were too dispersed 14 21.87% They trusted the Europeans 22 34.37%

Checked more than one response 5 7.9% Correct Answer = Disease, although all of the above are in

are in part correct. 304 IL Approximately how long ago were the geometric mounds and earthworks in Ohio constructed? (Figure 58) 500 years 4 6.25%

1000 years 12 18.75% 2000 years 27 42.18% 3000 years 9 14.1% Do Not Know 9 14.1% Correct Answer = 2000 years)

12. What cultural group do we credit with the construction of the

Alligator Mound and the Newark Earthworks? (Figure 59) Archaic 7 10.94% Hopewell 51 79.68% Seneca 1 1.6% Delaware 0 0.0% Correct Answer = Hopewell

Almost everyone who responded knew the correct answers to questions 8 and 12 (80%). The gross score for all those responding was 56% and if question 10 were omitted the score improved to 66%. Generally, the local population appears to have an elementary knowledge of local prehistory. A trip to Mound Builders Park, Flint Ridge Park or The Ohio

Historical Society would have provided the information needed to answer these questions. The knowledge could also have been obtained through a variety of other resources including newspaper articles printed in the local

Granville or Newark papers. 305 Preservation Attitudes - Group C Questions and Responses

The questions in group C provided some unexpected responses. At the very best it was anticipated that 50% of the residents would support the preservation of archaeological sites with public funding or the use of eminent domain. However, as the reader can see from the information provided below, support for the preservations of archaeological sites among those individuals who answered the questionnaire was substantial. Questions 20-25 address the preservation question while question 15 provides information about how the residents to the burial sites issue in general. Questions, responses and written comments are provided here:

15. Under what circumstances should individuals be permitted to excavate burial sites? (Figure 64)

If the site is on their property 3 4.69%

Only if the excavators are qualified professional archaeologists 35 54.68% Only with a permit from the state or

federal government 25 39.06% Under no circumstances 7 10.94%

(Six individual selected responses 2 & 3)

Comments: Only under very limited conditions, for purposes of education, not to fill museums, certainly not private collections, greatest respect and reverence must be utmost, site should then be

restored as much as possible to original condition. 306 20, Would you be willing to use public funds to support education,

research and preservation in archaeology for Licking County? (Figure 65)

Yes 41 64.06% No 15 23.43% Conditional 7 10.95% N/A 1.6% Comments on Question 20:

- yes, and a way should have been found to keep the mastodon here - only if there is excess money

- yes, as long as there is substantial private support as well - very limited use

- too open ended; not sure about appropriate amount - a small amount

21. Do you support preserving archaeological sites in Licking County? (Figure 66)

Yes 60 93.75% No 0 0.0%

Conditional 4 6.25% Comments on Question 21: - limited support

- yes, depending on who's defining important and what is the definition of important - financially no 307 22. Do you believe that archaeological sites should be granted legal protection in Ohio? (Figure 67) Only on public land 14 21.87%

On all land 43 67.18% On no land 1 1.6% Conditional 6 9.38% Comments on Question 22: - on all land within the rights of owners - on all land in most cases

- give more details - NA - on all land within reason - on all land but must be qualified - on all land - some limits should be determined by

the importance of the site as unique examples

23. Should a public agency try to obtain important archaeological

properties in order to protect them? (Figure 68)

Yes 49 76.56% No 8 12.5%

Conditional 5 7.81% N/A 2 Comments on Question 23:

- in some cases - simply regulate - limited cases - question too open-ended

- only to protect from damage in certain circumstances 308 24. In cases where an important site is going to he damaged or destroyed should eminent domain be used to obtain the site in the public interest? (Figure 69)

Yes 39 60.93% No 9 14.06%

Conditional 13 20.31% N/A 3 4.71% Comments on Question 24: - in some cases - these are irreplaceable treasures - depends on why the site was being destroyed

- yes, if "important" can be unequivocally established - within reason - probably

- depends on value of site - no, regulate instead - perhaps on a case-by-case basis

Questions 20-24 are all related. Question 21 demonstrates strong, and almost unanimous support (94%, yes) for the preservation of archaeological sites in Licking County. No one answered no to this question, but four individuals (6%) offered conditional support (see comments listed after question 21).

Over half (64%) of those responding to question 20 indicated they would be willing to use public funds to support preservation, education and research related to archaeology in the area. An additional 11% said they 309 would be willing to use public funding on a conditional basis. Twenty-three percent of the respondents were not willing to support archaeology with public funds. Questions 22-24 provide information concerning the local residents predisposition toward granting some kind of legal protection to archaeological sites. An unexpected 67% of those responding indicated that they wanted archaeological sites to be protected on all land while 22% indicated that only sites on public land should be protected.

Another unexpectedly strong showing for site protection was demonstrated in both questions 23 and 24. Seventy-seven percent of those responding indicated that a public agency should try to obtain important archaeological properties in order to protect them and a surprising 61% indicated that when needed, eminent domain should be used to obtain sites that are in danger of being damaged or destroyed. An additional 20% indicated that it would be reasonable to use eminent domain under certain situations or under specific conditions. 1 was interested in knowing how the local residents felt about the way in which the Alligator Mound was preserved so question 25 was included in the questionnaire. Of those responding to the question (27% did not respond), 45% believed that the situation should have been handled differently (see comments after the question) and 38% said that they would not change the way the development around the mound had taken place. 310 25. The Alligator Mound has been set aside and not destroyed. If you could have planned for the preservation of this site, let's say 10 years ago, what if anything would you do differently?

Responses to Question 25: Nothing Different 18 28.1%

N/A 17 26.56%

Suggest Change 29 45.31% Comments: - Simply insure that no potential dig spot is destroyed.

- Allow Public access - residents resist having trespassers. Maintain the topography, arrange any development with the mound as a feature instead of the after thought. - Should have been reserved as a park area as a requirement of developing the land. It would not have had to be a large park but one

which as more than the middle of a cul-du-sac.

- Prevented construction around it - would have planned a park like preservation.

- Make it a small park - preserved and maintained regularly with

origination and history. - More land set aside surrounding mound-control development,

utilizing areas as natural preserve for educational purpose.

- Would have preserved more land around the mound - limited development - only rather than the Farmington and Bryn Du Woods a large park and nature preserve would be formed.

- Not so many houses - put Sally Jones Farm in preservation. 311 - I would have wished that no grading or earth moving of any kind would be permitted near the mound; further, I would wish that animals had not been permitted to roam-graze upon it, provision would have been made for a structure (a safe distance from the mound itself)

which would permit an overhead view. - Set aside more land. - Set aside more of the land around the mound; too much has been

used for construction. - Enlarge from the present size. - Keep development away from the immediate vicinity of the mound.

- 1 think that what Bob Kent has done is one of the more thoughtful approaches to archaeological concerns.

- None. 1 think Bob Kent is doing a fine job of protecting and preserving Alligator Mound. He is to be commended.

- Preserved the mound in the midst of a large, natural preserve.

- Prevent cattle from running on it - should have larger protected area. - Would not have planned construction as close to mound. - Left more land around it so it could have been more of a park, accessible to other than golfers. - I don't feel I would even know where to start; I feel that whoever owns the land has done a good job themselves.

- Guarantee preservation either through private donations or public action; we are lucky that a private citizen was willing to preserve the site. 312 - Many people do not know about the Alligator Mound - it is only in the past 5 years that I learned of it and its location. It seems it should have been studied more and publicized more. I would like to know more about it. - I don't feel qualified to answer. I feel it was important to save the site. It is a shame that the development has crowded the site into an island surrounded by asphalt.

- 10 years ago was still too late. The site should have been protected 100 years ago. Nevertheless, the mound is on private land and if Ohio or Licking County Historical Society wanted the site, they should have purchased it a long time ago. - Public agency with private and public funds able to purchase appraisal to property owners; payment plan that has tax incentives; public relations to avoid stress or polarization; education to help prepare public to be responsible. Responsibility of ownership of site should be more reflective than that of the local political unit. - Increase margin some. - Little more land surrounding the Alligator Mound.

- 1 would have left more open land around it. - Worked harder to get and preserve the site. - Eliminated the 5-6 lots surrounding the mound. This would have been as a result of planning and zoning requiring same-and the developer would have received financial incentives; fair market value from the U.S. government, therefore, everyone would win. 313 Conclusions - Questionnaire

Questionnaires sent eut in Granville Township early in 1980 and again late in the 1980's indicate strong support for the preservation of historic resources as well as archaeological resources. This study reinforces the

conclusions of previous studies and offers additional data indicating that the residents of Granville, Ohio not only want to see prehistoric sites preserved, but they are willing, within reasonable limits, to support financially the

preservation of important prehistoric sites. Problems for the archaeological community include: locating sites and making their presence known to the public; determining which sites are

significant and should be recommended for preservation; and providing educational materials for the public so that they can understand what it is they are being asked to preserve and why certain sites should be preserved.

In addition, archeologists may want to define which sites should be excavated instead of being preserved. If an excavation is going to be recommended and

the public is asked to support that work, then criteria should be provided and

the proposed work thoroughly explained. Several individuals who agreed conditionally on the questionnaire to

preservation and the use of public funds for that purpose raised the question

of property owners rights. This issue has been thoroughly examined in Chapter One and discussed at various points throughout this dissertation.

Although one can conclude from the data presented in this chapter that there is considerable support for the preservation of archaeological resources (as well as other heritage resources) that exist on privately owned land, it does not necessarily mean that a majority of the residents in the

Granville area are prepared to deny an individual the right to develop their 314 property or to construct a building on it just because there is an archaeological site on the premises. What the data does indicate is that a general support for these resources does exist and that the public would like to see something done. The question is who should be responsible for this preservation effort, what kinds of laws or zoning ordinances would be

effective and yet fair to property owners and who is going to pay the bill if certain expenses are incurred. Responses to the survey and in the interviews indicate that there is a

general dissatisfaction with the way in which the Alligator Mound was preserved. A majority of those responding in the survey and in the interviews believe that the site should have been set aside on a larger tract of land and with greater accessibility to the site. But how all of this should have been accomplished and who should have been responsible are still questions that need to be addressed.

Those responding to the questionnaire indicate that a public agency should be permitted to act in the public interest and acquire sites and preserve them. But which public agency or agencies should be responsible and how shall they be held accountable if they do not take the responsibility seriously. During the summer and early fall of 1991, LCALS excavated the

Min thorn Canal Lock at Buckeye Lake in Perry County, Ohio. When it was discovered that most of the lock including the entire wood floor and wood support structure were preserved and in an excellent state of preservation, the question of who was responsible for the site was raised (Hooge, 1991).

That question was never adequately answered and the Ohio Department of Natural Resources eventually accepted some responsibility because they 315 owned the site and were obligated under federal law (106 review process) to

save and curate artifacts and information related to the sites discovered at this location. It was determined that the entire lock was an artifact and therefore, had to be preserved. The preservation process failed at the state level because no one with any expertise in this are was willing to step in and take charge, in part

because of the costs involved. ODNR did what it could to preserve the timbers

and stone and the contractor (LCALS) preserved, catalogued the other artifacts associated with the site. What was a monumental opportunity for preservation, research and

education, failed, in part, to materialized because the system established in The Ohio Revised Code (see Chapter I) to address just this kind of situation failed because there is no enforcement of responsibility.

The Alligator Mound and the Minthom Canal Lock are two somewhat different examples of how the system that has been established (and one that the people of Granville apparently support) does not function. Consequently,

important pieces of the American heritage are left either orphaned or in the hands of individuals who are ill prepared to deal with them and whose

motivation runs (and not always intentionally) counter to the best interest of the site involved. Builders, developers, contractors. Realtors, and many property owners live with some fear that they will not be able to profit fairly from their investments (or the investments of others that they will in turn profit from) because of regulations protecting heritage sites. Several individuals responding to the questionnaire and in the interviews related this concern.

There is no doubt that if an archaeological survey is required prior to any 316 kind of construction or development (not only on public land, but also on private land) there will be additional costs. Contractors (mostly builders) that I spoke with during the course of researching and writing this dissertation were all concerned that their margins of profit were already so narrow that if more costs were added they might not be able to earn a living at all. One contractor summed it up: "Why should we shoulder all of the burden for what society will ultimately benefit from?" Based on this study, it appears that the public, at least those living around Granville, Ohio, want to save significant archaeological/historic resources. How this is to be accomplished is the question that is not being, and has not been, addressed, and that is why the Alligator Mound is today encircled by asphalt and roof tops. 317

Years Lived in Licking County

17,7%

10-10 10.4% 13.0%

4.6%

^ 4 ( M 0 20-30 8 .1% 10.4% 30-30 16.1%

Figure 52,

Hooge's Questionaire

Education and Degree Earned

Some College 30.3%

HSOnly BAorBS 43.0% ■

PHD mm 13.6%

14.1%

Figure 53. 318

Interest in Archaeology

Mode rate 76.6%

U t t l a o r N o 16.8%

Figure 54.

Hooge's Questionaire

Knowledge of Pre-History The first Native People arrived from: 60

Europe Asia India Japan

Figure 55. 319

Knowledge of Pre-History 20,000 years ago, most of Ohio was covered by; GO

Ice forest sea grasslands do not know

Figure 56.

Hooge's Questionaire

Knowledge of Pre-History Native Americans couid not repel Europeans due to:

Inferior tectinology population too dispersed diseases treated Europeans

Figure 57. 320

Knowledge of Pre-History How Long ago were the earthworks In Ohio constructed? 30

500 yearn 2000 years do not know 1000 years 3000 years

Figure 58.

Hooge's Questionaire

Knowledge of Pre-History What group constructed the Alligator Mound? 60

Archaic Hopewell Seneca Delaware

Figure 59. 321

Knowledge of Pre-History The Octagon and Circle Earthwork Is owned by:

Moundbuildere CC LCHS OHS do not know

Figure 60.

Hooge's Questionaire

Knowledge of Pre-History The Ohio Historical Society Is

state agency private (or profit Corp. private non-profit erg. do not know

Figure 61. 322

Archaeology Sites Visited in Ohio

% %

Figure 62.

Hooge's Questionaire 323

% Visited the Ohio Historical Society

Yes No

Figure 63.

Hooge's Questionaire 324

Preservation Attitudes When should Individuals be permitted to excavate?

ISeries 1

site on property permit from gov't arctiaeologiste ere them never

Figure 64.

Hooge's Questionaire

Preservation Attitudes Willing to use public funds to support archaeology? 50

iSeries 1

Conditional

Figure 65. 325

Preservation Attitudes Support preserving archaeological sites In LG?

ISarisB 1

Conditional

Figure 66.

Hooge's Questionaire

Preservation Attitudes Should archaeology sites be granted legal protection?

Banes 1

On aii land On no land Only on public land conditional

Figure 67. 326

Preservation Attitudes Should a public agency try to obtain Important sites? GO

ISerieB 1

Conditional

Figure 68.

Hooge'8 Questionaire

Preservation Attitudes Should eminent domain be used to obtain a site? 60

ISatlaa 1

Conditional

Figure 69. CHAPTER V REFLECTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Reflections

There was an abandoned well filled with stones in this field and every summer I caught snakes there. North across the field there was a Victorian farm house with chickens in the drive and a big rooster that the old man suggested I stay away from. A perfectly-kept garden filled the space behind the house and across from it was a shed with white paint peeling. Two pigs occupied a pen behind the shed. The floor in the shed was dirt; there were no windows and light seeped through cracks in the wood siding. Back in a comer (the northwest corner) was an ancient chest of drawers in which the old man kept all the flint pieces that were broken; there were hundreds of pieces. I was fascinated and on occasion he would show me complete knives, spear points or granite axes. These he kept in the house and I never saw all of them. They came from the garden and 1 wondered about how many Indians had lived there and why they had left such wonderful things behind.

Across the street and a little west, about where the high school stands today, was a small three-room house with a tar paper roof. A Black family lived there and sometimes 1 played with the oldest boy who was about my age.

He said there was the grave of an Indian in a little cemetery way back. 1 heard other people mention it. I wondered about the Indian. One day 1

327 328 visited my friend, but he was gone - old newspapers littered the floor and the wallpaper peeled away revealing older paper and yellow colored plaster. A blue granite-ware cup and a rusty wash basin were bout all that was left. The Black family was paid to move. The old man with the chickens and artifacts died and bulldozers came in and made streets and carpenters built houses; it's called Upper Arlington now.

Feathers from birds seemed important and in the fields and woods life slowed down. I never counted days or weeks as a kid. life was all exploration and if one is always discovering, then time is reduced to the lowest possible level of insignificance. And so it might have been for Minnie Hite Moody living in the shadow of the Alligator Mound wondering who built it and why. Her grandfather was still curious; he hadn't lost his ability to ask questions and to contemplate situations for which there seemed to be no obtainable answer. Bushnell, Parks, and Hill were also individuals who were still asking questions. There was a time when mounds and earthworks seemed more important and people wrote about them and described their deteriorating conditions. They speculated, often wildly, about what they meant and the nature of their builders. Then people seemed to lose interest; the Alligator

Mound became an obscure patch of tall grass on an isolated hill overlooking the valley. Only a handful of people knew its location and almost no one visited it except grazing cattle and horses. The Granville Circle was totally lost to two or more generations and the Old Granville Fort remained the curiosity of a few well-informed locals.

Although an occasional avocational archaeologist wrote about some of these sites and published in their journal. The Ohio Archaeologist, no one seemed concerned about their preservation. Even among the professional 329 community there was little energy for saving earthworks unless they happened to be donated to the "state" or local historical societies. Only the Archaeological Conservancy of the United States and in one case (The

Hopeton Earthwork), The Federal Government have worked to preserve earthwork sites in Ohio. Most of this activity has occurred during the last

decade. Unlike stone or copper effigies and other prehistorically crafted objects, earthworks cannot be moved and exhibited in museums of history or art; they are permanent site specific works and they frequently occupy valuable real estate. Often this real estate becomes part of a town, community or development and in Ohio real estate is mostly privately held. Aesthetic objects found in burial mounds can be removed, but the removal means the destruction of the site. With regard to burial mound sites, we have become myopic and have difficulty seeing value in preserving the entire feature, mostly because we recognize the monetary, scientific and exhibition value of the contents. Earthworks have even less value than burial mounds because they usually contain nothing that we see as valuable, or the value of the real estate they occupy becomes overwhelmingly dominant in determining value in our society.

When earthworks are on publicly held land, we are still confronted with the dilemma of best use. In the case of Octagon State Memorial, best use was determined to be a private country club because it solved the question of maintenance. Thus a private gold course was laid out over a public site compromising the archaeological integrity of the site and limiting, dramatically, public access to the site. My survey indicates that half of the people who responded did not know who owned the octagon site. Other 330 research conducted by this investigator indicates that an even larger percentage of individuals in the surrounding area, not to mention visitors from outside the area, are unaware that the Octagon is a public site; they just cannot play golf on it. The Alligator Mound became an archaeological orphan. The Ohio Historical Society had several opportunities to purchase the site, as did local

historical societies, prior to the site's development, but no action was taken to secure the mound and a few of the acres surrounding it. 1 used to think that

this was very significant, but one must consider that even after Squier and Davis, Hill, Parks, Bushnell, and others suggested preservation during the 19th century, nothing was done. No individual or group of individuals stepped forward to purchase the site. Even though the Ohio Historical Society has had the power to use eminent domain since 1913, they still did not use it to obtain the Alligator Mound or any other endangered prehistoric site in

Ohio. There is no group in Ohio, public or private, that works actively toward

preserving prehistoric archaeological sites of any type (A1 Tonetti, personal communication, 1990). It is true that the Ohio Historic Preservation Office does support the concept of preservation, but does not promote preservation

as an active agenda. Only the New Mexico based Archaeological Conservancy

has an active program of prehistoric site acquisition in Ohio.

What perhaps surprises me the most is the response of Native

Americans and Native American supporters to the preservation question. 1 have worked with and interviewed individuals within this group and found that they are mostly interested in the reburial issue and surprisingly disinterested in site preservation. I tried to motivate the Native American organization in Columbus to prevent the destruction of the stone mound at 331 Fort Glenford, but to no avail. They did not see the situation as important. However, when the Ohio Historical Society excavated a trench through the Great Circle at Newark, they arrived in force because of the publicity.

McGimsey (1972) commented that the major part of the archaeological resource in North America would be destroyed by the turn of the century or within a decade or two thereafter. In Granville, and indeed in most of Licking County, his prophecy seems to be becoming a reality. However, the

question that still remains to be thoroughly addressed is why? Ten years ago and even until two years ago I believed that the reason for this destruction

was disinterest in the resource and a general disinterest in the Native American past. Now 1 am not so sure that this is the case. My research demonstrates that site owners are generally concerned and that the more knowledge they possess on the subject, the more likely they are to protect the sites on their property. Surveys taken in Granville over the past decade

indicate that the public is generally interested in the prehistory of the area,

but more significantly, they want to see important sites set aside and preserved. Preserving sites appears to depend upon two important factors. First,

the sites have to be well documented and publicly known and second, there must be a mechanism in place that provides for the preservation of the site.

In Granville, and 1 believe this is true all across Ohio, neither situation exists.

Consequently, sites are frequently destroyed before the general public is aware that the sites existed in the first place. This is true of the Old Granville Fort and might have been the case with the Alligator Mound had not the publicity prior to development informed both the public and the developer 332 about the site. The Granville Circle could be the next site lost in the study area, one which at this point could be saved and restored. Education is a significant factor in the preservation of archeological sites, as is leadership. An important question with respect to education is

where to focus attention first. When we think of education we usually think of kids in the schools, but if archaeological sites are to be preserved, then community leadership must be educated so that ordinances that protect

archaeological sites are put into place and perhaps most importance,

enforced. To accomplish this, sites in a community must be identified well in advance so that future development will include site protection and

developers will be aware of the obligation prior to the planning process and before they have invested large sums of money in design and pre development paper work.

A supportive public may see the value in preserving sites through ordinances or legislation, but what about situations in which sites must be purchased in order to preserve them. Spending public money is not a

popular subject and spending it to buy archaeological sites will probably draw considerable fire from many quarters. The voting public must see archaeological sites as important if they are to be encouraged to purchase them. The Nature Conservancy determined over a decade ago that the only effective means to preserve natural areas was to buy the land. Later, the

Archaeological Conservancy came to the same conclusion. People are not going to spend tax dollars to buy archaeological sites if they don't understand anything about the sites and private individuals are not going to contribute funds to purchase sites unless they believe it is worthwhile to do so. 333 Education about the archaeological resource depends upon leadership from those who know what the resource is, where it is, and why it is significant. This responsibility falls into the hands of the professional archaeological community which is a relatively small group of individuals whose focus is primarily on research and/or on contract work. The national organization for professional archaeologists. The Society for American

Archaeology, has only had an education committee since 1990 and upon that

committee has been placed the burden of solving the archaeology/education problem. Fortunately, the committee has risen to the task and has made

headway in several areas, but it will be a few years before a significant impact is seen at the local levels. If local archaeologists do not take a leadership role and work with local communities, the resource will continue to disappear at an alarming rate. Part of the solution to the preservation issue lies in the hands of

avocational archaeologists and collectors The Archaeological Society of Ohio

is a collector's group with a few serious avocational members. However, this four thousand member organization has taken no leadership role in preservation and opposes any law that would limit an individual's right to surface, collect, or dig sites. Several professional archaeologists have worked with this group for years in order to change attitudes and to "professionalize" the organization, but this has resulted in no mandate to contribute actively toward public education or preservation. Fagan (1989) stated that very few people are seriously interested in archaeology and that Americans lack a sense of cultural identification with the past. Fagan goes on to state that our value systems is oriented toward profit and exploitation and not toward preservation. 1 have mixed emotions 334 about Fagan's comments. However, he does get at the root of what I believe the problem is - we are unable to culturally identify with Native Americans, especially prehistoric Native Americans. If Euro-American and Africa-

Americans could identify and see some connection that bonds all ethnic and racial groups together, we could possibly discover reasons for preserving important visages of the prehistoric American past. As Americans we

celebrate our individual ethnic past and large cities have ethnic neighborhoods where a common bond is shared. I find that children are able to form a bond with Native Americans far

more easily than adults. By the time we reach adulthood, we have been taught who our ancestors are, what race we belong to and where our allegiances, even economic ones, lie. To a certain degree 1 believe we educate

ourselves so we cannot easily form a bond with other ethnic or racial groups. Children in the classrooms where I have worked for the past eleven years almost all want to see archaeological sites saved and they do not understand

why we have not done more to save them. Adults seem to see the situation

more as an economic one. As adults we rationalize and quantify, we conduct an analysis and evaluate the situation, but do we ever feel anything. Have we taught ourselves, educated ourselves only to think in quantitative and analytical terms and not to allow our emotions or other senses to enter into the decision-making process. I believe that the individuals I interviewed, with a few exceptions were all trying to deal with their own mixed responses to not only the prehistoric sites, but to the people who constructed them.

Jim Bascom was searching for some way to describe an emotional response to the mounds, so was Jim Murphy and Minnie Hite Moody. There was a connection that they could not quite define, something was missing 335 and many people felt it, but could not articulate what it was. Jack Lucks said that we are only caretakers and that we have a responsibility to the land, that we had to respect it. But Burl Morgan said nearly the same thing, only he

believed that responsibility meant not developing good farm land at all. Hirshler, McPhail, Dennison, Bascom, and Smith all said that developers and Realtors dominated the decision making process with regard

to planning Granville. McPhail and Larson implied that special interest groups involved in development did not want the press to be involved in covering related issues. Almost everyone agreed that planning was a highly

political process which reverted back to Jim Murphy's tag-team analogy and the pay check. Apathy, greed and a growing bedroom community were all defined as problems that influenced land use planning and preservation. Taken all together these problems appear to be enough to stifle preservation

and to prevent land use planning from being adopted or regulations from being strictly enforced. However, I still believe that there is another

ingredient to the problem that helps to prevent serious planning for green space and heritage preservation. Hirshler called it apathy; I believe it is tied to our growing inability to appreciate things such as forests, open spaces, earthworks, clean rivers and wetlands. This may sound a little absurd, but our society seems to be focusing more on contained environments (the interior of a home, a car, a building in which one works, a city that one seldom escapes from). Frederick Starr, President of Oberlin College, once explained his perception of the problem to me. He said we never get out of our cars, walk to a destination; we go from one contained environment to another at 60 mph and we do not experience the outside environment enough anymore to sufficiently appreciate it. 336 To understand and to fully appreciate the earthworks at Granville one must be aware of these works relationship to those at Newark and consequently to those at Chillicothe and at Portsmouth. One must also understand the relationship of the earthworks to habitations sites like those on the Murphy property along the Newark-Granville Road (Figure 70). We tend only to appreciate the pieces of Hopewell culture that we can possess personally or that we can see in a museum environment. We remove these objects from the broader context and place them in our contained environment. The Hopewell world view probably evolved under brilliantly clear night skies and developed into a complex cosmology that we are only now beginning to explore, let alone understand. To appreciate Hopewell one must appreciate and understand the geography of the region and how it helped to shape the lives of these people - how resources contained within this geography helped to influence their decision making process. It is difficult for us to appreciate aesthetically a place such as the Great Earthworks at Newark because they are so different. They covered so much space and yet they were intimately tied together by extensive tentacles of sculptured earth that reached out and defined and connected spaces. These are alien spaces to most Americans; they are vastly different in concept and function than the structures that we create. It is easier to see them as curiosities created by primitive people and to eliminate them rather than to confront them and try to define their meaning. It is easier to convert them into something we can intellectually deal with, such as a golf course. Recently and while 1 was working on this section of my dissertation, 1 had lunch with a friend, Jeff Gill. Jeff has been collaborating with Brad Mu^yÇfH

====K==Jg^

i i

I )P> r.

Figure 70, USGS Map with Prehistoric Sites Located - Pacheco. % 338 Lepper and myself on a study of the Newark Earthworks and other related sites. Jeff had been to the Alligator Mound and taken a series of compass

readings using the mound's feet as stations and the center of the curl in the tail as a focal point His estimates were a little rough, but he determined that the angles he computed for the mound were approximately the same as those recently determined for the Great Circle Earthwork and indicate that the Circle was a lunar observatory as is the Octagon. More work needs to be done, but if Jeff is correct, then it may change the way that we not only perceive the Alligator Mound, but in how we value it and other earthwork sites.

Evidence that the Mound Builders had sophisticated knowledge concerning certain aspects of astronomy and that many of the earthworks were constructed to reflect this knowledge in some profound way may influence our contemporary society. Treat these people and their built sites more

respectfully. The more the Hopewell are seen as being intelligent, or "like us" the more chance there may be for acceptance of their contributions. In the first chapter of this dissertation, 1 discussed the problem

Americans have in explaining or justifying how they treated Native Americans. Some scholars such as Silverburg believe that we have purposefully tried to eliminate signs that Native Americans were intelligent, productive, sensitive and civilized people. The earthworks reminded us of how we practiced genocide to acquire real estate. It is easier to justify genocide if the people you eliminated are thought of as savages. Godless and heathens. As I interviewed people 1 found no indications that people felt this way today. Most of the individuals 1 spoke with felt like Charlene Bascom; she said the Indians got a raw deal. In some ways it is easier to deal with it now, to admit Americans were wrong in the way they treated the Native 339 Americans, because we have the land now and we don't have to give anything up in order to have a clear conscience. The valley along the Raccoon Creek east of Granville, Ohio is changing. The once relatively stable rural environment imposed by the early Euro-American settlers will cease to exist within less than one decade from the time this dissertation is completed. 1 watched the old Munson Bams being crushed by heavy earth moving equipment and saw the Munson House lifted from its foundation and removed to a new location (Figures 71-75). New

houses, condominiums and office buildings now occupy spaces where farmers grew crops for over a century and a half. The last remnants of prehistoric sites in the valley will soon be incorporated into an increasingly

urbanized community and the few visible traces of the great earthworks of the valley will cease to exist within a short period of time. I have conducted this study and written this dissertation knowing that

most of what 1 discovered would soon be destroyed. I wanted to document the process of change and how individuals within the community responded to it. I thought that there should be some more contemporary record assembled to

support the observations of individuals like Squier and Davis, Parks, Hill, and Bushnell. Perhaps more important to me though is the sense of obligation 1 feel toward the people who actually constructed these works. The individuals who lived on the Murphy property and in other locations throughout the valley probably contributed to the construction of these earthworks or at least saw them as an important part of their lives. To me these earthworks were a harmonious part of the landscape, they defined spaces without destroying the natural beauty of the land. They were simple in form and yet 340 visually dramatic. They demonstrated a commitment to the political, cultural and social order of the group. The earthworks may also have been a connection physically and

conceptually in both form and alignment to objects they observed in the universe above. Because people live in less complicated structures and have

a less developed technological base does not mean that they were intellectually less capable than we are today. It does not mean that they did not have complex ideas and philosophies. They may not have had our understanding of a cell's molecular structure, but they, as a group, probably had a far better understanding of the natural environment that surrounded them and how they were related to that environment. Each day, especially from spring through the fall, dozens of individuals on bicycles, roller blades, and on foot pass through and into the interior of the Granville Circle as they travel along the bicycle path that connects Granville and Newark. At this moment in time, I am probably the only person who realizes that 1 am inside, that I have passed through the now invisible barrier and into what was once a special or perhaps sacred space to the Moundbuilders of this region. Each day hundreds of automobiles pass along the Newark-Granville Road through a space once occupied by the great arcing wall that connected the Granville Circle possibly with the crescent, or some point near the crescent. Jones Road, as it approaches Milner Road, occupies a space that was part of the Old Granville Fort's outer wall and ditch. Conceptually, every day, hundreds of individuals pass through these ancient walls and into or out of the spaces that these wall defined, spaces that were part of the religious, social, political or other cultural aspects of the Moundbuilders lives almost two thousand years ago. 341 Possessing the knowledge that one is passing through or into one of these spaces could change the way that they perceive the space and the way in which they value that space. By passing through, into, and out of these

ancient walls and enclosures, the individual unknowingly interacts with the space. I see a relationship between the conceptual art of today and this interaction with these defined ancient spaces. Artist Sol Lewitt once buried one of his sculptures, a cube, in Holland and by doing so he intended to contribute that work to everyone. Everyone who was aware of its presence,

but not exact location, shared in a kind of joint ownership conceptually. By

making the public aware of the location of these earthwork sites, they can share the joint ownership of that site. Individuals may own houses within an ancient sacred space and the public may own roads and utilities, but everyone can share in the "ownership" of the site - or the space it occupied.

I call this conceptual preservation. By visually defining for the public, whenever possible, where these

sites were, individuals could become consciously aware of the relationship between how Hopewell used and defined spaces, imposing linear and geometric earthen sculptured walls on the landscape and how we use the space laying out grid-like streets and lots where we construct residences and other structures for private or public use. Sites such as the Alligator Mound, the Old Granville Fort and the Granville Circle provide boundary points within the entire system of earthworks where residents and visitors can place themselves and not only participate in our contemporary landscape, but also in the ancient one. 342 Implications for Art Education

During the early summer of 1987 I was working at the Murphy Site Number One preparing a pit for the firing of some experimental ceramics. Off to the west a red hot air balloon rose against the green background of "Alligator Hill." White tents lined the edge of the polo field where horse and rider warmed up for a competitive event. I was impressed with the contrast of red, white and 1 drove west on Newark/Granville Road and past the field where a large sign announced "Polo for the Arts." The event was sponsored by the Columbus Museum of Fine Art and was intended to raise funds for the museum. 1 proceeded to the base of "Alligator Hill" and hiked up to the mound to observe the events below. Polo ponies and riders darted across the field chasing the small white ball. Cars continued to pull in and well dressed patrons of the arts gathered under the white tents and canopies to enjoy the day's events. Directly below me large bulldozers and self loading earth movers sat idle. Strips of fresh brown soil marked the location where roads would soon be completed. Piles of white plastic pipe and scattered red fire hydrants indicated that utilities would soon be in place and lots would be ready for contractors to begin the construction of houses. All of these I saw as overlays both physical and conceptual. Without a knowledge of the region's ancient history and geology, none of these overlays could exist. As the fund raising event continues the contrasts became more vivid. The long arcing Hill earthwork had once established a special or sacred space for the inhabitants of the valley about 2000 years ago and now just at the site's eastern boundary, people played a game with horses, sticks and the 343 small white ball while other members of the social and economic elite looked on. As I watched, the event seemed to take on new meaning; I saw it as a ritual, a ceremonial event. I wondered about the ancient ceremonies and

rituals that had taken place two millenia ago. 1 tried to imagine the two cultures meeting on the playing field, just as Native Americans had been

confronted with European peoples of strange dress and riding giant beasts

one half millenia ago. The arts were being supported at that location in June of 1987. Funds would be raised to acquire new works or set up a new exhibit. The

contributors were unaware of the aesthetic prehistoric built environment that once had dominated the landscape directly to the west of them and also a few miles to the east. Nor were they aware that the Alligator Mound, one of the most significant of the remaining earthworks of the region was about to be ringed with asphalt and surrounded by houses whose rooflines would forever change the landscape views of the surrounding valley.

Our view of art, for the most part, has long been restricted to the Western ideal or to only those things that can be hung on a wall or exhibited in a restricted physical environment. We have set narrow standards for evaluating art and for defining what it is and thus have shut the door to a greater appreciation of what cultures outside the Western tradition have produced. This is changing as the emphasis in many schools shifts to multicultural art education and a more balanced and open approach to defining art and aesthetic production. This broader view of art necessitates a more comprehensive understanding of the cultures that produced the art or aesthetic object. To achieve this broader cultural view of the aesthetics in prehistory, art educators may find it necessary to work with anthropologists 344 and archaeologists. It has been my experience in working on this dissertation that the artists, art educators, archaeologists and Native Americans all contribute significantly to our understanding of the mound

building people. The preservation of the remaining archaeological sites in Ohio is a task too large for only one small community of scholars: the archaeologists. The responsibility for saving and understanding these sites lies on a broader cross section of the community. Artists and art educators have the potential to make significant contributions to this preservation effort. The idea that destroyed sites can still be appreciated conceptually is one that is especially suited to artists and the art education community. For our society to continue to ignore the aesthetic contributions of the Mound Builders, and to allow these contributions to be ignored or remembered only in museum show cases is an American tragedy. Educators are in a unique position to make significant contributions to the preservation effort and to broaden our understanding of the people who built these and other sites throughout

Eastern and Western North America.

Recommendations

Based on the findings in this dissertation, the following recommendations are presented for consideration.

General Recommendations:

1. This study only begins to address the subject of private ownership of archaeological sites. More information is needed concerning land owner 345 attitudes about archaeological heritage resources, and also about attitudes and opinions that are held about these resources by the general population. 2. A site registration program similar to the one in Kentucky

(Henderson, 1988) should be established in Ohio. 3. At the state level, Ohio should pass legislation that specifically protects significant archaeological sites on private land and create a fund to purchase sites or to excavate them if that is the best alternative. The state legislature should evaluate how significant archaeological resources in Ohio are protected and enforce provisions already instituted in The Ohio Revised

Code (see Chapter I).

Preserving The Resource - An extensive archaeological survey of the Granville area needs to be completed in order to determine the extent and significance of the resource, and so a more effective preservation plan can be implemented (see Site

Recommendations ). - Zoning regulations needs to be implemented that specifically protect the heritage resources in the Granville area. The concept of "significant heritage resource" needs to be clarified and defined. - The Village of Granville should form a community heritage resource committee to develop guidelines for preservation, propose zoning regulations, review development impact on the resource and to work with archaeologists and historians on a master plan for Granville preservation. - Developers should be rewarded for preserving sites on their property by allowing higher density development in some area. 346 - Significant archaeological sites should be purchased by the community and held as a public trust. - Significant archaeological/heritage sites should be designated and identified in some specific way - perhaps as "Granville Heritage Sites" and markers should be erected to identify these sites.

- The Village of Granville should develop a consulting relationship

with an archaeologist or archaeologist familiar with the resources in the Granville and Licking County area.

Education Recommendations - Educational materials should be developed that tie together the

prehistory and the history of the area so that they are seen as a continuum. - Materials about the prehistory and archaeology of the Granville/Licking County area should be developed so that they can be

integrated into the existing curriculum of the local schools. - An archaeological library and resource center should be developed

at the Granville Library and important research and printed materials

pertaining to this topic archived at this location.

- Continuing research at archaeological sites in the area should be encouraged using, whenever possible, graduate students in archaeology. Students and volunteers from the Granville community should be encouraged

to participate in the excavation. - Serious consideration should be given to the development of

Granville archaeological resource center, perhaps with cooperation from

Denison University. This center would function as a education research and tourist center and support both education and tourists in the area. 347 - Decision makers in the local government must be educated about the resource and how to preserve it.

Site Recommendations

- The Old Granville Fort should be designated as a "Granville Heritage Site," a survey of the site should be completed and wherever possible embankments should be reconstructed. A plaque should be placed at the entrance to the development identifying the site.

- The Granville Circle should be designated as a "Granville Heritage Site." An extensive survey of this site should be completed. Fields that are

adjacent to the site should also be surveyed. The circle should be restored to

dimensions previously reported and development should be restricted in the area. The preservation of this site should be seen as the highest priority in the Granville area. Funds to purchase this site should be raised and a long

term preservation plan developed. - Sites on the Murphy Property (Erinwood Development) should be permanently preserved. The Village of Granville should take over responsibility for care, maintenance and interpretation of the Erinwood Archaeological Reserve through a cooperative arrangement with the property owners. The Reservoir Mound along Milner Road should be investigated to determine if the site was previously excavated and then the mound should be restored to its original dimensions as reported in the literature. The site should be set aside as part of the archaeological reserve that has already been established. The mound should be designated as a "Granville Heritage Site." An interpretive sign should be placed at the 348 Newark/Granville Road entrance of Erinwood Development identifying the Murphy Sites and their archaeological significance. - The Alligator Mound should be designated as a "Granville Heritage Site" and a committee, such as the one recommended in this dissertation, develop a preservation and interpretive plan for the mound. This should be accomplished in cooperation with the land owners association and the Licking County Historical Society who holds title to the land. It is

recommended that the remaining undeveloped lots surrounding the mound be purchased by the community or donated by the developer, and a space on the east side of the mound be constructed where one or two vehicles can

safely pull to the side of the road. Steps up the east side of the site should be constructed in order to accommodate individuals who might have difficulty climbing up to the mound. Means should be found to prevent erosion of the

mound by visitors. The need for further scientific investigation at the mound should be discussed with archaeologists who are familiar with the site (Ohio State University, Ohio Historical Society, Licking County Archaeology

and Landmarks). - The Farmington Development site should be investigated to locate remnants of earthworks reported in that area (Bushnell, 1889). In addition,

the site should be surveyed in order to discover possible habitation or ceremonial sites, especially those that might be related to the ceremonial earthworks. Funding for this investigation should be a cooperative arrangement between the developer, the owner, and the village. Planning for this procedure should take place immediately. If remnants of earthworks are discovered, it is recommended that some portions be reconstructed in green common areas and designated as Granville Heritage Sites. 349 - A community yard and field survey should be planned in the area east of the old Village and south of the Newark/Granville Road. Valuable information may still remain in green spaces and yards. The cooperation of individual land owners would have to be obtained and the investigative

methodology would have to minimize test pit size, possibly using a post hole test pit technique (Dancey, 1991).

Funding Preservation - A levy should be passed that creates a fund for the purchase of significant archaeological properties and green space.

- Building permits should carry a small fee that goes toward a heritage preservation fund. - Tourism should be strongly encouraged and funds from a bed tax applied toward the development of heritage sites and site interpretation. Bicycling tourism should be encouraged and a bicycle archaeological/ historic tour established in the Granville area. - Grant funds to support research, education and site preservation in the Granville area should be obtained.

- Denison University should become actively involved in the investigation and preservation of archaeological resources thus reducing the cost of such investigations to the land owner and the community. - A continuing relationship with The Ohio State University Department of Anthropology and the Ohio Historical Society should be maintained in order to help provide expertise and support for continuing archaeological investigation in the Granville area. il

w Figure 71. Munson House and Buildings from the 1875 Atlas of licking County. w Figure 72. The Munson House and Bam - Summer 1992 (Hooge). c c a ; I i . j -rr

w Figure 73. Munson House being prepared for moving - Summer 1992 (Hooge). Figure 74. Munson Bam and House - Summer 1992 (Hooge). w Figure 75. Murphy Property, Munson House and Murphy Site (33-U-212) - Summer 1992 (Hooge). , n , ENTERING 6 R 4 W V IL L E PbevlATKW 367»

A ÔA4C6 RURAL CoMAAüAjrrV 6TRÜ66LW6 Tb STAV£ ôPF TMe AWAaICSS OR MOUSTRfALt&M

PRESUVATION NEW*.

W uî LIST OF REFERENCES

Aibrect, B. and Keener (1974). Memo to OHS Director Daniel Porter concerning the purchase and preservation of The Alligator Mound, Columbus, Ohio, Ohio Historical Society Archives. Appy, E. F. (1887). Address before the Licking County Pioneer Association at the Newark Fairground, July 13, 1887 in the Granville Times. July 29, 1887, Vol. 8, No. 9, Granville, Ohio.

Arizona Site Steward Program Handbook for Volunteers (1986). Prepared by the staff of the Arizona State Historic Preservation Office, Phoenix, Arizona. Atwater, C. (1820). A description of the antiquities in the State of Ohio and other western states. New York: American Antiquarian Society.

Ball, S. (1990). Personal communication.

Bames, M. R. (1981). Preservation of Archaeological Sites Through Acquisition, American Antiauitv. 46:3, pp. 610-618.

Bascom, C. Personal communication. May 2, 1992. Bascom, S. Personal communication. May 2, 1992. Berger, C. J. (1983), 3rd ed. Land Ownership and Use. Boston, MA: Little Brown and Co. Berkhofer, R. F. (1988). White Conceptions of Indians in Historv of Indian White Relations. Ed. William C. Sturtevant. Washington: Smithsonian Press.

Bertelson, C. (1987). Treasure in Dispute. St. Louis Post Dispatch. Mondav. June 15. Branstool, E. (1989). Correspondence to the Faculty of the Department of Anthropology, Denison University, Granville, Ohio, Dated November 27, 1989.

356 357 Bratton, S. P. (1986). Christian Ecotheology and the Old Testament. Religion and Environmental Crisis, ed. E. C. Hargrove. Atlanta, GA: University of Georgia Press. Brenneman, R. L, Bates, S. M. (1984), eds. Land Saving Action. Lovelo, CA: Island Press. Brinton, D. G. (1885). The So-Called "Alligator Mound." The Hoosier Mineralogist and Archaeologist. Indianapolis, Indiana, Volume 1, No. 7. Brose, D. S., Brown, J. A., and Penney, D. W. (1986). Ancient Art of the American Woodland Indians. New York: Harry N. Abrams & Detroit Institute of Arts. Brose, D. (1990). Personal communication. Brown, D. (1970). Burv Mv Heart at Wounded Knee: An Indian Historv of the American West. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Bryn Du's Contents Will Sell At "Tag Sale" (1976, September 23), Granville Sentinel, p 1.

Bryn Du Farm, Granville Inn Sold At Sheriff's Auction (1976, June 10), Granville Sentinel, p. 3.

Bryn Du Farm Earns Reprieve (1974, September 18), Granville Sentinel, p. 1.

Bryn Du Not Sold (1976, February 19), Granville Sentinel, p. 3.

Bryn Du Sale Date Changed (1974, July 17), Granville Sentinel, p. 1.

Bryn Du Sale Is Event of the Season (1976, September 30), Granville Sentinel, p. 3.

Bushnell, H. (1889). The Historv of Granville. Licking Countv. Ohio. Harr & Adair, Columbus, Ohio. Campbell, R. (1985, March 16). Licking Earthworks Are Precious. The Citizen Journal, p. 4.

Carbin, R. W. (1982). Acquisition and Resale, A Case Study. Private Options: Tools and Concents for Land Conservation. Eds. Rushmore, B. Swaney, A. Sprader, A. D. Lovelo, CA: Island Press.

Chase, A. F., Chase, D. Z., Topsey, H. W. (1988). Archaeology and the Ethics of Collecting. Archaeology, 41:1, pp. 56-59. 358 Chessman, W. G. (1986). Personal letter from Dr. Chessman dated April 10, 1986. Christensen, C. (1989). Understanding the Problem, Saving the Past for the Future Special Report. Bulletin of the Society for American Archaeology, Vol. 7-5, p. 5. Cleere, H. (1984). Great Britain. Approaches to the Archaeological Heritage: A Comparative Study of World Cultural Resource Management Systems, ed. H. Cleere. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Coggins, C. (1969). Illicit Traffic of Pre-Columbian Antiquities, Art Journal. Fall, 1969, pp. 94-98. Cole, F. T., Editor (1905). The Old Northwest Genealogical Quarterly: Columbus, Ohio, Vol. Vlll, No. 4, The Old Northwest Genealogical Ouarterlv (pub.).

Commissioners Receive Official Letters on Annexation (1988, October 13). Granville Sentinel.

Cooper, K. (1989, April 20). Rich Heritage is Overlooked. Granville Sentinel, p. 2.

Cooper, S. (1980). Growth Control Evolves in Boulder, Urban Ijand. pp. 13-18.

Cooperrider, E. Personal communication, October, 1984. Cooperrider, E. Personal communication. May, 1986. Cooperrider, E. Personal communication, October 17, 1987. Court Orders Bryn Du Farm Up for Sale Again (1976, April 29), Granville Sentinel, p. 1.

Cowan, C. W. (1987). First Farmers of the Middle Ohio Valley: Fort Ancient Societies A. D. 1000-1670. Cincinnati Museum of Natural History, Cincinnati, OH. Cutler, W. P. & Cutler, J. P. (1888). Ufe. journals, and correspondence of Rev. Manasseh Cutler. L.L.D. (Vol. II). Cincinnati, OH: Robert Clarke.

Dancey, W. S. (1987). Paper presented at the Society for American Archaeology Conference in Toronto, Canada. The Mumhv Site.

Dancey, W. S. (1987). The Murphy Site: A Middle Woodland Settlement in Central Ohio. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Toronto, Canada. 359 Dancey, W. S. (1989). Memo to LCALS Research Committee, August 12, 1989. Dancey, W. S. (1991). A Middle Woodland Settlement in Central Ohio: A Preliminary Report on the Murphy Site (33 Li 212) in Pennsylvania Archaeologist. Vol. 61, No. 2, pp. 37-72.

Dancey, W. S. (1992). The Murphy Site: A Middle Woodland Settlement in the Raccoon Creek Valley, Licldng County, Ohio. Vanishing Heritage, ed. P. E. Hooge, B. T. Lepper, Newark, Ohio, Licking County Archaeology and Landmarks Society, pp. 32-40.

Dancey, W. S. (1992). The Ohio Hopewell Settlement Pattern Problem in Historical Perspective. Paper presented at the 57th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Pittsburgh, PA. Dancey, W. S., Pacheco, P. J. (1992). The Ohio Hopewell Settlement Pattern Problem in Historical Perspective. Paper presented at the 57th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Pittsburgh, PA. Davis, H. A. (1984). Approaches to Ethical Problems by Archaeological Organizations. Ethics and Values in Archaeology, ed. E. L. Green. New York, NY: The Free Press.

Davis, H. A. (1989). The Future of Archaeology Dreamtime, Crystal Ball, and Resdity. American loumal of Archaeology. 93:1, pp. 451-458.

Declaration of Common Property (1991) notarized document describing the covenants governing The Alligator Mound, Granville, Ohio, dated November 19, 1991, Licking County, Recorder's Archive. Decoria, V. (1969). Custer Died for vour Sins: An Indian Manifesto. New York: Avon Books.

Deetz, J. (1977). In Small Things Forgotten: The Archeology of American Life. Garden City, NY: Anchor/ Doubleday.

Dennison, T. Personal communication, April 7, 1992. Desmond, K. K. (1984). Art and Archaeology, Exhibition Catalogue, The Ohio State University at Newark Art Gallery, Newark, Ohio. Developers May Hire Harrison Smith (1989, February 9). Granville Sentinel.

Disch, R., Ed. (1970). The Ecological Conscience. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Dispute Closes Granville Inn (1976, April 1), Granville Sentinel, p. 1. 3 6 0 Dixon, J. Personal communication, October 14, 1992. Donation Helps Save Ancient Treasure (November 1991). Newark Advocate, p. 4A.

Duerksen, C. J., Bonderman, D. eds. (1983). Preservation Law: Where It's Been, Where It's Going. A Handbook on Historic Preservation Law. Published by the Conservation Foundation and the National Center for Preservation Law, Washington, D.C. (Ed. by above).

Dunham, W. H. (1982). Marketing Land Preservation with an Emphasis on Conservation Easements. Private Options: Tools and Concents for Land Conservation. Eds. Rushmore, B., Swaney, A., Sprader, A. D. Lovelo, CA: Island Press.

Dunnell, R. C. (1984). The Ethics of Archaeological Significance Decisions. Ethics and Values in Archaeoloev. ed. E. L. Green. New York, NY: The Free Press.

Dunnell, R. (1986). Five Decades of American Archaeology. American Archaeoloev Past and Future, eds. D. Meltzer, J. Sabloff, D. Fowler. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press. Dunnell, R. C., Dancey, W. S. (1978). Assessment of Significance and Cultural Resource Management Plans. American Societv for Conservation Archaeoloev Newsletter. 5:2-7.

Early, A. M. (1989). Profiteers and Public Archaeology: Antiquities Trafficking in Arkansas. The Ethics of Collectine Cultural Pronertv. ed. P. M. Messenger. Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press.

Early, A. (1990). Personal conversation. Arkansas Archaeological Survey. EDI Multi-Million Dollar Development Is Approved (1974, May 1), Granville Sentinel, p. 1.

Emory, B. R. (1982). Marketing Land Trusts. Private Options: Tools and Concents for Land Conservation. Eds. Rushmore, B., Swaney, A., Sprader, A. D. Lovelo, CA: Island Press. Emory, B. R., Roush, J . (1982). Management Implications of Land Stewardship. Private Options: Tools and Concepts for Land Conservation. Eds. Rushmore, B., Swaney, A., Sprader, A. D. Lovelo, CA: Island Press. 361 Facts on U.S. Implementation of the Unesco Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing of the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property. A publication of the United States Information Agency, Washington, D.C. Fagan, B. M. (1984). Archaeology and the Wider Audience. Ethics and Values in Archaeoloev. ed. E. L. Green. New York, NY: The Free Press.

Fagan, B. (1988). Black Day at Slack Farm, Archaeology, 41:4, pp. 15-16. Fagan, B. M. (1989). Archaeology and the Public. A paper given at the Society for American Archaeology Conference, Atlanta, Georgia, April 7, 1989. Fash, W. L, Fash, B. W. (1990). Scribes Warriors and Kings: The lives of the Copan Maya. Archaeoloev. 43:3, pp. 26-35.

Fontana, B. L (1978). Artifacts of the Indians of the Southwest, Material Culture and the Studv of American Life. Ed. Ian M. G. Qpimby. New York: W. W. North and Company. Ford, R. 1. (1980). "Hopewell Site Management Plan," Report to the Archaeological Conservancy, Santa Fe, New Mexico. On file at The Ohio Historic Preservation Office, Columbus, Ohio. Ford, R. 1. (1984). Ethics and the Museum Archaeologist. Ethics and Values in Archaeoloev. ed. E. L. Green. New York, NY: The Free Press.

Forum Suggests Careful Planning For Granville (1974, October 9). Granville Sentinel.

Fowke, G. (1902). Archaeological Historv of Ohio: The Mound Builders and Later Indians. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Society.

Fowler, D. D. (1984). Ethics in Contract Archaeology. Ethics and Values in Archaeologv. Ed. E. L. Green. New York, NY: The Free Press.

Fowler, D. D. (1986). Conserving American Archaeological Resources. American Archaeologv Past and Present, eds. D. Meltzer, D. Fowler, J. Sabloff. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. Frey, D. Personal communication. May 2, 1992. Frey, M. Personal communication. May 2, 1992. 362 Frocking, T. A. (1988). The Pig Site - Licking County, Ohio: Preliminary Site Report. Unpublished report submitted to the Trustees of the Licking County Archaeology and Landmarks Society, Newark, Ohio. Frocking, T. A., Lepper, B. T. (1990). The Late Pleistocene, Early Holocene Occupation of the Munson Springs Site (33 Li 251), Locus A, Licking County, Ohio. Current Research in the Pleistocene.

Fugate, L. (1985, October 25). Archaeologist Urges County to Preserve Historic Mounds. Newark Advocate, p. 2.

Fugate, L. (1985, October 29). Shipley To Visit Mound. Newark Advocate, p. 17. Fugate, L. (1985, October 30). Local Archaeologist Working to Preserve Mounds. Newark Advocate, p. 2.

Glaser, B., Strauss, A. L (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theorv: Strategies for Oualitative Research. New York: Aldine Publishing Co.

Glassie, H. (1975). Folk Housing in Middle Virginia: A Structural Analvsis of Historic Artifacts. Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Press.

Glassie, H. (1986). The Idea of Folk Art, Folkart and Art Worlds. Ed. John Michael Vlach, Simon J . Bronner. Ann Arbor, MI: UMI Research Press.

Glassow, M. A. (1977). Issues in Evaluating the Significance of Archaeological Resources, American Antiauitv. 42:3, pp. 413-420.

Golding, M. P., Golding, N. H. (1979). Why Preserve Landmarks, A Preliminary Inquiry. Ethics and Problems of the 21st Centurv. eds. K. E. Goodpaster and K. M. Sayre, Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press. Goldstein, K. S. (1964). A Guide for Field Workers in Folklore. Hatboro, PA: Folklore Associates, Inc.

Golf Course Sale Rumored (1976, February 12), Granville Sentinel, p. 2.

Goudy, P. (1989, April 27). Historian Disagrees with Sentinal's Mound Story. Granville Sentinal. p. 5.

GPA Discloses Hidden Costs in Development (1976, February 5), Granville Sentinel, p. 5.

GPA Organizes Fund Raising for Bryn Du (1976, January 22), Granville Sentinel, p. 2. 363 Granville Inn Deeded Back to Mrs. Sexton (1974, March 20), Granville Sentinel, p. 3.

Granville Inn Sale Okayed Monday By Judge Bolton (1976, July 1), Granville Sentinel.

Granville Looks To Future (1989, February 14). Granville Sentinel.

Granville Sentinel (1974). Forums Study Towns Future. Granville Sentinel. August 14, 1974, Vol. 5, No. 6, Granville, Ohio.

Granville Statistics (1988, August 11). Granville Sentinel, p. 4.

Granville 2000 Urges Rezoning (1989, February 23). Granville Sentinel.

Grapevine, B. Personal communication, June 29, 1992.

Grapevine, D. Personal communication, June 29, 1992. Grapevine, M. Personal communication, June 29, 1992. Grapevine, P. Personal communication, June 29, 1992. Greenberg, P. S. (1986). Smuggled Treasures. Art and Antiques. Summer, 1986, pp. 81-84. Griffin, G. C. (1989). Collecting Pre-Columbian Art. The Ethics of Collecting Cultural Pronertv. ed. P. M. Messenger. Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press.

Group Tried To Buy Bryn Du (1975, November 26), Granville Sentinel, p. 1.

Gruber, J. W. (1986). Archaeology, History and Culture. American Archaeologv Past and Future, eds. D. Meltzer, D. Fowler, J. Sabloff. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. Gyrisco, G. M. (1980). Legal Tools to Preserve Archaeological Sites. Informational Pamphlet No. 11593, U. S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Washington, D.C.

Hansen, M. C. (1991). "Ice Age Census," Ohio Department of Natural Resources Newsletter. Vol. 13, (1).

Hargrove, E. E. Ed. (1986). Religion and Environmental Crisis. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press.

Harr, C. M. (1976). Land Use Planning: A Casebook on the Use. Misuse and Reuse of Urban Land. Third edition. Boston, MA: Little Brown and Co. 364

Harrington, M. (1988, February 23). Pros and Cons of Establishing Land Trust Debated. Granville Sentinel.

Hawkins, N. (1986). Louisiana's Public Preservation Strategies. Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, New Orleans, Louisiana. Hearing Set for 128 Acre Development (1989, January 5), Granville Sentinel. p. 2. Heilman, J. (1990). Personal communication. Helfano, J. (1986). The Earth is the Lords: Judaism and Environmental Ethics. Religion and Environmental Crisis, ed. E. C. Hargrove. Atlanta, GA: University of Georgia Press. Henderson, G. H. (1988). The Kentucky Archaeological Registry: Citizen-Based Preservation for Kentucky's Archaeological Sites. Kentucky Nature Preserves Commission, Frankfort, Kentucky.

Henderson, G. H. (1988). Results of the Kentucky Archaeological Registry Program's Second Year of Operation. Kentucky Nature Preserves Commission, Frankfort, Kentucky. Henderson, G. H. (1990). Personal communication.

Herrogott, S. (1989). Protecting the Resource: The Broad Perspective. Paper given at the Society for American Archaeology Meeting, Atlanta, Georgia, April 7, 1989. Herscher, E. (1989). A Future in Ruins. Archaeology. January/February, 42:1, pp. 67-70. Hill, Jr., N. N. (1881). History of Licking County, Ohio: Its Past and Present. Newark, Ohio, A. A. Graham and Co. Hingston, A. G. (1989). U.S. Implementation of the Unesco Cultural Property Convention. The Ethics of Collecting Cultural Property, ed. P. M . Messenger. Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press. Hingston, A. G. (1989). The Stimulus of the Art Market and International Efforts to Curb Looting. Saving the Past for the Future. Actions for the 90's. Society for American Archaeology, Washington, D.C.

Hirshler, M. Personal communication, April 15, 1992. 365 Historic Preservation Bill Introduced (1989). Ohio Preservation (Newsletter). Published by The Ohio Historic Preservation Office of The Ohio Historical Society, Columbus, Ohio. Hobbs, R. (1983). Robert Smithson Retrospective. Museum of Modem Art, Paris.

Hoffman, T. L. (1989). Preventing the Problem in Arizona: A State Perspective. Paper presented at The Society for American Archaeology Saving the Past for the Future Conference, Taos, New Mexico.

Hoffman, T. (1990). Personal communication. Arizona State Historic Preser\^ation Office, Phoenix, AZ. Holt, N. Ed. (1979). The Writing of Robert Smithson. Essays with Illustrations. New York: New York University Press.

Hooge, P. E., Desmond, K. K. (1984). Discovering the Prehistoric Builders of Licking County Through Art and Archaeology. Columbus Art. October. Hooge, P. E. (1985). Discovering the prehistoric mound builders of Licking Countv. Ohio. Newark, OH: Licking County Archaeology and Landmarks Society. Hooge, P. E. (1986). Correspondence to Doug Plunkett, Granville Manager, September 23, 1986, Licking County Archaeology and Landmarks Society Archives, Newark, Ohio.

Hooge, P. E. (1987). Toward Education and Preservation: A Case Study of the Alligator Mound, Licking County, Ohio. An unpublished Master's Thesis, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.

Hooge, P. E. (1989, March 16). Discovering the Past is Key to the Future. Newark Advocate, p . 3.

Hooge, P. E. (1991, March 3). Granville Area Mound has Rich Heritage. Newark Advocate, p. 10.

Hooge, P. E. (1992). Archaeology and Preservation in Licking County: A Case Study of the Alligator Mound. Vanishing Heritage, eds. P. E. Hooge, B. T. Lepper. Newark, OH: Licking County Archaeology and L^dmarks Society, pp. 65-73. Hooge, P. E, Wymer, D. A. (1992). Licking County's First Farmers, Vanishing Heritage, ed. P. E. Hooge, B. T. Lepper. Newark, OH: Licking County Archaeology Landmarks Society, pp. 51-57. 366 Hooge, P. E., Wymer, D. A (1992). Licking County's First Farmers. In Vanishing Heritage: Notes and Queries About the Archaeology and Culture Historv of Licking County. Ohio. Hooge, P.E. and Lepper, B. T. eds.. The Licking County Archaeology and Landmarks Society, Newark, Ohio. Hooge, P. E. (1992) Preserving the Past for the Future. Vanishing Heritage. eds. P. E. Hooge, B. T. Lepper. Newark, OH: Licking County Archaeology and Landmarks Society, pp. 74-92.

Hoose, P. (1981). Building An Ark: Tools for the Preservation of Natural Diversitv Through Land Protection. Lovelo, CA: Island Press.

House Bill 418 (1975-1976) to amend sections and enact sections of the Revised Code [of Ohio] to protect Indian Mounds, Earthworks and other Archaeological Sites. Hughes, D. J. (1986) Pan: Environmental Ethics in Classical Polytheism. Religion and Environmental Cresis. ed. E. C. Hargrove. Atlanta, GA: University of Georgia Press.

Hutt, S. (1990). Protecting the Resource: The Broad Perspective. Saving the Past for the Future. Actions for the 90's. Society for American Archaeology, Washington, D.C.

Iseminger, B. (1990). Personal communication. Cahokia Mounds Site, IL

Jennings, J. D. (1986). American Archaeology 1930-1985. American Archaeologv Past and Future, eds. D. Meltzer, D. Fowler, J. Sabloff. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. Johnson, R. J. (1973). Spatial Structures. New York, NY: St. Martin's Press.

Joint Meeting Set for Land Use Planning (1988, October 13). Granville Sentinel.

Jones, B. (1935, March 28). Our County History: Old Timer Tells of Hoax. Newark Advocate.

Jones, R. (1990). Personal communication. Manager at Pinson Mounds State Park, Jackson, TN. Justice, N. D. (1987). Stone Age Spear and Arrow Points of the Midcontinental and Eastern United States. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Keams, B., Kirkorian, C. (1987). Archaeological Resource Protection Handbook, Pub. Connecticut Historical Commission State Preservation Office, Hartford, Connecticut. 367 Kelly, J. P. (1990). Finders Keepers? Ohio State. April 81: 6-12.

Keys, S. Personal communication, May 6, 1992.

King, T. P. (1989). The Magnitude and Dimensions of the Looting Problem. Paper given at the 1989 Society for American Archaeology Conference, Atlanta, Georgia. King, H. (19 ). Granville Massachusetts to Ohio: A Story of Migration and Settlement. Granville, Ohio: Granville Sentinel Publishing Company. King, R. (1903). First Fruits of the Ordinance of 1787, American Commonwealths. Boston, MA: Houghton and Mifflin and Co.

Knudson, R. (1986). Contemporary Cultural Resource Management. American Archaeoloev Past and Present, eds. D. Meltzer, D. Fowler, J. Sabloff. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Press.

Knudson, R. (1989). North Americas Threatened Heritage. Archaeoloev. January/February, 42:1, pp. 71-106. Kristiansen, K. (1984). Denmark. Approaches to the Archaeoloeical Heritage: A Comparative Studv of World Cultural Resource Management Svstems. ed. H. Cleere. New York: NY: Cambridge University Press. Lafferty, M. B. (1987, January 28). Developer Offers Indian Mound to State, Columbus Dispatch, p. 1-E.

Lafferty, M. B. (1988, October 5), Granville Growth Takes On City Flavor, Columbus Dispatch, p. 12.

Larson, K. Personal communication, April 3, 1992. Lepper, B. T. (1989). An Historical Review of Archaeological Research at the Newark Earthworks. The journal of the Steward Anthropological Societv. Vol. 18, No. 1, 2, pp. 188-140.

Lepper, B. T. (1990). The Newark Earthwork: Citadel. Cathedral. Cemeterv or Shopping Mall? A manuscript prepared for The Licking County Archaeology and Landmark Society, Newark, Ohio. Lepper, B. T. (1992). Paleoindian Pioneers of Licking County: The First Americans. Vanishing Heritage, eds. P. E. Hooge, B. T. Lepper. Newark, OH: Licking County Archaeology and landm arks Society, pp. 5-11. 368 Lepper, B. T. (1992). The Newark Earthworks Citadel, Cathedral, or Shopping Mall? Vanishing Heritage, eds. P. E. Hooge, B. T. Lepper. Newark, OH: The Licking County Archaeology and Landmarks Society, pp.. 51-57.

Lepper, B. T, Yerkes, R. W. ( ). Hopewellian Occupations at the Northern Periphery of the Newark Earthworks: The Newark Expressway Sites Revisited. Leveritt, M . (1985). Who Owns The Past? Arkansas Times. December, pp. 50-90. Lewis, P. R. (1988). Bryn Du Farm and Bryn Du Mansion, Granville, Ohio, The Historic Times: Newsletter of the Granville, Ohio Historical Society, Fall 1988, Vol. 11, No. 4. Licking County Archaeology and Landmarks Society (Producer), and Hooge, P. E. (Director) (1986a). Human Values and the Future of Ohio's Prehistoric Earthworks Fvideotapel. Newark, OH: Licking County Archaeology and Landmarks Society. Licking County Archaeology and Landmarks Society (Producer), and Hooge, P. E. (Director) (1986b). Ethics and Archaeologv (Part I): Conflicts in Collecting [videotape]. Newark, OH: Licking County Archaeology and Landmarks Society. Licking County Archaeology and Landmarks Society (Producer), and Hooge, P. E. (Director) (1986c). A Historv of Ohio Archaeologv [videotape]. Newark, OH: Licking County Archaeology and Landmarks Society. Limp, W. P., Gisiler, A. (1992). Continental Scale Archaeology Studies Using GIS. Federal Archaeological Report. Col. 5, No. 3, pp. 2-4.

Lipe, W. D. (1974). A Conservation Model for American Archaeology. The Viva. 39:2, pp. 13-245.

Lipe, W. D. (1977). A Conservation Model for American Archaeology. Conservation Archaeologv: A Guide for Resource Management Studies. M. B. Schiffler and G. J. Gumerman, eds. New York, NY: Academic Press. Lipe, W. D. (1984). Value and Meaning in Cultural Resources. Approaches to the Archaeological Heritage: A Comparative Studv of World Cultural Resource Management Svstems. ed. H. Cleere. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. lippard, L. R. (1983). Overlay: Contemporary Art and the Art of Prehistory. New York: Pantheon. 369 Lore, D. (1986, September 26). Land Deal in Works to Save Granville Alligator Mound. Columbus Dispatch, p. 12.

Lux, J. Personal communication. May 7, 1992. MacPhail, A. Personal communication, April 2, 1992.

MacPhail, S. (1989, January 1). 300-Plus Residents Turn Out for Hearing. Granville Sentinel, p. 2.

MacPhail, S. (1989, February 2). Master Plan Specs Get Last Look. Granville Sentinel.

Mason, A., Feddema, V., Hayles, D., McFarlane, L (1990). Archaeology: Fascinating, But What Is It. Archaeoloev Notes. January/February 1990, Newsletter of the Ontario Archaeological Society. McCloskey, H. M. (1983). Ecological Ethics and Politics. Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Littlefield. McCoy, C. Personal communication, March 13, 1992. McCoy, J. Personal communication, March 13, 1992. McGimsey, C. R. (1972). Public Archaeoloev. New York, NY: Seminar Press.

McGimsey, C. R. and Davis, H. A., eds. (1977). The Management of Archaeoloeical Resources.

McGimsey, C. R. (1984). United States of America. Approaches to the Archaeoloeical Heritage: A Comparative Studv of World Cultural Resource Management Svstems. eds. H. Cleere. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. McGimsey, C. R. (1984). The Value of Archaeology. Ethics and Values in Archaeoloev. ed. E. L Green. New York, NY: The Free Press.

McHargue, G., Roberts, M. (1977). A Field Guide to Conservation Archaeoloev. Philadelphia, PA: J. B. lippincott Co.

McKee, B. A. (1990). Avoiding Risks by the Acre. Nations Business. May. McIntosh, J. R., McIntosh, S.K., Tereba, T. (1989). People Without History. Archaeologv. January/February, 42:1, pp. 75-81.

Meighan, C. W. (1986). Archaeoloev and Anthropological Ethics (a pamphlet of 17 pages). Calabasas, CA: Wormwood Press. 370 Memorial Record of Licking Countv. Ohio (1894). Chicago, IL: Record Publishing Company. Meyer, K. E. (1977). The Plundered Past. New York: Atheneum.

Michel, M. (1980). Archaeological Conservancy Acquires Hopewell Mounds. A Report for the Archaeological Conservancy, Santa Fe, New Mexico. On file at The Ohio Historical Preservation Office, Columbus, Ohio. Miller, A. (1985, August 7). Town Proud of "The Alligator." Columbus Dispatch, p. 7.

Minutes of the Granville Development Commission (1987, April 9), Granville Village Office Files, Granville, Ohio.

Monkman, L. (1981). A Native Heritage: Images of the Indian in English- Canadian Literature. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press. Moody, M. H. (1967). The Underground Railroad and Other Pieces. Granville, Ohio: Granville Historical Society. Moody, M. H. Who Were the Moundbuilders? (1990, August 23), Granville Sentinel, p. 9.

Moody, M. H. Personal communication, April 28, 1992. Moody, M. H. (1992, June 29). Mounds Abound. Granville Booster, p. 5.

Moorehead, W. V. (1885). Alligator Mound, American Antiquarian. Vol. VII, No. 6, pp. 349-350. Moorehead, W. V. (1886). The Fort Near Granville, Ohio. Worchester, Massachusetts: The American Antiquarian. Vol. 8, p. 297.

Moorehead, W. V. (1892). Antiquities of Licking County, The Denison Collegian. Vol. 26, September, pp. 3-4.

Moorehead, W. V. (1892). Primitive Man in Ohio. New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. Morgan, B. Personal communication, March 15, 1992. Morgan, R. G., Golden, S. (1944). Notes from April 1944 Survey of Alligator Mound, Ohio Historical Society Archives, Columbus, Ohio. 371 Morton, S. D. (1990). Special Problems in Alaska. Saving the Past for the Future. Actions for the 90's. Society for American Archaeology, Washington, D.C. Murphy, J. Personal communication, April 5, 1992.

Newcomb, R. M. (1979). Planning for the Past: Historical Landscape Resources and Recreation. Hamden, CT: Dawson-Archon Books. Netherton, R. D. (1984). Environmental Conservation and Historic Preservation Through Recorded Land-Use Agreements. Land Saving Action. Ed. Russell L. Brenneman and Sarah M. Bates. Lovelo, CA: Island Press. O'Donell, J. (1990). Personel communication.

Ohio Conservation Foundation (no date). Your Property and Scenic Easements. A Guide to the Preservation of Open Space. Published by Ohio Conservation Foundation. Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Natural Areas and Preserves (1979). A Land Owners Guide to Preserving Natural Areas (Pamphlet). Fontaine Square, Columbus, Ohio. Ohio Historical Society (1990). Society Site Files, Columbus, Ohio. Ohio Preservation Laws. From the Ohio Revised Code, Columbus, Ohio.

Ohio Revised Code. (1987, June). Corporations for Preservation of Historic and Prehistoric Sites. Sec. 1743.07, p. 513.

Ohio Revised Code. (1987, June). Ohio Historical Society: Powers of the Ohio Historical Society. Sec. 149.30, pp. 709-711. Osborn, J. A. (1990). Looting and the Market in the Pacific Northwest. Saving the Past for the Future. Actions for the 90's. Society for American Archaeology, Washington, D.C.

Otto, M. (1990). Personal communication. Pacheco, P. J. (1990). The Legacy of the Mound Builders: An Overview of Early and Middle Woodland Period Archaeology in the Licking River Basin. Unpublished manuscript prepared for the Licking County Archaeology and Landmarks Society, Newark, Ohio. Pacheco, P. J. (1991). Woodland Period Archaeology in Central Ohio. LCALS Contributions in the Ohio Archaeological Council Newsletter. August 1991, Volume 3, No. 3. 372 Pacheco, P. J. (1992). Ohio Middle Woodland Intracommunity Settlement Variability: A Case Study from the Licking Valley. Paper presented at the 57th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Pittsburgh, PA.

Pacheco, P. J. (1992). The Legacy of the Mound Builders: An Overview of Early and Middle Woodland Period Archaeology in the Licking River Basin. Vanishing Heritage, ed. P. E. Hooge, B. T. Lepper, Newark, Ohio, Licking County Archaeology and Landmarks Society, pp 12-31.

Parks, S. (1870). Granville. The Storv of an Ohio Village. Granville Historical Society/Denison University, Granville, Ohio. Petitions Filed for Huge Annexation (1988, July 21), Granville Sentinel, p. 1.

Phagan, C. (1979). Archaeological evaluation studv: The Ohio Historical Societv. Unpublished report.

Pielou, E. C. (1991). After The Ice Age: The Return of Life to Glaciated North America. Chicago, IL University of Chicago Press.

Pilles, P. J. (1990). Public Attitudes in the Southwest. Saving the Past for the Future. Actions for the 90's. Society for American Archaeology, Washington, D.C. Plog, F. (1984). The Ethics of Excavation Site/Selection. Ethics and Values in Archaeologv. ed. E. L. Green. New York, NY: The Free Press.

Plunkett, D. E. (1986). Correspondence to Paul E. Hooge concerning The Alligator Mound dated November 12, 1986, Newark, Ohio, Licking County Archaeology and Landmarks Archive.

Plunkett, D. E. (1987, April 27). Memo "Continued Hearing, Bryn Du Hills" to the Granville Development Commission, Granville Village Office Files, Granville, Ohio. Pratt, C. C. (1974). Memo to Mr. Daniel R. Porter, Director, Ohio Historical Society concerning The Alligator Mound, March 4, 1974 from Pratt-OHS Assistant Director, Columbus, Ohio, Ohio Historical Society Archives. Princ, M. (1984). Czechoslovankia. Approaches to the Archaeological Heritage: A Comparative Studv of World Cultural Resource Management Svstems. ed. H. Cleere. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Prufer (1986). Interview on Video Tape. On file at LC.A.L.S. 373 Raab, L M. (1984). Toward an Understanding of the Ethics and Values of Research Design in Archaeology. Ethics and Values in Archaeologv. ed. E. L Green. New York, NY: The Free Press.

Rapoport, A. (1969). House Form and Culture. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Rawdon, Scott (1989, February 16). Trustees Okay Master Plan Specs. Granville Sentinel.

Redman, C. (1989). Archaeoogy Returns to the Public. Native American Peoples. Spring, pp. 28-35.

Reed, B. J. (1990). Personal conversation. Huntington National Bank, Columbus, Ohio. Reed, G. (1986). A Native American Environmental Ethic: A Homily on Black Elk. Religion and Environmental Cresis. ed. E. C. Hargrove. Atlanta, GA: University of Georgia Press. Robinson, S. (1991, November 2). The Alligator Mound, Granville Sentinel. p. 3. Rolston, H. (1988). Environmental Ethics. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

Romain, W. F. (1992) More Astronomical Alignments at Hopewell Sites in Ohio. Ohio Archaeologist, Vol. 42, No. 1, pp. 38-47. Roosh, J. (1982). Negotiating Skills. Private Options: Tools and Concepts for Land Conservation. Eds. Rushmore, B., Swaney, A., Sprader, A. D. Lovelo, CA: Island Press. Ruffini, F. (1990). Personal communication.

Rushmore, B., Swaney, A., Sprader, A. D. (1982). Private Options: Tools and Concepts for Land Conservation. Lovelo, CA: Island Press.

Saving Granville's Native Heritage (April 27, 1989), Granville Sentinel. p. 6. Saving the Past for the Future. Actions for the 90's (1990). Society for American Archaeology, Washington, D.C. Schiffer, M. B., Gumerman, G. J. (1977) eds. Conservation Archaeologv: A Guide for Cultural Resource Management Studies. New York, NY: Academic Press. 374 Schiffer, M. B., House, J. H. (1977), An Approach to Assessing Scientific Significance. Conservation Archaeology: A Guide for Cultural Resource Management Studies. M. B. Schiffer and G. S. Gumerman, eds. New York, NY: Academic Press.

Schlereth, T. J. (1990). Cultural Historv and Material Culture: Evervdav Life, Landscapes, Museums. Ann Arbor, M I: UMI Research Press. Schnapp, A. (1984). France. Approaches to the Archaeological Heritage: A Comparative Studv of World Cultural Resource Management Svstems. ed. H. Cleere. New York, N Y: Cambridge University Press.

Schneider, K. A. (1990). To Whom Is Looting A Crime? Saving the Past for the Future. Actions for the 90's. Society for American Archaeology, Washington, D.C.

Scovill, D. H., Gordon, D. J., and Anderson, K. M. (1972). Guidelines for the Preservation of Statements of Environmental Impact on Archaeological Resources. Tucson, AZ: Arizona Archaeological Center, U.S. National Park Service. Second Lecture Features Mounds (January 22, 1976), Granville Sentinel, p. 2.

Shanks, M., Tilley, C. (1989). Archaeology into the 1990's. Norweigen Archaeological Review. 22, pp. 1-28.

Sharp, R. P. (1988). Living Ice: Understanding Glaciers and Glaciation. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Shestack, A. (1989). The Museum and Cultural Property: The Transformation of Institutional Ethics. The Ethics of Collecting Cultural Propertv. ed. P. M. Messenger. Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press.

Silverberg, R. (1986). The Mound Builders. Athens, OH: Ohio University Press. Sitton, T., Mehaffy, G. L., Davis, O. L (1983). Oral Historv: A Guide for Teachers. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.

Smith, G. Personal communication. May 20, 1992. Smith, G. S. (1990). N.P.S. Clearinghouse. Saving the Past for the Future. Actions for the 90's. Society for American Archaeology, Washington, D.C.

Smucker, I. (1885) Alligator Mound: An Effigy or Symbolic Mound in Licking County, Ohio. The American Antiquarian. Vol. VIII, No. 6, pp. 349-355. 375 Sochor, R. Personal communication, April 15, 1992.

Spradley, J. P. (1979). The Ethnographic Interview. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Squier, E. G. and Davis, E. H. (1848). Ancient monuments of the Mississippi Valiev (Vol. 1 in the Smithsonial Contributions of Knowledge). New York: Bartlett & Welford.

Stallings, R. (1981). The Alligator Effigy Mound. Ohio Archaeologist. Vol. 31, No. 1, pp. 13-15. Stanton, W. (1960). The Leopards Spots: Scientific Attitudes Toward Race in America 1815-59. Chicago, IL University of Chicago Press.

Stevens, W. K. (1990). Research in Virgin Amazon Uncovers Complex Farming, The New York Times. April 3, 1990.

Stewart, D. (1989, January 29). Development Debate: Granville Area Residents Opposed to New Subdivision, Newark Advocate.

Stiers, W. Personal communication, October 11, 1992. Stille, A. (1988). Was This Statue Stolen? The National Law Journal. Volume 11-10, pp. 4-8, November 14.

Talmage, V. (1982). The Violation of Sepulture: Is It Legal to Excavate Human Burials? Archaeoloev. November/December, 35:6, pp. 44-49. The Hidden Cost of Development. Pamphlet produced by The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, Virginia (no date or author), 3rd printing. Thomas, D. H. (1974). Predicting the Past: An Introduction to Anthropological Archaeoloev. Fort Worth, TX: Holt, Reinhart and Winston, Inc.

Thompson, E. P. (1984). Protecting Agricultural Lands, Land Savings Action. Ed. Russell L Brenneman and Sarah M. Bates. Lovelo, CA: Island Press. Tiedt, G. F. (1982). Easements and Artifacts: An Archaeological Investigation of the Internal Revenue Code, American Antiauitv. 47:2, pp. 376-381. Tiedt, G. F. (1984). An Introduction to Conservation Easements for Colorado Archaeologists, Ed. Russell L Brenneman and Sarah M. Bates. Lovelo, CA: Island Press. 376 Tonetti, A. C. (1987). A letter to Mark Michel at the Archaeological Conservancy. Filed at The Ohio Historic Preservation Office, Columbus, Ohio. Tonetti, A. (1990). Personal communication. Trigger, B. G. (1984). Archaeology at the Crossroads: What's New? Annual Review of Anthropoloev. Volume 13, eds. B. J. Siegel, A. R. Beals, S. A. Tyler. Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews, I nc.

Trigger, B. G. (1986). Prehistoric Archaeology and American Society. American Archaeoloev Past and Present, eds. D. Meltzer, D. Fowler, J. Sabloff. Washington, DC: Smithsonial Press. Trigger, T. G. (1989). Comments on Archaeology into the 1990's. Norweigen Archaeological Review, pp.l 28-31.

Trustees Ok Bryn Du Rezoning (1981, December 23). Granville Sentinel.

Two Hundred Attend First Community Forum (1974, September 25), Granville Sentinel, p. 2.

Utter, W. T. (1956). Granville. The Storv of an Ohio Village. Granville Historical Society/Denison University, Granville, Ohio. Valdes, D. M. (1974). Correspondence to Robert Skinner, Director, Licking County Regional Planning Commission and copied to Martha Otto, Ohio Historical Society (1974, July 14). Ohio Historical Society Archives, Columbus, Ohio.

VanVoorhis, . Personal communication, October 16, 1992. Venan, B. (1990). Personal communication (letter), September 7, 1990.

Village Takes No Stance on Development (1989, January 26). Granville Sentinel, p. 2.

Warren, K. J. (1989). A Philosophical Perspective on Ethics and Resolution of Cultural Properties Issues. The Ethics of Collecting Cultural Property, ed. P. M. Messenger. Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press. Wenke, R. J. (1989). Comments on Archaeology into the 1990's. Norweigen Archaeological Review.

Wemer, O., Schoepfle, G. M . (1987). Svstematic Fieldwork. Volume 1, Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Wesley, K. Ancient Alligator Mound Placed into Public Hands, Newark Advocate (1991, November 11). 377 Wesley, K. Hooge: Tourism May Be Key to Preserving County's Past. Newark Advocate (1990, February 5), p. 1.

West, R. M. (1989). State Regulation of Geologial, Paleontological, and Archaeological Collecting, Curator, American Museum of Natural History, New York. White, L (1967). The Historical Roots of the Ecological Cresis, Science. 155, pp. 1203-1207. Winter, J. C. (1984). The Way to Somewhere: Ethics in American Archaeology. Ethics and Values in Archaeoloev. ed. E. L. Green. New York, NY: The Free Press.

Winter, J. C. (1980). Indian Heritage Preservation and Archaeologists. American Antiauitv. 45:1. d p . 121-131.

Woltemade, C. J. (1987). "Pollen Stratigraphy of Smoot Lake." Unpublished paper from The Department of Geography, Ohio Wesleyan University, Delaware, Ohio.

Woodward, S. L, McDonald, J . N. (1986). Indian Mounds of the Ohio Valley: A Guide to Adena and Hopewell Sites. Blaksburg, VA: The McDonald and Woodward Publishing Company.

Wright/McClain Plan Goes Back to the Drawing Board (1989, February 2).

Wymer, D. A., Pacheco, P. J., Smith, K. A., & Hooge, P. E. (1986). Cultural Resource Assessment of the Black Hand Gorge Nature Preserve. Licking Countv. Ohio. Unpublished report for the Ohio Department of Natural Resources.

Wymer, D. A. (1987). The Paleoethnobotany Record of Central Ohio 100 BC to AD 800; Subsistence Continuity Amid Cultural Change. Unpublished dissertation. The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio. Wymer, D. A. (1990). The Paleoethnobotany of the Murphy Site (33 Li 212), Columbus, Ohio. Paper presented at the 57th Annual Meeting of the Eastern States Archaeology Federation.