**Hopewell Archeology:**

**The Newsletter of Hopewell Archeology in the Ohio River Valley**

**Volume 1, Number 1, May 1995**

**1. Editorial Policy and Numbering Procedure**

This newsletter is intended to provide an informal forum for
distributing and exchanging news about research, data, interpretation,
public education, and events relating to Hopewell archeology in the Ohio
River valley. It will promote the study of Hopewell archeology,
cooperation between researchers, and public education about Hopewell
archeology. The Newsletter is a joint effort of the Midwest
Archeological Center in Lincoln, Nebraska and Hopewell Culture National
Historical Park in Chillicothe, Ohio. Hopewell Archeology is published
twice a year, and is numbered consecutively.

Hopewell Archeology publishes short news items, book reviews, short
research papers and research notes relating to Hopewell archeology in
the Ohio River valley. Information about other Middle Woodland cultures
that relate to the Hopewell will also be considered for publication.
Items for potential inclusion to the newsletter may be submitted to
either office.

**2. From the Editor, *Mark J. Lynott***

When I first visited Ross County in 1978, I felt very fortunate to get
to see some of the Hopewell sites which are so well known in North
American archeology. I was very impressed with the number, size and
configuration of the earthworks that had been described by Squier and
Davis in 1848. At that time, the National Park Service was involved in
what they called a \"new area study\" of the Hopeton Earthworks. The
Hopeton Earthworks was recommended for inclusion in the National Park
System as an important manifestation of the Hopewell culture, and
because the Hopewell culture remains a fascinating and important part of
humanity\'s past.

![](media/image1.jpeg){width="5.072916666666667in"
height="6.770833333333333in"}

**In 1845, Ephriam George Squier, editor of The Chillicothe Gazette,
joined with a local physician, Dr. Edwin H. Davis in a landmark study of
the mounds and earthworks in Ohio. Their detailed maps, written
descriptions of the mounds and their contents and classifications of the
mounds and earthworks represents one of the first scientific
archeological studies in North America. The results of their research
was titled [Ancient Monuments of the Mississippi Valley: Comprising the
Results of Extensive Original Surveys and Exploration]{.underline}, and
was published in 1848 as the first volume of Smithsonian Contributions
to Knowledge.**

In the subsequent seventeen years, I have participated in other
feasibility studies and meetings that have considered whether other
Hopewell sites warrant protection. During that same period, I have had
the opportunity to periodically visit some of the sites in Ross County
and watch the deterioration of these valued records of humankind\'s
past. The annual impact of agriculture is clearly taking its toll.
Independent studies of these sites indicate plowing has lowered
earthworks and mounds on the average of an inch per year since the
introduction of larger, more powerful tractors in the 1950s. Since my
first visit to the Hopeton Earthworks, agriculture has eliminated any
visible evidence of the parallel walls, and has lowered most of the
remainder of the earthwork to the point it cannot be distinguished by
the untrained eye.

The impact at the Hopeton Earthworks has been further accelerated by
commercial gravel quarrying. This has left a massive scar on the scenic
value of this National Historical Landmark, and destroyed an untold
amount of archeological information.

Other archeological resources in Ross County are also threatened by
agriculture, mining, highway construction and urban growth. At the rate
these actions are continuing, we have only a few years to set aside
these important sites. When were recorded by Squier and Davis, the
earthworks and mounds must have been truly impressive. Today, they are
as important to understanding the archeology of Eastern North America,
as Chaco Canyon and Mesa Verde are to the Southwest. If we do not take
decisive action soon, future generations will never be able to
appreciate the wonderful sites that Squier and Davis described in Ross
County nearly 150 years ago. We do not have another twenty years to
preserve the Hopewell sites of Ross County.

This publication was initiated to promote interest in the study and
interpretation of Hopewell archeology. We are planning to issue the
Newsletter twice a year, spring and fall, and hope to include a lot of
short, non-technical notes about the research archeologists are
conducting. In addition, we plan to include notes about programs,
exhibits, and events that interpret Hopewell archeology. We will also
try to include at least one short research report in each issue, and
notes on any books, published papers, conference papers, that report
research on Hopewell archeology.

**3. 1992 Legislation Means Change**

On May 27, 1992, Public Law 102-294 mandated significant changes for
Mound City Group National Monument and Hopewell archeology. In addition
to changing the name of Mound City Group National Monument to Hopewell
Culture National Historical Park, it expands the boundary of the park to
include:

a.  additions to Hopeton Earthworks,

b.  High Banks Works,

c.  Hopewell Mound Group,

d.  Seip Earthworks.

Final land acquisition boundaries for each of these sites were not
established through this act, but are to be established on the basis of
archeological research (Section 4. Studies \[a\]). The legislation also
directs the Service to conduct archeological studies at Spruce Hill
Works, Harness Group, and the Cedar Bank Works and other areas
significant to the Hopewell culture \"to evaluate the desirability of
adding them to the park, and shall report to Congress on any such areas
that are recommended for addition to the park\" (Section 4, Studies,
\[b\]).

Like many federal laws, this legislation authorized the acquisition of
these important sites without authorizing full funding for their
purchase. With the authorized funding, the National Park Service has
acquired additional lands around the Hopeton Earthworks. In 1995, the
land acquisition process will be directed toward the Hopewell Mound
Group.

**4. Profile of an Archeologist: Bret J. Ruby**

On January 23, 1995, Bret J. Ruby started a new phase in his life when
he began his duties as Park Archeologist at Hopewell Culture National
Historical Park. Bret was hired as part of the National Park Service\'s
Cultural Resources Professionalization Initiative. This initiative is
designed to improve cultural resource management in the parks by
increasing the number of professionals assigned to park staffs.

![](media/image2.jpeg){width="2.7916666666666665in"
height="4.958333333333333in"}

**Bret J. Ruby**

In addition to advising park managers about cultural resource management
issues, Bret will conduct research in Ross County, Ohio. He comes to the
job with considerable experience in Hopewell archeology. As Prehistory
Research Fellow and Associate Instructor at the Glenn A. Black
Laboratory of Archaeology at Indiana University, Bret conducted research
on Hopewell in southern Indiana. His research included the study of the
Mann site, Posey County, Indiana. The Mann site is the largest Hopewell
site in Indiana, and one of the few documented geometric earthwork sites
dating to the Middle Woodland substage outside of southern Ohio.

Bret grew up in Akron, and started his archeological career in Ohio as a
student at Kent State University where he received a Bachelor of Arts
degree in 1987. His interest in archeology was fueled by interaction
with Olaf Prufer and Mark Seeman. He conducted his first field research
in a field school directed by Seeman at the Kramer Village site in Ross
County, Ohio. Bret\'s early interest in Hopewell archeology is
documented in his undergraduate thesis, which looked at Hopewell
research in an historical perspective.

Bret carried his interest in Hopewell studies to Bloomington, Indiana
where he focused his research on the Crab Orchard and Mann phase
occupations of the lower Wabash and Ohio River valleys. He received a
Master of Arts degree in Anthropology at Indiana University in 1991.

Bret is currently working on his dissertation at Indiana University,
which will describe his research on the late Hopewellian Mann phase in
southern Indiana. His dissertation research included two seasons of
surface survey funded by the Indiana Department of Natural Resources,
Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology. A third season was
devoted to test excavations at a small habitation site, funded by the
Indiana Historical Society and the Glenn Black Laboratory of
Archaeology. His research has attempted to integrate material culture
studies and settlement patterns studies through a cultural ecological
perspective. He plans to correlate site type variability with local
ecological factors through Geographic Information Systems applications.
His research will also compare settlement variability in the Mann phase
with the earlier Crab Orchard tradition, and the later Emergent
Mississippian (Yankeetown phase) occupation.

In his new position with the National Park Service, Bret will be active
in park research and public education programs. His research will be
aimed at developing a better understanding of the rich cultural heritage
in Ross County. His professional skills and experience will be a
valuable asset to Hopewell Culture National Historical Park, and the
community of Chillicothe.

**5. Research Notes**

***[Hopeton]{.underline}***\
In August, 1994, Mark Lynott (NPS) directed a crew from the Midwest
Archeological Center in test excavations. The testing was conducted in
the area where the parallel walls entered the floodplain of the Scioto
River. Fifteen square meters were excavated, and a light scatter of
habitation debris was found across the entire landform. A single pit
feature containing fire-cracked rock, macrobotanical remains, and a
small amount of lithic debris was exposed. Analysis of this material is
ongoing at the Midwest Archeological Center. Further studies relating to
Hopeton will continue in 1995.

***[Seip]{.underline}***\
N\'omi Greber (Cleveland Museum of Natural History) is working on a
report of her field investigations at Seip. Her study will also attempt
to construct a base map and identify areas theat have been studied by
previous investigators.

***[Hopewell]{.underline}***\
William Dancey (Ohio State University) has been conducting survey on the
north and east sides of the Hopewell site. Dancey\'s surveys are aimed
at locating habitation areas and better defining the settlement systems
associated with this important mound and earthwork site. The study is
part of long-term catchment survey being conducted as part of a
cooperative agreement with the National Park Service, and is intended to
help the National Park Service better determine boundaries for their
future land acquisition efforts.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Geophysical Surveys**                                               |
|                                                                       |
| **In recent years, archeologists have employed several different      |
| geophysical survey instruments to detect subsurface archeological     |
| features. Each of the instruments uses a different technique to       |
| measure subsurface differences in soil matrix. Magnetometers measure  |
| subtle differences in the earths magnetic field. Resistivity meters   |
| measure difference in the resistivity of soils. Ground penetrating    |
| radar uses radar to identify subsurface features in much the same way |
| that aerial radar is used to detect aircraft. The advantage of these  |
| research techniques is that they permit archeologists to get an idea  |
| of what may lie under the ground without actually digging. Variations |
| in soil and local environmental conditions generally dictate which    |
| technique is most appropriate.**                                      |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

***[Cedar Bank]{.underline}***\
Commonwealth Associates received a purchase order from the National Park
Service to do a reconnaissance survey and prepare an overview of the
archeological resources at Cedar Banks. Little is known about this site,
and it is located on a landform that is being rapidly developed for
industry and business. No progress has been made on this study because
the people who own the site will not grant permission for the
archeological study.

***[Mound City Group]{.underline}***\
James Brown (Northwestern University) has been working on a synthesis of
archeological research at Mound City Group. The study, which included
analysis of extant collections and extensive archival research, is
nearing completion. A preliminary draft manuscript describing this
research has been submitted to the National Park Service. Brown plans to
revise the manuscript for future publication.

***[Mound City Group]{.underline}***\
Paul Sciulli (Ohio State University), through a cooperative agreement
with the National Park Service, is conducting an inventory of the human
remains from Mound City Group. The study is required by the Native
American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, and should supplement
the research conducted by James Brown.

***[Geophysical Surveys]{.underline}***\
The National Park Service issued a purchase order to John Weymouth
(University of Nebraska) for geophysical surveys at the Hopeton and High
Banks Earthworks. The work at Hopeton is being conducted with Mark
Lynott (Midwest Archeological Center), and the work at High Banks is
being conducted with N\'omi Greber (Cleveland Museum of Natural
History). In 1994 the surveyors used proton magnetometers and a soil
resistance meter, instruments which are intended to locate subsurface
features. Weymouth is currently analyzing this data and preparing for
additional surveys in 1995.

***[Mann]{.underline}***\
Gray and Pape, Inc. received a purchase order from the National Park
Service to prepare an overview and assessment of this important Hopewell
site in Posey County, Indiana.

***[Bibliography]{.underline}***\
Mark Seeman (Cultural Resource Analysts, Inc.) has completed a
bibliography of archeological research in Ross County, Ohio. The study
was funded by a purchase order from the National Park Service. The
bibliography is very comprehensive, with annotations, and will be a
significant aid to anyone interested in Hopewell archeology. A computer
file containing the bibliographic entries is being maintained and
updated at Hopewell Culture National Historical Park.

**6. 1995 Research at the Hopeton Earthworks**

The National Park Service and The Ohio State University are planning a
cooperative research program at a site near the Hopeton Earthworks. The
site is located on lands owned by the Chillicothe Sand and Gravel
Company, who have agreed to make the site available for research. The
Ohio State University will offer a fieldschool in archeological methods,
and the National Park Service will provide equipment and personnel to
participate in the research. The project will begin June 19, 1995 and
continue through July 25, 1995. The National Park Service plans to
sponsor a series of public lectures in association with the field
school.

**General Management Plan**

The National Park Service is involved in planning for future management
of Hopewell Culture National Historical Park. Long-term management of
units of the National Park System is guided by a General Management
Plan. The General Management Plan is a document which presents a
practical framework for making decisions about issues relating to
resource management, the desired visitor experience, and other aspects
of park management. Development of the General Management Plan requires
everyone with an interest in the park receive an opportunity to exchange
views and provide input into the development of the plan.

Development of the General Management Plan is being coordinated by a
team of planners from the National Park Service\'s Denver Service
Center. The team is led by Marilyn Habgood, who arranged a week of
meetings for Park Service personnel that culminated in public
presentation of alternatives for managing the park. Habgood and the
planning team are developing a written statement of the management
alternatives, and continue to request comments from archeologists and
the public.

General management plans present a vision of how the National Park
Service will manage a specific park. These plans frequently identify
needs for facilities, staffing, research, and visitor services. Current
proposals for management of Hopewell Culture National Historical Park
call for an increase in archeological research activities, as well as
expanded visitation and interpretation at some of the sites recently
added to the park.

**New Look at Mound City**

For those of you who have not visited Hopewell Culture National
Historical Park recently you will discover some changes in the park\'s
visitor center and self-guiding interpretive programs. The recently
remodeled visitor center includes a new auditorium and an expanded book
sales area. The auditorium is used for school programs, conferences,
meetings, special programs, and to show the new 17 minute video \"Legacy
of the Mound Builders\" winner of three prestigious awards.

Also, the three outside audio programs have been revised and new
programs and equipment will be installed by early May. Interpretive
signs will be installed along the trail on the south perimeter of the
earth wall. These signs will discuss how the landscape at Mound City has
changed from early prehistoric times to the present. Finally, a
self-guiding booklet keyed to numbered posts will help identify trees
and other plants found along the nature trail and discuss their
ethnographic use. For more information on programs and other activities
contact the visitor center at (614) 774-1126.

**7. Recent Archeological Explorations at the Newark Earthworks By Dr.
Bradley Lepper of the Ohio Historical Society**

In 1815, Robert Walsh, Jr. made a map of the Newark Earthworks which
represents one of the earliest efforts to record the grand complex of
Hopewellian geometric enclosures in the Raccoon Creek valley. This map,
while neither remarkably accurate, nor complete, is significant for
historical reasons certainly, but also because Walsh made observations
which document features not noted by previous or subsequent students of
the Newark Works. Recent developments at Octagon State Memorial afforded
the opportunity for archeologists from the Ohio Historical Society (OHS)
to look for surviving traces of one of these features.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Radiocarbon**                                                       |
|                                                                       |
| **Radiocarbon dating has become the most effective and widely used    |
| method of dating prehistoric archeological sites in North America.    |
| The technique is based on the knowledge that the element carbon has   |
| several inert and several radioactive isotopes. All living things     |
| absorb the radioactive isotope carbon-14 from the atmosphere. Science |
| has learned the rate of decay of carbon-14 is constant and can be     |
| measured. When a plant or animal dies, the only change in the         |
| proportion of carbon-14 to the isotope carbon-12 in the remains of    |
| the organism will be the decay of carbon-14. Consequently, laboratory |
| analysis makes it possible to measure the carbon-14 content of        |
| organic materials, like soil humates, wood charcoal, animal bone, or  |
| mussel shell, and estimate how long it has been since the organism    |
| stopped ingesting carbon-14 (and died).**                             |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

Moundbuilders Country Club leases Octagon State Memorial from the Ohio
Historical Society for use as a golf course. They have leased the site
since 1910 when the owner of the site was the Newark Board of Trade. The
Country Club has plans to enlarge a maintenance facility located near
one of the gateways into the octagonal enclosure. In this general
locations, adjacent to one of the platform mounds which stands just
inside he opening, Robert Walsh documented the presence of a \"sunken
well\" or \"cavity in the earth.\" Brad Lepper (Ohio Historical Society)
directed a team of OHS archeologists and volunteers from The Ohio State
University in testing this area. They discovered the truncated remnants
of a large, egg-shaped basin 1.7 m long by 0.7 m wide filled with coarse
gravel at the base of the platform mound. The excavators identified a
single postmold, 8 cm in diameter, in the center of this basin. No
artifacts of any kind were recovered. Paleoethnobotanist Dee Anne Wymer
(Bloomsburg University) studied sediment samples from both the basin and
the postmold and did not identify any prehistoric botanical material.
Sediment samples from the feature were submitted to Beta-Analytic, Inc.
for radiocarbon dating of soil humates.

Two samples have been dated, one from Feature 2, the postmold, and one
from Feature 3, the gravel-filled basin (Feature 1 was an historic
postmold). Feature 2 produced a date of 1,650+-80 BP (Beta-76908) and
Feature 3 produced a date of 1,770 +-80BP (Beta-76909). These dates are
significant because they are the only radiocarbon dates related to the
prehistoric use of Newark\'s octagonal enclosure. Moreover, they add to
the small but growing corpus of dates for the Hopewellian occupation of
the Raccoon Creek drainage.

**8. Ceramic Compositional Analysis**

Mark Lynott (Midwest Archeological Center), Michael Glasscock and Hector
Neff (Missouri University Research Reactor) have initiated a ceramic
compositional study aimed at southern Ohio. The study will compare the
elemental composition of samples of geological clay with Hopewell
ceramics. The staff at the Missouri University Research Reactor will
radiate both geological clay samples and prehistoric Hopewell ceramic
sherds in the nuclear research reactor, and compare the amounts of
selected elements in each sample.

The data, while somewhat complicated to interpret, yields an fingerprint
of variations in specific elements. This technique is proving quite
successful in research in the Eastern Ozark region of southeast
Missouri, and likely to be helpful in sorting out many of the questions
that have been raised about Hopewell settlement systems and the movement
of people and pots associated with the Hopewell sites in southern Ohio.
If you have specific samples of Hopewell ceramics or geological clays
from southern Ohio that you would like to include in this study, you are
encouraged to contact Mark Lynott.

**9. Hopewell Archeology at the British Museum**

Hopewell archeology will be featured in the North American Gallery at
the British Museum, scheduled to open in 1997. The staff at Hopewell
Culture National Historical Park hosted a visit in March from Jonathan
King, Assistant Keeper at the British Museum. King gathered information
and photographed mounds and earthworks at the Mound City Group for use
in the introduction to the North American Gallery. The exhibit will
feature artifacts collected by E. G. Squier and E. H. Davis during their
pioneering mound explorations in the 1840s.

**10. Education: Reaching Out to Schools**

Hopewell Culture National Historical Park is developing a curriculum
guide on the Hopewell culture, archeology and the importance of
archeological resources for use in the fourth, fifth and sixth grades.
It is being developed with assistance from local teachers and curriculum
coordinators. The work is challenging because the guide is being
designed to complement the fourth and sixth grade proficiency tests. If
you are interested in reviewing materials for the guide, please contact
Rebecca Jones at (614) 774-1126.

The park has received two grants, one from the Mead Fine Paper Division
and the other from the National Park Foundation, to fund the printing of
the curriculum guide, as well as provide staff support during the
development stages. Additional funds have been made available to assist
local schools in providing buses to visit the park. Planning has begun
for National Park Week when a series of activities and programs on
archeology and the Hopewell culture will be scheduled for area school
children from May 22-26, 1995.

**11. Investigations at the Flint Ridge State Memorial, Ohio, 1987-1988
By Richard W. Yerkes, Ohio State University**

In 1987 and 1988, the Ohio State University summer field school in
archeology was held at Flint Ridge State Memorial. These investigations
were designed to collect a sample of artifacts from the quarries and
workshops that could be used to analyze the prehistoric methods used to
extract the flint and produce the large bifaces and bladelet cores of
Flint Ridge Flint that were transported to local and distant sites. We
also wanted to know if most of the quarrying took place during the
Middle Woodland period, and if there were any habitation or settlement
areas adjacent to the quarries. Limited survey and test excavations were
conducted during the two ten- week field seasons, but a total of 123,
972 pieces of chipped flint, 10 hammerstones, an anvil stone, and one
piece of ground stone were recovered from 28 test units and 75 surface
collection squares.

Thirty Ohio State University students helped with the cataloging and
analysis of this large volume of lithic materials between 1987 and 1993.
The final report on the Ohio State University field school
investigations and the collected artifacts was submitted to the Ohio
Historical Society for curation in May 1993.

These field school investigations were certainly not the first
explorations at Flint Ridge. Study of the \"Great Indian Quarry\" began
in the 19th century with the publications and correspondence of Caleb
Atwater (1820) and Samuel Hildreth (1838). Several decades later, Gerard
Fowke conducted the first systematic study of Flint Ridge which he
published (under the pen name \"Charles Smith\") in the 1884 annual
report of the Smithsonian Institution (Smith 1885). Flint Ridge was
mentioned in many late 19th and early 20th century discussions of the
\"Moundbuilders\" and their works, but the definitive study of the
quarries was conducted by William Corless Mills for the Ohio
Archaeological and Historical Society (which he published in 1921). In
1933, the Flint Ridge State Memorial was set aside by the State of Ohio
to preserve parts of the quarry site. Since then, Jeff Carskadden
(1969), James Murphy (1989) and others have investigated several quarry,
workshop, and habitation sites in this unglaciated region in Licking and
Muskingum Counties, Ohio.

**Remote Sensing**

Grass and woods cover most of the Flint Ridge State Memorial, so prior
to the start of the field school, a ground-penetrating radar (GPR)
survey of portions of the east field was carried out to try and locate
buried features. Unfortunately, the GPR survey did not reveal any clear
subsurface anomalies. Twelve 2x2 m test excavation units were opened in
the east field, and two 2x2 m units were excavated 40 meters to the west
in the middle field. In the wooded area north of Flint Ridge Road and
east of State Road 668, two 1x1 m units were excavated near several
quarry pits, and a controlled surface collection of 75 one meter squares
was completed. At the suggestion of Martha Otto (Ohio Historical
Society), three 1 m wide profiles were cut along the bank north of Flint
Ridge Road. In 1988, 12 additional 1x1 m squares were excavated in the
east field, and James Foradas (Ohio State University) carried out a
magnetometer survey in the areas where the GPR survey had been
conducted. The only anomaly detected by the magnetometer was a buried
metal container.

**Number and Density of Artifacts Recovered**

An average of 4,291 artifacts were found in each of the test excavation
units, ranging from 383 in an historically disturbed unit to 22,118 in
one of the units in the middle field. The average for the surface
collection units was 51 artifacts. The density of chipped stone in the
test units ranged from 319 artifacts per cubic meter of fill in the
\"disturbed\" unit to 42,117 artifacts per cubic meter in a unit located
where \"natural\" flint is exposed on the surface. The average density
of the test units was 7,046 artifacts per cubic meter. Of course, the
bulk of the artifacts at Flint Ridge would be classified as debitage
(flint chips, chunks of flint, or other waste). Only 11 complete or
broken projectile points were recovered, and only five of these could be
classified. One of the vexing problems facing the investigator at Flint
Ridge is the lack of chronologically sensitive stone tools (or pottery)
among the vast quantities of non-diagnostic flint artifacts (cf. Mills
1921: 171).

**The Extent of the Quarries and Workshops on Flint Ridge**

The soils on Flint Ridge contain large quantities of flint fragments,
and in places, large boulders and outcrops of flint are found on the
surface (Wildermuth et al. 1938). The areas identified as
\"flint-bearing soils\" on the U.S.D.A. soil maps for Licking and
Muskingum counties were used to estimate the geographic extent of the
ancient quarries and workshops (approximately 880 ha or 2,175 acres).
This is slightly less than the extent of the Vanport flint beds on the
ridge (about 1,000 ha). However, these data do not provide an accurate
estimate of the number of quarry pits and workshops on Flint Ridge.
Fowke made a sketch map of the \"hundreds\" of quarry pits around the
crossroads and (Clark\'s) blacksmith shop (see Holmes 1919). This area
now lies within the boundaries of the Flint Ridge State Memorial. The
most detailed map of the extent of the flint quarries is the one
prepared by Mills in 1921 and modified by Ernest H. Carlson (1987: 416;
1991: 66), but it does not show the total number of quarry pits or
workshops.

Flint Ridge Flint is part of the upper member of the Vanport Formation
of the Allegheny Group of Pennsylvanian fresh-water and marine
limestones, clays, and coals. These beds formed during the
transgressions and regressions of a shallow sea that covered parts of
Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Kentucky around 320 million years
ago. The upper member of the Vanport Formation contains a flint facies
that forms the cap rock of Flint Ridge (because of its resistance to
weathering). Flint Ridge Flint outcrops in discontinuous weathered beds
with an average thickness of 1.2 meters (four feet) along the ridge. The
outcrops have a lateral extent of several kilometers.

Flint Ridge Flint formed in shallow, near shore, brackish waters at the
front of a delta. James Foradas noted that these kinds of shallow,
brackish water depositional environments produced flints that are not
homogeneous (like those formed in deep water settings) but have a high
degree of morphological, mineralogical, and chemical variation. Carlson
recognized four varieties of Flint Ridge Flint: (1) an impure, opaque,
massive, white flint and (2) a pure, translucent, bluish-gray flint.
Outcrops of these two types were common in and around the State
Memorial, while the third variety, (3) colorful, banded, ribbon flint,
was more common on the Nethers property in Muskingum County near the old
Flint Ridge school. The last type (4) is an impure, porous, light brown
flint with uneven fracture. It occurs along the western and southeastern
portions of the ridge. Much of the porous flint was unsuitable for
lithic artifact production, but early Euro-American settlers used it to
make buhr-stones for their flour mills.

Carlson\'s four part classification was used in our macroscopic analysis
of the artifacts from the test units at Flint Ridge State Memorial, but
recent work by Foradas (1994) showed how the geochemical variation in
Vanport cherts and flints could be used to discriminate between
artifacts made of Flint Ridge Flint and artifacts made of flints or
cherts from other sources (even if those other cherts look like Flint
Ridge Flint). The shallow basins along the shore of the \"Vanport sea\"
received sediments and detritus carried by streams flowing northwest
from the Appalachian highlands, the mineral composition of the flint
deposits would vary from basin to basin. The types of detrital minerals
and their concentrations in the flints of the Vanport Formation would
differ from patterns observed in other geological deposits. In addition,
weathering of Flint Ridge Flint would result in different abundances of
secondary minerals filling the fractures and cavities of the flint. By
comparing the types and concentrations of detrital and secondary
minerals from different rock formations or from different \"quarry
areas\" with concentrations found in flint or chert artifacts, it is
possible to identify the type of flint that was used, and even the
specific quarry zone where the raw material was obtained.

**The Age of the Quarries and Workshops**

Mills (1921: 209-221) concluded that most of the manufacturing
activities at Flint Ridge were geared toward the production of bifacial
blanks (or \"cache blades\") and bladelet cores and bladelets. These
artifacts are associated with the Adena-Hopewell complex. Six mounds and
four earthworks were recorded along Flint Ridge, and Mills excavated an
elaborate Hopewell burial at one of them (the Hazlett Mound on the
western end of the ridge). The association of the mounds, bifacial
blanks, bladelets and bladelet cores suggested to Mills that the
Hopewell were responsible for much of the prehistoric quarrying and
artifact manufacturing on Flint Ridge. Six of the 11 points and point
fragments that we recovered could be classified. Two Early Archaic types
were identified: one MacCorkle Stemmed and one Kanawha Stemmed, three
Middle-Late Woodland types were found: two Jack\'s Reef points and a
Raccoon Notched point. A Late Prehistoric triangular point was also
found (Madison type). The temporal range of the points indicates that
the Flint Ridge quarries and workshops have been operating for the past
9000 years.

**Changes in the Utilization of Flint Ridge Flint Through Time**

Lepper (1989) noted that there are many reports that artifacts made of
Flint Ridge Flint have been found at sites across Eastern North America,
but the most reliable of these reports involve finds from Paleo-Indian
or Middle Woodland sites. Prufer and Baby (1963) found that FRF was the
second most common raw material used for Paleo-Indian points found in
Ohio (after Upper Mercer chert) and Lantz (1984) reports that Flint
Ridge Flint was the third most common raw material used to make the
Paleo-Indian points found in western Pennsylvania (after Upper Mercer
and Onondaga chert). This suggests that Flint Ridge Flint was often
utilized by the earliest inhabitants of this region. Carskadden (1969)
suggests that the use of Flint Ridge Flint increased during the Archaic
period (7,000 to 3,000 B.P.), but that extensive quarrying operations on
Flint Ridge probably did not begin until Early Woodland times. Murphy
(1989:35) found that Flint Ridge Flint artifacts and debitage were
common at Archaic and Woodland sites in the Hocking Valley (there are
very few recorded Paleo-Indian sites), and like Lepper and Carskadden,
he believes that the most intensive exploitation of Flint Ridge occurred
during the time of the Adena-Hopewell (2500 to 1500 years ago). During
the Late Woodland and Late Prehistoric periods (1500 to 400 years ago)
there seems to have been a decline in the use of Flint Ridge Flint
(Carskadden 1969; Lepper 1989; Murphy 1989).

It is clear that the Flint Ridge quarries and workshops were used to
manufacture Adena/Hopewell bladelet cores and bladelets. The area that
we investigated in 1987 and 1988 was within the zone of workshops
\"south and southeast of the blacksmith shop\" where Mills (1921: 215)
found that most of the core-and-bladelet manufacturing took place. In
fact Mills remarked the bladelet cores and bladelets were rarely found
outside of this area on Flint Ridge. We did not find any evidence for
the production of Paleo-Indian artifacts (e.g. fluted points) during our
investigations, although we did recover several Early Archaic projectile
points. The impression that one gets from this is that the most
intensive utilization of the Flint Ridge quarries was during the
Adena/Hopewell times (as everyone has suggested), however this may be
due to the fact that the \"cache blades,\" bladelets, and bladelet cores
that serve \"type fossils\" for the Early and Middle Woodland periods
are easy to recognize. The flakes and cores that are the byproducts of
flake core and biface manufacturing are much more generic. It is
possible that the area of Flint Ridge that we tested was not intensively
utilized until Adena-Hopewell times, or evidence for earlier and/or
later uses of the area may have been masked by Hopewell
core-and-bladelet production.

 

**Quarrying and Stone Tool Production**

Mills (1921) identified three stages in the manufacturing of bifaces at
Flint Ridge. The first stage was quarrying the flint, the second stage
was \"blocking out\" the flint into general bifacial form before it is
taken to the workshops, and the third stage was shaping the blocked-out
pieces into bifacial blanks or cache blades that could be transported to
distant sites where they could be made into points, drills, or other
bifacial tools. Mills noted that the workshops where the third
production stage took place were located near the quarries on Flint
Ridge and at more distant locations. Since Mills\' day there have been a
number of technological studies of biface manufacturing based on modern
replication experiments (Ahler 1986; Callahan 1979; Johnson 1979, 1981).
These studies revealed that one of the most crucial factors in biface
production is maintaining the width of the tool while reducing the
thickness. The thinner the biface, the more nearly complete it is
(Johnson 1981: 13). The ratio of maximum width to maximum thickness is a
key element of Callahan\'s (1979) five-stage biface manufacturing
sequence (Ahler 1986: 59). Callahan\'s scheme takes Mill\'s three
production stages (which take place at or near quarries) and adds two
final stages when the \"finishing touches\" are given to blades.
Callahan\'s Stage 4 bifaces have been secondarily thinned, and exhibit
noticeably flattened cross-sections. His Stage 5 bifaces are prepared
for use and/or hafting. They are preforms for projectile points,
bifacial knives, or other tools.

 

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Stone Tools**                                                       |
|                                                                       |
| The oldest known human-made tools are made from stone and have been   |
| found in Africa. From the earliest stages of human evolution, until   |
| the discovery of metal-working techniques, people have used stone to  |
| make tools. The two basic techniques of making stone tools involve    |
| grinding a stone into the desired shape, or chipping flakes off the   |
| stone until the desired shape is achieved. Flint is the most commonly |
| used rock for the manufacture of chipped stone, and the flint found   |
| at Flint Ridge State Memorial was used by prehistoric Indians         |
| throughout Ohio. Archeologists give specific names to the products    |
| and bi-products of stone tool manufacture. Some of these include:     |
|                                                                       |
| **[core]{.underline}** - the original block, cobble or slab of rock   |
| from which flakes have been removed. Cores are frequently found at    |
| quarries and other sites close to the source of the raw stone         |
| material.                                                             |
|                                                                       |
| **[flake]{.underline}** - a piece of stone that has been chipped from |
| a core or other stone tool. Flakes are recognized by the presence of  |
| a striking platform and bulb of percussion, which are located at the  |
| point where the flake was removed from the core. The presence of a    |
| striking platform and bulb of percussion helps archeologists          |
| distinguish between natural pebbles and human-made stone chipping     |
| debris.                                                               |
|                                                                       |
| **[blade]{.underline}** - a blade is a flake that is made from a      |
| specially prepared core. Blades are at least twice as long as they    |
| are wide, and have straight, parallel sides. One of the               |
| characteristics of Hopewell sites in southern Ohio is the presence of |
| small blade-lets made from special blade cores.                       |
|                                                                       |
| **[biface, bifacial]{.underline}** - this refers to tools that have   |
| been chipped on opposing surfaces to shape a piece or produce a       |
| working edge. A bifacial cutting edge is similar to sharpening both   |
| sides of a knife blade. Most arrow and spear points are bifacially    |
| shaped. If a stone tool is chipped on only one surface, it is called  |
| a uniface. Scrapers and spokeshaves are examples of unifacial stone   |
| tools.                                                                |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

Mills (1921) implied that the final shaping of bifaces made of Flint
Ridge Flint would probably have taken place at domestic sites away from
the quarries and workshops. However, he did find a number of finished
projectile points and some finely retouched bifaces that would be
classified as Stage 5 bifaces at Flint Ridge, but it is not clear if
these final stage bifaces were found in the quarry zones or at some of
the workshops such as the \"Graham place\" that also contained domestic
refuse (Mills 1921: 219).

We recovered 152 bifaces in our test units at Flint Ridge State
Memorial. Eleven of these were points that may have been brought to the
quarries and workshops and discarded during \"retooling\" operations. Of
the remaining 141, nearly half of the bifaces that we recovered from
workshop areas near the quarries were stage 2 bifaces, while 43%
exhibited the primary or secondary shaping that Mills described as
occurring during stages 3 and 4. Only 8% could be considered preforms or
\"finished\" bifaces (stage 5). It should be noted that 10 of the 11
stage 5 bifaces (or preforms) were broken, and the types of fracture
that they exhibited suggested that they had snapped during
manufacturing.

Jay Johnson (1981) used a thinning index in his study of biface
production trajectories in Mississippi. He suggested that the ratio
between the weight of the biface and its surface area is a more accurate
gauge of how \"complete\" or \"finished\" the biface is. He found that a
thinning index \>= 3.1 gm/cm2 identified early stage bifaces that are
usually found at quarry sites, while an index between 1.7 and 3.1 is
typical of middle stage bifaces, while late stage bifaces would have a
thinning index \<1.7 (Johnson 1981:25).

The computed thinning indices for the 49 whole (or nearly whole) bifaces
from Flint Ridge averaged 0.90 for the points, 1.74 for the small thin
bifaces, 1.72 for the large thin bifaces, and 2.43 for the crude
unpatterned bifaces (only two of the 34 crude bifaces had a thinning
index that was \>= 3.1). This shows that while the later stage bifaces
from Yellow Creek and Flint Ridge were thinned to the same degree, the
early stage bifaces were thinner at Flint Ridge. Johnson found that 92%
of the bifaces at his quarry sites were early stage bifaces (similar to
the crude bifaces found at Flint Ridge), while 87% of the bifaces found
at his late stage biface manufacturing workshops were thinned or
completed types. There seems to have been a distinct separation of the
biface production trajectory between Johnson\'s quarry sites and late
stage workshops. In our sample from Flint Ridge, we found that 54% of
the bifaces were early stage types (crude) while 46% were later stage
forms. The complete biface trajectory seems to be represented at the
Flint Ridge State Memorial, without the spatial separation of production
stages that was observed in the Yellow Creek region.

**The Hopewell Bladelet Industry**

The second industry that Mills (1921) recognized at Flint Ridge involved
the manufacture of bladelet cores and bladelets. He noted that most of
the bladelet cores were manufactured at workshops located south and
southeast of the crossroads at the blacksmith shop (within the
boundaries of the Flint Ridge State Memorial). Mills found that the
manufacturing carried on at the Flint Ridge workshops was aimed at
producing bladelet cores rather than bladelets. He mentioned that many
of these bladelet cores were carried to distant points where bladelets
could be struck off as needed (1921: 219). Our investigations confirmed
this. We recovered over 800 bladelets or fragments (most of which were
struck off during the early stages of blade core preparation), but only
a dozen bladelet cores or core fragments. The bladelet cores seem to
have been produced by free-hand percussion. Most of the bladelets and
bladelet fragments that we recovered had large striking platforms. The
flaking scars on the cores and bladelets suggest that hard and soft
hammers were used. Almost all of the bladelet cores and core fragments
that we recovered were heat-treated, and 59% of the bladelets and
fragments showed some sign of heat treatment (luster, crazing, or
potlids). This suggests that some bladelets were struck off the cores
before they were heated. While it appears that the heat treatment of
bladelet cores took place at the quarry workshops, we did not find any
features that could be classified as heat-treatment facilities during
our excavations.

We found no evidence for restricted access to the Flint Ridge Flint
quarry zone. We exposed no habitation features during our testing
program. Mills (1921) concluded that the Flint Ridge Flint quarries were
common property among the tribes of the Ohio Valley. He noted that the
only place on Flint Ridge that seemed to have a more or less permanent
abode was the Hopewell Hazlett Mound that he excavated on the extreme
western edge of the quarry zone. Mills (1921: 219) mentioned another
habitation site on Flint Ridge that was found at the \"Graham Place.\"
He referred to this site as a workshop that contained pottery, animal
bones, and evidence for a more or less permanent habitation. Murphy and
Morton (1984) argue that the Graham site is identical to the Dodson
Village that is described by Bernhardt (1976) as a
production/distribution site in the Hopewell exchange network. Murphy
and Morton relocated the Dodson/Graham site approximately 1 mile south
of the Flint Ridge State Memorial.

They reviewed the history of excavations at the site, reexamined the
ceramics, lithic artifacts, and faunal materials, and concluded that the
Dodson/Graham site was occupied for very short periods of time by small
groups of people that came to the Flint Ridge quarries to obtain flint.
The most frequent use of the site was during the Early, Middle, and Late
Woodland periods, but it cannot be demonstrated that the flint quarrying
and lithic manufacturing that went on at the Dodson/Graham \"village\"
was linked to any larger lithic production and distribution system. The
results of these kinds of investigations support Mills\' conclusion that
there was no restricted access to the quarries and that there do not
appear to have been any permanent habitation sites on Flint Ridge. Our
1987 and 1988 investigations were limited to the Flint Ridge State
Memorial, and we were not able to obtain data on the distribution of
Flint Ridge Flint outside of the primary source area. The prehistoric
exchange and redistribution of Flint Ridge Flint among ancient societies
in Ohio and other regions of North America may have reached its peak
during the Early and Middle Woodland periods, but most of the evidence
for this has come from sites found outside of the quarry area.

Our two short seasons at Flint Ridge allowed us to test several methods
of data collection, and to train students in archeological field
methods. Our work supported most of the earlier observations made by
Mills about the nature of the activities at Flint Ridge. We agree with
his observation (Mills 1921: 224) that, \"It is very fortunate for those
who wish to verify or disprove the statements made in this study of
Flint Ridge that the full range of quarrying is still well within the
reach of all investigations and needs only to be properly examined to
reveal the facts.\" It is hoped that in the future, archaeologists will
continue the investigations at Flint Ridge that he and Fowke began
nearly a century ago.

**Acknowledgments**

Martha Potter Otto, Don Bier, Dick Boisvert, and Brad Lepper of the Ohio
Historical Society assisted in the planning for the 1987 and 1988
investigations at Flint Ridge and provided advice and encouragement
during the excavation, survey and analysis stages of the project.
Richard Livingston and his staff at the Flint Ridge State Memorial
provided facilities to store equipment and artifacts and their help made
it a real pleasure to work out at Flint Ridge. Funding for the Ohio
State University summer field schools was provided by the Department of
Anthropology and the Office of Continuing Education. All of the 1987 and
1988 field school students helped with the processing and analysis, but
Linda Gaertner, Tammy Gibson, Kelly Grubb, Andrea Isgro, Laura Jordan,
Rory Krupp, Jim Maxwell, Terry McCarthy, Stephen Paris, Bill Pickard,
Karen Redmond, Kathy Saul, and Pam Thorne deserve special thanks for
their help. Albert Pecora III put much time and effort into the
technological analysis of the Flint Ridge artifacts.

**References**

1986 Ahler, Stanley A.\
The Knife River Flint Quarries: Excavations at Site 32DU508. State
Historical Society of North Dakota, Bismarck.

1820 Atwater, Caleb\
Description of antiquities discovered in the state of Ohio and other
western states. Transactions of the American Antiquarian Society 1:
105-267.

1976 Bernhardt, Jack\
A Preliminary Survey of the Middle Woodland Prehistory in Licking
County, Ohio. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 46: 39-54.

1979 Callahan, Errett\
The basics of biface knapping in the eastern Fluted point Tradition, a
manual for flintknappers and lithic analysts. Archaeology of Eastern
North America 7: 1-180 (reprinted in 1990 by Eastern States
Archaeological Federation).

1969 Carskadden, Jeff\
Archaeology of Flint Ridge. In, Mississippian Strata of the
Granville-Newark Area, Ohio. North-Central Section of the Geological
Society of America, Field Trip No. 4, pp. 18-19. Ohio Division of
Geological Survey, Columbus.

1987 Carlson, Ernest H.\
Flint Ridge, Ohio: Flint facies of the Pennsylvania Vanport Limestone.
In, North-Central Section of the Geological Society of America
Centennial Field Guide 3, edited by D.L. Biggs, pp. 415-418.

1991 Minerals of Ohio. Ohio Division of Geological Survey Bulletin 69.

1994 Foradas, James G.\
Ceremonial Exchange of Vanport Flint Bladelets among Hopewell Groups in
the Lower Scioto Valley, Ohio: A Test of a New Method of Sourcing Flint.
Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, The Ohio State
University.

1838 Hildreth, S.P.\
Report on the coal measures. In, First Annual Report on the Geological
Survey of the State of Ohio (Doc. 26), p. 25- 63, Columbus.

1919 Holmes, William H.\
Handbook of Aboriginal American Antiquities: Part I Introductory, the
Lithic Industries. Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of American Ethnology
Bulletin 60(1). Washington.

1979 Johnson, Jay K.\
Archaic biface manufacture: production failures, a chronicle of the
misbegotten. Lithic Technology 8:2:21- 35.

1981Lithic Procurement and Utilization Trajectories: Analysis, yellow
Creek Nuclear Power Plant Site, Tishomingo County, Mississippi, Volume
2. Archaeological Papers of the Center for Archaeological Research 1,
University of Mississippi, and Tennessee Valley Authority Publications
in Anthropology 28.

1984 Lantz, Stanley W.\
Distribution of Paleo-Indian projectile points and tools from western
Pennsylvania: implications for regional differences. Archaeology of
Eastern North America 12: 210-230.

1989 Lepper, Bradley\
Geographic and Temporal Distribution of Flint Ridge Flint. Ms. of file,
Ohio Historical Society, Columbus.

1921 Mills, William C.\
Flint Ridge. In, Certain Mounds and Village Sites in Ohio. Ohio State
Archaeological and Historical Society Publications 30:3, Columbus.

1989 Murphy, James L.\
An Archaeological History of the Hocking Valley (2nd edition). Ohio
University Press, Athens, OH.

1984 Murphy, James L. and James F. Morton\
Dodson \"Village\": A Flint Ridge Habitation Site. Ohio Archaeologist
34:3:23-26.

1963 Prufer, Olaf H. and Raymond S. Baby\
Palaeo-Indians of Ohio. Ohio Historical Society, Columbus.

1885 Smith, Charles M. (a.k.a. Gerard Fowke)\
A sketch of Flint Ridge, Licking County, Ohio. Annual Report of the
Smithsonian Institution for the year 1884, pp. 851-73. Washington.

1938 Wildermuth, Robert, W. D. Lee, A. H. Paschall, and J. G. Steele\
Soil Survey of Licking County, Ohio. U.S.D.A. Bureau of Chemistry and
Soils, Series 1930: 48

**12. Meeting and Events Calender**

**Society for American Archaeology,** 60th Annual Meeting, Minneapolis
Hilton and Towers, Minneapolis, MN, May 4-7, 1995. Paul Minnis,
University of Oklahoma, Program Chair.

**National Park Week,** special activities for school children at
Hopewell Culture National Historical Park, May 22-26, 1995

**Midwest Archaeological Conference,** Beloit College, Beloit Wisconsin,
October 25-28, 1995

**Southeastern Archaeological Conference,** Knoxville Tennessee,
November 9 - 12, 1995.

**Ohio Archaeological Council,** Hunter-Gatherers to Horticulturalists:
The Archaic Prehistory of the Ohio Area, November 17 -18, 1995,
Cleveland State University, Cleveland, Ohio. Kent Vickery, PAC
Conference Coordinator.