Catoctin Creek: a Mason Island Complex Site

CATOCTIN CREEK: A MASON ISLAND COMPLEX SITE

IN THE MIDDLE POTOMAC VALLEY

Sevrie S. Corson

submitted to the

Faculty of the College of Arts and Sciences

of American University

in Partial Fulfillment of

the Requirements for the Degree of

Master of Arts

Anthropology

Chair: Richard J. Dent

Charles W. McNett, Jr.

Dean of die College

Date

2003

American University

Washington, D.C. 20016 AMERICAN t P.SiTY LIBRARY

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. UMI Number: 1417253

INFORMATION TO USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.

® UMI

UMI Microform 1417253

unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

ProQuest Information and Learning Company 300 North Zeeb Road P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ©COPYRIGHT

Sevrie S. Corson

2003

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CATOCTIN CREEK: A MASON ISLAND COMPLEX SITE

IN THE MIDDLE POTOMAC VALLEY

Sevrie S. Corson

ABSTRACT

This study examinesthe Late Woodland component of the Catoctin Creek site in

Loudoun County, Virginia as it fits into the larger archaeological landscape of the Middle

Potomac Valley. There were three discrete archaeological complexes known in the region

in the Late Woodland Period: the Montgomery Complex, the Mason Island Complex, and

the Luray Complex. The Catoctin Creek site is considered a part of the Mason Island

Complex, an archaeological classification of culturally similar sites whose inhabitants

shared a common tradition in their methods of maki ng pots, burying their dead and

settling their villages. A detailed description o f the 1970 Potomac River Archaeological

Survey (PRAS) excavational findings and artifacts of Catoctin Creek show the veracity of

the site as a model of the Mason Island Complex.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I wanted to thank the archaeological community of the Middle Potomac Valley in

general for their support. Whether it was copying a report they wrote twenty years ago or

looking in a file for a survey report, they were quick to offer to help and advice. I would

especially like to thank Kristin Montaperto and Dave Hunt o f the Smithsonian who spent

two long days examining the Catoctin Creek skeletons with me. Additionally, the owner

of the property in 1970, Mr. McKimmey, deserves my appreciation for allowing the

excavation crew access to his field.

I would like to thank Joe Dent, my advisor, and Charlie McNett for bearing with

on the long road to completion of this thesis. I tended to work in spurts in deference to

my toddler’s attitude of the week, and that could not have been easy to follow.

Lastly, I would like to thank my husband, my son and Debbie Taub for supporting

me throughout the process. As editors, babysitters, or just good listeners, they kept me

sane and pushed me to finish.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT...... ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...... iii

LIST OF TABLES...... vi

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS...... vii

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION...... 1

Research Objectives...... 1

Late Woodland Setting...... 1

The Catoctin Creek Site ...... 4

Methodology ...... 7

CHAPTER TWO: THE LATE WOODLAND IN THE MIDDLE POTOMAC VALLEY...... 10

General Characteristics ...... 11

The Montgomery Complex...... 12

The Luray Complex...... 18

CHAPTER THREE:THE MASON ISLAND COMPLEX...... 24

Archaeological History...... 24

Traits...... 25

Sites...... 28

CHAPTERFOUR:THE CATOCTIN CREEK SITE...... 41

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Location 41

Excavational History...... 43

Site Plan...... 47

Stratigraphy...... 51

Features...... 54

CHAPTER FIVE: THE CATOCTIN CREEK SITE: MATERIAL CULTURE ...... 72

Artifacts 72

Radiocarbon Date...... 88

CHAPTER SIX: CONCLUSION ...... 91

BIBLIOGRAPHY...... 95

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Radiocarbon Dates of Montgomery Complex Sites...... 14

Table 2: Radiocarbon Dates of Luray Complex Sites .... 19

Table 3: Tempering Material at Mason Island Sites...... 27

Table 4: Radiocarbon Dates of Mason Island Complex Sites...... 31

Table 5: Rust’sStratigraphy for Catoctin Creek ...... 47

Table 6: Artifact Quantities from Selected Excavation Units...... 51

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Figure 1: Map of Major Montgomery and Luray Complex Sites...... 17

Figure 2: Map of Mason Island Complex Sites .... 30

Figure 3: Catoctin Creek Site Plan...... 48

Figure 4: Detail of Catoctin Creek Site Area A...... 49

Figure 5: Stratigraphy at the Catoctin Creek Site...... 53

Figure 6: Burial 1 ...... 63

Figure 7: Burial 2...... 64

Figure 8: Burials 3 and 4...... 65

Figure 9: Burial 5..... 66

Figure 10: Burial 6 ...... 67

Figure 11: Burial 7 ...... 68

Figure 12: Headdress of Burial 7 ...... 69

Figure 13: Decorated Rimsherds ...... 78

Figure 14: Miscellaneous Sherds and Pipes...... 79

Figure 15: Projectile Points and Assorted Tools...... 83

Figure 16: Hammerstones andGround Stone Tools...... 84

Figure 17: Bone and Shell Artifacts...... 89

vii

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

This thesis is an analysis of the Catoctin Creek site (44LD15), assigned by

regional archaeologists to the Mason IslandComplex of the Late Woodland Period. The

Catoctin Creek site is located within the Piedmont region of Northern Virginia on the first

terrace of the Potomac River(Rust 1986:1,21). The Late Woodland component recovered

from the site was instrumental in the formulation of the Mason Island Complex by

WilliamGardner and Charles McNett, Jr. (Franklin 1979:77-80; Peck 1980:15-16; Sacchi

1980:50-52,61). The identification of a Mason Island Complex site is based upon the

site’s geographic location, mortuary treatments and pottery types (Franklin 1979:26;

McNett n.d.:fV:37; Sacchi 1980:51). Currently, there is limited information on the Mason

Island Complex in the published record. I have chosen to write a descriptive analysis of

the Mason Island component at Catoctin Creek in aneffort to add valuable and accessible

information to the archaeological picture of the Middle Potomac Valley in the Late

Woodland Period.

LATE WOODLAND SETTING

The archaeological excavation of sites in the Middle Potomac Valley in the Late

Woodland Period (A.D. 900-1600) have revealed numerous agricultural villages situated

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2

along the floodplains of the Potomac, Shenandoah and Monocacy River Valleys.

Occupational midden, storagepits, palisades and burials all suggest the villages were for

the most part occupied intensively year round. Short forays into outlying areas provided

the necessary resources to sustain the population while still allowing the villagers to stay

near their crops. As long distance trade decreased and people became more sedentary,

clusters of villages became increasingly insular (Custer 1986b:155-156; Dent 2002:15;

Hantman & Klein 1992:143-152; Jirikowic 1995:65-74,91-98; Kavanagh 1982:79-82;

Potter 1993:141-147; Walker & Miller 1992:165-167). In addition to geographic

proximity, certain settlements often show remarkable similarities in pottery style and

burial treatment, suggesting a related group of people known as an archaeological

complex. A complex is based upon a spatially and temporally limited grouping of

archaeological sites with shared traits in their material culture (Jirikowic 1995:100-105;

McNett n.d.:Intro: 14-27; Slattery & Woodward 1992:141-143). A complex is described

by R. J. Dent (2001:16) as “...the archaeological equivalent o f a culture, or at least a

distinct ethnic group.”

In the Middle Potomac Valley, three discrete complexes emerged in the

archaeological record o f the Late Woodland Period: the Montgomery Complex, the

Mason Island Complex and the Luray Complex (Custer 1986b: 155-156; Dent 2002:16;

Jirikowic 1995:78-91; Kavanagh 1982: 69-79; MacCord 1992:161-168; Potter 1993:126-

131; Schmitt 1952:67; Walker & Miller 1992:169-172; Wright 1959:17-18). The

Montgomery Complex sites have yielded Shepard Cord Marked pottery, stone discoidals

and flexed burials with few grave goods. Montgomery Complex villages were located

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 3

along the Potomac River near Selden, Vandeventer and HarrisonIslands, and in the

Monocacy and ShenandoahRiver valleys during the early part of the Late Woodland

Period, approximately A.D. 900-1450 (Bastian 1974; Custer 1986b: 156; Dent 2002;

Kavanagh 1982:70-74; McNett n.d.:IV:2-3;24-29; Peck & Bastian 1977; Peck 1980;

Potter 1993:126-128; Schmitt 1952:62; Slattery & Woodward 1992).

The Mason Island Complex includes a cluster of settlements along the Monocacy

River, the Potomac River between Harrison’s Island and Harper’s Ferry, and the Upper

Potomac River near Cumberland, Maryland. Some o f the sites have been radiocarbon

dated to approximately the middle of the Late Woodland Period, overlapping in time with

the Montgomery Complex, approximately A.D. 1000-1300. Mason Island pottery is

tempered with either crushed quartz or crushed limestone, collared or uncollared and

sometimes decorated with distinctive geometric patterns such as oblique or vertical

gashes, horizontal cord wrapped stick lines and punctates. Graves found at Mason Island

sites contained individuals in supine, extended positions and occasionally with grave

goods (Franklin 1979:26,77-80; Jirikowic 1995:80-86; Kavanagh 1982:75-77; MacCord

1992:165-166; McNett n.d.:IV:37-44,52-53; Peck 1980:15-16; Potter 1993:130; Sacchi

1980:4,50-52,61).

Settlements o f the Luray Complex were centered in the Shenandoah River Valley,

and branched southward to the Potomac and Monocacy Rivers late in the Late Woodland

Period, approximately A.D. 1400-1600. The Luray Complex sites revealed Keyser wares,

a shell tempered pottery that isoften adorned with lugs on the neck of the vessel. The

Luray burials are primary or secondary interments of one or more individuals in a flexed

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 4

position as well as bundle burials. Burials are sometimes associated with artifacts of

tools, pots or beads (Franklin 1979:27, 52, 80-82; Jirikowic 1995; Kavanagh1982: 77-

79; MacCord 1992:166-168; McNett n.d.:IV:68-78; Potter 1993:130; Schmitt 1952:62-

63; Slattery & Woodward 1992:158-159). By the time Europeans arrived circa 1607, the

Late Woodland villages appear to have been abandoned (Jirikowic 1995:91; Kavanagh

1982:82).

THE CATOCTIN CREEK SITE

The Catoctin Creek site is located in Loudoun County, Virginia on a lower terrace

above the juncture o f the Potomac River and Catoctin Creek (Handsman n.d.: 1; McNett

n.d.:IV:37; Rust 1986:1,21). Throughout the twentieth century, the site has been surface

collected and excavated by local archaeologists such as W.H. Holmes, R.G. Slattery and

CarlManson. The University o f West Virginia also conducted some excavations at the

site but little is known about their activities (Handsman n.d.:5). In the summer of 1970,

Catoctin Creek was investigated by the Potomac River Archaeological Survey,hereafter

identified as PRAS, a joint effort of collegiate faculty and studentsfrom the

Washingtonian area to locate and report on archaeological sites in the Potomac River

Valley(McNett:n.d.:Preface:2-3). For the past thirty years, Charles McNett, Jr. has

curated the artifacts and field notes from the PRAS excavation, the basis of this thesis, at

the American University. Additional excavafionalinformation on Catoctin Creek was

provided by an unpublished manuscript summarizing the PRAS excavation by Russell

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 5

Handsman (n.d.) and a comparative report on prehistoricsites in Loudoun County,

Virginia by William F. Rust, HI (1986).

Available notes on the site consist of PRAS levelsheets for 19 five by ten foot

excavation units and three smaller units, each approximately two by two foot in size.

According to Handsman (n.d.:5), the excavation units were plotted along three parallel

trenches laid NNW to SSE from a datum point in the southern part of the site. Overall, a

midden area of 130 by 20 feet was exposed featuring burials, storage and/or refuse pits,

two possible hearths, and numerous postmolds. Four excavation units were dug outside

the primary excavation region inorder to test for further occupation along the upper and

lower terraces (Handsmann.d.:6).

The vertical stratigraphy at Catoctin Creek was excavated in controlled three inch

levels and descended from the upper plow zone to an average depth of 3.0 feet below the

surface. The majority of excavation units revealed a 0.8 to 1.0 foot plowzone on top of an

occupational midden varying in depth from 2.5 to 3.0 feet below the surface. Based on

artifacts and features, the excavators believed the middenlayer represented a series of

Late Woodland summer agricultural-hunting camps. In addition to the main Late

Woodland component, deeper cultural components, possibly as early as the Late Archaic

Period, were exposed in the stratigraphy of two excavation units (Handsman n.d.:6-8; 31-

32).

The identification o f the 0 to 1.25 feet below surface stratum as the Late

Woodland component was based upon the PRAS level sheets and artifacts, and

conclusions drawn by William Rust (1986). When I plotted the ceramic sherds from the

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 6

site by level, the sherds appeared to decrease below the level from 1.25 to 1.5 below

surface, suggesting an earlier, less intense occupation o f the site. Handsman (n.d.:25)

noted the excavators recovered up to one half less sherds in all strata below 1.5 feet. Rust

(1986:31) in his excavation was able to confirm an earlier Middle Woodlandstratum

(1.3-2.0 feet) directly underneath the Late Woodland level (0-1.3 feet) by radiocarbon

dates and the presence of what he called Catoctin Ware, an uncollared, cord marked

pottery tempered with crushed limestone.

Features uncovered from the presumed Late Woodland floor included nine

burials, one refuse pit, five possible refuse/storage pits, two possible hearths and forty-

one postmolds. The burial pits were oval or rectangular in shape and each contained one

individual. Eight of the burials were completely excavated and the skeletons were

deposited at the Smithsonian for further analysis. Other pit features included a largebasin

shaped refuse pit, and five shallow oval or circular shaped pits, most likely for storage.

Two fire related features discovered directly below the plowzone contained charcoal,

animal bone and scattered rock suggesting hearths that had been disturbed by the plow.

Two clusters o f postmolds in the northern central area of the site are likely two circular

domestic structures within the confines of the village. To date, excavations of Catoctin

Creek have not revealed evidence of a palisade.

The artifacts recovered from the first 1.3 feet at the Catoctin Creek site are fairly

typical of Late Woodland artifacts recovered from Middle Potomac Valley sites: small to

medium sized triangular projectile points of white quartz or rhyolite; lithic scrapers and

celts; bone awls and fishhooks; bone and shell ornamental beads; obtuse angled ceramic

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. pipes, occasionally decorated; and Mason Islandceramic sherds. The ceramic sherds at

Catoctin Creek were tempered with either crushed quartz or crushed limestone and rarely

both. The vessel necks were either collared or uncollared. The collared vessels were

predominantly folded over but a small number were appliqued. Decoration in the lip and

neck areas included external cord marking on body surfaces, anddistinctive motifs such

as vertical or oblique gashes, horizontal cord wrapped stick lines, chevrons and punctates

(Franklin 1979:77-80; Jirikowic 1995:80-81; Peck 1980:15-16; Sacchi 1980:50-52,61).

Mason Island pottery is considered a close if not an identical type to Page pottery,

described by Clifford Evans (1955:67-68,107-108) as a local variant of the Radford

series in Virginia (Dent 2002:16; Jirikowic 1995:80-81; Peck 1980:15-16).

METHODOLOGY

The objective of this thesis is to publish a summary o f the findings at the Catoctin

Creek site and to show how the site fits into the archaeological prehistory of the Middle

Potomac Valley in the Late Woodland Period. To accomplish this goal, I researched the

available Late Woodland literature on the region, focusing on the three Late Woodland

complexes. Finally, I concentrated on the Mason Island Complex, its traits and sites to

provide a basis o f comparison for the Catoctin Creek site. Having availed myself of

background information on the Catoctin Creek site and its setting, I then sorted and

catalogued the artifactsfrom the American University Collection and reviewed the field

notes.

Cataloging the artifacts involved separating them into general categories o f lithic,

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 8

bone, shell and ceramic within each excavation unit and stratum. Theartifact categories

were then sorted by material, shape, size and function, and the resulting descriptive

characteristics recorded. The ceramic sherds were examined in further detail by temper,

surface treatment, collars, rim and lip shape, color and decoration, if any.

Sorting the artifacts into categories based on similar physical traits allowed

specific patterns to emerge at the Catoctin Creek site. For instance, white quartzwas the

predominant material for lithic tools and debitage. Marginella shells and bird bones were

favored for ornaments such as bracelets and headdress.a Ceramics were almost

exclusively tempered with crushed limestone or quartz.

I reviewed the field notes from the PRAS excavation to establish provenience for

the artifacts and an possible overall site plan based on artifact frequencies and features.

The site is probably a small village comprised o f houses, storage, burial and refuse pits,

and possibly, a central openplaza. Handsman (n.d.:13) believes the settlement plan

represents “A summer and early fall agriculture and hunting camp.. The permanency

of the features and the build up o f occupational layers certainly seems to suggest a site

occupied for significant period o f time.

The characteristics of the artifacts and settlementpattern at Catoctin Creek all

suggest an affinitywith the Late Woodland Mason Island Culture of the Middle Potomac

Valley. The following two chapters, Chapters Two and Three, summarize the larger

physical and cultural environment surrounding the Catoctin Creek site during its largest

and most permanent settlement, the Late Woodland. Chapters Fourand Five provide a

site report of Catoctin Greek including descriptions of its features, artifact assemblage,

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. and radiocarbon dates recoveredfrom the site. The last chapter, Chapter Six, concludes

the thesis with a general summary of all findings.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER TWO

THE LATE WOODLAND IN THE MIDDLE POTOMAC VALLEY

The Late Woodland Period in the Middle Potomac Valley was a time of

increasing sedentism and localization in settlement, resource procurement and

technology. People who shared a common style o f making pots, manufacturing tools and

burying their dead were populating agricultural villages along the PotomacRiver.

Villages of the Montgomery, Mason Island and Luray Complexes often cluster. Some

such villages represent single components, while others contain multiple components.

Based on the radiocarbon dates recovered from complex sites, the people of the

Montgomery Complex were most likely the earliest Late Woodland settlers in the region

although they did overlap with the Mason Island people during the middle of the Late

Woodland Period. The Luray Complex was a late occurrence in the Late Woodland

Period, dating mostly after the Montgomery and Mason Island sites. By the end of the

Late Woodland Period, the native villages of the Middle Potomac Valley were

uninhabited (Custer 1986b:155-156; Dent 2002:15; Hantman & Klein 1992:143, 145-

152; Jirikowic 1995:65-74,78-91; Kavanagh 1982:69-70,79-82; MacCord 1992:161-168;

Potter 1993:126-130,141-147; Schmitt 1952:67; Walker & Miller 1992:165-166,169-

172). The traits and sites o f the Montgomery and Luray Complexes are summarized in

this chapter while the Mason Island Complex will be discussed in Chapter Three.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 11

GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS

The Late Woodland people of the Middle Potomac Valley built semi

permanent or permanentvillages along the fioodplains of the major waterways. The

location of the settlements were based on the close proximityto the fertile soil of the river

terraces for the cultivation of com, beans and squash, and the rivers for fish, shellfish and

waterfowl. Temporary procurement camps were set up beyond the main villages to

collect additional local resources such as wild plants, deer andsmall mammal game, and

lithic material. The settlement pattern o f the villages consisted of domestic structures and

pits for storage, refuse or burials grouped in a circular or oval pattern around a central

open area. Some of the sites had palisades suggesting physical and/or symbolic

boundaries between groups of people and/or the natural environment (Barfield & Barber

1992:228-230; Custer 1986a:155-156; Dent 2002:15; Hantman & Klein 1992:143,150-

151; Jirikowic 1995:66-74, 84; Kavanagh 1982:79-82; Potter 1993:126-130,141-147).

The material culture of the Late Woodland people in the Middle Potomac Valley

is fairly uniform. Projectile points were triangular in shape and ranged in size from small

to large. The tool assemblage generally included projectile points, knives, scrapers, celts,

and hammerstones.Quartz, rhyolite, chert, sandstone and micaeous schist were common

lithic materials. Bone and shell were manufactured into awls, fishhooks, chisels and cups,

as well as decorative pendants and beads.In addition to obtuse angled pipes, ceramics

recovered from Late Woodland sites included globular shaped vessels tempered with

crushed rock or shell and externally cord marked (Bastian 1974:4-5; Jirikowic 1995:81-

84,107-133,145; Kavanagh 1982:70-74,77-78; MacCord 1992:167-168; McNett

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 12

n.d. :IV: 2-3,24-25,29,74-75; Peck 1980: 5; Peck & Bastian 1977; Potter 1993:126-127;

Slattery & Woodward 1992:142-156; Walker & Miller 1992:174-179).

The mortuary features excavated at Late Woodland sitesin the Middle Potomac

Valley were round or oval subterranean pits within the confines of the village. Generally,

the pits contained one or sometimes more individuals who had been primarily interred,

although secondary interments did occur. In general, grave goods that may have been

present consisted of utilitarian items such as tools or pots, and ornamental objects such as

bone or shell beads (Bastian 1974:3-4; Jirikowic 1995:107-133; 259-286; Kavanagh

1982:70-82; Kollmann n.d.; McNett n.d.:IV:29,53,75; Slattery & Woodward 1992:133-

139;141-143,156; Walker & Miller 1992:175-178).

THE MONTGOMERY COMPLEX

The Montgomery Complex was first presented by Karl Schmitt ini 952 based

upon excavations undertaken at the Shepard site in Montgomery County, Maryland

(Kavanagh 1982:70; McNett n.d.:IV:2; Slattery & Woodward 1992:1). Schmitt (1952:62)

noted a distinctive cord marked pottery tempered with igneous or quartz rock he named

Shepard Cord Marked. Further excavations were performedfrom the 1930s to the 1980s

at several sites with Montgomery components and summarized in publications by Bastian

(1974), Dent (2002), Kavanagh (1982:70-74), McNett (n.d.:IV:2-37), Peck and Bastian

(1977), Peck (1974), Tidwell (1967), Slattery and Woodward (1992). Slattery and

Woodward (1992:158) have dated the Montgomery Complex occupying the Potomac

Piedmont to A.D. 1150 to 1350. However, Potter (1993:127) and Kavanagh (1982:70-74)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 13

have expanded the Montgomery occupational period to as early as A.D. 900 or 1000 and

as late as A.D. 1450. (See Table 1)

Montgomery Complex sites were found along the fertile floodplains o f the

Shenandoah, Potomac and Monocacy River Valleys. Theagricultural villagesites were

clustered on the east and west banks of the Potomac River opposite Selden, Van Deventer

and Harrison Islands. Similar to other Late Woodland sites in the region, Montgomery

Complex villages were arranged in an oval pattern o f circular or elongated pits for refuse,

storage and/or burials. Evidence of palisades had been discovered at a few sites such as

Winslow (18M09), Gore (18M02), Devilbiss (18FR38) and Biggs Ford (18FR14)

(Bastian 1974; Dent 2002:23-27; Kavanagh 1982:70-74; McNett n.d.:IV:2,25-27; Peck &

Bastian 1977:1; Potter 1993:126; Slattery & Woodward 1992).

The burial pits of the Montgomery Complex generally contained one or two

human occupants in a flexed position, some contain grave goods. Bundle and

fragmentaryburials were infrequent occurrences. In addition to human burials, the

Montgomery Complex people were known to bury their dogs. Grave goods, if present,

tended to be personal ornaments made from bone and shell, or utilitarian items. In their

study o f four Montgomery Complex sites, Slattery & Woodward (1992:141) observed the

small number o f artifacts found within the burials. The Shepard site yielded the most

grave goods, recovered in less than one quarter of its graves. At the Shepard site, Burial

33 was especially noteworthy because the artifacts buried with the body were similar to

burial goods found with Burial 7 from Catoctin Creek (See Figures 11 and 12). Burial 33

from the Shepard site contained an adolescent female who had a wealthmarginella o f

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reference (SI-2898) Peck & Bastian 1977:8 (UGa-4470) Slattery Woodward & 1992:122 (SI-361) Kavanagh 1982:88 (SI-58) Slattery Woodward & 1992: 144 (SI-535) SlatteryWoodward & 1992: 144 (SI-47) (SI-4577) (SI-4578) (SI-4581) (SI-257) (SI-258) (SI-553) (SI-554) WoodwardSlattery & 1992: 144 (SI-37) (Ml 189) WoodwardSlattery& 1992: 144 (SI-4579) (SI-4580) (SI-4582) Kavanagh 1982:88 (SI-259) .

...... Sites 1050 + 70 1420± 60 1630 ±280 ...... Date . .. Complex Complex ..... A.D. 1105 + 85 A.D. 1025 ± 70 A.D. 1450 + 30 A.D. 1630 ±240 A.D. 1060 ±280 A.D. 1200 +50 A.D. 1160 ±100 A.D. 1035 ±60 A.D. A.D. 1835 ±75 A.D. A.D. A.D. 1335 ± 60 A.D. 1475 ± 60 A.D. 1015 ± 60 A.D. A.D. A.D. 1200 ±60 A.D. 1315 ± A.D. 1285 ±100 A.D. 825 + 150 ......

5 5

Pit Pit 1 Pit 12 Pit 25 Pit 81-7 Burial 32 Feature 4 Feature Feature 4 Feature Feature 6 Feature Feature 4 Feature Feature 5 Burial 33 Midden Area Midden Area Midden Area Midden Area Midden Area : Radiocarbon Dates: ofMontgomery Site Feature 1 Table Shepard Fraser Fisher Bigg’s FordDevilbiss Kerns 4 Feature Rosenstock Winslow

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 15

shell beads at herwrists, neck and elbow, and tubular bone beads in the pattern of a

headdress underneath her skull (Bastian 1974:3-4; Kavanagh 1982:70; Kolknann n.d.;

McNett n.cLTV:2,29; Potter 1993:126; Slattery & Woodward 1992:23-28,133-139;141~

143,156).

Shepard Cord Marked wares, the pottery of the Montgomery culture, was

tempered with crushed igneous rock or quartz. Pots had rounded or conical bases with

narrow necks and straight or inverted rims. Vessel necks were predominantly collared

though a minority were uncollared. Exterior surfaces were cord marked by a cord

wrapped paddle and anvil technique. The majority of rims were decorated with vertical or

diagonal gashes made by a cord wrapped stick or incising, occasionally in a herringbone

design; parallel lines o f cord wrapped stick; or punctates. Ceramic pipes were tempered

with sand when observable, predominantly obtuse angled and adorned with incised, cord

wrapped stick or roulette designs on the bowl (Bastian 1974:4-6; Kavanagh 1982:70-74;

McNett n.d.:IV:2-3,24-25; Peck 1980: 5; Peck & Bastian 1977:2-4,7-8; Potter 1993:126-

127; Slattery & Woodward 1992:145-154). In Evans’ (1955:39-44) summary of

Virginian pottery types, he categorized Shepard Cord Marked pottery as Albemarle ware,

a crushed rock tempered ceramic found in northern Virginia. Slattery and Woodward

(1992:145-149), however, believe Shepard Cord Marked pottery is significantly different

from Albemarle wares, and should qualify as its own variant type of the Albemarle

category. Shepard Cord Marked pottery has strong similarities in body form, appliqued

collars and design motifs to the pottery of the Blue Rock Phase of the Shenk’s Ferry

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 16

culture and late Owasco culture. Additional cultural traits the Montgomery and Owasco

people have in common include medium triangular points, obtuse angled ceramic pipes,

flexed burials, and similar settlement patterns (Custer 1986a: 123; McNett n.d.:IV:33-37;

Potter 1993:142; Slattery & Woodward 1992:151-152,157-158).

Projectile points were medium to large, triangular, and manufactured primarily

from quartz and rhyolite. Montgomery Complex projectile points are commonly typed as

Levanna and Madison points by archaeologist such as Kavanagh (1982:70-74) who found

that rhyolite Levanna points dominated in the Monocacy Valley. Common tools included

antler projectile points, bone awls, cups and ladles of turtle shell, deer bone beamers,

stone celts, and hammerstones. Artifacts recovered in small numbers were bone

fishhooks and chisels, and stone pendants. The Winslow site contained a large number of

stone discoidals, possibly chunky stones, which were occasionally found at other

Montgomery Complex sites (Bastian 1974:5; Marshall 1992:169-171; McNett n.d.:IV:2-

3,29; Peck & Bastian 1977:1, 5-7; Potter 1993: 126; Slattery & Woodward 1992:142-

143,154-156).

There is an extensive list of archaeological sites containing Montgomery

Complex cultural components in the Middle Atlantic region (See Figure 1). Along the

Potomac River, there were nine sites: Winslow (18M09), Sycamore Landing (18M079),

Shepard (18M03), Fisher (44LD4), Gore (18MO20), Jeffrey’s Rockshelter (44LD17),

Point of Rocks (44LD14), Williamsport (18WA14) and Chickadee Rockshelter

(18WA13). For the Monocacy River region four major component sites: Devilbiss Bridge

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 17

22 24. *%( 23 Mctnocacy River % f Potomac River I*

■ »9 ik. /«8 I? j *7 's 12%*.- * 11 f North 13

Shenandoah River

•14 ,16 15# '* / / Fall Lise / r # •- , •• 17 / 19 / / 21 / ,•=1*20 / / / -4 0 20

Figure 1: Map o f Major Montgomery and Luray Complex Sites

1. Gore * 10. Noland’s Ferry * 19. Miley + 2. Sycamore Landing * 11. Jeffrey’s Rockshelter * 20. Pass Run * 3. Winslow * 12. Point of Rocks (VA) * 21. Quicksburg + 4. Hughes + 13. Kems * 22. Williamsport * 5. Shepard * 14. Cabin Run + 23. Moore Village + 6. Fisher * 15. Cabin Run # 2 * 24. Hrmn Barton Vill + 7. Rosenstock * 16. Bowman + 8. Bigg’s Ford * + 17. Keyser Farm + 9. Devilbiss Bridge * 18. Sours*

* indicates Montgomery Complex; + indicates Luray Complex

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 18

(18FR38), Bigg’s Ford (18FR14), Rosenstock (18FR18), and Noland’sFerry (18FR17);

and twentyfour minor component sites havebeen reported. The Kerns (44CK3), Cabin

Run No. 2 (44WR300), Sours (44WR2), Pass Run (44PA177) and Port Republic sites

were located along the Shenandoah River Valley (Kavanagh 1982:70-74; MacCord

1992:161-165; McNettn.d.:IV:2-24).

THE LURAY COMPLEX

The Luray Complex is believed to be the last native people to inhabit the Middle

Potomac Valley before the Europeans arrived. Schmitt (1952:62-63) originated the

concept of the Luray Complex in 1952 based upon the prevailing presence o f a crushed

shell tempered pottery at the Keyser Farm and Hughes sites. Excavations performed from

the 1970s through the 1990s revealed Luray Complex components with Keyser Cord

Marked wares, small triangular projectile points, flexed burials, andoften stockades.

Radiocarbon dates from Luray sites placed the settlement of the complex in the Middle

Potomac Valley towards the end of the Late Woodland Period, approximately A.D. 1400

to 1600 with a few possible earlier settlements (Franklin 1979:52, 80-82; Kavanagh

1982:77-79; MacCord 1992:166-168; McNett n.d.:IV:68-78; Slattery & Woodward

1992:158-159). (See Table 2)

The majority o f Luray Complex sites were clustered along the Shenandoah River

and the upper Potomac River. However, Luray component sites were also found along

the Potomac River near Van Deventer Island, Catoctin Creek and Antietam Creek, on the

south branch o f the Potomac River, and on the Monocacy River (Jirikowic 1995:107-133;

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Reference & & Miller 1992:176-177 (SI-136) (SI-3663) Kavanagh 1982:88 (SI-135) MacCord 1992:167 (Beta-41367) McNettn.d.:IV:77 291,297-302 (Beta-49132) Jirikowic 1995:288- MacCord MacCord 1992:168; (Beta-49133) (Beta-41368) Walker MacCord 1992:167

Date Sites A.D. 1185 ± 6 0 A.D. 1640 ±120 A.D. 1710 ± 120 A.D. 1400 ± 70 A.D. 1420 ± 50 A.D. 1500 ± 50 A.D. 1750 ± 50 A.D. 1290 ± 50 A.D. 1690 A.D. 1520 ± 70 A.D. 1440 ±50 A.D. 1530 ±60 A.D. 1370±60

Feature 6 Feature Feature 22 Feature Feature 45 Feature 45 Feature Feature 7 Feature Dates ofComplex Luray

Radiocarbon Site Feature Table 2: Bowman Bigg’s Ford Cabin Run Barracks Shepard C&O C&O Canal-Moore Hughes Village

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 20

Kavanagh 1982:78-79; McNettn.d.:IV:74). Jirikowic (1995:149-156) suggested that the

pattern of sites could represent the southern migration of a Monongahela group into the

Middle Potomac Valley based upon radiocarbon dates and similarities in the material

cultures of the Luray and Monongahela Complexes (Kavanagh 1982:78; McNett

n.d.:IV:79-80; Schmitt 1952:63,68).

Similar to other Late Woodland complexes, Luray Complex sites appear to have

been permanent to semi-permanent agricultural villages whose populations were

subsisting on corn, beans and squash. Village plans were the familiar circular or oval

pattern of pits and burials with a central open area. Evidence o f structures, circular and

rectangular in shape, have been found on the edge of a few of the village plans, near the

pits. Occasionally, the pits, especially burials, had a line of postmolds surrounding them.

Additionally, single or multiple palisade lines were found surrounding some of the Luray

villages such Hughes, Biggs Ford, Miley, Cabin Run and Quicksburg (Bastian 1974:2-3;

Jirikowic:1995:84,107-133,141-148; MacCord 1992:166-168; McNett:n.d.:IV:75;Walker

& Miller 1992:172-173,175-178).

The Luray Complex includes both primary or secondary interments, the latter are

often bundle burials. Most graves hold only one individual, but double, triple and even,

quadruple interments have been encountered at the Hughes and Miley sites. Additionally,

cremation was noted at the two previously mentioned Luray sites, an apparently rare

occurrence elsewhere. Jirikowic reported a distinctive patterning at the Hughes site of

infants always being extended, children were either extended or flexed, and older

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 21

individuals being flexed. Some of the burial objects found included tools, beads o f shell

or bone, and ceramic pots (Bastian 1974:3-4; Jirikowic 1995:107-133,146-147,259-285;

McNett n.d.:IV:75; Walker & Miller 1992:175-178).

The Luray Complex was predominantly identified based on Keyser Cord Marked

pottery tempered with crushed fresh water mussel shell. Pots had globular bases and

narrow necks that flared out creating a wide mouth. Collars were infrequent. Exterior

treatment was mostly cord marked, often smoothed. Lugs on the neck occurred

frequently. Decoration was generallylimited to the lip and included notches made by a

cord wrapped paddle or other implement giving it a scalloped appearance.Rims were

generally not decorated except for occasional incised lines or punctates. Miniature

ceramic vessels were recovered at Luray sites such as Hughes and Biggs Ford (Walker &

Miller 1992:174; Bastian 1974:4-5; Jirikowic 1995:107-133,81; McNett n.d.:IV:74).

KeyserCord Marked wares have been compared to Mononghelan pottery from

eastern Ohio, southwestern Pennsylvania and northern West Virginia, and New River

waresfrom southwestern Virginia. The Monongahela pottery is believed to be a close

relative of Keyser warebased on similar characteristics of temper, vessel shape, including

miniature pots, exterior treatment, decoration and lugs. The relationship of the New River

pottery to the Keyser ware of the Luray culture is not as widely accepted as the

Monongahela connection (Custer 1986a: 123; Evans 1955:56-60,118; Geier 1992:286;

Jirikowic 1995:134-138,149; McNett:n.d.:IV:78-80).

Projectile points were typically small triangles o f local lithic material such as

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 22

quartz, but some jasper, chert and chalcedony specimens are also recovered. Points

associated with the Luray components were typicallyidentified as Clarksville or Madison

types. Other tools recovered from Luray Complex sites included lithic celts and

hammerstones, bone awls, beamers, needles,flakers, chisels, fishhooks and projectile

points. Stone, bone and shell were employed for beads, pendants, antler headdresses and

turtle shell cups (Walker & Miller 1992:175-179; Jirikowic 1995:83-84,107-133,145;

Kavanagh 1982:77-78; MacCord 1992:167-168; McNett n.d.:IV:74-75).

Jirikowic (1995:107-130) described eight sites as definitive Luray villages:

Keyser Farm (44PA1),Bowman (44SH1), Miley (44SH2), Quicksburg (44SH3) and

Cabin Run (44WR3) which are located in the Shenandoah River Valley, the Moore

Village (18AG43) site along the upper Potomac River; the Biggs Ford (18FR14) site

along the Monocacy River, and the Hughes (18MO!) site along the Potomac River across

from Van Deventer Island. (See Figure 1) Additionally, Robert Wall (2001:17-20) has

been excavating a Luray village at the Herman Barton Village (18AG3) along the upper

Potomac River near Cumberland, Maryland. Additional sites which have been suggested

to contain Luray components include: the Shepard Barracks (18M07), Mason IslandII

(18M013); Point o f Rocks (44LD14); the Berryville site; the Roby-Snell (46GT5) site on

the Potomac River in West Virginia; the Pinesburg Station (18WA69), Conococheague

Creek (18WA14), St. James Run (18WA42), Hause Farm (18WA163) and Martin’s

Meadow (18WA23) sites in Washington County, Maryland; and the Factory Farm

(18FR39a), Noland’s Ferry (18FR17), Tuscarora Rock Shelter #1 (18FR9), and Boyers

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 23

Mill Rock Shelter (18FR6) sites in the Monocacy River Valley (Walker & Miller

1992:175-179; Jirikowic 1995:130-133,137-138; Kavanagh 1982:77-79; MacCord

1992:166-168; McNett n.d.:IV:68-74,76-78; Rust 1986:40-41; Wall 2001:23).

To conclude, during the Late Woodland Period, pockets o f people with similar

settlement patterns, resource procurement strategies and material culture occupied the

Middle Potomac Valley. Regional archaeologists, however, have been able to separate

the occupants and their settlements into three distinct cultures based upon differences in

geographic location, pottery styles, and burial treatment. The characteristics of the

Montgomery and Luray Complexes have been summarized in this chapter in order to

show the shared cultural environment of the Mason Island Complex and one of its

settlements, the Catoctin Creek site. The Mason Island Complex will be discussed in the

next chapter.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER THREE

THE MASON ISLAND COMPLEX

Mason Islandsites overlapped temporally and spatially with Montgomery and

Luray settlements in the Middle Potomac Valley during the Late Woodland Period. In the

1970s, however, McNett and Gardner were able to distinguish the Mason Island villages

from the Montgomery and Luray sites based on three distinctive traits: a riverine location

along the Potomac River Valley, extended burials with few if any gravegoods, and

pottery tempered with crushed limestone or crushed quartz with distinctive decoration

(Franklin 1979:26; Hantman & Klein 1992:144; Jirikowic 1995:80-81,84-86; Kavanagh

1982:75; MacCord 1992: 165-166; McNett n.d.:IV:37-44,52-53; Potter 1993:126-131;

Sacchi 1980:4,51). This chapter reviewsthe archaeological history, characteristics and

widely recognized sites of the Mason Island Complex.

ARCHAEOLOGICAL HISTORY

The Mason Island Complex has had a gradual emergence as a discrete cultural

complex in the Middle Potomac Valley. The basis for the archaeological culture grew out

of its distinct crushed limestone tempered pottery first identified at the Keyser Farm Site

in the Shenandoah Valley during the 1940s. Designated Page Cord Marked, the sherds

were described as externally cord marked with occasional smoothing; frequently collared;

and decorated with gashes, incised or cord wrapped stick lines or punctates(Egloff

1992:202; Kavanagh 1982:75; MacCord 1992:165-166; McNett n.d.:IV:62-63). 24

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 25

In the 1950s, the Page Cord Marked wareappeared as a minor presenceat

Montgomery and Luray complex sites of the Late Woodland Period (Schmitt 1952:62-63;

Wright 1959:15-17). Evans (1955:67-68), in his book CeramicA Study of Virginia

Archeology, classified the Page Cord Markedpottery as a related type to the Radford

Cord Marked ware. Evans was hesitant to type his Radford pottery asPage Cord Marked

outright because of differences in decoration and restricted geographic occurrence.

The excavations of the late 1960s and early 1970s in the Potomac River Valley

gave weight to the idea that the people making Page Cord Marked wares were a separate

complex with their own distinct material culture. Specifically, excavations by Katherine

Franklin at Mason IslandII and the PRAS excavation at Catoctin Creek revealed primary

occupational components of pottery identical to Page Cord Marked, small to medium

triangular projectiles points, bone tools, and extended burials with infrequent grave

goods. From these site findings, Charles McNett and William Gardner were inclined to

define a new complex, the Mason Island Complex, whose name they derived from the

Mason Island II site. They complied a trait list basedon known sites and designated the

pottery Mason Island wares (Dent 1995:245;Egloff 1992:203-204; Franklin 1979:26;

Hantman & Klein 1992:143-149; Jirikowic 1995:80-81; Kavanagh 1982:75-77; MacCord

1992:165-166; McNett n.d.:IV:37,51-53,62-63; Rust 1986:37; Sacchi 1980:50-51).

TRAITS

McNett (n.d.:4,37) describes the Mason Island Complex as limited geographically

to the Middle Potomac Valley between Harrison’s Island and Harper’s Ferry with an

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 26

exception for the Herman Barton Village site on the UpperPotomac River (Jirikowic

1995:84-86; MacCord 1992:165-166; Sacchi 1980:50). However, recent excavationsby

Wall (2001:17-21) on the Northern Branch o f the Potomac River has revealed additional

Mason Island components at sites surrounding the Herman Barton Village site, and the

Cresaptown site. It is likely thatas additional archaeological excavations are completed

and published, many more Mason Island component sites will be revealed throughout the

Upper and Middle Potomac Valley.

The Mason Island sites were believed to be permanent villages arranged in an

oval or circular pattern o f pits and houses encompassing a central commons area. To date,

no palisades have been discovered at a Mason Island site. The villages probably

functioned as base camps fortask groups participating in resource procurement. The

locations of the villages along floodplains were likely chosen for the diversity of

resources in the surrounding area: fertile Huntington silt loam for agriculture; fish and

freshwater mussel from the rivers; large deer populations in the forest and grasslands; and

abundant local lithic resources (Barfield & Barber 1992: 228-230; Custer 1986b:155-156;

Dent 1995:249-253; Geier 1992:278-279; Hantman & Klein 1992:143-144; Jirikowic

1995:84,91; McNett n.d.:IV:44,51-53; Peck 1980:2,4,26; Potter 1993:141; Rust 1986:37,

40; Sacchi 1980:50).

Generally, burials attributed to the Mason Island Complex entailed interment in

an extended position. Burial was in shallow pits with infrequent grave goods. Graves

were usually clusteredon the outer perimeter o f the village. The few personal artifacts

discovered in graves included shell and bone beaded jewelry, Mason Island pottery, and

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 27

tools. Tools found within Mason Island burials have included a turtle shell ladle

recovered from Glen Haven and a micaeous schist implement, possibly a potter’s tool,

from Catoctin Creek. Flat rock slabs over the head or feet of some of the burial occupants

were evident at Catoctin Creek (Boyd & Boyd, Jr. 1992:260-261; Franklin 1979:26,80;

McNett n.d.:IV:46-48,52; Rust 1986:38)

Mason Island pottery was tempered with crushed limestone, crushed quartz or

infrequently with crushed limestone and quartz (See Table 3). Generally, vessels had

globular bases, narrow necks and everted rims. Necks tended to be thickened with collars

that could be folded or appliqued although uncollared vessels were present as well.

Exterior surface treatment showed vertical cord marking with occasional smoothing.

Table 3: Tempering Material at Mason Island Sites Site Limestone Quartz Limestone Unidentified Reference & Quartz Catoctin Creek 45.4 % 45.1% 2.1% 5.4% Noland’s Ferry 82% 9% 8% N/A Peck 1980:5-6 Mason Island II 59% 41% N/AN/A Franklin 1979:55-56 Glen Haven 77.9% 22.1% N/A N/A McNett n.d.:IV:47 Jeffrey Village Preferred Sacchi 1980:55 Mason Island I Preferred McNett n.d.:IV:45

Decoration on Mason Island vessels was generally limited to the neck region and

included single incidences or combinations of the following popular motifs: diagonal or

vertical incised gashes; cord wrapped stick or cord wrapped paddle impressions at the

termination of a collar or on the neck of an uncollared vessel; horizontal line(s) of

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 28

incising or cord wrapped stick below the rim; round, triangular or trapezoidal punctates;

and incised or cord wrapped stick chevron(s). Rim castellations and lugs were rare

additions (Franklin 1979:77-79; Kavanagh 1982:75;McNett n.d.:IV:52; Peck 1980:5-13;

Rust 1986:37-40; Sacchi 1980:51-61). Many of the designs on Mason Island pottery were

closely akin to motifs found on Shepard Cord Marked wares of the Montgomery

Complex and on pottery styles of the Shenk’s Ferry culture of Eastern Pennsylvania; the

Monongahela culture o f northern West Virginia, southwestern Pennsylvania and eastern

Ohio; the Owasco culture o f the eastern Great Lakes and New York (Custer

1986a:121,123; Geier 1992:286; Hantman & Klein 1992:147-148; Jirikowic 1995:81;

McNett n.d.:IV:5-6,36, 62-63).

Although not considered diagnostic artifacts exclusively of the Mason Island

Complex, triangular projectile points of primarily quartz and rhyolite were found at all

Mason Island sites. Jirikowic (1995:83) observed a preference for quartz, rhyolite and

gray chert for lithic material in the Middle Potomac Valley and rhyolite for the Monocacy

River Valley. Lithic tools included rare scrapers, hammerstones, celts, axes, knives, and

utilized flakes. Bone and shell were used for awls, fishhooks, projectile points, ladles,

scrapers, beads and pendants (Jirikowic 1995:83;McNett n.d.:IV:44,46,48,52-53; Peck

1980: 2,13,16; Rust 1986:37-38,40-41; Sacchi 1980:68-71).

SITES

The following site summaries include the names of sites most universally

recognized by regional archaeologists as having Mason Island components in the Middle

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 29

and Upper Potomac River Valley: Catoctin Creek (summarizedin ChaptersFour and

Five), Mason IslandI, Mason Island II, Glen Haven, Nolands Ferry, Jeffrey Village,

Point of Rocks (Virginia), Herman Barton Village and Crespatown. Four sites have been

reported containing minor components of Mason Island Pottery: Bigg’s Ford, Point of

Rocks (Maryland), Clagett Retreat and Brunswick (Bastian 1973; Bastian 1974; Franklin

1979; Kavanagh 1982:75; MacCord 1992:165-166; McNett n.d.:IV:37-51,53; Peck 1980;

Rust 1986:37-41; Sacchi 1980; Wall 2001:17-21). (See Figure 2 and Table 4)

Mason Island 1 (44LD10)

The Mason Island I site is situated onthe west bank o f the Potomac River,

directly across from the northern end o f Lower Mason Island, The site was first

investigated by Slattery, Stabler, Manson and Looker in the late 1930s. Despite an Early

Woodland presence, a large component at the site was labelled Mason Island Complex

(McNett n.d.:IV:44-45).

Mason Island pottery at Mason Island I was tempered primarily with crushed

limestone and infrequently, crushed quartz. Mason Island sherds made up less thanhalf

of all sherds excavated from the site. Folded collars were common. Decoration included

gashes, punetates, and several incised or cord wrapped stick lines. Triangular projectile

points of quartz were the principal type recovered (McNett:n.d.:IV:45).

According to McNett (n.d.:IV:45-46), only one burial was excavated and

recorded. The layout of the body was not described. Two bone projectile points, and one

collared sherd tempered with sand and gritand adorned with gashes and horizontal

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 30

/ M l lin e

Figure 2: Map of Mason Island Complex Sites

1. Mason Maud I 7, Point o f Rocks (VA) 2. Mason Island II 8. Point o f Rocks (MD) 3. Noland’s Ferry 9. Catoctin Creek 4. Clagett Retreat 10. Crespatowa 5. Bigg’s Ford 11. HermanBarton Village 6. Jeffrey Village

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table4: Radiocarbon Dates of Mason Island Complex Sites Site Feature(s) Date Reference

Catoctin Creek Feature 1 A.D. 1075 ±60 (UGa-2983) Rust 1986:37 Feature2 A.D. 1170 ±75 (UGa-2819) Rust 1986:37 Burial 7 A.D. 1250 ±40 (Beta-178036)

Glen Haven A.D. 1170 ±120 McNett n.d.:IV:48-49

Noland’s Ferry Feature 2 A.D. 1075 ±65 (SI-3880A) A.D. 1480 ±85 (SI-3380B) A.D. 1205 ± 60 (SI-3880C) Feature5 A.D. 1590 ±60 (SI-3881) Feature 7 A.D. 1495 ± 60 (SI-3882A) A.D. 870 ±65 (SI-3882B) Feature 12 A.D. 485 ±70 (SI-3883) Feature 14 A.D. 1095 ± 70 (SI-3884A) A.D. 930 ± 60 (SI-3884B) A.D. 1550 ±60 (SI-3884C) Featurel8 250 B.C. ± 75 (SI-3885) Peck 1980:13-15

Bigg’s Ford Feature 20 A.D.1400±90 (SI-3362) Kavanagh 1982:88

Cresaptown A.D. 1000 ±45 Kollman n.d.:16 A.D. 1045 ± 70 32

incised lines were recovered from the grave (McNett:ad. :IV:45-46). Based on the

description of the ceramic sherd, it is debatable whether the burial was related to the

Mason Island culture.

Mason Island II (18MQ131

Mason Island II is located on the northern end of Lower Mason Island found in

the Potomac River(Franklin 1979:3). In 1973, Katherine Franklin excavated at the site

exposing a Late Woodland occupational midden (Franklin 1979:32-35). Based on the

artifacts recovered and similar regional sites, Franklin concluded that the site contained a

Luray component overlaying a Mason Island component (Franklin 1979:52-53,77).

The Mason Island pottery consisted of crushed limestone and crushed quartz

tempered sherds that constituted thirty nine percent o f the total sherds recovered

(Franklin 1979:55-56). Decorative motifs were believed to correspond to specific

tempering material similar to McNett and Gardner’s (PRAS) findings at Catoctin Creek

(Franklin 1979:78-79). Furthermore, Franklin (1979:79) concluded that limestone

tempered sherds were consistently recovered with rhyolite and quartzite debitage while

quartz tempered pottery corresponded to turtle shells and deer antlers at the site.

Small to medium white quartz points constituted 87 percent o f triangular

projectile points recovered from the Late Woodland component. Points of minor lithic

materials included quartzite, rhyolite and chert. Tools and objects made from bone were

awls, fishhooks, projectile points, flakers and beads (Franklin 1979:56).

Five burials excavated at the site were believed to be from the Mason Island

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 33

Complex based upon the pottery found within the graves. The adult burials were grouped

together in the northern area of the excavated site.Similar to burials uncovered at

Catoctin Creek, four o f the occupants were extended on their backs with their heads to

the southeast. The fifth body was constrained in a bundle and laid to rest in one of the

extended graves (Franklin 1979:79-80).

Glen Haven

The Glen Haven site was excavated in 1972 by Ellis McDowell, at the time a

graduate student at American University. A large Mason Island component was

uncovered at the site, evident in pottery and burial treatments (McNettn.d.:IV:45-46). A

radiocarbon date of 1170 A.D. + 120 was retrievedfrom the Mason Island section o f the

site (McNett n.d.:IV:48-49).

The Mason Island pottery at the site was tempered with crushed limestone or

crushed quartz. Most of the rimsherds were collared and decorated with various motifs

such as punctates, vertical gashes and horizontal incised lines. One example of

castellation was present on a cord marked, uncollared sherd. The primary construction

technique was thought to be pinching. A pipe bowl with a horizontal roulette design was

also recovered (McNett n.d.:IV:47).

The projectile points were a typical triangular shape and manufactured from

quartz and rhyolite. Other tools found included scrapers, utilized flakes, ground stone

tools, awls, fish hooks, and a turtle shell bowl or ladle. Non-utilitarian objects such as a

bone flute and beads of bone or shell were also recovered (McNett n.d.:IV:48).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 34

Thirteen burials were excavated at the site. The burials were aligned eastward and

the burialoccupants extended. The only grave to contain burial goods had a collared pot

filled with mussel shells and a ladle madefrom a turtle shell (McNettn.d.:IV:46-48).

Nolands Ferry (18FR171

The Noland’s Ferry site is located on a Potomac River terrace, overlooking the

Tuscarora Creek, in the southern end of the Monocacy River Valley. Site findings from

the 1978 excavation by the Maryland Geological Survey was published by Donald W.

Peck in MarylandArcheology. The main occupation at the sitewas a Mason Island

villagewith an oval pattern of refuse pits and graves encompassing an open central area.

The site also revealed minor components of the Montgomery and Luray cultures based on

the Shepard and Keyser pottery types found (Kavanagh 1982:75; Peck 1980:2,5,16).

The Mason Island pottery was tempered with crushed limestone (82%), crushed

quartz (9%), crushed limestone and quartz (8%) or crushed granite (1%). The vessels

were described as tall with rounded bases and narrow necks, and frequently having folded

or appliqued collars. Exterior surface treatment was cord markedwith infrequent

smoothing (Peck 1980:5-6). Decorated rims were sorted into types based upon diagonal

or vertical gashes, cord impressed slashes, horizontal cord wrapped stick lines, and

chevron and punctate motifs (Peck 1980:6-13). The Noland’s Ferry pottery types

described by Peck are used for comparison with ceramic types recovered from the

Catoctin Creek site in the Ceramics section in Chapter Five.

Previous surface collections of the site contained large triangular projectile points

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 35

fashioned from rhyolite (Peck 1980:2). The 1978 excavation recovered lithic debitage

from pits primarily of quartz and rhyolite with small amounts of jasper, quartzite, argillite

and chert. Radiocarbon dating based on the featuresranged from 1075 A.D. to 1590 A.D.

with a median date o f 1480 A.D. + 85 (Kavanagh 1982:88, 91; Peck 1980:13-15).

Of the five burials found in refuse pits at Noland’s Ferry,four were excavated.

Three of the burials were described as flexed while the fourth was extended. One burial

pit contained a male and a female together. Although the threeflexed burials did not fit

the characteristic extended burial of the Mason Island Complex, Noland’s Ferry was still

considered a likely Mason Island site due to its abundance of Mason Island wares

(Kavanagh 1982:75,77; Peck 1980:16-17).

Jeffrey Village (44LD13)

The Jeffrey Village site is situated on the upper terrace of the Potomac River

directly across from Heater’s Island in Loudoun County, Virginia. From 1964 to 1974,

Jack Smedly and the Archeological Society of Virginia surface collected the site. The

recovered artifacts became thebasis for a Master’s thesis on the site’s Late Woodland

occupation by Richard Sacchi (1980). No features or burials were discovered on the

surface. The primary component at Jeffrey Village wasa “riverine horticultural base

camp” of the Mason Island culture overlaid with a minor Luray component (Sacchi

1980:13,42).

Mason Island pottery found at Jeffrey Village showed a predilection for crushed

quartz over crushed limestone as temper, and for collars over vessels with no collars

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 36

(92.07%). Furthermore, appliqued collars were preferable to folded collars. Popular

design motifs included vertical incised and cord wrapped paddlegashes, horizontal

incised and cord wrapped stick lines, and punctates (Sacchi 1980:55-63). Sacchi

(1980:52, 63-65) theorized that the variability in Mason Island pottery was due to

temporal, geographic or social factors.

At Jeffrey Village, the majority of projectile points associated with the Mason

Island component were triangular in shape. Thefinished triangular points were

manufactured mainlyfrom quartz (64.5%), followed by rhyolite (20.1%) and quartzite

(13.3%). Other minor lithic material for the points included chert, shale, jasper and flint

(Sacchi 1980:68-71). Additional lithic objects recovered were choppers, quartzite

grinding stones and hammerstones, granite pestles, celts, knives, net sinkers, an axe,

bifaces, scrapers and two gorgets (Sacchi 1980:80-84).

Point of Rocks (44LD14)

The Point of Rocks site is located in Loudoun County, Virginia on the southern

bank o f Catoctin Creek where the creek converges on the Potomac River (McNett

n.d.:Intro:ll-13; Rust 1986:5,18-21). Like the Catoctin Creek site, Point o f Rocks is

situated on the first terrace of the Potomac River (Rust 1986:37-41). The site was

excavated in association with the Catoctin Creek site in 1970 by PRAS and again in 1986

by William Rust. Rust (1986:18-41) concluded that there were settlements at the site

from the Late Archaic to the Late Woodland periods. The Late Woodland occupational

mi (Men at Point o f Rocks included the remains of a sedentary village of the Mason Island

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 37

and laterLuray cultures(Rust 1986:37-41).

Mason Maud ware atthe site wascord marked, crushed limestone or crushed

quartz tempered, and decorated with verticalor oblique slashes. The vessels were large

with rounded bases and constricted necks. Lithics from the site were not described but

were implied to resemble lithic artifacts from the Catoctin Creek site. No burials were

recorded (Rust 1986:37-41).

Herman Barton Village (T8AG3)

The Herman Barton Village site (18AG3) and surrounding related sites

(18AG146,18AG23,18AGS and 18AG8) are nearly eight miles south of Cumberland,

Maryland on afloodplain of the North branch o f the Potomac River. Originally tested by

Henry Wright in 1960, Robert Wall (2001:17-20) has been excavating the site, revealing

several small Mason Mand hamlets spread across the sites. The Mason Island

components contained limestone tempered pottery cord marked with a z-twist and having

both collars and no collars. Wall places this material within the larger Page tradition. The

site has yielded a Luray stockadedvillage identified by Keyser cord marked wares.

Cresnatown (18AG119)

The Crespatown site (18AG119) is situated on a terrace above the Upper Potomac

River, approximately twelve miles south of Cumberland, Maryland. The site was

excavated in the early 1980s by Wall and Frostburg State University, and from 1982 to

1986 by the Archaeological Society o f Maryland. Wall (2001:20-21) believes the primary

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 38

component at the site is Page or Mason Island with a minor component of shell tempered

Keyser wares representing a Luray occupation (Kollman n.d.:l 1-13).

The overall plan of the site is a circular village measuring seventy meters in

diameter with probably six circular houses, storage features, burials, pits and hearths.

Two of the larger circular shaped pits were lined with postmolds. Faunal evidence

recovered from pits included maize, beans, nuts, deer,elk, turkey, turtles, catfish and

mollusks among other smaller species. There was no evidence of a palisade(Kollman

n.d.:ll-16;Wall 2001:20-21).

Limestone tempered Mason Island wares dominate the ceramic sherds recovered.

The sherds show cord marking, no collars, and notches, punctates and incisions as design

motifs on the lips. The predominant lithic material was black and gray chert although

there was also minor occurrences o f rhyolite, quartz, quartzite, and chalcedony (Kollman

md.: 11-16; Wall 2001:20-21).

Twenty-one burials were discovered, the majority of which had one occupant.

There was one double burial and one triple burial containing infants and children. Eleven

of the occupants were in a supine position, five had their legs flexed, and five had their

legs extended. The grave goods found in nine of the burials included Mason Island pots,

beads and pendants made from bone and shell, bone tools, and triangular projectile

points. Three o f the graves were overlaid with a sealed clay layer (Kollmann.d.: 16-23).

Minor Component Sites

The Biggs Ford site (18FR14) is in central Frederick County, Maryland, along the

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 39

Monocacy River. The site was excavated by the Maryland Geological Survey from 1969

to 1970 revealinga Late Woodland village withmultiple components (Bastian 1974:1).

The two main components were Montgomery Complex, indicated by Shepard Cord

Marked pottery, and Luray Complex, inferred by the presence of Keyser Cord Marked

sherds. The minor components at the site comprised less than fivepercent o f the total

sherds recovered (Bastian 1974:4-6). Included in this minority was a small Mason Island

component containing Mason Island pottery found in Feature 20. A Radiocarbon date of

1400 + 90 was recorded for the feature (Kavanagh 1982:75-76,88; McNett:n.d. :IV:50-

51). No other Mason Island artifacts or characteristics were reported from the site.

The Point of Rocks site (18FR8) occupies a low bluff above the eastern bank of

the Potomac River in Frederick County, Maryland. Originally discovered in 1941 by

William Kline, the site was excavated in 1973 by the Archeological Society of Maryland.

The excavators found two possible pit features, several postmolds, and various Late

Woodland artifacts such as Levanna and Madison projectile points, and limestone

tempered Mason Island ceramics (Bastian 1973).

The Clagett Retreat site (18FR25) was a riverine village site located along the

southern end of the Monocacy River. In the 1960s, Calvin Swomley excavated the site

revealing an oval pattern of pits measuring 250 feet by 150 feet. The site is assigned to

the Mason Island culture by Kavanagh (Jirikowic 1995:85; Kavanagh1982:75;McNett

n.d.:IV:51).

The Brunswick site is found at the mouth of Quarter Branch in Frederick County,

Maryland. The site was reported by McNett (n.d.:IV:51) as having a Mason Island

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 40

component consisting of Mason Island pottery and one burial.

To conclude, the Mason Island Complex is comprised of a number of

archaeological sites in the Potomac River Valley withcommon traits and features,

implying a shared culture by the inhabitants. The Mason Island people chose the fertile

floodplains along the Potomac River Valley to build hamlets and villages. They made

cord marked ceramic pots with crushed limestone and crushed quartz, and they laid out

their dead in burial pits with few if any funerary objects. The people of the Catoctin

Creek site were a part of the Mason Island culture as evident in their material culture and

settlement pattern which issummarized in the following two chapters.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER FOUR

THE CATOCTIN CREEK SITE

The Catoctin Creek site is one of many Late Woodland villages included in what

is known as the Mason Island Complex. Excavated in 1970, the site provided McNett and

Gardner with evidence to propose the Mason Island Complex as a separate complex or

archaeological culture from the other similar complexes in the Late Woodland Middle

Potomac Valley. The following chapter relates the geographical setting, excavational

history and acondensed site report o f the PRAS excavation including a proposed site

plan, stratigraphy and features uncovered. The artifact assemblage recoveredbyPRAS

excavators is summarized in Chapter Five.

LOCATION

The Catoctin Creek site is located in Loudoun County, Virginia on the neck of

land at the confluence o f Catoctin Creek and the Potomac River. It is situated directly

across from Paton Island on a floodplain that varies from 295 to 299 feet above sea level.

The Late Woodland component of the site occupies the lower terrace on the western bank

of the Potomac River and the northern bank of Catoctin Creek. The terrace, subject to

periodic flooding from the Potomac River, is ideal for cultivation and has been fanned

continuously since at least the eighteenth century. To the west of the terrace are hills and

to the south across Catoctin creek is Catoctin Mountain (Handsmann.d.:2-3; McNett

n.d.:37; Rust 1986:5,18,21; Rust 1962:1-2). 41

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 42

The Catoctin Creek site lies within the region known as the Middle Potomac

Valley. The Middle Potomac Valley is an expanse of land situated between the Fall Line

of the Potomac River and Leesburg Basin further west. It is part o f the larger Piedmont

Physiographic Province o f the Potomac River Valley. The landscape of the Middle

Potomac Valley is generally described as rolling hills bisected by small river valleys

(Hantman & Klein 1992:138;McNett:n.d.:IV:44; Sacchi 1980:7-8). During the Late

Woodland Period, the landscape of Catoctin Creek was covered by a deciduous forest,

primarily oak and chestnut trees, sloping into grasslands (Handsman:n.d. :4;

McNett:n.d.: IV :44).

The nature of the Middle Potomac Valley was distinctly rich in resources for the

Late Woodland people. The inhabitants favored lithic materials such as quartz, quartzite,

jasper, greenstone and micaeous schist for their tools and pendants. The local stone was

procured from nearby outcroppings or as river cobbles from the Potomac River. Rhyolite

and chert, however, were found further afield, requiring trade with groups to the north in

the Shenandoah Valley and the Blue Ridge Mountains (Dent 1995:247; Handsmann.d.:3-

4; Jeffrey 1980:8; Rust 1986:6,18,21,35; Slattery & Woodward 1992:3).

In addition to lithic resources, the Middle Potomac Valley had a variety of faunal

and floral species available to the Catoctin Creek inhabitants. Nuts, amaranth and

chenopod could be gathered from the local habitat while the floodplain terraces were a

fertile location for com, beans and squash horticulture. Evidence o f animal species

inhabiting the region included deer, beaver, raccoon, meadow vole, bear, mole, muskrat,

dog, gray fox, porcupine, elk, mink, fox squirrel, turtles and turkey. In the nearby

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 43

waterways, sturgeon, catfish, suckerfish, Elliptic clamsand freshwaterriver mussel were

harvested (Barfield & Barber 1992:228-229; Dent 1995:251-254; Hantman & Klein

1992:139; McNettn.d.:IV:43-44; Rust 1986:35,37,41; Walker & Miller 1992:166-167).

Besides providing food, the waste products from the local floral and fauna could be

manufactured into tools, decorative beads, fishhooks and in the case of one deer bone, a

projectile point (Dent 1995:247; Rust 1986:37).

EXCAVATIONAL HISTORY

When discussing the previous excavation and survey of the Catoctin Creek site, it

is necessary to mention the difficulty in tracking the site through the literature due to

confusion over the site name and its registered site number. Two sites are situated along

Catoctin Creek where it converges on the Potomac River: 44LD15, Catoctin Creek, sits

on the north bank of the creek; and 44LD14, Point of Rocks, sits on the south bank o f the

creek. The confusion arises from the interchangeable use o f the site names, Point of

Rocks and Catoctin Creek, and thesimilar nature of the prehistoric components found at

each site, especially the Late Woodland occupations (McNettn.d.:Intro:l 1-13; Rust

1986:18-41; 44LD15 Site Survey Report).

The Catoctin Creek site first shows up officially on a Site Survey Record reported

by the Archeological Society o f Maryland (ASM) in 1962. The survey form states that

the site was mapped and collected by R.G. Slattery and Carl Manson in 1941. Slattery

and Manson described the site as two occupational concentrations covering

approximately an acre o f land and producing primarily Potomac Creek pottery and lithic

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 44

tools. Slatteryand William J. Graham donated additional artifacts from the site assuch

projectile points, a side scraper, blades, ground tools, and pottery sherds including one

Keyser Cord-Marked rim to the Smithsonian (Smithsonian A397648-9, A417492-8).

According to Handsman (n.d.:5), the University of West Virginia surface

collected and dug test units at the site somewhere between 1964 and 1968. The property

owner at the time told Handsman that the UWV excavators recovered a large quantity of

artifacts and possibly buriala from the area north of the PRAS excavational unit N190E5.

At this time, there is no confirmation of their findings.

In the summer of 1970, a group of faculty and university students from American

University and Catholic University began excavating the Catoctin Creek site as a part of

the PRAS project. The PRAS crew excavated twenty-two units which they believed

revealed a major Late Woodland component in the uppermost stratum and a small

assortment of artifacts from earlier periods in the deeper strata ((Handsmann.d.; McNett

n.d. :Preface :2-3,12). The field notes and artifact collection were returned to American

University for analysis.Russell Handsman (n.d.) and McNett .(n.d), separately, wrote up

the site findings from the PRAS excavation in two unpublished manuscripts. The PRAS

field notes and artifacts from the Late Woodland component are the basis of this thesis.

The PRAS excavators believed the uppermost stratum, extending vertically from

the surface to 2.0 feet below the surface, was a Late Woodland village assignable to the

Mason Island Complex. The relevantartifacts included cord marked pottery with folded

collars and tempered with crushed quartz or limestone, triangular projectile points made

from quartz or rhyolite, worked bone and shell objects, and ceramic platform pipes. Nine

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 45

extended burials, evidence of com agriculture, and avillage pattern of refuse pits

encircling a central open area were additional Mason Island traits suggested at the site

(McNett n.d.:IV:37-44,52-53).

Below the Late Woodland stratum, Selby Bay/Fox Creek, Broadspear, Bare

Island and Orient projectile points, and cord marked ceramic sherds tempered with

crushed limestone and Accokeek ware were recovered from components representing the

Middle Woodland through Late Archaic subperiods. One unit (N10E5) was excavated to

7.0 feet below the surface revealing rhyolite tools and debitage, indicating a possible Late

Archaic provenience with no ceramics (Handsman n.d.:7-8). The small collection of

artifacts from periods other than the Late Woodland at the site suggests more modest and

brief transient settlements.

In 1986, William F. Rust excavated at the Catoctin Creek site (44LD15) as a part

of a summary of prehistoric archaeological sites in Loudoun County, Virginia. Rust

agreed with the PRAS crew that the site contained occupations from the Late Archaic to

the Late Woodland periods. Based upon radiocarbon dating and pottery types, however,

Rust contended that the PRAS Late Woodland stratum actually contained both the Late

and Middle Woodland components. The difficulty in separating the Late and Middle

Woodland strata was based upon indistinct soil changes, probably due to plowing, and

subtle differences in pottery styles (Handsmann.d.:9; Rust 1986:31,37).

The significance of Rust’s stratigraphy differing from the PRAS stratigraphic

sequence manifests itself in the Late and Middle Woodland pottery types. The PRAS

excavators inferred that all limestone tempered pottery was Mason Island wares dating to

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 46

the Late Woodland period, but Rust (1986:31) claimed that limestone tempered wares

first appeared in the Middle Woodland period. A summary of Rust’s conclusions follows.

(See Table5)

Rust depicted a small sedentary village persisting through the occupational

midden at Catoctin Creek for the Late Woodland Period. Based upon stratigraphy and

artifact assemblages, he divided the period into two phases: the Potomac Phase (1200-

1700 A.D.) found at 0-20 cm/0-0.66 feet below surface; and the Loudoun Phase (800-

1200 A.D.) discovered at 15-40 cm/0.49-1.31 feet below surface. The Potomac Phase

component revealed Madison projectile points, and crushed quartz tempered pottery

adorned with incisions and punctates on an appliqued collar. Rust likened the ceramic

decoration to Potomac Creek, Page Cord Marked and Shenks Ferry wares. The earlier

Loudoun Phase artifacts included Levanna projectile points, quartz tools and debitage,

bone tools, ceramic platform pipes, and crushed quartz or limestone tempered pottery

decorated with oblique or vertical slashing along the neck and lip. The ceramic vessels

had flared necks, were frequently collared, vertical cord marked, often smoothed and

rounded bases. Deer and turkey bones, and river clam shells were common to both phases

(Rust 1986:37-38,40-41).

Rust defined a Middle Woodland component (40-60 cm/1.31-1.97 feet below

surface) of the Catoctin Phase dating from 300 B.C. to 450 A.D. but noted an absence of

the later Countryside Phase dating from 450-800 A.D. at the site. The Catoctin Phase

artifacts at Catoctin Creek included one Jack’s Reef pentagonal point, lithics

predominantly made from white quartz, bone tools, ceramic pipes and river clam shells.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The pottery was identified as quartztempered Albemarle pottery with decorative motifs

of incisions and impressions made with a cord, and “Catoctin Ware”. Rust described

Catoctin Ware as limestone tempered, uncollared, and adorned with rim and neck

decorative motifs of cord wrapped stick and oblique gashing (Rust 1986:30-31,34-35).

The Early Woodland level (65-95 cm/2.13-3.12 feet below surface) revealed

Marcy Creek, Selden Island cord marked and Accokeek cord marked pottery; Orient

fishtail projectile points; and an increased preference for white quartz over rhyolite for

lithic tools (Rust 1986:24-28). The Late Archaic stratum (90-120 cm/ 2.95-3.94 feet

below surface) was distinguished by the primacy of rhyolite for lithic material and the

absence of pottery (Rust 1986:18-21).

Table 5: Rust's Stratigraphy for Catoctin Creek Stratum Depth Date Reference LW Potomac Phs 0-20 cm/0-0.66 ft N/A Rust 1986:43 LW Loudoun Phs 15-40 cm/0-.49-1.31 ft A.D. 1075 + 60 (UGa-2983) A.D. 1170 + 75 (UGa-2819) Rust 1986:37 Middle 40-60 cm/1.31-1.97 ft A.D. 110 + 90 (Beta-14664) Woodland A.D. 170 ± 80 (Beta-14663) A.D. 350+ 100 (Beta-11800) Rust 1986:31 EarlyWoodland 65-95 cm/2.13-3.12 ft 410 + 95 B.C. (Beta-11799) Rust 1986:27 Late Archaic 90-120 cm/2.95-3.94 ft 1510 ±100 B.C. (Beta-11801) 1250 + 80 B.C. (Beta-14662) Rust 1986:21

SITE PLAN

The 1970 PRAS excavation consisted of nineteen excavation units, 5 by 10 feet,

and three smaller units, 2 by 3 or 4 feet (See Figures 3 and 4). The three smaller units

were added in order to excavate three graves that extended outside the confines of their

original units. The units were laid out by the excavators along three parallel trenches laid

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 48

N 1 9 0 -

N 1 8 0 -

N 170- N 160- B t NcaA N150—

N 140-

N130“ r~ ■

N120— L ,

m i o ~

N1O0—

N90—

NW—

N70—"

N « 5 -

N50—

H40—

N30—■

N20— Burial II N10—■ Pit — D Bearth X

1 1 1 I I | I 1 I I 1 I 1 W6G W50 W40 W30 W20 W10 0 ElO E20 E30 E40 E50 E60

Figure 3: Catoctin Creek Site Plan

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 49

•• N 1Q 0- t North

• «

m o -

m i

N80

Burial o N70 P it Postmold # Hearth x

N60 — 1 1 I W20 W10 0 E10 B20

Figure 4: Detail o f Catoctin Creek Site Area A

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 50

NNW to SSE from a datum point set in the southern part of the site (Handsman n.d.: 5).

Rust (1986:37) noted an overall midden area of approximately 197 by 394 feet. I labeled

the two main clusters of excavationalunits Area A and Area B. Area A includes the units

from North 60 to North 110 and West 10 to East 5, while Area B encompasses the units

between North 130 and North 190, and East 5 and East 15. The remaining unitsof N10E5

in the south, N130W55 to the west and the northern units N390W235, N600W175 and

N805W170 were excavated to test the extent of the site (Handsman n.d.:5-6).

Plotting artifact densities and features acrossthe site shows a possible

circular/oval settlement pattern with storage/refuse pits and burials encompassing a

centralopen area. In Area A, two clusters of postmolds were found to suggest domestic

structures but there is no evidence for a palisade line. The suggested villagepattern,

however, was common in other Late Woodland sites of the Mason Island, Montgomery

and Luray Complexes (Bastian 1974:3; Boyd & Boyd,Jr.:260-261; Dent 1995:249-251;

Jirikowic 1995:84; McNettn.d.:IV:2,53,74-75; Peck & Bastian 1977:7; Slattery &

Woodward 1992:17, 80-81,142).

The features and large quantities of artifacts suggest Areas A and B are within the

confines of the village. Unit N85W10 from Area A and unit N160E5 from Area B

together yielded 24.4 % of all the Late Woodland artifacts recovered from the site (see

Table 6). Unit N160E5 was an especially productive activity area with 13.9 % of all

sherds, 14.4 % of all lithic debitage, 13.5 % of all lithic and bone tools, a large refuse pit

(Feature I) and human remains (Burial 9). The burial, hearths and pits o f Areas A and B

keem to form an arc that could be the outside boundary of the village.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 51

Based on the absence of features and a significant decrease in artifacts when

compared to excavation units in Areas Aand B, the western unit N130W55 seems likely

to be located within the central plaza area. The three northern unitsof N390W235,

N600W175 and N805W170, and unit N10E5 to the south are surmised to be on the

outside of the Late Woodland village by the notably small quantity of artifacts and

absence of features. I believe more excavation is needed to support the proposed

settlement pattern o f the site.

Table 6: Artifact Quantities from Selected Excavation Units UNIT SHERDS DEBITAGE TOOLS N85W10 609 (11.5%) 366 (9.0%) 12 (7.7%) N160E5 734 (13.9%) 584 (14.4%) 21 (13.5%) N130W55 223 (4.2%) 220 (5.4%) 8 (5.1%) N10E5 30 (0.6%) 23 (0.6%) 1 (0.6%) N390W235 3 (0.06%) 19 (0.5%) 0 Totals for site* 5292 4069 156 ♦excluding features

STRATIGRAPHY

All depths used in this thesis are measured in feet below the surface as employed

by the PRAS excavators. Some measurements using a datum do appear in the PRAS field

notes but the exact location and depth o f the datumw as not evident, so these

measurements are unsubstantiated. The excavation of the site was executed in three inch

increments down to an average depth of 2.5 feet below the surface in the majority of

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 52

excavation units (Handsman n.d.:6). The resulting stratigraphy is described below. (See

Figure 5)

The plowzone, described as dark brown sandy silt (10YR 3/3), extended on

average 0.75 to 1.0 feet below the surface. The Late Woodland stratum measuringfrom

the surface to 1.25 feet below the surface included the plowzone and roughly three inches

of a dark grayish brown occupational midden (10YR 3/2). The approximated Late

Woodland floor revealed nine interments, several pits, two possible hearths and forty-one

postmolds.

Continuing into the midden, the Middle Woodland stratum begins directly below

the Late Woodland level and ends between 2.0 and 2.5 feet below the surface. Rust’s

(1986:31) stratigraphy has the Middle Woodland stratum ending at 2.1 feet (65 cm)

below the surface. The occupational midden appears to end at the bottom of the Middle

Woodland level at approximately 2.0 feet below the surface although Handsman (n.d.:7)

contends that the midden continues in some units to 3.0 feet below surface.

Reddish silt soil containing a small amount of ceramic sherds and white quartz

lithics appeared beneath the Middle Woodland midden. This stratum, tentatively

attributed to the Early Woodland period based primarily on Accokeek pottery, ended

approximately 3.0 feet below the surface. Most units were not excavated past 3.0 feet

below the surface because the artifact numbers significantly declined at that level.

However, unit N10E5 was excavated down to 8.0 feet below the surface, and did produce

two Late Archaic rhyolite broad spears at 6.0 and 7.12 feet below the surface,

respectively,

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 53

A A a a A A A A a A ^ aaaaaaaaa aaaa a a a a a a a A A A ^Hwaotseciiis AAAA 1.0ft . A . A A A A A A 4 4* 4- + + 4 + 4 4- -4 4- 4» 4 * + + 4 + 4* 4" 4 4 4 4r Hr 4- 4 4“ 4r -444- 4 4 4 4-4 2.0 fit . 4 _ 4 4- 4 4 4 4-4-4 4- 4 4 4 4* 4 4 4 4 4-4 4 4 44 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

|| qms*,

3.0 f t LLz.

Figure 5: Stratigraphy at the CatoctinCreek Site LateWoodland Stratum aaaa Middle Woodland Stratum + + + Early Woodland Stratum ------

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 54

FEATURES

Features other than burials at Catoctin Creek were difficult to define due to the

upheavalfrom the plowzone, and the subtle changes in soil color and texture in the

occupational midden. The major features from the Late Woodland village that were

distinguishable included nine burials, six possible refuse/storage pits, two possible

hearths and forty-one postmolds. A brief summaryof the findings on the burials,

postmolds, hearths, and pits follow.

Burials

The following summaries on the nine burials discovered at Catoctin Creek are

based primarily on the PRAS field notes and photographs from the 1970 excavation.

Specific information on the skeletons themselves, however, was provided by Kristin

Montaperto and David Hunt with the Anthropology Department of the Smithsonian

Institution’s National Museum of Natural History. Unfortunately, some of the skeletons

are commingled as we learned when we attempted to lay them out for examination.

Burial 1

Burial 1 (Figure 6) was uncovered in the northeast quadrant of unit N90W5 in the

occupational fill. A burial pit was not discernible but rather a flat area, measuring 4.5 feet

by 3.5 feet, of mostly disarticulated bones was discovered in the occupational midden.

The individual, presumed an infant, was supine with the crania aligned northeast, and the

face looking to the southeast. Because of the disarticulated state of the bones, it was

difficult to suggest the intended position o f the body. The excavators noted an oval

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 55

shaped implement with a serrated edge, madefrom micaceaous schist, as the only

associated artifact. Thefunction of the tool is unknown although the serrated edge makes

adesign similar to the cord wrapped stick motif on pottery sherds from the Late

Woodland component.

At the Smithsonian Institution, three to four partial skeletons were found in the

drawer labelled Burial 1, although only one individual skeleton is evident on the PRAS

burial report and on a picture taken by the excavators. By thesize of the bones and teeth

present, all o f the individuals were most likely children within the age range ofsix to

twenty-four months. One of the infant maxillahad two sets of incisors fused together

from the crown to the root.

Burial 2

The pit for Burial 2 (Figure 7) was uncovered in the northeast wall of N80E0 in

the village midden. The burial pit was oval shaped measuring 3.6 feet long and 1.5 feet

wide. A roughly rectangular slab, 1.5 feet by 0.9 feet, made of green siltstone was located

at the top of the east end o f the pit, 1.8 feet directly above the skull. The occupant of the

burial was lying onhis/her back with the crania to the east and legs extended to the west.

The feet and lower leg long bones were missing although it was noted that bone

fragments were collected. The face was turned to the north.

Montaperto and Hunt confirmed the age of the skeleton to that of a child between

four and six years, closer to four and a half years based on the length of the left femur.

Unfortunately, only the crania, vertebrate and arm long bones was present in the Burial 2

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 56

drawer at the Smithsonian. We believe the pelvis and leg long bones were somehow

displaced in the Burial 4 drawer. There were noartifacts directly associated with the

burial although animal bones, river shell, a small amount o f white quartz debitage and a

few fire clouded, cord marked pottery sherds tempered with crushed limestone or quartz

were found in the burial pit.

Burial 3

Burial3 (Figure 8) was found in excellentcondition in the northern most area of

the village occupation of Area B (N190E5-10). The rectangular burial pit, measuring 5.5

feet long and 1.55 feet wide, was unearthed directly below the plowzone. The individual

within the grave was an adult female in her mid to late twenties based upon epiphyseal

union, wear on her canine and premolar teeth, and the openness of her ectocranial

sutures. The woman had periosteal inflammation in both of her lower leg long bones

suggesting minor infections (Chase 1988:47-50; Hunt: personal communication). Her

teeth showed several carious lesions and one of her first molars was abscessed,often seen

in agricultural groups o f people due to a high consumption of carbohydrates (Chase

1988:iv, 118-120). She was estimated to be five foot to five foot and one inch in height.

The skeleton was extended with her face to die north. Similar to Burial 2, the

body was laid out with the skull to the east, the feet to the west and the arms were tight

against the rib cage. The excavators recorded that charcoalwas found within the chest

cavity. A small number o f artifacts were recoveredfrom the burial pit including white

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 57

quartz debitage, animal bones, river mussel, and cord marked sherds tempered with

crushed limestone or quartz.

Burial 4

Burial 4 (Figure 8)was discovered less than 2.0 feet south o f Burial 3 within the

village midden. The rectangular grave, measuring 6.5 feet by less than 1.0 foot, was

aligned east to west with a slight northern slant. According to Hunt, the skeleton is most

likely an adult male in his late forties to early fifties. The skeleton showed arthritic

changes in the spinalcolumn such as compression of the vertebrate and minor periosteal

inflammation in his lower long leg bones. His stature was approximated to be five and a

half feet tall.

The extended individual was laying on hisleft side with his arms and ankles

crossed, and his face turned to the north. Similar to Burial 3, charcoal was recoveredfrom

the base of the rib cage and the pelvis of the skeleton in Burial 4. Burial pit 4 revealed

small amounts o f white quartz debitage, animal bones, and cord marked sherds tempered

with limestone or quartz but no artifacts uniquely associated with the body.

Burial 5

The poorly preserved bones of Burial 5 (Figure 9) were excavated from an

elongated oval pit found in the northern Area B (N140E5-1.3BS). Unfortunately, the

skull was crushed and several bones from the hands and feet were missing. The burial

was small, measuring 1.95 feet long and .75 feet wide. At the Smithsonian, the skeleton

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 58

was determined to be an infant, six to nine months old, based on his/her teeth

development.

The infant was laid out onhis/her back with the head to the west, the missingfeet

to the east and his/her arms at the side. A notation was made on the burial sheet claiming

alimestone “chunk” was found to theleft o f the head. Additionally, Handsman (n.d.:ll)

noted a deer bone fragment recovered from the inside of the skull but dismisses it as an

intrusion after the time of the interment. Artifacts found within the grave are comparable

to the previous four burial pit descriptions with the addition of a quartz scraper, a bone

fishhook and a bone awl.

Burial6

The Burial 6 (Figure 10) grave was observed within the occupational fill in Area

A along the N70E0-W7 excavation line. The burial pit was an irregular rectangular

shape, 6.2 feet long and 1.5 feet wide, and aligned so that the skull lay to the northeast

and the feet to the southwest. The grave was overlapped on its southeast side with a

possible refuse pit that contained mostly animal bones and shell. McNett (n.d.:IV:43)

described a small trapezoidal shaped green siltstone, measuring0.2 feet by 0.3 feet, being

found over the occupant’s feet, although the PRAS field notes did not mention the stone

slab.

According to Hunt and Montaperto, the individual interred in Burial 6 is an adult

female in her thirties. She had sharp ridges on her finger bones suggesting manual labor,

minor arthritic changes in her hips, and minor periosteal inflammation in her lower long

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 59

leg bones. The woman had also suffered a violent break of her rightulna and radius,

called a Perry’s Fracture, which, according to Hunt, is often considered a defensive

wound. Similar to the skeleton in Burial 3, she had several carious lesions in her teeth.

The woman was determined to be approximatelyfive foot and two inches in height.

The burial occupant was supine with her right arm at her side, her left arm flexed

and her legs extended. The facewas turned to the northwest. Two objects were found in

direct proximity to the body: a large snail shell 0.25 feet southeast of the mandible anda

“bead or seed-like object” 0.2 feet north of the right clavicle. It is uncertain whether these

items were purposely placed with the body or just unintentional occurrences within the

grave fill. The burial pit contained the common assortment of animal bones, river mussel

shell, white quartz debitage and pottery tempered with limestone or quartz.

Burial 7

Burial7 (Figures 11 and 12) is the byfar the most exciting grave at Catoctin

Creek due to the wealth of artifacts found adorning its occupant and its excellent

preservation. The grave, 4.8 feet by 2 feet, was discovered in Area A of the Late

Woodland occupational floor, less than 2.0 feet north of Burial 1. Similar to Burial 6, a

pit outline was found intruding upon the southeastern edge of the grave. Red ochre was

encountered at the top of the burial and adjacent pit area. Artifacts recovered from the

burial pit included charred com kernels, cord markedsherds tempered with limestone,

lithic debitage, animal and fish bones, and freshwater river mussel shells.

During the analysis at the Smithsonian, the skeleton of Burial 7 was determined to

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 60

be a juvenileabout elevento twelve years o f age. Sex could not be accurately determined

because of the young age. The juvenile had swelling on the left humerus andminor

on the lower long leg bones suggesting infections.

The body was on his/her back with the head to the northeast, and the legs and feet

stretched out in a southwesterly direction. The arms were tucked to the sides of the body.

The occupant’s face wasturned to the northwest.

Burial goods included a headdress, a shell necklace, a shell bracelet for each

wrist, a large rhyolite flake, and a pottery sherd located against the left arm. According to

the PRAS field notes and Handsman(n.d. : 12), the headdress was discovered beneath the

skull in an arrangement of small bird bone beads. The shell necklace consisted of sixty-

five Marginella shell beads and four shell column beads, rangingfrom less than two

millimeters to nine millimeters long. The right wrist bracelet was comprised of ninety-

one Marginella shell beads wrapped around the wrist bones. The left wrist bracelet was

longer with 237 Marginella shell beads and 158 shell column beads of various lengths.

The dark grey rhyolite flake was located next to the back o f the skull. The pottery sherd

found touching the juvenile’s left humerus was limestone tempered and cord marked.

A charcoal sample recovered from Burial 7 by the PRAS excavators was tested in

spring of 2003 by Joe Dent. The radiocarbon date returned was 760 + 40 BP (Beta-

178036) which is A.D. 1190 + 40 uncorrected. Calibrated, the radiocarbon date ranges

from A.D. 1210 to 1290.

Burial 8

The pit of Burial 8 was discovered in the village midden in the southern portion of

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 61

Area A (N70E0). The grave was a small rectangular pit, 2.3 feet long and 0.9 feet wide,

with the skull to the northeast, the arms along his/her sides and the legs extended to the

southwest. Unfortunately, the skeleton from Burial 8 was missing from the Smithsonian

collection so an examination was not possible. According to the PRAS excavators, the

burial occupant was a small child, possibly an infant based on its proportions, supine with

his/her face turned to the east. Preservation was noted as good, although the feet and

finger bones were missing. No artifacts were directly associated with the child, however,

there was an assortment of animal bones,river mussel and snail shells, one rhyolite

projectile point, lithic debitage, and Mason Island pottery in the grave fill.

Burial 9

Burial 9, uncovered in unit N160E5 was not excavated due to time constraints. At

the bottom of the Late Woodland component, a human skull was unearthed in the

northwest comer of the unit. The face was turned to the north and the body was thought

to extend to the north or northwest, beyond the walls o f the unit. A humerus and ulna was

recovered from the unit as well but without a recorded provenience. It was determined by

the size and septal aperture in thehumerus that the bones belonged to an adult female.

The humerus was most likely from the same individual as the skull. A pit outline was not

discemable. No artifacts were clearly related to the skull nor the northwest comer where

the skull was found.

Burial Patterns

In general, the burial occupants were extended on their backs, interred in a pit and

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 62

had few, if any, burial goods; Burial 7 was anexception to the last rule. Flat green

siltstone slabs wereoverlaying two of the burials and a refuse pit (Feature 1) was noted

nearone of the disarticulated burials. Five o f the burials had a northeast to southwest

alignment; two had an east to west position; and the remaining two were unclear. Six of

the burial occupants were placed with their faces to thenorth or northwest. Two of the

three smaller children/infants were oriented with theirfaces turned to the east or

southeast. The third child’s position was undistinguishable.

Postmolds

Postmolds at Catoctin Creek were difficult to observe due to the dark coloring of

the midden soil (Handsman:n.d.:9). In all forty-one postmolds were recorded on the

PRAS level sheets for the site by the excavators. By plotting the postmolds on a site map,

two main clusters appeared in units N110W5 and N100E0 (See Figure 3). It is possible

these two patterns are the remnants of circular domestic structures.

Additionally, Rust (1986:37) in his excavation of the site uncovered a line of

postmolds in a semi circular pattern within 33 feet of a hearth. Rust declined to speculate

on the function o f the postmold pattern. However, Mason Island sites do not typically

have evidence o f palisades so it is more likely that the postmolds represent a circular

domestic structure rather than a palisade.

Hearths

A large amount of fire cracked rock and burnt earth were observed at Catoctin

Creek by Handsman (n.d.:9), althoughhe does not specifically identify any hearths.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 63

Figure 6: Burial 1

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 64

Figure 7: Burial 2

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 65

Figure 8: Burials 3 and 4

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 66

Figure 9: Burial 5

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 6 7

Figure 10: Burial 6

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 68

Figure 11: Burial 7

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 69

Figure 12: Headdress o f Burial 7

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 70

However, two rock concentrations in Area A of the site appear to be minor hearth

featuresthat may havebeen dispersed in the upheaval of the plow. The first possible

hearth was discovered in the center of unit N85W10 directly below the plowzone. The

hearth was comprised of charcoal, animal bone and river mussel shell centralized around

a cluster of rocks. The second possible hearth feature was located in the northeast comer

ofNIOOEO, half covered by the baulk. It was made up of several fire cracked rocks

grouped together and surrounded by charcoal and animal bones.

Pits

Pit features at Catoctin Creek included seven graves (see Burials), eight pits, and

one clearly defined refuse pit designated Feature I. The graves o f Burials 6 and 7 were

overlapped on their eastern and southeastern edges by the partial outlines of burnt or

discolored soil. It is not clear from the documentation whether the soil stains represent

extensions to the burial pits or separate pits fortrash or storage that were infringed upon

by the graves. In general, the pit features were oval or circular in shape, and

approximately 1.5 feet deep. Pits during the Late Woodland period were often used for

storage, refuse, burials or both.

Feature I

In the center of unit N160E5, approximately 1.5 feet south of the skull from

Burial 9, a refuse pit with a large quantity o f artifacts was discovered at the bottom of the

Late Woodland stratum. The basin shaped pit measured 2.1 feet deep, 4.5 feet north to

south, and extended into both the west and east walls. The top of the pit was marked by

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 71

two slabs of green siltstone and a large amount of charcoal. Thepit contents included a

perforated shell pendant described in ChapterFive, a large quantity of animal bones, river

mussel, white quartz tools and debitage, minor amounts of other lithic debitage and a

large amounto f Mason Island sherds. One human tooth was also recovered from the pit

contents but no other evidence of a human burial was present.

To summarize, excavations o f the Catoctin Creek site indicate a Late Woodland

village settlement in a resource rich environment along the Potomac River. It is uncertain

whether the settlement was inhabited year round, although storage and burial features,

and the depth of midden suggest serial occupations of the site. Additionally, the

magnitude of artifacts recovered from the site would seem to indicate a lengthy

inhabitation of the village. The material culture of Catoctin Creek is summarized in the

following chapter.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER FIVE

THE CATOCTIN CREEK SITE: MATERIAL CULTURE

This chapter contains a summary of the ceramic vessels and pipes, lithic tools

such as projectile points, bone and shell objects, and reports on a radiocarbon date

recovered from the Late Woodland stratum of the Catoctin Creek site. The primary

diagnostic artifact identified at the site was the ceramic sherds which were identified as

Mason Island wares based upon temper,external treatment, and decoration on the lip and

neck areas. The Levanna and Madison type projectile points, bone tools and beads, and

shell beads and pendant are all typical of Late Woodland sites in the Middle Potomac

Valley but are not specific to Mason Island Complex sites.

ARTIFACTS

Ceramics

Vessels

There were more than 8,700 ceramic vessel sherds recovered during the 1970

excavation at the Catoctin Creek site, approximately 5,750 o f which were excavated from

the Late Woodland component alone. Initially, the sherds were divided into vessel rim

and body sherds, pipe bowls and stems, and a miscellaneous category. The miscellaneous

category included sherds of indiscernible type or that did not fit the other two categories.

The vessel and pipe sherds were then described according to temper, collared or

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 73

uncollared, shape of rim (flat, round or crenellated), lip (everted, inverted or straight) and

decoration if any.

The ceramics at Catoctin Creek were mainlya reddish brown or an orange-red

color. Exterior vessel walls exhibited cord marking or smoothed over cord marking while

interior surfaces were smooth. The textures of the walls suggest a paddle and anvil

technique of shaping and bonding the vessels (Shepard 1976:59-60). Most references

indicate that Late Woodland vessels were coil constructed or modeled, although

indications of these techniques such as regular breaking were not evident (Evans

1955:64; MAC Lab 2002:2). The few identifiable basal sherds were thick and rounded

indicating typical globular bases for the vessels.

Overall, the vessel sherds showed a fairly even split between crushed limestone

(45.4%) and crushed white quartz (45.1%). In general, the pieces of both tempers ranged

from one millimeter to three millimeters in diameter. The quartz pieces were angular as

quartz typically fractures when broken, while the limestone pieces had rounded shapes.

Many of the sherds tempered with limestone have pocking (hollow spaces) due to firing

and possibly acidic soil (McNett, personal communication; Shepard 1976:91). There was

also a minority o f crushed limestone and crushed quartz together (2.1%), and less than

1% each for crushed shell; crushed limestone and chert; and crushed quartz and chert.

The low number o f sherds with chert particles suggests that the chert pieces were

probably chance inclusions.

A pattern of preference for one temper over another only manifested itself within

the burial andrefuse pit features. The ceramic sherds recovered from the graves o f

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 74

Burials 3 ,4 ,6 , 7 and 8 were predominantly limestone tempered. Burial 7 had the largest

percentage withthirty-seven (97.4%) limestone tempered sherds and only one

unidentified tempered sherd. Feature 1 also showed a propensity for limestone with 155

(60.3%) limestone tempered sherds out of the total 257 sherds recovered. Burials 2 and 5

were the exceptions: Burial 2 had 56% quartz tempered sherds, and Burial 5 had 63%

quartz tempered sherds.

Rims were flat or round with a slight bias towards flat, and a few instances of

crenellation. Lips were mostly everted with a minor number of inverted and straight lips.

Folded collars were slightly more popular than no collar at all, and applique collars

occurred in small numbers.

Rims were largely undecorated other than vertical cord marking. Approximately

one quarter of the rimsherds were decorated with an assortment of horizontal lines and/or

gashes, punctates or incised chevrons. Based on their design motifs, these sherds were

sorted into seven ceramic types established by Gardner and McNett(n.d.) at Catoctin

Creek, and by Peck (1980) atNoland’s Ferry. The seven pottery categories and an eighth

type added by this author, are described below and illustrated in Figure 13.

Catoctin Creek Gashed Folded Collar

The Gashed Folded Collar rims (29 sherds) were adorned with vertical or

diagonal slashes made with a plain or cord wrapped stick at the base of a folded collar.

This category was defined by Peck (1980:7). Generally, the gashes were theonly

decoration with the minor exception of a horizontal cord wrapped stick line along the

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 75

collar baseon two sherds. The collar and neck had visible cord markingscreating a rough

exterior while the interior walls were smoothed. The rims were flat or round with one

exception of crenellation. Lips were everted or straight with an occasional protruding lip.

The sherds were overwhelmingly tempered with crushed quartz with a minor amount

tempered with crushed limestone, or crushed limestone and quartz.

Catoctin Creek Incised and Gashed Collar

The Catoctin Creek Incised and Gashed Collarrim sherds (30 sherds) were

incised with two or three horizontal lines at the top of the rim and had vertical gashes

along the base of a collar similar to the notching on the Catoctin Creek Gashed Folder

Collar sherds. Peck (1980:13) identified this category in his analysis ofNoland’s Ferry

pottery types.The collars were predominantly folded with a few possible examples of

applique. The exterior was cord marked and the interiorsmoothed. Rims were either

round or flat, and occasionally indented with fingernail marks. The lips were everted or

straight. The temper material for the rims was evenly divided between crushed limestone

and crushed quartz. The Incised and Gashed Collarsherds appeared to be concentrated in

the upper layers o f the midden.

Catoctin Creek Punctates

The rim sherds in the Punctate category (12 sherds) were decorated with a single

horizontal row o f irregular shaped indentations made by the end o f a stick or reed as

suggested by Peck (1980:13). One variation was apparent in three o f the rims that had

two horizontal rows o f rectangular punctates, rather like dashes. Another deviation within

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 76

the type had an area of triangular punctates randomly placed on the rim. Again interiors

were smooth and exteriors cord marked, although a few of the sherds had smoothed

surfaces in the decoration section. Collars were folded or plain. The sherds had round or

flat rims except for one crenellated rim. Lips were everted or straight. The rims were

tempered equally with either crushedquartz or crushed limestone.

Catoctin Creek Oblique Incised

The Oblique Incised rims (18 sherds) were one of the simpler design motifs found

at Catoctin Creek. Peck (1980:7) found similar sherds at Noland’s Ferry. These rim

sherds were uncollared and had incised diagonal orvertical gash marks below the rim.

Vertical cord marking appeared on the exterior walls with a few instances of smoothing,

while the interior surfaces were smooth. Lips were predominantly everted. The rims were

generally flat and smooth although a few rounded rims were also present. Theserims

were evenly tempered with crushed quartz or crushed limestone.

Catoctin Creek Cord Wrapped Stick

Another simple design like the Oblique Incised, the Catoctin Creek Cord

Wrapped Stick rims (28 sherds) were decorated with two, three or four horizontal cord

wrapped stick lines at the top of a cord marked rim. This category was also defined by

Peck (1980:7). Two lines seemed to be slightly more common then either three or four.

Interior walls were smoothed. The sherds tended to be uncollared although a small

number had folded collars always witha rounded rim. Vessel lips were either straight or

everted. Rims were rounded or flat. The Cord Wrapped Stick rims were primarily

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 77

tempered with crushed limestone although a few examples of crushed quartz, and a

combination of crashed limestone and quartz were present.

Catoctin Creek Cord Wrapped Stick and Gashed Collar

The Catoctin Creek Cord Wrapped Stick and Gashed Collarrims (8 sherds) were

apparently not found at Noland’s Ferry by Peck and were recovered at Catoctin Creek

only in small numbers. These rim sherds were decorated with two or three horizontal

cord wrapped stick lines on a folded collar incised at the base with vertical gashes. One

exception was a sherd that had cord wrapped paddle impressions placein of the incised

gashes at the collar base. The exteriorrim surfaces werecord marked or smoothed in the

design area while interior walls were smooth. The lips were everted and the rim was

rounded or flat. The sherds were tempered with crushed quartz or crushed limestone.

Catoctin Creek Cord Wrapped Paddle Folded Collar

Rim sherds of the Cord Wrapped Paddle Folder Collar type (18 sherds) had

folded collars with vertical or diagonal cord wrapped paddle gashes along the collar base.

This category was included in Peck’s (1980:9) analysis of the Noland’s Ferry collection.

Many of the sherds exhibited smoothed over exterior cord marking on the upper portion

of the rim, and smooth interior surfaces. Crashed quartz or limestone was used as temper

for the sherds. Lips tended to be everted. Most of the rims were rounded with a few

exceptions of crenellation by a simple stick or cord wrapped paddle. The majority of the

Cord Wrapped Paddle Folded Collar rimsherds were discovered in the lower portion of

the midden.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 13: Decorated Rimsherds Top row: Catoctin Crk Cord Wrapped Paddle Folded Collar (2); Catoctin Crk Gashed Folded Collar (2); Catoctin Crk Vee Incised (2) Middle row: Catoctin Crk Cord Wrapped Stick and Gashed Collar (2); Catoctin Crk Cord Wrapped Stick (2); Catoctin Crk Oblique Incised (2) Bottom row: Catoctin Crk Punctate (3); Catoctin Crk Incised and Gashed Collar (3) I .* * * ' Plain uncollared rim; Plain collared rim; Incised neck sherd; Rimsherd with lug; pipe stems; pipe bowls; bowls; pipe stems; pipe lug; with Rimsherd sherd; neck Incised rim; collared Plain rim; uncollared Plain upper left comer: tempered neck sherd; Pocked limestone tempered sherd tempered limestone Pocked sherd; neck tempered Quartz Clockwise from from Clockwise Figure 14: Miscellaneous Sherds and Pipes and Sherds Miscellaneous 14: Figure

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission 80

Catoctin Creek Vee Incised

The Vee Incised rims (15 sherds) were adorned with or <)

or vertical (A), appliedby incision or cord wrapped stick impression. This category was

also recovered by Peck (1980:11) at Noland’s Ferry. In general, the chevron motif was

the only decorative motif on the rim. However, one rim with a series of incised vertical

chevrons also had two horizontal incised lines on the top of the rim. Most o f the chevron

designs appeared on a smoothed over rim surface. Interior walls were smooth as well.

Sherds were tempered with either crushed limestone or crushed quartz, and thickened

with a folded collar. Rims were generallyflat or rounded with one crenellated example.

Lips were predominantly everted but there were a few sherds with straight lips.

Miscellaneous decorative rims

There were a few decorated rim sherds that did notfit into the categories based

upon decorative characteristics. Two Late Woodland uncollared rims were quartz

tempered, had everted lips and were incised with short horizontal dashes in two different

patterns. However, one rim was smooth while the other had shallow incised gashes.

There was a unique neck sherd that had a smooth surface incised with several vertical

lines and outlined by two horizontal incised lines. The sherd was dark brown in color and

tempered with crushed quartz.

Pipes

Few fragmented pipe bowls and stems were recovered at Catoctin Creek. (See

Figure 14) The historic pipe remnants found included five kaolin and two glazed pipe

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 81

stems but no bowls. The Late Woodland stratum revealed six pipe bowl fragments and

eleven pipe stems, six of which had a rimmed mouthpiece. The sherds appeared to be

tempered with either crushed quartz or sand. Three of the pipe stems were rounded at the

mouthpiece but became square in shape as they approached the bowl thus creatingflat a

base indicative of platform pipes. Pipe stem hole diameters ranged from four to six

millimeters. The pipe stems were undecorated except for one found at the bottom of the

Late Woodland stratum. The decorated stem hadshort incised lines across the width of

the flat base. Pipe bowls were thin, smooth and undecorated as well.

In the PRAS artifact notes, there was a brief description o f five more pipe bowl

fragments that are not currently a part of the Catoctin Creek collection. In general, the

absent pipe bowls were described as having parallel and/or intersecting lines of punctates

forming a chevron design. One pipe bowl was depicted as plain except for a possible

raised knob along the rim.

Miscellaneous ceramics

The most abundant miscellaneous ceramic pieces found were shapeless lumps of

clay, probably waste from pottery making. Twenty-eight percent o f the clay lumps were

found in units N85W10 and N160E5, indicating possible pottery making activity areas. A

few ceramic pieces, cylindrical in shape with a tapered end, resembled beads without a

threading hole. All other ceramics placed in this category defied definitive identification.

Lithics

Cores, bifaces, utilized and modified flakes, and projectile points found in the

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 82

Late Woodland stratum at CatoctinCreek were made predominantly from locally

available white quartz. Sixty percent of all lithic tools and eighty seven percent of lithic

debitage was manufactured from white quartz.The most frequent lithic material after

white quartz was rhyolite, 8% of all tools and 3.5% of all debitage; and quartzite, 9.2% of

all tools and 3.3% of all debitage. Chert, jasper, chalcedony, siltstone and micaceaous

schist were all present in small quantities. All these materials were likely quarried locally

from Catoctin Mountain, South Mountain, Point of Rocks and the riverbeds, and brought

back to the village for tool manufacture (Dent 1995:247; Hantman & Klein 1992:138-

139; Jeffrey1980:8; Rust 1986:6,18,21).

The few ground stone tools found at Catoctin Creek were made from siltstone and

probably served as axes or celts. Several micaceaous schist implements were mentioned

in the artifact notes, however, only two to date are in the collection: a small oval shaped

unidentifiable piece, and an oval shaped implement with a serrated edge, possibly a

pottery decorating tool, found with Burial 1. The few scrapers from the site were

fashioned from grey chert and white quartz. Additionally, a rhyolite comer notched

projectile point was found in the Late Woodland stratum with a heavily reworked tip,

possibly into a scraper. Quartzite was favored for hammerstones. Jasper was used for one

projectile point and one point blank. (See Figures 15 and 16)

Projectile points in the Late Woodland stratum included what are probably four

displaced points described in the miscellaneous point section, and forty-two small to

medium triangular points. The Late Woodland triangles were sorted into four types based

on size and features of the bases and sides (See Figure 15). Twenty-four (57%) of the

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. a a A A4kk * iZJ

Figure 15: Projectile Points and Assorted Tools Top row: Quartz points - Type I (2); Type II (1); Type HI(2); Type IV (2) Middle row: Rhyolite points - Type I (2); Type H (3); Type III (2) Bottom row: Chert and Quartz endscrapers; Rhyolite reworked point; Micaeous schist tools (2) 84 Figure 16: Hammerstones and Ground Stone Tools Stone Ground and Hammerstones 16: Figure

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 85

points were manufacturedfrom quartz,twelve (28.6%) were from rhyolite, four (9.5%)

were from chert, and one each from jasper and chalcedony. The following is a description

of the four categories of the projectile points.

Type I

The fifteen projectile points classified into Type I were small triangular points

with straight or slightly concave bases. The majority of the points were straight sided hut

a few were slightly curved. Type I points included four complete points and nine points

missing either their tips, a basal comer or both. The width of the bases ranged from 1.5 to

2.9 centimeters (9/16 to 1 lA inches) while the length from the tips to the base measured

between 1.9 to 3.1 centimeters. There was a ratio of 1:1-1.25 for basal width to the length

of the point. The points varied in blade thickness from 0.2 to 0.6 centimeters. The four

thicker points had a central platform on one side of the blade that was notreduced, A

variety of lithic material was represented: quartz (5), rhyolite (5), chert (4) and jasper (1).

The points in Type I resembled the Levanna point type found in Ritchie (1971:31-32) and

Hranicky (2001:93).

Type II

The fourteen projectile points of Type H were elongated triangular points with

concave bases and straight sides. They ranged from 2.1 to 4.0 centimeters in basal width,

and 2.9 to 4.1 centimeters in length. Only four o f the fourteen points were whole while

the remaining ten were missing tips so that the length measurement is misleading. By

estimating the missing tips, the points would have a possible maximum length of 5.8

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 86

centimeters. The ratio of basal width to point length was 1:1.5-2.0. The Type II points on

average were thicker than the Type I points measuringfrom 0.4 to 0.8 centimeters. Nine

of the Type II points were manufactured from quartz, four from black rhyolite and one

from black chert. The points in Type II resembled the Madison point type reported in

Ritchie (1971:33-34) and Hranicky (2001:94-95).

Type IH

Type IE included five projectile points with an asymmetrical triangular

appearance and straight bases. Threethe o f points had anasymmetrical barb on the

comer of the base, almost as if the base was originally concave and one “ear” was

removed to make a straight base. Four o f the five points were complete. Bases were 2.2

to 3.0 centimeters wide while the point length extended from 2.6 to 3.3 centimeters. The

ratio of width to length of the points was 1:1.1-1.4. Blade thickness ranges from 0.4 to

0.7 centimeters. Three o f the points were black rhyolite and the remaining two were

quartz.

Type IV

The eight quartz points of Type IV were medium triangular points with curved

sides and straight bases. Type IV points resembled Type I points but were larger in size.

Two of the points were missing a basal comer and six were missing their tips making

length measurements limited. The basal width ranged from 2.3 to 3.2 centimeters while

the length of the points varied from 3.0 to 4.0 centimeters. The ratio o f width to length

was estimated at 1:1.25-1.5. Theblade thickness was 0.4 to 0.8 centimeters.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 87

Other points

Five quartz tips and three point blanks of quartz,jasper and rhyolite were

recovered from the Late Woodland midden. Additionally, three Late Archaic-Early

Woodland projectile points were found within the plowzone o f the main part o f the site; a

quartz, straight stemmed, elongated point (Bare Island), a partial point of grey chert with

a stemmed base, andblack a chert, elongated point with a stemmed base (Rossville). A

fourth point o f argillite with comer notches and a concave base (Broadspear) was

recovered beneath the plowzone from the northern edge of the site.

Bone

There was a very small assortment of worked bone and bone implements at

Catoctin Creek from the Late Woodland period. Five pieces of bone with visible

modified cut marks, small bird bone beads, one awl, one fishhook, and the tip of a

projectile point, probably made from a deer bone, were recovered. (See Figure 17) The

worked bone pieces were largely tubular bird bones that were eventually cut into small

beads such as in the headdress that adorned the skeleton in Burial 7. Additionally, the

PRAS artifact notes mention two bird bones cut possibly for beads that are missing from

the present collection.

The small amount of worked bone at the site could be due to a lack of preference

for bone as a toolmaking material in the Late Woodland period. It is also possible that

additional worked bone pieces were destroyed by the plow considering the fragile and

fragmentary nature of the bone collected. No worked bone was discovered in the

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 88

plowzone level. All the worked bone and bone implements were found directly below the

plowzone.

Shell

The only worked shell found at Catoctin Creek was excavatedfrom Burial 7 and

the refuse pit from unit N160E5. (See Figure 17) In all, 393 marginella shell beads, 162

shell column beads, one snail shell bead and one freshwater mussel smoothed along one

edge were excavated from the wrists and neck of the juvenile inBurial 7. The shells were

all pierced for stringing. Additionally, 103 pieces of river mussel shell were recovered

from the grave. The river mussel shells may have been perforated for stringing, however,

the shell was too fragmentary to make a conclusive determination.

A shell pendant was recovered from the top of the Feature 1 refuse pit in unit

N160E5. The pendant is circular in shape with a hole pierced through the center and

smoothed edges. It was cut from a river mussel shell and has a pearly white appearance.

A cache of animal bones, river mussel shell, a large amount of white quartz flakes and

over 250 sherds was found with the pendant in the pit. It is unclear if the pendant is

related to Burial 9 which is located within 2.0 feet of the pit.

RADIOCARBON DATE

In the spring of 2003, a charcoal sample taken from Burial 7 by the PRAS

excavators was assayed for a radiocarbon date. The radiocarbon date returned was 760 +

40 BP (Beta-178036) which is A.D. 1190 + 40 uncorrected. With calibration, the

radiocarbon date suggests a calendrical date of A.D. 1210 to 1290 with an intercept date

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

beads; shell bonependant; awls; bone fishhooks; deer bird beads; bone Marginella shell Marginella shell upper leftupper comer: from boneprojectile point; workedbone Clockwise starting Figure 17: Bone and Shell Artifacts Shell and Bone 17: Figure

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 90

of A.D. 1270. This date is similar to two uncorrected radiocarbon dates for the site of

A.D. 1075 ± 60 (UGa-2983) for Feature 1 and A.D. 1170 ±75 (UGa-2819) for Feature2

reported by Rust (1986:37).

In conclusion, the radiocarbon date and artifact assemblage excavatedfrom the

Catoctin Creek site support the identification o f the site as a part o f the Mason Island

Complex. The primary diagnostic artifact recovered from the site was the crushed

limestone and quartz tempered Mason Island ceramics. Additional evidence for Catoctin

Creek to be a Mason Island Complex site was its Middle Potomac Valley location and its

extended burials discussed in Chapter Four. The next chapter, Chapter Six, concludes this

thesis with a summary o f the Catoctin Creek findings and what it means for the Middle

Potomac Valley archaeological picture.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER SIX

CONCLUSION

The primary purpose of this thesis was to provide a published account of the 1970

excavationo f the Catoctin Creek site by PRAS. In doing so, I hoped to substantiate and

add to the archaeological picture of the Middle Potomac Valley in the Late Woodland

Period by providing additional confirmation o f the Mason Island Complex. To

accomplish my goal, I researched the Late Woodland Period in the Middle Potomac

Valley in archaeological literature to assess the larger environmental and cultural setting

of the Catoctin Creek site. Then, I examined the PRAS field notes and artifact collection

from Catoctin Creek currently curated at American University. The excavational notes

and artifact assemblage confirmed the identification of the Late Woodland component of

Catoctin Creek as a Mason Island Complex village occupation.

The Catoctin Creek site was one among many settlements nestled along the major

waterways in the Middle Potomac Valley during the Late Woodland Period. Theperiod

was atime of increasing sedentism as people occupied villages and hamlets near fertile

floodplains where they grew com. The village inhabitants all had similar settlements,

material cultures and resource procurement strategies (Custer1986b: 155-156; Dent

2002:15; Hantman & Klein 1992:143-152; Jirikowic 1995:65-74,91-98; Ravanagh

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 92

1982:79-82; Potter 1993:141-147; Walker & Miller 1992:165-167). Regional

archaeologists have categorized the occupational components of the settlements into three

archaeological complexes: the Montgomery, the Mason Island and the Luray Complexes

(Custer 19866:155-156; Dent 2002:16; Jixikowic 1995:78-91; Kavanagh 1982: 69-79;

MacCord 1992:161-168; Potter 1993:126-131; Schmitt 1952:67; Walker & Miller

1992:169-172; Wright 1959:17-18).

Each complex was a reflection of the cultural traditions and styles repeated by its

people in their pottery, burial treatments and choice of location for their settlements.

Shepard wares are attributed to the Montgomery Complex while Mason Island ceramics

are characteristic of the Mason Island Complex.Keyset Cord Marked pottery is

diagnostic o f the Luray Complex. The burials of the Late Woodland complexes were

similar in that they were all interred in pits within the villageconfines and generally

contained few grave goods. Differences arose among the three complexes, however, in

the position o f the body and the number of occupants in one grave: Montgomery burial

pits contained one and occasionally two individuals in flexed positions; Mason Island

gravesheld one to two skeletons in a supine, extended arrangement; and Luray burials

consisted o f one to multiple occupants in a flexed or extended position, or as a bundle

(Bastian 1974; Dent 2002:23-27; Franklin 1979; Jirikowic 1995; Kavanagh 1982:70-79;

McNett n.d.:IV:2,24-29,68-80; Peck 1980; Peck & Bastian 1977; Potter 1993:126-127;

Slattery & Woodward 1992; Walker & Miller 1992:174-178).

Lastly, the three cultures all chose to settle along the major tributaries, the

Potomac River and two o f its tributaries, the Shenandoah andMonocacy Rivers. There is

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 93

certainly some overlap in settlement areas, especially along theMiddle Potomac River

between Point of Rocks and Harrison Island, and along the Monocacy River for all three

complexes (Bastian 1974; Dent 2002:23-27; Franklin 1979; Jirikowic 1995; Kavanagh

1982:70-79; McNett n.d.:IV:2,24-29,68-80; Peck 1980; Peck & Bastian 1977; Potter

1993:126-127; Slattery & Woodward 1992). As more archaeological excavations in the

region are completed, the geographic range of the Late Woodland complex sites are

likely to become better defined.

Based upon the traits of the Late Woodland Complexes, the Catoctin Creek site

corresponds to the ideal o f a Mason Island Complex site. Mason Island pottery tempered

with crushed limestone and quartz was recovered in great quantity from the site. The

eight excavated burials of the site reflect single interments of individuals in a recumbent,

extended position. The site is located at the confluence of the Catoctin Creek and

Potomac River, well within the geographic boundaries of the larger Mason Island

Complex. Additional attributes of the site such as the settlement plan, storage pit features,

triangular projectile points knapped from quartz and rhyolite, and bone and shellobjects

suggest a Late Woodland settlement akin to the other Mason Island sites of the Middle

Potomac Valley.

While the Catoctin Creek site is a prime example of the Mason Island Complex in

the Late Woodland Middle Potomac Valley, proposed cultural affinities with Page

ceramic occupations in the Shenandoah and Upper Potomac River Valleys suggest a

possible earlier origin for the Mason Island people. It is also interesting to speculate on

the eventual fate of the Mason Island people. By the arrival of the Europeans in the early

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. seventeenth century, the Potomac Piedmont was apparently devoid of permanently settled

Native American inhabitants (Jirikowic 1995:91; Kavanagh 1982:82). Potter (1993:130-

132) and others hypothesize that many earlier inhabitants of the Middle Potomac Valley

were displaced by the later Luray. Only subsequent excavational work and publication of

site findings will more fully address the question of the eventual fate of the Mason Island

people.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Barfield, Eugene B. and Michael B. Barber 1992 Archaeological and Ethnographic Evidence of Subsistence in Virginia During the Late Woodland Period. In Middle and Late Woodland Research in Virginia: A Synthesis, edited by Theodore R Reinhart and Mary Ellen Hodges, pp. 225-248. The Dietz Press, Richmond.

Bastian, Tyler 1973 Preliminary Report on the Results of the 1973 Field Session at Site 18FR8, Frederick County, Maryland. Archeological Society of Maryland Newsletter, vol. 18, no. 7.

1974 Preliminary Notes on the Biggs Ford Site, Frederick County, Maryland. Report on file at the Maryland Historic Trust.

Boyd, Donna C. and C. Clifford Boyd, Jr. 1992 Late Woodland Mortuary Variability in Virginia. MiddleIn and Late Woodland Research in Virginia: A Synthesis, edited by Theodore R Reinhart and Mary Ellen Hodges, pp. 249-265. The Dietz Press, Richmond.

Chase, Joan W. 1988 A Comparison o f Signs o f Nutritional Stress in Prehistoric Populations of the Potomac Piedmont and Coastal Plain. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, The American University, Washington, D.C.

Custer, Jay F. 1986a Late Woodland Cultures of the Lower and Middle Susquehanna Valley. In Late Woodland Cultures of the Middle Atlantic Region, edited by Jay F. Custer, pp. 116-142. University of Delaware Press, Newark

1986b Late Woodland Cultural Diversity in the Middle Atlantic: An Evolutionary Perspective. In Late Woodland Cultures of the Middle Atlantic Region, edited by Jay F. Custer, pp. 143-168. University of Delaware Press, Newark.

Dent, R. J. 1995 Chesapeake Prehistory: Old Traditions, New Directions. Plenum Press, New York. 95

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 96

2002 Excavations at the Winslow Site (18M09): Preliminary Report on the 2002 Field Season. Maryland Archeology, vol.38(2): 13-32.

Evans, C. 1955 A Ceramic Study of Virginia Archeology. Bureau of Ethnology, Bulletin 160. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, B.C.

Franklin, Katherine A. 1979 A Late Woodland Occupation Site on Lower Mason Island, Montgomery County, Maryland. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, The American University, Washington, B.C.

Geier, Clarence R. 1992 Development and Diversification: Cultural Directions During the Late Woodland/Mississippian Period in Eastern North America. In Middle and Late Woodland Research in Virginia: A Synthesis, edited by Theodore R. Reinhart and Mary Ellen Hodges, pp. 277-296. The Dietz Press, Richmond.

Handsman, Russell G. n.d. Catoctin Creek: A Multi-Component Site in the Upper Potomac Valley. Unpublished manuscript.

Hantman, Jeffrey L. and Michael J. Klein 1992 Middle and Late Woodland Archaeology in Piedmont Virginia. In Middle and Late Woodland Research in Virginia: A editedSynthesis, by Theodore R. Reinhart and Mary Ellen Hodges, pp. 137-164. The Dietz Press, Richmond.

Hranicky, Wm. Jack 2001 Projectile Point Typology for the Commonwealth of Virginia. Virginia Academic Press, Alexandria.

Jirikowic, C. A. 1995 The Hughes village site: a late Woodland community in the Potomac Piedmont. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, The American University, Washington, D.C.

Kavanagh, Maureen 1982 Archeological Resources of the Monocacy River Region, Frederick and Carroll Counties, Maryland. Maryland Geological Survey, Division of Archeology. File Report Number 164.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 97

Kollmann, Dana n.d. Monograph on Human Burials at Maryland Historical Trust. Unpublished Manuscript.

MacCord, Howard A. Sr. 1992 Recent Potomac Valley Archaeological Work and its Relationships to the Montgomery Focus. In The Montgomery Focus: A Late Woodland Potomac River Culture, by Richard G. Slattery and Douglas R. Woodward, Appendix I, pp. 161-168, Bulletin Number 2 of the Archaeological Society of Maryland.

Marshall, A. Ray 1992 Discoidals and the Game of Chunkey. InThe Montgomery Focus: A Late Woodland Potomac River Culture, by Richard G. Slattery and Douglas R. Woodward, Appendix H, pp. 169-171, Bulletin Number 2 of the Archaeological Society of Maryland.

Maryland Archaeological Conservation Lab 2002 Prehistoric Pottery: Page. In Diagnostic Artifacts in Maryland. Electronic Document.http://www .jefpat.org/diagnostic/Prehistoric_Ceramic_Web_Pa ge/Prehistoric %20W are % 20Descriptions/Page.htm

McNett, Charles W., Jr. n.d. Prehistoric Archaeology in the Middle Atlantic: The View from the Potomac River. Unpublished manuscript.

Peck, Donald W. 1980 Test Excavations at the Noland’s Ferry Site, Frederick County, Maryland. Maryland Archeology 16(1):2-18.

Peck, Donald W. and Tyler Bastian 1977 Test Excavations at the Devilbiss Site, Frederick County, Maryland. Maryland Archeology 13(2): 1-10.

Potter, Stephen 1993 Commoners, Tribute, and Chiefs: The Development of Algonquian Culture in the Potomac Valley. University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville.

Ritchie, William A. 1971 New York Projectile Points: A Typology and Nomenclature. Bulletin 384, New York State Museum, Albany.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 98

Rust, William F. HI 1962 Site Survey Record:44LD15. Report on file, Virginia Department of Historic Resources, Richmond.

1986 Chronology of Prehistoric Habitation Sites on the Potomac River in Loudoun County, Virginia, from the CountrySide Planned Community to the Catoctin Creek/Potomac Confluence. Manuscript on file, Virginia Department of Historic Resources, Richmond.

Sacchi, Richard Roland 1980 The Jeffery Village: A Middle Late Woodland Cultural Complex in the Middle Atlantic Province. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, The American University, Washington, D.C.

Schmitt, Karl 1952 Archeological Chronology of the Middle Atlantic States. In Archaeology of Eastern United States, edited by Griffin, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Shepard, Anna O. 1976 Ceramic Processes and Techniques of Prewheel Potters. In Ceramics for the Archaeologist, pp. 49-94. Carnegie Institution, Washington, D.C.

Slattery, Richard G. and Douglas R. Woodward 1992 The Montgomery Focus: A Late Woodland Potomac River Culture. Bulletin Number 2 of the Archaeological Society of Maryland.

Smithsonian Institution Research Information System (SIRIS) 2001 Richard Edwin Steams Photographs 1930-1960. Electronic document. http://www.siris.si.edu/.. ./wgbroker?0808174237046115435+1+search+re dir+2-0+select++3+1. Tidwell, W.A. 1967 The Montgomery Focus. Archeological Society of Maryland Miscellaneous Papers 6:11-17.

Walker, Joan M. and Glenda F. Miller 1992 Life on the Levee: The Late Woodland in the Northern Great Valley of Virginia. In Middle and Late Woodland Research in Virginia: A Synthesis, edited by Theodore R. Reinhart and Mary Ellen Hodges, pp. 165-185. The Dietz Press, Richmond.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 99

Wall, Robert D. 2001 Late Woodland Ceramics and Native Populations of the Upper Potomac Valley. Journal of Middle Atlantic Archaeology, vol. 17, pgs. 15-37.

Wright, Henry T. 1959 A Preliminary Sequence for the Upper Potomac River Valley. The West Virginia Archeologist 11:9-21.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.