Stone Mound Problem": Identifying and Interpreting the Ambiguous Rock Piles of the Upper Ohio Valley

JOA 4:39-71, Rock Piles of the Upper Ohio Valley Moore and Weiss

THE CONTINUING "STONE MOUND PROBLEM": IDENTIFYING AND INTERPRETING THE AMBIGUOUS ROCK PILES OF THE UPPER OHIO VALLEY

Charity M. Moore and Matthew Victor Weiss1

Abstract

Rock piles are some of the most ambiguous features encountered in the Upper Ohio Valley, en- compassing diverse origins and functions. A single pile can appear to be consistent with multiple interpretations and each interpretation carries implications for how the rock pile is then recorded (or not recorded) and evaluated against the National Register of Historic Places criteria. Building on recent fieldwork at the Bear Knob Rock Piles (46UP342), this article explores historical sources, regional case studies, and archaeological methods that can be used to examine rock features, and calls for the adoption of similar best practices and guidelines at the federal and state levels. Only through a comprehensive, programmatic approach, informed by indigenous knowledge, can archaeologists overcome the ambiguity of rock piles and expand their understanding of the ways people augment and interact with the landscape through the construction of rock features and the material affordances of stone.

Introduction slope terracing, retaining walls, hunting blinds, livestock fences (e.g., drystone walls), excarna- Cairns, stone mounds, drystone walls, and tion or cremation loci, quarrying or mining by- other rock constructs are some of the most am- products and stockpiles, celestial alignments and biguous archaeological features found in West observation seats, push piles, landscape features Virginia, western Pennsylvania, and southeast- for vision quests and other ceremonies, structur- ern Ohio, as well as other regions worldwide. al foundations and piers, etc. Smaller, amor- Despite a long tradition of scholarly research, phous rock piles in particular can appear to be many rock features continue to confound ar- consistent with many different interpretations chaeologists due to their ubiquity, diverse ori- (e.g., prehistoric burial, field clearance, or mod- gins and functions, and morphological homoge- ern push piles) and each interpretation carries neity. They may include agricultural field clear- disparate implications for how the pile is then ance cairns and dump walls, burial markers, recorded (or not recorded) and evaluated against construction material stockpiles, memori- the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) als/cenotaphs, property markers, human or ani- criteria (36 CFR 60.4). mal effigies (e.g., inuksuk), "garden" art and Due to the current boom in land develop- other recreational constructs (e.g., stone john- ment and natural resource extraction in the Up- nies), fish weirs, clearance piles from road con- per Ohio River Valley region, rock features are struction or logging, drive lines, trail markers, being encountered with increasing frequency in

Charity M. Moore, AllStar Ecology, LLC, 1582 Meadowdale Road, Fairmont, WV, 26554; [email protected] Matthew Victor Weiss, AllStar Ecology, LLC, 1582 Meadowdale Road, Fairmont, WV, 26554; [email protected]

Journal of Ohio Archaeology 4:39-72, 2016 An electronic publication of the Ohio Archaeological Council http://www.ohioarchaeology.org 39

JOA 4:39-71, Rock Piles of the Upper Ohio Valley Moore and Weiss

Figure 1. Left to right, top to bottom: Cairn piled on top of a boulder outcrop in Barbour Co., WV; Single rock pile within a cairn field in Doddridge Co., WV; “Niched" cairn from a cairn field in Doddridge Co., WV; One of many cairns at 46DO64, a cairn field in Doddridge Co., WV; Rock pile interpreted as a historic-period clearance cairn at 46HS88 in Harri- son Co., WV; Portion of a linear pile at 33BL485 interpreted as a historic-period field clearing dump wall in Belmont Co., OH. Photographs courtesy of ASE.

JOA 4:39-71, Rock Piles of the Upper Ohio Valley Moore and Weiss the context of cultural resource management scope of work and absence of Section 106 re- (CRM) and Section 106 review2. Conflicting view for most of these sites, they could not be assumptions, varying levels of familiarity, and investigated beyond a Phase IA-equivalent level different methodological approaches among of effort and their current conditions are un- CRM archaeologists, as well as a lack of rock known, although a few exceptions are discussed feature-specific guidance at the state or federal below. level, have so far disallowed research into re- In response to our own difficulty evaluating gional patterns of rock feature construction and these resources, we have tried to develop an ap- often even result in their being excluded from proach that recognizes the morphological, func- traditional archaeological surveys; however, tional, temporal, and cultural diversity of rock these sites have the potential to reveal important features while still allowing an expedient eval- and exciting insights into the ways prehistoric, uation within the confines of Section 106. Alt- historic-period, and even modern people interact hough this research is, and will always be, ongo- with and augment their landscapes. ing, we have compiled some recommended best While conducting Phase I cultural resource practices, archaeological case studies, historic- surveys for Section 106 review and informal period and indigenous accounts, archaeological project area walkovers for clients' due diligence tools and techniques, and interpretative re- over the past three years, we have encountered sources to assist CRM archaeologists, research- more than 30 cairn groupings, rock walls, and ers, and government agencies in developing a similar sites in northern West Virginia and comprehensive, programmatic approach to the southeastern Ohio (Figure 1). These sites typi- identification, recordation, and interpretation of cally consist of more than one stacked or amor- rock features. We have intentionally avoided phous rock pile constructed from local, tabular defining or classifying rock feature types, as this stones. They are typically located on steep upper would have been a sizeable, and contentious, hillsides or narrow benches in view of the ridge- undertaking. An earlier version of this article line, sometimes overlooking a stream head, and was presented at the Society for Historical Ar- lack any surface artifacts, tool marks, or other chaeology's 49th Annual Conference on Histori- obvious clues to their origin. At sites with larger cal and Underwater Archaeology (Moore and numbers of rock features, they are almost always Weiss 2016). in very close proximity and are easily visible from one another, as well as often being situated Past Excavations and the "Stone Mound in one or more transects paralleling the topo- Problem" graphic contour within a discrete range of elevation. The features are sometimes located near Rock features, as we will collectively refer natural rock outcrops or are built on outcropping to them to avoid semantic debate, have always boulders. Although a few of these sites have been a hot topic in American archaeology; how- prehistoric or historic-period indicators (e.g., ever, they have also often been treated as a "non- road cuts, field edges, nearby Native American standard" site type, particularly in recent years. sites), most were wholly ambiguous. If these Nineteenth and earlier twentieth century archae- sites are prehistoric, it is likely that the apparent ologists in the Upper Ohio Valley region con- rarity of well-stacked piles, in comparison to ducted many investigations of Native American other areas like New York (e.g., Cassedy and stone and earthen mounds (e.g., Dragoo 1955; Bergevin 2015; Windsor 2000) and New Eng- 1956; Fowke 1900; 1902; Inghram, Olafson, and land (e.g. J. Gage and M. Gage 2015a; Ives McMichael 1961; Kellar 1961; McMichael 2015), is at least partially due to the steep terrain 1968; McWhorter 1915; Mills 1914; Moorehead and prevalence of clearcutting in the Upper Ohio 1897; Squier and Davis 1848; Sutton 1958). Valley region. Due to the limitations of our The stone features that they excavated ranged

JOA 4:39-71, Rock Piles of the Upper Ohio Valley Moore and Weiss from monumental stone walls and mounds to the more accessible to researchers. clusters of small piles that we have also been In 2011, a West Virginia SHPO (WVSHPO) encountering, which are described as "not more archaeologist wrote that their records include than a wagon-load of stones" (Fowke 1900:193) approximately 115 rock feature sites (Scarr or "rude heaps of stone, occasionally displaying 2011), some of which are relatively high-profile some degree of regularity" (Squier and Davis and controversial; however, no comprehensive 1848:184). studies of these sites have been undertaken. In 1960, James Kellar, a prominent Indiana These well-known West Virginia rock feature archaeologist and stone mound specialist, pub- landscapes include the Mount Carbon Stone lished a synthesis of this prior research, listing at Walls (46FA1; see M. Gage and J. Gage 2009a; least 53 stone mound and cairn sites in Ohio, 10 Inghram, Olafson, and McMichael 1961; Jef- in West Virginia, and 20 in Pennsylvania ferds 2010), those in the North Bend (see Boul- (1960:478-481). In an insightful and still rele- ware et al. 2013) and Stonewall Resort (see The vant chapter titled "The Stone Mound Problem," Associated Press 2011; M. Gage and J. Gage he discusses the often poor excavation tech- 2009b; Tri-State Company, Inc. 2013; Weller niques and reporting, the various attempts to 2012) state parks, and the Bens Run Earthworks categorize and date rock features, and the widely (46TY2) (Spencer 2010; see also WVDCH differing interpretations of their meanings, most 2015). of which he describes as being based in "folk- No information was available regarding the lore, and gross analogy" (Kellar 1960:401-412). number of rock feature sites in Pennsylvania, as In retrospect, this era of prolific excavation of they are varyingly recorded as burial mounds, rock feature sites and Native American ethnog- earthworks, and "other," or as components of raphy, as ill-informed as much of it may have larger sites. However, landscapes with cairns been, did provide proof that rock features, in- and rock walls are known throughout western cluding small, amorphous, and attritional piles, Pennsylvania (Kellar 1960:479-480; Mark were being constructed by Native Americans McConaughy, personal communication 2015; throughout the eastern United States in both the PHMC 2015). pre- and proto-historic periods (see Kellar Most other SHPOs across the country also 1960:402-403, 449, 460). reported dealing with rock features on a relative- Although none of the State Historic Preser- ly regular basis (Table 2), and a small number of vation Offices (SHPO) in the Upper Ohio Valley archaeologists are actively researching the topic region record rock features as a separate site through the compilation of data on known rock type, our literature review and personal commu- features and new excavations (e.g., Holstein nication with many leading archaeologists clear- 2010; Holstein, Hill, and Little 2004; Loubser ly demonstrates the prevalence of rock features and Hudson 2005; Loubser and Frink 2010; throughout this area of study. The Ohio SHPO Murphy 2004, 2010; Rennie and Lahren 2004). (OHPO) does track prehistoric stone mounds Despite this, our understanding of rock features and has recorded up to 113 such features, several as a whole has not significantly progressed be- of which are actually stone circles, cairn fields, yond Kellar's 1960 publication. or other rock features. Brent Eberhard, an archaeologist at the OHPO, has also separated out The Present State of Rock Feature Research cairns during his tenure and is aware of at least nine such sites that have recently been recorded In the course of researching rock features, (personal communication 2015) (Table 1). He we came across many experienced archaeolo- has also recently added a "Rock Cairn/Features" gists who had regularly encountered rock piles category to OHPO's list of survey report types, and walls, or were at least aware of their exist- which are designed to make CRM literature ence, but who had not previously thought to re-

JOA 4:39-71, Rock Piles of the Upper Ohio Valley Moore and Weiss

Table 1. Personal communication references. Name Affiliation Role Anderson, Dean Michigan SHPO State Archaeologist Barber, Michael Virginia SHPO State Archaeologist Biella, Jan New Mexico SHPO Deputy SHPO/State Archaeologist Black, Rachel Georgia SHPO Deputy State Archaeologist Boisvert, Richard New Hampshire SHPO State Archaeologist Brooks, Bob Oklahoma Archeological Survey Assistant Professor/State Archaeologist (Retired) Deel, Judith Missouri SHPO Compliance Coordinator Denton, Mark Texas SHPO Archaeology Program Coordinator Deter-Wolf, Aaron Tennessee Division of Archaeology Prehistoric Archaeologist Eberhard, Brent Ohio SHPO Archaeology Survey and Data Manager Gage, James Independent Researcher/Historian Gage, Mary Independent Researcher/Historian Hoard, Robert Kansas SHPO State Archaeologist Ives, Timothy Rhode Island SHPO Principal Archaeologist Johnson, Amy Indiana SHPO State Archaeologist Labadia, Catherine Connecticut SHPO Staff Archaeologist Lamarre-DeMott, Lora West Virginia SHPO Senior Archaeologist Laracuente, Nicolas Kentucky SHPO Archaeology Review Coordinator Marcopul, Katherine New Jersey SHPO Supervising Historic Preservation Specialist Martin, Alexandra Ceremonial Landscapes Research Co-Owner/Co-Founder Martin, Bill Texas SHPO Archaeologist Maslowski, Bob Marshall University/USACE Adjunct Professor/Archaeologist (Retired) McConaughy, Mark Pennsylvania SHPO Regional Archaeologist McGimsey, Charles Louisiana SHPO State Archaeologist Medin, Anmarie California SHPO Archaeology Review Unit Supervisor Merritt, Christopher Utah SHPO Deputy SHPO Molina, Yolanda Independent Landowner Nelson, Trisha Nebraska SHPO Archaeology Collections Curator Picha, Paul North Dakota SHPO Chief Archaeologist Pouley, John Oregon SHPO Assistant State Archaeologist Robinson, Jess Vermont SHPO State Archaeologist Rubingh, Amy South Dakota SHPO Review and Compliance Archaeologist Rush, Laurie Fort Drum Cultural Resources Manager/Army Archaeologist Scoggin, Robert Arkansas SHPO Senior Archaeologist/ Review Coordinator Sipes, Eric Alabama SHPO Senior Archaeologist Tobias, Mark Colorado SHPO Section 106 Compliance Manager Vanderhoek, Richard Alaska SHPO State Archaeologist Weston, Timothy Kansas SHPO Archaeologist Wilmoth, Stan Montana SHPO Deputy SHPO/State Archaeologist Wise, Roger West Virginia DOH Supervisor for Archaeology (Retired) Wollwage, Lance Washington SHPO Assistant State Archaeologist

JOA 4:39-71, Rock Piles of the Upper Ohio Valley Moore and Weiss

Table 2. State Historic Preservation Office Inquiry Results* Opinions on Relative Frequency of

Rock Features Rock Feature Review Often Significant (Have Guidance) 3 Regular 30 Often Significant (No Guidance) 7 Rare 2 Varies 19 Never 2 Rarely Significant** 5 No Response 16 Not Applicable 1 No Response 15 *Based on author's interpretation of SHPO responses **MA SHPO's opinion was determined from their website

search or record them as cultural resources. In Gage, personal communication 2015; Catherine many cases, these "non-standard" features are Labadia, personal communication 2016), and overlooked in favor of traditional archaeological other SHPOs also expressed the need for im- resources (see Ballard and Mavor 2006:37-38; provement in the way they handle rock features. Ives 2013; Muller 2009). In the CRM industry, A few other states (e.g., New Mexico and Ne- tight budgets and schedules make it especially braska) at least have site categories that account tempting to ignore ambiguous features, as no for the full range of prehistoric, historic, and developer wants to be told that they should ambiguous features. The majority of SHPOs, avoid a pile of rocks based on an unproven pos- including those in our study area, consider rock sibility that it may be significant2. The uncer- features on a case-by-case basis, with some em- tainty surrounding rock feature interpretation phasizing the importance of broad contextual then perpetuates the lack of research. research (e.g., Alabama, Alaska, Montana, Ore- gon), some emphasizing the need for tribal con- State Historic Preservation Office Opinions and sultation (e.g., California, New York, Oregon, Guidance South Dakota), and others requiring that each feature's significance be individually demon- We contacted the officer and/or head ar- strated against the NRHP criteria (e.g., Arkan- chaeologist at all fifty state SHPOs, or in a few sas, California, Kansas, Missouri, Texas) cases a state archaeologist, in order to gauge (Cassedy and Bergevin 2015; OPRDOH 2015). their awareness of and opinions on the rock fea- In many cases, our communication revealed ture problem, as well as to gather approaches to an explicit or implicit assumption that rock fea- their recordation and interpretation. The results tures are rarely NRHP-eligible unless they are were widely varied, with no clear patterns in re- associated with prehistoric burials or are part of gard to region of the U.S., the characteristics of larger historic-period sites, such as farmsteads. known rock features, or the presence or absence Conversely, a few federal and state agencies did of recognized Native American tribes (Table 2). seem to assume that rock features are prehistoric Only a few states, such as Montana, North Da- and/or potentially NRHP-eligible, unless there is kota, and Oregon, have formal guidance in good evidence to the contrary, and prefer to place, some of which is discussed below. Con- avoid them (Table 1). While some states noted necticut is currently in the process of developing the potential NRHP-eligibility of a variety of a Landscape Inventory Form, which will include both prehistoric and historic-period rock features ceremonial stone landscapes (CSL), (James (e.g., Montana, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode

JOA 4:39-71, Rock Piles of the Upper Ohio Valley Moore and Weiss

Island, Utah, Vermont) (Table 1) (OPRDOH in Philadelphia, entitled "Interpreting the Past: 2015; SHSND 2015), other states expressed an Ceremonial Stone Landscapes of the Northeast." opinion that most rock features, particularly rock During this conference, academic and CRM ar- walls, are non-native in origin or that historic- chaeologists, Native Americans, and SHPO and period rock features are unlikely to be eligible. Tribal Historic Preservation Office (THPO) rep- A few SHPOs (e.g., Louisiana, New Hampshire) resentatives self-critically discussed the poor stated that they rarely, if ever, deal with rock state of research and protection for sacred indig- features during Section 106 reviews, even enous landscapes, which are often underrepre- though in at least one case rock features are sented in the archaeological record. Common known to be present throughout their state. One themes included the acknowledgement that rock SHPO archaeologist indicated that there are feature research requires an embedded under- many rock features in their state but there has standing of indigenous landscapes, cosmologies, been no particular effort by professional archae- and experience, as well as reminders about the ologists to record them. need to respect native beliefs about the appropri- The most extreme SHPO opinion we en- ate treatment of rock features. Rather than place countered came from the Massachusetts SHPO's the blame for the current situation solely on out- website, which claims that "research into such siders, several individuals noted that archaeolo- stone piles [has] invariably shown that these fea- gists, SHPOs, the ACHP, and tribal groups have tures are not associated with the Native Ameri- become apathetic and should instead be taking can settlement of Massachusetts" (MHC 2015). on the responsibility of educating themselves, The website then goes on to assign all rock piles their counterparts, government agencies, and and walls to agricultural activities and property developers. boundaries (MHC 2015), with the implication Another general consensus among speakers that historic-period rock features are not cultur- and attendees seemed to be that archaeologists ally significant. The Massachusetts SHPO did must stop imposing their own academic, racial, not respond to our request for comments, but or ideological biases and must recognize that their opinion has often been rebutted (e.g., J. prehistoric, post-contact Native American, and Gage and M. Gage 2015a; Muller 2009; historic European American rock features are all NEARA 2015; Rush 2015), or even overturned worthy of study and preservation. Panel discus- by other federal agencies as in the high profile sants noted that archaeologists who are faced Turners Falls case (Albertini 2009; NPS 2008; with their inability to interpret a rock feature of- Timreck 2011). The Turners Falls Sacred Cere- ten mistake their ignorance for some kind of monial Hill Site was initially interpreted by the epistemological impasse inherent to these fea- Massachusetts SHPO as the remains of historic- tures. Because the growing body of literature period walls, despite information from several refutes such an impasse, archaeologists must Native American tribes that it was a sacred cer- consider that their inability to interpret rock fea- emonial area (NPS 2008:1). The Keeper of the tures may actually be the result of insufficient NRHP found that the area was NRHP-eligible as effort on their part and biases about what types a Traditional Cultural Property (TCP); however, of cultural resources are important or interesting. the Massachusetts SHPO continues to deny this Panelists concluded that, through deep collabo- and, to the best of our knowledge, has not even ration with native groups, archaeologists can assigned the area a state trinomial site number. learn to read the landscape and take on the responsibility of speaking on behalf of disenfran- Ceremonial Stone Landscape Conference chised native peoples, especially when the absence of federally-recognized tribes or loss of In October 2015, we attended a conference oral traditions about rock features is the direct sponsored by the Penn Cultural Heritage Center result of their displacement and cultural suppres-

JOA 4:39-71, Rock Piles of the Upper Ohio Valley Moore and Weiss sion. should encourage public interest in archaeology The rock feature sites that were presented at and coordinate our efforts to understand the past. the conference, such as the celestial alignments In fact, our literature review demonstrates at Fort Drum, New York (FDP 1151 and 1207; that the most comprehensive, ongoing rock fea- Rush 2015), the "memory piles" along the Con- ture research in the northeastern United States is stitution Pipeline in Pennsylvania and New York not being conducted by professional archaeolo- (Cassedy and Bergevin 2015), and the CSLs at gists. The websites and publications of the New Lawton Foster Road, Hopkinton, Rhode Island England Antiquities Research Association (RI 2792) and Turners Falls, Massachusetts (NEARA 2015; see Ballard and Mavor 2006; could not have been fully recognized or inter- Holstein 2012; Muller 2009), a group of primari- preted by archaeologists alone, but they can now ly "amateur" rock feature researchers, and of his- be used as case studies to interpret other stone torian mother-and-son team Mary and James landscapes. Lawton Foster Road is a particular- Gage (J. Gage 2014; M. Gage 2015; M. Gage ly striking example of this, as the varying opin- and J. Gage 2009a, 2009b, 2015; J. Gage and M. ions are well documented in local media and in Gage 2015b) are far more comprehensive than rock feature blogs (e.g., Drummond 2014; the vast majority of modern archaeological pub- Waksman 2015). lications. The Gages alone have filed more than 50 rock feature site forms in Rhode Island and Implications for Public Archaeology and Col- Connecticut. The results of such long-term re- laboration search should not be discounted simply because individuals do not hold academic degrees in ar- The issues described above have had another chaeology or work in CRM, particularly when unfortunate side effect. In our experience, these individuals are the ones who try to reach members of the public who are confronted with out to professional archaeologists (see Muller the apparent antiquity and visually impressive 2009). As Mary Gage (personal communication nature of rock features often become frustrated 2016) pointed out, historians are often better with their dismissal by professional archaeolo- qualified to conduct certain aspects of rock pile gists, or by archaeology's failure to explain their research, such as analyzing primary documents. origins. As a result they often turn to pseudo- archaeological or mystical explanations. These The Continuing Stone Mound Problem features' ambiguity creates an ideal situation for theories about extraterrestrials, lost civilizations, Ongoing confusion and archaeological atti- and supernatural entities to flourish, as people tudes toward rock features have contributed to a try to make sense of these landscapes. However, great loss of information, which makes current this ambiguity has not stopped many avocational attempts to understand them even more difficult. and amateur archaeologists, historians, and other As early as 1897, prolific Ohio Valley excavator researchers from conducting insightful and thor- Warren Moorehead (1897:214 cited in Kellar ough research on cairnfields, rock effigy sites, 1960:401) stated that the paucity of artifacts as- and other stone landscapes. Although some in- sociated with small rock piles meant "It is cer- terpretations may not be based on conventional tain that scientists can learn nothing more from science, history, or archaeology, the many web- them and further excavation [is] unnecessary." sites, blogs, and articles resulting from this pub- As James Kellar (1960:401-402) argues in "The lic interest contain a wealth of primary data that Stone Mound Problem," this observation seems are invaluable to the archaeological researcher to have led to their neglect in later archaeologi- (e.g., NativeStones.com 2006; Waksman 2005, cal research, when ...the fact that less data may 2015; and see Muller 2009:17). Rather than be- be present than desired emphasizes the im- littling or alienating non-archaeologists, we portance of what is available." This statement

JOA 4:39-71, Rock Piles of the Upper Ohio Valley Moore and Weiss could apply to historic rock features as well, Historic-Period Research Potential which are often undervalued due to their lack of a subsurface component. An anti-historic bias among CRM archaeol- This unfortunate trend of overlooking and ogists, which was noted in the responses of some undervaluing such rock features has been so SHPOs, has also resulted in assumptions that prevalent in current archaeology that, in 2007, rock piles are not important and in archaeolo- the United South and Eastern Tribes, Inc. (USET gists not recording these features with the same 2007), a federation of 24 federally-recognized level of effort that they would record known tribes, formally condemned the actions of "ar- prehistoric features or "standard" historic archaeologists and SHPOs [who] categorical- chaeological features such as a stone foundation ly...dismiss these structures as non-Indian and wall. As one SHPO responded, "...rock insignificant, permitting them to be the subjects piles...have potential to be important cultural of sacrilege of archaeological dissection and lat- resources... [; however,] historic period con- er destruction during development projects." An structs...generally are not NRHP eligible by increasing number of archaeologists now incor- themselves...." Possibly the result of most CRM porate this resolution into their NRHP evalua- archaeologists having predominately been tions (e.g., Boulware et al. 2013; Deter-Wolf and trained in prehistory, this bias is then reflected in Hockersmith 2007; Moore, Weiss, and Collins SHPO documentation guidelines (Christopher 2015; Rush 2015) by placing the burden of proof Merritt, personal communication 2015). In con- more heavily on historic-period and modern in- trast, Rhode Island state archaeologist Timothy terpretations. For example, Deter-Wolf and Ives (2013; 2015) and former West Virginia Hockersmith (2007) discuss a case in which state archaeologist Robert Maslowski three groups of morphologically similar, stacked (Maslowski and Miller 2015), following Ives, and amorphous rock features in Tennessee, all of who believe that a large portion of rock piles and which lacked subsurface artifacts in the sur- walls are the product of early historic-period rounding area, were evaluated for their eligibil- field and pasture clearance3, argue that these fea- ity for inclusion on the NRHP. The first site tures are still archaeologically significant. Ives (40RD222) was evaluated prior to the USET (2015:119-120, 128) theorizes that agricultural resolution and was presumed to represent a "his- features can reveal new information about agrar- toric stoneworks" site. It was found to be ineli- ian-pastoral ideals, changing farming practices, gible and was subsequently destroyed by high- and the ways in which farmers dealt with issues way construction. The later sites (40RD278 of sustainability. Ives (2015:125) continues that and40RD281) were evaluated after the USET "The cairn fields we encounter in the woods to- resolution and were recommended potentially day are not static monuments to the past, but ev- NRHP-eligible as Traditional Cultural Properties er-changing mediums in ever-changing land- and were avoided by developers. The investiga- scapes expressing the relationship between peo- tors took this one step further by also arguing ple and their environment." that intact rock features are NRHP-eligible un- Building on this, we argue that historic- der Criterion D (36 CFR 60.4) even without as- period rock feature sites have the potential to sociated archaeological deposits because the yield information that is just as valuable to our rock features themselves can contribute to ar- understanding of the past as conventional archaeologists' understanding of them (Deter-Wolf chaeological sites, and can therefore be NRHP- and Hockersmith 2007:6-7), an argument that eligible under Criterion D, or possibly even Cri- could also easily be applied to the many historic- teria A and C (36 CFR 60.4) as representations period features that go unrecorded and are pre- of patterns of historic-period activity and con- sumed ineligible. struction. In our opinion, activities associated with the construction of non-Native American

JOA 4:39-71, Rock Piles of the Upper Ohio Valley Moore and Weiss

Figure 2. This cairn from Ohiopyle State Park, PA has been varyingly interpreted as part of a prehistoric cemetery and as the product of historic-period field clearance. The central depression may be evidence of looting. Photograph courtesy of Mark McConaughy.

rock features (e.g., initial clearing of fields, land vs. pasture), presence of historic-period ac- gathering stone for construction, building the tivities (e.g., farming; mining; logging; road first roads to access timber) are more likely to be construction), social and economic status (e.g., associated with the initial European American plowing rocky, upland landforms; maximizing settlement of an area, rather than representing pasture), continuity in indigenous beliefs or sub- activities associated with ongoing occupation of sistence practices (e.g., Alaskan inuksuk; fish an area throughout the historic-period. If these weirs), labor/draft animal availability, agrarian features were being constructed throughout the aesthetics, linking stone structures to raw mate- later historic or modern periods, we would ex- rial sources, and stone dressing and construction pect more local informants who are familiar with techniques. their origins, or who even remember them being Maslowski and former West Virginia Divi- constructed (but see Maslowski and Miller sion of Highways (DOH) archaeologist Roger 2015). Wise (personal communications 2015; Potential research topics in the historic-era Maslowski and Miller 2015; Steelhammer 2015) construction and use of rock piles include agri- have applied historic-period agricultural inter- cultural practices and economic development pretations to many newly documented or well- (see Ives 2015; e.g., selling building material), known West Virginia sites, including the Bur- property boundaries and subdivision, land use ton/Molina Farm in Lincoln County4, Velma and and demarcation (e.g., livestock rotation; arable Brynwood Drives near Charleston, and the 48

JOA 4:39-71, Rock Piles of the Upper Ohio Valley Moore and Weiss

North Bend and Stonewall Resort state parks grants coming from countries that also have rich although the potential significance of historic- rock piling traditions. period features has not necessarily been noted in In states like Alaska and North Dakota, all cases and other researchers believe some of which still have active indigenous populations, these sites are prehistoric. Incidentally, none of the SHPOs have respectively reported modern these sites appear to have been recorded for the subsistence-oriented features like inuksuk (hu- West Virginia SHPO or to have been assigned man stand-in) and marker features like "stone state site numbers, making comparative research johnnies," which are virtually indistinguishable more difficult. A European-American field from their prehistoric counterparts (Hansen boundary and clearance interpretation has also 2008; Richard Vanderhoek, personal communi- been applied to the Ohiopyle State Park cairns cation 2015). It is interesting to consider how (36FA338) in Fayette County, Pennsylvania such features may have been interpreted by ar- (Mark McConaughy, personal communication chaeologists if firsthand, indigenous explana- 2015), although they also were originally rec- tions were not available. According to many orded as a prehistoric site (Figure 2). firsthand accounts cited in Kellar (1960:402- 403; 448-449), post-contact Native Americans Rock Feature Reuse and Continuity regularly constructed small rock piles for temporary burials far from their settlements or to When making determinations about a rock commemorate the place of a warrior's death, feature's age, it is important to note that they with additional stones being "haphazardly" add- may also be reused in later time periods and that ed by passersby (see Rennie and Lahren prehistoric-through-modern indigenous forms 2004:41, 51-53), a pattern which would be con- may be identical, therefore providing an oppor- sistent with many of the CSLs under discussion tunity to study evolving attitudes toward land- today. In a few documented cases, modern na- scape and patterns of activity. Even the eventual tive (or possibly neopagan) activity resulted in fates of these features (e.g., reuse by landown- the introduction of historic-period or modern ers, destruction by developers, excavation by items into prehistoric CSLs (James Gage, per- archaeologists, preservation by Native Ameri- sonal communication 2016; Waksman 2015). cans) can illuminate contemporary attitudes and Even agricultural clearance cairns may have social issues. For example, prehistoric cairns been built by pre- or post-contact Native Ameri- may be added to during historic-period field can farmers, who may have incorporated tradi- clearance, as Kellar (1960:371) discovered at the tional elements and practices (see Ives 2013:42; C. L. Lewis Stone Mound (12SH02) in Shelby Rennie and Lahren 2004:63-64; Waksman County, Indiana. Even prehistorically, burial 2005). features were added to or even emptied and reused, as Fowke (1900) noted in his Brown Archaeological Approaches, Indicators, and County, Ohio excavations. Ives' (2015:119-121) Techniques model even specifically includes reuse of clearance cairn material. As Kellar (1960:401) and We have argued that rock features are under- Brent Eberhard (personal communication 2015) researched because many archaeologists (1) are both point out, many prehistoric rock features unfamiliar with how to identify, record, and in- would also have been cannibalized for European terpret them, (2) erroneously assume they are American chimneys, walls, and other structures. historic if prehistoric burials or artifacts are ab- In other cases, however, tribal accounts and lo- sent, and (3) believe that historic rock features cal anecdotes indicate that European farmers lack cultural significance and research potential. respected native rock features, which, as Waks- So, given the culturally and temporally ubiqui- man (2005) notes, might be expected of immi- tous nature of these features, as well as their ap-

JOA 4:39-71, Rock Piles of the Upper Ohio Valley Moore and Weiss parent morphological homogeneity, how should CRM-appropriate recordation techniques (i.e., cairns, stone mounds, drystone walls, and other they are inexpensive, expedient, and focused on rock constructs be dealt with when encountered, non-invasive data recovery) that we hope to particularly in everyday CRM archaeology? make available in the future5. Although the Cultural context is often the key to "translat- large volume of available information prevents a ing" the symbolic and structural meanings of comprehensive review within a single publica- rock features. However, indigenous expertise tion, the paragraphs below include the results of and oral history is not always available to the some of this research6. archaeologist, whether as a result of funding re- A number of non-invasive techniques can be strictions, the conditions under which a particu- applied in the field to obtain useful, comparative lar CRM contract was undertaken, or, as in data on rock features for establishing regional much of the Upper Ohio Valley region, the ab- patterns and other future research, particularly sence of federally-recognized tribes and THPOs when conventional archaeological techniques (cf. Ballard and Mavor 2006:42). The lack of are inappropriate. The following is one example THPOs or tribes should not be used as an excuse of the minimum level of effort needed to collect to avoid Native American involvement in Sec- these data. To obtain a representation of a rock tion 106 review, as any such absence can gener- feature's size and shape, as well as the individual ally be attributed to the actions and attitudes of rocks that compose it, a standard plan map and those federal and state governments. The same profile maps along two perpendicular axes argument can be made for cases where indige- should be drawn. Photographs should be taken nous groups are present, but are unable to assist from each side of a rock feature, as well as in with rock feature interpretations due to a loss of plan view and of any significant characteristics. traditional knowledge. A thorough effort should be made to record the Under such circumstances, the responsibility topographical setting and surrounding land uses. lies with the archaeologist to educate themselves This includes taking photographs of, azimuths to be able to understand and speak on behalf of toward, and detailed field notes on the landform, the stone features' builders, particularly because slope, and vegetation, as well as noting the pres- the strengths of archaeology, such as scientific ence of outcrops and any nearby anthropogenic recordation, critical thinking, and ethnology, features, disturbances, etc. These may offer make archaeologists uniquely qualified. Just as clues to the researcher as to the function and rel- archaeologists are taught to thoroughly record ative age of a rock feature. Recording short vid- the primary data on which to base their interpre- eos may prove helpful in capturing particular tations in order to allow for future re- traits of a rock feature or its setting that are not evaluations, they must record rock features in a readily visible in a photograph, and videos allow way that acknowledges their current biases and others to "experience" the location for them- limitations and affords peer reviewers and future selves. Particular traits of rock features should researchers the opportunity to reassess their also be recorded, such as stone type selection findings, particularly when a site is under threat and size, the presence of niches and what direc- of development. Although the nature of these tion they face, if individual rocks could be lifted features will always disallow quick and defini- by one or two individuals, and construction and tive interpretations, new approaches may move stacking techniques. To record the soil on which us toward a better understanding. a rock feature sits, a square STP or test unit Through an ongoing literature review, we could be excavated directly adjacent to the fea- have attempted to identify useful indicators and ture, if appropriate. This could allow the identi- recordation techniques that can be applied to fication of a plow zone, which may then indicate newly encountered features. In conjunction with whether or not a feature was built as an agricul- ASE, we are currently experimenting with some tural clearance cairn.

JOA 4:39-71, Rock Piles of the Upper Ohio Valley Moore and Weiss

Figure 3. This "crib"-shaped cairn from Rhode Island is interpreted by Ives (2015:125) as evidence of agricultural field clearing. The cairn is constructed of a ring of inward sloping, stacked stones built upon an immovable bedrock outcrop to capitalize on wasted space. As demonstrated by other similar features, the rings of this cairn type are filled with smaller stones allowing for a large quantity of stones to be stored within a small footprint. Photograph courtesy of Timothy Ives.

Many more in-depth recordation or analysis growth. techniques have also been used or proposed for Careful observations of specific characteris- recording rock features, some of which should tics can inform the researcher of a rock feature’s only be conducted if the features are to be de- potential origin(s) and function(s). Numerous stroyed by future development and/or after con- indicators of prehistoric/native rock features sultation with native groups. These techniques, have been noted in the existing literature. These some of which were used in the case studies be- include: placement of rock features near distinc- low, include conventional archaeological exca- tive natural features (e.g., outcrops, hydrologic vation, remote sensing and geophysical survey, features, impressive viewsheds); the use of three-dimensional (3D) scanning, time-lapse stones with ground "nutting" holes or petro- photography as rock features are disassembled, glyphs; the presence of lichen growing within planetarium reconstructions, pathway analyses, the interior or over large portions of a feature; calcium and phosphorous soil tests for the iden- the incorporation of fossils, quartz, or orange tification of burials, and measuring lichen stones into prominent places within a feature, 51

JOA 4:39-71, Rock Piles of the Upper Ohio Valley Moore and Weiss such as niches and "stone caves;" and the pres- moss growth are possible indicators of a rela- ence of thermally-altered rocks from cremation tively recent origin. Rock features found at par- or feasting (e.g., Kellar 1960:377; Bob Brooks, cel corners and intersections were likely con- personal communication 2015). Additional in- structed for demarcating property lines. dicators specific to CSL's include: alignments of These methods and indicators can be sup- stones to celestial objects or events (e.g., solstic- plemented and supported by background re- es, seasonal indicators, culturally-significant search. A review of work by current and past events) on natural or artificially-created hori- amateur researchers, avocational archaeologists, zons, standing stones, effigies (e.g., turtles, or professionals will likely reveal useful infor- bears, and snakes), paired stones and split boul- mation on the appearance and characteristics of ders (which may be natural or anthropogenic), local rock features of known Native American observation seats, associated distinctive or cul- origin, particularly in regard to descriptions of turally-significant flora (e.g., Rush 2015), the old excavations. A review of SHPO records use of non-local stone transported from a dis- may also reveal local or regional patterns of rock tance away, post-molds along alignments (which features. Many websites provide a plethora of could be used as temporary construction mark- photographs and data documenting both historic- ers; Rush 2015), and evidence of modifications period, known prehistoric, and presumed prehis- to or moving of stones (e.g., flaking, soil defor- toric rock features. These websites can reveal mation). Indicators that may be noted during an regional trends of rock feature morphology and archaeological excavation include the presence construction, provide data free of charge, and are of artifacts, bones, charcoal, ochre, dark soil easily accessible. Invaluable information may stains, and cists underneath rock features. be obtained from Native American groups, local Many indicators also exist for assisting in the residents, and firsthand historical accounts of identification of historic-period rock features. rock features constructed by proto-historic Na- Rock features with stones or construction tech- tive Americans. It is important to study the niques similar to those used in the construction land-use history of a given research area at both of nearby historic-period structures may indicate a large and narrow scale. County history books, contemporary activities, or even possible stock- county soil surveys, historical aerial imagery, piles of future building materials. A survey of tax maps, and other historical records can inform old buildings in the surrounding area can shed the researcher on how the landscape changed light on the type of stone sought by these struc- over time, indicating what rock feature types tures' builders (e.g., M. Gage 2015). Rock fea- may be encountered. tures whose positioning on the landscape max- With these approaches in mind, the follow- imizes arable land while minimizing labor may ing case studies demonstrate several constructive represent agricultural field clearing. Such fea- approaches to documenting rock feature sites. tures may have crib-like shapes that can contain small, unstacked stones (Figure 3; Ives Case Study: Bear Knob Rock Piles (46UP342), 2015:125). Plow marks or scratches from ma- WV ("Process of Elimination" Approach) chinery on piled stones may also indicate a clearance cairn. Drystone walls built with Euro- In April 2015, ASE's cultural resources per- pean techniques (e.g., double walls with a rubble sonnel, including the authors, identified 23 rock fill) would also indicate historic-period construc- piles during a pedestrian survey of a proposed tions (Maslowski and Miller 2015; Strezewski bat conservation bank in Upshur County, West 2004:29-30). Placement of rock features along Virginia (Figure 4; Moore, Weiss, and Collins field edges, fences, and roads may indicate asso- 2015). These rock piles are situated on the very ciation with historic-period agricultural and road steep wooded slopes of Bear Knob, the tallest building activities. Limited or absent lichen and hill in the Hackers Creek drainage (McWhorter

JOA 4:39-71, Rock Piles of the Upper Ohio Valley Moore and Weiss

"stone-heaps" that he has excavated (McWhorter 1915:72, 74, 77). Underneath one "stone-heap," located on a ridge near the rock piles identified on Bear Knob, measuring 3-by-8 feet in size and 18 inches in height, McWhorter found a thermally-altered spear point amongst a layer of ashes that were capped by a fire-cracked sandstone slab (McWhorter 1915:72). Another similarly-sized ridgetop "stone-heap" in the Hackers Creek drainage possessed no artifacts, while yet another "stone-heap" of similar size located on an upland "flat" revealed lithic debitage and charcoal underneath (McWhorter 1915:72). Ad- jacent to Bear Knob and far up the hillside, McWhorter excavated an "effigy-like" rock feature consisting of a large central boulder from which extended cross-like arms (McWhorter 1915:72-73). Although excavations revealed no Figure 4. Distribution of features at the Bear Knob Rock associated artifacts at this rock feature, Piles (46UP342) site, 1976 USGS topo map. Those on the McWhorter believed it to be of Native American western side of the valley are not included within the site boundary. Map courtesy of ASE. origin (McWhorter 1915:73). It is unclear as to what McWhorter's term "stone filled graves" signifies, but they were 1915:307). In the course of preparing the Phase likely surface piles of stone overlying graves I survey report, background research revealed since he juxtaposes them against stone cist that the Hackers Creek valley was settled by Eu- graves (McWhorter 1915:77), which would have ropean Americans in the 1770s and shortly be- been lined with stone. Therefore, it is possible came the most attacked settlement in all of that "stone filled graves" are simply "stone- northwestern Virginia, with one or more Native heaps" that have graves underneath. In any case, American attacks every year from 1778 until the his investigations clearly demonstrate that Na- Treaty of Greenville in 1795 (Smith 1920:35, tive American rock piles are present in the vicin- 54-55). Many Native American archaeological ity of Bear Knob. McWhorter also notes that the sites have been identified within and near the entirety of Bear Knob had been clear-cut Hackers Creek drainage, spanning the entire (1915:307), which could bring the survival of chronology of prehistoric periods up through any prehistoric rock features into question, or European contact. could explain their poor condition. Most archaeological research and excavation In an attempt to determine the relative age within the valley is credited to Lucullus Virgil and function of the rock feature site on Bear McWhorter, a late-nineteenth century avocation- Knob, ASE applied a "process of elimination" al archaeologist and Native American rights ac- approach as used by Deter-Wolf and Hock- tivist who writes about his investigations at a ersmith (2007). Because rock features con- number of Native American sites including vil- structed by Native Americans can have a very lages, mounds, burials, and cairns (McWhorter wide range of forms, having been constructed 1915:21, 69-74). In The Border Settlers of for commemorative and ceremonial purposes Northwestern Virginia, McWhorter mentions largely unknown to archaeologists, ASE has several "stone filled graves" located on hillsides found it more effective to begin the process by and ridges throughout the area, as well as first considering the historic-period activities 53

JOA 4:39-71, Rock Piles of the Upper Ohio Valley Moore and Weiss

Figure 5. Rock Pile 4 on Bear Knob (46UP342). This feature along an abandoned field edge and composed of haphazardly piled, rounded cobbles and boulders was interpreted as a possible historic-period agricultural clearance cairn. Photo- graph courtesy of ASE.

that can result in the creation of rock features; 1990:11). The following derives from ASE's however, one must keep in mind that long-term archaeological reports and provides some basic anthropogenic activity within an area will result indicators for discerning historic-period rock in features of differing ages overlapping in a piles using this approach. single landscape. Using this approach, one ex- Discarded rocks from historic-period field amines the morphological and contextual char- clearing are expected to be found downslope of acteristics of a rock pile to determine if it would arable land (Deter-Wolf and Hockersmith make logical sense for having been used for, or 2007:4). If this was not possible, however, the the by-product of, various historic-period activi- rocks would likely be built into a single pile or ties. The historic-period activities/sources con- wall to decrease the amount of arable land they sidered for this site included agricultural field covered (Deter-Wolf and Hockersmith 2007:4). clearing, property markers, stockpiles of con- Rock piles that exhibit very neat stacking into struction materials, "garden art" (Deter-Wolf and specific shapes are not likely the result of col- Hockersmith 2007:3), clearing for timber, access lecting construction materials to be used at a lat- road clearing, and slope terracing (Gresham er time, as dismantling of such a pile would ne- 54

JOA 4:39-71, Rock Piles of the Upper Ohio Valley Moore and Weiss gate the labor and time investment spent in its type of TCP is "a location associated with the construction (Deter-Wolf and Hockersmith traditional beliefs of a Native American group 2007:4). Additionally, piles constructed of poor about its origins, its cultural history, or the na- building stone are unlikely to have been built for ture of the world" (NPS 1998:1), which would storage of future construction materials (Deter- clearly include CSLs. Furthermore, because the Wolf and Hockersmith 2007:4). M. Gage aforementioned USET resolution states that their (2015) provides a comprehensive review and ancestors used "sacred ceremonial landscapes guide for distinguishing prehistoric rock piles and their stone structures which are of particular from those built for field clearance and stockpil- cultural value," rock piles and other rock fea- ing of building material during the historic- tures that have been shown to be or are hypothe- period. Historical maps depicting the location of sized as likely of Native American origin within houses and property lines can offer clues as to the ancestral territory claimed by the USET, the potential use of rock piles for “garden art” consisting of the eastern and southeastern por- and demarcating property boundaries (Deter- tions of the United States (USET 2016), should Wolf and Hockersmith 2007:4). Rock piles cre- be treated as TCPs and therefore are potentially ated from access road clearing are located adja- eligible for inclusion on the NRHP, even in the cent to the road and would expect to be found on absence of eligibility under the normal NRHP the road’s downhill side. Field observations criteria. have noted that rudimentary roads remain visible Using the "process of elimination" approach, long after they are abandoned. Rock piles or ASE hypothesizes that one of the rock piles walls built for use in slope terracing are built found on Bear Knob (Rock Pile 4; Figure 5) is into linear arrangements paralleling the contour consistent with historic-period clearance cairns of a hill and often built in groups up a hillside. while the remaining 22 may be of prehistoric Rock piles built for the purpose of opening up origin. Although a few features share character- pastureland are found on soils which were ini- istics with other historic-period types, no rea- tially covered in a thick layer of surface rocks sonable historic-period explanation could be and outcrops and are located within current found to justify the morphological and contextu- fields or overgrown areas that were used for al homogeneity amongst 21 of the amorphous grazing in the past (Ives 2015:125-127). These piles (Figure 6) or the unique construction of piles are expected to be constructed in a way that another (Rock Pile 5; Figure 7). maximizes grass growth such as along field edg- The 21 similarly constructed rock piles are es or within minimal footprints. composed of tabular sandstone cobbles and If each purpose or activity is found to be im- small boulders, all of which could be lifted by plausible for a rock pile's creation, it can be one or two people and most of which are stacked ruled out and, when no plausible historic-period to at least some extent. The large majority of activities remain, the feature is deemed likely these piles occur in groupings of two or more. prehistoric. As Deter-Wolf and Hockersmith Most of the piles are oval or rectangular in plan (2007:7) have put forward, it then should be view with their long axes oriented parallel to the considered a potential TCP until proven other- contour. On average, the piles are 3.1 meters in wise (also see M. Gage and J. Gage 2009b:6). length, 2.2 meters in width, and 0.4 meters in As defined in National Register Bulletin 38, height. All of the rock piles are located on very TCPs are eligible for inclusion on the NRHP steep upper hillslopes with 18 occurring between because of their "association with cultural prac- 1,500 to 1,600 feet of elevation. The terrain on tices or beliefs of a living community that (a) are which they sit, their patterning, morphology, and rooted in that community's history, and (b) are lack of any current or former houses on Bear important in maintaining the continuing cultural Knob suggests that they were not built as clear- identity of the community" (NPS 1998:1). One ance cairns, used in demarcating property lines,

JOA 4:39-71, Rock Piles of the Upper Ohio Valley Moore and Weiss

Figure 6. Rock Pile 8 on Bear Knob (46UP342). This stacked feature was interpreted as possibly prehistoric. Photograph courtesy of ASE.

used for material stockpiles, built as "garden houses likely rules it out as "garden art." Be- art," used in slope terracing, or built to open up cause it stands alone, the pile is unlikely the pastureland. Although a few rock piles are lo- product of clearing pastureland and it could not cated near logging roads, including one on the have functioned in slope terracing. The pile is uphill side of a deep road cut, these piles appear unlikely a property marker as maps indicate that no different from those that are not. it does not lie on a property line. The remaining possible prehistoric rock pile The only pile hypothesized to be of historic- (Rock Pile 5) is very neatly stacked with flush period origin (Rock Pile 4) is located near the sides and a flat top, and it measures 2.9 meters edge of an abandoned field, is haphazardly piled, in length, 1.9 meters in width, and 1.1 meters in and is bisected along its long axis by an old wo- height. A 5.5 meter long, haphazardly piled wall ven wire fence. The pile measures 6.0 meters in extends from its western side. Although this pile length, 4.8 meters in width, and 0.3 meters in is near a road, due to its very careful construc- height. It was the only identified pile on Bear tion, it is unlikely the product of road clearing, Knob to contain rounded cobbles and boulders or for that matter the product of field clearance in addition to the tabular rocks used to construct or stockpiling material. The absence of nearby the other 22 piles. For these reasons, this pile is 56

JOA 4:39-71, Rock Piles of the Upper Ohio Valley Moore and Weiss

Figure 7. Rock Pile 5 on Bear Knob (46UP342). This feature, interpreted as possibly prehistoric, represents the tallest and most well-stacked feature at the site. Photograph courtesy of ASE.

interpreted as an agricultural clearance cairn that tops and upper hillsides, often overlooking functioned as a collection of all the rocks pulled aquatic features or other prominent natural fea- from the adjacent field as opposed to just a de- tures. Similar patterns are also found throughout liberate selection of tabular rocks. the eastern United States (e.g., Deter-Wolf and With the exception of this clearance cairn, Hockersmith 2007:3; Fowke 1900:193, 200-203; the remaining 22 rock piles were deemed to be M. Gage and J. Gage 2009b:8; Holstein of possible prehistoric origin and the site was 2010:73-74; Strezewski 2004:38; WVAS therefore regarded as a potential TCP (Moore, 1994:1). Weiss, and Collins 2015:106-107). This interpretation was further supported by the site's Case Study: 33BL485, OH (Conventional Exca- morphological and locational similarities to vation and Remote Sensing) known prehistoric rock piles throughout the Up- per Ohio Valley region, which are also con- In October 2014, ASE conducted a Phase I and structed of native tabular sandstone, have a II archaeological survey in Belmont County, range of sizes and shapes, and seem to be most Ohio (Stathakis 2014; Figure 8), after several commonly found in upland settings such a ridge- rock piles and a rock wall were identified near 57

JOA 4:39-71, Rock Piles of the Upper Ohio Valley Moore and Weiss

Figure 11), both of which correspond to a field edge in a 1960 aerial photograph and a LiDAR- based terrain model. This suggests that Rock Pile 7, the linear magnetic anomaly, and the rock wall are one-and-the-same. This collective feature was interpreted by ASE as a dump wall resulting from historic-period field clearance. The magnetic anomalies detected along this dump wall are likely due to iron objects, as a few were found during the Phase I archaeological survey within and near Rock Pile 7 (Burks 2014:16-18). The absence of Native American artifacts or features within or around the rock piles and the presence of a few historic-period artifacts, such as a hay rake tine and clear plow scars on one tabular stone (Rock Pile 7), further support that the rock piles and walls are historic period in age.

These apparent historic-period features could Figure 8. Distribution of features at 33BL485 on a 1998 be interpreted using the formation model devel- USGS topographic map. Map courtesy of ASE. oped by Ives (2015:119-121; Figure 13), in which cairn fields, at least in New England, were built by nineteenth century farmers in order the location of Native American burials de- to maximize stony, hilly, and overgrazed pas- picted in Mills' (1914) Archeological Atlas of tures. However, it is important to note that Ohio (Figures 9 to 11). Because Ohio has no many of Ives' hypotheses and observations are resident, federally-recognized tribes, ASE was specific to the cairn fields he has examined in not able to consult with Native American groups Rhode Island and to the economic history of prior to excavation. Shovel test probes (STPs) New England and cannot necessarily be used to were excavated across the project area, three interpret rock features in the Upper Ohio Valley one-by-one meter test units were excavated at or other regions3. LiDAR and geophysical sur- the center of three rock piles, and a magnetome- veys have also been used successfully in other try survey was conducted by Jarrod Burks of rock feature case studies, particularly to identify Ohio Valley Archaeology, Inc. (OVAI), an ex- historic-period features like early farmsteads and pert in geophysical survey, to see if these piles terraces (e.g., Ives 2014; 2015:121; Eric Sipes, were associated with pit features or burned areas personal communication 2015). Such tech- (Burks 2014; Figure 12). niques are non-invasive, while still allowing the The survey identified several magnetic identification of subsurface rock features and anomalies representing either possible prehistor- associated cultural features. ic pits or iron objects and corresponding to two- track roads and an old wire fence. Only one of Case Study: Fort Drum, NY (Alignments and the four rock piles covered by the survey pos- Indigenous Consultation)7 sessed a magnetic signature (Rock Pile 7; see Figure 10), likely due to one or more iron ob- Ongoing work by the CRM staff at Fort jects (Burks 2014:17). A linear magnetic anom- Drum, a U.S. military installation in Upstate aly (Anomaly 3) extends from this pile to con- New York, has revealed an impressive ceremo- nect with a rock wall (Rock Piles 8 and 9; see nial prehistoric landscape that includes cairn

JOA 4:39-71, Rock Piles of the Upper Ohio Valley Moore and Weiss

Figure 9. Rock Pile 4 at 33BL485. The feature consists of several stones piled on top of a large boulder. The feature was interpreted as a historic-period agricultural clearance cairn due to its association with others at the site, but has trace fossils on one of its stones. Photograph courtesy of ASE.

groupings and celestial alignments, as well as star at a culturally significant time (Rush 2015; conventional archaeological sites (FDP 1151 and Laurie Rush, personal communication 2015). 1207). Celestial alignments were not accepted As Rush emphasized at the Philadelphia CSL by the New York SHPO, or by many archaeolo- conference, it is important to take into account gists in general, before the pioneering work of when developing a research design or field Laurie Rush, the base's cultural resource manag- methodology that many Native American groups er (Rush 2015; see Ballard and Mavor 2006). are opposed to excavating rock features or with- After realizing the potential significance of these in sacred landscapes. Their assistance should sites, Rush worked closely with the fort's Native not be utilized without then respecting their be- American consulting partners, who were able to liefs. identify many culturally-specific characteristics Many of the indicators discussed by Rush and provide interpretations for the rock features, and other panelists at the conference, such as such as oral traditions about what cairns com- Doug Harris of the Narragansett THPO, were memorate, the existence of an observation seat, noted or developed for the Fort Drum sites and and a paired stone feature's alignment to the dog are included in the description of prehistor 59

JOA 4:39-71, Rock Piles of the Upper Ohio Valley Moore and Weiss

Figure 10. Rock Pile 7 at 33BL485. Due to its position along a field edge (per LiDAR, 1960 aerial imagery, and a magne- tometry survey), the presence of a partially buried hay rake tine underneath the pile, and the presence of plow scars on one of its stones, the feature is interpreted as an historic-period agricultural clearance cairn. Photograph courtesy of ASE.

ic/native site indicators above. Rush also advo- rock features' origins (Maslowski and Miller cated for examining early historic-period or avo- 2015; Yolanda Molina, personal communication cational/amateur archaeology accounts, as well 2016). Scientific methods can be applied to ver- as seeking out local and/or indigenous ify native interpretations, such as probability knowledge about the area, which can often be maps to justify rock alignments or field observa- overlooked by archaeologists who are accus- tion of alignment events. While interpreting the tomed to the excavate-report schedule of CRM, Fort Drum sites, Rush (2015) used a university with little time or money for thinking outside the planetarium to reconstruct and check prehistoric box or seeking out additional information. At skyscapes and paleoastronomic events against the same time, local information and oral tradi- the alignments that had been identified durin tion must always be critically examined. For fieldwork (see Casella 2015). One of the align- example, the Adena C. L. Lewis Stone Mound ments was also verified by an overnight event was reported to be the result of field clearance with members of the indigenous community. by several locals (Kellar 1960:371). Two prior Some of the native groups involved with landowners of the Burton/Molina Farm site in Fort Drum are also part of the newly formed West Virginia also give conflicting reports of the Ceremonial Landscapes Research, LLC (CLR), 60

JOA 4:39-71, Rock Piles of the Upper Ohio Valley Moore and Weiss

Figure 11. A portion of Rock Pile 9 at 33BL485. This feature is interpreted as an historic-period dump wall related to agricultural field clearing. The feature measures 30.8 meters long and corresponds to a field edge depicted in LiDAR and 1960 aerial imagery. Photograph courtesy of ASE.

a THPO-sponsored group based in southern County, PA and Broome, Chenango, Delaware, New England that was founded to assist THPOs and Schoharie Counties, NY identified approxi- and agencies with fulfilling Section 106 re- mately 300 cairns in upland settings, all of simi- quirements (CLR 2015; Alexandra Martin, per- lar shape and morphology (Cassedy and Ber- sonal communication 2016). CRM archaeolo- gevin 2015). Unsure of their origin, but still gists who are in need of CLR's expertise for con- recognizing their potential significance, whether sultation or training can contact them through or prehistoric or historic, the principal archaeolo- along with their THPO representative (Alexan- gist, Daniel Cassedy, decided to term them "cul- dra Martin, personal communication 2016). turally sensitive," which conveys their significance without attaching a legal definition or pro- Case Study: Constitution Pipeline, PA and NY cess. This allowed the developer to avoid costly (An Alternative CRM Approach) and time-consuming individual NRHP evaluations for these mysterious features “in exchange A recent Phase I survey by AECOM for the for” minimizing the impact to them through Constitution Pipeline that crosses Susquehanna avoidance of the large majority of the piles. 61

JOA 4:39-71, Rock Piles of the Upper Ohio Valley Moore and Weiss

Figure 12. The top image depicts the results of the magnetic survey over a portion of 33BL485, while the middle image provides interpretations of the data (Burks 2014:15). Anomaly 1 represents the remains of an old wire fence running parallel to Anomaly 2, which is interpreted as either a path, utility line trench, or dead furrow. Anomalies 4- 9 represent either prehistoric pits or iron objects, the latter being more likely according to Burks. Anomaly 3 is interpreted as a subsurface linear rock feature, associated with Rock Pile (RP) 7, which likely connects to a rock wall (RP 8 and 9) to the north. Over- laying the magnetic data on 1960 aerial imagery reveals that Anomaly 3 and the rock wall run concurrently with a field edge (Burks 2014:17) and likely represent a field or property boundary. Figure courtesy of Jarrod Burks and ASE.

JOA 4:39-71, Rock Piles of the Upper Ohio Valley Moore and Weiss

Figure 13. Ives' (2015:125-127) Four-Stage Cairnfield Formation Model. In stage one (top), trees are cleared to form fields and are used to build wooden fences. In stage two, stones that are brought to the surface from frost-heave and expo- sure of the soil to the elements are cleared from the fields to keep them open. The removed stones contributed to further erosion and were used to replace the older fences. In stage three, cairns are built within fields where soil erosion is allowed to continue through overgrazing. Because stone is no longer necessary for walls or other building projects, they are piled close to where they are removed to minimize transportation costs. In the final stage (bottom), pastures are abandoned and are overtaken by forests. Leaf litter from these trees reduces further erosion and frost heave. Figure courtesy of Timothy Ives. 63

JOA 4:39-71, Rock Piles of the Upper Ohio Valley Moore and Weiss

While attempting to find the best approach, Gage, personal communication 2015). Exten- many creative excavation and mitigation sive research regarding rock feature classifica- measures were also considered, including 3D tions and terminology, prehistoric and historic- recordation, time-lapse photography as features period activities resulting in rock feature con- were disassembled, and documenting different struction (especially CSLs, agriculture, and methods for a "lessons learned" package that quarrying), and northeastern rock features in could then be used by other archaeologists for general is available on their website (J. and Gage similar sites (Cassedy and Bergevin 2015). 2015a), stone structure handbook (M. and J. Contrary to other approaches and many Gage 2015), and other publications. Type- SHPOs, Cassedy and Jesse Bergevin, a Historic specific forms also are included on the website Resource Specialist with the Oneida Indian Na- and in the handbook (2015). tion and part of the cairn evaluation process, ar- Of the SHPOs who responded to our inquir- gue that we cannot evaluate cairn integrity or ies, only the Montana, North Dakota, and Ore- NRHP-eligibility on a case-by-case basis, as it gon SHPOs readily recognize many rock fea- would be entirely arbitrary to say that groupings tures as being of Native American origin and use of 40 cairns are more significant than groupings rock feature-specific forms and guidance to as- of only a few cairns, or to determine when an sist CRM archaeologists in their identification, individual cairn's integrity is too diminished to recordation, and NRHP assessments. These convey its significance. Furthermore, Bergevin SHPOs also recognize the potential significance argues that the term "TCP" is not appropriate in of historic-period rock features and record all such cases, as the nation he represents no longer that are more than 50 years old (MHS 2015; has traditional knowledge about the features, not OPRDOH 2015; SHSND 2015). As discussed to mention that some features may be historic above, many other SHPOs do emphasize a site- (Cassedy and Bergevin 2015). specific research approach, which requires each rock feature to be individually evaluated against Rock Feature Forms and Guidance the NRHP criteria; however, no special consid- eration or guidance is provided for rock features. With input from SHPOs and archaeolo- The Montana SHPO recognizes that, even with gists, Mary and James Gage are currently devel- excavation and tribal consultation, determining oping a comprehensive but user-friendly for the origin and function of rock features is not with guidance to assist with rock feature re- always possible. Therefore, they have devel- cordation (J. Gage and M. Gage 2015b; James oped field forms to record the physical attribute of cairns and stone circles deriving from tipi features as potential TCPs (SHSND 2015). The rings to ensure that comparative data for later Oregon SHPO has developed a systematic ap- research is collected (MHS 2015). The form and proach in the form of a rock feature-specific guidance for documenting stone circles includes flow-chart that is used to identify appropriate many descriptive terms and recordation items research, types of data to collect, and NRHP- that are widely applicable to any rock feature eligibility (OPRDOH 2015). This chart ensures type (e.g., number of visible surface rocks; rock thorough documentation and includes many shape; azimuth). North Dakota SHPO's chief types of prehistoric and historic period rock fea- archaeologist believes that rock piles should be tures that are considered potentially eligible for recorded "based on guidance and [professional] the NRHP, particularly when they are part of judgment that takes into account the presumed larger sacred or activity-oriented landscapes age, function, and cultural affiliation of the [fea- (OPRDOH 2015). Under this chart, prehistoric tures] in question" (Paul Picha, personal com- rock features are treated as eligible until tribal munication 2015). They have also developed a consultation is complete and their purpose is as- specific form for recording cairns and other rock sessed. These forms are available on the respec-

JOA 4:39-71, Rock Piles of the Upper Ohio Valley Moore and Weiss tive SHPO websites. tation," or, "what it was like to actually be in- side, or 'inhabit,' past environments" (Moore A Call for the Adoption of Rock Feature- 2012:1), are readily applicable to North Ameri- Specific Guidance and the Application of Ar- can rock features and can open up exciting new chaeological Theory avenues of research. For example, Trevarthen's (2000) study of prehistoric cairns demonstrated As noted above, understanding rock features how geological affordances like color and luster can begin with the simple step of including them can convey ideology and William's (2007) study in SHPO inventories of archaeological sites of medieval cemeteries revealed how burial whenever they are encountered. Just acquiring a cairns and other mortuary and commemorative state trinomial site number promotes the sharing monuments were carefully designed by the liv- of information and legitimizes features as cul- ing to selectively reflect individual and collec- tural resources. Inventories can be expanded tive identities and relationships. Johnston's through reviews of existing literature and ongo- (2001) work on prehistoric clearance cairns ex- ing fieldwork. Due to the uniqueness of rock plored the ways in which cairns structure both features, any shortcomings in the current sys- the physical and social realm. Bradley's (1998) tems of field documentation can be more easily article on megalithic tombs argues that prehis- identified, allowing multiple states' inventories toric people may not have distinguished between to then be more easily compiled. From there, built features and visually similar rock outcrops. rock feature categories can be more accurately Framed and intersected by navigable water defined and subdivided and specific guidance and ancient travel routes, the Upper Ohio River can be developed by archaeologists, SHPOs, and Valley has been a geographic center for econom- other agencies or groups. ic and cultural development spanning Native When rock feature sites are regularly record- American cultures like the Hopewell, early Eu- ed in a thoughtful, knowledgeable, and con- ropean American settlement and agriculture, sistent way, we will be able to identify meaning- nineteenth-to-twentieth century industry, and the ful patterns and can then truly begin to explore current oil and gas boom. As people built rock this aspect of the past through the application of features, in all their forms, functions, and ori- archaeological theory, such as Tilley's (1994, gins, they were reflecting a shared, ever chang- 1996) phenomenology of landscape, Boivin and ing, understanding of human experience and in- Owoc's (2004) work on perceptions of the min- teractions with the materiality of landscape (e.g., eral world, and Ingold's (2000) dwelling per- augmentation, imitation, interaction, modifica- spective8. Ingold's work is particularly application of existing conditions). However, until all ble, as it can be used to explore the affordances archaeologists, SHPOs, and agencies begin to (which are perceived properties and use-values) adopt region-appropriate guidance and best prac- of stone, individual stone constructs, and the en- tices, guided by some of the techniques and re- vironmental settings of rock features in order to sources discussed, and to respect indigenous be- develop possible meanings and reasons behind liefs about the agency of landscape features and their construction. For example, the affordances their ancestors (e.g. Holstein 2010), this infor- of a stone include its color, texture, workability, mation will continue to be unreachable. provenience, shape, luster, mythological associa- tions, usefulness as a tool, stackability, potential to kill, obstacle to plowing, use as an artistic Endnotes medium, or ability to block visibility. These predominantly British theoretical ap- 1. This article was prepared by the authors in proaches, which could be collectively subsumed their personal capacity. The views and method- under the study of "paleo-environmental inhabi- ology described here do not necessarily reflect

JOA 4:39-71, Rock Piles of the Upper Ohio Valley Moore and Weiss those of AllStar Ecology, LLC (ASE). Howev- In May 2016, the West Virginia SHPO con- er, the authors would like to acknowledge ASE curred that the site was not NRHP-eligible be- for granting permission to use photographs taken cause the investigation had exhausted the site's during fieldwork and for the use of ASE's research potential. The archaeological site form, ArcGIS license. which includes detailed maps, photographs, and descriptions of the utilized methods, is available 2. Under Section 106 of the National Historic through the SHPO. Preservation Act (NHPA), development which involves federal land, funding, or permitting 6. This information is provided for educational must be evaluated for its potential to negatively purposes and should not be considered an en- affect significant cultural resources (see ACHP dorsement by the authors. Native beliefs regard- 2011). Any identified cultural resources are ing CSLs should be respected during the devel- evaluated against the criteria laid out in 36 CFR opment of field methodologies. 60.4 and any adverse effects must be avoided, minimized, or mitigated upon consultation with 7. Prior to discussing these sites publically, Fort SHPO and other relevant parties. Drum's cultural resources branch consulted with 3. James and Mary Gage and some other New its Native American partners regarding their use England researchers dispute the historical fac- as examples in scientific discourse. ticity of Timothy Ives' (2015) description of 8. Ingold (2000:153) defines the “dwelling per- stone clearance for pasture, arguing that no pri- spective” as “a perspective that treats the immer- mary sources describe this practice and that it sion of the organism-person in an environment would not have been an economical labor in- or lifeworld as an inescapable condition of exist- vestment (James Gage; Mary Gage, personal ence. From this perspective, the world continu- communications 2016; see J. Gage 2014, M. ally comes into being around the inhabitant, and Gage 2015). its manifold constituents take on significance through their incorporation into a regular pattern 4. In 2011, Bob Maslowski and Roger Wise of life activity," versus a conventional, Western were invited by the current landowner, Yolanda “building perspective,” which says that people Molina, to examine a series of rock walls, piles, first build, then live in their environments. and other features (Yolanda Molina, personal communication, 2016). In a subsequent presen- tation (Maslowski and Miller 2015), Maslowski References Cited referred to the site as the Burton Farm, after a prior landowner who he believed had built the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation features. During a series of emails and conver- (ACHP) sations between the authors and Ms. Molina, she 2011 Protecting Historic Properties: A Citi- emphasized that her exploration of the property zen's Guide to Section 106 Review. Wash- indicates that they were more likely built by ington, D.C. prehistoric peoples, not Mr. Burton, and that she therefore prefers that the site be referred to as Albertini, Arn the Molina Farm. 2009 Indian stones to be protected at Turners Falls airport. The Recorder 6 January. 5. Since the date of this article's initial submis- Greenfield, Massachusetts. Electronic docu- sion, ASE recorded the Lough Rock Feature Site ment, http://rockpiles.blogspot.com/20 (46TY88) in northwestern West Virginia using 09/01/airport-expansion-at-turners-falls.htm several such methods. This site was interpreted l, accessed March 6, 2016. as a historic-period field clearance cairn field.

JOA 4:39-71, Rock Piles of the Upper Ohio Valley Moore and Weiss

The Associated Press 2011 Rock Piles the Main Attraction at WVa Cassedy, Daniel, and Jesse Bergevin Park Trail. Charleston Gazette-Mail 28 July. 2015 Stone Cairns Along the Constitution Charleston, West Virginia. Electronic docu- Pipeline Corridor. Paper presented at the In- ment, http://www.wvgazettemail.com/ terpreting the Past: Ceremonial Stone Land- ap/ApSports/201107281011, accessed De- scapes of the Northeast, Philadelphia. cember 5, 2015. Ceremonial Landscapes Research, LLC (CLR) Ballard, Edwin C., and James W. Mavor, Jr. 2015 Native American Ceremonial Stone 2006 A Case for the Use of Above Surface Landscape Sites in the Northeast Press Re- Stone Constructs in a Native American Cer- lease. Electronic document, http://nativ emonial Landscape in the Northeast. Neara eamericannetroots.net/diary/1973, accessed Journal 40(1):33-45. March 6, 2016.

Boivin, Nicole, and Mary Ann Owoc (editors) Deter-Wolf, Aaron, and Kelly S. Hockersmith 2004 Soils, Stones and Symbols: Cultural Per- 2007 The Indian Mountain Complex: Three ceptions of the Mineral World. UCL Press, Prehistoric(?) Stoneworks in Middle Tennes- London. see. Paper presented at the 64th Annual Boulware, Jenny, Jamie Blake, Abigail Cioffi, Meeting of the Southeastern Archaeological Eliza Newland, Alee Robins, Marlenea Morgan, Conference, Knoxville. Electronic docu- and Steve Stathakis ment, https://www.acade mia.edu/609433/ 2013 Cultural Resource Report: North Bend The_Indian_Mountain_Complex_Three_Pre State Park Stone Features. Manuscript on historic_Stoneworks_in_Middle_Tennessee, file, Department of History, West Virginia accessed October 12, 2016. University (WVU), Morgantown, West Vir- ginia. Dragoo, Don W. 1955 The Linn Mound, an Upper Ohio Valley Bradley, Richard Adena Stone Mound. Pennsylvania Archae- 1998 Ruined Buildings, Ruined Stones: Enclo- ologist 25(1):58-69. sures, Tombs and Natural Places in the Neo- lithic of South-West England. World Ar- 1956 Excavation at the Watson Site, 46-HK- chaeology 30(1):13-22. 34, Hancock County, West Virginia. Penn- sylvania Archaeologist 26(2):59-88. Burks, Jarrod 2014 Magnetic Gradient Survey of the Cleve- Drummond, Cynthia land West Stones Site (33BL485), Belmont 2014 Field of rock cairns complicates plan for Co. Ohio. Ohio Valley Archaeology, Inc. proposed Hopkinton subdivision. The West- (OVAI). Submitted to AllStar Ecology, erly Sun 14 April. Westerly, Rhode Island. LLC, Contract No. 2014-54. Copies availa- Electronic document, http://www. thewester- ble from OVAI, Columbus, Ohio. lysun.com/news/latestnews/4081122-129/ field-of-rock-cairns-complicates-plan-for- Casella, Lauren proposed-hopkinton-subdivision.html #gal- 2015 Stones and Stars. The Colgate Scene lery-7, accessed December 5, 2015. Winter 2015. Hamilton, New York. Elec- tronic document, http://news.colgate. Fowke, Gerard edu/scene/main_feature/work-play-3, ac- 1900 Stone Graves in Brown County, Ohio. cessed January 11, 2016. Ohio Archaeological and Historical Quar-

JOA 4:39-71, Rock Piles of the Upper Ohio Valley Moore and Weiss

terly 9(1):193-204. Gresham, Thomas H. 1990 Historic Patterns of Rock Piling and the 1902 Archeological History of Ohio: The Rock Pile Problems. Early Georgia 18(1- Mound Builders and Later Indians. The 2):1-40. Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Society, Columbus, Ohio. Hansen, Pat 2008 Stone Johnnies: Vanishing Landmarks of Gage, James E. Lonely Hills. The Montana Standard 5 2014 Field Clearing: Stone Removal and Dis- April. Butte, Montana. Electronic document, posal Practices in Agriculture & Farming. http://mtstandard.com/special-section/local/s Archaeological Society of Connecticut Bulle- tone-johnnies-vanishing-landmarks-of-the-hi tin 76:33-81. lls/article_97403855-d67b-526d-82b0-0115 41feaca6.html, accessed March 6, 2016. Gage, Mary E. 2015 Testing the Stockpiling and Field Stone Holstein, Harry O. Clearing Pile Theories. Bulletin of the Mas- 2010 A Brief Description and Comparison of sachusetts Archaeological Society 76(1):2- Three Stone Structure Sites Located on 27. Choccolocco Mountain in Calhoun County, Alabama. Journal of Alabama Archaeology Gage, James E., and Mary E. Gage 56(1):64-76. 2015a Stone Structures of Northeastern United 2012 Comparisons of Stone Structures at West States. Website, http://www.stonestru Bolton, Vermont with those Found at Sites ctures.org, accessed October 11, 2015. in the Southeast. NEARA Journal 46(1):4-33.

2015b Stone Structures & Earthworks Invento- Holstein, Harry O., Curtis E. Hill, and Keith J. ry: Ceremonial Structures & Landscapes – Little Historic Stone Structures & Landscapes 2004 Archaeological Investigation of Stone Form. Manuscript in possession of the au- Mounds on the Fort McClellan Military Res- thors. ervation, Calhoun County, Alabama. Jack- sonville State University Archaeological Re- Gage, Mary E., and James E. Gage sources Laboratory. Submitted to U.S. Army 2009a Analysis of the Mount Carbon Stone Corps of Engineers, Mobile District. Copies Walls Site (46-FA-1), Fayette County, West available from Jacksonville State University Virginia. Electronic document, http://www. Archaeological Resources Laboratory. stonestructures.org/html/mount-carbon.html, accessed December 27, 2015. Inghram, Joseph W., Sigfus Olafson, and Ed- ward V. McMichael 2009b Analysis of Stone Structure Sites At 1961 The Mount Carbon Stone Walls: De- Stonewall Resort State Park, Roanoke, Lewis scription and History. West Virginia Arche- County, West Virginia. Amesbury, Massa- ologist 13:1-13. chusetts. Ingold, Timothy 2015 A Handbook of Stone Structures in 2000 The Perception of the Environment: Es- Northeastern United States. Powwow River says in Livelihood, Dwelling and Skill. Books, Amesbury, Massachusetts. Routledge, London.

JOA 4:39-71, Rock Piles of the Upper Ohio Valley Moore and Weiss

Ives, Timothy H. in the Mountains of North Georgia. Early 2013 Remembering Stone Piles in New Eng- Georgia 38(1):29-50. land. Northeast Anthropology 79-80:37-80. McMichael, Edward V. 2014 Uncloaking the ruins of Rhode Island's 1968 Introduction to West Virginia Archaeol- 'lost civilization'. Providence Journal 16 ogy. 2nd ed. revised. West Virginia Geologi- April. Providence, Rhode Island. Electronic cal and Economic Series, Educational Series, document, http://www.providencejournal.co Morgantown, West Virginia. m/article/ 20140416/OPINION/304169860, accessed February 24, 2016. McWhorter, Lucullus Virgil 1915 The Border Settlers of Northwestern Vir- 2015 Cairnfields in New England's Forgotten ginia from 1768 to 1795 Embracing the Life Pastures. Archaeology of Eastern North of Jesse Hughes and Other Noted Scouts of America 43:119-132. the Great Woods of the Trans-Allegheny with Notes and Illustrative Anecdotes. The Jefferds, Joseph Crosby, Jr. Republican Publishing Company, Hamilton, 2010 Mount Carbon Stone Walls. In e-WV: Ohio. The West Virginia Encyclopedia, edited by K. Sullivan. Electronic document, http://ww Maslowski, Robert F., and Mike Miller w.wvencyclopedia.org/articles/1429, 2015 Stone Mounds and the Archaeology of accessed November 22, 2015. Grass Farming. Paper presented at the West Johnston, Robert Virginia Archeological Society 2015 Annual 2001 'Breaking New Ground': Land Tenure Meeting, Charleston, West Virginia. and Fieldstone Clearance during the Bronze Age. In Bronze Age Landscapes: Tradition Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC) and Transformation, edited by J. Brück, pp. 2015 Review and Compliance. Electronic 99-109. Oxbow Books, Oxford, UK. document, http://www.sec.state.ma.us/mhc/ mhcrevcom/revcomidx.htm, accessed No- Kellar, James H. vember 22, 2015. 1960 The C.L. Lewis Stone Mound and the Stone Mound Problem. Prehistoric Research Mills, William C. Series Vol. 3, No. 4. Indiana Historical Soci- 1914 Archeological Atlas of Ohio: Showing ety, Indianapolis, Indiana. the Distribution of the Various Classes of Prehistoric Remains in the State with a Map 1961 Excavations at Mount Carbon. The West of the Principal Indian Trails and Towns. Virginia Archeologist 13:14-18. The Ohio State Archaeological and Histori- cal Society, Columbus, Ohio. Loubser, Jannie, and Tommy Hudson 2005 The Excavation and Dating of a Stone Montana Historical Society (MHS) Pile, Walker County, Northwestern Georgia. 2015 Planning Bulletins. Electronic document, The Profile: The Newsletter of the Society http://mhs.mt.gov/Shpo/Archaeology/Planni for Georgia Archaeology 126:8-10. ng Bulletins, accessed December 31, 2015.

Loubser, Johannes (Jannie), and Douglas Frink Moore, Charity M. 2010 An Archaeological and Ethnohistorical 2012 Living, Thinking, and 'Being' in Neolith- Appraisal of a Piled Stone Feature Complex ic Britain: A Multi-Disciplinary Approach to Palaeoenvironment, Perception, Ontology,

JOA 4:39-71, Rock Piles of the Upper Ohio Valley Moore and Weiss

and Inhabitation. Unpublished M.A. disser- 2008 Determination of Eligibility Notification: tation, Department of Archaeology, Univer- The Turners Falls Sacred Ceremonial Hill sity of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK. Site. Electronic document, http://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/guidance Moore, Charity M., and Matthew Victor Weiss /turnerfallsdoedecisionredacted.pdf, accessed 2016 Overcoming the Ambiguity of a Rock March 6, 2016. Pile: Their Examination and Interpretation in Cultural Resource Management Yesterday, NativeStones.com Today, and Tomorrow. Paper presented at 2006 Native American Stone Constructions. the Society for Historical Archaeology Website, http://www.nativestones.com, ac- (SHA) 49th Annual Conference on Histori- cessed December 8, 2014. cal and Underwater Archaeology, Washing- ton, D.C. New England Antiquities Research Association (NEARA) Moore, Charity M., Matthew Victor Weiss, and 2015 New England Antiquities Research As- Ronald L. Collins sociation. Website, http://www.neara.org, 2015 Phase I Cultural Resources Survey of the accessed October 11, 2015. Bear Knob Property, Upshur County, West Virginia. AllStar Ecology, LLC (ASE). Oregon Parks & Recreation Department: Oregon Submitted to ASE. Copies available from Heritage (OPRDOH) ASE, Fairmont, West Virginia. 2015 Historic Archaeology Sites Eligibility Moorehead, Warren K. Flow Charts. Electronic document, http://w 1897 Report of Field Work Carried on in the ww.oregon.gov/oprd/HCD/ARCH/docs/eligi Muskingum, Scioto, and Ohio Valleys Dur- bility_flow_charts_compiled.pdf, accessed ing the Season of 1896. Ohio Archaeological December 31, 2015. and Historical Quarterly 5:165-274. Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commis- Muller, Norman E. sion (PHMC) 2009 Stone Mound Investigations as of 2009. 2015 Cultural Resources Geographic Infor- NEARA Journal 43(1):17-23. mation System (CRGIS). Website, https:// www.dot7.state.pa.us/CRGIS, accessed De- Murphy, James L. cember 13, 2015. 2004 Archaeological Potential of Standing Stones in Eastern Ohio. Ohio Archaeologist Rennie, Patrick J., and Larry A. Lahren 54(3):18-21. 2004 An Annotated Bibliography of Ethno- graphic, Archaeological, Ethnohistoric, and 2010 "A Singular Pile of Stone": The Irwin Contemporary Cairn References. Manuscript Stone Mound, Licking County, Ohio. Ohio in possession of the authors. Archaeologist 60(3):29-30. Rush, Laurie W. National Park Service (NPS) 2015 Ceremonial Stone Landscapes of Eastern 1998 Guidelines for Evaluating and Docu- North America: A New Model for Rigorous menting Traditional Cultural Properties. Na- and Collaborative Study. Paper presented at tional Register Bulletin Series. U.S. Depart- the Interpreting the Past: Ceremonial Stone ment of the Interior, National Park Service, Landscapes of the Northeast, Philadelphia. Washington, D.C.

JOA 4:39-71, Rock Piles of the Upper Ohio Valley Moore and Weiss

Scarr, Kristin baud Property, Switzerland County, Indiana. 2011 Mysterious Stone Mounds, Rock Walls, Indiana University-Purdue University Fort Piles and Cairns. Details: A Newsletter from Wayne (IPFW). Submitted to the Switzer- the West Virginia State Historic Preserva- land County Historical Society. Copies tion Office 15(1):12. available from https://www.ipfw.edu/dotA sset/125663.pdf, accessed October 12, 2016. Smith, Edward Conrad 1920 A History of Lewis County, West Virgin- Sutton, Ernest R. ia. Edward Conrad Smith, Weston, West 1958 Doddridge County Mounds Nos. 46Do-1 Virginia. to 46Do-5. West Virginia Archeologist 10:23-27. Spencer, Darla S. 2010 Bens Run Earthworks. In e-WV: The Tilley, Christopher West Virginia Encyclopedia, edited by Ken 1994 A Phenomenology of Landscape. Berg Sullivan. Electronic document, http://www. Publishers, Oxford, UK. wvencyclopedia.org/articles/448, accessed November 22, 2015. 1996 The Powers of Rocks: Topography and Monument Construction on Bodmin Moor. Squier, Ephraim. G., and Edwin. H. Davis World Archaeology 28(2):161-176. 1848 Ancient Monuments of the Mississippi Timreck, Ted (director) Valley. Contributions to Knowledge, Vol. 1. 2011 Great Falls: Discovery, Destruction and Smithsonian Institute, Washington, D.C. Preservation in a Massachusetts Town. Film, Hidden Landscapes Project, Wellesley, Mas- State Historical Society of North Dakota sachusetts. (SHSND) 2015 Downloadable Forms. Electronic docu- Trevarthen, David ment, http://www.history.nd.gov/hp/hpform 2000 Illuminating the Monuments: Observa- s.html, accessed December 31, 2015. tions and Speculation on the Structure and Function of the Cairns at Balnuaran of Cla- Stathakis, Steven A. va. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 2014 Phase I Archaeological Survey for the 10(2):295-315. Cleveland West Pad and Phase II Testing of 33 BL 485, Flushing Township, Belmont Tri-State Company, Inc. County, Ohio. AllStar Ecology, LLC (ASE). 2013 Archaeological Finds and Trail Building Copies available from ASE, Fairmont, West or "How I will never look at a pile of rocks Virginia. in the same light again". Electronic document, http://trailbuilders.org/wordpress/wp Steelhammer, Rick content/uploads/2013/02/Archaeological-Fin 2015 Mysterious rock walls more likely farm- ds-and-Trail-Building.pdf, accessed Septem- ing-related than prehistoric. Charleston Ga- ber 1, 2014. zette-Mail 29 November. Charleston, West Virginia. Electronic document, http://www. United South and Eastern Tribes, Inc. (USET) wvgazettemail.com/article/20151129/GZ01/ 2007 Resolution No. 2007:037: Sacred Cere- 151129554, accessed December 1, 2015. monial Stone Landscapes Found in the An- cestral Territories of United South and East- Strezewski, Michael ern Tribes, Inc. Member Tribes. USET, 2004 An Archaeological Survey of the Thie- Nashville. Electronic document, http://www.

JOA 4:39-71, Rock Piles of the Upper Ohio Valley Moore and Weiss

usetinc.org/wpcontent/uploads/mbreedlove/ available from West Virginia State Historic USETResolutions%20/2007%20%20resolu Preservation Office. tions/02%2007%20resolutions%20pdf/2007 %20037.pdf, accessed March 6, 2016. West Virginia Archeological Society (WVAS) 1994 Two for a Nickell. Field Notes 36(2). 2016 Member Tribal Nations. Electronic document, http://www.usetinc.org/aboutuset/me West Virginia Division of Culture and History mber-tribes, accessed February 4, 2016. (WVDCH) 2015 Native Americans. Website, http://www. Waksman, Peter wvculture.org/history/nativeamericans.html, 2005 Indian Ceremonial Rock Piles in Eastern accessed December 30, 2015. Massachusetts. Website, http://indianrock piles.weetu.com, accessed October 11, 2015. Williams, Howard 2007 Depicting the Dead: Commemoration 2015 Rock Piles. Website, http://rockpiles. Through Cists, Cairns and Symbols in Early blogspot.com, accessed October 11, 2015. Medieval Britain. Cambridge Archaeologi- cal Journal 17(2):145-164. Weller, Ryan 2012 Phase I Cultural Resources Management Windsor, Donald A. Survey for the Proposed Stonewall Resort 2000 Stone Piles in Chenango County. Ar- Wireless Cellular Tower in Lewis County, chives of the SciAesthetics Institute 1(2):33- West Virginia. Weller & Associates, Inc. 50. Submitted to Mead & Hunt, Inc. Copies