By chance, the Fetter family knew the family of Damon Mullen, an archaeologist and then a graduate student at Kent State University. Given the urgency of the construction work, within hours a team of university archaeologists was organized to investigate the site the following day.<\/p>\n
The landowners, the Fetter family, and the researchers agreed that the eleven pieces, along with any other remains that might appear, would be donated to the Cleveland Museum of Natural History for permanent preservation.<\/p>\n
The site was in a delicate situation. The surface had been scraped and leveled by machinery, and the pond that served as a water hazard on the golf course was being mechanically modified. The archaeologists, led by Metin I. Eren and Michelle R. Bebber of Kent State University, worked with masonry trowels in an area of about one square meter.<\/p>\n
![\"11](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/1-s2.0-S2352409X26002063-gr1_lrg.webp\")
Co-author Fetter showing the location where he found the first nine bifaces in the Joshua Cache (left). Post-excavation, co-author Bebber is pointing to the location of the cache relative to the broader landscape; the small excavation is yellowish in color, just above her raised left hand (right). Credit: M.I. Eren et al. 2026<\/p>\n
The university team recovered two additional bifaces about five centimeters below the surface where Fetter had found the first ones. And about five centimeters deeper, they extracted several small fragments of charcoal<\/a> from the sediment. In total, eleven bifaces became part of the museum\u2019s collection.<\/p>\n What Exactly Are These Bifaces?<\/p>\n The eleven stone tools are elongated and leaf-shaped, with convex lateral edges. Most have a flat cross-section on one side and a convex one on the other, and the convex face often shows a prominent ridge formed by flake scars running parallel until they meet at the central axis of the piece. The lateral edges are exceptionally straight, suggesting that they were produced using very fine flaking techniques, likely pressure flaking.<\/p>\n From a purely aesthetic perspective, the researchers do not hesitate to describe the pieces as beautifully crafted, showing a high level of technical skill.<\/p>\n Microscopic analysis of the surfaces (a technique known as microwear analysis) revealed a fascinating detail: none of the eleven tools were used. The researchers found isolated bright spots on numerous flake ridges, on both faces. <\/p>\n These bright spots form when strong abrasive forces smooth the microtopography of the stone. The distribution of these points on the highest parts of the surface indicates that they were produced by contact between the tools during transport, not by their use as projectile points, knives, or scrapers.<\/p>\n In the authors\u2019 words: There is no use-related wear on the edges, suggesting that none of the bifaces were used as projectiles or as cutting or scraping tools.<\/p>\n The Mystery of the Dating<\/p>\n Two small charcoal samples found beneath the bifaces were sent for radiocarbon dating. The results yielded surprising dates: between the mid-12th and mid-13th centuries AD. That is, in the heart of the European Middle Ages.<\/p>\n However, the archaeologists are very cautious with this dating. The discovery context was disturbed. The surface had been scraped by machinery, and the researchers had great difficulty identifying possible later disturbances, such as rodent burrows that could have moved the charcoal from higher levels to below the tools.<\/p>\n We cannot guarantee the absence of disturbances, the authors admit, nor, given the sediment and the situation, could we confidently recognize the lack of alteration processes (rodent burrows, worm disturbance, etc.).<\/p>\n Three facts suggest that the deposit may have been disturbed. First, the land had been leveled, a process that can easily move artifacts or charcoal samples. Second, Fetter found the first nine bifaces scattered in a square meter and at depths that varied by a few centimeters. Third, the archaeologists excavated bifaces number 10 and 11 five centimeters below the first nine.<\/p>\n For all we know, the researchers note, the deposit may have contained more bifaces, but they were lost during modern construction.<\/p>\n A Style Reminiscent of Ohio\u2019s Ancient Inhabitants<\/p>\n Despite doubts about the radiocarbon dating, the shape of the tools tells another story. The researchers compared the morphology of the eleven pieces with that of 322 bifaces from deposits of different periods: Paleoindian<\/a> (the first people to arrive in the Americas), Archaic, Early Woodland, Middle to Terminal Woodland, and Late Woodland.<\/p>\n Using geometric morphometric techniques (essentially, computer-based mathematical shape analysis), the researchers discovered that the tools from the Joshua Cache most closely resemble those from Early Woodland deposits, associated with the culture known as Adena, which lived in the region about 2,500 to 1,900 years ago.<\/p>\n Bifaces from that period are usually long and narrow, with maximum width near the midpoint, a slightly rounded or straight base, and parallel flake scars forming a slight central ridge. Exactly the characteristics shown by the pieces from the Joshua Cache.<\/p>\n The authors admit that they initially thought the tools might be much older, from the end of the last glaciation<\/a>, about 13,000 years ago. In Ohio and the Great Lakes region, the first settlers made fluted points known as Clovis<\/a>, which later evolved into Barnes points, lanceolate in shape but with much longer flutes.<\/p>\n Given this, and since two prominent characteristics of the Joshua Cache bifaces are parallel pressure flaking and medial ridges, we hypothesized that perhaps it represented a Middle to Late Paleoindian biface cache that had not yet been fluted, the researchers explain. Such a deposit, as far as we know, would have been the first of its kind.<\/p>\n But the unlikelihood of finding \u201cthe first\u201d of anything, combined with the quantitative results and the literature review, led them to the most reasonable conclusion: the deposit belongs to the Early Woodland.<\/p>\n Where Did the Stone Come From?<\/p>\n To determine the origin of the raw material, the researchers used a non-destructive chemical analysis called portable X-ray fluorescence (pXRF). This technique allows the elemental composition of materials to be known without damaging them.<\/p>\n The results showed that most of the bifaces are made of a rock called chert, probably of the type known as Upper Mercer. This material outcrops about 43 kilometers in a straight line south of where the deposit was found, or 44.2 kilometers following the path of least effort.<\/p>\n The researchers acknowledge that they cannot completely rule out another similar source called Zaleski, because the two are geochemically indistinguishable with the technology used. But visually, the pieces show the light veining and fossil inclusions characteristic of Upper Mercer.<\/p>\n Unanswered Questions<\/p>\n The authors of the study are very honest about the limitations of their research. Given the circumstances of the discovery and the nature of this type of stone tool deposit, they admit that we are left with more questions than answers, and our conclusions should be considered provisional.<\/p>\n Among the open questions are: What is the relationship between the radiocarbon dates and the bifaces? How were the tools oriented? Were they arranged in any pattern? What was special about the chosen place for deposition? Are there other archaeological finds in the area related to this deposit?<\/p>\n Regarding the function of the deposit, there are no certainties either. We cannot conclude anything about the function of the Joshua Cache, they write. Was it deposited for a symbolic or ritual purpose, or a utilitarian one?<\/p>\n If utilitarian, there are several possibilities. Due to their size, it is unlikely that they were arrowheads, although the authors acknowledge that they do not know exactly what the Adena culture bow-and-arrow system was like. They could have been tips for atlatl-thrown darts, or for javelins or spears.<\/p>\n They could also be preforms that were going to be transformed into notched projectile points, like the ones known as Adena Stemmed or Cresap Stemmed. Or perhaps they were never meant to be projectile points at all, but knives, and the cache was buried near a favorite hunting spot or an animal migration route.<\/p>\n A Lesson on Convergent Evolution<\/p>\n The researchers use this find to make an important methodological reflection. Lithic technologies<\/a> (stone technologies) are very prone to convergence: this means that different cultures, separated in time and space, can make very similar tools simply because technical solutions to similar problems tend to look alike.<\/p>\n Therefore, in the absence of reliable dating or highly diagnostic artifacts, any conclusion about the time period or cultural affiliation derived from lithic technology should be considered provisional at best.<\/p>\n The authors conclude that overall, the Joshua Cache appears to be an Early Woodland cache of unused stone bifaces, made of Upper Mercer chert, perhaps knapped at the outcrop itself, before being transported and buried in Sugarcreek, Ohio.<\/p>\n Despite all the uncertainties, the researchers emphasize the importance of publishing and preserving caches like the Joshua Cache. Future scientific advances or field discoveries may provide clues, clarity, or even definitively resolve the questions that remain open today.<\/p>\n The eleven stone tools are now housed in the Archaeological Collections of the Cleveland Museum of Natural History, available to future researchers who, with better techniques or new information, may unravel the mysteries that this accidental find has planted in the soil of Ohio.<\/p>\n SOURCES<\/p>\n Metin I. Eren, Michelle R. Bebber, The Joshua Cache: salvage, description, and analysis of a possible Early Woodland (Adena) biface cache from Sugarcreek, Ohio, USA. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, vol. 72, June 2026. doi.org\/10.1016\/j.jasrep.2026.105771<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"The set of bifaces, discovered by chance on a golf course under construction, raises more questions than answers…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":719333,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[566],"tags":[64,63,755,85],"class_list":["post-719332","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-golf","tag-au","tag-australia","tag-golf","tag-sports"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/719332","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=719332"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/719332\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/719333"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=719332"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=719332"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=719332"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}![\"11](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/1-s2.0-S2352409X26002063-gr2_lrg.webp\")
Joshua Cache bifaces #10 (upper left) and #11 (upper right) in situ. Both bifaces were uncovered approximately five cm under the bifaces uncovered by Fetter. In the lower picture, biface #10 is still in situ, but #11 has been removed; the trowel is indicating where biface #11 had been found. Credit: M.I. Eren et al. 2026<\/p>\n