Central Ohio Archaeological Digitization Survey (COADS)

COADS is a large-scale, systematic effort to engage private collections in one small geographic area to enrich the official record of the pre-contact period archaeology in the region. This initial 2-year effort is funded by the National Science Foundation and has already documented over 14,000 artifacts and 300 sites. All materials are documented digitally (2D images) with a random 5% sample 3D scanned. We summarize methods, progress, public response, and a preliminary comparison to previously documented records. With over 10,000 artifacts and 80 sites in Ross County, we can conduct a coarse comparison to the previous OAI records and our newly recorded sites and materials.

Related Papers

Central Ohio Archaeological Digitization Survey (COADS) Eric C. Olson, Kelli Wathen, Andrew Weiland, Kevin C. Nolan, and Michael J. Shott Abstract COADS is a large-scale, systematic effort to engage private collections in one small geographic area to enrich the official record of the pre-contact period archaeology in the region. This initial 2-year effort is funded by the National Science Foundation and has already documented over 14,000 artifacts and 300 sites. All materials are documented digitally (2D images) with a random 5% sample 3D scanned. We summarize methods, progress, public response, and a preliminary comparison to previously documented records. With over 10,000 artifacts and 80 sites in Ross County, we can conduct a coarse comparison to the previous OAI records and our newly recorded sites and materials. Table 1: Ross County Data Introduction Subsistence strategies and their impacts on residential mobility and tool use lives are written at the landscape scale; patterns are not composed merely of “habitation” sites (Nolan 2014). While settlements shifted, changes in the location of resource harvesting sites, and difference in overall mobility impacted resource use. Large-scale activity distribution patterns are “driven more by resource collection/ extraction than by” (Nolan 2014:32) habitations. Diagnostic points at once register age, activity, resource management, and land use. They are also abundant in Ohio’s archaeological record. The distribution of points by type obviously reflects changing prehistoric patterns of land use. But, using geometric morphometric methods, tools themselves can be analyzed for variation by toolstone and resharpening allometry, and to document “morphing” from one to another type. COADS is based on collaboration with private artifact collectors, focusing on assemblage distributions and temporally diagnostic projectile points. The study region (Figure 1) consists of Fairfield, Fayette, Franklin, Hocking, Licking, Madison, Pickaway, and Ross Counties. As much as 90% of informative artifacts, such as projectile points, are held in private archaeological collections (Shott 2008, 2015). Historically, we have wrung our hands about collectors and blithely ignored the tremendous aggregate data that reside in their collections. We must stop pretending that our comparatively small databases, the product of diligent effort to high standards, somehow are sufficient when private collectors possess the vast majority of the diagnostic artifacts that provide the fuller context that progress in research requires. % OAI % A (0-2%) 51 62.20 555 54.68 B (3-6%) 24 29.27 254 25.02 C (7-12%) 2 2.44 99 9.75 D (13-18%) 5 6.10 45 4.43 E (19-25%) 0 0.00 30 2.96 F (26-35%) 0 0.00 3 0.30 Excessive 2 2.44 21 2.07 Well 74 90.24 801 78.92 Mod Well 2 2.44 96 9.46 Some Poor 1 1.22 57 5.62 Poor 0 0.00 1 0.10 Very Poor 2 2.44 19 1.87 Frq 4 4.88 45 4.43 Occ/Rare 21 25.61 165 16.26 Non 57 69.51 787 77.54 Frq 0 0.00 1 0.10 Occ Non 1 81 1.22 98.78 17 979 1.67 96.45 Clay loam/Muck 0 0.00 10 0.99 Silty clay loam 2 2.44 604 59.51 Silt loam Loam 50 25 60.98 30.49 20 278 1.97 27.39 Sandy loam 1 1.22 12 1.18 Gravelly loam 4 4.88 78 7.68 2 0.20 Slope Drainage Flooding Figure 2: Eric Olson collecting data in the “field” Figure 1: Map of Research Area with OAI sites Argabright Methods Each collection is 2D and 3D documented in the field, which is usually the collector’s home. Attributes that cannot be identified in 2D images are measured in the field, which include maximum blade thickness (± 0.01 mm ), weight (± 0.1 g), and raw material (Figure 2-3). Lithic sourcing is conducted with a comparative collection and 25x magnification (a jeweler’s lens). Rather than capture photographs, which require the setup of a camera tripod and lighting, COADS uses a flatbed scanner with graph paper to capture two dimensional images of bifaces (“front” and “back”). Flatbed scanning is more efficient and portable in the field than a photo-station. All scans are captured at 600 DPI or higher (Figure 4). Collectors are interviewed and asked about their collection, the acquisition history of their artifacts, and the location of sites from which the artifacts came. Location precision of collections is organized into five classes from most to least precise: 1) site identified by survey supported with maps, photographs, and/or notes; 2) same precision as 1, with only a reliable informant supporting accuracy; 3) identification of artifacts to property, parcel, or field; 4) collections with known locations, but no link between specific artifacts and locations; 5) county or township level provenience. These classes also reflect the priority of data capture in the field of collections; collections without county-level provenience are excluded from COADS, while the primary goal is to capture as much of class 1 provenience as possible. Within Ross County, the collections provenience of artifacts ranges from level 1 to 3. Ponding Texture Channery silt loam Figure 4: Flatbed scan of artifacts from COADS Survey (FCHS_299-314) Ross County Ross County is home to 1015 sites in the OAI (see Nolan 2014) including the iconic Hopewell Earthworks (Figure 5). COADS documented over 10,000 artifacts from the county, including Gary Argabright’s collection with 82 locations. Here we compare the distributions of these two samples of sites with respect to choice of setting. The OAI and collector sites show the same patterns of slope usage (X2=5.8, df=4), the latter with a slightly more pronounced preference for A and B slopes (Table 1). There are slight preferences for occa- sional flooding and well drained soils among the privately recorded sites, but no significant difference in location with respect to drainage (X2=8.4, df=5), flooding (X2=4.5, df=2), or ponding (X2=0.2, df=2; note low count cells). There is a marked preference for silt loam in the private collection (X2=456.3, df=3; collapsed small cells) though with low association (V = 0.65). Collector and the OAI site distributions overlap substantially in coverage. We do see some several areas that this collector examined that have not received professional attention and several areas that are dominated by unidentified prehistoric sites have been documented in detail by the private collection (Nolan et al. 2018). Summary Projects like COADS are necessary to record the full prehistory of any region. As has been shown previously, private collections match and supplement records of professionals. Further, many non-diagnostic lithic scatters may take on new significance when the results of decades of collection are incorporated. With efforts like COADS we can make CRM archaeology more efficient and effective (see Nolan et al. 2018), and tell more complete stories about the past. Acknowledgments We gratefully acknowledge funding from the National Science Foundation (BCS 1723879 and BCS 1723877). We would not be able to do this without the help of Dr. Jonathan E. Bowen, Gary Argabright, Dick McClish, the following chapters of the Archaeological Society of Ohio: Flint Ridge, Mound City, Six River Valley, Standing Stone, and the numerous collectors who have invited us into their homes and allowed us to document their collections and associated information. We acknowledge the following individuals and groups for their participation: Gary Argabright, Don Balthaser, John Barnhart, Fayette County Historical Society, Licking Valley Heritage Society, Dick McClish, John Mears, Moundview Farm, Quiverfull Farm, Tom Schroeder, Robert Wraley, and two collectors who have chosen to remain anonymous. References Nolan, Kevin C. 2014 Prehistoric Landscape Exploitation Strategies Through Time in Central Ohio: A GIS Analysis. Journal of Ohio Archaeology 3:12-37. Nolan, Kevin C., James Leak, and Cameron Quimbach 2018 The Single-Pass Survey and the Collector: A Reasonable Effort in Good Faith? In Collaborative Engagement: Working with Responsible Private Collectors and Collections, edited by Michael Shott, Mark F. Seeman, and Kevin C. Nolan, pp. 51-66. Occasional Papers No. 3, Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology. Figure 3: Andrew Weiland collecting data in the “field” Figure 5: Map of the Location of all Recorded OAI sites in Ross County and those of the Gary Argabright Collection from Ross County Shott, Michael J. 2008 equal o nll roofht w ded I e vsbr cted: A Proposal for Conservation of Private Collections in American Archaeology. A rchaeological Record 8, no. 2: 30-34. 2015 Pros and Cons of Consulting Collectors: A Case Study from the River Raisin in Michigan. Paper presented in symposium Great Lakes A rchaeology: Current Research and Perspectives, 80th SAA meeting, San Francisco.

RELATED PAPERS

RELATED TOPICS

Log In

Central Ohio Archaeological Digitization Survey (COADS)

Central Ohio Archaeological Digitization Survey (COADS)

Related Papers

RELATED PAPERS

RELATED TOPICS