"Viking" Iron Furnaces in Ohio (Was: What makes a Hyperdiffusionist?)
Len Piotrowski
hmcc...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
writes:
>[snip]
>The iron furnace in question is one of the ones that Arlington Mallery
>attributed to Vikings (see references below). The article posted
>below
>reports a Thermoluminescence date on a piece of the wall of one of the
>furnaces Mallery investigated. The date came out 1740 AD, +/- 15
>years.
>This is clearly post-Columbian, and so rules out Vikings. However,
>it is still very interesting, since it is pre-Revolutionary, a period
>when there were supposedly no white settlements (and only a few white
>visitors) in Ohio. We conclude "The TL date indicates either an
>unrecorded pre-1763 French settlement, an unauthorized (and therefore
>unrecorded) English settlement during either the French or English
>[post-1763] period, or else an American Indian iron smelting effort.
Non of these conclusions can be supported soley by a single TL date.
Any
conclusions based upon the date alone are questionable largely due to
the
destroyed context of the sites and lack of any other material,
structural, or
dated associations in situ. Some question may arise as to the
remnants of an
intact "wall" from the feature to furnish the material and context for
the
date. Certainly, the process of obtaining background dosimeter
readings from
undisturbed contexts is questionable, since what ever remained of the
site
after Mallery's earlier excavation has been disturbed substantially by
subsequent farming and perhaps natural floodplain activities.
The selective use of a single TL date (out of two) based solely on the
small
sigma, is unjustified on statistical grounds. Since both dates were
obtained
from the same "wall" sample, by the same techniques, using the same
dosimeter
readings as background, and tested similarly by the same laboratory
(no
peculiarities are mentioned in the lab results from the two testing
procedures), we cannot pass judgement on the reliability of the two
results
one way or another. Reliability of a date usually hinges on the
correspondence
of the result to a target event, and given the lack of documented
difference
between the content, context, and collection of the two samples, we
must
tentatively conclude that the two dates, at least, represent the same
event,
namely the firing of the sample.
1740 A.D., +- 15 years. (Test # 91-6-FIC)
1740 A.D., +- 25 years. (Test # 91-6-DIC)
This does not, however, help us to understand the nature of this
structure,
nor the processes associated with it's creation, use, and abandonment.
In
short, the site history is still unclear.
However, given the closeness of the Haskin's Mound to the Arledge
Mound, and
the many similarities of the two structures (see below), we can fill
out this
picture somewhat. The radiocarbon dates from the Haskin's Mound site
are:
1750 AD +-95 years
1640 AD +-90 years
which essentially form the bracketing dates for the two sites. Note
that the
relatively large sigmas should not be interpreted here as less
reliable
results.
Survey of the immediate and adjacent area to the Arledge Mound, has
revealed
no evidence for 1) a pre-1763 French settlement, or 2) post-1763
English
settlement, or 3) an "American Indian" iron processing site. There is
scattered surface indications of both prehistoric and historic
materials, but
non to suggest a settlement of any kind. Even the "evidence" for iron
smelting
is supported only by Mallery's account of the excavation, of which
there is no
other record. The site evidence that remains suggests a high
temperature
feature of some sort. Whether or not it had anything to do with "iron
smelting" is problematic.
>Why the furnace was covered with an earthen mound remains a puzzle,
>as does the identity of its builders.
Not so puzzling at all, when you consider that the area (Ross County,
Ohio)
is noted for it's large number of prehistoric burial mounds, unique to
the
state and perhaps the region.
>Perhaps future investigations
>of these furnaces wll shed some light on these issues.
There is very little remaining of the original structure. It must be
pointed
out that Captain Mallery lacked any archaeological experience, to my
knowledge, at the time he undertook his so-called "investigations"
with his
company of local volunteers. In addition, intense farming and
floodplain
erosion since then have altered considerably what little does remain.
An issue of the NEARA Newsletter (a publication of the New England
Antiquities
Research Association) described the excavation of Haskins Mound 2.
The
excavation description gives some idea of the structure of the
feature,
perhaps roughly similar to the Arledge Mound. The mound may have been
up to 6
feet in height before it was 'excavated' (excavation began with a
bull-dozer
to level it off and improve the 'looks' of Leroy Haskin's yard). A
roughly
oval area 8' by 10' marked a high-temperature feature described as:
"...a glistening white oval of bog malt lime six and a half feet by
nine
feet, surrounded by an even six inch border of red bog iron ore and
clay.
This in turn, was surrounded by a wide band consisting of a foot and a
half of
burnt earth; black next to the red clay but diminishing in blackness
to where
it became indistinguishable from the surrounding brown earth. The
thick
furnace wall contained many heat glazed stones cemented in."
The Ohio Park Service was consulted and they were not impressed.
"Just an old lime pit, not over a hundred years old." ..."
"Haskins Furnace Mound #2", by Clyde E. Keeler and Bennett E.
Kelley
p. 2, NEARA Newsletter, 9/5/90
At least two 'flues' were traced out in the subsoil, usually marked by
the white
'marl lime' deposit. In one of the flues extending away to the north
(towards
Deer Creek) a _cast_ iron bar was recovered by Dr. Clyde Keeler,
weighing 42
and a half pounds, 21 and half inches in length , 3 and a half inches
thick,
and 2 and three quarters inches wide, bearing the name 'CONALY' in
raised
letters! Several similar iron bars were found in the three other
excavated
Deer Creek mounds, but none with writing on them.
A sawn board was also found in the marl lime at Haskins Mound #2 with
a
square nail still imbedded in it. Fragments of a charred human
mandible
was recovered from the burnt charcoal deposits. Two radiocarbon dates
were
made from this charcoal, one was essentially modern (1750 AD +-95) and
the
other was 1640 AD +-90. I tentatively conclude from this description
that
Haskins Mound #2 was originally a prehistoric burial mound utilized by
later
historic period persons for possibly a lime kiln. I feel fairly
certain that
the nearby Arledge Mound fit a similar use history. In light of this
evidence,
we must evaluate the radiocarbon and TL dates with the understanding
that the
possibility of both prehistoric and historic materials are present as
well as
the possibility of cross-contamination of samples.
Two other mounds are interesting in this regard. The Allyn mound,
located on
Paint Creek not far from Deer Creek (mentioned in Mallery's account
(1951) in
which he attaches plans and cross-section maps of the furnace but not
the
mound itself). Donald McBeth described it so:
"That dome-shaped burned clay structure - call it a furnace or what
you like to
- was without a doubt in my mind prehistoric. The ashes and charcoal
which
apparently had been raked away from it extended some distance out from
it on
the south side, and lay under the three skeletons which were laid
directly one
on the other, with no earth fill between them.--A short distance from
the
"furnace" N.W. in some charcoal and ashes but not in the main deposit
on the
south side, was found a small chunk which to me looked like a clinker
from a
coal heating stove. This was broken up to see its consistency, and it
would
jump to a small magnet."
"Ancient Iron-Smelting Furnaces of Ohio", by Clyde E. Keeler
and
Bennett E. Kelley, p. 31, NEARA Newsletter, 9/5/90.
I have considerable doubt, unlike Donald McBeth, that these
high-temperature
features are associated temporally with the burials in the Allyn
Mound. I've
not seen a description of the burial features or seen the mortuary
remains as
such, that is, if either exists.
>I don't know about burial remains,
See Mallery's books ("Lost America" (1951) by Arlington
H. Mallery, and "The Rediscovery of Lost America" (1979) by Arlington
Mallery
and Mary Roberts Harrison), and see above.
>but some of the iron from these
>furnaces
>was preserved in the Fayette County Historical Society.
The origin and nature of these iron artifacts (rough formed bar
sections, one
with a name on it!) are also problematic. It is of note that the name
marked
on the one bar directly contradicts the third conclusion above (that
is,the
purported "American Indian iron smelting effort."). Apparently there
were,
at least, two high temperature features on Arledge's floodplain
adjacent to
Deer Creek (a stones through away from the water and each other).
There is
some confusion in the accounts, as to the provenience of the
associated iron
artifacts. Both of these two sites produced burial remains from low,
mound
like structures, with "iron plugs" from associated features. Whether
or not
any particular piece is associated with either Arledge Mound 1 or
Haskins
Mound 2 is unclear from the record alone.
>Professional
>archaeologists have, at least up until very recently, generally
>ignored
>these structures.
This is not true. Professional archaeologists have studied the report
and the
remains from Mallery's original excavation, as well as similar
features, and
have come to different conclusions from Mallery.
F.W. Putnam excavated a number of interesting mounds associated with
high-temperature features, most notable are the 2 mounds within a
stone wall
enclosure at the Edwards farm, two miles from Reading in Hamilton
County, Ohio
(early 1880's), consisting of 37 pits/furnaces and an intricate system
of
connecting tunnels/flues (about 1 foot in diameter); and the Clarke
Mound
excavated at Foster's Crossing (apparently near Cincinnatti) (Peabody
Museum
Reports No. 4, 1887-1890, Reports on Clarke's Earthwork Mound
(Foster's
Crossing), pp.95-97). The Clarke Mound has many similarities to the
Haskin
Mound #2 on Deer Creek:
"...the structure extended into the sides of the hill about fifty
feet, and from ten
to twenty feet down the sides. The whole circumvallation was made up
of
a carefully laid wall of flat stones along the outer side several feet
in
height; behind this were loose stones, both large and small, making
nearly
half the structure; and behind and over these stones was a mass of
clay burnt
to all degrees of hardness, from that only slightly burnt to great
masses of
slag showing that the clay had been subjected to very great heat, in
places
forming a vitreous surface over the slag which resembles that from a
blast
furnace. In many places the limestone had been burnt in varying
degree, and
here and there large quantities of pure lime were found. Large pieces
of
charcoal and beds of ashes were discovered in many parts of the
structure."
"Professor Putnam's Ohio Iron Furnaces", by Dr. Clyde E. Keeler,
NEARA Newsletter, pp. 14-15, 9/5/90.
More recently, archaeological investigation of the Deer Creek Valley
were
conducted as part of a Survey and Matching Grant by myself, sponsored
by the
Ohio State Historic Preservation Office in conjunction with the, now
defunct,
Regional Archaeological Preservation Office 6A, based out of the
Department of
Anthropology at The Ohio State University. Published critiques some
thirty
years ago of the original discoveries of the Deer Creek furnaces
included an
archaeologist from OSU who concluded the features were likely the
remains of
Lime kilns. At least some of the high temperature features seem to fit
that
description. The process appears to be quite common historically. I
tend to be
leaning towards historic lime kilns, but at least the Spruce Hill
features
(mentioned in Mallery and in the NEARA Newsletter) do not have the
large
deposits of lime, and perhaps show clearer evidence of iron slag.
However, I
am not convinced of a prehistoric placement for any of these features.
The
Spruce Hill Feature may be more likely associated with the time period
of the
Civil War.
According to one local historian, these kilns abound throughout
southeastern
Ohio (Deer Creek is in south-central Ohio). He says, "Almost all of
them were
built in the nineteenth century for production of civilwar period iron
cannons, weapons, etc. Throughout the hills you can find what are
called
charcoal kilns, large round areas of black soot left over from
building large
pyramid-looking wood piles and burned for production of coals to use
in the
large stone kilns used to smelt iron. These are everywhere in the
hollows of
southeastern Ohio."
Other professionally trained archaeologists have been interested in
the sites
since that work, largely as a result of being approached by one or
more of the
members of the Midwest Epigraphic Society, an organization linked to
the
New England Antiquities Research Association (NEARA) and the apparent
"Archaeo-Pyrogenic Society." Professional archaeologists in the past
have
been reluctant to associate with these groups largely because of the
group's
beliefs and pronouncements, as well as some of their activities. Some
of this
activity was the focus of a big brouhaha on the Arch lists just a year
or so
ago, which has served to give most legitimate archaeologists
subscribing an
uneasy feeling about entering into a discussion on the subject.
> Orr and Conner have organized an "Archaeo-Pyrogenic
>Society" to study them, and have finally interested at least one
>professional in them.
There have been several others I can think of who have been interested
in
these features, besides myself. And I can think of two that have been
in
contact with the Midwest Epigraphic Society most recently (Check with
Scott
or Paul if you're still interested in my credentials, Hu.);-)
>(I have cross-posted this from sci.arch to soc.culture.nordic and
>sci.archaeology.moderated.)
The archaeological significance of the attached report may be of some
worth
in as much as it fails to support Mallery's original conclusions, and
thus,
serves as a further example to the original argument of the thread
(debunking
the logic behind "proof of the negative" and Karl Kluge's claim that
archaeology is incapable of separating science from pseudoscience).
For a
fuller understanding of this aspect of the discussion, I would refer
non
readers of sci.archaeology to that newsgroup, or DejaNews for previous
posts.
However, given that, it has not so compelling an interest as one might
derive at first glance from the Subject heading.
Cheers,
--Lenny__
lpio...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
"If you can't remember what mnemonic means, you've got a problem."
- perlstyle
Len Piotrowski
[snip]
>The iron furnace in question is one of the ones that Arlington Mallery
>attributed to Vikings ... The article posted
>below
>reports a Thermoluminescence date on a piece of the wall of one of the
>furnaces ...
>This is clearly post-Columbian, and so rules out Vikings. However,
>it is still very interesting, since it is pre-Revolutionary, a period
>when there were supposedly no white settlements (and only a few white
>visitors) in Ohio. We conclude "The TL date indicates either an
>unrecorded pre-1763 French settlement, an unauthorized (and therefore
>unrecorded) English settlement during either the French or English
>[post-1763] period, or else an American Indian iron smelting effort.
Non of these conclusions can be supported soley by a single TL date. Any
conclusions based upon the date alone are questionable largely due to the
disturbed context of the sites and lack of any other material, structurers, or
dated associations in situ. Some question may arise as to the remnants of an
intact "wall" from the feature to furnish the material and context for the
date. Certainly, the process of obtaining background dosimeter readings from
undisturbed contexts is questionable, since what ever remained of the site
after Mallery's earlier excavation has been disturbed substantially by
subsequent farming and perhaps natural floodplain activities.
The selective use of a single TL date (out of two) based solely on the small
sigma, is unjustified on statistical grounds. Since both dates were obtained
from the same "wall" sample, by the same techniques, using the same dosimeter
readings as background, and tested similarly by the same laboratory (no
peculiarities are mentioned in the lab results from the two testing
procedures), we cannot pass judgement on the reliability of the two results
one way or another. Reliability of a date usually hinges on the correspondence
of the result to a target event, and given the lack of documented difference
between the content, context, and collection of the two samples, we must
tentatively conclude that the two dates, at least, represent the same event,
namely the firing of the sample:
1740 A.D., +- 15 years. (Test # 91-6-FIC (DIC?))
1740 A.D., +- 25 years. (Test # 91-6-DIC)
There is no observed difference between these estimates, and the standard
error of the difference is trivially nil. The two dates could legitimately be
pooled. This does not, however, help us to understand any better the site
history.
However, given the closeness of the Haskin's Mound to the Arledge Mound, and
the many similarities of the two structures (see below), we can fill out this
picture somewhat. The radiocarbon dates from the Haskin's Mound site are:
1750 AD +-95 years
1640 AD +-90 years
Statisical analysis of these dates indicates the two are estimates of the same
value, and can be pooled. An Analysis of Variance between the Arledge Md
TL dates and Haskins Md C14 dates suggests only random differences between
them. Assuming the four dates estimate closely linked events, this places a
lower quartile range of around 1690 AD and upper quartile of approximately
1745 AD, with a median date of 1740 AD.
Survey of the Arledge Mound, has revealed no evidence for 1) a pre-1763 French
settlement, or 2) post-1763 English settlement, or 3) an "American Indian"
iron processing site. There is diffuse surface indications of both
prehistoric and historic materials, but non to suggest a settlement of any
kind. The site evidence that does remain suggests the presence of a high
temperature feature of some sort. Whether or not it had anything to do with
"iron smelting" is problematic.
>Why the furnace was covered with an earthen mound remains a puzzle,
>as does the identity of its builders.
Not so puzzling when you consider that the area (Ross County, Ohio)
is noted for it's large number of prehistoric burial mounds, unique to the
state and perhaps the region.
>Perhaps future investigations
>of these furnaces wll shed some light on these issues.
There is very little remaining of the original structure. It must be pointed
out that Captain Mallery lacked any archaeological experience, to my
knowledge, at the time he undertook his investigations with his
company of local volunteers. In addition, intense farming and floodplain
erosion since then have considerably altered what remains.
An issue of the NEARA Newsletter described the excavation of Haskins Mound 2.
made from this charcoal, discussed above. I tentatively conclude from this
description that Haskins Mound #2 was originally a prehistoric burial mound
utilized by later historic period persons for possibly a lime kiln. I feel
fairly certain that the nearby Arledge Mound fit a similar use history. In
light of this evidence, we must re-evaluate the radiocarbon and TL dates with
the understanding that the possibility of both prehistoric and historic
materials are present, as well as the possibility of cross-contamination of
samples.
Two other mounds are interesting in this regard. The Allyn mound, located on
Paint Creek not far from Deer Creek (mentioned in Mallery's account (1951) in
which he attaches plans and cross-section maps of the furnace but not the
mound itself). Donald McBeth described it so:
"That dome-shaped burned clay structure - call it a furnace or what you like to
- was without a doubt in my mind prehistoric. The ashes and charcoal which
apparently had been raked away from it extended some distance out from it on
the south side, and lay under the three skeletons which were laid directly one
on the other, with no earth fill between them.--A short distance from the
"furnace" N.W. in some charcoal and ashes but not in the main deposit on the
south side, was found a small chunk which to me looked like a clinker from a
coal heating stove. This was broken up to see its consistency, and it would
jump to a small magnet."
"Ancient Iron-Smelting Furnaces of Ohio", by Clyde E. Keeler and
Bennett E. Kelley, p. 31, NEARA Newsletter, 9/5/90.
I have considerable doubt, unlike Donald McBeth, that these high-temperature
features are associated temporally with the burials in the Allyn Mound. I've
not seen a description of the burial features or seen the mortuary remains as
such, that is, if either exists.
>I don't know about burial remains,
See Mallery's books ("Lost America" (1951) by Arlington
H. Mallery, and "The Rediscovery of Lost America" (1979) by Arlington Mallery
and Mary Roberts Harrison), and also above.
Anthropology at The Ohio State University. This included survey of the Arledge
and Haskins Mounds. Published critiques some thirty years ago of the original
discoveries of the Deer Creek furnaces included an archaeologist from OSU who
concluded the features were likely the remains of Lime kilns. At least some of
the high temperature features seem to fit that description. The process
appears to be quite common historically. I tend to be leaning towards historic
lime kilns, but at least the Spruce Hill features (mentioned in Mallery and in
the NEARA Newsletter) do not have the large deposits of lime, and perhaps show
clearer evidence of iron slag. However, I am not convinced of a prehistoric
placement for any of these features. The Spruce Hill Feature may be more
likely associated with the time period of the Civil War.
According to one local historian, these kilns abound throughout southeastern
Ohio (Deer Creek is in south-central Ohio). He says, "Almost all of them were
built in the nineteenth century for production of civilwar period iron
cannons, weapons, etc. Throughout the hills you can find what are called
charcoal kilns, large round areas of black soot left over from building large
pyramid-looking wood piles and burned for production of coals to use in the
large stone kilns used to smelt iron. These are everywhere in the hollows of
southeastern Ohio." (personal communication)
Other professionally trained archaeologists have been interested in the sites
since that work, largely as a result of being approached by one or more of the
members of the Midwest Epigraphic Society, an organization linked to the
New England Antiquities Research Association (NEARA) and the apparent
"Archaeo-Pyrogenic Society." Professional archaeologists in the past have
been reluctant to associate with these groups largely because of the group's
beliefs and pronouncements, as well as some of their activities. Some of this
activity was the focus of a big brouhaha on the Arch lists just a year or so
ago, which has served to give most legitimate archaeologists an uneasy feeling
about entering into discussions on the subject.
> Orr and Conner have organized an "Archaeo-Pyrogenic
>Society" to study them, and have finally interested at least one
>professional in them.
There have been several others I can think of who have been interested in
these features, besides myself. And I can think of two that have been in
contact with the Midwest Epigraphic Society most recently (Check with Scott
if you're still worried about my credentials, Hu.);-)
>(I have cross-posted this from sci.arch to soc.culture.nordic and
>sci.archaeology.moderated.)
The archaeological significance of the attached report may be of some worth
in as much as it fails to support Mallery's original conclusions, and thus,
serves as a further example to the original argument in the thread (namely,
debunking the logic behind "proof of the negative" and Karl Kluge's claim
that archaeology is incapable of separating science from pseudoscience). For a
fuller understanding of this aspect of the discussion, I would refer non
readers of sci.archaeology to that newsgroup, or DejaNews for previous posts.
Besides the importance of reporting these dates, the Subject heading may
suggest something quite different to the casual reader.
Cheers,
--Lenny__
Markus Figel
> [snip]
> 1740 A.D., +- 15 years. (Test # 91-6-FIC (DIC?))
> 1740 A.D., +- 25 years. (Test # 91-6-DIC)
> There is no observed difference between these estimates, and the standard
> error of the difference is trivially nil. The two dates could legitimately be
> pooled. This does not, however, help us to understand any better the site
> history.
I'm just curious, anybody tried there archaeomagnetic dating? The furnace
(if undisturbed) should be a perfect thing for it and in combination with
TL (to rule out ambigous results) should give a high precision date. We
used this combination for the dating of a furnace in an early christian
site here in South Germany - perfect.
But remember this will give you only the date of the last heating!!!
Markus
-----any opinion expressed here is mine and not those of GSF-----------
fi...@gsf.de GSF-Research Centre, Germany
Len Piotrowski
Hi Markus,
[snip}
>I'm just curious, anybody tried there archaeomagnetic dating? The furnace
>(if undisturbed) should be a perfect thing for it and in combination with
>TL (to rule out ambigous results) should give a high precision date. We
>used this combination for the dating of a furnace in an early christian
>site here in South Germany - perfect.
>But remember this will give you only the date of the last heating!!!
The problem with applying archaeomagnetic dating (and, in my opinion, what
makes the TL dates problematic as well) at the Arledge Mound 1 is the high
degree of disturbance the site has undergone, especially by the activities of
several (apparent) "excavations" (Haskins Mound by bulldozer!) none of which
produced even a minimal standard plan, section, or accurate description of
such.
Areledge Mound 1 was described as a degraded mound in 1941 by an
investigator from the Ohio Historical Society Museum, "excavated" in 1949 by
Mallery and again later, to some unknown extent, in 1963, and apparently once
again extensively disturbed in 1988. In between these assaults, both sites
have been annually subjected to agricultural disturbance, and floodplain
dynamics. Under these conditions I would doubt sufficient undisturbed context
remains of the original object of interest. We are also told, outside the
published account, that the TL laboratory itself reported "less consistent
results" for one portion of the sample, which was materially and substantively
different from the other portion of the sample, raising additional questions
about the context, association, and target event represented by this "sample,"
retained as a memento from a previous encounter at the site and vouched for
as authentic.
In fact, nothing remains of the original structure to verify any of the
conjectures that Mallery makes for the site. Selective choice of the
evidence has emphasized the "furnace" aspects of the material remains (green
glazed stones, iron bars, red "bog ore", burnt earth, charcoal, and
ashes, "flue-like" features, a central feature subjected to high temperatures,
the buried "iron master", an ancient date) while ignoring evidence that
doesn't fit this picture (fire-clay bricks, finished lumber with saw marks,
square nails, axe head, "marl" lime in large quantities, fire reddened earth,
crockery, kitchen ceramics, mound features with burials, flint debris and
tools, etc.), nor the _lack_ of certain otherwise important adjuncts to
various arguments (quantities of true iron slag, the discovery of a bloom,
and, now, evidence for a French/English settlement ). This critique is true
for both the Areledge Mound 1 and Haskins Mound 2, which was only a stones
throw away.
The overall picture (if you bother to be objective about it) is one of a
mixture of prehistoric and historic elements. Under these conditions, one
cannot be certain from the record of these uncontrolled excavations whether or
not the material gathered for dating came from one or the other postulated
contexts, or in fact that undisturbed contexts were ever encountered in the
process of obtaining the sample. Doubt in this case, or any other
archaeological case, should not be frowned upon as the machinations of a
conspiratorial or arrogant elite. It is the basis of a scientific
understanding of the archaeological record, and should be accepted in that
context.
The original excavators of both sites removed the burials from these two
mounds, and thus held one of the few unequivocal material aspects from
the site which could, upon proper analysis, answer some of these questions. If
these interments still exist, it would be in the interest of archaeological
science that they be made available for proper study, as well as any
other burial remains recovered by the essentially private (non-public)
"Archaeo-Pyrogenic Society," and/or the Midwest Epigraphic Society. It would
also be ethically prudent to do so, since in the private concerns of 1949,
these issues as well as Amerindian human rights were non-existent, but today
it's a different story, especially since now it's an object of public scrutiny
on the Usenet.
Remember, too, that this original thread began as a rejoinder to
the positions that "alternative archaeologies" were a legitimate challenge to
scientific archaeology, that "proof of the negative" was a methodologically
sound practice for understanding, and that modern archaeology was incapable of
distinguishing science from pseudoscience. I would hope that as this example
from south-central Ohio plays out in the newsgroups that everyone will become
more aware of the error of these ideas, and look more critically at the
evidence for such archaeological claims.
Cheers,
--Lenny__
lpio...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu