The so-called "lost" rock of the Barnesville Track Rock petroglyphs, Belmont Co., Ohio, is described and the first published photographs are provided.  In some respects Whittlesey's 1872 drawing is more accurate than that provided in Swauger (1974).  The carvings are exposed to weather and exhibit considerable degradation

Murphy, James L., 1941-

KnowledgeBank at OSU

THE "LOST" BARNESVILLE TRACK ROCK Abstract. The second of the two Barnesville Track Rocks first illustrated by Ward (1872) and by Whittlesey (1872) was buried or at least partially covered for many years and has remained largely undescribed since its rediscovery. Swauger could not find it in his original visit to the site and later simply confirmed that Whittlesey's sketch was accurate, without providing any illustra­tions (Swauger 1978). Those of the 45 carvings which could still be discerned on several recent visits are illustrated herein. and are compared with Ward's and Whittlesey's illustrations. Like the carvings on the adjacent Barnesville Track Rock 1, these carvings are gradually deteriorating due to weather. Introduction. The earliest study of the Barnesville Track Rocks occurred in 1857 when Thomas Kite, a Cincinnati bookkeeper with an antiquarian interest, made plaster casts of the carvings. The whereabouts of these casts remains unknown, but sev­eral are illustrated by James Warner Ward (1872: 60), who visited the site "soon afterward" according to Whittlesey (Read and Whittlesey 1877: 66) and made detailed sketches (presumably before he moved to New York in 1859). Although Whittlesey averred that Ward's sketches were made with much care, "he being not only an artist but an antiquarian," it was subsequently found that there were im­portant omissions. Ward (18161897) was born in Newark, New Jersey, and became the pupil and assistant of John Locke in the Medical College of Ohio at Cincinnati, taught general literature and botany at the Female College of Ohio in 1853-54, and subsequently was a co-editor of the Botanical Magazine and Horticultural Re­view, published in Cincinnati. He moved to New York in 1859 and in 1879 became librarian of the Grosvenor Public Library in Buffalo. Besides composing music for the voice and organ, Ward was a member of botanical and microscopical societies, as well as publishing poetry (W, J.G. 1894: 124). He is not known to have made any other contributions to archaeology, however. Whittlesey (1872) and Read and Whit­tlesey (1877) provided more accurate diagrams of the two sandstone boulders at the Belmont Co. site (33-BL-2) that are known to bear incontrovertibly prehistoric Indian rock carvings. Swauger (1974a, 1974b, 1978) visited the site in 1971 and restudied the larger of the two rocks but was unable to locate the second. This by James L. Murphy Professor Emeritus Ohio State University Libraries 1848 Neil Avenue Mall Columbus, OH 43210 "lost" rock was rediscovered by Earl Noble and Charles F. Coss in 1975, and Swauger revisited the site in 1976 but did not study or record the second rock, simply confirming that Whittlesey's drawing was accurate. (This conclusion is essentially correct, al­though there are some discrepancies in Whittlesey's drawing and that made for Swauger by Clifford J. Morrow, Jr.). Subsequently, the carvings on both rocks were outlined with black paint, presumably by the owner, Robert S. Wood, as a boulder at the entrance to the site is marked in black paint, "Wood Track Rocks." This appears to have been done after 1984, as Moseley (1984) provides a photograph of a carving lacking the black paint. Mr. Wood died in 1996 and the site was purchased by the Archaeological Conservancy in 1999 Present Condition. The site was visited in late April, 2009, and particular attention was given to the second or "lost" rock, as apparently no photographic record of it has ever been published. Although several subsequent visits were made in May, June, and July, 2009, and despite the generally high qual­ity of Whittlesey's drawing, not all of the carvings could be detected. While current conventional wisdom decries the painting or even the chalking of petroglyphs, it would have been very difficult to locate some of these features, even with Whittlesey's excellent rendition, had they not been painted. It would appear that considerable deterioration has occurred since Swauger examined the rock, as he stated that the designs were clear, "Having suf­fered almost no damage, a circumstance probably due to their having been covered with a mantle of earth and shrub growth as long ago as 1925 ... " Fortunately, we know that the second rock was fully exposed when Ward and later Whittlesey examined it in the 19th century, so no convincing claim can be made that it was deliberately covered by Algonkian or Anishinauae elders to prevent their "teaching rocks" from being viewed by the incognescenti (ct. Weeks 1972). Some of the carvings appear to have de­teriorated despite having been covered or since they were uncovered and painted. In particular the black paint has peeled considerably in many instances and the rock surface is discolored by lichens. The edges of the rock have already become partially covered again by recent leaf mold. Discussion. Although Swauger (1974a, b) assigned numbers to each design illustrated by Whittlesey, he had not seen the rock at that time, and we are left to conjecture whether he later actually verified the presence of all 45 designs (his nos. 63-107) discerned by Whittlesey. In all fairness to Swauger, whom I admire immensely for his work in the study of Ohio Valley rock art, the tone and brevity of his 1978 article and his failure to include more detailed study of the sec­ond rock in his 1984 book on Ohio rock art suggest that his interest in the Barnesville Track Rocks had waned by the time the second rock was re-discovered. Ward's and Whittlesey's drawings are shown here in Figures 1 and 2. Reference to specific carvings will be to Swauger's numbering system, which assigns numbers 63 through 107 to designs on the sec­ond, "lost" Barnesville Track Rock (Table 1). Numbers 108 through 113 are assigned to designs on the larger Rock No.1. Also, Swauger accidentally assigned the number 82 to two different designs on Rock 2, the snake carving and an animal track immediately to the northwest of the head of the snake. For purposes of reference, the paw carving is here referred to as 82 and th~ snake as 82a. It is remarkable that with the exception of Design 82a (snake) all can be interpret­ed <!s animal or bird tracks (ignoring the debate over whether "cuspidiform" petroglyphs represent arrows or bird tracks; see M!1rp8Y and Carskadden 1985). Adjacent tracks, however, often point in different directions, so that either interpretation results in conflicting directions being indicated, thus to some extent supporting the currently fashionable belief that the carvings are less the result of functional or directional information intent and more likely the product of trance-induced mys­tical endeavors such as vision quests or shamanistic practices (Weeks 2002, Lenik 2009). On the other hand, the consistency of the motifs and predominance of a relatively small number of designs suggests individual clan or totemic emblems. Table 1 lists the designs by Swauger's motif number. The motif interpretations are highly subjective. The more elongate foot­prints may be interpreted as representing human footprints, though some might be bear. The more equilateral prints could represent a variety of animals, including bear. It is noteworthy that the great toe is consistently larger than the others, so that even when the outline of the foot is ambiguous, left and right footprints can be distinguished. Figure 93 is intriguing and may represent an extremely exaggerated great 29 toe associated with Figure 92. Swauger has outlined the difficulties in assigning such tracks to a specific animal species. Some I merely call pawprints, he would call bear; some I call bear, he would call human. It is worth noting that while Swauger cited mammalogist J. Kenneth Doutt as con­cluding none of the paw impressions could be identified to species and some could not be distinguished even as belonging to the dog or cat family, Whittlesey was prob­ably nearer the truth in identifying many of these four-toed tracks as representing dog or wolf (Swauger 1974a: 37, Whittlesey in Read and Whittlesey 1877: 73). Latterly, Swauger preferred "cloven hoof" to deer track, as they might represent elk or bison; but I will stick to deer. Reference to Table 1 will help in identifying individual carvings in the accompanying photographs. Not all carvings indicated by Whittlesey could be discerned, despite several Visits, and some are not clearly visible in the accompanying illustrations, so that this article cannot be considered a defini­tive catalog of the motifs. Table 1 SWauger No. Motif TYPe Comments .Flgure 63 Footprint Not visible; probably bear track 64 Birdlrack Not Visible 65 Footprint Bear trnck 66 Footprinl Mislabeled 65 in Swauger 1984. 67 Pawprint Bear trnck 68 Pawprlnt Oriented more toward 67 than 68 69 Pawprint SlighUy west 01 Whittlesey locatioo 70 Footprint Toes not shown in previous drawing ~ 4 71 Pawprint 72 Pawprint Not visible 73 Pawprint Only "heel" visible 74 Bird track Barely Yislble 75 Footprint Barely visible 76 Footprint Toes indicated by Whittlesey n Pawprint Faintly visible 78 Footprint Faintly visible 79 Pawprint Not visible 80 Footprint No/visible 81 Footprint "Heel" visible 82 Pawprill 83a Snake Tail misrepresented by Whittlesay 6.7 83 Deer track 84 Pawprint Not visible 85 Bird track Partially visible 86 Footprint Not visible 87 Footprint Not visible 88 Footprint FainHy visible 89 Footprint Toes not shown in previous drawings 90 Pawprint Bear track with unusual appendage 91 Deer tracks 92 Footprint With Design 93 as elongate toe (1) 93 Anomalous Swauger calls tta "pit." 94 Anomalous Faint, Swauger. "deer tracks" 95 Pawprlnt Faintly visible 96 Footprint Faintly visible "heel" 97 Footprint Not visible 98 Pawprint Slightly east of Whittlesey locatlon 99 Pawprint 100 Pawprint 101 Bird track 102 Bird trnck 8 103 Bird track 6.8 104 Bird track 105 Bird trnck 106 Bird track 107 Bird track Table 1. 8amesvil/e Ttaelc Rock 2 Designs and Rgurll Numbers Designs 63 and 64, a foot or paw print and a bird track, could not be detected in the rock. A close-up of Design 65, considered to represent a bear paw, is shown in Fig­ure 3. Immediately above it, peeling black paint probably represented Figure 75, a footprint, but the design was not clear; nor could Designs 79 or 80, a paw and foot­print, which should be within the frame of the photograph, be discerned. Design 75 does appear to be more directly north of Design 65 than to the northeast, as shown by Whittlesey. Design 74, a bird track, lies to the lower right of Design 65 and can be seen in the rock but does not show up well in Figure 3. Design 80, a footprint orient­ed in the opposite direction to Design 75 could not be recognized. Designs 66 through 71 and Design 73 form a closely arranged group that is relatively well preserved along the northwestern edge of the rock (Figure 4). The most conspicu­ous carvings are two pawprints (67, 68) situated between two footprints (66, 70) that face in opposite directions. It should be noted that Whittlesey did not recognize the toe prints on Design 70, although these are still evident today. His drawing also inaccurately represents the direction of the smaller paw print (68). Design 67 is regarded as a bear paw impression and Design 68 possibly as a dog or wolf track. In general, Whittlesey was more conservative than Ward in identifying the animals re­sponsible for these tracks, and Swauger was even more so. As noted, Swauger (1974 : 37) uses an assessment by mam­malogist J.Kenneth Doutt to dismiss at­tempts to identify any of the pawprints. Doutt felt that some [italics added) of the four-toed Barnesville carvings could not be distinguished as belonging to either the dog or cat family, but he did not indicate which, if any, might be, and comparison with modern tracks suggests that perhaps none of them can be so distinguished. Unnoted by Whittlesey is a distinct de­pression to the left of the heel of DeSign 70; this may be a paw or footprint but no toe depressions can be seen . Design 69, a paw print, is more in line with Designs 68 and 71 than indicated by Whittlesey. Design 73 is very faint, represented only by the "heel" of the paw print. The deer or elk tracks (83) are well preserved, pawprint 82 less so. Designs 84-86, which appear to have been a paw or footprint and a turkey track, should also show in Fig. 4, to the left of the deer track, but only an amorphous linear depression can be seen. Along the southern edge of the rock, another group of carvings consists of De­signs 76-78 and 92-100. Most of these are visible in Figures. DeSigns 78 and 96 are very faint, and Designs 94 and 95 can be located only by virtue of small remnants of black paint on the rock. Design 74 can barely be made out on the rock but does not show in Figure 5. The most conspicuous carving is of a snake (Design 82a) that lies in the center of the carvings. This is shown in Figures 6 and 7. Although Whittlesey's drawing is generally accurate, the tail is quite differ­ent. He appears to have incorporated in the snake design a separate set of tracks similar to those of nearby Design 91, also shown in Figure 6. A close-up of the area around the head of the snake design is shown in Figure 7, mainly to illustrate pawprint Design 82. Design 81 lies be­tween the snake head and the right corner of the scale in Figure 7 but is not discern­ible. Adjacent to the tail end of the snake, DeSign 90 is a paw print (probably bear) but has a perplexing U-shaped element; possibly this is an unfinished footprint simply adjacent to Design 90 rather than part of it. The final group of designs consists of tracks on the northeastern section of Rock 2 and are shown in Figure 8. DeSign 88 is a footprint discernible only as a black patch between turkeytracks 101 and 104. DeSign 89 is a small footprint shown just above the scale in Figure 8, between turkey tracks 102 and 105, although Design 102 is only partially visible. Although Morrow's draw­ing (Swauger 1974a: 32) does not indicate depressions for the toes, these are shown by Whittlesey. Figure 91 consists of two pairs of small tracks identified as deer by Swauger. I cannot come up with any more likely interpretation, but note that another pair occurs at the end of the snake's (De­sign 82a) tail, as shown in Figure 6. The remaining designs, 101 - 107 all represent bird tracks and are concentrated in the northeastern portion of the rock (Figure 8). All of these trend in a generally northeast­ern direction except for Design 103, which trends nearly north, and Design 104, which trends southeasterly. Conclusions" The drawings provided by Whittlesey are demonstrably more accurate than the copies of his drawings made by Clifford J. Morrow, Jr. , for Swauger and are certain­ly more accurate than Ward's drawings. Nonetheless, there appear to be a few discrepancies in orientation and design between Whittlesey's representations and the surviving petroglyphs. The present-day condition of the carvings is of considerable concern, for it is clear that those near the margins of the rock, where they have been covered from time to time, are much bet­ter preserved than those near the center of the rock face, where the effects of erosion and even fire are more evident. A close-up of Design 91 is shown in Figure 9 to em­phasize the faintness and susceptibility to erosion of these carvings. Although own­ership by the Archaeological Conservancy now protects them from stripmining, the carvings are still being degraded by ero­sion and other factors. 30 References Lemk, Edward J, 2009 	 Making Pictures in Slone: American Indian Rock An o f the NOltheasl . University 01 Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Moseley, Victor 1984 	 Elephant Petroglyphs. Barnesville Track Rocks. Midwestern Ep igraphic Journal 1 (2): 44-46. Murp hy, James L.. and Jeff Carskadden 1985 A Late Prehistoric Analog lor uCusp idiform~ Petroglyphs. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 55(4): 1-4. Read, Matthew C., and Charles Whittlesey 1877 	 Antiquities 01 Ohio. Report ollhe Committee of the State Archaeo­logicaISociety. P.81-141, 15 pl., 20 fig., in Final Rapon of the Ohio Slale Board of Centennial Mtlllagers to the General Assembly of the Slate of Ohio. Nevins & Myers. Columbus. Swauger, James L 1974a The Barnesville Track Rocks Petroglyph Site, 33BL2. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 44(4): 294 1. 1974b Rock M of lhe Upper Ohio Valley. Akademische Druck und VerlagsanstaJt, Graz. 1978 	 The "Lost"' Petroglyph Rock of the Barnesville Track Rocks Petroglyph Site, 33BL2. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 48(1-2): 53-54. 1984 	 Petrog/yphs of Ohio . Ohio University Press. Athens. Ward. James W. 1872 Sculptured Rocks, Belmont Co .. O. Anthropological Institu te of New York. Journal. 1: 57 -66. Weeks, W. Rex 2002 	 Discovering Monongahela Rock-art: The Ancient Teaching Rocks of the Upper Ohio Valley. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 72(2) : 47-98. Whittlesey. Charles 1872 	 Rock Sculptures near BarnesVille. Belmont County, Ohio . Western Reserve and Nor1hern Ohio Historical Society, Tracts 1(11): 1-8. Wilson. James Grant t 894 James Warner Ward. The Magazine of Poetry 6: 124 ....'" . \ '...... ............ Figure ' James Ward 's 00I1y drawing of Barnesville Rock 2. Figure 2 W1t1tr1e.sey's more accurate draWing of BameswlJe RocJc 2. Numbering has been supplred by SW[J(lger (1974). 31 FigVrB 3. Swavger's DeSIgn 55 (above scale), 74 (lower right of scale), and 75 (pain! above 55); 79 and 80 slightly above and 10 the righ t of 65 not visible. FIgure 4. Swauger's Designs 66-71. 73, and 82-86. 32 Figure 5. Southem edge of BamesviliH Track Rock 2. Designs 76. 92-93, and 98· '00 clearly shown. Footprints 78 and 96 fainlly visible; above tlJem, DeSigns 94 and 95 show only as falnl patches of /)Jack pain/. Design 74 is presenr btlt not visible in photograph. F'f}Uf8 6. DeSigns 828 (snake), 90, 9 ',and 103. Nole tracks at taJlofsnake. 33 F'rgure 7. Closeup of the he8d of Design 82a (snaIIe), 82, and 8t ; 83 not visible. Also nole pit to left of scale. FIgllre 8. Designs 88-90 and 102·/0i'. Tail of snake (828) at /eft center. 7Urlmy trachs 106 ancf 107 below right end of scale. Note fire reddened sandstone. FlfJlJre 9. Close-up of DesIgn 91. 34 

The "Lost" Barnesville Track Rock

https://kb.osu.edu/bitstream/1811/38913/1/Barnesville_track_rocks.pdf

The "Lost" Barnesville Track Rock

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

KnowledgeBank at OSU