The Fort Ancient Aspect 9781949098174, 9781951519407

Table of contents :
Foreword
Preface
Contents
Introduction
I. The Geographical Background
II. The Association of Historic Tribes with the Fort Ancient Area
III. The Baum Focus
The Baum Component
The Gartner Component
The Baldwin Component
Serpent Mound and the Brush Creek Component
The Baum Focus Summary
IV. The Feurt Focus
The Feurt Component
The Fullerton Field Component
The Proctorville Component
The Feurt Focus Summary
V. The Anderson Focus
The Anderson Component
The Taylor Mound and Village Component
The Steele Dam Component
The Kemp Component
The Mill Grove Component
The Stokes Component
The Anderson Focus Summary
VI. The Madisonville Focus
The Madisonville Component
The Sand Ridge Component
The Turpin Component
The Hahn's Field Component
The Campbell Island Component
The Hine Mound Component
The Steel Plant Component
The Fox Farm Component
The Larkin Component
The Buckner Component
The Clay Mound Component
The Southeastern Indiana Madisonville Focus Sites
The Madisonville Focus Summary
VII. The Fort Ancient Aspect
VIII. The Chronological Position of Fort Ancient and the Hopewell-Adena Occupation
IX. The Fort Ancient Component
X. Cultural Interrelations Between the Fort Ancient and Iroquoian Aspects
XI. Certain West Virginia Components Related to Fort Ancient
The Wells Component
Clover Component
Blennerhassett Island
XII. Fort Ancient and the Southeast
XIII. The Fort Ancient Aspect and Middle Mississippi
XIV. Fort Ancient and Central Indiana
The Haueisen Component
Other Central Indiana Sites
XV. The Fort Ancient Aspect and the Upper Mississippi Phase
The Fisher Focus
The Huber Component
The Oneota Aspect
XVI. Speculations
Bibliography
Appendix A. Comments on Classification
Appendix B. Pottery Type Descriptions
Appendix C. Cross-section Outlines
Appendix D. Tables VI-XIV
Index

Citation preview

THE

FORT ANCIENT ASPECT Its Cultural and Chronological Position in Mississippi Valley Archaeology

THE

FORT ANCIENT ASPECT Its Cultural and Chronological Position in Mississippi Fa/ley Archaeology

BY

JAMES BENNETT GRIFFIN

ANN ARBOR UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN, MUSEUM OF ANTHROPOLOGY ANTHROPOLOGICAL PAPERS NO. 28 1966

COPYRIGHT BY THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN NOVEMBER, I943

This report is being reissued as Anthropological Paper No. 28 of the Museum of Anthropology of The University of Michigan. It was originally published by the University of Michigan Press in 1943.

ISBN 978-1-949098-17-4 (print) ISBN 978-1-951519-40-7 (ebook)

FOREWORD

X

ERICAN archaeology is a historical science which deals with the fragmentary and fortuitous remnants of former Indian communities. These data are used to determine, as accurately as the records per­ mit, the story of the growth of cultures in the New World. Because the way of life of Indian groups differed greatly both in time and space, the general problem must be approached through the careful analysis of its several segments. Every item of relevant information is brought to bear upon the interpretation of the available records of each culture. The ultimate goal of American archaeology, which is to contribute to the knowledge of hum:an ex­ perience, can be approximated only through the integration of the results of the research accomplished by many scholars. This volume is the final report upon the most extended and comprehen­ sive research project yet undertaken by the Museum of Anthropology of the University of Michigan. It started when Dr. Griffin came to the Museum and inaugurated an investigation of the ceramic materials associated with an Ohio Valley archaeological culture to which the name "Fort Ancient" had been assigned. It was recognized at the start that the full significance of the ceramic industry could be ascertained only through an understanding of its relation to all other existing records of that culture. As the project advanced it became clear that the full realization of the historical meaning of the Fort Ancient culture could not be attained without an attempted solution of ques­ tions which involved the relations between it and its temporal and spatial neighbors. Not content with a descriptive report upon the Fort Ancient culture, Dr. Griffin sought to arrive at an appreciation of its significance in eastern North American native history through an exhaustive evaluation of comparative data. Here is one of the first attempts to assemble all possible information on an eastern American archaeological complex. Every applicable research tool in anthropology and its related disciplines has been used. The results and conclusions of the work of many colleagues have been incorporated into the study. It has been a pioneering effort, demonstrating one method which may be used in the synthesis of data from many sources, as a step toward the ulti­ mate goal of American archaeology. Throughout the report an effort has been made to distinguish between the

v

Vl

THE FORT ANCIENT ASPECT

evidence and the opinions and conclusions of the author. A large number of plates have been included to supplement the data in the text, thereby assembling the entire record in one volume for ease of reference, for verifica­ tion of interpretations, and for use in formulating other conclusions if the reader so desires. The majority of the plates illustrate materials not pre­ viously published. This research program was made possible by the patient and sustained interest of Mr.. Eli Lil1y, of Indianapolis, throughout all the years of its progress. The publication of this volume is the result of the generous assist­ ance given by Mr. Lilly and the Board of Governors of the Horace H. Rackham School of Graduate Studies of the University of Michigan. Without such support the project could not have been completed. The Museum of Anthropology is appreciative of the aid given by many persons. The examination of collections in various localities by the author was facilitated by the hospitable co-operation of several institutions. The comparative collections of the Ceramic Repository for the Eastern United States, housed in the Museum of Anthropology, were most useful in the research. These collections and the records associated with them have been assembled with the generm;ts co-operation of colleagues and organizations throughout the country. We feel that each of these contributed to the study of the Fort Ancient Aspect and its cultural and chronological position in Mis­ sissippi Valley archaeology. The Museum of Anthropology esteems it a privilege to sponsor the pub­ lication of the results of this extended and careful research undertaking which reflects so well the attainments and the ability of the author. CARL

May 6, I942

E.

GuTHE

PREFACE

I

AM indebted to many individuals and institutions for aid in the comple­ tion of this project. Although an attempt to evaluate this assistance would be unwarranted, mention should be made of several sources from which help was received-first, of the co-operation obtained from various members of the Indiana Historical Society, Mr. Eli Lilly, Mr. Glenn A. Black, Mr. Paul Weer, Mr. E. Y. Guernsey, Dr. and Mrs. Carl Voegelin, and Mr. J. C. Householder. For permitting me to examine the collections in their charge I wish to thank Dr. Fay-Cooper Cole, of the University of Chicago (collec­ tions of Upper Mississippi); Dr. Thorne Deuel, of the Illinois State Museum, who was formerly with the University of Chicago; Dr. S. A. Barrett and Mr. W. C. McKern, of the Milwaukee Museum (Oneota collections); Dr. Paul Martin, of Field Museum of Natural History (collection from the Taylor site made by Dr. W. K. Moorehead for the first Chicago Fair); Dr. Benjamin F. Shambaugh and Dr. Charles R. Keyes, of Iowa (Oneota materials); Dr. Earl Bell, of the University of Nebraska, and Mr. A. T. Hill and Mr. Paul Cooper, of the Nebraska Historical Society (Nebraskan archaeological collections); Mr. Frank C. Baker, Curator of the Natural History Museum (University of Illinois collections); Professor W. S. Webb and Mr. William G. Haag, of the University of Kentucky (Kentucky Fort Ancient materials); Mr. John Buckner, of Paris, Kentucky (information on Fort Ancient sites of that area); Director Ralph Dury, of the Cincinnati Society of Natural History (Madison­ ville collection, and for acting as a guide to the Fort Ancient sites in the vicin­ ity of Cincinnati); Director W. H. Siple, of the Cincinnati Art Museum, and Professor Gustav G. Carlson, of the University of Cincinnati (Madisonville pottery); Mr. and Mrs. C. C. Anderson, of the Anderson Museum; Mr. A. H. Montville, of Middletown, Ohio, and Mr. A. R. Altick, Curator of the Clark County, Ohio, Historical Museum (their collections from Fort Ancient sites); Director Henry C. Shetrone, Mr. Richard G. Morgan, and Mr. Robert Goslin, of the Ohio State Museum, and Dr. Emerson F. Greenman, formerly with that institution; Mr. B. E. McCown (data on the Proctorville site); Mr. E. W. Fetzer and Mr. L.A. Martin (information on most of the West Vir­ ginia sites); Dr. Alexander Wetmore, Mr. Frank Setzler, and Mr. Neil Judd, of the United States National Museum (collections from the Fort Ancient and eastern Tennessee areas); Dr. Clark Wissler and Mr. N. C. Nelson, of Vll

Vlll

THE FORT ANCIENT ASPECT

the American Museum of Natural History (Madisonville and Fox Farm col­ lections); Mr. Donald Scott, of the Peabody Museum (Fort Ancient collec­ tions); Dr. A. C. Parker and Mr. W. A. Ritchie, of the Rochester Municipal Museum (also for aiding this study in other ways); Mr. Donald A. Cadzow, of the Pennsylvania Historical Commission; Mr. Ross Pier Wright, of Erie (and also for providing the Ceramic Repository for the Eastern United States with an extensive collection from sites near Westfield, New York); Mr. Diamond Jenness, Mr. W. J. Wintemberg, and Mr. Douglas Leechman,of the National Museum of Canada; Dr. T. L. Mcllwraith and Dr. Phileo Nash, of the Royal Ontario Museum of Toronto; and Dr. Randolph G. Adams and Mr. Lloyd A. Brown, of the William L. Clements Library of the University of Michigan. I should like to express my appreciation to Dr. Carl E. Guthe, Director of the Museum of Anthropology of the University of Michigan, who has aided me throughout this research work. His understanding of the problems and difficulties involved is exceeded only by his patience in awaiting the comple­ tion of this study. Mr. Volney H. Jones, Mr. Vernon W. Kinietz, Dr. Fred­ erick R. Matson, Jr., and Mr. Georg K. Neumann, of the Museum of Anthropology of the University of Michigan, have also been of much as­ sistance. Mr. Walter Donnelly, Editor of Museums Publications, has ably guided the metamorphosis of manuscript to publication.

CONTENTS PAGE I

INTRODUCTION I. THE GEOGRAPHICAL BACKGROUND

7

II. THE AssociATION oF HisTORIC TRIBES WITH THE FoRT ANCIENT AREA

1I

III. THE BAuM Focus . The Baum Component The Gartner Component The Baldwin Component Serpent Mound and the Brush Creek Component The Baum Focus Summary.

36 36 47 54

IV. THE FEURT Focus . The Feurt Component The Fullerton Field Component The Proctorville Component The Feurt Focus Summary.

70 70 So 82 88

56 64

V. THE ANDERSON Focus . The Anderson Component The Taylor Mound and Village Component The Steele Dam Component The Kemp Component . The Mill Grove Component The Stokes Component . The Anderson Focus Summary

92 92 IOI I09 III I I3 113 I I6

VI. THE MADISONVILLE Focus The Madisonville Component The Sand Ridge Component The Turpin Component The Hahn's Field Component The Campbell Island Component The Hine Mound Component .

119 I I9 I43 146 153 155 I 59 lX

THE FORT ANCIENT ASPECT

X

The The The The The The The

Steel Plant Component. Fox Farm Component Larkin Component . Buckner Component Clay Mound Component Southeastern Indiana Madisonville Focus Sites Madisonville Focus Summary.

VII. THE FoRT ANCIENT AsPECT . VIII. THE CHRONOLOGICAL PosiTION OF FoRT ANciENT AND THE HoPEWELLADENA OccuPATION

210

IX. THE FoRT ANCIENT CoMPONENT . X. CuLTURAL INTERRELATIONS BETWEEN THE FoRT ANCIENT AND IROQUOIAN AsPECTS . XI. CERTAIN WEsT VIRGINIA CoMPONENTS RELATED TO FoRT ANCIENT. The Wells Component Clover Component Blennerhassett Island

223 240 242 244 244

XII. FoRT ANCIENT AND THE SouTHEAST

246

XIII. THE FoRT ANciENT AsPECT AND MIDDLE MISSISSIPPI

257

XIV. FoRT ANCIENT AND CENTRAL INDIANA. The Haueisen Component . Other Central Indiana Sites

261 261 262

XV. THE FoRT ANCIENT AsPECT AND THE UPPER MissiSSIPPI PHASE The Fisher Focus The Huber Component The Oneota Aspect

268 269 284 286

XVI. SPECULATIONS. BIBLIOGRAPHY APPENDix A. CoMMENTS oN THE CLASSIFICATION APPENDIX B. PoTTERY TYPE DEscRIPTIONS APPENDIX CROSS-SECTION OUTLINES APPENDIX D. TABLES VI-XIV.

303 314 327 342 351 366

INDEX .

377

c.

216

ILLUSTRATIONS

PLATES (Plates I-CLVII follow page 376.) PLATE

I. II. III. IV. V. VI. VII. VIII. IX. X. XI. XII. XIII. XIV. XV. XVI. XVII. XVIII. XIX. XX. XXI. XXII. XXIII. XXIV. XXV. XXVI. XXVII. XXVIII. XXIX. XXX. XXXI. XXXII. XXXIII. XXXIV. XXXV.

Baum Cord-marked jars. Baum Cord-marked rims. Incised Baum Cord-marked rims. Strap and lug handles on Baum Cord-marked rims. Baum Cord-marked jar. Baum Cord-marked sherds. Baum Component sherds. Baum Cord-marked sherds. Gartner Component pottery specimens. Baum Cord-marked sherds from Gartner. Baum Cord-marked sherds from Gartner. Baum Cord-marked sherds from Gartner. Child burial and artifacts from Baldwin Component. Artifacts from Baldwin. Bone and antler artifacts from Baldwin. Baum Cord-marked sherds from Baldwin. Grit-tempered sherds from Baldwin. Pottery from the Brush Creek Component. Baum Cord-marked sherds from the Brush Creek Component. Baum Cord-marked and Incised sherds from the Feurt Component. Baum Cord-marked and Incised sherds from the Feurt Component. Decorated sherds from Feurt Component. Baum Cord-marked and Feurt Incised sherds from Feurt. Feurt Incised sherds from Feurt. Fox Farm Cord-marked sherds from Fullerton Field. Various sherds from Fullerton Field. Artifacts from Fullerton Field. Artifacts from Fullerton Field. Bone artifacts from Fullerton Field. Bone beads from Fullerton Field. Artifacts from Proctorville. Bone 'implements from Proctorville. Artifacts from Proctorville. Proctorville Cord-marked jars from Proctorville. Various pottery types from Proctorville. Xl

THE FORT ANCIENT ASPECT

xu PLATE

XXXVI. XXXVII. XXXVIII. XXXIX. XL. XLI. XLII. XLIII. XLIV. XLV. XLVI. XLVII. XLVIII. XLIX. L. LI. LII. LIII. LIV. LV. LVI. LVII. LVIII. LIX. LX. LXI. LXII. LXIII. LXIV. LXV. LXVI. LXVII. LXVIII. LXIX. LXX. LXXI. LXXII. LXXIII. LXXIV. LXXV.

Anderson Cord-marked and Incised jars from Anderson. Anderson Cord-marked and Incised jars from Anderson. Anderson Cord-marked sherds from Anderson. Anderson Cord-marked and Incised sherds from Anderson. Anderson Cord-marked sherds from Anderson. Anderson Cord-marked and Incised sherds from Anderson. Anderson Cord-marked and Incised sherds from Anderson. Anderson Cord-marked and Incised sherds from Anderson. Artifacts from Anderson. Artifacts from the Taylor Component. Artifacts from the Taylor Component. Shell ornaments from the Taylor Component. Shell implements and ornaments from the Taylor Component. Pottery vessels and pipes from the Taylor Component. Various sherds from the Taylor Component. Artifacts from Steele Dam. Artifacts from Steele Dam. Anderson Cord-marked and Incised sherds from Steele Dam. Anderson Cord-marked and Incised sherds from Steele Dam. Anderson Cord-marked and Incised sherds from Steele Dam. Various rim and body sherds from Steele Dam. Anderson Cord-marked and Incised sherds from the Kemp Compo­ nent. Anderson Cord-marked and Incised sherds from the Mill Grove Com­ ponent. Various sherds from the Stokes Component. Madisonville Component jars. Madisonville Component jars. Madisonville Component jars. Madisonville Component jars. Madisonville Component jars. Madisonville Component jars. Madisonville Component jars. Madisonville Component pottery. Madisonville Component vessels. Madisonville Component jars. Madisonville Component jars. Madisonville Component pottery specimens. Madisonville Component sherds-salt pans and bowls. Madisonville Cord-marked rims from Madisonville. Madisonville Component handle types. Madisonville Component decorated sherds.

ILLUSTRATIONS

Xlll

PLATE

LXXVI. LXXVII. LXXVIII. LXXIX. LXXX. LXXXI. LXXXII. LXXXIII. LXXXIV. LXXXV. LXXXVI. LXXXVII. LXXXVIII. LXXXIX. XC. XCI. XCII. XCIII. XCIV. XCV. XCVI. XCVII. XCVIII. XCIX. C. CI. CII. CIII. CIV. CV. CVI. CVII. CVIII. CIX. CX. CXI. CXII. CXIII. CXIV. CXV. CXVI. CXVII.

Miscellaneous Madisonville sherds. Miscellaneous Madisonville sherds. Artifacts from Madisonville. Artifacts from Madisonville. Miscellaneous sherds from the Sand Ridge Component. Pottery vessels from the Turpin Component. Pottery vessels from the Turpin Component. Sherds from the Turpin Component. Sherds from the Turpin Component. Pottery vessels from the Hahn's Field Component. Pottery vessels from the Hahn's Field Component. Pottery from the Hahn's Field Component. Pottery from the Hahn's Field Component. Pottery vessels from Campbell Island, Hine Mound, and Steel Plant. Pottery vessels from the Campbell Island Component. Pottery fragments from the Campbell Island Component. Rim and body sherds from the Larkin Component. Decorated sherds from the Larkin Component. Pottery and artifacts from the Larkin Component. Miscellaneous sherds from the Buckner Component. Artifacts from the Buckner Component. Artifacts from the Clay Component. Artifacts from the Clay Component. Fort Ancient pottery from southeastern Indiana. Madisonville Cord-marked sherds from Ohio County, Indiana. Fox Farm Salt Pans from the Fox Farm Component. Fox Farm Salt Pans from the Fox Farm Component. Fox Farm Bowls from the Fox Farm Component. Madisonville Cord-marked sherds from the Fox Farm Component. Madisonville Cord-marked sherds from the Fox Farm Component. Decorated Madisonville Cord-marked sherds from Fox Farm. Decorated Madisonville Cord-marked sherds from Fox Farm. Madisonville Cord-marked strap handles from Fox Farm. Strap and loop handles from the Fox Farm Component. Strap and loop handles from the Fox Farm Component. Fox Farm Cord-marked rims from Fox Farm. Fox Farm Cord-marked rims from Fox Farm. Miscellaneous sherds from Fox Farm. Decorated Fox Farm Cord-marked sherds from Fox Farm. Fox Farm Cord-marked lug handles from Fox Farm. Various minor pottery types from Fox Farm. Artifacts from the Fox Farm Component.

THE FORT ANCIENT ASPECT

XIV

PLATE

CXVIII. CXIX. CXX. CXXI. CXXII. CXXIII. CXXIV. CXXV. CXXVI. CXXVII. CXXVIII. CXXIX. CXXX. CXXXI. CXXXII. CXXXIII. CXXXIV. CXXXV. CXXXVI. CXXXVII. CXXXVIII. CXXXIX. CXL. CXLI. CXLII. CXLIII. CLIV. CXLV. CXLVI. CXLVII. CXLVIII. CXLIX. CL. CLI. CLII. CLIII. CLIV. CL V. CLVI. CL VII.

Artifacts from the Fox Farm Component. Pipes and clay artifacts from Fox Farm. Miscellaneous artifacts from Fox Farm. Shell gorgets from Fox Farm. Sherds from near Clifton, West Virginia. Two jars from West Virginia. Sherds from the Clover Component. Pottery specimens from the Clover and Wells components. Sherds from Blennerhassett Island. Woodland pottery from Gala, Virginia. Pottery vessels from Lenoir, Tennessee. Pottery vessels from Lenoir, Tennessee. Pottery vessels from Citico, Chilhowey, and Toqua, Tennessee. Pottery vessels from Citico, Tennessee. Hopewellian artifacts from near Fort Ancient. Tubular pipe from the Robert Harness mound and sherds from Seip mound. Miscellaneous vessels from the Fort Ancient area. Miscellaneous vessels from the Fort Ancient area. Shell-tempered pottery from the Fisher site. Shell-tempered rims and handles from Fisher. Grit-tempered pottery from Fisher. Vessels from Fisher. Sherds from the Huber Component, Illinois. Pottery from the Midway Component of the Orr Focus. Pottery from the Midway and Shrake-Gillies components. Orr Focus pottery. Orr Focus pottery. Pottery from the Walker-Hooper Component. Lake Winnebago Focus jars. Lake Winnebago Focus sherds. Oneota pottery from Saline County, Missouri. Oneota pottery from Saline County, Missouri. A Madisonville Plain vessel from northern Indiana. Pottery from the Haueisen Component. Woodland and Fort Ancient pottery from the Haueisen Component. Pottery from the Oliver Component. Pottery from the Oliver Component. Pottery from the Oliver Component. Pottery from the Oliver Component. Pottery from three sites in central Indiana.

ILLUSTRATION~

XV

FIGURES IN THE TEXT Cross-section outlines of vessels and sherds PAGE I.

2. 3· 4·

5·

6.

7·

8. 9· 10. II.

!2. 13. 14. I

5·

16.

17·

18.

Baum Cord-marked rims from the Baum site Baum Cord-marked rims from the Gartner and Baldwin sites Baum Cord-marked sherds from the Brush Creek Component Feurt Component sherds Proctorville and Feurt sherds Anderson Focus vessels and sherds Madisonville Component vessels Madisonville vessels and sherds Vessels from the Turpin Component Sherds from the Turpin Component Jars, bowls, and sherds from Hahn's Field site Sherds from Sand Ridge Component . Fox Farm Salt Pan and Bowl rims from Fox Farm Madisonville Cord-marked sherds at Fox Farm. Various pottery types at Fox Farm Fisher Focus sherds . Sherds from Lane farm enclosure . Orr Focus pottery

351

352 353 354 355 355 356 357 358

359 360 361 361 362 363 364 364 365

MAPS I.

The distribution of sites in the Fort Ancient Aspect (facing) .

2. A section of Marquette's map. 3- A section of Marquette's map according to Thevenot 4- A section of Joliet's map of 1674

5· A section of a map credited to Joliet .

6. 7· 8. 9· 10.

Franquelin's map of 1681 (facing) A map resembling Franquelin's 1684 creation (facing) . Franquelin's Carte de la Lousiane ~f 1684 (facing) . Minet's map of 1685 (facing) . A part of Franquelin's map of 1689 (facing).

12 14

15 r6 18 !8 20 24 26 30

INTRODUCTION

T

HE middle Ohio Valley was probably the best known center of arch­ aeological activity in the United States during the decades immedi­ ately preceding and following the turn of the century. The individuals who explored it were pioneers of systematic archaeology in this country. Their names form a check list of the foremost men engaged in excavations under the auspices of institutions. Cyrus Thomas, Frederick W. Putnam, Warren K. Moorehead, Gerard Fowke, William C. Mills, Harlan I. Smith, and Henry C. Shetrone are among the most prominent of those who have devoted a large part of their energy to the problems of the prehistory of the area. Two major contributions resulted from their labors. The fiction that the Mound Builders were a race different from the Indians was effectively dispelled from the majority of scientific publications, and this cleared the way for the second important step, the recognition of distinct cultural group­ ings within the archaeological remains attributed to the ancestors of the American Indian in the eastern United States. The two most prominent and well-defined archaeological units were called the Hopewell and Fort Ancient cultures by Dr. Mills, who applied the names of two of the most famous sites in Ohio to these distinct entities. He believed that the Hopewell and Fort Ancient cultures were contemporane­ ous, but more recent work has demonstrated that they belong to separate chronological horizons. They are now believed to be the regional and temporal manifestations of widespread archaeological divisions, whereas formerly they were interpreted by some as the cultural centers from which various traits and even tribal groups were distributed throughout the Mississippi Valley. This volume deals with the archaeological remains from the central Ohio Valley that are now known collectively as the Fort Ancient Aspect. The definition of this cultural division was begun in the spring of 1933 and was completed in the winter of 1938-39. A review of the literature on the archaeol­ ogy of the eastern United States and an examination of the pottery collections in the Ceramic Repository for the Eastern United States in the Museum of Anthropology at the University of Michigan indicated that the group of sites constituting the Fort Ancient culture would offer a profitable field for com­ parisons of cultural and ceramic materials in the light of the recently sug­ gested McKern classification. 1 1

See Appendix A. I

2

THE FORT ANCIENT ASPECT

This study is the result of library and laboratory research. In the early stages of the project, attention was concentrated upon published reports dealing with Fort Ancient sites and upon the material from those sites, in an attempt to find and isolate smaller groupings within the larger cultural whole. In the collections of the Ceramic Repository for the Eastern United States is a representative series of sherds from the Baum, Gartner, and Feurt sites, donated by the Ohio State Museum. The American Museum of Na­ tural History generously loaned the pottery obtained from the Fox Farm site. These collections formed the basis for a preliminary unpublished study. By the end of 1933 a provisional list of total cultural traits had been com­ piled, including the artifacts and cultural elements noted in the literature as well as the traits of the pottery available in Ann Arbor. The list was then matched with McKern's list of Upper Mississippi traits. The comparison suggested that there were enough traits in common between the Fort Ancient culture and the Upper Mississippi culture, as the term was then used, to warrant the hypothesis that they could be considered as two aspects in the same phase. 2 After a study of the collections in the Ohio State Museum and of speci­ mens from the Madisonville site in the Cincinnati Society of Natural History, a preliminary analysis of the Fort Ancient Aspect was made. 3 It was deemed advisable to augment the information obtained from pub­ lished reports and large collections by securing as much data as possible on the smaller, lesser known sites. Although relatively little use was made of the possibilities of surface surveys to find additional sites in the area, or of the collections which are in the hands of private individuals, the majority of the available Fort Ancient artifacts suitable for research work were examined while the study was in progress. A large part of the period 1934-37 was spent in collecting data dealing not only with the Fort Ancient culture but also with the other archaeological units in the same a:1d contiguous areas, in order that a more accurate concept of the place of the Fort Ancient culture in Ohio and in Mississippi Valley archaeology might be obtained. 4 From five sites that were discussed in the first short statement, the number of sites which may now be attributed to the Fort Ancient Aspect has grown to thirty-three. The distribution of the sites is still principally limited to the cultural area as it was originally defined, with the exception of a possible eastern extension, 'For further discussion of the point see pp. 268 and 271. 3 This paper was presented at the meeting of the American Anthropological Association in 1934 in Pittsburgh. A short statement was issued in March, 1935: "Notes from the Ceramic Repository for the Eastern United States, No. 1." 'One of the results was a short paper, read before the American Association for the Advancement of Science meeting in Rochester, New York, in June, I 936: "The Chronological Position and Ethnological Relationships of the Fort Ancient Aspect" (Griffin, 1937b). For complete citations see the Bibliography.

INTRODUCTION

3

which may include sites as far east as those in the Kanawha Valley, West Virginia. The main body of the report contains a series of brief descriptions of the artifacts recovered during the excavations and the features of each of the individual sites or of the surface collections from them. A comparative trait list in which the archaeological traits for most of the sites discussed are pre­ sented in one table has been compiled. In the discussion of the artifacts from each site, arbitrary divisions based upon the type of material used in their construction have been made, in order to simplify treatment and comparison and to eliminate the use of subjective groupings based upon such terms as "art" and "ceremonial." The greatest possible correlation with the specific type of object recovered at one or more sites is desirable in a comparative trait list. The traits listed in this report only approach this desired standard and frequently comprise classes of material. One of the most important factors by which cultural connections may be ascertained is the relative abundance of an individual trait, of a group of traits, or of all the traits. In many instances the text description of the cul­ tural elements at each site contains a record as to whether a trait is common or rare. It will be noted that the prevalence of a trait is not indicated on the nonpottery trait lists. To make an accurate quantitative trait comparison it would be necessary to have data which were not available. Moreover, to express trait quantities in the comparative lists would confuse rather than clarify the record for the reader. Pottery has received the most detailed consideration in this study and is the subject of most of the illustrations, because in both the New World and the Old World it has been demonstrated that pottery is the most im­ pc•tant single factor in the interpretation of archaeological cultural relation­ ships. Furthermore, in previous publications dealing with Fort Ancient sites, the cultural significance of the pottery was not particularly stressed. Since pottery forms such a very important part of this study and appears to be of such particular value in indicating the various cultural divisions herein established, a discussion of the methodology of its treatment is in­ cluded. The pottery has been described and classified on the basis of "types," in accordance with a method of approach that has been used with marked success in the Southwest and in other areas the pottery of which has been intensively studied. The presence of pottery types in Fort Ancient sites was first recognized during the initial study of Fox Farm sherds in 1933 and 1934· Familiarity with additional Fort Ancient pottery clarified the types which are described and photographed in this report. The following statement by Charles Amsden was used as a guiding principle:

4

THE FORT ANCIENT ASPECT

The variability of pottery is limited only by limitation of ability to recognize it, for pottery has all the mutability of infinite combinations of minerals subjected to infinite degrees and durations of heat in firing, plus the great uncertainty of the human element involved in its manufacture and embellishment. Type differentiation becomes then a matter of restriction rather than of multiplication of criteria. Unless types are outlined broadly enough to include a significant percentage of the local ceramic product and to have some prospect of affiliation with or resemblance to something elsewhere within the boundaries of the culture they represent, they tend to con­ fuse rather than clarify the situation. If outlined too broadly they of course contribute less than they might had more discernment gone into their definition. To call corrugated ware or Black-on-white a type, in terms of the whole prehistoric Pueblo culture, is to state an unassailable truth but to gain little thereby. In the last analysis the matter must rest with the good judgment of the individual making the pronouncement. Fortunately, others will from time to time have occasion to cover the same ground and confirm or question his conclusions.6

In so far as possible, the pottery from a single site at any one institution was laid out on a large table, and the sherds which looked alike were placed in groups. The groups were then described according to the procedure out­ lined in Guthe's short paper on "A Method of Ceramic Description." 6 It was found that the characters most useful for the purposes of this study were decoration (including technique, design, and secondary features) and surface finish. In order that it might be determined whether or not the pottery groups could be considered as relatively homogeneous units distinct from other groups at the same or at related Fort Ancient sites, charts of the pot­ tery characters similar to those published in the Norris Basin study were prepared. 7 In these comparative charts of the Fort Ancient pottery types, a quantitative term is used to differentiate between sites within the focus. The types are defined as established by this procedure, and in the defini­ tion is included a description of the characteristics and variations which might be expected to occur in each type. The method is similar to that fol­ lowed in the Wheeler Basin report. 8 The use of type names rather than of numbers or letters for the types is adapted from a system of classification for the pottery of the Southeast used by the members of the Southeastern Archaeological Conference. That scheme has not been followed in its en­ tirety, however, since other features than surface finish have sometimes been considered as of paramount importance and have been incorporated in the type name. The types used in this monograph are roughly equivalent to those in the Norris and Wheeler Basin reports and apparently are not as narrowly defined as some of the types described in reports on Southwestern pottery. 7 Griffin, 1938. 'Amsden, 1931, p. 22. 'Guthe, 1934· 8 Griffin, 1939· No charts were prepared for that study, however, and type names were not used.

INTRODUCTION

5

The procedure is analogous to that used by Hooton in Indians of Pecos Pueblo. 9 In his morphological typing, skulls were classified into separate groups (by visual observation) according to differences in facial characteris­ tics. The statistical analyses then showed that a relatively homogeneous sample selected from a large heterogeneous assemblage is more characteristic of itself than it is of other selected samples or of the assemblage as a unit. In pottery typing essentially the same technique is used, since any type can be described on the basis of characters which serve to set it apart from all other types. The V'arious sites included in this report as units of the Fort Ancient Aspect have been grouped into four divisions, partly in accordance with grouping suggested by previous writers, but primarily according to the find­ ings of this study. These divisions were recognized before the final trait lists were prepared and are substantiated by, but are not derived from, the analysis. After the description of each of the smaller cultural groups of the Fort Ancient culture-herein called foci, because within themselves they show a close correlation between components-is a summary statement in which are enumerated the traits characteristic of that focus as a unit within the Fort Ancient culture, the traits held in common between that focus and one other focus, and also the unique traits of any component. Some mention is also made of the traits in these particular categories which are found in cultural groups or at sites not included in the Fort Ancient Aspect. After the presentation of the data on the four foci there is a summary chapter in which the traits characteristic of the Fort Ancient culture as a whole are listed, since many of them are found at all four foci, some in three of the four foci, and a very few in but two foci. In the instance last mentioned, however, the traits also occur in individual sites in the other two foci of which they are not characteristic. Since the list of the traits characteristic of the Fort Ancient culture as a whole includes a majority of the traits, as well as a preponderant majority of the traits characteristic of all Fort Ancient divisions, these foci constitute an aspect, as the term is used in the McKern classification. In this summary it is also pointed out that there are few cultural factors other than specific pottery types which are peculiar to the Fort Ancient Aspect. This list, then, does not comprise the Fort Ancient Aspect "determinants," as the term was defined in the original mimeographed statements on the classification, nor are they "diagnostic traits" in the sense of that term in Rediscovering Illinois. 10 Little or no attempt has been made to delimit either diagnostic traits or determinants that may be used in cultural comparisons to distinguish the Fort Ancient Aspect or any of its foci from all other cul9

Hooton, 19.30, p. 185.

°Cole and Deuel, 1937, and Appendix A.

1

6

THE FORT ANCIENT ASPECT

tural divisions. Instead, emphasis has been placed on establishing the Fort Ancient complex of traits. The focal and aspect traits have been listed in a separate table in order that the subjective element in their selection may be apparent. In any component which in the future is to be considered a part of the Fort Ancient Aspect a majority of the traits given in the aspect list should be present, provided the site has been fully excavated; and further­ more, the majority of the traits from the new site should be traits included in the Fort Ancient Aspect list. If the new site is to be classified in any one of the proposed foci, it should have, in addition, a majority of the traits characteristic of that particular focus, and, as its dominant pottery complex, the type or the types characterizing the particular division to which it is to be assigned. Included in this monograph is a series of chapters in which the place of the Fort Ancient Aspect in its cultural setting is discussed. In the chapter entitled "Speculations" are set forth several interpretations concerning cul­ tural affiliations, which cannot be regarded as conclusions, and various com­ ments on earlier theories pertaining to the prehistory of the area. Another chapter gives consideration to the possible historic connection between the Fort Ancient Aspect and known linguistic or tribal groups. Other chapters are devoted to comparisons with other cultural units and areas and include a short statement upon the probable chronological position of the Fort Ancient Aspect. It must be emphasized that in none of these sections is one cultural group definitely placed in a classification scheme with regard to another group.

I THE GEOGRAPHICAL BACKGROUND

T

HE Fort Ancient Aspect is situated in Indiana, Ohio, and Kentucky. There is a rather strong probability that certain sites along the lower Kanawha River in West Virginia may also belong to the same aspect or to a closely related one. The sites are all in the Ohio drainage basin, and the majority are on good-sized, navigable streams within one hundred miles of the Ohio River. The importance of this position along the Ohio River, for a clear understanding of the cultural background of the Fort Ancient people, can hardly be overestimated. Physiographically, the area occupied by these peoples has been divided into three major regions-the Allegheny Plateau, the Interior Low Plateau, and the Central Lowland east of the Mississippi River. 1 The sites in the Kanawha Valley and at the Feurt Focus are in stream valleys within the unglaciated part of the Allegheny Plateau. Three of the sites in the Baum Focus-Baum, Gartner, and Brush Creek-are all on the borderline between the west-facing escarpment of the plateau and the till-plain section of the Central Lowland. As one drives from Circleville to Chillicothe, the escarp­ ment of Mississippian rocks comes plainly into view on the east. This sand­ stone or hilly country forms the eastern border of the Scioto basin. The escarpment swings westward about six miles north of Chillicothe across Ross County into the northern part of Highland County, where it again turns south to pass through Adams County and into Kentucky near the mouth of Brush Creek. The Baum, Gartner, and Baldwin sites are all near the border of the Wisconsin glaciation. 2 The Baldwin site, just northeast of Lancaster, Ohio, is in the Hocking drainage basin and within the terminal moraine of the late Wisconsin drift. The site of the Gartner mound and village is on the east side of the Scioto River near the edge of the bluff and apparently on the late Wisconsin drift border of the Scioto lobe. The old preglacial course of the Scioto, which formerly ran northward, has been filled with glacial drift to a depth of between Ioo and 200 feet between this boundary and Columbus. At the Gartner site the river is some 40 to 50 feet below the gravelly plain which 1

Fenneman, 1938.

2

Leverett,

1901.

7

THE FORT ANCIENT ASPECT

8

spreads eastward to the border of the Allegheny Plateau. 3 The Baum site is situated on the first river terrace on the south side of Paint Creek. Much of the glacial fill in this section is from the Illinoian advance; the Wisconsin advance does not seem to have progressed that far. The Brush Creek Com­ ponent in Adams County is at the edge of the Allegheny Plateau and outside the glaciated area. Also outside the glaciated area are the Madisonville Focus sites in Ken­ tucky, which are all in the Licking drainage system. These sites are almost all within the blue grass region of Ordovician limestones and shales. It ap­ pears to have made little difference to the prehistoric inhabitants whether their villages were situated in the inner or outer blue grass areas, or whether, as in the instance of Fox Farm, they were placed in the Eden shale belt. The thin limestones of the Eden belt were used at Fox Farm for the stone graves. The Madisonville Focus sites in southwestern Ohio and southeastern Indiana are all in the stream valleys, and the underlying rocks are essentially of the same groups as are those in the blue grass region, for the Cincinnati anticline has brought the older Ordovician rocks to the surface. One center of the Madisonville Focus, that in the Little Miami Valley extending from the mouth of East Fork to the Ohio River, is situated either on the recent alluvium or on outwash terraces or on till of the Illinoian or Wisconsin periods. 4 This short wide valley just east of the narrow Ohio trough made an excellent setting for the Fort Ancient population. The sites in southeastern Indiana are also, in the main, some distance away from the banks of the Ohio River, on terraces near short tributary streams. A somewhat smaller center of the Madisonville Focus, near what is now the city of Hamilton, is situated mainly on recent alluvium or glacial outwash in the Miami Valley. The Madisonville Focus area, from the Little Miami River westward across Hamilton County, has a nearly continuous sheet of Illinoian till with a maxi­ mum thickness on the hilltops of but 20 feet, whereas at some places in the lowlands and valleys it is Ioo feet or more deep. The Campbell, Hine, and Steel Plant sites are within the Wisconsin glaciated area, as are the Anderson Focus sites in the Miami drainage basin. The Wisconsin terminal moraine, called the Hartwell moraine of the Miami lobe, runs in a northeasterly direction from Hamilton County across Warren County and passes north of Fort Ancient, and the Taylor site lies almost exactly at the border. The glacial terraces along the Little Miami River near Fort Ancient were formed by glacial streams, south of the point where the Hartwell moraine crossed near Caesar's Creek. It seems to have been immaterial whether the Anderson Focus people dwelt on the valley • Hyde, 1923.

• Fenneman, 1916.

THE GEOGRAPHICAL BACKGROUND

9

floor, as at the Mill Grove, Anderson, and Steel Dam sites, or on the till plains above, as at the burial ground in the Old Fort, the Taylor site, or the Kemp site; these sites, however, may have been occupied only seasonally. The Fort Ancient area lies within the temperate deciduous zone, which also covers most of the area east of the Mississippi and south of the Great Lakes. 6 This region was formerly covered by an almost unbroken forest with, occasionally, a few prairie openings. The hardwood forests were com­ posed mainly of oak, maple, hickory, walnut, beech, chestnut, ash, and elm. The most characteristic and abundant tree was the white oak, and prac­ tically the only conifer was the red cedar. The area was rich in animal, bird, and aquatic life. The total list of identified animal remains recovered at Fort Ancient sites compares favorably with the available list of fauna known from the early records and indicates that in the interim there was no important change in the type of fauna present. The list of animal and bird remains (Table X, Appendix D) indicates full use of the faunal environment. The only definite record of the bison is at the Madisonville site; certainly, if this animal had been common in the area in prehistoric times there would be more evidence of the fact. The rainfall is fairly evenly distributed throughout the year, with the heaviest precipitation during the spring and the lightest in the fall. The aver­ age annual rainfall in the area is about 40 inches. The mean temperature for January is about 29 degrees Fahrenheit, and for July about 74 degrees Fahrenheit. There was probably but a slight difference between the tempera­ ture of the northern sites in the Miami and Scioto valleys and that of the blue grass area. The till plains or river valleys north of the Ohio River and the limestone soils in the blue grass area offered good soils for the cultivation of the corn, beans, and sunflowers grown by the Fort Ancient people. Some of the native plants, nuts, and berries utilized are also listed in Table X. The size of the majority of the village sites clearly indicates that the Fort Ancient popula­ tion was a semisedentary one, which was largely dependent upon the crops raised. These sites bespeak greater permanence than do those farther north, as for example the Younge site in eastern Michigan, but there seems to have been no great ceremonial population centers such as the Angel group near Evansville, Indiana, or the Kincaid site in southern Illinois. The physical position of the Fort Ancient area in the middle reaches of the Ohio Valley offered relatively easy contact from many directions. The Ohio River itself presented a route up the valley into western Pennsylvania and New York, as well as a broad highway to the Mississippi. The Kanawha ' Shelford, 1926.

10

THE FORT ANCIENT ASPECT

and Big Sandy rivers run through the Appalachian Plateau area into the Appalachian Mountain region and to the headwaters of the streams emptying into the Atlantic Ocean and of those flowing in a southwesterly direction into the Tennessee drainage basin. The Scioto headwaters begin at the con­ tinental divide separating the Saint Lawrence basin from that of the Gulf of Mexico. The Miami Valley extends northward to within a short distance from the southern tributaries of the Maumee River, and the Whitewater River flows northwestward into central Indiana. Contact between the Big and Little Miami drainage basins and also between the upper sections of Brush Creek and Rocky Fork of Paint Creek was relatively easy. The water routes were supplemented by an elaborate system of trails. 6 The Kanawha Valley was the route of the Great Indian Warpath, which led from the Creek country up the Tennessee and Holston rivers, down the Kana­ wha to the Ohio, and thence overland to the Scioto and the Chillicothe-Circle­ ville region. The Baum Focus area was also connected with the south by the Scioto trail to the Ohio River and thence to the Big Sandy River and to the Great Indian Warpath, or, by way of the Ohio Valley and overland, to the Warrior's Path in Kentucky. The overland route into Kentucky led close to the Fox Farm and other blue grass Madisonville Focus sites. Branches from the Warrior's Path in Kentucky led down the Licking River to the Ohio River at Cincinnati, and another branch led across country to Big Bone Lick, near the Madisonville Focus sites in southeastern Indiana. 6 Myer, 1928a; Mills, 1914.

II THE ASSOCIATION OF HISTORIC TRIBES WITH THE FORT ANCIENT AREA 1

S

INCE archaeology is a historical discipline which aims to reconstruct the past, one of the most important problems of this study is concerned with identifying the bearers of the Fort Ancient culture with known tribal groups. Ideally, this should be done over a rather large contiguous area, so that a complete understanding of regional and tribal cultural dif­ ferences at a particular period, such as that of the early European contact with the Indians in the eastern part of the Mississippi Valley, could be ob­ tained. When such a conception is clearly set forth it is then possible, by a comparative analytical study of the artifacts, structures, and skeletal ma­ terials, to work out cultural and, perhaps, tribal movements of the immediate past. At present the safest method of computing chronological sequences in the eastern United States is to observe the superposition of one cultural com­ plex over another. Attempts have been made to fashion time scales through the recognition of changes in cultural elements such as pottery designs and house structures, and also through the regional distribution of different types of material. Such subjective studies are always open to revision when the actual time relationships are made known. In some areas in the eastern Unit~d States it has been possible to identify the camp and village sites of definite tribes. It is possible in some states, notably New York, to study archaeologically the acculturation of the Indians upon contact with European civilization. In Canada, New England, the middle Atlantic states, certain Plains states, and the Southeast, known village sites have been subjected to exploration by both the professional and the nonprofessional archaeologists. Unfortunately, this is not true of the Ohio Valley area, for by the time the region was at all accurately known, the era of unsettlement and displacement of the prehistoric inhabitants was well under way. The following discussion makes clear the difficulty of determining the tribal affiliations of the recognized archaeological cultures in this area. 1 A preliminary draft of this chapter was read by F. M. Setzler and F. R. Eggan in 1937, and by J. R. Swanton and F. G. Speck in 1938. I am indebted to them for comments. Subsequent revisions have benefited from there­ search of Jean Delanglez, referred to below.

II

12

THE FORT ANCIENT ASPECT

European trade goods were found at Madisonville, the largest and most thoroughly explored of the Fort Ancient sites. It is the only Fort Ancient site with these artifacts; at other sites in the same focus and even within a few miles of Madisonville there are no trade goods. Yet the evidence of white contact with Madisonville is incontrovertible, and it occurred before the native culture had broken. When Hooton attempted to identify the inhabit­ ants of this site in I 920, he came to the following conclusion: It should be understood quite clearly that the only reason for connecting this cemetery with the Shawnee tribe lies in the fact that the historical traditions mention no other tribe as occupying this general region during the probable period of the occupation of the Madison­ ville village and cemetery site. As we know practically nothing of the archaeology and physical anthropology of the Shawnee, it is impossible either to verify this tradition or to refute it. It is equally possible that the site under consideration may have been inhabited by some other tribe concerning which local historical records are silent. If we assume that Madisonville was a Shawnee site, there are then two possibilities as to the period of its occupation. Either it was occupied up to about the middle of the Eight­ eenth Century, or for a period anterior to 1672. The latter seems the more probable. 2

Since Hooton wrote this, John R. Swanton has come to the conclusion that the Madisonville site was occupied by the Mosopelea, a tribe which he has classified as Siouan. Willoughby, in his latest publication, accepted the identification of Madisonville as Mosopelean, but referred to Hanna, whose Wilderness Trail was published in 1911. Willoughby's latest published opin­ ion is as follows: During the period between the abandonment of the principal mound groups and the arrival of the French, southern Ohio seems to have been occupied principally by the Moso­ pelea, eight villages of which are located on Franquelin's map of 1684. La Salle tells us that these towns were destroyed by the Iroquois. One of these villages was probably at Madison­ ville on the extensive village and cemetery site, which, as shown by a few artifacts of Euro­ pean origin from the graves, was occupied down to the beginning of the historic period. The material culture of the Madisonville people was like that shown by numerous other sites in southern Ohio and was very different from the culture of the builders of the great earthworks. There are certain features which seem to connect it with the 1\iuskhogean group to the south, among whom the surviving Mosopelea found refuge, after the destruction of their villages by the lroquois. 3

The question of the ethnological affiliations of the Fort Ancient Aspect is an extremely important one from the standpoint of the historical recon­ struction of the tribal and cultural movements in the eastern part of the United States. If it could be proved that Madisonville was a Siouan site, that conclusion would fit neatly in some respects into the present archaeologi­ cal framework. Many of the components of the Oneota Aspect of the Upper • Hooton and Willoughby,

1920,

p. 25.

'Willoughby, 1935, p. 81.

..

,

RELATED SITES

0

MIL ES

oY.\o

20

ANDERSON FOCUS

MADISONVIL L E FOCUS

x e

SCALE

BAUM F OCUS

FEURT FOCUS

.t.

•

FORT ANC IENT SITES

STRA.W TOWN

~!~

i

MAP

1.

BU CKNER

~

STOKES

'-....

Relative position of the sites and major geographic features.

...

e

e L ARKIN

J(

DISTRIBUTION OF THE SITES IN THE FORT ANCIENT ASPECT

.~

~

• BAL DWIN

t

0

BROWNS TOWN

HISTORIC TRIBES

IJ

Mississippi Phase probably represent the remains of the Chiwere Sioux, and this interpretation harmonizes with the identification of the Madisonville Component as another Siouan site of the Upper Mississippi Phase. Madison­ ville and the other Fort Ancient sites, however, are possibly as closely related archaeologically to the Iroquoian Aspect and to that complex in eastern Tennessee called Cherokee by Harrington and others, as they are to the Oneota Aspect. Furthermore, certain traits found at Fort Ancient sites are more closely related to the Woodland Pattern than to the Mississippi Pat­ tern. In the last analysis, however, the identification of Madisonville as Mosopelean is not a linguistic nor an archaeological problem, but a historical one. There does not seem to be sufficient evidence, for the reasons discussed below, to indicate that Madisonville was a Mosopelean site and that at least one Fort Ancient site was the home of a Siouan-speaking tribe. The story of Joliet and Marquette's trip down the Wisconsin and the Mississippi rivers has been quoted many times, but for the purposes of this discussion it seems advisable to give again that part of Marquette's account of his trip wherein he mentions a certain Indian tribe in the central Missis­ sippi Valley but does not name it. After his account of passing the mouth of the Ohio River and his discussion of the methods used by the Indians to protect themselves against the mosquitoes, Marquette said: While thus borne on at the will of the current, we perceived on the shore Indians armed with guns, with which they awaited us. I first presented my feathered calumet, while my comrades stood to arms, ready to fire on the first volley of the Indians. I hailed them in Huron, but they answered me by a word, which seemed to us a declaration of war. They were, however, as much frightened as ourselves, and what we took for a signal of war, was an invitation to come near, that they might give us food; we accordingly landed and entered their cabins, where they presented us wild-beef and bear's oil, with white plums which are excellent. They have guns, axes, hoes, knives, beads, and double glass bottles in which they keep the powder. They wear their hair long and mark their bodies in the Iroquois fashion; the head-dress and clothing of their women were like those of the Huron squaws. They assured us that it was not more than ten days' journey to the sea; that they bought stuffs and other articles of Europeans on the eastern side; that these Europeans had rosaries and pictures; that they played instruments; that some were like me, who received them well. I did not, however, see any one who seemed to have received any instruction in the faith; such as I could, I gave them some medals. 4

From this passage one might reasonably infer that this Indian group had had direct contact with Europeans, probably the Spaniards, and that the trade material was not obtained through the medium of barter with inter­ mediary tribes. This inference is borne out by Marquette's statements con­ cerning his visit to the Akansea, who were on the east side of the Mississippi

LEGENDE R R R

d~ /l.ron

Je flfrSSJSS'}JJ

P"loti.o.r.nut Ou;;/;l';:skl:um

leAhssourt

L

rlf'sll/t~fli.S

}eJfghf1'. , {••~ ~ 1 . ' , . , ...-~ (.'~.~J -.iu"" "~"""'~u: ., G·~-~.""· .,_.. . ~--J..!t;

1\ ',.....

'. '\.; \..-\ •\ ,t• ._ , 0

'-' 0

..

,., . . ' :~ ~~~"'. "if • . ·. ),t•Av~:r.. ' " \ ' .~~ ~~. r- ~. :, ·-,· : ~~ l.~ . ' ' ·" ~- ~~ J,,

G " ~ ~~' ~ ~---_-

\

.......

. ' J,. '

•..E

I -

Map 10. Pan of Franquelin's map of 1689. This is representative of the maps made by Franquelin after his rerurn to Quebec following his map making in Paris for La Salle in 1684. No. 644 in the Karpinski collection and S.H.I3. B 4040-10. An outline copy is in Winsor.

h·

•

"'

'>

I ,•' ....{±"',

s

• t ·- ~..

- ~. .I~. .

.

I -

.-'y-~ ' ,_,.

.•

-~~"'F;-;;,-;; -~.-::.=-·

,.-

~< .~'"'=" './r-, '.....

.·

•

f'i\"[/.'"SA ..

N , • "

../"'

.t":,0,."" ·._.-~ -\'

0 [T-•.

..;;:•

~r""~ ·-· "' " '·

..

~

·J,J.

1.......... ,_ ' - - .....__

--

~~

·. A

G .... ~L.

,

""' I

. . ~ "Air .:. . ~

•

·~~ .~,'\ t~

.

a tt/.1~, o

. 1 1 ~ '-.t llOIU 1

l'

lOlll-1

r

•\

&N

It~•~ ....- . .

OJ~;, ~·~-:,::

·r~,··

~ -~& ~ '"-'- 'o

""

'3

'•

'5 >6 '7

,,

.,"' '9

"'J

,,'• ,, '6 •7

'9 JO 3' 3' 33 34 35 J6 37 JB 39 40 4' 4'

.

43

45 46 47 4. 49 so

,,,, 53

54 H

,.

..

70 7' 7' 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 Bo

,.c

U. . . U ... U. . . U. .. U. ..

c

D :l44/13b :244/13C 9:2054

H ;ord ncss

Su rface Finis h

Texture

Com ponent

M~diso nvi lle

Turpin Turpin Turpin Hahn's Field H ahn's Field H ahn's Field Hahn's Field Campbell Is. Hine Mound Hine Mound Steel P lant Steel Plant Hahn's Field

• For glossary of abbreviations see Table I (facing p. 46) .

...

Sh.

'

2~ - s

X X X X X X X X X .. X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X .... X X X X X X X X X X X . ... X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X ... . X

...

X

... . X .... ..

X

. ...

X

.... ... .

.... X X

X X X X

.. .. X

.......

.. . .. . .... X

... .

.. .. .. . .. .... . ..

... .

.... .. .. ...

..... .....

...

. .. .

X

.... ... . ... .. ..

X

.... .. .. ..

.. .

.... X . . . . ..

. ... ..

··.··

..

....

..

. .. . X

.. .

.. .. .

X

...

.. . .. ....

X

.....

....

X X X

X

...

X

X X X X X X X X X .. . X X X X . ... X X X X X X . ...

X

... .

X X X X X

......

.... ..

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X ? X ? X X X X? X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

..

... . ... .

. .. ..

..... ... ..

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Sd. lsm.

. .... ..

... . X

X

.. .. .

.... .. . X X

... .

...

.. . ...

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Fl. SI.A.

X X X X X X

X

....

X X X X X X

.. ....

.. . .. X

X

.... X X X X

... . X X

.. .

. .. . ....

..

.. ..

. ... ..

X X

. ... .. .. .. . .

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X

. ... .. X

X

X

X

... ....

X X

X X X X ....

....

X X

X .... . .. . . ..... X

X

X X X

.. .

X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

... . ... . .... .. .. ..

.. ..... .... .. ... . ... . . ... ..... .. .

X

.. .. .

X

..

.. .

X X

X

..

X X X X X

X X X X

. ...

x' .

X

.. . .. . .. . .. ... . .. .

X

X

X X

.. ..... ..

... . .

.. ...

X .. . X . .. X . .. X . ... X

..

...

X X X X X

X

X X X X

.. ... .. .. .

X

X

X X X X X

X

X

X

X X X X X X X X X X X X

X

X

X

X X X X X

.... . 'i{ ' ... X .. ... . X? .. .. .... X? ... X .. .. .... X? .. .. .. .. ... 1 .. .. .. .. .. 1 .... . ... ..... .. ... X

X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X

F.R.

1- -

X

X X

X

. .. . .... ....

X X X X X X X X X

X X

X X X X X

. ...

. ...

..

X

..

S_l::s::•AogI ~R L:SJ:·:·~_::__ Th:;~:, ~~~ R•m '~~~-H ~~~2:_1:_1."..'_1~1-J' X ~~ I

U.S. N•tioo•l M.o..... .. oo'oJB/M,.(tJ Dann Site,N.Y.j ... X New York State Mus. ..... W>~osB/1 39 DannSite,N.Y. X

·1

OhioStateMus... ... .. . . . . OhioStateMu.t........... . Peabody Mus. H arvard U . . .

''I

16 I Loan Ohio State Mus. .

Madisonville

Peabody Mus. Harvard U...

15

62.866

Madisonville Madisonville Madisonville M adisonville Madisonville

Cincinna.tiArtMus . ... . . 1889""98 Cincinnati Art Mus ... .. . . 1888'"'715 Cincinnati Art Mus....... 1918-36b Peabody Mus. Harvard U.. . 7966o Peabody Mus. Harvard U.. 78586

14

Madisonville

Cincinnati Art Mus . ..... 1889""97

9

10 11 n 13

62885

Madisonville

PeabodyMus. HarvudU.. .

8

.

Component

Madtsonville Madisonville Madisonville Madisonville Madisonville Madisonville Madisonville

Cu. No.

1888""714 1888-7o6 Crncmnatr Art Mus.. ... . . t888-?08 Cincinnati Soe. Nat. Hist ... 0 Peabody Mus. Harvard U... 2.6595 Peabody Mus. Harvard U... 7¢5'' I Peabody Mu.t.HarvardU•. . 7ological History of Ohio. Columbus: Fred. J. Heer. I9Io Antiquities of Central and Southeastern Missouri. Bur. Amer. Ethnol. Bull., No. 37· FRANKLIN, w. NEIL I932 Virginia and the Cherokee Indian Trade, I673-I752. E. Tenn. Hist. Soc. Pub!., No.4· FRENCH, BENJAMIN F. (ed.) I846-52 Historical Collections of Louisiana. New York: Wiley and Putnam. FuNKHOUSER, WILLIAM D., and WILLIAMS. WEBB I929 The So-Called "Ash Caves" in Lee County, Kentucky. Univ. Ky. Rept. Archaeol. Anthropol., Vol. I, No. 2. I930 Rock Shelters of Wolfe and Powell Counties, Kentucky. Ibid., No. 4· I936 Rock Shelters in Menefee County, Kentucky. Ibid., Vol. III, No.4· I937 The Chilton Site, in Henry County, Kentucky. Ibid., No. 5· GIAUQUE, FLORIEN I876 The Mound Builders. Harvest Home Mag., Aug., pp. 54-57. GLADWIN, HAROLD S., EMIL W. HAURY, and E. B. SAYLES 1937 Excavations at Snaketown. Material Culture. Medallion Papers (Gila Pueblo, Globe, Ariz.), Vol. XXV. GREENMAN, EMERSON F. I934 Guide to Fort Ancient. Columbus: Ohio State Archaeol. and Hist. Soc.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

JI7

1937a The Younge Site: an Archaeological Record from Michigan. Occ. Contrib. Mus. Anthropol. Univ. Mich., No.6. 1937b Two Prehistoric Villages near Cleveland, Ohio. Ohio State Archaeol. Hist. Quart., XLVI: 305-67. 1939a Cultural Relationships of Archaeological Sites in the Upper Great Lakes Region. Papers Mich. Acad. Sci., Arts, and Letters, XXIV: 1-10. 1939b The Wolf and Furton Sites, Macomb County, Michigan. Occ. Contrib. Mus. Anthropol. Univ. Mich., No. 8. GRIFFIN, JAMES B. I935 An Analysis of the Fort Ancient Culture. Notes from the Ceramic Repository for the Eastern United States. Ann Arbor. (Mimeographed.) 1937a The Archaeological Remains of the Chiwere Sioux. Amer. Antiq., II, No. 3: 18o-81. I937b The Chronological Position and Ethnological Relationships of the Fort Ancient Aspect. Ibid., No. 4: 273-77. I938 The Ceramic Remains from Norris Basin, Tennessee. Bur. Amer. Ethnol. Bull., No. II8: 253-359. 1939 Report on the Ceramics of Wheeler Basin. Ibid., No. 122: I27-65. I941a Report on Pottery from the St. Louis Area. Missouri Archaeol., 7, No. 2: 1-17· 1941b Additional Hopewell Material from Illinois. Ind. Hist. Soc., Prehistory Research Ser., II, No.3: 171-223. 1942a Adena Pottery. Amer. Antiq., VII, 4: 344-58. 1942b On the Historic Location of the Tutela and the Mohetan in the Ohio Valley. Amer. Anthropol., 44, No.2: 275-81. GRIFFIN, JAMES B., and RICHARD G. MoRGAN 1941 Contributions to the Archaeology of the Illinois River Valley. Trans. Amer. Phil. Soc., n.s., XXXII, Pt. 1. GuTHE, CARL E. 1934 A Method of Ceramic Description. In Standards of Pottery Description, by Benjamin March. Occ. Contrib. Mus. Anthropol. Univ. Mich., No. 3: 1-6. 1936 A Review of Thorne Deuel's "Basic Cultures of the Mississippi Valley." Amer. Antiq., I, No.3: 249-50. GuERNSEY, ELAM Y. 1939 Relationship Among Various Clark County Sites. Proc. Ind. Acad. Sci., 48: 27-32. HAGG, WILLIAM G. I940 A Description of the Wright Site Pottery. Univ. Ky. Rept. Archaeol. Anthra­ pol., V, No. 1: 75-82. HANNA, CHARLES A. 19II The Wilderness Trail. New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 2 vols. HARRINGTON, MARK R. 1920a An Archaic Iowa Tomahawk. Indian Notes and Monog., Vol. X, No. 6. 192ob Certain Caddo Sites in Arkansas. Indian Notes and Monog., Misc. Papers, No. 10. 1922 Cherokee and Earlier Remains on Upper Tennessee River. Indian Notes and Monog., Vol. XII, No. 24.

JI8

THE FORT ANCIENT ASPECT

HEYE, GEORGE G., FREDERICK. W. HooGE, and GEORGE H. PEPPER I9I8 The Nacoochee Mound in Georgia. Contrib. Mus. Amer. Indian, Heye Founda­ tion, Vol. IV, No.3· HILL, AsA T., and WALDO R. WEDEL I936 Excavations at the Leary Indian Village and Burial Site, Richardson County, Nebraska. Neb. Hist. Mag., Vol. XVII, No. I. HooGE, FREDERICK. W. (ed.) I907-10 Handbook of the American Indians North of Mexico. Bur. Amer. Ethnol. Bull., No. 30. 2. vols. HoLMES, WILLIAM H. I903 Aboriginal Pottery of the Eastern United States. Twentieth Ann. Rept. Bur. Amer. Ethnol. HooTON, EARNEST A. I930 The Indians of Pecos Pueblo. New Haven: Yale Univ. Press. HooToN, EARNEST A., and CHARLES C. WILLOUGHBY I92.0 Indian Village Site and Cemetery near Madisonville, Ohio. Papers Peabody Mus. Amer. Archaeol. Ethnol., Vol. VIII, No. I. I92.2. The Turner Group of Earthworks, Hamilton County, Ohio. Ibid., No.3· HosEA, LEWIS M. I874 Some Facts and Considerations About Fort Ancient, Warren County, Ohio. Cincinnati Quart. Journ. Sci., Vol. I, No.4· HouGHTON, FREDERICK. W. I920 Are There Evidences of an lroquoian Migration West of Lake Erie? Amer. Anthropol., 2.2: 2.93-97. HousEHOLDER, JoHN C. I94I Surface Pottery from Marion County, Indiana. Proc. Ind. Acad. Sci., 50: 36-39. HYDE, JESSE E. I923 Geology of Camp Sherman Quadrangle. Bull. Ohio. Geol. Surv., fourth ser., No. 23. jENNINGS, JESSE D. I94I Chickasaw and Earlier Indian Cultures of Northeast Mississippi. Journ. Miss. Hist. III, No.3: I55-2.26. JESKE, JOHN A. I927 The Grand River Mound Group and Camp Site. Bull. Public Mus. City of Milwaukee, 3, No.2: I39-2I4. Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents, The I896-I90I Travels and Explorations of the Jesuit Missionaries in New France. Ed. by Reuben G. Thwaites. Cleveland: Burrows Brothers. 73 vols. JONES, CHARLES C. I873 Antiquities of the Southern Indians. New York: D. Appleton and Co. JONES, jOSEPH I 876 Explorations of the Aboriginal Remains of Tennessee. Smithson. Contrib. Know!., XXII, Art. II: I-I 58. KANNENBERG, ARTHUR P. I92.9 Winnebago County Indian Earthenware. Wis. Archaeol., 8, No. 4: I24-2.9.

BIBLIOGRAPHY KELLOGG, LouiSE P. 1925 The French Regime in Wisconsin and the Northwest. Madison, Wis.: State Hist. Soc. Wis. KELLY, ARTHUR R. 1938 A Preliminary Report on Archaeological Explorations at Macon, Georgia. Anthropol. Papers, Bur. Amer. Ethnol. Bull., I 19, No. I: 1-68. KELLY, ARTHUR R., and FAY-CooPER CoLE 1931 Rediscovering Illinois. Blue Book of the State of Illinois, 1931-32, pp. 318-41. KENTON, EDNA (ed.) I927 The Indians of North America. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co. 2 vols. KEYES, CHARLES R. 1920 Some Materials for the Study of Iowa Archaeology. Iowa Journ. Hist. and Politics, XVIII: 357-70. I925 Progress of the Archaeological Survey of Iowa. Ibid., XXIII: 3-I6. 1927 Prehistoric Man in Iowa. Palimpsest, VIII, No.6: 215-29. 1929 Some Methods and Results of the Iowa Archaeological Survey. Wis. Archaeol., 8, No.4: 135-43· I934 Antiquities of the Upper Iowa. Palimpsest, Vol. XV, No. Io. I937 Indianapolis Archaeological Conference. Nat. Research Council, Comm. on State Archaeol. Surv. KIDDER, ALFRED v. I932 The Artifacts of Pecos. New Haven: Yale Univ. Press. KLUCKHOHN, CLYDE I939 On Certain Recent Applications of Association Coefficients to Ethnological Data. Amer. Anthropol., 41, No.3: 345-78. KROGMAN, WILTON M. I93I The Archaeology of the Chicago Area. Trans. Ill. State Acad. Sci., XXIII: 4I3-21. LAIDLAW, GEORGE E. 1903 Effigy Pipes in Stone. I. Ann. Archaeol. Rept. (1902), in Appendix to Rept. of the Minister of Educ., Ontario, Canada, pp. 37-57. I913 Ontario Effigy Pipes in Stone. II. Ibid., pp. 37-68. I914 Ontario Effigy Pipes in Stone. III. Ibid., pp. 44-76. I91 5 Ontario Effigy Pipes in Stone. IV. Ibid., pp. 58-62. 1916 Ontario Effigy Pipes in Stone. V. Ibid., pp. 63-83. 1924 Effigy Pipes in Stone. VI. Ibid., pp. 57-80. LANGDON, FRANK w. I88I The Madisonville Pre-historic Cemetery. Journ. Cincinnati Soc. Nat. Hist., IV, No.3: 237-57. LANGFORD, GEORGE I9I9 The Kankakee River Refuse Heap. Amer. Anthropol., 2I: 287--91. 1927 The Fisher Mound Group, Successive Aboriginal Occupations near the Mouth of the Illinois River. Ibid., 29: 152-206. 1928 Stratified Indian Mounds in Will County. Trans Ill. State Acad. Sci., XX: 247-53· I930 The Fisher Mound and Village Site. Ibid., XXII: 79--92.

320

THE FORT ANCIENT ASPECT

LECLERQ, CHRISTIEN I88r First Establishment of the Faith in New France. Trans. with Notes by John G. Shea. New York: John G. Shea. 2 vols. LELAND, WALDO G. I932 Guide to Materials for American History in the Libraries and Archives of Paris. Washington: Carnegie lnstit. Wash. LESUEUR, WILLIAM D. 1926 Count Frontenac. New York: Oxford Univ. Press. LEVERETT, FRANK 1901 Glacial Formations and Drainage Features of the Erie and Ohio Basins. U. S. Geol. Surv., Monog., 41. LEwis, THOMAS M. N., and MADELINE KNEBERG 1941 The Prehistory of the Chickamauga Basin in Tennessee. Univ. Tenn. Anthropol. Papers, No. I. LILLY, ELI 1937 Prehistoric Antiquities of Indiana. Indianapolis: Indiana Hist. Soc. LoTHROP, SAMUEL K. I926 Pottery of Costa Rica and Nicaragua. Contrib. Mus. Amer. Indian, Heye Foundation, Vol. VIII. Low, CHARLES F. I88o Archaeological Explorations near Madisonville, Ohio. Journ. Cincinnati Soc. Nat. Hist., III, No. I: 4o-68; No. 2: I28-39; No.3: 203-20. MAcCURDY, GEoRGE G. I917a Some Mounds of Eastern Tennessee. Proc. Nineteenth Internat. Cong. Americanists, pp. 59-75. I9I7b The Wesleyan Collection of Antiquities from Tennessee. Ibid., pp. 75-96. MARGRY, PIERRE (ed.) 1876-86 Memoires et documents pour servir a l'histoire des origines franc;:aises de pays d'outre-mer: decouvertes et establissements des franc;:ais dans le sud d' Ameri­ que septentrionale. Paris: D. Jouaust. 6 vols. MARCEL, GABRIEL I885 Cartographie de la Nouvelle France, supplement a l'ouvrage de M. Harrisse. Paris. MARCH, BENJAMIN I934 Standards of Pottery Description. Occ. Contrib. Mus. Anthropol. Univ. Mich., No.3. McGuiRE, JosEPH D. 1899 Pipes and Smoking Customs of the American Aborigines, Based on Material in the U.S. National Museum. Rept. U.S. Nat. Mus., 1897. McKERN, WILL C. 1928 The Neal and McClaughry Mound Groups. Bull. Public Mus. City of Milwaukee, 3, No. 3: 213-416. 1930 The Kletzien and Nitschke Mound Groups. Ibid., No.4: 417-572. 193I Wisconsin Pottery. Amer. Anthropol., 33, No. 3: 383-90. 1933 Local Types and the Regional Distribution of Pottery-Bearing Cultures. Trans. Ill. State Acad. Sci., 25, No. 4: 84-87.

BIBLIOGRAPHY I938

J21

A Review of Cole and Deuel, "Rediscovering Illinois." Amer. Antiq., III, No. 4= 368-74· I939 The Midwestern Taxonomic Method as an Aid to Archaeological Culture Study. Ibid., IV, No.4: 30I-I4. MERWIN, BRUCE w. 19'/.5 An Aboriginal Village Site in Union County. Journ. Ill. State Hist. Soc., 2.8, ? No. I : 78-92.. METZ, CHARLES L. I878 The Prehistoric Monuments of the Little Miami Valley. Journ. Cincinnati Soc. Nat. Hist., Vol. I, No.3· I88I The Prehistoric Monuments of Anderson Township, Hamilton County, Ohio. Ibid., IV, No.4: 2.93-305. MILLS; WILLIAM c. I 899 Report of the Curator. Ohio Archaeol. and Hist. Pub!., VII: 2.88-90. I902.a Report of the Curator. Ibid., X, No. I: 78-86. I902.b Excavations of the Adena Mound. Ibid., No.4: 452.-79. I904 Explorations of the Gartner Mound and Village Site. Ibid., XIII, No.2.: I2.9-89. 1906 Explorations of the Baum Prehistoric Village Site. Ohio Archaeol. Hist. Quart., XV, No. I: 45-I36. I907 The Explorations of the Edwin Harness Mound. Ohio Archaeol. Hist. Pub!., XVI: I I3-93· I9I4 Archaeological Atlas of Ohio. Columbus: Ohio State Archaeol. and Hist. Soc. I917a Archaeological Remains of Jackson County. Certain Mounds and Village Sites in Ohio. Columbus: Fred J. Heer. Vol. II, No.2.. I917b Exploration of the Tremper Mound. Ibid., No.3· I92.0 Map and Guide to Fort Ancient, Warren County, Ohio. Columbus: Fred J. Heer. 192.2. Explorations of the Feurt Mounds and Village Site. Certain Mounds and Village Sites in Ohio. Columbus: Fred J. Heer. Vol. Ill, No. I. MooNEY, }AMES I894 The Siouan Tribes of the East. Bur. Amer. Ethnol. Bull., No. 2.2.. MooRE, CLARENCE B. I900 Certain Aboriginal Remains of the Alabama River. Journ. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila., Vol. XI, Pt. 3· I910 Antiquities of the St. Francis, White, and Black Rivers, Arkansas. Ibid., Vol. XIV, Pt. 2.. I9II Some Aboriginal Sites on the Mississippi River. Ibid., Pt. 3· 1912. Some Aboriginal Sites on Red River. Ibid., Pt. 4· I91 5 Aboriginal Sites on Tennessee River. Ibid., Vol. XVI, Pt. 2.. I916 Some Aboriginal Sites on Green River, Kentucky. Certain Aboriginal Sites on Lower Ohio River. Additional Investigations on Mississippi River. Ibid., Pt. 3· MooREHEAD, WARREN K. I887 Graves at Fort Ancient. Amer. Antiq. Orient. Journ., IX, No. 5: 2.93-300. 1890 Fort Ancient. Cincinnati: Robert Clarke and Co. 1892. Primitive Man in Ohio. New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. I897 Report of Field Work. Ohio Archaeol. Hist. Pub!., 5: 165-2.75.

THE FORT ANCIENT ASPECT

J22

I 899a The Indian Tribes of Ohio. Ibid., 7: I-IIo. I899b Report of Field Work in Various Portions of Ohio. Ibid., pp. I Io-204. I902 The Field Diary of an Archaeological Collector. Andover, Mass.: Privately printed. I9o6 A Narrative of Explorations in New Mexico, Arizona, Indiana, etc. Phillips Academy, Dept. Archaeol. Bull., III. I9o8 Fort Ancient, the Great Prehistoric Earthwork of Warren County, Ohio. Ibid., IV, Pt. II. I9IO The Stone Age in North America; an Archaeological Encyclopedia .... Boston and New York: Houghton Miffiin Co. 2 vols. I928 The Cahokia Mounds. Univ. Ill. Bull., Vol. XXVI, No.4· I930 Cultural Affinities and Differences in Illinois Archaeology. Trans. Ill. State Acad. Sci., XXII: 23-40. I932 Explorations of the Etowah Site in Georgia. In Etowah Papers. New Haven: Yale Univ. Press. MoRGAN, RICHARD G.

I933 I936

Archaeology of the Chicago Area. Trans. Ill. State Acad. Sci., XXV: 9I-93 An Interesting Burial at Fort Ancient. Mus. Echoes, Vol. 9, No. II.

MoTT, MILDRED

I938

The Relation of Historic Indian Tribes to Archaeological Manifestations m Iowa. Iowa Journ. Hist. Politics, XXXVI, No.3: 227-3I4.

MuRDOCK, GEORGE

I934

P.

Our Primitive Contemporaries. New York: Macmillan Co.

MuRRAY, LouisE W.

I931

Selected Manucripts of General John S. Clark. Wilkes-Barre: E. B. Yordy Co.

MYER, WILLIAM E.

1917

The Remains of Primitive Man in Cumberland Valley, Tennessee. Proc. Nine­ teenth lnternat. Cong. Americanists, pp. 96-103. 1928a Two Prehistoric Villages in Middle Tennessee. Forty-first Ann. Rept. Bur. Amer. Ethnol. 1928b Indian Trails of the Southeast (ed. by J. R. Swanton). Forty-second Ann. Rept. Bur. Amer. Ethnol. ORR, ELLISON

I914

Indian Pottery of the Oneota or Upper Iowa River Valley in Northeastern Iowa. Proc. Iowa Acad. Sci., XXI: 231-41.

ORR, RowLAND

B.

Annual Archaeological Report. In Appendix to Rept. of the Minister of Educ. Ontario, Canada. pARKER, ARTHUR C. 1916 The Origin of the Iroquois as Suggested by Their Archaeology. Amer. Anthropol., I8: 479-507. 1922 The Archaeological History of New York. N.Y. State Mus. Bull., Nos. 235-36. 1926 An Analytical History of the Seneca Indians. Researches and Trans. N. Y. State Archaeol. Assn., Lewis H. Morgan Chap., Vol. VI, Nos. 1-4. I933 The Iroquois. In History of the State of New York. New York: Columbia Univ. Press. Vol. I, Chap. 3· 1915

BIBLIOGRAPHY

323

PARKMAN, FRANCIS 1888 La Salle and the Discovery of the Great West. I2th ed.; Boston: Little, Brown, and Co. 1893 The Conspiracy of Pontiac. Boston: Little, Brown, and Co. PEASE, THEODORE c. 1936 Anglo-French Boundary Disputes in the West, 1749-1763. In Coli. Ill. State Hist. Libr., Springfield, Ill. Vol. 27 (French ser., Vol. 2). PEASE, THEODORE C., and RAYMOND C. WERNER 1934 The French Foundations, r68o-r693· In Coil. Ill. State Hist. Libr., Vol. 23 (French ser., Vol. r). PHILLIPS, PHILIP 1941 Middle American Influences on the Archaeology of the Southeastern United States. In The Maya and Their Neighbors. New York: D. Appleton-Century Co. Pp. 349--68. PHILLIPs, PHILIP LEE (ed.) 1912 The Lowery Collection. A Descriptive List of Maps of the Spanish Possessions Within the Present Limits of the United States, 1502-182o. Washington, D. C. PINART, ALPHONSE Lours 1893 Recueilde cartes, plans et vues relatifs aux Etats-Unis et au Canada .... Paris: E. Dufosse. PuTNAM, FREDERICK W. 1882 Notes on the Copper Objects from North and South America, Contained in the Collections of the Peabody Museum. Peabody Mus. Repts., 3: 83-148. 1886 Report of the Curator. Eighteenth Ann. Rept. Peabody Mus., pp. 401-19, 477502. 1887 Reports. Peabody Mus. Amer. Archaeol. Ethnol., Vol. III. 1890 The Serpent Mound of Ohio. Century Mag., XXXIX: 871-88. QUIMBY, GEORGE 1., JR. 1941 The Goodall Focus. Ind. Hist. Soc., Prehistory Research Ser., II, No.2: 63-161. RANDALL, ERASMUS 0. 1908 The Masterpieces of the Ohio Mound Builders. Columbus: Ohio State Archaeol. and Hist. Soc. RITCHIE, WILLIAM A. 1932 The Lamoka Lake Site. Researches and Trans. N.Y. State Archaeol. Assn., Lewis H. Morgan Chap. Vol. VII, No.4· 1934 An Algonkin-Iroquois Contact Site on Castle Creek, Broome County, N. Y. Research Rec. Rochester Municipal Mus., No. 2. 1936a A Prehistoric Fortified Village Site at Canandaigua, Ontario County, New York. Ibid., No. 3· 1936b New Evidence Relating to the Archaic Occupation of New York. Researches and Trans. N. Y. State Archaeol. Assn., Lewis H. Morgan Chap., Vol. VIII, No. r. 1938 A Perspective of Northeastern Archaeology. Amer. Antiq., IV, No. 2: 94-II3. SAPIR, EDWARD 1929 Central and North American Languages. Encycl. Britannica, qth ed.; V: 138-40.

THE FORT ANCIENT ASPECT SETZLER, FRANK M. 1940 Archaeological Perspectives in the Northern Mississippi Valley. In Essays in Historical AnthropologyofNorthAmerica. Smithson. Misc. Coli., 100:253-91. SETZLER, FRANK M., and JESSE D. JENNINGS I94I Peachtree Mound and Village Site, Cherokee County, North Carolina. Bur. Amer. Ethnol. Bull., No. I3I. SHELFORD, VIcToR E. (ed.) I926 Naturalist's Guide to the Americas. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins Co. SHETRONE, HENRY c. I9I9 The Indian in Ohio. Ohio Archaeol. Hist. Pub!., 27: 273-510. I92o The Culture Problem in Ohio Archaeology. Amer. Anthropol., 22: I44-72. 1926 The Campbell Island Village Site and the Hine Mound and Village Site. In Certain Mounds and Village Sites in Ohio. Columbus: Fred J. Heer. Vol. IV. I930 Field Work in Ohio During 1929. Amer. Anthropol., 32, No. 2: 366-67. I931 The Mound Builders. New York: D. Appleton and Co. SHETRONE, HENRY C., and EMERSON F. GREENMAN 193I Explorations of the Seip Group of Prehistoric Earthworks. Ohio Archaeol. Hist. Quart., Vol. XL, No.3· SKINNER, ALANSON I92I Notes on Iroquois Archaeology. Indian Notes and Monog., No. IS. 1926 Ethnology of the loway Indians. Bull. Public Mus. City of Milwaukee, Vol. 5, No.4· SLOCUM, CHARLES E. 1903 Sieur de Ia Salle. Ohio Archaeol. Hist. Pub!., 12: 107-14· SMITH, HARLAN I. 1910 The Prehistoric Ethnology of a Kentucky Site. Anthropol. Papers Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., Vol. VI, Pt. 2. SPECK, FRANK G. I920 Decorative Art and Basketry of the Cherokee. Bull. Public Mus. City of Mil­ waukee, Vol. II, No.2. 1935 Siouan Tribes of the Carolinas as Known from Catawba, Tutelo, and Documen­ tary Sources. Amer. Anthropol., 37, No.2: 201-26. SQUIER, EPHRAIM G., and EowiN H. DAVIS I848 Ancient Monuments of the Mississippi Valley. Smithson. Contrib. Know!., Vol. I. STREET, OLIVER D. I904 The Indians of Marshall County Alabama. Trans. Ala. Hist. Soc., IV: I93-2II. STRONG, W. DuNCAN I935 An Introduction to Nebraska Archaeology. Smithson. Misc. Coli., Vol. 93, No. 10. SWANTON, JOHN R. I923 New Light on the Early History of the Siouan Peoples. Journ. Wash. Acad. Sci., 13, No.3: 33-43· I928 Aboriginal Culture of the Southeast. Forty-second Ann. Rept. Bur. Amer. Ethnol., pp. 673-727. 1929 Myths and Tales of the Southeastern Indians. Bur. Amer. Ethnol. Bull., No. 88.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

325

1930 The Kaskinampo Indians and Their Neighbors. Amer. Anthropol., 32, No. 3, Pt. I: 405-I9· 1933 The Relation of the Southeast to General Cultural Problems of American Pre­ history. In Conference on Southern Pre-History, December, I932, Nat. Re­ search Council. Washington, D. C. Pp. 6o-74 (Mimeographed). 1935a Siouan Tribes of the Ohio Valley. In Indianapolis Archaeological Conference, December, I935· Nat. Research Council Comm. on State Archaeol. Surv. Pp. 24-35 (Mimeographed). I935b Notes on the Cultural Province of the Southeast. Amer. Anthropol., 37, No. 3: 373-86. 1936 Early History of the Eastern Siouan Tribes. In Essays in Anthropology in Honor of Alfred Louis Kroeber. Berkeley, Calif.: Univ. Calif. Press. Pp. 37I-8I. SwANTON, JoHN R., and RoLAND B. DIXON I9I4 Primitive American History. Amer. Anthropol., I6: 376-4I3. THOMAS, CYRUS I889a The Problem of the Ohio Mounds. Bur. Amer. Ethnol. Bull., No. 8. 1889b The Circular, Square, and Octagonal Earthworks of Ohio. Ibid., No. 10. 1891 The Story of a Mound; or, the Shawnees in Pre-Columbian Times. Amer. An­ thropol., 4: 109-6I, 237-75. I894 Report on the Mound Explorations of the Bureau of Ethnology. Twelfth Ann. Rept. Bur. Amer. Ethnol. r898 Introduction to the Study of North American Archaeology. Cincinnati: Robert Clarke Co. I903 The Indians of North America in Historic Times. Philadelphia: George Barrie and Sons. THRUSTON, GATES P. I89o The Antiquities of Tennessee. Cincinnati: Robert Clarke and Co. THWAITEs, REUBEN G. (ed.) I903 A New Discovery of a Vast Country in America, by Father Louis Hennepin. Chicago: A. C. McClurg and Co. 2 vols. TITTERINGTON, PAUL F. I938 The Cahokia Mound Group and Its Village Site Material. St. Louis: Privately printed. VoEGELIN, CARL F. I94I Internal Relationships of Siouan Languages. Amer. Anthropol., 43, No.2, Pt. I: 246-5o. VoEGELIN, ERMINIE I94I Indians of Indiana. Proc. Ind. Acad. Sci., so: 27-33. WAUGH, FREDERICK w. I9I6 Iroquois Foods and Food Preparation. Geol. Surv. Can. (Anthropol. ser.), No. I2. WEBB, WILLIAM s. 1938 An Archaeological Survey of the Norris Basin in Eastern Tennessee. Bur. Amer. Ethnol. Bull., No. I IS. I939 An Archaeological Survey of Wheeler Basin on the Tennessee River in Northern Alabama. Ibid., No. 122.

THE FORT ANCIENT ASPECT I940

The Wright Mounds, Site 6 and 7, Montgomery County, Kentucky. Univ. Ky. Rept. Archaeol. Anthropol., Vol. V, No. I. WEBB, WILLIAMS., and WILLIAM D. FuNKHOUSER I928 Ancient Life in Kentucky. Ky. Geol. Surv., sixth ser., Vol. 34· I930 The Page Site in Logan County, Kentucky. Univ. Ky. Rept. Archaeol. Anthro­ pol., Vol. I, No.3· I932 Archaeological Survey of Kentucky. Ibid., Vol. II. WEDEL, WALDOR. I935 Reports of Field Work by the Archaeological Survey of the Nebraska State Historical Society. Neb. Hist. Mag., Vol. XV, No.3· I936 An Introduction to Pawnee Archaeology. Bur. Amer. Ethnol. Bull., No. II2. I938 The Direct-Historical Approach in Pawnee Archaeology. Smithson. Misc. Coli., Vol. 97, No. 7· I940 Culture Sequences in the Central Great Plains. In Essays in Historical An­ thropology of North America. Ibid., 100: 29I-353. WEER, PAUL A. I935 Sweeping a Prehistoric Floor. Ind. Hist. Bull., XII, No. 5: I6I-68. WEsT, GEORGE A. I934 Tobacco, Pipes, and Smoking Customs of the American Indians. Bull. Public Mus. City of Milwaukee, Vol. XVII. WILLIAMS, SAMUEL c. I928 Early Travels in the Tennessee Country, I54o-I8oo. Johnson City, Tenn.: Watauga Press. WILLOUGHBY, CHARLES C. I9I9 The Serpent Mound of Adams County, Ohio. Amer. Anthopol., 2I: I53-64. I93 5 Antiquities of theN ew England Indians. Cam bridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press. WILSON, FRAZIER I903 The Treaty of Greenville. Ohio Archaeol. Hist. Pub!., I2: I28-6o. WINSOR, JusTIN I884 Joliet, Marquette, and La Salle. In Narrative and Critical History of America. Boston and New York: Houghton, Mifflin and Co. Vol. IV. WINTEMBERG, WILLIAM J. I9o6 Bone and Horn Harpoon Heads of the Ontario Indians. Ann. Archaeol. Rept. In Appendix to Rept. of the Minister of Ed., Ontario, Canada, I9o5, pp. 5o-56. I908 The Use of Shells by the Ontario Indians. Ibid., I907, pp. 38~0. I926 Foreign Aboriginal Artifacts from Post-European Iroquoian Sites in Ontario. Trans. Roy. Soc. Can., third ser., XX, sec. I I: 37-53. I93I Distinguishing Characteristics of Algonkian and Iroquoian Cultures. Bull. Nat. Mus. Can., No. 67. I936 The Roebuck Prehistoric Village Site, Grenville County, Ontario. Ibid., 83. WISSLER, CLARK I922 The American Indian. New York: Oxford Univ. Press. I938 The American Indian. 3d ed.; New York: Oxford Univ. Press. YouNG, BENNETT H. 19Io The Prehistoric Men of Kentucky. Louisville: John P. Morton and Co.

APPENDIX A COMMENTS ON THE CLASSIFICATION

I

T was stated in the Introduction that the McKern classification was applied in this study in the interpretation of a series of sites in the middle Ohio Valley. A short history of the development of the classifi­ cation follows, with a few comments on the various approaches of different authors, and a discussion of its use in this report. Although it is perhaps un­ fair to McKern to attach his name to this tool for the unraveling of cultural problems, the association is now well established. The phrase "midwestern taxonomic method," recently suggested by him/ is open to the serious criti­ cism that it implies a geographic limitation to a methodology which has no such restriction. Such a term is a definite handicap to the adoption of the classification in other areas. Although it may be argued that there are as many classifications as there are classifiers, the retention of the originator's name seems desirable in connection with this aid to the study of cultural archaeology. The classification had its origin in a paper prepared by McKern for the meeting of the Central Section of the American Anthropological Association in Ann Arbor in April, 1932. Illness preventedthis pres~ntation, and Mc­ Kern's ideas were proposed by him to a group of archaeologists in Chicago after an archaeological symposium at the Illinois State Academy of Science meetings in May, 1932. During the symposium2 the promiscuous use of the word "culture" emphasized McKern's belief that the term had ceased to have meaning for scientific purposes in an archaeological discussion. He pro­ posed that a system be devised by which the degree of relationship existing between sites or groups of sites could be indicated by the terminology em­ ployed. A mimeographed statement called "A Suggested Classification of Cul­ tures" was issued by Carl E. Guthe from Ann Arbor in his capacity as chair­ man of the committee on state archaeological surveys, in October, 1932. This was based on McKern's original paper, to which were added the con­ clusions reached in Chicago and in the resulting correspondence, and it was sent to a number of archaeologists throughout the country for suggestions. The opening paragraph defined the problem: 1

2

McKern, 1939. Some of the papers were reworded before publication to include the new terminology.

J27

328

THE FORT ANCIENT ASPECT

Archaeological evidence indicates the existence of culture relationship areas of greatly varying size, many of which show correspondingly varying degrees of cultural similarity in their component parts. The uncritical application of the term "culture" to a variety of types of determinant-complexes, ranging from the essentially simple to the specifically complex, has led to an improper and undefinable generalization of its meaning. This creates confusion between the several degrees of culture relationships and obscures the necessity for compara­ tive research. A system of classificatory terms is needed in order to distinguish between these various types of determinant-complexes.

The statement outlined a series of possible archaeological relationships between sites, ranging from the same type of complex present at two sites to such a widespread, fundamental similarity between units as the common possession of the agriculture-pottery complex. The six types of relationship were identified by means of capital letters. Terms for each of these units were suggested, to aid in the selection of names to designate the various types of determinant-complexes which were defined. A classification of known ar­ chaeological groups was included in order to demonstrate such an ordering of the data. The criticisms and suggestions sent to McKern as the result of this circularization were discussed by a small group which met at the Uni­ versity of Chicago in December, 1932. 3 After this meeting a second mimeo­ graphed statement was sent out, 4 in April, 1933, signed by Will C. McKern, Thorne Deuel, and Carl E. Guthe. A number of important points were em­ phasized in this paper: This classification of cultures is based entirely upon the culture traits and complexes themselves, and an attempt is made to eliminate all other considerations. It is felt that a clearer appreciation of the comparative culture problems will be obtained through an analysis of the determinant complex for each culture. By the term "determinants," we refer to those particular traits among the known evidences of a material culture which, because of their individuality, serve to differentiate it from other cultures ... The suggested classification seeks to distinguish between cultures and groups of cultures in terms of cultural differences only; that is, by using only culture determinants as criteria.

In the first mimeographed statement regarding the classification, the various degrees of cultural unity exhibited by sites or groups of sites were called "types of determinant-complexes." The grouping of sites into various arbitrary units was to be based on "the similarities of culture traits and com­ plexes. In the simpler types the emphasis is upon individual traits showing minor variation. As the types become more general, the minor variations are emphasized to less degree, .... until .... only the broad fundamental determinants are used." In the first paper the units themselves were deter• McKern, 1939· 'Through the facilities of the committee on state archaeological surveys of the National Research Council.

COMMENTS ON THE CLASSIFICATION minant-complexes, but in the statement of April, 1933, the units were char­ acterized by certain traits which form a determinant-complex, and these special traits are called determinants because they segregate one division from another. The emphasis was here placed on ascertaining those traits which separated cultural units, whereas the first paper apparently empha­ sized cui tural similarities. In the second paper it was recommended that three types of cultural rela­ tionship be adopted-the pattern (then called basic culture), the phase, and the aspect: The criteria by which one basic culture should be differentiated from another consist of those fundamental or essential determinants which are recognized as constant within the basic culture, but as different from those in other basic cultures .... The members of each phase would be characterized by the determinants possessed in common. They need not have a majority of determinants in common, provided that there be a significant number .... The term "aspect" is suggested for the subdivisions of phases, and all groups of peoples having in common an approximate majority of determinants would constitute an aspect of a phase.

The only methodology either in the first or second mimeographed statements is that one needs "to analyze the cultures in terms of cultural elements by means of which it will be possible to discover which of them are determinants and which have no classificatory significance." Two other classes of archaeological phenomena were recognized, but were only recommended in case they were needed: "A component, then, would be a localized, and usually incomplete manifestation at a single site, of a culture which may be shown to be related to a larger cultural class by an analysis of the determinants present in the component." A focus was "a group of com­ munities which have a preponderating majority of determinants in common." The emphasis in this presentation is upon the initial recognition of the largest and most general cultural division. Each of the succeeding divisions is considered as a member of the one preceding it and is primarily recognized as such. The approach is that of working from the top of the classificatory scale to the bottom, of deriving the specific cultural traits from the more general ones. The next paper on the classification was by McKern and was also issued in mimeographed form from the office of the committee on state archaeological surveys.• This exposition of the framework employed also began with the most general division. It was emphasized that the component was not a cul­ tural class or division, but was more correctly considered the manifestation of the focus at a single homogeneous site. 6 In the demonstration of the manner • "Certain Culture Classification Problems in Middle Western Archaeology." May, 1934· Deuel (1935, p. 429) cited August as the date of issue. • Setzler {1940, p. 258) erroneously stated that a component is an individual site.

330

THE FORT ANCIENT ASPECT

in which the classification could be applied to Wisconsin data McKern began with the individual components of the Grand River Focus and illustrated how that focus could be combined with two other foci to produce an aspect. This aspect, in turn, was but a part of a phase, and that, in turn, was a divi­ sion of a basic culture. The major part of McKern's paper of 1934 dealt with the identification and selection of the determinants for a cultural division. It was suggested that culturally complex artifacts, such as pottery, be resolved into their constituent elements, in order to obtain full benefit of the cultural detail necessary for the focal and aspect divisions. In this manner an approxi­ mate weighting of traits would be obtained. The character of the deter­ minants used to differentiate between foci was stated to be entirely different from the broad fundamental cultural trends used to define the basic culture. These latter would be relatively few, in contrast to the large number of cul­ tural minutiae for the focus. Determinants were to be characteristic for the division which they served to identify and not traits differentiating one divi­ sion from another. This concept of a determinant is at variance with that presented in April, 1933. McKern analyzed the pottery of what was then con­ sidered the Upper Mississippi Phase, presented his list in basic culture, phase, aspect, and focus order, and demonstrated the method by which one might arrive at the determinants for each class grouping. In the final part of this methodological paper he said: ...• There is only one way in which the student can be certain that he is observing the products of a single cultural group in the culture detritus of a given site. This requires a knowledge that the traits found at this site belong to a culture complex definitely known to occur at other sites .... The recurring-complex method alone can serve to determine a cul­ tural division ....

By 1935 the introductory statements setting forth the McKern classifica­ tion consisted of three mimeographed pamphlets. A methodological procedure was advocated which would avoid the ambiguity of the word "culture" by employing terms implying a definite relationship between sites. This called attention to the fact that there were varying degrees of connection and that more accurate statements were therefore necessary. Four types of relation­ ship were recognized: basic culture (now pattern), phase, aspect, and focus. Emphasis was placed on the derivation of the more specific division from the more general. Archaeological units possessed not only the total traits for each specific division but also a determinant-complex, which was the only criterion for the determination of relationship. A classificatory grouping of sites was presented in the initial statement, but the only demonstration of the use of traits in arriving at such a schematic arrangement was McKern's analysis of Upper Mississippi Phase pottery. In a final admonition it was

COMMENTS ON THE CLASSIFICATION

JJI

stated that in order to be certain that a homogenous cultural division is under consideration the archaeologist must have a recurring complex. In 1935 a number of papers appeared which employed the McKern ter­ minology. The first paper was a preliminary analysis of the Fort Ancient Aspect, 7 which limited itself to a consideration of but five sites in a restricted geographical area. The primary purpose of this pamphlet was to present a technique by which sites could be compared, in order that the traits held in common might be ascertained. This was done by listing the nonpottery traits for each site in parallel columns, and in another tabulation this relationship was expressed by percentages. In a separate table the pottery traits were weighted by an indication of the relative percentage of each trait at each site. A series of small graphs expressed in percentages the extent of connec­ tion between the sites on the basis of arbitrary groupings of the artifacts. 8 A somewhat different point of view was expressed than had appeared in the papers that had presented the McKern classification, and determinants were not given the same value: If this analysis is considered in terms of McKern's system of culture classification, it will at once be apparent that these five sites have a substantial majority of their traits in common and may therefore be called the Fort Ancient Aspect. The Gartner and Baum sites, having a preponderating majority of their traits in common, may be called a Focus. Similarly, the Madisonville and Fox Farm sites belong to another Focus. The selection of the determinants listed for the Fort Ancient Aspect, and for the two well-defined Foci within the Aspect, is based on the traits that are characteristic, first, of all the sites, and then of the Gartner-Baum Focus and the Madisonville-Fox Farm Focus. Those traits that are present at all of the sites, or at four out of the five, may be taken as determi­ nants of the Fort Ancient Aspect ...• Many of the determinants listed for the Aspect will also be determinants for the Phase and for the Basic Culture. I do not believe the determinants for the Phase can be chosen with any degree of accuracy until a number of Aspects have been compared in detail. Similarly, the determinants for a Basic Culture must remain conjectural until the common elements in the Phases have been ascertained. Of course, a provisional or hypothetical ar­ rangement of Foci and Aspects within Phases and a Basic Culture is perhaps inevitable. The only sound method of procedure by which to establish accurately Phase and Basic Culture determinants is to proceed from the most specific manifestations to the more general. 84

The second paper was published in the American Anthropologist and em­ braced a much wider range of cultural material. 9 Two major cultural entities were recognized in the Mississippi Valley and were named the Mississippi Basic Culture and the Woodland Basic Culture. This division followed recognized archaeological units, such as Holmes's fundamental separation of 7 See Introduction. 8 Griffin, 1935· "'Ibid. While this paper has been called a statistical analysis I prefer Kluckhohn's restrictive use of the term. 9 Deuel, 1935. Kluckhohn, 1939, footnote 8.

JJ2

THE FORT ANCIENT ASPECT

the Middle Mississippi province pottery from his other ceramic complexes/ 0 and the widespread cultural manifestation called Algonquian.U Thus, as was recognized in the classification chart issued in 1932, there were already at hand two different cultural groups which in many instances could be sharply differentiated over a considerable area. This paper contributed a list of traits considered to be the determinants for these two cultural divisions, called therein "basic cultures." The procedure followed in obtaining the deter­ minants is obscure. It seems to have been a subjective selection based on Deuel's wide familiarity with the archaeology of the area. The individual sites mentioned as possessing the basic culture determinants are predominantly in the northern Mississippi Valley. The hypothesis was proposed that there are at least two major divisions in the Mississippi Valley which might be charac­ terized by this list of determinants, but it does not necessarily follow that this has been proved. A later statement by the same author goes no further in pre­ senting the methodology by which the pattern determinants were selected; in fact, it was admitted that the revised determinants were" .... chosen from a longer list previously noted as characteristic of the two great cultural divi­ sions."12 It has already been pointed out by Guthe13 and McKern 14 that the traits presented by Deuel cannot be considered the determinants for the two patterns and for the phases they attempt to define. That this approach re­ sults in an unfortunately unstable grouping of sites is indicated by the classifi­ cation of the Moundville, Etowah, and Gordon components as the sites which furnished the determinants for Deuel's original Lower Mississippi Phase. These three sites were called a phasal unit distinct from three Middle Mississippi components, For4, F 0 J4, and Aztalan. 15 However, in Appendix I of Rediscovering Illinois 16 the "Lower Mississippi Phase" sites were trans­ ferred into the Middle Mississippi Phase, and no reference was made to sites or determinants of a Lower Mississippi Phase. Similar changes took place in the classification of the Woodland phases in the same two studies. The early classifications proposed for the Plains area were those of Strong17 and Wedel.1 8 They were admittedly tentative and served to indicate the facility with which a classificatory structure can be utilized by those familiar with the archaeology of the area. The greatest changes which occur in future comprehensive modifications of these original classifications will be at the aspect, phase, and pattern levels. Cooper made a notable analysis of three sites which he called the St. Helena Focus. 19 Wedel's recent excellent 11 Parker, 1920; Wintemberg, 1931; McKern, 1931 and 1933 among others. Holmes, 1903. Cole and Deuel, 1937, p. 209. The longer list refers to Deuel, 1935, and 1937, p. 35· 11 Guthe, 1936, p. 249. 14 McKern, 1938, p. 369. 16 This grouping appears in Deuel's unpublished doctoral thesis. "Cole and Deuel, 1937· 17 Strong, 1935, p. 2, 18 Wedel, 1935, p. 251. I> Cooper, 1936. 10

12

COMMENTS ON THE CL1.SSIFICATION

333

summary of Central Plains archaeology has a revised classificatory arrange­ ment more nearly in line with present views, but no attempt was made to list the determinants for the divisions. 2° Fortunately, the majority of the archaeologists now working in the Plains division are attempting to analyze the focal traits of the various cultural divisions. Ritchie's earlier use of the classification in numerous publications was, again, merely an illustration of the manner in which the terms can be used to organize and clarify what are thought to be the different cultural divisions in the New York area. The accepted division of Iroquoian and Algonquian was taken over bodily into the classification as representing Mississippi and Woodland mani­ festations in that area. At present the actual relationships of the enlarged New York cui tural assemblage are being worked out in a more detailed manner, and when these results are eventually considered in connection with neigh­ boring Canadian and New England data, as well as those from contiguous areas to the south, a different conception of the cultural groupings in New York will result. Certainly, the divisions into aspects and phases of aboriginal cultures can hardly be defined on the basis of the New York material alone. This is true of any area to which the classification is applied with sufficient analysis and sorting of the evidence. Greenman's recent classificatory listing of sites in the Great Lakes region is a compilation taken from various sources with little supporting evidence for such a grou,ping. 21 Although it is recognized that the individuals actively engaged in archaeo­ logical work regard their own conclusions, and particularly those of their fellow archaeologists, as tentative and subject to change with each new exca­ vation, this is not so true of others who have little familiarity with the archae­ ology of the area or who have had little experience in attempting to use the classification. The printed word gives a greater impression of stability and permanence to the reader than to the writer. As a result students engaged in library research, or in working with the finds of an excavation, attempt to fit sites into the list of determinants which have been arbitrarily arrived at for the patterns, or into an arbitrary classificatory structure. Unless the site trait list falls easily into some pigeonhole, the tyro classifier feels as though the classification as a working tool is at fault and useless, instead of realizing that the present system is at best temporary and decidedly imperfect. One should examine the tentative classification and any proposed determinants in the light of the new data, rather than attempt to fit this information into an arbitrary arrangement. As is illustrated by the shift in the interpretation of the archaeological history of the Southwest within the last ten years and by the great changes which have come about in the study of Mississippi Valley " Wedel, 1940.

01

Greenman, 1939.

334

THE FORT ANCIENT ASPECT

archaeology during the same period a rapidly shifting interpretation of archaeological data is inevitable wherever active field and laboratory work is carried on. Such changing interpretations are often the result of discussions between investigators with opposed points of view. Differences of opinion should be looked upon as a healthy symptom of a young and growing method­ ology, and not as criteria of personal ability or necessarily unsound view­ points. Theoretically, a site or group of sites should be placed in the classification framework after an analysis and description of the results of the excavation and after an objective comparison with similarly organized data which have been shown to cohere. If there are no comparable data, classification should be postponed until the data are available. In practice, however, the compo­ nents are classified long before the material is analyzed. The subjective im­ pressions used to classify a site immediately are, of course, based on the features which will be described in the analysis. Probably no student of archaeology, however, is able to retain in his mind the cultural minutiae from hundreds of sites, both large and small, and mentally organize and select those few simple traits which link many units into a cultural block. To classify individual components on the basis of a subjective, hand-picked list of ab­ stract traits is a shortsighted procedure, since the selection of such a rela­ tively small list from among the total traits present at a site and its use alone as the basis for a more general classification will result in a tendency to ignore the very elements which indicate the temporal and geographical changes sought. Irrespective of theory, components are recognized at times as probable members of various cultural divisions, but it is only after the analysis and comparisons are made that any accurate idea of their relation­ ships is forthcoming. For example, the four foci proposed in this report were conceived long before the final trait lists and comparative analyses were prepared, and the actual demonstration of the existence of these four divisions may well have been influenced by these impressions. The trait lists and com­ parative statements indicate, or, one might say, have been arranged to indi­ cate, that such a fourfold division does have some degree of soundness. Too often the first question with regard to a new component concerns the classifi­ cation rather than the traits present. Classification should not precede analy­ sis and comparison. All sites excavated need not be immediately classified, nor is it necessary that all of the categories or steps within the classification be occupied. A symmetrically arranged classification table is not necessarily more accurate than one with great gaps. Many components, because of inade­ quate data, such as might be derived from a small burial mound, or because of insufficient excavation, are entirely unsatisfactory as communities. The use

COMMENTS ON THE CLASSIFICATION

335

of the term "community," which was first proposed by Deuel in his doctoral thesis as "the complete cultural manifestation of a local group," is an ex­ tremely important concept, for components containing a community record are the only ones that can give an adequate concept of cultural connections. Incomplete cultural manifestations can be placed within a division, but can hardly be used as the basis for a division. 22 It will be difficult to retain the archaeological units which are now tentatively defined on the basis of one or two burial components, or partly excavated village sites, in the face of the evidence revealed by future excavation and comparative research. Comparisons between components and cultural divisions should be made on the basis of the total traits as represented in the respective lists of the com­ ponents and the divisions, and it actually matters little how these traits are arranged. In making the comparison, care should be taken to use physical elements as much as possible, so that abstract expressions will not be sub­ stituted for specific traits. One of the primary obligations of an archaeologist in preparing a report is to furnish an accurate inventory of the cultural content of the units he is describing. This can be done in a number of ways. In this paper it has been done by analyzing the material available into traits. As used herein a trait is a convenient abstraction representing a concrete cultural entity and is em­ ployed as the medium of comparison of archaeological sites. The traits which were formulated for this paper are recognizable and definable artifacts, seg­ ments of artifacts, or features of the human occupation of a given area. They express observed similarities in shape and material of the artifacts and the constructional features of village sites and burial grounds. The verbal expres­ sion of cultural units in the form of traits varies from individual to individual and even in the same individual over a period of years. The style of presenta­ tion employed in this monograph was developed in 1933-34 and was designed as an objective method of component comparison. The problem was one of determining the relationship between archaeological sites and of expressing that relationship within the framework of an arbitrary taxonomic scheme. The concepts "determinant," "determinant trait," "determinant complex," "diagnostic," "diagnostic trait," "diagnostic complex," and "link traits" have not been seriously employed in this paper, partly because of the confu­ sion and contradiction in the present use of such jargon and partly because there was no apparent need for such terms. In the McKern classification the initial unit is the focus, since a component is only a more or less complete manifestation of a human group at a particular place and period of time. If records of a reasonable number of communi­ ,. Cooper (1936) satisfactorily dealt with this problem.

THE FORT ANCIENT ASPECT ties having a high degree of correlation are obtained, a complete trait list will represent, to some extent at least, the material remains of a human group or groups who were united by identical or nearly identical cultural habits. In a comparison of this order one is dealing with concrete data that have the most intimate connection with ethnography and that come closest to a part of the culture of a pre-existing human group. An aspect is presumably composed of a number of foci which have a majority of their traits in common. In this report the same traits used in the definition of a focus have been retained in the aspect listing, and the indi­ viduality of these traits has been preserved. Eventually, it may be necessary to regroup a number of the traits into an abstraction designed to include specific cultural items in a generalized rubric. Such a procedure has been em­ ployed to a much greater extent in the preparation of the terminological criteria formulated to define a phase or a pattern, with the result that many of the so-called "traits" lack concreteness. Each upward step in the classifica­ tion has been thought of as being further removed from the specific cui tural entity, thus approaching an abstraction, which possesses a certain reality, but is not actually an element of culture. The terms "focus" and "aspect" are by definition somewhat too concrete to be employed without actual demonstration of relationships, and the term "pattern" expresses such a general relationship that few new patterns have been proposed. "Phases," however, have been suggested with greater free­ dom. They have been formulated for various reasons within the classification framework. Some have an apparent geographic connotation: Deuel's division of the Mississippi Pattern into Upper, Middle, and Lower phases, Strong's suggested Plains Phase, Wintemberg's23 Northwestern Phase of the Woodland Pattern, and Ritchie's Northeastern Phase of the same pattern. Other phases primarily differentiate or provide recognition of chronological divisions such as Deuel's Red Ochre, Central Basin, and Tampico phases of the Woodland Pattern. Sufficient emphasis has not been given to McKern's classification as a tool for the better understanding of cultural and historical problems; it has been used rather as an end result for archaeological excavation and research in the eastern United States. The classification offers a means by which properly organized archeological data from one site, or a group of sites, can be compared with similar data, and the relationship expressed in terms of the data alone. A set of arbitrary terms is offered which implies a certain connec­ tion between archaeological units and provides an essential organization of the data to be utilized in the eventual reconstruction of the life and historic ,. In a paper read before Section H, Amer. Assn. Adv. Sci., Ottawa, June, 1938.

COMMENTS ON THE CLdSSIFICdTION

337

development of the peoples who inhabited the area. Indeed, sound historic interpretations cannot be undertaken until such thorough analyses of the cultural content of an area have been made. There are a number of underlying assumptions that are implicit in the manner in which the data are used in the McKern classification. Although it is continually emphasized that the temporal or spatial factors are not considered in determining the classificatory listing of a site, these factors in­ evitably and unavoidably are present, because the data dealt with by the classification arecomposedofunits which must be interpreted in thelightofboth time and space. Great similarity between two components of an agricultural, semisedentary population can mean only that one of two things is true: either the sites were occupied by the same group within a relatively short space of time, or the sites were occupied by very closely related groups, as far as material culture is concerned, at approximately the same period. Thus, either the components included within the classification division focus were occupied contemporaneously, or the time difference between them, as re­ flected in culture content, was probably rather short. Even though two com­ ponents of the same focus were superimposed and separated by many feet of sterile soil, or even by a level belonging to another cultural division, the temporal interpretation of this cultural homogeneity remains the same. Fur­ thermore, there is the distinct implication in the close cultural relationship within the focus that components comprising it are limited, except in un­ usual instances, to a relatively restricted geographical area. To translate these conclusions into ethnological terminology is another problem. The focus has sometimes been considered as equivalent to a tribe, but such an inter­ pretation is subject to considerable question. 24 It may or it may not be true, depending upon the size and the cultural solidarity of a given tribe at a par­ ticular time, and upon the amount of cultural change taking place within the group during any given period of time. For example, the Lake Winnebago Focus is thought to represent the remains of the occupation of the Winnebago tribe, and the Orr Focus that of the Ioway tribe at the period shortly before and during the early white contact in the northern Mississippi area. It is entirely possible, however, that the Orr Focus, as it is now conceived, represents the remains of the Ioway, Oto, and the Missouri before their dis­ persal to the west-three historic tribes in one focus. It is also possible that each tribe constituted a separate focus in its Plains habitat, which foci were distinct one from another and also from the Orr Focus. It is also improbable that the various bands of the Shawnee were included within a single focus during the relatively short period I68o-1720. In this instance the extent of the 14

Mott, 1938, p. Z93·

338

THE FORT ANCIENT ASPECT

territory covered, with consequent environmental change and cultural ad­ mixture, makes it doubtful that Shawnee sites of this period could be grouped together as one focus. Upon the basis of the material remains now available, it might be difficult not to include in another focus the Erie and the immedi­ ately prehistoric Senecan sites. The question of the tribal sameness of a series of closely related components can be partly answered by a study of the physical type of the inhabitants, though this is complicated by the factors of tribal intermarriage and the adoption of captives and slaves. At least, if two sites within a focus contain rather diverse physical types they can hardly be considered as having been occupied by only one group of people, regard­ less of the cultural connection. In attacking the problem of the identification of an ethnological group with an archaeological culture, the first step should be to determine the remains of the tribe at a number of sites. One should not assert a priori that a tribe during a given period constitutes a focus, nor that a group of archaeological sites constituting a focus comprises the remains of a given tribe. This is to assume what one attempts to prove. 26 A tribal group with little physical intermixture could pass from one pattern, phase, or aspect into another in a relatively short time. Sites of an aspect not only have a more varied cultural content than do those of a focus, but they also normally are scattered over a wider territory and encompass a greater length of time. There is less probability in the aspect than in the focus that the sites were occupied by members of the same lin­ guistic stock or of the same physical type. The phase, which most nearly approaches the culture area concept, is almost certain to include widely separated sites and is likely to embrace groups who spoke diverse languages and whose physical types were markedly different. The McKern classification is not a device for the establishment of a time sequence, although temporal changes within a genetic cultural stream may be arranged in different categories. The classification is not primarily con­ cerned with genetic series or sequences, and an attempt to use the classifica­ tion as a means of demonstrating time horizons or cultural development would probably result in an inadequate grouping of the phenomena on the basis of likeness or dissimilarity. A clear distinction should always be made between the classification of a site as such and a temporal and spatial inter­ pretation of the meaning of the classification. By the listing of focus, aspec_t, phase, and pattern traits, a particular linguistic group is not being traced chronologically, nor is a genetic cultural assemblage traced to its origin. It .. This appears to be the basic approach used by some archaeologists working in the Mississippi Valley in selecting determinants. A few "determinants" are chosen from a small number of sites, and these same sites are then used to illustrate that the selected list recurs at these same sites.

COMMENTS ON THE CLASSIFICATION

339

is highly improbable that the elements held in common by the units of the Hopewellian Phase, for example, constituted the numerically dominant cul­ tural content of any specific ethnic group, or the pre-existing culture content of any one of the tribal entities which came to be included in the Hopewellian cultural complex. Assuming for the moment that Sapir's suggested grouping of the Hokan-Siouan languages into one stock will eventually be demon­ strated, one could hardly hope to recover the material culture traits of the group which spoke the parent tongue by attempting to find the elements in common among the traits from sites assignable to that present-day linguistic assemblage. If one assumes further that the Iroquoian, Fort Ancient, and Oneota aspects constitute the Upper Mississippi Phase, the traits held in common are almost certainly not a cultural conclave from which these diverse groups differentiated, but are selected elements or generalities which are likely to be a recent overlay rather than primitive common elements. The historic development of the Mississippi Pattern is one problem, but the cul­ tural history of any group or groups that happened to possess that culture at a particular period of time is quite another problem, even though they may have been intimately related for a part of that development. For example, there almost certainly was a time when the physical ancestors of the Chi were Sioux did not have the culture now classified as Upper Mississippi. One of the cardinal tenets of those working with the McKern classification is the assumption that a site with pottery and agriculture and one not pos­ sessing these traits should be classified in separate patterns. This is linked to an idea, widespread in American anthropological circles, namely, that pot­ tery and corn traveled as a complex. When the other cultural traits remain relatively unchanged, there is no justification for classifying the bottom levels of a site in one pattern and the top levels in another because of the presence of pottery in the later horizon. Part of the difficulty of establishing satisfactorily comprehensive terms for such broad divisions as the Woodland Pattern is that this division, as it is now conceived, covered a very wide geographical area and persisted throughout a considerable period of time with continual modification of the specific traits. There are distinct indications that there is a genetic conti­ nuity, both in some of the cultural elements and in the physical type, from a widespread and already somewhat diversified preceramic level into the vari­ ous Woodland divisions in the United States. This classification difficulty is not so marked when the concept of the Mississippi Pattern is under con­ sideration, primarily because this division belongs to a late and short period, even though it is geographically widespread. In the McKern classification

THE FORT ANCIENT ASPECT cultural groupings are determined by an examination of the extent of cul­ tural likeness and not on a priori assumptions. It is necessary that one applying the classification have a clear under­ standing of its advantages and limitations. Complete familiarity with re­ gional archaeological material and a sound general knowledge of cultural groups over a wide area are essential. The first provides the basis for the recognition of a component as a specific representation of a definite cultural division. If the component can be said to represent a community it can be recognized either as a unit of an established focus or as a new focus. Under the definitions used in the classification, a community is a member of, or perhaps the member of, a focus. If a component is not a community the cul­ tural traits may be recognized as a part of the content of an existing focus, or these traits may indicate a similarity to cultural divisions of a more general nature. In the latter instance, classification should be held in abeyance until additional information is obtained. 26 This is not to deny the necessity of point­ ing out the observed cultural correlations. It is axiomatic in archaeology that the remains recovered from an aborig­ inal site are in no wise sufficient to reconstruct the living culture of the assemblage of the people who left the remains. The artifacts and tangible associations have merely retained the artificial form given them by their makers, and interpretations made by archaeologists are inferences based upon similar materials used in an analogous but not identical cultural group. An archaeologist may recover the material but not the substance of aboriginal artifacts. The exact meaning of any particular object for the living group or individual is forever lost, and the real significance or lack of importance of any object in an ethnological sense has disappeared by the time it becomes a part of an archaeologist's catalogue of finds. The objects of material culture employed by a preliterate community are but a small part of the culture of the group, and of these objects only a small proportion survives the processes of decay. Recently, the question has been raised as to what shall it profit an archaeologist to recover a trait list and not write an ethnology. The answer is relatively simple. A trait list offers a recounting in a fairly objective form of the material remains of the inhabitants of the site excavated. But rarely, if ever, is a virgin site found and completely excavated so that all of the pos­ sible information is restored to history. Natural forces, agricultural and industrial activities, and the misguided attempts of skilled and unskilled professionals and nonprofessionals combine to mutilate, reorient, and destroy the evidences of human habitation and their ,. This procedure might have been followed in Cole and Deuel (1937), in the case of the Red Ochre and Tampico phases.

COMMENTS ON THE CLASSIFICATION associations. Limitations of present and past archaeological techniques are also a decided impediment to a full understanding of the meaning of a site. Hence, it is obvious that no site can ever be excavated to yield a complete record of the archaeological culture. When the archaeologist with his cultural pittance turns to ethnographical accounts or to historical reconstructions of the ethnology of the cultures of an area he is often dismayed to find that the chapter on material culture is woefully weak in content and usually lacks the detailed description necessary to enable him to compare adequately his artifacts with those of which the ac­ tual use and meaning are known. Ethnological units are seldom based on material culture criteria except in such a general concept as a cultural area, which correlates to some extent with the ecological basis of subsistence over a large region. Language, social organization, religion, and even physical type form a necessarily large proportion of the evidence used to classify living cultural groups. The Winnebago and the Menomini are not classified eth­ nologically into two divisions as fundamentally different in concept as are the Mississippi and Woodland patterns of the archaeologist. It is highly improbable that any historic tribal unit occupying the Ohio-Mississippi area had a material culture which has been described in sufficient detail to distinguish it from the material remains of any of the other historic tribes of the area. The same statement is true of the historic tribes occupying much of the eastern United States. In case definite historical connections cannot be made, correlations between ethnology and archaeology should not be for­ mulated on a tribal-focus basis, but should be established on more general bases, such as the matching of an aspect or phase trait complex against the element list of some such ethnological division as the culture area.

APPENDIX B POTTERY TYPE DESCRIPTIONS BAUM INCISED AND CORD-MARKED TEMPER

Both grit and shell. The grit is crushed rock and is much more common than shell, which appears in only about I 5 per cent of the sherds. Usually, there is a rather high proportion of temper. TEXTURE

Usually medium fine to medium coarse. Has the coarsest texture of any of the Fort Ancient types. HARDNESS

2-3·5· The majority are 2.5 or 3· CoLOR

Dark grays and browns predominate. A high percentage of smoke discoloration on both exterior and interior. Paste gray to black. SuRFACE FINISH

Cord-wrapped paddle impressions on both body and rim. The rim is rarely smoothed subsequently. DECORATION

Technique. Rarely narrow and most often medium wide to broad line incising. Notching and punctates are rather supplementary techniques. Design. Usually poorly executed curvilinear guilloche, rarely rectilinear; rectilinear line­ filled triangles placed on the outer rim over the cord-marked surface; or somewhat smoothed surface. Punctates are placed at the base of a thickened upper rim band, and this band is not commonly incised. Notches are sometimes placed across the lip of semicircular and horizontal lugs. The climbing salamander is rarely placed on a Baum Cord-marked vessel. Handles. Most common are semicircular and horizontal rim lugs. The semicircular lugs sometimes have ears and are sometimes notched. The horizontal lugs may be attached at the level of the lip or lower down on the rim. They may be short and thick or long and relatively thin. They are sometimes vertically notched across the lug edge or «rns.

The strap handle is a poor imitation of the Madisonville type. It is usually squat, thick, and poorly shaped, and is most often attached to the lip. It sometimes has two ears. It very rarely has incised lines, or somewhat more commonly horizontal rows of punctates on the outer surface. A true loop handle is very rare. RrM

Approximately three-fifths are straight and vertical, slightly more than one-third are slightly flaring, a few are flaring, and only very rarely does one curve inward. LIP

The lip shape varies from narrowed and rounded, to rounded, and flattened and rounded; the first two are the most common. Rarely is the lip notched.

POTTERY TYPE DESCRIPTIONS

343

BoDY

Rounded to elongate-rounded base, with the sides only slightly wider, and the shoulder area only slightly contracting. The lip diameter approximates that of the greatest diameter, and the height ranges from slightly more to slightly less. The measurements are given in Table I (facing p. 46). THICKNESS

The lip averages 5-7 mm.; the lip and body, 5-8 mm. FEURT INCISED TEMPER

Shell-tempered almost exclusively. Tempering particles have a laminated appearance and comprise about one-third to one-half the matrix. TEXTURE

Predominantly medium fine; a minority are medium. Paste texture is laminated or layered. HARDNESS

2-J. Averages 2.5. This type is harder than some of the other shell-tempered types of the Fort Ancient Aspect. CoLOR

Almost exclusively light to dark bluish gray, occasionally a tan shade appears. The core is usually a dark bluish gray. SURFACE FINISH

Smoothed rim and shoulder area, at least. Lower body is probably also smoothed. Sur­ face is never polished. DECORATION

Technique. Incising, which varies from narrow, medium deep lines to medium wide, medium deep lines. Very rarely a broad line (more than 4 mm.). Punctates are some­ times used, mainly as a bordering element. Design. Most common are alternate right and left oblique hatched triangles on the outer rim. The decorated rim band may be limited by a horizontal line or row of punctates. The groups of oblique lines are usually contiguous, so that no triangular plain areas are left between incised areas. Sometimes, such plain areas are present, and some of these are then filled with rows or groups of punctates. Handles. Strap handles that are usually attached to the lip, and often have a raised rim area at the point of junction. The handles may have "ears." The handle surface is sometimes decorated with incised lines. Lug handles on this type are rare. The lip area above the handle may be transversely notched. RIM

The rim is characteristically high, straight, and vertical or slants outward at an angle. This rim shape is not found on any other of the Fort Ancient types. LIP

Predominantly round, sometimes narrowed and rounded, or flattened and rounded. BoDY

Round-bottomed (?)jar with a slightly constricted mouth. AREA

Seemingly limited to Feurt and Proctorville sites.

THE FORT ANCIENT ASPECT

344

ANDERSON CORD-MARKED AND INCISED TEMPER

Grit and shell, separately and in combination. Shell is the least common sole tempering material. Tempering material approximately one-third to one-half of the matrix. TEXTURE

Extreme range fine to medium coarse, about So per cent are medium fine. HARDNESS

About So per cent are 2-2.5; 17 per cent are 2.5. The rest of the examples are 2 or J. COLOR

Exterior reddish brown, chocolate to gray. Exterior approximately the same save for smoke discoloration. Core is usually gray. Exterior color penetration varies consider­ ably from vessel to vessel and on the same vessel. SURFACE FINISH

Cord-wrapped paddle impressions on body and rim. Rim surface is occasionally some­ what smoothed. Interior is roughly smoothed. Tempering particles are clearly visible on both surfaces. DECORATION

Technique. Incised with a fine, pointed to rounded, blunt tool. The lines are made with a continuous free stroke and are usually medium wide and medium deep. There is some use of punctates. Design. Alternate right and left oblique hatched triangles placed on outer rim area. Curvilinear and more rarely a rectilinear guilloche. The thickened upper rim band has incised gashes placed obliquely. Decorated area occasionally delimited by horizontal bands. Handles. Usually lug handles. The most common form is a horizontal ridge of clay placed level with the lip or a short distance below the lip. The lug is rather narrow for its length and may slant downward. The edge may have vertical notches and occasionally the upper surface is incised. The vertically bifurcated or paired teat lug is not common. Some lugs have "ears." Two lugs to a vessel. Strap handles resemble those on Madi­ sonville Cord-marked jars. RIM

The rim shape varies from vertical to flaring. At least two-thirds are slightly flaring. The upper rim is often thickened by an additional strip of clay which is either smoothed for decorating or is cord-marked. LIP

The lip is rounded or narrowed and round on 95 per cent of the examples. Flattened lips are rare. BoDY

An open mouth jar with rounded base, concave sides, and slightly insloping shoulder areas gradually passing into the rim area. Few vessels have been reconstructed, par­ ticularly the large cooking or storage vessels. The ratio of height to shoulder diameter is about 1:1. THICKNESS

The lip thickness averages 4-6 mm., and the rim and body vary, 5-S mm.

POTTERY TYPE DESCRIPTIONS

345

FOX FARM SALT PAN TEMPER

Always shell fragments with considerable variation in size. The shell particles are less inclined to be oriented in the plane of the wall than are other shell-tempered types. TEXTURE

Medium fine to medium coarse. Somewhat coarser than jars of the shell-tempered types. HARDNESS

2-J. SURFACE FINISH

Almost invariably this type has a roughly smoothed outer surface and fabric impressions are very rare. The interior surfaces are smoothed. RIM

The rim is straight in the majority or may be slightly incurved. It slants outward at about a forty-five-degree angle. The lip is often thickened and rounded or may be somewhat flattened. The lip may be transverse to the plane of the rim or inclined toward the interior or exterior. SHAPE

Flat, shallow, round pan, sometimes almost bowl-shaped. No indications of a rec­ tanguloid shape. DIMENSIONS

Up to at least 50 em. in diameter. THICKNESS

Lip and rim, 1.35-2.1 em. Lower rim and body,

·5-I.I

em.

AREA

Limited at present to Madisonville Focus; particularly prominent at Fox Farm. FOX FARM BOWL TEMPER

Always shell-tempered, rather fine particles. TEXTURE

Fine to medium fine; somewhat finer than the other shell-tempered types in the Fort Ancient Aspect. HARDNESS

The majority are 2-2.5 but may be slightly harder or softer. This is the softest type at the Fox Farm Component. . CoLOR

Many are buff to reddish brown on both the exterior and interior. About half show some smoke discoloration, but it is not as evident as on the jar types. The paste is primarily gray to bluish gray. SuRFACE FINISH

The majority have smoothed to smooth outer and inner surfaces and only rarely is a sherd found with a burnished exterior. A minority have cord-wrapped impressions on the exterior, which helps to characterize the type.

THE FORT ANCIENT ASPECT DECORATION

Technique. Notching with a narrow instrument; pinching with the fingers; and various types of applique. Design. The lip is sometimes notched with rather shallow, ovoid impressions or other forms of transverse lip indentation. A horizontal beaded rim band just below the lip may be formed by an added strip of clay which is vertically notched or pinched at close intervals, by forming the "beads" from the surface of the clay, or by applique beads or nipples. Handles. Small horizontal rim lugs are sometimes present. At the Fox Farm Component particularly animal and bird effigy heads were placed on this bowl type. RIM

The rims are either straight and almost vertical or more commonly they are incurving so that the greatest diameter is below the lip line. LIP

The lip is characteristically rounded and usually slightly narrower than the rest of the rim and body. SHAPE

Bowl shaped, rounded bottom. THICKNESS

Lips average about 4 mm., the rim and body about 5 mm. SizE

Considerable variation with the average between 8-16 em. in diameter. AREA

Primarily in the Madisonville Focus. MADISONVILLE CORD-MARKED TEMPER

Entirely of crushed mussel shells with the individual shell pieces layered in the matrix and comprising one-third to one-half of the paste. "Hole" temper is rare. TEXTURE

Predominantly medium fine, but ranges from fine to medium coarse. Some of the large vessels and sherds have a somewhat coarser texture than have the small funerary jars. HARDNESS

The outer rim is ~-~. 5 or ~. 5. It is rarely as soft as ~ or harder than ity of this type can be scratched by the finger nail.

~. 5.

The large major­

CoLOR

More than one-half of the vessels from the type site, either sherds or whole vessels, are smoke discolored on either the interior or exterior surfaces or both. The exterior color varies from light tan to a dark chocolate color; the interior is usually darker and often approaches a black. The core is most often a dark gray. SURFACE FINISH

The body has cord-wrapped paddle impressions vertically placed, beginning at approxi­ mately the base of the rim. The impressions become crisscrossed as the bottom is reached. The size and clarity of the cord impressions varies from vessel to vessel. The rim is almost always smoothed to smooth. It is usually apparent that this smoothing followed an original cord marking.

POTTERY TYPE DESCRIPTIONS

347

DECORATION

Technique. The most common method is incising by a narrow, pointed to rounded instrument-the same instrument also used for punctating. Lines of the above type are medium wide (2-4 mm.) and are rarely wide. Less common is a wide, shallow "fin­ ger-width" line, which some call trailing. Design. Many rims are plain. This seems to be especially true at the name site. The most common design is a curvilinear guilloche which has two pairs of three or four parallel lines. The rectilinear guilloche and line-filled triangle are less common. Small, circular, or ovoid punctates appear as an outer border of, or within the parallel lines of, or as a filler for, the central area of a guilloche. They are also used in horizontal rows within a triangular area between groups of oblique lines slanting in opposite directions from the lip. The above designs are usually made with the medium wide incising; the wide shallow incising is most often in scrolls and less common curvilinear patterns or occasionally in a rectilinear geometric pattern. Transverse punctates or gashes on the lip surface are usually closely spaced. They may be placed around the entire lip cir­ cumference, above the handles only, or on the lip area between the handles. Handles. The strap handle, usually with sides which contract from the upper part to the upper shoulder area, or with straight sides, is a diagnostic feature of the type. A large proportion of the jars at the name site have four handles and sometimes two. At other sites two handles are characteristic. The surface of the handle is rarely deco­ rated either by punctates or incising; it sometimes has two ears; it rarely has a raised rim area at the place of upper handle attachment. Handles are molded at both upper and lower ends. Lug handles are very rare. Lizard effigy handles are placed on vessels of this type, particularly at the Madi­ sonville Component. Loop handles do not occur. RIM

Usually flaring or semiflaring. The rim is rarely straight. There is a gradual and con­ tinuous curve from the slightly insloping shoulder area to the flaring rim. LIP

Rounded or narrowed and rounded-very rarely flattened. BooY Open mouth jar with rounded base. The lip diameter is roughly equal to that of the body, and the diameter at the base of the rim is about equal to that of the height. The size varies from less than Io em. to more than 30 em. high. THICKNESS

The lip is usually between 3 and 5 mm.; the rim between 4 and 6 mm.; and the body be­ tween 3 and 6 mm. The base is usually slightly thicker than the body. FOX FARM CORD-MARKED TEMPER

Almost always shell-tempered with the individual fragments somewhat larger than in the Madisonville Cord-marked type.

THE FORT ANCIENT ASPECT TEXTURE

A slight majority of the sherds are medium, with most of the others medium fine. The paste seems to have not been as carefully winnowed as was common with the domi­ nant type at the Fox Farm. HARDNESS

This is the hardest type at the name site. A strong minority are 3, the rest 2-2.5 and 2.5. COLOR

Both the inner and outer surfaces, particularly of the rims, are smoke blackened or darkened. The surfaces range from gray to tan, or reddish brown to chocolate. The core is a light gray to a dark bluish gray to black. SURFACE FINISH

A large majority of the rims as well as the bodies have cord markings. Some of these rims were subsequently somewhat smoothed, and a few are completely smoothed. The cord impressions are usually less distinct and are not arranged as orderly as are those on the Madisonville Cord-marked type. The inner surface is not as smoothed or as even as the latter type. DECORATION

Technique. Incising by a medium wide, rounded point and usually rather heavily im­ pressed. Punctates are most often ovoid in shape and heavily impressed. Design. Rectilinear designs are most common with a line-filled triangular area, groups of oblique lines meeting at an angle; herringbones and guilloche are used. Some curvi­ linear guilloche designs are fourid, and these are formed by medium wide and shallow or medium deep lines. Punctates are the sole decorative element, usually as a hori­ zontal row on the rim, or as part of a design made by incised lines, which are used as a bordering element or to fill the triangular or ovoid areas formed by groups of incised lines. Handles. Primarily of the semicircular lug type closely resembling the Baum Cord­ marked lug. The outer, free ends sometimes project above the lip as "ears." The lip of the lug is sometimes notched. Sometimes there are two parallel, vertical fillets of clay, or two closely spaced, projecting teats. Two attempts at effigy faces shaped from added pieces of clay on the outer rim have been found. The ·strap handles are shorter, thicker, and more often have "ears" than do the handles on the Madisonville Cord-marked and Plain types. Decoration of the handle is rare, but it may be cord-marked. RIM

The rims are generally straight and vertical, with a minority slightly flared. A minority have an added rim strip. LIP

Themajorityof the lips are definitely flattened, but the edges are rounded; the remainder are rounded, except for a few that are flat and a few that are narrowed and rounded. SHAPE

Probably a rounded bottom, a slightly constricted convex shoulder, and a straight rim. THICKNESS

The lip is between 5 and 9 mm.; the rim between 6 and 9 mm.; the shoulder is not as thick as the rim. There is more variation on an individual vessel than in the Madison­ ville Cord-marked type.

POTTERY TYPE DESCRIPTIONS

349

AREA So far only definitely present at the name site, where this type constitutes an appreciable proportion of the total pottery at Fox Farm. It is definitely related to Baum Cord­ marked. FOX FARM COLANDER TEMPER } TEXTURE HARDNESS CoLOR SuRFACE FINISH

These traits are very similar to those of the Madisonville Core-marked or Plain types.

DECORATION None. DISTINGUISHING CHARACTERISTIC The base of the vessel has been perforated with holes varying from 5 to 8 mm. in diameter, spaced in rows I-2 em. apart. The perforations were made with a cylindrical stick, sometimes from the interior and sometimes from the exterior, before firing. Smith (1910) stated that some of the holes were made after the vessel was fired. SHAPE Little is known of the shape save for the large rim and body fragment found by Smith. The base is rounded, and the sides are straight and vertical, with practic.ally no flare or constriction of the side wall from the base to the lip. AREA In the Fort Ancient Aspect this type is limited to the Madisonville Focus and particu­ larly to the Kentucky sites. It is known from Fox Farm and Larkin components and in private collections from Hamilton County, Ohio. Related to colanders from the eastern Tennessee area. COMPANION POTTERY TYPES IN THE FORT ANCIENT ASPECT MADISONVILLE PLAIN The characteristics are the same as those on the Madisonville Cord-marked type, except that the entire outer surface is smooth to smoothed. On some vessels of this type the rim may be somewhat straighter and more vertical, and the lip is less often narrowed and rounded. Typical of the Madisonville Focus. MADISONVILLE GROOVED-PADDLED Temper, texture, hardness, color, and shape are apparently the same as those for the Madisonville Cord-marked and Madisonville Plain types. The body instead of being mal­ leated with a cord-wrapped paddle has impressions made with a grooved paddle, which was dragged across the unfired, moist clay. The impressions are either vertical or diagonal and begin on the upper body beneath a smoothed rim. A characteristic of great frequency is a horizontal row of ovoid punctates separating the smoothed rim from the malleated body. Found in the Madisonville Focus, particularly at the name site.

350

THE FORT ANCIENT ASPECT FOX FARM CHECK STAMP

Temper, texture, hardness, color, and shape are apparently the same as those for the Madisonville Cord-marked and Plain types. The body has impressions made by a paddle with small squares cut into the surface. This type is most common in the Kentucky sites of the Madisonville Focus and at the Madisonville Component. MADISONVILLE NET-IMPRESSED

Temper, texture, hardness, color, and shape are the same as those for the Madisonville Cord-marked and Madisonville Plain types. The body has been covered with impresJions from a fabric of the net type, such as is common in the middle Appalachian and Atlantic areas. This type has been recognized only from the name site.

APPENDIX C CROSS-SECTION OUTLINES The outlines are approximately two-thirds size. 2

IO

II

3

6

4

7

14

IJ

15

9

r6

rS

Fro. r. Cross sections of the rims of Baum Cord-marked vessels and sherds from the Baum site. IJ-Pl. VII, Fig. 6. 8-Pl. VI, Fig. I. I-PI. I, Fig. I. I4-Pl. VII, Fig. 7· 9-Pl. VII, Fig. 1. 2-PJ. I, Fig. 2. IS-Pl. VII, Fig. 9· Io---Pl. VII, Fig. 2. 3-PI. I, Fig. 3· I6-Pl. VIII, Fig. r. I I-PI. VII, Fig. 3 4-Pl. I, Fig. 4· 17-PI. VIII, Fig. 3· (not a Baum Cords-PI. I, Fig. s. I8-Pl. VIII, Fig. 5· marked type). 6-PJ. I, Fig. 6. I9-Pl. VIII, Fig. 7· I2-Pl. VII, Fig. 4· 7-PI. V.

J5I

THE FORT ANCIENT ASPECT

352

2

7

FIG.

2.

3

5

4

8

9

6

10

Cross sections of Baum Cord-marked vessels and sherds from the Gartner Component.

I-PI. IX, Fig. I.

2-PJ. XII, Fig.

1.

3-PJ. XII, Fig. J. 4-Pl. XII, Fig. 5·

s-PI. XII, Fig. 7. 6-PI. XII, Fig. 9·

Cross sections of sherds from the Baldwin Component.

7-Pl. XVI, Fig. 5· 8-Pl. XVI, Fig. 7·

9-PJ. XVII, Fig. 14.

1o-P!. XVII, Fig. IS.

CROSS-SECTION OUTLINES

2

5

3

353

4

6

7

FIG. 3· Cross sections of Baum Cord-marked sherds from the Brush Creek Component.

r-Pl. XVIII, Fig. 6. (Adena Plain) 2-Pl. XVIII, Fig. 8.

3-Pl. XVIII, Fig. r2. 4-Pl. XIX, Fig. r. s-Pl. XIX, Fig. J.

6-Pl. XIX, Fig. 8. 7-Pl. XIX, Fig. IO.

THE FORT ANCIENT ASPECT

354

5

8

7

9

10

II

6

12

Fw. 4· Cross sections of sherds from the Feurt Component. I-PI. 2-PI. 3-Pl. 4-P!.

XX, XX, XX, XX,

Fig. 1. Fig. 2. Fig. 3· Fig. 4·

5-PI. XX, Fig. 5· 6-PI. XXI, Fig. 1. 7-P!. XXI, Fig. 3· 8-PI. XXI, Fig. 4·

9-PI. Io-PI. II-PI. I2-Pl.

XXI, Fig. 5· XXII, Fig. r. XXII, Fig. 3· XXII, Fig. 12.

CROSS-SECTION OUTLINES

355

4

4

Fro. 5. Cross sections of sherds from the Proctorville and Feurt components. I-PI. XXIV, Fig. zo. z-PI. XXXV, Fig. r. 3-PI. XXXV, Fig. 3·

Fro. 6. Cross sections of sherds and vessels in the Anderson Focus.

4-PI. XXXV, Fig. 4· I-PI. XLIX, Fig. I. s-PI. XXXV, Fig. 9· z-PI. XLIX, Fig. 3· 6-A salt pan. Not illustrated • . 3-PI. L, Fig. I.

4-PI. L, Fig. z. s-PI. L, Fig. 7· 6-PI. LIX, Fig. z.

THE FORT ANCIENT ASPECT 2

II

12

IJ

3

6

4

15

16

7

17

10

9

18

19 20

21

FIG. 7· Cross sections of vessels from the Madisonville Component. I-PJ. LX, 2-PJ. LX, 3-PJ. LX, 4-Pl. LX,

Fig. I. Fig. 2. Fig. 3· Fig. 4· 5-PJ. LX, Fig. 5· 6-PJ. LXI, Fig. 1. 7-PJ. LXI, Fig. 2.

8-PJ. LXI, Fig. 3· 9-PJ. LXI, Fig. 4· ro-PJ. LXI, Fig. 5· rr-PJ. LXI, Fig. 6. r2-Pl. LXI, Fig. 7· 13-Pl. LXII, Fig. I. q-Pl. LXII, Fig. 2.

15-Pl. LXii, r6-PJ. LXII, 17-Pl. LXII, I8-Pl. LXII, 19-PJ. LXII, 2o-Pl. LXII, 21-Pl. LXII,

Fig. 3· Fig. 4· Fig. 5· Fig. 6. Fig. 7· Fig. 8. Fig. 9·

CROSS-SECTION OUTLINES

9

10

II

357

15

12

16

FIG. 8. Cross sections of vessels and sherds from Madisonville.

I-PI. LXVIII, Fig. r. 2-Pl. LXVIII, Fig. 2. 3-Pl. LXVIII, Fig. 3· 4-Pl. LXVIII, Fig. 4· s-PI. LXVIII, Fig. 5· 6-Pl. LXIX, Fig. r.

7-PJ. LXIX, 8-Pl. LXIX, 9-Pl. LXIX, Io-Pl. LXIX, II-PI. LXIX,

Fig. 2. Fig. 3· Fig. 4· Fig. 5· Fig. 6.

I2-Pl. I3-Pl. I4-Pl. IS-Pl. I6-Pl.

LXX, Fig. I. LXX, Fig. 2. LXX, Fig. 4· LXXI, Fig. 2. LXXI, Fig. 3·

THE FORT ANCIENT ASPECT

2

7

I-PI. 2-PI. 3-PJ. 4-PJ.

8

3

4

9

5

10

6

II

FIG. 9· Cross-Section drawings of vessels from the Turpin Componen_t. Fig. I. 5-PI. LXXXI, Fig. 5. 9-PI. LXXXII, Fig. 3· Fig. z. 6-PI. LXXXI, Fig. 6. Io-PI. LXXXII, Fig. 4· Fig. 3· 7-PI. LXXXII, Fig. I. II-PI. LXXXII, Fig. 5· Fig. 4· 8-PI. LXXXII, Fig. 2.

LXXXI, LXXXI, LXXXI, LXXXI,

CROSS-SECTION OUTLINES 2

3

359 6

4

7

r8

8

9

FIG.

10.

I-PI. LXXXIII, 2-PI. LXXXIII, 3-Pl. LXXXIII, 4-PI. LXXXIII, s-Pl. LXXXIII, 6-PI. LXXXIII,

IO

II

Cross-section Fig. I. Fig. 2. Fig. 3· Fig. 4· Fig. 5· Fig. 6.

12 IJ 14

15

r6

17

drawings of sherds from the Turpin Component. 7-PI. 8-PI. 9-PI. 1o-PI. I I-PI. 12-Pl.

LXXXIII, Fig. 7· LXXXIII, Fig. IO. LXXXIII, Fig. II. LXXXIII, Fig. 13. LXXXIV, Fig. 2. LXXXIV, Fig. 3·

I3-PI. LXXXIV, 14-PI. LXXXIV, 15-Pl. LXXXIV, I6-PI. LXXXIV, I7-PI. LXXXIV, I8-Pl. LXXXIV,

Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig.

7· 5· 8. 9· II. IO.

THE FORT ANCIENT ASPECT

2

7

8

9

3

6

4

IO

II

12

IJ

FIG. rr. Cross sections of jars, bowls, and sherds from Hahn's Field site. x-PI. LXXXV, Fig. r. 6-PI. LXXXVI, Fig. 3· ro-PI. I.;XXXVIII, Fig. 2. 2-PI. LXXXV, Fig. 2. 7-PI. LXXXVI, Fig. 4· II-PI. LXXXVIII, Fig. 7· 3-PI. LXXXV, Fig. 4· 8-PI. LXXXVII, Fig. I. I2-PI. LXXXVIII, Fig. 9· 4-PI. LXXXVI, Fig. I. 9-PI. LXXXVII, Fig. 2. IJ-PI. LXXXVIII, Fig. ro. s-Pl. LXXXVI, Fig. 2.

CROSS-SECTION OUTLINES 7

FIG. 12. Cross-section r-PI. LXXX, Fig. r. 2-PI. LXXX, Fig. 2. 3-PI. LXXX, Fig. 3·

6

7

drawings of sherds from Sand Ridge Component. 7-PI. LXXX, Fig. 8. 4-PI. LXXX, Fig. 5. 8-Pl. LXXX, Fig. 9. 5-PI. LXXX, Fig. 6. 6-PI. LXXX, Fig. 7·

9

IO

Fro. 13. Cross sections of Fox Farm Salt Pan sherds at the Fox Farm site. 5-PI. CII, Fig. 8. r-PI. CI, Fig. 2. 3 ~PI. en, Fig. r. 2-PI. c1, Fig. rr. 4-PJ. en, Fig. 2. Cross sections of Fox Farm Bowl sherds at the Fox Farm site. ro-PJ. CIII, Fig. 14. 8-Pl. CIII, Fig. 3· 6-PI. CIII, Fig. r. 7-PJ. em, Fig. 2. 9-PJ. em, Fig. 4.

THE FORT ANCIENT ASPECT 2

8 9

I-Pl. 2-PI. 3-PI. 4-PI. s-PI. 6-P,I.

IO

II

3

12

6

5

4

IJ

14

IS

7

16 17

FIG. I4. Cross sections of Madisonville Cord-marked sherds at the Fox Farm site. CIV, Fig. I. 7-P!. CV, Fig. 15. IJ-Pl. CVIII, Fig. 4· CIV, Fig. 2. 8-Pl. CVI, Fig. I. I4-PI. CVIII, Fig. 6. CIV, Fig. J. 9-PI. CVI, Fig. 7· IS-Pl. CIX, Fig. 6. CV, Fig. I. Io-PI. CVII, Fig. 6. I6-PI. CIX, Fig. 7· CV, Fig. 4. u-P!. CVII, Fig. 12. 1 7-PI. CIX, Fig. 12. CV, Fig. Io. 12-PI. CVIII, Fig. 1.

CROSS-SECTION OUTLINES 2

IO

II

3

I2

4

6

7

9

I7

IJ

FIG. IS. Cross sections of Fox Farm Cord-marked, Net-impressed, Plain, and Check-stamped rim sherds. r-Pl. 2-Pl. 3-PI. 4-Pl. s-PI. 6-Pl.

CXI, Fig. r. CXI, Fig. 7· CXII, Fig. r. CXII, Fig. 3· cxn, Fig. r3. CXIII, Fig. r.

7-Pl. 8-Pl. 9-Pl. Io-Pl. 1 r-Pl. 12-Pl.

CXIII, Fig. 3· CXIII, Fig. 5· CXIII, Fig. 8. CXIV, Fig. 2. CXIV, Fig. 5· CXV, Fig. r.

13-Pl. 14-Pl. IS-Pl. r6-Pl. I7-Pl.

CXVI, CXVI, CXVI, CXVI, CXVI,

Fig. 2. Fig. 3· Fig. 7· Fig. ro. Fig. I!.

THE FORT ANCIENT ASPECT 2

8

9

3

10

5

4

7

IJ

12

II

6

FIG. 16. Cross sections of Fisher Focus sherds, both grit and shell tempered. University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology Catalogue No. 2744.

2

3

4

s

FIG. 17. Cross sections of sherds from the Lane farm enclosure.

6

CROSS-SECTION OUTLINES

5

6

7

8

9

10

Fro. I 8. Cross-section outlines of Orr Focus pottery. I-PI. CXLIII, Fig. 4· 2-P!. CXLIII, Fig. r.

3-PI. CXLIII, Fig. 2. 4-PI. CXLIII, Fig. J.

s-ro-From the Lane farm enclosure.

APPENDIX D TABLE VI BAUM CoRD-MARKED AND INciSED TYPES

Temper Grit ........................... ····.··· Limestone ............................. . Shell ........................... ········ Grit and shell .............•............. Texture Fine .......................... ········· Medium fine ........................... . Medium ............................... . Medium coarse ......................... . Coarse ................................ .

Baum

Gartner

Baldwin

Brush Creek

Abundant Rare Present Rare

Abundant

Abundant

Present Rare

Rare

Abundant Present Rare

Rare

Rare Common Common Present

Common

Common Common Rare

Common

Abundant Common Rare

Common Common Rare Rare

Abundant Present Rare

Rare Abundant Rare Rare

Common Common

Common Common

Common Common

Abundant Abundant

Common

Abundant

Hardness 2 .......

0

••••••••••••••••••••••••••

0

•••

2-2.5 ................................. . 2.5 ................................... . J ..................................... . 3·5· .................................. .

Common

Common Common

Rare

Color Smoke blackened, gray to black .......... . Grayish tan to brown ................... .

Common

Surface Finish Body cord-marked ...................... . Entire outer surface cord-marked ......... . Lip cord-marked ....................... . Cord-marked and smoothed .............. . Smoothed ............................. . Smooth ............................... .

Abundant Abundant Rare Rare Rare Rare

Abundant Abundant Rare Rare Rare

Abundant Abundant Present Present Rare

Rare Common

Rare Common Rare Rare

Rare

Common

Present

Rare

Decoration

Technique. . .. Narrow !me mc1smg .................. . M~diu?' ":ide; i.ncising ................. . Wide !me mcismg .................... . Puncta ting .......................... . Design Curvilinear guilloche .................. . Rectilinear guilloche .................. . Line-filled triangles ................... . Salamander effigy .................... . No~ched_rim s~rip .................... . Inc1sed nm stnp ..................... . Parallel horizontal lines ............... . Punctate and incising ................. . Guilloche and horizontal lines .......... . Double guilloche ..................... . Inverted semicircular lug .............. . Lug Handles Semicircular ridge .................... . Semicircular ridge with ears ............ . Semicircular ridge with notched arris .... . Teatlike lugs ......................... .

Common

Rare Common Rare Common Rare Present Present Rare Rare

Rare Rare Rare

Common

Rare Present Rare Rare Rare

Rare

Rare

Rare

Present Rare

Present Rare Rare

Present Present Present

Rare Rare Rare Common

Present

Present Present

Present Present

Present

Present

TABLES TABLE VI-(Cont.) Baum Cylindrical knobs ..................... . Horizontal ridge at lip ................ . Below lip .......................... . Short and thick .................... . Long and thin ..................... . Vertically notched arris ............. . Cord-marked lug handles .............. . Strap handles Short and thick ...................... . Elongate and thin .................... . Attached to lip ....................... . Attached below lip ................... . With two ears ........................ . Punctate decorated ................... . Cork-marked strap handles ............ . Loop handle .......................... .. Rim Straight and vertical. .......... . Slightly flaring ....................... . Flaring .............................. . Incurving ........................... . Decorated ........................... . Cord-marked . . ...................... . Added rim strip ..................... .. Raised rim above handle .............. .

Present

Body Jar ................................. . Double vessel. ....................... .

Present Present Present Present

Baldwin Rare Rare

Brush Creek

Present Present Present

Rare

Rare Present Rare Present Present Rare

Common

Common

Rare

Present

Rare Rare

Rare Common Rare

Present Present Present

Present Present Present

Common

Present

Present

Rare

Present Present Rare

Rare Present

Rare

Abundant

Abundant

Common

Common

Rare Rare Common

Rare

Rare

Abundant Present

Abundant Present Rare Abundant Present Rare

Rare

Rare Abundant Present Rare Rare

Common

Abundant

Abundant

Abundant

Common Common Rare Rare

Present

Present Rare Rare

Present

Common

Rare

Rare

Abundant Rare

Abundant

Abundant

Abundant

Common Present Present

Projecting rim section .. ............... .

Lip Narrowed and rounded ................ . Rounded ............................ . Flattened and rounded ................ . Flat-squared edges .................... . Notched lip .......................... .

Gartner

Present Common Present Present

Common

THE FORT ANCIENT ASPECT TABLE VII Foci AND AsPECT NoNPOTTERY TRAITS OF THE FoRT ANCIENT AsPECT

Baum

Feurt

Cremation .......................... .

:>-

;§

&~

8.S l!l ~

Disk pipes .......................... . Busycon pendants ................... . Oliva beads ......................... . Cross placed on shell gorget ........... . Mask gorgets ....................... . Crescent-shaped shell gorgets ......... . Shell spoon-cut handle ............... . Shell spoon-notched edge ............. . Perforated epiphyseal disks ........... . Decorated bone beads ................ . Turtle shell rattles ................... . TFish~10okh, hdole bo red ................. . ur ey ea ratt 1es .................. . Arrow points, toe of deer ............. . Perforated deer phalanges ............ . Wide base triangular point ........... . Stone pendants ...................... . Stone plummets ..................... . Narrowed poll adze .................. . Beveled edge points .................. . Flint scrapers ....................... .

*? *? * *?

·o ~

~

C

[""'""' .5 0

~ ...,

Stone slabs with burials .............. . Mounds on village site ............... . Mounds erected for burials ........... . Extended burials, knees bent .......... . Mound burials ...................... .

*? *?

•

• • *?

•

*?

*1 *1 *1 *? *? *?

Bone hair spreader . ................. .

Effigy head bone awl. ................. . Bone flutes ......................... . Bird digit pendants .................. . Cut lower Jaw of deer ................ . Beaded cylindrical awls .............. . Decora ted discoidals ................. . Circular or oval house ................ . Hematite objects .................... .

•

•

t, ~

*

*

•

• • •

*

pecorated,PiJ?es ..................... .

Platform ptpes .................... . Rectangular shell pendants ........... . Perforated shell spoons ............... . Cut animal jaw ornaments .... ......... . Bone or antler pendants .............. . Shoulder blade knives and scrapers .... . Antler point, hole in side ............. . Turtle shell spoons .................. . Decorated awls ...................... . Stemmed points ..................... . Double-pointed drills ................ . Slate eel ts .......................... . Arrow-shaft smoothers ............... .

Aspect

*? *?

Bundle burials ...................... . Burials around or in house ............ . Copper beads, rolled ................. . Rectanguloid stemless pipes ........... . Effigy pipes ......................... . Elbow pipes, equal-armed ............ . ·;:; Projecting stem pipes ................ . ~ Pearl beads ......................... . Shell hair or ear pins ................. . 0 Large cylindrical beads ............... . Engraved shell gorgets ............... . .5 Masklike shell gorgets ..... ........... . ~

Anderson Madisonville

* *

*? *? *? *?

• •* •

*?

*

•

*

*?

*

*

*

TABLES TABLE VII-(Cont.) Baum

Feurt

*?

~rea:e~ ~~~ii~\~.:::::::::::::::::::::::

*?

*

*

* *

Raccoon penis used . ................. .

* *

* *

*

*

* * *

* * * *

*

* *

*

•

*

*

*

• * *

*

~~~l~:.s:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

*

Whetstones ......................... . Plain discoidal stones ................ . Perforated discoidal stones ............ . Slate ornaments ..................... . Traits at all foci, IJI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

*?

* *

· 0 Antler flakers, short. ................ . ~ Antler flakers, long .................. . ~ Antler arrow points .................. . Antler spear points .................. . 0 ~ Antler section hoes .................. . .5 Antler celtlike scrapers ............... . !1 Ftshhook, center removed . ........... . ·; Bone fishhooks ...................... . ;!:; Long flat needles, eye at end .......... . Canine teeth pendants ............... . Plain bone beads, short. ............. . Plain bone beads, long ............... . Elk teeth pendants .................. . Bo_ne tubes ......................... . Tnangular arrow points .............. . Serrated triangular points ............ . Side-notched points .................. . Corner-notched points ............... . 6ria.n~l~id knives ................... .

Round hammerstones ................ .

*

*

one earners ....................... .

Bell-shaped pestle ................... . Stone hoes .......................... . Central depression hammerstone ...... . Edge-pecked hammers tone ............ .

•

*

Double-pointed pins or gorges ......... . Beaver teeth chisels .................. .

votd ntves ....................... .

Aspect

*

*

Fully extended burials ............... . Refuse pit burials ................... . Village site burials ................... . Elbow pipes, short stem .............. . Conoidal pipes ...................... . Pipes made of clay .................. . Pipes made of stone ................. . Shell hoes, perforated ................ . Shell spoons ........................ . Shell knives and scrapers ............. . Ci~cular shell gorgets ................ . Tnangular shell pendants ............. . Small cylindrical shell beads .......... . Disk-shaped beads ................... . Margine/fa beads .................. . Whole bone awls ................... : : Bone splinter awls ................... . Turkey metatarsal awls .............. . Notched turkey metatarsals .......... . ~patuba awls ........................ .

Side- or corner-notched knives ........ : Notched base knives ................. . Flake knives ....................... . ~ngle point cylindrical drills .......... : ~panded base drills ................. . Flmt celts .......................... . Narrowed poll eel ts .................. .

Anderson !Madisonville

*

Fireplaces in village site .............. . Cache and refuse pits ................ . Pottery with some burials ............ . Artifacts with some burials ........... . Double burials ...................... .

* * * *

•

•*

*

• •

77

us

92

*

98

107

Rare Abundant Rare Rare

Decoration Technique Narrow line incising ........................... Medium line incising ........................... Wide line incising ............................. Circular punctates ............................. Ovoid punctates ............................... Design Curvilinear guilloche ........................... Rectilinear guilloche ...........................

Surface finish Cord-marked body .............................. Cord-marked and smoothed.-· .................... Smoothed .................................. ···. Smooth ........................................ Check-stamped .................................. Grooved paddle ................................. Net-impressed ..................................

Abundant Rare

Present Abundant Present Rare Rare

AQundant Present Common Rare Present Present Rare

Color Light tans ...................................... Present Red to chocolate brown .......................... Present Grayish brown .................................. Present

2 ............................................... 2-2.5 .......................................... 2.5 ............................................

Rare Abundant Present 3· ............................................. Rare

Hardness

Texrure Fine ........................................... Medium fine .................................... Medium ........................................ Medium coarse ..................................

.......................................... 1 Abundant Leached shell. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Common

Te;;,~~r

Madisonville Turpin

Abundant Rare Rare Abundant Rare

Abundant Rare

Abundant Rare

Common Present Common Present

Present

Present

Abundant Rare

Abundant Rare

Present

Present Present Common Present

I

Hahn's Field

Rare

I Campbell Island

Rare Rare

Present

Common Present Common Rare

Present

Present

Abundant Rare

Rare Abundant Rare

Fox Farm

I Larkin

I Buckner

Present Abundant Present Rare Rare Common Present

Present

Abundant Present Present Present Present

Rare Present Present

Rare Abundant Common Rare

Rare Abundant Rare

I

I Present

Abundant Present Present

Common Present Rare Rare

Common

Rare Abundant Rare

Common

Rare Abundant

Rare Abundant Rare

I Abundant I Abundant I Abundant

j

Rare Present Present Rare

Rare

Common Present Present

Present

Present

Present Abundant Rare

Abundant Rare

I Abundant I Abundant I Abundant

I

Present

Abundant Present

Abundant Rare

Abundant

Sand Ridge

:DESCRIPTIVE CHART OF MADISONVILLE CORD-MARKED AND PLAIN TYPES

'fABLE VIII

CJ ""3

("l:-j

'1:;

V:,

~

""3

~

Q

~

""3

~

~

~ ("l:-j

w

"0

Narrowed and rounded ........................... Abundant Rounded ....................................... Abundant Flattened and rounded ........................... Rare

Lip

Rare Common Abundant Present Rare Present Rare

Present

Abundant Common Rare

Rim Straight and vertical. ............................ Slightly flaring .................................. Flaring ......................................... Decorated ...................................... Cord-marked ................................... Added rim strip ................................. Raised rim above handle .........................

Present

Abundant

Rare Rare Common Abundant Abundant Present Rare Rare Rare

Rare

Present

Rare

Rare Present Rare

Abundant Common

Present

Present

Common

Rare Common

Present

Rare

Rare

Rare

Present Rare Rare Rare

Rare Rare Rare Abundant

Line-filled triangles ............................ Notched rim strip ............................. Incised rim strip .............................. Notched lip ................................... Scroll ........................................ Curvilinear guilloche and punctate ............... Punctate shoulder row ......................... Punctates and incised triangles .................. Punctates and incised half circles ................ Strap handles Long and thin ................................ Short and thick ............................... Attached to lip ................................ Attached below lip ............................ With ears .................................... Punctate decorated ............................ Incised decorated .............................. Salamander handle ............................ Cord-marked surface ........................... Bisected handle ............................... Horizontal ridge on handle ..................... Parallel sides .................................. Contracting sides .............................. Four handles .................................. Two handles ....... , .......................... Loop handle .................................... Lug handle, horizontal ridge ...................... Teatlike lugs ....................................

Rare

Rare Common Abundant Rare

Abundant

Abundant Rare Common Common

Rare

Common

Rare

Rare Common Common Present

Present Common Rare Present

Common Present

Present

Rare

Rare Rare Rare Rare

Rare Present Abundant Common Rare Rare

Rare

Abundant Common

Rare

Abundant Rare Common Common Rare

Rare Present Rare

Rare

Rare Present Common Common

Rare

Present Rare

Present

I Rare

Present Present

I Present Present

Present

I Present

Present

Rare

Rare

Rare

Present

I Abundant I Common I Abundant I Abundant I Present Present I Present Common Common Common Common Common

Common Rare

Present Common Common Present

Rare

Common Common Rare Common

Rare

Abundant Rare Present Present Present

Rare

Rare

Present Rare Present Rare

.....

w

-...1

~

~

b:J t'-i tl::l

372

THE FORT ANCIENT ASPECT TABLE IX DEsCRIPTIVE CHART oF ANDERSON CoRD-MARKED AND INciSED TYPEs

Kemp

Taylor

Anderson

Steele Dam

Temper Grit .................................. . S~ll .................................. . Grit and shell .......................... .

Present Abundant Abundant

Abundant Rare Abundant

Abundant Rare Rare

Abundant Present Rare

Texture Fine .................................. . Medium fine ........................... . Medium ............................... . Medium coarse ......................... .

Rare Abundant Common Rare

Rare Abundant

Rare

Rare Common

Rare Abundant

Common

Common Common

Common

Rare

Rare

Rare

Rare Abundant Present Rare

Rare Abundant Rare

Rare Abundant Rare

Common

Hardness 2 ....................•................. 2-2.5 • . . . . . . . • • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • 2.5 . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Present

3· .................................... .

Rare

Color Reddish to chocolate brown .............. . Light tans to browns .................... . Grayish tan to dark gray ................ .

Common Common Common

Common Common

Common Common Common

Common Common Common

Surface finish Cord-marked .......................... . Cord-marked and smoothed .............. . Smoothed ............................. .

Abundant Rare Rare

Abundant Rare Rare

Abundant Rare Rare

Abundant Rare Rare

Rare Abundant Rare

Rare Abundant Rare Present Abundant Common

Rare Abundant Rare

Abundant

Common Present

Common Present

Common Common

Common Present

Common Rare Common

Decoration Technique. . .. Narrow !me lnctsmg .................. . Medium wide incising ................. . Wide line incising .................... . Punctating .......................... . Incised over cord-marked .............. . Incised on smooth surface ............. . Design Curvilinear guilloche .................. . Rectilinear guilloche .................. . Line-filled triangles ................... . No~ched .rim s~ip .................... . Inc1sed nm stnp ..................... . Notched lip .......................... . Curvilinear guilloche and punctates ..... . Punctates and incised diagonals ........ . Punctates and incised half circles ....... . Scroll ............................... . Meander ............................ . Chevron and incised horizontal lines .... . Lug handles Horizontal ridge at lip ................ . Horizontal below lip .................. . Short lug ............................ . Long lug .............. , ............. . Vertically notched arris. , , .. , ......... . Incised upper surface of lug ............ .

Common Present Common Common Common

Common

Rare Common Rare Rare Rare Rare Rare Rare Present Present Present Present

Common Present Common Rare Common Present

Common

Common Rare Present

Present

Rare Common Common Common

Present

Present Present

Present

TABLES

373

TABL IX-(Cont.) Taylor

Anderson

Vertical lug centrally depressed ........ . Teatlike lugs ......................... . Horizontal lug with ears ............... . Cord-marked lugs .................... . Two lug handles ...................... . Strap handles Long ................................ . Short ......................... ···· .. · Attached to lip ....................... . Attached below lip ................... . With ears ........................... . Punctate decorated ................... . Incised decorated ..................... . Handles centrally depressed ............ . Cord-marked ........................ . Completely molded to rim ............. . Two handles ......................... . Parallel sides ......................... . Converging sides ..................... .

Rare Rare Rare Rare Abundant

Rare Rare Rare Abundant Present Present

Present Abundant Abundant Present Rare Present Present Rare Rare Rare Abundant Present Abundant

Rim Straight and vertical. ................... . Slightly flaring ......................... . Flaring ................................ . Rim decorated ......................... . Thickened rim strip ..................... . Rim cord-marked ....................... . Rim smoothed ......................... .

Present Abundant Present Abundant Present Abundant Present

Lip Narrowed and rounded .................. . Rounded .............................. . Flattened and rounded .................. .

Common Present Present

Present Common Abundant Present Rare

Steele Dam

Kemp

Present

Present Common Common

Rare Rare Rare

Present Present

Present

Rare Rare Rare Common

Present Present

Present Abundant Present Abundant Abundant Abundant Common

Present Abundant Present Abundant Abundant Abundant Present

Present Rare Present Present Abundant Present

Abundant Common

Common Common Present

Common Common Present

Present

Common

THE FORT ANCIENT ASPECT

374

TABLE

X

PLANT AND ANIMAL REMAINS IN FORT ANCIENT SITES

Mammals ~

ll

sa

(.!)

Chipmunk ............ Buffalo ............... Marten .............. Weasel. .............. Red fox .............. Fisher ................ Fox squirrel. ......... Gray squirrel ......... Mole ................. Rice mouse ........... Porcupine ............ Badger ............... Otter ................ Skunk ............... Mink ................ Rabbit ............... Ground hog ........... Muskrat ............. Indian dog ........... Wildcat .............. Puma ................ Gray fox ............. Wolf. ................ Red squirrel. ......... Beaver ............... Woodchuck ........... Opossum ............. Raccoon .............. Black bear ............ Elk .................. Virginia deer .......... 3I

s ""'

~

=

·~ .,;

-;;; ~

... ..."

~

'E

B u

= B ...... "'~"

= ...~

.,;

~

...

~

E ~ "'

·:;: c

~

:;:;

'ii

~~

lL!!! c £-< £ "' ~ ::E"' U.!l < --------- -- - - - - -- ~

>