Ohio History Journal

P. NICK KARDULIAS

 

A History of Public

Archaeology in Ohio

 

Introduction

 

The Ohio Historical Society (OHS) marked its 100th anniversary in

1985. During the century of its existence, this organization has served

as the steward of public archaeology in the state. Therefore, now is an

appropriate time to review the development of archaeological concerns

in Ohio by outlining the major accomplishments and deficiencies of the

OHS and other institutions in carrying out their role as caretakers of

Ohio's cultural inheritance. In this context, public archaeology in-

cludes a range of scholarly and amateur endeavors; but to maintain a

focus, the work of key organizations is stressed, making this largely a

history of the formal structure of Ohio archaeology. As a result, the

emphasis herein is on the evolution of an institutional framework for

addressing the problems posed in dealing with Ohio's past. A variety of

forces have influenced this process and channeled the scholarly energy

of successive generations of archaeologists along paths which have

culminated in the present state of affairs. The various threads of this

development are traced out below.

A theme that has consistently characterized Ohio archaeology (and

indeed the pursuit of prehistoric studies in the United States in general)

from its inception has been that of preserving the legacy of the past.

Even those early dilettantes with a greater interest in Indian artifacts as

objects of intrinsic value than as items from which to infer elements of

social behavior in a scientific manner possessed a sense of the

importance of historical connections. Perhaps this was due to the

influence of the Enlightenment and its concept of progress, which later

resulted in the Developmentalist school in the field of social studies.1

 

 

 

 

P. Nick Kardulias is an Adjunct Faculty member of the Department of Sociology and

Anthropology at Youngstown State University.

 

 

1. Fred W. Voget, A History of Ethnology (New York, 1975), 41-44.

• 1
 

102                                            OHIO HISTORY

 

Whatever the specific causes may have been, the result was an

appreciation of history, as most broadly defined, by anyone who

entertained even the most modest intellectual inclinations. Research-

ers, confronted with the lack of literacy among the early native peoples

of North America, found one solution to bridging the gap between the

aboriginal past and present was to examine material remains. The

collection of relics was an expression of this interest. For the more

serious-minded avocationist such activities were incomplete if not

supplemented by the maintenance of at least some of the locations

where these artifacts were found. Only then could a relatively complete

picture of prehistoric lifestyles ever be attained, as visits to these

preserved sites by successive generations of scholars added to inter-

pretation. In addition, remarkable sites, such as the various mounds

and earthworks of Ohio, served well as national monuments, adding

depth and texture to the American past.

There were, of course, those who held contrary views. Many

farmers viewed such features of the landscape as agricultural impedi-

ments and made concerted efforts to level them; in other cases the

leveling was not intentional, but nonetheless devastating. However,

among the historically curious, including gentlemen farmers, there

seems to have been interest in exploring, if not actually preserving, the

material remains of prehistoric native populations for purposes of

enhancing historical explanation. This interest did not necessarily

coincide with racial tolerance since some Euro-Americans believed the

contemporary native inhabitants of Ohio were incapable of producing

the elaborate mounds and earthworks. Despite such opinions, a

significant number of whites desired the continued existence of these

manifestations of the region's past inhabitants.

The abundant and highly visible nature of much of the archaeological

record in Ohio provided the focus for a great deal of the early

archaeological activity in the state. Ohio became a hotbed of archae-

ological activity in the nineteenth century and led the nation in early

attempts to regulate and systematize prehistoric research. The histor-

ical development of public archaeology or a preservation system in

Ohio seems to have followed a fairly distinct course. For the purposes

of this study, that development is divided into five stages: (1) early

efforts, 1788-1875; (2) institutional development, 1875-1930; (3) period

of retrenchment, 1930-1945; (4) period of salvage archaeology, 1945-

1966; (5) cultural resource management, 1966-1981. The period after

1981 can be described as one of national retrenchment resulting from

budgetary constraints imposed by the Reagan administration.

Because of the unclear long-term impact of the present national

administration on the conduct of archaeological affairs, this paper

• 2
 

Public Archaeology in Ohio                                103

 

covers only the years up to 1981. Obviously, there is a substantial

arbitrary element involved in the demarcation of the periods to be

discussed. In some cases the beginning or end dates reflect the advent

of a significant institution or the implementation of critical legislation,

while in other instances the date was selected as a matter of conve-

nience to call attention to more gradual, and perhaps more ambiguous,

developments. The division is essentially an heuristic one, acting as a

framework by which to comprehend the evolution of preservation

activities in Ohio.

Another point requiring emphasis is the degree to which this outline

reflects developments outside this state. Ohio does not exist in an

archaeological vacuum, despite the often insular nature of the research

conducted here. Although not now on the cutting edge of developments

in the discipline, Ohio has felt their impact. This has been especially

true of national legislation that has affected preservation activities for

the past thirty years. These federal statutes have had a significant

influence on the form of Ohio's (and other states') present preservation

system. The various forces and events that culminated in this system

are described below.

 

Early Efforts, 1788-1875

 

Pinpointing a particular date for the start of an activity which does

not adopt an institutional format for some time is a difficult task. White

explorers and settlers certainly noted the presence of such obtrusive

reminders of the aboriginal past as mounds from their earliest incur-

sions into the Ohio country in the eighteenth century. The settlement of

Marietta provided the first opportunity for the preservation of an

important prehistoric site. In 1788, a resolution by the managers of the

Ohio Land Company set aside as protected public land most of the

Marietta Works and directed that native shade trees be planted to

"embellish" the grounds. In the 1830s, the citizens of Marietta raised

money and restored the mounds that had been damaged by erosion and

cattle paths.² Three of the mounds still exist today. One of the first

attempts to clarify the identity of the people who had constructed such

earthworks was that of Dr. J. H. McCulloh, an antiquarian who saw

military service in Ohio in the early 1800s. After careful examination of

the available data, he denied the existence of a Mound Builder culture

 

 

 

 

2. Squier and Davis, Ancient Monuments of the Mississippi Valley (Washington,

D.C., 1848), 75, footnote.

• 3
 

104                                                       OHIO HISTORY

 

distinct from the ancestors of Ohio's native Indian population.³ This

perspective contradicted the commonly held belief that neither the

native populations of Ohio nor their ancestors were capable of con-

structing the elaborate earthworks found in the state. Caleb Atwater,

the Circleville Postmaster who is often referred to as Ohio's first

historian, produced the first extensive report on Ohio antiquities in

1820; he incorporated the regional observations of men like Dr. Samuel

P. Hildreth of Marietta who noted the presence of earthworks in

various locales.⁴ In 1836, Albert Gallatin, Secretary of the Treasury,

President of the American Ethnological Society and an accomplished

linguist, published a survey of prehistoric mounds and asserted that

there was reason to believe the Mound Builders were ancestors of

contemporary Indians.⁵

Such sober observations unfortunately did not capture the public

imagination as much as the notion of ascribing construction of the

mounds to a mysterious vanished race. Josiah Priest, a popular writer

of the period, published a fanciful account of this mythical group and

quickly sold 22,000 copies.⁶ The identity of the Mound Builders

remained a controversial issue throughout the nineteenth century and

helped galvanize research that stimulated interest in preserving the

mounds. Flights of fancy, however, continued to serve as explanations

for the mounds' existence. For example, the Rev. Stephen Peet

interpreted the area around Serpent Mound as being the Garden of

Eden, and the effigy itself as a representation of the snake of

temptation left behind by God; during the great flood, Noah's ark was

presumably transported from Adams County to Mt. Ararat.⁷

 

3. McCulloh published two books concerning American antiquities, Researches in

America (1817) and Researches Philosophical and Antiquarian Concerning the Aborig-

inal History of America (Baltimore, 1829). For a general treatment of this period see

David S. Brose, "The Northeastern United States," in The Development of North

American Archaeology, James E. Fitting, ed. (Garden City, New York, 1973), 84-87.

4. James L. Murphy, An Archaeological History of the Hocking Valley (Athens,

Ohio, 1975), 47-48.

5. Gordon R. Willey and Jeremy A. Sabloff, A History of American Archaeology

(San Francisco, 1974), 33.

6. American Antiquities and Discoveries in the West (1833). See also Willey and

Sabloff, 34. The tenor of Priest's work can be gauged from another book, Origin and

Character of the Negro Race (Albany, 1843), an anti-Abolitionist tract in which he

explained why blacks were suited to slavery. Priest's writing is an example of

pseudo-archaeological hucksterism in which fantastic explanations replace those ground-

ed in fact. A recent practitioner of this approach is Erich von Daniken who claims

extra-terrestrials were responsible for great human accomplishments in the past,

including the construction of pyramids and advances in technology. Von Daniken's

books (Chariots of the Gods?) are full of misstatements and factual errors.

7. James Rodabaugh, "The Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Society in a

Changing World," Ohio Archaeological and Historical Quarterly, 54 (July-September,

• 4
 

Public Archaeology in Ohio                                105

 

National attention was focused on Ohio's antiquities by the work of

Ephraim George Squier, a newspaper editor in Chillicothe, and Dr.

Edwin H. Davis, a physician and native of Ross County, whose

documentation of over 200 mounds in two years was published in 1848

as the monograph Ancient Monuments of the Mississippi Valley, the

first in the Smithsonian Institution's Contribution to Knowledge series.

The third book in this series was Charles Whittlesey's Descriptions of

Ancient Works in Ohio, which appeared in 1852 and enumerated

earthworks and villages in the northern part of the state.⁸ These studies

established that Ohio was a leader in acknowledging the significance of

her archaeological resources. This interest, however, was not as

intensive as these major studies might lead one to believe. Between

1820 and 1870 there were rarely more than three publications per year

in Ohio dealing with archaeology. There was a brief flurry of activity in

the 1840s, but the pace declined in the ten years prior to the Civil War.⁹

Although not consistent, public interest in archaeology had been

sparked and would gather momentum later in the century when

sectional politics receded as the central topic of debate.

Throughout most of the nineteenth century, several attempts were

made to establish formal historical/archaeological organizations in

Ohio. In 1822, the Ohio General Assembly created the Historical

Society of Ohio, but the organization disbanded within a few years.

Then in 1831 the Historical and Philosophical Society of Ohio was

established. After a brief stay in Columbus, the headquarters of this

organization was moved to Cincinnati where it became the major

repository of historical materials for southwestern Ohio. Over the next

forty-four years a number of local societies were founded, some with

the hope of eventually becoming a statewide organization.¹⁰ Most

prominent of these groups was the Western Reserve Historical Society

whose membership included Charles Whittlesey and M. C. Read, both

ardent students of prehistory. By the 1870s, a dedicated core of people

throughout the state provided the cohesiveness which was a vital

prerequisite to a successful large-scale organization.

The abortive attempts to establish a formal statewide organization

during this period demonstrate a laudatory concern for history and

archaeology but an insufficient persistence to see the matter through to

a successful conclusion. In fairness, however, these failures probably

 

 

1945), 225. Journal hereinafter abbreviated OAHQ.

8. Brose, 85.

9. Murphy, 50. Individual field investigations may have continued unabated during

this period, but no significant publications resulted from this work.

10. Rodabaugh, 224.

• 5
 

106                                               OHIO HISTORY

 

reflect more a lack of adequate communication and transportation

facilities than they do insufficient determination. In addition, some of

the publications laid the groundwork for a future high level of schol-

arship and led to active fieldwork. Such work helped to generate an

appreciation of the Indian sites as monuments worthy of investigation

and, in some cases, preservation. The wanton destruction of sites by

those with purely acquisitive motives contrasted with the pristine

intentions of some scholars. Despite the fitful starts and obvious

failures, this period witnessed the creation of an awareness of the

potential significance of archaeological investigation as a tool in

cultural reconstruction.

 

Institutional Development, 1875-1930

 

The approach of the national centennial celebration rekindled inter-

est in forming a statewide archaeological organization. A call for a

convention was issued August 5, 1875, by General Roeliff Brinkerhoff

who referred to the need for such an organization through which

interested individuals could combine their efforts in solving the prob-

lem of aboriginal origins. Brinkerhoff contrasted the situation in Ohio

with some other states in which existing associations provided repos-

itories for artifact collections. A convention met in early September,

1875 in Mansfield and formed the State Archaeological Association of

Ohio (SAAO) to "... promote investigation of the mounds and

earthworks of the State, to collect facts, descriptions, relics, and other

evidences of archaeology."¹¹ In a clarion call to action, Brinkerhoff,

who was to hold a prominent position in archaeological circles in Ohio

into the early twentieth century, characterized archaeology as an

important "... chapter in the gospel of nature ..." whose interpreta-

tion was virtually a sacred duty.¹² This organization's major accom-

plishment was the display of an archaeological and historical exhibit at

the Philadelphia Centennial Exposition in 1876. Funded by $2,500

provided by the Ohio General Assembly, Charles Whittlesey and M. C.

Read consolidated various private collections into a well-received

exhibit.13 After this successful debut, however, the SAAO lapsed into

inactivity by the early 1880s, and the archaeology movement in Ohio

was again on the verge of dying out.

 

11. State Archaeological Association of Ohio, Minutes of the Ohio State Archaeo-

logical Convention (Columbus, 1875), 32.

12. Ibid., 11.

13. Ohio Historical Society, The Ohio Historical Society 1885-1960 (Columbus,

1960), 2. Hereinafter referred to as 1885-1960.

• 6
 

Public Archaeology in Ohio                                   107

 

In early 1885, Governor George Hoadly was instrumental in reviving

plans for a functioning formal group. At Hoadly's instigation, interest-

ed local Columbus residents held a meeting in February, 1885, that led

directly to a circular requesting a general gathering on March 12. On

that day, a number of people from around the state met at the State

Library and formed the Ohio State Archaeological and Historical

Society (OSAHS), with twenty-eight men signing the articles of

incorporation the next day.¹⁴ Encompassing a broader range of activ-

ities than the SAAO, the Society described its goals:

 

... promoting a knowledge of Archaeology and History, by establishing and

maintaining a library of books, manuscripts, maps, charts, etc. .. a museum of

pre-historic relics and natural or other curiosities or specimens of art or nature

... and by courses of lectures and publication of books, papers, and

documents ... .15

 

The legitimate domain of the Society thus encompassed investigative,

curatorial, and educational functions.

Members of the newly formed Society were keenly aware of the

archaeological investigations in Ohio conducted by organizations from

other states, which had resulted in the best collections of Ohio artifacts

being located outside the state. In the OSAHS's twelfth annual report

(1897), President Brinkerhoff lamented that the Squier and Davis

collection had been purchased in 1864 by an Englishman, William

Blackmore, for a pittance and was housed in a special museum in

Salisbury, England. Moreover, in the United States the Smithsonian

and state associations held collections that rivaled anything in Ohio.16

Prior to the formation of the OSAHS, the situation had been more

acute, as organizations from other states conducted active fieldwork at

key sites and carted off all the finds. The Peabody Museum from

Massachusetts under F. W. Putnam was one such organization.¹⁷ The

simple truth was that Ohio lacked adequate means to curate large

collections, and thus Putnam and others had little choice but to take

their finds elsewhere. Nonetheless, archaeological investigations by

outsiders became a sore point with resident Ohio antiquarians, and the

OSAHS provision for a state museum was partly in response to these

 

 

14. Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Society, Charter and By-Laws

(Columbus, 1885), 14.

15. Ibid., 3.

16. Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Society, Twelfth Annual Report of the

Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Society, 1896 (Columbus, 1897), 10.

17. Alfred M. Tozzer, "Biographical Memoir of Frederic Ward Putnam 1839-1915,"

National Academy of Sciences Biographical Memoirs, XVI (1933), 128.

• 7
 

108                                           OHIO HISTORY

circumstances. One of the fledgling organization's first acts was to establish an exhibit area in University Hall on the Ohio State Univer- sity campus. The exhibit opened in October 1885 and featured 5,000 archaeological specimens donated by Dr. Frank Hart of West Unity.18 The OSAHS got off to an auspicious start as it enrolled 239 members within the first year. The interest in prehistory that attracted many of these people remained the main focus of the Society for its fifty years of existence.19 The Society's first Curator of Archaeology, W. K. Moorehead, engaged in rather extensive fieldwork during his brief stay (from February 1895 to August 1897).20 Moorehead initiated work on an archaeological map of Ohio that would locate sites with precision,21       18. OHS, 1885-1960, 60. 19. Ohio Historical Society, The Ohio Historical Society Collections (Columbus, 1960), 3. Hereinafter referred to as Collections. 20. Richard G. Morgan, "Warren King Moorehead," Ohio Archaeological and Historical Quarterly, 48 (1939), 83. 21. Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Society, Tenth Annual Report of the

• 8
 

Public Archaeology in Ohio                                         109

 

conducted broad, extensive surveys in southern Ohio, and examined

many mounds, thirty-two in 1896 alone.²² What had begun as a meager

artifact collection grew steadily during his tenure, largely by means of

excavation but also through the exchange and purchase of materials

from other states.²³ Moorehead's successor in this position, William C.

Mills, served the Society from 1898 to 1928, the last seven years as the

first Director of the Ohio State Museum.²⁴ Henry C. Shetrone, who

joined the Museum staff in 1913, became Curator of Archaeology in

1921 and Director in 1928 following Mills' death. Through the efforts of

Moorehead and Mills, an enormous amount of fieldwork was under-

taken, including the excavation of such important sites as Baum,

Gartner, Overly Mound, Adena Mound, Edwin Harness Mound, Seip

Mound, Campbell Island, Hine Mound, Wright Mounds, Ginther

Mound, Miesse Mound, Tremper Mound, Fuert, Mound City group,

and the Hopewell group.²⁵ In addition, the staff conducted surveys that

led to the publication in 1914 of the Archaeological Atlas of Ohio which

contained the locations of 5,396 sites.²⁶

The Museum's collections grew       rapidly. From   an initial 5,000

objects, the count reached 50,000 by 1905 and 150,000 by 1911.27

Donations, which augmented this total, included such exotic items as

a group of Inca textiles which S. H. Canmacher poached from a

Peruvian burial and presented to the Society in 1911.28 Space for

storage and proper display of all this material was a constant problem

in the early years. The exhibits were moved from University Hall to the

State Capitol in 1889, but when the space allotted proved to be

inadequate,²⁹ the collections were transferred back to the Ohio State

 

 

 

Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Society, 1894 (Columbus, 1895), 110.

22. OSAHS (1897), 28.

23. Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Society, Eleventh Annual Report of the

Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Society, 1895 (Columbus, 1896), 13.

24. W. C. Galbreath, "William Corless Mills," Ohio Archaeological and Historical

Quarterly, 37 (1928), 210, 214.

25. Brose, 90.

26. Frank M. Setzler, "Henry Clyde Shetrone 1876-1954," American Antiquity, 21

(1956), 297. The value of Mills' 1914 Archaeological Atlas of Ohio in helping to locate

sites has been questioned recently by Paul J. Pacheco, "The Research Value of Mill's

Archaeological Atlas of Ohio," Occasional Papers, Department of Anthropology, The

Ohio State University, 4 (1989), who points out that the work emphasizes large

earthworks, burials, etc., and that even these sites are often misplaced on the county

maps.

27. Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Society, "Report of the Forty-ninth

Annual Meeting," OAHQ, 44 (1935), 383.

28. Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Society, "Twenty-sixth Annual Meet-

ing of the OSAHS, 1911 ," OAHQ, XX (1911), 345.

29. OHS, 1885-1960, 13.

• 9
 

110                                                   OHIO HISTORY

 

campus, first to Orton Hall in 1894 and then to Page Hall in 1902.30 To

address both the crowded conditions and the Society's expanding

exploratory role the General Assembly appropriated $100,000 in 1911

for the construction of a museum near Page Hall. The cornerstone of

the new museum, with a time capsule enclosed, was laid in September

1912.³1 The Ohio State Museum, as it was officially titled, was

completed in 1913 and dedicated in the following year. New wings were

added from time to time to house the burgeoning collections of

archaeological, natural history, and historical materials. The north

wing was added in 1926, the south wing in 1929, and the west wing and

central unit in 1950.32 This building was the headquarters of the

OSAHS/OHS until 1970 when a new facility was constructed north of

the Ohio State Fairgrounds.³³

The Society's physical expansion was complemented by a growth in

stature during this period. The OSAHS organized the highly successful

displays on Ohio prehistory that appeared at the Columbian Exposition

in Chicago in 1893,³⁴ the Pan American Exposition in Buffalo in 1901,

the Louisiana Purchase Exposition in St. Louis in 1904,³⁵ and the

Jamestown Tricentennial in Norfolk, Virginia, in 1907.36 The Ohio

exhibits invariably received high praise and won grand prizes in several

instances. Because of the professional caliber of its fieldwork, publi-

cations, and efforts at enhancing public awareness through instruction-

al programs (e.g., lectures, exhibits) and preservation of sites, by the

1920s the Ohio State Museum was recognized as the outstanding

archeological institution in the Midwest, and one of the best in the

country.³⁷

Another major development of this phase was the start of the

aforementioned site preservation program by means of property acqui-

sition. Site preservation had been a prime motivation in forming the

 

 

30. Galbreath, 212.

31. Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Society, "Twenty-seventh Annual

Meeting of the OSAHS, 1912," OAHQ, XXI (1912), 476.

32. OHS, 1885-1960, 13.

33. Ohio Historical Society, "Great Moments of the Ohio Historical Society,"

Echoes, 9 (1970), 2.

34. Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Society, Ninth Annual Report of the

Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Society, 1893 (Columbus, 1894), 24-39.

35. Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Society, "Twentieth Annual Report of

the Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Society, 1905," OAHQ, XIV (1905),

339-40.

36. William C. Mills, Ohio Archaeological Exhibition at the Jamestown Exposition

(1907) (Columbus, 1907).

37. Lana Ruegamer, A History of the Indiana Historical Society (Indianapolis,

1980), 262, and James B. Griffin, "A Commentary on Some Archaeological Activities in

the Mid-Continent 1925-1975," Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology, 1 (1976), 5.

• 10
 

Public Archaeology in Ohio                             111

organization and was repeatedly stressed by various members, includ- ing Brinkerhoff, whose efforts carried the oratorical flourishes of a crusade.38 G. F. Wright urged citizens throughout Ohio to participate in efforts to spare prehistoric monuments such as Serpent Mound and Fort Ancient "... from    further injury by cattle, hogs, and the plough."39 Lamenting the destruction of earthworks at Marietta and Circleville, Wright repeated F. W. Putnam's assertion that such sites are as important to American history as are the pyramids to the cultural legacy of Egypt. He urged the Society to concentrate on getting laws passed, whether on the state, county, or municipal level, to protect such antiquities.40 On the national scene at this time, John W. Powell of the Bureau of American Ethnology (BAE) espoused similar views     38. Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Society, "Organization and Proceed- ings for the Year 1885," OAHQ, 1 (1888), 89-90. 39. G. F. Wright, "Importance of the Study of Archaeology in Ohio," OAHQ, 1 (1888), 57. 40. Ibid., 58.

• 11
 

112                                                OHIO HISTORY

 

concerning antiquities in other parts of the country.⁴¹ The Society did

on occasion find state officials well disposed toward such aims, as

reflected in Governor Herrick's statement to the annual meeting in

1905 that he supported the policy of land acquisition with public

assistance.⁴²

Although the Society received its first state appropriation in 1888,

the initial property acquisition occurred in 1891 when the Sixty-Ninth

General Assembly allotted $7,200 to purchase Fort Ancient and

assigned its care to the OSAHS. By an oversight, the northern and

southern extremities of the earthworks were omitted from the purchase

agreement.⁴³ This situation was rectified in 1896 at an additional cost of

$5,200 to the public treasury.⁴⁴ The Society immediately implemented

its plans to restore embankments to their original condition and prepare

a driveway around the interior circuit to facilitate access for visitors.⁴⁵

By accepting funds and the responsibility for the care of Fort Ancient,

the OSAHS became a quasi-state agency; the connection became

stronger when the legislature authorized the governor to appoint six

members of the board of trustees.⁴⁶

The second major property acquisition by the Society, Serpent

Mound, occurred in 1900 and is instructive of the OSAHS's public-

spiritedness. This unique site was the subject of much interest and

speculation as to its original function. In the 1880s, F. W. Putnam had

been so dismayed by the deteriorating condition of the effigy that he

wrote a letter to the Boston Herald in which he argued for the need to

preserve the monument. Alice Fletcher, dedicated to Indian causes,

took up the challenge and discussed the matter with a group of Boston

ladies, who in turn became interested and corresponded with Putnam

as to how they could help preserve the site. Three of these women

enlisted the aid of Francis Parkman, the prominent historian, in issuing

a circular detailing the significance of the site and the need to protect

it by buying the land on which it was located and placing it under the

care of the Peabody Museum. This public solicitation brought in

sufficient funds for Putnam to negotiate the purchase of sixty acres.

 

 

41. John W. Powell, Fourth Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology,

1882-1883 (Washington, D.C., 1886), xxix.

42. OSAHS (1905), 352.

43. Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Society, Report of the OSAHS, 1891

(Columbus, 1892), 4.

44. OSAHS (1897), 19.

45. Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Society, Eighth Annual Report of the

Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Society, 1892 (Columbus, 1893), 6.

46. Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Society, "Twenty-first Annual Meet-

ing of the OSAHS, 1906," OAHQ, 15 (1906).

• 12
 

Public Archaeology in Ohio                                 113

 

With the property given as a trust to the Peabody Museum, Putnam

proposed making the grounds into a park with free entrance to all.

Damaged areas of the mound were to be restored, using the plan of

Squier and Davis that had been drawn in the 1840s when the effigy was

in a better state of preservation. In his report on this activity, Putnam

urged Ohioans to pursue similar courses of action with other state sites

such as Fort Hill, Fort Ancient (which was done several years later),

and the mounds of the Scioto Valley. He also strongly encouraged the

involvement of the legislature in these efforts.⁴⁷ In the true spirit of

scientific brotherhood and scholarly altruism, Putnam and the Peabody

Museum transferred title to the mound and adjacent land to the

OSAHS in 1900. In addition to the purchase price, the Peabody had

also spent some $2,000 more in excavating, restoring, and maintaining

the site. The Peabody's only condition was that the Society continue

the upkeep.⁴⁸

The program of property acquisition initiated in the 1890s did not

receive any further additions until the 1920s (see Table 1). Several

factors may account for this lapse in interest. First, the Society

received state funds during this period, but the money was expended

on a variety of projects, including the considerable expense involved in

establishing the Ohio exhibitions at the various expositions mentioned

above (three of them between 1901 and 1907). The construction of the

Ohio State Museum was a massive undertaking for its time, and the

Society may have pooled many of its monetary requests and donations

in order to have this necessary project come to fruition. The effort and

cost of major publications may also have taken precedence over

property acquisitions.

A second major factor was the impact of World War I which diverted

attention to other matters; the economic slowdown immediately after

the war may have added to this neglect. The boom years of the 1920s,

however, witnessed a revival of property acquisition as the Society

benefited from the generosity of private individuals and the state

government. Shrum Mound was donated in 1928 by Jessie Campbell

Coons as a memorial to the aboriginal inhabitants of the state and her

father, former Governor James E. Campbell.⁴⁹ In 1920, Charles

Kettering purchased a 200-acre farm on which was located the

 

 

47. Frederic W. Putnam, "The Serpent Mound Saved," Ohio Archaeological and

Historical Publication, 1 (1887), 187-90.

48. OSAHS. Fifteenth Annual Report of the Ohio State Archaeological and

Historical Society, 1899 (Columbus, 1900), 23-24.

49. Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Society, Ohio Cherishes Her Rich

Historic Tradition (Columbus, 1940), 17.

• 13
 

114                                             OHIO HISTORY

 

Miamisburg Mound; Kettering later donated the mound to the Society.⁵⁰

In 1923, the 57-acre area of Mound City, as it was now known, was

designated a National Monument by Presidential proclamation, with

the OSAHS to act as caretaker.⁵¹ Somewhat ironically, eight properties

were obtained during the Depression years of the 1930s, more than

doubling the Society's holdings. One can speculate whether the

increase in the 1930s reflects the difficult economic times, during which

owners sold land as a means of obtaining some income.

By 1930, the OSAHS could look back on forty-five years of almost

unbroken progress in accomplishing its stated goals. Fieldwork con-

ducted by Mills and Shetrone, successive Curators of Archaeology,

had helped to clarify some of the problems in Ohio prehistory and

provided a large bank of excavated materials from which to elicit

further explanations. The Museum was an excellent repository, pro-

viding facilities for research and making known the results of these

studies in its publications. At a time when many other states were just

beginning systematic surveys under the auspices of the National

Research Council Division of Anthropology and Psychology, Ohio had

already undertaken such surveys and reported on them in the Archae-

ological Atlas in 1914. When Indiana tried to undertake a similar

program in 1923, Mills was invited to speak in an effort to arouse public

interest. This invitation was a tribute to Mills' organizational and

academic talents and was an acknowledgement by fellow prehistorians

of his contributions to establishing Ohio archaeology on a sound

foundation.⁵² Ohio's success in acquiring key sites for purposes of

preservation and public visitation, coupled with the highly visible and

popular educational efforts, reflected favorably on the Society. In

many ways, then, Ohio was in the archaeological vanguard in the early

decades of this century, largely due to the commitment of the OSAHS

to a program which stressed prehistory as the centerpiece of its efforts.

 

Period of Retrenchment, 1930-1945

 

Beginning in the 1930s, the OSAHS and organized archaeology in

Ohio in general lost this leading position. In part, the curtailment of

fieldwork was due to economic conditions, but there also seems to

have been a deliberate attempt to settle into a curatorial stance. The

 

 

50. Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Society, Report of the Forty-ninth

Annual Meeting, OAHQ, 44 (1935), 386.

51. OSAHS, Ohio Cherishes Her Rich Historic Tradition, 18.

52. Ruegamer, 262-63.

• 14
 

Public Archaeology in Ohio                              115

 

 

TABLE 1

 

Archaeological Site Acquisitions by the

Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Society

 

Year                  Site                                                                          County

1891                 Fort Ancient                                                      Warren

1900                 Serpent Mound                                                 Adams

1927                 Seip Mound                                                      Ross

1928                 Shrum (Campbell) Mound                                Franklin

1929                 Miamisburg Mound                                          Montgomery

1929                 Williams Mound                                               Greene

1931                 Inscription Rock                                               Erie

1932                 Fort Hill                                                            Highland

1932                 Mound Builders' Earthworks                            Licking

1932                 Leo Petroglyph                                                 Jackson

1933                 Octagon Earthworks                                         Licking

1933                 Flint Ridge                                                         Licking

1935                 Wright Earthworks                                            Licking

1935                 Tarlton Cross                                                    Fairfield

1950                 Story Mound                                                    Ross

 

Note: Mound City declared National Monument in 1923; administered

by OSAHS until 1946 when turned over to NPS.

 

Source: The Ohio Historical Society 1885-1960 (Columbus, 1960).

 

 

tremendous backlog of material that had been accumulated by 1930

required thorough examination and publication. Beyond this, Society

publications emphasized efforts to derive a general culture history of

the state from all the bits of archaeological data. Emerson Greenman

and Richard Morgan, successive Curators of Archaeology during this

period, focused much of their attention on this task.⁵³ Although

fieldwork was not discontinued, it was no longer the primary focus.

Morgan's excavations between 1937 and 1941 included work designed

to more clearly delineate the Adena-Hopewell-Fort Ancient sequence

 

 

53. Rodabaugh, 227.

• 15
 

116                                                      OHIO HISTORY

 

of prehistoric occupation that covered the period from 300 B.C. to

A.D. 1500.54

Obviously, basic research institutions must occasionally step back

from the data-gathering process and collate material into some useful,

meaningful form. However, OSAHS efforts in this period hint at

something more drastic, no less than a wholesale reorientation of its

basic function. The OSAHS viewed analytical work in prehistory as

tying up loose ends before moving on to new tasks. In 1945, George

Rightmire, chairman of the committee to establish a new constitution

for the Society, referred to the ". . nearing completion of the archae-

ological activities for which the Society was initiated."⁵⁵ A Lithics

Laboratory was established at the Museum in 1938, and H. Holmes

Ellis was hired as its director.⁵⁶ But this initiative did not survive the

cutbacks made during World War II; evidently, after Eli Lilly's original

grant,⁵⁷ no further subsidy was forthcoming. As a result of these

factors, Ohio slowly faded from the archaeological limelight.

This shift in orientation became evident early. The Depression

derailed Henry Shetrone's plans to raise funds through endowments

and other gifts.⁵⁸ By 1933 reduced state funds had led to the dismissal

of six employees, salary reductions for the remaining staff, and had

eliminated the possibility of fieldwork. These reductions in turn

fostered a concerted effort to study materials in the collection.⁵⁹ In an

effort to maintain the goals of the Society despite economic adversity,

Director Shetrone urged the formation of a network of branch muse-

 

 

 

54. James B. Griffin, "Richard G. Morgan," American Antiquity, 34 (1969), 468.

55. Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Society, "Minutes of the Annual

Meeting," OAHQ, 54 (1945), 190-91.

56. Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Society, "Report of the Fifty-second

Annual Meeting," OAHQ, 47 (1938), 211.

57. Lilly, business executive and pharmacist by profession, was a capable prehis-

torian in his own right, publishing a Bibliography of Indiana Archaeology in 1932 and

Prehistoric Antiquities of Indiana in 1936. He was also a patron and benefactor of his

adopted discipline, as witnessed by his many generous contributions: Indiana Fellowship

in Anthropology at Yale University; Fellowship in Aboriginal North American Ceramics

at the University of Michigan; Fellowship in the Physical Anthropology of Fort Ancient

Populations at the University of Michigan; Fellowship in Dendrochronology at the

University of Chicago; Lithics Laboratory at the Ohio State Museum; 20,000 shares of

Lilly Pharmaceuticals, worth over $2.5 million, donated to the Indiana Historical

Society; and other funds for establishing the Glenn Black Archaeology Laboratory at

Indiana University. He was also instrumental in the formation of the Department of

Anthropology at Indiana University and subsidized the archaeological career of Glenn

Black, one of the key figures in Indiana prehistory. See Ruegamer, 207, 294.

58. OSAHS (1938), 208.

59. Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Society, "Report of the Forty-seventh

Annual Meeting," OAHQ, 42 (1933), 344.

• 16
 

Public Archaeology in Ohio                                   117

 

urns and county historical societies to shoulder the burden of discov-

ering and preserving archaeological and historical resources.⁶⁰ The

situation deteriorated further in 1935 when no funds at all were

available for excavations.⁶¹

By the mid-1930s the federal government was taking an increasingly

active role in preservation matters. Federal concern with archaeology

had been slow to develop. As late as 1929, prehistorian Neil Judd

lamented the lack of government involvement.⁶² Interest in preserving

national monuments had been aroused initially in the 1880s by vandal-

ism at Casa Grande, a large prehistoric settlement in the Southwest,

but two decades passed before the Antiquities Act of 1906 afforded

some protection for sites on federal lands. More significant was the

Historic Sites Act of 1935 that empowered the Secretary of the Interior

to begin various preservation programs, among which were the naming

of National Landmarks and protection of those areas so designated. In

1937 the National Survey of Historical Sites and Buildings began the

process of identifying and determining the importance of national

properties.⁶³ These functions were assigned to the National Park

Service (NPS), which had been created in 1916 to administer national

parks and monuments. In its expanded role, the NPS was also to

undertake archaeological surveys, obtain data, and investigate historic

and prehistoric sites throughout the country in order to identify those

of national significance. To accomplish this goal, federal, state, or

private agencies could be called on for assistance.⁶⁴ The NPS often

worked through New Deal agencies such as the Works Progress

Administration (WPA) to obtain the necessary manpower. To fulfill its

preservation mission, the NPS established an archaeological sites

division, within the branch of Historic Sites.⁶⁵

This federal involvement placed archaeology on an entirely new

footing in many parts of the country. As early as December 1933 the

Civil Works Administration (CWA) had organized a number of archae-

ological projects, under the supervision of the Smithsonian Institution,

to help reduce unemployment. Within a month, the CWA hired 1,500

 

 

60. Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Society, "Report of the Forty-eighth

Annual Meeting," OAHQ, 43 (1934), 322.

61. OSAHS (1935), 363.

62. Neil M. Judd, "The Present Status of Archaeology in the United States,"

American Anthropologist, 31 (1929), 404.

63. U.S. Department of the Interior, Archaeological and Historical Data Recovery

Program 1979 (Washington, 1981), 3.

64. Charles R. McGimsey, Public Archaeology (New York, 1972), 103-04.

65. A. R. Kelley, "Archaeology in the National Park Service," American Antiquity,

5 (1940), 277.

• 17
 

118                                               OHIO HISTORY

 

people for eleven projects, seven in Florida and one each in Georgia,

North Carolina, California, and Tennessee. These projects helped to

outline the prehistoric sequences in many regions where inadequate

fieldwork had been a problem.⁶⁶ Subsequently, excavations under the

auspices of the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) supplied employ-

ment for thousands of unskilled diggers and good training for aspiring

archaeologists.⁶⁷

The contrasting manners in which federal funds earmarked for

preservation activities were expended in Ohio and the neighboring

states of Kentucky and Indiana further underline the change in OSAHS

policy. An examination of the OSAHS annual reports reveals the

following situation: 1935-Curator Greenman had the help of only one

FERA student and two volunteers.⁶⁸ 1937-the WPA provided $45,600

which the Museum used to pay individuals for maintaining and

collating the newspaper collection, building upkeep, and assisting in

the archaeology and natural history labs. The WPA, NPS, and Civilian

Conservation Corps (CCC) provided workers to maintain the state

memorials and build park superintendent houses with $200,000 of

federal money.⁶⁹ 1938-$212,665 from the WPA paid for the upkeep of

the state parks and for field workers gathering data for the Historical

Records Survey and Federal Archives Survey.⁷⁰ 1939-Eight WPA

workers assisted in preparing a bibliography of American archaeology.71

1940-The WPA provided twenty-five people and $360,500 to refurbish

Museum displays. CCC labor at Fort Ancient, Fort Hill, and Serpent

Mount maintained the grounds.⁷² 1941-As in 1940, twenty-five WPA

employees worked in the Museum.⁷³ The excavations conducted in

most of these years evidently employed few or no WPA and CCC

workers. This was decidedly not the case in Kentucky and Indiana.

Under Professor William Webb, originally in the Physics Depart-

ment and later Chairman of the Anthropology Department, the Uni-

 

 

66. Frank M. Setzler and William D. Strong, "Archaeology and Relief," American

Antiquity, 1 (1936), 301.

67. James B. Griffin, "Foreword," in The Adena People, W. S. Webb and C. E.

Snow (Knoxville, 1974), vi.

68. OSAHS (1935), 363.

69. Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Society, "Report of the Fifty-first

Annual Meeting," OAHQ, 46 (1937), 278-81.

70. OSAHS (1938), 205.

71. Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Society, "Report of the Director of the

Ohio State Museum," OAHQ, 48 (1939), 99.

72. Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Society, "Report of the Director of the

Ohio State Museum," OAHQ, 49 (1940), 225.

73. Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Society, "Report of the Annual

Meeting," OAHQ, 50 (1941), 214.

• 18
 

Public Archaeology in Ohio                                119

 

versity of Kentucky became a sponsoring agency for WPA archaeolo-

gy, with crews, supervisors, and equipment all federally funded. In

1937, the total budget was $75,000. In 1940, 1,750 skeletons were

excavated and curated, 48,000 artifacts were processed, and 3,700

photographs taken. Up to 200 WPA laborers worked on some sites.

The ability to keep a crew in the field during the entire year enabled

Webb to excavate a number of sites simultaneously. In addition, a

full-time lab crew handled the large volume of excavated material.74

Indiana also benefited greatly from federal assistance. Glenn Black,

an avid amateur with wide field experience and private financial

backing, led the archaeological effort in this state. Black concentrated

his efforts on the Angel site in south-central Indiana, a complex of

eleven mounds covering 191 acres and with evidence of a prehistoric

stockade on the three sides away from the Ohio River. The Indiana

Historical Society (IHS) acquired the site in 1938, largely through the

efforts of Eli Lilly, grandson of the founder of the pharmaceutical

giant, who supplied $68,000 of the $71,956.93 purchase price.⁷⁵ With

the IHS acting as sponsoring agent, Black received WPA approval for

a large-scale excavation. Starting with twenty workers on April 27,

1939, the crew grew slowly in size until eventually 277 men were

employed at different times over a period of thirty-seven months.

When winter weather prohibited digging, the laborers handled process-

ing duties. By project's end on May 22, 1942, an immense amount of

work had been completed: the entire site had been precisely gridded

off; the men excavated a total area of 119,800 square feet; exposed

features included 1,707 feet of the defensive complex, with eight

bastions, thousands of post holes, and hundreds of pits; the lab

processed 2,379,637 items.⁷⁶ The Angel Site project was one of the

largest of its kind in the United States and would have been unimag-

inable without the assistance of the federal government.

There is a striking difference between the responses of Ohio and her

two sister states to the potential for archaeological research made

available to them by the various federal agencies. In the 1930s Ohio

enjoyed a substantial advantage over the other two states in the number

of excavated sites and the comprehension already attained of the

prehistoric sequence. As a result, the OSAHS preferred to limit new

excavations and to use federal money to organize its collections and

gather historical documents. Archaeologists in the state today realize

 

 

74. Griffin, 29.

75. Ruegamer, 276.

76. Glenn A. Black, Angel Site. An Archaeological, Historical, and Ethnological

Study (Indianapolis, 1967), 21-26.

• 19
 

120                                             OHIO HISTORY

 

there are large gaps in our knowledge of Ohio prehistory, but the trend

that started in the 1930s has been difficult to reverse. The Society's

growing preoccupation with the historical component came full circle

in 1954 when the OSAHS formally changed its name to the Ohio

Historical Society (OHS) by an overwhelming 12 to 1 margin in a vote

by the membership.⁷⁷ The name change reflects the diminished status

of archaeology, as the Society turned increasingly to the acquisition of

examples of Ohio's Euro-American crafts and industries.⁷⁸ Even more

significant was the change in format of the Society's quarterly journal,

which took on an entirely historical bent. The growing population of

professional archaeologists in Ohio was left without a suitable forum

for the publication of articles. Not only had Ohio receded from the

archaeological limelight, it was in danger of leaving the stage alto-

gether.

 

Period of Salvage Archaeology, 1945-1966

 

The process of scaling down the Society's archaeological fieldwork

activities was reversed somewhat in the 1940s. In 1945, the Society's

Archaeology Department purchased the Anderson site and museum

and spent the majority of the year redesigning the latter.⁷⁹ However,

national developments would soon have a significant impact on archae-

ology in Ohio and throughout the United States. These major occur-

rences will be discussed before turning to some of the specific events

that transpired in Ohio during this time.

With the end of World War II, the federal government was able to

turn its attention once more to large-scale internal improvement

projects. It mounted a massive national effort in dam construction to

facilitate flood control, irrigation, and navigation, and to provide

adequate drinking water. The key federal agency undertaking this work

was (and is) the United States Army Corps of Engineers (COE); the

Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) in the Department of the Interior also

has jurisdiction in this area. Concern over the impact of these projects

on cultural resources led a group of archaeologists to form a Committee

for the Recovery of Archaeological Remains, sponsored by the

American Anthropological Association. This committee became a

coordinating link between the COE, BOR, and the NPS; the latter

agency thus expanded its commitment to archaeology to areas outside

 

 

77. Ohio Historical Society, Annual Report for 1954 (Columbus, 1955), 3.

78. OHS, Collections, 5.

79. OSAHS (1945), 197 and (1946), 6.

• 20
 

Public Archaeology in Ohio                               121

 

the national parks. The list of federal agencies involved in such work

grew as it became apparent that their programs also affected archaeo-

logical remains. This need for joint activity between archaeologists on

one hand and the various federal agencies on the other resulted in the

formation of the Inter-Agency Archaeological Salvage Program

(IAASP) under the auspices of the NPS.⁸⁰

Two important sub-programs were established under the IAASP.

The first was the River Basin Surveys (RBS), set up by the Smithsonian

in the BAE with Congressional funds requested by the NPS. The RBS

created an office in Lincoln, Nebraska, to carry out archaeological

surveys and excavations in regions threatened by COE and BOR dams

within the Missouri River drainage. The other sub-program established

regional offices in Portland, Oregon, Austin, Texas, and Athens,

Georgia, associated with the major universities in those cities to handle

similar problems engendered by dam construction elsewhere in the

United States. These offices had the responsibility of contracting with

museums, universities, and other institutions capable of undertaking

archaeological work. This system dramatically augmented research

funds, since the local institutions usually matched the NPS funds, and

proved to be a stimulus for enlarging state and local efforts in

archaeology. In 1956, funding for the latter sub-program was terminat-

ed, but in the following year the NPS shouldered the burden for

programs both within and outside the Missouri River drainage.⁸¹

Salvage archaeology associated with highway construction received

legislative sanction in the 1950s. The first major excavations of this

type on the state level occurred in New Mexico, but the Federal-Aid

Highway Act of 1956 (P.L. 84-267) had provisions for the creation of

salvage programs in every state. The Highway Archaeological Salvage

Program was an outgrowth of this law. Subsequent legislation that built

on this foundation included the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1966 (P.L.

89-574) and the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 (P.L.

89-670). Despite federal support, state participation in the program was

very uneven. Between 1956 and 1969 there were 160 highway salvage

projects in twenty-six states; sixty-nine were in Illinois and New

Mexico, thirty-seven in Arizona, California, and Idaho, and the

remaining fifty-four in twenty states, while twenty-four states had no

projects at all despite the availability of federal money.⁸²

Further federal support of archaeology appeared in the Reservoir

Salvage Act of 1960 (P.L. 86-523; 16 U.S.C. 469-496c). This act

 

 

80. McGimsey, 104-05.

81. Ibid., 105-06.

82. Ibid., 108-09.

• 21
 

122                                              OHIO HISTORY

 

provided for the preservation of historical and archaeological resources

threatened by any activities associated with dam construction (i.e.,

flooding, building access roads, setting up worker quarters, relocating

railroad tracks and roads, and any other change in the terrain)

undertaken by any federal agency, or any corporation or person

holding a license from any such agency. The Secretary of the Interior

was empowered to have surveys conducted by entering into an

agreement or contract with another agency, or any qualified institution.

He was also empowered to handle any funds for such work provided by

any individual or corporation involved in construction under these

circumstances. The proposed reservoir had to cover at least forty

surface acres of detention capacity for a survey to be initiated, but even

this limitation was waived if the area to be deluged had known sites.

Ohio's entry into salvage work in 1946 was also the first fieldwork by

the OSAHS since before World War II and seems to mark a revival of

the archaeological component of the Society's activities. Ray Baby,

then of Western Reserve University, examined three areas that were to

be flooded: a detailed survey in the Delaware Reservoir Area on the

Olentangy River, and preliminary work in the Dillon and Rocky Fork

reservoir sectors. The OSAHS, the Smithsonian Institution, the NPS,

and the COE all cooperated in this work.⁸³ In 1949, the Ohio Depart-

ment of Natural Resources (ODNR) and the Ohio Highway Depart-

ment provided funds for OSAHS excavations in the Cowan Creek

Reservoir and elsewhere in the state.⁸⁴ Salvage work of various kinds

formed a regular part of Society excavations throughout the next two

decades. 1952-Ground and aerial survey of Atomic Energy Commis-

sion diffusion plant area in Pike County; examination of a powder

magazine site at Fort Washington near Cincinnati.⁸⁵ 1953-Work on

the Kurtz Village site, which was found during construction of the Ohio

Turnpike.⁸⁶ 1955-Joint Society-Ohio State salvage work at Niles-

Wolford Mound; emergency excavation at Eakin Site, disturbed by

work on U.S. 23, south of Columbus; burials salvaged from the DuPont

Company Plant site in Hamilton County, and from a sand and gravel

operation near Indian Lake.⁸⁷ 1962-Survey and testing of six small

 

 

83. Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Society, Annual Report for the Year

1946 (Columbus, 1947), 10.

84. Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Society, Annual Report for the Year

1949 (Columbus, 1950), 11-12.

85. Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Society, Annual Report, 1952

(Columbus, 1953), 8.

86. Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Society, Annual Report, 1953

(Columbus, 1954), 3.

87. Ohio Historical Society, Annual Report for 1955 (Columbus, 1956), 12.

• 22
 

Public Archaeology in Ohio                                   123

 

reservoir areas around Columbus with $2,000 from the NPS.⁸⁸ 1963-

Salvage excavations of four sites in the Big Darby Reservoir, Franklin

County.⁸⁹

In addition to salvage work, the Society also participated in a

number of other archaeological projects during this time span, with

Ray Baby, who became Assistant Curator of Archaeology in 1948,90

directing most of the fieldwork. The sites, and year excavated, include,

among others, Cole (1947), Ater Mound (1948), Raisch-Smith (1950),

Cordray and Goldsmith Mounds (1951), Toepfner Mound and Fort Hill

(1954), Greenbrier Farm (1960), and Voss and Sidner #2 Mounds

(1963). In another development, the Society and The Ohio State

University Department of Sociology and Anthropology held a joint

annual field school each summer starting in 1953 and extending into the

next decade.⁹¹ A cooperative survey by the OHS and Archaeological

Society of Ohio was initiated in 1963 to prepare a catalogue of the

state's archaeological sites;⁹² twenty-one prehistoric sites from this list

were eventually deemed worthy of preservation as important

monuments .93

The involvement of federal and state agencies in salvage work during

this period stimulated the growth of archaeology throughout much of

the United States. Obviously, the institutions most proximate to the

largest projects tended to benefit more than those in areas relatively

untouched by massive government construction. The scale of dam

construction in Ohio was small and the level of salvage work from this

source modest at best. Even the development of the modern highway

system did not have the impact on archaeology in Ohio that it did in

other states. The Society's response was surprisingly uninspired, for

the most part, as reflected in its annual reports and Echoes publication.

The Society never did develop a systematic policy about salvage work,

proceeding instead on an ad hoc basis;⁹⁴ this might have been due to

the modest level of federal construction in the state. It should also be

noted, in the Society's defense, that no other institution in Ohio fared

any better in this respect. Considering the rather moribund state of

 

 

88. Ohio Historical Society, "Archaeological Work," Echoes, 1 (1962), 2-3.

89. Ohio Historical Society, "Archaeologists Start Excavations," Echoes, 2 (6)

(1963), 2.

90. Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Society, Annual Report for the Year

1948 (Columbus, 1949), 8.

91. OHS, (1962), 2.

92. Ohio Historical Society, "Survey Starts," Echoes, 2 (3) (1963), 3.

93. Ohio Historical Society, "Landmark Survey Released," Echoes, 6 (3) (1967), 2.

94. Martha Otto, current Curator of Archaeology, described the system in this

fashion in an interview.

• 23
 

124                                            OHIO HISTORY

 

archaeological investigation in Ohio by the mid-1940s, the period of

salvage archaeology qualifies as a revival, though limited in scope, with

a renewed sense of activism. Although it had by no means regained its

former stature, Ohio was at least a functioning member of the

archaeological community again.

 

Cultural Resource Management Efflorescence, 1966-1981

 

The pace of preservation activity quickened in the late 1960s and

continued into the succeeding decade. With the federal government

again leading the way, a series of laws that have had important

ramifications for the extent of preservation work in all the states

ushered in a new era of public archaeology. Eventually, various

projects introduced archaeological concerns in the early planning

stages. Consequently, archaeologists could operate without the threat

of imminent site destruction and began to feel they could finally assert

the long-held conviction that they are caretakers of a significant portion

of the national cultural heritage. This perception of their role led to the

adoption of the term cultural resource management (CRM) to describe

the expanded range of responsibility. Ohio's response to developments

in this period emerged gradually, unlike some other states. However,

by the 1970s the implementation of various plans promised a bright

future for Ohio archaeology.

As in the previous period, the prime mover in the growth of CRM

was the federal government, with compliance by the states as a

corollary. The process began with enactment of the National Historic

Preservation Act of 1966 (P.L. 89-665; 16 U.S.C. 470-470m as amended

16 U.S.C. 460b, 470i, 4701-n) which authorized the Secretary of the

Interior to maintain a National Register of Historic Places with

districts, sites, structures, and objects of local, state, and national

significance. Funds could be granted to conduct intensive statewide

historic surveys and prepare preservation strategies. To facilitate this

process the federal government established a system of matching

grants-in-aid to the states. In addition, the law provided for the creation

of an Advisory Council on Historic Preservation to advise the Presi-

dent and Congress on relevant matters and to discuss the impact on

National Register properties of projects funded, licensed, or undertak-

en by the federal government. The NPS developed the procedures for

nominating properties to the National Register (36 CFR Part 60).

Ohio's reply to this landmark federal legislation was the passage of

the Ohio Preservation Act of 1967 (incorporated into Sections 149.30-

149.31, Revised Code of Ohio). This act enlarged the public preserva-

• 24
 

Public Archaeology in Ohio                                       125

 

tion function of the OHS by placing the State Historic Preservation

Office (SHPO) under its auspices as a vehicle to help guarantee the

maintenance of the state's historical, architectural, and archaeological

monuments; measures were to be taken to assure Ohio's qualification

for matching grants by appropriating state funds. The SHPO was to:

(1) establish a marking system to identify designated historic sites,

(2) provide technical assistance and advice to county and local histor-

ical societies engaged in preservation projects, (3) establish criteria for

designating historic sites and disseminate that information to local

preservation groups, and (4) compile an inventory of significant

landmarks. Perhaps the greatest innovation in the act was the provision

for use of easements by the Society.⁹⁵ As a counterpart to the national

council, this act created the Ohio Historic Site Preservation Advisory

Board (OHSPAB), consisting of fifteen individuals appointed by the

Governor. OHSPAB members were to be drawn from all professions

related to preservation, including archaeology. The Board advises the

SHPO on preservation matters, recommends appropriate state legisla-

tion, and votes on sites nominated for placement on the National

Register.⁹⁶

Other pertinent federal legislation followed in rapid order. The

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (P.L. 91-190; 42 U.S.C.

4321 et seq.) required federal agencies to assess the environmental

effects of their projects as an integral part of the planning process. The

preparation of environmental impact statements (EIS), including an

assessment of how cultural resources would be affected, became a

requirement of such planning. In 1971, Executive Order 11593, Pro-

tection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment (16 U.S.C. 470),

was issued. This directive mandated federal agencies to survey,

inventory, and nominate to the National Register all appropriate

historic resources under their jurisdiction. The Order further advised

the agencies not to damage any potentially significant sites in conduct-

ing their regular duties. The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

was to be consulted as a safeguard for the protection of these

properties.

 

 

 

95. "Easements are acquired interests in property owned by another. Since an

easement is less than a total or 'fee' interest in property, it may be a cheaper means of

controlling use than outright purchase. Acquisitions of easements which preclude a

property owner from making nonconforming alterations to the facade of his historic

house, for example, is a common and often effective preservation tool." From Anne

Derry, H. Ward Jandl, Carol D. Shull and Jan Thorman, Guidelines for Local Surveys:

A Basis for Preservation Planning (Washington, D.C., 1977), 56.

96. Ohio Historical Society, "Preservation Bill Passed," Echoes, 6 (10) (1967), 3.

• 25
 

126                                              OHIO HISTORY

 

The Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974 (P.L.

93-291; 16 U.S.C. 469c), perhaps more than any other law, propelled

archaeology headlong into CRM. Essentially, this act extended the

provisions of the Reservoir Salvage Act to all federal projects. Another

critical provision allotted up to one percent of the budget of any project

exceeding $50,000 for the survey, recovery (excavation), analysis, and

publication of archaeological materials from sites that would be ad-

versely affected by the project. Since most federal projects exceed this

limit, and since federal funds are frequently used in state and local

construction, archaeology flourished in the mid- to late-1970s. Various

institutions and private firms reaped a windfall of federal munificence.

As a result, archaeological work was conducted on an unprecedented

scale, dramatically increasing the number of sites recorded (see

Table 2) and excavated. As might be expected with such a rapid

increase in the volume of work, the quality was not consistently high.

While the debate within the professional archaeological community

was raging, the base of federal support suddenly eroded. The Reagan

administration proposed deep budget cuts in various programs that

funded many preservation activities. Archaeologists had to adjust to

the new political and economic realities of the 1980s.

In Ohio, the response to these dramatic events was initially slow.

Relatively small-scale fieldwork continued for several years. In 1967,

OHS work concentrated on the Enos Holmes mound in the Paint Creek

Reservoir and the Arthur James Mound in the Alum Creek Reservoir,

with the NPS and Ohio State University assisting in both projects.⁹⁷

The pace of operations picked up in 1969. The COE provided $16,417

for a multi-county archaeological and historical survey in the south-

eastern part of the state, the first of its kind in Ohio. Amateur and

professional archaeologists, historians, and architects spent over a

year investigating eighteen counties for sites of National Register

caliber.⁹⁸ The OHS requested $500,000 from the state in 1968 to

acquire, restore, and furnish certain sites. The Society justified this

amount by claiming the returns would be evident in tourist dollars,

already at that time Ohio's third largest industry.⁹⁹

The OHS emerged as the official preservation arm of the state. The

Society played an important role in drafting the first Ohio Historic

Preservation Plan in 1970. Also in 1970, the OHS received formal

responsibility for all excavations on state lands. The ODNR and the

 

 

97. Ohio Historical Society, 83rd Annual Report (Columbus, 1968), 17.

98. Ohio Historical Society, "Southwest Survey," Echoes, 8 (9) (1969), 3.

99. Ohio Historical Society, "Historic Preservation," Echoes, 7 (10) (1968), 3.

• 26
 

Public Archaeology in Ohio                                     127

 

 

TABLE 2

 

Ohio Archaeological Inventory: Numbers of Forms Submitted

October, 1976, through October, 1983

 

Date             Cumulative Count         Increase/Year

October 1976                                    1502

October 1977                                    2930                                        1428

October 1978                                    4156                                        1226

October 1979                                    5995                                        1839

October 1980                                    8173                                        2178

October 1981                                    13015                                      4842

October 1982                                    13711                                      696

October 1983                                    14134                                      423

 

Source: Ohio Archaeological Council, Semi-annual Report to Mem-

bers, May, 1984.

 

 

OHS entered into an agreement in which the latter would conduct

surveys and excavations on lands administered by the department. The

OHS could permit work by universities, museums, or other institutions

in such areas, but reports had to be filed with ODNR and all artifacts

were to remain in the Historical Center.¹⁰⁰ The nominating of National

Register sites, as mandated by state and federal laws, was an important

OHS function. In 1971, thirty-one state memorials were placed,

including Shrum Mound, Flint Ridge, and the Leo Petroglyph.101

Between 1971 and 1973, 108 prehistoric sites in fifteen counties were

nominated. 102

The SHPO came to play an increasingly important role in preserva-

tion matters after the passage of P.L. 93-291. The SHPO reviewed

federal projects early in their planning stages so as to mitigate the loss

of information and funds resulting from construction delays.¹⁰³ To

handle its increased responsibilities, in 1975 the SHPO created a

decentralized system of Regional Preservation Offices (RPO), each

 

100. Ohio Historical Society, " 'Digs' Are Regulated," Echoes, 9 (7) (1970), 3.

101. Ohio Historical Society, "Sites Registered," Echoes, 10 (1) (1971), 2.

102. Martha Otto, "Prehistoric Sites Included in Register," Echoes, 12 (12) (1973), 6.

103. Bert Drennen, "93rd Congress Passes Four Bills Concerning Historic Preserva-

tion," Echoes, 14 (4) (1975), 10-11.

• 27
 

128                                             OHIO HISTORY

 

housing historical/architectural and prehistoric units, scattered through-

out the state. These offices conducted surveys, nominated sites, and

reviewed EISs and projects transmitted through the central office.¹⁰⁴

By 1980, a system of ten archaeology RPOs was in place and

functioning smoothly. Unfortunately, just as this fledgling system

began to make significant contributions to archaeology, the SHPO

assumed that the federal assistance on which it depended would be

drastically cut back and so reduced the RPOs from ten to five and

deemphasized prehistory in the process.

Another important development in 1975 was the creation of the Ohio

Archaeological Council (OAC) by some of the professional archaeol-

ogists then active in the state, and some outside it interested in Ohio.¹⁰⁵

This organization was also a response to the perceived effects of P.L.

93-291. With federal money available, there was a growing concern that

persons engaged in contract work be qualified. Since the SHPO had no

criteria, many archaeologists felt that an independent organization

should be established to list standards of professional competence and

to provide guidelines for the proper conduct of CRM projects. Levels

of accreditation defined the required qualifications of archaeologists

engaged in the various phases of research. The OAC has also issued

statements regarding ethical standards and report-writing procedures.

The filing of CRM reports by members enables the OAC to maintain a

central repository of unpublished data that can be consulted by

archaeologists as background information.

In 1976, passage of House Bill 418 by the General Assembly further

enhanced the status of the OHS as guardian of Ohio's cultural

resources. The legislation required the Society to: (1) establish a state

registry of archaeological and historical landmarks modeled on the

National Register of Historic Places, (2) to cooperate with other public

agencies whose activities may threaten important sites to prevent such

damage, and (3) to oversee excavations on all public lands, not just

those administered by ODNR. The OHS continues to implement these

goals despite cutbacks in federal and state funding of preservation

activities.

During the zenith of CRM activity, Ohio was at first slow to take

advantage of opportunities. This delayed reaction may have been due

to the institutional weakness of archaeology in the state. True, a

 

 

 

104. Bert Drennen, "Regional Preservation Offices Established," Echoes, 14 (11)

(1975), 10.

105. Ohio Archaeological Council, Articles of Incorporation of Ohio Archaeological

Council, Inc. (1975).

• 28
 

Public Archaeology in Ohio                              129

 

considerable amount of fieldwork was being conducted prior to and

just after 1966, but it seemed to lack the clear central focus which so

dominated the OSAHS early in the century. New legislation required

Ohio to take major steps to meet the preservation challenge as federal

law defined it. P.L. 93-291 was the law that finally mobilized the

archaeological community in Ohio to a significant degree, and CRM

activity proliferated in the late 1970s. For the first time in decades,

Ohio also presented a solid institutional response to prehistoric needs

at this time with the development of the RPO system. As already

described, various events abruptly terminated this archaeological

renaissance. Key institutions have entered another phase of retrench-

ment, but efforts have been made to minimize the damage and to

continue the core of preservation activities.

 

Conclusion

 

Significant oscillations have characterized the history of preserva-

tion activities in Ohio. Although the state was recognized early as a

treasure house of prehistoric monuments, efforts to form antiquarian

associations failed until the State Archaeological Association of Ohio

was established in 1875. Early interest had been unable to forge this

sentiment into a cohesive force, but the increasing loss of mounds to

development and to exploration by people from outside the state finally

spurred action, and preservation has been a vital component of public

archaeology in Ohio ever since. Even in those periods when the

OSAHS/OHS retreated from an activist role, concern with maintaining

the record of the prehistoric past continued.

By 1930, the Society had filled many of the gaps in the knowledge

concerning Ohio's aboriginal inhabitants. Thereafter, a shift in orien-

tation took place. Historic studies supplanted prehistoric research as

the primary interest of the OHS. In making this switch, the Society

reduced the level of archaeological fieldwork because the leaders of the

organization felt that sufficient data had already been collected towards

the goal of comprehending Ohio's prehistoric sequence. Although it

was not the intent, this new policy severely hampered archaeology in

the state by delaying the infusion of new techniques and perspectives

that developed in the late 1950s and 1960s.

Opportunities provided by salvage work and CRM beginning in the

late 1940s made it evident that the prehistoric record had not exhausted

its potential for revelations, and this led to another upswing in

archaeological activities, albeit slowly. Unfortunately, by 1950 Ohio

had become an archaeological backwater, a position from which some

• 29
 

130                                            OHIO HISTORY

 

academic archaeologists have struggled to free it with as yet mixed

results. Some of the promising developments of the 1970s have

suffered because of the lower level of federal funding, but it seems a

wide-reaching preservation mentality has survived the recent budget

cuts. The continued growth of this preservation mentality depends on

support by the current generation of archaeologists and the public.

• 30