Ohio History Journal

THE PROPER METHOD OF EXPLORING AN

EARTHWORK.

 

So much injury has already resulted from haphazard and

unscientific methods of exploration of the earthworks of

Ohio that we deem it important to call the attention of all

explorers to the methods now in use by the most skillful

archaeological investigators. In the ninety-second volume of

the American Journal of Science the reader will find, in a

description of Professor O. C. Marsh, of Yale College, an

admirable example of the care and scrutiny it is important

to exercise with every mound that is opened. Still, his

methods were very imperfect as compared with those now

adopted.

At the present time Professor F. W. Putnam has more

experience than any other living person in these investigations,

having already caused several burial places in Madisonville,

near Cincinnati, to be excavated several acres in extent.

We append extracts from an abstract of his recent lecture,

at John Hopkins University, upon the "Methods of Arch-

aeological Research in America," and commend them to the

study of any party who proposes to explore any of the

mounds of Ohio.

The day has passed when a simple collector of relics of the

past could be called an archaeologist.  To the general

collector of "relics" in this country everything was Indian.

To such an one a piece of pottery was an Indian vessel and

nothing more. From collections made in that spirit nothing

can be learned. The time has come when we must know

the exact conditions under which every object placed in our

museums of archaeology was obtained and its association

with other things, in order to draw conclusions of any scien-

tific value. Everything found, from a chip of stone to an

elaborate piece of carving; from a mass of clay to a perfect

vase or a terra-cotta figure; from a splinter of bone to an imple-

ment made of that material; from a shell to a carving on a

61

• 1
 

62      Ohio Archaeological and Historical Quarterly.

piece of shell; from nuggets of copper and other native

metals to beautifully-worked ornaments; together with imple-

ments and ornaments of various materials, broken or whole,

remains of charred fibres, matting and cloth; and seeds, nuts,

corn-cobs and bones of animals-one and all show their

associations and tell their story as a whole. With these should

be preserved all human remains, from fragments of bone to

perfect skeletons. Skulls are unquestionably the most impor-

tant, but other parts of the skeleton should be studied as

well. All these objects should be studied comparatively;

their association should never be overlooked, and individually

and collectively, they should be compared with similar groups

of objects from near and remote places.  Deductions of

importance can be drawn only from material obtained by such

methods.... Trenching and slicing.. express in general terms

the method followed in field work. For instance, in explor-

ing a mound a trench is first dug at the base of the mound.

A slight vertical wall is made thereby showing the contact of

the edge of the mound with the earth upon which it rests.

Sometimes this trench has to be dug to the depth of several

feet in order to find the bottom of the mound, as in cases

where the mound is erected in an excavated area. This wall

is the first section of the exploration, and its outlines should

be drawn or photographed and its measurements noted. For

the latter purpose it is better to stretch two strings over the

mound, one north and south and the other east and west, and

to take all measurements from those.  After this first section

is made, the work is carried on by slicing; or cutting down

about a foot at a time, always keeping a vertical wall in front,

the whole width of the mound. Each slice thus made is a

section, and whenever the slightest change in the structure is

noted or an object found, that section should be drawn or

photographed, and measured as at first, and the exact posi-

tion noted of an object, ash-bed, or change in the character

of the structure of the mound. This method is continued

until the whole mound has been dug away, and a thorough

knowledge of its structure and contents obtained.  Such

work of course necessitates great labor and is expensive in

• 2
 

Method of Exploring an Earthwork.       63

proportion, but only such a method will give full results; all

other methods are partial and consequently of little or no

value. In fact, unless such work is to be thoroughly done

it should not be attempted.

In exploring village Sites a trench should be dug through

the accumulated leaf mold in order to find the outlines of hab-

itations, and obtain the position of fire-places, refuse piles and

other signs of occupation. The discoveries thus made should

be followed by the removal of surface soil and trenching about

the spots. In no case should an excavation be made from

the surface of the mound, site of habitation, burnt space, or

refuse pile. From the moment this is done all is confusion,

and much is destroyed by being broken with pick or spade.

By trenching and slicing this is avoided and the sequence of

materials, as well as the outlines of habitation, fire-place or

refuse pile can be determined and correctly drawn to scale.

In exploring a cemetery, a similar method should be followed.

A trench should be dug along the edge of the cemetery.

Then the area should be marked off in blocks of fifty feet

square in order to facilitate making a plan drawn to scale. A

"block " should then be dug over to the necessary depth, be-

ginning at the trench and throwing the earth behind, always

keeping a vertical section in front the full width of the block.

As each skeleton is reached it is seen in the section. Its

position and surroundings should be noted. Every object

buried with it will be seen in place as the earth is removed

with a trowel and small hand broom from over and among

the bones and objects1.

1Reprinted from the John Hopkins University Circulars, Vol. V, No. 49,

Baltimore, May, 1886, page 89.

• 3