Ohio History Journal

FISH-HOOKS FOUND AT THE BAUM VILLAGE SITE.

 

A COMPARISON WITH THOSE FOUND AT MADISONVILLE

AND OTHER PARTS OF THE STATE.

 

BY W. C. MILLS.*

 

The Baum Prehistoric Village Site is situated in the western

part of Ross County, Ohio, near the small village of Bournville,

and is located upon one of the gravel terraces in the valley of

Paint Creek. For two years, during the months of July and

August, the Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Society

has been exploring in this village site. Numerous refuse heaps,

refuse pits, and burials have been brought to light. The refuse

pits were holes dug in the ground, varying in depth from three

to seven feet, and in width, from two to four feet. Most of them

were circular and bell shaped, the larger diameter being at the

bottom. The refuse heaps seemed to be placed in shallow places;

the dirt no doubt having been removed for use in building the

mound, which is near by and which the village site surrounds.

These pits and heaps evidently contain all of the refuse from the

camp. Here the specimens of fish-hooks, which I have for your

inspection, were found. Upward of 40 specimens, representing

perfect and broken pieces, and specimens showing the various

stages of manufacture, were found.

I have brought with me twelve fish-hooks, which I think

will show all the forms which we have found. The bones selected

for the manufacture of these hooks were the meta-carpal, meta-

tarsel and rib bone of the deer, and the tibio-tarsus of various

birds.

Card No. 1 represents three perfect specimens made from

the tibio-tarsus of some bird, perhaps that of the wild turkey; as

many of the unfinished specimens show that this bone was very

frequently used. These carefully worked and polished hooks

have straight and rounded shanks. Two of them having grooves

cut in the upper part of the shank; and the other one having the

* Curator Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Society.

(520)

• 1
 

A Comparison of the Fish-Hooks Etc.        521

 

shank enlarged at the upper end. All of these have very sharp

points. The point of No. 3, of card No. 1, owing to the curva-

ture of the bone, is not in the same plane as the shank. All of

these specimens show, at the base, the marrow cavity of the bone.

No. 1 was taken from a refuse heap, Nos. 2 and 3 from the refuse

pits.

On card No. 2 three specimens are shown. These are made

of the rib bone of some animal, presumably the deer. No. 1 has

a long shank, in proportion to the size of the hook. The upper

part of the shank has a crease cut entirely around, for attachment.

The specimen shows the cellular portion of the bone. No. 2 is

the smallest hook that we have so far found. No. 3 is quite a

large hook, and well wrought; but is somewhat rough from the

decay of the bone. This hook was found in a refuse heap, while

Nos. 1 and 2 were found in the refuse pits.

Card No. 3 contains three hooks. Nos. 1 and 2 represent

masterpieces in the art of fish-hook making. No. 1 presents

a perfectly fresh appearance, and is of fine workmanship, and

well polished. The shank is flat, with rounded edges, and with

a well cut groove in its upper end, and has a very sharp point.

No. 2 is another well wrought specimen. The bone seems per-

fectly fresh, and in general workmanship, perhaps excels any

that we have so far found. It has a round shank, with a well cut

groove in the upper end. The point of the hook is sharp and

nicely polished. No. 3 is quite a large hook, with a slim, round

shank, and enlarged at the upper end. The point of this hook

is not in the same plane with the shank, owing to the curvature of

the bone.

Card No. 4 contains three hooks finely made. No. 1 has a

round shank with an enlarged end, and finely polished point.

No. 2 is similar to No. 1, but has a stronger shank. No. 3 has

a very slender shank, with an enlarged top. All three of these

hooks were found in the refuse pits.

In almost every respect we find that the fish hooks found

at the Baum Prehistoric Village Site resemble those found at

Madisonville, and others found in various parts of the State of

Ohio. In the refuse pits we were also fortunate in finding the

fish-hook in its various stages of manufacture. And it seems,

• 2
 

522       Ohio Arch. and His. Society Publications.

>

• 3
 

A Comparison of the Fish-Hooks Etc.        523

 

from these pieces showing the various stages of manufacture,

that the maker had in mind a well defined plan, and proceeded to

work it out in bone to the best advantage.

On card No. 5 two specimens are shown which illustrate the

manner in which the bone was worked. No. 1 shows the shank

almost completed, and the point of the hook not yet finished.

In No. 2 the base of the hook has been worked out, and the cut-

ting away of the bone, forming the shank and hook, has com-

menced.

In card No. 6 two specimens are shown which are cut from

the tibio-tarsus of the bird. These were evidently intended to

be made into fish-hooks, by cutting out the inside of the bone, as

shown in card No. 7. Here, as shown in No. 1, is a piece almost

finished, ready to be cut into hooks. This could be done by cut-

ting one side nearer to one end, and also, at the same time,

cutting the other side in a manner corresponding to the first cut.

Thus two hooks could be produced instead of one. No. 2 shows

that the maker had in view the same purpose as in No. 1, and that

No. 2 had not proceeded as far as No. 1, the end had not yet

been cut off.

At Madisonville, Prof. Putnam found that the aboriginal

fish-hook makers had proceeded to make his hooks in a very much

different manner. He first bored a hole through the bone, and

the hook was wrought from this hole. Prof. Putnam has fully

described the stages of fish-hook manufacture at Madisonville,

in an article on "The Way Fish-hooks were Made in the Little

Miami Valley," which appears in the Twentieth Annual Report

of the Trustees of the Peabody Museum. In no instance have I

been able to find at the Baum Village Site, any bone that has been

perforated by drilling, to be used in the manufacture of fish-hooks.

In the article referred to, by Prof. Putnam, he also describes two

perfect fish-hooks, and one in the process of manufacture, which

were taken from an ancient burial place along the Little Miami

River, by Dr. Metz, which differs from those found in the ash

pits at Madisonville. He says: "At this burial place there is an

extensive refuse pile, and while many skeletons have been found

during our recent explorations, we have not discovered a single

• 4
 

524       Ohio Arch. and His. Society Publications.

 

ash pit, so that as far as burial customs are determined, it is likely

that distinct tribes lived at the two places, probably at different

times."

From Prof. Putnam's description, the fish-hooks found by Dr.

Metz were manufactured similar to those found at the Baum

Prehistoric Village Site; while at this village were found the refuse

pits, and refuse piles in close proximity to each other. The im-

plements, ornaments, pottery, and various bones of animals found

therein were similar in every respect. So that I am inclined to

think that the people that made the refuse pits and refuse piles

are one and the same people, and that the pits and piles were made

during the occupancy of the village by these people.

I also call your attention to card No. 8. These specimens

show where the fish-hooks usually break. Out of the forty spec-

imens found, about two-fifths of them were broken in the man-

ner as shown in card No. 8; and only one, as shown in the center

of card No. 8, shows that the shank was broken. There is no

doubt but that fish furnished a part at least, of the food of the

people living in this village, for in these refuse pits quantities of

the bones of various kinds of fishes were found.

 

[The above article was read by Mr. Mills before Section "H"

American Association for the Advancement of Sciences at its

meeting held in Baltimore, Md., December 28, 1900.]

• 5