INFORMATION TO USERS

This was produced from a copy of a document sent to us for microfilming. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the material submitted.

The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or notations which may appear on this reproduction.

1. The sign or “target” for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is “Missing Page(s)”. If it was possible to obt ain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating adjacent pages to assure you of complete continuity.

2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark it is an indication that the film inspector noticed either blurred copy because of movement during exposure, or duplicate copy. Unless we meant to delete copyrighted materials that should not have been filmed, you will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame.

3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part of the material being photo­ graphed the photographer has followed a definite method in “sectioning” the material. It is customary to begin filming at the upper left hand comer of a large sheet and to continue from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. If necessary, sectioning is continued again—beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete.

4. For any illustrations that cannot be reproduced satisfactorily by xerography, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and tipped into your xerographic copy. Requests can be made to our Dissertations Customer Services Department.

5. Some pages in any document may have indistinct print. In all cases we have filmed the best available copy.

Universi^ Microfilms International 300 N. ZEEB ROAD, ANN ARBOR. Ml IB 100 18 BEDFORD ROW, LONDON WC1 R 'lEJ, ENGLAND 1 3 1 2 9 6 7

FRANKLIN, KATHERINE ANN A LATE WOODLAND OCCUPATION SITE ON LOWER MASON ISLAND, MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND.

THF AMERICAN UNIVERSITY, M.A., 1979

University MlcTOTlrns International 3 0 0 n . t e e b f.o a u , a n n a h b o h , m i a b io b PLEASE NOTE: In a11 cases this material has been filmed In the best possible way from the available copy. Problems encountered with this document have been Identified here with a check mark .

1. Glossy photographs 2. Colored Illustrations 3. Photographs with dark background 4. Illustrations are poor copy ___ 5. Print shows through as there Is text on both sides of page 6. Indistinct, broken or small print on several pages ______throughout

7. Tightly bound copy with print lost in spine 8. Computer printout payes with Indistinct print 9. Page(s) lacking when material received, and not available from school or author ______10. Page(s)______seem to be missing in numbering only as text follows ______11. Poor carbon copy ______12. Not original copy, several pages with blurred type 13. Appendix pages are poor copy ______14. Original copy with light type ______15. Curling and wrinkled pages ______16. Other

Universi^ Micrdrilms International 300 N ZEE3 AO., ANN ARBOR, Ml ^8108 '3131 761-4700 A LATE WOODLAND OCCUPATION SITE ON LOWER

MASON ISLAND, MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND

by

Katherine A. Franklin

Submitted to the

Faculty of the College of Arts and Sciences

of The American University

in partial Fulfillment of

the Requirements for the Degree

of

Master of Arts

Anthropology

Signatures of Committee;

Chairman: k Cj-

Dèan of the College

' i / ' / 7 y ______D a t e ' Date

1979

The American University Washington, D. C, 20016

THE AMERICA* UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

b (p 0 { PREFACE

I wish to thank my advisor and professor, Dr. Charles

W. McNett, Jr. for his help and patient support throughout the years of work on this thesis. His encouragement and his guidance through both academic and administrative problems have been invaluable.

Excavations for this work have occupied five seasons, starting in 1973. During that time many have helped with the field work. My special thanks are due to Mr. D. Cecil

Culbertson, present owner of Mason Island, for permission to excavate on his land and for his friendly cooperation.

Thanks are also due to Mr. Enos V. Jenkins, a previous owner of the island, who helped excavate for many hours during the 1973 and 1974 seasons and supplied much general information about the island.

I am especially grateful to my husband, Alan D.

Franklin. He made major contributions to the field work not only in excavating, but in surveying, photography, and in transporting personnel and equipment to and from the island. He gave me valuable assistance in working out the mathematical procedures and in editing the manuscript.

My thanks are also due to Eleanor K. Riser for hours of typing and for her cheerful cooperation and encouragement

li CONTENTS

PREFACE ...... ii

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS...... iv

INTRODUCTION...... 1

I. GENERAL BACKGROUND...... 3

Location of 18M013. Geology. The Potomac River. Climate. Flora. Fauna. Human Activities Near 18M013.

II. LATE WOODLAND CHRONOLOGY IN THE POTOMAC RIVER PIEDMONT...... 21

Augusta Phase. Montgomery Focus. Mason Island Culture. Luray Focus. Summary of Chronology.

III. PROCEDURE FOR DATA GATHERING AND AFfALYSIS...... 32

Data Gathering. Data Analysis.

IV. RESULTS ...... 54

Artifacts and Features. Stratigraphy. Mean Depth Analyses. Analysis of Horizontal Distributions. Pearson's Correlation Coefficient Analyses. Principal Factor Analyses. Varimax Factor Analyses,

V. CONCLUSIONS...... 77

Mason Island Culture. Luray Focus. Method of Analysis.

Ill LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

1. Map of the Potomac Valley from Washington, .... 4 D.C. to Harpers Ferry, West Virginia, Showing Location of Lower Mason Island and 18M013

2. Contour Map of 18M013...... 19

3. WO-8 Squares of 18M013 Showing Features,...... 33 Post Molds, and Activity Area

4. Shell Tempered Pottery Rims and L u g s ...... 38

5. Limestone Tempered Pottery Rims...... 39

6. Quartz Tempered Pottery Rims ...... 40

7. Small Projectile Points...... 42

8. Medium Projectile P o i n t s ...... 43

9. Large Projectile Points...... 44

10. Six Quartz Points From Feature 19...... 47

11. Profile of the South Wall of Excavations at. . . .60 18M013, Including Soil Profile

12. a. Mean Depths of Artifact Classes Relative . . . 64 to Pot 1; ACTA Subfile b. Mean Depths of Artifact Classes Relative to Pot 1: ACTA, BURA, FETA, and SWTR Subfiles

13. Relative Horizontal Distribution of Mason...... 67 Island Culture Pottery Types

14. Pearson’s Correlation Coefficient Matrix :...... 69 ACTA Subfile

15. Pearson's Correlation Coefficient Matrix:...... 70 ACTA. BURA, FETA, and SWTR Subfiles

16. Principal Factors: ACTA Subfile...... 73

IV 17, Principal Factors: ACTA, BURA, FETA, and...... 74 Sl^TR Subfiles

18. Varimax Factors: ACTA Subfile ...... 76 INTRODUCTION

The Mason Island II site (18M013) is a multicomponent

Late Woodland village site in the Potomac River Piedmont

region, Montgomery County, Maryland. Excavations at the

site have produced several pottery types and a scramble of post molds and features which are not separated by natural

stratigraphy into distinct cultural inventories. It is my purpose in this paper to demonstrate that it is possible to

separate the components of the site at least partially.

In the Susquehanna River Valley in eastern Pennsyl­ vania, an understanding of the relationship between the

Shenks Ferry and Susquehannock cultures was obscured for many years by a failure to recognize the separate and

independent nature of multiple occupations of the same

site (Kinsey et al. 1971). Mixtures of shell tempered and

grit or crushed rock tempered pottery frequently occur at

Monongahela sites in the upper Ohio Valley (Mayer-Oakes

1955) , and the nature of the relationship between the makers remains uncertain. The Keyser Farm site in the

Shenandoah Valley of Virginia (Manson et al. 1944) is a mixed site with three pottery types similar to those at

the Mason Island II site. The authors expressed uncer­

tainty about the temporal relationships among them.

Two questions must be answered before we can hope 2 to understand the prehistory of an area or of a particular site. We must know the temporal relationships among the occupants, and we must be able to distinguish the material remains from separate occupations. Only after these basic questions are answered can we go on to questions concerning settlement patterns and cultural interaction.

This paper will describe the procedures used in an attempt to answer these basic questions at the Mason

Island II site, and the results. A complete separation of the material remains could not be made on the basis of the limited test excavations, but I believe that the techniques demonstrated here could yield good separation if applied to the larger amount of data from a complete excavation of the site. I. GENERAL BACKGROUND

Location of 18M013

The Mason Island II site (18M013) is in a natural

levee on the north shore of an island about 39 km above

Great Falls, Maryland, and is located at N 39° 10' 52” by

W 77° 30' 02” , The horizontal extent of the site has not

been accurately determined, but it does extend at least

250 m along the shore (in approximately an east-west

direction), and about 70 m southward from the shore. The

river appears to have eroded away part of the northern

side of the site.

The island itself, Lower Mason Island, is about

2.5 km long, and a maximum of .7 km wide. It is separated

by a narrow (30 m) channel from Oxley Island on the

upstream (east) end. The island is relatively flat with

a maximum variation in height of only a few meters, while

the whole island is 8-10 m above the normal river level.

The island is bounded on all shores by a steep bank,

broken by a narrow terrace about 4 m above the river.

Geology

Lower Mason Island is in the eastern part of the

Western Division of the Piedmont Province of Maryland. I^^LDIO Vl'KGr\N\A X 8 M016 5%UY X 10 MO 13 ''tS -

iftMoqs / LOWER MASON I S . LEG 16 MOMS < FisL We:r % Archeological St^e MATtYLAND

HARPERS FERRY'

Figure 1. Map of the Potomac Valley from Washington, D. C. to Harpers Ferry, West Virginia, showing location of Lower Mason Island and 18M013 5

This part of the province is underlain by highly meta­ morphosed rocks which include gneisses, slates, phyllites, schists, marble, serpentine, and granitic and gabbroic rocks. Due to the different rates of erosion of these rocks and the complex ./ay they are related to each other structurally, the topography of this area is diverse. The land is rolling and small streams tend to cut deep narrow valleys. Just to the northwest (upstream) is the Valley of Frederick County which is underlain by folded limestones and discontinuous layers of sandstones, shales and silt- stones (Yokes 1957). The central ridge of Lower Mason

Island is scattered with large limestone rocks, and according to a previous owner, the well which his father drilled on the ridge is 11 m deep with a solid limestone bottom (Jenkins 1973), The lithic resources easily available to the inhabitants of the island are varied and include quartz, quartzite, rhyolite, chert, and perhaps jasper and argillite for use in making chipped stone tools; and steatite, serpentine, and sandstone for ground or carved implements. Cobbles of many of these materials can be found along the banks of the river.

According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, soils on all the islands from Lower Mason Island to Great

Falls, and on most of the mainland flood plains from above

Lower Mason Island down to Seneca Creek (25 km) are fairly deep silt loams of the Huntington-Lindside-MeIvin associa­ tion. These soils are fertile and productive for farming, 6 but are subject to periodic floodings (USDA Soil Conser­ vation Service 1960, 1961). At 18M013, however, the soil is a sandy loam to a depth of about 1 m. Below 1 m the soil changes with depth to loamy sand, sandy clay loam, and finally to clay at about 3 m below the surface. This may represent a narrow band of flood-deposited sandy soil along the shore of the island, although soils elsewhere on the island were not examined (Simonson 1973). The fertility of the soil is likely to have been an important factor leading to the repeated use of Mason Island by Late Wood­ land horticulturalists. Other Late Woodland sites in the

Potomac Valley are similarly situated on or near such soils

(McNett and Gardner n.d.).

The Potomac River

The Potomac River from Harpers Ferry, where it is joined by the Shenandoah River, downstream to Seneca

Rapids (a distance of 62 km) is navigable by canoe, except during extreme floods, with only minor upstream portages.

The 13 km from Seneca Rapids to Great Falls is also navigable by canoe, and the rapids themselves can be run downstream by an experienced canoeist (Carter 1967). Great

Falls, then, is the first major barrier to prehistoric river transportation downstream from 18M013. These 75 km of navigable river could have been an important communica­ tions route, especially when considered with the entire

Shenandoah and upper Potomac Rivers that are continuous 7 with it. In addition, the Monocacy River enters the

Potomac 6 km above 18MOI3. A village site along such a route would have facilitated trade and mobility, and allowed greater interaction with other villages than an inland site. A large area containing varied natural resources was available for the inhabitants of Lower Mason

Island.

The river flows generally southeastward, but has several large meanders. As it passes 18M013, it is actually flowing westward. The major portion of the river flows to the north of the island with only a shallow, narrow (100 m) channel separating the island from the

Maryland shore. The wider channel (250 m) on the north is quite shallow in places, and may be forded during periods of low water.

Since some of the site (18M013) seems to have eroded away, it is clear that the configuration of the island is not the same now as it was even during the most recent prehistoric occupation. I have made several observations while on the island which relate to the problem of water action on the island.

Spring floods often reach above the lower terrace, and several major floods have washed over the top of Mason

Island in recent history. They were in 1877, 1889, 1924,

1936, 1937, 1942 and 1972 (Jenkins 1973). Such periodic flooding, assuming that it also occurred in prehistoric times, would have destroyed the villages on the island. 8 and the Indians would have had to move elsewhere or rebuild on the island. Frequent rebuilding would have left a confused village pattern in the archeological record.

I visited the island after the 1972 flood and found that the flood had left a series of long sand bars on the

Virginia side of the island. The sand contained quantities of water-worn prehistoric pot sherds . The sand bars extended from the top of the bank across the island for several meters, each forming an angle of about 70° to the river bank. Flood debris piled against the trees along the bank also appeared to have been left by water flowing in the same direction. A long washout in the same area, but caused by the 1937 flood. Is at the same angle. The steep banks to the river on this side of the island appeared scoured and in some places undercut with cultural material eroding from them and tree roots exposed. The action along this shore of the island, then, appears to be a cutting back of the bank while at the same time a building up of the upper terrace. That this action has been going on for some time is suggested by the topography.

The levee at the crest of the bank is 8.5 m above the river, about the same height as the low ridge down the center of the island. Between the ridge and the bank, the land dips to about 6 m above the river.

On the Maryland side of Mason Island, Early Woodland material can be found on the plowed surface. I can find no prehistoric cultural material at all on the lower terrace 9 or on the banks ; in fact, no lithic material of any kind is found. Late Archaic artifacts are common along the low central ridge of the island. On the upstream half of the

Virginia side of the island, Late Woodland artifacts appear not only on the plowed surface, but also eroding from the bank (along with Early Woodland pottery). Excavations in this area (18M013) show a series of plow zones containing historic artifacts to a depth of 40 cm. The upper plow zone contains fairly modern nails, whereas the lower plow zone has only square nails. Below this disturbed level is a Late Woodland layer, followed by nearly a meter of sterile deposit disturbed only by Late Woodland features. At about

180 cm below the surface one finds Early Woodland artifacts.

This layer seems to be 20-30 cm thick. An auger core to nearly 4 m below the surface produced broken rock and flecks of charcoal to that depth. The fact that cultural material of approximately the same date is found on the surface on one side of the island and at a depth of nearly

2 m on the other indicates that the depositional histories of the two sides of the island are different.

Related to the problem of the action of the river on the island is the depositional history of the river. Roy

Simonson, Assistant to the Deputy Administrator for Soil

Survey of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, retired

January 1974, made two visits to 18M013 to examine the soil profile. His classification of the soils has been discussed earlier. He also made some interesting, though 10 tentative, observations on the possible sedimentation history of the soils at the site (Simonson 1973). In summary, they are as follows. He sees four episodes of deposition above the 178 cm level. The surface of the earliest of these is now 142 cm below the present surface.

This deposition covers the Early Woodland occupation which has carbon-14 dates at the Monocacy site (18FR100) of about 550-950 B.C. (Gardner and McNett 1971). It exhibits no A horizon, so must have been covered rather quickly by the second deposition which brought the soil surface up to

99 cm below the present surface. Again, there is no A horizon, so the third deposition must have begun quickly.

This third deposition layer includes the A 1 , A3, and Cl horizons and its surface is now 33 cm below the present surface. It contains the Late Woodland occupations. Mr.

Simonson believes that this material was deposited gradually over a considerable period of time, but more rapidly at first and slowing near the end. On the basis of the nature of the horizons in this layer, he believes that the A1 horizon was at the surface without much sedi­ ment being added for "a fairly long time" but less than

3,000 years. This fits well with the 2,500-3,000 year old occupation at 180 cm and the lack of evidence for any other occupation in the overlying material until about A.D. 900.

The final deposition of the top 33 cm occurred, he believes, after European occupation.

Further insight into the sedimentation history is 11 provided by the presence of argillic bands at 127, 137, and

160 cm (in the first and second deposition layers) . These bands, which are very hard compared to the surrounding sandy loam, are formed by the accumulation of clay minerals, iron oxides, and organic matter which are carried down through sandy soil from the surface by rainwater. They are not known to occur less than about 1 m below the surface existing at the time of deposition. That suggests that the A1 horizon was the surface at the time the bands formed. Furthermore, evidence about argillic bands at other sites indicates that they begin to form only after a surface has remained stable for 1,000-2,000 years. It has also been noted that these argillic bands form only when the pH is 5.5 or less. Since the soil pH is now 7-8 we may make two assumptions: something has raised the pH in relatively recent times, and the formation of the argillic bands has now been halted.

An HCl test of the A1 horizon indicated the presence of considerable quantities of finely divided carbonates. It seems probable that this carbonate consists primarily of crushed limestone and shell, deposited there by the Indians who occupied the site from about A.D. 1000 to 1600. In other words, it appears that the Late Woodland Indians over a period of time introduced enough carbonates into the soil to stop the movement of clay minerals down from the A1 horizon. At the time of Mr. Simonson's visit to the site. Feature 8 (Burial 1) was visible in profile on one wall. It was noted that the upper two argillic bands, 12 which are less than .5 cm thick, were broken by the feature and did not extend across it. This proves that the bands were formed before this Late Woodland occupation

Climate

The climate in this part of the Potomac Valley is temperate, humid, and continental. Summers are warm with an average temperature of 23°C. Although the temperature seldom goes above 35°C, an extreme of 41°C has been recorded in Montgomery County, Maryland. The average winter temperature is 1.3°C, with a record -27°C for

Montgomery County. Winter temperatures seldom drop below

-9°C, however. The average frost-free period is about

174 days between April 29 and October 20 (USDA Soil Conser­ vation Service 1961). The prevailing wind direction is from the northwest from October to April, and from the south and southwest from May to September (Vokes 1957).

The average annual precipitation is about 96.5 cm. The summer months of June to August get 29 percent of the precipitation, the autumn months of September to November get 24 percent, the winter months of December to February get 21 percent and the spring months of March to May get

25 percent. The midsummer weeks often have extended dry periods of up to three weeks. There is very little snowfall to protect winter crops. Creek and river bottom lands are generally flooded at least once every spring

(USDA Soil Conservation Service 1961). 13

Flora

Before European colonization, almost the entire river valley from Point of Rocks to Great Falls was covered with hardwood forests with a sprinkling of Virginia pine and red cedar (USDA Soil Conservation Service 1960, 1961). In

Frederick County, Maryland, about 50 percent of the hard­ wood forests were composed of chestnut (Castanea dentata) until 1912 when they were killed by a fungus disease and were largely replaced by various oaks (Quercus spp.)

(Kaylor 1946). At present, most of this forest has been cleared for farming. What forests do remain have been cut over several times. Oaks of various species dominate the well-drained uplands with a scattering of hickory, black walnut, beech, poplar, locust, elm, dogwood, and various maples. There are some pines and cedars on the poorer land. Forests on poorly drained soils and on floodplains are dominated by sycamores, boxelder, elm, silver maple, willow, and alder. On well-drained floodplains that have been cleared and then abandoned black locust, boxelder, sassafras, persimmon, hawthorn, and cedar move in (USDA

Soil Conservation Service 1961) . Yarnell (1964) lists most of these trees as having been used, usually for food, by the Indians of the upper Great Lakes region. A number of smaller trees and shrubs listed as food plants by Yarnell and found in the Potomac Valley include: shadbush, various species of huckleberries and blueberries, several species 14 of wild cherry, hazelnut, elder, paw-paw, and hackberry.

Numerous herbaceous plants were available as potential food resources. Some of the most commonly found ones in the

Potomac Piedmont and listed by Yarnell are: blackberry, dewberry, strawberry, may apple, wild onion, spring beauty, toothwort, milkweed, wood sorrel, lambs quarters, Solomon's- seal, false Solomon's-seal, wild grape, skunk cabbage, woodbine, wood betony, wild ginger, and a variety of wild grasses. Various kinds of lichens and fungi would also have been available. Probably many potential food plants occur in the Potomac region that do not grow in the Great

Lakes area. Unfortunately, I can find no reference comparable to Yarnell's for the Potomac Valley.

Non-food uses of plants and plant products were also important and extensive. Such uses include wood for fuel, tools, and structures; fibers for cordage, containers, nets, mats, and textiles; pitch for sealing and glue; and various plant parts used as flavoring, dye, medicine, smoking material, and at ceremonial functions. Since the plants chosen for these uses probably varied greatly with location and culture, Yarnell's work is less useful for these plants in the Potomac area than it is for food plants. No exten­ sive study has been made, to my knowledge, of non-food plant remains from archeological sites in the Potomac

Piedmont region. 15

Fauna

Game mammals living in the Potomac Valley today

include: white-tailed deer, beaver, red and gray fox, woodchuck, skunk, raccoon, opossum, muskrat, weasel, mink,

river otter, cottontail rabbits, and several species of

squirrels. Bear and bobcats are rarely encountered.

Buffalo, elk, and wolves have been exterminated from the

area. Remains of many of these mammals, especially white­

tailed deer, are commonly found at archeological sites.

In addition, the bones of some smaller species such as mice, rats, voles, moles, shrews, and chipmunks sometimes

occur, but it is not always clear that they represent food

remains. (Vokes 195 7; Olsen 19 73; and Burt and Grossen- heider 1952.)

Game and predatory bird remains are also common at

archeological sites. The passenger pigeon is now extinct, but turkey, swans, herons, many species of ducks and

geese, woodcocks, grouse, doves, quail, hawks, owls, eagles,

ospreys, and buzzards still exist in varying numbers in the

Potomac Valley along with a large number of song birds

(Vokes 195 7). Some species fly up or down the Potomac

during their seasonal migrations.

Fish were an important food resource in prehistoric

times and their remains are frequently found especially in

flotation samples. Seasonal fish runs do not extend above

Great Falls, but perch, bass, trout, sunfish, pickerel. 16 bullhead, and catfish are often caught in the upper

Potomac (Vokes 1957). Narrow channels and shallow waters in the river lend themselves to the construction of fish weirs, and indeed many have been noted on the Potomac

(Hobbs 1964, 1965). There is some evidence, however, that at least some of these dams were used, rebuilt, or built by early white men in the area (Hobbs 1966).

Turtles, both land and water varieties, were commonly used by prehistoric people probably for both food and turtle shell implements. Freshwater mollusks were probably eaten and the shells used for implements, ornaments, and tempering material for clay. Land snail shells are often found in prehistoric midden pits, but they may have gotten there on their own. I have found many in the midden on

Mason Island that are less than .5 cm in diameter, and it seems unlikely that such small snails were collected for food. Numerous other small reptiles, amphibians, and even insects might have been eaten as delicacies or during especially lean times.

Detailed faunal studies are also lacking for the

Potomac Valley, and the effects on animal populations of recent environmental changes are poorly understood.

Human Activities Near 18M013

The shores of the Potomac River between Point of

Rocks and Great Falls are liberally sprinkled with known prehistoric sites from the Paleo Indian period to the 17

Protohistoric (see especially Larrabee 1961). At least 55 sites have been recorded, many on the islands or flood­ plains, and some on the slopes and cliff tops above the river.

Several sites have been recorded on Lower Mason

Island itself besides 18M013. On the southeastern

(Maryland) shore, 18M048 is an Early Woodland site with

Marcey Creek, Selden Island and Albemarle pottery and a large amount of rhyolite and quartz lithic material. More

Marcey Creek pottery has been found on the northwestern shore about a kilometer below 18M013. The low central ridge of the island has an extensive Archaic site, 18M095, which appears to be mostly Late Archaic. About .5 km above 18M013, at the upstream end of Lower Mason Island proper, I have found quartz tempered, cord marked pottery, but no diagnostic rims or lithic artifacts. Two sites have been recorded on the northern (Virginia) side of

Oxley Island just above Lower Mason. Selden Island pottery was found at 18M096 and an unidentified quartz tempered, cord marked ware at 18M097.

Some of the sites on Lower Mason Island, especially

18M095, have been extensively surface collected for at least 50 years (Jenkins 1973) , but none on Lower Mason or

Oxley have been excavated until the present work on 18M013.

Wimsatt (1958) mentions surface finds at 18M013 after the flood of 1937. He describes 32 refuse pits exposed in a

50 by 150 foot area where the flood waters washed away the 18 softer surrounding soil. The contents of these pits included triangular points (no size given) and "grit- tempered, ornamentally incised and punched sherds, with heavy appliqué rims." According to E. V, Jenkins (1973), whose father owned the island in 1937, the washout described by Wimsatt is now represented by the elongated depression which occurs at ElOO on my north-south base line (see Figure 2).

On the Virginia shore, slightly upstream of 18M013,

44LD10 was excavated in the 1930s. It was, like 18M013, a mixed Late Woodland site with only a small Luray Focus component (McNett and Gardner n.d.).

Five fish weirs (see Figure 1) have been located around Oxley and the upper part of Lower Mason Island, but their cultural origins are unknown. A local resident reported having seen the large weir on the north side of

Oxley Island in use with a slatted, step-like wooden structure about 50 years ago.

The C and 0 Canal follows the Potomac River all along the Maryland shore in this area. The island may have seen some minor action during the Civil War, as White's Ford, which was used by Confederate Troops, is located just above

Oxley Island, and Ball’s Bluff National Cemetery is 7 km downstream on the Virginia shore. The presently operating

VJhite's Ferry is 4 km below the site.

I don’t know when the island was first cleared and plowed, but it was a well-established farm in 1928 when it 19

vitrt

en T-i i m 0 1

o 4-1 g O

It was farmed steadily until 1953 when Mr. Jenkins sold

Lower Mason (but not Oxley) Island to D. Cecil Culbertson of Arlington, Virginia, who held it in the soil bank for several years before plowing it again in the early 1970s.

It is still plowed every spring. No buildings or other structures are known to have been constructed on or near

18M013 (Jenkins 1973). The farmhouse and barn are a kilometer southwest of the site. II. LATE WOODLAND CHRONOLOGY IN THE

POTOMAC RIVER PIEDMONT

Two foci, the Montgomery and the Luray, were proposed for the Potomac Valley Late Woodland period by Schmitt in

1952. These foci have not been clearly and separately defined either in terms of cultural inventories or in time.

Nor is it clear that all Late Woodland components in the area fit into one or the other of these foci. Wright, in

1959, divided the time period into three foci for the upper

Potomac Valley. The first he called Late Woodland and the last two Late Prehistoric. The Late Woodland, or Morgan

Focus, he related to the Montgomery Focus described by

Schmitt for the piedmont region of the Potomac. This is followed by an unnamed Late Prehistoric focus which Wright related to early Monongahela sites in the Ohio Valley.

The last focus described is related, according to Wright, to Schmitt's Luray Focus and to late Monongahela sites in the Ohio Valley. Some sites in this final focus contain evidence of the occupants having had contact with Europeans.

It is apparent from more recent studies that the situation is considerably more complex than these chronologies indicate.

21 22

Augusta Phase

Gardner and McNett (1971) found crushed rock tempered pottery at the Monocacy site (18FR100) to which they later

(McNett and Gardner n.d.) assigned the name Aqueduct Cord

Marked and Aqueduct Fabric Marked. They believe it is

related to the Augusta Phase to the south and to Clemson

Island pottery in Pennsylvania. A radiocarbon date of

A.D. 1235 ^ 90 associated with this pottery at Monocacy

supports this theory. According to McNett and Gardner

(n.d.), the Augusta Phase pottery found at Monocacy was

tempered with quartz or limestone and was cord or fabric marked with mostly plain rims, though folded collars did

occur as did cord wrapped stick decorations and incisions.

Lips were sometimes variously marked or scalloped with a

cord wrapped stick. The authors note that the collared

rims also occur at other Augusta Phase sites to the south,

but not on Clemson Island pottery, and that the presence

of collared rim sherds may be the result of mixing

temporally distinct components. Other characteristics

sometimes appearing on Clemson Island and Augusta Phase

pottery, according to McNett and Gardner (n.d.), include

deep punctates on the rim which produce raised bosses on

the opposite surface (diagnostic of Clemson Island pottery),

and fabric marked interiors. In both Pennsylvania and the

Shenandoah Valley of Virginia, this pottery is associated with earth or stone burial mounds which contained multiple 23 burials, either bundled or flexed, and with triangular points. Schmitt (1952) calls this culture the Jones Focus and tentatively places it at the end of the Middle Woodland

Period. In his study of the chronology in the upper Potomac

Valley, Wright (1959) finds he has little information about the occupations between the Transitional Culture (with steatite bowls and pottery similar to Marcey Creek) and his

Morgan People (related to the Montgomery Focus of Schmitt).

IThat he calls "The Earlier Woodland Peoples" made pottery tempered with crushed rock (chert, quartz, limestone or shale) and usually cord marked, though occasionally fabric marked. They buried their dead in mounds and made wide triangular, as well as side- and corner-notched points.

This description refers to a culture related to the Augusta

Phase of McNett and Gardner, although grave goods are few in the latter while Wright finds a fairly rich and varied supply in the upper Potomac Valley and attributes it to

Hopewellian influence. As Wright defines the Late Woodland as beginning with the introduction of corn horticulture, he apparently assumes it was not practiced by these earlier people.

Montgomery Focus

Corn, and perhaps beans and squash, were grown during the period of the Montgomery Focus occupations of the

Potomac Piedmont (McNett and Gardner n.d.). Considerably more data have been uncovered in the Potomac Valley about 24

this occupation than about the previous one, a situation which seems to have brought more rather than less confusion

to the picture. McNett and Gardner (n.d.) refer to the

Montgomery Complex and describe it as developing over quite a long time in the Potomac Piedmont in a very limited area around Selden and Vandeventer Islands (about 20 km down­

stream from 18M013). The three major Montgomery Focus

sites clustered in that area are the Shepard Site, 18M03

(MacCord et al. 1957); the Winslow Site, 18M09 (no final report available); and the Fisher Site, 44LD4 (no published

report).

The complexity of this culture is reflected in the pottery, which is quite variable (McNett and Gardner n.d.).

It is characterized by having collared rims , either folded or appliqued, but uncollared rims do occur. It is tempered with crushed rock, primarily granite or quartz, sometimes with sand in addition. Pots vary in size up to "several quarts" (Tidwell 1967) . The majority of sherds are cord marked and there is little decoration. It is, however, the

different decorative styles and how these correlate with provenience and tempering material that indicate the

complexity of the culture and hold a possible key to unraveling it. Decorations are almost entirely associated with the rim collar and consist of a variety of gashes or punches, apparently to secure the lower edge of the collar

to the pot, and decorations on the collar itself. These

latter are frequently horizontal lines or V s often made 25 with a cord wrapped stick or some object leaving a similar impression. McNett and Gardner (n.d.) give a detailed account of the pottery and the attempts to find some recognizable patterning in it.

Tidwell (1967) compiled a trait list based on the three sites mentioned above as representing the Montgomery

Focus in the Potomac Piedmont. An outstanding feature expressed in this list is the wide variety of bone, antler, and turtle shell tools and ornaments, perhaps replacing chipped stone items which are notably rare except for projectile points. The points are triangular and vary greatly in size, shape, and lithic material. According to

McNett and Gardner (n.d.), they are small to medium, mostly of quartz or rhyolite, especially quartz. Ground stone tools are represented by celts and, especially at the

Winslow Site, by discoidal stones, often perforated and ranging in diameter from 2.4 to 10.3 cm. Clay pipes are common in a variety of forms, especially obtuse angle, and many have dentate decorations. Shell beads are made of both fresh and salt water shells.

The villages are oval, probably with circular houses, and are located close to the river on or near Huntington silt loam soils which are superior for agriculture.

Burials were mostly single and flexed with few grave goods besides beads, which were most prevalent with sub-adults.

Dogs were also buried.

Radiocarbon dates are available from the Shepard and 26

Winslow Sites. Those from the latter seem most reliable and place the occupation between A.D. 750 and 1395 (McNett and Gardner n.d.).

Mason Island Culture

A culture very similar to that of the Montgomery

Focus occurs further up the Potomac River at the Catoctin

Creek Site (44LD14), the Mason Island I Site (44LD10), and

Glen Haven Site (McNett and Gardner n.d,). The Catoctin

Creek Site was reported by R. G . Handsman (1970) and the pottery fully discussed by McNett and Gardner (n.d.).

Reports have not been published on the other two sites.

Mason Island I Site is on the Virginia mainland just .5 km upstream from Mason Island II Site.

According to McNett and Gardner (n.d.), the Mason

Island culture is distinguished from the Montgomery Focus on three major bases: (1) pottery temper is quartz or limestone for the Mason Island culture rather than quartz, granite, or sand and grit; (2) they are geographically separated; and (3) the burial practices are quite different

Burials are supine and extended, rather than flexed, for the Mason Island culture, and may contain stones placed on the body and sometimes pots or other items with the burial.

In all other respects, the material remains of these two cultures are very similar, and exhibit a similar variety of decorative motifs. The authors believe that the Catoctin

Creek Site was occupied from about A.D. 1300 to 1600. 27

Luray Focus

Only one major site representing the Luray Focus has been reported in the Potomac River Piedmont. It is the

Hughes Site (18M01) reported by R. E. Stearns (1940) and located 20 km downstream from 18M013.

The pottery from the Hughes Site is very different from any described earlier in this paper, although most lips are scalloped or nicked in a way that is very similar to some Augusta Phase lips. Sherds are tempered with crushed shell and are cord marked. In many cases the cord marking has been partially or completely smoothed over.

Decorations, when they occur, are on the neck or rim of the pot and consist of punctates and incised or impressed lines made with a variety of objects. Patterns are also varied but are geometric and mostly of linear segments. Lugs are common on the lips and are apparently limited to two per pot. The lips and lugs are often heavily impressed with plain or cord wrapped sticks or paddle edges. A few are punctated or incised. Frequently this lip treatment makes the lip protrude well beyond the pot wall. Small cup-like pots were found which are mostly tempered with sand. Pipes are generally made of untempered clay, are obtuse angled, and decorated with incised or dentate linear geometric patterns.

The Luray Focus, like the Montgomery Focus, has an extensive bone inventory but a rather limited number of 28 chipped stone tools. Projectile points at the Hughes Site are triangular, but more consistently made of quartz than at Montgomery Focus sites, and a higher proportion are very small (2 cm or less long). Celts are common, but stone discoidals are not mentioned by Stearns (1940). Awls, beamers, fish hooks, gouges, projectile points, and flakers are included in the bone tool kit along with ornaments and utensils of animal teeth, antler, and turtle carapace.

Beads and pendants were also made of shell, both local mussel shells and marine marginalla shells, as in the

Montgomery and Mason Island cultures.

The Hughes Site village was found to be circular,

though no post molds were recorded. There was a circular pattern of refuse and burial pits about 120 m in diameter with a few additional pits clustered in the center. The

site is on the floodplain on rich Huntington silt loam

soil. Burials were mostly flexed, sometimes multiple and with few grave goods except beads.

No European goods were found in association with

Indian remains at the Hughes Site, but Stearns (1940) believes it to be rather recent. This is supported by a radiocarbon date of A.D. 1665 i 90 from the top of a purely prehistoric layer containing shell tempered pottery at the Monocacy Site (Gardner and McNett 1971) .

Summary of Chronology

The time period of concern here is from the start of 29 the Late Woodland, perhaps at about A.D. 900, to just before European contact. The picture as presented by

McNett and Gardner (n.d.) is considerably more complicated than that given by Schmitt in 1952, even within the limited area of the Potomac Piedmont. In place of Schmitt's simple two-foci chronology, Montgomery followed by Luray, we have at least three major cultures, one of them showing great internal complexity.

The Augusta Phase is seen by McNett and Gardner

(n.d.) as intruding into the northwestern part of the area fairly early in the Late Woodland, about A.D. 900-1300.

They see it as related to occupations on the upper Shenan­ doah and James Rivers where the Augusta pottery appears to have been confused with Evans's (1955) Albemarle type, and to the builders of the Clemson Island burial mounds on the upper Susquehanna River in Pennsylvania. A common motif found on Augusta pottery, a nicked or scalloped lip, reappears much later in the Luray Focus and may reflect contact outside the Potomac Piedmont area between the

Augusta people and the people who eventually produced

Keyser Cord Marked pottery.

The culture referred to by Schmitt (1952) as the

Montgomery Focus and by McNett and Gardner (n.d.) as the

Montgomery Complex had, in the meantime, settled into the

Potomac Piedmont somewhat downstream, where it remained for several centuries. Radiocarbon dates from the Winslow

Site (18M09) place it between A.D. 750 and 1385 (McNett 30 and Gardner n.d.). McNett and Gardner (n.d.) believe that during this time, temporal and spatial factors and perhaps some aspects of social structure introduced considerable variety into the pottery styles. These authors see the

Shenks Ferry Culture on the Susquehanna Piedmont as closely related, as well as several sites on the Shenandoah River including the Kerns Site (44CK3).

In the upper Potomac Piedmont, where the Mason

Island II Site (18M013) is located, the Augusta Phase seems to have been displaced by a culture very similar to that of the Montgomery Complex and named the Mason Island Culture by McNett and Gardner. The differences between this culture and the Montgomery Complex may reflect the influences on it by the preceding Augusta Phase (McNett and Gardner n.d.). This group occupied the area from about

A.D. 1300 to 1600.

There appears to have been increasing tension among the populations of the area at this time. With the coming of the Luray Focus, which appears to be the final prehis­ toric occupation of the Potomac Piedmont, stockaded villages and burials showing signs of violence appear in the archeological record. The Hughes Site (IBMOl), which was destroyed in the 1930s with only limited information preserved (Stearns 1940), is so far the only Luray Focus village site known in the Potomac Piedmont. For this reason, much of our understanding of this culture comes from closely related sites on the Shenandoah, especially 31 the Keyser Farm Site (Mansoti et al. 1944). McNett and

Gardner (n.d.) believe the people to have been centered in the Shenandoah Valley from about A.D. 1600 and that they represent a Mississippian manifestation related to the

Monongahela Culture of western Pennsylvania. No European trade goods were found at the Hughes Site (Stearns 1940), so it appears to have been abandoned before any major

European incursions above the fall line in the Potomac

Valley. III. PROCEDURE FOR DATA GATHERING AND ANALYSIS

Data Gathering

Before excavations at 18M013 began, a datum point was established on the north edge of the site and marked with a metal rod. This point was at X = 658,202 feet, Y = 491,212 feet on the Maryland Grid with an estimated error of t 10 feet, and was surveyed in from a bench mark on the C and 0

Canal on the Maryland mainland shore. From this point, an east-west datum line was established along the island shore and through the datum point. The line is actually 3° 7' north of true west so that it would more closely parallel the shore. A one-meter grid system used throughout the field work was based on this datum point and line. Squares are designated by cardinal directions and by distance, in meters, from the datum point starting with zero. This designation is illustrated in Figure 3. The surface level at the datum point was the vertical datum level for most of the excavations.

Information gained from a controlled surface collec­ tion on the slope of the eroding bank at the site showed that the proportions of pottery types (based only on temper) varied considerably from east to west. Squares were opened in four different areas, based on these pottery-type

32 33

_ # f* * T HolAj

f.rt

f.t

f . S

ie

Figure 3, WO-8 squares of 18M013 showing features, post molds, and activity area. 34 distributions. The aim was to try to locate an area where the components were mixed and areas where each component occurred in relatively pure form. The cultural material from the latter areas would act as a check of the results of the data analysis used on the material from the first area. See Figure 2 for the location of excavations. No single component areas were actually found, however.

The major excavations were located between WO and W 8 , from NO to S6. Twenty-five one-meter squares were opened in this area and excavated to levels varying from 30 cm to

230 cm with an average depth of 123 cm. All of the data used in the analyses came from these excavations. It was in this area that the surface collections produced the highest proportion of shell tempered pottery at 25 percent.

Limestone tempered pottery accounted for 30 percent and quartz tempered 18 percent of the surface-collected pottery,

During the 1973 season, the squares were excavated to

10 cm levels, but a review of the results suggested that

5 era levels would provide considerably raore usable informa­ tion. Thus, six of the squares from WO to W8 were dug in

10 cm levels while all the others were done in 5 cm levels except for the plow zones. Stratigraphie layers were not used as they were undetectable in the dark midden and because the soil color change was very gradual between the midden and the subsoil.

In addition to the standard washing and cataloging of artifacts, an additional laboratory step was necessary 35 to prepare the data for analysis. Though all the excavated soil was passed through half-inch mesh screen in the field, some cultural remains were found visually, while troweling and before screening. Some of these finds were too small to have been retained in the screen. Since white or light- colored artifacts, such as quartz flakes, were more easily seen against the dark soil than were brown objects, such as sherds, the data may have been skewed in favor of the light-colored objects. To correct for this, the artifacts were placed in a half-inch mesh screen in the laboratory and only those items retained in it were included in the mathematical analysis.

Data Analysis

The archeologist is faced with many decisions in analyzing his data, and it is not always clear what effect these choices will have on the results. Assuming that some form of mathematical manipulation using a computer is planned, I see three types of decisions to be made: the kind or kinds of mathematical procedures to use; whether to normalize the data, and, if so, how; and how to group the data into units (both cases and attributes) that can be manipulated.

The choice of mathematical procedure is perhaps the most difficult and the most important. In this study, I am concerned with the spatial relationships among several artifact types. Spaulding (1971) urged that archeologists 36 make greater use of R-technique analyses because such analyses reveal the interrelationships among attributes and he feels these interrelationships are directly relatable to social behavior. I used an R-technique analysis in which the excavation units, e.g., each level within each square, were the cases. Each case, then, expresses a spatial loca­ tion with both horizontal and vertical variations represented in the total cases. The attributes for each case were the classes of artifacts found within it, and the score was the number of artifacts of each class in the case. A Pearson's correlation coefficient matrix was made which gave a measure of association between all pairs of attributes. From this matrix, it is possible to proceed to a principal component

(or principal factor) analysis or to any one of several types of rotated factor analyses.

In addition, histograms of the pottery sherd distri­ butions by square and plots of the mean depths of all artifacts were used. These proved to be of considerable importance in choosing the most reliable data for analysis, and in understanding the sources of variation in the data.

I chose to try my data analysis on both raw and normalized data. The normalization method used was a simple percentage, that is, the percent each attribute constituted of the total artifact count in its case. The purpose of normalizing the data was to remove the effect of relative case size. Using the percentage data, however, had a strong depressing effect on the results (it pushed values of the 37 correlation coefficients toward negative values), but not in a consistent fashion. I found that I could not interpret the low correlation coefficients, nor understand the reason for the inconsistency of the negative pressure. For this reason, I have based my interpretation on the results using raw data.

Criteria were needed in order to place artifacts into discrete groups for mathematical analysis. Clearly, the rationale used in grouping the artifacts into artifact classes (attributes) will affect the results of the mathe­ matical analysis. The following classes are far from ideal, but, for the reasons given in each case, I believe theyare the best possible ones given the limited amount of data and th.j fact that in this study only the pottery is known to be diagnostic of a particular culture.

It seemed most expedient to group the pottery on the basis of tempering material, since it was the most distin­ guishing feature of the hundreds of cord marked body sherds at 18M013. Although it is possible that temper is not always a culturally significant attribute, it is well accepted in the literature (see pages 26-28) that the Luray

Focus is characterized by crushed shell tempered pottery and the Mason Island Culture by pottery tempered with crushed rock of some kind. Three pottery types were used in the analysis; shell, coded as Pot 1 in the computer analyses; limestone (Pot 2); and quartz (Pot 3) tempered.

Figures 4-6 show examples of sherds within these groups. 38

CO W) P

g # CO

U CU 4-1 4-1 0 CX Td OJ Î-1 OJ

u1

CU rP CO

(U p bO •H i l l fL I P o I 39

m .g h

(U 4-1 4-1 iiiimmiii nmiiiMi 0 PU 'P (U M 01 s' 01 4 J

01 c o 4-1 W S •H

m U01 p W) •H I(L I 40

£ I B •rl

tu 4JCU 4J 0 (X T) UCD 01 I 4 J N 4J tu d O'

VO w01 & •rl fu 41

A small amount of coarse quartz tempered Augusta pottery was found which was readily distinguishable from the Mason

Island quartz tempered pottery and was eliminated from the analyses along with some Early Woodland sherds.

Several attributes of projectile points were considered, and length and lithic material appeared to provide the most reasonable basis for grouping the points.

A frequency distribution plot by length of all the complete points found at 18M013, including surface-collected ones, showed a possible trimodal distribution. The smallest points were under 2.2 cm long and were mostly of quartz.

Medium points measured 2.2 to 3.0 cm and those over 3.0 cm were classified as large. Figures 7-9 show examples of points in these size groups. Within these size groups, the points were separated on the basis of lithic material, although this had no significance in the final analysis as undisturbed excavated layers produced too few points of lithic materials other than quartz to be used in the final analysis. The same proved true of large quartz points, leaving only two projectile point groups: small and medium quartz (PI and P3 respectively in the computer analyses).

Lithic waste was classified by material into four groups : quartz (LI), quartzite (L2), rhyolite (L3), and cryptocrystalline quartz (L4). No analysis of wear patterns was made nor any serious attempt to assign functional labels to worked lithic artifacts. They were classified simply as worked, as opposed to unworked, flakes and grouped by lithic 42

ro m I N +J 3 O' Nt CO 4J SU'SS 4-1 Î3 .s 0 o tr ^ 0) > J-1 U cx Ü o T-4 U "m fc l b s a mm 0) V4 p bO •H 43

,o «%

WÊ

: f . %

Figure 8. Medium projectile points. Quartz-15, quartzite 4, rhyolite-11, cryptocrystalline quartz-1. 44

rc >

ikààk

m m

Figure 9. Large projectile points. Quartz-2, quartzite-18, rhyolite-11, cryptocrystalline quartz-4. 45 raw material (L5-L8 respectively).

So few bone tools were found in the undisturbed levels that it was necessary to group all modified bone into one artifact class (Art 4 in the computer analyses).

No deer antler fragments other than the tips were identi­ fied from the excavations. The antler tips were lumped together in one class whether they were modified or simply broken off (Art 7). Turtle shell fragments (Art 3) were also not separated as modified and unmodified, in this case because many fragments of a modified carapace would show no working.

Used and unused cobbles (Art 1) were not separated because the distinction would have been too subjective.

Since the soil at the site is all sand and silt river deposit with no gravel, it may be assumed that all stones were deliberately brought to the site by human beings.

Any water-smoothed stone larger than 5 cm in diameter was classified as a cobble, and those smaller than 5 cm as a pebble (Art 12). Broken rock (Art 11) and bone waste

(Art 13), although presumably represented in the refuse of all prehistoric inhabitants of the site, were included in the analysis and gave some rather puzzling results.

The two remaining artifact classes, "toy" pot fragments (Art 15) and daub lumps (Art 2) are a good example of one of the problems encountered when classi­ fying artifacts. When a clay fragment has an incised pattern on it or is made of tempered clay, the identification 46

as pottery is fairly certain, but many fragments of the

molded "toy” pots lack temper and are pretty shapeless

lumps--like smooth, flat pieces of clay daub. Nor are such

errors in identification randomly distributed even among

related artifact classes. It is relatively easy to

distinguish rhyolite waste from worked rhyolite flakes as

retouch shows fairly clearly on rhyolite. But this is not

always the case with the low-grade quartz often encountered

at 18M013.

The use of these groups, indeed of any groupings of

artifacts, imposes a structure on the data which may or may

not fit cultural reality. My grouped projectile point data

say that two triangular points, one 1.1 cm long and another

1.7 cm long, are the same no matter what their width,

thickness or basal configuration. In fact, in the case

of some crudely made artifacts there may be question as to whether they were intended to be projectile points at all.

Figure 10 shows a special group of projectile points from

18M013. These six quartz points were found in Feature 19

of square S2W6, Points A-E were found in a cluster in the

95-100 cm level (depths are below datum), and F in the

115-120 cm level. Clearly, then, they are culturally very

closely related. They are similar to each other in lithic material, thickness, and basal configuration, but vary in

shape and size. Points A and D are symmetrical and nearly

equilateral, while B is asymmetrical and C, E, and F are

isosceles. It is possible that these six points were made 47

D B Q D B B

IllljU II nin iiii nil lilt III) III!Illljllll|ltlt|llll| to Ill 111 13 H I K 5'•^<3?^^

Measurements In Centimeters

Point Length Width Thickness

A 1.80 1.81 . 35

B 1. 64 1.57 . 33

C 2.08 1.83 . 36

D 2.08 1.92 . 37

E 2. 32 1.99 . 36

F 2. 68 1.72 . 38

Figure 10. Six quartz points from Feature 19 48 by the same individual. If so, consistency appears to have been of greater importance to the maker in thickness, basal shape, width, and lithic material than in length or overall shape. The variation in length and shape may reflect functional differences, with different arrows and points to be used for different kinds of game. Consistency in thickness, basal shape, and width may reflect consistency in shaft thickness and hafting technique. Ideally, the criterion for grouping these points should be related to what was in the mind of the makers.

Another aspect of the problem of artifact classes referred to above is that of the relative size of the classes. The class here of quartz waste is large, totaling about 1,400 pieces, whereas there are less than 30 medium quartz points. Clearly the statistical significance of the data for these two artifact classes is notthe same.

It was also necessary to define data analysis cases made up of archeological units (feature and non-feature levels within each square). I felt that a total artifact count of less than 15 per case would be too small to be significant. The lower levels of the mottled layer (Layer

V in the stratigraphy described below) in many cases con­ tained too few artifacts and such cases were combined into

10, 15 or 20 cm levels for use as cases in the data analysis. This seemed justified as the mottled layer was not a layer of cultural midden, but a layer of alluvial deposit into which cultural material had been intruded. 49

The depth of each artifact, then, was dependent upon the method of intrusion in each case, e.g., pressure from being stepped on, small rodent disturbance, undetected post molds, and not on time. Thus it seemed justifiable to group at least the lower portions of this layer in any given square together into a single case, although the more precise provenience was recorded on the artifacts and in field notes.

Of the 23 features found in the WO-8 area, six did not contain enough artifactual material to be included as archeological units in the data analysis. Feature 9, on the other hand, was so large that it was divided, horizon­ tally and vertically, into 22 units. There was no visible stratigraphy within any of the features.

A data analysis case was defined, then, as any one of the following: (1) an entire feature (16 cases); (2) a portion of Feature 9 (22 cases); or (3) a 5-20 cm level of midden or non-feature material in a single one-meter square

(107 cases). Several cases from this last group were later discarded, as explained below.

Only Layers III, IV, and V (the undisturbed Late

Woodland levels) of the squares in the WO-8 area were used in the mathematical analyses. Many features and post molds were found in these squares, and their horizontal distribu­ tion is shown in Figure 3. No patterns of post molds were distinguished. The area can, however, be divided into four sections with more or less unique attributes. This 50 leads to a final consideration in the data analysis: that of subfiles. It seemed probable that more mixing of the midden layers may have occurred in some areas than in others, depending upon the type of activity carried on in the area, especially by the last prehistoric occupants.

If areas of little mixing were to be analyzed separately, the resulting correlation coefficients would be more clearly defined and more easily interpreted than if all the cases were to be analyzed together.

Six subfiles were used in the analyses. All of the material from Feature 9 was treated as a subfile of 22 cases and coded subfile NINE for the computer. The smaller features were grouped together as subfile SMFT (16 cases) .

Subfile SV7TR (14 cases) contained the non-feature levels of 4 squares of the W7 trench (S3-6W7) . This area was disturbed by infant Burial 5 (Feature 13) and by 5 shallow pits which appeared to be related to each other and were together designated as Feature 10. The FETA subfile (24 cases) was made up of the non-feature material surrounding

Feature 9 and contained in squares S1W6-7 and S2W6-7. The area of this subfile also contained parts of Features 20 and 25. The non-feature material in 4 of the northern-most squares (SOW7-8 and NOW6-7) was grouped in the BURA subfile

(26 cases). These squares contained all the adult burials, a small part of Feature 9, and parts of Features 23 and 24.

Squares S0W6 and NOWS were entirely omitted from the analysis because Features 26 and 27 were not detected until 51 the burials they contained were found.

The most intense analysis was done on the ACTA subfile (43 cases), which was composed of all the non­ feature material in squares S3WO-2, S2W0, and S2W2-5. The upper, undisturbed layer in these squares (Layer III) was very hard and dark and was judged to be, if not a house floor, at least an area where heavy activity had packed the soil into a firm, laminated surface. (See page 58 for a more complete description of Layer III.) This subfile was chosen as the most reliable for analysis because it appeared to be the least mixed excavated portion of the site. The presence of the hard laminated floor suggests considerable walking on the surface for some period of time without digging pits or otherwise deeply disturbing the soil. If this occurred during the last prehistoric occupation, such a hard layer would seal off the cultural layers below leaving them relatively undisturbed. A plot of the number of sherds of each pottery type by level for the non-feature parts of each square in the entire WO-8 area showed that the distribution by depth, especially of the shell tempered pottery, was more regular and dropped off below Layer IV more consistently in the squares of the

ACTA subfile than in the other parts of the excavation.

Square S2W1 was an exception to this as the limestone tempered pottery showed a dramatic increase well below

Layer IV. An examination of Figure 3 shows that this increase probably represents the contents of the part 52 of Feature 3 that was in S2W1, as Feature 3 was not noted and separated from the non-feature in that square during excavation. For this reason, square S2W1 was eliminated from the analysis.

The currently accepted cultural sequence for the region, (e.g., Schmitt 1952, McNett and Gardner n.d.), consistently places the shell tempered Luray Focus pottery at the end of the prehistoric era, later than all the crushed rock tempered wares. An analysis of the mean depths of each of the three pottery types at 18M013 places the shell tempered pottery well above the limestone tempered and quartz tempered wares in the ACTA subfile.

The mean depth of shell tempered pottery lies slightly below Layer III, and shell tempered pottery was found during excavation to be the dominant pottery type by far in this layer. This apparent temporal sequence is in agreement with the literature and thus consistent with the hypothesis that the hard floor of Layer III acted as a partial seal against major disturbance of the lower cultural levels by the later occupants of the site. Nor is the data from the features under Layer III inconsistent with this hypothesis.

In summary, the data analysis consisted of both univariate and multivariate analysis of the distribution of several classes of artifacts by depth and horizontal location. The univariate analysis consisted of an examina­ tion of the mean depths of the artifact classes. For the 53 multivariate analysis, raw data were used in an R-technique employing Pearson's correlation coefficient matrices, principal (unrotated) factors without iterations, and

Varimax rotated factors. The programs provided in the

Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (Nie et al.

1975) were used for these procedures. Tie analyses were performed on subfiles consisting of data from separate and somewhat unique portions of the excavation. The greatest emphasis was placed on the ACTA subfile because the portion of the excavation from which it was drawn appeared to be the least mixed. IV. RESULTS

The current understanding of the Late Woodland Period in the Potomac Valley is such that the best culture indicator at this time is pottery type. No other artifact type that is found in significant numbers, such as projec­ tile points, can be definitely associated with a single culture. It has been noted that the smaller triangular points are most often associated with most recent Indian occupations (McNett and Gardner n.d.), but it is not possible at this time to assign a particular point to a specific culture because the range of sizes found for each culture overlap. Points at the Catoctin Creek Site, which was fairly pure Mason Island Culture, ranged in length from 1.9 to 4.2 cm (McNett and Gardner n.d.). Those at the

Hughes Site, which was primarily Luray Focus, had a range in length of at least 1.6-3.1 cm (Stearns 1940). A strong preference by the Luray Focus people for quartz as a raw material is suggested by the fact that nearly all the points at the Hughes Site were made of quartz. However, this may only reflect the lithic resources available to the particular village. Of the triangular points found at the Keyser Farm Site (also primarily Luray Focus) 39 percent were made of various kinds of cryptocrystalline quartz and

40 percent of white quartz (Manson et al. 1944). The Keyser

54 55

Farm Site is located near the Massanutten and Blue Ridge

Mountains where cryptocrystalline quartz is available.

In any case, 37 percent of the points from the Catoctin

Creek Site were made of quartz (McNett and Gardner n.d.),

indicating that quartz was frequently used by the Mason

Island Culture as well.

The flexibility of clay as a raw material allows

for greater expression of individual preference in form

and decoration than does stone. The pottery types used by

the Luray and Mason Island people were distinct from each

other not only in form and decoration, but also in the

tempering material added to the clay. In the discussion

to follow, then, pottery types are treated as culture

indicators, and the presence or absence of a pottery type

is seen as indicating the presence or absence of the

associated culture.

Artifacts and Features

The assemblages from 18M013 do not differ in any

important way from others of the respective cultures in

the Potomac Valley. (See McNett and Gardner n.d. and

Stearns 1940.) In the WO-8 area, three pottery types were

dominant among the 2,632 sherds excavated. These three

types are: 1) a crushed shell tempered ware which accounted

for 51 percent of the total and is associated with the

Luray Focus culture ; 2) a crushed limestone tempered ware

which accounts for 23 percent of the total and is associated 56 with the Mason Island Culture; and 3) a crushed quartz tempered ware also associated with the Mason Island Culture and accounting for 16 percent of the total sherd count. An additional 11 percent of the sherds found do not fall into any of these three categories. Some of these are Early

Woodland and Augusta (7 sherds); some may be related to the Mason Island Culture since they were tempered with granite (7 sherds) or quartz mixed with granite (3 sherds), sand (1 sherd), limestone (13 sherds), or crushed shell

(2 sherds). Many were tempered with fine sand or had no apparent temper. Some had lugs, nicked lips, or collars as in the Luray or Montgomery Foci. These were not included in the mathematical analyses.

There were 86 triangular points excavated from the undisturbed layers in the WO-8 area. Of these, 58 percent were small (under 2.2 cm) and were of quartz. Medium

(2.2-3.0 cm) quartz points accounted for 29 percent of the total. The remaining 13 percent consisted of 3 medium quartzite, 3 medium rhyolite, and 1 medium chert points, and 4 large (over 3.0 cm) quartzite points. Six stemmed points were excavated, but I believe these are Archaic points which were reused by the Late Woodland people.

The antler and bone tool inventory included awls, beads, fish hooks, flakers, projectile points, and hollowed out ends of cut long bones which may have been used as handles.

Many features and post molds were found and their 57 horizontal distribution is shown in Figure 3. No patterns of post molds were distinguished in the limited area excavated. Several of the features were burials. The human skeletal material has been given to the Smithsonian

Institution, but the report from them has not been received.

I did not attempt to attribute functions to the other features, except Feature 9 which was clearly a trash pit.

No obvious hearths were found, though considerable charcoal and heat-fractured rock was scattered throughout the site.

Stratigraphy

An east-west wall profile of the WO-8 square is shown in Figure 11 with the soil profile prepared by Roy

Simonson (1973). The surface of the site was 2-25 cm below the datum. The double plow zone is an indicator of the deposition that has occurred on this northern edge of the island during historic times. The nails found in the upper plow zone were mostly round headed and round shanked, while those in the lower plow zone were mostly square.

Both zones contained fairly large amounts of water-worn coal and cinder fragments and some prehistoric material which was also worn and, in the case of shell and limestone tempered pottery, leached. These two layers together were

30-40 cm thick. The cultural material in these disturbed zones was not used in the statistical analysis because of the high probability of mixing during plowing and horizontal dislocation during floods. This double plow zone was 58

labeled Layer I and II.

Layer III was not continuous. Below the plow zones

in the eastern nine of these squares (S2W0, S2W2-5, and

S3WO-2) I found a very hard, dark layer which might be a

living floor. It contained many small fragments of bone,

shell, pottery, charcoal, and lithic material. The plow

zone was removed from S4W0 and S5W0 to explore the southern

extent of this layer, but I found that it did not extend beyond the northern few centimeters of S4W0. In the rest

of S4W0 and all of S5W0, the soil below the plow zone was

dark and firm, but not as hard packed as the possible

living floor. To the west, the hard layer extended through

S2W3, all but the northwest corner of S2W4, and into S2W5.

Both the northern and western edges of this hard layer

appeared to meet in S2W5 in a rounded corner forming an angle of about 100° (see Figure 3). Its extent was not

explored further. The top of the layer was 52-60 cm below

the site datum and the layer was 15-20 cm thick, but its

lower boundary was very diffuse, consisting of a gradual

change in hardness only, with no color change. It was noted during excavations that the soil in this layer was

quite laminated and tended to break up in thin horizontal

flakes. A deep feature (Feature 7 in S3W1) contained few

artifacts except several fist-sized rocks stacked vertically

on one side. The feature ended in a rounded point 158 cm

below datum and had a maximum diameter of 25 cm. This may

have been a large post mold from a major supporting pole 59

Key To Soil Profile

Apl Very dark grayish brown sandy loam. pH = 7.0

Plow zone

Ap2 Very dark grayish brown sandy loam. pH = 7.0

Plow Zone

A1 Very dark grayish broivn sandy loam. pH = 7.0

Old surface

A3 Dark grayish brown sandy loam. pH = 8.0

Cl Dark brown sandy loam. pH = 8.0

IIC2 Brown loamy sand. pH = 8.0

142-178 cm Transitional layer with clay content

increasing with depth

178-277 cm Dark brown sandy clay loam

277-340 cm Transitional layer moving toward less sand

and more clay

340-392 cm Clay

The terms used to describe these soils express sand and clay content. In order of increasing clay content they are: sand, loamy sand, sandy loam, sandy clay loam, sandy clay, and clay. 60

iAKPT f#AW»lf|ON CLAY K < < < V U LfAM

CO i1—4 CO l-l 4-) 01 (0 CO c o I4-> •H 4-1 s ccJ CJ > Cv) 0 X 01 CO

C4-1 4-1 o a 01 r— I O r—4 Cti S • ,— s 4-1 r- Z) cr> o CO 0) § CO 0 i 4J

4-1 O I CO 0 CU

* H 01 4 4 n-C O -i-t >-i 4 4 P4 OV4 f4

r-4 "rt o ■ 0) CO G M 3 3 b 0 4-i tiO fj tcJ *i4 *r4 T d fï4'd

CJ I— I d oj •i4 r O 61 of a structure, but, as may be seen in Figure 3, it was not in the center of the hard floor. Many smaller post molds became visible below the hard floor (in Layer V), but none of them seemed related to the floor or, indeed, to exhibit any pattern at all.

Layer IV was also dark but not as hard as Layer III.

It also contained lots of cultural material, but there

seemed to be more large pieces and fewer tiny fragments of bone, pottery and shell. The thickness of this layer, too, is difficult to estimate as the lower as well as the upper boundary was very diffuse. It varied from 10-20 cm with the lower boundary marked by a gradual lightening of the solid color to a mottled dark and reddish brown.

It was in Layer V, the mottled layer, that features and post molds began to appear as dark, unmottled areas.

The mottling seems to be the result of the downward leach­

ing into the lighter material of Layer V of dark organic material from above and of disturbance by roots, insects, worms, etc. rather than of human activity. The amount of cultural material dropped considerably in this layer. In

the non-feature areas, Layer V began at 87-92 cm below

datum and was 30-50 cm thick.

Layer VI was a sterile level, 50-60 cm thick, of soft yellow-orange sandy loam. It is interrupted in the lower

30 cm by harder argillic bands.

The clay content of the soil gradually increased with

depth, resulting in a gradual increase in hardness, with a 62 sharper increase in hardness and redness at 180-190 cm below the datum signaling the top of Layer VII. Early

Woodland artifacts occurred in this level, but this occupa­ tion was not investigated.

Mean Depth Analyses

In the analyses of mean depths to follow, not all the artifact classes will be covered, as some are repre­ sented by too few artifacts or were discarded for various reasons after the data were punched on computer cards.

The classes used are listed in the Key to Figure 12.

Any vertical reference point chosen at this site so that depths from one square could be compared to depths in another was unsatisfactory. Neither a horizontal plane based on the site datum nor the present surface are related to the topography during prehistoric times. So the difference between the mean depth of each class of artifacts and the mean depth of shell tempered pottery was calculated for each square. The mean of this set of differences taken over the squares will be called the overall mean for that artifact class and group of squares. This use of the population of mean differences allowed me to calculate a standard deviation for each artifact class which is an estimate of the uncertainty of its overall mean depth.

Figure 12 shows the overall mean depths of artifact classes in the ACTA subfile. The vertical axis is the overall mean depth in centimeters, and the horizontal axis 63

Key To Figure 12

Artifact Artifact ACTA WO-8 Label Name Count Count

Pot 1 shell tempered pottery 479 891

Art 1 cobbles 25 44

Art 2 daub 83 465

Art 3 turtle shell 157 320

Art 4 bone tools 18 41

Art 11 broken rock 990 1814

Art 12 pebbles 494 923

Art 13 bone waste 858 1555

Art 15 "toy" pots 23 40

Pot 2 limestone tempered pottery 157 262

Pot 3 quartz tempered pottery 113 215

PI small quartz points 16 29

LI quartz waste 518 1088

L2 quartzite waste 58 117

L3 rhyolite waste 11 30

L4 cryptocrystalline quartz waste 14 23

L5 worked quartz 146 238

L6 worked quartzite 10 17

L7 worked rhyolite 8 14

L8 worked cryptocrystalline quartz 9 16 64

•• CO I - t (U I—I tl-l 4-> -H O O 4-1 to 0 f : o CO w 4-> ^ Pi Pi OJ 0} Eh tD > S T-l C O P W CO C O * 0 a *0) S Ki CO <; OJ EH C O W C O pL| CO I—H -

■M 5 U P Q cO fwaiiwiiw* M H - •H < |J w H P U < N cO < 3 P 4 W P txt MH 4-1 •H O O Pu PU CO x i o p p p . OJ OJ T3 > n - •H P W CO P 0 ) r H S 0M ) CO OJ CO CO • c O O J 1—1 I—4 O t 4 MH

P C O tw VI •H <*3 O tVI3J.aUU.Kf*} T HXd3a T NV3W T P -43 65 is the standard error. The 95 percent confidence limits for 4-7 degrees of freedom are indicated by the shaded area. Because the confidence one can have in the mean depth for each square depends upon the total artifact count, these are given in the key.

The artifact classes can be seen to cluster with depth into three groups. Shell tempered pottery (Pot 1) lies in a cluster covering 5 cm and composed of PI, LI,

L5-7, Art 2, and Art 11-12. No artifact classes have mean depths which fall between 2-4 cm below Pot 1. From 4-6 cm below Pot 1 another cluster occurs containing both lime­ stone tempered pottery (Pot 2) and quartz tempered pottery

(Pot 3) grouped with L2, Art 3, Art 13 and Art 15. This is followed in depth by an empty 2 cm; then by L3-4, L8,

Art 1, and Art 4.

Turning to the corresponding plot for all the non­ feature subfiles (ACTA, BURA, FETA, and SWTR) (Figure 12b) one can see that the order within the clusters has changed somewhat, and the results are scattered so that the spaces between the clusters have disappeared. However, the artifact classes which make up the clusters in the ACTA subfile do remain together with the possible exceptions of

L6 and Art 1. The standard error is smaller in the whole non-feature file because the number of degrees of freedom for each artifact class is larger, ranging from 9-19, as compared to 4-7 in the ACTA subfile. 66

Analysis of Horizontal Distributions

Figure 13 shows the distribution of Pot 2 relative to Pot 3 across the S2 trench. For each square (except

S2W1) in the trench plus three S3 squares, the count for

the two pottery types was totaled over all levels. The percentage of that total which represents Pot 2 was calcu­ lated, then the difference between that percentage and 50 percent was plotted against the west coordinate of the

squares. The relative proportions of Pot 2 and Pot 3 appear to vary in a non-random way across these 7 meters, with a shift in proportions occurring between W2 and W3.

This pattern of horizontal distributions will be referred

to again in the discussion of the Pearson's correlation coefficients.

Pearson's Correlation Coefficient Analyses

The correlation coefficients are a different measure of association among artifact classes than the mean depth plots which look only at average relative vertical position,

The correlation coefficients examine variation in all dimensions, not just the vertical dimension, and they measure the degree to which the increase and decrease in

the count (or score) of each artifact class is related to

the increase and decrease in the count of each other class. 67

Figure 13, Relative horizontal distribution of Mason Island Culture pottery types. Difference between 50 percent and the percentage of limestone tempered pottery for squares in the S2-3 trench, X=S3 squares. 68

Figure 14 gives the correlation coefficients for all

artifact classes in the ACTA subfile. Looking at corre­

lations with Pot 1, there are six artifact classes with

coefficients above +.5: LI, L5, Art 2, Art 11, and Art 12, which are all in the upper mean depth cluster, and Art 13.

Note that Art 13 (bone waste) has a coefficient over +.5 with all three pottery types, which gives a more meaningful picture of the actual distribution than does the single mean depth figure.

The middle mean depth cluster containing the other

two pottery types also appears in the correlation coeffi­

cient matrix for the ACTA subfile. Pot 2 and Pot 3

correlate with each other and with Art 13, and Art 3

correlates with Pot 3. L2 and Art 15 correlate more

strongly with Pot 3 than with anything else at +.43 and

+.49 respectively.

The lower mean depth cluster is not clear. Art 1 and L4 correlate at +.53, but none of the others correlate.

All of the artifact classes from the mean depth

clusters that have been "lost" in the correlation coeffi­

cient analysis had a standard error in the mean depth analysis of over 2.5 cm or an artifact count under 15, or both. There is simply too little data for these classes

to give reliable results.

The correlation coefficients for all the non-feature subfiles (Figure 15) maintains the strong Pot 1, LI, L5,

Art 11-13 group, but Art 2 does not correlate with any 69

PI P3 LI L2 L3 L4 .L5 L6 L7 L8 POTI P0T2 P0T3 ART1 PI 1.00 P3 O.OI 1.00 LI 0.18 0.10 1.00 12 -0.07 O.IO 0.37 1.00 L3 -O.OI -0.14 0.18 0.07 1.00 L4 -0.24 -0.07 0.19 0.4 2 0.37 1 .00 L5 0.12 0.22 0.53 0.22 0.06 0.02 1.00 L6 0.2& 0.36 0.31 0.23 -0.05 0.07 0.32 1.00 17 0.00 -0.14 0.31 0.14 0.22 0.05 0.25 0.02 1.00 L8 0.06 -0.01 0.06 0.20 0.18 0.23 -0.01 0.47 0.19 1.00 POTI 0.11 0.15 0 .80 0.36 -0.03 -0.02 0.59 0.21 0.38 -0.16 1.00 P0T2 0.09 0.05 0.30 0.34 0.49 0.42 0.41 0.17 0.35 0.29 0.26 1.00 POT 3 -0.20 0.15 0.24 0.43 0.12 0.24 0.28 0.1 8 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.50 1.00 ART1 -0.20 0.06 -0.01 0.41 -0.10 0.53 0.12 0.25 0.02 0.44 -0.09 0.21 0.36 1.00 ART 2 -0.15 -0.02 0.70 0.21 -0.07 0.09 0.22 0.09 0.23 -0.04 0.69 0.02 0.25 0.03 ART3 -0.20 0.04 0.36 0.42 0.22 0.34 0.24 0.29 0.16 0.50 0.24 0.43 0.77 0.39 ART4 -0.23 0.07 0.05 0.14 0.02 0.12 0.21 0.24 0.20 0.24 0.00 0.14 0.34 0.51 ART 7 -0.17 -0.13 0.06 0.11 0.02 0.09 0.03 -0.08 0.27 0.08 0.31 O.IZ 0.28 0.12 ART 11 0.02 0.22 0.75 0.34 0.04 0.10 0.63 0.24 0.30 -0.01 0.75 0.28 0.32 0.01 ART 12 0.10 0.24 0.81 0.4 2 0.09 0.22 0.55 0.41 0.22 0.14 0.75 0.26 0.32 0.11 ART13 -0.16 0.13 0.59 0.41 0.26 0.23 0.52 0.24 0.36 0.27 0.60 0.51 0.66 0.17 ART15 -0.32 0.02 0.15 0.32 0.13 0.20 0.15 0.03 0.28 0.07 0.27 0.04 0.49 0.26 VARIABLES LABELS PI SMALL QUARTZ POINTS P3 MEDIUM QUARTZ POINTS LI QUARTZ HASTE 12 qUARTZITE WASTE L3 RHYOLITE WASTE LA CRYPT. QUARTZ WASTE 15 WORKED QUARTZ L6 WORKED QUARTZITE L7 WORKED RHYOLITE L8 WORKED CRYPT. QUARTZ POTI SHELL TEMPERED POTTERY POTZ LIMESTONE TEMPERED POTTERY P0T3 QUARTZ TEMPERED POTTERY ART2 ART3 ART4 ART7 ART 11 ART 12 ART13 ART15 ART1 COBBLES ART2 1.00 ART2 DAUB LUMPS ART3 0.29 1.00 ART3 TURTLE SHELL FRAGMENTS ART4 0.03 0.31 1.00 ART4 BONE TOOLS ART7 0.30 0.29 -0.07 1.00 ART7 ANTLER TIPS ART 11 0.64 0.31 0.04 0.0 6 1.00 ARTll BROKEN ROCK ART 12 0.62 0.43 0.05 0.11 O.BD 1.00 ART12 PEBBLES ART 13 0.53 0.63 0.18 0.38 0.57 0.52 1.00 ART 13 BONE WASTE ARTIS 0.34 0.31 0.42 0.32 0.30 0.30 0 .3 8 1.00 ARTIS TOY POT FRAGMENTS

Figure 14. Pearson's correlation coefficient matrix: ACTA subfile. 70

PI P3 LI L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 L7 L8 POTI P0T2 P0T3 ARTl PI 1.00 P3 0 .05 1.00 LI 0 .20 0.08 1.00 L2 0 .02 -0.01 0 .3 4 1 .0 0 L3 0 .00 -0.04 -0.02 -0.01 1.00 L4 -0.14 -0.05 0.14 0.31 0.23 1.00 L5 0.17 0.09 0 .4 8 0.24 0.05 0.10 1.00 LG 0.11 0.15 0.21 0 .1 2 -0.03 0.07 0.33 1.00 L7 0.06 -0.05 0 .17 0 .1 5 0.05 0.00 0.24 -0.01 1.00 LB 0.03 -0.07 -0 ,0 2 0.11 0.22 0.09 0.02 0.30 0.14 1.00 POTI 0 .15 0.04 0 .6 8 0 .3 2 -0.08 0.11 0.51 0.24 0.17 -0.11 1.00 P0T2 0.04 0.02 0.21 0.2 9 0.36 0,36 0,41 0.15 0.24 0 .2 5 0 .2 2 1.00 P0T3 -0 .0 3 0.12 0 .27 0.3 2 0.04 0.20 0,28 0.16 0.18 0.28 0.31 0.40 1.00 ARTl -0.07 0.06 0.04 0 .2 9 -0.03 0.38 0.14 0.19 0.01 0 .2 9 0.01 0.18 0.30 1.00 ART2 -0 .1 5 0.02 0.09 0.01 -0.13 -0.06 -0.15 -0.04 -0.11 -0 .2 3 0.14 -D.17 -0.17 -0 .0 9 ART3 -0.05 0.10 0.33 0.32 0.05 0.26 0.21 0.21 0.05 0 .2 7 0 .3 0 0.33 0.56 0.19 ART4 -0 .0 8 -0.04 0 .0 8 0 .0 9 -0.04 0.01 0.10 0.17 0.09 0.13 0.04 0.09 0.22 0 .3 4 ART 7 -0.13 -0 .1 0 -0.05 0 .0 5 0.03 0.04 0.02 -0.02 0.12 -0.01 0.18 0.06 0.20 0 .0 8 ARTll 0.12 0.13 0.71 0.3 2 -0.05 0.18 0.59 0.26 0.17 0.07 0.74 0.32 0.39 0 .1 0 ARTl 2 0.14 0.13 0 .7 4 0.4 0 -0.07 0.19 0.53 0.29 0.09 0 .0 8 0.71 0.22 0.32 0 .1 5 ARTl 3 -0.09 0.0 8 0 .5 0 0 .3 3 0.13 0.25 0.50 0.22 0.19 0 .1 3 0 .5 6 0.48 0.52 0 .1 4 ARTl 5 -0 .2 0 -0 .0 3 0.1 6 0.24 0.10 0.17 0.17 0.14 0.12 0 .0 6 0.2 9 0.12 0.33 0.17 VARIABLES LABELS PI SHALL QUARTZ POINTS P3 MEDIUM QUARTZ POINTS LI QUARTZ HASTE L2 QUARTZITE WASTE L3 RHYOLITE WASTE L4 CRYPT. QUARTZ WASTE L5 WORKED QUARTZ L6 WORKED QUARTZITE L7 WORKED RHYOLITE L8 WORKED CRYPT. QUARTZ POTI SHELL TEMPERED POTTERY P0T2 LIMESTONE TEMPERED POTTERY PÛT3 QUARTZ TEMPERED POTTERY ART 2 ART3 ART4 ART7 ARTll ARTl 2 ART 13 ARTIS ART1 COBBLES ART2 1.00 ART2 DAUB LUMPS ART3 D.12 1.00 ART’ TURTLE SHELL FRAGMENTS ART4 0.05 0.17 1 .0 0 ART', BONE TOOLS ART7 0.10 D.14 0 .1 5 1 .00 ART? ANTLER TIPS ARTll -0.05 0.38 0 .0 0 -0 .0 2 1.00 ARTll BROKEN ROCK ART 12 0.10 0.37 0.0 2 0.0 0 0.79 1.00 ART 12 PEBBLES ART 13 0.15 0.54 0.2 4 0.22 0.53 0.51 1.00 ART13 BONE WASTE ARTl 5 0.05 0.27 0 .2 5 0.17 0.30 0.27 0.34 l.OD ARTIS TOY POT FRAGMENTS

Figure 15. Pearson's correlation coefficient matrix: ACTA, BURA, FETA, and SWTR subfiles. 71 other artifact class. The middle group shows up less strongly with Pot 3 and Art 3 above +.5 and Art 13 corre­ lating somewhat with both Pot 2 and Pot 3. The correlation coefficient between the two pottery types has dropped to

+.40 which can be explained as the result of variation in horizontal distribution (see Figure 13). The ACTA subfile contains mostly squares in which Pot 2 dominates, whereas in two of the other subfiles Pot 3 is dominant. This negative horizontal correlation has depressed the high positive coefficient that would be expected from the similar vertical positions of the two pottery types.

Discounting Art 13, it can be seen that there are two basic artifact groups; Pot 1, LI, L5, Art 11, and Art

12 as one group, and Pot 2, Pot 3, and Art 3 as the other.

The correlation among the artifact classes within each group is robust and the groups maintain their identity through replication (the ACTA subfile and the entire non­ feature file), through examination of more than one dimen­ sion (vertical in the mean depth analysis and other dimensions in the Pearson's correlation analysis), and through more than one measure of association (similar mean depths, and artifact counts which increase and decrease from case to case in a related or predictable way). The reality of the cultural relationships among these artifact classes is very convincing. 72

Principal Factor Analyses

Half of the artifact classes have strong loadings on

Factor 1 in the principal factor analyses (Figures 16-17).

This is a result of variations in case size, and Factor 1 must be discarded.

Factor 2 in the ACTA principal factor analysis

(Figure 16) shows a negative loading over -.5 for Pot 1 and a positive loading of .4 for Pot 3. Although few of

the loadings are very high, Pot 1, LI, Art 2, Art 11, and

Art 12 have their strongest loadings negatively on Factor 2

All of these artifact classes are in the upper basic group with L5 which does not appear strongly here. The positive

loadings include Pot 3 and Art 3 from the middle group; and L4, L8, Art 1, and Art 4 from the lower mean depth group. Pot 2 appears on Factor 4 with L3.

The upper mean depth cluster, including Pot 1, main­

tains its integrity fairly well through the principal

factor analysis of the ACTA subfile, but the middle cluster

splits and appears on two separate factors.

The principal factor loadings for all the non-feature

subfiles taken together are generally depressed, with all

three pottery types on Factor 2 (Figure 17). Again, however. Pot 1 loads negatively along with the other members of its basic group. 73

«o o fN -4 'ü tn —4 »n CDsü 'O m *J0 O m 'T 'n «no m lO o O h- m tn j) in m r~ X w ■n vn H N M V m r- Ln U o rn H n v/>Ln u o aj V»-«-4 a 4# n ta r- >* -4 fT»o N -T r*

-1—4 ■M—4 o o n h*G O ^ GOo rn o o cort) —# sO o coCO N 0» o O' rsl 'N ni ul co sf •n O a l A fs. (U ü C CD CO us O fNJ ,f) 4f\ Orn N N, NI ~ r n u » u s 0» O ' f • O O nO ?NJ r * f N D ^ N m r * t h u s n N c o r o o co H* N rsi O o N O n N O 'j' O N o o •V n -# o o -4 ’w ' O 4 $ f • » • • * « • • t < O O o o 0 O 0 o 0 o O O 0 o o o 0 o 0 o o O a. t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ( o N lA ni m co o r~ -4 r- fN N h- en N rn •O n- m — 4 o •o *o O 03 N M ►— ,n o p- fN O -# fN o tn o fO ■N o m O O O w O o # « 4 « 4 4 4 t o 4J X—S < o O o o O O o OO o o Q O O a o O O O o o . u. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 » 1 1 O cü CO 1- 1 OJ 1—\ l A N \ 0 c o t n o o AJ vj- o en o rn vO l A AJ g - o - 4 Xi en l A o r - vO fO AJ M o o n AJo en •A O N" 'O ca cd ce «A CJ -4 l A o o o A \A •a r - - 4 l A m rn 0 0 k A r n n ) (A t n D j I—t o m O 30 r - D >T tn l A r* -N D O ro w o -4 . A r LA «■A h- co -4 o GO tn o AI m O ao A- LA €0 > et enCDr- lA a co oco AJ r* -4 o y»en 00 n n- en u kO AJ s f e-4 c in 03 m o T LA r- o m n- AJ <3 o xj- iA m 'T I—1 W K m .'f AJ N ~r fN o o lA in AJ'T

N fA m ^ AJ AJ •A xt n * H K k- t» k- K H fr­ fr­ H -4 m Aj m 4 1 4 5 M CD Q 3 O et D£ ûf QC OC ct oc e t û t a CL - J - J •J _J _J - J - J a a CL < < < < < < < 4 74

lA TO 'J' O' <*- O' r - O' — , TO A o o A- N m n O A N n O M r— r — lA o on — > f 4 - 3 N O lA 'JO 3 lA 'O •O r - A o £> M o o O' •JO N -* O O M X> ' "4 - 4 -4 o 4 - a r - 4 - CO J' 3 A "V 0 0 o o t n A lA VJ 54 M O 4- —4 00 A O' N A 4- 4- o 30 A O' O' A O' 4- A rA O' O M-l A AAA AA A lA ■4- O' A V -4 CO O A O' O' A A CO A 4 J a: sr O 3 o A ■A •■A A o> A lA tA 4 3 ■A 4 O' r- iA A O' 3 O 4 3 ■4" O' 4" A 3 O A O' A A fA —4 0 >T 4- A 03 4* O' O O' r- f d 1— 1 1— A 3 O 3 .fl 3 A -4 n A O O A r-4 A •4- O O « -4A o * • t • « « * • • « # • « t ■ • • « •• # • 03 •4 3 3 3 3 OO 3 3 Q a o 3 o 3 O 3 O O 3 O 3 3 1— 1 54 4. t 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 » I td D u 6 0 ■ H O flu q o |X A —J A A lA A 4 —t 3 —4 ■JO A O i“'4o O' 43 . ' 4 3 |x •H 03 O' tA lA 3 A A ■o 3 r~ ■A A o A 3 O' |x CO 00 O' M 03 OC A fx A 4 —1O' AJ A 4 fx AA —4 43 o -4 lA O o 03 A P k 0 3 c A ■4" AJ —4 O' O •X) A CJOA m A 4 3 AA A 4-H 4 |x fx 1- •'1 —4 4 _4 ;A 4 —•O 3 A 4 n A in fA fA n CN n .A 3 A 3 « • 4 «* » • • • f *• f • * • • • t «* # O o o o O 3 3 o O O O o O O O 3 o O o o o O p x IL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1— 1 CO 03 03 f-1

00 O' 3 A A 4 o OA •A o A .—1O' —trx A fA 3 bOX CO o- 4 h- .—1A 3 A O' CA |x O' lA ■o CC 4 o o 4 A 3 4 -H :3 X fA O’ O' 3 o A —4 •A ■ ijfA 3 •A 3 A A 4 O' O' 4 —4

—« N fO lA F-t-l-F-t-5-F- F-t-KF-l- —'■n—<"vjrn

Varimax Factor Analyses

A Varimax rotation was performed on the factors from the ACTA subfile (Figure 18). Pot 1 appears on Factor 1 with LI, L5, Art 2, and Art 11-13. Pot 3 maintains its association with Art 3, Art 13, and Art 15 on Factor 2 where Art 7, which was not used in the mean depth analysis, is added. Pot 2 appears with L3 on Factor 3.

A Varimax factor analysis was also performed on a data set which included all of the excavated material from the WO-8 area including the SMFT, NINE, and MISC subfiles.

Significant loadings (+.6 and above for artifact classes with counts of 50 or more) were: Pot 1, LI, L5, Art 11, and

Art 12 on Factor 1 and Pot 2 and L2 on Factor 2. Pot 3 did not appear strongly at all.

I had originally hoped to replicate the analyses using data from the features, expecting that there would be little mixing in them. However, the artifact counts were too low in SMFT for meaningful results, and NINE appears to be too scrambled. Counts were also too small for the BURA, FETA, and SWTR subfiles taken separately. 76

N s T o k O C O •N < r N" L p t n o • n m c n i N N 3 0 y > 3 ) o u * ■ N f— U- U 1 y ) * r l A C O 3 > O J- m aj CC Lf% hJ T# G o Q - 4 “n n - u —* N OJ O LU N m u t u '-3 n -N - n - 4 4 J OLO LU r * * u n N U > LU r * u > v $ h * iT\ Q N r o N o o -NI N - 4 o “N — 4 o o o « # O O 3 O o o G O O o a o o o O o o O o o 3 o i L 1 \ 1 1 1 1 Ï 1

o r g s O N o * m O' - 4 r n o " 4 OO c n o o 4 " o 2 0 n nO r g • n n •O 3 3 r - 'T O ' r - n O' < 3 m - r • n • n V » ■ o - g N N r * JC r - O' 3 3 \ T o O'P- r * f n n -4" k f N 3 0 n D o 3 3 o N N 'S - n A O - n o o N O o o O' 4 * m o < 3 C J f r- N OQ 3 o G N - g o 3 N o 4 3 O o o O 4 - • < o a O O o O 3 o o O o 3 O o o 3 O o o 3 O a Vi. 1 1 1 1 1 1 OJ I—I ■rl m t n N r - n 2 0 — 1 m i n o 4 * O' 4 " aO o N y > t n h » 2 3 o AJ 3 3 3 3 O' AJ p s . O' a - o 3 0 O' 1- ^ N o '0 a C 3 0 O' s33 r - r - O -T 3 3 r ~ a O O ' > r v T o 4 - CO CO lO « 3 • n n n n ' n • n OCU» r - O' m CO i n o N C O n o k— N I o o o o & n o 2 0 o — 4 y i o m o O f— • o O < G o 3 o o o 3 o o G 3 G o o 3 o o o O o a o g O < • W * • 1— 1 CO ou'*omco * go ^ o -n c> •33 M rû se o*T'Df--*-*N0ino3>o-Nr» Nj C7> o 'O 33 a (N -4 rn o rt C3 LT»O'70ca-rS'N£D-v5“O n, ^._ o . . m 3] (A n 4] 4 4 4J r-l fr- cNoo-n^U'Oo — *—*inoTjoao-*a—♦ ####*#** - , ___ , », O W tt) Q) < 030000030000 0 000000000a o a 4k rk UL II I I I I kû X rt rt•rl 0?AACO<0‘nC7'OTP'AA44f<1 AT- 4 4 0 0 ' ' Q O e Ik U'rv(''1fxin—• t n 4 J O O ' J ' . < 1 u > ' H O O ' . A 4 4 ] o O O CÏ' •ik rt 3C 0»T1 \l T3 4 O \ i m C 3 U ' O > 0 W ' O J J U ' C 3 f x c 0 - U f w Ik > 3 n x i r - ' g o o —• —t'-jinr-TO ^ uu^i a a 4 A 0 4 4 c a rt fr— —IO-.4—«xi-nm oT —lO a jA O A A C jo —tO"no Ik w ######»#*###*###$###»#> o 4 a o o 3 0 0 00000003 oooooooo I I II I 4k 00 r-k i-k in m m p- 4* —* ..4 o O' *g CO tn -J vO rg 00 AJ O' 4- o n h- go O o rg -n r- rg pk- -n rv O' p' P- O' o p- P- CO r^-r-rgccrgcooorg—*in|xrO'g.T)cr4 m O rg n4 O' 4 u>p-OAix4cco'|x-xp-<7>r-4jr—o . r- fA. o_ 4 . 45 , oa c £ fMO'ffl—•4 'n 4 —14)0'40'4004J4rOir»0'OACO O A ffio—*fA'0«or-or-'ï''U4)4jAx^o.'n44.'f| * t— —I—4C'.'r|OOir'rgrr>Oco-4—

IN rû in rg m 4 p- -N h- »- p- fr­ fr— 1— fr^ fr­ fr­ I— fr­ fr­ «-4 m -4 rg m 4- in g) p- CO a o o oc a: a: œ oc oc or oc og cx a. -f -J — 1 _J Q. a.

Some conclusions can be drawn about the cultures represented at 18M013. Looking first only at the distribu­ tions of the three pottery types, it is clear from the mean depth analysis alone that the Mason Island Culture preceded the Luray Culture, This supports the currently accepted chronology presented in the literature and reviewed briefly in Chapter II above.

Mason Island Culture

It seems likely that little or no temporal separation exists between the two pottery types (limestone and quartz tempered) of the Mason Island Culture. A Student's t-test showed less than an 85 percent chance that the difference in mean depth is significant. McNett and Gardner (n.d.) found similar conditions at the Catoctin Creek Site.

The attributes of Montgomery Focus and Mason Island

Culture sites and the relationship between them have been mentioned in Chapter II. All of the known sites in the

Potomac Valley have a similar pottery complex with at least two kinds of tempering material represented at each site, l^fhere the distribution of sherds by temper has been examined, there appears to be no significant difference in mean depth, but there is a nonrandom horizontal distribution.

77 78

At the Mason Island II Site, the correlation coeffi­ cients of +.4 and +.5 between limestone and quartz tempered pottery suggest that some negative correlation is depressing the coefficients, and this influence is found in the complementary horizontal distributions. In their analyses of two Montgomery Focus Sites in the Potomac Valley, McNett and Gardner (n.d.) also found the distributions of pottery types to be nonrandom. At the Winslow Site three kinds of tempering materials were used: quartz, granite, and a mixture of sand and grit. The sherds tempered with sand and grit were concentrated in a few pits rather than generally distributed among the quartz and granite tempered sherds. A similar nonrandom distribution was found at the

Fisher Site (McNett and Gardner n.d.) where the pottery was tempered with grit or a sand and grit mixture. It is impossible with the present data to interpret the horizontal distribution at 18M013 except to say that it is quite con­ sistent with either of the models proposed by McNett and

Gardner (n.d.). These authors suggest that the two pottery types reflect (1) the temper preferences of individual potters, or (2) some aspect of social organization, such as kinship groups. At 18M013 the two types could also reflect a change in preference with time (coinciding with a slight change in activity area), but the elapsed time could not have been very great since it is not reflected in depth. McNett and Gardner (n.d.) find that the temper difference corresponds to different decorative motifs. The 79 material from 18M013 has not been carefully examined from this point of view, but there is some indication (see

Figures 5-6) that horizontal lines of dentates and very short, deep gashes terminating the collar appear only on quartz tempered rims.

At 18M013 the mathematical analyses showed a corre­ lation between the limestone tempered pottery and rhyolite and quartzite waste, and between the quartz tempered pottery and turtle shell and deer antler fragments. No attempt is reported to make such correlations at other Potomac Valley sites, but turtle shell and deer antler artifacts are reported from both Montgomery Focus and Mason Island Culture sites, as well as Luray Focus sites (McNett and Gardner n.d.). At the Shepard Site, for which lithic waste is tabulated (MacCord et al. 1957), the figures for 784 chips from the undisturbed Montgomery Focus layer are: quartz

71 percent, rhyolite 21 percent, quartzite 7 percent, and

"flints" 2 percent. This seems to me to show a greater emphasis on rhyolite than is found in the later Luray Focus

(see below). This is also supported by the projectile point data from the three Montgomery Focus sites where both quartz and rhyolite points are reporced. At the Catoctin Creek

Site over half the points were rhyolite.

The Montgomery Focus and Mason Island Culture have quite distinct burial practices (McNett and Gardner n.d.), as described in Chapter II. Of the 10 burials found at

18MQ13, 5 were adults. On the basis of the pottery found 80

in the grave fill, I believe they may be attributed to the

Mason Island Culture occupation. These burials were

clustered together (see Figure 3) and 4 were extended,

supine, and aligned with their heads to the southeast. The

last was a bundle burial placed with one of the extended burials. This fits with the burial practices as they are known for the Mason Island Culture from the Catoctin Creek

Site and the Mason Island I Site (McNett and Gardner n.d.),

although the authors do not mention a southeast alignment.

Such an alignment has, however, been shown to be an

important element in the burial practices at several Shenks

Ferry sites in eastern Pennsylvania (Kinsey and Graybill

1971). However, at 18M013 the burials appear to be

clustered together whereas at Shenks Ferry sites they are associated with the houses. The similarity of both the

Mason Island Culture and Montgomery Focus to the Shenks

Ferry Culture in pottery styles and site location on or near rich agricultural land has been noted by McNett and

Gardner (n.d.).

Luray Focus

The artifact classes persistently appearing with the

Luray shell tempered pottery throughout the present analyses

of 18M013 are worked and waste quartz, clay daub, and pebbles (smooth stones about 1-5 cm in diameter). Small

quartz triangular points are associated with shell tempered

pottery in the mean depth analyses. 81

The Hughes Site is a relatively pure Luray Focus

site, and is the only such site knoT-m in the Potomac

Piedmont. Very few of the hundreds of points found at the

Hughes Site (Stearns 1940) were made of materials other

than quartz, and most appear to be small (under 2.2 cm),

although medium sized points were found. McNett and

Gardner (n.d.) attribute the different sizes to different

functions. Stearns (1940) makes no mention of lithic waste

from the site. I conducted a limited controlled surface

collection across the Hughes Site and found that the lithic

waste was almost entirely of quartz.

The clay daub found to correlate strongly with shell

tempered pottery at 18M013 may indicate that the Luray

people built wattle and daub structures, or they could be

a by-product of pottery making. Most of the lumps of clay

are untempered and are rather crumbly especially when wet,

as if they were poorly fired or not fired at all. A few well fired pieces were shaped into "snakes" (as if for

making coiled pots), "squeezes," and round tablets. Two

biconical beads were also found made of fired, untempered

clay.

I can find no clue as to the function of the pebbles,

though a few were somewhat abraded. Many were of bright

colors, especially yellow, and some were found in loose

clusters. Neither pebbles nor clay daub are referred to in

the Hughes Site report (Stearns 1940) or the Keyser Farm

Site report (Manson et al. 1944). 82

The Luray Focus component at 18M013 is similar, especially in pottery style, to the Hughes Site (Stearns

1940) and to several sites in the upper Potomac and

Shenandoah Valleys (Manson et al. 1944, MacCord 1964,

MacCord and Rodgers 1966 and Handsman 1977). Some of these sites are, like 18M013, multicomponent sites lacking complete stratigraphie separation. Handsman (1977) and

McNett and Gardner (n.d.) have discussed the relationship of this focus to the Monongahela of the upper Ohio River

Valley.

Bone waste appears, as one would expect, with each pottery type, but broken rock is most strongly associated with the Luray pottery. One can be quite sure that the people of the Mason Island Culture produced broken rock during the time they occupied 18M013. Apparently they did not produce as much of it in the excavated area as the

Luray people did. This points out a severe limitation in the present work. Only a small fraction of the total site was excavated, and use of the ACTA subfile limited the area carefully examined even further. This means that the full range of artifactual material available at different activity areas in the village was not available for analysis.

Method of Analysis

Obtaining reasonably consistent results from both a mean depth analysis and a correlation coefficient matrix is 83 a strong indication that the resulting components are a true reflection of cultural reality since two independent measures of association are involved. Also, in attempting to interpret the results of the multivariate analysis I found that the use of univariate techniques, particularly frequency distribution plots, was very useful in under­ standing the sources of variation expressed in the factor analyses.

By using a relatively undisturbed portion of the site for the data analysis procedures , I was able to obtain sharper, more interpretable results than by using the data from the entire excavated area. The area of the activity floor, especially since only a portion of it was excavated, is very limited; but further excavations would yield more extensive results. If many such floors are present at

18M013 it might even be possible to attribute the less common artifacts, such as projectile point and specific bone tool types, to a particular culture. An evaluation of a site in terms of activity areas, followed by a choice of the potentially least mixed areas for analysis, seems to me to be a worthwhile approach to the analysis of multi- component sites.

There are innumerable questions still unanswered about the various cultures that have occupied the Potomac Valley.

I believe that our understanding of the Late Woodland cultures is impeded by the difficulty in interpreting mixed and partially mixed multicomponent sites. The tendency in 84 some past reports on such sites to lump all culture traits together as if a single culture were being described is not only inaccurate in itself, it also hampers other studies. The true nature of the societies involved remains hidden ; Late Woodland settlement and village patterns are confused; and studies of processual problems, such as why some locations were reoccupied several times while some otherwise promising locations appear not to have been occupied at all, are discouraged. Only when the cultures in the area are clearly defined can they be meaningfully related to similar cultures in neighboring areas, and the contacts, interactions, and movements of peoples be under­ stood. I believe that the application of techniques such as those described in this paper will help in the inter­ pretation of partially mixed multicomponent sites. REFERENCES CITED

Burt, William H ., and Richard P. Grossenheider

1952 A field guide to the mammals. Houghton Mifflin,

Boston.

Carter, Randy

1967 Canoeing white water river guide. Appalachian

Outfitters, Oakton, Va.

Evans, Clifford

1955 A ceramic study of Virginia archeology. Bureau of

American Ethnology, Bulletin 160.

Gardner, William M. , and Charles W. McNett, Jr.

1971 Early pottery in the Potomac. Proceedings of the

Middle Atlantic Archeology Conference: 42-52.

Handsman, Russell G .

1970 Catoctin Creek: A multi-component site in the upper

Potomac Valley. Manuscript prepared for the Potomac

Valley Archeology Survey. On file at The American

University, Washington, D.C.

1977 A culture resource management study of the Oldtown,

Maryland locality. On file at the Anthropology Depart­

ment, University of Maryland, College Park.

85 86

Hobbs, Horace P . , Jr.

1964 Rock dams in the upper Potomac. Quarterly Bulletin

Archeological Society of Virginia 19(3): 55-60.

1965 Rock dams in the upper Potomac (continued) . Quar­

terly Bulletin Archeological Society of Virginia 20(4) :

96-98.

1966 Rock dams in the upper Potomac (concluded?). Quar­

terly Bulletin Archeological Society of Virginia 21(1);

21 - 2 2 .

Jenkins, Enos V.

1973 Lucketts, Virginia. Owner of Lower Mason Island

1928-52, private communication.

Kaylor, Joseph F.

1946 Forests of Carroll and Frederick Counties. In The

physical features of Carroll County and Frederick

County, Maryland Board of Natural Resources, Department

of Geology, Mines and Water Resources, pp. 219-230.

Kinsey, W. Fred III, and Jeffrey R. Graybill

1971 Murry site and its role in Lancaster and Funk

phases of Shenks Ferry culture. Pennsylvania

Archaeologist 41(4): 7-44.

Kinsey, W. Fred III, Jeffrey R. Graybill, and Henry Heisey

1971 Introduction to Shenks Ferry culture: a view from

1971, Pennsylvania Archaeologist 41 (4): 1-7. 87

Larrabee, Edward M.

1961 A survey of historic and prehistoric archeological

sites along the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National

Monument. Report prepared for the National Park

Service. -On file with the Maryland State Archeologist,

Baltimore.

MacCord, Howard A.

1964 The Bowman site, Shenandoah County, Virginia.

Quarterly Bulletin Archeological Society of Virginia

19(2);43-49.

MacCord, Howard A., and C. Lanier Rodgers

1966 The Miley site, Shenandoah County, Virginia.

Quarterly Bulletin Archeological Society of Virginia

21(1):9-20.

MacCord, Howard A., Karl Schmitt, and Richard G, Slattery

1957 The Shepard site study. Archeological Society of

Maryland, Bulletin 1 .

Manson, Carl P., Howard A. MacCord, and James B. Griffin

1944 The culture of the Keyser Farm site. Papers of the

Michigan Academy of Science, Arts and Letters 29:375-418

Mayer-Oakes, William J.

1955 Prehistory of the upper Ohio Valley. Annals of

Carnegie Museum 34, Anthropological Series 2 . 88

McNett, Charles W., Jr., and William M. Gardner

n.d. Archeology in the lower and middle Potomac Valley.

Manuscript in preparation.

Nie, N. H., H. H. Hull, J. G. Jenkins, K. Steinbrenner, and D . Bent

1975 Statistical package for the social sciences. McGraw-

Hill, New York.

Olsen, Stanley J.

1973 Mammal remains from archaeological sites, part I:

southeastern and southwestern United States. Papers of

the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology

56(1).

Schmitt, Karl

1952 Archeological chronology of the Middle Atlantic

states. In Archeology of eastern United States, edited

by James B. Griffin, pp. 59-70. The University of

Chicago Press, Chicago.

Simonson, Roy W.

1973 U.S. Department of Agriculture, private communica­

tion.

Spaulding, Albert C.

1971 Introductory address. In Mathematics in the archeo­

logical and historical sciences, edited by F. R. Hodson,

D. G, Kendall, and P. Tautu, pp. 3-16. Edinburgh

University Press, Edinburgh. 89

Stearns, Richard E.

1940 The Hughes site. Proceedings of the Natural History

Society of Maryland, 6:1-20.

Tidwell, William A.

1967 The Montgomery focus. Archeological Society of

Maryland Miscellaneous Papers, 6:11-17.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service

1960 Soil survey of Loudoun County, Virginia. U.S.

Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

1961 Soil survey of Montgomery County, Maryland. U.S.

Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

Vokes, Harold E.

1957 Geography and geology of Maryland. Maryland

Geological Survey, Bulletin 19.

Wimsatt, W. K . , Jr.

1958 A cache of blades near the Great Falls of the

Potomac. Archaeology 11(2) : 87-92.

Wright, Henry T.

1959 A preliminary sequence for the upper Potomac River

Valley. The West Virginia Archeologist 11:9-21.

1963 Herman Barton Village site (18AG3): A stratified

late ceramic site in the upper Potomac Valley. The

West Virginia Archeologist 15 : 9-20. 90

Yarnell, Richard Asa

1964 Aboriginal relationships between culture and plant

life in the upper Great Lakes region. University of

Michigan, Anthropological Papers 23.