Petroglyph Pathways - American Society for Amateur Archaeology

Petroglyph Pathways
By Michael Clauss
“Crazy Duck” is a petroglyph from the Leo Site in Ohio. (Fig. 1)
Contents
Introduction
Native American Maps
Petroglyph Maps
Site Maps of the Appalachian Plateau
The Leo Geocontourglyphs
East Liverpool’s Geocontourglyphs
Parkers Landing Geocontourglyphs
Independence Rock Geocontourglyphs
How Did They Map Such Vast Areas?
Discovering the Geocontourglyphs
Conclusions
Bibliographies
Image information
Latitudes and Longitudes of Geocontourglyph Sites
Introduction
Do some petroglyphs mirror the landforms and topographic features of the Appalachian
Plateau? In recent years researchers have begun to redefine some of the symbols found in
petroglyphs around the world. Some of these petroglyphs are more specifically
Geocontourglyphs, because they incorporate the topography of the surrounding landscape into
their message. This article is an attempt to redefine individual petroglyphs in Ohio and
Pennsylvania, as totems, maps, and visual clues to the surrounding geographic landscape.
The roughly drawn abstract animal shapes portrayed on the petroglyphs most likely represent
totems naming local tribal leaders, villages, spirits or landforms. The natives often applied Clan
names to prominent landmarks, such as rivers, lakes and other permanent landmarks. The
petroglyphs may also be incorporating the surrounding terrain as part of the message they are
trying to convey.
The petroglyphs also resemble the marks or totems which the natives used when signing early
treaties with Britain and France. The petroglyphs discussed in this article resemble Ojibwa
pictographs. These pictographs were used as signatures and mnemonic devices or memory aids
in the telling of stories. They were used through out the Eastern Woodlands during the time
period in which the petroglyphs were created. The petroglyphs discussed in this article are
thought to have been created between A.D. 1200-1750. The picture based words like those below
were written variety of surfaces. Birch bark and animal hides were often used, and in the case of
petroglyphs, they were carved into rock.
Treaties with totems are native signatures in pictograph form. They are similar to the
images etched into the rocks of many petroglyph sites in Ohio and Pennsylvania. (Fig. 2)
1
Natives American Maps
We know Native American maps existed through ethnographic accounts and surviving maps,
which were drawn for early European explorers. Many examples of these maps can be found in
“The History of Cartography,” written By David Woodward, John Brian Harley, and G.
Malcolm Lewis. One native drawn map shows all the major villages within an area of tens of
thousands of square miles. Another Eastern Woodlands map shows the Mississippi River, the
Rocky Mountains, and the Pacific Ocean far to the west.
Native Americans had an intimate knowledge of the great distances across North America.
There also exists a Sioux map drawn on deer skin that accurately depicts the length and time of
travel on the Missouri River and its tributaries. The Sioux map is read by using known villages,
trails, and landmarks to judge relative distance and direction. Is it possible that some maps were
chiseled into the rock as permanent reminders of the landscape? Petroglyph maps could have
been conveyed to a traveler by drawing it on a piece of deerskin or tree bark. The map would
contain the symbols for known landmarks such as villages, rivers, and prominent landfroms. All
these symbols would have to be lined up in the same order and directional flow as they appear in
the surounding geographic terrain.
Written traditions played a dominate roll in Native American Life long before the arrival of
Europeans. Ethnographic accounts were recorded by early Europeans about these
communication devices. Native Americans drew pictures on tree trunks, leather skins, birch bark
scrolls, as well as many other surfaces. An article by the Ohio Historic Society decribes the
following ethnograghic account: “Cadwallader Colden, in 1750, described such images in use
by the Iroquois Indians of Canada: “They always peel a large piece of bark from some great
Tree; they commonly choose an Oak, as most lasting; upon the smooth side of this wood they,
with their red Paint, draw one or more canoes, going from home, with the Number of Men in
them paddling, which go upon the Expedition; and some Animal, as a Deer or Fox, an Emblem
of the Nation against which the Expedition is designed, is painted at the Head of the Canoes . .
.These Trees are the Annals . . . of the Five Nations . . . and by them . . . they preserve the
History of their great Achievements.” (Ohio History Central 2008). Hundreds of documented
ethnographic accounts exist confirming the use of maps in pictograph form.
Ojibwa Birch Bark Scroll Pictography is similar in style to the petroglyphs discussed in
this article. Some outlining in black to better show image (Fig. 3)
2
Petroglyph Maps
Anthropologist, Sister M.Inez Hilger, describes devices that use the sky and landscape, through
pictography, for Ojibwa navigation through the deep woods; “A form of pictography, consisting
of symbolisms that represented numbers, directions, days, hills, lakes, sky, and earth, and of
crude delineations that represented men, birds, animals, and material objects was known to a few
persons in every band. Those who were well versed in it could combine these delineations and
symbols into ideographs that represented progressive action. Such ideographs, if used in
messages, records of time, directions, or maps designed for travel, could be interpreted by many,
but only members of the Midewiwin could read the ones related to their lodge. Picture writing
was done with a bone on the inner surface of birch bark, or occasionally on slabs of cedar or
ash”. (Hilger 1992:108)
Edward J Lenik in his book, “Picture Rocks,” describes The Thom Pendant Petroglyphs (small
portable incised rocks), which were discovered in Newton County, New Jersey. The carvings on
its surface show a travel map indicating direction, time, landscape features and game in the area.
Another pendant petroglyph in his book was found in Franklin County, New Hampshire. It has a
carving of the ox-bow where a village sits near two major trail systems. As a form of
communication the indiginous peoples were able to use picture writing to convey many types of
messages with effective precision.
On page 341 of his book, “Picture Writing of the American Indians,” Garrick Mallery writes a
chapter on Native American Maps. The Chapter is titled “Notice by Maps, Direction by Drawing
Topographic Features.” The words, “Notice by Maps,” is in reference to information contained
on page 329 of his book. He explains under what circumstances landforms were incorporated
into petroglyph messages. He describes the following four catagories when defining the use of
landfroms in pictographs: “Notice of visit, departure, and direction, direction by drawing
topographic features, Notice of condition, Warning and guidelines.” (Mallery, Garick 1972). In
his book he writes of specific examples on how landforms are depicted and interpreted using
pictography.
Ohio and Pennsylvania’s ancient natives also carved or painted important symbols on trees,
bark, leather, fabric, and other perishable materials. Most of this ancient utilitarian art has
vanished due to the forces of decay on the organic materials which were used to record their
messages. The petroglyph landform carvings or “Geocontourglyphs” in this article survive as the
few remaining expressions of these communiction devices. First hand native knowledge defining
the information on petroglyphs is available. James Swauger, Author of the 1984 book,
“Petroglyphs of Ohio,” correctly states that some petroglyphs are landforms, but his book was
intentionally not written to interpret the meaning of the glyphs, but only to describe the shapes,
locations and history of picture writing in the Eastern Woodlands. He writes about a statement
referring to petroglyphs made by a Native American: “He explained individual designs and
groups at some length, as indicating brothers, a great chief, tattooing, instruments for magical
ceremonies, a road, serpents, the number of a set of days, a man of far-seeing intelligence, and
the like,” (Swauger, James 1984:87).
3
Map Rock Idaho (Fig. 4)
Map Rock is a good example of a native American carving depicting a Geocontourglyph or
petroglyph map. Historians believe these markings were drawn in this location to depict a map of
the nearby Snake River. A line through the middle of the rock follows the contour of the Snake
River as it flows through the surrounding terrain.
“Pregnant Rabbit Lady” is the name given to a petroglyph map in the Picacho Mountains of
Arizona. It is an example of a Geocontourglyph. It was published in the newsletter of the
Institute for American Research in the winter 1986. The glyph is an outline map of the ridge on
which the petroglyph site is located. Markings inside the glyph show the position of ancient
quarry sites on the ridge. Petroglyphs in Virginia, near the Great Falls of the Potomac show a
glyph of a single fish with bycentric lines. The glyph may represent a prominent nearby
waterfall. A site near the James River depicts a face with long hair that is thought to resemble
more a map than a face. On the north fork of the American River in the Sierra Nevada Mountains
in California, there is a petroglyph made up of meandering lines, which is also believed to depict
a trail map. There is even a documented Geocontourglyph in western Canada.
The Ohio River Valley petroglyphs were created by a late prehistoric group dating between
A.D. 1200-1750. The Erie and other tribes like the Fort Ancient people may also have had a hand
in creating some of the petroglyphs of the Appalachian Plateau. Many of these petroglyphs
contain Geocontourglyphs that show the terrain immediately surrounding them. Were the glyph
totems representations of a great chief, tribe, or clan whose name was applied to the landforms of
the densely wooded Appalachian Plateau? The glyphs may have been depicting the names of
boundaries or used as territorial markers. The Leo site, located in Leo, Ohio is an excellent
example of a petroglyph that contains Geocontourglyphs in its message. Pages 5 and 6 show a
split Google Earth map of Ohio and Western Pennsylvania to which I added petroglyph sites in
yellow and trail systems in red. The trails were determined only after reviewing hundreds of
Ethnographic accounts and old maps like the one shown split between pages 7 and 8.
4
Site maps of the Appalachian Plateau
5
Pages 5 & 6 show a map of major trails, petroglyphs and Geocontourglyph sites. (Fig. 5, 6)
6
Figures 7 and 8 are an early map showing Native American villages and trails. (Fig. 7)
7
(Fig. 8)
8
Comparisons of the Leo Geocontourglyphs
Leo Petroglyph above mirrors a photograph taken of the terrain to the north. (Fig. 9)
The Leo Site is a Petroglyph map which contains groups of Geocontourglyphs.
Relative direction and distance allows a traveler to navigate by prominent
landmarks. Image Courtesy of the USGS (Fig. 10)
9
The petroglyphs can be divided into groups. These groups match very closely with the
landforms in the above drawing, both in shape and in the order of their directional flow as
they are found within the landscape. (Fig. 11)
The petroglyphs or Geocontourglyphs as they appear immediately north of the Leo
Petroglyph Site. The footprints in group 3 show a pathway, while other abstract groups
mirror prominent landforms. Image Courtesy of the USGS (Fig. 12)
10
Images of Leo superimposed on top of an aerial photograph. (Fig. 13)
The image above shows the area surrounding the Leo Petroglyph site with each group of
Geocontourglyphs and how they fit into the landscape. Don’t confuse these with Geoglyphs,
which are man made images that can cover many acres of land. As shown above the landforms
represented by the Geocontourglyphs are aligned in the same relative direction or flow as they
are found carved into the rock at the Leo Petroglyph site. The Geocontourglyphs above show
waterways, trails and landforms. The Group #5 overlay can be found on the right side of this
image. The location is not marked with an overlay but it seems to be visible through the dense
forest. Each Geocontourglyph within a group represents a particular landform. The positioning of
the landforms above mirror the Leo Petroglyph as it is carved into the rock. The stick figure of a
man at the lower portion of the Leo Petroglyph drawing represents the actual location of the rock
in which the Leo Petroglyphs are carved, as if to say you are here.
11
These pages contain close-up photographs and drawings of individual Geocontourglyphs.
“Buffalo Head” Group #1 Image Courtesy of the USGS (Fig. 14)
12
“Crazy Duck” Group #1 Image Courtesy of the USGS (Fig. 15)
13
“Flea” Group #2 Image Courtesy of the USGS (Fig. 16)
14
“Bagpiper” Group #2 Image Courtesy of the USGS (Fig. 17)
15
“Stickman” Group #2 (Fig. 18)
16
East Liverpool’s Geocontourglyphs
Rivers and a plateau represented by Geocontourglyphs on Babb’s Island in the Ohio River.
(Fig. 19, 20)
17
Thunderbird & Moose Man as Geocontourglyphs found at the Ohio River, East Liverpool.
Images Courtesy of the USGS (Fig 21, 22)
18
Parker landing Petroglyphs
“Big Man,” “Snail” And “Missepeshu” are all Geocontourglyphs at the Parkers Landing
site in Pennsylvania. The Antlered Cat on the petroglyph represents Lake Erie. (Fig. 23)
Many more examples of Geocontourglyphs are found throughout Ohio and Pennsylvania.
“Big Man” is located at the Parkers Landing Petroglyph site. It depicts the junction of many
important trail systems, including the portage trail that leads to Lake Erie from the Allegany
River. Lake Erie, also known as the “Lake of the Cat,” is carved into the northern edge of the
rock. The lake is represented by the great horned underwater panther, named Mishipizheu.
The Erie Indian Tribe, who lived on Lake Erie’s southern shore, was known as the Cat
People. “Big Man” is in the center of the Parkers Landing Geocontourglyph and located
Further to the south is the landform represented by the “Snail” Geocontourglyph. Animal
tracks found on petroglyphs have different meanings at different sites. They may represent
numbers, direction, or the type of trail to be traveled. Land mammal tracks may represent a
trail that is not on a waterway, while bird tracks may indicate a water route. The Parkers
Landing bird tracks may represent the Allegheny River as it flows past “Big Man” at French
Creek. The Geocontourglyphs at Parkers Landing are carved in a north to south orientation,
just as their corresponding landforms are oriented in the surrounding terrain. In the future
many other glyphs at Parkers Landing will be identified as Geocontourglyphs.
19
River ways and trail densities are related to the distribution pattern of the petroglyphs.
Modern road maps hold important clues to finding trail systems. In many cases early
roadways followed the original trail systems already in place. This is especially true in
mountainous terrain where many petroglyphs are found. The pathways in and out of the
valleys are few both today and in the past. Below are two Geocontourglyphs located by
important trails and villages. The “Big Man” junction, as seen in the Google image at the top
of this page, is shown with its prominent central peak and is an excellent example of how the
geographic terrain was reproduced by Native Americans in their rock art. “Big Man” is found
at the convergence of many major trails including “The Venango-Franklin Trail.” The image
at the bottom of this page is the landform depicted by the “Snail” Geocontourglyph, it is
located to the south of Parkers Landing at a junction of three major trails. “Snail” is near one
of the most important trails in Pennsylvania “The Kittanning path.”
.
“Big Man” & “Snail” Geocontourglyphs at Parkers Landing in Pennsylvania (Fig. 24, 25)
20
Independence Rock Petroglyphs
The black and white overlay image is found at the Independence Slab Petroglyph near
Cleveland, Ohio. It Mirrors an area near Sandusky by the Huron River. (Fig. 26)
The overlay drawing is of Independence Rock, a petroglyph site found to the east of the Huron
River, on the Cuyahoga River. The Geocontourglyph overlay image above shows the bent tail of
a snake, the same bend can be seen in the river itself. The trail also follows the Huron River
north to a canoe route, where the natives island hopped across Lake Erie. North of the “Snakes
Head” is an abstract blob. This blob indicates the area north of Lake Erie as Lake Saint Claire.
21
How Did They Map Such Vast Areas?
The petroglyph maps represent landforms that cover a vast wilderness of hundreds and even
thousands of square miles. How did these people map such a vast area consisting of thousands of
square miles? Throughout the history of Eastern North America the building of monumental
engineering projects has been the norm for Native Americans. The Adena culture which
flourished between 1000BC and 100AD was built on an ancient earth moving tradition. Known
as the first mound builders, they built thousands of mounds, some as tall as 100 feet high. They
also constructed expansive effigies like the Serpent Mound in Adams County, Ohio. All of these
earthworks became prominent landmarks in the surrounding terrain. The Adena cultural
traditions are direct predecessors to the period representing the Hopewell Culture. Massive
earthworks were created between 100BC and 800AD by the Hopewell Culture. It is believed by
some that the Hopewell built a great road 200 feet wide and 60 miles long. Its high earthen banks
once stretched from Chillicothe to Newark in Central Ohio.
They designed and built these massive earthworks by using only the shoulder blades of large
game along with clam shells and stone hoes to excavate and move many millions of tons of dirt.
They then carried the soil in baskets, one at a time, each holding an excess of 30 pounds of dirt.
The earthwork designs also allowed portions of them to be used as alignments with the sun and
moon, which provided a calendar system for these people. The Native Americans who inhabited
the region south of the Great Lakes created thousands of these great earthworks. This page and
the one that follows depict a few of the monumental earthworks created by the predecessors of
the petroglyph designers. The Fort Ancient Peoples, 800AD to 1500AD, were contemporaries
and co-authors with other Geocontourglyph creators. This culture made extraordinary efforts to
redefine the surrounding landscape in the form of massive earthen walled enclosures covering
huge Plateaus. The creation of Geocontourglyphs is a logical extension of this creative
expression.
The Serpent Mound aligns with celestial events and objects. (Fig. 27)
22
The Hopewell Geometric Earthworks at Newark covered many square miles. The Fort
Ancient people built earthen walls to enclose large plateaus by river valleys (Figs. 28, 29)
23
Hopewell Earthworks covering many square acres each are found in the Scioto Valley
just north of the Leo Petroglyphs (Fig. 30)
24
Deciphering the Geocontourglyphs
Examples show how deforestation clears the landforms depicted by Geocontourglyphs.
Terraserver Image Courtesy of the USGS (Fig. 31)
“Stickman” and other Geocontourglyphs are plain to see in the bottom image from Google earth,
but at the top of this page “Stickman” is absent in the black and white teraserver image. The
images on this page were taken in different years. The Geocontourglyphs are seen in the first
tracts of land deforested. It is evident from the large tracts of land cleared to build the geometric
earthworks that the natives were capable of deforesting huge swaths of land. Today as the trees
are increasingly removed by modern industrial techniques, the outline of Geocontourglyphs are
increasingly destroyed.
25
“Stickman,” after increased deforestation.
The degree of deforestation in ancient times must be estimated and accounted for when
searching for Geocontourglyphs. Topographic and digital elevation maps are excellent tools for
estimating the possible land area that may have been utilized to create a Geocontourglyph image.
Aerial Photographs are very useful too, but as the forests are increasingly deforested and huge
tracts of mountainous land are cleared by modern machinery many of the Geocontourglyphs
disappear from the landscape as seen in recent aerial photographs like the one above. The upper
photograph is a current or after aerial photograph from Google Earth and shows the deforestation
which has already destroyed the outline or form of “Stickman”. The lower photograph shows an
archival or before image of “Stickman” in an earlier less intensive stage of deforestation.
Incorporating water features and trails the Geocontourglyphs follow the topography of the
Plateaus as they would have been deforested by the Native Americans.
Below “Stickman” is shown before extensive deforestation. (Fig. 32)
26
Conclusions
I have researched dozens of petroglyphs throughout the Eastern Woodlands, predominately in
Ohio and Pennsylvania, but also in Kentucky, Virginia, and other areas throughout the United
States and Canada. Many of them contain Geocontourglyphs that represent the landscape
immediately surrounding them. I have disclosed only a few of the Geocontourglyphs discovered
by using the methods discussed in this article. In future publications I will publish the location
and importance of additional Geocontourglyphs. The Leo petroglyph images can be used as
mnemonic travel aids and boundary markers directing a person to the geographical location
which its totem represents. At Leo the deciphered petroglyphs are landforms which all line up in
groups. These groups, and the individual Geocontourglyphs within them, are in order and show a
directional flow pattern which matches closely the terrain and landforms immediately to the
north. A Geocontourglyph is a petroglyph that represents a landform.
Native American art usually depicts a story. It is used to communicate social, ceremonial and
utilitarian messages. The question in everyone’s mind is what type of story has been carved so
laboriously into the rock? I find it intriguing that the Geocontourglyphs are drawn in such way so
that their shape becomes a hybrid of the landforms they represent and an animal or human figure.
The animal form may possibly be indicating the name or totem of the landform or it may
represent an important ceremonial figure. The Algonquian tradition often depicts the totems of
shamans and leaders as found in the images carved at the Pennsylvania petroglyph sites. The
artwork discussed in this article has little indication of depicting scenes from everyday life. What
the glyphs do indicate is a mirror image of the landscape. They may tell the tale of a visit
indicating departure and direction by depicting the topographic features of the area. A
Geocontourglyph may be showing the location of important places or it may be images showing
boundary markers. No matter what the story is that the Leo and other petroglyphs are telling, it
incorporates an accurate map of the surrounding terrain into its message. Many of the
petroglyphs of the Appalachian Plateau are found in areas where treacherous canyons must be
avoided, the area is full of dead end ridges with cliffs and deep valleys. In fact one of the keys to
the placement or location of the petroglyphs is that they are found in rough rugged terrain. Some
of the designs within the petroglyphs, such as lines that look like claws or crisscrossed line
patterns may represent steep canyons, or otherwise difficult topography. The Geocontourglyphs
were used as navigation tools and maps that not only showed the way but impressed upon the
traveler the grand scope of the map maker’s terrestrial knowledge.
I can concede the ceremonial aspect of these abstract figures, but even as ceremonial abstracts it
is still evident that they are representing the natural world also. Very much like the ancient
monuments of earth built before them, the glyphs are defining the landscape. Petroglyph maps
would have been interpreted by a traveler through communiqués with the locals along the route.
Most likely the Geocontourglyphs had local totems or names attached to them. Carving the totem
in the rock immortalizes the name of a powerful person, clan or tribe forever. These petroglyphs
were not painted onto the rock; they were chiseled into the rock. They were designed to last as
long as the landscape itself. This alone indicates an importance to the art work. How many other
petroglyphs or pictograph maps as well as other travel signs have long since disappeared from
the landscape, destroyed by nature and modern man?
27
The mastodon and buffalo traces, used by man for more than 10,000 years, have vanished
almost completely from the landscape. Most petroglyph and pictographic iconography has been
destroyed, lost forever though cultivation, the building of roads and other modern development. I
believe that many of the mounds and earthen geometric designs left behind for us to marvel at
also had maps incorporated into them. While linguistic, Biological, Cultural and Physical
Anthropology all study human traits, reading the petroglyphs requires the use of all of these
disciplines to form a holistic view in order to interpret Geocontourglyphs. Many obstacles still
remain in the interpretation of the petroglyphs. The landforms represented by Geocontourglyphs
will have to be studied and evaluated as major prehistoric sites. The Geocontourglyphs reappear
in the aerial photographs as land is in the early stages of modern development. The prehistoric
development would include the area on top of a landform that is flat enough for humans to
utilize. Now as the woodlands are deforested and more tracts of mountainous land are cleared
many of the glyphs, such as “stickman,” disappear from the landscape. A lesser degree of
deforestation in ancient times must be estimated and accounted for when searching for the trails
and landforms portrayed in the Geocontourglyphs. I believe the natives who made the
petroglyphs wanted to relay as well as preserve the names given to their geographic landscape.
The shear number of Geocontourglyphs with matching shapes and directional flow as seen at the
Leo and other sites may be to numerous to be coincidental. The theories suggested in this article
along with ethnographic accounts on the topographic use of Pictography can explain the true
meaning in many of the petroglyphs. These petroglyphs are no longer an anthropomorphic form
created for unknown reasons. The most likely hypothesis is that they are Geocontourglyphs.
Like the cultures that preceded them, the petroglyph artisans went to great lengths to redefine
the surrounding landscape. They did not only build mounds or engineer huge complexes of
Earthworks; they created Geocontourglyphs to mirror the terrain around them. The true meaning
of the petroglyphs is complex and varied. Ceremony could have been an important ingredient.
Some glyphs are underwater most of the year or even underwater for many years in a row,
visible only at very low water marks. This may imply a seasonally emphasized message in some
of the glyphs. The Geocontourglyphs that appear only in times of extreme low water may
indicate the glyphs were used in some kind of drought ceremony where the natives would pray
for the water to wash over the rocks, thus symbolically washing over the landforms that the
Geocontourglyphs represent. Researchers have no one answer as to “exactly” what the
petroglyphs are trying to communicate. The relative frequency of finding Geocontourglyphs as
landforms at multiple sites throughout the Appalachian Plateau leads me to conclude that
Geocontourglyphs do indeed exist. These Glyphs show trails, waterways and landmarks that are
associated with nearby landforms. The use of archival aerial photographs and topographic maps
while doing archaeology in the field will soon be the only way to gather visual clues to locate the
landforms that were carved into the rock. Many years of research will have to be done in the
field to evaluate the importance of the actual landforms which were carved in the rock. To
completely solve the puzzle of the petroglyphs more physical evidence may be needed, possibly
in the form of a deer skin or birch bark scroll with a Native American Trail Map drawn on it, a
map that shows the Geocontourglyph landforms of the Appalachian Plateau as they are carved
into the rock. As I have shown most of the Leo Petroglyphs have been identified as the Leo
Geocontourglyphs. Using the methods in this article I am confident that in the future additional
petroglyphs throughout the region will also be correctly identified as Geocontourglyphs.
28
How Bagpiper, Crazy Duck and Moose Man all match the terrain (Fig. 33)
29
Bibliography
1. 2008 Inscription Rock
http://www.ohiohistorycentral.org/entry.php?rec=2752
2. Mallery, Garrick
Picture-Writing of the American Indians. Dover Publications, New York 1972
3. Hilger, M.Inez
http://www.tc.umn.edu/~call0031/Hegman.html (last accessed January 21st 2009)
4. Swauger, James
1984 Petroglyphs of Ohio. Ohio University press
Petroglyph Pathways by Michael Clauss © Copyright 2007
To find out more information on this subject search the Web for “Geocontourglyphs”
Please send your questions and comments to: [email protected]
30
Picture Inventory and Bibliography
Color Images Courtesy of Google Earth
Terraserver Images Courtesy of the USGS
Additional Drawings Courtesy of:
“Petroglyphs of Ohio” by James L. Swauger 1984 Ohio University Press/Swallow press
19 Circle Drive, The Ridges Athens OH 45701
www.ohioswallow.com
Leo and Babb’s Island Drawings; “Petroglyphs of Ohio” All Artwork by Carol A. Morrison
Independence Rock Drawing, “Petroglyphs of Ohio” Page 67 Figure 32 by Whittlesey: 1877, Plate v
Inscription Rock Drawing, Petroglyphs of Ohio Pg 85 Figures 33, 34 by SchoolCraft 1852 Vol II Plate 41
Cover, Fig 1
“Crazy Duck” Leo Petroglyph Photograph by Michael Clauss
Page 1 Fig 2
Treaty Totems: http://thenonist.com/index.php/thenonist/permalink/beast_treaties/
Page 2 Fig 3
Birch Bark Scroll: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/19368/19368-h/19368-h.htm
Page 4 Fig 4
Map Rock Idaho: http://image57.webshots.com/57/6/29/47/405062947HIOqox_fs.jpg
Page 5, 6 Fig 5,6 Geocontourglyphs of the Appalachian plateau ( Google Earth Images)
Page 7, 8 Fig 7,8 Antique Map of Ohio showing trails and village sites by Hutchins
Page 9 Fig 9,10 Leo Petroglyphs of Ohio; James L. Swauger 1984, page101 and Terraserver Image
Page 10 Fig 11,12 Leo Petroglyphs of Ohio; James L. Swauger 1984, page101 and Terraserver image
Page 11 Fig 13,
Leo’s landscape with Swauger Petroglyph drawing overlays on a Google earth Image
Page 12 Fig 14
“Buffalo Head” Leo Geocontourglyph (Swauger 1984 and Terraserver Image)
Page 13 Fig 15
”Crazy Duck” Leo Geocontourglyph (Swauger 1984 and Terraserver Image)
Page 14 Fig 16
“Flea” Leo Geocontourglyph (Swauger 1984 and Terraserver Image)
Page 15 Fig 17
“Bagpiper” Leo Geocontourglyph (Swauger 1984 and Terraserver Image)
Page 16 Fig 18
“Stickman” Leo Geocontourglyph (Swauger 1984 and Google earth Image)
Page 17 Fig 19,20 “Shaman and Deer”, Geocontourglyphs (Swauger 1984 and Google earth Image)
Page 18 Fig 21,22 “Thunderbird, Moose” Geocontourglyphs (Swauger, Terraserver, Google earth Image )
Page 19 Fig 23 Parkers Landing Petroglyph drawing: (Kenneth Burkett and Edward Kaufman)
http://www.orgsites.com/pa/redbankarch/_pgg4.php3
Page 20 Fig 24,25 “The Big man” and “Snail” Geocontourglyphs (Google earth Images)
Page 21 Fig 26
“Snake Geocontourglyph” (Swauger 1984 and Google earth Image)
Page 22 Fig 27 Serpent Mound: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/5655/Adena-culture
Page 23 Fig 28,29 Squire and Davis drawings Newark Works: C. Whittlesey, E.G. Squire, E.H. Davis
1837-47 plate XXV and Fort Ancient: Squire and Davis Plate VII, John Lock Surveyor Fort Ancient
Page 24 Fig. 30
Squire 1847 drawings of the Scioto valley
Page 25 Fig 31 “Stickman” (Google Earth image and Terraserver image)
Page 26 Fig 32 “Stickman” deforested (Google Earth images)
Page 29 Fig 33 “Bagpiper, Crazy Duck & Moose Man: Swauger, USGS Terraserver & Google Earth
31
Latitudes and Longitudes of Geocontourglyph and Petroglyph sites as approximated by Google Earth
Leo Petroglyph Site: Lat 39° 9’1.23”N
You Are Here Figure Lat 39° 9’1.23”N
Leo Buffalo Head
Lat 39° 15’17.35”N
Bagpiper
Lat 39° 14'1.30"N
Flea
Lat 39° 13'17.64"N
Crazy Duck
Lat 39° 14'43.04"N
Parkers landing:
Lat 41° 6'10.91"N
Big man
Lat 41° 24’54.11”N
Snail
Lat 40° 48’23.46”N
East Liverpool Sites: Lat 40° 37'28.42"N
Moose man
Lat 40° 39'7.18"N
Thunderbird
Lat 40° 41'10.32"N
Buffalo shaman
Lat 40° 37'46.76"N
Deer
Lat 40° 43'29.20"N
Dog
Lat 40° 43'7.01"N
Monkey Man
Lat 40° 43'33.98"N
Independence Slab: Lat 41° 23'41.66"N
Independence Snake Lat 41° 22'24.22"N
Lake St Clair
Lat 42° 22'26.24"N
Inscription Rock:
Lat 41° 36'22.73"N
Pipe Smoker:
Lat 41° 31'47.72"N
Other landmarks mentioned:
Serpent Mound
Lat 39° 1’33.35”N
Fort Ancient
Lat 39° 24’20.17”N
Newark Earthworks Lat 40° 3’12.78”N
Long 82° 40’28.14”W
Long 82° 40’28.14”W
Long 82° 47’1.89”W
Long 82° 43'10.67"W
Long 82° 44'24.41"W
Long 82° 46'15.11"W
Long 79° 41'19.04"W
Long 79° 49’27.76”W
Long 79° 12’44.12”W
Long 80° 33'21.14"W
Long 80° 31'26.51"W
Long 80° 30'40.96"W
Long 80° 34'32.72"W
Long 80° 36'46.27"W
Long 80° 35'13.44"W
Long 80° 34'55.24"W
Long 81° 38'20.21"W
Long 82° 33'37.75"W
Long 82° 39'54.47"W
Long 82° 42'13.62"W
Long 82° 43'49.58"W
Long 83° 25’49.95”W
Long 84° 5’29.66”W
Long 82° 26’40.69”W
MUST READING, below are additional reference materials on Petroglyphs, Earthworks and Maps:
1. the Darlington Digital Library, University of Pittsburgh: old maps with trails from the 1700s:
http://images.library.pitt.edu/cgi-bin/i/image/imageidx?type=boolean;view=thumbnail;sid=57a888f8d358599686b54213049cc270;sort=darlmaps_nd;c=darlmaps;q1=d
arlmaps;rgn1=darlmaps_all;corig=darlmaps;size=20&start=1:
2. Mills Archaeological Atlas of Ohio
3. Indian Mounds of the Middle Ohio Valley by Susan Woodward and Jerry McDonald
4. Old forester website: http://www.oldeforester.com/indians.htm
5. Pennsylvania Historic and Museum Commission:
http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt?open=512&objID=3892&&PageID=428687&level=5&css=L5&mode
=2&in_hi_userid=2&cached=true
6. The history of cartography: Google books of pictograph interpretations:
http://books.google.com/books?id=k_NoubO0RiYC&pg=RA1-PA101&lpg=RA1PA101&dq=chickasaw+map&source=bl&ots=LVNal_NpWl&sig=gyhD3w0_ZiI277uF605KUCMoXhI&hl=en&ei
=HQCzSYu0INLjtgf8tKzCBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=6&ct=result#PRA1-PA79,M1
7. Cartographic Encounters by Malcolm Lewis: pages 56 and 205
http://books.google.com/books?id=h2tGe9U39UIC&pg=PA81&dq=ojibwa+map#PRA2-PA205,M1
32