Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.

Dismiss

"Viking" Iron Furnaces in Ohio

84 views

Skip to first unread message

hmcc...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu

unread,

Apr 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/18/96

Len Piotrowski <lpio...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, writing in
sci.archaeology, wrote:
> ....
>I recall an incident from an "excavation" of a Deer Creek, Ohio,
>"Viking Iron Furnace," in which the supposed "Iron Master's" remains were
>reportedly discovered buried in his own "iron furnace" (notice that the label
>has already signified the burial's significance to Vikings without any
>sort of analysis - a problem of misplaced concreteness. ....)
>
>You would think this singular "discovery" would have signaled special care,
>study, and analysis of the remains, but not so. The burial was lost and
>forgotten like so much backfill, foregoing any possible proof of population
>identification forever. ....

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.
Why the furnace was covered with an earthen mound remains a puzzle,
as does the identity of its builders. Perhaps future investigations
of these furnaces wll shed some light on these issues.

I don't know about burial remains, but some of the iron from these
furnaces
was preserved in the Fayette County Historical Society. Professional
archaeologists have, at least up until very recently, generally
ignored
these structures. Orr and Conner have organized an "Archaeo-Pyrogenic
Society" to study them, and have finally interested at least one
professional in them.

(I have cross-posted this from sci.arch to soc.culture.nordic and
sci.archaeology.moderated.)

-- Hu McCulloch
Econ Dept
Ohio State U
mccul...@osu.edu

The following article was published in NEAEA Journal, vol. 28, nos.
1&2,
Summer/Fall 1993, pp. 8-9. Published by New England Antiquities
Research
Association, 2 Oxford Place, Worcester, MA 01609.

Thermoluminescence Dating of Arledge Furnace #1.

William D. Conner, J. Huston McCulloch, David K. Orr, and Ralph M.
Rowlett

Background.

Numerous high-temperature earthen pit furnaces, characterized by
the
presence of glazed stones, iron slag, baked clay, bog iron ore,
charcoal,
and/or lime, and sometimes even cast iron and iron tools, have been
found in
south central Ohio, in particular in Ross and Pickaway Counties. Dr.
Clyde
E. Keeler and Bennett E. Kelley, former Director of the Fayette County
Historical Society, identified 14 such sites, some with multiple
furnaces
(Keeler 1971, 1972, 1973; Keeler and Kelley 1971a, 1971b, 1972).
Co-authors
William D. Conner and David K. Orr have located an additional 3 such
sites.

Arlington H. Mallery, a retired U.S. Navy Captain with an
interest in
pre-Columbian exploration, identified these furnaces as simple direct
reduction iron smelters, designed to produce blooms that could be
worked
into wrought iron by hammering. He argued that the Ohio furnaces
ranged
from the primitive style of the early Iron Age of Europe to the more
advanced types that were common in Scandinavia during the Middle Ages,
but
which were abandoned during the 17th century in favor of more
efficient
industrial processes. From this he concluded that the Ohio furnaces
could
not have been modern pioneer operations, and insisted instead that
they were
relics of some forgotten pre-Columbian settlement inhabited, perhaps,
by
Celts or the Norse (Mallery 1951, chap. 21; Mallery and Harrison 1979,
chap.
2).

A cornerstone of Mallery's pre-Columbian theory was a furnace he
identified as Arledge Furnace #1. This furnace was in a mound on the
farm
of George Arledge, on Deer Creek in northern Ross County. The mound
reportedly stood 16 feet high in 1900, and had been assumed to have
been an
ancient burial mound. Mallery opened it, with local assistance, in
1948 and
1949, and discovered that two furnaces occupied most of its base.
Furnace
#1 was fed by an air duct that led from the edge of the mound and
passed
completely under the furnace before entering it. He noted (1951: 209)
that
the same unusual configuration was also found at Austmannadal,
Greenland, a
site that was abandoned by the Norse about 1350.

Blocking the air duct of the Arledge furnace was an irregular
62-pound
bar of iron that had taken on the shape of the duct, and which
therefore had
been melted by the heat of the furnace. Mallery's interpretation of
the
Arledge bar was that the furnace became overheated, causing the iron
to melt
down into the duct, instead of forming a malleable bloom as planned.
This
unintentionally created cast iron could not be worked by hammering,
and
therefore was abandoned in place. This 62-pound bar is in the
collections
of the Fayette County Historical Museum in Washington Courthouse.

It has also been argued that the furnaces studied by Mallery and
others
are simply 19th century lime kilns built by pioneer farmers, rather
than
iron smelters at all. This was the opinion given Keeler and Kelley
(1972)
by the Ohio Park Service. However, the iron plug in the air duct of
Arledge
Furnace #1 demonstrates that a significant quantity of iron was
present in
at least one of the furnaces. Most of these sites have abundant
high-iron
slag and stones covered with vitreous glaze, which would also indicate
iron
smelting rather than lime production. The green color that this glaze
often
takes on is characteristic of the reducing atmosphere required in
smelting.
Limestone can be converted to lime with a wood fire at 900 - 1000; C
(1650 -
1830; F), while a forced blast of air, charcoal fuel, and considerably
higher temperatures are required to form the characteristic green
Celedon-
type glaze (1282; C or 2340; F), to smelt iron by the direct reduction
process into a bloom (1200-1300; C), or to melt iron. Pure iron melts
at
1535; C or 2795; F, although impurities may reduce this figure by as
much as
400; C (720; F). Lime is present in many of these furnaces, but may
have
been introduced as a flux in an iron smelting process.

Previous Tests

No prior age dating has been performed on the Arledge Furnace
itself.
In 1948, it did not occur to Mallery to save charcoal for radiocarbon
dating. Mallery returned to the Arledge mound in 1963 with Conner to
obtain
carbon samples, but due to deteriorating health did not follow through
with
any published test results. Mallery died in 1968.

However, in 1971, Keeler and Kelley excavated a similar furnace
in a
nearby low mound designated Haskins Mound #2. A slag sample from this
furnace contained 11.93% total iron and 0.2% metallic iron, but only
0.15%
nickel, demonstrating that this was not meteoric iron. Near the base
of the
furnace, Keeler found a 42 pound moulded bar of iron, which appeared
to
Keeler to have been cast in place, bearing approximately six roughly
made
letters, beginning, it would appear, with CONA--, the N being most
distinct.
This bar is also in the Fayette County Historical Society Museum,
along with
other specimens found by Keeler and Kelly. Charcoal from inside the
furnace
gave an uncalibrated radiocarbon date of 1640 A.D. m 90 yrs. (Keeler
and
Kelley 1972).

If we add or subtract 2 standard errors to 1640, subtract an
allowance
for the particularly erratic dendrochronological adjustment for the
era in
question (-40 years at an unadjusted date of 1460, -40 to -120 years
at
1640, and -10 to -140 years at 1820, read from Fleming 1976, Fig.
2.6), and
add an allowance for the life of the tree, this result could be
equally
consistent with either a late Norse date or the early 19th century.
This
test was therefore inconclusive.

Thermoluminescence Dating

Thermoluminescence (TL) dating of ceramic material is often a
useful
alternative to radiocarbon dating of sites. Briefly, clay contains
structures that store radioactive energy that is received from sources
in
the environment, and which is released in the form of light when
heated.
When clay is baked into ceramic material, this energy is completely
discharged, and then begins to accumulate again. By measuring the TL
that
has accumulated in the ceramic material and comparing this to the
background
radiation the material has been exposed to, an estimate can be made of
the
time that has elapsed since the material was last fired. (See Aitken
1974,
Chapter 3; Fleming 1979.)

In 1963, when Mallery and Conner reexcavated Arledge Furnace #1,
Conner
recovered a sample of the furnace wall, which has remained in his
possession
since that time. This sample is fire-hardened clay, coated on one
side by a
green vitreous glaze from the furnace. Since it is clearly associated
with
the process of the furnace, since Conner can vouch for its
provenience, and
since Arledge Furnace #1 has been central to Mallery's ancient smelter
theory, it was decided to obtain a theromoluminescence dating test on
this
specimen.

According to Mallery, the furnace was buried to a depth of at
least 10'
(3.0m) by the earthen mound until at least 1900. (See Mallery 1951,
illustration p. 193a). Since 1900, cultivation had reduced the mound,
but
the lower portion of the furnace was still well covered with earth at
the
time of its original excavation by Mallery in 1948. Mallery reburied
the
furnace with earth to protect it from further cultivation, and this
earth
was still intact in 1963 when he and Conner reexcavated it and Conner
extracted the sample.

In order to calibrate the background radiation to which the
sample would
have been exposed while buried, calcium fluoride dosimeters were
buried in
the remains of the Arledge mound at the centers of containers filled
with
three different types of material from the mound: plain earth, baked
earth,
and stones. One month later, these dosimeters were removed from the
mound
and shipped with the furnace wall specimen to co-author Dr. Ralph M.
Rowlett, Professor of Anthropology and TL Laboratory Manager at the
University Museum, University of Missouri-Columbia.

Test Results

The laboratory was able to TL date the vitreous glaze and the
baked
earth separately. The glaze gave an estimated date of 1740 A.D., with
a
standard error of 15 years. (Test # 91-6-FIC) The baked earth gave
the
same estimated date, 1740 A.D., but a somewhat larger standard error,
25
years. (Test # 91-6-DIC) The former is therefore the more reliable
result.

A 95% confidence interval for the last use of Arlington Furnace
#1,
extending m 2 of the smaller standard errors from 1740, is therefore
1710 -
1770. Since this particular furnace melted the iron that plugged
its own air duct with the 62-pound bar, this confidence interval also
places
an upper bound on the date of the melting (and therefore presumably
also the
smelting) of the iron. The TL result is consistent with, but
considerably
more informative than, the C-14 date on the Haskins furnace.

Contrary to Arlington Mallery, Arledge iron furnace #1 is
therefore
clearly post-Columbian. Surprisingly, however, it is also pre-
Revolutionary, and antedates any permanent European settlement in what
is
now the State of Ohio. The TL date indicates either an unrecorded
pre-1763
French settlement, an unauthorized (and therefore unrecorded) English
settlement during either the French or English period, or else an
American
Indian iron smelting effort. Why the furnace was covered with an
earthen
mound remains a puzzle, as does the identity of its builders.

Perhaps future investigations of these furnaces will shed some
light on
these issues.

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to George Arledge for his cooperation in
allowing us to perform the necessary calibration, and to J. Louis
Bauer of
Denmark, Me. for technical information.
References.

Aitken, M.J., Physics and Archaeology. Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1974.

Fleming, Stuart. Dating in Arachaeology: A Guide to Scientific
Techniques.
London: J.M. Dent & Sons, 1976.

Fleming, Stuart. Thermoluminescence Techniques in Archaeology.
Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1979.

Keeler, Clyde E. and Bennett E. Kelley, "Ancient Iron-Smelting
Furnaces of
Ohio," New England Antiquities Research Association (NEARA) Journal VI
(2,
June 1971): 28-32. 1971a.

Keeler, Clyde E. and Bennett E. Kelley, "Early Iron and the Ohio
Furnaces,"
NEARA Journal VI (3, Sept. 1971): 52-55. 1971b.

Keeler, Clyde E., "Burden of the Amateurs!" NEARA Journal VI (4, Dec.
1971):
62-66.

Keeler, Clyde E. and Bennett E. Kelley, "Haskins Furnace Mound #2,"
NEARA
Journal VII (1, March 1972): 2-8.

Keeler, Clyde E., "A Critique of 'Lost America'," NEARA Journal VII
(4, Dec.
1972): 64-67.

Keeler, Clyde E., "Professor Putnam's Ohio Iron Furnaces," NEARA
Journal
VIII (1, March 1973): 14-19.

Mallery, Arlington H. Lost America: The Story of Iron-Age
Civilization
Prior to Columbus. Columbus OH: The Overlook Co., 1951.

Mallery, Arlington H. (posthumously) and Mary Roberts Harrison. The
Rediscovery of Lost America. New York: Dutton, 1979.

Addresses of authors.

Bill Conner
4342 Knob Hill South
Columbus, OH 43228
(614) 276-5052

Hu McCulloch
Economics Dept.
Ohio State Univ.
1945 N. High St.
Columbus, OH 43210
(614) 292-0382 (W)
(614) 486-1781 (H)

Dave Orr
9254 Williamsport Pike
Chillicothe, OH 45601
(614) 993-4020

Ralph Rowlett
Dept. of Anthropology
200 Swallow Hall
University of Missouri-Columbia
Columbia, MO 65211
(314) 882-9402

Len Piotrowski

unread,

Apr 19, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/19/96

In article <4l63m2$5...@nuacht.iol.ie> 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 by a single TL date. The
basis for any conclusions upon the date are questionable largely due
to the destroyed context of the sites in question and lack of any other
material, structural, or dated associations. It is highly dubious that any
kind of intact "wall" was discovered to furnish the material and context for
the date. I might also point out that "unrecorded" evidence is no evidence at
all ("proof of the negative"). 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 since Mallery had
completely and totally gutted the sites, leaving no record, map, plan, or
inventory of the excavation. 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 a lime kiln. I feel fairly certain that the
nearby Arledge Mound fit a similar use history.

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 even exists.

>I don't know about burial remains,

Read Mallery's books ("Lost America" (1951) by Arlington
H. Mallery, and "The Rediscovery of Lost America" (1979) by Arlington Mallery
and Mary Roberts Harrison: Vikings=Iroquois=Hopewell=Iron
smelter, etc.), 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 their were
two "furnaces" 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 I recall, as to the provenience of this iron material. Both of
these two sites produced burial remains from low, mound like structures.
Whether or not it is all, or partly associated, or totally unassociated with
either Arledge Mound 1 or Haskins Mound 2 is currently unclear.

>Professional
>archaeologists have, at least up until very recently, generally
>ignored
>these structures.

That's 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 a decidedly different conclusion then what Mallery claimed.

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 have been reluctant
to associate with these doppelganger groups, associations, societies, and
individuals, largely because of their sometimes anti-establishment positions
and pronouncements, as well as other allegations about certain activities in
the mid-Ohio Valley. Some of this activity was the subject of a big brouhaha
on the Arch lists just a year or so ago, which has served to give most
legitimate archaeologists on the lists an uneasy feeling about discussing the
subject.

> Orr and Conner have organized an "Archaeo-Pyrogenic
>Society" to study them, and have finally interested at least one
>professional in them.

I can think of either Dr. Paul Pacheco (probably an OSU grad student when last
having any contact with the Midwest Epigraphic Society), or Scott Troy,
both, I think, I can call friends and colleagues. I don't think either has
professed any allegiance to the Mallery myth. (At any rate, Hu, feel free to
contact either Paul or Scott about my archaeological credentials, since you've
demonstrated such an eagerness to publicly broadcast my OSU phone Directory
information to the Net. Note, however, that I am _NOT_ offering you the
authority to divulge that information in any way!)

>(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 worth some level
of discussion, in as much as it fails to support Mallery's original
conclusions, and thus, debunks the logic behind "proof of the negative" and
directly undermines Karl Kluge's "soft" science claim for archaeology. But
also, it has some ironic association to it in regards to these subjects and
the moderator critique for sci.archaeology.moderated. 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,
other than that, it has not so compelling an interest as one might at first
glance presume from the Subject heading.

Cheers, pard,

--Lenny__

"If you can't remember what mnemonic means, you've got a problem."
- perlstyle

Newsgroups: sci.archaeology.moderated
Message-ID: <34894...@ramtops.demon.co.uk>

Len Piotrowski

unread,

Apr 19, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/19/96

In article <4l63m2$5...@nuacht.iol.ie> hmcc...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
writes:

[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 nalysis 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.

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.

>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.

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.

southeastern Ohio." (personal communication)

"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__

Len Piotrowski

unread,

Apr 19, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/19/96

In article <4l63m2$5...@nuacht.iol.ie>
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.

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

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.

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

and Mary Roberts Harrison), and see above.

Anthropology at The Ohio State University. Published critiques some

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

0 new messages