Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T06:18:07.906Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Central Ohio Archaeological Digitization Survey

A Demonstration of Amplified Public Good from Collaboration with Private Collectors

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 January 2022

Kevin C. Nolan Open the ORCID record for Kevin C. Nolan [Opens in a new window] ,
Michael J. Shott Open the ORCID record for Michael J. Shott [Opens in a new window]  and
Eric Olson
Kevin C. Nolan*
Affiliation:
Applied Anthropology Laboratories, Ball State University Muncie, IN, USA
Michael J. Shott
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, University of Akron, Akron, OH, USA
Eric Olson
Affiliation:
Cuyahoga Community College, Parma, OH, USA
*
([email protected], corresponding author)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Significant parts of the archaeological record are in private hands, including those of responsible and responsive stewards (RRS). This is not necessarily a bad thing. The Central Ohio Archaeological Digitization Survey (COADS) engages RRS in collaborative study of central Ohio prehistory. COADS leverages the mass of RRS data constructively to add depth and breadth to a regional archaeological record. We recorded over 12,000 diagnostic points and about 5,000 other stone tools from 32 RRS collections. All were scanned as two-dimensional (2D) images, and a sample as three-dimensional (3D) models for landmark-based geometric morphometric (LGM) analysis and GIS analysis of prehistoric land use. The resulting dataset is >4.7 times the number of diagnostics recorded in the Ohio SHPO database for the region, shedding new light on land use and tool use over millennia. In addition to academic research, COADS creates an accessible collection of 3D models available to RRS colleagues and to society at large. This reciprocal sharing mutually benefits professionals and the RRS community. Professionals are not the only ones who research the cultural past; the more and better we collaborate with RRS and others with legitimate interests, the better our common understanding of that past.

Partes importantes del registro arqueológico se guardan en manos privadas, incluyendo las de los mayordomos responsables y/o responsivos (RRS en sus mayúsculas inglés). Esta situación no necesariamente sea mala cosa. El Reconocimiento Digital Arqueológico del Ohio Central (COADS en sus mayúsculas inglés) se comprometen los RRS en un estudio colaborativo de la prehistoria de la parte central de Ohio. COADS aprovecha el cuerpo de datos de los RRS para profundizar y ampliar el registro arqueológico regional. Contamos con datos derivados a mas que 12,000 puntas cabezales diagnósticas y cerca de 5,000 otros útiles líticos procedentes de las colecciones de unas 32 RRS. Todo artefacto se escaneó como imágenes digitales en dos dimensiones (2D), y una muestra de casi 500 en tres dimensiones (3D) para análisis de hitos en la geometría morfomètrica (LGM en sus mayúsculas inglés), y análisis espacial por medio de GIS. El conjunto de datos procedentes de este proyecto cuenta con >4.7 veces el número de puntas cabezales ya registrada en el conjunto de la Oficina Estatal de la Preservación Historica (SHPO en sus mayúsculas inglés) de Ohio, arrojando luz nueva al comportamiento espacial y del uso de los útiles prehistoricos. Ademas de las investigaciónes academicas, COADS crea una colección accessible de modélos disponibles a investigadores responsables, quienquiera sean. Tal compartimiento reciprocal ayuda las comunidades profesionales y de los RRS igualmente. Los profesionales no son los unicos que estudian el pasado antiguo; lo más y mejor que nosotros colaboramos con los RRS y con otros que tengan intereses legítimos, lo mejor por el entendimiento común de eso pasado.

Keywords

responsible and responsive stewards (RRS)collectionscollaborationdigitizationOhio3D modelslandmark-based geometric morphometric (LGM)mayordomos responsables y sensibles (RRS en inglés)colecciónescoloboracióndigitalizaciónOhiomodelos de cabezales de 3D (i.e., tres dimensiónes)morfometría geométrico basada en hitos
Type
Article
Information
Advances in Archaeological Practice , Volume 10 , Special Issue 1: Professional–Collector Collaboration: Moving beyond Debate to Best Practice , February 2022 , pp. 83 - 90
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Society for American Archaeology

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES CITED

Banning, Edward B. 2021 Sampled to Death? The Rise and Fall of Probability Sampling in Archaeology. American Antiquity 86:43–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowen, Jonathan 2015 Archaic Period Corner Notched Serrated Nettling Points in North-Central Ohio. Self-published. Electronic document, https://www.academia.edu/12252508/Archaic_Period_Corner_Notched_Serrated_Nettling_Points_in_North_Central_Ohio_, accessed November 16, 2021.Google Scholar
Conolly, James 2018 Revisiting the Laurentian Concept: Evaluating the Contribution of Isolation by Distance and Biogeography on the Morphological and Geospatial Variation in Laurentian Archaic Biface Forms. Archaeology of Eastern North America 46:69–92.Google Scholar
Foradas, James G. 2003 Chemical Sourcing of Hopewell Bladelets: Implications for Building a Chert Database for Ohio. In Written in Stone: The Multiple Dimensions of Lithic Analysis, edited by Kardulias, P. Nicholas and Yerkes, Richard W., pp. 87–112. Lexington Books, Lanham, Maryland.Google Scholar
Justice, Noel D. 1989 Stone Age Spear and Arrow Points of the Midcontinental and Eastern United States: A Modern Survey and Reference. Indiana University Press, Bloomington.Google Scholar
Kagelmacher, Michael L. 2000 Ohio Cherts of Archaeological Interest: A Macroscopic and Petrographic Examination and Comparison. Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, Kent State University, Kent, Ohio.Google Scholar
Lutz, Benjamin, and Nolan, Kevin C. 2020a Generalized Chert Sources of Ohio, version 1.0. For Central Ohio Archaeological Digitization Survey, Michael J. Shott and Kevin C. Nolan, BCS 1723879 and BCS 1723877. Applied Anthropology Laboratories, Ball State University, Muncie, Indiana. https://arcg.is/0v4DLO, accessed December 20, 2020.Google Scholar
Lutz, Benjamin, and Nolan, Kevin C. 2020b Anthropology Report Generator (ARG) Toolbox Package. For Central Ohio Archaeological Digitization Survey, Michael J. Shott and Kevin C. Nolan, BCS 1723879 and BCS 1723877. Applied Anthropology Laboratories, Ball State University, Muncie, Indiana. https://arcg.is/14KCje0, accessed December 20, 2020.Google Scholar
Mullett, Amanda N. 2009 Paleoindian Mobility Ranges Predicted by the Distribution of Projectile Points Made of Upper Mercer and Flint Ridge Flint. Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, Kent State University, Kent, Ohio.Google Scholar
Nolan, Kevin C. 2014 An Exploratory Analysis of Diachronic Settlement Patterns in Central Ohio. Journal of Ohio Archaeology 3:12–37.Google Scholar
Nolan, Kevin C. 2020 Bringing Archaeology into the Information Age: Entropy, Noise, Channel Capacity, and Information Potential in Archaeological Significance Assessments. Quality and Quantity 54:1171–1196. DOI:10.1007/s11135-020-00980-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nolan, Kevin C., and Bello, Charles 2021 Collaborative and Community Archaeology: Introduction and Some Case Studies. Paper presented in the "Collaborative and Community Archaeology" session at the SAA 86th Annual Meeting online. https://saa2021.conferencecontent.net/sessions/5137, accessed April 20, 2020.Google Scholar
Nolan, Kevin C., Leak, James, and Quimbach, Cameron 2018 The Single-Pass Survey and the Collector: A Reasonable Effort in Good Faith? In Collaborative Engagement: Working with Private Collections and Responsive Collectors, edited by Shott, Michael, Seeman, Mark, and Nolan, Kevin, pp. 51–66. Occasional Paper No. 3. Midwest Archaeological Conference, Champaign, Illinois.Google Scholar
Olson, Eric 2019 The Shirey Meadow Site: A Comparative Study of Shovel Testing and Pedestrian Survey. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 89:61–74.Google Scholar
Olson, Eric, Nolan, Kevin C., and Shott, Michael J. 2021 Central Ohio Archaeological Digitization Project: Preliminary Report. Current Research in Ohio Archaeology. Ohio Archaeological Council. Electronic document, https://ohioarchaeology.org/articles-and-abstracts-2021/601-central-ohio-archaeological-digitization-survey-preliminary-report, accessed April 20, 2021.Google Scholar
Peacock, Evan, and Rafferty, Janet 2007 Cultural Resource Management Guidelines and Practice in the United States. In Quality Management in Archaeology, edited by Willems, Willem and van den Dries, Monique, pp. 113–134. Oxbow Books, Oxford.Google Scholar
Perreault, Charles 2019 The Quality of the Archaeological Record. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pitblado, Bonnie L. 2014 An Argument for Ethical, Proactive, Archaeologist–Artifact Collector Collaboration. American Antiquity 79:385–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pitblado, Bonnie L., and Shott, Michael J. 2015 The Present and Future of Archaeologist-Collector Collaboration. SAA Archaeological Record 15(5):36–39.Google Scholar
Pitblado, Bonnie L., Shott, Michael J., Brosowske, Scott, Butler, Virginia L., Cox, Jim, Espenshade, Chris, Neller, Angella J., et al. 2018 Process and Outcomes of the SAA “Professional Archaeologists, Avocational Archaeologists, and Responsible Artifact Collectors Relationships Task Force” (2015–2018). SAA Archaeological Record 18(5):14–17.Google Scholar
Rohlf, F. James 2017 tpsDig, Digitize Landmarks and Outlines, Version 2.31. Department of Ecology and Evolution, State University of New York, Stony Brook.Google Scholar
Seeman, Mark F., Colucci, Amanda N., and Fulk, Charles 2020 Hunter-Gatherer Mobility and Versatility: A Consideration of Long-Term Lithic Supply in the Midwest. American Antiquity 85:113–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shott, Michael J. 1992 Commerce or Service: Models of Practice in Archaeology. In Quandaries and Quests: Visions of Archaeology's Future, edited by Wandsnider, LuAnn, pp. 9–24. Occasional Paper No. 22. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.Google Scholar
Shott, Michael J. 2002 Sample Bias in the Distribution and Abundance of Midwestern Fluted Bifaces. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 27:89–123.Google Scholar
Shott, Michael J. 2017 Estimating the Magnitude of Private Collection of Points and Its Effects upon Professional Survey Results: A Michigan Case Study. Advances in Archaeological Practice 5:125–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shott, Michael J. 2020 Toward a Theory of the Point. In Culture History and Convergent Evolution: Can We Detect Populations in Prehistory?, edited by Groucutt, Huw, pp. 245–259. Springer, Cham, Switzerland.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shott, Michael J., and Nolan, Kevin C. 2016 Collaborative Research: Prehistoric Transitions and Expanding Databases: Central Ohio Archaeological Digitization Survey (COADS). Proposal submitted to the National Science Foundation.Google Scholar
Shott, Michael J., and Pitblado, Bonnie 2015 Introduction to the Theme “Pros and Cons of Consulting Collectors.” SAA Archaeological Record 15(5):11–13, 39.Google Scholar
Shott, Michael J., Weiland, Andrew, Olson, Eric, Wathen, Kelli, Clark, Abby, Travis, Sidney, Ritter, Gabi, and Nolan, Kevin C. 2017 Central Ohio Archaeological Digitization Survey. Department of Anthropology, University of Akron and Applied Anthropology Laboratories, Ball State University. Electronic document, https://sketchfab.com/bsu_aal/collections/coads, accessed September 19, 2017.Google Scholar
Society for American Archaeology 1996 Principles of Archaeological Ethics. Electronic document, https://www.saa.org/career-practice/ethics-in-professional-archaeology, accessed September 25, 2021.Google Scholar
Society for American Archaeology 2018 Editorial Policy, Information for Authors, and Style Guide for American Antiquity, Latin American Antiquity, and Advances in Archaeological Practice. Electronic document, https://documents.saa.org/container/docs/default-source/doc-publications/style-guide/saa-style-guide_updated-july-2018c5062f7e55154959ab57564384bda7de.pdf?sfvrsn=8247640e_6, accessed March 19, 2021.Google Scholar
Thompson, Christine, Knapke, Nancy, Obermeyer, Brice, Hunter, Diane, Alligood, Nekole, Barry, Kristin, Bussler, Matthew, et al. 2021 Engaging Communities through Conflict: A Case Study in the Development of Truly Engaged Scholarship in Two Communities. Paper presented in the “Collaborative and Community Archaeology” session at the SAA 86th Annual Meeting Online. https://saa2021.conferencecontent.net/sessions/5137, accessed April 20, 2021.Google Scholar
Thompson, Christine, and Nolan, Kevin C. 2018 A Village Built over a Battlefield: Urban Archaeology and Preservation at the Battle of the Wabash (1791). Indiana Archaeology 13(1):43–48.Google Scholar
Thompson, Christine, Nolan, Kevin C., and Halfmoon, Stacey 2018 A New View of the Battle of the Wabash. Funded proposal submitted to the National Endowment for the Humanities, Public Humanities Projects. Award GE-261129-18.Google Scholar
VanValkenburgh, Parker, and Dufton, J. Andrew 2020 Big Archaeology: Horizons and Blindspots. Journal of Field Archaeology 45(Issue supplement 1):S1–S7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar