Full download text book at textbookfull.

com

Spectral and High Order Methods for

Partial Differential Equations ICOSAHOM
2018 Selected Papers from the ICOSAHOM
Conference London UK July 9 13 2018
Spencer J. Sherwin
DOWLOAD HERE

https://textbookfull.com/product/spectral-and-
high-order-methods-for-partial-differential-
equations-icosahom-2018-selected-papers-from-the-
icosahom-conference-london-uk-
july-9-13-2018-spencer-j-sherwin/

DOWLOAD NOW

Download more textbook from textbookfull.com

More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Verified Software Theories Tools and Experiments 10th

International Conference VSTTE 2018 Oxford UK July 18
19 2018 Revised Selected Papers Ruzica Piskac

https://textbookfull.com/product/verified-software-theories-
tools-and-experiments-10th-international-conference-
vstte-2018-oxford-uk-july-18-19-2018-revised-selected-papers-
ruzica-piskac/

Introduction to Partial Differential Equations Peter J.

Olver

https://textbookfull.com/product/introduction-to-partial-
differential-equations-peter-j-olver/

Provenance and Annotation of Data and Processes 7th

International Provenance and Annotation Workshop IPAW
2018 London UK July 9 10 2018 Proceedings Khalid
Belhajjame
https://textbookfull.com/product/provenance-and-annotation-of-
data-and-processes-7th-international-provenance-and-annotation-
workshop-ipaw-2018-london-uk-july-9-10-2018-proceedings-khalid-
belhajjame/

From Ordinary to Partial Differential Equations 1st

Edition Giampiero Esposito (Auth.)

https://textbookfull.com/product/from-ordinary-to-partial-
differential-equations-1st-edition-giampiero-esposito-auth/
Machine Learning for Cyber Physical Systems Selected
papers from the International Conference ML4CPS 2018
Jürgen Beyerer

https://textbookfull.com/product/machine-learning-for-cyber-
physical-systems-selected-papers-from-the-international-
conference-ml4cps-2018-jurgen-beyerer/

Solution Techniques for Elementary Partial Differential

Equations Third Edition Constanda

https://textbookfull.com/product/solution-techniques-for-
elementary-partial-differential-equations-third-edition-
constanda/

Semigroups of Bounded Operators and Second-Order

Elliptic and Parabolic Partial Differential Equations
1st Edition Luca Lorenzi

https://textbookfull.com/product/semigroups-of-bounded-operators-
and-second-order-elliptic-and-parabolic-partial-differential-
equations-1st-edition-luca-lorenzi/

Partial Differential Equations Analytical Methods and

Applications Textbooks in Mathematics 1st Edition
Victor Henner

https://textbookfull.com/product/partial-differential-equations-
analytical-methods-and-applications-textbooks-in-mathematics-1st-
edition-victor-henner/

High Performance Computing for Computational Science –

VECPAR 2018: 13th International Conference, São Pedro,
Brazil, September 17-19, 2018, Revised Selected Papers
Hermes Senger
https://textbookfull.com/product/high-performance-computing-for-
computational-science-vecpar-2018-13th-international-conference-
sao-pedro-brazil-september-17-19-2018-revised-selected-papers-
 134

Spencer J. Sherwin · David Moxey

Joaquim Peiró · Peter E. Vincent
Christoph Schwab Editors

Spectral and High

Order Methods
for Partial Differential
Equations Editorial Board
T. J.Barth

ICOSAHOM 2018 M.Griebel

D.E.Keyes
R.M.Nieminen
D.Roose
T.Schlick
Lecture Notes
in Computational Science 134
and Engineering

Editors:
Timothy J. Barth
Michael Griebel
David E. Keyes
Risto M. Nieminen
Dirk Roose
Tamar Schlick
More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/3527
Spencer J. Sherwin • David Moxey •
Joaquim Peiró • Peter E. Vincent • Christoph Schwab
Editors

Spectral and High Order

Methods for Partial
Differential Equations
ICOSAHOM 2018
Selected Papers from the ICOSAHOM
Conference, London, UK, July 9–13, 2018
Editors
Spencer J. Sherwin David Moxey
Department of Aeronautics College of Engineering, Mathematics &
Imperial College Physical Sciences
London, UK University of Exeter
Exeter, UK

Joaquim Peiró Peter E. Vincent

Department of Aeronautics Department of Aeronautics
Imperial College Imperial College
London, UK London, UK

Christoph Schwab
Department of Mathematics
ETH Zürich
Zürich, Switzerland

ISSN 1439-7358 ISSN 2197-7100 (electronic)

Lecture Notes in Computational Science and Engineering
ISBN 978-3-030-39646-6 ISBN 978-3-030-39647-3 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-39647-3

Mathematics Subject Classification: 65M70, 65N35, 65N30, 74S25, 76M10, 76M22, 78M10, 78M22

This book is an open access publication.

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2020

Open Access This book is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Inter-
national License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation,
distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the
original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence and indicate if changes
were made.
The images or other third party material in this book are included in the book’s Creative Commons
licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the book’s
Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the
permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book
are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or
the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any
errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional
claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Cover illustration: A 7th order accurate simulation of free stream turbulence passing over a turbine blade
simulated using the Nektar++ package, courtesy of Andrea Cassinelli

This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG.
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
Preface

This volume presents selected papers from the twelfth International Conference
on Spectral and High-Order Methods (ICOSAHOM’18) that was held in London,
United Kingdom, during the week of July 9–13th, 2018. These selected papers were
refereed by members of the scientific committee of ICOSAHOM, as well as by other
leading scientists.
The first ICOSAHOM conference was held in Como, Italy, in 1989 and marked
the beginning of an international conference series in Montpellier, France (1992);
Houston, TX, USA (1995); Tel Aviv, Israel (1998); Uppsala, Sweden (2001);
Providence, RI, USA (2004); Beijing, China (2007); Trondheim, Norway (2009);
Gammarth, Tunisia (2012); Salt Lake City, USA (2014); and Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
(2016).
ICOSAHOM has established itself as the main meeting place for researchers
with interests in the theoretical, applied, and computational aspects of high-order
methods for the numerical solution of partial differential equations.
With over 360 attendees, ICOSAHOM ’18 has been the largest edition of the
conference series to date. The program consisted of eight invited speakers across
the week from internationally renowned researchers, alongside 40 minisymposia
(of around 300 presentations) dedicated to specialized topics in high-order methods,
and approximately a further 90 contributed talks.
The content of these proceedings is organized as follows. First, contributions
from the invited speakers are included. The remainder of the volume consists of
refereed selected papers highlighting the broad spectrum of topics presented at
ICOSAHOM ’18.
The success of ICOSAHOM ’18 was ensured through generous contributions
and financial support of our sponsors: the Air Force Office of Scientific Research
(AFSOR); the Platform for Research in Simulation Methods (PRISM) platform
grant, funded by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC);
Rolls-Royce Ltd.; and, finally, the Department of Aeronautics at Imperial College
London.
We would like to give special thanks to our local organizing committee for
their efforts in organizing and promoting the event. In particular, we would also

v
vi Preface

like to thank Mr. Andrea Cassinelli for his organizational efforts leading up to the
conference, as well as the administrative staff of the Department of Aeronautics at
Imperial College London for their help in coordinating the logistics of the event. We
also thank the many student helpers for their advice, help, and support given to the
delegates during the event itself, who all contributed to the smooth running of the
event.

London, UK Spencer J. Sherwin

Exeter, UK David Moxey
London, UK Joaquim Peiró
London, UK Peter E. Vincent
Zürich, Switzerland Christoph Schwab
Contents

Part I Invited Papers

Stability of Wall Boundary Condition Procedures for Discontinuous
Galerkin Spectral Element Approximations of the Compressible
Euler Equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Florian J. Hindenlang, Gregor J. Gassner, and David A. Kopriva
On the Order Reduction of Entropy Stable DGSEM for the
Compressible Euler Equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Florian J. Hindenlang and Gregor J. Gassner
A Review of Regular Decompositions of Vector Fields: Continuous,
Discrete, and Structure-Preserving . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Ralf Hiptmair and Clemens Pechstein
Model Reduction by Separation of Variables: A Comparison
Between Hierarchical Model Reduction and Proper Generalized
Decomposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Simona Perotto, Michele Giuliano Carlino, and Francesco Ballarin
Recurrence Relations for a Family of Orthogonal Polynomials
on a Triangle .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
Sheehan Olver, Alex Townsend, and Geoffrey M. Vasil

Part II Contributed Papers

Greedy Kernel Methods for Center Manifold Approximation .. . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
Bernard Haasdonk, Boumediene Hamzi, Gabriele Santin,
and Dominik Wittwar
An Adaptive Error Inhibiting Block One-Step Method for Ordinary
Differential Equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
Jiaxi Gu and Jae-Hun Jung

vii
viii Contents

Hermite Methods in Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119

Rujie Gu and Thomas Hagstrom
HPS Accelerated Spectral Solvers for Time Dependent Problems:
Part II, Numerical Experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
Tracy Babb, Per-Gunnar Martinsson, and Daniel Appelö
On the Use of Hermite Functions for the Vlasov–Poisson System .. . . . . . . . . 143
Lorella Fatone, Daniele Funaro, and Gianmarco Manzini
HPS Accelerated Spectral Solvers for Time Dependent Problems:
Part I, Algorithms .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
Tracy Babb, Per-Gunnar Martinsson, and Daniel Appelö
High-Order Finite Element Methods for Interface Problems:
Theory and Implementations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
Yuanming Xiao, Fangman Zhai, Linbo Zhang, and Weiying Zheng
Stabilised Hybrid Discontinuous Galerkin Methods for the Stokes
Problem with Non-standard Boundary Conditions . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
Gabriel R. Barrenechea, Michał Bosy, and Victorita Dolean
RBF Based CWENO Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191
Jan S. Hesthaven, Fabian Mönkeberg, and Sara Zaninelli
Discrete Equivalence of Adjoint Neumann–Dirichlet div-grad
and grad-div Equations in Curvilinear 3D Domains . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203
Yi Zhang, Varun Jain, Artur Palha, and Marc Gerritsma
A Conservative Hybrid Method for Darcy Flow. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215
Varun Jain, Joël Fisser, Artur Palha, and Marc Gerritsma
High-Order Mesh Generation Based on Optimal Affine
Combinations of Nodal Positions .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229
Mike Stees and Suzanne M. Shontz
Sparse Spectral-Element Methods for the Helically Reduced
Einstein Equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239
Stephen R. Lau
Spectral Analysis of Isogeometric Discretizations of 2D Curl-Div
Problems with General Geometry .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251
Mariarosa Mazza, Carla Manni, and Hendrik Speleers
Performance of Preconditioners for Large-Scale Simulations Using
Nek5000 . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263
N. Offermans, A. Peplinski, O. Marin, E. Merzari, and P. Schlatter
Two Decades Old Entropy Stable Method for the Euler Equations
Revisited .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273
Björn Sjögreen and H. C. Yee
Contents ix

A Mimetic Spectral Element Method for Free Surface Flows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285

L. Nielsen and B. Gervang
Spectral/hp Methodology Study for iLES-SVV on an Ahmed Body . . . . . . . 297
Filipe F. Buscariolo, Spencer J. Sherwin, Gustavo R. S. Assi,
and Julio R. Meneghini
A High-Order Discontinuous Galerkin Solver for Multiphase Flows .. . . . . 313
Juan Manzanero, Carlos Redondo, Gonzalo Rubio, Esteban Ferrer,
Eusebio Valero, Susana Gómez-Álvarez, and Ángel Rivero-Jiménez
High-Order Propagation of Jet Noise on a Tetrahedral Mesh Using
Large Eddy Simulation Sources .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 325
M. A. Moratilla-Vega, V. Saini, H. Xia, and G. J. Page
Dynamical Degree Adaptivity for DG-LES Models . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 337
M. Tugnoli, A. Abbà, and L. Bonaventura
A Novel Eighth-Order Diffusive Scheme for Unstructured
Polyhedral Grids Using the Weighted Least-Squares Method .. . . . . . . . . . . . . 349
Duarte M. S. Albuquerque, Artur G. R. Vasconcelos, and Jose C. F. Pereira
An Explicit Mapped Tent Pitching Scheme for Maxwell Equations. . . . . . . . 359
Jay Gopalakrishnan, Matthias Hochsteger, Joachim Schöberl,
and Christoph Wintersteiger
Viscous Diffusion Effects in the Eigenanalysis of (Hybridisable) DG
Methods . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 371
Rodrigo C. Moura, Pablo Fernandez, Gianmarco Mengaldo,
and Spencer J. Sherwin
Spectral Galerkin Method for Solving Helmholtz and Laplace
Dirichlet Problems on Multiple Open Arcs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 383
Carlos Jerez-Hanckes and José Pinto
Explicit Polynomial Trefftz-DG Method for Space-Time
Elasto-Acoustics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 395
H. Barucq, H. Calandra, J. Diaz, and E. Shishenina
An hp-Adaptive Iterative Linearization Discontinuous-Galerkin
FEM for Quasilinear Elliptic Boundary Value Problems.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 407
Paul Houston and Thomas P. Wihler
Erosion Wear Evaluation Using Nektar++ .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 419
Manuel F. Mejía, Douglas Serson, Rodrigo C. Moura, Bruno S. Carmo,
Jorge Escobar-Vargas, and Andrés González-Mancera
An Inexact Petrov-Galerkin Approximation for Gas Transport
in Pipeline Networks .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 429
Herbert Egger, Thomas Kugler, and Vsevolod Shashkov
x Contents

New Preconditioners for Semi-linear PDE-Constrained Optimal

Control in Annular Geometries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 441
Lasse Hjuler Christiansen and John Bagterp Jørgensen
DIRK Schemes with High Weak Stage Order . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 453
David I. Ketcheson, Benjamin Seibold, David Shirokoff,
and Dong Zhou
Scheme for Evolutionary Navier-Stokes-Fourier System with
Temperature Dependent Material Properties Based on Spectral/hp
Elements. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 465
Jan Pech
Implicit Large Eddy Simulations for NACA0012 Airfoils Using
Compressible and Incompressible Discontinuous Galerkin Solvers.. . . . . . . 477
Esteban Ferrer, Juan Manzanero, Andres M. Rueda-Ramirez,
Gonzalo Rubio, and Eusebio Valero
SAV Method Applied to Fractional Allen-Cahn Equation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 489
Xiaolan Zhou, Mejdi Azaiez, and Chuanju Xu
A First Meshless Approach to Simulation of the Elastic Behaviour
of the Diaphragm.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 501
Nicola Cacciani, Elisabeth Larsson, Alberto Lauro, Marco Meggiolaro,
Alessio Scatto, Igor Tominec, and Pierre-Frédéric Villard
An Explicit Hybridizable Discontinuous Galerkin Method
for the 3D Time-Domain Maxwell Equations . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 513
Georges Nehmetallah, Stéphane Lanteri, Stéphane Descombes,
and Alexandra Christophe
Entropy Conserving and Kinetic Energy Preserving Numerical
Methods for the Euler Equations Using Summation-by-Parts
Operators . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 525
Hendrik Ranocha
Multiwavelet Troubled-Cell Indication: A Comparison of Utilizing
Theory Versus Outlier Detection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 537
Mathea J. Vuik
An Anisotropic p-Adaptation Multigrid Scheme for Discontinuous
Galerkin Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 549
Andrés M. Rueda-Ramírez, Gonzalo Rubio, Esteban Ferrer,
and Eusebio Valero
A Spectral Element Reduced Basis Method for Navier–Stokes
Equations with Geometric Variations.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 561
Martin W. Hess, Annalisa Quaini, and Gianluigi Rozza
Contents xi

Iterative Spectral Mollification and Conjugation for Successive

Edge Detection.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 573
Robert E. Tuzun and Jae-Hun Jung
Small Trees for High Order Whitney Elements . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 587
Ana Alonso Rodríguez and Francesca Rapetti
Non-conforming Elements in Nek5000: Pressure Preconditioning
and Parallel Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 599
A. Peplinski, N. Offermans, P. F. Fischer, and P. Schlatter
Sparse Approximation of Multivariate Functions from Small
Datasets Via Weighted Orthogonal Matching Pursuit . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 611
Ben Adcock and Simone Brugiapaglia
On the Convergence Rate of Hermite-Fejér Interpolation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 623
Shuhuang Xiang and Guo He
Fifth-Order Finite-Volume WENO on Cylindrical Grids . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 637
Mohammad Afzal Shadab, Xing Ji, and Kun Xu
 Part I
Invited Papers
Stability of Wall Boundary Condition
Procedures for Discontinuous Galerkin
Spectral Element Approximations
of the Compressible Euler Equations

Florian J. Hindenlang, Gregor J. Gassner, and David A. Kopriva

1 Introduction

The ingredients for a reliable numerical method for the approximation of partial
differential equations, e.g. one that will not blow up, include stable inter-element and
physical boundary condition implementations. The recognition that the discontinu-
ous Galerkin spectral element method (DGSEM) with Gauss-Lobatto quadratures
satisfies a summation-by-parts (SBP) operators [4, 7] has allowed for the analysis
of these schemes and to connect them with penalty collocation and SBP finite
difference schemes. For instance, in [5], we showed that a split form approximation
of the compressible Navier–Stokes equations was both linearly and entropy stable
provided that the boundary conditions were properly imposed.
The importance of stable boundary condition procedures for hyperbolic equa-
tions has long been studied, especially in relation to finite difference methods,
e.g. [3, 9, 10]. Only recently have they been studied for discontinuous Galerkin
approximations. In [12], the authors showed that the reflection approach is stable
when using an entropy conserving flux and an additional entropy stable dissipation

F. J. Hindenlang
Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics, Garching, Germany
e-mail: [email protected]
G. J. Gassner ()
Department for Mathematics and Computer Science, Center for Data and Simulation Science,
University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
e-mail: [email protected]
D. A. Kopriva
Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, USA
San Diego State University, San Diego, CA, USA
e-mail: [email protected]

© The Author(s) 2020 3

S. J. Sherwin et al. (eds.), Spectral and High Order Methods for Partial Differential
Equations ICOSAHOM 2018, Lecture Notes in Computational Science
and Engineering 134, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-39647-3_1
4 F. J. Hindenlang et al.

term (EC-ES). In [2], the authors show that the reflection condition is stable if the
numerical flux is either the Godunov or HLL flux.
In this paper, we analyze both the linear and entropy stability of two types
of commonly used wall boundary condition procedures used with the DGSEM
applied to the compressible Euler equations. In both cases, wall boundary conditions
are implemented through a numerical flux. The boundary condition might be
implemented through a special wall numerical flux that includes the boundary
condition, or a fictitious external state applied to a Riemann solver approximation.
We show how to construct special wall numerical fluxes that are stable, and study
the behavior of the approximations. In particular, we show that the use of Riemann
solvers at the boundaries introduce numerical dissipation in an amount that depends
on the size of the normal Mach number at the wall.

2 The Compressible Euler Equations and the Wall Boundary

Condition

We write the Euler equations as


3
∂fi
ut + = 0. (1)
∂xi
i=1

The state vector contains the conservative variables

 T  T
v E =  v1 v2 v3 E .
u =   (2)

In standard form, the components of the advective fluxes are

⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤
v1 v2 v3
⎢ v 2 + p ⎥ ⎢ v v ⎥ ⎢ v v ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ 2 1 ⎥ ⎢ 3 1 ⎥
⎢ 1
⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
f1 = ⎢ v1 v2 ⎥ f2 = ⎢ v22 + p ⎥ f3 = ⎢ v3 v2 ⎥ , (3)
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎣ v1 v3 ⎦ ⎣ v2 v3 ⎦ ⎣ v32 + p ⎦
(E + p)v1 (E + p)v2 (E + p)v3

Here, , v = (v1 , v2 , v3 )T , p, E are the mass density, fluid velocities, pressure and
total energy. We close the system with the ideal gas assumption, which relates the
total energy and pressure

1 2
p = (γ − 1) E −  v , (4)
2
Stability of Wall Boundary Condition Procedures 5

where γ denotes the adiabatic coefficient. For a compact notation that simplifies the
analysis, we define block vectors (with the double arrow)
↔  T
f = f1 f2 f3 , (5)

so that the system of equations can be written in the compact form

↔
 x · f = 0.
ut + ∇ (6)

The linear Euler equations are derived by linearizing about a constant mean state
¯ v̄1 , v̄2 , v̄3 , p̄). We follow [11] for the symmetrization of the linearized equations,
(,
with the constants
 
γ −1 c̄ γ p̄
a= c̄, b = √ , c̄ = , (7)
γ γ ¯

where c̄ is the sound speed of the constant mean state. The state variables become
 T
u =  v1 v2 v3 p , (8)

where v is the velocity perturbation from the mean state, and we introduce

˜ 1 1
 = b , p = p̃ − √  , (9)
¯ ¯
a γ −1

˜ p̃. The flux vectors are

which depend on the density and pressure perturbations ,
↔  
fi = Ai u,  = A1 x̂ + A2 ŷ + A3 ẑ u,
f = Au (10)

where [11]
⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤
v̄1 b 0 0 0 v̄2 0 b 0 0 v̄3 0 0 b 0
⎢b a⎥ ⎢0 0⎥ ⎢0 0⎥
⎢ v̄1 0 0 ⎥ ⎢ v̄2 0 0 ⎥ ⎢ v̄3 0 0 ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
A1 = ⎢ 0 0 v̄1 0 0 ⎥, A2 = ⎢ b 0 v̄2 0 a ⎥, A3 = ⎢ 0 0 v̄3 0 0⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎣0 0 0 v̄1 0⎦ ⎣0 0 0 v̄2 0⎦ ⎣b 0 0 v̄3 a⎦
0 a 0 0 v̄1 0 0 a 0 v̄2 0 0 0 a v̄3
(11)

are constant symmetric matrices.

6 F. J. Hindenlang et al.

The linear equations have the property that the L2 norm of the solution over a
domain  is bounded by terms of the boundary data on ∂, only. Let

 ↔   3
↔
v, w = T
v w dxdydz, f, g = fTi gi dxdydz. (12)
  i=1

↔
represent the L2 inner product of two state vectors v and w and two block vectors f
↔
and g, respectively. Since the coefficient matrices are constant the product rule and
symmetry of A  implies

 ↔
      ↔

∇ x · f, u = ∇ x · Au
 , u = ∇x u, f . (13)

Then it follows from Gauss’ law (integration by parts) that

 ↔
 1 ↔

∇x · f, u = uT f · ndS, (14)
2 ∂

where n is the outward normal to the surface of . The norm of the solution
therefore satisfies

d ↔
||u|| = −
2
uT f · n dS. (15)
dt ∂

Replacing the boundary terms by boundary conditions leads to a bound on the

solution in terms of the boundary data. The argument of the boundary integral on
the right of (15) is
↔
   
uT f · n = uT A · n u = 2 b + ap vn + (v̄ · n )(2 + |
v |2 + p2 ), (16)

where vn is the wall normal velocity, vn = v · n . Note that here, the mean flow must
be chosen such that the normal flow vanishes at the wall boundary v̄ · n = 0, so that
the boundary condition makes physical sense.
Therefore, with the no penetration wall condition vn = 0 applied,

d
||u||2 = 0, (17)
dt
and the (energy) norm of the solution is bounded for all time by its initial value.
The nonlinear equations, on the other hand, satisfy a bound on the entropy that
depends only on the boundary data. For what follows, we assume that the solution
is smooth so that we don’t have to consider entropy generated at shock waves. We
Stability of Wall Boundary Condition Procedures 7

introduce the entropy density (scaled with (γ − 1) for convenience) as

ς
s(u) = − , (18)
(γ − 1)

where ς = ln(p) − γ ln() is the physical entropy. (The minus sign is conventional
in the theory of hyperbolic conservation laws to ensure a decreasing entropy
function.) The entropy flux for the Euler equations is

ς v
f ς (u) = v s = − . (19)
(γ − 1)

Finally the entropy variables are

⎡ γ −ς ⎤
γ −1 − β||v ||2 ,
∂s(u) ⎢ ⎥ 
w= =⎣ 2β v ⎦, β= . (20)
∂u 2p
−2β

The entropy pair contracts the solution and fluxes, meaning that it satisfies the
relations
T
∂s ↔
 x · f ς .
x · f = ∇
wT ut = ut = st (u), wT ∇ (21)
∂u

When we multiply (6) with the entropy variables and integrate over the domain,
   ↔

x · f = 0 .
w(u), ut + w(u), ∇ (22)

Next we use the properties of the entropy pair to contract (22) and use integration
by parts to get
    
 
st (u), 1 = − ∇ x · f ς , 1 = − f ς · n dS (23)
∂

showing that, in the continuous case, the total entropy in the domain can only change
via the boundary conditions.
In the case of a zero-mass flux boundary condition, with vn = v · n = 0, the
entropy is not changed by the slip-wall boundary condition, since
ς
− f ς · n = vn = 0. (24)
(γ − 1)
8 F. J. Hindenlang et al.

3 Stability Bounds for the DGSEM

The DGSEM is described in detail in [5] and elsewhere [1, 6]. We will only
quickly summarize the approximation here. The domain,  is subdivided into
non-overlapping, conforming, hexahedral elements. Each element is mapped to
the reference element E = [−1, 1]3. Associated with the transformation from the
reference element is a set of contravariant coordinate vectors, a i , and transformation
Jacobian, J. Equation (6) transform to another conservation law on the reference
element as
↔
 ξ · f̃ = 0,
Jut + ∇ (25)
↔ ↔
where f̃ is the contravariant flux vector with components f̃i = Ja i · f.
The approximation of (25) proceeds as follows: A weak form is created by taking
the inner product of the equation with a test function. The Gauss law is applied to
the divergence term to separate the boundary from the interior contributions. The
resulting weak form is then approximated: The solution vector is approximated by a
polynomial of degree N interpolated at the Legendre–Gauss–Lobatto points. In the
following, we will represent the true continuous solutions by lower case letter. Upper
case letters will denote their polynomial approximations, except for the density,
where the approximation is denoted by ρ. The volume fluxes are replaced by two-
point numerical fluxes. In the linear case, the two point fluxes are immediately
relatable to a split form of the equations. Integrals are replaced by Legendre–Gauss–
Lobatto quadratures. Finally, the boundary fluxes are replaced by a numerical flux.
See [5] and [8] for details.
The result is an approximation that is energy stable for the linearized equations if
at every quadrature point along a physical boundary the numerical flux F̃∗ satisfies
the bound [5]
 
1↔
UT F̃∗ − F̃ · n̂ ≥ 0, (26)
2
↔
where F̃ is the polynomial interpolation of the contravariant flux from the interior, n̂
is the reference space outward normal direction, and U is the approximation of the
state vector. Since the contravariant fluxes are proportional to the normal fluxes [6],
we can change the condition (26) to
 
1↔
BL ≡ UT F∗ − F · n ≥ 0, (27)
2
Stability of Wall Boundary Condition Procedures 9

For entropy stability of the nonlinear equations, the boundary stability condition
shown in [5] is proportional to
↔   
BNL ≡ WT F∗ − F · n + F ς · n ≥ 0, (28)

where F ς is the polynomial interpolation of the entropy flux, f ς , and W is the

interpolation of the entropy variables.

3.1 Linear Stability of Wall Boundary Condition

Approximations

To find linearly stable implementations of the wall condition vn = 0, one needs

only find a numerical flux that satisfies it and the condition (27). For the linear
equations, the approximation of the state vector is U = [ρ  V P  ]T and the normal
contravariant flux is proportional to
↔  
 · n U = bVn n1 Q n2 Q n3 Q aVn T ,
F · n = A (29)

where Vn is the approximation of the normal velocity at the wall computed from the
interior, Q = bρ  + aP  , and (n1 , n1 , n3 ) are the three components of the physical
space normal vector, n. The numerical flux can be expressed as
 
 · n U∗ = bVn∗ n1 Q∗ n2 Q∗ n3 Q∗ aVn∗ T .
F∗ = A (30)

It then remains only to find Q∗ so that (27) is satisfied when the normal wall
condition Vn∗ = 0 is applied. When we substitute the fluxes (29) and (30) into
(27),

1  ∗    1   
BL = Q 2Vn − Vn + Vn 2Q∗ − Q = 2QVn∗ + 2Vn Q∗ − Q
2 2
(31)

Substituting the wall boundary condition Vn∗ = 0 yields the condition on Q∗ for
stability
 
Vn Q∗ − Q ≥ 0. (32)

Neutral stability is thus ensured if ρ ∗ and P ∗ are computed from the interior, i.e.
ρ ∗ = ρ  , P ∗ = P  so that Q∗ = Q.
In practice, the boundary condition is also implemented through the use of
a Riemann solver and external state designed to imply the physical boundary
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
southward of this country.”
A memoir of M. de DeNonville, March 8, 1688, says: “La Salle had
for several years before he built Crèvecœur, employed canoes for his
trade in the rivers Oyo, Oubache and others in the surrounding
neighborhood, which flow into the river Mississippi.”
A plain meaning of all this is that La Salle entered the Ohio near or
at one of its sources, I believe at Lake Chatauqua, six or seven
leagues below Lake Erie, and followed it to Louisville. He was
engaged in the beaver trade, and in 1671 had a credit at Montreal,
payable in beaver. We may be pretty confident that, with his twenty-
three or twenty-four men and several canoes, looking for beaver-
skins, he did not neglect the Mahoning River, first called Beaver
creek.
La Salle’s latitude is bad; we would expect that. Joliet’s manuscript
map of 1674 lays down the Ohio marked “Route of the Sieur de La
Salle to go to Mexico.” The unpublished map of Franquelin of 1688
lays down the Ohio more correctly than it appeared in published
maps for sixty years. The discovery was the basis of the French
claims to Ohio, and La Salle’s likeness is one of the four great
discoverers of America in the Capitol at Washington. But the
knowledge gained by La Salle was to be in a great measure lost. The
English, stopped by Indians and mountains, were not to settle here.
The west and northwest were safer territory for the French. The
Iroquois roamed over Ohio, warred with the tribes beyond, even to
the Mississippi. The Wabash and Ohio became confounded, often
laid down as “Wabash or Ohio,” and most often made running
almost parallel with the lake and just about on the high land in Ohio
which divides the streams of the north from the south. The
magnificent sweep of the Ohio, which embraces our State on the east
and south, was lost. The lake had various fortunes. La Hontan made
it run down like a great bag half way to the Gulf, but that being in
time changed, its south shore was drawn nearly east and west instead
of to the southwest westward. No subsequent French writer was so
sensible and intelligent as Charlevoix, yet in his great work of three
quarto volumes on New France our territory hardly appears, and on
the south of Lake Erie in his larger map of it, in 1744, is the legend:
“Toute cette coste n’est presque point connue”—this coast is almost
unknown.
 As early as 1716 the governor of Virginia proposed to the home
Government to seize the interior. No attention was paid to it, but
about 1750 Pennsylvania traders were pushing over the mountains
and the French traders from the west. In that year the Ohio Land
Company sent Gist to survey the Ohio. English traders were shortly
after at Pickowilliny, Sandusky and Pittsburgh, but not safely so. The
French were the strongest. In 1749 Celeron placed his lead plates on
the Ohio. In 1753 the French crossed Lake Erie, established Presque
Isle and expelled the English from Fort DuQuesne at Pittsburgh.
Washington made his appearance to know what the French were
doing. The traders had made no addition to science or geography,
but they had called attention to the country. But the military
expeditions were to rediscover it
Celeron’s map lays down the Ohio quite creditably, but the legend
along the lake is: “All this part of the lake is unknown.” Just the
mouth of the Beaver appears. He expelled English traders from
Logstown, a little above the Beaver. The great geographer, D’Anville
of France, in 1755 lays down the Beaver, with the Mahoning from the
west, rising in a lake, all very incorrectly, with Lake Erie rising to the
northeast like a pair of stairs and the Ohio nearly parallel to it.
The map published in 1754 with Washington’s report takes good
account of Great Beaver creek—Logstown just above it; opposite, on
the Ohio, a fort; Delawares on the west at the mouth; Kuskuskas
above; and above that, Owendos’ town, “Wyandot.”. The mixed state
of the Indians at that time appears in Celeron, who found in
Logstown Iroquois from different places, Shawnees, Delawares, also
Nepissings, Abenakes and Ottawas.
Being a convenient way of passing to the lake, a trail as an avenue
of commerce preceded the canal, and that the railroad.
Evans was to draw and Franklin to publish, in 1755, at
Philadelphia, a map plainly in demand by traders, and from
information given by them. At the mouth of the Beaver is a Shingoes’
town; a trail up to the forks finds the Kuskuskas; a trail to the east
leaves it for “Wenango” and “Petroleum”; the trail to the west goes to
“Salt Springs,” and where farther does not appear.
In his “Analysis,” Mr. Evans says: “Beaver creek is navigable with
canoes only. At Kushkies, about sixteen miles up, two branches
spread opposite ways—one interlocks with French creek and
Cherage, the other westward with Muskingum and Cuyahoga. On
this are many salt springs about thirty-five miles above the forks. It is
canoeable about twenty miles farther. The eastern branch is less
considerable, but both are very slow, spreading through a very rich,
level country, full of swamps and ponds which prevent a good
portage, but will no doubt in future ages be fit to open a canal
between the waters of the Ohio and Lake Erie.”
A map often reprinted, and the one which was made the basis of
the treaty of peace after the Revolution, was that of John Mitchell,
London, 1755.
Kushkies is said to be the “chief town of the Six Nations on the
Ohio, an English factory.” On the east branch are “Owendots.”
Pennsylvania reaches its protection over the whole of the Mahoning.
My purpose to outline discovery is nearly ended. In 1760, with
Quebec, all New France was surrendered to the English, but new
wars with Indians were to follow. Hutchins, Geographer-General to
the United States, who introduced our admirable land system, was
with Bouquet in 1764. On his map, between Kuskuske and Salt Lick
Town, on the west of the river, appears “Mahoning Town,” the first
appearance in the maps of the name.
The subsequent history of Ohio is familiar. That of the Reserve
grew out of that ignorance which supposed the continent narrow.
King Charles granted in 1660 to Connecticut a tract seventy miles
wide and over three thousand long. The money for the Reserve
became the school fund of Connecticut, and led by the example, to
our admirable system of free schools, so that the ignorance of years
ago leads to the wisdom of this.
“There’s a divinity that shapes our ends,
Rough hew them as we will.”

The error of making the south shore of Lake Erie east and west came
to a curious end. When the association of gentlemen known as the
Connecticut Land Company were about to buy the Reserve, they
agreed with a prospective competitor to let it have the excess over
three million acres. This was the Excess Company, but there was no
land for it, and the error of one hundred years led to considerable
financial disaster.
 I ought to mention, as a matter of curious history, the map of John
Fitch, of steamboat memory. He spent considerable time in surveys
within the bounds of Ohio and Kentucky, and had previously
traveled the country as a prisoner among the Indians. In 1785 he
made a map of the “Northwest Country,” containing original and
accurate information. He prepared the copper plate, engraved it
himself, and printed it with a cider press. He was then living in Bucks
county, Pa., and sold the map at six shillings per copy to raise money
enough to pursue his inventions relating to steamboats.
We have now reached the period of settlement and can take a
retrospect.
From the discovery of the continent in 1494 it was one hundred
and seventy-five years to the pioneer discovery of Ohio. In eighty-five
years more both France and England set to work in earnest to make
good their claims to it. In thirty-four years more England had beaten
France, America had beaten England, and the first permanent
settlement had been made in Ohio. It took two hundred and ninety-
four years to reach this point. There are but ninety-two years left to
1880 for the pioneers of Ohio; but what a fruition to their work! The
solitary settlement has become a mighty nation of three million
people, as large as the whole United States in the Revolution, and
how much stronger and with what an abundance of wealth and
comfort—a centre of intelligence and the home of Presidents!
It is a wonderful review. The pioneers found the State covered with
large forests, almost without exception requiring the severest labor
to remove; and the change, all within a possible lifetime, seems
amazing. The world cannot show its parallel, and when one thinks
seriously it will be found to be one of the most interesting and
important events in the history of man. Peace as well as war has its
victories.
We can only live over in stories the life of the pioneers. But theirs
was sturdy independence and severe labor, with least
encouragement.
“Haply from them the toiler, bent
Above his forge or plow, may gain
A manlier spirit of content,
And feel that life is wisest spent
Where the strong working hand makes strong the working brain.”
C. C. Baldwin
 A DESCRIPTION OF FORT HARMAR.

In the autumn of 1785 General Richard Butler passed down the

Ohio on his way to attend the treaty with the Indians at the mouth of
the Little Miami. He kept a record of his journey, and his journal
gives much interesting information, among other things the location
of Fort Harmar. In Virginia and Kentucky measures had been taken
for what would have been, really, an irresponsible invasion of the
Indian country. This action, which threatened to precipitate a
disastrous war, hastened in all probability the action of the
confederation in taking measures for the effectual strengthening of
the frontier. It was determined to establish several posts northwest
of the Ohio. Fort Laurens had been built in 1778 upon the
Tuscarawas, near the old Indian town of Tuscarawas and one mile
south of the site of the present village of Bolivar. It was injudiciously
located, and was abandoned one year after its erection. General
Butler, while on his journey in 1785, chose the site for Fort Harmar.
Before leaving Fort McIntosh he had prepared and left with Colonel
Harmar, the commandant of the post, a paper in which he expressed
the opinion that “the mouth of the Muskingum would be a proper
place for a post to cover the frontier inhabitants, prevent intruding
settlers on the land of the United States, and secure the surveys.” In
his journal, under date of Saturday, October 8th, he writes:

Sent Lieutenant Doyle and some men to burn the houses of the settlers on the
north side and put up proclamations.
Went on very well to the mouth of the Muskingum and found it low. I went on
shore to examine the ground most proper to establish a post on; find it too low, but
the most eligible is in the point on the Ohio side. Wrote to Major Doughty and
recommended this place with my opinion of the kind of work most proper. Left the
letter, which contained other remarks on the fort, fixed to a locust tree.
 A few days later the general instructed a man whom he met
ascending the Ohio to take the letter from the mouth of the
Muskingum to Major Doughty.
A short time later Major Doughty, with a detachment of United
States troops under his command, arrived at the mouth of the
Muskingum and began the erection of a post, which was not fully
completed until the spring of 1786.

FORT HARMAR IN 1788.

The fort stood very near the point on the western side of the
Muskingum, and upon the second terrace above ordinary flood
water. It was a regular pentagon in shape, with bastions on each side,
and its walls enclosed but little more than three-quarters of an acre.
The main walls of defence, technically called “curtains,” were each
one hundred and twenty feet long and about twelve or fourteen feet
high. They were constructed of logs laid horizontally. The bastions
were of the same height as the other walls, but unlike them were
formed of palings or timbers set upright in the ground. Large two-
story log buildings were built in the bastions for the accommodation
of the officers and their families, and the barracks for the troops were
erected along the curtains, the roofs sloping toward the centre of the
enclosure. They were divided into four rooms of thirty feet each,
supplied with fireplaces, and were sufficient for the accommodation
of a regiment of men,[1] a larger number, by the way, than was ever
quartered in the fort. From the roof of the barracks building towards
the Ohio river there arose a watch tower, surmounted by the flag of
the United States. This tower was also used as a guardhouse. There
were other buildings within the enclosure—an arsenal, a store-house,
and several smaller structures. The main gate was toward the river
with a sally-port on the side fronting on the hills. A well was dug near
the centre of the enclosure to supply the garrison with water in case
of siege, but, happily it was never needed, and we are told that
ordinary water was brought from the river. The timber used in the
construction of the fort was that of the heavy forest which covered its
side and several acres of land around about. The area cleared up was
nearly all utilized for gardening purposes under the direction of
Major Doughty, who seems to have had a remarkable fondness for
tilling the soil and considerable taste and knowledge as a
horticulturist.[2] Fort Harmar was named after General (then
Colonel) Harmar, who was the commander of the regiment to which
Major Doughty was attached, and for some time commandant at the
fort at the mouth of the Muskingum.
Joseph Buell (afterward one of the prominent early settlers at
Marietta) was on the frontier for nearly a period of three years,
dating from the latter part of December, 1785, and he spent a
considerable portion of his time at Fort Harmar. His journal affords
some interesting glimpses of life in the garrison and affairs in the
western country during the years immediately preceding its
settlement. Much is said in the beginning of the hardships of army
life, the depravity of the troops, and the severity of the punishments
inflicted for various offences. Drunkenness and desertion were
prevalent evils. The punishment for the former and other venal
misdemeanors was not infrequently flogging to the extent of one
hundred or even two hundred lashes, and the death penalty, without
the process of court-martial, was inflicted upon deserters. The pay of
the soldiers at that time guarding the frontier was only three dollars
per month.
On the 4th of May, 1786, Captain Zeigler’s and Strong’s companies
embarked for Muskingum, and from this date forward the entries in
the journal relate to occurrences at Fort Harmar.

May 8th. We arrived at Muskingum, where we encamped in the edge of the

woods a little distance from the fort.
10th. Captain Zeigler’s company embarked for the Miami, and our company
moved into the garrison, where we were engaged several days in making ourselves
comfortable.
12th. Began to make our gardens, and had a very disagreeable spell of weather,
which continued for twenty-two days raining in succession.
June 9th. Two boats arrived from Miami, and report that the Indians had
murdered several inhabitants this spring. We are getting short of meat for the
troops.
10th. Five frontiersmen came here to hunt for the garrison, and brought with
them a quantity of venison.
19th. News arrived here that the Indians had killed four or five women and
children at Fish creek, about thirty miles northeast from this garrison.
July 4th. The great day of American independence was commemorated by the
discharge of thirteen guns, after which the troops were served with extra rations of
liquor, and allowed to get as drunk as they pleased.
8th. We are brought down to half rations, and have sent out a party of men to
hunt. They returned without much success, although game is plenty in the woods.
9th. We discovered some Indians crossing the Ohio in a canoe, below the
garrison, and sent a party after them, but could not overtake them.
10th. Ensign Kingsbury, with a party of nine, embarked for Wheeling in quest of
provisions.
12th. Captain Strong arrived from Fort Pike.
16th. We were visited by a party of Indians, who encamped at a little distance
from the garrison, and appeared to be very friendly. They were treated kindly by
the officers, who gave them some wine and the best the garrison afforded.
17th. Our men took up a stray canoe on the river. It contained a pair of shoes,
two axes and some corn. We suppose the owners were killed by the Indians. Same
day Lieutenant Kingsbury returned with only a supply of food for six or seven days.
18th. Captain Strong’s company began to build their range of barracks, to make
ourselves comfortable for the winter.
 19th. This day buried the fifer to Captain Hart’s company. Our funerals are
conducted in the following manner: The men are all paraded without arms, and
march by files in the rear of the corpse. The guard, with arms, march in front, with
their pieces reversed; and the music in the rear of the guard, just in front of the
coffin, playing some mournful tune. After the dead is buried they return in the
same order, playing some lively march.
21st. A boat arrived from Fort Pit with intelligence of a drove of cattle at
Wheeling for this garrison.
22nd. Lieutenant Pratt, with a party of men, went up by land to bring down the
cattle.
23rd. Colonel Harmar arrived at the garrison. The troops paraded to receive him
and fired a salute of nine guns.
26th. Captain Hart went with a party of men to guard the Indians of the
Muskingum.
27th. Lieutenant Pratt arrived with ten head of cattle, which revived our spirits,
as we had been without provisions for several days.
29th. Three hunters came into the fort and informed us that they had seen a
party of Indians lying in the woods. We sent out some men, but discovered
nothing.
August 2nd. Our garrison was alarmed. Captain Hart was walking on the bank of
the river, and said he saw Indians on the other side of the Ohio, and saw them
shoot one of the men who was out hunting, and beheld him fall. Colonel Harmar
immediately sent the captain with a party of men after them. They crossed the river
and found one man asleep on the ground, and another had been shooting at a
mark. They had seen no Indians.
11th. Captain Hart’s company were ordered to encamp in the open ground
outside of the fort, as the men are very sickly in the barracks.
23rd. Captain Hart and his company embarked for Wheeling with orders to
escort and protect the surveyors in the seven ranges.
September 1st. Captain Tunis, the Indian, came to the fort and reported the
Indians designed to attack our garrison, and that they were bent on mischief. We
were all hands employed in making preparations to receive them, lining the
bastions, clearing away all the weeds and brush within a hundred yards of the fort.
We likewise cut up all our corn and broke down the bean poles, to prevent their
having any shelter within rifle shot distance.
6th. Captain Tunis left the garrison to return to his nation and bring us further
information.
7th. The troops received orders to parade at the alarm post at daybreak, and
continue under arms until after sunrise.
12th. Still busy making preparations for the Indians, and expect them every day.
21st. Ensign Kingsbury was ordered to take a party of men into the
commandant’s house and put it in the best order for defence, and to remain there
during the night.
26th. The troops are again brought to half rations. I went with a party of men
after a raft of timber to construct our barracks.
27th. Lieutenant Smith embarked in quest of provisions. We are on short
allowance, and expect the Indians every day to attack us. Our men are very uneasy,
laying various plans to desert, but are so closely watched that it is very difficult for
them to escape.
October 2nd. Lieutenant Smith returned with provisions sufficient only for a
short time. We are busily occupied in erecting the barracks.
10th. Major Doughty and Captain Strong left here for New England.
11th. The Indians made us a visit and stole one of our horses as it was feeding in
the woods.
16th. Captain Tunis called again at the fort and says the Indians had repented of
their design to attack the garrison.
November 3rd. Captain Tunis and a number of Indians, with two squaws, came
into the garrison. At night they got very drunk and threatened the guard with their
tomahawks and knives.
5th. Uling, a trader on the river, arrived with provisions.
9th. The hunters brought in about thirty deer and a great number of turkeys.
25th. Captain Hart’s and McCurdy’s companies came in from the survey of the
seven ranges. They had a cold, wearisome time; their clothes and shoes wore out,
and some of their feet badly frozen.
December 3rd. Uling arrived with twenty kegs of flour and ten kegs of whiskey
and some dry goods. Our rations now consist of a little venison, without any bread;
as a substitute we have some corn and potatoes. The weather is very cold and the
river full of ice.
13th. Lieutenant Pratt embarked in a boat for Flinn’s Station (now Belleville),
distant thirty miles below the garrison, for a load of corn and potatoes. The troops
are in great distress for provisions. About twelve miles below they landed on
account of the storm, and their boat was carried off by the ice with a considerable
amount of goods in it.
19th. Weather more moderate. Ensign Kingsbury embarked for Flinn’s Station to
make another trial for provisions.
22nd. Ensign Kingsbury returned with about sixty bushels of corn and about
twenty of potatoes.
24th. We drew for our station about a peck of frozen potatoes. As Christmas is so
near we are making all the preparations in our power to celebrate it.
25th. This being Christmas day, the sergeant celebrated it by a dinner, to which
was added a plentiful supply of wine.
January 31, 1787. Hamilton Kerr, our hunter, began to build a house on the
island, a little above the mouth of the Muskingum, and some of our men were
ordered out as a fatigue party, to assist him, under the command of Lieutenant
Pratt.
February 11th. The weather has been very fine, and there is prospect of an early
spring.
15th. Sergeant Judd went with a party of men to assist some inhabitants to move
their families and settle near the garrison.
16th. Hamilton Kerr moved his family onto the island.
18th. Several families are settling on the Virginia shore, opposite the fort.
24th. Isaac Williams arrived with his family to settle on the opposite shore of the
river. Several others have joined him, which makes our situation in the wilderness
much more agreeable.
27th. Major Hamtramck arrived from Fort Steuben in order to muster the
troops. The same day some of the hunters brought in a buffalo, which was eighteen
hands high and weighed one thousand pounds.
April 1st. The Indians came within twelve miles of the garrison, and killed an old
man and took a boy prisoner.
5th. Lieutenant Smith went out with a party of men on a scout and discovered
Indians on a hill within half a mile of the garrison.
9th. Ensign Kingsbury went on command with a party to bring in one of the
hunters, fifty miles up the Muskingum, for fear of the Indians, who, we hear, are
bent on mischief.
25th. One of our men discovered two Indians attempting to steal our horses a
little distance from the fort....
May 1st. This is St. Tammany’s day, and was kept with the festivities usual to the
frontiers. All the sergeants in the garrison crossed the Ohio to Mr. Williams’, and
partook of an excellent dinner.
7th. Twenty-one boats passed on their way to the lower country, Kentucky. They
had on board five hundred and nine souls, with many wagons, goods, etc.
14th. John Stockley, a fifer in Captain Strong’s company, deserted. He was
pursued and overtaken twelve miles from the garrison, brought back and ordered
to run the gauntlet eleven times, through the troops of the garrison, stripped of his
Continental clothing, and drummed out the fort with a halter around his neck, all
of which was punctually executed.
21st. This evening I sent a young man, who cooked for me on Kerr’s island, about
half a mile above the fort after some milk; he was seen to jump into the river near
the shore, when about a third of a mile from the garrison. We supposed some of
the people were playing in the water. He did not return that evening, which led me
to fear he had lost his course. In the morning a party was sent after him. They
discovered fresh signs of Indians, and found his hat. They followed the trail, but
did not find them. We afterwards heard that they had killed and scalped him. The
Indians were a party of Ottawas.
 ORGANIZATION OF THE OHIO LAND
COMPANY.

Far away upon the Atlantic sea board forces were at work a score
of years anterior to 1788 which were not only to form the first
settlement but to plant New England morals, law and institutions
upon this vast inland domain of the nation. Ideas were in inception
which, as the prime impetus in a long chain of causes and effects,
were to swell the tremendous result and effect the destiny not alone
of the west but of the Republic from sea to sea.
 It is a pleasant thought that in the British war against the French,
General Putnam (at the time of his enlistment in 1757, nineteen years
of age) and many others assisted in wresting from the enemy and
securing to their sovereign the very territory which was to become
their home; and it is a disagreeable fact that they had finally so
dearly to purchase a small portion of the domain which they had
twice bought by bravery of arms. The men who fought to win for
England the territory which the French disputed, in 1755–1760, were
foremost to win it from her twenty years later, and thus twice
exhibited the hardihood and heroism of their natures.
Something of the spirit of emigration manifested itself in New
England after the conclusion of the French and Indian war, and in
fact was an outgrowth of that struggle. An organization of ex-soldiers
of the colonies was formed, called “The Military Company of
Adventurers,” whose purpose it was to establish a colony in West
Florida (now Mississippi). Although the project had been entered
upon soon after the establishment of peace, it was not until the year
1772 that anything was accomplished. General Lyman, after several
years’ endeavor, succeeded in procuring a tract of land. It was
decided to explore the tract, and a company of surveyors, of which
the celebrated Israel Putnam was the leader, went out in January,
1773, for that purpose. Rufus Putnam was a member of the party.
The examination was satisfactory, and several hundred families
embarked from Massachusetts and Connecticut to make a
settlement. They found to their chagrin that the king’s grant had
been revoked, and the settlement was therefore abandoned. Those
who did not fall sick and die returned to their homes. Such was the
disastrous end of this project of settlement, which, had it succeeded,
might possibly have changed the whole political history of the United
States. It seems at least to be within the realm of probability that had
a settlement been planted in Mississippi, Massachusetts would not
have made the initial settlement in the Ohio country and extended
her influence over the territory from which five great States have
been created. The enterprise of founding a colony in the far south,
thwarted as it was, undoubtedly had its effect upon the New England
mind, and was one of the elements which prepared the way for the
inauguration of a new scheme of emigration in later years. The
dream which had been fondly indulged in for a long term of years,
was not to be forgotten even when the opportunity or its realization
had passed away.
Soon, however, there arose a subject for thought which
overshadowed all others. What men of shrewd foresight had long
expected had come to pass. The colonies were arrayed against the
mother country in a battle for independence. We shall not here
attempt to follow Generals Putnam, Parsons, Varnum and Tupper,
Major Winthrop Sargent, Colonel Ebenezer Sproat, and the many
other brave soldiers who became Ohio Company emigrants through
the perils of those seven dark years of the Revolution. But is it not
natural to suppose that some of them who had been interested in the
old colonization project talked of it around their camp fires? Is it not
possible that the review of the past suggested the possibility of
forming in the future another military colony, in which they should
realize the bright hopes that had once been blasted? It seems natural
that, in the long lulls between the periods of fierce activity, this topic
should have come up frequently in conversation, or at least that it
should have appeared as a vague but alluring element in many
pictures of the future painted by hopeful imaginations. It is very
likely that General Putnam had indulged the hope of emigration “to
some remote land rich in possibilities” for many years before he led
the little New England colony to the Muskingum. He had very likely
cherished the hope unceasingly from the time when the military
company of adventurers was organized, and doubtless the journey to
that far away, strange and beautiful Mississippi had served as a
stimulus to quicken his desire for the realization of a project which
would employ so much of his energy and enterprise, and afford so
fine an opportunity for the achievement of a life success. We know
that Washington, during the darkest days of the Revolution, directed
the attention of his companions at arms to the west, as a land in
which they might take refuge should they be worsted in the struggle,
but happily it was not to be that contingency which should cause the
movement of emigration toward the Ohio. If, during the war, the
western country was the subject of an occasional estray, light
thought, the time was to come when it should be uppermost in the
minds of many of the soldiers and practically considered, not as a
land in which they must seek to take refuge from a victorious foe, but
as one in which they might retrieve the losses they had sustained in
repelling the enemy. It must be borne in mind that the independence
of the American colonies was dearly bought, as indeed has been all
the great good attained in the history of the world. The very men by
whose long continued, self-sacrificing devotion and bravery the
struggle against the tyrannical mother country had been won, found
themselves, at the close of the war, reduced to the most straitened
circumstances, and the young nation ushered into being by their
heroism was unable to alleviate their condition. These were the times
which tried men’s souls. Nowhere was the strain any more severe
than in Massachusetts and Connecticut. The joy which peace brought
after seven years of war was in most localities too deep to be voiced
by noisy demonstration, and it was not unmingled with forebodings
of the future. “The rejoicings,” says a local historian,[3] “were mostly
expressed in religious solemnities.” There were still difficult
problems to be solved—and there was the memory of husbands,
fathers, sons, brothers, and lovers who would not return with the
victorious patriots, and it may in many cases have been difficult “to
discern the noise of the shout of joy from the noise of the weeping of
the people.”
General Benjamin Tupper, in the early autumn of 1785, had gone
to the Ohio country to engage in surveying under the ordinance
passed by Congress May 20 of that year, but owing to the hostility of
the Indians and consequent hazard of entering upon the work, he
returned to New England. General Tupper was one of the men who
had been most intently engaged in planning western settlements,
and was undoubtedly a co-worker with his intimate old friend,
General Putnam, advocating and agitating the scheme which had
proved unsuccessful. He returned from the west filled with
admiration of that portion of the country which he had seen, and
made enthusiastic through the descriptions given by traders of the
region farther down la belle riviere than he had journeyed. Doubtless
he pondered upon the idea of removing to the west, during the whole
time spent there, and was chiefly occupied with the subject while
making the tedious return to his home. Early in January he visited,
at his house in Rutland, Worcester County, Massachusetts, General
Putnam, and there these two men, who may be properly called the
founders of the Ohio Company, earnestly talked of their experiences
and their hopes in front of the great fire, while the night hours fast
passed away. In the language of one whom it is fair to suppose had
preserved the truthful tradition of that meeting: “A night of friendly
offices and conference between them gave, at the dawn, a
development—how important in its results!—to the cherished hope
and purpose of the visit of General Tupper.”[4] As the result of that
long conversation by a New England fireside, appeared the first
mention in the public prints of the Ohio Company. The two men had
thought so deeply and carefully upon the absorbing theme of
colonization, were so thoroughly impressed with the feasibility of
their plans as they had unfolded them, so impatient to put them to
that test, that they felt impelled to take an immediate and definite
step. They could no longer rest inactive. They joined in a brief
address, setting forth their views to ascertain the opinion of the
people. It appeared in the newspapers on the twenty-fifth of January,
and read as follows:
 INFORMATION.

The subscribers take this method to inform all officers and soldiers who have
served in the late war, and who are by a late ordinance of the honorable Congress
to receive certain tracts of land in the Ohio country, and also all other good citizens
who wish to become adventurers in that delightful region, that from personal
inspection, together with other incontestible evidences, they are fully satisfied that
the lands in that quarter are of a much better quality than any other known to the
New England people; that the climate, seasons, products, etc., are in fact equal to
the most flattering accounts that have ever been published of them; that being
determined to become purchasers and to prosecute a settlement in that country,
and desirous of forming a general association with those who entertain the same
ideas, they beg leave to propose the following plan, viz.: That an association by the
name of The Ohio Company be formed of all such as wish to become purchasers,
etc., in that country, who reside in the commonwealth of Massachusetts only, or to
extend to the inhabitants of other States as shall be agreed on.
That in order to bring such a company into existence the subscribers propose
that all persons who wish to promote the scheme, should meet within their
respective counties, (except in two instances hereinafter mentioned) at 10 o’clock A.
M. on Wednesday, the fifteenth day of February next, and that each county or
meeting there assembled choose a delegate or delegates to meet at the Bunch of
Grapes Tavern in Boston, on Wednesday, the first day of March next, at 10 o’clock
A. M., then and there to consider and determine upon a general plan of association
for said company; which plan, covenant, or agreement, being published, any
person (under condition therein to be provided) may, by subscribing his name,
become a member of the company.

Then follow the places of meeting:

At Captain Webb’s, in Salem, Middlesex; at Bradish’s, in Cambridge, Hampshire;

at Pomeroy’s, in North Hampton, Plymouth; at Bartlett’s, in Plymouth, Barnstable,
Dukes and Nantucket Counties; at Howland’s, in Barnstable, Bristol; at Crocker’s,
in Taunton, York; at Woodbridge’s, in York, Worcester; at Patch’s, in Worcester,
Cumberland and Lincoln; at Shothick’s, in Falmouth, Berkshire; at Dibble’s, in
Lenox.
Rufus Putnam,
Benjamin Tupper.

Rutland, January 10, 1786.

 The plan suggested by Generals Putnam and Tupper was carried
out, and upon the first day of March the delegates from the several
counties assembled at the Bunch of Grapes Tavern, the designated
place in Boston (which was then a considerably smaller city than is
now the capital of Ohio), and there discussed, in conventional form,
the proposed organization of the Ohio Company. The delegates
present at that historical meeting were: Manasseh Cutler, of Essex;
Winthrop Sargent and John Mills, of Suffolk; John Brooks and
Thomas Cushing, of Middlesex; Benjamin Tupper, of Hampshire;
Crocker Sampson, of Plymouth; Rufus Putnam, of Worcester; Jelaliel
Woodbridge and John Patterson of Berkshire; Abraham Williams of
Barnstable.
General Putnam was made chairman of the convention, and Major
Winthrop Sargent, secretary. Before adjournment a committee of
five was appointed to draft a plan of an association, as “from the very
pleasing description of the western country, given by Generals
Putnam and Tupper and others, it appears expedient to form a
settlement there.” That committee consisted of General Putnam, Dr.
Manasseh Cutler, Colonel Brooks, Major Sargent, and Captain
Cushing.
On Friday, March 3, the convention reassembled and the
committee reported the following:

Articles of agreement entered into by the subscribers for constituting an

association by the name of the Ohio Company.
 PREAMBLE.

The design of this association is to raise a fund in Continental certificates, for the
sole purpose and to be appropriated to the entire use of purchasing lands in the
western territory belonging to the United States, for the benefit of the company,
and to promote a settlement in that country.
Article 1st.—That the fund shall not exceed one million of dollars in Continental
specie certificates, exclusive of one year’s interest due thereon (except as hereafter
provided), and that each share or subscription shall consist of one thousand
dollars, as aforesaid, and also ten dollars in gold or silver, to be paid into the hands
of such agents as the subscribers may elect.
Article 2nd.—That the whole fund of certificates raised by this association,
except one year’s interest due thereon, mentioned under the first article, shall be
applied to the purchase of lands in some one of the proposed States northwesterly
of the river Ohio, as soon as those lands are surveyed and exposed for sale by the
Commissioners of Congress, according to the ordinance of that honorable body,
passed the twentieth of May, 1785, or on any other plan that may be adopted by
Congress, not less advantageous to the company. The one year’s interest shall be
applied to the purpose of making a settlement in the country and assisting those
who may be otherwise unable to remove themselves thither. The gold and silver is
for defraying the expenses of those persons employed as agents in purchasing the
lands and other contingent charges that may arise in the prosecution of the
business. The surplus, if any, to be appropriated as one year’s interest on the
certificates.
Article 3rd.—That there shall be five directors, a treasurer and secretary,
appointed in manner and for the purposes hereafter provided.
Article 4th.—That the prosecution of the company’s designs may be the least
expensive, and at the same time the subscribers and agents as secure as possible,
the proprietors of twenty shares shall constitute one grand division of the
company, appoint the agent, and in case of vacancy by death, resignation or
otherwise, shall fill it up as immediately as can be.
Article 5th.—That the agent shall make himself accountable to each subscriber
for certificates and invoices received, by duplicate receipts, one of which shall be
lodged with the secretary; that the whole shall be appropriated according to
articles of association, and that the subscriber shall receive his just dividend
according to quality and quantity of lands purchased, as near as possibly may be,
by lot drawn in person or through proxy, and that deeds of conveyance shall be
executed to individual subscribers, by the agent, similar to those he shall receive
from the directors.
 Article 6th.—That no person shall be permitted to hold more than five shares in
the company’s funds, and no subscription for less than a full share will be
admitted; but this is not meant to prevent those who cannot or choose not to
adventure a full share, from associating among themselves, and by one of their
number subscribing the sum required.
Article 7th.—That the directors shall have the sole disposal of the company’s
fund for the purposes before mentioned; that they shall by themselves, or such
person or persons as they may think proper to entrust with the business, purchase
lands for the benefit of the company, where and in such way, either at public or
private sale, as they shall judge will be the most advantageous to the company.
They shall also direct the application of the one year’s interest, and gold and silver,
mentioned in the first article, to the purposes mentioned under the second article,
in such way and manner as they shall think proper. For these purposes the
directors shall draw on the treasurer from time to time, making themselves
accountable for the application of the moneys agreeably to this association.
Article 8th.—That the agents, being accountable to the subscribers for their
respective divisions, shall appoint the directors, treasurer and secretary, and fill up
all the vacancies which may happen in these offices respectively.
Article 9th.—That the agents shall pay all the certificates and moneys received
from subscribers into the hands of the treasurer, who shall give bonds to the
agents, jointly and severally, for the faithful discharge of his trust; and also, on his
receiving certificates or moneys from any particular agent, shal make himself
accountable therefor, according to the condition of his bonds.
Article 10th.—That the directors shall give bonds, jointly and severally, to each
of the agents, conditioned that the certificates and moneys they shall draw out of
the treasury shall be applied to the purposes stipulated in these articles; and that
the lands purchased by the company shall be divided among them within three
months from the completion of the purchase, by lot, in such manner as the agents
or a majority of them shall agree, and that on such division being made, the
directors shall execute deeds to the agents, respectively, for the proportions which
fall to their divisions, correspondent to those the directors may receive from the
Commissioners of Congress.
Article 11th.—Provided, that whereas a sufficient number of subscribers may
not appear to raise the fund to the sums proposed in the first article, and thereby
the number of divisions may not be completed, it is therefore agreed that the
agents of divisions of twenty shares each shall, after the seventeenth day of
October next, proceed in the same manner as if the whole fund had been raised.
Article 12th.—Provided, also, that whereas it will be for the common interest of
the company to obtain an ordinance of incorporation from the honorable Congress,
or an act of incorporation from some one of the States in the Union (for which the
directors shall make application), it is therefore agreed that in case such
incorporation is obtained, the fund of the company (and consequently the shares
and divisions thereof) may be extended to any sum, for which provision shall be
made in said ordinance or act of incorporation, anything in this association to the
contrary notwithstanding.
Article 13th.—That all notes under this association may be given in person or
by proxy, and in numbers justly proportionate to the stockholder or interest
represented.

These articles of agreement were unanimously adopted and

subscription books were immediately opened. A committee was
appointed, consisting of three members, to transact necessary
business, and some other measures taken to advance the project of
the association; but in spite of all the exertions made, there was but
little progress in the affairs of the Ohio Company. When the next
meeting was held—a little more than a year from the time of the first,
that is, upon March 8, 1787—it was found that the total number of
shares subscribed for was only two hundred and fifty. And yet, all
untoward circumstances considered, that was probably a fair exhibit,
and more than was expected. One active friend of the movement,
General Tupper, was the greater part of the year in the west. The
influence of the others was very largely counteracted by events of an
alarming nature—the dissatisfaction which finally culminated in
Shay’s rebellion. That civil commotion growing out of the imposition
of heavy taxes upon the already impoverished people threatened for
a time exceedingly dire results, but fortunately it was speedily
quelled. It served as a startling illustration, however, of the great
depression in New England, and of the desperation to which men can
be driven by ill condition. Possibly the outbreak gave a slight impetus
to the progress of the Ohio Company’s project, by way of increasing
the disposition of some citizens to seek in the west a new home.
General Tupper, whose immediate neighborhood was “deeply
infected with the sedition,” returned from his second visit to the Ohio
country in time to take a prominent part in subduing the revolt. The
dawn of 1787 witnessed the pacification of the troubled country, but
no marked increase in prosperity.
It was reported at the meeting held on the eighth of March at
Brackett’s tavern in Boston, that “many in the commonwealth of
Massachusetts, also in Connecticut, Rhode Island and New
Hampshire, are inclined to become adventurers, who are restrained
only by the uncertainty of obtaining a sufficient tract of country,
collectively, for a good settlement.”
It was now decided to make direct and immediate application to
Congress for the purchase of lands, and General Putnam, Dr.
Manasseh Cutler and General Samuel H. Parsons were appointed
directors and especially charged with this business. General Parsons
had previously been employed to negotiate for a private purchase,
had petitioned Congress, and a committee of that body had been
appointed to confer with him. “To that committee,” says Dr. Cutler,
“he proposed a purchase on the Scioto River,” but as the proprietors
in Massachusetts “were generally dissatisfied with the situation and
lands on the Scioto, and much preferred the Muskingum,” the
negotiation was suspended. The directors now employed Dr. Cutler
to make a purchase upon the Muskingum. It was considered
desirable that the negotiations be commenced and the purchase
consummated as soon as possible, as other companies were forming,
the spirit of private speculation rapidly increasing, and there was a
fear that the lands which the Ohio Company wished to possess would
be bought by some other organization, or perhaps some part of them
by individuals.
Just here the query arises: why were the New Englanders so
anxious to purchase lands upon the Muskingum, rather than upon
the Scioto, or elsewhere in the territory? To this question there are
various answers. In the first place the greater part of the Federal
territory was unfitted for settlement by the fact that it was occupied
by the Indian tribes. None of these, however, had their residence in
the lower Muskingum region, and it was only occasionally resorted to
by them, when upon their hunting expeditions. Then, too, the people
who proposed making a settlement beyond the Ohio were very
naturally influenced by the proximity of well established stations
upon the east and south of the river; they doubtless preferred the
Virginians rather than the Kentuckians, as neighbors. The lower
Scioto offered no more alluring an aspect than the lower
Muskingum. The best bodies of lands on each river are fifty miles
from their mouth. To penetrate so far into the interior, however, as
the site of either Chillicothe or Zanesville would have been, at the
time the Marietta settlement was made, was unsafe. The location of
Fort Harmar, which we have seen was built in 1785–86, doubtless
had its influence upon the Ohio Company. Thomas Hutchins, the
United States geographer, who had formerly been geographer to the
king of Great Britain, and had traveled extensively in the west, had
said and written much in favor of the Muskingum country, and
strongly advised Dr. Cutler to locate his purchase in this region.
Other explorers and travelers had substantiated what Hutchins had
said. General Butler and General Parsons, who had descended the
Ohio to the Miamis, were deeply impressed with the desirableness of
the tract of country now designated as southeastern Ohio, and the
latter, writing on the twentieth of December, 1785, from Fort Finney
(mouth of the Little Miami) to Captain Jonathan Hart, at Fort
Harmar, said: “I have seen no place since I left you that pleases me
so well for settlement as Muskingum.” General Benjamin Tupper
doubtless added important testimony supporting that of Hutchins,
Parsons, Butler and others. General Parsons, it has been asserted,
became most strongly possessed of the belief that the Muskingum
region was the best part of the territory, because one of the Zanes,
who had been many years in the west, told him that the Scioto or
Miami regions offered superior attractions, and he suspected that the
old frontiersman artfully designed to divert attention from the
Muskingum that he might have the first choice of purchase himself
when the lands were put on sale. It is probable, too, that the prospect
of establishing a system of communication and commerce between
the Ohio and Lake Erie, by way of the Muskingum and Tuscarawas
and Cuyahoga, and between the Ohio and the seaboard, by way of the
Great Kanawha and the Potomac (a plan which Washington had
thought feasible before the Revolutionary war), had its weight.
Alfred Mathews.
 INDIAN OCCUPATION OF OHIO.

During a long period—one which, perhaps, had its beginning soon

after the forced exodus of the semi-civilized, pre-historic people, and
which extended down to the era of the white man’s actual knowledge
—the upper Ohio valley was probably devoid of any permanent
population. The river teemed with fish, and the dense, luxuriant
wood abounded in game, but no Indian wigwams dotted the shores
of the great stream, no camp fires gleamed along its banks, and no
maize-fields covered the fertile bottom lands or lent variety to the
wild vernal green. An oppressive stillness hung over the land,
marked and intensified rather than broken, and only made more
weird by the tossing of the water upon the shores and the soft
mysterious sounds echoed from the distance through the dim aisles
of the forest. Nature was lovely then as now, but with all her beauty
the valley was awful in the vastness and solemnity of its solitude.
Nowhere was human habitation or indication of human life.
This was the condition of the country when explored by the early
French navigators, and when a century later it became the field for
British and American adventurers. There was a reason for this
desertion of a region rich in all that was dear to the red man. The
river was the warway down which silently and swiftly floated the
canoe fleets of a fierce, relentless, and invincible enemy. That the
dreaded devastators of the country, when it was occupied by the
ancient race, had made their invasions from the northward by way of
the great stream, is suggested by the numerous lookout or signal
mounds which crown the hills on either side of the valley, occupying
the most advantageous points of observation. The Indians who dwelt
in the territory included in the boundaries of Ohio had, when the
white men first went among them, traditions of oft repeated and
sanguinary incursions made from the same direction, and dating
back to their earliest occupation of the country. History corroborates
their legends, or at least those relating to less ancient times. The
Iroquois or Six Nations were the foes whose frequent forays, made
suddenly, swiftly, and with overwhelming strength, had carried
dismay into all the Ohio country and caused the weaker tribes to
abandon the valley, penetrated the interior and located themselves
on the upper waters of the Muskingum, the Scioto, the Miamis, and
the tributaries of the lake, where they could live with less fear of
molestation. The Six Nations had the rude elements of a
confederated republic, and were the only power in this part of North
America who deserved the name of government.[5] They
pretentiously claimed to be the conquerors of the whole country from
sea to sea, and there is good evidence that they had by 1680 gained a
powerful sway in the country between the great lakes, the Ohio and
the Mississippi, and were feared by all the tribes within these limits.
The upper Ohio was called by the early French the River of the
Iroquois, and was for a long time unexplored through fear of their
hostility.
But little is definitely known of the Indian occupation of the Ohio
country prior to 1750, and scarcely anything anterior to 1650. As far
back in American history as the middle of the seventeenth century it
is probable that the powerful but doom-destined Eries were in
possession of the vast wilderness which is now the thickly settled,
well improved State of Ohio, dotted with villages and cities and
covered with the meshes of a vast net-work of railroads. Most of the
villages of this Indian nation, it is supposed, were situated along the
shore of the lake which has been given their name. The Andastes are
said by the best authorities to have occupied the valleys of the
Allegheny and upper Ohio, and the Hurons or Wyandots held sway
in the northern peninsula between the lakes. All were genuinely
Iroquois, and the western tribes were stronger than the eastern. The
Iroquois proper (the Five Nations increased afterward to Six by the
alliance of the Tuscarawas) formed their confederacy in the
beginning of the seventeenth century, and through consolidation of
strength overwhelmed singly and successively the Hurons, the Eries,
and the Andastes. The time of the massacre of the Erie nation—for
the war upon them culminated in a wholesale murder—is usually set
down by antiquarians and historians as 1655, and the victory over
the Andastes is, on good evidence, placed in the year 1672. About the
same time a tribe, supposed to have been the Shwanees, were driven
from the Ohio valley and far towards the Gulf of Mexico. And so the
territory now Ohio became a land without habitation and served the
victorious Iroquois as a vast hunting ground. Whether the Iroquois
conquered the Miamis and their allies, the Illinois, is a question upon
which leading students of Indian history have been equally divided.
The Miamis had no traditions of ever having suffered defeat at the
hands of the great confederacy, and their country, the eastern
boundary of which was the Miami River, may have been the western
limit of the Six Nations’ triumph. That they were often at war with
the Iroquois is not disputed, however, by any writers of whom we
have knowledge.
Although the Six Nations were the nominal owners of the greater
part of the territory now constituting the State of Ohio, they did not,
after the war with the Canadian colonists broke out in 1663 (and
probably for some years previously), exercise such domination over
the country as to exclude other tribes. Such being the case, the long
deserted and desolate wild was again the abode of the red man, and
the wigwams of the race again appeared by the waters of the
Muskingum, the Scioto, and the Miamis; by the Tuscarawas, the
Cuyahoga, and the Maumee.
Concerning what, so far as our knowledge extends, may be called
the second Indian occupation of Ohio, we have authentic
information. In 1764 the most trustworthy and valuable reports up to
that time secured were made by Colonel Boquet as the result of his
observations while making a military expedition west of the Ohio.
Previous to the time when Colonel Boquet was among the Indians,
and as early as 1750, traders sought out the denizens of the forest,
and some knowledge of the strength of tribes and the location of
villages was afforded by them. The authentic history of the Ohio
Indians may be said to have had its beginning some time during the
period extending from 1750 to 1764.
About the middle of the last century the principal tribes in what is
now Ohio were the Delawares, the Shawnees, the Wyandots (called
the Hurons by the French), the Mingoes, an offshoot of the Iroquois;
the Chippewas and the Tawas, more commonly called the Ottawas.
The Delawares occupied the valleys of the Muskingum and
Tuscarawas; the Shawnees, the Scioto valley; and the Miamis, the
valleys of the two rivers upon which they left their name; the
Wyandots occupied the country about the Sandusky River; the
Ottawas had their headquarters in the valleys of the Maumee and
Sandusky; the Chippewas were confined principally to the south
shore of Lake Erie; and the Mingoes were in greatest strength upon
the Ohio, below the site of Steubenville. All of the tribes, however,
frequented, more or less, lands outside of their ascribed divisions of
territory, and at different periods from the time when the first
definite knowledge concerning them was obtained down to the era of
white settlement, they occupied different locations. Thus the
Delawares, whom Boquet found in 1764 in greatest number in the
valley of the Tuscarawas, had, thirty years later, the majority of their
population in the region of the county which now bears their name,
and the Shawnees, who were originally strongest upon the Scioto, by
the time of St. Clair and Wayne’s wars had concentrated upon the
Little Miami. But the Shawnees had also, as early as 1748, a village
known as Logstown, on the Ohio, seventeen miles from the site of
Pittsburgh.[6] The several tribes commingled to some extent as their
animosities toward each other were supplanted by the common fear
of the enemy of their race. They gradually grew stronger in sympathy
and more compact in union as the settlements of the whites
encroached upon their loved domain. Hence the divisions, which had
in 1750 been quite plainly marked, became, by the time the Ohio was
fringed with the cabins and villages of the pale face, in a large
measure, obliterated. In eastern Ohio, where the Delawares had held
almost undisputed sway, there were now to be found also Wyandots,
[7]
Shawnees, Mingoes, and even Miamis from the western border—
from the Wabash, Miami and Mad Rivers. Practically, however, the
boundaries of the lands of different tribes were as here given.
The Delawares, as has been indicated, had their densest
population upon the upper Muskingum and Tuscarawas, and they
really were in possession of what is now the eastern half of the State
from the Ohio to Lake Erie. This tribe, which claimed to be the elder
branch of the Lenni-Lenape, has, by tradition and in history and
fiction, been accorded a high rank among the savages of North
America. Schoolcraft, Loskiel, Albert Gallatin, Drake, Zeisberger,
Heckewelder, and many other writers have borne testimony to the
superiority of the Delawares, and James Fennimore Cooper, in his
attractive romances, has added lustre to the fame of the tribe.
According to the tradition preserved by them, the Delawares, many
centuries before they knew the white man lived in the western part of
the continent, separated themselves from the rest of the Lenni-
Lenape and migrated slowly eastward. Reaching the Allegheny River
they, with the Iroquois, waged war successfully against a race of
giants, the Allegewi, and still continuing their migration settled on
the Delaware River, and spread their population eventually to the
Hudson, the Susquehanna, and the Potomac. Here they lived,
menaced and often attacked by the Iroquois, and finally, as some
writers claim, they were subjugated by the Iroquois through
stratagem. The Atlantic coast became settled by Europeans, and the
Delawares also being embittered against the Iroquois, whom they
accused of treachery, turned westward and concentrated upon the
Allegheny. Disturbed here again by the white settlers, a portion of
the tribe obtained permission from the Wyandots (whom they called
their uncles, thus confessing their superiority and reputation of
greater antiquity) to occupy the lands along the Muskingum. The
forerunners of the nation entered this region, in all probability, as
early as 1745, and in less than a score of years their entire population
had become resident in this country. They became here a more
flourishing and powerful tribe than they had ever been before. Their
warriors numbered not less than six hundred in 1764. The Delawares
were divided into three tribes—the Unamis, Unalachtgo, and the
Minsi, also called the Monseys or Muncies. The English equivalents
of these appellations are the Turtle, the Turkey, and the Wolf. The
tribe bearing the latter name exhibited a spirit that was quite in
keeping with it, but the Delawares as a rule were less warlike than
other nations, and they more readily accepted Christianity.
The principal chiefs among the Delawares were White Eyes and
Captain Pipe. The former was the leader of the peace element of the
nation and the latter of the tribes who were inclined to war. There
was great rivalry between them and constant intrigue. White Eyes
died about the year 1780, and Captain Pipe gained the ascendancy
among his people. It was principally through his influence that the
Delawares were drawn into a condition of hostility towards the
whites, and he encouraged the commission of enormities by every
artifice in his power. He was shrewd, treacherous, and full of
malignity, according to Heckewelder, Drake and other writers on the
Indians of the northwest, though brave, and famous as a leader in