Turkeytails, Funeral Observances, and the Sacred Calendar
By
Richard Michael Gramly
American Society for Amateur Archaeology
North Andover, Massachusetts
“From ages immemorial, Man has sensed the truth that he must
live in harmony with the forces of Heaven” (Anon. 1945)
The apparent movements of the moon, sun and the other heavenly
bodies have fascinated all cultures, and scholars specializing in their study
have existed on all continents throughout history (and perhaps prehistory).
The cycles of movement, in combination with various methods of counting,
are the basis of calendars.
The practical applications of calendars, such as telling farmers when to
sow and reap, are often cited. Personally, I believe that this argument has
been over-stressed. Farmers can tell the seasons by well-understood signs
and seldom need a printed calendar for guidance. The real application of
calendars, it seems to me, is ritual. Societies need to know when to celebrate,
when to make offerings to gods and persons held sacred, when to collect
taxes, and when to honor the dead.
Honoring the dead is based upon the belief that they may influence the
living. In neglecting to pay homage to its dead, a society risks “divine”
retribution – flood, famine, disease. Who can say what might be the outcome
of being lax, mis-scheduling a ritual, or neglecting to perform it?
In one way or another all societies propitiate memory of the dead. Our
own culture, for example, publishes “bereavement notices” on the
anniversary of deaths in the obituary section of newspapers. In Japan at fixed
periods after death scripture-readings and prayers are offered (Dunn 1969:
129-130). Also in Buddhist Japan, a full year must pass before ashes of an
high-status person are entombed (Kidder 1972: 136).
The length of the fixed periods between funeral observances, of course,
depends upon a society’s calendric system. What constitutes a “year” is not
agreed upon by all. Some societies, such as our own, are guided by the solar
year of 365 days (approximately). For the Chinese the lunar year is used, and
the date of its onset varies. A grouping of 60 lunar years (five sets of the 12
named lunar years) is important to Chinese astrologers for telling time and
planning ritual observances (Too 1996: 214).
Among early historic and prehistoric Central American societies such as
the Maya, there were, not one, but two calendar years! The first, a secular
calendar, was solar and counted (360 + 5) days. The second, the ritual
calendar, lasted only 260 days. It has been likened to two gear wheels, one
of 13 numbers and the other of 20 day signs, side-by-side and meshed
together (Coe 1987: 47). In order for the gears to arrive at their starting point
again, 260 days must pass. Each of these days was designated uniquely by a
number and sign. Such an ingenious calendar was termed a tonalamatl and
was used by all Central American societies (Forstemann 1904).
It is thought that the number of named days in the tonalamatl was based
upon the number of fingers and toes. Also, the number 13 might refer to the
body’s major joints, kinship and descent (See Schuster and Carpenter 1996:
Chapter 3 for a discussion.) Nothing more elementally human can be
imagined.
Being the foundation for scheduling important rituals throughout MesoAmerica, it is difficult to believe that societies north of Mexico knew
nothing about it. Here I wish to 1) present evidence that the tonalamatl was
used in funeral observances by a Terminal Archaic/Early Woodland
culture in the Mid-West and 2) argue that it is important to determine exact
numbers of artifacts within suspected mortuary features.
Turkeytails and Turkeytail Caches
The several types or varieties of Turkeytail flaked stone points,
reckoned to be six or more, have been defined and described by many
authors -- among whom are Stemle (1981), Perino (1985), and Justice
(1987). While most points would have functioned well as knives, there are
narrow, slim examples that surely tipped projectiles and saw use in the field.
Turkeytail points are on record for at least 10 states and one Canadian
province. Their distribution is centered upon the Ohio River valley where
they are frequently encountered along the lower reaches of tributary streams
(Ray Tanner, personal communication). Wherever they are found, even at
the fringes of their distribution (for example, the Berger cache in
northwestern Wisconsin; Amick 2004), Turkeytails are made predominantly
of various shades of gray chert also known as hornstone. This superb
toolstone, which is capable of yielding very thin bifaces to a capable
knapper, outcrops in Indiana and Kentucky.
The occurrence of several types of Turkeytails in various stages of
manufacture at the same habitation site (e.g., Obrien’s Cave, Simpson Co.,
Kentucky) suggests that these forms represent an evolutionary series and are
not regional expressions of a common theme (Dennis Vesper, personal
communication). Were it so, it should be possible to establish a sequence
and date it absolutely from beginning to end. Caches of Turkeytails usually
feature a single type; radiocarbon dates from discrete caches should provide
the data we need.
The custom of burying groups of flaked stone points, or “caching,” has
ancient roots in the Americas. It was practiced during the Clovis era in both
the West (Lahren and Bonnichsen 1974) and the East (Gramly 1999), during
the preceding (?) period of the Cumberland archaeological culture (Gramly,
Vesper and McCall 1999), and even as late as Mississippian times – witness
human burials interred with thousands of arrowpoints underneath Mound 72
at the Cahokia site, Illinois.
Use of the term, “cache,” to refer to all deposits of flaked stone points
may be something of a misnomer, as strictly speaking, a cache is a group of
artifacts (or foodstuffs) that has been set aside for future use. Their owner
has every intention of reclaiming them when needed. In the case of objects
buried with dead bodies, however, they may have been left permanently as
an offering to the dead or were their rightful property.
Sometimes, due to factors of preservation, we are unsure if “cached”
artifacts accompanied a burial or were deposited only temporarily but
afterwards forgotten by their owner. In these equivocal cases, use of the
term, cache, is fully justified.
It is well known that the makers of Turkeytails practiced caching. We
are less certain that groups of cached Turkeytails accompanied human
burials in every instance. In Elaine Holzapfel’s review of “Red Ochre”
culture caches of Turkeytails in the greater Ohio region (1993 and 1994) we
note a few cases of associated bone -- perhaps human. For one discovery
(Patrick cache), however, a trained observer reported that no bone was
present within a pit containing “310-350 ceremonially broken specimens.”
The physical treatment accorded Turkeytails in caches was highly
variable. Extra-large points, as seen in the Nussbaum (Converse 1989) and
James McNutt (Koup 1990) caches, seem often to have escaped smashing
or destruction by fire. Smaller Turkeytails, on the other hand, did not fare as
well. Typically, caches of small- to medium-sized Turkeytails have suffered
damage by fire, being reduced to small fragments (see Holzapfel 1996 for an
example from Clark County, Ohio). Some Turkeytails in caches were
intentionally smashed (e.g., the Spetnagel cache, Chillicothe, Ohio). A
combination of incineration and smashing may have taken place in some
instances, although the evidence is not compelling.
It seems evident that the physical treatment of Turkeytails in caches
may have changed over time. If this activity were part of funeral
observances, then we must expect customs to have evolved. Also, we must
allow that there were differences in funeral observances according to the
wealth and status of the families staging ceremonies. These issues are
complex and demand the archaeologist’s full consideration when reporting
discoveries of Turkeytail caches. Alas, it may be impossible to glean
trustworthy information about accidental finds that are afterward
inexactingly explored. Regarded as “treasure,” Turkeytails in caches may be
misappropriated, divided among finders before restoration, and sold off
without being catalogued and counted. In such cases discoveries are almost
valueless to archaeological science.
Fulton Turkeytail Caches: Recent and Not-So-Recent Discoveries
The inexorable erosion of actively farmed land accounts for most of the
discoveries of Turkeytail caches. Many of these plowed-out archaeological
features must escape investigation; fewer still are studied and reported in the
scientific literature. One of the notable exceptions is the
Denney cache of Fulton Turkeytails that was found in May, 2004, near Mt.
Stirling, Montgomery County, northeast Kentucky (Pennington 2004a,
2004b, 2007). Each of the more than 225 Turkeytails, averaging five inches
long and made of various shades of gray, concentrically-banded hornstone,
had been damaged by fire. Very few specimens could be completely restored
from fragments.
The actual number of Turkeytails in the Denney cache is likely greater
than 225, which is the number known to date (M. Pennington, personal
communication). Many of the very small fire-spalls in the cache have not yet
been taken into account. Several thousand small and large fragments lay
among “greasy feeling” black soil within a pit extending 13-14 inches below
the base of the plow zone and measuring 14 X 24 inches.
No calcined or cremated bone was observed nor was any fire-reddened
earth present, which would have indicated burning in situ. To all
appearances the Denney cache was a secondary deposit.
The author submitted a sample of wood charcoal weighing
approximately six grams from the Denney cache to Beta Analytic Inc. of
Coral Gables, Florida, for radiocarbon dating. The corrected result (Beta193504) proved to be 2,700 +/- 70 years BP or 790-1000 BC when
calibrated. This result agrees very favorably with Greg Perino’s estimated
antiquity for the Fulton Turkeytail type of 500-1000 BC (1985: 141). It is
slightly more ancient than the only other radiocarbon date heretofore
reported for a Fulton Turkeytail cache, namely, 2,340 +/- 80 years BP
(Grandstaff and Davis 1985). This cache, consisting of nine undamaged
points, was discovered during 1984 in Ross County, Ohio. Also with it were
gneiss tablets showing the traces of fire, fragments of badly deteriorated
bone (human?), and other articles.
Thirteen years prior to the discovery of the Denney Cache, in
September, 1991, a remarkably similar grouping of Fulton Turkeytails was
plowed up on the Jewell Farm just outside of Willmore, Jessamine County,
north-central Kentucky. The findspot occupies one of the highpoints (Figure
2) in the county west of meandering Jessamine Creek and east of the
winding Kentucky River. Both watercourses have incised deeply through
bedded limestones of Ordovician age (Cressman and Hrabar 1970). Heavily
cultivated Jessamine County is rich in prehistoric sites, and everywhere
around them picturesque, treed landscapes may be viewed (Figure 3).
Gail Roe, the finder of the cache and for whom it is named, had the
foresight to scoop up all the artifacts and surrounding plowed soil, leaving
very few specimens behind. Her thoroughness was confirmed during my
November, 2003, visit to the findspot when only a few firespalled fragments
of Turkeytails were recovered after a diligent search. The soil and artifacts
lay within 5-gal buckets inside Gail Roe’s garage for 12 years (until 2003)
when I took title to it. At the time of discovery Gail segregated a group of
the larger fragments and attempted (with little success) to piece together
some complete Turkeytails. According to her, “three or four” point tips and
bases (tails) that appeared to match were gifted to a family doctor; while,
another 40 paired tips and tails -- all well-shaped, thinly flaked and mounted
within a glassed box – were stolen by a youth and later sold on the streets of
Louisville. They were never recovered, and as a result, later only four (4)
Turkeytails could be restored by the author. (Three of them are shown in
Figure 4.)
Processing the 5-gal buckets of unsearched plow zone was timeconsuming as an 1/8-inch mesh, and in some cases window-screen, was
used. All chert firespalls and angular fragments of Turkeytails were saved as
well as 1) calcined bone bits, 2) charcoal, and 3) lumps of fire-reddened soil.
I noted that chunks of soil had been baked to a thickness of 25-35 mm. A
very hot fire, kept burning for 24 hours and perhaps longer, would have been
required to bake underlying soil to such a thickness. The mere fact of its
recovery is evidence that Gail Roe’s cache had once lain within a crematory
-- perhaps a shallow basin. The ridge on the Jewell Farm where the cache
was discovered would seem an ideal place for cremation, as winds are
constantly at play there.
Unlike the Denney cache, calcined bone, possibly human, had been
present at Gail Roe’s site. Bone bits were solidly embedded within soil
chunks that had been hardened by fire. Altogether 563.6 grams were gleaned
from 25 gallons of plowed soil, including 192.4 grams of cortical bone
(Figure 5), 53.5 grams of skull (Figure 6), and 318.7 grams of
unrecognizable fragments (Figure 7). No single bone could be identified as
human nor of any other animal. My difficulty in identifying bone was
exacerbated by the thorough milling it had undergone. Reducing cremains to
an amorphous mass of small fragments by grinding with stones or wooden
pestles, perhaps for cosmetic reasons, may have been a common practice
among certain North American societies during the first millennium BC (See
Gramly and Kunkle 2003 for a case of milled cremains at a Meadowood site
in central Pennsylvania.)
If we consider the calcined bone bits with the Gail Roe cache to be all
human, then only part of an adult’s skeleton could be represented. Possibly
cremation occurred well after death, and only a few skeletal elements were
selected for burning?
The actual number of Turkeytails in Gail Roe’s cache approached 260
and weighed almost 8 kg (17-18 pounds). These figures are based upon the
following observations:
A. Number of bases (tails) within 5-gal buckets…….205
Weight of bases (tails)……………………………1,339.2 grams
B. Number of tips within 5-gal buckets……………..210
Weight of tips…………………………………….1,100 grams
C. Number of medial fragments* within buckets……627
Weight of medial fragments………………………2,226.1 grams
*Includes 4 fragments preserving bulbs of percussion – see note.
D. Number of pot-lidded (fire-spalled) flakes within 5-gal.
buckets…………………………………………3,586
Weight of flakes (all derived from Turkeytails)…..1,749.2 grams
E. Completed/nearly completed (conjoined) points….5
Weight of completed/nearly completed points……148.0 grams
TOTAL Objects 4,633
TOTAL Weight 6,562.5 grams
The average weight of four of the five Turkeytail points that were
restored (each comprised of several conjoined fragments) is 30.6 grams. If
we multiply this figure by the 43-44 Fulton Turkeytails that are no longer
with Gail Roe’s cache we may add another 1,315.8 – 1,346.4 grams to the
mass giving totals of 258-259 Turkeytails weighing 7,878.3-7,908.9 grams.
Interesting to note, if we divide the median, estimated total weight of the
Gail Roe cache (7,894 grams) by the average weight of a Turkeytail at this
site we arrive at the estimate of 258 points among the cache. Doubtless, this
figure is a slight under-estimate of the complete number, as I observed that
some very small point fragments (fire-spalled flakes) remain to be gleaned
from the plow zone on the Jewell Farm.
In my opinion the estimated numbers of Turkeytails in the Denney
cache (225+) and Gail Roe cache (258+) are so close that it is possible to
believe that the same numbers of cremated points were deposited at both
sites -- and that the number may have been 260. As I shall argue below,
this number is highly significant.
A Word about Style
The Fulton Turkeytails of the Gail Roe cache are divisible into two
styles (variants). Among the 113 Turkeytail points that were represented by
large fragments (including the 5 completed specimens) and thus could be
classified according to style, there were 7 specimens that were thin and wide
(Figure 8). Points of this style had relatively small, delicate tails. Also, they
had been fashioned of a paler gray hornstone than was the norm for the
other, more numerous style of Turkeytail. This variety of hornstone is
identical to nodules shown to me from deposits near Mauckport, Harrison
County, on the Indiana shore of the Ohio River – downstream of Louisville,
Kentucky. Likely, this raw material had been imported by creators of the
Gail Roe cache from that distant region.
The dominant style of Fulton Turkeytail in the Gail Roe cache, and
apparently for the Denney Cache, as well, is a rugged but well made point
with a prominent tail ranging from 100-125 mm (4-5 inches) in overall
length. Figure 9 is an good specimen of this style, typical in every respect.
The raw material used for Figure 9 and others of its class is darker gray than
any hornstone that I have seen from Indiana. This distinction recalls an
observation made by Stemle (1981: 116) about dark gray hornstone from the
Wortham site, Hardin County, Kentucky versus lighter-colored stone from
Indiana quarries. Wortham was a prolific workshop used by makers of
Turkeytails. Is it possible that this station or another in its vicinity provided
the hornstone used for the bulk of points in the Gail Roe and Denney
caches?
Another Radiocarbon Date
Confined to a sick-bed with a broken leg during February and March,
2007, the author was able to devote many hours to study of the Gail Roe
cache. A by-product of this little project was a sample of wood charcoal
teased from lumps of fire-reddened earth that had lain within the 5-gal pails
of plowed soil collected by Gail Roe. Well-preserved hardwood charcoal
with a dry weight of 1.9 grams was bagged and sent to Beta Analytic Inc. for
dating by tandem linear accelerator mass spectroscopy. The determination
was funded by Dennis Vesper – an amateur archaeologist and Kentuckian
who has had a long-standing interest in the prehistory and early history of
his native state.
The result (Beta-229096) was 2,570 +/- 40 years BP or 590-640 BC
when calibrated and at one standard deviation. The date is slightly, but
significantly, younger than the result for the Denney cache. Beta-229096 is
an important determination as there are very few absolute dates for
Turkeytail caches.
The Spread of Smoking Rituals and the Sacred Calendar
As I have argued in detail elsewhere (Gramly 2006), tobacco with its
role in rituals, was introduced to the Mid-West ultimately from MesoAmerica. Tobacco’s appearance is undoubtedly linked to the first
widespread use of smoking pipes during the Terminal Archaic/Early
Woodland Glacial Kame culture (Converse 1981; 2003: 114-115 and
elsewhere). Dates for Glacial Kame fall within the first half of the first
millennium BC -- the same time when Turkeytails were deposited in caches.
Along with tobacco may have come knowledge of foodstuffs that helped
support burgeoning populations in the Mid-West. Seen from a causative
perspective, it was the cultivation of introduced domestic plants and
fostering of nutritious wild species that enabled human populations to rise
above earlier levels.
Tobacco must be grown and processed according to a strict schedule if a
living is to be made from it. A good calendar based on a solar year may be
of help. If, on the other hand, the drug is used desultorily and just in rituals,
harvesting a large supply every year is not critical. In this case the only
calendar that would have mattered to prehistoric Mid-Western societies
might have been the sacred one or tonalamatl. This sacred calendar and the
meaning of it could have traveled north from the region where it was
developed along with seeds and knowledge needed for successful husbandry
of tobacco and foodstuffs.
We can only infer that tobacco and the tonalamatl played some role in
rituals of the dead; proof is difficult to obtain. Yet, human societies
everywhere schedule funeral observances according to time-honored
formulas. This patterned behavior, the basis of any living or archaeological
culture, does not surprise us. In the case of people who made and used
Fulton Turkeytails, it is reasonable to believe that points were offered to a
dead person for every day in the sacred calendar, that is to say, 260
Turkeytails. Perhaps 260 days had to pass between the time of death and
final cremation/inhumation? Might family members have kept count of the
full (correct) number of days by the points that they offered?
Other numbers besides 260 may have been held sacred and played a role
within rituals marked by the tonalamatl. The archaeologist is in the unique
position to tell us what these numbers may have been. Patterns that
connected ancient societies across continents in the New World, as
everywhere on the globe (Schuster and Carpenter 1996), will only become
clear when we witness the archaeological record and weigh the quality of
our evidence.
Note
It is evident that at least four Turkeytails in the Gail Roe cache had
been broken by percussion. Perhaps they had been broken before cremation
or smashed afterward – as a deliberate measure to complete the destruction?
Acknowledgements
The cooperation of Gail Roe and support of Dennis Vesper speeded this
small project upon its way. Drs. William A Ritchie and Robert E. Funk
inspired my interest in Woodland burial ceremonialism.
References Cited
Amick, Daniel S.
2004 The Berger cache of Turkey-tail points from Dunn County,
Western Wisconsin. The Wisconsin Archeologist 85(1): 100110.
Anonymous
1945 Chinese Astrology. Quon-Quon Co. Los Angeles, California.
Coe, Michael D.
1987 The Maya. Thames and Hudson, Ltd. London.
Converse, Robert N.
1983 The Glacial Kame Indians. Special publication of the
Archaeological Society of Ohio. Columbus.
1988 The Nussbaum cache. Ohio Archaeologist 39(1): 20.
2003 The Archaeology of Ohio. The Archaeological Society of Ohio.
Columbus.
Cressman, E. R. and S. V. Hrabar
1970 Geologic Map of the Wilmore Quadrangle, Central Kentucky.
U.S. Geological Survey. Washington, D.C.
Dunn, Charles J.
1969 Everyday Life in Traditional Japan. Charles E. Tuttle Co.
Rutland, Vermont.
Forstemann, E.
1904 Central American Tonalamatl. Pp. 525-33 in Charles P. Bowditch
(translator and editor) Mexican and Central American Antiquities,
Calendar Systems, and History. Bureau of American Ethnology
Bulletin 28. Washington, D.C.
Gramly, Richard M.
1999 The Lamb Site: A Pioneering Clovis Encampment. Persimmon
Press. Buffalo, New York.
2006 The Hopewell connection: Drug lords along the Ohio. Ohio
Archaeologist 56(3): 10-18.
Gramly, Richard Michael and Leslie C. Kunkle
2003 Working with cremains: An example from the Ferry site,
south-central Pennsylvania. The Amateur Archaeologist 9(1):
43-52.
Gramly, Richard M., Dennis Vesper, and Dave McCall
1999 A Cumberland point site near Trinity, Lewis County, northern
Kentucky. The Amateur Archaeologist 6(1): 63-80.
Grandstaff, Barry and Gary Davis
1985 Another Red Ochre discovery in Ross County. Ohio Archaeologist 35(3): 26-28.
Holzapfel, Elaine
1993 A study of prehistoric caches in the Ohio area. Ohio Archaeologist 43(3): 30-37.
1994 More prehistoric flint caches from the Ohio area. Ohio
Archaeologist 44(2): 36-30.
1996 A Turkeytail cache found in Clark County. Ohio Archaeologist
48(3): 10-12.
Justice, Noel D.
1987 Stone Age Spear and Arrow Points. Indiana University Press.
Bloomington.
Kidder, J. Edward
1972 Early Buddhist Japan. Praeger Publishers. New York.
Koup, William
1990 The James McNutt cache. Ohio Archaeologist 40(3): 26-7.
Lahren, Larry and Robson Bonnichsen
1974 Bone foreshafts from a Clovis burial in southwestern Montana.
Science 186: 147-150.
Pennington, Monty R.
2004a 181-blade, killed, Turkeytail Fulton cache found! Internet
posting, May 26, 2004.
2004b Personal communication.
2007 Turkeytail Fulton cache. Internet posting of the Appalachian
Foothills Artifact Collectors Association.
2008 Personal communication.
Perino, Gregory
1985 Selected Preforms, points and Knives of the North American
Indians (Volume 1). Idabel, Oklahoma.
Schuster, Carl and Edmund Carpenter
1996 Patterns That Connect. Harry N. Abrams, Inc. New York.
Stemle, David L.
1981 The Turkey Tail point. Central States Archaeological Journal,
Volume 28: 112-122.
Tanner, Ray
2007 Personal communication.
Too, Lillian
1995 The Complete Illustrated Guide to Feng Shui. Element Books.
Boston, Massachusetts.
Vesper, Dennis
2005 Personal communication.
Captions for figures accompanying Gramly essay about Turkeytails
Figure 1. Map of Kentucky showing locations of Gail Roe (A) and Denney
(B) caches of Turkeytails.
Figure 2. Findspot of the Gail Roe cache upon a gentle ridge, Jewell Farm
outside of Willmore, Jessamine County, Kentucky. Photo by
R. M. Gramly, 2003.
Figure 3. Gail Roe hugs purportedly the second largest, venerable oak in
the state of Kentucky, near Willmore. Photo by R. M. Gramly,
2003.
Figure 4. Three of five restored Turkeytails in the Gail Roe cache. They are
of the more common style of Fulton Turkeytail point made of
dark gray Kentucky hornstone. Length of point on right (also see
Fig. 9) is 115 mm (4 9/16 inches). Photo by R. M. Gramly.
Figure 5. Cremated fragments of cortical bone, perhaps human. Recovered
from plow zone, Gail Roe cache, Jessamine County, Kentucky.
Weight of all cortical fragments = 192.4 grams.
Figure 6. Cremated fragments of skull, perhaps human. Recovered from
plow zone, Gail Roe cache. Weight of all skull fragments = 53.5
grams.
Figure 7. Small fragments of cremated bone (human?). They appear to have
been milled or ground to an uniform size. Recovered from plow
zone, Gail Roe cache. Weight of all unattributable fragments =
318.7 grams.
Figure 8. Basal fragment of a relatively wide and thin Fulton Turkeytail
representing the less common style of point made of Indiana (?)
hornstone, Gail Roe cache. Surviving length = 60 mm (2 3/8
inches). Steve Wallmann drawing.
Figure 9. Fulton Turkeytail point of dark gray hornstone, damaged by fire
and restored from several fragments. This specimen is typical of
the more common style of Turkeytail in the Gail Roe cache.
Length = 115 mm (4 9/16 inches). Drawing by Steve Wallmann.
February 21, 2008
Kari Bruwelheide, PhD
Department of Anthropology
National Museum of Natural History
Smithsonian Institution
Washington, DC 20560
Dear Kari:
I am taking the liberty of sending you for the SI collections bags of
cremains, possibly but not assuredly all human, from the GAIL ROE
TURKEYTAIL CACHE, near Willmore, Jesssamine Co., KY. These
cremains were gleaned from many buckets of topsoil in a plowed field by
Gail Roe in 1991. With them were about 260 Fulton Turkeytail points, and
chunks of fire-reddened soil with good embedded charcoal. The charcoal
yielded a C-14 date of 590-640 BC, which fits the expected age of the
Turkeytails nicely.
The cremains, as they were all in the active plow zone, are deemed
surficial and thus their collection was not in violation of any state or local
ordinance. Indeed, I am still unsure if they are human. They may be
accessioned within the SI collections with no qualms whatsoever. If I could
not find an educational institution home for them, I had intended to
broadcast them upon the surface of the ground – from when they came.
Such an act would have been a sacrilege, in my opinion, and a loss to
science, as I have taken the time to write (and publish) a paper about the
find. A disc copy of it is enclosed for your records.
The current curator of the assemblage of Turkeytail points belonging to
the Gail Roe cache is Dennis Vesper, 709 St. Joseph lane, Covington, KY
41011-3813 (859-581-2715). He is an amateur scientist with high principles.
I am sure he would be pleased to cooperate with you in any future endeavor.
I hope that you and your colleagues will find this sample of value. Do
with it as you wish. In the “good ole days” I would have found a repository
in Kentucky for it; however, perhaps it is better that the cremains are lodged
within our National Museum. After all, they are more than just locally
significant.
Sincerely,
Richard Michael Gramly, PhD
gramlyasaa@earthlink.net