DOCSLIB.ORG

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

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Stone Mound Problem 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 multi- ple interpretations and each interpretation carries implications for how the rock pile is then rec- orded (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 his- torical 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 under- standing 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. 40 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 eleva- tion. 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 41 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.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Burial Mounds in Europe and Japan Comparative and Contextual Perspectives
    Comparative and Global Perspectives on Japanese Archaeology Burial Mounds in Europe and Japan Comparative and Contextual Perspectives edited by Access Thomas Knopf, Werner Steinhaus and Shin’ya FUKUNAGAOpen Archaeopress Archaeopress Archaeology © Archaeopress and the authors, 2018. Archaeopress Publishing Ltd Summertown Pavilion 18-24 Middle Way Summertown Oxford OX2 7LG www.archaeopress.com ISBN 978 1 78969 007 1 ISBN 978 1 78969 008 8 (e-Pdf) © Archaeopress and the authors 2018 © All image rights are secured by the authors (Figures edited by Werner Steinhaus) Access Cover illustrations: Mori-shōgunzuka mounded tomb located in Chikuma-shi in Nagano prefecture, Japan, by Werner Steinhaus (above) Magdalenenberg burial mound at Villingen-Schwenningen, Germany,Open by Thomas Knopf (below) The printing of this book wasArchaeopress financed by the Sainsbury Institute for the Study of Japanese Arts and Cultures All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the copyright owners. Printed in England by Oxuniprint, Oxford This book is available direct from Archaeopress or from our website www.archaeopress.com © Archaeopress and the authors, 2018. Contents List of Figures .................................................................................................................................................................................... iii List of authors .................................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Ohio History Lesson 1
    http://www.touring-ohio.com/ohio-history.html http://www.ohiohistorycentral.org/category.php?c=PH http://www.oplin.org/famousohioans/indians/links.html Benchmark • Describe the cultural patterns that are visible in North America today as a result of exploration, colonization & conflict Grade Level Indicator • Describe, the earliest settlements in Ohio including those of prehistoric peoples The students will be able to recognize and describe characteristics of the earliest settlers Assessment Lesson 2 Choose 2 of the 6 prehistoric groups (Paleo-indians, Archaic, Adena, Hopewell, Fort Ancients, Whittlesey). Give two examples of how these groups were similar and two examples of how these groups were different. Provide evidence from the text to support your answer. Bering Strait Stone Age Shawnee Paleo-Indian People Catfish •Pre-Clovis Culture Cave Art •Clovis Culture •Plano Culture Paleo-Indian People • First to come to North America • “Paleo” means “Ancient” • Paleo-Indians • Hunted huge wild animals for food • Gathered seeds, nuts and roots. • Used bone needles to sew animal hides • Used flint to make tools and weapons • Left after the Ice Age-disappeared from Ohio Archaic People Archaic People • Early/Middle Archaic Period • Late Archaic Period • Glacial Kame/Red Ocher Cultures Archaic People • Archaic means very old (2nd Ohio group) • Stone tools to chop down trees • Canoes from dugout trees • Archaic Indians were hunters: deer, wild turkeys, bears, ducks and geese • Antlers to hunt • All parts of the animal were used • Nets to fish
    [Show full text]
  • I. a Consideration of Tine and Labor Expenditurein the Constrijction Process at the Teotihuacan Pyramid of the Sun and the Pover
    I. A CONSIDERATION OF TINE AND LABOR EXPENDITURE IN THE CONSTRIJCTION PROCESS AT THE TEOTIHUACAN PYRAMID OF THE SUN AND THE POVERTY POINT MOUND Stephen Aaberg and Jay Bonsignore 40 II. A CONSIDERATION OF TIME AND LABOR EXPENDITURE IN THE CONSTRUCTION PROCESS AT THE TEOTIHUACAN PYRAMID OF THE SUN AND THE POVERTY POINT 14)UND Stephen Aaberg and Jay Bonsignore INTRODUCT ION In considering the subject of prehistoric earthmoving and the construction of monuments associated with it, there are many variables for which some sort of control must be achieved before any feasible demographic features related to the labor involved in such construction can be derived. Many of the variables that must be considered can be given support only through certain fundamental assumptions based upon observations of related extant phenomena. Many of these observations are contained in the ethnographic record of aboriginal cultures of the world whose activities and subsistence patterns are more closely related to the prehistoric cultures of a particular area. In other instances, support can be gathered from observations of current manual labor related to earth moving since the prehistoric constructions were accomplished manually by a human labor force. The material herein will present alternative ways of arriving at the represented phenomena. What is inherently important in considering these data is the element of cultural organization involved in such activities. One need only look at sites such as the Valley of the Kings and the great pyramids of Egypt, Teotihuacan, La Venta and Chichen Itza in Mexico, the Cahokia mound group in Illinois, and other such sites to realize that considerable time, effort and organization were required.
    [Show full text]
  • Burial Mounds & Cairns and the Development of Social Classes In
    THE DEAD AND THE LIVING: Burial Mounds & Cairns and the Development of Social Classes in the Gulf of Georgia Region by BRIAN DAVID THOM B.A., The University of British Columbia, 1992 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Department of Anthropology and Sociology) We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA July 1995 © Brian David Thorn, 1995 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree -i that permission for extensive copying of this thesis ~for scholarly purposes may be "granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. i i Department of i/l/W^r I Sccc^Y The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada Date DE-6 (2/88) 11 Abstract This thesis provides a model for understanding how social classes arose in the Gulf of Georgia area. This model distinguishes how social status in rank and a class societies are manifested and maintained in non-state, kin-based societies, drawing mainly from ethnographic descriptions. The relationship between the living and the dead for making status claims in both rank and class societies makes the archaeological study of mortuary ritual important for investigating these relationships.
    [Show full text]
  • Monks Mound—Center of the Universe? by John Mcclarey
    GUEST ESSAY Monks Mound—Center of the universe? By John McClarey hyperbole or a facsimile? I think the case can be made that Monks Mound and the entire Alayout of this ancient metropolis in the H American Bottom near East St. Louis was a facsimile or model of Cahokia’s place in the cosmos, similar to the Black Hills as a “mirror or heaven” or the heart of all that is.” These are good metaphors to describe Cahokia’s center in the three-layer cake concept of the universe—the Underworld, the Earth, and the Sky. Cahokia by the 12th century B.C.E., was the place for people to connect with the spirits of this sacred sphere. In this article I will identify the sacred elements that made this place special to local and non-local populations and the role of the Birdman chiefs, priests, and shamans to interpret this unique place as a center in a larger world. Additionally, I identify the similarities of Cahokia as a a sacred place to other societies at different times and places. My fascination with Cahokia Mounds developed over a period of time with many visits from the early 1970s to the present. Briefly, Cahokia was the largest America city north of Mexico before the coming of the Europeans in the 15th cen- tury. It is believed that Cahokia was a political, religious, and economic center for perhaps as many as 500,000 Indians in the Mississippi Valley. It was a planned city with everything the world and in all religions, but the focus here is on the laid out on the cardinal points on the compass, Monks Cahokia Mounds in southern Illinois and cross culture Mound, the largest mound at the center, served as the official comparisons, Cahokia’s unique story includes the cruciform residence of the Great Sun god or Birdman deity.
    [Show full text]
  • Archeology of the Funeral Mound, Ocmulgee National Monument, Georgia
    1.2.^5^-3 rK 'rm ' ^ -*m *~ ^-mt\^ -» V-* ^JT T ^T A . ESEARCH SERIES NUMBER THREE Clemson Universii akCHEOLOGY of the FUNERAL MOUND OCMULGEE NATIONAL MONUMENT, GEORGIA TIONAL PARK SERVICE • U. S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 3ERAL JCATK5N r -v-^tfS i> &, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fred A. Seaton, Secretary National Park Service Conrad L. Wirth, Director Ihis publication is one of a series of research studies devoted to specialized topics which have been explored in con- nection with the various areas in the National Park System. It is printed at the Government Printing Office and may be purchased from the Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office, Washington 25, D. C. Price $1 (paper cover) ARCHEOLOGY OF THE FUNERAL MOUND OCMULGEE National Monument, Georgia By Charles H. Fairbanks with introduction by Frank M. Settler ARCHEOLOGICAL RESEARCH SERIES NUMBER THREE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE • U. S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR • WASHINGTON 1956 THE NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM, of which Ocmulgee National Monument is a unit, is dedi- cated to conserving the scenic, scientific, and his- toric heritage of the United States for the benefit and enjoyment of its people. Foreword Ocmulgee National Monument stands as a memorial to a way of life practiced in the Southeast over a span of 10,000 years, beginning with the Paleo-Indian hunters and ending with the modern Creeks of the 19th century. Here modern exhibits in the monument museum will enable you to view the panorama of aboriginal development, and here you can enter the restoration of an actual earth lodge and stand where forgotten ceremonies of a great tribe were held.
    [Show full text]
  • Historic England – Prehistoric Barrows and Burial Mounds
    Prehistoric Barrows and Burial Mounds Introductions to Heritage Assets Summary Historic England’s Introductions to Heritage Assets (IHAs) are accessible, authoritative, illustrated summaries of what we know about specific types of archaeological site, building, landscape or marine asset. Typically they deal with subjects which have previously lacked such a published summary, either because the literature is dauntingly voluminous, or alternatively where little has been written. Most often it is the latter, and many IHAs bring understanding of site or building types which are neglected or little understood. This IHA provides an introduction to prehistoric barrows and burial mounds - mounds of earth and/or stone of various shapes and sizes that are characteristic earthwork monuments of the prehistoric periods from about 5,800 until 3,400 years ago (3800-1400 BC). A small number are later, the practice ending around AD 800. While barrows are often isolated, many occur in groups, sometimes of just two or three, but occasionally of up to thirty or more. Groups of barrows are sometimes found in association with other monuments that are also often assumed to have served a ceremonial or ritual purpose during the Neolithic and Bronze Age. A list of in-depth sources on the topic is suggested for further reading. This document has been prepared by Dave Field and edited by Joe Flatman, Pete Herring and David McOmish. It is one of a series of 41 documents. This edition published by Historic England October 2018. All images © Historic England unless otherwise stated. Please refer to this document as: Historic England 2018 Prehistoric Barrows and Burial Mounds: Introductions to Heritage Assets.
    [Show full text]
  • Community of Tumulus (Organic Mound) Springs of the Swan Coastal Plain Interim Recovery Plan No
    INTERIM RECOVERY PLAN NO. 198 Assemblages of Organic Mound (Tumulus) Springs of the Swan Coastal Plain Recovery Plan Department of Environment and Conservation Species and Communities Branch, Kensington FOREWORD Interim Recovery Plans (IRPs) are developed within the framework laid down in Department of Conservation and Land Management (CALM) Policy Statements Nos 44 and 50. Note: the Department of CALM formally became the Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) in July 2006. DEC will continue to adhere to these Policy Statements until they are revised and reissued. IRPs outline the recovery actions that are required to urgently address those threatening processes most affecting the ongoing survival of threatened taxa or ecological communities, and begin the recovery process. DEC is committed to ensuring that Critically Endangered ecological communities are conserved through the preparation and implementation of Recovery Plans (RPs) or Interim Recovery Plans (IRPs) and by ensuring that conservation action commences as soon as possible and always within one year of endorsement of that rank by the Minister. This Interim Recovery Plan replaces plan number 56, ‘Assemblages of Organic Mound (Tumulus) Springs of the Swan Coastal Plain’, Interim Recovery Plan 2000-2003, by V. English and J. Blyth. This Interim Recovery Plan will operate from January 2006 to December 2010 but will remain in force until withdrawn or replaced. It is intended that, if the ecological community is still ranked Critically Endangered, this IRP will be reviewed after five years. This IRP was given Regional approval on 14 December 2005 and was approved by the Director of Nature Conservation on 15 January 2006.
    [Show full text]
  • Cahokia Mounds – Largest Archaeological Site in North America
    Cahokia Mounds – Largest Archaeological Site in North America Preserving the remains of an ancient Native American city near Collinsville, Illinois, the Cahokia Mounds State Historic Site is across the Mississippi River from St. Louis, Missouri. Covering more than 2,000 acres, Cahokia is the most sophisticated prehistoric Native civilization north of Mexico. Best known for large, man-made earthen structures, the city of Cahokia was inhabited from about A.D. 700 to 1400. Built by ancient peoples known as the Mound Builders, Cahokia’s original population was thought to have been only about 1,000 until about the 11th century when it expanded to tens of thousands. At its peak from 1,100 to 1,200 A.D., the city covered nearly six square miles and boasted a population of as many as 100,000 people. Houses were arranged in rows around open plazas. Agricultural fields and a number of smaller villages surrounded and supplied the city. The Cahokians were known to have traded with other tribes as far away as Minnesota. The original name of the city is unknown and the inhabitants apparently never utilized writing skills. The name Cahokia is that of a unrelated tribe that was living in the area when the first French explorers arrived in the late 17th century. These ancient Indians built more than 120 earthen mounds in the city, 109 of which have been recorded and 68 of which are preserved within the site. Many others are thought to have been altered or destroyed by farming and construction. While some are no more than a gentle rise on the land, others reach 100 feet into the sky.
    [Show full text]
  • Anasazi (Pueblo Builders and Cliff Dwellers) Mound Builders
    CK_3_TH_HG_P146_194.QXD 4/11/05 10:47 AM Page 153 Some of the Inuit of today live very much the way their ancestors did. For food, clothing, weapons, tools, and fuel, they rely on the fish they catch and the caribou, seals, whales, and walruses they hunt. In winter, the Inuit live in houses made of sod, wood, and stone, and in summer, they use tents made of animal skins. Igloos, shelters made of blocks of snow, are used only when the Inuit go on hunts and then only rarely. Kayaks and dog sleds are their means of transportation. Much of the Inuit reli- gion revolves around the sea and animals. The Inuit are noted for their carvings in soapstone, ivory, and bone, which often use characters from their religious lore. Anasazi (Pueblo Builders and Cliff Dwellers) By about 2,000 years ago, the Anasazi had settled in what is known today as the four corners area of the Southwest, that is, where Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, and Utah meet. Originally hunters and gatherers, the Anasazi turned to farming by around 1000 CE. Their crops were primarily maize (corn), beans, and squash. The first houses of the Anasazi were pithouses constructed below ground. By 1100 CE, however, the Anasazi were building cliff dwellings, multistoried stone apartment buildings with many rooms, set into mountainsides. By the late 1200s, for unknown reasons, the Anasazi began to abandon their cliff dwellings. Possible reasons include drought, disease, pressure from invading groups like the Apache, and internal dissension among villagers. Archaeologists have found no proof of any of these.
    [Show full text]
  • Missouri Archaeological Society, Records, 1934-1983, (C0780)
    C Missouri Archaeological Society, Records, 1934-1983 780 10.7 linear feet This collection is available at The State Historical Society of Missouri. If you would like more information, please contact us at [email protected]. INTRODUCTION The records of an organization of amateur and professional archaeologists headquartered in Columbia, Missouri. Includes extensive members’ correspondence, membership lists, executive committee correspondence, annual meeting notes, activities of local chapters, financial records, newspaper clippings, and photographs. This collection documents and illustrates the members’ archaeological interests and the organization’s efforts to protect and preserve the archaeological resources of Missouri. DONOR INFORMATION The records were placed on contract with the University of Missouri by the Missouri Archaeological Society through Carl Chapman on 10 September 1981 (Accession No. 4367). Additions were made on 12 January 1982 (Accession No. 4398); 7 January 1985 and 5 February 1985 (Accession No. 4609); and 3 April 1986 (Accession No. 4708). ORGANIZATIONAL SKETCH In 1930 Bagnell Dam was completed and Missouri’s Lake of the Ozarks was formed. When the waters swept over the area without any sort of archaeological reconnaissance the Indian remains there were lost forever. Shocked by this loss of information, Professors Jesse E. Wrench and J. Brewton Berry of the University of Missouri decided something had to be done. Within a short time they contacted those they knew to be interested in Missouri archaeology and started an archaeological survey of the state, which would utilize amateur archaeologists. These efforts proved so satisfactory that by 1934 the project was funded by the Federal Emergency Relief Administration and involved seventy-five paid workers.
    [Show full text]
  • A Fine "Cup" Stone Display at November Aso Show and The
    A FINE "CUP" STONE DISPLAY AT NOVEMBER ASO SHOW AND THE ENIGMA OF A COMMON OHIO ARTIFACT by Michael Rusnak 4642 Friar Road, Stow, OH 44224 [email protected] Two impressive examples of "cup Cup stones were noted in many early suggests "a possible link to hunting, or with stones" were part of an exhibit assembled writings on American and Ohio archaeolo­ the combined activities of a seasonal hunt­ by ASO members Steve Hill and Earnest gy. Often lists of material found in mounds ing/gathering camp." He also relates similar Cook at the November ASO show in Co­ include one or more cup stones amin ong possible uses, including that they "served lumbus. Figures 1-5 show several views the tally of objects unearthed. For exam­ as the base-socket for the fire-drill, with tin­ of the two sizable examples made of ple, Gerald Folke's 1902 book Archaeo­ der piled around the rotating shaft." sandstone. Both of the stones are larger logical History of Ohio: the Mound Build­ than typical field finds and both contained ers and Later Indians describes the great Curiously, as Folke noted —cup stones multiple "cups" or depressions. One stone numbers of cup stones that were found in are found in many areas of Europe as well, has multiple depressions on both sides. Ohio: along with much speculation on their use. One study of pitted river boulders in North­ A common Ohio artifact, such stones They occur in all parts of the world ern Europe by Andreas Tvauri dates many are referred to by several names, some­ and are surpassed in numbers examples to the Bronze Age, and specu­ times called "cup stones," "pitted stones," among the larger stone objects only lates that some may have been hollows for "nutting stones," or "anvil stones" by field pitted stones and hammers.
    [Show full text]