INSTANCES WHEN REPORTS WRITTEN AND MAPS DRAWN BY CHARLES WHITTLESEY WERE EITHER ATTRIBUTED TO OTHERS, SEVERELY EDITED, OR OTHERWISE OVERLOOKED OR DISMISSED AS BEING HERESAY

Charles Whittlesey’s (1808 – 1886) contributions to science and society were significant, but he never received proper recognition for several discoveries he made, maps he constructed, or reports he submitted. The first instance was a report on the erosion of the Cleveland lakefront in 1837 that was attributed to William Mather (1804 – 1859). Likewise, his 1837 geologic map of Jackson County, Ohio, was attributed to Caleb Briggs (1810 – 1884), and his 1837 map of the Marietta earthworks was attributed to Samuel R. Curtis.

Whittlesey’s article on the geology of Ohio, prepared for Henry Howe’s volume on Ohio history, missed Howe’s 1846-47 deadline, and was added at the end of Howe’s second (1857) edition. Whittlesey’s article, which had 1848 added to the title, was of particular importance because it included a lengthy discussion of the unconsolidated material called “drift” that covered the bedrock of most of Ohio. Whittlesey concluded that a continental ice sheet had deposited the bulk of the drift, and had left scratches, grooves, and polish on the bedrock surface as far south as the Ohio River. This revealing article apparently has been overlooked by historians of science and geology. Whittlesey submitted an article on drift, nearly identical to what he submitted to Howe, to Benjamin Silliman, editor of the American Journal of Science and Arts. Silliman published the article in 1848, but eliminated all references to ice, ice sheets, and glaciation. It would be nearly two more decades before Whittlesey published what he was thinking about continental glaciation of North America.

Whittlesey’s map of the Newark earthworks has been attributed, at least in part, to Ephraim Squier and Edwin Davis. Whittlesey’s conclusion that the Moundbuilders of southern Ohio went to the Keweenaw Peninsula of Upper Michigan in the summer to mine copper, thus eliminating a trade network, has received little support. Whittlesey’s 1872 article stating that the Cincinnati Tablet, attributed to the Adena Culture, was a fraud has been rejected by archeological authorities, both past and present, who have accused him of being unscientific and predisposed to disbelief.