OHIO HISTORY CONFERENCE:
PROCEEDINGS 119
A TENTATIVE POLICY FOR OHIO'S STATE
MEMORIALS
By ERWIN C. ZEPP
Because of the recent origin and
unprecedented growth of the move-
ment, it is difficult if not impossible
to devise a definite policy for the
preservation, development and
maintenance of human history sites, as con-
trasted to natural history areas. It
thus becomes evident that whatever sug-
gestions may be offered here are
necessarily tentative in their nature.
The Ohio State Archaeological and
Historical Society has been in-
terested in the preservation of
important archaeological and historical areas
since its organization a half century
ago. It is beyond question the sponsor
in Ohio of such preservation, beginning
with the noted Serpent Mound as
its first acquisition and gradually
increasing its sponsorship of such prop-
erties through the years. It is,
however, only within the past decade or
even less that the movement has assumed
such impelling proportions.
This inordinate development of what for
so long had been an orderly
growth came, strangely enough, with the
period of industrial depression.
Having more leisure time, the public
became conscious of the need of larger
facilities for entertainment and,
perhaps, instruction. At the same time,
the Federal Government, the several
commonwealths and the lesser political
areas became conscious of the need for
caring for the unemployed. Acquisi-
tion and development of public areas of
every kind offered a logical oppor-
tunity for relief labor. The activity
which followed, together with far
too frequent uncertainties and
disagreements can only be appreciated by
those who were directly concerned with
project sponsorships. The State
government was beseiged from every quarter for such projects. The
several counties quickly came to feel
that if another county possessed a
state park, they also should have a
state park. This Society, as the natural
sponsor of such activities soon found
itself engulfed in the mad whirl to
take advantage of federal relief funds,
frequently without proper con-
sideration as to whether or not an area
merited park status.
Now that this memorable era lies for the
most part in the past, it is
possible for the first time to gain a
clearer perspective and to realize the
outcome. Officials of the Society were
not long in recognizing the need
for controls: but such recognition, and
the applying of remedies, were two
different things. At its scheduled
meeting in July, 1934, the Society's Board
of Trustees, on the suggestion of the
director, went on record as favoring
certain corrective measures. It was
agreed that since state parks, so-called,
included a minimum acreage greater than
comprised in the archaeological
and historical sites in the Society's
custody; and that, furthermore, since
state parks exist mainly for
recreational purposes and preservation of
naturalistic and scenic areas; that, therefore,
these human history sites
cannot properly be considered as state
parks. This agreement took the