Ohio River Question

[lukecreekwalker]

I've noticed that all my older pieces, while in the vicinity of the Ohio River, seem to be farther away from it.  The newer stuff always comes right near the banks.  Could this be because after the glaciers melted the river was much larger in the Archaic period than it was in the ft ancient or is this just a coincidence?  Thanks

[sailorjoe]

That's an interesting observation and a dang good question. I've made the same observation on the Tennessee River in north Alabama as it relates to finding artifacts on or near the flood plain. I don't have an answer/s but maybe some halfway educated guesses. I think your idea that rainfall and subsequent runoff during Paleo to early Archaic periods was likely greater than in later periods is a good hypothesis. And later on during the mid Archaic, I think if I remember correctly, that overall climate in the East was drier than it is today. Along the Tennessee River great middens of mussel shells were built up due to the greatly increased diet of mussels as lower water levels made them easier to harvest. We local collectors would refer to the period as "shell mound Archaic". Artifacts would erode out of the banks along with thousands of mussel shells.  Early Archaic and older artifacts I would usually find on terraces away from the river sometimes on the 2nd or third terrace away from the banks. The famous Quad Site near Decatur, AL is/was located on one such terrace. In fields adjacent to the present river, after the development of the maize economy, one can find artifacts associated with that economy such as hoes, celts,etc. The village sites near those fields is where I would usually find more points and blades and those were usually on adjacent higher ground such  as those terraces. When the terraces used by the really early guys were later used by the agricultural folks then I would call that a multicomponent site.  This was the "general pattern" I observed on the floodplain but away from the main river on tributaries or in the more upland areas this observed pattern did not necessarily hold true.

[Kyflintguy]

I thought that was an interesting question,  so I decided to look into it for you. I Had a suspicion that due to locks and Dam's, the modern water level would be much higher than the original ancient river channel , as it is nowadays with most major rivers. From what I could find, that is the case. So anything your finding around the river is likely a good ways away from the original channel. So most likely it's just coincidental the two sites are separated. Here's a link with some information about the Ohio River. http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Ohio_River

[lukecreekwalker]

Thanks for the input Josh and Joe.  I had no idea the river was shallower.  I am guessing my archaic sites that are away but still in valley compared to the modern sites right near the banks has to do with way of life.  Later cultures farmed more and all that flat land near the banks seems more easy to manage than the "hollers" (sorry I had to use the WV term) nearby.  The archaic people were probably just following the food in the hills and the later periods had more established sites and much larger farming agendas.

[sailorjoe]

KFG: Thanks for that reference. What a very interesting and complex geologic history that the Ohio River has had over the millennia.

[painshill]

The picture is going to be further complicated by which section of the Ohio River you mean. It experienced a number of changes in its course and water volume from the end of the last ice age. Part of the modern Cache River flows through an old channel of the Ohio River and it’s one of the few areas of Illinois which wasn’t covered with ice at the last glacial maxim. It was periodically flooded with glacial meltwater and, sometime between 8,000 and 12,000 years ago, those effects forced the Ohio River to abandon the Cache Valley for its present course.
The Cache Valley area has also experienced some major upheavals during and since those times with consequent effects on the Ohio. The geology of the area suggests that a large section of the Cache sank during a major earthquake around AD 900 (the New Madrid Fault runs under the area). Even in modern times there has been significant alteration from human interference. After the arrival of European settlers, the Cache Valley area was heavily deforested for cypress wood between 1810 – 1890 and then the Cache was diverted to drain the land for agriculture. Its watershed was divided into two between 1912 – 1915 and a channel was cut through to the Ohio River to drain the Upper Cache, significantly increasing the volume of water going down the Ohio.

[Driftwood]

Good answers for you so far... and an interesting observation. I am not familiar with the Ohio River or surrounds, but I have noticed the same type of thing in my area. Most of the Archaic stuff tends to be a good distance from the river (large creek in this case), almost always along a tributary or swampy/spring area... usually well above the flood plain on some level terrace (sometimes barely discernible). Very rarely do the Archaic finds occur close to the current river channel... that's not taking into account the issue of that channel moving from time to time. I would have the feeling that in the early archaic times in the north, the water levels might have been a bit higher, but also there was more ground water in general... like springs and such. Just a guess.

[p kurt]

thanks for such a good answer painshill, I am very familiar with the cache area.  My son worked a summer job for the cypress creek wildlife refuge area in the cache a few years back.  I live on a bluff looking over the this old acient river you talked about.  Just yesterday after a big rain on my way to work the fields looked like lakes as the drainage ditches over filled with water and the fields unable to drain took a trip back in time.  due to the low water level of the ohio river the water made it to the post creek cut off and headed its way to the river, but not before carp were able to head up stream and feast on all the spring greens.  i have seen early archaic/transitional paleo habitat zones that are nearly fifteen feet below the surface with up to eight feet between next noticable zone.  other areas have zones with only inches seperating them.  some of these areas are close to each other with large differences in how the habitation zones are stacked.  I spend alot of time wondering what these areas must of looked like thousands of years ago and just how extreme the scenery must have changed.  I was glad to see this post and was hoping to get an

answer or two myself and painshill nailed it for me.  my wife took this pic of me while we were kayaking in a two man kayak in the middle of the ancient cache river basin during a flood. by the way we had just went over the top of telephone in that pic. we were on are way to visit a friend that was living on a his own little island at the time.