The Upper Mississippi Component at the Fort Meigs Site, Northwest Ohio, with Special Emphasis on the Analysis of the Ceramic Assemblage

Home , Fort Meigs, Huber Site, Mano (stone), Palos Site

Western Michigan University ScholarWorks at WMU

Master's Theses Graduate College

12-1984

The Upper Mississippi Component at The Fort Meigs Site, Northwest Ohio, with Special Emphasis on the Analysis of the Ceramic Assemblage

William Evan Rutter

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/masters_theses

Part of the Archaeological Anthropology Commons

Recommended Citation Rutter, William Evan, "The Upper Mississippi Component at The Fort Meigs Site, Northwest Ohio, with Special Emphasis on the Analysis of the Ceramic Assemblage" (1984). Master's Theses. 1551. https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/masters_theses/1551

This Masters Thesis-Open Access is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate College at ScholarWorks at WMU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master's Theses by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at WMU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE UPPER M I S S I S S I P P I COMPONENT AT THE FORT MEIGS SITE, NORTHWEST OHIO, WITH SPECIAL EMPHASIS ON THE ANALYSIS OF THE CERAMIC ASSEMBLAGE

Wi11iam Evan Rutter

A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of The Graduate College in partial fulfi 1lment of the requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts Department of Anthropology

Western Michigan University Kalamazoo, Michigan December

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. THE UPPER MlSSI SSIPPI AN COMPONENT AT THE FORT MEIGS SITE, NORTHWEST OHIO, WITH SPECIAL EMPHASIS ON THE ANALYSIS OF THE CERAMIC ASSEMBLAGE

William Evan Rutter, M.A.

Western Michigan University, 198*»

An introduction to the late prehistoric Upper Mississippian

component of the Ft. Meigs site is presented. Site context and his

tory of research are presented, and the non-ceramic artifact assem

blage is analyzed and discussed. An in depth analysis of the ceramic

assemblage is presented, as well as discussion of the osteological,

floral, and faunal remains. Ft. Meigs is then examined from a cul

ture ecological perspective, and is discussed in terms of culture

historical data and a theoretical schema. The s ite is employed to

aid in illumination of the process of cuIture contact in general,

and within the western Lake Erie Basin in particular, for the period

A.D. 1200 to early historic times.

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

I would 1ike to express my appreciation to the following indivi

duals for permitting me to undertake and complete this study. For

comments and critical review of the original draft I am grateful to

Dr. Wi11 iam Cremin, of Western Michigan University, and Dr. David

Stothers, of Toledo University. I also wish to extend my appreciation

to Dr. Robert Maher, of Western, for consenting to serve on my thesis

committee on rather short notice. I would also like to acknowledge

the Toledo Area Aboriginal Research Society, in particular its Presi

dent, Mr. Patrick Steiner, for making col lections available for study.

Without the excavations completed in cooperation with the Laboratory

of Ethnoarchaeology at the University of Toledo, a wealth of data

included in this thesis would not have been available for analysis.

I would also like to thank my superiors, especially Don Weir, at

Gilbert/Commonwealth in Jackson, Michigan, for permitting me to take

extended leaves of absence to undertake analysis and write up of this

thesis. In addition, the moral support and encouragement provided by

Dr. Robert Jack Smith, Chairman of the Department of Anthropology at

Western Michigan, is gratefully acknowledged. I also would wish to

recognize the financial assistance provided to me by the Department of

Anthropology during my years at Western Michigan. Lastly, I would

like to thank my parents for the encouragement and aid they provided

during the seemingly endless process of completing my degree. I

again emphasize my gratitude to the people and institutions mentioned

i i

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. above, and apologize for any inadvertent omissions. Of course, I,

alone am responsible for the contents and conclusions of this thesis

William Evan Rutter

i i i

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

This reproduction was made from a copy of a document sent to us for microfilming. While the most advanced technology has been used to photograph and reproduce this document, the quality of the reproduction is heavily dependent upon the quality of the material submitted.

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

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

2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark, it is an indication of either blurred copy because of movement during exposure, duplicate copy, or copyrighted materials that should not have been filmed. For blurred pages, a good image of the page can be found in the adjacent frame. If copyrighted materials were deleted, a target note will appear listing the pages in the adjacent frame.

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

4. For illustrations that cannot be satisfactorily reproduced by xerographic means, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and inserted into your xerographic copy. These prints are available upon request from the Dissertations Customer Services Department.

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

University Microfilms International 300 N. Z eeb Road Ann Arbor, Ml 48106

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1324836

RUTTER, WILLIAM EVAN

THE UPPER MISSISSIPPIAN COMPONENT AT THE FORT MEIGS SITE, NORTHWEST OHIO, WITH SPECIAL EMPHASIS ON THE ANALYSIS OF THE CERAMIC ASSEMBLAGE

WESTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY M.A. 1984

University Microfilms International 300 H Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48106

In all cases this material has been filmed in the best possible way from the available copy. Problems encountered with this docum ent have been identified here with a check mark V

1. Glossy photographs or pages.

2. Colored illustrations, paper or print.

3. Photographs with dark background.

4. Illustrations are poor copy

5. Pages with black marks, not original copy.

6. Print shows through as there is text on both sides of page.

7. Indistinct, broken or small print on several p ages.

8. Print exceeds margin requirements

9. Tightly bound copy with print lost in spine _ _

10. Computer printout pages with indistinct print.

11. Page(s) ______lacking when material received, and not available from school or author.

12. Page(s) ______seem to be missing in numbering only a s text follows.

13 Two pages num bered . Text follows.

14. Curling and wrinkled p a g es __

15. Other______

University Microfilms International

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

Page

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... ii

LIST OF TABLES ...... vi

LIST OF FIGURES ...... vii

LIST OF MAPS ...... vi ii

LIST OF PLATES ...... ix

CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION ...... 1

Objectives and Research Questions ...... 1

II. SITE CONTEXT AND HISTORY OF RESEARCH AT FT. MEIGS . . k

Environmental Setting ...... k

Previous Investigations ...... 13

III. THE UPPER Ml SSI SSIPPIAN NON-CERAMIC ARTIFACT ASSEMBLAGE ...... 30

Bone Artifacts ...... 30

Shell A rtifacts ...... 62

Ft. Meigs Li thics ...... 71

IV. FT. MEIGS CERAMICS ASSEMBLAGE ...... 103

Analytic Approach ...... 103

Inventory of Ceramic Types and Varieties ...... 111

Miscellaneous Ceramic Artifacts 17**

V. STRUCTURAL EVIDENCE ...... 179

VI. HUMAN OSTEOLOGY ...... 184

VII. FLORAL AND FAUNAL REMAINS AND THEIR IMPLICATIONS FOR FT. MEIGS SETTLEMENT AND SUBSISTENCE ...... 190 i v

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table of Contents, Continued Page

Floral Remains ...... 190

Faunal Remains ...... 194

Subsistence and Settlement Behavior ...... 20k

VIII. UPPER Ml SS'ISS IPPIAN DEVELOPMENT WITH EMPHASIS ON FT. MEIGS AND THE SANDl’SKY TRADITION ...... 210

Introduction ...... 210

The "Upper M ississippification" of Northwest Ohio . . 222

Upper Mississippian/Late Woodland Interaction . . . . 229

Sandusky Tradition Versus Western Basin Tradition . . 236

IX. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION ...... 2k$

APPENDIX A - FT. ME|GS LITHICS ...... 2^9

APPENDIX B - FT. MEIGS CERAMICS . . . . ’...... 301

APPENDIX C - FAUNAL ANALYSIS ...... 373

BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 379

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

1. Bone A rtifacts ...... 32

2. Shell Artifacts ...... 63

3. Lithic Art i facts By Tool ...... 72

*». Projectile Point Comparison, By Site ...... 83

5. Ft. Meigs Ceramic Types ...... 112

6. Charred Archaeobotanical Remains Indentified from the Ft. Meigs Site ...... 191

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

1. Area I, Ft. Meigs Excavation P ro file ...... 18

2. Area II, Ft. Meigs Excavation P rofile ...... 19

3. Area III, Ft. Meigs Excavation P rofile ...... 21

A. 1979 Excavations, Ft. Meigs ...... 23

5. Area V, Stratigraphic Profile ...... 25

6. Structural Features Plan View ...... 27

7. Structure Detail Plan ...... 28

8. Western Basin, Sandusky Tradition Flow Chart . .... 218

v i i

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

1. Topographic Map of Area Surrounding Ft. Meigs .... 5

2. Site Location ...... 6

3. Soils Distribution for N.W. Ohio and S.E. Michigan . . 8

4. Presettlement Vegetation of the Western Basin Area . . 10

5. Contour Map of Ft. Meigs ...... 14

6. Ft. Meigs Excavation Uni t Location 16

vi i i

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

1 Bone Beamers, Awl ...... 33

2 Bone Awls ...... 35

3 Bone Punches, Pins ...... 38

A Antler Fine Points, Drifts, Flakers ...... IjO

5 Bone Tubes and Beads ...... kk

6 Bone Needles, Baculae, Deer Phalange ...... k7

7 Animal Teeth, Bird Talons ...... 50

8 Cut and Scored Bone, Rasps ...... 53

9 Antler Stock, Shaft Straighteners, Ornament ...... 55

10 Bone Spatulates, Ornament ...... 58

11 Scapula Moe ....■.'...... 60

12 Mussel Shel1 Hoe, Crescent, Gastropod Beads ...... 65

13 Tubular Bead, Gorget, Discoidal and Semi-Squared Beads 67

1A Non-Upper Mississippian Lithics ...... Ik

15 Cores ...... 76

16 Blanks, Triangular Blanks, Triangular Projectile Points ...... 75

17 Pecked Bolas, Pol 1 ...... 85

18 D rills, Bipointed Knives, Knives ...... 86

19 Celts, Milling Stone, Netsinker ...... 92

20 Etched Slate, Sandstone Abrader ...... 9^

21 Humpbacked, Snub-Nosed Thumbnail End Scrapers, Side Scrapers, Graver, Spokeshaves ...... 97

22 Ft. Meigs Plain, Ft. Meigs Modified Lip, Strap Handles 115

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 23 Ft. Meigs Exterior Impressed Lip ...... 127

2k Ft. Meigs Punctate, Ft. Meigs Stamped ...... 1 32

25 Ft. Meigs Stamped, Ft. Meigs Filleted ...... 139

26 Ft. Meigs Notched Applique Strip ...... ]k2

27 Ft. Meigs Notched Applique Strip, Parker Festooned . . li»3

28 Parker Festooned, Ft. Meigs Trailed, Cord-marked and Smoothed Cord-marked Rims ...... 151

29 Miniature Vessels, Repair Sherds, Woodland Ceramics . . 171

30 Pottery Balls, Discs, Waste Lumps ...... 1 75

31 Ceramic Pipe Bowls and Stems ...... 177

32 Human Parietal with Incisions ...... , 186

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

INTRODUCTION

Objectives and Research Questions

The Ft. Meigs site (33 WO 8) has been recognized as a large and

important aboriginal occupation since the early 1800s. It has been

the focus of amateur surface collecting since the War of 1812 occupa

tion of the site bluff. Such collecting continued through reconstruc

tion of the historic fort during the 1970s, although professional

research began in the late 1960s. As a result, a huge body of data

had been generated which had not been subject to any synthetic pro

fessional analysis. This thesis provides the vehicle for examination

of most of the extant data.

Analysis and publication of these data are also necessary to

help clarify the late prehistory of the Western Lake Erie Basin.

Stothers (1973, 1975, Stothers and Graves, 1982, in press) has stated

the period after approximately A.D. 1200 is one involving cultural

conflict between indigenous Late Woodland occupants and intrusive

Upper Mississippian groups. This thesis wi11 examine this'proposed

schema in terms of culture contact hypotheses and cultural ecology.

In particular, evidence revealing interaction between the Woodland

Western Basin Tradition and Upper Mississippian Sandusky Tradition

will be examined.

This thesis includes discussion relating to changing settlement

■ 1

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. and subsistence patterns, and adaptation to specific natural and social

environments in the Lower Great Lakes region. This perspective is

then examined theoretically and in terms of extant archaeological

evidence provided by the Ft. Meigs site and other sites in the western

Lake Erie basin. In particular, the process of "Upper Mississippifi-

cation" of the area must be explicitly defined. The mechanisms or

processes culminating in this rather vague construct must be clarified.

Therefore, evidence relating to migration, acculturation, conflict

and/or other means of culture contact and change must be illuminated.

Thus, archaeological data supplied by Ft. Meigs must be examined,

and should provide answers, on three levels: (a) In general theory,

the data may provide answers to questions posed concerning the pro

cess of culture contact; (b) At a more specific level, mechanisms

and results of Woodland and Upper Mississippian contact may be gener

ated; and (c) Finally, the actual character and culture history of

the Sandusky and Western Basin Traditions within the western Lake

Erie Basin may be clarified and more fully understood.

When combined with recent academic research (Graves 1984; Red

mond 1984; Stothers and Graves 1983), this thesis will aid in defi

nition of culture history and process in the late prehistory of the

Lower Great Lakes region. In particular, the present analysis will

complement an extensive analysis of a permanent v i1lage occupied by

descendents of Ft. Meigs in protohistoric times, the Indian Hills

site (Graves 1984). Together, data from Ft. Meigs and Indian Hills

should provide answers to many of the questions regarding the pre

history of the western Lake Erie Basin and adjacent areas.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Specific questions and hypotheses to be examined in this thesis

include:

1. Is the appearance of Upper Mississippian culture in the

Western Basin area attributable to an in situ process, acculturation,

or does it result from external intrusion?

2. If migration is involved, what was the mechanism or force

behind such movement?

3- What might the roles of invasion, assimilation, and accul

turation be? Which are most relevant in northwest Ohio?

M) How might examination of these processes be facilitated by

specific examples of material culture, such as Parker Festooned and

Notched Applique strip ceramics?

5- How does the a rtifa c t assemblage at Ft. Meigs reflect simi

larities with material culture at other Upper Mississippian manifes

tations in the Great Lakes region?

6. Are there other examples of cultural dynamics (development,

competition) in different locales in the Great Lakes region which may

provide insights to the specific data from northwest Ohio?

7* How do the settlement and subsistence data reflect and

define cultural competition in northwest Ohio, with particular regard

to cultural ecology?

8. Is ethnicity (e.g., Algonkian, Iroquoian) a factor in the

late prehistory of northwest Ohio?

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

SITE CONTEXT AND HISTORY OF RESEARCH AT FT. MEIGS

Environmental Setting

The Ft. Meigs site (33-WO-8) is located one-half mile west of

Perrysburg, Ohio, in Perrysburg township, Township 1, United States

Reserve, River Tracts Sk, 65, and 66. This places the site within

the 12 Mile Square Reserve (Sherman 1925:1^7) (^aP 1)* The site oc

cupies a high bluff on the south side of the Maumee River at an

elevation of 6151 a.m .s.1., approximately 18 miles above the riv er's

confluence with Maumee Bay and Lake Erie. Of particular note is the

site's location at the last set of rapids upon the river before it

reaches the Bay (Map 2).

Ft. Meigs 1ies within the northern edge of the Black Swamp, a

poorly drained morass 30 miles wide and paralleling the south bank

of the Maumee River from Sandusky Bay southwestward into Indiana

(Kaatz 1952:71* 1955:22). This roughly 1500 square mile inhospitable

zone inhibited travel and settlement in the area until it was drained

in the last century. "The Black Swamp lay like a moat across the

northwest corner of Ohio from Lake Erie to Indiana" (Mayfield 1969:13).

This swampy setting formed because the very fla t Lake Erie plain

is underlain by a clay hardpan broken only by glacial beach ridges,

while the gradient of the river from its source in Indiana to its

mouth at Lake Erie averages only b feet per mile (U.S. Government

Publication n.d.:2). It should be noted, however, that lands

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Hap 1. Topographic map of area surrounding Fort Meigs.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 6 Map 2. Map Site Location

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. bordering all principle streams in northwest Ohio were generally of

first quality for a short distance from the banks (Kaatz 1955:11)*

These banks and old beach ridges were the only feasible transporta

tion and occupation zones within the otherwise impassible Black Swamp.

Physiographically, the Ft. Meigs site is located within the

Glacial Lake Plain, defined as lying between the southern shore of

Lake Erie and remnant beach ridges of glacial lakes Maumee and Warren

(Feldman et al. 1977:90). The glacial lake waters deposited fine

lake s ilts and clays, which are in some areas covered with fine tex-

tured Wisconsin t i l l s of varying thickness (Forsyth 1968:1*0. Soils

in the Ft. Meigs vicinity belong to the Toledo Soil Association,

characterized by poorly drained highly sorted clay sediments deposi

ted, as mentioned, by previous glacial lake stages of Lake Erie

(U.S. Government Publication n.d.:20-22) (Map 3).

Local raw material utilized by prehistoric occupants of northwest

Ohio can be attributed to surficial glacial till cobbles augmented

by local quarry sources. Ten Mile Creek chert outcrops near Silica,

Ohio and occurs as eroded t i ll cobbles along stream beds (Ehlers et

al. 1951:24). Delaware chert is available in western Lucas and south

western Wood counties (Stout and Schoenlaub 1945:26). Columbus chert

and Pipe Creek chert are also available through either outcrops or

ti ll sources in northwestern Ohio (Stothers personal communication;

Tucker 1980:9)-

The pre-settlement vegetation on the clay soils of northwestern

Ohio consisted of a deciduous swamp formation, characterized by three

vegetational communities: beech-maple. beech-ash-elm-maple, and

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

b w E ffl • ca rs wen o c ' OS H 03 < Wc - 2 O >> ■ M Map 3- Map Soils Distribution for Ohio N.W. and S.E. Michigan

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission oak-hickory (Sears 1926a, 1926b; Sampson 1930; Gordon 1966) (Map *4).

Ft. Meigs is located at the northern edge of the areas of the

Black Swamp, as previously noted. Here wet prairies formed in areas

of water 1 to 3 feet deep, and associated grasses often grew from 3

to 8 feet in height. A soldier serving at Ft. Meigs in 1 815 recorded

such a zone 10 miles in width, with wild rice as tall as 10 feet

(Mayfield 1969:15). The deciduous swamp and swamp forest formations

consisted of a variety of plant communities, often attributable to

slight variations in elevation (Kaatz 1955:78).

The complexity of the swamp forest formation is revealed by

American elm, black ash, and silver maple or red maple dominance in

wetter habitats with secondary species of pin oak, white swamp oak,

sycamore, and cottonwood. On somewhat better drained sites white ash,

shellbark hickory, and red oak and yellow oak occurred, while on sand

ridges and river banks, oak-hickory and beech-maple associations dom

inated. Oak openings extended south from Monroe County, Michigan to

western Lucas County and Fulton and Henry counties, while it is re

ported that some trees within the swamp forest formation grew to over

100 feet in height (Mayfield 1969:12).

Fauna associated with the deciduous swamp formation was varied

and plentiful. White tailed deer, beaver, black bear, migratory

waterfowl, wild turkey, ruffed grouse, and prairie chicken were some

of the more economically significant species (Mayfield 1962). Early

accounts of wildlife present in northwest Ohio provide a glimpse of

the natural environment within which the area's prehistoric peoples

lived. French travelers on the Maumee reported a "great buffalo

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. o ______Forests F resiiw terPrairie i&’.rsaes & Funs Grasslands Oak-Sugor Maple F orests Elm-Ash Swamp Elm-Ash Forests Swamp Oak Savannas Mixed & Oak ERIE LAKE Map Map 4. Presettlement vegetation of the Western Basin Area (after Gordon 1966).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. herd" 30 leagues upriver at the mouth of the Auglaize (Simons 1979:

219). Perhaps the most amazing stories, and those most relevant in

discussing the prehistoric inhabitants of the Ft. Meigs site, are

those concerned with the abundance of piscene resources available

at the rapids near the fort.

In 1809 a settler stated "No river in the United States is per

haps better stored with fish of various kinds" (Kaatz 1955:35)

A Captain Cushing, stationed at Ft. Meigs during the British seige of

1813 noted in his diary that fish weighing five pounds were common.

Cushing caught over 60 one pound white bass in an evening's fishing,

two men caught 375 fish with hooks, and in two hauls a group of men

caught enough fish to fill six barrels when cleaned (Lindley 19^: 92,

107, 108). Other early settlers' accounts include, "The quantity of

fish at the rapids of the river is almost incredible", and "Some days

there are not less than 1000 or 1500 taken with the hook within three

hundred yards of the fort" (Simons 1979:59, 63). In some places the

fish were reportedly so thick at fords that they frightened horses.

During the spring spawning runs spears thrown at random by soldiers

at Ft. Meigs "rarely missed ki11ing a fish; soldiers at the fort

killed them with clubs and stones" (Mayfield 1969:18; Simons 1979:62).

Other animals present in early accounts include elk, river otter,

mountain lion, lynz, bobcat, wolverine, grey wolves, porcupines, gray

fox, sandhill crane, and a variety of waterfowl; fish present included

pike, pickerel, sturgeon, white bass, black bass, muskelunge, and a

variety of smaller species. Larger species in these accounts refers to

"those that weighed from fifty to two-hundred pounds" (Simons 1979:62).

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

At initial White contact, the Maumee River Valley was heavily

utilized by aboriginal groups, and vi1lages were concentrated along

water courses fringing the Black Swamp on all sides. As mentioned

previously, most of the Black Swamp was avoided by both Euro-Ameri-

can and native groups alike. "God divided the land from the water,

but here is a place he forgot" (Simons 1973:33”3*0.

Alexander McKee, who ran a trading post in the vicinity of Ft.

Meigs about 179*», observed "very extensive and highly cultivated

fields" along river margins "like one continuous village for a num

ber of miles . . . immense fields of corn" (Kaatz 1955:2*0. By the

early 1800s whites concentrated along the banks of the Maumee at the

foot of the rapids. Almost without exception the whites located on

the sites of former Indian villages, and even the circulation patterns

were the same (Kaatz 1955:27).

The diary of Daniel Cushing, stationed at Ft. Meigs during the

British seige of 1813, is also revealing. "In almost every place where

we have thrown up the earth we find human bones in great plenty."

A fatigue party digging a trench in front of blockhouses 3 and k

"came upon a pile of bones where they took out 25 skulls all in one

pit" (Lindley 19*»*t: 11 **.) • Cushing further notes that a four foot dia

meter tree was growing over the pit. And lastly, "in walking around

the garrison on the earth that has been thrown up it was like walking

on the seashore upon the old mussel shells, only in this case, human

bones" ( Ib id .).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The f ir s t recorded mention of archaeological deposits at Ft.

Meigs dates to the early nineteenth century, when soldiers stationed

at the fort in 1813 dug up human skeletal remains "in great abundance

(Lindley 19^4:114). Some "pot-hunting" and surface collecting at the

site by amateurs occurred until the early 1970s when the Ohio Histori

cal Society (OHS) completed reconstruction of the fort.

Previous Investigations

The first recorded professional excavations at Ft. Meigs were

conducted by the University of Toledo and the Toledo Area Aboriginal

Research Society under the direction of Earl J. Prahl during the

spring of 1968 (Prahl 1969:5)- Excavation was undertaken in the

northeastern portion of the fo rt near the third battery. Prahl noted

the disturbance of prehistoric materials occurring because of fort

reconstruction and associated earth moving. This construction led

to the discovery of a "series of bundle burials" (Prahl 1969;

Harold 1980; see Osteology section of this report) (see Map 5).

Defiance College, in cooperation with the OHS conducted archaeo

logical investigations during the early 1970s to aid in location of

histo ric features and palisade lines (Buchman 1972, 1973, 197**, 1975,

1976, 1977; see also Nass 1980). The prehistoric a rtifa c ts recovered

during these excavations were deposited. with, the OHS in Columbus,

where they are available for study.

Since 1975 the University of Toledo and the Toledo Area Abori

ginal Research Society (TAARS) under the direction of Dr. David

Stothers, have conducted a series of excavations at Ft. Meigs. In

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Map 5. Map Contour of Map Ft. Meigs

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. addition, several members of TAARS have provided artifacts obtained

from surface col lection to the University for professional analysis.

John Nass (1980) conducted excavations on historic midden deposits

outside the northwest corner of the fort palisade, and the data were

used for his Master's thesis at Western Michigan University. He

also conducted excavations within the fort in conjunction with a

summer session archaeological field school conducted by Stothers and

the University of Toledo during the summer of 1979.

The prehistoric materials recovered during all professional ex

cavations of Ft. Meigs are the subject of this Master's thesis. In

addition, surface collections made available for study by interested

amateur archaeologists have also been incorporated in the analysis.

All research is discussed in greater detail below and in the material

culture analysis.

The initial zone investigated by Stothers is outside the fort on

the bluff slope between Huckhill's and Wood's batteries, designated

in field notes as Area I (Map 6). From 1975 through 1977 a series of

excavation units totalling 33*7 square meters was examined. Excava

tion profiles revealed a rich, black, organic prehistoric midden

deposit within which layers of clay loam alternate with site refuse.

These layers may represent the intermittent covering of rotting or

ganic remains to s tif le odors, or may merely reflect soil run-off from

an eroding occupation area atop the bluff. In any case, cultural

materials and midden were effectively sealed in a layer 15 to 30 cm

below the surface, but extending to a depth of 46 cm. Beneath this

cultural layer a sterile orange buff clay was encountered.

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

btocK house*

ttoctodc-

rtiritc/hoan

'feftm ei 05 33-WO-& c a s t sector

Map 6. Ft. Meigs Excavation Unit Location

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ' 17 In Area I deposits of cultural material seemed densest upslope

and nearest the level bluff top occupation area. These deposits con

sisted of rich floral and faunal assemblages as well as numerous

cultural materials. Also of note is the presence of disarticulated

human remains consisting of vertebrae, skull fragments, and teeth

scattered through trenches B and C and unit F. Whether these remains

represent a h illsid e midden burial disturbed by soil slumping or pos

sibly cannibalism, is problematical. However, cannibalism has been

documented at other Upper Mississippian sites, including some within

the Sandusky tradition (Brose 1978; Redmond 198I; see Osteology sec

tion of this paper) (Figure 1).

During the 1977“1978 season excavations conducted by the University

of Toledo and TAARS were completed outside the fort on the bluff slope

between Huckhill's Battery and the main gate, designated in field notes

as Area I I (Map 6). In to tal, 32.8 square meters were examined. In

general, prehistoric cultural materials were deposited in a thin

stratum 23 to 28 cm below the surface, all sealed by a clay cap

similar to that noted in Area I. Organic, ash, and charcoal lenses

were sealed beneath this cap, which itse lf produced historic materials

dating to ca. A.D. 1840. The intact prehistoric midden below the clay

cap produced strap handled ceramic vessels, concentrations of burnt

hickory nutshel1, and dense lenses of fish remains (Figure 2).

In 1977 Area 3 was excavated outside the northeast corner of the

fort, between an entrance gate and Blockhouse #3 (Map 6), near the

location of the ossuary examined by Prahl in 1 968 (Prahl 1969;

Harold 1980). A nine square meter excavation unit produced a rather

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 18 Figure Figure 1. Area I, Fort Meigs Excavation Profile

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 19

a « Figure Figure 2. Area II, Fort Meigs Excavation Profile

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. diffuse scatter of prehistoric materials. Perhaps more importantly,

a disturbed context was encountered which provided an intermixture

of historic and prehistoric materials down to the underlying culturally

sterile orange buff clay at a depth of A6 cm. It is uncertain whether

this disturbance is the result of original fort construction activity

or is related to fort reconstruction during the early 1970s (Figure 3)•

In 1978 John Nass (1980) conducted 1 imi ted excavat ions outside

the "small fort" on the slopes outside the northwestern portion of

the fort in the vicinity of the Grand Battery. Nass conducted addi

tional research in this area during the 1979 field season in conjunc

tion with a University of Toledo field school under the direction of

Dr. David Stothers. While Nass examined the historic component out

side and to a limited extent within the palisade line, Stothers opened

up a large block and tested other zones within the reconstructed fort.

The goals of the 1979 field season were to locate undisturbed or

minimally disturbed prehistoric contexts and secure settlement and

subsistence data from the Upper Mississippi an occupation which had

created the rich midden deposits excavated in earlier years.

Initially a series of nine test pits was excavated within the

fort to locate any intact deposits. Tests 1 through 4 were 60 by

60 cm, while tests 5 through 9 were 60 by 90 cm. These tests indi

cated that the area inside the fo rt south of the Grand Traverse, Area

IV, had been totally disturbed by the routing of State Route 65, which

had bisected the fort before its re-routing to permit fort reconstruc

tion. Ironically, bulldozing and fort reconstruction had further

disrupted the prehistoric component to a depth of 70 cm below surface.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 60 2 0 T P 1 $ S h - n . cn tw ui .= >

2 CO U J ±.

l 2 s X »- 3 o CO z D

C** w "y “§ 0 io L L j < UJ a' < Figure Figure 3- Area 111, Fort Meigs Excavation Profile

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. In to tal, test units encompassed k square meters within Area IV.

Additional shovel testing and test units were located south and

southeast of the fort along the ravine which lies at the rear of Ft.

Meigs. Thirteen tests were excavated along the bluff edge and h ill

side locations. These te sts were all one foot square (30 by 30 cm.)

units, placed approximately ten meters apart on the ravine edge, and

all proved to be culturally sterile.

Additional testing in the area north of the Grand Traverse,

Area V, indicated that this zone probably provided the least dis

turbed prehistoric deposits. Field school excavations therefore

concentrated in this zone, expecially in the area between Blockhouses

3 and k (see Map 6). Block excavations in Area V eventually exposed

227 square meters of generally intact context. The in situ Upper

Mississippian deposits were, however, disturbed in the western portion

of th is block by a road bed which was later determined to be part of

the Old Sandusky Road. Thus, while a linear zone roughly eight meters

wise cutting diagonally across the block excavations was totally dis

turbed, the former roadbed permitted exact locational comparisons

with historic landmarks.

In Area V units were initially removed in 5 cm levels until the

depositional stratigraphy was determined, after which overburden was

removed through shovel screening until contact with the in situ de

posits was established. Upon encountering the prehistoric strata

all excavation was by trowel and shovel scraping, with all d irt

passed through 1/4 inch mesh screen. Soil samples were secured

from all units. All potential features were graphed in plan then

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

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. cross-sectioned, profiled, and photographed. Soil samples, flotation

samples, and when possible charcoal samples, were also taken from

each feature, and all cultural materials were deposited in individual

provenience bags.

During excavation of Trench 1 it became apparent that the pre

historic occupation level was sealed intact beneath a hard, buff-

brown clay cap which in some places was 20 cm thick (see Figure 5).

This clay cap served to preserve the cultural deposits which sur

vived the movement of heavy equipment associated with the construction

and removal of Rt. 65 and fort reconstruction intact. All historic

materials recovered within Area V during the 1979 field school were

confined to this clay cap. Thus, a typical stratigraphic profile

exhibits sod and humus, underlain by the clay cap, which sealed the

prehistoric sheet midden beneath. Features and post molds were

readily defined beneath the dark organic sheet midden because they

penetrated into the underlying culturally sterile orange-buff clay

subsoil.

In most areas within the fort the aboriginal midden was extremely

hard, or compacted, and produced copious amounts of ash, charcoal,

fire-cracked rock, bone, chippage, and ceramics. The top of this

midden layer varied between 15 to 20 cm below the surface, while it

terminated at a depth varying from 25 to 30 cm. Thus, it constituted

a well-defined zone averaging 10 cm in thickness, but ranging between

5 and 15 cm thick.

This midden continued in all excavation units until destruction

and removal associated with the poured concrete footing for State

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 Ni U ___ N me+«r* r f T T fa rid fa * Magnetic North „ ' e ig s M 33-U O -8

o r t F

3 Humus zone k Trench S od Do-rk tlack-brown cultural lager Light yellouj-broum clay overburden t ydlow buff sterile subsoil 5 west wall 4 •• 4 • • •! • • » • • • » § Area Area Figure 5. Area V, Stratigraphic Profile

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Route 65, in Trench 4. No cultural materials survived in the roughly

eight meter wide zone between this footing and another defining the

western edge of the former roadway. In view of the massive destruc

tion indicated by the old road, expansion through excavation of

additional units was confined to areas to the east within Area V.

Although some areas of cultural deposits appeared somewhat

denser than others, no definite activity areas could be defined. On

a rather gross scale, however, cultural deposits were most dense

in the more southerly excavation units, approaching the center of the

Ft. Meigs site bluff, in the area near the Grand Traverse. Numerous

features were defined in this area, including a five meter diameter

circular pattern of post molds, which can be interpreted as some sort

of habitation structure (Figure 6). Similar post mold patterns were

encountered at the Indian Hills site, a Sandusky tradition village

which post-dates the Ft. Meigs phase (Graves 1984).

Evidence supporting the contention that this series of post molds

is indeed a structure is provided by the spatial patterning of asso

ciated features (Figure 7)- In addition, the interior of this pat

tern is very hard and compacted relative to the surrounding excavation

unit floor, which may be the result of active occupation creating a

"trodden down" floor. This thin compacted layer is more reddish

brown than the surrounding tan-buff occupation level, and measures

15 to 20 cm thick.

Also of note is the fact that what were perhaps the densest bluff

top midden deposits encountered during the 1979 field school were

located in Unit .7, just south of the circular post mold outl ine.

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

M Figure Figure 6. Structural Features Plan View

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

Ze 5?

££ LU Y~ t <0 UJ

• is s -

(2) ©

*5? 8 Figure Figure 7- Structure Detail Plan

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The south end of Unit 8, in the same area, produced undisturbed len

ses of fish scales and calcined limestone. Associated cultural ma

te ria ls were radiocarbon dated to A.D. 1340±50 (DIC-399) (Stothers,

Graves and Conway 1984:77)- This data correlates well with a pre

vious radiocarbon date from the Ft. Meigs Upper Mississippian com

ponent, A.D. 1440±55 (Stothers 1975:44).

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

THE UPPER MISSISSIPPI NON-CERAMIC ARTIFACT ASSEMBLAGE

Bone Artifacts

Introduction

Upper Mississippian archaeological sites are distinguished by

the rich and varied bone tool assemblages they produce. Such diver

sity was noted by some of the e a rlie st investigators (Greenman 1935a,

1935b; G riffin 19^3; Morgan and Ellis 19^3; Brown 1961), and the

occurrence of large numbers of bone tools was considered diagnostic

(McKern 1939).

In general, the number and complexity of bone tools appears to

increase from the initial expression of Upper Mississippian culture

to the more fully developed components of Fort Ancient, Huber and

Fisher, and Whittlesey (Griffin 1978; Brose et al. 1976; Wilkie 1979).

Earlier sites provide an impoverished glimpse of bone tools when

compared to later, and more "classic", Upper Mississippian sites.

Whether this is the result of the degree and intensity of con

tact with Middle Mississippian cultures located further to the south

and west is conjectural. However, hints o f such contact in the form

of Southern Cult-related materials (Hooten and Willoughby 1920),

which enjoy an extensive areal distribution among lower Great Lakes

sites, are well documented. (For further elaboration, see the dis

cussion in the Shel1 Artifacts section of this paper.) In the upper

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Great Lakes, the Aztalan site in southern Wisconsin supports the

idea of at least locatlized influence, whether by direct or indirect

contact, in the region (Baerris 1958).

More specifically, general similarities have been discussed among

diverse bone tool assemblages on late prehistoric sites located in the

Prai rie Peninsula of 111 inois, ' Indiana, .southern. Mich igan, and Ohio

(Stothers and Graves 1982:18, 1983; Hall 1962; Bettarel and Smith

1973; Griffin 19^3; Tucker and Graves 1980; Stothers 1975; Stothers

and Pratt 1980; Carskadden and Morton 1977:^1; Brown 1961). Some

authorities believe these similarities, if not convergences, are

strong enough to indicate participation in a common cultural develop

ment and genesis termed the Prairie Peninsula Co-Tradition (Stothers

and Graves 1982, 1983).

A discussion of the Ft. Meigs bone tool assemblage and relation

ship to other Upper Mississippian and late prehistoric sites follows.

(See Table 1.)

Beamers

One of the larger categories of bone tools recovered from Ft.

Meigs is that of bone beamers and beamer fragments. These tools were

fashioned primarily from deer metapodials, long bones, and exhibit

use-wear and polish along the central shaft (Plate 1 ). Breakage of

this shaft was fairly common as is indicated by the presence of numer

ous proximal and distal ends of long bones with use-wear polish near

the shatter/breakage plane, opposite the end.

Such bone tools, believed to represent hide processing activity,

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 32

Table 1

Bone Artifacts

A eC V) O VI V 4) 4J c 4J O) u c -o to to 4> o> ttl *J c 10 a . |D o a- L L 1/1 -J a CL ' > 4) 4) 4J u U. w u . c — C 8 8 O (0 T3 w u TO c tn u> x a w4) 4J <0 o 0 o ■ to § to c — *D "O L. 01 0) ■a 3 0) O E a . — t*. ro .s s W O U O H Z 00 CD I o H* e o u . cc Surface 5 2 3 2 6 1 2 1 1 2 7 6 2 7 2 AI-2 Surface 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 TrA LI 1 TrA L2 1 1 TrA L3 I 1 TrB LI 1 TrB L2 1 2 TrB L3 1 1 TrC LI 1 1 1 TrC L2 1 1 Unit D 1 2 2 1 1 Unit E 1 1 Unit F 2 1 Ar2 Ul 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1* I 1 Ar2 U2 1 1 r Ar2 U3 2 1 1 1 Ar2 UA 1 2 1 1 1 3 2 A2 Trl U50VB I 1 2 A2 Trl U5 St2 2 2 1 1 2 3 1 1 A2Tr! U6 St2 2 1 1 2 2 Ar3 Ul 1 1 2 1 A5 Trl Z3 A5 Trl Z5 1 AS Tr2 1 1 A5 Tr3 1 A5 TrA 2 1' 1 1 I A5 Tr5 3 2 A5 Tr6 Bkdt A5 Tr6 OVB A5 Tr6 Zl A5 Tr7 Zl 1 AS Tr7 Z2 1 A5 Tr8 Zl 2 A5 Tr8 12 A5 Tr8 N. End Hab. Zone A5 Feat. 159 Bachman (OHS Coll.)

Totals 25 2 3 6 5 11 A 8 7 2 3 A 3 2 5 2 18 36 18 8 8 29 19 7 3 1 9

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 33 Plate Plate 1. Bone Beamers, Awl

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. are not particularly diagnostic, but are recovered from numerous

archaeological components in the lower Great Lakes region. Fort

Ancient sites produce beamers (Griffin 19^3:Plate XLVI; Carskadden

and Morton 1977:50; Prufer and Shane 1970:Plate XV R,S). Huber-

related sites in northern Illinois and Indiana also yield deer meta-

podial beamers (Faulkner 1972:102, Plate XXI G, 135; Fenner 1963:

Figure 31 f; Bluhm and Liss 1961:115, Figure 67 j; Brown 1961:55,

Figure 18 G). Beamers are also common on Whittlesey sites (Greenman

1937:3^3» Figure 28; Greenman 1935a, 1935b; Pratt and Brose 1976:9).

Late prehistoric and proto historic sites also produce this tool

type. Despite the influx of Euro-American a rtifa c ts, bone beamers

are reported from the Bell s ite (Wittry 1963), as well as historic

Neutral sites (Lennox 1981:313), which may be related to Sandusky

tradition peoples (Stothers and Graves 1983) . Prehistoric Sandusky

tradition sites more closely related to Ft. Meigs, both geographically

and chronologically, which produce beamers include the Pearson site

(Bowen 1978, 1979) near Sandusky and the Orleans Park site (Redmond

1981) 1/2 mile down the Maumee River from Ft. Meigs.

Awls

A variety of awls are present in the Ft. Meigs assemblage, in

cluding splinger, whole bone, and turkey metatarsal awls, and numer

ous awl fragments and tips (Plate 2 ) . These tools are distinguished

by use polish on slender tapering points. These probable high punc

turing and processing tools were subject to breakage, since numerous

awl bases and isolated polished tips were recovered at the site.

one of the largest tool categories at Ft. Meigs (Table l).

Whole bone and/or deer metapodial awls, as well as splinter awls

are common on Fort Ancient sites (Griffin 1943:Plate XVIII, XXXII,

LI I). In addition, turkey metapodial awls are not uncommon (Carskad-

den and Morton 1977:48, Figures 4-14; Prufer and Shane 1970:129,

Plate XV P,Q). Many Fort Ancient sites produce all these awl varie

ties recovered at Ft. Meigs.

Huber-related sites a 1 so produce as many awl varieties (Brown 1961

130, Figure 67; Fenner 1963:70, Figure 31), which appear to run in a

continuum to what some authorities term punches (Faulkner 1972:137).

The frequency with which awls are encountered varies apparently

depending on site function (Bluhm and Liss 1961:115; Brown 1961:55;

see also Bettarel and Smith 1973:Figure 65 f ) . Later, Oneota sites

also produce numerous sim ilar awls (Gallagher and Stevenson 1980:516,

Figure 8).

Whittlesey sites produce several varieties'of .awl s including

sp lit bone, small mammal, and bird bone types (Greenman 1935a:15,

104, Figure 15; Greenman 1935b; Greenman 1937:Figures 22, 23, 25),

and the combined varieties are sometimes the most common tools en

countered on some sites (Morgan and Ellis 1943:21, Figure 10). All

suitable bones were employed to make such awls, including metapodial

and metatarsal bones (Brose et al. 1976:63, Figure 10).

On late prehistoric sites in southwestern Ontario split bone

and fish bone are commonly employed to create awls as well as pun

ches (Lee 1958:24, 25, Figure 11). As noted earl ier, several of

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

these sites appear to be related to the Sandusky tradition and north

west Ohio (Stothers, Graves, and Conway 198^:9; Stothers and Graves

1983). Historic Neutral Iroquois sites continue the use of bone

awl varieties (Lennox 1981:312; Wright 1981:98).

Punches

Tools very similar to awls which may, in fact, be considered

part of a functional and physical continuum with awls, are termed

punches. Punches are distinguished by their less robust, delicate

structure, as well as a generally higher gloss or polish at the tip.

A few fish bone or spine punches were recovered from middens at Ft.

Meigs (Plate 3 ).

The archaeological record notes the occurrence of such tools

created from fish, small mammal, or avian bone. Fort Ancient sites

produce punches similar to those recovered at Ft. Meigs, sometimes

referred to as perforators (Griffin 1943:Plate XLVI Figure 3, Plate

LI I; Prufer and Shane 1970:Plate XVI E), with some punches produced

from antler (Carskadden and Morton 1977:52). "Perforators" are also

reported on Huber-related sites in northern 111inois (Brown 1961:57,

Figure 18 J), and southwestern Michigan (Bettarel and Smith 1973:P1ate

50 C). Later, Oneota sites produce use polished perforators (Gallag

her and Stevenson 1980:516, Figure 8C). Both bone and antler punches

are recovered from Whittlesey sites (Greenman 1935a:15; Greenman 1937;

3^2). Punches continue to be common on sites into historic times

(Wright 1981:99), with some produced from fish bone (Mason 1981:361,

Figure 8.32).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 38 Plate Plate 3* Bone Punches, Pins

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

Several varieties of bone pins were recovered at Ft. Meigs. One

type is defined by its short length, narrow diameter, and cylindrical

form (Plate 3 ) . A second type, represented by a single specimen, is

also cylindrical, but is slightly tapered distally, and exhibits a

small round knob on the proximal end (Plate 3 )• A third type of

pin has a rectangular cross-section, and tapers to a point distally

so that it produces a triangular profile (Plate 3 ). None of these

pins exhibits much use-wear or polish, and all appear to be produced

from small mammal long bone or antler fragments. The lack of wear

may indicate they served as a fastening or ornamental device rather

than as hide processing tools which would exhibit greater wear.

Such wear has been noted in the discussion of awls.

Cylindrical pins, although relatively uncommon, are noted on

Fort Ancient sites (Griffin 1943:Plates XVIII, LI I; Carskadden and

Morton 1977:47, Figures 4-11)'. Huber-related sites in northern

Illin o is have produced some examples (Brown 1961:55), as have sites

such as Moccasin Bluff in southwestern Michigan (Bettarel and Smith

1973: Plates 49a, 66b). Another Huber site, Zimmerman, produced a

"styliform bone element" virtually identical to the cylindrical

knobbed bone pin described above for Ft. Meigs (Brown 1961:57,

Figure 18 M).

Antler Tine Points

Ft. Meigs also produced examples of socketed antler tine pro

je c tile points (Plate 3 ). Such points are cut and hollowed out at

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

^00^89801927974^49

: 8 Plate Plate 4. Antler Fine Points, Drifts, Flakers

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. the base for attachment to a shaft, and many specimens also exhibit

grainding of the tine tip. While only three definite complete exam

ples were recovered from Ft. Meigs, several antler tine tips, which

may represent distal portions of broken socketed points, were recov

ered. In addition, several tine tips which exhibited a greater than

usual degree of grinding or use-wear were classified as antler tine

d rifts or flakers. The amount of wear present occurs as a continuum

between points and flakers, and some fragmentary antler tools might

be inaccurately classified.

Socketed antler tine projectile points enjoy a wide distribution

among prehistoric sites. Upper Mississippian sites producing such

points include Fort Ancient components (Prufer and Shane 1970:Plate

XV D, E; Carskadden and Morton 1977:52 Figure 4-2d). Fisher/Huber

related sites in northern Illinois and Indiana also produce antler

points (Faulkner 1972:101 , 135, Figure 47, 72mm; B1 uhm and Liss 1961:

58, Figure 18 r), and later Oneota sites also yield them (Gallagher and

Stevenson 1980:516, Figure 8A). Socketed antler points are also re

covered from Whittlesey sites (Greenman 1935a: 12, Figures 11, 16.F;

Greenman 1937:318, Figure 26; Morgan and Ellis 1943:23; Brose e t a l .

1976:63, Figure 10). Antler tine points continue in use into h isto r

ic aboriginal occupations, occurring at the Bell s ite (Wittry 1963:14,

Figure 8B-M) and at Hamilton and other historic Neutral sites which,

as noted earlier, provide some evidence of contact with Sandusky tra

dition peoples (Lennox 1981:318).

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

Antler drifts or flaking tools are one of the largest categories

of artifacts in the Ft. Meigs bone tool assemblage (see Table 1).

These tools were produced from antler cores or tips, and are of

two varieties, antler tip flakers and cylindrical drifts (Plate 4 ).

Both types are defined by the presence of varying degrees of wear or

use marks at the ends. This is probably created by pressure flaking

of 1ithic artifa c ts.

Within the archaeological literature similar bone artifacts are

assigned a number of functions and have been variously classified or

termed d rifts, "counters", or part of a "cup and pin game" (Guilday

1963). While Ft. Meigs bone cylinders often clearly show use wear,

some sites produce cylinders which appear to lack such evidence of

wear or grinding (see Faulkner 1972:104). If these bone cylinders

do, indeed, serve different functions, it is entirely possible that

similar or identical a rtifa c ts possessed different meanings (as dis

tant cultural "baggage") in many of the cultural expressions which

existed in the cultural, chronological, and geographical range of

sites present in the Great Lakes region.

Fort Ancient sites produce numerous drifts of both the cylindri

cal and tip varieties (Griffin 1943:Plates XVI II, XXXII, XLIV #8, LI I ;

Carskadden and Norton 1977:52, 53, Figures 4-21; Prufer and Shane

1970:P1ate XV D,E). Huber-related and Oneota sites produce antler

tine flakers (Faulkner 1972:103, Plate XXIA; B1uhm and Liss 1961:114,

Figure 68C; Brown 1961:59, Figure 18Q), while cylindrical examples are

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

often referred to as gaming pieces (Faulkner 1972:104, Plate 31A;

Brown 1961:58, Figure 18F; Gallagher and Stevenson 1980:516).

Related sites in southwestern Michigan, such as Moccasin Bluff also

produce bone cylinders (Bettarel and Smith 1973:Plates 49, 50A).

Both antler tip and cylindrical artifacts, ubiquitous on archae

ological sites in the Great Lakes region, are found on Whittlesey

sites in northeastern Ohio (Greenman 1935a:15, Figures 15H, I, 16 A-E;

Greenman 1935b:222; Greenman 1937:Figures 26, 27; Morgan and E llis

1943:23; Pratt and Brose 1976:9). Such bone tools are also recovered

from historic occupations, such as the Bell site , where end wear on

cylindrical drifts (Wittry 1963:12, Figure 8N-R) and on pointed flakers

(Wittry 1963:12, Figure 8A) is explicitly distinguished. Historic

Neutral sites also produce similar implements (Lennox 1 981:314; Wright

1981 :98).

It is interesting to note that the number and types of bone

flakers present on geographically adjacent and culturally linked

Whittlesey and Sandusky traditions are generally identical. Other

Sandusky tradition site s which produce these d rifts include the Pear

son site, noted for the cylindrical variety (Bowen 1978, 1979) and

the Weiser site, a later s ite closely 1 inked to the Ft. Meigs and

Indian H ills phases which also has produced antler tine flakers

(Stothers, Graves, and Conway 1984:64).

Tubes and Beads

Several bone tubes and beads were recovered during excavations

at Ft. Meigs (Plate 5 ) . These artifacts were apparently manufactured

Whether a specimen is considered a tube or bead is based primarily

on the artifact's size and/or the degree of polishing indicated.

Several examples at Ft. Meigs are highly glossed, exhibit scored and

smoothed ends, and appear to have functioned solely as ornaments.

The number of beads and/or tubes recovered at Ft. Meigs is rela

tively small when compared to other sites in the Lower Great Lakes

region. Bone tubes and beads are commonly encountered on Ft. Ancient

sites (Griffin 1943:Plate XLVI ; Carskadden and Morton 1977:42, 51, 126

Prufer and Shane 1970: 137, Figures 16K, 18F, Plate XVI). On Huber-

related sites beads and tubes, or "cylinders" are also quite common

(Faulkner 1972:100, 137, Plate XXId; Brown 1961:57; Bluhm and Liss

1961 :126).

Bone tubes and beads are also common on Whittlesey sites (Green

man 1937:Figures 20a-f, 21; Brose 1973)- At some sites, such as

South Park, beads have been excavated in situ in burial contexts

(Greenman 1935a:17, Figure 2a-c). Other Whittlesey sites yield a

variety of bone tubes and beads produced from both small mammals and

bird bone. Sometimes these artifa cts constitute the most numerous

type within the bone assemblage (Morgan and Ellis 1943:25; Greenman

1935b:223» 231, Figure I4e; Brose et al. 1976:63 Figure 10; Pratt

and Brose 1976:9). Such implements are found on late prehistoric

and h isto ric sites such as Weiser (Stothers, Graves, and Conway 1984:

64) and Bell (Wittry 1963:14, Figure 9), as wel1 as Neutral sites

(Wright 1981:194-197, Figure 45).

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

Several flat needles and needle fragments were recovered from

Ft. Meigs (Plate 6 ). These needles, or bodkins, are long slender

fla t sections of bone, usually with a small hole drilled through

the shaft, either in the middle or near the proximal end. They

probably functioned as weaving or netting needles. These delicate

implements, apparently broke quite frequently during use and are

rarely encountered on archaeological sites. While complete specimens

do occur, more often, long, slender, highly polished segments are

recovered. While many appear to be produced from smal1 mammal or

bird bone, the smallest needles were manufactured from slightly a l

tered fish spines. The hole or aperture at the proximal end of the

spine served to attach the weaving material.

Needles of both types are a consistent minority implement at

Upper Mississippian sites in the Lower Great Lakes area. Fort Ancient

sites produce varieties very sim ilar to those found at Ft. Meigs

(Griffin 1943:Plates XVII, LI I, LXXIX; Carskadden and Morton 1977:^7,

Figure 4—If; Prufer and Shane 1970: 136, Figure 18d). Flat bird bone

needles and mat needles have been recovered from Huber sites (Faulkner

1972:101, 135, 137; Bluhm and Liss 1961:115, Figure 67; Brown 1961:57,

Figure 18k), as well as later Oneota sites in the same region (Gallag

her and Stevenson 1980:516). Such implements appear relatively rare

on Whittlesey sites. Later proto-historic and early historic sites

which may have had some links to the Sandusky tradition also produce

flat needles. Some of these loci include the Bell site (Wittry 1963:

12, Figure 7o-r), and h istoric Neutral sites (Wright 1981:99),

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Plate Plate 6. Bone Needles, Baculae, Deer

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

including the Hamilton site, which may have harbored Sandusky tra d i

tion peoples (Lennox 1981:Figure 58 6-7; see Stothers and Graves 1 983:

121).

Raccoon Baculae

Raccoon penis bones, or baculae, recovered at Ft. Meigs (Plate 6 )

may have served a function similar to that of needles or bodkins.

However, another possible use is as a part of the ethnohistorically

documented cup and pin game, with the baculae serving as the skewer

on which to impale a hollowed deer phalange (Graves 1983a; Stothers,

Graves, and Conway 1 98A:75). Both functions are compatible with the

high degree of wear and polish noted on the ends of these rather dis

tinctive artifacts.

Raccoon baculae are found on many archaeological sites in dis

proportionate quantity relative to other faunal remains attributed to

raccoons and often to any other mammal remains on a s ite (Guilday 1 963).

It thus appears that these bones were culturally selected for some

specific purpose, since no other explanation such as differential pre

servation can explain this discrepancy. Most specimens, as noted,

exhibit heavy use wear on the curved or distal end.

Archaeological cultures in the Great Lakes region which produce

baculae include Ft. Ancient (Griffin 19i»3:Plates XXIX #2, XLVI #3e,

Figure 36; Carskadden and Morton 1977=51; Prufer and Shane 1970:130,

Plate XVI i). They are also common on Huber-related sites in northern

Illinois (Fenner 1963:Figure 33c; Brown and Liss 1961:126, Figure, 67b).

However, raccoon baculae appear more frequently in the literature on

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Whittlesey sites (Greenman 1935a:17, Figure 16c; Morgan and Ellis

1943:27; Murphy 1971:33)* The Weiser site in southwestern Ontario

also produced specimens (Stothers, Graves, and Conway 1984:64), as

did the Williams site in northwestern Ohio (Stothers, Graves, and

Conway 1984:75).

Teeth

A number of animal teeth were recovered from cultural deposits

a t Ft. Meigs (Plate 7 ) in contexts indicating non-random, culturally

selected origins. These teeth were recovered well removed from midden

deposits, and the number of particular teeth and species chosen argue

for human selection. Numerous incisors and canines were recovered

that apparently functioned as tools, although the enamel inhibited

evidence of use-wear in most cases. Numerous teeth, particularly

beaver incisors, were split or altered, possibly for use as chisels

(Carskadden and Morton 1977:49).

None of the teeth recovered at Ft. Meigs was drilled for use as

ornaments or pendants, a function not uncommon on prehistoric sites

for most time periods, Sti11, the presence of teeth such as bear

canines, well removed from any other faunal association, further

supports the hypothesis that some of the teeth did play some sort of

culturally selected role.

Although no perforated teeth were recovered from Ft. Meigs, they

have been recovered from other Sandusky tradition sites, such as

Pearson (Bowen 1979). They are commonly encountered on other Upper

Mississippian sites, including Fort Ancient (Griffin 1943:Plate XLVI,

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 50 Plate Plate 7. Animal Teeth, Bird Talons

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 1; Carskadden and Morton 1977:42). Whittlesey sites produce

drilled tooth pendants (Morgan and El 1 is 1943:25), including drilled

bear canines (Greenman 1937:343, Figure 21 f,g).

Undrilled bear canines, which may also have served an ornamental

or ceremonial purpose, are reported from a number of Upper Mississip-

pian sites besides Ft. Meigs. Fort Ancient sites produce numerous

bear canines (Griffin 1943:Plate XLVI, Figure 1, LXXIX; Prufer and

Shane 1970:132, Plate XVI j,m). Huber-related sites also yield these

incisors (Faulkner 1972:137; Bluhm and Liss 1961:126). A worked bear

canine was recovered from a Ft. Meigs phase fishing station 1/2 mile

downriver from Ft. Meigs, at the Orleans Park site (Redmond 1981:4).

The popularity of bear canines continued into historic times, where

they are found on Neutral sites (Wright 1981:101, Figure 48 #18).

Beaver incisors, which were probably employed as chisels, are

also fairly common on Upper Mississippian sites and constituted the

most numerous tooth implement recovered from Ft. Meigs, when fragmen

tary specimens are included (Table 1). Such tools are common on Fort

Ancient sites (Griffin 1943:Plate LXXIX) where they are often identi

fied as chisels (Carskadden and Morton 1977:49, Figure 4-2f; Prufer

and Shane 1970:132, Plate XVIm). Huber-related components also pro

duce beaver incisors (Faulkner 1972:103; Bluhm and Liss 1961:137).

These implements are also fairly common on Whittlesey sites (Greenman

1935a:16, Figure 16), as wel1 as Sandusky tradition sites (Redmond

1981:5). They continue in use into historic times, for example, on

Neutral sites (Lennox 198l:.Figure 58).

Other teeth, identified as rodent incisors on some archaeological

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. sites (Greenman 1935a:16, Figure I6h), were also recovered at Ft.

Meigs. Some excavators of Upper Mississippian sites identify such

implements as chisels (Brose et al. 1976:63, Figure 10). In addi

tion, canine teeth of undetermined function, such as those recovered

at Ft. Meigs, are reported from many sites, ranging from Fort Ancient

to historic contexts (Carskadden and Morton 1977:^2; Lennox 1981:313)

Miscellaneous Scored Bone

Several miscellaneous bone fragments recovered at Ft. Meigs exhi

bit cutting, scoring or notching, in an essentially random fashion

(Plate 8 ). Several long bone sections, the function of which are

problematical, possess longitudinal cuts. These cuts appear too

deep to be the result of butchering activity. Similar specimens have

been reported from Fort Ancient sites (Griffin 19^3:P1ate LXXVIII #6)

and the Huber-related Moccasin Bluff site in southwestern Michigan

(Bettarel and Smith 1973:Plate 51h).

Several rib specimens recovered at Ft. Meigs exhibit either

facial scoring or edge notching (Plate 8 ). The facially scored

bones possess numerous shallow but non-parallel broad grooves which

are not as finely worked or as precise as the rasp implements re

covered from the s ite (discussed in the following paragraphs). The

edge notched ribs exhibit unmodified faces, but have dozens of very

fine, narrow edge notches.

Scored ribs are reported from Fort Ancient sites and are usually

identified as "serrated bone sections" (Carskadden and Morton 1977:

50-51). In addition, examples of finely notched edge rib fragments

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 53

C- f j . • -■ ^9^35899732189^248

. ■ I r. -g*'-~,i ■« -ftiiFrtrtf 11 r if ir ■ Plate Plate 8. Cut andScored Bone, Rasps

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. are also reported on Huber-related sites (Faulkner 1972:104). Simi

lar a rtifa c ts have been identified as "pendants" on later Oneota

sites (Gallagher and Stevenson 1980:Figure 8d).

Cut and scored antler sections, often referred to as antler stock,

were also recovered from Ft. Meigs. These are circumferentially

scored at one (usually proximal) end, or a t both ends, the result

of preparation and removal for use of various antler segments. Such

by-products of antler tool production are commonly encountered on

Upper Mississippian s ite s, from Fort Ancient (Carskadden and Morton

1977:42, 53) through Huber sites (Faulkner 1972:104, Plate XXIa;

Brown and Fenner 1961:59), into historic times (Lennox 198l:Figure

34 ffS)• They appear to be more frequently encountered on Huber sites

(Faulkner 1972; Brown 1961:59; Fenner 1961:32) (Plate 9).

Rasps

Bone fragments identified specifically as rasps at Ft. Meigs

are produced on the flat face of ribs or sectioned long bones

(Plate 8 ). They exhibit concerted effort and fine workmanship in

the production of a sequence of evenly spaced, parallel notches per

pendicular to the long axis of the bone. These implements are usually

highly polished, the result either of buffing or heavy use.

Rasps are noted in minor but consistent frequencies on a number

of Upper Mississippian sites in the Great Lakes region. Fort Ancient

sites produce rasps (Prufer and Shane 1970:130), as do Huber sites

(Bluhm and Liss 1961:115). Of note here is the presence of rasps

produced from human bone at the Huber-related Anker s ite (Bluhm and

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 55 Plate Plate 9- Antler Stock, Shaft Straighteners, Ornament

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Liss 1961:Plate 67e). Rasps appear to occur somewhat more frequently

on Whittlesey sites in northeastern Ohio (Greenman 1937:3^*1 > Figure

20j; Morgan and Ellis 19^3:28). They have also been reported at

historic Neutral sites producing some ceramics virtually identical

to Sandusky tradition types (Lennox 1981

Shaft Straighteners/Thong Strappers

Several unusual an tler a rtifa c ts, with a hole drilled through the

base of a fork of two or more tines, were recovered at Ft. Meigs (Plate

9 ). These holes were produced by bi-directional drilling, and most

appear to exhibit a high degree of polish or use-wear so that the

edges of the holes are worn smooth. A review of the archaeological

1 iterature provides evidence of similar specimens, which appear to

increase in frequency in la te r Upper Mississippian components.

On Fort Ancient sites they have been generally referred to as

shaft straighteners (Griffin 19**3 :Plate LXXV I 11 # 8). On Huber sites

they are usually termed antler wrenches (Bluhm and Liss 1961:157,

Figure 80b), the same interpretation as offered by excavators of the

historic Bell site (Wittry 1963:12, Figure 7a-c). On historic Neutral

sites they are labeled either thong preparers (Wright 1981:102,

Figures 16, ^6-9, 10). They have been termed arrow shaft straightenera

(Bowen 1980:58, Plate 7 #12) or thong strappers (Stothers 1975:^0;

Stothers and Pratt 1980:9) by excavators of other Sandusky tradition

sites.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 57 Spatulates

Several antler sect i ons, worked into a broad, slightly concave,

spatulate form, were also recovered from Ft. Meigs (Plate 10). These

long, fla t implements resemble elongated spoons or gouges, and exhi

bit polish from use-wear distally. Similar artifacts have been re

covered from a number of Fort Ancient components (Carskadden and

Morton 1977:Figure 4-22; Griffin 1943:PI ate XXVI 11 2,4). On Huber

sites, such implements have been referred to as antler scrapers

(Fenner 1963:Figure 31 9) or spatulate instruments (Brown 1961:57;

see also Bettarel and Smith 1973:Plate 51c-g). On Whittlesey sites

similar spatulate implements have been termed gouges (Greenman 1935a:

26, Figure 11; Greenman 1937:Figure 28c,d; Morgan and Ellis 1943:23),

as they have when they-occur on other Sandusky tradition site s (Bowen

1980:58, Plate 8 #8).

Ornament

A highly polished rectangular bone plate section was recovered

at Ft. Meigs (Plate 10). Although its function is not readily d is

cernible, its delicate nature and degree of polish and workmanship

indicates it is probably some sort of ornament. Several types of

artifacts have been recovered at other Upper Mississippian sites

which are comparable to that recovered at Ft. Meigs. On Fort Ancient

sites possible analogs include what have been termed plates or combs

(Prufer and Shane 1970:138,' Figure 18L). Huber and some Whittlesey

sites also produce what are referred to as comb blanks (Faulkner

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 58

= pi

= E • 7 Plate Plate 10. Bone Spatulates, Ornament

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1972:137; Murphy 1971:33, Figure 7j), or scapula gorgets (Bluhm and

Liss 1961:11A, 126). Other examples appear on later prehistoric or

early h isto ric sites (see Mason 1981:330, Plate 8.16). At the Bel 1

site polished "plaques" were recovered, "the final form of which is

conjectural" (Bell 1963:1*0. In addition, "comb blanks" are reported

from Neutral sites (Wright 1981:102; Lennox 1981:312).

Hoes

Several deer or elk scapulae and fragments were recovered from

Ft. Meigs, some of which exhibited edge wear or rounded lateral mar

gins (Plate 11). Similar modified deer or elk scapulae, generally

interpreted as "hoes" have been excavated at numerous Upper Mississip-

pian and late prehistoric sites. Fort Ancient sites have produced

such hoes (Carskadden and Morton 1977:49, Figures 4-17). Huber sites

also produce such implements (Faulkner 1972:101, 137, Plate XXV111),

some of which have been drastically altered by production or use

(Bluhm and Fenner 1961:159; Brown 1961:55, Plate 18m). Similar bones

occur on later historic sites (Bluhm and Liss 1961:159), although

some of the more radically modified specimens are classified as sca

pula "scrapers" (Bluhm and Liss 1961:126, Figure 67k), or "spades"

(Brown 1961:57, Figure 18L). On early historic sites scapulae hoes

are fairly common (Wittry 1963:12, Figure 7N) and have been defined

as an Oneota diagnostic (Faulkner 1972:161).

Phalanges (Cup-and-Pin)

Several deer phalange bones were recovered from Ft. Meigs, one

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

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. of which was modified by a hole drilled through the distal end

(Plate 6 ). These artifacts are common on late prehistoric and

early historic sites in the Great Lakes region. When modified they

are usually classified as part of the widespread and ethnohistorically

documented cup-and-pin game (Guilday 1963; Graves 1983a).

Modified and perforated phalanges are fa irly common in Fort

Ancient contexts (Carskadden and Morton 1977:42, Figures 4-7; Prufer

and Shane 1970:136, Plate XVI n, o, Figure l8n), and also are reported

from Whittlesey sites (Murphy 1971:34). They appear more common on

protohistoric and early historic sites. For example, the Bell site

produced deer phalanges similar to those at Ft. Meigs (Wittry 19&3:12,

Figure 8 w-aa), while southeastern Ontario sites producing modified

deer phalanges include Weiser (Stothers, Graves, and Conway 1984:64),

and the h istoric Neutral Walker site (Wright 1981:101; see also Len

nox 1981:306, Figures 58, 15-17). Within the Sandusky tradition,

examples of these a rtifa c ts were recovered at the Pearson site

(Bowen 1978, 1982).

Miscellaneous Bone

Other bone implements from the Ft. Meigs assemblage include a

small, rectangular bone ornament which displays a rectangular cross

section (Plate 9). This artifact displays a central groove separat

ing two pairs of shallow drilled depressions which do not penetrate

through the bone plaque. This a rtifa c t does not exhibit either use-

wear or polish, and no means of suspension were visible. No specifi

cally comparable artifa c ts were discovered in the extant archaeological

literature.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Two raptorial bird talons were also recovered from the Ft. Meigs

Upper Mississippian component. No use-wear, polish, or drilling is

evident, but ethnographic evidence and archaeological data indicate

that talons usually served as ornaments or pendants. Such artifacts

are not particularly diagnostic and are reported from a wide variety

of prehistoric sites, including Archaic period (Stothers 1979b)

through Woodland components (Brose 1970:143, Plate XXV kk)(Plate 7)*

Shell Artifacts

Introduct ion

Upper Mississippian sites in the Great Lakes region are often

distinguished by the variety of shell artifacts included in the ma

terial culture assemblage (see, for example, Greenman 1935a; Griffin

19^*3; Hall 1962). In many instances locally available mussel shell

and gastropods were employed as raw material, although on some sites,

marine shell, indicating distant contacts or trading relationships

was also present.

Two major groups of shell a rtifa cts were recovered from Ft.

Meigs: mussel shell implements and varieties of shell'beads and gor

gets (Table 2). Most of the source material seems to be locally de

rived, although the site produced at least one unambiguous example

of marine shel1 and contact with more southerly Mississippian cultures.

Mussel Shell Hoes

Mussel shell stock was used at Ft. Meigs to produce several dis

tinct artifa ct types. A total of six complete mussel shells and

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 63

Table 2

Shel1 Art i facts

Beads Type Measurement

Discoidal 13 mm diameter Discoidal 11 mm diameter Discoidal 8 mm diameter Semi-squared 9 mm diameter Columnella 27 x 20 mm Columnella 30 x 20 mm Marginella 33 x 1A mm Tubular 37 x 16 mm Center Dr?1 led 11 mm diameter Discoidal Gorget 19 mm diameter

Mussel Shell Type Measurement

Center Dri 1 led Hoe 88 x 56 x 16 mm 18 mm diameter hole Center Dri1 led Hoe 8A x 57 x 18 mm 25 mm diameter hole Crescent (edge-worn) 66 x 21 x 7 mm Spoon 67 x 36 x .12 mm Whole Shell (scraper) 87 x 66 x 21 mm Stock Fragment

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. fragments were excavated. Two bivalves exhibited a centrally drilled

or punched hole, and both specimens indicated wear facets or rubbing

along their lateral margins (Plate 12). Identical implements have

been interpreted as hoes on other Upper Mississippian sites. Such

artifacts occur on Fort Ancient sites (Griffin 1943:Plates XLVI11 c, d,

L, LI I; Prufer and Shane 1970:Plate 17e). They also are identified on

Huber and Oneota sites in northern Illinois and southern Wisconsin

(Brown 1961:59; Bluhm and Liss 1961:114, Figure 70i), but seem to

occur more frequently on Whittlesey sites (Greenman 1935a:16, Figure

17; Greenman 1937:344; Morgan and Ellis 1943:28). They are also noted

on sites continuing into historic times (Stothers, Graves, and Conway

1984:64; Wright 1981:113).

It is possible that some of the freshwater mussel shell may have

served a different function than as hoes since the observed wear p at

terns do not unambiguously conform to what would be expected of such

tools. The occurrence of specimens exhibiting rubbing or polish

around the edges of the central hole, but evidencing no wear along

the exterior margins of the bivalve, seem to indicate alternative

uses for this artifact. Similar artifacts have been described as

possible scrapers (Greenman 1937:344) or fish scalers (Greenman

1935a:17) on Whittlesey sites.

At Ft. Meigs one bivalve crescent, formed by the lateral postions

of a mussel shell, exhibits numerous heavy striatio n s along its mar

gins (Plate 12). Such wear marks or alterations are not present on

the whole shell drilled hoes recovered at the site, and in any case,

that portion of the crescent which would have been drilled has been

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 65 Plate Plate 12. Mussel Shell Hoe, Crescent, Gastropod Beads

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. removed. It is possible that the crescent was utilized as a scraper

or carving implement. Wear marks on another complete bivalve tool

excavated at the site duplicate those noted on the crescent, indicat

ing similar use.

Other bivalves and fragments excavated at Ft. Meigs do not ex

hibit use-wear marks. These may represent unmodified shell stock

collected for tool production, or may merely be the by-products of

food processing. On some archaeological sites similar shell arti

facts have been identified as spoons. They have been reported from

Ft. Ancient (Griffin 19^*3: P1 ates XLVI I I , Figure 1, L, LI I; Prufer and

Shane 1970:11*7, Plate XVI Id) and Huber sites (Brown 1961:59; Bluhm

and Liss 1961:114).

Beads

The second main category of shell artifacts recorded at Ft. Meigs

consists of a variety of beads manufactured from both local and exotic

shell stock. Similar beads are integral parts of shell assemblages

recovered from Upper Mississippian sites in the Great Lakes region.

The most numerous bead type encountered at Ft. Meigs is the

discoidal bead (Plate 13)- They range in size from 8 to 13 mm in

diameter and exhibit fla t p rofiles. Most were probably produced from

local shell stock. Similar beads are reported from other Upper Mis

sissippian contexts, represented by Fort Ancient (Griffin 19l*3:Plates

XL IV, XLVI I §1, CXX; Prufer and Shane 1970:144, Plates XII, XVI la, c ),

and to a lesser extent, Huber sites (Bluhm and Liss 1961:111*). Such

beads appear to be more common on Whittlesey sites, where they are

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 67 . . Tubular Bead, Gorget, Discoidal and Semi-Squared Beads 13 Plate Plate

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 68

found in both occupation and burial contexts (Greenman 1935a:11, \1,

Figure 20; Greenman 1937; Murphy 1971 :33 1 Figure 7e). They are re

ported from site s through historic occupations (Wright 1981 :111, Figure

#1; Lennox 1981:300-302, Figure 59 #10).

One bead specimen recovered from Ft. Meigs might rathersimplis-

tically be classified as a "large bead" since it resembles discoidal

beads except for its great size (19 mm diameter) (Plate13 ). Because

of this large size and a centrally drilled hole, when this distinctive

artifact is reported on other sites, it has been defined as a gorget

or disc. For example, such gorgets or discs occur on Ft. Ancient

sites (Griffin ^ ^ P la te s XXVII I #13. XL IV §k, 5, XLVII #1-5, CXX

#1, 3; Prufer and Shane 1970:144, Plates XVII a, b, XI I b).

Another she) I bead type present a t Ft. Meigs is the tubular

bead, represented by a single section, manufactured from stock of un

determined origin, but which may be marine shel1 (Plate 13). It

measures 37 x 16 mm, with a 13 mm diameter and an interior diameter

of 10 mm. Such tubular beads are not as common on archaeological

sites in the lower Great Lakes region as are discoidal beads, but

examples are reported from Fort Ancient sites (Profer and Shane 1970:

11*5), Whittlesey sites (Murphy 1971:33, Figure 7c), Huber sites (Bluhm

and Liss 1961:114-115), and historic components (Wright 1981:112,

Figure kk #2; Lennox 1981:Figure 59 #10).

In addition, a single example of a small, highly polished, semi

squared shell bead, 9 mm in diameter (Plate 13 ), was recovered from

the site. It approaches a tubular bead in morphology and appears

to be manufactured from exotic shell stock. It was recovered from

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 69

a surface context, and may not be associated with the Upper Mississip

pian component.

The second most common bead type recovered from Ft. Meigs is

longitudinally d rilled marginella or columnella, produced from lo

cally available gastropods (Plate 12). The two marginella specimens

recovered a t Ft. Meigs measure 27 x 20 mm and 30 x 20 mm, while the

columnella specimen measures 33 x 14 mm, and exhibits a 3 mm diameter

logitudinally drilled hole.

Marginella beads are reported from Ft. Ancient sites (Griffin

1943:Plates XL 1V §5, 6, XLV I 11 #2) and Whittlesey sites (Morgan and

Ellis 1943:28; Murphy 1971:33, Figure 7d), as well as other Sandusky

tradition sites (Stothers, Graves, and Conroy 1984:64). Such beads

are recovered from proto-historic and historic sites in southwestern

Ontario (Wright 1981:Figure 44 #S~l) and western Pennsylvania (Kinsey

and Custer 1982:Figure 6h, 7g). Longitudinally drilled columnella

beads have been reported from Fort Ancient sites (Griffin 1943:Plates

XLOV #5, XLV ill #2, XCt/ll) and Monongahela sites in western Pennsylvania

(George 1978:Figure 10-1). Examples are also found on historic Neutral

sites (Wright 198l:Figures 44-2, 4).

Conche Gorget

Perhaps the most spectacular example of shell artifacts reported

at Ft. Meigs is a large, saucer-eyed conche shell gorget featuring

incised geometric designs. Although this artifact was not available

for detailed study, incised motifs have counterparts in items asso

ciated with the well-known Southern Cult florescence (Kneberg 1959;

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Waring and Holder 19**5; see also Faulkner 1972). Such distinctive

ornaments occur most commonly in 13th century contexts, but have also

been reported from sites dating to historic times from the central

Ohio valley into the Upper Great Lakes region.

Southern Cult related items have been reported from Fort Ancient

(Faulkner 1972:162), Huber, Oneota (Bluhm and Liss 1961:115, Figure

70a), and Whittlesey sites (Greenman 1935a:20, Figure 25 #15; Brose

1976:31**, 317). Protohistoric components in south central and south

western Michigan also produce similar ornaments, at Dumaw Creek

(Quimby 1966: k3-***», Figure 16), and near Lansing (Bettarel and Smith

1973:Plate 82). One of the most common Southern Cult-related artifacts

appears to be the saucer shel1 gorget produced from marine shell and

usually exhibiting a Weeping Eye motif.

The manner of contact of Great Lakes groups with the central

Mississippian peoples is problematical, but distinctive artifacts,

at least indirectly derived (geographically and chronologically)

from Southern Cult influence, are dispersed among sites exhibiting

otherwise undistinguished material culture. Other diagnostic South

ern Cult motifs and artifacts present at the sites listed above leave

no doubt that some explicit influence did occur (see Brose et a l. 1976; i Fitting 1965:168; Stothers and Graves 1982, in press). Such evidence

also occurs at Ft. Meigs in the form of a polished slate piece en

graved with a stylized raptorial bird claw motif (see lithics section

of this report).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 71

F t. Meigs Lithics

Introduct ion

Theprimary emphasis of this thesis is ceramics, but discussion

of lith ic s is essential to fully examine and comprehend the Upper

Mississippian occupation of Ft. Meigs. In the interests of time and

space, an analysis of the total lithic assemblage from the site was

not undertaken. That portion of the assemblage providing inadequate

context and provenience and the least informative cultural data are

omitted. Rather, analysis emphasizes lith ics associated with the

Upper Mississippian component at Ft. Meigs. Therefore, the thousands

of pieces of surface debitage were not fully examined, but were sam

pled for data control. Surface proveniences with a greater degree of

contextual control, i.e ., Area 1, Area 2, and Areas 1 + 2, were ana

lyzed. All non-debitage from surface contexts is fully analyzed, as

were all cultural materials derived from sub-surface deposits.

The Ft. Meigs lithic assemblage is extensive (Table 3 and Appen

dix A), a product of numerous excavations and intensive surface c o l

lection at the site over many years. The lithic artifacts are re

presentative of Upper Mississippian culture, being virtually indis

tinguishable from that of many other such sites in the Lower Great

Lakes region. The small percentage of unambiguously non-Upper Mis

sissippian artifacts present in the assemblage is almost entirely

confined to surficial contexts, and appears to represent small short

term encampments located upon the Ft. Meigs riverside bluff, a locale

attractive to both prehistoric and historic occupants alike.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 72

Table 3

Lithic Artifacts by Tool

1. Chipped Stone Tools

Triangular Projectile Points 52^ ( i ncludes 11 un ifac i a 1 points) Triangular P ro je ctile Point Bases 219 Projectile Point Tips 106 P ro jectile Point Fragments 70 Triangular Blanks 237 Blank/Roughouts 16 Snub-Nosed End Scrapers 69 Side Scrapers 60 Thumbnail Scrapers 5 Unifaces (probably scrapers) 89 Bipolar Cores 228 Nodular Cores 161 Pebble Cores 153 Block/Disc Cores 6 Core Fragments 663 T-Base D rills 8 Expanding Base D rills 7 Straight Shank D rills 1 Drill Tips 19 Side-Notched Projectile Points 2k Stemmed Projectile Points 1 Corner Notched Points 6 Spokeshaves Gravers 1 Wedges 1 Marginally Retouched Flakes* 126 Utilized Flakes* 2kZ Shatter* 1»306 Flakes* 8852

II. Ground Stone Tools

Abrading Stones and Fragments 6 Gorget Fragments 3 Discoidal (Basalt) 1 Hammerstones 3 Metate Fragments 3 Polls 3 Anvil stone and Fragments 3 Pigment Stone 1 Spheroids (Bolas) 5 Net Sinker 1 Schist SpalIs 8 Ground Stone Tool Fragments 19 * from excavated contexts and A1-2 surface only

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The insignificant number of artifacts pre-dating the Ft. Meigs

component ( Plate 1**) and recovered from subsurface contexts at the

site, were probably mixed through historic land use practices.

These actions would include construction of the War of 1812'fort,

nineteenth and twentieth century agricultural useage, construction

of Route 295 across the bluff, and fort reconstruction/restoration by

the Ohio Historical Society.

An examination of the lithic raw material utilized in the pro

duction of the Ft. Meigs artifacts reveals that local sources were

favored (Appendix A), Use of desirable local cherts is common on

many Upper Mississippian sites in the Great Lakes region. Still,

the presence of a consistent minority of exotic materials may indi

cate either inter-site or inter-regional links, or even actual popu

lation movements (Stothers and Graves 1983; Stothers and Pratt 1980).

Thus, while local lithic sources predominate on many Huber (Bettarel

and Smith 1973=31; McAllister 1980:20) and Whittlesey sites (Brose

1967a), most components also produce some exotic chert.

Ft. Meigs exhibits a similar pattern. The relatively smal1 per

centage of exotic artifacts fabricated from Upper Mercer flint at

Ft. Meigs indicates some sort of link to southern Ohio. This is not

unexpected. The Parker Earthworks, near Corunna Ontario, which dis

plays some cultural sim ilarities to Ft. Meigs, produced projectile

points made from exotic sources. "Projectile points and the chert

from which they were made apparently came from distant areas, pro

bably from Ohio" (Lee 1958:16).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 7k Plate Plate Mississippian Non-Upper Lithics

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Many of the lithic artifacts recovered from Ft. Meigs are expe

dient tools such as retouch flakes or utilized flakes. Many of the

formal or curated tools relfect primarily functional considerations

and are not stylistically diagnostic. Thus, certain bifacial scrap

ers and knives are not very informative from a culture historical

perspective. While specific tool types will be discussed in the

ensuing paragraphs, analysis will focus primarily upon the more

diagnostic Upper Mississippian artifacts.

Cores

A variety of core types were recovered from Ft. Meigs (Plate 15)

Pebble cores were encountered in the Upper Mississippian component,

supporting the uti1ization of locally derived cobbles. Most were

probably gathered from the beds of nearby streams. Such cores are

defined by a smooth or rounded cortex caused by glacial action and/or

river rolling (Brose 1970:102; Binford and Quimby 1963)

Block cores recovered at the site differ from pebble cores by

their lack of naturally rounded contours attributable to rolling

(Binford and Papworth 1 963:83)• This core type is usually irregular

in shape because of the removal of flakes from different faces and

platforms. Some overlap with pebble cores does occur during analysis

essentially block cores may even be viewed as more reduced forms of

pebble cores.

Numerous core fragments were recovered from Ft. Meigs, and all

defy classification into more specific core categories because of

their incomplete nature. Such fragments evidence removal of flakes

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 76 Plate Plate 15. Cores

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. from one or more faces, and are often marked by unintentional fracture

lines created during the knapping process.

Bipolar cores form the largest identifiable core type recovered

at Ft. Meigs. These cores exhibit battering and crushing on both

proximal and distal ends, and step fracture of the faces is not

uncommon (Binford and Quimby 1963). This bi-directional crushing is

the result of force being induced from both the anvil upon which the

raw material is placed and from the force of percussion struck on the

opposite end (Crabtree 1972:10). Flake removal scars occur on paral

lel axes over all the faces of the core, although on some examples

there is some evidence of bi-directional battering. This reduction

method is most appropriate for lithic sources consisting of small

glacially deposited pebbles, as are found at Ft. Meigs.

Many biface fragments which are not specifically classifiable

based on tool type of function were recovered at Ft. Meigs. In most

cases the amount of tool remaining was not complete enough to permit

valid analysis, and examination of working edges did not reveal diag

nostic wear patterns. The majority of this category is composed of

worked tips or midsections lacking sufficient evidence of a cutting,

scraping, or punching function. Some of these tools may have been

produced during the manufacturing process when the desired end pro

duct or broke or shattered when struck incorrectly. That such pieces

would not exhibit use-wear is not unexpected.

Blanks-Roughouts

Blanks or preforms for tools other than triangular (Madison-1 ike)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. projectile points are generally rather thick, relatively crude, and

irregularly oblong to rectangular in shape (Plate 16). In cross-

section they range from irregularly bi-convex to piano-convex. Al

though they may represent unfinished and discarded a rtifa c ts , they

most likely represent a reduction stage intermediate between core

modification and a finished tool. None of these "generic" tool

blanks exhibited use-wear.

The numerous roughly triangular blanks recovered at Ft. Meigs

appear to represent a reduction stage in the sequence leading to the

Madison-like projectile point (Plate. 16). However, some authorities

believe that such artifacts on Huber sites are actually some form of

scraper or knife, exhibiting edge wear defining a "distinctive type

which may be a diagnostic trait" for late prehistoric sites in north

eastern Illinois (Bluhm and Liss 1961:114).

Thorough examination of the triangular examples recovered from

Ft. Meigs failed to reveal any nibbling or edge wear which should be

present if these specimens did function as knives or scrapers. Thus,

the evidence at Ft. Meigs does not support the conclusion that such

"humpbacked points" (Hall 1962) were used in ways other than for pro

jection, at least on Sandusky tradition sites.

Triangular Projectile Points

Finely chipped triangular projectile point blanks or preforms

represent the final reduction stage prior to the completion of a

finished point. Such artifacts recovered from Ft. Meigs (Plate 16 )

are also reported for other Upper Mississippian sites which produce

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

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 80

Madison points. Included among this group are Huber-related sites

such as Anker (Bluhm and Liss 1961:116) and Moccasin Bluff (Bettarel

and Smith 1973:33). Whittlesey sites producing triangular blanks

include Conneaut Fort (Brose et al. 1976:51) and the National Tube

Company site (Greenman 1935b:230). In southwestern Ontario late pre

historic and early historic sites also yield such points, including

the Neutral Hamilton site (Lennox 1981:249).

Simple triangular p ro jectile points have long been associated

with Upper Mississippian components throughout the Great Lakes region

(Griffin 1943; Ritchie 1961; Scully 1951). More specifically, these

"Madison" or Madison-1 ike points occur in a variety of profiles, but

cluster in a continuum of measurements centering on an isosceles t r i

angle. Numerous examples were recovered from Ft. Meigs (Plate 16).

At Fort Ancient sites such Madison points predominantly exhibit

a straight base, although both slightly concave and convex bases do

occur (Griffin 1943:Plates XXXI, XIV). Other Fort Ancient components

in the Muskingum Valley and elsewhere in the Ohio River Valley present

generally the same complex (Carskadden and Morton 1977:7**, Plates 82-84;

Prufer and Shane 1970:79“80, Figure 11).

Sites in northern Illinois and northwestern Indiana associated

with the Huber complex also produce isosceles pro jectile points. The

base profile varies among sites, but the straight bases usually form

at least 50% of the point assemblage (Munson and Munson 1969:184).

Concave bases are usually the next most commonly encountered profile,

and approach 50% of the bases at the Anker site (Bluhm and Liss 1961:

116). The number of convex bases usually constitutes a minor portion

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 81

of the assemblage (Bluhm and Fenner 1961:147-148, Figure 76a), although

they occasionally form a larger percentage at individual sites (Brown

196.1:51, Figure 17).

Similar characteristics are exhibited by Upper Mississippian

components in northwest Indiana and southwest Michigan at the Fi field

and Griesmer (Faulkner 1972:79-85, 132-134, Plate XXVI I), Moccasin

Bluff (Bettarel and Smith 1973:38, Plate 39), and Schwerdt sites

(McAllister 1980:20). Although isosceles triangular points predomi

nate, at some sites a bimodal distribution of length/width ratios has

been noted (see Wittry 1963:29). A p rojectile whose length is a t

least twice its width (<.50 ratio) is relatively long and narrow, while

a relatively short and wide isosceles point would indicate a length

less than twice its width (>.75 ratio).

The Whittlesey sites in northeastern Ohio also produce isosceles

or Madison-like projectile points. Again straight bases predominate

(Morgan and E llis 1943:11),' with lesser numbers of concave based

points (Brose 1976:51; Greenman 1937a:324, Plate 12), and convex bases

minimally represented (Greenman 19376:337, Figure 10a-d). Some uni -

faced triangular points, produced on flakes, are also encountered,

albeit infrequently (Greenman 1935a: 12). Such points are usually

rather crudely manufactured, and appear to approach expedient tools.

Similar unifacial points also are reported at Fort Ancient sites

(Prufer and Shane 1970:82, Figure 11 j ) .

Madison-like triangular points are the most numerous type re

covered from late prehistoric site s in northwestern Ohio, southeastern

Michigan, and southwestern Ontario. Most of these tools exhibit the

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. same range in profile and base type as reported from the previously

discussed sites. However, some serrated Madison-like points (Bowen

1979:11) and, more rarely, notched isosceles points (Stothers, Graves,

and Conroy 1984:64) have been reported. These minority point types

appear similar to varieties reported from middle Mississippian com

ponents, such as those identified at Cahokia (Fowler 1977:26, Figure

20).

Perhaps the most objective method by which to compare the Ft.

Meigs triangular projectile point assemblage with similar sites in

the archaeological literatu re is to employ metric measurements to

compute an abstraction of point morphology, the length to width ratio

(see Brose 1970). A ratio near .50 represents the perfect isosceles

form, while a ratio of .75 or above approaches more an equilateral

profile (Table 4).

This ratio has been computed for a number of late prehistoric

sites in the Great Lakes region in order to provide an objective com

parison with Ft. Meigs. Ft. Meigs length to width ratio of .61

is most closely approximated by the Whittlesey components at Conneaut

Fort-.62 (Brose 1976a), Fairport Harbor-.59 (Morgan and Ellis 1943),

H illside Road-.66 (Brose 1976b), and Seibert-.67 (Pratt and Brose

1976). Also of note is the protohistoric component at Summer Island,

which provides a ratio of .61 (Brose 1970), identical to that com

puted fo r Ft. Meigs.

Another projectile point tra it of use in in ter-site comparison

is basal profile or configuration, although this may be of more sig

nificance functional 1y rather than stylistically. In general, most

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 7.0 2.0 7.3 100.0 25.0 19.0 16.2 .2% 17.0 40.0 20.0 67.0 21.6 32.7 47.6 100.0 .,10-1.19 1 Bases (%) 75.0 49.2 13.4 37.4 42.0 58.0 17-0 40.0 St. CC CV 33-3 71.1 100.0 100.0 '.51.2 09 3% .62 • 1.00 -1. • 76 • .68 .49 • 55 • .62 • 73 • .61 .67 .76 2.A% .90-.99 - - 5.1 5.0 .58 100.0 5.153 • 4.5 5.959 • 4.5 4.0 4.9 Th Ratio W 5.7% 19.718.9 5.1 1-8.1 18.3 25.0 14.9 14.4 4.4 14.0 15.2 80-.89 Mean Mean (mm) L-W 33.0 32.8 19.8 15.0 34.3 28.5 24.9 27.424.2 16.2 21.5 27.3 15.1 T a b le 4 20.2% 70-.79 • - - - Ft. Meigs Projectile Point 3-83-8 29.0 3-9 3-9 Length-Width Ratio Distribution Projectile Point Comparison, By Site 20.8% .60-.69 14-29 11-36 12-30 10-28 5.815-18 25.0 16.4 6.8 .66 10-2211-19 2-10 12-17 10-24 3-14 L W Th L 16-45 21-39 13-25 3-7 22-40 11-36 24-45 25-29 17-45 20-29 13-45 20-31 .50-.59 Seibert - P ratt and Plum Brose Island 1976, - Greismer Fenner - 1963 Faulkner 1972, - Zimmerman Brown 1961, H illside Road - Brose 1976b, Anker - and Bluhm Liss 1961, Blaine - Prufer and Shane 1970, "type II" 25.0 "wide points" 15-24 S traight Base Concave Base 16-40 Convex Convex Base Fisher A-B Straight Base Concave Base Danner 33.0 Total Assemblage Heally .1-8% .1-8% 10.5% 27.5% •30-.39 .40-.49 Sources: Bell - Wittry 1963, Fairport Harbor - Morgan and E llis 1943, Conneaut Fort - Brose 1976a, Plum Plum Island Blaine Siebert Zimmerman Hi 11side Hi Road Anker Site Range (mm) Ft. Meigs Bell "long points" Fairport Harbor Conneaut Fort Greissmer "type 1"

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 84

late prehistoric sites produce triangular projectile points in clusters

of concave or straight bases. Although specific percentages of base

types differ from site to site, distributions of basal types on San

dusky tradition sites appear most similar to those reported from

Whittlesey (Brose 1976a, 1976b; Morgan and E llis 1943) and Huber

(Brown 1961; Bluhm and Fenner 1961; Bluhm and Liss 1961) sites.

(See Table 4.)

Pecked Bolas

The pecked stone (granitic) balls or bolas stones recovered at

Ft. Meigs (Plate 17) appear to enjoy a much more limited distribution

on late prehistoric and Upper Mississippian site s in the Great Lakes

region. This may, however, be due to a paucity of detailed site re

ports in the extant archaeological literature. Such stone balls or

"cones" have been reported from a number of non-Mississippian sites,

including Adena and Hopewell related components in Ohio (Converse

1971:42). Within Upper Mississippian occupations, the Huber component

at the Zimmerman s ite produced stone balls of both limestone and sand

stone (Brown 1961:55). At Moccasin Bluff, what may be spheroids are

labeled "stones" (Bettarel and Smith 1973:Plate 61a).

Drills

Drills were identified and defined by general tool morphology

and d istinctive use wear patterns. All d rills recovered from Ft.

Meigs (Plate 18) possess a long narrow shaft, usually are square to

biconvex in cross section, and exhibit fine retouch flake patterning.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 85 Plate Plate 17. Pecked Bolas, Poll

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Plate Plate 18. Drills, Bipointed Knives, Knives

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 87 Although one d rill specimen was bipointed, all other d rills displayed

a range of bases including irregular-oblong, squarish, expanded, and

T-based varieties.

Several drill bases lacking shafts were also classified as

drills because of the diagnostic base configuration and flaking pat

terns. These bases usually exhibit a straight basal edge, although

slightly convex bases are also present. It is conceivable that

d rills were manufactured through a specific reduction sequence from

triangular blanks. However, no definite evidence indicating the re

working of "humpbacked" (Hall 1962) points into d rills was noted.

Drills represent a relatively small portion of the Ft. Meigs

1ithic assemblage (Table 3)- Drill types present include the more

numerous T-base and bulbous base varieties, with only a single

straight base dri 11 recovered (Plate 18). Although this functional

tool type is widespread both geographically and chronologically in

the Great Lakes region, Faulkner (1972) believes that specific drill

varieties are diagnostic of Upper Mississippian culture. Thus, single

and double-pointed drills are "legion in Upper Mississippian contexts,"

while expanding base drills are diagnostic of Oneota occupations

(Faulkner 1972:93).

In Fort Ancient contexts expanding base and T-base drills are

the most commonly encountered varieties (Griffin 1943:Plates XLV #7,

18, XIV #1f-1; Prufer and Shane 1970:95; Carskadden and Morton 1977:

77, Plates 82-84). Trianguloid and expanding base drills are the

most numerous types at Blain Village (Prufer 1970:Figure 13 a-e), while

at Baum focus sites the single or double pointed cylindrical varieties

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 88

predominate (Griffin 19*r3:**0). Alternatively, T-base drills are rarely

found on Langford or Oneota sites, rather they are "more commonly found

on Ft. Ancient sites" (Bettarel and Smith 1973:121).

Huber sites, as noted above, produce relatively fewer of the

T-base drills, but straight base, expanding base, and bipointed

d rills are reported at the Anker s ite (Bluhm and Liss 1961:11 A),

Zimmerman site (Brown 1.961:53, Figure 72 #9), and Oak Forest site

(Bluhm and Liss 196l:l5*t, 1*»9, Figure 76f). in southwestern Michigan

the Huber-related Moccasin Bluff s ite yielded both T-base and ovate

d rills (Bettarel and Smith 1973:121, 141, Plate kk).

Whittlesey sites in northeastern Ohio typically produce a variety

of drills as a minor portion of the total lithic assemblage. The

Reeve site produced straight base d rills almost to the exclusion of

other varieties (Greenman 1935a:Figure 10). At the Hillside Road site

expanding base d ri11s dominated (Brose 1976a:37> Figure 5), while Con

neaut Fort (Brose et al. 1976:57), Tuttle Hill and South Park (Green-

man 1937:3^0, Figures 13, 1*0 produced both bulbous/expanding base and

T-base drills. Similar distributions of drill varieties are reported

on late prehistoric and early historic sites in southwestern Ontario,

such as a t the Neutral Hamilton site (Lennox 1981:250).

0 i sco i da1s

The flat stone discoidals recovered at Ft. Meigs (Plate 17) have

counterparts on other Upper Mississippian.sites in the Great Lakes

region. In Fort Ancient contexts plain limestone discs, very similar

to those recovered from Ft. Meigs, have been reported (Griffin 1943:

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Plate XCIII 28, 29), in addition to the more elaborate incised

varieties (Griffin 19^3:P1ate LXXVIl). Similar discs have been inter

preted as net sinkers on some sites (Griffin 19^*3:P1 ate XXX

Such discoidals are rarely reported outside Fort Ancient contexts

(Converse 1971:^3), although they have been reported from Monongahela

sites in West Virginia and western Pennsylvania (George 1978:31.

Figure 8 #3) •

Biface Knives

Numerous bifacial tools classified as knives originate in Upper

Mississippian contexts. These tools are defined separately from

scrapers primarily through use-wear patterns, although tool murphology

is also considered. In general, the knife's working edge is lateral

and paralleis the longitudinal axis of the tool. The artifact is

usually altered bifacially , and its edges often converge to a point

distally. The general size and thickness of hafted knives distinguish

them from p rojectile points.

In the Ft. Meigs assemblage notching to facilitate hafting of

knives is extremely rare (Plate 18). This fact, combined with use

wear evidence, resulted in classification of "hump backed points"

(Hall 1962) as preforms rather than knives (see projectile point

discussion). All defined knives are further distinguished from pre

forms by the general quality of workmanship— the scrapers look like

finished tools. Their blades are generally symetrical and bi-convex

in cross-section, not irregular and "rough" as in the triangular pre

forms.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Double pointed ovate biface knives were recovered at Ft. Meigs

(Plate 18), tools which are considered diagnostic of Upper Mississip

pian culture in the Great Lakes region (Faulkner 1972:87). This

type of knife is often recovered on Fort Ancient sites, although

other knife varieties are also present (Griffin 1943:Plates XIV #3h,

• XLV #10; Carskadden and Morton 1977:77). Blain Village also yielded

similar bifacial knives (Prufer and Shane 1970:90, Figure 13m).

On Huber sites two types of knives are most commonly encountered:

humpbacked triangular (Faulkner 1972:89, Plate XVI la, g) and the

double pointed ovate variety considered diagnostic of Orr Focus

Oneota sites (Faulkner 1972:87). These humpbacked and ovate double

pointed types are found in association with flake knives at the Anker

(Bluhm and Liss 1961:114), Palos (Munson and Munson 1969:184), Oak

Forest (B1 uhm and Fenner 1961:150), and Plum Island (Fenner 1963:

Figure 36j) sites.

Ovate bifaces and double pointed knives also occur on sites in

northwest Indiana (Faulkner 1972:89) and at Moccasin Bluff in south

west Michigan (Bettarel and Smith 1973:39, 120, Plate 42). In north-

eastern Ohio, Whittlesey sites produce bipointed, ovate, and trian

gular knives in association at Fairport Harbor (Morgan and Ellis

1943:24, 12, Figure 5 #1), Conneaut Fort (Brose et al . 1976:51),

H illside Road (Brose 1976a:37, Figure #5), Reeve (Greenman 1935a:39,

Figure 8), aijd White Fort (Greenman 1935b:233)• In general , bipointed

and ovate knives were most common, followed by triangular varieties.

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

Ground and polished stone tools are often found on Upper Missis

sippian sites, but are not considered diagnostic because of their

sidespread and generalized occurrence. Many such artifacts were

recovered at Ft. Meigs (Plate 19)* However, specific ground stone

tools such as miniature celts do attain diagnostic status (Griffin

19^3). Both pecked and ground and polished stone celts are reported

from a number of Upper Mississippian sites, beginning with Fort An

cient components (Griffin 19**3:Plates CXVII, XLV 3- **, XIII 3; Carskad

den and Morton 1977:98). Similar celts have been recovered from

Huber sites such as Anker (Bluhm and Liss 1961:11*0 and Zimmerman

(Brown 1961:5*0- Such artifacts are also encountered on Whittlesey

sites (Greenman 1937a:3*f0; Greenman 1937b:227, Figure 11a-e), as are

diorite (Morgan and Ellis 19*»3:1*0 and deeply-pecked and chipped celts

(Greenman 1935a:11, Figures 5, 6, 7).

Another stone a rtifa c t type recovered at Ft. Meigs which is more

informative functionally rather than diagnostical1y, is the net sinker

(Plate 19). These utilitarian artifacts usually sacrifice form or

style in deference to function. They are reported from many non-Missis

sippian prehistoric components (see Weston 1978), but are not uncommon

on late prehistoric sites. Fort Ancient sites have produced ovoid

limestone netsinkers (Griffin 19**3:50) and "stone discs" (Griffin

19**3 :83» Plate XXXI 11). Whittlesey sites also often produce netsinkers

including Fairport Harbor (Morgan and Ellis- 19*»3:18), Reeve (Greenman

1935a:27, Figure 12), Tuttle Hill, and South Park (Greenman 1937a: 3**0).

Other ground stone artifacts recorded at Ft. Meigs include celts

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 92

6999999999999^ Plate Plate 19. Celts, Milling Stone, Netsinker

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 93

(Plate 19) • The specimens recovered from the site are generally

finely pecked, symetrical, and exhibit a wedge-shaped b it. Some

roughly pecked examples are also present, but it is not obvious if

these are completed a rtifa c ts or in-process tools.

Several sandstone abraders were recovered from Ft. Meigs (Plate

20), again more a functional than a dianostic tool. Sandstone abraders

are recovered from a variety of cultural contexts. Sandstone was em

ployed because its granular character was ideal for reworking and

grinding tools, and the grooves which characteristically appear on an

abrader's face were the result of the processing of sharpening of

wood, bone, and antler stock. Other sandstone fragments recovered at

Ft. Meigs and other sites may be portions of broken abraders, but this

conclusion cannot be unambiguously validated.

Several specific varieties of abraders have been regarded as

potentially diagnostic, including rectangular sandstone abraders

often associated with Oneota components (Faulkner 1972: 161, Plate

XXL). Abraders are commonly reported on Upper Mississippian sites in

the Great Lakes region (Faulkner 1972:95), and Fort Ancient sites have

provided many examples (Griffin 19^3:Plates XI 11 2, k, XXVIII k;

Carskadden and Morton 1977:89). Huber sites producing abraders in

clude Anker (Bluhm and Liss 1 961:114), Zimmerman (Brown 1961:5*0 »■

and Oak Forest (Bluhm and Fenner 1961:155). Whittlesey lith ic assem

blages also include abraders most similar to those excavated at Ft.

Meigs (Morgan and Ellis 19*13:18; Greenman 1937:3**0).

Plant processing tools constitute a small portion of the lithic

artifa c ts from Ft. Meigs and are representative of similar examples

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Plate Plate 20. Etched Slate, Sandstone Abrader

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. recovered from other Great Lakes Upper Mississippian sites. A mill

ing stone, or mano, from Ft. Meigs is similar to mano/metate groups

reported from Huber (Bluhm and Fenner 1961:157; Brown 1961:54; Mun

son and Munson 1969:184), and Whittlesey sites (Greenman 1935a:13»

Figure 14). Of course, such util itarian implements cannot be said

to possess diagnostic value (Plate 19).

The metate recovered from Ft. Meigs possesses a face which has

been ground flat to slightly concave from processing vegetal materi

als with a mano. Some battering is also evident along with edges of

the artifa ct, although it is uncertain if these marks are the result

of the manufacturing of the tool itself or from other tools or the

processing of some floral materials.

Several anvil stones recovered from the site exhibit battered

and pitted faces. These artifacts display a greater degree of wear

and evidence of a greater opposing force, or crushing, than do the

similarly shaped metates. This battering is the direct result of the

tool's function as a battering platform for processing plant materials

(such as a nutting block), or crushing hard objects. Some anvil-

stones exhibit a greater degree of pitting or face concavity than do

others.

Scrapers

Scraping tools are distinguished from knives by working edge and

general morphology. An end scraper is rarely confused with a knife

since its working edge is placed at a minimum obliquely, and usually

perpendicular to the scraper's longitudinal axis. Some overlap does

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. occur between side scrapers and knives, but edge wear analysis can

usually distinguish the different useage. Bifacially or unifacially

worked scrapers are generally distinguishable from knives because they

are usually patterned on an amorphous flake lacking a pointed distal

end.

A scraper's working edge, whether produced on a flake or a blade,

is often beveled through intentional flaking or use. Such a working

edge is usually on "one or both convex ends" (Crabtree 1972:60),

while a side scraper's working edge is on one or more lateral margins.

Working edges on flake scrapers vary, in rare instances occurring along

the ehtire margin of a flake. Flake scrapers are more commonly uni

facial than bifacial, and probably were expedient rather than curated

tools.

Several varieties of scrapers were recorded in the assemblage at

Ft. Meigs including unifacial side and end scrapers, flake scrapers,

and what has been termed "hump-backed end", "thumbnail end", and "snub

nosed end" scrapers (Plate 21). These last three varieties appear to

forma functional-styl istic continuum defined primari ly by the angle

of the working edge.

Although some authorities have stated that a low relative frequen

cy of end scrapers is characteristic of Upper Mississippian sites in

what has been termed the Prairie Peninsula Co-Tradition (Stothers and

Graves 1982:18; see also Graves 198*0. In fact, "hump-backed" (snub

nosed) end scrapers are considered diagnostic of Oneota sites in the

Upper Mississippi Valley (Faulkner 1972:91). Such scrapers are also

associated with Fort Ancient sites (Griffin 19^3:Plate XLV #15).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Spokeshaves Plate 21. Snub-nosed, Humpbacked, Thumbnail End Scrapers, Side Scrapers, Graver lie*1 2T 2T i 3 lie*1 4 I 5 I

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Huber components produce similar scraper varieties. Thus, at

Anker both flake and hump-backed scrapers were reported (Bluhm and

Liss 1961:11*0. while hump-backed scrapers were the most numerous

variety at the Palos site (Munson and Munson 1969:18*0. Flake and

hump-backed/thumbnail types were also reported at Zimmerman (Brown

1961:53. 72, Figure 17q), Oak Forest (Bluhm and Fenner 1961:1 **8), and

Plum Island (Fenner 1963:Figures 36b, 77a).

In southwestern Michigan and northwestern Indiana thumb-mail

scrapers and "steep-edge pieces" were recovered at the Greismer

(Faulkner 1972:92) and Moccasin Bluff sites (Bettarel and Smith 1973:

39. *»3, 121, Plates **3, **5). As noted, based on the archaeological

literature, thumb-nail scrapers and steep edged pieces appear to grade

into one another.

Whittlesey sites commonly produce both thumbnail end and snub-

nose end scrapers (Morgan and E llis 19**3:1*», Figure 5; Brose et a l .

1976:51 ; Greenman 1935a: 12, Figure 10). However, the published lite ra

ture appears to indicate a greater range and variety of scrapers in

most Whittlesey assemblages, including end, round, rectangular, and

ovoid scrapers (see, for example, Morgan and Ellis 19**3:Figure 5) •

In. addition, the variety of reported scraper types appears at least

partially attributable to the lack of a standardized nomenclature.

Thus, some "leaf-shaped" and "keeled" scrapers described in Whittle

sey assemblages appear to grade into what are otherwise termed "Thumb

nail" types (Greenman 1937a:230, Figure 13a-e).

End and side scraper varieties are also represented on late

prehistoric sites in southeastern Ontario and northwestern Ohio. At

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 99

both the Weiser and Hamilton sites, which appear to possess cultural

linkage with Ft. Meigs and the Sandusky tradition, snub-nosed end

scrapers constitute the most numerous scraper classification (Stoth-

ers, Graves, and Conway 1984:64; Lennox 1981:242). Near Sandusky,

Ohio, the small lithic assemblage from Miller's Ridge, another Sanducky

tradition site, produced a number of snub-nosed end scrapers (Bowen

1979).

Graver/Spokeshave

Several tools that are classified as gravers and spokeshaves were

recovered from Ft. Meigs (Plate 21). Although not diagnostic, the dis

tinctive forms of such tools distinguish them within a lith ic assem

blage. The few examples present at Ft. Meigs reveal that these tools

were produced from specifically modified flakes. Apparently, morpho

logically attractive flakes possessing a tang or protrusion feasible

for modification were selected for fabrication into a chisel-like

point or steep channel. Such graver points and spokeshave grooves are

defined by steep retouching, and single tools may exhibit more than a

single such diagnostic modification. Gravers were probably used to

incise organic materials or soft stone (Crabtree 1962:68).

Uni faces

Unifacial artifacts form a relatively small percentage of the

Ft. Meigs 1ithic assemblage (Table 3). .Utilized' flakes' and retouched

flakes form the most common categories, and probably were produced as

expediency tools. Retouched flakes are distinguished from utilized

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 100

flakes by the quality and regularity of edge modification. Retouched

flakes exhibit careful and obvious modification, while utilized flake

edges are generally irregular and due primarily to use-wear or damage.

Unifacial artifacts, by definition, are flaked only on one side,

and are produced on a variety of lakes. While u tilized and retouched

flakes are the most numerous segment of this category, unifacial

scrapers and, technically, the ten unifacial isosceles projectile

points recovered at Ft. Meigs are also included. Most unifacial tools

provide evidence of fine pressure flaking.

The delineation of subclasses of unifacial scrapers was determined

by examination of the working edges. Evidence of use-wear along an ax

is parallel to the length of the tool defined a side scraper, while a

perpendicular axis defined an end scraper. When orientation was not

well defined on a carelessly worked tool, the specimen was classified

as a retouch flake. All defined working edges on Ft. Meigs unifaces

were simply modified; no serration or more complex modification was

noted. In general, unifaces were usually plano-convex in cross-sec

tion, although a range of profiles was present in the assemblage.

At Ft. Meigs, since only a sample of the surface collected debi-

tage was analyzed while all stone tools from the provenience were

addressed, surface artifacts are excluded from the ratio. This

method will also minimize admixture of non-Mississippi an components.

When debitage and tools from sub-surface contexts at Ft. Meigs are

examined, the resulting ratio is 12679.297**, or **.3 flakes per tool.

This figure is of interest because it is very close to the Moccasin

Bluff ratio (**.7), which represents an Upper Mississippian village

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 101

situated in a major river valley at about the same time period as

Ft. Meigs (Bettarel and Smith 1973).

Etched Slate

One rather unusual lith ic a r tifa c t recovered from Ft. Meigs must

be addressed. This a r tifa c t is a small polished slate object on which

a styl ized version of a (bird?) claw (Plate 20) has been etched. En

graved stone, usually of polished slate, is farily common in Ft. An

cient contexts (Converse 1971:48). Engraved discoidals have already

been discussed (Griffin 1943:P1ate XXVII). Such engravings depict a

range of subjects, but recognizable subjects include human, animal,

and Southern Cult "weeping eye" motifs (Hooton and Wi1loughby 1920:

Plate 8; see also Waring and Holder 1945). Raptorial bird motifs,

reminiscent of the claw-1 ike design recovered at Ft. Meigs, have also

been recorded in Adena contexts (Webb and Baby 1957:84).

Whittlesey sites also have produced engraved slate objects.

The predominant theme of engraved slate recovered from the Reeve

site is the weeping eye motif (Murphy 1978:18). However, one of the

major elements present at the s ite is similar to the Ft. Meigs "claw",

which is described as "peculiar sets of curved, claw-like extensions"

(Murphy 1978:18). The claw-like elements at Reeve appear to be "Pre

cisely duplicated" on a cannel coal carving from a Ft. Ancient site

in West Virginia (Murphy 1978:19). If the Reeve site engraving is

associated with the Whittlesey component defined at the site, it

should date to the same time horizon as Ft. Meigs, since the Reeve

occupation is radiocarbon dated to A.D. 1370±130 (Murphy 1974). Such

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 102

Southern Cult motifs exhibit a fairly extensive distribution throughout

the Upper Midwest/Great Lakes region in Late prehistoric times

(Brose 1971, 1978).

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

FT. MEIGS CERAMIC ASSEMBLAGE

Analytic Approach

The most basic task of an archaeological analysis is to order or

classify the material culture data base into informative groups. The

definition of these types has been the subject of extensive debate

within the discipline for nearly 50 years. Types may be erected on

the basis of chronology, function, or style (Brown 1972:181). These

groups may be the result of analytical emphasis placed upon divisions

noted amont variables (Hodson 1982), or upon sim ilarities noted among

them (Spaulding 1982). An ideal type consists of a group of objects

whereby each object is more similar to all other objects in the group

than to any object within another type, but, in reality, some grada

tion between types occurs and transitional objects exist that cannot

be "ideally" classified (Cowgill 1982).

Classification and typology as a search for structure within

archaeological data emphasized a descriptive or taxonomic orientation

until the 1960s. While most such schema fa cilitate d description and

insights into temporal or spatial variation, they did not attempt to

proceed beyond the data base to articulate with anthropological theory

(Vierra 1982). These approaches were viewed as an end in themselves,

rather than as an analytical step in the process of testing hypotheses

about cultural process.

103

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. One emphasis employed to proceed beyond this limitation took

the form of a debate between proponents of "discovered" as opposed

to "imposed" typology. Spaulding (1953a, 1953b) stated that typolo

gical classification is the process of discovering the combination of

attributes favored by the makers of the artifact. Conversely, Ford

(I95**a, 195^b) believed types are defined by the analyst to be used

in examining temporal and spatial variation. In essence, the debate

was a corollary of the emic and etic approaches to anthropological

analysis.

Both approaches carry inherent limitations in a sense, pitting

the idiosyncracies of the (prehistoric) artisan against the idiosyn-

cracies of the analyst. Thus, an analyst may become enamored with

the minutae of attrib u tes, where the process of analysis becomes an

end in itself rather than a means to the end of cultural analysis.

The forest will not be seen for the trees. Similarly, the potter

may have contributed to analytical "noise" by producing a wide range

of variation in a single vessel, for example, one vessel providing

two distinct rim p rofiles.

The emic and e tic emphases have been institutionalized in theory.

Thus, an "intuitive typologist" attempts to approximate the mental

template of the potter, choosing as type-defining attributes only

those recognized by the artisan, while the "objective typologist"

would employ numerical taxonomy to discern valid subgroups (Read

1982:60). The former, emic approach, may be more culturally relevant,

but proceeds from subjectively determined attrib u tes, while the

latter, etic orientation,, proceeds via explicit methodology to

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. determine types. Unfortunately the usefulness or meaning of such

objective types may be unclear.

The advantages and 1 imitat ions of each approach has led to d is

cussion of the empiricist and positivist paradigms (Hill and Evans

1972). The em piricist proceeds by implicit assumptions to create

types that are "inherently present" in the artifacts. The positivist,

alternatively, believes in no one "best" typology; rather, if types

are to be useful they must vary with the specific problems and hypo

theses to be studied. Any body of archaeological materials can be

classified or typed in a number of ways. Thus, the em piricist stance

follows a normative orientation towards discovered types valid for

and in individual cultures, while the positivist prefers an etic

viewpoint where analysis precedes the creation of types; analytical

types formed from the data as determined by the problem being studied.

Some authorities have argued that these approaches need not be

mutual1y exclusive, that the strengths of each, permitting an expli

citly objective analysis of culture process may be isolated. Thus,

attribute-based modal analysis and type-variety (taxonomic) c la s s ifi

cation can be viewed as complementary (Sabloff and Smith 1969). With

out a specified problem there is no means of justifying the selection

of definitive attributes, as the validity of a type is determined by'

the research orientation (Dunnel 1971). It may be argued that in

isolation, discovered taxonomy is inappropriate for archaeological

classification with a goal of addressing culture process because it

is not based on a specific problem orientation and uses equally

weighted variables. In analyzing culture process, an archaeologist

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. should state an a priori justification for inclusion of particular,

differentially weighted variables in his analysis with an explicitly

problem-oriented goal (Vierra 1982).

No typology defined by numerical methods has been as generally

effective or useful in examining time-space relations as has the

traditional culturally defined and perceived type-variety approach

(Whallon 1980:9). Arbitrary division or dissection of the data base

may break up the underlying structure or patterning in human behavior

(Brown 1982:177). And demonstrating an order within or among archae

ological attributes that may reveal culturally imposed patterning is

perhaps the primary task of archaeology.

The approach here employed is to objectively record salient

attributes in the material culture of the Ft. Meigs site in hope of

defining cultural patterning or "natural" types. It is believed the

artifacts present are a product of human behavior that is effected or

guided by the cultural system of which the artisan is a member (Read

1982:58). The non-random occurrence of attributes of an artifa ct

may reveal distinctive modes at the cultural level of analysis. These

preferred attributes are capable of transmission from one person to

another within the culture system in space and time (Krieger 13kh).

The type defined may be thought of as the result of culturally

conditioned behavior, an abstract or ideal specimen or norm (Rouse

1939), around which individual variations occur (Gifford I960; Jan-

zen 1968). These individual variations may sometimes lead to the

definition of sub-groups, or varieties. While a range of variability

is, therefore, tolerated, types will exhibit a minimum internal

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 107

similarity greater than the maximum external similarity (Spaulding

1982:19). More succinctly, types exhibit internal cohesion and ex

ternal isolation (Dodson 1982:23).

The attributes employed in the Ft. Meigs ceramic analysis can

all be objectively defined, and the typology is arranged in a hier

archical manner premised upon examination of successive combinations

of these attributes. The value of focusing on attributes is that

such small units reduce the potential for analyst error, and the

data base is not forced into an invalid typology due to a lack of

control in individual variation. The end product is one of consis

tency.

While combinations of attributes, or "attribute constellations"

(Wright 1980:25) are valuable in defining temporal and spatial vari

ability, the danger inherent in such an approach, mentioned previously,

is the obfuscation of more general culturally valid attribute clus

ters. This problem should be minimized in defining attributes and

noting clu sters which are then used as the basis to create types or

recognize established typological constructs (see, for example,

Hoxie 1980). If completed correctly, such an analysis permits insight

into the technological, social, and ideational subsystems of .a cul

ture (Binford 1965; Brown 1982:180).

The attributes examined in this analysis are those which permit

recognition of the differential importance of individual traits, which

are then hierarchically arranged in clusters to emphasize "minimum

within-group variance, and maximum between-group variance" (Whallon

1982:12). The relevant attrib u tes may be analyzed employing either a

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 108

monothetic or polythetic typology (Clarke 1968:35). A monothetic

type is defined by the possession of a unique set of attributes suf

ficient and necessary for membership. While the monothetic type

would be preferred, the polythetic type is more realistic in addres

sing archaeological data because of the wide range of attribute varia

tion which occurs.

Whichever method is employed, culturally perceived and imposed

order in archaeological materials will be displayed in the attributes

present. If such patterning is strong enough and legitimate, "it

will show up and be detectable in most analyses even though they may

well use very diverse methodologies and approaches" (Whallon 1982:13).

That such a conclusion is valid is indicated by analyses employing

both monothetic and polythetic typologies, which, upon comparison,

achieved generally similar results. Both Brashler (1978) and Whallon

(1972, 1980) determined that resulting typologies were basically

synonomous.

Still, the articulation of selected type-defining attributes with

the archaeological culture being analyzed is too complex to be impli

citly assumed. Cultural stability in attribute-determined types may

be enhanced by both environmental (raw m aterial, etc.) and cultural

(societal norms) variables. However, the equally important periods

of cultural change may not be addressed as easily (Shepherd 1965:318).

Primary agents of change such as cultural d rift (Eggan 1963).

individual variation, or external contact may not be recognized in an

analysis of an assemblage, although the cultural process will not be

totally obscured (Sackett 1977:370). In part, this is because

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 109

transitional periods (and types) are often short "abnormalities" in

the overall cultural stability or dynamic equilibrium. Examples of

ceramics representing such transitions may be regarded as abberrant

sherds of indicators of extremes in variation of defined types. "By

habitually speaking in terms of norms we forget the possible meaning

and importance of divergent specimens" (Shepherd 1965:317).

More specifically, the range of attributes addressed in the Ft.

Meigs analysis includes decorative technique, stylistic motif, pres

ence or absence of collars, castellations, and appendages, temper,

wall and rim thickness, and profile. Attributes employed in other

analyses not included in the current analysis are hardness and color.

Hardness was not addressed in the Ft. Meigs assemblages Upper Missis-

sippian assemblage because the uneven firing typical of the assemblage

resulted in varying hardness within the same vessel. Differential

firing under primitive conditions also created differential oxidation

and color in the same vessel. In addition, individual circumstances

associated with the deposition and exposure of the ceramics (within

features, erosional zones, areas of disrupted or altered drainage,

e tc .), also affected surviving ceramic attributes. Thus, reconstructed

vessels recovered from Ft. Meigs would present a mosaic or hardness

and color. Obviously, the potential usefulness of these attributes

to indicate cultural behavior is limited (see Hoxie 1980:30; Spero

1979:25; and McPherron 1967:^9).

Conversely, the composition and plasticity of a ceramic vessel

provides an excellent means by which to investigate cultural patterns

and history. The usefulness of decorative modes and techniques has in

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 110

general been addressed previously in this text. This fact is examined

in more explicit terms in the ensuing paragraphs of this analysis.

In brief, ceramic attrib u tes attain both temporal (cultural

historical) and social (group interaction and intra-action) relevance.

In addition, these attributes also obtain functional significance,

which may also provide insights into subsistence and absolute'chrono-

logy. For example, vessel rim thickness may correlate with changes

in food preparation through time (Braun 1978:6; Mangold 1980:266;

see also Janzen 1968:^5). The cultural significance of shell tem

pering is well documented in the late prehistory of the Great Lakes

region. However, use of th is type of temper also permitted construc

tion of lighter, thinner walled vessels for more efficient food pro

cessing and storage, among other advantages (Stimmel 1978:226).

Discussion of attributes must be explicit to avoid ambiguity in

terminology and provide the most useful data for other archaeologists.

Thus, I have attempted to be as explicit as possible in delineation

and discussion of salient, diagnostic attributes employed in the

definition of each Ft. Meigs ceramic type. While such types will

be addressed under each type heading, a few general remarks will be

offered below.

To avoid confusion between trailing and incising, the former is

defined as relatively broad, 1.5 to 2.0 mm wide, continuous impres

sions which produce ridges in the plastic vessel surface. Incising

is extremely narrow, < 1.5 mm wide, etching producing no lateral ridges

on the adjacent p lastic walls. Dentate stamping is produced by a tool

leaving distinct, teeth-like impressions of at least two nodes. Linear

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 111

stamping is a special ized version of dentate, where the total length of

the combined tooth-like impressions is at least three times their

width. Cord-wrapped stick decoration is a linear impression formed

by placing a narrow tool against the plastic vessel surface. While

producing an impression similar to linear stamping, it is distinguished

by the presence of a roughened or cord-impressed face, as opposed to

the completely smooth indentation associated with linear stamping.

Inventory of Ceramic Types and Varieties

The following discussion describes the ceramic assemblage re

covered during archaeological investigations at the Ft. Meigs site .

Included are all ceramic a rtifa c ts associated with the site, includ

ing all results of professional research as wel 1 as a ll pottery made

available for study by interested avocational archaeologists. The

latter group specifically includes members of the Toledo Area Abori

ginal Research Society who have conducted surface survey at Ft. Meigs

for years, pre-dating the reconstruction of the War of 1812 fort by

the Ohio Historical Society. In particular, Mr. Patrick Steiner,

President of TAARS, is to be thanked for permitting examination of

his extensive col lection for inclusion in the following analysis.

Analysis of ceramics from Ft. Meigs reveals the presence of

several well-known representatives of Great Lakes pottery types as

well as some newly defined types and varieties. In the ensuing para

graphs each type and variety defined and encountered a t Ft. Meigs

will be addressed, and its position in Upper Mississippian culture

and the Sandusky tradition discussed. Table 5 presents the numbers

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. - - % 3.1 5.9 1.5 *f.O 9.0 2.3 6.7 8.2 2.5 3.2 19.8 1 10.7 rims) *» 8 16 12 - (from 17 - 56 13 35 73 31 k7 62 11.8 10 52k Vessels § • 7 • .5 - % % ^•9 3.2 8.3 2.9 k.h 8.9 8.1 3-3 *»3 13.6 i»0.7 5 5 .7 7 1.3 4 -- 37 2k -- - 63 33 25 67 61 757 # # Necks Table 5 . A . - % .k 3.0 1 6.7 103 6.0 1.3 8.22 22 2.1 7.0 16.3 10.6 308 20.8 Ft. Meigs Ceramic Types 9 8 19 - 15 -- kl 13 38 17 2.7 67 52 75 11.7 kk 130 631 103 Ft. Meigs Ceramics: Rims, Neck, Vessel by Type # # Rims Ft. Meigs Filleted PI. Sm./Pl. Cr. PI. Sm./SMCR Ft. Meigs N.A.S. Ft. Meigs Punctate Ft. Meigs Modified Lip Ft. Meigs Ext. Imp. Lip Ft. Meigs Plain Ft. Meigs Linear St. Parker Festooned SMCR Ft. Meigs Trailed Cord-Roughened Ft. Meigs Dentate Miniature/Juvenile Mis./Unclassified

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. .4 % 1.1 1.5 5.6 5-3 2.7 l.k 5.0 1.1 3-3 10.4 11.1 10.2 27.0 By By Type 5 V 19 38 78 21 7 37 69 46 145 103 152 141 375 1388 Number Combined Combined Rims and Necks, Ft. Meigs Ceramics: Continued Ft. Meigs Punctate Ft. Meigs F illeted Ft. Meigs Notched Applique Strip Ft. Meigs Exterior Impressed Lip Ft. Meigs Plain Ft. Meigs Modified Lip Ft. Meigs Linear Stamp Parker Festooned PI. PI. Smoothed/Pl. Cord-Roughened PI. Smoothed/SMCR Ft. Meigs Dentate Ft. Meigs TrailedPlain Cord Roughened 69 5-0 Miniature/Juvenile Miscellaneous/Unclassified 5 ~ Table

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. and percentages of each type in relation to the total Ft. Meigs

ceramic assemblage. Relevant figures portraying representative

examples of each type will be referenced under each specific heading.

When possible, the specific ceramic type wi11 be compared with other

defined types in the Great Lakes region. (See Appendix C fo r specific

results of analysis*)

In general, the Ft. Meigs Upper Mississippian ceramic assemblage

is characterized by shell tempering, although grit is present in some

vessels, probably due to incidental inclusion during pottery manufac

ture. Vessels are formed by the paddle and anvil technique, a pro

cedure emphasized by the virtual lack of coil breaks in the Ft. Meigs

phase ceramics. On vessels definitely attributable to Ft. Meigs

phase occupations, collars are absent and castellations, while present,

are extremely rare and not well defined.

Ft. Meigs vessels posses strap handles, slight to moderately

everted rims, plain, smoothed necks and, usually, cord-roughened

bodies. The necks, rims, and lips of defined types invariably are

smoothed before application of decoration. Thus, the assemblage can

be characterized as exhibiting shape and body surface treatment simi

lar to the relatively undecorated shell tempered wares encountered on

other Upper Mississippian expressions of the same time horizon

(Tucker 1980:159; Stothers and Pratt 1980:11).

Ft. Meigs Plain

This type is represented by 67 rimsherds defining 55 vessels and

318 necksherds from 253 additional vessels (Plate 22). However, it

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 115 Plate Plate 22. Ft. Meigs Plain, Ft. Meigs Modified Lip, Strap Handles

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 116

must be noted that the number of vessels associated with this type

may be overestimated since some of the necksherds may be representa

tive of Ft. Meigs Modified Lip rather than Ft. Meigs Plain. These

two types differ only in the presence of decorative motifs placed

upon the lip of the former type. Obviously, this diagnostic decora

tive treatment would not be present on necksherds, which, by defini

tion, lack lips. Since the presence of lip modification cannot be

inferred, all plain undecorated necks were classified as Ft. Meigs

Plain.

Ft. Meigs Plain indicates a paddle and anvil method of construc

tion; no evidence of coiling was encountered. The paste on most

sherds was compact, although some fria b ility was noted, possibly due

to depositional variation. Aplastic or temper was shel1, usually

oriented in laminar fashion, and ranging in size to a maximum of Z-k

mm. Sherds ranged in color from orange-buff to tan- and gray-buff,

although all sherds expressed a dark core attributed to incomplete

firing.

Surface finish on all specimens is diagnostic plain and smoothed:

a total lack of surface decoration. The smoothing in some instances

appears rather haphazard, since faint striations and an uneven sur

face contour reveals minimal finishing effort. It is conceivable

that if lips were present on necksherds, some pottery classified as

Ft. Meigs Plain would be classified under other types (see above).

In addition, if some necksherds had been larger, it is possible they

would exhibit decoration diagnostic of other types defined at the

site. Essentially, tra its such as paste and temper do not differentiate

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. types since they are virtually indistinguishable between types.

Ft. Meigs Plain vessels were wide-mouthed globular pots with

constricted necks. The general rim form appears siightly more

everted than on other types recorded at the site, although less

everted to straight rims were rarely encountered. Rim profiles

were predominantly (about 80%) either a squared rim with a flat

lip or squared with a round lip. The remainder clustered toward

a simply thickened rim p rofile. All lips were plain smoothed, and

appendages noted on several rims revealed the occurrence of strap

handles. No castellations or collars were present. Wall thickness

of vessels ranged between 4.0 and 10.0 mm, averaging 5.4 mm thick.

Ft. Meigs Plain is representative of a number of Great Lakes

Upper Mississippian ceramic types composed of shell-tempered plain,

smoothed vessels lacking any kind of exterior decoration. Although

the degree of rim eversion of Ft. Meigs Plain is greater than that

for other types within the site's ceramic assemblage, the eversion

of other Great Lakes shell tempered plain wares varies from site to

site.

Since, by definition, shell tempered plain wares usually lack

explicitly heterogeneous attributes, these types are the least

valuable in inter-site and culture historical comparison. Still,

a brief discussion will elaborate the generic nature and geographical

extent of this utilitarian pottery.

G riffin's seminal definition of the Fort Ancient focus describes

the majority of vessels as exhibiting cord marking, although smoothed

vessels did occur in minor frequencies (Griffin 1943). At Madisonvi 11

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1)8

Madisonvi1le Plain, "typical of the Madisonville Focus" consisting of

smoothed jars with relatively straight rims, composed over 1/3 of the

site's vessels (Griffin 1943:1.41, 349, Plates LXII #1-5, 7, LXI I I

#5-6).

Griffin also discussed in great detail Upper Mississippian ceram

ics from Illinois and Wisconsin and noted sim ilarities between Fort

Ancient and Fisher, Huber, and Oneota components. Current studies

have defined Fisher and Huber ceramics as companion wares, although

theories of development and co-occurrence on sites vary (Faulkner

1972; McAllister 1980).

Huber ware is most relevant to the current discussion because it

is defined by plain smoothed shell tempered ceramics, while early

shell tempered Fisher ware is cordmarked (Faulkner 1972:72). At the

Huber type site, in northern Illinois, less than 5% of the shell tem

pered ceramics were cordmarked (Griffin 1943:285). The most p e rti

nent Huber ceramic type is Huber Plain. Originally defined as the

Blue Island culture (Griffin 1943:284; Quimby 1960:105) or Huber

Focus (Brown et al. 1967:36), Huber occupations provide evidence of

significant Middle Mississippian ties (Mason 1981:361).

Huber ware has also been described as Oneota ware (Griffin

1943; Faulkner 1972) and exhibits similarities in vessel shape, motif,

and technique to the Orr and Winnebago Oneota "Foci" (Hall 1962:155).

While Huber sites do occur as early as the fifteenth century, several

Huber related components possess European trade goods, indicating a

rather late temporal placement (McAllister 1980:60; see also Stothers

and Graves 1982).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Typical of Huber sites in northwest Indiana is the Griesmer site

where over 50% of estimated vessels are defined as Huber Plain (Faulk

ner 1972:64). While several vessels exhibit mixed shell and g rit

temper—as at Ft. Meigs— this may be unintentional g rit inclusion

during clay selection. The primary difference between Huber Plain

and Ft. Meigs Plain is the relatively radical degree of rim eversion

typical of the former. While Ft. Meigs Plain rims do exhibit slight

to moderate eversion, Huber rims cluster near a rim-neck juncture

angle of 45°. Huber vessels share with Ft. Meigs Plain globular

bodies, generally square rims with flat lips, and the occurrence of

strap handles (Munson and Monson 1969; Bluhm and Liss 1961; Bluhm

and Fenner 1961; Brown 1961; Faulkner 1972).

Huber-related ceramics have been recorded in southwestern Michi

gan at the Moccasin Bluff site, where a variety of Huber ceramics,

termed Berrien ware, was defined (Bettarel and Smith 1973). These

ceramics have been dated to ca. A.D. 1400-1600, although differences

between Huber and Berrien wares have been termed insignificant, and,

in fact, the two wares may be synonomous (McAllister 1980:25). Also

in southwest Michigan, the Schwerdt site, dated to the mid-fifteenth

century, produced what is defined as "Schwerdt Group 3"» analogous

to Huber Plain, with squared lips and acute neck angles ranging from

10° to 130° (McAllister 1980:64, 65, Plate 16; see also Cremin 1980,

1983).

Other Upper Mississippian plain ceramic wares are present in

northeastern Ohio, associated with Whittlesey sites. Greenman noted

the presenceof plain shel 1 tempered ceramics in his seminal analyses

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 120

of Whittlesey sites (Greenman 1935a, 1935b, 1937). However, there

are distinct differences between Whittlesey and Sandusky components.

Cordmarking is more prevalent on classic Whittlesey sites producing

plain, but cordmarked, ceramics (Fitting 1965:164). Earlier W hittle

sey sites tend to produce higher percentages of plain ceramics. Com

ponents defined at Fairport Harbor, South Park, and Conneaut Fort

date to ca. A.D. 1300. All provide a significant amount of plain

ceramics with Conneaut Fort yielding nearly 84% Fairport Plain rims

(Brose et al. 1976:40; Murphy 1971). Shell tempered plain wares con

tinue on sites into historic times.

The broader ceramic a ffin itie s of most Whittlesey types may lie

more to the east and south than to the Western Basin area. Brose

has noted a "basic sim ilarity" between Whittlesey and the early Fort

Ancient Baum and Feurt phases (Brose et a l . 1976:42). He feels the

maximum northern extension of Ft. Ancient coincides with Middle Whit

tlesey times, ca. A.D. 1400 (Brose 1976). S till, at least some in

teraction and cultural relationship did take place with Sandusky tra

dition peoples to the west in north central and northwestern Ohio.

Stothers has argued for a cultural co-development of great time depth,

linking Whittlesey and Sandusky sites in the "Prairie Peninsula Co-

Tradition" (Stothers 1981b; Stothers and Graves 1982, 1983).

However, virtually no collarless shell tempered ceramic varieties

occur on Whittlesey sites. The plain shell tempered ware in northwest

Ohio (Stothers and Pratt 198l:Figure 6g, i-k) is part of what is termed

a "western Great Lakes riverine generalized plain smooth, collarless,

ceramic complex" (Stothers and Graves 1983:16). Within the Sandusky

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. tradition such ceramics continue into protohistoric times on a cul

tural or developmental trajectory independent from e a rlie r possible

Fort Ancient or Whittlesey influences. The Indian H ills phase sites,

occupied afte r Ft. Meigs phase components, produce Indian Hills Plain

which is virtually identical to Ft. Meigs Plain except for more squar

ish lips and less elevated profiles (Tucker 1980:163; Graves 1984).

Ft. Meigs Plain Modified Lip

This ceramic type is defined by the presence of widely spaced

vertical notching along the vessel lip (Plate22 ). The lip upon

which the decoration is applied is invariably smoothed, as is the

vessel body beneath the lip. Essentially, this type is very similar

to Ft. Meigs Plain except for the lip notching and a tendency for

rim profiles to be somewhat less everted. On a ll vessels, however,

decoration is confined solely to the lip, and is applied at an angle

perpendicular to the axis of the wall of the vessel. It never ex

tends off the rim onto the wall.

Ft. Meigs Plain Modified Lip is represented by 38 rims forming

a minimum of 34 vessels. Two varieties were defined within the type.

The first variety is created in a dentate stamp technique. These

impressions are usually aligned perpendicular to the axis of the rim,

although oblique impressions are also encountered, albeit less fre

quently. The second variety is defined by the impression of a tool

or dowel onto the lip, which creates a shallow notching effect. This

technique is usually characterized by regular spacing between impres

sions, although this distance varies from vessel to vessel.

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

122

Once again it should be noted that the number of vessels classi

fied as Ft. Meigs Plain Modified Lip may not represent the exact num

ber that were present on the site. While the diagnostic presence of

lip decoration would appear to 1imit inaccuracies of classification

in rim type, it is conceivable that if more of the vessel beneath the

surviving rim were avaiiable for study, the sherd would be classified

within another type. Thus, modified lips were noted within the type

Ft. Meigs Notched Applique Strip, and some fragmentary rims classified

as Modified Lip might, instead, be incomplete examples of Applique

Strip. In an attempt to control for this variable, the smallest

sherds, or those exhibiting minimal exterior face or significant exO

foliation were omitted from this analysis and classified as destroyed.

Ft. Meigs Plain Modified Lip, variety Dentate Stamp, is represented

by 19 rims from a minimum o f 16 vessels. These vessels are manufactured

by paddle and anvil technique; no evidence of coiling was encountered.

Paste was compact and not fria b le , and contained shell tempering,

laminar in orientation, and ranging in size from 2 to 3 mm. Vessel

walls ranged from k to 9 mm thick, and averaged 6.1 mm thick. Vessel

shape indicated a slightly everted rim above a constricted neck, a l

though straight walled vessels comprised a minority profile. Vessel

color ranged from orange buff to gray, with dark cores.

Lips are all smoothed beneath the diagnostic dentate tool impres

sion. The tool is applied perpendicular to the axis of the lip on 13

vessels, and obliquely to the axis on three vessels. One vessel ex

hibits lip modification in which the dentate tool was pulled then

pushed back along the malleable lip, forming a stab-and-drag technique.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Rim profiles are generally squared with a flattened lip (1»53) or

squared with a rounded lip (k0%), although simply thickened rims

with a rounded lip are also' present in notable frequencies (103). No

castellations or appendages were present within the variety.

Ft. Meigs Plain Modified Lip, Variety Notched, is represented

by 19 rims from a minimum of 18 vessels. This variety is sim ilar in

most respects to variety Dentate Stamp: no evidence of coiling, com

pact non-friable paste with laminar shell tempering, orange buff to

gray surface coloration with dark cores, slightly everted to straight

profiled vessels lacking castellations, and possessing lip modifica

tion.

Variety Notched is defined by the presence of shallow, regularly

spaced, smooth tool or dowel impressions placed along vessel lips.

These notches are most commonly 2 mm wide and range from 2 to mm

apart. Most express a circu larity in form, but oblong to linear

impressions are also present and are usually oriented perpendicular

to the axis of the lip, when such an axis can be defined. A few

examples of obliquely oriented notching are also present. Vessel

walls are virtual ly identical to those of Variety Dentate Stamp,

smoothed and ranging in thickness from 4 to 9 mm, with a mean of 6.1

mm. One vessel exhibited what appears to be the worn base of a

strap handle.

Ft. Meigs Plain Modified Lip, like Ft. Meigs Plain, is represen

tative of a widespread Upper Mississippian u tilita ria n ware. Like the

Plain ware, it might be reductionistic to assume a genetic relation

ship among sites producing Modified Lip ceramics, because of the

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. simplistic nature of the defining attributes. Sti11, plain ware with

lip modification does achieve a wide distribution in the Great Lakes

region after the 13th century. "It is reasonable to base a classi-

factory scheme primarily on the type and technique of lip modifica

tion on a vessel since it is a decorative technique, and, therefore,

culturally derived" (McAllister 1980:34).

A variety of lip modification is present on ceramics as far

north as northern Michigan and southern Canada, for example, at

Summer Island (Brose 1970). The lip modification a t Summer Island

does not closely resemble that at Ft. Meigs since the former site

produces vessels more closely resembling a crimped or "pie-crust"

pattern (Brose 1970:201). Such a pattern appears to be more closely

linked to later, protohistoric occupations, such as those encountered

at Dumaw Creek (Quimby 1966) and the Bell site (Wittry 1959). Such

embellishment also occurs from prehistoric into historic occupations

on various Oneota Foci site s (Hall 1962; Overstreet 1978; 1981).

Huber ware ceramics from the Chicago area provide lip modifica

tion more closely resembl ing those recovered from Ft. Meigs. Such

ceramics also usually exhibit outflaring rims, strap handles, and

lip notching, occurring on plain, smoothed wal 1ed vessel s (Bluhm

and Liss 1961:104; see also Brown 1961; Bluhm and Fenner 1963;

McAl1iste r 1980).

In southwestern Michigan Upper Mississippian ceramics are often

typed primarily on the basis of lip modification (Spero 1979; Me

All ister 1980). At the Moccasin Bluff s ite both g rit and shell tem

pered ceramics feature a variety of lip modification. Plain tool

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 125

notching, impressed stick, and finger scalloping represent a range

of techniques employed (Bettarei and Smith 1973)* Such decoration

is also reported from the Schwerdt site, on the Kalamazoo River,

where "1ip mod ification is the major distinguishing characteristic

of the assemblage" (McAllister 1980:3^).

More specifically, Moccasin Bluff Modified Lip is g r it tempered

and appears as early as the 14th century. Schwerdt produces examples

of the primary varieties defined at Moccasin Bluff, as well as varie

ties of cord-wrapped stick and finger nail impressed. Unlike Ft.

Meigs, many of the vessels featuring lip modification at Schwerdt and

Moccasin Bluff exhibit cord roughened bodies.

The ceramic type which most closely resembles Ft. Meigs Plain

Modified Lip appears to be Moccasin Bluff Plain Modified Lip, which

features plain smoothed vessel walls and narrow lip notching (Bettarei

and Smith 1973:63, Plates 27, 28). While this type was originally de

fined at Moccasin Bluff, a virtually identical grouping was reported

from Schwerdt: Schwerdt Group II (McAllister 1980:67). Other shell

tempered varieties of Berrien ware were also present. Moccasin Bluff

Plain Modified Lip vessels have been recovered in association with

Huber ware vessels in features at Schwerdt radiocarbon dated to A.D.

1H5±70 and 1450±100 (McAllister 1980:69).

The Whittlesey occupations in northeastern Ohio also produce

evidence of lip modified ceramics. Fairport Harbor Plain, recovered

from Fairport Harbor and Tuttle Hill (Greenman 1935a; 1937)» occa

sionally exhibits lip notching executed by finger impression and tool

notching (Fitting 1965a: 161*). These distinctive ceramics were also

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. noted during the earliest Whittlesey investigations (Greenman 1935a:

Figures 3^> 39; 1937:Figures "ik, 39» ^0; Morgan and Ellis 19^3’• F5gures

16, 17)-

Ft. Meigs Exterior Impressed Lip

Ft. Meigs Exterior Impressed Lip is defined by the d istin ct

placement of tool impressions a t the juncture of the lip and exterior

rim face (Plate 23). It is distinguished from Ft. Meigs Plain Modi

fied Lip in that the decorative technique and motif drop off the lip

such that the modification visibly intrudes onto the vessel exterior.

Ft. Meigs Plain Modified Lip features modification confined solely

to the lip, such that the surface alteration is not visible on the

vessel's exterior wal1.

In defining two distinct types and associated varieties pre

mised upon differences in lip area alteration, this thesis departs

from an earlier, preliminary analysis of the Ft. Meigs ceramic as

semblage (Tucker 1980). The ea rlier analysis was confined to a sam

ple of the total assemblage, whereas the current analysis is inclusive,

such that the nuances and details of the body of data are more clearly

expressed and addressed.

Tucker's analysis classified all rims with modification in the

lip area as "Ft. Meigs Modified Lip". While th is general grouping

is accurate, the current analysts refined the c1 assifactory schema

into Ft. Meigs Modified Lip and Ft. Meigs Exterior Impressed Lip, as

defined above. While some authorities may argue that this is over

emphasizing minute d etails, the importance of v arieties of lip

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 127 Plate Plate 23. Ft. Meigs Exterior Impressed Lip

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 128

modification in defining ceramic types on Upper Mississippian (espe

cially Huber related) sites has already been noted. Such differences

in lip modification were the sole basis in defining types at the

Moccasin Bluff and Schwerdt sites (Bettarei and Smith 1973; McAllis

ter 1980).

Ft. Meigs Exterior Impressed Lip is represented by 103 rim sherds

from a minimum of 76 vessels. As with the other ceramic types de

fined by modification of the lip area, no neck sherds lacking rim

portions were classifiab le in this type. Thus, once again, the total

number of vessels at Ft. Meigs is an estimate rather than an exact

number.

Ft. Meigs Exterior Impressed Lip is manufactured by the paddle

and anvil technique, and no evidence of coil breaks was encountered.

The paste is compact and non-friable, and features an aplastic laminar

oriented shell tempering ranging in size from 2 to 3 mm. Vessel sur

face color varies from orange buff to tan buff, and all sherds ex

press dark cores, the result of incomplete firing. Vessel forms are

wide mouthed globular jars, with straight to slightly everted rims

above a somewhat constricted neck. Wall thickness ranges from k to

8 mm, averaging 5-7 mm.

Vessel rims 1 ie along a continuum, with squared rims with a

rounded lip accounting for k0% of the sherds, simply thickened rim

with rounded lip and squared rim with flat lip accounting for 25% each,

and miscellaneous profiles the remainder. Lips are all smoothed as

are vessel exteriors and interiors, although in some instances the

smoothing is crude enough to be classified as smoothed cord

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 129

roughened, and appendages present consist of strap handles.

Surface decoration on Ft. Meigs Exterior Impressed Lip is con

fined solely to the lip-exterior surface juncture, although in a few

instances lip notching was executed independently from, and in addi

tion to, juncture modification. All exterior lip modification is

expressed as shallow indentations which are usually circular to

oblong, although some more sharply defined, wedge-shaped impressions

and, rarely, forms of dentate stamping, are also executed. The size

and spacing of the impressions varies from vessel to vessel, but

range from 2 mm wide notching to 5 mm diamtere circu lar, and spaced

2 to 4 mm apart.

Ft. Meigs Exterior Impressed Lip is distinguished from Ft. Meigs

Punctated in the position and definition of diagnostic surface treat

ment. Impressed Lip v arieties exhibit decoration confined to an area

directly associated with the rim/lip juncture. The impression is

usually shallow, broad, and rather ill defined at the edges. Punc

tated is recognized by the presence of a series of sharply defined

impressions executed on the exterior surface below and discrete from,

the rim /lip juncture area.

Ft. Meigs Exterior Impressed Lip differs from Ft. Meigs Linear

Stamp in the form of tool impressed and exterior surface location.

Tool shape is defined for Linear Stamp as any surface impression

where the tool1 s length is at least three times its width. The

placement of th is impression may extend up to the rim/1 ip juncture,

but must extend well down th e exterior surface of the vessel. It is

not confined solely to the juncture area. .

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. If decoration is present of a kind included in another defined

Ft. Meigs type, a rim which would otherwise be classified as Exterior

Impressed Lip would be placed in the more "complex" type. That is,

for a sherd to be classified as Exterior Impressed Lip it must ex

hibit no other surface modification beyond the impressed lip. Thus,

the more detailed and complex decorative treatments defining tyeps

are given precedence over the less complex and more "uti1itarian"

motifs.

Ft. Meigs Exterior Impressed Lip appears to be more confined

geographically and chronologically than the ceramic types discussed

earlier. While this may be a function of the more specifically diag

nostic decorative expression, the distribution of exterior impressed

lip ware is found primarily in the western Great Lakes area. However,

there may be some confusion regarding the exact occurrence of exterior

lip impression, since some researchers might classify such decoration

as v arieties of modified lip ceramics (see Tucker 1980).

Moccasin Bluff produced an exterior impressed lip ceramic type

which is sim ilar to that defined at Ft. Meigs, but differs in that it

is g r it tempered and explicitly smoothed cord marked (Bettarei and

Smith 1973:61-62, 114). At the site lip impressions range from long

and narrow to circular (linear stamp?), and all are very shallow.

Similar ceramics were recorded at the Schwerdt site in the Kalamazoo

River valley (Cremin 1983; McAllister 1 98O:40). Other related ceram

ics are found in Chicago area Huber sites in the form of plain corded

lip edge impressed varieties (Stothers and Graves 1982:24).

Whittlesey sites also produce forms of lip edge impressed

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 131 ceramics (Greenman 1935a; 1937), including varieties at Fairport Har

bor (Murphy 1971; Morgan and Ellis 1943:36). These impressions usu

ally consist of a row of variously sized vertical or oblique notches

at the lip/rim juncture, although dentate stamping is also present

in minor frequencies (Morgan and E llis 1943:Figures 10-16), as at

Ft. Meigs. Such ceramics continue into the historic period at the

Bell site (Wittry 1963) and the Dumaw Creek s ite (Quimby 1966). Once

again, however, differences are noted in the vessel surface treatment

on these sites, which is plain corded lip edge impressed (Stothers,

Graves, and Conway 1984:67).

Ft. Meigs Punctate

Ft. Meigs Punctate is represented by 42 rims from 31 vessels and

103 necks from 76 vessels. Despite an attempt to control for redun

dancy between necks and rims (i.e. neck and rim from a single vessel),

it is likely that the total number of punctated vessels is over-repre

sented. There is l i t t l e chance that the number of estimated vessels

is too large within each separate vessel morphological category (i.e.,

as rims, or necks).

F.t. Meigs Punctate is distinguished by the impression of a pointed

tool or stick into the plastic vessel wall, usually at an angle ap

proaching 90° (Plate 24). The resulting impression is wel1 defined

and occurs on the rim below the rim/1 ip juncture. If the decoration

occurred at the juncture it would be classified as Ft. Meigs Exterior

Impressed Lip (see discussion of the type). In addition, the diagnostic

punctates are usually more boldly executed and expressed than are the

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

i ! 9 Ft. Meigs Punctate, Ft. Meigs m. Plate Plate

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. shallowed elements defined as impressed. Only a few instances of

bossing were noted on Ft. Meigs Punctate sherds.

The punctations impressed into the vessel walls are usually

round to slightly oval, although examples of wedge shaped and t r i

angular are represented. These punctations usually occur below the

upper rim on the neck of the vessel, as is evident in the proportional

contribution of neck (ca. 75%) and rim sherds to the total sherd and

vessel count of this type. The punctate impressions are executed

on plain smoothed vessel walls and are almost always aligned parallel

to the vessel rim, although a few examples (<5%) occur on a vertical

or oblique axis. All vessel interiors are plain smoothed.

The method of manufacture is paddle and anvil, since no coil

breaks were recorded. The paste is compact and generally non-friable,

with aplastic supplied by laminar oriented shell ranging in size from

2-4 mm. Vessel color ranged from tan buff to gray buff, and all sherd

expressed a dark core. The vessel profile indicates a wide mouthed

globular vessel with a slightly constricted neck. A few rims pro

vided evidence of rolling to slight castellations, and a few strap

handle bases were recorded.

Rim profiles were slightly everted, with some straight walled

examples, and were composed of squared rim with flattened lips,

squared rims with rounded lips, and variations of simply thickened

rims with rounded lips in fairly equal quantities. Most lips (70%)

were plain smoothed, but dentate stamping was also employed (25%),

as was simple notching (5%).

Two varieties of Ft. Meigs Punctate were defined on the basis of

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. clustering of distinct decorative combinations. Variety Plain con

sists of 39 rims from 28 vessels and 72 necks from 5^ vessels. It

is distinguished by the presence of a single, or rarely, double,

row of punctates averaging k mm below the lip, unaccompanied by any

other decorative technique. The usually circular punctates average

3mm in diameter, and are separated by 3 to 7 mm. Wall thickness

ranges from k to 8 mm, with a mean thickness of 5.7 mm.

Ft. Meigs Punctate Variety Trailed is represented by 3 rims

from 3 vessels and 31 necks from an estimated 22 vessels. This

variety is distinguished by the presence of a trailed line which is

executed near the rim/neck juncture area. This trailing is almost

always horizontal, but a few oblique examples were also noted. As

with Variety Plain, the punctate and trailing are executed over a

plain, smoothed vessel exterior. Variety Trailed walls range from

4 to 8 mm thick, with a mean of 5.8 mm.

Punctated ceramics, while a significant grouping within the Ft.

Meigs assemblage, do not appear to be well represented on other Great

Lakes Upper Mississippian sites. This distinctive pottery appears to

be significant only within the Sandusky tradition. While other

varieties of decorative techniques, such as impressed and stamped

pottery, occur in other Upper Mississippian contexts, the only other

site where punctated pottery occurs to a noticeable degree is the

Indian H ills site of the ensuing Indian Hills Phase of the Sandusky

Tradition (Tucker 1980; Graves 198A).

Although Monohgahela sites in West Virginia and Pennsylvania

do produce tool impressed and punctated ceramics as a minor portion

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 135

of their assemblages, trailed varieties appear to be favored (George

1978:22, Figure 1). Whittlesey sites adjacent to and west of Mononga-

hela occupations also exhibit a minimal amount of punctated ware,

often grouped in horizontal rows and in itia lly defined as "impressed"

(Greenman 1935a:30, Figure 27a). Thus, some ceramics classified as

"impressed" may be analagous to punctated ceramics as defined at

Ft. Meigs. To the north and east of the Sandusky tradition core area,

the Parker Earthwork, in Ontario, produced several varieties of ceram

ics similar to those recorded at Ft. Meigs, but punctated vessels re

covered from the site all exhibited collars (Lee 1958:21, Figure 9.16-

20).

The occurrence of punctated ceramics in Sandusky tradition con

texts is, therefore, somewhat puzzling since no definitely ancestral

wares are accounted for. It is conceivable that punctated varieties

are the result of contact and/or admixture with indigenous Western

Basin tradition peoples. Thus, ea rlier ceramic types which are pre

sent in Western Basin and Princess Point wares may have influenced

the material culture of the intrusive Sandusky tradition Upper Missis

sippian groups.

Ft. Meigs Stamped

This rather complex grouping is composed of two varieties and

three sub-varieties representing a total of 126 rims from an e s ti

mated 113 vessels, and 89 necks from a possible 77 vessels (Plate 2k).

Once again, an overlap between certain necks and rims may exag

gerate the total number of estimated vessels of this type.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. All Ft. Meigs Stamped varieties and sub-varieties share a method

of manufacture based solely on the paddle and anvil technique. All

exhibit compact, non-friable paste and shell tempering which is la

minar in orientation and ranges in size from 2 to 3 mm. Vessel color

ranges from an orange buff to grey buff exterior, with a dark, incom

pletely, fi red cored. Vessel shape is a wide mouthed globular vessel,

with a slightly everted rim over a constricted neck and a round to

conoidal base. All vessel exteriors are smoothed before application

of the diagnostic stamp, discussed below.

Ft. Meigs Stamped Variety Dentate is composed of 7** rims from

.67 vessels and 67 necks from an estimated 58 vessels. This variety

is distinguished by the impression of a single row of a two to seven

pronged implement along the vessel rim. The decoration is applied

around the vessel with the axis of the tool aligned either vertically

or obliquely to the vessel rim. In several instances the tool is

pushed then dragged along the surface, creating a stab-and-drag design.

The dentate tool is usually applied to the vessel face at or near an

angle approaching 90°.

The lips of Ft. Meigs Stamped Variety Dentate are a l1 smoothed,

but dentate stamping perpendicular to the axis of the lip is executed

on nearly 50% of the rims, while oblique stamping is exhibited on 25%

of the sample. The remaining lips are all undecorated, plain, and

smoothed. Rim profiles indicated a pronounced tendency to be squared

with a flattened lip (6k%), while wedge shaped rims with flattened

lips composed the remainder of the sample (36%). Some rims displayed

a "rolling" tendency to nearly approximate castellation, but whether

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 137

this was intentional or not is unknown. No vessel appendages were

encountered.

Ft. Meigs Stamped, Variety Dentate, sub-variety Plain is repre

sented by 62 rims from 56 vessels and 51 necks from an estimated 43

vessels. Again, duplication of vessel count between rims and necks

is possible. This sub-variety is defined by the presence of dentate,

tooth-like impressions, applied to the exterior of the vessel unac

companied by any other decorative technique. The dentate, motif may

be either vertical or obiique, or on fragmentary sherds, rarely, hori

zontal. Sub-variety Plain vessel walls range in thickness from 4 to

11 mm, with an average dimension of 7*2 mm. All tra its discussed

above for Variety Dentate apply to this grouping.

Ft. Meigs Stamped, Variety Dentate, Sub-variety Trailed is repre

sented by nine rims from eight vessels and 16 necks from an estimated

12 vessels. This group is sim ilar to sub-variety Plain, but is d is

tinguished by the presence of horizontal trai1ing located just beneath

the dentate motif. This trailing is 1 to 2 mm wide, and is executed

before the clay is fired because striatio n s are present and the edges

of the trail channel are pushed up above the level of the surrounding

vessel wall. Wall thickness of this sub-variety ranges from 4 to 10

mm, with a mean of 7-3 mm.

Ft. Meigs Stamped, Variety Dentate, sub-variety Exterior Impressed

Lip is represented by three rims from three vessels and three necks

from three additional vessels. This grouping is defined by the pre

sence of shallow tool impressions at the rim/lip juncture alighed

parallel to the axis of the rim. The diagnostic dentate stamping

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. occurs beneath these impressions, on the upper portion of the vessel.

Wall thickness ranges from 4 to 10 mm, with a mean of 7*1 mm. It

conforms to the tra its discussed above for Variety Dentate in all

other respects.

The second Variety defined within Ft. Meigs Stamped consists of

linear stamped sherds. Ft. Meigs Stamped, Variety Linear Stamped is

represented by 52 rims from vessels and 22 necks from an estimated

19 vessels. Redundancy in vessel number is possible. This variety

is distinguished by a single row of long, solid, linear tool impres

sions encircling the vessel below the lip/rim juncture. By definition,

these impressions lack any tooth-like tra its (as per dentate stamp),

and form an outline whose length dimension is at least three times

its width. A variety of stamp sizes and silhouettes is presented, and

while the impressions, when taken together, encircle the vessel paral

lel to the rim, individual impressions are usually oriented vertically

or, less commonly, obliquely. These impressions are usually executed

on the upper portion of the rim near the rim/lip juncture (ca. 75%),

although a few sherds reveal stamp placement further down the neck.

These impressions range in size from 1 x 3 mm to 3.x 11 mm, and are

placed from 3 to 6 mm apart. Some impressions can be viewed as exter

ior facial notching (Plate 25)

Vessels once again appear to be wide mouthed globular pots with

constricted necks, and wall thickness ranges from k to 10 mm, with

an average of 6 .A mm. Lips are all smoothed, with 60% plain and

lacking decoration, dentate stamping on 30% of the lips (virtually

all oriented perpendicular to the vessel wall), and tool impressed

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 139

11^474738418683057 i lTI Plate Plate 25. Ft. Meigs Stamped, Ft. Meigs Filleted

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 14 o

or notching accounting for 10% of the lips. Rim profiles are fairly

evenly divided among squared rim with flattened lip (35%), squared

rim with rounded lip (35%), wedge shaped rim with flattened lip (20%),

and simply thickened rim with rounded lip (10%). No appendages or

castellations were noted in the sample.

Stamped ceramics, while a significant contributor to the Ft.

Meigs assemblage, appear to be a less significant portion of other

Great Lakes Upper Mississippian expressions. Stamped varieties con

stitu te a minor percentage of Huber and Oneota components (Brown 1961;

Griffin 1943; Bluhm and Fenner 1963), but are present on sites in south-

wetsern Michigan such as Moccasin Bluff (Bettarel and Smith 1973:Plate

37 a,d; see also McAllister 1980).

Stamped ceramics appear somewhat more common on Upper Mississip

pian sites in northeastern Onio. Simple stamped sherds produced by

horizontal impressions of a plain, carved paddle edge occur as minor

percentages on several Whittlesey sites (Brose et al. 1976:37; Green-

man 1935a:Figures 27a, 9). Such collarless stamped shell tempered

ceramics appear to be more popular during late prehistoric and early

historic times. Stamped ceramics occur more frequently on Sandusky

tradition sites dating to the Indian Hills phase (Tucker 1980:137,

160; Graves 1984), components which post-date Ft. Meigs phase occupa

tions. Indian Hills Stamped pottery has also been reported from

Whittlesey sites (Bowen 1980; Brose 1980:24). Such ceramics are also

recovered in small percentages from h istoric Neutral sites (Lennox

1981; Stotheres and Graves 1982:17, 1983).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 141

Ft. Meigs Notched Applique Strip

This distinctive ceramic type is represented by 130 rims from

104 vessels and 48 necks from an estimated 20 vessels (Plate26 6 27)

Although two varieties of this type were defined at the site , ail

Ft. Meigs Notched Applique Strip (N.A.S.) share the following charac

teristics. All vessels are constructed by the paddle and anvil

technique and exhibit a compact, minimally friab le paste tempered

by laminar shell averaging 3 mm in size. Vessel color ranges from

orange buff to grey buff, and vessel form evidence indicates wide

mouthed globular jars with slightly everted rims above a constricted

neck.

All vessel decoration occurs upon plain and smoothed walls, and

all varieties display the diagnostic clay strip added to vessel

necks or rims. All v arie tie s of the type exhibit strap handles and

a lack of castellation. Earlier analysis of a portion of the Ft.

Meigs assemblage concluded that the added clay strips averaged

7 mm wide and occurred 25 mm below the vessel lip (Tucker 1980:160).

The current analysis, which examined all the Ft. Meigs N.A.S. sherds,

verified the dimensions of the applique strip, but revealed the

strip s range from 4 to 19 mm below the lip, producing a mean distance

o f 9.9 mm.

Ft. Meigs Notched Applique Strip variety Plain is defined by

72 rims from 58 vessels and 22 necks from an estimated 18 vessels.

All vessels are distinguished by the addition of a strip of clay

added to what is otherwise a generally undecorated vessel exterior.

However, five rims from five vessels and three necks from three

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 142 Plate Plate 26. Ft. Meigs Notched Applique Strip

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 143 Plate Plate 27. Ft. Meigs Notched Applique Strip, Parker Festooned

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. vessels display horizontal trailing beneath the applique strip.

The applique strip is usually placed on the rim approaching its

juncture with the lip, although on some vessels it occurs further

down the neck, as indicated by the number of necksherds whichcon-

tribute to the type. (If the applique strip forms the lip juncture,

that is, it comprises a true rim strip, it is classified as Ft. Meigs

Filleted; see discussion under the type). All of the applique strips

in the sample are modified by shallow tool impression or notching,

or, more rarely, by dentate tool impression oriented perpendicular

to the axis of the strip.

The globular everted rim vessels exhibit walls which range from

k to 8 mm thick, with a mean thickness of 5.6 mm. Rim profiles tend

to squared rims with rounded lips (50%), although squared rims with

flattened lips (30%) and simply thickened rims with rounded lips

(20%) are also well represented. Lips are almost always plain,

smoothed and lacking any decoration (ca. 90%), although a small num

ber of lips are tool impressed or notched (ca. 5%). In addition, the

five rims described above which exhibit dentate tool impressed appli

que strip s also display dentate stamped lips.

Ft. Meigs Notched Applique Strip variety Exterior Impressed Lip

is represented by 65 rims from k7 vessels and two necks from two

vessels. Due to the small number of neck sherds vessel count redun

dancy is probably minimal. This variety is distinguished by the

modification of the vessel exterior in the area of the rim/lip

juncture. Although most of th is embellishment is accomplished through

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. shallow tool Impression or notching, a few linear stamped and dentate

stamped examples are present. In addition, nine of the rim sherds

also display horizontal trailing beneath the applique strip.

Examination of rim sherds revealed a plurality (ca. 45%) of

vessel profiles featured squared rims with rounded lips, although

this variety is marked by a formal diversity unmatched by other de

fined types at Ft. Meigs. Also well represented were squared rims

with flattened lips (ca. 30%), simply thickened rims with rounded

lips (ca. 15%)> and simply thickened rims with squared lips (ca. 10%)

Virtually all lips were plain and smoothed (ca. 90%), although shal

low notching was also noted. Wall thickness of this variety ranged

from 4 to 8 mm and averaged 6.4 mm thick.

Varieties of notched applique strip ceramics are widespread

throughout the Great Lakes region, although they usually compose

only a small proportion of most s ite assemblages. Because of th eir

distinctive nature and easy identification they are often singled out

and reported even when they are minimally represented.

The exact meaning or function of clay strips added to vessel

surfaces is uncertain, and they may have had functional or purely

stylistic significance. Thus, one view states the strip is stylis

tic in nature and is the result of molding clay with a deer canon

bone flexor tendon groove (Kroon 1972:217). The indentations upon

the strip would be created by impressing the applique to the vessel

wall. Another position is that the applique strip functioned to

steady a vessel suspended by cords running through the associated

strap handles (Oeetz 1968:33).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 146

Vessels exhibiting applique strips have been recovered from as

far south as southern Ohio Ft. Ancient Madisonvi11e sites (Griffin

1943:Plate Cl 11) and as far north as Summer Island in northern Michi

gan (Brose 1970:207, Plate 33 n-o). The popularity of such vessels

appears to have peaked as a sty liS tic horizon around A.D. 1400

(Stothers, Graves, and Conway 1984:70).

Several sites in the Chicago area are noted for the occurrence

of a small number of applique strip vessels within the ceramic assem

blages. The Palos site produced a vessel which was "not typical of

the assemblage and may represent a trade vessel", displaying a

siightly outcurving rim, a hint of castellation, and an undecorated

U p o n the neck of which was a "horizontal strip of applique with

diagonal notches" (Munson and Munson 1969:185, Figure Id).

One vessel reported at the Zimmerman site, in the Upper Illinois

Valley, was of "atypical design" and exhibited a possible applique

strip (Brown 1961:37, Figure Ilf) . Other vessels at the site are

typed as Danner Cordmarked and Danner Grooved Paddle. These vessels

display "rim appliques" and are "difficult to separate from Lasalle

Fi1leted", a notched applique ceramic type virtually identical to

specific Whittlesey vessels (Brown 1961:41 Figure 13a, 43 Figure 8d,

15 a-c, 44 Figure 15e; see also Stothers and Graves 1982). Addi

tional applique strip sherds representative of Lasalle Filleted were

recorded at the Starved Rock site (Keller 1949; Faulkner 1972:164).

In southwest Michigan g rit tempered notched applique ceramics,

typed as Moccasin Bluff Notched Applique, have been recovered from

the Moccasin Bluff site , and are dated to ca. A.D. 1400 to 1600

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 147

(Bettarel and Smith 1973:65, 67, Plates 29, 30). Other late pre

historic and early historic sites in western Michigan produce simi

lar ceramics, including the Ada site, in Kent County (Herrick 1958:

31, Plates 1, 10). The Bell site, across Lake Michigan in Wisconsin,

produced a small number of shell tempered sherds with cordmarked

bodies and a notched f i l l e t near the lip, which the excavator states

"is called Lasalle Filleted in the Starved Rock area" (Wittry 1963:

27, Figure 17b).

Many stylistic parallels exist for ceramics reported from Whittle-

sey sites in northeastern Ohio. Applique strips, usually situated

along the upper rim near the lip, were observed in the earliest

analyses of Whittlesey components (see Greenman 1935a, 1935b, 1937;

Morgan and Ellis 1943). Such types as Reeve Filleted occur as minor

percentages in Whittlesey ceramic assemblages (Murphy 1971, 1972:32;

Wilkie 1979:417), in contrast to many Sandusky tradition occupations

where applique strips are more commonly encountered. Just what this

implies in terms of cultural interaction or diffusion is unclear.

One hypothesis proposed is that this similarity to material cul

ture results from the fact that Sandusky and Whittlesey sites are ex

pressions of culturally related "sister traditions", forming the

Prairie Peninsula Co-Tradition (Stother and Graves 1982). Thus,

each group developed culturally in similar natural environments such

that a form of parallel evolution occurred, reinforcing basic material

culture expressions, but permitting and preserving distinct individual

variations. The presence of notched applique strips in both Whittle

sey and Sandusky components dates to between ca. A.D. 1200 and early

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 148

historic times, climaxing in popular!ty ca. A.D. 1400 in the Ft.

Meigs and Greenwood phases (Graves 1984; Stothers and Graves 1982:14).

Within the Sandusky tradition the prime example of applique

ceramics is Ft. Meigs Notched Applique Strip, corresponding with

Whittlesey applique expression in Reeve Filleted or South Park Notched

(Brose n.d.). The latter type is often confused with Tuttle Hill

Notched or Fairport Filleted which exhibit folded or thickened rim

strips rather than expressing a true applique strip (Brose 1973:31, 32,

34; 1976:32; Fitting 1965; Murphy 1971, 1972; Stothers and Graves

1982 ).

As noted earlier, the Ft. Meigs and Whittlesey applique ceramics

compare favorably with the types Moccasin Bluff Notched Applique and

Lasalle Filleted recorded to the west on Huber sites in Michigan and

Illinois. Components located in north central Ohio between the San

dusky and Whittlesey "core areas" produce ceramics displaying a mix

ture of the s ty lis tic elements of each. For example, the Pearson

site, near Sandusky, is classified as a Sandusky tradition occupa

tion although the excavator describes "Whittlesey-like" ceramics in

the assemblage (Bowen 1978, 1979, 1980).

North of the Sandusky tradition core zone, notched applique

ceramics have been recovered from site s in southeastern Michigan

and southwestern Ontario. At the Wolf site, near Detroit, Greenman

noted that "clay is added to the surface of the vessel to form

raised elements" and "a strip of clay has been added just below the

lip, and vertical indentations at intervals give it a notched appear

ance" (Greenman 1939:13, 14, Plate 11d). He also remarked about the

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1A9

similarity of these ceramics to pottery found on northern Ohio sites

(Greenman 1939:25).

The Weiser site, in southwestern Ontario, produced a ceramic

assemblage in which over 50% of the vessels were defined as notched

applique varieties, although most of these were grit tempered

(Stothers, Graves and Conway 198^*:70). In addition, the Liahn I

site produced a notched applique vessel from a feature radiocarbon

dated to A.D. 1550±6O (Kenyon 1979; Tucker 1980:161).

The notched applique strip forms the most common decorative ele

ment within the Ft. Meigs ceramic assemblage. It occurs on the ves

sel rim or neck from 4 to 19 mm below the lip, with a mean of 9.5 mm,

and averages 7 mm in width. Although applique vessels are reported

from a number of Sandusky tradition sites (Tucker 1980; Bowen 1978,

1979; Redmond 1981; Stothers personal communication, 6/81), the best

associated site contexts dating to the Ft. Meigs phase occur at Ft.

Meigs and Orleans Park.

The Orleans Park s ite produced a notched applique rim with strap

handle from a feature radiocarbon dated to A.D. 1250±50 (Redmond 1981:

11). This date is about a century earlier than expected from associated

cultural remains. The feature from which the carbon sample was re

trieved may have been disturbed or contaminated by Late Woodland

materials, since a Riviere Au Vase dentate rim was also noted in

association with the feature. An alternative explanation is that Ft.

Meigs N.A.S. ceramics may date e a rlie r than believed. However,

another feature at Orleans Park, exhibiting no evidence of contamina

tion and also producing a Ft. Meigs Notched Applique vessel, was

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 150

radiocarbon dated to A.D. 1470±45 (Redmond 1981:11). This correlates

well with the radiocarbon dates secured from Ft. Meigs cultural depo

sits: A.D. 1440±55 (Stothers 1975:44) and A.D. 134O±50 (Stothers and

Pratt 1980:11).

Thus, Ft. Meigs Notched Applique ceramics appear as early as

ca. A.D. 1300 and peak in popularity around the beginning of the 15th

century. However, notched applique ceramics also continue as small

percentages of assemblages into historic times. The Indian Hills

site of the ensuing Sandusky tradition phase produced both Ft.

Meigs and Indian Hills Applique Strip vessels and a radiocarbon date

of A.D. 1610±100 (Stothers and Pratt 1981:116) from a feature producing

trade beads and brass (see also Graves 1984; Stothers and Graves 1983;

Tucker 1980:61).

Protohistoric and early historic sites in southwestern Ontario

also produce applique strip vessels: Christianson (Fitzgerald 1981:

334, 335), MacMurchy (Bell 1953), and Hamilton (Lennoz 1981:378, 379).

The dispersal of these distinctive ceramics during protohistoric/early

historic times may be associated with cultural conflict and warfare

between Iroquoian and Algonkian groups (Lennox 1981; Stothers and

Graves 1982:3, 1983:119, in press; Stothers, Graves and Conway 1984:

74).

Parker Festooned

One of the more enigmatic and intriguing ceramic types recovered

a t Ft. Meigs is Parker Festooned, which constitutes a small, but well

defined portion of the site assemblage (Plates27&28). First defined as

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 151 Rims Plate Plate 28. Parker Festooned, Ft. Meigs Trailed, Cord-marked and Cord-marked Smoothed

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission the Parker Earthworks in Ontario (Lee 1958), Parker Festooned is a

widespread, but consistent minority type over a significant geographi

cal and temporal span of lower Great Lakes archaeological sites. Exe

cuted in trailing, stamping, or a combination of techniques, this

type also includes several applique varieties (Graves 1983b, 1984;

Stothers and Graves 1982:15, 1983:116; Stothers, Graves and Conway

1984:66-69).

Some authorities believe the festooned motif diagnostic of

Parker Festooned may be a northern variant of the well known Fort

Ancient curvilinear guilloche design, culminating ca. A.D. 1300

(Stothers and Graves 1982:16). In its developmental stages all

Parker Festooned is executed with an impressed or incised technique

and may date as early as the 12th century. Early varieties are

encountered at the Eiden site and bear a striking resemblance to

Mixter Tool Impressed and Mixter Dentate ceramic types (Shane 1967;

Brose 1973).

Although small quantities of Parker Festooned do occur in the

Sandusky tradition Eiden Phase (ca. A.D. 1000-1300), its peak popu

larity is reached in the succeeding Wolf Phase, ca. A.D. 1300-1400

(Stothers and Pratt 1980:8). Impressed and applique varieties occur

as minor portions of ceramic assemblages on both Whittlesey (Brose

1973* 1976; Brose et al. 1976) and Huber sites (Bettarel and Smith

1973).

Originally, Parker Festooned was considered representative of

the Late Woodland Younge Tradition (Fitting 1965; Fitting 1975;

Fitting and Zurel 1976:219)- However, further research revealed that

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 153

it occurred primari1y with shell tempered wares and Mixter Tool

Impressed vessels in north central and northwestern Ohio; ceramics

unrelated to the Woodland Younge or Western Basin Traditions (Stothers

1978:26; Stothers and Pratt 1980). Parker Festooned ceramics appar

ently are associated with a separate cultural group entering the

western Lake Erie basin sometime around A.D. 1200. "Parker Festooned

ceramics of the Wolf Phase are coeval with, rather than developing

from, the Springwells Phase of the Western Basin Tradition" (Stothers

and Pratt 1981:98; see also Stothers, Graves and Conway 1984:67).

While applique strip Parker Festooned occurs on sites relatively

frequently prior to ca. A.D. 1400, it rapidly decl ines in popularity

afte r this time, and v arieties which continue into protohistoric

times are executed primarily in incised and trailed motifs (Stothers,

Graves and Conway 1984:69).

The Parker Festooned sample recovered from Ft. Meigs consists of

15 rims from 12 vessels and 63 necks from an estimated 50 vessels.

Due to the relatively large number of sherds, some vessel count re

dundancy between specific rims and necks is assumed. Three varieties

were defined at the site for this extensively embellished, almost

baroque pottery type. All varieties were constructed by the paddle

and anvil method, and no coil breaks were observed in the sample.

All vessels analyzed appear to cluster toward wide mouthed

globular jars with everted to slightly everted rims over constricted

necks. Paste is compact and non-friable, and temper is laminar o ri

ented shell, of medium texture, averaging 3 mm in size. Vessel color

ranged from tan buff to gray buff with darker tones being the mode,

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

and all sherd cores were dark. All vessel walls were smoothed before

the application of decoration.

Parker Festooned is defined by the presence of a combination

of decorative techniques executed in exhuberant motifs. The cen

tral theme of this embellishment is the presence of triangular,

chevron or festooned patterns supplemented by extraneous decoration,

usually interior of the field formed’by the festoons. To be classi

fied as Parker Festooned a sherd must display a nearly complete t r i

angle or festoon; an obliquely trailed motif occurring in isolation

would be categorized under another type, in this case, Ft. Meigs

Trajled. The three varieties of Parker Festooned defined at Ft.

Meigs are defined on the basis of primary execution of the festoon

motif and accompanying subordinate decoration.

Parker Festooned variety Trailed is represented by seven rim

from six vessels and 14 necks from an estimated 11 vessels. It is

distinguished by the occurrence of a festooned motif executed by

trailin g unaccompanied by any other motif. The trailing displays

striations in the channel base, and clay ridges occur at the furrow

edges because o f the embel1ishment of pre-fired clay walls. As

noted above, a l1 fragmentary festoon motifs display at least two

elements of the complete festoon to be classified as Parker Festooned

(i.e., evidence for at least two legs of the diagnostic "triangle").

Variety Trailed vessels exhibit siightly everted rim profiles

which are evenly sp lit in form between squared rims with flattened

lips and wedge shaped rims with flattened lips. All lips are plain,

smoothed and lack any form of decoration. Vessel walls range from

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 4 to 9 mm thick, and average 6.2 mm thick. Although no definite

castellations were recorded for the sample, two rims did display a

tendency to "roll", although it is not obvious if th is was a con

scious goal of the potter. No appendages of any kind were encoun

tered.

Parker Festooned variety Dentate is represented by eight rims

from six vessels and .41 necks from an estimated 31 vessels. Due to

the limited number of morphologically distinguishing traits, some

duplication of vessel count is possible within the neck sherd sam

ple. This variety is distinguished by the occurrence of the diag

nostic festoons in combination with dentate tool impression. This

dentate stamping is usually executed horizontally, as plaits occur

ring within and fillin g , the festoon motif. Less frequently this

dentate stamping is oriented obliquely or parallel to one leg of

the dominant festoon theme. Fragmentary sherds which displayed

trailed oblique motifs were included within this variety if they

were expressed in association with dentate obliques or horizontals.

As is evident from examining motif location in relation to

vessel structure, the combination of trailin g and dentate stamping

tends to clu ster on the lower rim and upper neck. This is reflected

in a slightly greater wall thickness for this variety, ranging from

5 to 9 mm, with a mean of 6.3 mm. Rim form is evenly sp lit between

squared rims with flattened lips and wedge shaped rims with flattened

lips. All lips display dentate stamping, with an even distribution

between orientation oblique and perpendicular to the axis of the

vessel wal 1.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 156

The final Parker Festooned cluster defined at Ft. Meigs is

variety Punctate, composed of eight necks from eight vessels. This

Variety is distinguished by the presence of a triangular or festooned

motif created by opposing obliquely oriented lines of punctates,

the interior of which is filled by dentate horizontals or plaits.

This decoration is always positioned at a distance from the lip,

on the lower neck. No examples of associated trailed motifs were

noted in the sample, although it is conceivable these punctate sherds

may be the lower portions of festooned sherds classified within other

varieties. Wall thickness of the punctated sherds ranged between

k and 9 mm, with a mean of 6.2 mm.

In southwestern Michigan sherds which may represent developmental

Parker Festooned occur at the Moccasin Bluff (Bettarel and Smith

1973:70, Plate 37k) and Allegan Dam sites (Spero 1979:58), where a

majority of the defined vessels are grit tempered. However, such

sherds are minimally represented in the assemblage of the latter

site .

Parker Festooned, as noted, occurs as a persistent minority type

on Whittlesey sites. Brose feels this type was introduced into

northeast Ohio ca. A.D. 1300, post-dating the earliest Whittlesey

sites (Brose e t a l. 1976:42). While present a t a number of Whittlesey

sites, the cumulative percentage of Parker Festooned is often a very

minor contributor of the ceramic component at Tuttle Hill IGreenman

1937:355), '3* (Greenman 1935:30, Figure 37a).

As early as the 1930s, Greenman noted the occurrence of Parker

Festooned in private collections west of his defined Whittlesey Focus,

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 157 clustering near Sandusky, Ohio (Greenman 1935a:30, 1939:1 -**). This

locale is the core area of the Sandusky Tradition (Stothers and

Graves 1982; 1983; Stothers and Pratt 1980, 1981). At the Eiden,

Libben and Heckelman sites g r it tempered Parker Festooned was asso

ciated with Mixter Tool impressed and some tempered cordmarker ware

(Prufer and Shane 1976)* The same ceramics have been defined in

association with Parker Festooned a t the Pearson s ite along the

Sandusky (Stothers 1973; 1975; Stothers, Graves and Conway 1984).

The consistent association of Parker Festooned with Mixter

Tool Impressed appears to be culturally significant rather than the

result of sampling bias or mere chance. There is some resemblance

between the two tyeps. The undulating wave-like appearance of the

Tool Impressed bands have led some authorities to conclude that this

motif foreshadows the wave-like festoons diagnostic of Parker Festooned,

and that Mixter Tool Impressed may be ancestral to Parker Festooned,

as a kind of "proto-Parker Festooned" (Stothers and Pratt 1980:9;

Tucker 1980: 159).

Parker Festooned occurs as a notable type on site s in both

southwestern Ontario and southeastern Michigan, and was f ir s t expli

citly typed at the Parker Earthworks near Corunna, Ontario (Lee 1958).

The Parker Festooned ceramics at Parker are grit tempered, and display

festoons executed primarily in plain or notched applique, although

some impressed examples are also present (Lee 1958:Plate V).

Other Ontario sites which produce Parker Festooned include Dawson

(Wintemburg 1939:Plate IV), a component which lacks applique varieties

and apparently occurs rather la te in the Parker Festooned sequence, as

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 158

well'as a site near Chatham, Ontario which reportedly produced the

ceramics in association with Fort'Ancient pottery (Lee 1958:19). At

the Weiser site, near London, Ontario, nearly a quarter of the ceramic

assemblage consisted of g rit tempered Parker Festooned executed in

impressed and dragged stamped motifs, although applique and trailed

varieties were also present (Stothers, Graves, and Conway 1984:66).

Shell tempered Parker Festooned appears somewhat later in southwestern

Ontario, apparently post-dating A.D. 1500. The chronological range

of the type is revealed by its presence at the historic Neutral

Christianson s ite (Fitzgerald 1982; Stothers personal communication

10/82; Stothers and Graves 1982).

In southeastern Michigan Parker Festooned was in itia lly recorded

at the Wolf and Furton sites in the Detroit area (Greenman 1939;

Fitting 1965). At Wolf a large portion of the assemblage is c la ssi

fied as Parker Festooned, some of which exhibits added rim strips,

theregy placing the site early in the Parker Festooned developmental

sequence (Greenman 1939:14, Plates V, VI). At the Furton site Parker

Festooned ceramics are sim ilar to those a t Wolf, but compose a very

small portion of the ceramic assemblage (Greenman 1939:23, Plate

VIII, Figure la).

Lee's analysis of the Parker Festooned-dominated assemblage at

Parker Earthworks led him to postulate some form of interaction with

other groups in adjacent areas of southeastern Michigan, such as those

occupying the Wolf site. He noted that the Parker Earthworks ceram

ics were "quite unlike other sites in Ontario, with the exception of

minor occurrences at Windsor, Chatham, and London", and th at such

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 159

distinctive pottery was similar to other sites in southeastern Michi

gan (specifically Wolf) and northern Ohio (Lee 1958:25-27)• In fact,

the material culture links to the south were strong enough to cause

Lee to postulate that the Parker Earthworks was a "frontier outpost"

representative of the Whittlesey Focus (Lee 1958:31).

In northwestern Ohio Parker Festooned pottery becomes fairly

widespread throughout the western Lake Erie basin after ca. A.D.

1300 (Figure 6a-f, h; Stothers and Pratt 1980:7, 3A, Plate 2d e, 1 981:

Figure 6a-f, h). At sites such as Williams, Lasalle, Dodge, and Mac

Nichol, Parker Festooned ceramics are associated with plain shell-

tempered wares (Stothers and Pratt 1981:97). At the MacNichol and

Williams sites some combined grit-and-shel1 tempered Parker Festooned

varieties occur, with some MacNichol vessels exhibiting small pinched

effigy faces (Stothers and Rutter 1978:5). Parker Festooned ceramics

recovered from the Lasalle site are grit tempered.

Ft. Meigs Fi1leted

This ceramic type is defined by the notching of a folded lip,

with vessel modification confined solely to the rim exterior face,

near the juncture with the vessel lip (Plate 25). In most examples

from Ft. Meigs, this notching occurs upon the folded over rim,

although in a few examples the zone of notching more explicitly

resembles an added clay strip just below the vessel lip. The folded

rim/added strip technique more closely resembles a design continuum

rather than discretely exclusive vessel modification, and it is likely

that a single "typical" Ft. Meigs Fi1leted vessel would display

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 160 sections which would present either "folded" or "added" clay modifi

cation.

Ft. Meigs Filleted is represented by 14 rim sherds from a minimum

of 16 vessels; because of the position of the diagnostic vessel dec

oration technique, no vessel necks were classified. Vessels are

manufactured by the paddle and anvil technique, and exhibit compact

paste with laminar oriented shell tempering. Vessel shape appears

to be a siig h tly everted rim above a constricted neck, and color

ranges from buff to gray, with dark, incompletely fired cores.

Ft. Meigs Filleted vessel walls range from 5 to 7 mm thick,

averaging 5-75 mm, are plain and smoothed. No other decorative

technique or motif was present besides the notched rim strip. Lips

are all plain and smoothed, with rim profiles predominantly thickened

rim with a rounded lip (45%), or thickened rim with f la t lip (45%),

although a single example of a squared rim with inward flaring lip

was also present (10%). A single strap handle base was recorded in

the assemblage.

Ft. Meigs Filleted is distinguished from Ft. Meigs Notched

Applique Strip by the position of the diagnostic tr a it: the added

clay strip or fold occurs near or as a part of the exterior vessel

face/lip juncture, and is an integral portion of the v essel's upper

rim. Conversely, Notched Applique Strip vessels display an added

clay strip at least 4 mm below the rim/lip juncture and occur as

far as 19 mm below the ve’Ssel lip . On Appl ique Strip vessels a

portion of the vessel face is visible above the strip and below the

rim; in Filleted vessels the fold or strip constitutes the defining

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. portion of the rim/lip. The pronounced folded rim or rimstrip on

Filleted vessels further distinguishes them from Ft. Meigs Exterior

Impressed Lip rims since the la tte r category explicitly lacks pro

nounced thickening or rim profile alteration.

Although the types Ft. Meigs Notched Applique Strip and Ft.

Meigs Filleted appear similar upon superficial examination, the

archaeological literature reveals that the apparently minor distin

guishing feature of placement of notched strip obtains cultural and

historical significance.

The initial d?scussion and classification of Whittlesey ceramics

from northeastern Ohio occurred before knowledge of culture history

and social interaction of the western Lake Erie Basin was completely

understood (Greenman 1935a, 1935b, 1937; Fitting 1964; Murphy 1971a,

1971b, 1971c). Reexamination of Whittlesey ceramics in light of

recent research (Stothers and Graves 1982, 1983; Pratt 1980; Brose

n.d.) reveals correlation between certain Sandusky and Whittlesey

types.

Thus, Reeve F illeted (Greenman 1939:25; Brose 1973:Figure 4;

Murphy 1971a:Figure 6e-f, 1971b:35, 1971c:301,1972:35) and South

Park Notched (Brose n.d.) are equivalent types which may be related

to Ft. Meigs Notched Applique Strip (Stothers and Graves 1982:14-15,

1983:111; Stothers, Graves and Conway 1984:69).

Conversely, the ceramic type defined as Tuttle Hill Notched

(Greenman 1935a:Figures 34, 35, 1939:PIate 11, Figure 2d; Fitting

1964, .Plate 1a, 1b; Murphy 1971a, Figure f, 1972: Figure la-c, Figure

2a-e; Brose 1973:Figures 4, 5) is not representative of true applique

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 162

strip ceramics; rather it displays a folded and notched rim strip

more nearly resembling Ft. Meigs Filleted. Tuttle Hill Notched is,

therefore, erroneously identified by some sources in the literature

(Murphy 1971c:298-303; Reid 1978; Pearce 1980; see also Wilkie

1979:401-415). Other Whittlesey ceramic types resembling Ft. Meigs

Filleted in rim decoration and technique include Fairport Filleted

(Murphy 1971 c:303> 1971b:Figures 6, 10, !971c:Figure 12; Brose et al.

1976:40; Wilkie 1979:441-450), and do not constitute true applique

strip ceramics.

Ft. Meigs Trailed

Ft. Meigs Trailed is represented by eight rims from eight vessels

and 61 necks from an estimated 54 vessels (Plate 28). However, these

figures are estimates since the rather simplistic decorative technique

permits the possibility of significant redundancy in vessel count.

All vessels appear to be manufactured with the paddle and anvil

technique since no coil breaks were encountered within the sample.

Vessel paste is generally friable, with many sherds exhibiting varying

degrees of exfoliation. Shell temper is laminar oriented and is

classified as coarse, often above 3 mm in size, with a mode in the

2-3mm range. Ft. Meigs Trailed sherds range from buff gray to buff

tan and exhibit dark cores indicating incomplete firing. Impressions

formed during analysis indicate that this ceramic type is generally

less wel 1 manufactured than companion types recovered at Ft. Meigs.

The grey buff to tan buff vessels are decorated with trailed

motifs executed over a plain smoothed body and lack accompanying

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. surface modification. If other decorative techniques were present

in addition to trailin g , the sherd was classified as, for example,

Ft. Meigs Dentate, or Parker Festooned, depending upon the analyzed

motifs. Therefore, this thesis treats trailing as a subordinate

decorative technique, with specific examples treated as type varie

ties under the more complex, and diagnostic, decorative combinations

classifiable as other ceramic types.

Ft. Meigs Trailed motifs are distinguished from incised motifs

based on several morphological traits. Trailed motifs are usually

wider than incising and often exhibit striations in the modified

clay. The edges of the trailed groove are often ridged, resulting

from the bunching up of the soft clay during execution. In only a

few examples at Ft. Meigs was there any doubt as to whether a motif

was executed by trailing or incising.

A majority of Ft. Meigs Trailed is executed in a horizontal

orientation, but examples of tra ilin g executed obliquely to the rim

account for over k0% of the sample. In to ta l, these two sub-groups

represent more than 35% of the type. As is evident from comparison

of the number of rim (8) and neck (61) sherds which comprise the

type, the position of trailed motifs occurs generally on the neck

and lower rim of th e vessel.

Ft. Meigs Trailed vessels are wide-mouthed globular pots with

slightly constricted necks, leading to slightly everted rims almost

evenly divided between squared rims with flat lips and squared rims

with round lips. Over 603 of the lips are smoothed and lack any

decoration, while over 1/3 display various dentate motifs. Walls are

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 164

3 to 7 mm thick averaging 5.1 mm. Appendages are limited to the occur

rence of a single strap-handled base. Trailed or "broadly incised" ceramics associated with Upper

Mississippian components are not uncommon in the Great Lakes region.

In fact, trailing is arguably the most widely employed method of

ceramic impression during late prehistory. Such trailed and/or

incised ceramics are recorded as far north as Michigan's upper

peninsula. For example, Pt. Detour Trailed and Garden Incised

were recovered at Summer Island in association with Oneota Lake

Winnebago Trailed pottery. Pt. Detour Trailed is executed as parallel

oblique lines forming nested triangles or superimposed chevrons

(Brose 1970:Plate XXVIIIe-i), while Garden Incised is executed in

double incised or trailed chevrons (Brose 1970:206, Plate 33f~h).

The Upper Mississippian Langford ware of northern Illin o is

includes Langford Trailed, which is usually executed as two to

four parallel undulating lines, but is executed over a cord marked

body and is g rit tempered (Brown 1961:31)* However, other ceramics

which are often found in association with Langford ware, such as

Heally Trailed, are very similar to Langford Trailed, but are shell

tempered. Shell tempered ceramics from the Oak Forest site near

Chicago are representative of trailed types from the area, but are

executed in vertical motifs (Bluhm and Fenner 1961:143) as opposed

to the horizontal emphasis indicated for Ft. Meigs Trailed sherds.

The Oak Forest site ceramics are representative of Fisher-Huber

wares, forerunners of later Oneota ware (Faulkner 1972). Fisher

ceramics are distinguished from Huber by the predominance of cord

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 165

marking, with Fisher Trailed executed in basically curcilinear

motifs. Huber ceramics which data generally to the 15th and 16th

centuries A.D., tend towards plain smoothed bodies over which motifs,

such as those diagnostic of Huber Trailed, are executed in a decidedly

rectilinear fashion. Whether the differences between Fisher and

Huber ware reflect differing intensities of contact with the more

southerly Fort Ancient expressions is problematical (Faulkner 1972:

160).

Some s ty lis tic sim ilarities are noted between Fisher Trailed as

defined at the type site and certain Ft. Meigs sherds: "The majority

of the elements form curvilinear festoons and arch motifs that encir

cle the area between the neck and shoulder" (Faulkner 1972:61; see

Griffin 19^*3) - Later Oneota wares embellish trailing to much broader,

bolder finger trailed execution.

Trailed ceramics also are recorded at Upper Mississippian sites

in southwestern Michigan where varieties of shell tempered Huber and

Berrien wares feature trailed motifs (Bettarel and Smith 1973:115,

Plate 25, 68, Plate 34)•■ Huber Trailed vessels at the Schwerdt

site in the lower Kalamazoo Valley feature haphazardly executed i r-

regularly spaced narrow trailin g oriented generally perpendicular

to the lip. Vessels of this grouping exhibit strap handles and are

classified as "Schwerdt Group 1" (McAllister 1980:59)•

Whittlesey ceramics originating in northeastern Ohio include a

variety of trailed ceramic types. In general, decoration is con

fined to the neGk and rim area and is executed in straight horizon

tal or diagonal lines (Greenman 1937:347). Across the state line in

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. West Virginia and western Pennsylvania, Monongahela sites also pro

duce shell tempered wares favoring recti inear trailed motifs (George

1978).

Two of the most commonly encountered of such types are Reeve

Horizontal and Reeve Opposed (Fitting 1965; Murphy 1971a, 1971b,

1971c; Pratt and Brose 1976:8; Wilkie 1979). The former type d is

plays horizontal trailed lines oriented parallel to the vessel lip,

while the latter type features opposed obliquely oriented motifs.

In many respects Reeve Opposed is duplicated by certain specimens

of Monongahela McFate Incised vessels (George 1978). As noted ear

lier, certain Whittlesey trailed ceramics display curvilinear, al

most festooned motifs (Greenman 1935a:9, Figure 36a, b, c ) .

Other examples of trailed ceramics associated with Upper Missis

sippian occupations are recorded from sites in southeastern Michigan

such as Furton (Greenman 1939:26, Plate vii la, b). Within the

Sandusky Tradition trailed ceramics appear to reach a peak during

the Ft. Meigs phase, and continue into the Indian H ills Phase

(Stothers and Graves 1982; Stothers, Graves, and Conway 19810. In

this sense, Ft. Meigs Trailed may be interpreted as being ancestral

to the type Indian Hills Trailed, a conclusion supported by the many

morphological and s ty lis tic sim ilarities noted between the two types.

Only minor differences are noted in lip form and motif execution

(Tucker 1980:162; Graves 1984).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 167 Cord Marked/Cord Roughened Ceramics

Cord marked ceramics recovered from Ft. Meigs include 13 rims

from an estimated 13 vessels and 33 neck sherds from a possible 33

vessels. The lack of more stylistically diagnostic elements inher

ent in such a "generic" ceramic hindered determination of vessel

count. This task was further complicated because many of the re

covered sherds indicate that this group of vessels was manufactured

with less care or precision than is evident on the more stylistically

embellished ceramic types. Thus, intra-vessel attribute variability

is a distinct possibility and, therefore, two rims from different

portions of the same vessel may exhibit divergent profiles and be

classified as representing distinct vessels(Plate 28).

All cordmarked vessels recorded above were manufactured employ

ing the paddle and anvil technique, based upon the absence of any

d efin ite coil breaks in the sample. A number of the sherds broke

unevenly, paste was highly fria b le, and virtu ally all specimens

exhibited varying degrees of exfoliation. All sherds displayed

medium textured shell tempering, ranging in size up to k mm, but

averaging 3 mm. This laminar oriented temper Was situated within

a dark core, indicating incomplete firing, although surface color

ranged from buff orange to buff tan.

Surface decoration was confined to cord marking, probably

applied by paddle, in which no consistent orientation was apparent.

Although in some instances the cord marking graded into a more ver

tical orientation, this grouping is defined by the total lack of

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 168

any other form of decoration. The small sample reveals a tendency

toward vessels forming wide-mouthed ja rs , with generally straight

to slightly outfaring rims. Rim profiles are primarily squared

rims with rounded lips (60% of sample), while a significant sub

group displays squared rims with flat lips. Lips are smoothed and

lack any decoration, although a single specimen did display cord

marking. Vessel walls range from 3 to 6 mm thick, and average

4.7 mm, the thinnest mean for any of the full sized ceramic group

ings recovered from Ft. Meigs. No appendages were noted within the

small sample.

Smoothed Cord Marked Ceramics

Smoothed cord marked pottery recovered from Ft. Meigs include

nine rims from an estimated seven vessels and five necks from a

possible five vessels. Once again, the simplistic nature and limited

number of defining attrib u tes, as noted above in cord marked vessels,

probably overstate the vessel count figures. This grouping is d is

tinguished by the occurrence of cord marking which has been brushed

or smoothed over to reduce the presence of obvious cord impressions.

Such treatment is unaccompanied by any other form of surface modifi

cation or embel 1 ishment (Plate 2.8).

In reality vessels analyzed can be arranged along a continuum

from plain smoothed through smoothed cord marked to cord marked.

Division of this continuous trait cannot be quantified objectively.

This factor is further affected by the distinct possibi1ity that

individual vessels consisted of various portions which were smoothed

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 169

and "unsmoothed" cord marked, even within the same morphological

portion of the vessel. Add to th is base the introduction of smoothing

through use-wear from aboriginal food processing and storage, as

well as the vagaries of archaeological deposition and recovery, and

the separation of sherds into discrete categories based upon degree

of surface "roughage" may be viewed as less than informative.

What can definitely be stated is that smoothed cord roughened

vessels display the same lack of craftsmanship relative to other

ceramic types as does the cord marked sample. Thus the intra-vessel

attribute variabi1ity encountered in the latter grouping is also en

demic within the smoothed cord marked category. That stylistic

expression may be sacrificed in the interest of function cannot be

proven, but it is believed such sherds may be from utilitarian ves

sels.

Smoothed cord marked vessels share with their cordmarked coun

terparts the lack of coil breaks, a tendency to friability leading

to exfoliation, and the inclusion of medium to coarse textured

shell as an aplastic. Vessel walls range from orange buff to tan

buff in color, and from 4 to 8 mm thick, with a mean diameter of 5.6

mm. Vessel form indicated is the wide-mouthed ja r, with straight

to slightly outflaring walls; however, specific rim profiles accen

tuate the lack of morphological standardization present within this

grouping. Profiles ranged from squared rims with round or fla t lips

to thickened rims with rounded lip s. All lips are smoothed and lack

any decoration. The possibility that such rims could occur on a

single vessel cannot be ruled out. A single strap handle base was

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 170

present in the sample (Plate 28).

The archaeological literature recognizes the limited diagnostic

value of these generic pottery types, and most reports simply classi

fy the specimens under discussion of u ti1itarian wares. These plain

wares are ubiquitous on late prehistoric sites in the Great Lakes

region, and are recorded from as far north as Summer Island (Brose

1970:191), south into Fisher and Huber sites in Indiana, Illinois

(Faulkner 1972), and Michigan (McAl1ister 1980; Bettarel and Smith

1973:52, Plate 12), on site s from the Sandusky tradition core area

in northern Ohio (Stothers and Graves 1982, 1983; Stothers, Graves

and Conway 1984; Tucker 1980; Graves 1984), and into southern Ohio

on Fort Ancient sites (Griffin 1943).

Miniature/Juvenile Ceramics

Ceramics representing "miniature" or "juvenile" pots contributed

17 rims from an estimated 17 vessles and four necks from an estimated

four vessels to the Ft. Meigs ceramic assemblage (Plate 29). These

distinctive sherds provided no evidence of coil breaks, but paddle

and anvil cannot be interred because of their small size and general

crudity. Even though vessel walls were thin, ranging from 2.5 to

5 mm thick and averaging 4.3 mm, fully half the sample revealed in

completely fired, dark cores with friable paste.

Nearly half the analyzed vessels (10/21) revealed a lack of

tempering material, while 9 of the vessels contained varying amounts

of grit, although in some instances so sporadic as to possibly repre

sent accidental inclusion. Two of the vessels did exhibit the

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 171

391218684

! Plate 29. Miniature Vessels, Repair Sherds, Ceramics Woodland

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 172

deliberate inclusion of shell as a tempering agent. Both g rit and

shell tempers were fine textured, averaging 2 mm or less in size.

All vessels displayed a definite tendency towards rather casual,

if not crude, treatment of exterior vessel surfaces. Most vessel

exteriors exhibit an uneven smoothing, while several display rubbed

cord marking, and a single vessel vears crudely trained chevrons

executed over a smoothee body. All are readily recognized by over

all crudity, presence of firing cracks in the body wall (probably

due to kack of, or inadequate, tempering), uneven, undulating pro

files, and the small orifice diameters. Most appear to be portions

of small jars with straight to very siightly everted profiles cli- .

maxing in simply thickened rims with rounded lips or squared rims

with rounded, or more rarely, flattened lips. All lips were smooth

and lacked any form of decoration.

Miniature or juvenile vessels are not uncommon on archaeological

sites in the Great Lakes region and are reported from both Upper

Mississippian and Woodland contexts (see, for example, Hoxie 1980:

122). Thus, miniature vessels are reported from a number of Fort

Ancient occupations in southern Ohio (Griffin 19**3 :Plate xxxvi 3-4),

as wel1 as late prehistoric and protohistoric Iroquoian sites in

Ontario (Wright 1981:85; Figure 5^-7). The following discussion

focuses on late prehistoric and particularly Mississippian data.

Huber occupations around the southern end of Lake Michigan

report numerous miniature vessels. The Greismer site sample in

cluded many with notched lips, while several displayed decoration

very sim ilar to full sized examples of Huber Trailed (Faulkner 1972:

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 173

71, 72 Plate xiv). The nearby Fifield site also produced juvenile

vessels more nearly approximating those recovered from Ft. Meigs,

since they were generally crude, a majority were cordmarked or plain,

and several exhibited haphazard trailin g (Faulkner 1972:131)-

In southwestern Michigan, the Moccasin Bluff site produced plain,

uncedorated and crude miniature vessels (Bettarel and Smith 1973:

70, Plate 37m, n). The Huber-related Schwerdt s ite near Saugatuck

also produced miniature vessels with plain exteriors evenly divided

between shell and sand-and-shel1 tempered pots (McAllister 1980:65,

Plate 17). At this site it is hypothesized that the miniature vessels

are the product of children.

Many Whittlesey sites in northeastern Ohio also produce minia

ture vessels, such as those encountered at Conneaut Fort (Brose et

al. 1976:37). These artifacts are discussed as "toy pots", a term

also employed in the description of similar vessels excavated at the

Parker Earthworks, near Corunna, Ontario (Lee 1958:20, Figures 9_23).

A Sandusky Tradition s ite near Sandusky, Ohio, Pearson Village,

produced a wealth of miniature vessels (Bowen 1978). Nearly 3/** of

the vessels recovered from the site were g rit tempered, while sev

eral appeared to approach a mini-Parker Festooned decorative motif.

At the protohistoric Indian Hills site near Toledo, many of the

miniature vessels recovered were grit-and-sand tempered, and are

associated with e a rlie r Western Basin Tradition occupations of the

site (Graves 1984; Tucker 1980:102, Plate x ii). Most of the remain

ing shell tempered Indian H ills miniature vessels were plain smoothed

or punctated, and appear to be better made than the Ft. Meigs specimens

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

(Graves 1984). As Such, they were probably not top pots, but rather

containers for condiments, herbs, or medicine, as noted in some

ethnohistorical sources (Tucker 1980:102; Kraft 1975:136).

Miscellaneous Ceramic Artifacts

Round perforations were noted on four shell tempered body sherds

recovered from Ft. Meigs, and such features are often interpreted as

representing repair marks. Faulkner, however, believes similar sherds

from several Huber sites were drilled from the exterior after firing

to serve as colanders (Faulkner 1972:71). The paucity of data sup

plied by Ft. Meigs relevant to this matter does not permit adequate

evaluation of this interpretation. However, most of the Ft. Meigs

examples appear to be isolated, individual occurrences, since large

segments of adjacent vessel body walls survive intact near the per

forations. Thus, a multiple punctured vessel base/colander does

not appear likely as an explanation for the observed perforations.

Pottery Discs

The three small pottery discs recovered from Ft. Meigs are all

plain and smoothed, although one specimen displays shallow notching

around its entire circumference (Plate 30). None of the discs d is

play any obvious tempering agents, and all are completely fired.

Counterparts to these artifacts are reported from a number of

Fisher and Huber sites (Brown 1961:47, Figure 13a). These have been

interpreted as being both "ancestral to Oneota" (Faulkner 1972:161)

and. "peculiarly.characteristic of Oneota" (Mason 1981:358). The

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Plate Plate 30. Pottery Balls, Discs

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. exact function of these peculiar a rtifa cts remains open to question.

Fired Clay Balls

Several small and apparently untempered clay balls were recov

ered from Ft. Meigs (Plate 30). Similar a rtifa c ts have been noted

on archaeological sites, including Upper Mississippian occupations,

but are not viewed as being particulary diagnostic. S till, such

a rtifa c ts have been associated, for example, with Monongahela sites

(George 1978:1*1*).

Ceramic Pipes

A number of ceramic pipe stem and bowl fragments were recovered

from Ft. Meigs (Plate 31). Three stem fragments were recovered, one

of which was a b it end with a round cross section, and two were pipe

stem midsections. All were smoothed, g rit or sand tempered, and

lacked decoration.

Seven analyzable bowl fragments were recovered. Three were

plain, smoothed bowl fragments, one exhibiting grit temper, the

other two no obvious aplastic agent. Another bowl displayed edge

notching and random punctate impressions, but once again lacked an

obvious tempering material. One bowl specimen exhibited alternating

bands of horizontal punctation and incision, while another was decor

ated by parallel incisions oriented obliquely to the bowl lip.

Neither of these la tte r two examples contained obvious temper. The

final example is marked by parallel horizontal incisions executed

on a g r it tempered bowl.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 177

Mr m h — CO Plate Plate 31* Ceramic Pipe Bowls and Stems

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 178 Ceramic pipes are commonly encountered on both Great Lakes

Upper Mississippian and Woodland sites. On Whittlesey sites pipes

are often tempered with sand or g rit, and are predominantly plain

and smoothed, although several incised varieties are reminiscent of

those recovered from Ft. Meigs (Greenman 1935a:19, Figure 21-6,

Figures 26—37)• At Fairport Harbor ptpes recovered were g rtt tem

pered and exhibited siightly collared bowls with deeply incised

encircling lines (Morgan and Ellis 19^3^2, Figures 8-12,.8-13).

At the Parker Earthworks near Corunna, Ontario, pipes recovered

in association with Parker Festooned ceramics are predominantly plain

and undecorated, although the most conspicuous variety recovered at

the site is the ringed barrel pipe (Lee 1958). "Pipes which are

common in the Neutral area . . . are out of all proportion to the

related pottery" (Lee 1958:16). Pipes similar to those mentioned

above have been recovered at the Weiser s ite in southwestern Ontario

(Stothers, Graves, and Conway 1984:64-65), and Indian Hills (Graves 1984 ).

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

STRUCTURAL EVIDENCE

Habitation structures reported from Upper Mississippian contexts

do not conform to any single type, as would be expected from such

diverse cultural expressions with a significant temporal range.

The specific characteristics of such structures are also dependent

upon variables such as site function, location, and seasonality.

Most sites that are interpreted to represent at least semi-permanent

occupation share a predeliction for structures erected with the

wattle and daub technique (Brose 1980; Stothers and Graves 1983:117).

Clay combined with a stick or mat framework was used to erect struc

tural walls, in many cases anchored with excavated wal1 trenches.

No evidence of such wall trenches was recorded at Ft. Meigs.

Although many Upper Mississippian structures are reported to be

oblong or sub-rectangular in shape, the single structure encountered

at Ft. Meigs reveals a circular post mold pattern 5*5 meters in dia

meter (Figure 7)* Samples of daub were recovered in association

with this dwelling, which was defined by a single row of poles

averaging 9.1 cm in diameter. No evidence of interior partitions

was noted, although the area inside the defining postmolds was hard

and compact, resembling hardpan, possibly due to constant use. Such

"wigwam" structures are known from a variety of contexts, including

the h istoric Ojibwa and Potawatomie (Kennedy 19^0:31^).

Structures reported from Fort Ancient contexts usually are

179

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 180

interpreted as oblong to oval wattle and daub houses, erected with

posts set into wall trenches. At Blain Vi 1lage several adjacent

structures were defined by post molds set 40 to 60 cm apart, averag

ing 6.2 cm in diameter enclosing an oval area 6.6 by 8 meters

(Prufer and Shane 1970:31» Figure 4). Fort Ancient structures re

corded in G riffin's seminal analysis ranged from a rectangular wall

trench house 9.9 by 6.5 meters at the Turpin s ite (Griffin 1943:48),

to postmold configurations similar to that recorded a t Ft. Meigs.

These latter structures include 49 "tepee sites" originally re

ported by Mills at Baum (Griffin 1943:38), as well as another fea

ture formed by 12 to 22 cm diameter postmolds enclosing an oblong

area 4.4 by 7.8 meters (Griffin 1943:48). However, the average "tepee"

structure described for Baum appears to approximate the one found at

Ft. Meigs, since they were half the size of the larger structure men

tioned above "invariably circular in form, and the posts used in

construction much smaller" (Mills cited in Griffin 1943:39)- The

Gartner site produced structures "identical to the ordinary house

at Baum" (Griffin 1943:40).

Habitation structures reported from Huber sites in northern

Illinois and northwestern Indiana appear to be less similar to the

Ft. Meigs evidence than do those previously mentioned for Fort An

cient. Whether this is a function of chronological difference,

seasonal occupation, or material cultural divergence is problemati

cal. Many Huber sites post-date Ft. Ancient and Sandusky Tradition

sites, while permanently occupied or winter habitation structures

would be constructed differently than those occupied during warm

season.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The Anker site produced a post pattern defining a "semi-sub

terranean" structure with internal partitions and evidence of at

least one later addition (Bluhm and Liss 1 961:101,'Figure 53).

The Heal ly component at the Zimmerman site produced a rectangular

double-walled house measuring 6 by 7.5 meters, a sub-square wall

trench structure measuring 6 by 6.6 meters, and several smaller

oval structures averaging 1.8 by 2.9 meters (Brown 1961:25).

While these houses do not appear structurally similar to the

Ft. Meigs feature, their associated occupation floors duplicate the

discolored hard-pan level recorded within the interior of the Ft.

Meigs structure. Such characteristics are commonly noted in discus

sion of occupation floors”. Thus, at the Huber-related Zimmerman

site, structures exhibited a "well delineated, hardpacked occupation

level" (Brown 1961:25)•

The historic Oak Forest site produced eight oval structures

ranging from 3.6 to 4.5 meters wide and between 7*5 and 14.25 meters

in length (Bluhm and Fenner 1961 : 139). The Oak Forest feature most

closely resembling that recorded at Ft. Meigs is defined by a single

row of post molds forming an oval 4.5 by 7-5 meters and lacking in

terior partitions. The Huber-related Fifleld site, in northwestern

Indiana, provides rather ambiguous structural evidence, but features

defined there exhibit round outlines lacking wall trenches which are

similar to structures described for the Oak Forest site (Faulkner

1972 :120).

Another late prehistoric site in northwestern Indiana, the

Greismer site, produced evidence of habitation features similar to

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 182

Ft. Meigs, radiocarbon dated to A.D. 1520±130 and A.D. 1530±1

(Faulkner 1972:53). Interpreted as an exposed warm season occupation,

Greismer produced oval 2.1 by 2.A meter structures defined by post-

molds ranging from 6 to 12 cm in diameter (Faulkner 1972:51, Figure

7). Faulkner states that dome shaped huts covered with mats, or

"wigwams" continued in use into historic times (Ibid.). Although

the historic Bell site produced a A.8 by 9*0 meter rectangular

wall trench structure, it also provided evidence of a circular 3-6

meter diameter feature defined by nine postmolds (Wittry 1963:10,

Figure 5), very sim ilar to those reported at Greismer and Ft. Meigs.

Data relevant to structures associated with Whittlesey occupa

tions is not abundant. Conneaut Fort, dated to the mid 14th century,

is a heavily disturbed site providing, at best, ambiguous structural

information. Postmolds mapped at the s ite during professional ex

cavation signaled no definite alignment, "although curvilinear struc

tures are suggested" (Brose et al. 1976:35).

Perhaps the most enlightening information relating, to Whittlesey

occupations originates with the South Park site, a multicomponent

Whittlesey site near Lake Erie. The initial component, dated to

circa A.D. 1000 to 1300, provided evidence of a summer occupation

with oval structures measuring 5.1 by 9-0 meters (Brose 1973:28).

A second occupation dates to circa A.D. 1250 to 1450, and yielded

Parker Festooned and notched applique strip ceramics in association

with sub-rextangular wall trench structures measuring 4.5 to 5.1

meters wide by 9.0 to 10.5 meters long (Brose 1973:31). Wattle and

Daub associated features were radiocarbon dated to A.D. 1440±55 and

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1**70±55 (Brose 1978:580).

It thus appears that structural data from Whittlesey sites

nearly contemporaneous with Ft. Meigs Phase occupations does not

conform to Sandusky Tradition evidence. This discrepancy occurs

despite the occurrence on Whittlesey sites of ceramic types nearly

identical to those associated with Ft. Meigs phase components

(notched applique and Parker Festooned). Other sites producing

ceramics recovered at Ft. Meigs, specifically Parker Festooned,

include the Parker Earthworks, near Corunna Ontario. At Parker

postmolds formed a 6.6 foot diameter circular pattern created by

5 cm diameter poles placed 20 cm apart (Lee 1958;17)- Other sites

producing evidence of circular habitation structures and/or wattle

and daub construction occur within the Sandusky tradition at Indian

Hills (Graves 1984).

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

HUMAN OSTEOLOGY

An analysis of human skeletal material recovered from an exca

vation in the vicinity of the quartermaster's house at Ft. Meigs

was completed in 1980 (Harold 1980). The analysis of the multiple

bundle burials apparently associated with the Sandusky Tradition

Ft. Meigs phase village revealed that a minimum number of twelve

individuals had been interred. A total of 426 bones and fragments

were recovered, of which 49 were sexable: 18 female and 31 male.

Eighteen were assignable to specific age categories, of which six

were adult and twelve sub-adult.

Examples of disease or trauma were noted in the ossuary remains.

Several examples of osteomyelitis and periostitus probably doe to

infection or trauma resulting from wounds or fractures, were en

countered. Necrotic pitting and exostosis are also evident as was

arthritis present in lipping of the vertebral column and knee areas.

Dental pathologies were widespread, including periodontal disease,

and pre-mortem tooth loss and a ttritio n due to caries, impaction,

or trauma. Heavy tooth wear is indicated, and is expected among

agriculturalists whose diet would include varying amounts of grit

incidental to ingestion of cultigens.

No totally unexpected results were encountered at the quarter

master's house ossuary, and the remains conform to what would be

expected in a late prehistoric population group. The skeletal

184

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 185

material was "no more or less healthy than other prehistoric popula

tions in Ohio" (Harold 1980:5).

Other skeletal remains have been reported, collected, or exca

vated from the bluff upon which the Ft. Meigs site is located. As

noted earlier, Daniel Cushing, who was stationed at the fort during

the British seige in 1813, reported the presence of human bone. "In

almost every place where we have thrown up the earth we find human

bones in great plenty"; a fatigue party digging a trench in front of

blockhouses three and four "came upon a pile of bones where they

took out 25 skulls all in one pit"; and "In walking around this

garrison on the earth that has been thrown up it was like walking

on the sea shore upon the old mussel shells, only in this case,

human bones" (Lindley 1944:114). Blockhouses three and four are lo

cated at the northeast corner of the reconstructed fort, along the

bluff edge.

Although generally considered controversial by nature, some evi

dence provided by Ft. Meigs osteological analysis supports the prac

tice of cannibalism. Although sparse, the evidence appears to be

unambiguous. Skull fragments surface collected near the location

of the bundle burials mentioned earlier exhibit cut marks at the

juncture of the parietal and occipital. These marks are "definitely

cut" (Stothers, personal communication 5/17/83) (Plate 32).

An analysis conducted of portions of the sealed midden from the

Ft. Meigs site bluff slope revealed that nearly 1/3 of the sample

was composed of human bone fragments (Fecteau 1977). In addition,

other sealed midden deposits on the bluff slope near the northeastern

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 186

sSj*cw:

FORT MEIGS (33-wo-8) LONGITUDINAL INCIS IONS ON . HUMAN PARIETAL

Plate 32. Human Parietal with Incisions

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 187

portion of the fort produced an articu lated right arm and burnt bone

fragments. Scattered vertebrae and a human fibula exhibiting cut

(butchering?) marks were also recovered (site notes on file, Labora

tories of Ethno-Archaeology, University of Toledo).

Elsewhere within the Sandusky Tradition, additional evidence

of cannibalism is provided by the Orleans Park site, a Ft. Meigs

phase fishing station along the Maumee River. A refuse pit at the

site yielded a badly fractured human skull with a concentric depres

sion fracture (Redmond 1981:6). At Indian Hills, the type site for

the ensuing phase of the Sandusky trad itio n , burnt and broken human

bone was recovered from refuse middens (Graves 1984).

The presence of cannibalism at Ft. Meigs is not unexpected

when it is realized that such a practice was rather common in early

historic times. The Jesuit Relations describes cannibalism among

both Algonkian and Iroquoian groups in the Lower Great Lakes region

(Stothers, Graves, and REdmond 1981; Jesu it Relations 1:271, 273;

4:201; 10:227, 229; 12:255; 13:6.1, 69; 18:41, 45; 21 :65, 119, 211,

221; 22:249, 253"257; 39:221).

Among the Huron cannibal ism was intimately related to warfare

and religion. After torture, a prisoner would be cut up, cooked

and eaten in "an act that was of primarily religious significance"

(Trigger 1969:51)- The rise of cannibalism may be a function of an

increase in the intensity of warfare related to increasing sedentism

and horticultural practices. Cooked human bones begin to appear on

Ontario archaeological sites dated to ca. A.D. 1300 and are most com

mon on s ite s dating between A.D. 1450 and 1500 (Trigger 1969:52).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 188

These dates conform well to the time of occupation of the Ft. Meigs

site by Sandusky Tradition peoples.

Neutral Indians also practiced cannibalism (Wintemberg 1939).

Human bones are found in Neutral s ite midden deposits in associa

tion with wild animal m aterial, much as a t the Ft. Meigs s ite (Bus

by 1979:87, Tables 32, 93). in addition, human bone has also been

fashioned into implements and ornaments (Wright 1 981: 103; see also

Griffin 1978:551, Figure 6a).

Although evidence of cannibalism is found on Huber-related

site s in northern Illin o is , fo r example, a human bone rasp recovered

from the Anker s ite (Bluhm and Liss 1961:129), it is more commonly

encountered on Fort Ancient sites. The Philo phase Richards site,

located in the Muskingum valley and dated to ca. A.D. 1260, produced

fragmented human skeletal remains in direct association with animal

remains in s ite middens (Carskadden and Morton 1977; Patterson 1977).

These bones displayed skinning and butchering marks similar to those

observed on animal bones, while others apparently served as containers,

scoops, or tools. One Richards site feature contained the fragmented

remains of at least eight individuals ranging from child to adult,

indicating that captives, not just warriors, may have been prey

(Patterson 1977:136),

The Whittlesey sites in northeastern Ohio also provide evidence

of cannibalism. Two sites at least partially coeval with Ft. Meigs,

Conneaut Fort and South Park, produced cannibalized human remains

(Brose 1973> 1976a, 1978). At Conneaut Fort a pelvis exhibiting cut

marks was excavated from a shallow pit, while its associated femora,

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. also showing cut marks, were recovered from a nearby re fu se-filled

hearth (Brose et a l. 1976:69-70). While Brose feels that the Conneaut

Fort evidence may be somewhat ambiguous, the South Park site also

provided supporting data (Brose et al. 1976170, 1978:580). The

earliest professional excavations of Whittlesey sites also mention

the possibility of cannibalism. At Tuttle Hill, for example, human

bone fragments recovered from midden deposits as well as skull plate

fragments were believed to indicate cannibalism (Greenman 1937:309).

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

FLORAL AND FAUNAL REMAINS AND THEIR IMPLICATIONS FOR FT. MEIGS SETTLEMENT AND SUBSISTENCE

Floral Remains

Archaeobotanical remains recovered from midden deposits at the

Ft. Meigs site are sparse and provide few insights. Fragmentary re

mains permitted id en tificatio n of only a small portion of the re

covered sample (Fecteau 1977; see Table 6). Charcoal recovered

from undisturbed and sealed contexts reveals use of conifer,

elm, hickory, and indeterminant deciduous species. Identifiable

edible floral materials indicate use of hickory nut and Zea mays,

evidence of the latter provided by a single corn kernel (Fecteau

1977). Other plant remains recovered from earlier excavations of

Ft. Meigs include "classic" Northern FIint maize, wild plum, and

walnut (Yarnell 1975; Stothers 1975:Al).

Although admittedly rather 1imited, the floral data recovered

from the Ft. Meigs s ite does fall within the range of botanical

data derived from other Upper M ississippian site s in the Great Lakes

region. Archaeobotanical reports vary in number and quality. On

several site s , especially those excavated years ago (such as Green-

man's early Whittlesey excavations), few controls were instituted

to ensure recovery of minute floral remains. Such limitations must

be remembered when floral as well as faunal remains are discussed.

190

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. VXI 7.3lg 2.60 4.71 Total 99. 8%

(Charred wood) e (corr Zea

a) a) in Li. — si CD 3 CD 1 . + j >» >» CJ) o i- u <0 CO >* o z .c .84

E 0) o c a) ru c . i_ •M

■a .a .21 .21 2.8 ig Pore Ring

3 in Unknown Unknown .48 1.83 1.35 25.0

c o o O) i n CC c l E *- U a> c — CD cd cd C 3 +J — “O “O -Q 2.50 Table 6 E 0) c a> i_ CD CD c •M ■o .a .55 2.50 • 55 • 7.5 34.1 1.73 . u n> >» CD o 0 > . — o -C .49 1.73 * 6.7 23.7 " - 18 a> O- "- 6"-12" - 6"-12" .49 Tr. A Tr. B Tr. 8 12 -8 o Charred Archaeobotanical Remains Identified From the Ft. Meigs Site Percentage Total 77-197 33-W0-8 77-196 33-W Lot Lot No. Site 77-195 33_WO-8 Geobotany Source: Fecteau 1977 f = fragment

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 192

M iller's Ridge, a Sandusky tradition component near Sandusky,

Ohio, provided plant remains from plowed features. Identifiable

floral remains included hickory nut, goosefoot (Chenopodium sp.),

walnut, maize, and beans (Bowen 1979, 1980).

At Fort Ancient village sites a mixture of cultigens and wild

plant remains is commonly encountered. At Blain Village, dated to

the 11th century, eight-rowed Maize do Ocho was recovered, expressing

"stunting produced by a poor growing season and/or poor adaptability

to a short growing season" (Galinat 1970:222). In addition, beans

(Phaseolus vulgaris) and pumpkin (Cucurbita pepo) were recorded in

association with natural foods such as walnut (Juglans nigra), hick-

ory nut (Carya ovata) , black cherry (Prunus sero tin a), and forest

grape (Vitis riparia) (Kaplan 1970:230). Carbonized oak, birch,

cherry, and pine were present in the charcoal samples.

At Philo phase Fort Ancient sites cultigens recovered include

Maize de Ocho, beans, and gourd (Lagenaria) ; the absence of squash is

attributed to "vagaries of preservation" (Murphy 1977:130). Wild

plants utilized include blackberry (Rubus sp.), smooth sumac (Rhus

glabra), fox grape (Vitis riparia), wild plum (Prunus sp.), acorn,

black walnut, and hickory nut. The floral remains indicate an em

phasis on cultigens supplemented by seasonally available wild plants

(Murphy 1977)*

At the Huber-related Moccasin Bluff s ite in southwestern

Michigan maize identified as Eastern corn was recovered in associa

tion with acorn, walnut, butternut, hickory nut, and Canadian plum

(Bettarel and Smith 1973:129, 130, Plates 8 3, 8*0. The remains were

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 193 Interpreted to indicate an economy focused on food production with

heavy reliance on naturally occurring resources (Bettarel and Smith

1973:139).

The Elam s ite , another southwestern Michigan s ite which pro

duced a Huber-related component, os one of the few Upper M ississippian

occupations which has been subject to a detailed floral analysis.

The s ite , which is radiocarbon dated to ca. A.D. 1265, provided a

wealth of data from regorous analysis of both macrobotanical and

flotation remains (Parachini 1981). Carbonized seeds present in

cluded lamb's quarter (Chenopodium sp.), which accounted for over

one-half of the analyzable sample (Parachini 1981:57). Other com

monly encountered remains included bedstraw (Galium) , blackberry

(Rubus) , hawthorn (Crataegus) , sedge (Carex) , and knotweed or smart-

weed (Polygonum) . Charred nut specimens consisted almost en tirely

of black walnut {35%), with acorn also of note (4.6%)(Parachini 1 9 8I:

65). American lotus was also processed a t the s ite , which is believed

to represent a specialized activity locus in the area's Upper Missis

sippian settlement system.

In the Fisher-Huber core area of northern Illinois and north

west Indiana, most site s which produced analyzable floral remains re- •

veal a range of useage of both cultigens and naturally occurring re

sources. At the Griesmer site, where flotation was not employed,

wild plant remains include wiId cherry or plum (Prunus sp.), butter

nut (JugIans cineria), and the most commonly encountered plant, the

whitewater lily (Nymphaea tuberosa) (Faulkner 1970:112). While it

is believed that wild rice (Zinzania aquatica) may also have been

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. processed at the site, the absence of corn is attributed to the

abundance of wild plant foods available at this warm season resource

procurement camp (Faulkner 1972:113).

Two other Huber-related sites, Hoxie Farm and Palos, produced

corn, hazel nut, Chenopodium or amaranth, and beans (Phaseolus vul

garis) (Faulkner 1972:1^5; Munson and Munson 1969:187). In addition,

corn was also reported at the coeval occupation of the Heally compo

nent a t the Zimmerman s ite (Brown 1961:72)

Floral remains associated with Whittlesey occupations in north

eastern Ohio include maize from T uttle Hill and South Park (Greenman

1937:311), with beans and butternut also recovered from the la tte r

site (Brose 1973:31)• Brose interprets South Park as representing

an agricultural village supplemented by special purpose camps with

the absence of additional cultigens attributable to factors of exca

vation technique and poor preservation (Brose 1973:38). At Conneaut

Fort, occupied during the 1i*th century, 8 to 10 rowed Zea mays was

recovered in association with butternut and hickory nut (Brose et al.

1976:69). At the Lyman site, another Whittlesey occupation of gen

erally the same period, only a few hickory nuts and walnuts were

recovered, permitting little interpretation (Murphy 1971:16).

Faunal Remains

Peter Hamalainen conducted a faunal analysis of the bone frag

ments recovered from the midden deposits situated along the slopes

of the Ft. Meigs bluffs (Hamalainen 1977; Appendix C). The faunal

sample recovered from sealed subsurface deposits numbered over 9000

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 195

specimens:

Mamma 1 4266 47.13% Avian 175 1.93 Reptilian 49 .54 Amphibian 1 .01 Fish 4243 46.87 Freshwater Mussel 228 2.51 Snail 59 .65 Class Uncertain 30 .33

9051

Among the mammalian fauna white-tailed deer comprise nearly 45%

of identifiable specimens and are the largest portion of identifiable

bone in the e n tire assemblage. Raccoon is the second most commonly

encountered individual mammal, followed by squirrel, beaver, elk,

dog, and porcupine in descending frequency. Eleven other mammalian

species are present in insignificant amounts.

The avian assemblage is overwhelmingly dominated by turkey, which

comprises nearly half of the sample, with swan, oldsquaw duck, and

goose sp. contributing 5% each to the sample. Other avian species

present include Canada goose, bufflehead, and blue-winged teal. In

total, 16 species are represented.

Turtles constitute a small percentage of the Ft. Meigs fauna.

Painted turtle and snapping turtle together account for over 70% of

the identifiable sample, with the map turtle also of note. In total,

seven species are present.

Fish contribute nearly half of the identifiable faunal sample,

and nearly 50% of the sample are walleye sauger (Stizostedion sp.).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 196

About 30% of the sample is composed of freshwater drum, with lesser

percentages of sucker and bass species. In aggregate, 13 species are

represented.

Usable meat estimates by class provide a more accurate assess

ment of the importance of individual species in the Ft. Meigs economy.

Mammals provided over 75% of the usable meat by weight. White-tail

deer c o n stitu te nearly 50% of th is mammalian sample and 35% of the

total usable meat at Ft. Meigs. Elk, black bear, raccoon, and

beaver together supply nearly a third of the useable meat.

Within the avian assemblage turkey supplied nearly 2/3 and

Swan sp. and Canada goose together supplied nearly 25% of the usable

meat. In total, however, all avian fauna provided less than 3% of

the total meat weight at Ft. Meigs. Turtles supplied even less,

contributing 1% of the total, with snapping turtles comprising over

60% of this quantity.

Fish supply over 20% of the usable meat weight a t Ft. Meigs,

a very high contribution considering the number of individual speci

mens required to achieve this weight. Walleye/sauger (Stizostedion

sp.) constitute nearly 70% or about 15% of the total usable meat

weight at the site. Other significant contributing species, in

descending order are Bass sp., freshwater drum, sturgeon, and

channel catfish, which together compose over 25% pf the total usable

weight of fish. Six other species present in the sample contribute

insignificant amounts.

Hamalainen's analysis reveals that mammals were a primary focus

of the Ft. Meigs occupants, primarily in the form of white-tail deer

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. hunting. While other large mammalian species contribute a signifi

cant percentage os usable meat, they are represented by very few

individual specimens, and thus were apparently not often (success

fully) .hunted. The large number of small mammals present in the

faunal assemblage, while providing a comparatively smal1 amount of

meat, were frequently exploited.

Based on bone and individual counts, fish were the second most

intensively utilized resource in the Ft. Meigs catchment. However,

this count probably under-represents the actual number (and usable

weight) of fish at the site because the small fish bones would be

more subject to the vagaries of processing, deposition, preservation,

and archaeological recovery. Thus, it may be argued that fish were

an even more important aspect of the Ft. Meigs subsistence regimen

than is actually indicated, perhaps comprising the most intensively

utilized natural resource at the site. As noted, most of the fish

sample was composed of walleye/sauger, bass, drum, and sucker, rela

tiv ely large species whose remains would be more likely to survive

and be recovered for archaeological analysis.

The faunal assemblage at Ft. Meigs reveals the Upper Mississip-

pian occupants of the site exploited open woodland, marsh, and shal

low water miches. Species found in open woodland included white-

ta il deer, elk, fox sp., woodchuck, wild turkey, and eastern cot

tontail. Marsh habitats provided beaver, muskrat, opposum, fisher,

mink, and swans, ducks, geese, and turtles. Fish inhabiting shallows K included freshwater drum, sucker, channel catfish, sauger, walleye,

yellow perch, pike, and bass (Hamalainen 1977)*

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 198

Seasonality, considering evidence from ail faunal classes, indi

cates a probable year-round occupation of the site. Canada goose and

blue-winged teal are spring and fall migrants to the Maumee Valley;

Bufflehead and oldsquaw ducks are caught primarily during the winter

months; and hooded merganser, ruddy duck, and the passenger pigeon

are most widely available during the summer.

Fish procured at Ft. Meigs are most abundant during the spring

and late summer to early fa ll spawning runs. Stizostedion sp.,

bass, and sucker families are spring spawners, while drum spawn during

late summer to early fall.

Turtles and amphibians are available primarily during warm wea

ther, in late spring to early fall. Mammals provide an array of

evidence pertaining to seasonality; most are available throughout

the year. While specific insights into seasonality are not always

discernible, evidence from deer and elk antlers do provide irrefu

table proof that Ft. Meigs was occupied during the winter months

(Hamalainen 1977)-

A survey of faunal remains from Fort Ancient sites indicates

some similarities to the Ft. Meigs assemblage. At Blain Village

faunal remains reveal that mammals provided a majority of the sam

ple, with white-tailed deer contributing nearly 50 % of the total

identifiable fauna, although raccoon, fox, squirrel, and bear

were also exploited Prufer and Shane 1970:195). Fish were also

heavily represented, with sucker the primary focus, followed by

catfish and freshwater drum. Within avian species, turkey was the

predominant focus. In total, the faunal evidence indicates

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 199

exploitation of a forest edge environment similar to Ft. Meigs, as

well as year-round occupation (Prufer and Shane 1970:204).

At Philo phase Fort Ancient sites, a similar faunal distribution

is encountered, although excavation technique (lack of screening and

flotation) probably biased the sample (Murphy 1977:100). While deer

apparently was the most heavily exploited species, small mammals,

wild turkey, turtle, and fish supplied smal1er portions of the diet.

Year round occupations are the rule at Philo phase s ite s , revealing

a late prehistoric economy in which maize production was heavily

supplemented by wild fauna (Murphy 1977:123).

Huber-related sites in northern Illinois and northwestern Indiana

produce faunal data sim ilar to Ft. Meigs, revealing they may have oc

cupied a sim ilar niche in the Huber settlem ent and subsistence system.

The Oak Forest site fauna consisted of 65% mammal (deer, elk, dog,

beaver, muskrat, and raccoon), 26% fish (catfish and buffalofish),

6% tu rtle , and 3% avian (Bluhm and Fenner 1961:159). The Zimmerman

s ite Heally component produced 69% mammal, 15% turtle, 14% fish,

and 2% avian remains (Brown 1961:69~70). The Anker s ite produced

50% mammals, 22% fish (gar, drum, bowfin, catfish), 20% turtle, and

8% avian (Canada goose and duck) (Bluhm and Liss 1961:112-113). All

of these sites represent year-round village occupations, dependent

on horticulture supplemented by faunal resources.

The Griesmer site in northwestern Indiana is not directly

comparable to Ft. Meigs because they represent functionally speci

fic s a te llite occupations. As such, it would have supported and

supplemented a nearby village site, such as the Fifield site, in

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. much the same manner as a Ft. Meigs satel1its station, the Orleans

Park site (Redmond 1981). At Fifield, 90% of the analyzable sample

is classified as mammal, results tempered by the fact "fragmentary

remains of smaller snimals may have been missed due to recovery

technique" (Faulkner 1972:139). Griesmer, the satellite camp,

functioned as a warm season tuber processing station and produced

appropriate faunal remains: 41% turtle and 29% fish (Faulkner 1972:

106). The latter site is similar in many respects to the Orleans

Park camp, interpreted as a fishing station directly associated with

Ft. Meigs (Redmond 1981).

The Huber-related Moccasin Bluff s ite in southwest Michigan

provides a faunal assemblage where deer and elk supplied nearly

73% of useable meat weight (Bettarel and Smith 1973:133; Cleland

1966). Other mammals (beaver, dog, bear, porcupine, and raccoon)

contributed 17%, while sturgeon provided over 9%, with avian only

1% (Bettarel and Smith 1973:133; Cleland 1966). The site is inter

preted as representing a multi-seasonal or semi-permanent agricul

tural v illag e requiring numerous task specific s a te llite procure

ment stations (Cremin 1983).

The Schwerdt s ite , in southwestern Michigan, was subjected to

a rigorous faunal analysis after control led excavations (Higgins

1980). The specialized nature of the site is reflected in the fact

that fish account for nearly 50% of the usable meat and bone weight

recovered, of which over 95% was attributable to lake sturgeon

(Higgins 1980:19). Mammal (primarily bear, deer, and beaver)

supplied 35.7% of bone weight and 54% of usable meat, while the

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. contribution of turtle and avian fauna is negligible (Higgins 1980:

20). The site is interpreted to represent a late spring to summer

occupation established to procure spawning lake sturgeon (Cremin

1979, 1980). Schwerdt is near the northern 1imits of effective

maize h o rticu ltu re, and was situated in a rich natural environment

in which native flora and fauna were still essential resources

(Cremin 1983)-

In many ways Huber site s may be sim ilar to Sandusky Tradition

sites in that they are located in an extremely rich natural environ

ment. Huber site s express a fu lly developed Oneota economy a fte r

ca. A.D. 1000, exhibiting an economy based upon cultigens supple

mented heavily with naturally occurring resources (Faulkner 1972:

157). As such, the subsistence and settlement system reveals the

optimum strategy for intensive aboriginal occupation in zones mar

ginal for effective aboriginal agriculture (Cremin 1983; see also

Cleland 1976).

Whittlesey sites provide a range of data about faunal resources,

sometimes limited by acidic so ils, other preservation factors, or

biased recovery methods inherent in e a rlie r (1930s) excavation of

several major sites. Most sites provide large amounts of deer

bone, and in some components the faunal remains are limited almost

entirely to such specimens. One such site is the Seibert site,

occupied ca. A.D. 1250-1450 (P ratt and Brose 1976). The H illside

Road site is typical of Whittlesey occupations presenting better

preserved faunal remains (Brose 1976). Elk and deer produced over

75% of available u tilized meat weight, although bear and beaver were

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. also exploited. Fish constituted the second most intensively ex

ploited group, consisting primarily of channel catfish, followed by

avian species, 75% of which were turkey and Canada goose. A year-

round occupation is indicated by the variety of species present.

A sim ilar situ atio n is presented by Conneaut Fort, where deer

and elk supplied over 75% of the s ite 's usable meat weight, and

other mammalian species (black bear, beaver, raccoon, and squirrel)

provided 20% (Brose et al. 1976:66). Fish compose less than 5%

of the fauna, consisting of sturgeon, whitefish, channel catfish,

and pike, with avian species contributing a sim ilar amount.

Fairport Harbor (Morgan and El 1 is 19^3:**5), Tuttle Hill, South

Park (Greenman 1937L311), and Reeve (Greenman 1935a:23) were exca

vated when recovery of faunal evidence was less than regorous. Mur

phy (1973) reanalyzed extant collections from South Park, Reeve,

and Fairport Harbor, and compared them to the Lyman s ite . Although

deer and elk dominated the faunal assemblage of all these sites,

the remains ranged from 5**% at Fairport Harbor to 71% a t Reeve, and

86% of the total at Lyman (Murphy 1973:17—19)- Although small mam

mals (Raccoon, sq u irrel, and beaver) make up a larger portion of the

fauna at Fairport Harbor (20%), they were also exploited at Reeve

and South Park. Fish (catfish, pike, perch, and bass) made up a

small but consistent contribution to the diet (4to 16% at the sites.

Sites in southwestern Ontario which provide some evidence of

contact or shared culture with the Sandusky Tradition peoples also

produce similar faunal assemblages. At the Parker Earthworks near

Corunna, Ontario, deer were the major focus, while small mammals

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. were also procured, but fish (drum and sheephead) are also repre

sented to a significant degree (Lee 1958:13“1*0 . Other sites are

located in shore and estruary areas and re flec t th is in faunal com

position. The Wolf site produced a number of mammal species includ

ing deer and dog, but fish were extremely important (bullhead, bass,

dogfish) (Greenman 1939:6-8). The Weiser site, in the St. Clair

river delta, provided a faunal assemblage consisting of nearly 50%

mammal (deer, elk, muskrat, raccoon, wolf, fox, black bear), but

nearly the same contribution, **8%, is provided by species of fish

(Stothers, Graves, and Conway 198^:64).

A Sandusky Tradition site, Pearson, located along the Lake Erie

shore near Sandusky, produced a faunal component in which deer and

elk composed over 70% of the identifiable species (Bowen 1978).

Other mammals contributed 15% of usable meat weight, while bird,

fish, and turtle, together accounted for 15%. The excavator feels

fish (drum, walleye, channel catfish, and bullhead) were probably

even more important in the d iet but are under-represented due to

recovery bias (Bowen 1978, 1979). Bowen states that Pearson's sub

sistence orien tatio n "appears Late Woodland", consisting of fishing

and hunting and gathering associated with limited horticulture

(Bowen 1980). While the site may represent a satel1ite procurement

station, Pearson may be a more substantial occupation reflecting

the richness of its natural environment.

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

Subsistence and Settlement Behavior

Although some d e tails of the Sandusky T rad itio n 's settlem ent and

subsistence system has already been alluded to during discussion of

floral and faunal remains, additional data are necessary to complete

the picture. In general, the pattern associated with Ft. Meigs and

the Sandusky Tradition compares favorably with other Upper M ississip-

pian expressions in the Great Lakes region. Specific divergence,

however, is evident because of variance in the natural environment

and other factors uniquely relating to the western Lake Erie basin.

For Ancient settlement patterns have been the focus of various

articles and site reports, many of which discuss the extent of inter

action between southern Ohio and the central M ississippian groups

further to the south. In discussing the Blain village site in the

Scioto River drainage, Prufer and Shane defined a nuclear community

centered around a central plaza, lacking outlying camps or satellite

stations (Prufer and Shane 1970:2^6). While corn, beans, and squash

were present, the extent to which the Blain occupants relied on

horticulture in the period ca. A.D. 1000 to 1200 is unclear. Blain

is believed to represent a farming hamlet dependent upon alluvial

terrace horticulture supplemented by selective hunting of deer and

elk (Prufer and Shane 1970:251).

Essenpreis (1978) states that Fort Ancient, in general, is lar

gely dependent upon maize horticulture with some beans and squash,

supplemented by hunting and gathering. The settlement pattern is

composed of year-round agricultural villages surrounded by hunting

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 205

and other procurement stations. She constructs an evolutionary pro

gression within Fort Ancient based primarily upon functional differ

entiation related to sociopolitical factors (Essenpreis 1978:164).

While early Fort Ancient Anderson Phase s ite s are functionally

equivalent and maximize use of the locally available subsistence

resources, late Fort Ancient Madisonville phase sites (ca. A.D.

1200 to 1750) are ranked in primary and secondary centers and local

agricultural villages.

However, this model is disputed by Graybill, who states that

differences in site complexity are primarily attributable to chrono

logical distance (Graybill 1980:58). Rather, Fort Ancient represents

a focal agricultural economy (see Cleland 1976) consisting of nucleated

functionally equivalent villages. It is possible that this egalitarian

pattern may be a reflection of Graybi111s study area in West Virginia,

at the periphery of Fort Ancient culture. In a review of the archaeo

logical literature, sociopolitical stratification appears to be non

existent among Upper Mississippian expressions removed from the Fort

Ancient core area, where M ississippian-related social and economic

structures were less practical. In fact, Upper Mississippian materi

al culture may be analagous to an overlay upon disparate local indi

genous p re h isto ric economies, much as the Hopewel1 Interaction Sphere

(Streuver 1964).

At the opposite end of the geographic lim its of Upper M ississip

pian culture, the subsistence and settlement system of developmental

Oneota has been well established. Recent analyses have de-emphasized

the environmental and ecological differences which provided the basis

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. for differentiation of the diverse Oneota foci (Hall 1962). Instead,

these more recent discussions have emphasized the generally uniform

environmental setting which resulted in similari ties in exploitive

strategy and settlement (Overstreet 1978).

The Developmental Horizon, ca. A.D. 1000 to 1300, marks the

appearance of oarger, more sedentary villages at least partially

attributable to the initial advent of maize horticulture, with sup

port provided by functionally specific seasonally occupied camps

(Overstreet 1978:39). In this subsistence regimen cultigens served

as one among a number of resources exploited. In the Classic Hori

zon (A.D. 1300 to 1650), which is partially contemporaneous with the

Ft. Meigs phase, the spatial distribution of sites is reduced, pos

sibly because of population concentration. Larger, permanently oc

cupied villages appear along major waterways as maize horticulture

becomes the primary subsistence resource, although a wide range of

wild products continued to be exploited (Overstreet 1978:44).

Huber-Fisher Upper M ississippian components a fte r ca. A.D. 1000

in northern Illinois and northwest Indiana are marked by population

increase and semi-permanent villages. Hunting and gathering appear

to have been important subsistence activities supplementing culti

gens as the Oneota-like economy developed in a region marginally

suited for maize horticulture (Cleland 1976; Cremin 1983; Faulkner

1972:157).

Fisher-Huber sites occur in the 111inois-Carolinian edge area

within microenvironments characterized by dry prairie, deciduous

forests, wet marshes, and a minimum of upland zones suitable for

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 207

agriculture. After ca. A.D. 1200 the fully developed Huber settlement

pattern, which continues into historic times and consists of semi

permanent v i 1lages and seasonal camps located on the lake plain,

marsh edges, and morainal uplands, appears (Faulkner 1972:164).

Thus, Huber-related sites such as Moccasin Bluff in southwestern

Michigan achieved a mixed economy with food production supplemented

to a considerable degree by wild resources available in the exceedingly

rich natural environment. More specifically, both deer and sturgeon

were heavily exploited by the occupants of the village.

Other Upper Mississippian sites reported for southwestern Michi

gan include the Allegan Dam s ite , one of the e a rlie r non-Woodland

components in the area (Spero 1978). The s ite is interpreted as

representing the emerging Upper Mississippian expression in an area

"sub-optimal" for agriculture (Spero 1979:120). The Allegan Dam

occupants adjusted to the local environment by engaging in a diffuse

economy emphasizing hunting, fishing, and gathering, minimally sup

plemented by cultigens.

The Schwerdt site, along the Kalamazoo River, represents a

seasonally occupied encampment focusing upon riparian flora (Ameri

can lotus) and fauna (spawning lake sturgeon) (McAllister 1980). It

represents a seasonally occupied camp ancillary to a permanently

occupied v i 1lage, such as Mocassin Bluff (McAllister 1980:95; Cre-

min 1979, 1980). This strong riverine and secondary upland emphasis

is essential in microenvironments at the northern edge of effective

maize horticu ltu re (Cremin 1983). This pattern is in d irec t contrast

with the region's Woodland sites, which focus upon upland game al

most exclusively (Martin 1976).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 208

Settlement and subsistence systems are well documented for

Whittlesey sites, and progressive shifts in the Whittlesey economy

are evident through time (Brose 1973)• The period ca. A.D. 1000 to

1300 is marked by small early summer agricultural v i1lages along the

Lake Erie shore and in interior upland drainages. These are supple

mented by seasonal camps on the coastal plain to procure migratory

waterfowl and spawning fish , while small winter hunting camps are

placed in the interior uplands and on ridges adjoining the lake plain

(Pratt and Brose 1975).

The period ca. A.D. 1250 to 1A50 is marked by a greater reliance

on agriculture, with villages occupied on the lake plain and interior

uplands from spring until the autumn harvest (P ratt and Brose 1976).

These villages are surrounded by small special purpose hunting and

collecting camps. Lakeside camps exploit fish and waterfowl, and

small camps upriver supported winter hunting parties. These occupa

tions represent a transition from a broad based, mobile hunting and

gathering economic adaptation to a system based on scheduling larger

population aggregates exploiting more agriculturally favorable lo

cales (Brose et al. 1976:73).

After ca. A.D. 1500 large, permanently occupied and fortified

agricultural villages based upon maize-beans-squash horticulture oc

cur on promontories along the lake shore or on steeply dissected

bluffs along the major river valleys (Brose 1980). Naturally oc

curring resources are clearly subordinate to agriculture, but small

special ac tiv ity camps such as spring and fa ll fish and waterfowl

procurement sites, still occur.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 209

The Ft. Meigs settlement and subsi stence strategy is similar to

that outlined for Whittlesey sites, and represents an intensification

of resource exploitation from small riverine-oriented camps present

in the preceding Wolf phase (Stothers, Graves, and Redmond 1982:16).

Ft. Meigs marks the shift to occupation of permanent agricultural

villages, with sites situated on river bluffs commanding a view of

valley floodplains. Satellite procurement stations are also present,

to exploit seasonal1y available resources. The Oeleans Park site,

across the Maumee from Gt. Meigs, represents such a camp, and is a

fall occupation which focused on procurement and processing of deer

and nuts (Redmond 1981). The Pearson s ite , on the Sandusky River,

appears to be a Sandusky Tradition site centered on the rich fall

spawning runs (Bowen 1979).

The rich midden deposits and seasonally sp ecific flora and

fauna at Ft. Meigs suggest permanent occupancy associated with a

large population. The site's location atop a bluff overlooking

the broad floodplain is probably predicated upon accessibility to

easily tilled alluvial soils as well as defensive considerations.

Deer and other mammals were available in upland areas contiguous

to the site to the south and east.

While horticulture occupies an important position within the

Ft. Meigs subsistence regimen, the abundance of wild flora, deer,

and particularly fish remains at the site indicate that naturally

occurring resources continued to play a significant role. Similar

strateg ie s have already been noted in discussion of sites associated

with other northerly extensions of Upper Mississippian culture.

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

UPPER MISSISSIPPIAN DEVELOPMENT WITH EMPHASIS ON FT. MEIGS AND THE SANDUSKY TRADITION

Introduction

The general development of regional expressions of Upper Missis

sippian cu ltu re will be addressed in the following paragraphs. While

not intended to be an exhaustive discourse, it will permit a delinea

tion of similarities and divergences among these distinct developments

Specifically addressed wi11 be Huber-related expressions in northern

Illin o is, northwestern Indiana, and southwest Michigan, the Oneota

foci in Wisconsin, Fort Ancient in southern Ohio, Whittlesey in

northeastern Ohio, and fin a lly , the Sandusky trad itio n in the Western

Lake Erie Basin.

To begin, most authorities agree that Upper Mississippian develop

ment in the Midwest/Great Lakes area involved at least semi-permanent

village life, the result of a successful combination of horticulture

and exploitation of various natural food resources. Many authorities

bel ieve that these Upper Mississippian cultures were-at least indirect

ly influenced by the movement of Mississippian peoples into the

peoples into the Central Mississippi Valley during A.D. 800-1200,

a period corresponding with a moderating climatic episode (Baerreis

and Bryson 1965; Baerreis, Bryson and Kutzbach 1976; Faulkner 1972:

154; Griffin 1960). The development of cultigens more suited to

northern clim ates may also have been a factor (Prufer and Shane 1970:

210

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 211

250; Yarnell 1964:107).

As would be expected, the development of Upper M ississippian

from an indigenous Woodland base resulted in many cultural similari

ties. In earlier analyses a "trait list" approach emphasized the

differences rather than the similarities between Woodland and Upper

Mississippian sites. Thus, within Fort Ancient "constant shifting

of the defining criteria has allowed the two units to be maintained

as discontinuous despite the accumulation of sim ila ritie s between

them" (Rafferty 1974:56). Today the Woodland and Upper M ississippian

cultures are distinguished primarily on the basis of pottery designs,

although other criteria such as settlement size and intensity and

subsistence and settlement systems are applied.

Fort Ancient is perhaps the best known and most extensively

studied of the Upper Mississippian expressions, and different expla

nations for the development of Fort Ancient have been offered. Pru-

fer and Shane (1970) assume a unilineal development commencing ca.

A.D. 1000 and encompassing a rather uniform development in several

geographically distinct foci. This approach is premised primarily

on material culture studies and assumes a general uniformity in

ethnicity and sociocultural complexity.

Essenpreis (1978) instead, argues that Fort Ancient encompasses

a number of diverse groups linked by stylistic similarity which glos

ses over adaptive and even ethnic diversity. In this model Fort

Ancient develops out of a Late Woodland base because of increasing

importance of maize ag ricu ltu re and sedentism. These developments

are "largely stimulated by cultures to the west, which were also

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 212

placing greater dependence on maize agriculture and were organizing to

participate in a broad system termed 'Mississippian'11 (Essenpreis

1978:152).

While the appearance of larger, more stable villages, elaborate

s ty lis tic designs on pottery, and a more varied animal bone and lith ic

assemblage mark the development of Fort Ancient, a Late Woodland an

cestry is supported by the continuation of indigenous ceramic attri

butes, house forms, and burial patterns into Upper M ississippian

occupations. However, a f te r ca. A.D. 1200, the more closely Missis-

sippian-related Madisonville phase may result from an actual physi

cal migration up the Ohio River at the expense of the "more Woodland"

Baum, Balkwin, Brush Creek, Anderson, and Feurt phases (Essenpreis

1978:155).

Essenpreis feels Madisonvi1le was a socioculturally complex

expression featuring a regional hierarchy of sites as opposed to the

egalitarian structure of the earlier Fort Ancient phases. This in

terpretation is countered by other authorities who state that Essen

preis' sole example of a primary village (with platform mounds) may

not be attributable to Fort Ancient (Graybi11 1980). Rather, a

sociocultural equivalence of sites displaying historical continuity

between e a rlie r Fort Ancient phases and the Madisonville phase is

indicated (Graybill 1980:57). This stance would negate any hypothe

sis of a migratory origin for the latest Fort Ancient phase. Thus,

the differences which do exist between sites in size and cultural

complexity are not the result of synchronous occupation, but instead

reflect an evolutionary/developmental continuum.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The combination of some Mississippian migration followed by

acculturation of indigenous Woodland groups has been popular since

Griffin first offered the model (Griffin 19*13). Studies employing

this model have emphasized either migration or acculturation in dis

cussing regional expressions of Upper Mississippian culture. Raf

ferty persuasively argues for the development of Upper Mississippian

from an indigenous Woodland base (Rafferty 197*0. She feels that

au th o rities have emphasized differences between M ississippian and

Woodland expressions at the expense of numerous sim ila ritie s which

do ex ist.

Rafferty's model disputes both the migratory and acculturation

hypotheses for the origin of Fort Ancient. She feels the ceramic

motifs present in Fort Ancient indicate stylistic continuity with

indigenous Woodland cultures and are not composed of a single co

herent set originating in a Mississippian core area. Rather, indi

vidual motifs occur earlier outside the Mississippian tradition than

they do within it. These motifs do not co-occur in a Mississippian

context until they appear in Fort Ancient (Rafferty 197*1:221).

Huber-related expressions around the head of Lake Michigan

appear to have developed shortly after the extension of the Mississip

pian settlement-subsistence system into the Prairie Peninsula (Faulk

ner 1972). The Upper Mississippian strategy was the result of the

contact between th is new adaptive system and local Woodland groups.

Faulkner relies on an ecological emphasis to explain the development

of distinctive Upper Mississippian related Fisher, Langford, and

Huber expressions in the period A.D. 1000 to A.D. 1300 (Faulkner

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 214

1972:158). Ceramic evidence supports "strong interaction" between

sites in northwestern Indiana and Fort Ancient Madisonville sites

to the southeast (Faulkner 1972:163). Fisher and Huber appear to

have developed primarily from a Woodland base affected to varying

degrees by other Mississippian expressions (Brown 1961; Munson and

Munson 1969; McAllister 1980:62).

During the period A.D. 800-1000 Oneota culture began to emerge

because of subtle modifications in the material culture of indigenous

populations in Wisconsin. Overstreet (1978) attributes the develop

ment of the diverse Oneota foci to lengthy in situ cultural responses

to different ecological settings. This model opposes the traditional

"transformationist" hypothesis which favors a northern expansion or

physical intrusion of Middle Mississippian peoples (specifically Old

Village Cahokia groups) during a period of clim ate amelioration (Over

street 1978:26, 1981; contra Griffin 1960; see also Mason 1981: 365-

371).

The evidence upon which the transformationist hypothesis is

almost solely based, the well-known Aztalan site, actually post-dates

the appearance of early Oneota traits, and, therefore, it cannot be

the point of origin of such traits. Similarly, attributing Oneota

to the adoption of maize by Effigy Mound groups and vague "external

social interaction" (Gibbon 1972), is contradicted by the lack of

intensive maize utilization by early Oneota groups, as well as the

contemporaneity of early Oneota and Effigy Mound sites (Overstreet

1981:498). Thus, current evidence supports the posotion that Oneota

developed out of the demise of Southern Tier Middle Woodland cultures,

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. premised on a subsistence pattern in which maize was not the primary

resource, but rather one among many (Mason 1981).

The W hittlesey cu ltu re in northeastern Ohio appears to emerge

as an Upper Mississippian manifestation because of Mississippian

influence upon a Woodland base. After the Late Woodland Hale Phase

(ca. A.D. 650-900), shell tempered ceramics occur in increasing fre

quency through the Riverview Phase (ca. A.D. 950-1150), with unmis

takable evidence of Fort Ancient influence during the succeeding

Fairport Phase (ca. A.D. 1150-1350) (Brose 1980).

The development of an Upper Mississippian adaptive strategy

apparently coincides with climatic amelioration in northern Ohio

(Baerris et al. 1976), coupled with the introduction and intensive

use of cultigens including maize and beans. Several sites reveal

the introduction of some Fort Ancient ceramic decorative motifs si

milar to Anderson Incised and Baum Cordmarked and Incised (Brose

1976a:28). Some of these similarities may be attributed to the de

velopment in both northern and southern Ohio of relatively similar

local post-Hopewel1ian ceramic traditions prior to A.D. 1000 (see

Stothers and Graves 1982, in press).

The maximum extent of Whittlesey-Fort Ancient interaction appar-.

ently occurred during middle Whittlesey times with "earlier compo

nents remaining fairly well insulated from Mississippian influences"

(Brose et al. 1976). Other sources feel general Fort Ancient influ

ence began as early as A.D. 1100 with stronger 1 inks, "perhaps di

rect contact", occurring in the 1*»th century wi th, for example,

Madisonville peoples (Murphy 1971). In summation, the catalyst for

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

the appearance of Upper Mississippian culture in northeastern Ohio is

attributed primarily to "strong southern influences", whatever the

mechanism, around the 14th century (Brose 1973; P ratt and Brose

1976).

Perhaps the most exhuberant evidence of southerly influences

within the Great Lakes region during late prehistory is provided

by the presence of the highly distinctive Southern Cult motifs. The

earliest professional investigations recognized this distinctive

class of a rtifa c ts (Greenman 1935a, 1935b, 1937), which includes

engraved shell gorgets and celts (Brose 1978:580). Specific exam

ples from archaeological site s in the Great Lakes include a Weeping

Eye figure engraved on a stone pipe at Conneaut Fort, a Whittlesey

site near Cleveland (Brose et al. 1976), and an incised celt bearing

both a Weeping Eye motif and a human hand incised with a central eye

(Brose 1971). Such evidence may indicate "strong influence from

Mississippian centers in southern Ohio . . . although the nature and

extent of the contacts existing between northeast Ohio and the South

east . . . remain unclear" (Brose 1971:17).

Other Southern Cult related items have been reported from other

Upper Mississippian occupations. Some examples include a shell mask

gorget with Weeping Eye motif from the Huber-related Anker s ite

(Bluhm and Liss l96l:Figure 70a); a sherd pendant with Weeping Eye

motif at the Fifield site in northern Indiana (Faulkner 1972:162);

a Southern Cult motif marine shel1 gorget from the Reider earthwork

in west central Michigan (Brose 1978:581); a marine shell dipper with

Southern Cult designs from Moccasin Bluff in the St. Joseph River

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 217

Valley of southwestern Michigan (Bettarel and Smith 1973); and Weeping

Eye motif artifacts recovered from the protohistoric Dumaw Crrek site

in western Michigan (Quimby 1966).

The exact nature of the appearance of Upper Mississippian cul

ture in northwestern Ohio has not yet been determined. However,

the fieldwork completed by the University of Toledo and the Toledo

Area Aboriginal Research Society has done much to illuminate the

process of "Upper Mississippification".

Recent research in north central Ohio has led to the definition

of the Sandusky Tradition (Stothers and Pratt 1980, 1981; Bowen 1979).

Wolf phase shell tempered ceramics are now viewed as representing a

cultural tradition separate from that of the indigenous Woodland

occupants of northwestern Ohio, the Western Basin Tradition (Stothers

1975, 1978; Stothers and Graves 1983; Stothers and P ratt 1981)

(Figure 8.)

As such, Wolf phase ceramics are coeval with, rather than de

veloping from, the Late Woodland Western Basin Tradition Springwells

ware. "It appears this Wolf phase intrusion into the Maumee Bay

area may originate in north central Ohio where, like the Whittlesey

occupations to the east, a "Mississippification" of local and indi

genous peoples took place (Stothers and Pratt 1981: 9 8). Shifts in

settlement-subsistence patterns associated with this process may

have provided the catalyst for territorial expansion. By the 16th

century it is believed these indigenous Western Basin peoples had

withdrawn to the east to join ethnically related "cultural kinfolk"

— the Ontario Iroquois (Stothers 1975, 1978; Stothers and Graves 1982,

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CORRELATIONS OF THE NEW YORK AND ONTARIO IROQUOIAN CULTURES WITH THE WESTERN BASIN AND SANDUSKY TRADITIONS

Upper New York Slate Southwestern Northwestern Ohio O n ta rio Southeastern Michigan Northcentral Ohio

Now York O ntario Weslorn Basin Sandusky Iro q u o is I ro q u o l s Tradition Tradition ( Iroquoi » ) (Algonquin)

Dispersal 1 6 5 0 A.D. Disporsal

Historic Five Huron /w e n ro '*•3'' Atsislaaronon 1 6 0 0 A. D. Nation Iroquois retun Noutral Indian Hills phase 15 5 0 A.D

Garoga o * Lowsoiy Fort Meigs phase 1 5 0 0 A.D. phase

14S 0 A.D. Chance phase round 1 4 0 0 A.D.

phase 1 3 5 0 A.D. Oak Hill Springwetls phase C - - Middleporl 1300A.D. Uren Eiden 1 2 5 0 A.D. Castle phase Creek phase 1 2 0 0 A.D

1150 A.D. Younge Canandaiqua phase Glen Meyer phase 1100A .D Carpenter Brook 1 0 5 0 A.D. phase

1 0 0 0 A.D. Late Riviere Printess au Vase (500AD. HunUr't Point phase Esch 950A .D . Horn* phase phot* fo o & c)

M o d i f i e d aflor Sfolhsrc 1976 and Mason 1981.

Oravos 82

Figure 8. Western Basin, Sandusky Tradition Flow Chart

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2 1 9

1983, in p re ss).

The initial Wolf phase occupations occur along the lower Maumee

River in riparian locations, suggesting an aquatic orientation and/or

selection of floodplain locations with easily tilled alluvial soils.

As the Sandusky Tradition peoples settled in the Maumee Valley, site s

expanded upriver along the bottoms, resulting in more intensive occu

pations. This process culminated in occupation of the Ft. Meigs and

protohistoric Indian Hills (Graves 1 98^; Stothers 1981b; Tucker 1980)

vi1lage sites. These sites reveal continued occupation of the Maumee

River Valley by Upper M ississippian Sandusky Tradition groups at the

expense of indigenous Western Basin Tradition Woodland groups. Even

tually the number of Western Basin sites diminish and disappear by the

mid-fifteenth century (Stothers and Pratt 1981).

It is believed that by ca. A.D. 1400 "Sandusky Tradition popula

tions achieved an Upper Mississippian pattern comparable to that des

cribed for Ft. Ancient groups" (Stothers, Graves and Redmond 1982:3).

As such, the Sandusky Tradition variation of the M ississippian theme

is focused on the floodplain environments of the major rivers in

north central and northwestern Ohio: the Sandusky, Portage, and

Maumee Rivers.

This pattern fits well with the Mississippian settlement system

recognized by Smith (1978). Floodplain bottoms are rich in natural

resources such as fish , waterfowl, deer, and small mammals, as well

as floral communities. Of perhaps greater importance, especially

in the western Lake Erie basin, is that this crucial environmental

zone is circumscribed because of the relatively recent age of the

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. area's drainages. The presence of the Black Swamp further proscribed

the feasible settlement and subsistence options.

These zones are truly "environmentally circumscribed" (Carneiro

1970), and form the most a ttra c tiv e econiches for aboriginal occupa

tions. Such areas, whether exploited for naturally occurring resour

ces, cultigens, or a combination of both, would logically be the

focus of contention between groups. Complicating factors such as

ethnicity would probably serve to exacerbate any existing conflict

(see Stothers, Graves and Redmond 1982).

To reiterate, acculturation (or "Mississippification") of

Sandusky Tradition Eiden phase (ca. A.D. 1000-1300) peoples occurs

due to southern influences in much the same manner as that described

for adjacent Whittlesey populations. In both cases indigenous peo

ples appear to react to stimuli from Fort Ancient occupations to

the south, which lead to changes in material culture, shifts in

ceramic technology, bone, and lithic industries, and settlement and

subsistence changes (Stothers and Pratt 1980:14).

These changes formed the base for expansion into adjacent areas

during the ensuing Wolf phase (A.D. 1300-H00). Areas such as the

Maumee River Valley in northwestern Ohio provided the lure of rich

aquatic resources and alluvial soils, necessary for the Upper Mis-

issippian adaptive strategy. This apparently rapid expansion may

be a function of the development of intensive horticulture and popu

lation increase associated with an increasingly sedentary settlement

pattern (Boserup 1965; Binford 1965; 1968; Flannery 1 9 6 8; Lee and

Devore 1969). Sandusky Tradition peoples combined h o rticulture

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 221

with riverine-oriented resources to achieve a subsistence intensity

unequaled previously in northwestern Ohio (Stochers, Graves and Red

mond 1982).

This strategy increased the need for suitable alluvial soils

and estruary zones. As Wolf and Ft. Meigs phase peoples more inten

sively exploited the preferred floodplain locales, the seasonal sus-

sistence round strategy of indigenous Woodland populations was in

creasingly re stricted and disrupted. Conflict would be one likely

response. "Thus it appears that the need for a p artic u la r type of

environment led to expansion of Sandusky Tradition populations at

the ultimate expense of the Late Woodland Western Basin groups"

(Stothers and Graves 1983:117; in press; P ratt 1981:168).

As Western Basin Tradition peoples were excluded from preferred

zones it appears they withdrew to the north and east (Stothers 1975,

1978). During the Ft. Meigs phase the Sandusky Tradition reached

its greatest geographical extent, extending into southwestern On

tario (Stothers and Graves 1983, in press). Concrete evidence of

Sandusky Tradition contact is provided by the occurrence of Sandusky

wares a t theMcGeachy s ite (MacNeish 1952; Lee 1952). After ca. A.D.

1500, Sandusky Tradition groups appear to retrench further to the

west and south, resulting in a "buffer zone" between the eastern

St. C lair lake plain and London, Ontario (Stothers and Graves 1983:

120; Fox 1980). The Ontario Iroquois lay beyond.

It is a ll well and good to b riefly summarize the culture h is

tory of the Western Lake Erie basin and adjacent areas, but it is

more important to attempt to illuminate the culture processes

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 222

underlying these events. In this specific case, the interaction of

social groups as distinct cultures in northern Ohio requires an

examination of the process of culture contact. "Culture contact"

in this sense represents a process, rather than an event.

The "Upper M ississippification" of Northwest Ohio

It has been fairly common to define Upper Mississippian culture

on the basis of material culture and associated "traits" (Griffin

19^3)» such as shell tempered pottery, strap handles, and elaborate

bone tool assemblages. However, a perhaps more appropriate approach

is to emphasize culture ecology and examine Upper Mississippian cul

tures as adaptations to specific habitats.

In general, Upper M ississippian manifestations combine h o rticu l

ture supplemented by various natural resources. Village sites tend

to cluster along major drainages. Selected natural resources, when

combined with horticulture, provided a dependable, seasonally abun

dant subsistence strategy. Specifically, white tail deer, migratory

waterfowl, and piscene resources, combined with maize permitted a

relatively secure and balanced diet. Of course, throughout the di

verse Upper Mississippian expressions, specific populations adjusted

this general subsistence model to the environmental situations in

which they existed. What is significant is that these expressions

adapted to a particular ecological niche and/or altered the natural

environment amenable to cultivation.

Perhaps more importantly, Upper Mississippian cultures had to

define their cultural as well as natural niche. That is, not only

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 223

did these groups adapt to a natural environment, but almost without

exception, they had to deal with a social environment of indigenous

Woodland groups. And here the importance of addressing culture con

tact arises.

In general, culture contact or inter-cultural relations may take

a variety of forms, often resulting in alteration of the content or

structure of one or both cultures involved. The process of culture

change has preoccupied anthropologists almost from the inception of

the discipline (Beardsley et al. 1956).

The American H istorical School believed diffusion of t r a i t s or

the spread of traits or complexes between cultures was the primary

mechanism of culture change. Functionalists emphasized acculturation,

whereby the interacting subsystems of a cultural system were in flu

enced and changed by exposure to external stimuli. Evolutionists

emphasized organic progression, change within a culture along a tra

jectory that was also influenced to a degree, by external contacts.

Diffusion, migration, and acculturation were viewed as secondary in

importance to the process of culture change, subordinate to the

"evolutionary process".

Migration and diffusion are mechanisms used to explain the sud

den appearance of traits indicating cultural change, especially

those indicating a large break from previous patterns. Accultura

tion emphasizes the strong influence of a dominant cu ltu re on a

weaker one, presenting a uni-directional transferral of traits.

This may involve not only stylistic, but also more basic func

tional shifts in a culture. In culture contact situations this may

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

take the form of a technically superior cu ltu re which eith er radi

cally alters the lifeways of an indigenous culture or even displaces

or eliminates it (Beardsley et al. 1956; Rafferty 1974:2*0 •

In general, competing groups should be capable of the same

range of adaptive behavior and responses. Yet, the archaeological

record indicates that certain groups displace others in culture

contact situations, often because of competitive advantages present

in the expanding culture's adaptive strategy. In many cases this

process is actualized by the expansion of horticulturalists at the

expense of hunter-gathers.

One instructive perspective from which to discuss such situations

includes a variation of the mini-max theory adopted by Bettinger and

Baumhoff (1982). In it, subsistence resources are ranked by procure

ment e ffo rt, whereby the highest ranked resources require the least

amount of effort to procure: maximum resources produced by the least

amount of effort. Conversely, the lowest ranked resources are those

procured by the greatest amount of effort.

The subsistence resources available for exploitation offer a

shifting continuum of availabi1ity and attractiveness: as highly

ranked low cost (effort) resources are depleted, they are replaced

in the subsistence regimen by others, a lb e it foods somewhat lower

ranked and more costly to procure. This is especially relevant in

discussions of horticultural groups in interaction with hunter-

gatherer so cieties. Although the advent of ag ricu ltu re has been

much discussed (Binford 1968; Boserup 1965; Cohen 1977; Flannery

1968, 1973)> one common thread among most models is that h o rticulture

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 225

becomes an attractive option only after a strategy based totally on

naturally occurring resources becomes unfeasible.

In culture contact situations horticultural groups may expand

at the expense of hunter-gatherers. In circumscribed environments

(cultural or natural) sedentary horiculturalists may expand as a

function of population increase or "budding off" of daughter commu

n itie s associated with nucleation (Binford 1968; Lee and Devore 1968;

Sahlins 1961).

The actual contact zone of geographically expanding communities

and indigenous populations may be viewed as possessing a f in ite set

of subsistence resources. Within this zone the appearance of addi

tional pressure on available resources, and the associated cost of

procuring resources increases. Both high cost (effort) and low cost

adaptive strategy groups represent functioning cultural systems com

posed of subsystems. These subsystems include economic (subsistence),

socio-political, and ideological spheres, all of which form the dy

namic equilibrium of the functioning culture.

Any culture may reach an adaptive peak in a given social and

natural environment, but high cost adaptive strategy groups at such

a peak may expand at the expense of low cost adaptive strategy groups

because of the advantages in increased carrying capacity, population,

and nucleation (Binford 1969; Flannery 1969, 1973; Sahlins 1961).

Thus, if a hunter-gatherer group attempted to adjust to the

expansion of a horticultural group into a frontier zone it would

probably fail. Continued intrusion and eventual displacement of

the indigenous group would re su lt. An adjustment in one of the

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 226

subsystems of a functioning cultural system, especially the economic

subsystem through which the entire culture articulates with its en

vironment (White 1959), will disrupt that system's equilibrium.

Thus any adaptive peak previously achieved will be disrupted, the

system will lose efficiency and be at an even greater competitive

disadvantage relative to the intruding group. Eventually, the indir

genous culture may again achieve dynamic equilibrium.

These interactions may be viewed from the perspective of the

Law of Cultural Dominance (Sahlins and Service 1960:75)• Essentially,

one culture may expand at the expense of another if it exploits the

environment more efficiently than its rival. This usually implies

some degree of technological superiority. Mechanisms fa c ilita tin g

the spread of one culture may be purely cultural, achieved by accul

turation, or physical, achieved through migratory expansion. While

less efficient cultures cannot expand at the expense of more effi

cient ones, they will also fail to expand at each other's expense if

they exploit the environment with equal efficiency.

Rafferty (197*0 operationalizes these concepts with two maxims.

The law of migratory expansion states a more efficiently exploitive

culture will physically expand at the expense of a less efficient

culture which cannot or will not reach an equivalent level of effi

ciency. The law of acculturative expansion sta tes that a more e f f i

cient culture will expand by acculturating a less efficient culture if

the latter group can and does reach an equivalent level of efficiency

(Rafferty 197**:226). In eith e r case the process would appear very

similar in a culture material-archaeological context. A corollary

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. is that cultures which can and do reach an equally efficien t exploita

tion will not usually be able to expand at one another's expense.

The Upper M ississippian cultures in general, and the Sandusky

Tradition in particular, occupy the periphery of Mississippian-

1 inked culture. The nature of the interaction between the Upper

Mississippian and indigenous Woodland groups is significant. This

contact zone, or frontier, probably witnessed a continuum of inter

action and response, from peaceful diffusion and acculturation

through conflict and displacement. This Woodland /Upper Mississip

pian "fro n tier" would define a zone in which cultural change is ex

pected (Dorwin 1971:388).

Some fro n tie r constructs borrowed from h istorical archaeology

are informative in th is regard. As the distance from the core area

of a culture increases (in the present case the Middle Mississippian

groups) towards a region of more active contact with indigenous peo

ples (Woodland), site s become "socially and cu ltu rally simpler and

increasingly dissim ilar from the core area" (Waselkov and Paul 1981:

31*0* In peripheral zones of culture contact, in situations rela

tively isolated from respective core areas, a breakdown of tradi

tional ways may occur and new patterns of behavior will emerge.

This "shared experience" may lead to a degree of homogenization of

social and technological behavior (Turner 189*0, or a "merging of

alien and recipient cultures" (Morse 1977:195).

In the zone of cultural interaction and exchange, whether peace

ful or hostile, items of material culture are adopted if they are

more efficient, or in some cases, if prestige is attached to them

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2 2 8

(Waselkov and Paul 1981:320). While functional ascriptions are not

always possible in the prehistoric context, the presence of Southern

Cult items in many Upper Mississippian contexts, including Ft. Meigs,

may have had prestige value.

From an ecological perspective the "frontier" is composed of a

habitat (natural environment) component, and a social (cultural) com

ponent (Hardesty 1980:68). The natural component as fro n tie r imposes

a set of environmental problems or constraints which must be addressed

or modified by the available technology. The social component may be

approached and resolved through acculturation, assimilation, or even,

conquest.

In some instances the cultural "homogenization" referred to

earlier (Turner 1894) for frontier situations is not verified by

material reality. Rather, the ecological principle of competitive

exclusion more closely mirrors reality (Hardesty 1980:72). Thus,

different cultures using the same resources in an area cannot per

manently co-exist, but must change habitats exploited or subsistence

strategy. Under conditions of competition, groups will attempt to

reduce or remove the competitive intensity. This is accomplished

by intensification of territoriality or geographical exclusion of

competitors, or changed subsistence pattern or resource use so that

competition for the same resources is minimized.

Prolonged frontier conditions thus may lead to, in the first

case, assimilation or extinction, and in the second case, coexistence

or a degree of stable symbiosis (Waselkov and Paul 1981:322). Trans

formations brought about through such responses should be reflected

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2 2 9 in the material culture and, therefore, in the archaeological record.

Upper Mississippian/Late Woodland Interaction

This discussion focuses on culture co n tact/in teract ion between

Upper M ississippian and Late.Woodland groups which resulted in the

appearance of Upper M ississippian culture in the Great Lakes region,

and concludes with examination of specific regional examples.

Ethnographic literature provides enalogues for culture contact

situations relevant to Upper Mississippian and Late Woodland inter

action. Some examples are particularly appropriate if, indeed, these

two cultural manifestations represent distinct ethnic groups as has

been postulated (Stothers 1978; Stothers and Graves 1983). It is

important to note, in this regard, that stable and persisting rela

tions can be maintained across ethnic inter-ethnic contact (Barth

1969:10). Also important, ecologically, is that within an ethnic

group spread over a wide area in varying ecological circumstances,

regional material culture diversity unassociated with ethnic affilia

tion will exist, and a one-for-one relationship between culture and

ethnicity will not obtain.

Still, where different cultures come into contact the result

may generate conflict or peaceful exchange. Employing an ecological

perspective, Barth (1969) defines four frameworks for inter-group

contact situations: (a) Each group occupies distinct niches result

ing in minimal competition for resources and possiblyrpeaceful in ter

action; (b) Each group monopolizes separate territories while con

trolling and utilizing the same resources; (c) Each group occupies

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. different but reciprocal niches which may lead to interdependence

because of the complementary nature of the resources; and (d) Inter

spersed groups are in at least partial competition within the same

niche, "with time one would expect one such group to displace the

other, or an accomodation involving an increasing complementary and

interdependence to develop" (Barth 1969:20). In such a situation a

group's adaptation to its natural niche is dependent on its absolute

size, while its adaptation to its social/cultural niche is relative,

affected by and affecting another group's cultural niche.

Of course, such boundaries may be relatively fluid, rather than

fixed and permanent over time. Brashler (1978) provides examples of

how interaction varies internally among Late Woodland groups and ex

ternally between Woodland and Upper M ississippian groups. Barth's

mutually exclusive synchronica1ly oriented schema is not entirely

appropriate for discussion of archaeological cultures, where, obvi

ously through time ecological, cultural, or evolutionary processes

may alter a Type a, b, c, or d contact situation to another type.

Therefore, a diachronic perspective is essential.

A range of interaction is represented through the Midwest when

Upper Mississippian and Late Woodland cultures came into contact. In

general, Upper M ississippian expressions expanded physically or

culturally at the expense of Late Woodland groups. This is to be

expected if the adaptive and cultural parameters discussed earlier

in this paper are valid.

By A.D. 1000 in the eastern United States "Mississippian" expan

sion had reached a frontier which included the Ft. Ancient Aspect,

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 231

Whittlesey Focus, Sandusky Tradition, Fisher-Huber, and Oneota.

While isolated intrusions of Mississippian influence are noted be

yond these expressions, these archaeological cultures compose the

Woodland-Upper M ississippian contact zone or fro n tie r. "In a general

way th is line does conform to . . . a fro n tie r zone between expanded

Mississippian cultures and other indigenous cultures" (Dorwin 1971:

383-384).

M ississippian influence within each regional Upper M ississippian

expression varied, as did influence and interaction among the expres

sions themselves. Dorwin constructs a "frontier transfer zone" model

to explain such interaction (Dorwin 1971:389). Essential to under

standing the similarities and differences among the cultures is that

while each phase was the product of somewhat localized Late Woodland

and Upper Mississippian assimilation and replacement, each was also

influenced by other parts of the transfer zone.

Therefore, while Late Woodland-Upper M ississippian interaction

is the focus of this discussion, this does not preclude the existence

of relations, whether peaceful or h o stile , between Upper M ississippian

groups. Nor does i t deny the p o ssib ility of d irect contact between

Middle M ississippian and Upper M ississippian populations.

Thus, Rafferty notes the failure of Mississippian culture to

expand into the western zone occupied by Fort Ancient groups, either

through migration or acculturation (Rafferty 1974:226). Premised

upon relative efficiency of adaptive systems (Bettinger and Baumhoff

1982), the Fort Ancient settlement subsistence pattern was, for its

environment, equally efficient to that of Middle Mississippian

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 232

culture at the time this expansion was most likely to occur, ca.

A.D. 1000. Therefore, the two groups occupied adjacent areas, neither

encroaching upon the other, separated by a vague buffer zone extend

ing into southwestern Indiana (Rafferty 197^:228).

The role of Mississippian-Woodland interaction in the emergence

of Fort Ancient is not yet completely understood. Prufer and Shane

(1970) feel Ft. Ancient appeared in the Scioto valley in Ohio as a

"full blown" expression without obvious antecedents, which cannot

be explained as gradual modification of a Woodland cultural pattern.

Acculturation, diffusion, and stimulus diffusion are explicitly

denied; rather, an actual invasion involving physical and/or cultural

annihilation of Woodland cultures is postulated. Local "probably hos

tile" Late Woodland groups were displaced into the hilly hinterland

after the arrival of strong Mississippian population units in the

major river valleys (Prufer and Shane 1970:258). Late Woodland

(Scioto Tradition) groups persist in remote areas, while Fort Ancient

peoples occupy fertile bottom lands suited for cultigens. Some

"Mississippification" of local cultures occurred near the major

river valleys, but Woodland traits increase in direct proportion to

the distance removed from Mississippian core areas.

Essenpreis (1978), however, argues for an in situ acculturation

of Late Woodland groups, the reaction of indigenous Ohio Valley peo

ples to the emerging Mississippian system. This reaction takes the

form of incorporation of some Mississippian design elements into the

local artifact assemblage as well as adoption of the maize-beans-

squash horticultural system. Although this accounts for the emergence

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. of early Fort Ancient Anderson, Baum, Brush Creek, and Feurt phases,

the late Fort Ancient Madisonville may be the result of "more direct

impact" possibly a population movement (Essenpreis 1978:164). How

ever, Rafferty (1974) and others (Graybill 1980) argue for an in

situ development to account for all Fort Ancient foci.

Upper Mississippian-Late Woodland interaction is also proven

fo r Fisher-Huber components in northwestern Indiana and northern I l l i

nois as well as southwestern Michigan (Faulkner 1972; McAllister 1980)

Although not fully understood, the earliest Upper Mississippian ex

pression, Fisher, is believed to have moved into northwestern Indiana

from Illinois, "either displacing the resident Late Woodland groups

or in some instances amalgamating with them" (Faulkner 1972:158).

The Fisher "A" archaeological complex exhibits time depth in the

Upper Illin o is Valley into the Kankakee Valley and Chicago Late

Plain, while Fisher "B" and "C" (Langford culture), related but dis

tin ct from Fisher "A", are confined prim arily to the p ra irie edge

along the Illinois River and its tributaries.

Both Langford and Fisher developed when new ideas eminating from

the south and west, Mississippian, influenced Woodland groups (Brown

et al. 1967). Outlying Upper Mississippian sites in southwestern

Michigan also witnessed Woodland contacts. The Moccasin Bluff site

(Bettarel and Smith 1973), Huber-related, exhibits a "strong Upper

Mississippian influence on a basic Woodland pattern" (Cleland 1966:

211). However, these interpretations probably reflect spatial and

temporal variation to a degree.

At both Moccasin Bluff and in the Kalamazoo drainage, Upper

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

M ississippian components replace the previously dominant Woodland

Allegan Tradition (Rogers 1972), which "ssems to disappear",

surviving only in the "hinterlands" of the Kalamazoo drainage until

the thirteenth century (Brashler 1978:318). "The presence of shell

tempered vessels marks a cultural change in the Kalamazoo Basin that

may involve an influx of new peoples together with some new ideas

and practices. The new cultural system seems to have replaced the

previous Late Woodland one quite rapidly" (McAllister 1980:97). The

Upper Mississippian occupation of the Kalamazoo Valley exhibits a

strong riverine and very secondary upland orientation which con

trasts with the Woodland groups' exclusive orientation toward up

land game (Martin 1976; Cremin 1983)•

It is possible, however, that Woodland and Upper Mississippian

groups co-existed in a manner related to Barth's contact classifica

tion type #4(d). Each group may have been "intent on exploiting d if

ferent niches if the Allegan Tradition groups maintained a hunting-

collecting adaptation while the Upper Mississippian groups pursued

an agricultural adaptation" (Brashler 1978). Such simultaneous occu

pation of an area has been noted, for example, in Wisconsin (Hall

1962). Over time the material culture of the adjacent groups might

eventually converge as complementarity developed.

The appearance of Upper Mississippian culture in northwestern

Ohio and resulting interaction with indigenous Woodland groups has

been clarified within the past several years. In 1973 the more ex

plicit statements concerning the western Lake Erie basin hypothe

sized that such interaction represented the "accomodation and perhaps

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. eventual absorption by non-indigenous peoples" of Western Basin

Tradition groups (Brashler '1978:347). As recently as 1980 it

appeared that "Upper Mississippian occupations in northern Ohio

stemmed from contacts with populations to the south rather than

from an influx of new populations" (Pratt 1980).

That at least indirect influences were percolating into the

Maumee River Valley is indicated by the presence of a few Fort

A ncient-related vessels. The Bloom site , 35-SA-40, in Sandusky

County, produced a vessel reminiscent of Anderson Cordmarked (G riffin

1943:344), with diagnostic curvi1 inear guilloche motif (Pratt 1980).

The vessel was similar to pottery dated ca. A.D. 1200 at the Incin

erator s ite near Dayton, Ohio, and was associated with Mixer Tool

Impressed, Mixter Dentate, and Parker Festooned, all associated with

the Sandusky Tradition (Stothers, Graves, and Redmond 1982; Stothers

and Graves 1983). These contacts are coeval with somewhat more

direct links occurring between Fort Ancient and the Whittlesey Focus

in the thirteenth century (Brose 1976a).

Other evidence of Fort Ancient contacts with northwestern Ohio

include the Gunn-Eberle site, 33“HY-33, along the Maumee River in

Henry County. This site produced s shall tempered fine corded or

fabric impressed vessel with a trailed curvilinear guilloche (Stoth

ers 1979a, 1981a). Similar m aterials are reported from several

rather vague loci "around Defiance, Ohio" (Stidham 1980).

Upper Mississippian influences on north central and northwestern

Ohio and the Sandusky Tradition in itia lly occurred as early as the

12th century (Pratt 1980, 1981:139-140; Stothers and Pratt 1980, 1981

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 236

S titgers 1979; Brose 1976a, 1981) . In itia lly s t y l is t i c concepts

were most easily incorporated into indigenous cultures, but other

subsystems of culture, such as settlement and subsistence patterns,

lagged. Only after "Mississippification" of the Ohio Valley had

occurred was more direct influence in northern Ohio evident.

Thus, stylistic markers initially appear on some Mixter ceram

ics during the Eiden Phase ca. A.D. 1000-1300 (Pratt 1981:140). The

rectilinear and curvilinear motifs present on these ceramics may

mimic the scroll or guilloche associated with Fort Ancient ceramics.

During the 14th century Parker Festooned (both g r it and shell tem

pered varieties) is associated with finely cordmarked shell tempered

plain wares reminiscent of MadisonviHe Cordmarked (P ratt 1980; see

Griffin 1943:3^6). This association continues into the Wolf Phase

of the Sandusky Tradition, ca. A.D. 1300-1400, the peak of Upper Mis

sissippian expansion into the Western Lake Erie Basin.

Sandusky Tradition vs. Western Basin Tradition

The Woodland Western Basin Tradition has been documented (Fitting

1965; Stothers 1975, 1978; Stothers and P ratt 1979; P ratt 1981). The

Maumee River Valley is an a ttra c tiv e area fo r Upper M ississippian sub

sistence strategy, wi th broad floodplains and soil types amenable to

cultivation, as well as abundant floral and faunal resources procur

able through satel1ite extractive camps.

After ca. A.D. 1000 the Younge and Springwells Phase village

sites of the Western Basin Tradition occur on well drained soils with

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 237

numerous extractive camps along the Maumee River estuary (Stothers,

Graves, and Redmond 1982:10). The Springwells phase dates to ca.

A.D. 1300-1450, but sig n ific a n tly , a ll Springwells s ite s in north

west Ohio are confined to small camps located along the upper

Maumee drainage. They no longer occupy the locales preferred during

the preceding Younge and early Springwells times.

It appears that the locales favored earlier during the Western

Basin Tradition are increasingly, a fte r ca. A.D. 1300,;,occupied by

Upper Mississippian groups, a trend particularly evident during the

Ft. Meigs Phase (A.D. 1400-1500. This fact is very probably the

result of competition, perhaps classifiable under Barth's group #4(d).

Thus, a fte r in itia l contact Sandusky Tradition peoples displaced

Western Basin indigenous populations from locales most favorable fo r

horticulture and natural resources—the Maumee River floodplain.

Springwells occupations shifted out of these locales and con

tinued in the upper Maumee drainage, a niche less suited to the Up

per Mississippian settlement and subsistence patterns. Eventually,

Springwells sites disappear entirely from northwestern Ohio after

the mid-15th century. Apparently these Western Basin peoples with

drew from the western end of Lake Erie to areas occupied by their

"cultural kinfolk", the Ontario Iroquois (Stothers and Graves 1983)»

areas more suited to the Western Basin groups' traditional subsis

tence patterns.

Zones o f specific co nflict between the Woodland and Upper Mis

sissippian group's would center on the use of floodplain areas which

were essential to the settlement-subsistence strategies of both groups

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. (Stothers, Graves and Redmond 1982). Thus, adaptive confrontation

occurred in this "included niche", in which the resource set of one

group (Western Basin) was entirely included within the resource set

of another group (Sandusky), whose niche was broader (Bettinger and

Baumhoff 1983:831; see also Dickson 1981). Of course, th is sp atia lly

restricted zone had the highest potential in terms of both natural

resources and cultigens.

As Sandusky Tradition Wolf Phase (A.D. 1300-1400) peoples ex

panded from north central Ohio in search o f essential floodplain

environments, they initially occupied the lower Maumee River and Bay

area. This provided the greatest extent of floodplain estruary in

the relatively young Maumee drainage. As the Sandusky Tradition

peoples intensified use of this restricted environmental zone, they

would have intruded on Western Basin Springwells groups' seasonal

use of th is rich niche.

While the Western Basin, or Iroquois pattern (Stothers, Graves,

and Redmond 1982) combined limited horticulture with hunting, fish

ing and collecting are of seasonal importance to supplant the inter

ior oriented subsistence patterns. The Sandusky, or Mississippian

pattern, is based primarily.on horticultural pursuits, supplemented

primarily on horticultural pursuits, supplemented primarily by fish,

with sedentary villages located in riverine-estuary areas. In

essence, this is a more focal subsistence pattern (Cleland 1976).

Since the Western Basin settlement and subsistence pattern is

intrinsically more interior oriented than that of the Sandusky Tradi

tion, interior Springwells sites are to be expected. However, the

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. degree to which the interior sites of late SpringwelIs times may be

attrib u ted solely to subsistence considerations is debatable. During

early Springwells times seasonal extractive camps occur all along

the Maumee River floodplain. But, as Wolf and later Ft. Meigs Phase

Sandusky Tradition occupations appeared in increasing frequency, fewe

Springwells sites occurred in favored locales. instead, Springwells

occupations occurred more frequently upriver and extending into se

condary drainages. The only Springwells village sites known occur

in the Maumee uplands, a function of both subsistence considerations

and cultural pressure (Stothers, Graves and Redmond 1982).

These developments also generally correlate with the appearance

of earthwork sites in northwestern Ohio, southeastern Michigan, and

southwestern Ontario (Stothers, Graves, and Redmond 1982:11; Stothers

Graves, and Conway 198*1:72). These occur initially as early as the

12th century, dating to th e e a rlie s t contact of Western Basin and

Sandusky Tradition peoples.

The settlement or subsistence patterns referred to earlier also

may provide evidence of interaction and conflict. The Ft. Meigs

Phase marks the occurrence of permanent occupation of river bluffs

by Sandusky peoples, coincident with the absence or withdrawal of

Springwel Is groups from th e Western Basin (Stothers, Graves, and

Redmond 1982:20; Stothers and Pratt 1981). It is believed these

Western Basin peoples withdrew into adjacent areas of southwestern

Ontario, which also is the period of maximum geographical expansion

of the Sandusky Tradition (Stothers and Graves 1982, 1983, in press;

Stothers, Graves, and Redmond 1982).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2 4 0

Later and into historic times, the conflict may have become more

widespread, culminating in a "range war" in southwest Ontario between

the Sandusky Tradition and Ontario Iroquois (Western Basin Tradition)

populations (Fox 1980; Reid 1980:6; Stothers and Graves 1983). Even

tually the area between the St. C lair lake plain and London, Ontario

formed a fro n tie r or buffer zone between these two cultural trad itio n s

(Stothers and Graves 1982:27“35, 1983:30; Stothers, Graves, and Conway

1984:74).

In terms of concepts discussed previously this entire process

may characterize the expansion of the more efficiently adapted San

dusky Tradition at the expense of the Western Basin Tradition prior

to ca. A.D. 1300, the period of maximum geographical extent of the

Sandusky Tradition. Such interaction and/or co n flic t may have been

determined by factors of ethnicity (Stothers and Graves 1983; Stoth

ers, Graves and Redmond 1982). After ca. A.D. 1400 the Late Woodland

(Western Basin Tradition Iroquoian) and Upper M ississippian (Sandusky

Tradition Algonkian) derived cultures may have approached equivalent

adaptive peaks, neither able to expand territorally at the expense

of the other. A retrenching of each group might have taken place,

causing the appearance of the "buffer zone" mentioned above, in the

archaeological record.

Such a zone would have an analog in the frontier that existed

between Middle M ississippian and Fort Ancient groups described by

Rafferty fo r the Ohio River area in Indiana and Kentucky (Rafferty

1974:226). In that particular environment Fort Ancient and Middle

Mississippian cultures were equally efficient in niche adaptation

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 241

and existed side-by-side without encroachment. Rafferty recognizes a

geographical boundary east of the Ohio River where no permanent Mid

dle Mississippian or Fort Ancient sites occur—an 80 mile wide buf

fer zone/frontier between parallel developing and equivalent cultural

traditions. The original Upper Mississippian expansion at the ex

pense of indigenous Late Woodland peoples may have been fa c ilita te d

by demographic and social factors intimately associated with the more

intensive, agricultural subsistence system. Nucleated populations

alluded to earlier maintain a distinct advantage in competition with

non-nucleated low energy expenditure systems. Migration by budding

off (Binford 1 96 8; Flannery 1968; Sahlins 1961) and conquest (see

Carneiro 19.70)'play an intermittent role in the redistribution of

populations and changing inter-group relations (Barth 1969:21; see

also Harpending 1972).

A means of social organization amenable to the budding off/migra

tion process is the segmentary lineage, a means of intrusion and com

petition in an already occupied ecological niche (Sahlins 1961:323).

The spread of daughter groups into adjacent areas amenable to agri

culture would result in the "Mississippification" evident in the

archaeological record. This process would appear to be a reasonable

explanation for cuoture contact situations in late prehistoric north

western Ohio, for example.

But not all means of cultural expansion are inherently combative,

although such mechanisms may not be readily evident in the archaeolo

gical record. The adoption or incorporation of individuals into es

tablished groups has been recorded ethnographically (Barth 1969:24).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2k2

The Huron achieved a complex web of social relations often associated

with trade and exchange with adjacent groups. "This may account for

some of the Algonkian women who are reported to have been married

to Huron men" (Trigger 1969:39)-

To conclude, a few statements pertaining to the occurrence of

Upper M ississippian cu ltu re in northwestern Ohio are in order. The

argument behind Sandusky Tradition expansion into northwest Ohio

has already been presented. However, it may be asked why such ex

pansion surged westward rather than eastward. Perhaps of primary

importance is that both the Sandusky and adjacent northeastern Ohio

Whittlesey traditions had been receptive to direct and/or indirect

Mississippian influences, and were equivalently "Mississippified".

In addition, they were both members of the "Prairie Peninsula Co-

Tradition" (Stothers and Graves 1982). The indigenous Western Basin

tradition peoples, however, though exposed to some similar influence

"were apparently less receptive of Upper Mississippian influences

than were those m anifestations such as Wolf or Whittlesey" (Stothers

and Pratt 1981:99).

During "expansive" phases the floodplain and estuary-oriented

Sandusky peoples would tend to follow th eir preferred locales, the

Lake Erie shore and its major rivers. This would not involve massive

movement to the east because of the presence of equivalent, effici

ently adapted Upper Mississippian level Whittlesey groups. Rather,

Sandusky groups would follow the path of least resistance into a ttra c

tive environments. Therefore, expansion would occur to the west at

the expense of the ethnically distinct Western Basin peoples

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2 4 3

(Stothers 1978, Stothers and Graves 1982, 1983, in press; Stothers,

Graves and Conway 1984)-

Some authorities incorrectly argued for in situ development

of Wolf phase groups out of the Western Basin Tradition (see Fitting

1965). However, this model was advanced prior to extensive research

in the Western Lake Erie Basin. To date, not one site producing cu l

tural m aterial transitional between the (Western Basin) Springwells

and (Sandusky) Wolf phases has been documented. Both the Springwells

and Wolf phases are clearly linked developmentally to two d istin c t

cultural traditions expressing independent origins in northwestern

and north central Ohio, respectively.

At best, Springwells and Wolf sites are coeval occupations ex

hibiting little interaction. No sites are recorded which produce

Wolf/Ft. Meigs and Springwells ceramics in direct association;

that is, in the same features. However, Sandusky-related Wolf, Ft.

Meigs, and Indian h ills ceramics are found together in tran sitio n al

contexts and exhibit stylistic continuity (Tucker 1981; Graves 1984).

The same is true o f the esse n tially contemporaneous and developmen

tal ly distinct Riviere au Vase, Younge, and Springwel1s wares (Fit

ting 1965; F itting and Zurel 1976; Stothers and P ratt 1981).

The settlement and suubistence data of Sandusky and Western

Basin groups has been discussed, revealing a notable dissimilarity

except for a predeliction to exploit the very rich floodplain-

estuary environment. The confusion about the relation of the Wolf

phase to Western Basin expressions probably dates to Fitting's

seminal analysis relying on data from a limited number of s ite s

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 244

(Fitting 1965) • Nearly two decades later, over 50 sites producing

radiocarbon dates have been examined in the western Lake Erie basin

(Stothers 1973> 1975, n.d.). Provided these additional data, the

archaeological record has been enhanced considerably. And, more

specifically, analysis is currently proceeding on an update and

re-interpretation of the Late Woodland period in the Western Basin

area (Redmond 1984).

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

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

It is hoped that the data and interpretations presented in thi

thesis will help to more clearly define the process and events asso

ciated with the appearance of Upper Mississippian culture in the

western Lake Erie Basin. In a broader sense, this study may be

informative as but a portion of the general body of data leading

to an understanding of the cultural dynamics of late prehistoric

times in the Lower Great Lakes region.

Many of the conclusions reached as a result of analysis of the

Ft. Meigs a r tif a c t assemblage and review of subsistence data have

already been synthesized in Chapters VI I and VIII of this thesis.

However, such interp retatio n s may become lost in a body of text,

and a brief statement summarizing the main points of research and

conclusions derived from them is in order. In addition, a short

statement of future research orientation and topics is needed.

The advent of Upper M ississippian adaptive strateg ie s and ma

terial culture in northwestern Ohio is the result of the expansion

of Sandusky Tradition groups westward in search of environmental

zones amenable to horticulture. This expansion occurred into the

western Lake Erie Basin at the expense of indigenous Late Wood

land Western Basin Tradition peoples because of the presence of

Whittlesey groups in northeastern Ohio. Unlike the Western Basin

groups, Whittlesey had achieved an economic adaptation equivalent

2k5

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2k6

to Sandusky Tradition peoples, and, perhaps more importantly, may

have been c u ltu ra lly and lin g u istica lly related.

It appears that the Western Basin Tradition groups represent

Iroquoian speakers and cultu re, while Sandusky Tradition is Algon-

kian related. The culture contact situation led to conflict and

displacement, as Sandusky Tradition groups excluded the indigenous

populations from the desired floodplain and lake edge environments.

Eventually, it is postulated, the Western Basin groups retreated

north and east to join cultural "kinfolk"— Iroquoisgroups in south

western Ontario.

The widespread and distinctive ceramic types associated with

Sandusky Tradition occupations, Parker Festooned and notched applique

strip, appear to indicate some form of contact or affi1iation among

a number of groups in the Lower Great Lakes region. Other similari

ties in material culture, which cannot be explained solely by func

tional or adaptive/economic factors, also have been noted. The

Prairie Peninsula Co-tradition has been offered to at least partially

explain these phenomena.

In general, the Upper M ississippian m anifestations in the lower

Great Lakes may be viewed as a series of cultures adapting to a range

of environmental situations. As such, they had to deal with a vari

ety of natural and social environments and stimuli. That a diver

sity in material culture and social organization occurred throughout

the region is, therefore, not to be unexpected. During la te pre

history, virtually all niches suited to an intensive Upper Mississip

pian adaptive strategy were already occupied by Woodland groups.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2 4 7

Indigenous populations reacted to a variety of external stimuli

unique to each culture contact situation. Some interaction (Fort

Ancient) appears to have been relatively peaceful and a cultural

synthesis or acculturation occurred. Other relations appear to

have been more confrontational (Sandusky-Western Basin), and re

sulted in removal and displacement.

No one model can explain the occurrence of Upper Mississippian

occupations in different areas of the Great Lakes region (i.e., Fort

Ancient, Sandusky, W hittlesey, Monogahela, Huber). While these mani

festations display a number of similarities in material culture and,

to a degree, settlement and subsistence strategies, each is a product

of its own environment. Each is the result of response to a unique

and varied complex of environmental and, perhaps most importantly,

social factors.

While recent research centering on the Sandusky Tradition occu

pation in the western Lake Erie Basin has answered many questions,

clearly many more remain to be answered. Future research further

defining the settlement pattern of the Ft. Meigs Phase is necessary.

Task specific resource procurement sites, such as Orleans Park,

should be identified to more accurately reflect the subsistence

strategy of the Sandusky groups.

Ideally, additional excavation should be conducted within the

confines of the reconstructed 1812 Ft. Meigs to acquire additional

settlement data; in particular delineation of other structural fea

tures would augment interp retatio n s of the Ft. Meigs aboriginal

village. Excavation on the site bluff near the western end of the

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 248

fort would also provide further data; this area is believed to be

less disturbed by road and fort construction than zones to the east.

Research continues and should be encouraged concerning the ••

exact relationship of among and between Sandusky Trad ition-W hittle-

sey, and Western Basin-Ontario Iroquoian groups. Of particular

import is clarification of ethnic affiliation because of the poten

tial ramifications for research involving Lower Great Lakes culture

history. Application of the direct historical approach may be feasi

ble in this particular instance.

Extensive recent research by Canadian archaeologists complements

that conducted on this side of the international border. In the past

less international cooperation than is required has taken place on

common archaeological interests. The aboriginal occupants of this

region did not recognize current national boundaries, and there is

no reason why modern researchers should. Such cooperation is essen

tial in attempting, for example, to accurately address the question

of ethnicity in cultural interaction and contact during late pre

history.

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

FT. MEIGS LITHICS

■2.1*9

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 250

LITHIC ARTIFACTS BY PROVENIENCE

Nass Exc. Steiner Buchman Surface Ar.1-2 Surf

Triangular Points 4 209 29 44 Point Bases 134 66 Point Midsections 64 Point Fragments 9 Point Tips 103 Triangular Preforms 3 128 Scrapers B ifacial 3 2 2 Snub-nose End 3 46 2 Side Uni face Scrapers 16 8 Cores Pebble 43 7 24 Bipolar 43 3 12 3 Nodular 26 11 4 Disc Fragments 86 17 18 Tabular 3 Drills T-Base Bulbous Base 1 S traight Shank 5 1 Bifaces 1 24 2 Ovate 6 Fragments 12 10 SIde-Notch Points 4 Corner Notch Points 1 4 Stemmed Points 6 Graver Spokeshave 1 1 Wedge 1 Blank-Roughout 2 Celts 2 Abrading Stone Gorget Ground Stone Fragment Schist Spall Marginally Retouched 9 55 11 flakes Uti1ized Flakes 67 21 Shatter 11 ^ 412 237 3 Flakes-Debitage 659 484 242 52 Net-Sinker

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 251

TrA LI TrA L2 TrA L3 TrB L1 TrBJL2

Triangular Points 2 6 8 1 20 Point Bases 3 2 3 2 4 Point Midsections Point Fragments Point Tips Triangular Preforms 1 .1 1 5 Scrapers Bifacial 4 1 3 Snub-Nose Side Uni face Scrapers Cores Pebble 7 8 Bipolar 3 ^ 1 5 Nodular 2 10 9 Di sc 1 Tabular Fragments 2 3 1 1 Drills T-Base - 2 Bulbous-Base Straight Shank B i faces Ovate Fragments k 2 2 5 6 Side-Notch Points 4 ^ Corner-Notch Points .. Stemmed Points Graver Spokeshave Wedge Blank-Roughout Celts Abrading Stone Gorget Ground Stone Fragment Schist Spall Marginally Retouched 6 2 1 3 1 flakes Uti1ized Flakes Shatter 180 165 173 ^ 217 Flakes-Debitage 137 91 91 136 290 Net-Sinker

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 252

TrB L3 TrC L1 TrC L2 TrC L3 TrC L*t

Triangular Points 6 11 5 Point Bases 6 Point Midsections Point Fragments Point Tips Triangular Preforms 6 8 1 Scrapers Bi facial 3 Snub-Nose Side Uni face Scrapers Cores Pepbble 11 7 9 Bipolar 2 7 Nodular 10 6 Di sc Tabular Fragments 8 1 D rills T-Base Bulbous-Base Straight Shank Bifaces Ovate Fragments 10 2 2 Si de-notch Points' 3 7 1 Corner-notch Points Stemmed Poi nts Gravers Spokeshaves Wedges Blank-Roughout Celts Abrading Stone 1 Gorget Ground Stone Fragment Schi st Spal 1 1 Marginally Retouched 8 6 flakes Utilized Flakes Shatter 178 58 13 7 Flakes-Debitage 30 152 9 ■ 14 Net-sinker

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 253

Uni t D Unit E Unit F Area 2 Area 2 Unit 1 Unit 2

Triangular Points 9 10 6 18 4 Point Bases 2 5 4 3 7 Point Midsections Point Fragments Point Tips Triangular Preforms 10 6 12 2 Scrapers Bifacial 4 3 2 3 3 Snub-nose Side 1 1 4 Uni face Scrapers 3 2 it 6 6 Cores Pebble Bipolar 16 5 29 14 6 Nodular 1 5 11 13 Disc Tabular 8 11 23 43 12 Fragments D rills T-base 1 1 1 Bulbous-base 1 Straight shank Bifaces Ovate Fragments 1 5 9 5 2 Side-notch Points Corner-notch Points Stemmed Points Gravers

Spokeshaves . 1 Wedges Blank-Roughouts Celts . ■ 3 ' Abrading stones 1 1 Gorgets Ground Stone Fragments Schist Spalls Ma rg i na11y Retouched flakes Utilized Flakes Shatter 202 134 273 179 162 Flakes-Debi tage 595 290- 644 345 149 Net-Sinker

Hammerstones 1 . ' Mortars 1

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 254

Area 2 Area 2 Ar2 Tr1 Ar2 Tr1 Ar2 Tr1 Unit 3 Unit 4 U5 LI U5 Lla U5 L2

Triangular Points 5 6 1 Point Bases 2 11 Point Midsections Point Fragments Point Tips Triangular Preforms 13 Scrapers Bifacial Snub-nose 5 2 Side 2 Uni face Scrapers 2 3 Cores Pebble Bipolar 11 5 2 Nodular 6 12 5 Disc Tabular Fragments 13 36 Dri 11 s T-base Bulbous-base Straight shank Bifaces Ovate Fragments Side-notch Points Corner-north Points Stemmed Points Gravers Spokeshaves Wedges Blank-Roughouts Celts Abrading Stones Gorgets Ground stone fragments Schist Spalls 4 Marginally Retouched 3 Flakes Utilized Flakes 43 Shatter 58 361 2 37 Flakes-Debitage 240 804 17 338 Net-sinker Hammerstones Mortars 4 Fire-cracked rock 1

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Ar2 Trl Ar2 Tr1 Ar2 Tr1 Area 3 Area U5. Ovbdn U6 LI U6 L2 Unit 1 t.p. 3

Triangular Points 12 7 Point Bases 8 1 Point Midsections 1 1 Point Fragments Point Tips Triangular Preforms 2 Scrapers Bifacial Snub-nose 1 Side 2 Uni face Scrapers 6 Cores Pebble Bipolar 1 5 Nodular 4 Disc Tabular Fragments 6 31 Dri11s 2 tips T-base Bulbous-base Straight shank Bifaces 16 Ovate Fragments 2 Side-notchPoints 1 Corner-notch Points Stemmed Points Gravers Spokeshaves Wedges Blank-Roughouts 1 Celts 3 Abrading Stones 1 Gorgets 1 Ground Stone Fragments 6 Schist SpalIs Marginally Retouched 7 Cla If AC Utilized Flakes 58 Shatter 5 25 15^ 2 Flakes-Debitage 18 351 136 3 Net-sinker Hammerstones Mortars Basalt Pol Is 1 Pigment Stone 1 Anvi1 stone 1

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Area k Area 4 Area A Area 5 Area 5 t . p . k t.p. 7 t.p. 9 Ovrbdn Tr. 1

Triangular Points 1 Point Bases Point Midsections Point Fragments Point Tips Triangular Preforms Scrapers B ifacial Snub-nose Side Uniface Scrapers Cores Pebble Bipolar Nodular Disc Tabular Fragments 2 6 D rills T-base Bulbous-base Straight shank Bifaces Ovate Fragments Side-notch Points Corner-notch Points Stemmed Points Gravers Spokeshaves Wedges Blank-Roughouts Celts Abrading Stones Gorgets Ground Stone Fragments Schist Spalls Marginally Retouched Flakes Util ized Flakes 1 Shatter 2 1 2 Net-s inker Hammerstones Mortars Basalt Pol 1 s. Pigment Stone Anvi l stone Flakes-Debitage 2 21 19 3 Fire-cracked rock 1

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Area 5 Area 5 Area 5 Area 5 Area 5 T rl LT-2 Trl L3 Trl Ovbdn Trl L5 Tr1 L6

Triangular Points 3 1 1 Point Bases 1 1 1 Point Midsections Point Fragments Point Tips Triangular Preforms 1 Scrapter Bi facial Snub-nose 2 Side Uniface Scrapers Cores Pebble 1 Bipolar 2 1 1 3 1 Nodular Disc Tabular Fragments 7 3 1 7 2 D rills T-base Bulbous-base Straight shank Bifaces Ovate Fragments 5 1 Side-notch Points Corner-notch Points Stemmed Points Gravers Spokeshaves Wedges Blank-Roughouts Celts Abrading Stones Gorgets Ground Stone Fragments Schist Spalls Marginally Retouched 1 Flakes Utilized Flakes Shatter ** 11 7 Flakes-Debitage 19 19 19 12 Net-sinker Hammerstones Mortars Basalt Pol Is 1 Pigment Stone Anvil stone Fire-cracked rock 2 1 2

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 258 Area 5 Area 5 Area 5 Area 5 Area 5 Trl L7 Tr2 Tr3 TrA Preh. TrA Bkdrt Cult.Lev. Trangular Points 1 1 6 2 Point Bases 2 Point Midsections Point Fragments Point Tips Triangular Preforms Scrapers Bifacial 4 Snub-nose k 1 Side Uni face Scrapers 2 Cores Pebble 1 1 Bipolar 9 2 1 Nodular Disc Tabular Fragments 22 8 19 D rills T-base Bulbous-base Straight shank Bifaces 5 Ovate 1 Fragments k 1 5 Si de-notch Points Corner-notch Points Stemmed Points 1 Gravers Spokeshaves Wedges Blank-Roughouts k 2 Celts 1 Abrading Stones Gorgets Ground Stone Fragments Schist Spal1s Marginally Retouched 2 Flakes Utilized Flakes 9 3 Shatter 3 53 13 28 Flakes-Debitage 209 35 86 Net-sinker Hammerstones Mortars Basalt Polls Pigment Stone Anv i 1 stone 1 Fire-cracked rock 2 2 1 Spheroid 1 1

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 259 Area 5 Area 5 Area 5 Area 5 Area 5 Trk Ovbdn Tr5 Tr5 Bkdt Tr5 Ovbdn Tr5 L2

Triangular Points 12 Point Bases 1 Point Midsections Point Fragments Point Tips Triangular Preforms 3 Scrapers Bifacial Snub-nose 5 Side Uni face Scrapers 1 2 4 Cores Pebble 2 1 Bipolar 1 5 3 Nodular Disc Tabular Fragments 14 2 26 D rills 2 tip s T-base 1 Bulbous-base Straight Shank Bifaces Ovate 1 Fragments 1 7 Side-notch Points Corner-notch Points Stemmed Points Gravers Spokeshaves Wedges Blank-Roughouts Celts 1 Abrading Stones Gorgets Ground Stone Fragments Shist Spalls 1 . Margina11y Retouched 6 1 1 Flakes Uti1ized Flakes 3 1 1 Shatter 30 11 36 Flakes-Debitage 1 169 24 182 Net-sinker Hammerstone 2 Mortars Basalk Pol Is Pigment stones Anvil stones Sheroids 1 Fire-cracked Rock 2 1 1

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Triangular Points 5 Point Bases Point Midsections Point Fragments Point Tips Triangular Preforms 1 Scrapers Bifacial Snub-nose 2 Side Uni face Scrapers 1 Cores Pebble Bipolar 5 Nodular Disc Tabular Fragments 8 8 6 D rills T- base Bulbous-base Straight shank Bifaces Ovate 1 Fragments 5 3 Side-notch Points Corner-notch Points Stemmed Points Gravers Spokeshaves Wedges Blank-Roughouts 1 Cel ts Abrading Stones Gorgets Ground Stone Gragments 1 Shist SpalIs Marginally Retouched Flakes Utilized Flakes Shatter 2k 8 1 10 Flakes-Debitage 30 17 3 7 25 Net-sinker Hammerstones Mortars Basalt Polls Pigment stones Anvil stones Spheroids Fire-cracked Rock

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 261 Area 5 Area 5 Area 5 Area 5 Area 5 Tr6 Ovbdn Tr7 F ir . Tr7 L1 Tr7 L2 Tr8 N.E. Trowel Hab.Area Triangular Points 33 ^ Point Bases 3 Point Midsections Point Fragments Point Tips Triangular Preforms H Scrapers Bifacial 2 Snub-nose 10 Side Uni face Scrapers 12 3 Cores ' Pebble 18. 1i» 1 Bipolar 11 Nodular 1 Disc Tabular Fragments 30 87 2 Drills 1 t'P T-base Bulbous-base Straight shank Bi faces Ovate 1 Fragments 27 Si de-notch Points Corner-notch Points 1 Stemmed Points Gravers 1 Spokeshaves Wedges Blank-Roughouts 3 Celts 1 Abrading Stones Gorgets 1 Ground Stone Fragments Shist SpalIs 1 Marginally Retouched 3 k 2 Flakes Utilized Flakes 10 16 3 Shatter 2 254 25^ 7 Flakes-Debitage 6 852 **37 16 Net-sinker Hammerstones Mortars Basalt Polls Pigment Stones Anvi1 stores 1 Spheroids ] Fire-cracked rock 6

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 262 Area 5 Area 5 Area 5 Area 5 Area 5 Tr8 L1 Tr8 L2 Feat.1 Feat.k Feat.40

Triangular Points Point Bases Point Midsections Point Fragments Point Tips Triangular Preforms Scrapers Bifacial Snub-nose Side Uni face Scrapers Cores Pebble Bipolar 1 Nodular 8 Disc Tabular Fragments 29 D rills 8 tip s T-base 1 base Bulbous-base Straight shank Bifaces Ovate Fragments Side-notch Points Corner-notch Points Stemmed Points Gravers Spokeshaves Wedges Blank-Roughouts Celts Abrading Stones Gorgets Ground Stone Fragments Schist SpalIs 1 (Granite) Marginally Retouched 1 (Argillite) Flakes 2 1 Uti1ized Flakes 5 Shatter 13 k5 Flakes-Debitage 2 11*2 k Net-sinker Hammerstones Mortars Basalt Polls 1 Pigment Stones Anvil stones Spheroids 1 Fire-cracked rock 1 3

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 263

AREA 5 FEATURES

Feat.44 Feat.94 Feat.100 Feat.102 Feat.145

Triangular Point Tips 1 1 Tiangular Point Bases 1 Snub-nose Scraper 1 Roughout-Blank 1 Abrader

Feat.147 Feat.182 Feat.183 Feat.197 Feat.201

Triangular Points 2 1 Nodular Cores 1 Blank-Roughouts 1 Marginally Retouched 1 Flakes U ti1ized Flakes 1

VV REPEAT

Feat.1 Feat.4 Feat.40

Triangular Points Triangular Point Bases Core Fragments Ovate Bifaces Bifaces Blank-Roughout Marginally Retouched Flakes Flakes-Debitage

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. A-2 SUMMATION AND RATIOS

524 projectile points Surface Totals 106 projectile point tips Tools: 84 70 projectile point fragments Cores: 65 237 triangular blanks Shatter: 237 69 snub-nose end scrapers Flakes: 242 60 side scrapers 89 uni face scrapers Subsurface Totals 153 pebble cores 228 bipolar cores 161 nodular cores 2 disc cores 663 core fragments 4 tabular cores 8 T-base drills 54 bifaces 11 ovate bifaces 19 biface tips 147 biface fragments 24 side-notch points 6 corner-notch points 7 stemmed points 13 c e lts (and fragments) 6 abrading stones 3 gorget fragments 19 ground stone fragments 1 discoidai 3 hammerstones 3 metates (and fragments) 3 basalt polIs 3 anvil stones 1 pigment stone 5 spheroids 8 schist spalls 1 net-sinker 1 graver 4 spokeshaves 1 wedge 16 blank-roughouts 126 marginally retouched flakes 243 u ti1ized flakes 4306 shatter 8852 flakes-debitage ca.50 Fire-cracked rocks

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 3123 Total lithic tools A306 shatter 2^3 u t i 1ized flakes + 8852 flakes 126 retouched flakes 13158 debitage total 275^ curated tools 579 surface debitage

12679 subsurface debitage

3123 1ith ic tools 1*»9 surface tools

297^ subsurface tools

517 estimated ceramic vessels at Ft. Meigs

Vessel to Tool ratio 517 3123 = .17 vessels per tool

Tool to Vessel ratio 3123 517 =6.00 tools per vessel

Debitage to Tool ratio 297** 12679 = .23 tools per flake

Flakes to Tool ratio 12679 297** ='4.26 flakes per tool

Uni face to Biface ratio 571 2580 = .08 uni faces per biface

Biface to Uniface ratio 2880 571 = 12.63 bifaces per un i face

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

Raw Material Types

TMCK Ten Mile Creek COL Columbus-Dundee Del Delaware PCK Pipe Creek IH Indiana Hornstone FR F Iint Ridge BYPT Bayport UPMR Upper Mercer ONON Onondaga QZTE Q uartzite BBL Bois Blanc SCST Schist SLTE Slate UN ID Unidentified

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. A-3 FT. MEIGS LITHICS, BY TOOL AND RAW MATERIAL TYPE

Tool, Provenience Raw Material Type

Triangular Points TMCK COL DEL PCK INH FR BYPT UPMR

Surface 7 2 1if 2 1 3 5 TrA LI 1 1 TrA L2 1 2 2 1 TrA L3 3 1 3 1 TrB L1 1 TrB L2 8 3 6 1 2 TrB L3 2 if TrC L1 1 2 8 1 1 TrC L2 1 2 1 1

Side-notch Points

TrA L1 1 1 1 1 TrA L2 1 TrB L2 2 1 1 TrB L3 1 2 TrC L1 1 2 4 TrC L2 1

Triangular-Point Fragments

TrA L3 2 TrB L2 1 1

Triang. Point Bases

TrA L1 1 2 TrA L2 2 TrA L3 1 2 TrB L1 1 • 1 TrB L2 if TrB L3 2 3 TrC L2 1

Triangular Blanks

TrA L1 1 TrA L2 1 TrA L3 1 TrB L? 2 1 1 1 TrB L3 2 2 1 1 TrC LI if 1 2 1 TrC L3 1 TrC Lit 1

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Tool, Provenience Raw Material Type 268

Biface End Scraper TMCK COL DEL PCK. 1NH FR BYPT UPMR ONON QZTE

TrA L1 1 1 2 TrA L2 1 TrB L2 2 1 TrB L3 1 TrC LI 1 2

Biface Fragments

Surface 1 TrA LI 2 1 TrA L2 2 TrA L3 1 1 TrB L1 1 1 2 1 TrB L2 2 A TfB L3 6 1 2 TrC LI 1 TrC L2 1 1

Cores and Fragments

TrA L1 2p 2p 2p 1p 1f 3b 1f TrA L2 Ap 3p 1b 1b Ip 2b TrA L3 In Id In If 1f 1f 1f TrB L1 1b 2n 1n 7n

TrB L2 6n 1b kb 3n 1f TrB L3 6p An 5p 1b 3n 1b 3n TrC L1 3b 2p 3p 1f 1b 2p 3n 3n In 1b 2b 5f TrC L2 3p 2p 2p 2p TrC L3 Ip Surface 9p lip Ap 1b 1n 1b In Retouch Flakes

TrA LI 1 2 3 TrA L2 1 1 TrA L3 1 TrB L1 1 2 TrB L2 1 TrB L3 3 1 2 1 TrC L1 2 1 1 1 1

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 269

Tool, Provenience Raw Material Type

Shatter TMCK COL DEL PCK FR IH SCST QZTE ONON BYPT UM BBL

TrA LI 52 53 3k 3 3 6 5 1 23 TrA L2 57 19 20 6 13 1 2k 2 TrA L3 63 2k 29 1 9 2 2 ■ 3k 1 TrB LI 13 8 16 9 TrB L2 70 ks 29 5 9 55 TrB L3 52 5k 35 5 2 23 TrC LI 15 13 6 1 1 1 17 TrC L2 2 3 6 TrC L3 6 1 Surface 93 25 22 3 2 1. 16

Flakes

TrA LI 37 2k 28 2 2 2 2 2 33 TrA L2 17 16 16 5 5 it 1 2k 5 TrA L3 2k 12 22 3 1 1 i» 1 2 19 TrB L1 28 10 57 1 1 33 TrB L2 102 59 55 7 3 7^ TrB L3 8 5 9 7 TrC L1 k 1 29 31 6 3 2 1 4 32 1 TrC L2 2 2 3 2 TrC L3 1 3 1 k 4 Surface 27 23 21 5 2 19 1

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 270 FT. MEIGS LITHICS, BY TOOL AND RAW MATERIAL TYPE: AREA 5, 1979 EXCAVATIONS

Tool, Provenience Raw Material Type

Triangular Points TMCK COL DEL PCK INH QZTE FR ONON BYPT UM BBL A5 Ovbdn. Bkdrt. 1 T rl,2,3 1 Tr1 L1+2 2 1 Trl L5 1 Tr2 3 1 2 2 1 Tr3 1 Tr*» Preh.Cult.Lay. 2 3 1 Trif Bkdt. 1 1 Tr5 5 A 1 1 Tr6 Bkdt. 1 Tr6 L2 1 k Tr7 L1 19 1 8 1 1 Tr7 L2 9 1 2 Tr8 L1 1 1 Tr8 L2 k 2 1 1 1

Stemmed Points Trif 1

Corner-notch Point Tr7 L2 1

Triangular Point Base Tr1,2,3 1 Tr2 1 1 Trl L6 1 Tr1 L6 Tr5 Tr6 L2 1 Tr7 L1 3

Triangular Point Preforms Trl L1+2 1 Tr5 1 2 1 Tr7 L1 5 A 1

Pebble Cores and Fragments Trl L6 — 1 Tr3 1 Tr^ Pre.C ult.Lay. 1 Tr5 Bkdrt. 1 Tr5 ’ 1 Tr7 LI 28 Tr7 L2 7 4 1 Tr8 N.End Hab Zone 1 Nodular Cores and Fragments Tr8 L2 3 1 2 1 Tr6 Ovbrdn 1

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Tool, Provenience Raw Material Type

Bipolar Cores. Frags. TMCK COL DEL PCK ONON UM BYPT QZTE UN I D A5 T.P. 1 Ovbrdn 1 Tr1 L3 1 Tr1 L5 3 Trl L6 1 .1 Trl L1+2 1 1 Tr2 5 4 Tr3 2 1 Trl* Ovbrdn. 1 Tr4 Preh.Cult.Layer 1 Tr5 Bkdrt. 1 1 1 Tr5 1 1 1 1 Tr6 Cult.Midden 1 1 1 Tr6 Bkdrt. 2 1 1 Tr7 LI 6 2 2 Tr8 L2 1

Core Fragments Area 4 T.P. 9 1 1 Area 5 Ovbrdn. 1 4 Bkdrt. L2 2 Area 5 T.P. .Ovbrdn. 1 Trl L1+2 4 1 1 1 Tr1 L3 3 Tr1 L5 6 1 Tr1 L6 1 Tr2 11 1 6 1 2 Tr3 7 Tr3 Preh.Cult.Layer 15 2 2 Tr5 10 1 3 1 1 Tr5 Bkdrt. 2 Tr5 Ovbrdn. 18 3 3 3 Tr6 Cult.Midden 5 1 Tr6 Bkdrt. 5 -1 2 Tr6 L2 6 2 Tr7 L1 9 3 9 3 Tr7 L2 41 8 25 3 9 1 Tr8 L1 73 6 21 16 2 Tr8 N.End Hab.Zone 2 Tr8 L2 11 4 8 6

Flake Scrapers Tr5 Ovrbdn. 2 Tr5 L2 1 Tr4 Preh.Cult.Layer 1 Tr2 1 1 Tr6 1 Tr7 LI 2 5 4 Tr7 L2 3 1

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 272

Tool, Provenience Raw Material Type

Snub-nose End Scraper TMCK COL DEL PCK ONON UN ID T rl,2,3 1 1 Tr2 i» 1 3 Tr3 1 Tr5 Bkdt. 2 1 1 Tr6 Bkdrt. 2 Tr6 L2 1 2 1 Tr7 L1 k 2 k Tr7 L2 k 2 Tr8 L1 “ 1 Tr8 L2 2 1 1

Ovate Bifaces Tr2 1 Tr5 1 Tr6 1 Tr7 L1 1

Blank-Roughouts Tr2 1 1 Tr7 L2 2

Biface Tips Tr2 T rl,2,3 1 Tr5 1 Tr5 Bkdrt. 1 Tr7 LI k Tr8 L2

Bifacial Fraqments Trl Ll+2 2 Tr2 1 2 1 Tr3 1 Tr4 Preh.Cult.Layer 3 o 2 Tr5 Bkdrt. 5 1 Tr6 Cult.Midden 2 2 Tr7 LI 2 Tr7 L2 13 2 3 3 3 Tr8 LI 2 2 Tr8 L2 1

Blank-Roughouts Tr2 2 2 2 Tr3 2 1 Tr6 L2 2 Tr6 Cult.Midden 1 Tr7 L2 1

Graver Tr7 LI 1

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Tool, Provenience Raw Material Type

Drill Tips TMCK DEL PCK UM FR BYPTCOL ONON UN ID Tr5 Bkdrt. 1 1 Tr7 LI 1 Tr8 L2 1 1 1

Drill Bases Tr5 Bkdrt. 1 Tr8 L2 1

Retouched Flakes Tr2 1 Area 4 Tr5 Ovbrdn. 1 Area 5 Backdirt 1

Utilized Flakes Area A Tr5 Ovbrdn. 1 Tr2 3 2 1 Tr4 Preh.Cult.Lay. 1 Tr7 L2 4 2 4 2 4 Tr5 1 1 2 Tr8 1 1 Tr8 L2 2 2 1 Tr7 L1 4 2 4 Tr6 Cult.Midden 1 1 Tr4 1

Marginally Retouched Flakes Tr1 LI+2 1 Tr2 1 1 Area 4 Tr5 Ovbdn. 1 Area 5 Bckdrft. 1 Tr5 4 Tr7 L1 1 1 Tr7 L2 2 1 1 1 Tr8 2 Tr8 L2 2

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 274

Tool Provenience Raw Material Type

Shatter ONON TNCK DEL COL UM PCK BYPT SCST UN ID Area 5 Ovbrdn. 2 A5 Bkdt. L2 3 1 .1 3 3 Trl L3 1 2 1 Tr1 L5 2 6 2 1 Tr1 L6 5 1 1 Trl L7 3 Tr2 3 2k 10 6 3 2 5 Tr3 1 5 2 1 1 3 Tr4 Pre.Cult.Lay. 15 4 1 2 5 Tr5 8 9 7 3 3 Tr5 Ovbrdn. 11 5 6 6 3 5 Tr6 Cult.Midden 5 3 1 1 Tr6 Bkdrt. 2 6 Tr6 Lvbrdn. 2 Tr6 L2 13 6 2 1 Tr7 LI 17 119 41 44 1 32 Tr7 LI 2k 187 70 14 16 3 15 Tr7 L2 ■14 79 33 8 6 3 Tr8 7 67 23 1 11 1 Tr8 N.End Hab.Zone 3 1 Tr8 LI 10 1 1 Tr8 L2 7 19 8 2 8 Tr6 LI -1 Area k T.P. 3 1 1 Area k T.P. k 1 1 1 Area k T.P. 7 1

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Tool, Provenience Raw Material Type

Flakes TMCK DEL COL ONON UM BYPT PCK UN ID Area A T.P. 3 1 1 1 Area 4 T.P. 4 2 Area 4 T.P. 7 1 Area 5 Ovrbdn. 6 5 Area 5 Bkdt. L2 8 4 2 2 Trl 1 1 2 Trl L3 7 2 2 3 2 1 2 Trl L5 5 3 4 3 3 1 Trl L6 5 2 4 1 Trl LI+2 12 5 1 1 Tr2 111 37 11 14 7 1 26 Tr3 20 7 3 1 1 3 Tr4 Ovrbdn. 1 1 Tr4 Pre.Cult.Lay. 59 15 3 2 6 Tr5 Bkdrt. 7 1 Tr5 65 36 9 24 13 6 14 2 Tr5 Ovrbdn. 83 34 11 28 9 4 26 Tr6 Cult.Midden 9 4 4 4 2 2 Tr6 Bkdrt. 10 2 3 1 1 Tr6 L1 Bkdrt. 4 2 1 Tr6 Ovrbdn. 3 2 1 Tr6 LI 2 1 Tr6 L2 14 8 5 2 1 Tr7 FIr. Trowel 1 1 Tr7 LI 410 167 38 63 46 6 32 23 Tr7 L2 164 141 45 53 8 6 4 15 Tr8 1 1 1 2 Tr8 N.End Hab.Zone 3 2 5 1 Tr8 L1 11 12 1 1 5 Tr8 L2 27 46 20 24 1 6 3 15

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. GROUND STONE ARTIFACTS AREA 5 1979 EXCAVATIONS (Non-features)

Trench 1 1 ground stone basalt poll, battered on 1 end

Trl L1+2 ground slate pencil (historic)

A5 Tr3 1 basalt spheroid, flat ground side, battered one side 1 ground basalt fragment with symmetrical wege (celt?)

Tr4 P rehistoric Cultural Layer 1 basalt anvilstone, weat and battering marks 1 spheroid (possible hammerstone), battered side

Tr5 Backdirt 1 enlongate spheroid hammerstone 1 ground basalt fragment 1 silt stone spal1 1 pecked diabase fragment 1 battered basalt fragment (celt?)

Tr6 L2 1 ground basalt fragment

Tr7 L2 1 anvilstone, battered on one end 1 ground basalt fragment 1 pecked and ground basalt fragment (celt?) 1 ground slate fragment with drilled hole (gorget) Tr8 L1 1 ground granite spheroid, battered on one side

Tr8 L2 1 basalt poll or celt fragment 1 argi11ite spal1 1 granite spall

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. FCR, Non-features AREA 5 1979 EXCAVATIONS

Provenience Limestone Wt. Granite Wt. (# frags) (# frags)

A5 Overburden 1 5 gr Tr1 L3 1 10 gr Tr1 L5 1 AO gr 1 5 g Tr1 L1+2 T 5 gr 1 5 g Tr2 1 150 gr 1 25 g Tr3 1 50 gr 1 100 g TrA Overburden 1 15 gr 1 160 g TrA Preh. Cult. Layer 1 90 gr Tr5 1 10 gr 1 10 g Tr5 Overburden 1 75 g Tr6 Bkdrt. 1 50 gr Tr6 L2 1 150 gr 1 '5.9 Tr7 LI 1 15 gr 1 800 g 1 100 gr 1 750 g 1 250 gr 1 10 g Tr7 L2 1 125 gr 3 5 g 1 10 gr 1 250 g 1 A5 gr 1 50 g Tr8 N. End Hab. Zone 1 15 gr Tr8 L1 1 5 g Tr8 L2 1 5 gr 1 5 g 10 g

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Tool, Provenience Raw Material Type

DEL 1NDH TMCK PCK COL BOBL UM UNID BYPT FR QZTE Triangular Proj. Points Surface 7 1 2 Unit D 5 3 1 1 Unit E 6 2 1 1 Unit F k 1 1 Area 2 U1 7 7 1 3 Area 2 U2 3 Area 2 U3 A 1 Area 2 U*» 6 3 Area 3 U1 k 2 1

Point Fragments Surface 2 1 Unit D 1 Unit E 3 2 Unit F 3 1 k Area 2 U1 1 3 1 Area 2 U2 2 Area 2 U3 3 1 Area 2 Uh 2 3

Uni face Point Fragments Area 3 Ui 1

T-Base D rilIs Uni t D 1 Unit E 1 Unit F 1 TrB L2 1 1

Bui bous-Base Dri 11 Unit D 1

Triangular Point Bases Surface 1 2 1 1 Unit D 1 1 Unit E 2 2 1 Unit F 1 1 1 1 Area 2 U1 2 1 Area 2 U2 5 1 1 Area 2 U3 2 Area 2 U4 5 3 3 Area 3 U1 1

Triangular Preforms Surface 7 8 2 Unit E k 5 1 Unit F b 1 1 Area 2 U1 6 5

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Tool, Provenience Raw Material Type

DEL TMCK UM IH COL BYPT UN ID FR PCK

Area 2 U2 1 1 Area 2 U3 k Area 2 U4 7 1 Area 3 U1 1

Snub-nose End Scraper Surface Unit 3 Unit 3 Unit 1 Area Ul 2 Area U2 3 Area U3 2 Area UA 1

Side Scraper Bifacial Surface 2 Area 2 U2* 3 Area 3 Ul 2 Unit D 1 Bifacial End Scraper Area 2 U2 Area 2 U3 2 Area 2 \ik 1 Area 3 Ul

Thumbnail Scraper Bifacial Unit F

Uni facial Scrapers Surface 2 Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 2 1 Area U1 1 3 Area U2 3 1 Area U3 2 Area Uk 2 1 Area 3 Ul 3 2

Spokeshave Area 2 U3 1

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Tool, Provenience Raw Material Type

Bipolar Cores DEL TMCK PCK UM COL UN ID Surface 5 3 1 1 Unit D 6 A 1 5 Unit E 18 5 6 Area 2 U1 5 5 3 1 Area 2 U2 1 1 Area 2 U3 6 1 Area 2 Uk 2 1 1 1 Area 3 Ul 5

Nodular Cores Surface 5 k Unit D 1 Unit E 4 1 Unit F 11 Area 2 U2 10 2 1 Area 2 U3 4 1 1 Area 2 U4 5 5 2

Block-Tabular Cores Area 2 U3 1

Disc Core Area 2 U4 1

Core Fragments DEL TMCK PCK UM COL UN ID Surface 7 5 3 1 1 Unit D 1 6 1 Unit E 3 6 1 Unit F 14 3 4 2 Area 2 Ul 12 22 5 2 Area 2 U2 3 7 1 2 Area 2U3 5 4 2 2 Area 2 U4 13 11 1 1 1 Area 3 Unit 1 12 8 9 2

GROUND STONE TOOLS

Celts Slate Basalt Area 1 Un i t F 2 1 Area 2 Unit 4 1 Ar2 Tr1 U5 L2 1 Ar2 Trl U6 L2 1 frag.

Mortar Ar2 Tr1 U5 L2 2 granite mortars

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Battered Cobbles Ar2 Trl U5 L2 1 battered cobble Ar2 Tr1 U6 L2 6 battered cobbles Area 2 Unit 1 1 battered diabase cobble - probably hammerstone

Stone Spheres Ar2 T21 U5 K2 1 battered and polished granite sphere Ar2 Trl U6 L2 1 polished stone sphere

Polished Slate Area 1-2 1 surface polished slate, possible gorget fragment Ar2 Tr1 U6 L2 1 rubbed and polished s la te , function unknown Ar2 Trl U6 1.2 1 polished slate gorget fragment

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 282

Tool, Provenience Raw Material Type

DEL PCK COL TMCK UN ID ONON BOBL UM BYPT SCST Triangular Proj. Points Ar2 Trl U6 L2 2 2 9

Triangular Point Fragments Area 1-2 Surface 1 Ar2 Trl U6 L2 1

Triangular Blanks -Preforms Area 1-2 Surface 1 Ar2 Tr1 U6 L2 k 3 1

Bifaces Area 1-2 Surface 1 1 Ar2TrL U6 L2 k 1 1 5 1 2

Biface Tips Ar2 Tr1 U6 L2 1

Blanks-Roughouts Ar2 Trl U6 L2 1

D rills Ar2 Tr1 U6 L2 1 (strai ght shank) Area 1-2 Surface 2 (bulbous-based)

Dri11 Tips Ae2 Tr1 U6 L2 1

Si de-notch Point Ar2 Trl U6 L2

Bipolar Cores Ar2 Trl U5 L2 1 1 Ar2 Tr1 U6 L2 1 Area 1-2 Surface 2 1

Nodular Cores Ar2 Tr1 U5 L2 3 1 Ar2 Trl U6 L2 1 1 Area 1-2 Surface 2 2

Core Fragments Ar2 Tr1 U6 L2 2 2 2 Area 1-2 Survace 1 2

Bifacial End Scrapers Ar2 T r1 U5 L2 1 1 1 1 Ar2 Tr1 U6 L2 1 1 Uniface Scrapers Area 1-2 Surface 1

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2 8 3

Tool, Provenience Raw Material Type

BYPT TMCK COL DEL ONON PCK UM IH UN ID QZTE Marginally Retouched Flakes At:2 Trl U5 L2 1 1 1 1 Ar2 Trl U6 L2 2 1 3 1 Area 1-2 Surface 1

U ti1ized Flakes Ar2 Trl U5 L2 3 6 7 12 3 k 5 3 Ar2 Trl U6 L2 3 15 1A 17 1 k 2 2 1 Area 1-2 Surface 2 - 5 6 2 3 1 2

Shatter GA GS BYPT THCK COL DEL ONON PCK UM UN ID QZTE Ar2 Tr1 U5 Ovrbdn 1 1 1 1 Ar2 Trl U5 L2 2 6 3 17 k 8 1 1 2 1 Ar2 Tr1 U6 L2 2 7 2 5 2 1 1 Area 1-2 Surface 1 1 1

Flakes COL TMCK DEL PCK UM UN ID BYPT *IH ONON UM FR SLT Ar2 Tr1 U5 Ovrbdn. k 3 7 3 1 1 Ar2 Trl U5 L2 65 76 91 31 6 7 19 26 Ar2 Tr1 U6 L2 3k 56 92 36 8 16 3 15 2 12 Area 1-2 Surface 11 8 21 6 1 1 2

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 284

Tool Provenience Raw Material Type

Shatter BSLT DEL TMCK COL UM UN 1D PCK IH QZTE BYPT SCST SLA Surface 30 16 7 4 8 Un i t D 46 96 14 14 21 9 2 Unit E 61 37 13 7 5 8 2 Unit F 91 109 24 18 19 5 2 A2 U1 77 55 21 19 3 1 2 A2 U2 75 40 15 16 11 1 A2 U3 1 16 21 14 4 1 A2 U4 114 135 29 29 16 21 2 A3 U1 40 53 19 10 29 1 1

Flakes DEL TMCK COL UM PCK QZ QZTE DIBS BB BYPT UN ID FR IH SCT SLA Surface 64 46 21 5 2 2 1 1 1 Unit D 127 210 57 91 15 5 14 4 4 4 Unit E 90 111 28 19 2 1 1 4 30 2 1 1 Unit F 260 222 43 62 18 6 1 22 2 1 2 5 A2 U1 156 90 49 18 1 1 11 12 7 A2 U2 54 45 17 14 1 2 2 9 1 1 1 A2 U3 91 103 7 15 1 6 10 5 2 A2 U4 307 242 88 82 25 1 2 2 25 23 1 5 A3 U1 47 40 11 12 1 1 2 18 2 1

GROUND STONE TOOLS

Abrading Netsinker Anvj1 Metate Pigment Bslt Scst Slate Stone Stone Stone spall spall frag.

TrB L2 1 TrB L3 1 TrC LI 1 Unit D 2 Unit F 1 3 A2 U1 1 A2 U2 1 1 A2 U3 1 A2 U4 1 1 A3 U1 1 1 1 1 1

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2 8 5

1 9 7 5 EXCAVATIONS

Tool, Provenience Raw Material Type

DEL PCK UM FR TMCK COL IH QZTE BYPT SCST Triangular Proj. Points Surface 14 2 5 3 7 2 TrA L1 1 1 TrA L2 2 1 1 2 TrA L3 5 1 3 8 3 TrB LI 1 TrB L2 6 2 - 8 3 TrB L3 k k 3 2 TrC L1 8 1 2 TrC L2 2 1 1

Triangular Point Bases TrA L1 2 1 1 TrA L2 2 TrA L3 2 1 TrB LI 1 1 TrB L2 4 TrB L3 3 2 1

BUCHMAN 1973 EXCAVATIONS

DEL COL UM TMCK FR Triangular Proj. Points O.H.S Collections 15 ^ 3 6 1

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 286

STEINER COLLECTIONS (SURFACE)

Tool TMCK DEL COL UM PCK BYPT BBL QTZT FR IH SCT UNID ON Triangular Proj. Points 75 83 26 15 3 2 2 1 2 Triangular Point Bases 53 44 18 9 1 1 3 2 Triangular Point Frags. 1*7 67 21 19 7 1 2 5 1 1 Si de-notch Points 1 3 Corner-Notch Points 1 1 2 Stemmed Points 1 5 Triangular Blanks 50 38 10 7 3 1 3 3 Diface Scrapers 1? 19 3 5 1 1 Snub-Nose End 1 Ovate Bifaces 1 3 1 Uni face Scrapers 5 4 2 1 3 Expanding Base Drill 3 1 Straight Shank Drill 1 Bipolar Core 10 14 9 3 1 Nodular Cores 14 2 4 2 Wedges 2 Disc Cores 1 1 Pebble Cores 25 11 1 Block-Tabular Core 4 1 Amorphous Core 1 Core Fragments 3 5 5 Retouched Flakes 7 12 2 7 1 2 Shatter 141 117 33 38 8 8 1 3 8 Flakes 141 119 3.2. 50 8 9 5 7

GROUND STONE TOOLS

1 celt roughout (slate) 2 celt bits (ground and polished gabbro) 1 pipe bowl blank (quartzite vasiform bowl) 1 abrading stone (basalt) 1 battered and flaked limestone fragment 4 celt polls (2 gabbro, 2 basalt) 4 hammerstone (2 sandstone, 2 granite, all with wear facets) 1 hammerstone-pestle (cylindrical, battered, granodiorite) 3 anvilstones (1 sandstone, 1 granite, 1 gneiss) 2 pestle-grindstones (1 andesite, 1 t i l l i t e ) 2 grindstones (granodiorite) 1 limestone chopper (flaked, retouched on one edge) 7 fragments of pecked, ground, and/or polished basalt 2 fragments of pecked, ground, polished gabbro 2 polished slate fragments

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. A-4 TRIANGULAR PROJECTILE POINT DATA BY PROVENIENCE AND LITHIC TYPE

Surface Lithic Type Length Width Thickness Base

Delaware 23 12 3.5 F 30.0 15 7 F 34 12 4 F 28.5 19 3.5 F 21 14 4 CC 25 13 4 F 27 15 4 CC 22 11 3 CC 27 15 4 F 25 15 4 F 2k 16 3 CC 23 16 4 F 26 15 4 F 28 17 8 CC Columbus 21 17 7 F 26 26 15 5 CC Pipe Creek 30 15 5 F 2k 14 4 CC Upper Mercer 34 15 6 CC 23 14 5 F 29 17 7 CC 26 15 5 F 25 15 5 F FIint Ridge 31 13 3 CC 28 14 4 CC 25 18 5 F Indiana Hornstone 2k 19 2 F Ten Mile Creek 25 16 5 F 26 17 7 F 27 16 5 CC 28 18 6 F 25 16 7 F 31 14 7 F 2k 14 4 F Delaware 35 17 6 'cv 3 k 17 6 F 31 14 5 CV 29 13 5 F 27 18 5 F 25 15 3 F 22 13 4 F Indiana Hornstone 2k 12 4 F Ten Mile Creek 21 16 4 F 17 13 5 F

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Lithic Type Length Width Thickness Base

Tr A Li Ten Mile Creek - 20 6 F Upper Mercer 25 12 3 F

TrA L2 . Columbus 29 17 8 F 27 11 5 F Delaware 26 17 5 CV 25 16 6 CC Ten Mile Creek 27 16.5 5 CV Upper Mercer 26 16 6 CC

Tr A L3 Ten Mile Creek 28 18 /» F 27 16 4 F 27 16 7 CC 22 16 3 F 25 15 3.5 F 21 16 3 F 26 15 4 F 16 16 8.5 CC Columbus 22 12 5 F 19 3 CC 22 12 5 F Delaware 22 1** 4 CC 18 4 F 29 15 5 F 20 15 4 CC 18 16.5 5 CC Upper Mercer 25 11 5 F

Tr B LI Columbus - 16 4 F

Tr B L2 Columbus 34 16 7 F 37 15 5 F 25 14 4 CC Delaware 38 26 3.5 CC 30 19 5 F 34 21 7 F 22 13 3 CC 25 T4 5 F 23 14 4 F Ten Mile Creek 29 16 6 F 25 14 4 CC 24 15 5 F 23 15 6 F 23 18 6 F 24 12 2 F 22 15.5 5.5 F 23 15.5 5.5 F

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Lithic Type Length Width Thickness Bas

Upper Mercer 25 12 3.5 - 14 4 F Indiana Hornstone 20 5

TR B L3 Quartzite 33 21 5 Ten Mile Creek 18 13 4 CC - • 15 4.5 CC Upper Mercer 20 15 2.5 F 26 12 4 CC 24 18 5 25 12 4 CC Columbus 33 20 7 25 14 6 Delaware 30 17 5 F 23 13 5 F 16 13 3.5 CC 22 12.5 4 F

Tr C LI Columbus - 14 3.5 30 17.5 7 c Delaware 26 14 4 27 14 4.5 F 25 15 5 F 22 15 4 22 15 5 31 15 6 26 14 4.5 2k 14 4 F Ten Mile Creek 17 4 F

TR C L2 Delaware 25 15 5 22 15 4 Ten Mile Creek - 17 4 F FI Int Ridge 27 17 5 Bay port 25 15 5

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Lithic Type Length Width Thickness Base

Buchman Excavations, 1973 Delaware - 1A 7 F 28 14 4 F 19 14 3 F 22 16 5.5 F 29 14 5 F 24 14 5 F 25 11.5 4 F 23 14 4 F 30 15 5 CC 20 13 4 F 14 4 F 20 13.5 4 F 20 16 3.5 CC 33 16 8 F 28 17 5 F Columbus 24 15 6 F 14 4.5 CC 19 22 6 F 36 16 4.5 CC Ten Mile Creek 22 14 4.5 F 30 14 5 F 25 - 4 - 21 18 7 F 38 15 4 F 22 13 4 F Upper Mercer 22 14 5 CC 24 16 5 F 20 14 4.5 F Flint Ridge 20 11 4 F

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Lithic Type Length Width Thickness Base

Unit D Delaware 33 14 4 Delaware 26 15 3 Ten Mile Creek 25 17 7 F Delaware 23 17 6 Plum Run 22 12 5 F Delaware 21 12 4 F Ten Mile Creek 21 13 4 Delaware 19 10 3 Ten Mile Creek 19 11 >

Unit E Delaware 29 15 5 CV Columbus 27 17 6 CC Ten Mile Creek 27 17 4 CV Bois Blanc 26 17 3 Delaware 25 12 3 F 24 18 5 23 15 5 23 15 5 CC Ten Mile Creek 22 14 3 CC Delaware 13 11 3

Unit F Delaware 2k 14 4 CC 18 14 4 23 14 7 22 11 4 cv Columbus 21 15 6 F Ten Mile C reek 18 13 4 F

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Lithic Type Length Width Thickness Base

Area 2 Unit 1 Ten Mile Creek 41 21 6 F 34 18 7 F 31 17 5 F 25 18 8 F 22 17 7 F 21 14 5 F 21 12 5 F Delaware 27 17 3 F 26 17 4 F 25 16 4 F 24 16 7 F 23 12 4 CC 21 15 5 F 21 14 5 CC Upper Mercer 24 16 6 F 23 14 5 F 18 12 3 CC Columbus 15 14 3 F

Area 2 Unit 2 Delaware 25 14 4 F 25 12 4 F 20 13 3 F Unidentified 23 16 5 F

Area 2 Unit 3 Ten Mile Creek 22 13 4 CC Delaware 22 11 4 F 21 16 5 CC 21 16 5 F 21 15 5 F

Area 2 Unit 4 Delaware 33 15 4 F 32 14 6 F 30 15 7 CC 25 15 6 F 25 15 4 F 15 12 4 CC Ten Mile Creek 29 14 5 F 24 17 7 F 23 14 6 F Area 3 Unit Columbus 27 20 5 CV Ten Mile Creek 27 17 6 F 26 15 5 F Delaware 27 14 5 F 23 15 5 F 21 17 5 F 19 20 5 CC

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Lithic Type Length Width Thickness Base

Steiner Surface Delaware 20 13 4 F 26 14 4 F 26 13 6 CV 24 14 5 CC 35 16 4 CC 25 16 5 CC 25 13 3 CC 23 12 5 CC 30.5 16 4 F 20 14.5 2 CC 27.5 16.5 4 F 23 24.5 6 CC 21.5 15.5 6.5 CV 21.5 14 4 F 26.5 16.5 7.5 CV 28.5 11 3 F 14.5 12.5 3.5 F 29 13.5 7.5 F 29.5 17.5 6.5 F 22 13 4.5 F 25 18 5 F 23 17 6 F 24.5 17.5 5.5 F 23.5 16.5 5 F 21 16.5 4.5 F 24 15 3 F 26.5 12 6 F 20 13.5 4.5 CC 17.5 13.5 3.5 F 29.5 19.5 8.5 F 28 16.5 5 CC 21.5 14.5 5 F 29 18 7.5 F 27 14 3 F 30 12 7 CC 24 18 5.5 F 29.5 15 3 F 23.5 15 4 CC 26 16 6 F 26 13.5 3.5 F 24 13 4.5 CC 36 17 6 CC 19 15 3.5 F 16 12 3.5 F 28 18.5 5 CC 25.6 15 6.5 F 24 15 4 F 22 15 3.5' CC

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Lithic Type Jngth Width Thickness Base

Steiner Surface (conti nued) Delaware 13.5 11 3.5 CC 26.5 14 3.5 CC 15 13 3 F 21.5 15.5 3.5 F 22 16.5 4 F 25 18.5 5 F 23 17 4 CC 29 19 6 CV 23 12.5 4 F 24 20 5 F 31 20 6.5 CC 2k ■14 5 CC 15 16 3 F 2k 5 CC 29 15 5 F 26 12.5 6 F 27 13.5 5.5 F 2k 14 6 F 23 18.5 6 F 27 15 8 F 2k 19 4.5 CV 29.5 18.5 8 F 20 15 5 CC 20 15 4.5 F 27 8 3 F 25 16 5 CC 35 16.5 6.5 CC 2k 12 5 CC 25 16 5 F 26 16 4.5 F 20 13 3.5 F 28 17 7 CC 23 19 4 CC Ten Mile Creek 25 14 4 CC 27 16.5 4.5 F 27.5 14.5 7.5 CC 25.5 13.5 3 F 28.5 15.5 6 CC 26 13 5 F 20.5 11 • 4 F 27.5 17.5 4 CC 32.5 16.5 6 CV 28 19 5 ' CC 33 17 9 F 30 19.5 7.5 CV 25.5 13.5 5.5 F 2k 13.5 7.5 F 22.5 16.5 6.5 F

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Lithic Type Length Width Thickness Base

Ten Mile Creek (continued) 24 17 4.5 F 22 17 5 CC 14.5 11.5 4 :v 23 13.5 5.5 29.5 17.5 6 18 14 3.5 30 14 4.5 26.5 20 4 21.5 12.5 4 16.5 11.5 2.5 22 13 5 28.5 18 6 25 14 4.5 19 16 4 35.5 17-5 5-5 28.5 12 4 22 12.5 2 22 14.5 3.5 22.5 15-5 4.5 31 16 4 28 22 6 v 23 17.5 3.5 25 16.5 4.5 :c 17 12.5 3.5 cc 29.5 10 5 :c 15.5 13 4.5 c 23.5 13 3.5 23 11 4 cv 24.5 18 4 27.5 14.5 7.5 cc 20 13 4.5 26 14.5 5 24.5 11 5 23 15 4.5 23 15.5 9.5 34 18 5 cc 22.5 12.5 4 :c 24.5 20.5 7 32.5 19 8.5 c 22.5 15 3 c 13 11 3.5 19 13 4 23 17 2.5 cc 22.5 12.5 6.5 35 8 23 17 7 23 15 4.5 22 8.5 5 31.5 13.5 17.5

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Lithic Type Length Width Thickness Base

Ten Mile Creek (continued) 20.5 15.5 6 22 14.5 3 F 25 15 5 17.5 7.5 5 17.5 8 7 25 16.5 6.5 26 9 4 F 25 14 4 CC 25 15 5 21.5 17 6 Columbus 27 17 5 23 14 5 22 13 5 F 21 21.5 5.5 F 29.5 15.5 5 CC 22.5 14 5-5 CC 23 15.5 4.5 cc 18.5 17-5 3.5 21 18 6.5 F 23.5 14 4.5 32 15 3.5 16.5 12.5 2.5 F 25 13 5.5 CC 33.5 15 3-5 21 13.5 3.5 p 21 18.5 4 20.5 14.5 3 2^.5 18.5 4 F 16 14 3.5 F 20 17.5 7 CC 30 18 7 24 14 5 cc 30 14.5 3.5 25 15 5 21 , 19 5 CC 30 20 9 Upper Mercer 22.5 16 3 CC 26 13.5 3.5 CC 29.5 22 7 23.5 12.5 4.5 • 23.5 9 2 20 15 3.5 CC 18 12 7 F 22.5 15 5 F 17 16 2.5 23 11.5 4 CC 26 22 5 22 15 4 CV

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Lithic Type Length Width Thickness Base

Upper Mercer (continued) 25 12 5 CV 24 18 8 21 16,5 5,5 Pipe Creek 26 18.5 4.5 CV 26 16 5 CC 23.5 16 6 Bayport 23 16.5 6 27 16 9 Bo i s B1anc 24.5 17 6.5 F 20.5 14.5 4.5 Q uartzite 31 10 6 FIint Ridge 27 16 5 28 16.5 6.5

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Lithic Type Length Width Thickness Base

A5 Overburden Ten Mile Creek 19 13-5 2 F

A5 Backdirt L2 Onondaga 20 14 3 F

A5 Gr1 L1+2 Ten Mile Creek 29 19 8.5 F 26 17-5 5.5 F Onondaga 31 20 8 F

A5 Trl L3 Pipe Creek 24.5 ’5 3 F

A5 Trl L5 Ten Mile Creek 31 19 ' 5 CV

A5 Trench 2 Ten Mile Creek 16.5 14 2.5 F 29.5 18 3.5 F 16 12 3 F Delaware 28.5 21 7 . F 20 19.5 5.5 F Pipe Creek 20 15.5 4.5 F Columbus 29 15.5 3 F Upper Mercer 18 12 4.5 F

A5 Trench 3 Ten Mile Creek 22.5 15.5 5-5 F

A5 Trench 4 Preh. Cult. Layer Ten Mile Creek 30 17.5 10 F 22 13-5 3.5 CV Delaware 28.5 17 6.5 F 27.5 16.5 8.5 F 33 18,5 7 F Onondaga 34 19 6 F

Trench 4 Backdirt Delaware 28 19 4.5 CC Onondaga 22 13.5 3.5 CC

A5 Trench 5 Ten Mile Creek 20 18 4.5 F 32 19.5 9.5 CV 28 1.8.5 9-5 F 37 17.5 6 CV 45 22 9.5 CV

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Lithic Length Width Thickness Bas

Delaware 25 16 2 F 30 19 4.5 CC 22.5 16 4.5 CV 22 17 5 F Pipe Creek 19.5 14 4 F Bayport 29 16 5 F Onondaga 37 20 6 CC

A5 Trench 6 Backdirt Onondaga 32 17 3 CV

A5 Trench 6 L2 Ten Mile Creek 26 19-5 4 F Delaware 30 15 4 CV 31 16.5 4 F 29 18.5 5 F 29 15 3 F

A5 Trench 7 LI Ten Mile Creek 23.5 15 4.5 F 23.5 5.5 F 25-5 7 F 21.5 14.5 5 F 23 6.5 F 26 3 F 25 18.5 5 F 26 16 8 F 38 16 5 F 30 16 6.5 CC 26.5 14.5 6 . F 25 18 3.5 F 26 15 5 F 30.5 14.5 9 F 21 19.5 5 F 29 16.5 6 CV 20 14 4 F 19 13.5 5 F 19 20 6 F Delaware 21 13 4 F 30.5 16 6.5 F 19 12 4 F 20 12 4 F 29 17 6 CC 26 16 4 F 35 16 5 F 32 15 4 F Onondaga 22.5 18 4 F 29.5 16.5 6 CC Columbus 22 16 5 F Upper Mercer 26 16 5 CV '*

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Lithic Type Length Width Thickness Base

Unidentified 21 13 5 F ■18 22 4 CC

Trench 7 L2 Ten Mile Creek 22 16 7 F 19.5 17 4 F 21.5 15.5 6.5 F 24 15 3 F - 21 16.5 6.5 F 30 15 4 F 27 16 5 F 22 19 6 CV

A5 Trench 7 L2 Ten Mile Creek 23 17 5 F Delaware 20.5 16 6.5 F 21 16 4.5 F Columbus 31 16.5 3-5 CV

A5 Trench 8 LI Ten Mile Creek 21 19 6.5 F Onondaga 21 19 4 F

A5 Trench 8 L2 Ten Mile Creek 21.5 12 5 F 21.5 17 6 F 29 20 7 F 28.5 18.5 5 CV Delaware 15 14 3.5 F 43 14 4.5 F Pipe Creek 20 12 4 CC Bayport 22 11.5 3.5 CV Ononadaga 31 19 6.5 F

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

FT. MEIGS CERAMICS

301

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. B-1 CERAMIC TYPES AND VARIETIES BY RIMS

Ft. Meigs Dentate - 75 Dentate Plain - 63 Dentate T railed - 9 Dentate Ext. Impr. Lip - 3

Ft. Meigs Modified Lip - 38 Notched - 19 Dentate - 17 Plain - 2

Ft. Meigs Modified Lip — Plain - 52

Ft. Meigs Exterior Impressed Lip - 103 Plain - 103

Ft. Meigs Trailed - 8 Plain - 8

Ft. Meigs Punctate - kZ Plain - 39 Trailed - 3

Parker Festooned - 15 T ra i 1 ed - 7 Trailed Dentate - 8

Ft. Meigs Notched Applique S trip - 130 Plain - 65 Ext. Impr. Lip, Trailed - 55 Tra i 1ed - 5 Dentate - 5

Ft. Meigs Filleted - 19

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CERAMIC TYPES AND VARIETIES BY NECKS

Ft. Meigs Punctate: 103 Punctate HOR - 6 7 Punctate Trailed - 29 Punctate Randon - 2 Punctate/Incised - 1 Punctate/CWS - 1 Punctate OB - 1 Punctate OB/Inc. OB — 1 Punctate VERT. - 1 Ft. Meigs Dentate: 68 Dentate VERT. - 35 Dentate/Trailed - 11 Dentate HOR. - 10 Dentate OB - 6 Dentate/Punctate - 3 Dentate/Incised - 2 Dentate Random - 1 Parker Festooned: 61 Dentate/Trailed - 53 Punctate/Trailed - 8 Tool Impr./Trai led - 1 CWS/Incised - 1 Ft. Meigs Trailed: 61 Trailed HOR - 32 Trailed OB - 2k Trailed+Incised HOR - 3 Trailed VERT. - 1 Trailed HOR+lncised OB -1 Ft. Meigs Notched Applique Strip: 2k .■ Plain N.A.S. - 19 N.A.S./Trailed HOR - 2 N.A.S./Punctate HOR - 2 N.A.S./lncised OB - 1 Ft. Meigs Linear Stamp: 22 Plain L.S. - 18 L.S./T railed - 3 L.S. OB - 1

Juvenile-Miniature: k

Miscellaneous-Unclassified: 25

Plain Smoothed: 309 Plain Smoothed Cord-Roughened: 5 Plain Cord-Roughened: 33 Plain Smoothed/Cord-Roughened: 37 Plain Smoothed/Smoothed Cord-Roughened: 5

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CERAMIC TYPES AND VARIETIES COMBINED RIMS AND NECKS

Type, Variety Rims Necks Total

Ft. Meigs Dentate 75 68 143 Plain 63 51 113 Tra i 1ed 9 13 22 Ext. Impr. Lip 3 3 6

Ft. Meigs Modified Lip 76 _ 76 Plain 38 - 38 Notched 19 - - 19 Dentate 17 - 17 Plain 2 - 2

Linear Stamp 52 22 7k

Exterior Impr. Lip 103 - 103

Ft. Meigs Punctate 42 103 145 Plain 39 72 111 Trailed 3 31 34

Parker Festooned 15 63 79 Trailed 7 15 22 Trailed/dentate 8 41 49 Trailed/punctate - 8 8

Ft. Meigs Trailed 8 61 69

Ft. Meigs N.A.S. 130 2k 154 Plain 64 19 83 Ext. Impr, Lip 56 2 58 Trailed 5 3 8 Dentate 5 - 5

Ft. Meigs Fi Meted 19 - 19

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 305

RIM PROFILE KEY

B1 Simply thickened rim with rounded lip

Bla Rounded lip with thickened rim resulting from lip folding or rolling over to exterior surface

B2 Simply thickened rim with squared lip

C Wedge shaped rim with flattened lip

D1 Squared rim with inward facing or slanting lip

Dl-4 Squared rim with beveled lip

D2 Squared rim with flattened lip

D3 Squared rim with flattened lip resulting from channeling of lip

D4 Squared rim with outward facing or slanting lip

E Simply squared rim with rounded lip

Source: Hoxie 1980:38

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 306 Ft. Meigs Rim Profiles

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 307 B-2 FT. MEIGS CERAMI CS: RIM PROF ILES; by TYPE

Type B1 B1a Bib B2 c D1 D2 D3 D5 E

Miniature/Juvenile 2 3 12 Ft. Meigs N.A.S. 20 1 7 7 1 A6 66 Parker Festooned 1 1 5 7 1 Ft. Meigs Ext. Imp.Lip 12 6 6 7 1 28 1*3 Ft. Meigs Modified Lip 2 3 1 1 17 1 13 Ft. Meigs Linear Stamp 3 1 1 2 9 18 18 Ft. Meigs Punctate 5 1 1 5 16 11* Ft. Meigs Tra i 1ed 1 1 3 3 Ft. Meigs Dentate 1 2 1 2k 41 6 Ft. Meigs Plain 5 7 3 26 26 PI. CR. 1 1 1* 7 PI. SMCR 2 1 3 1 2 Ft. Meigs F illeted 1 9 9

FT. MEIGS CERAMICS: LIP DECORATION BY TYPE

Type 1 2 3 k 5 6 7 8 9 10

Ft. Meigs Plain 308 Miniature/Juvenile 17 Mi seelianeous/Unclas- 23 6 1 2 1 11 sified Ft. Meigs N.A.S. 127 9 2 9 2 Parker Festooned 11 k Ft. Meigs Ext. Imp.Lip 88 Ft. Meigs Modified Lip 19 1 17 1 Ft. Meigs Linear Stamp 30 5 16 1 Ft. Meigs Punctate 27 ^ 1 10 Ft. Meigs Trailed 5 3 Ft. Meigs Dentate 15 1 2 51 1 2 P. CR. 12 1 P.. SMCR 9 Ft. Meigs Filleted 19

1. P I. Sm. 2. Notched 3. Finger Impressed 1*. Incised 5. Destroyed 6. Dentate Stamp 7. Push-Pull 8. Trailed 9. Linear Stamp 10. Cord-Roughened

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. RIM THICKNESS, RANGE, AND MEAN, BY TYPE ( in mm.)

Type Range Mean

Miniature/Juvenile 2.5-7.0 4.23 Cord-Roughened 3.0-6.0 4.69 Ft. Meigs Trailed 3 0 - 7 .0 5.13 Ft. Meigs Plain 4*0-10.0 5.45 Ft. Meigs N.A.S. 4.0-8.0 5.59 Pi. SMCR 4.0-8.0 5.63 Ft. Meigs Punctate 4.0-8.0 5.65 Ft. Meigs Ext. Impressed Lip 4 .0 -8 .O' 6.11 Ft. Meigs Modified Lip 4.0-9.0 6.19 Parker Festooned 4.0-9.0 6.20 Misceilaneous/Unclassi fied 3.0-10.0 6.41 Ft. Meigs Linear Stamp 4.0-10.0 7.17 Ft. Meigs Dentate 4.0-11.0 5.75 Ft. Meigs F illeted 5.0-7.0

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. B -3 RIMS BY PROVENIENCE AND TYPE

Surface Area 1 Area 1-2 Nass Buchman Surface Surface Excav . Excav.

PI. SMCR 2 PI. CR 1 1 2 1 PI. SM 18 3 2 1 Dentate Stamp OB 2 1 Dentate Stamp VERT. 21 7 1 1 Trail HOR. 2 Punctate HOR. 5 8 1 Linear Stamp 9 3 1 Modified Lip 5 3 2 Exter.Impressed Lip 16 6 9 1 Parker Festooned 5 1 Notch Applique Strip 11 16 18 N.A.S. (destroyed) 5 k Filleted 1 1 2 Juveni1 e/Miniature 1 1 5 Misc.-Unclassified 5 5 k

Ar. A Tr.A L1 Tr.A L2 Tr.A

PI. SMCR PI. CR 1 PI. SM 2 Dentate Stamp Oblique 1 Dentate Stamp VERtical ^ 2 1 Trailed Horizontal Punctate Horizontal 1 1 Linear Stamp j 1 Modified Lip 1 Exterior Impressed Lip j 2 -j 2 Parker Festooned Notched Applique S trip c 2 N.A.S. (destroyed) -j ^ Filleted . Juvenile-Miniature ^ j . Misc.-Unclassified j ^ 2

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 310

Tr.B LI Tr.B L2 TrB. L3 Tr.C L1 Tr.C L2

P I. SMCR 1 1 P1. CR 1 P I. SM Z, i 2 Dent. Stamp OB Dent. Stamp VERT 1 1* 1 2 1 Trail HOR Punctate HOR 1 1 Linear Stamp 1 3 3 1 Modified Lip 1 5 1 1 Ext.' impr. Lip 1 k 6 1 Parker Festooned Notch Appl. S trip 5 3 3 2 N.A.S. (destroyed) F illeted 1 1 Juvenile/Miniature 1 Misc.-Unclassified 1 2 1 1

Tr.C L3 A re a l Area 1 Area Unit D Unit E Un i t U.5 Lla

P I. SMCR PI. CR 1 PI. SM 5 3 Dent. Stamp OB Dent. Stamp VERT 5 3 Trail HOR Punctate HOR 3 3 1 Linear Stamp 2 1 6 Modified LIP 1 1 1 Ext. Impr. Lip 3 1 7 Parker Festooned k Notch Appl. S trip 7 3 8 N.A.S. (destroyed) 2 F illeted 1 1 2 Juvenile/Miniature’ 1 3 Misc.-Unclassified 2 5

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 311

Area 2 Area 2 Area 2 Area 2 Area 2 Tr.1 U5 Tr.1 U6 Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3

PI. SMCR PI. CR 1 1 PI. SM 5 5 2 Dent. Stamp OB Dent. Stamp VERT 1 1 1 3 Trail HOR 1 Punctate HOR 3 . 2 k Linear Stamp 1 5 Modified Lip 1 1 2 1 Ext. Impr. Lip k 8 7 1 3 Parker Festooned 3 2 Notch Appl. S trip 3 2 12 1 2 N.A.S. (destroyed) F illeted 2 Juvenile/Miniature 1 Misc.-Unclassified i j

Area 2 Area 3 Area k Area 5 Area 5 Unit k Unit 1 Test 8 Tr. 2 Tr. A

PI. SMCR i PI. CR y PI. SM 3 ! , Dent. Stamp OB Dent. Stamp VERT 2 2 Tra i 1 HOR 1 Punctate HOR 2 1 1 Linear Stamp /f Modified Lip 2 1 Ext. Impr. Lip 7 3 Parker Festooned Notch Appl. S trip 7 1 •) ^ N.A.S. (destroyed) Filleted If Juvenile/Miniature 1 Misc.-Unclassified 1

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 312

Area 5 Area 5 Area 5 Area 5 Area 5 Tr. 5 T r. 6 Tr. 6 T r. 7 T r. 7 Bkdrt. L2 L1

PI. SMCR PI. CR 1 PI. SM 1 1 1 Dent. Stamp OB Dent. Stamp VERT 3 Trail HOR 2 Punctate HOR V Linear Stamp 1 1 Modified Lip 1 Ext. impr. Lip k Parker Festooned Notch Appl. Strip 1 N.A.S. (destroyed) 1 F illeted 1 Juvenile-Miniature Misc-Unclassified 1

Area 5 Area 5 Area 5 Area 5 Area 5 Tr. 7 Tr. 8 Ovrbdn. Feat k Feat AO

PI. SMCR 3 PI. CR PI. SM 1 Dent. Stamp OB 1 Dent. Stamp VERT 1 Trail HOR 1 Punctate HOR 1 Linear Stamp 2 Modified Lip 2 1 1 Ext. Imp. Lip k 1 Parker Festooned Notch Appl. Strip 2 1 1 N.A.S (destroyed) 1 Filleted 2 1 Juvenile-Miniature Misc.-Unclassified 1

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 313

Area 5 Area 5 Area 5 Area 5 Area 5 Feat.66 Feat.90 Feat.147 Feat. 159 Feat.165a

PI. SMCR 1 PI. CR PI. SM Dent. Stamp OB 1 Dent. Stamp VERT 1 Trail HOR Linear Stamp 1 Modified Lip 1 Ext. Impr. Lip Parker Festooned Notch Appl. Strip N.A.S (destroyed) F illeted Juveni1 e/Miniature Misc.-Unclassified

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. B -4 VESSEL NECKS BY TYPE AND PROVEN IENCE-

P1.SMCR P I. CR Pl.SM PI. SM PI. SM SMCR PI .CR

Surface 5 70 2 14 Area 1-2 Surface 1 38 4 Buchman Excavation 1 Nass Excavation 1 Area 1 Un i t D 4 Area 1 Unit E 17 - 1 2 Area 1 Unit F 29 3 Tr. A 7 Tr. A LI 2 Tr. A L2 3 1 Tr. B LI 1 Tr. B L2 2 8 4 Tr. B L3 1 3 Tr. C LI 4 Tr. C L2 9 Tr. C L3 Ar. 2 Tr 1 U5 Lla 1 2 Ar. 2 Tr 1 U5 L2 3 5 Ar. 2 Tr 1 U6 L2 2 A 17 3 Area 2 Un i 11 20 4 Area 2 Unit2 1 5 1 Area 2 Unit 3 7 Area 2 Unit 4 3 25 1 2 Area 5 Tr 1 Area 5 Tr 3 Area 5 Tr 4 Area 5 Tr 6 Area 5 Tr 6 L2 Area 5 Tr 7 LI 3 4 10 Area 5 Tr 7 L2 1 9 Area 5 Ovbrdn 1 Area 5 Tr 8 L2 1 1

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 3 1 5

Juveni1e Ft. Meigs Ft. Meigs Ft. Meigs Ft. Meigs Miniature Punctate Linear Trailed Dentate Stamp

Surface A 2A 11 1A 25 Area 1-2 Surf 3 1 3 5 Buchman Excavation 1 Nass Excavation 2 Area 1 Unit D A 1 1 2 Area 1 Un it E 3 1 7 . A Area 1 Unit F 1A 2 5 7 Tr. A 2 1 Tr. A L1 1 2 Tr. A L2 1 Tr. A L3 1 1 3 3 Tr. B. LI Tr. B. L2 A 1 1 3 Tr. B L3 2 2 Tr. C LI 2 1 Tr. C L2 3 1 2 Tr. C L3 Area 2 Tr.1 U5 Lla 1 Area 2 Tr.1 U5 L2 5 1 8 Area 1 T r .1 U6 L2 A 2 3 Area 2 Unit 1 12 2 1 Area 1 Un i t 2 2 3 Area 2 Unit 3 3 1 1 Area 2 Un i t 4 6 • 5 1 Area 5 Tr. 1 1 Area 5 Tr. 3 1 Area 2 Un i t 4 Area 5 Tr. 1 Area 5 Tr. 3 Area 5 Tr. 6 L2 1 Area 5 Tr.7 L1 Area 5 Tr.7 L2 2 2 Area 5 Ovrbdn Area 5 Tr.8 L2 Area 5 Tr.A 2 Area 5 Feature 90 1 Area 5 Feature 183 1 1 Area 5 Feature 201 1 Area 5 Feature 210 1

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Parker Notched Miscellaneous Festooned Applique Unclassified Strip

Surface 20 10 10 Area 1-2 Surface 5 1 Buchman Excavation Nass Excavation Area 1 Uni t D 1 Area 1 Unit E 2 Area 1 Unit F 2 Tr.A Tr. A LI Tr. A L2 Tr, A L3 Tr. B L1 1 Tr. B L2 3 Tr. B L3 1 Tr. C LI 1 Tr. L2 2 Tr. L3 Ar.2 Tr.1 U5 Lla Ar.2 Tr.1 U5 L2 2 Ar.2 Tr.1 U6 1 Ar.2 Tr.1 U6 L2 4 Area Unit 1 5 2 Area Unit 2 1 1 Area Unit 3 Area Unit 4 5 1 Area Unit 1 1 2 Area Unit 2 Area Tr.1 Area Tr.3 Area Tr.4 Area Tr.6 Area Tr.6 L2 Area Tr.7 Li Area Ovrbdn Area Tr.8 L2 Area Feature 40

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 3 1 7 FT. MEIGS CERAMIC TYPES, BY PROVENIENCE AND RIM NUMBER

Surface PI. Sm.:. 6, 10, 17, 20, 21, 25, 28, 29, 31, 41, 90, 92, 93, 94, 95, 1000, 61, 71 PI. CR.: 80 PL. SMCR: 34, 1142 Juvenile/Miniature: 57 Unclassified: 26, 62, 257, 284 Ft. Meigs Dentate: 299, 300, 302, 302a, 303, 305, 312, 316, 318, 324, 329, 330, 342, 343, 344, 348, 349, 350, 351, 354, 360, 364, 1116

Ft. Meigs Trailed: 106, 107 Ft. Meigs Punctate: 224, 225a, 227, 234, 239b Ft. Meigs Linear Stamp: 177, 179, 180, 186, 200, 214, 2l6bSe,239a Ft. Meigs Modified Lip: 157, 1123, 1134, 1136, 1139, Ft. Meigs Exterior Impressed Lip: 117- 118, 122, 123, 130, 134, 135, 156, 170, 171, 172, 173, 184, 185, 264, 1154

Parker Festooned: 250, 251, 252, 253, 368 Ft. Meigs N.A.S.: 22, 394, 472, 473, 474, 477, 478, 480, 481, 482, 483, 484, 485, 486, 487, 489 Ft. Meigs F illeted : 476 , 488

Area 1 Surface PI. Sm.: 44, 45, 69 PI. CR.: 101 Juvenile/Miniature: 279 Unclassified: 148, 245, 258, 266, 296 Ft. Meigs Dentate: 319, 323, 327, 336, 345, 357, 359

Ft. Meigs Trailed: 105 Ft. Meigs Punctate: 220, 228, 230, 232, 244a, 288, 384 Ft. Meigs Linear Stamp: 2l6d, 217, 321 Ft. Meigs Modified Lip: 84, 382, 1133 Ft. Meigs Ext. impr. Lip: 65, 132, 147, 159, 388 Parker Festooned: 111 Ft. Meigs N.A.S.: 389, 393, 439, 440, 441, 442, 444, 447, 449, 450, 453, 455, 456, 459, 462, 463, 464, 471 Ft. Meigs F illeted : 398

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 318

Area 1/2 Surface PI. Sm.: 43, 67 P I. CR.: 10^b» 399 Juvenile/Miniature: 32m, 33m, 34m, C U nclassified: 102a, 259, 260, 530 Ft. Meigs Dentate: 400 Ft. Meigs Punctate: 238 Ft. Meigs Linear Stamp: 212 Ft. Meigs Modified Lip: 1130, 1132 Ft. Meigs Ext. Impr. Lip: 124, 125, 136, 160, 161, 162b, 162c, I62d, 390 Ft. Meigs N.A.S.: 381, 392, 392a, 413, 443, 443a, 445, 446, 448, '451. 452, 454, 457, 458, 460, 461, 465, 466, 467, 468, 469, 470 F illeted : 167a, 376, 438 Trench A PI. CR.: 78 Juvenile/Miscellaneous: 16 Unclassified: 272 Ft. Meigs Ext. Imp. Lip: 271

Tr. A LI Miniature/Juvenile: 56 Ft. Meigs Dentate: 293, 315, 338 Ft. Meigs PUnctate: 235 Ft. Meigs Linear Stamp: 202 Ft. Meigs Ext. Impr. Lip: 138, 187 Ft. Meigs N.A.S.: 403, 404, 404a, 404b, 405, 460

Tr. A L2 PI. Sm.: 38 Miniature/Juvenile: 88 U nclassified: 61, 255 Ft. Meigs Dentate: 353 Ft. Meigs Punctate: 226 Ft. Meigs Linear Stamp: 211 Ft. Meigs Modified Lip: 1148 Ft. Meigs Ext. Impr. Lip: 115 Ft. Meigs N.A.S.: 401, 411 Ft. Meigs F illeted : 378, 529, 380

Tr. B L1 PI. SMCR: 77 Unclassified: 361 Ft. Meigs Dentate: 358 Ft. Meigs Linear Stamp: 306 Ft. Meigs Modified Lip: 153a Ft. Meigs Ext. Impr. Lip: 289

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 3 1 9

Tr. B L2 PI. Sm.: 5, 18, 91, 96 PI. CR: 79 PI. SMCR: 19 Miniature/Juvenile: 22 Unclassified: 256, 340 Ft. Meigs Dentate: 308, 311,339, 352 Ft. Meigs Punctate: 236 Ft. Meigs Linear Stamp: 200,204, 216a Ft. Meigs Modified Lip: 1124, 1124a, 1126, 1141, 1144 Ft. Meigs Ext. Impr. Lip: 167, 183, 191, 161 Ft. Meigs N.A.S.: 407, 410,417, 419, 456a

Tr. B L3 Pi. Sm.: 7, 35, 36, 47 Unclassified: 534 Ft. Meigs Dentate: 334 Ft. Meigs Linear Stamp: 207, 213, 286 Ft. Meigs Modified Lip: 1118 Ft. Meigs Ext. Impr. Lip: 126, 149, 150, 150a, 285, 298 Ft. Meigs N.A.S.: 397, 408, 414

Tr. C L2 Pi. Sm.: 98 Unclassified: 265 Ft. Meigs Dentate: 337 Ft. Meigs Linear Stamp: 239 Ft. Meigs Modified Lip: 1138 Ft. Meigs Ext. Impr. Lip: 120 Ft. Meigs N.A.S.: 402, 406

Tr. C L3 Ft. Meigs Modified Lip: 1164

Area 1 Unit D PI. CR.: 82 Miniature/Juvenile: 13m, 15m, 17m Ft. Meigs Dentate: 309, 309a, 291, 310, 337a Ft. Meigs Punctate: 221, 283, 287 Ft. Meigs Linear Stamp: 196, 201 Ft. Meigs Modified Lip: 1163 Ft. Meigs Ext. Impr, Lip: 116, 158, 182 Ft. Meigs N.A.S.: 420, 422, 423, 425, 426, 427, 429, 433, 433a Area 1 Unit E PI. Sm.: 2, 3, 39, 48, 76 Unclassified: 278, 292 Ft. Meigs Dentate: 301, 347, 383 Ft. Meigs Punctate: 229, 269, 269a Ft. Meigs Linear Stamp: 216c Ft. Meigs Modified Lip: 1131 Ft. Meigs Ext. Impr. Lip: 248 Ft. Meigs N.A.S.: 434, 435 Ft. Meigs F illeted : 375

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 320

Area 1 Unit F PI. Sm: 9, 13, 23 Miniature/Juvenile: 58, 59 Unclassified: 268, 290, 326, 331, 363 Ft. Meigs Punctate: 1160 Ft. Meigs Linear Stamp: 100, 112a, 178,198, 218, 244 Ft. Meigs Modified Lip: 11 Ft. Meigs Ext. Impr. Lip: 128, 143, 168, 169, 181, 184, 386 Parker Festooned: 365, 366, 367, 369 Ft. Meigs N.A.S.: 421, 424, 428, 430, 431, 432, 435, 437

Area 2 Unit 1 PI. Sm: 50, 52, 53, 54, 64 PI. CR.: 14'! Unclassified: 87 Ft. Meigs Dentate: 325 Ft. Meigs Punctate: 108, 262, 262a, 262b Ft. Meigs Linear Stamp: 210, 215,216, 274, 11a Ft. Meigs Modified Lip: 1125 Ft. Meigs Ext. Impr, Lip: 85, 129, 142, 146, 155, 391, 1149 Ft. Meigs N.A.S.: 490m 491m 498a, 499, 502, 506, 512, 513, 513a, 517, 519, 523, 524, 524a, 536 Ft. Meigs F illeted: 532, 533

Area 2 Unit 2: Ft. Meigs Ext. Impr. Lip: 86, 1151 Ft. Meigs N.A.S.: 493, 497

Area 2 Unit 3 PI. Sm: 73, 75 Ft. Meigs Dentate: 356, 356a, 356b Ft. Meigs Trailed: 103 Ft. Meigs Modified Lip: 1166 Ft. Meigs Ext. Impr. Lip: 127, 162, 188 Ft. Meigs N.A.S.: 396, 500

Area 2 Unit 4 Miniature/Juvenile: 8 Unclassified: 109 Ft. Meigs Dentate: 332, 341 Ft. Meigs Trailed: 104 Ft. Meigs PUnctate: 225, 10i Ft. Meigs Linear Stamp: 193, 205, 206, 276 Ft. Meigs Modified Lip: 1127, 1165 Ft. Meigs Ext. Impr, Lip: 114, 154, 163, 164, 164a, 190, 385 Ft. Meigs N.A.S.: 409, 498, 505, 507, 520, 521, 522, 525 Ft. Meigs F illeted : 527, 528, 529

Ar. 2 Tr. 1 U5 Lla Ft. Meigs Linear Stamp: 21 6f

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 321

Ar. 2 Tr. 1 U5 L2 “ PI. Cr.: 81 Unclassified: 261 Ft. Meigs Dentate: 1161 Ft. Meigs PUnctate: 1157, 1158, 1159 Ft. Meigs Modified Lip: 1129 Fr. Meigs Ext. Impr, Lip: 141, 144, 145, 189 Parker Festooned: 110, 254, 254a • Ft. Meigs N.A.S.: 510, 511, 516

Ar. 2 Tr. 1 U6 L2 PI. Sm.: 4, 32, 46, 89 P I. CR.: 102 Juvenile/Miniature: 30 Unclassified: 97 Ft. Meigs Dentate: 355 Ft. Meigs Punctate: 233, 243 Ft. Meigs Linear Stamp: 237 Ft. Meigs Modified Lip: 1162 Ft. Meigs Ext. Impr. Lip: 5 1 ,1 3 3 , 139, 153, 174, 263, 280, 387 Parker Festooned: 370, 370a Ft. Meigs N.A.S.: 501, 501a Ft. Meigs F illeted : 377

Area 3 Unit 1 PI. Sm.: 70, 71, 72 PI. SMCR: 66 Ft. Meigs Dentate: 328, 1140 Ft. Meigs Punctate: 231 Ft. Meigs Modified Lip: 1146 Ft. Meigs Ext. Impr. Lip: 313, 166, 175 Ft. Meigs N.A.S.: 514

Ar. 4 Tr. 8 Ovrbrdn Ft. Meigs N.A.S.: 412

Ar. 5 Overburden Ft. Meigs N.A.S.: 504

Area 5 Trench 2 P I. Sm. : 51

Area 5 Trench 4 PI. Sm.: 41, 55, 55a PI. CR: 24 Ft. Meigs Punctate: 195 Ft. Meigs N.A.S.: 496

Area 5 Trench 5 Ft. Meigs Ext. Impr. Lip: 9i Ft. Meigs N.A.S.: 508

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Area 5 Trench 5 Backdirt PI. Sm.: 2i Ft. Meigs T railed: 249, 282 Ft. Meigs Linear Stamp: 149

Area 5 Trench 6 Ft. Meigs Mod i f i ed Lip: 11 i

Area 5 Tr . 6 L2 PI. Sm.: 63

Area 5 Tr • 7 LI PI. Sm.: 14 PI.CR.: 11 Unciassif ied: 68 Ft. Meigs Dentate: 121 , 314, 341a Ft. Meigs Ext. Impr. Lip : 151 , 52, 152a, 152b Ft. Meigs N.A.S.: 494, 515 Ft. Meigs Punctate:: 222 , 223, 240, 240a Ft. Meigs F i1leted:: 495

Area 5 T rench 7 Ft. Meigs Linear Stamp: 275

Area 5 Tr.. 7 L2 PI. Sm.: 1150 ' Ft. Meigs T ra i 1 ed: 246 Ft. Meigs Dentate: 273, 333 Ft. Mei gs Punctate: 219 Ft. Meigs Linear Stamp: 197, 241 Ft. Meigs Mod i f i ed Lip: 74, 1167 Ft. Meigs Ext. Impr '. Lip : 140 , 140a, 165, 176 Ft. Meigs N.A.S.: 509, !518 Ft. Meigs Filleted: 526,, 526a

Area 5 Tr. 8 L2 PI • SMCR: 42, 42a, 42b Unci ass i fi ed: 15 Ft. Meigs Dentate: 267 Ft. Meigs Mod i f i ed Lip: 1122 Ft. Meigs Exterior Impr. Lip: 137 Ft. Meigs N.A.S.: 492

Features, Area 5 Feature A: Ft. Meigs Modified Lip: 111*5 Feature 40: Ft. Meigs N.A.S.: 503 Feature 66: Ft. Meigs Modified Lip: 1156 Feature 90: Ft. Meigs Dentate: 13» Feature 147: Ft. Meigs Dentate: 313 Feature 159: Ft. Meigs Linear Stamp: 1152 Feature: 165a: PI. SMCR: 99

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 323

B -6 TYPED NECKS BY PROVIENCE AND NECK NUMBER

Ft. Meigs Linear Stampedpe Surface: 23, 2*, 37c, 61, 62, 67, 83, 139, 225, 307, 479 Area 1-2 Surface 50a Area 1 Unit 25 Area 1 Unit 47a Area 1 Unit 53, 54 Trench A 45 add Tr. A L3 37a Tr. B L2 119a Tr. C Li 85 add Area 2 Tr. 1 U5 L2: 120 Area 2 Tr. 1 U6 L2: 49a

Ft. Meigs Punctate Surface: 2, 19, 20, 26, 27, 28, 37, 37b, 39, 41, 46, 47, 48, 49, 56, 57, 66, 70, 120a, 122, 131, 256, 264, 273 Area 1-2 Surface: 4, 42add, 124a Buchman Excavations: 1' Area 1 Unit D: 50, 161, 246, 267 Area 1 Unit E 144, 20a, 52 Area 1 Unit F 10, 11, 12, 14, 36, 38, 42, 51, 55, 60, 124, 125 1.28b, 249 rench A 42a, 42b r. A LI 132a r. A L2 43 r. A L3 3a r. B L2 16, 22, 71, 126 r. B L3 65, 105 r. C LI 5, 40add r. C L2 46add, 40, 37add Area Tr. 1 U5 K2: 15, 33, 44add, 121, 222 Area Tr. 1 U6 L2: 18, 21, 63, 87add Area Unit 1 3, 7, 9, 13, 22, 29, 30, 31, 58, 142, 259, 266 Area Unit 2 41 add, 43add, Area Unit 3 17, 257, 265 Area Unit 4 1, 2a, 38add, 39add, 88add, 258 Area Unit 1: 8 Area Tr. 1: 132 Area Tr. 7 L2: 35, 47add Area Feature 90: 317 Area Feature 183: 11a

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 3 2 4

Ft. Meigs Trailed Surface: 37d, 123, 164, 165, 180, 181, 182, 183, 186, 247, 260, 261 270, 276 Area 1-2 Surface: 160, 174, 178 Area Un i t D 237 Area Unit E 154, 156, 166, 172, 193, 247a , 269 Area Uni t F 155, 171, 191, 263, 272 Tr. A L3: 185, 243, 249 Tr. B L2: 275 Tr. B L3: 158, 262 Tr. C L2: 172a Area 2 Tr. 1 U5 Lia: 252 Area Tr. 1 U5 L2 : 157, 159, 173, 175, 176 , 177, 192, 194 Area TR. 1 U6 L2: 169, 188 Area Un i t 1 179, 245 Area Un i t 163 Area Un i t 168 , 187, 189, 250, 274 Area Unit 254 Area Un i t 271 Area T rench 3 : 268 Area Trench 7 L2: 167, 184

Ft. Meigs Dentate Surface: 75, 79, 80, 81, 84add, 85add, 91,-9: 3, 95, 96, 97, 110, 128a, 129, 134, 146, 149, 1.51 Area 1-2 Surface: 85add, 94, 100, 115, 136 Area 1 Unit D 106, 112 Area 1 Unit E 80b, 85, 162, 251 Area 1 Unit F 69. 76. 77. 84. 111 118. 320 Tr. A L I: 103, 99 Tr. A L3: 73, 86, 120b Tr. C L2: 86a, 113 Area 2 Tr 1 U6 L2: 74, 78, 137 Area Unit 1 80a Area Unit 3 68 Area Unit 4 138 Area Trench 4 297, 297a Area Feature: 183, 68a Area Feature: 201, 90 Area Feature: 210, 72

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Parker Festooned Surface: 130, 135, 145, 150, 195, 199, 210, 204, 207, 208, 212, 215, 223, 228, 230, 238, 240, 255, 362 Area 1-3 Surface: 141, 148, 205, 217, 234 Area 1 Unit D: 235 Area 1 Unit E: 213a, 214 Area 1 Unit F: 197, 227 Tr. B LI: 210 Tr. B- L2: 216, 220, 233 Tr. B L3: 221 Tr. C LI: 253 Tr. C L2: 203, 215a Area 2 Tr. 1 U5 L2: 140, 232 Area 2 Tr. 1 U6: 242 Area 2 Tr. 1 U6 L2: 107, 128, 198,198a, 206, 241, 247 Area 2 Unit 1: 83add, 200, 226, 229, 236 Area 2 Unit 4: 202, 211, 216a, 218, 219 Area 3 Un i t V: 209b Area 5 Tr. 7 L i: 209a, 224

Ft. Meigs Notched Applique Surface: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, L, N, 475 Area 1 Unit D: I, M, X Area TR. 1 U6 L2: K, 0, T, W Area 2 Un i t 1: J, U Area 2 Unit 2: P Area 2 Unit 4: R Area 3 Unit 1: 0, V ARea 5 Feature 40: S

Juvenile/Miniature Surface: 14m, 16m, 35m, 36m

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. PI. CR Necks by Provenience ~ Surface: 5 (#314 with handle; 319 with handle) Area 1-2 Surface: 1 Area 1 Unit 5: 5 (1 g rit) Tr. B L2: 2 (1 g rit) Tr. B L3: 1 Area 2 Tr. ! U5 Lla: 1 Area 2 Tr. ! U5 L2: 3 (1 g rit) Area 2 Tr. 1 U6 L2: 4 Area 2 Unit 2: 1 (g rit) Area 2 Unit 2: 1(g rit) Area 2 Unit 3: 3 Area 3 Unit 1: 1 (g rit) Area 5 Tr. 7.LI: 4 (1 g rit) Area 5 Tr. 7 L2: 1 (grit) Area 5 Tr. 8 L2: 1

Plain Smoothed/Plain Cord-Rouchened by Provenience Surface: 279, 292, 293, 294, 297, 301, 302, 302a, 305, 308 (with handle), 313 (with handle), 315 (with handle), 316 (with handle) Area 1-2 Surface: 289, 300, 303, 304 Area 1 Unit E: 290, 299 Area 1 Unit F: 283, 285, 318 (with handle) Tr. B L2: 284, 286, 291, 310 (with handle) Area 2 Unit 1: 277, 278, 287, 298 Area 2 Unit 2: 280 Area 2 Unit k: 282, 288 Area 2 Tr. 1 U6 L2: 281, 295, 296

Plain Smoothed/Plain Smoothed Cord-Roughened ~ Surface: 279add, 280add Area 1 Unit E: 277add Tr. A L3: 320 (with handle) Area 2 Unit 4: 278add (grit)

Plain Smoothed Cord-Roughened, Number by Provenience Area 2 Tr. 1 U6 L2: 3 (1 g rit) Area 5 Tr. 7 L I: 3

Cord-Wrapped Stick Impressed Area 1 Unit D: 153 Area 1 Unit F: 119 Area 2 Tr. 1 U5 Lla: 1add

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Unci ass i f i ed-M i seel 1aneous Surface: 48add (Punctate HOR, g r it) , 133 (DS VERT/TR VERT, gri 143 (Punct. HOR/TR HOR, g r it) , 190 (TR, OB, g r it) , 239 (TR, TRI, g r it) , 321 (PI, CR, thumb Impressed, gr Area 1-2 Surface: 44 (Punct. HOR/Inc, OB, g rit Area 1 Unit D: 109 (Punct. HOR, g r it) , 171 (TR, HOR, g r it) , 153 (CWS, HOR) Area 1 Unit E: 307 (PI. SM, collart, grit) Area 1 Unit F: 59 (Lin, Stamp, g r it) , 64 (Fab. Impr., g r it) , 116 (DS VERT, g r it) , 117 (Punct, HOR, g rit), 152 (Pusgh-Pul1 OB/Inc HOR, g r i t ) , 119 (CWS) Tr. A L2: 45 (Punct. random, g rit) Tr. C LI: 61a (Lin. Stamp, grit) Tr. C L2: 171a (TR HOR, collar) Area 2 Tr. 1 U5 Lla: 1 (CWS VERT) Area 2 Tr. 1 U5 L2" 104 (DS VERT/Punct HOR, grit) Area 2 Unit 3: 308 (PI. SM, collar) Area 2 Unit 4: 196 (TR OB/DS HOR, g rit)

Plain, Smoothed total number of necks by provenience Surface: 79 — — Area 1-2 Surface: 38 Buchman Excavation: 1 Nass Excavation: 1 Area 1 Unit D: 4 Area 1 Unit E: 17 (2 g rit) Area 1 Unit F: 29 (1 grit) Trench A: 7 (1 mixed sh ell-g rit) Tr. A LI: 5 (#322 with strap handle; 1 mixed temper) Tr. A L3: 3 Tr. B LI: 1 Tr. B L2: 8 Tr. B L3: 3 Tr. C LI: 4 Tr. C L2: 9 Area 2 Tr. 1 U5 Lla: 2 (1 g rit) Area 2 Tr. 1 U5 L2: 5 (1 grit) Area 2 Tr. 1 U6 L2: 17 (#306with strap hendle; 4 g rit) Area 2 Unit 1: ' 20 (#312 with strap handle) Area 2 Unit 2: 5 Area 2 Unit 3: 7 Area 2 Unit 4: 25 (1 grit) Area 3 Unit 1: 7 Area 5 Tr. 7 LI: ■ 10 Area 5 Tr. 7 L2: 9 Area 4 Tr. 8 L2: 1 Area 5 Overburden: 1 (#311 with strap handle)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. FT. MEIGS BODY SHERDS BY PROVENIENCE

PL.CR. PL.SMCR PL.SM. Destroyed

Surface no: 111 no: 138 no: 19 no: 71 (Steiner) r: 4-10 r: 4-9 r: 4-8 x: 6.0 x: 5.9 x: 4.8

Surface no: 474 no: 498 no: 60 no: 1245 r: 5-10 r: 4-9 r: 6-9 x: 6.3 x: 6.1 x: 6.4

Area 1/2 no: 368 no: 47 no: 52 no: 224 Surface r: 4-9 r: 4-8 r: 4-8 x: 6.0 x: 5.5 x: 5.8

Buchman no: 67 no: 41 Excavations r: 4-7 x: 6.6

Nass no: 22 no: 1 no: 1 no: 39 Excavations r: 5-9 r: 6 r: 5 x: 5-9 x: 6.0 x: 5.0

Area 1 Unit D no: 140 no: 120 no: 9 no: 134 r: 3-9 r: 3-8 r: 3-6 x: 6.4 x: 5.4 x: 4.5

Area 1 Unit E no: 209 no: 113 no: 32 no: 116 r: 4-9 r: 3-8 r: 4-9 x: 5.9 x: 5.8 x: 5.7

Area 1 Unit F no: 300 no: 137 no: 88 no: 343 r: 4-9 r: 4-9 r: 3-12 x: 5.8 x: 5.9 x: 5.5

Trench A no: 6 no: 4 r: 4-9 x: 5.7

Tr. A LI no: 11 no: 99 no: 5 no: 124 r: 4-11 r: 3-9 r: 3-11 x: 7.5 x: 5.5 x: 7-0

Tr. A L2 no: 16 no: 81 no: 9 no: 108 r: 3-8 r: 3-8 r: 4-9 x: 5.0 x: 5.5 x: 6.1

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Tr. A L3 no: 13 no: 130 no: 17 no: 78 r: 3-8 r: 3-7 r: 4-9 x: 6.1 x: 5.1 x: 6.5

Tr. B LI no: 4 no: 68 no: 3 no: 103 r: 5-7 r: 3-10 r: 5-9 x: 5.5 x: 5.3 x: 7.0

Tr. B L2 no: 46 no: 181 no: 19 no: 171 r: 3-7 r: 3-8 r: 3-10 x: 4.7 x: 5.4 x: 6.1

Tr. B L3 no: 30 no: 126 no: 9 no: 75 r: 3-7 r: 4-8 r: 5-9 x: 4.7 x: 4.9 x: 6.1

Tr. C LI no: 20 no: 134 no: 2 no: 79 r: 3-8 r: 3-10 r: 8-9 x: 5.7 x: 6.3 x: 8.5

Tr. C L2 no: 12 no: 58 no: 6 no: 39 r: 4-7 r: 3-7 r: 4-9 x: 5.5 x: 5.4 x: 6.5

Tr. C L3 no: 11 no: 3 ’ r: 5-8 x: 6.5

Ar. 2 Tr.1 U5 L2 no: 119 no: 13 no: 33 no: 46 r: 4-7 r: 3-9 r: 4-9 x: 5.4 x: 5.5 x: 6.8

Ar. 2 Tr.1 U6 L2 no: 208 no: 26 no: 4 no: 58 r: 4-8 r: 4-8 r: 3-8 x: 5.5 x: 5.6 x: 5.8

Area 2 Unit 1 no: 159 no: 82 no: 51 no: 92 r: 4-9 r:3-11 r: 4-10 x : 6.0 x: 6.4 x: 6.2

Area 2 Unit 2 no: 38 no: 44 no: 20 no: 46 r: 4-7 r: 4-11 r: 4-8 x: 5.7 x: 6.2 x: 5.7

Area 2 Unit 3 no: 126 no: 18 no: 12 no: 44 r:4-9 r: 4-7 r: 5-7 x: 6.4 x: 6.3 x: 6.1

Area 2 Unit 4 no: 234 no: 80 no: 34 no: 142 r:. 4-9 r: 3-9 r: 3-9 x: 6.4 x: 6.3 x: 6.1

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Area 3 Unit 1 no: 60 no: 16 no: 15 no: 63 r: 4-9 r: 5-8 r: 4-7 x: 5 .k x: 5.5 x: 5.3

Area 5^ Surface no: 3 no: 1 r: 5-7 x: 6.0

Area 5 Overburden no: 4

Ar. 5 Tr.1 L5 n: 2 no: 5 r: 5-7 x: 6.0

Area 5 Tr. 2 no: no: 1 no: 15 r: 5-7 r: 6 x: 6.0 x: 6.0

Area 5 Tr. 3 no: 2 no: 1 no: 2 r: 4-6 r: 5 x: 5.0 x: 5.0

Area 5 Tr. 4 no: 15 no: 8 r: 3-8 x: 6.7

Ar. 5 Tr.5 LI no: 2 no: 2 r: 6-7 x: 6.5

Ar. 5 Tr.5 Bkdt. no: 2 no: 12 r: 3-5 x: 4.0

Ar. 5 T r.6 LI no: 1 no: 1 r: 3 x: 3.0

Ar. 5 T r.6 L2 no: 1 no: 4 r: 5 x: 5.0

Area 5 Tr. 6 no: 3 no: 10 Cultural Midden r: 5~7 x: 5.7

Ar.5 T r.6 Bkdrt. no: 3 no: 6 r: 5-7 x: 6.3

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Ar.5 Tr.7 LI no: 110 no: 10 no: 1 no: 108 r: 4-9 r: 3-8 r: 4 x: 6.2 x: 5.8 x: 4.0

Ar.5 Tr.7 L2 no: 83 no: 5 no: 3 no: 200 r: 3-7 r: 4-6 r: 4-6 x: 5.9 x: 5.7 x: 5.0

Ar.5 Tr.8 LI no: 3 no: 19 r: 5-8 x: 6.3

Ar.5 Tr.8 L2 no: 41 no: 1 no: 3 no: 80 r: 4-8 r: 6 r: 5"7 x: 6.1 x: 6.0 x: 6.3

Area 5 Feat. 4 no: 1 no: 12 r: 6 x: 6.0

Area 5 F eat.12 no: 3 noL 2 r: 3-4 x: 5.0

Area 5 Feat. 18 no: 9

Area 5 Feat. 35 no: 13 no: 4 no: 3 no: 35 r: 4-7 r: 5-7 r: 4-6 x: 5-7 x: 6.0 x: 5.0

Area 5 Feat. 40 no: 2 no. 13 r: 5-6 x: 5.5

Area 5 Feat. 69 no: 5 no: 2 no: 5 no: 13 r: 5-6 r: 5-6 5: 4-6 x: 5*7 x: 5.5 x: 4.7

Area 5 Feat. 75b no. 1 no: 1 r: 6 x: 6.0

Area 5 Feat. 87 no: 1 r: 6 x: 6.0

Area 5 Feat. 90 no: 1 no: 1 r: 6 x: 6.0

Area Feat. 94 no: 1

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 3 3 2

Area 5 Feat. 99 no: 1

Area 5 Feat. 101 no: 1

Area 5 Feat. 123 no: 1 r: 6 x: 6.0

Area 5 Feat. 125 no: 1 no: 1 r: 6 x: 6.0

Area 5 Feat. 126 no: 1

Area 5 Feat. 13^ no: 1

Area 5 Feat. 145 no: 1 r: 6 x: 6.0

Area 5 Feat 147 no: 1

Area 5 Feat. 159 no: 2 no: 2 r: 5-8 x: 6.5

Area 5 FEat. 161 no: 1 r: 7 x: 7.0

Area 5 Feat. 16A no: 1

Area 5 Feat. 165

Area 5 Feat. 165a no: 2 no: 5 r: A-6 x: 5.0

Area 5 Feat. 168b no: 1

Area 5 Feat. 179 no: 1

Area 5 Feat. 182 no: 1

Area 5 Feat. 183 no: 2 no: 10 r: 6-7 x: 6.5

Area 5 Feat. 185

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Area 5 Feat. 195 no: 2 no: 2 r: k-6 x: 5.0

Area 5 Feat. 200 no: 3 no: 9 r: 5-8 x: 6.7

Area 5 Feat. 201 no: 7

Area 5 Feat. 20k ■ no: 3

Area 5 Feat. 210 no: 1 no: 2 r: k x: 4.0

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. MINIATURE-JUVENILE VESSEL SHERDS (All crudely smoothed or smoothed cord-roughened)

Provenience Sherd No. Vessel Portion

Surface 57 Rim Area 1 Surface 279 Rim Area 1-2 Surface A Rim C Rim 32m Rim 33m Rim 3^m Rim Trench A 16 Rim Tr.A LT 56 Rim Tr.A L3 88 Rim Tr-B L2 22 Rim Area 1 Un i t D 17m Rim 16m Neck 15m Rim 1l*m Neck 13m Rim Area 1 Un i t F 1m Rim 35m Neck 58m Rim 59m Rim Ar.2 T r.1 U6 L2 30 Rim

CERAMIC PIPE FRAGMENTS, BY PROVENIENCE

Provenience Sherd No. Description

Area 1-2 Surface 18m bowl, Punct, HOR/lnc. HOR l»3m stem, P I. Sm. AAm bowl, P I. Sm. i»5m bowl, Inc. HOR none assigned stem, PI. Sm. Trench. A 112 bowl, P I. Sm. Area 2 Unit 1 76m bowl, Trailed HOR Area 2 Unit 2 77m bowl, Punctate random Area 2 Un i t 3 78m bowl, PI. CR. Area 2 Un i t k 79m stem, PI. Sm. none assigned stem, PL. Sm. none assigned stem, bowl base, PI. Sm. Ar.2 T r .1 U5 L2 80m stem, PI. Sm. Area 3 Un i t 1 none assigned bowl, Trailed HOR

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. VESSEL HANDLE FRAGMENTS BY PROVENIENCE

Surface: 49m - notched edge, strap 50m - notched edge, strap Area 1-2 Surface: 37m - PI. Sm., strap 38m - PI. Sm., strap 39m - P i. Sm., strap 40m - Pi. Sm., central ridge, strap 41m - P i. Sm., co i1 42m - PI. Sm., coil Trench A: 24m - Pi. Sm., strap 25m - Pi. Sm., strap Tr.A L3: 23m - PI. CT., strap Tr.B LI: 21m - PI. Sm., strap Tr.B L2: 29m - PI. Sm., strap Tr.D L3: 28m - notched edge, strap Area 1 Unit E: 22m - PI. Sm., strap Area 1 Unit F: 19m - PI. CR., lug 26m - notched edge, strap 27m - notched edge, strap 29m - notched edge, strap Area 2 Unit 1: 58m - notched edge, coil 67m - P I. Sm., rolled 68m - P I. Sm., strap 73m - notched edge, strap 74m - PI. Sm., strap (possible pottery trowel) Area 2 Unit 2: 75m - PI. Sm., strap (possible pottery trowel) Area 2 Unit 4: 69m - notched edge, strap 70m - notched edge, strap Ar.2 Tr.1 U5 L2: 71m - notched edge, strap Ar.2 Tr.1 U6 L2: 72m - notched edge, strap

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 336

MISCELLANEOUS CERAMIC ARTIFACTS

Description Provenience

Pottery "face" Surface Pottery ball/sphere, PI. Sm. Area 2 Unit 4 Pottery disc, 51m, PI. Sm. Surface 52m, PI. Sm., notchededge Surface 82m, Tool Impr./Trailed Area 2 Unit 3 Fired wastecoils, lumps Area 1 Unit D, 4 total Area 1 Unit E, 2 total Area 1 Unit F, 1 total Tr.A LI, 6 total Tr.B Li, 3 total Tr.B L2, 8 total Tr.B L3, 11 total Tr.C LI, 10 total Tr.C L2, 5 total Area 3 Unit 1, 8 total Ar.2 Tr.1 U6 L2, 1 total Area 3 Unit 1, 1 total Ar.5 Feat. 35, 5 total Ar.5 Feat. 81, 2 total Ar.5 Feat. 159, 2 total Ar.5 Feat. 212, 1 total

CERAMIC VESSEL BASE SHERDS, BY PROVENIENCE

Provenience Description

Area 1-2 Surface SMCR, conical CR, con i ca 1 Surface (Steiner) SMCR, rounded Area 1 Unit F SMCR, rounded PI. Sm. rounded PI. Sm. conical PI. Sm. con ical PI. Sm. con i ca 1 Ar.2 Tr.1 U5 L2 PI. Sm. con i ca 1 PI. Sm. rounded PI. Sm. conical Area 2 Unit 1 PI. Sm. con ical PI. Sm. conical PI. Sm. conical Area 2 Unit 2 PI. Sm. rounded? PI. Sm. rounded? Area 2 Unit 4 SMCR, conical

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. STRAP HANDLE AND PIPE FRAGMENT DISTRIBUTION

Provenience Handles Pipe Fragments

Surface 2 Area 1 Surface 2 Area 1-2 Surface 6 4 Tr. A 2 1 Tr. A L3 1 Tr. B Li 1 1 Tr. B L2 1 Tr. B L3 1 Tr. C LI 1 Area 1 Un i t E 1 Area 1 Unit F k Area 2 Trl U5 L2 1 1 Area 2 Trl U6 L2 1 Area 2 Unit 1 5 1 Area 2 Unit 2 1 1 Area 2 Unit 3 1 Area 2 Unit A 3 2 Area 3 Unit 1 1

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. KEY FOR INDIVIDUAL RIM SHERD DATA

Rim/Provenience Mot If/Technique

BVC Buchman Excavations CR Cord Roughened Feat. Feature CURV Curvilinear L Level DS Dentate Stamped ST. Stratum Fest. Festooned TR Trench F ille t F illeted U Un i t HOR Horizontal INC Incised LIN.ST. Linear Stamped Temper N.A.S. Notched Applique Strip S Shell OB Obiique G Grit PERP Perpendicular S & G Mixed Shell and Grit PI Plain PUNCT Punctated SM Smoothed SMCR Smoothed Cord Roughened THUMB IMP Thumb Impressed Tl Tool Impressed TR T ra i 1 ed TRI Triangle VERT Vertical

INDIVIDUAL RIM SHERD DATA £ a <■ . a -JO o h- s o os ic- - • 4-* < »- s — os — o *JO e u (0 u O * o X O c 0) X £ 4i 4) )4) 4) u to 4) o — a ou c v. 1 4) 41 x O (0 — . a a 4) (0 4> 41 Ot E ez E -* -* E a< j c r r c X - » w a c cr 3 4>

< c*J — rn f*J X r~ s a: x os > Ul co (/> vO vO CA vO I*-* O vO V \ N V ) \ 0 vfl LA r*» • -T -S ' t"1-. vO vO vO vO t"1-. ' -S -T • r*» LA vfl 0 \ ) V N \ V vO O I*-* vO CA vO vO LO tO CO CO » CO CO I/) I/) CO CO » CO CO tO LO LA CA H o j— — co X o . a o . a U J « M J - U fA . a X X X / V W V ( II 1 I ) 1 (A U1 V) VI U1 I/I (A V) W V) (/I to L. ^ J J J 4J W 4J I - 4 J 4 J + *J 4J 4^ J i u o - . _ . . L. C. L L. U U t_ L. U t- U fT}f0fO(0(0(Q<0n}r0(0n) a . a a a . a -a* LA H- / C C C LO CO CO CO 1/1 u vO CO h ca s c H- 3 A A (A (A

•a* NCA CN h* 3 co co X X i a . . a I / / COCOCO(JC30lOCOlO L CO LO O l O C O l 0 3 C J ( O C O C O C l/l j u u cl ca a . . a LA 1— r**. NJ L. U. LA

U. as a O 3 3 3 ' O a - I co : a a E CO N 0 \ J Li. a i CO u O 0} 4) 4) 3 n i vO vO i - h li. 4J N N N AJ a i LA N 3 3 Oco CO _L L_ n t - » CS CA X o 6 0 la 8 3 3 in 4) e S trtirti/vr^r^iAiA.m'iAN-KOi^O'vovo r-- r*». p— —ec ~u £

in i/) in in in in to co to to to to to co to to o to to in in in I

O)4) •o

a) s c f\| rvj NNNNNN N f - N N N t n oc 0u a oui uiuiui a a o m o o a coo o o a u j p.

e —0 3 4) £ £ ' •U O’ O nj ~ O U to to to in to to to to to to to to u c — o a o o o o o o o o o £ z uV uV o H

a — *— 4J r £ a: — a: — -JO to lO to h* tu h-

*-» o* Sc uO £u 4) 4) O K •

U * - oc os h- OS 4) W 0 o os r s: airsrcjrsaroczrrrr 1 £ UJ l/l l/l uitoioZ intntoijioinininin *2 > to

CM 4) H U

N f (M N »- -- CM CM V - *— CM •“ CM

cn o •- N rn 4- in to N to CD N l*> J 41 IA tO N W O >- N 6 IA vO vO vO sC vO vO vO v£> - ^ N N N N N N N N « M m as

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. poue wt pr sin fte oyih onr Frhrrpouto poiie ihu pr ission. perm without prohibited reproduction Further owner. copyright the of ission perm with eproduced R

Rim S Area Provenience Exterior Decoration Lip Decoration Rim Appendage Temper Rim Lip to H- £ ii < z O*3 4) U 3*3 0) c V V)(A U / O t / tO l/l tO t / 17 / t 17 / O 17 O t O 1/7 tO tO tO 1/7 lO l / l t/7 1/7 0 < tO (/> 1/7 tO O t l / l O t 1/7 tO tO t/7 CM O J U O N Q N O N — z o t o t o t o t o t o t O Q v O v D vO 4 S v O O vO vO O O v S 4 vO D v O v Q O . . a. a. a. / 17 / t7 i / / tO O t t/7 t/7 7 i/ t/7 1/7 1/7 xxzzsr . . . - a. a- a. a. a. j u c c . os a. o o o o o

Q O J U CO OQ x x x x x z x x z c e as S ( N N c e as O iO iO X O XOf £ CM A I - r fM CM H L. A I O v O v O v O v n i A I ' j n i X CM . u / to to to to o t o t o t o t 1/7 o t X MCM CM A L CH 0 OC 4-1 n 4) JUJ U UJ X . . . a. a. a. a. £ £ £ £ £ £ XCD ■ X OCM vO 3- \ O 0 0 . s r VO f\ L - -3 H H X . t J _ U - u o t

Rim# Area Provenience Exterior Decoration Lip Decoration Rim Appendage Temper Rim Lip to C * < ’ O ' 3 z e 0) cr 3 ) 9 u

o s o o o v O C O C t O l/l l/l C l/l tOt/ltOl/lt/ltOl/ll/lt/ll/ltO t l / l l / t l / l l / l O t l / t l / l O t . l / a t . a O . t a . l / a l . CO Q l . / l a . l / l a . lO a . X o . tO a CO a. O a. a. CO a. tO a. z a. a. a. a. o. 0 i » i » j - x z as z z ozz zzzzzzzzzzzzzz M N N N N N N CM - • in o N in N m in N in N in in N i/) m in in v> in ) / i o c ) / i ) / i ) / i ) / i ) u O O O O / O l / l l / l l / l l / l X CO t/1 J ( l / l l / l o t O C Z o t LO o t Z l / l Z CO Z CO Z X O X CO Z o t £ O Q tu co o o o o o o o o o o c u t Q J U O O O CO O O . 0 . 0 K IM u . 0 _ u a i . m m 0 l s f CA H r** u . CO - IM \ U K 0 CM u j . _ < 0 h* _u- u l_ j . - 0 o t n CM o a u 10 0) 0) 01 j . _ zSz K CO J - J _ 0 i / _u 1_ j . i _ 4 ^ o v n i \ u - > CM 0 OuL. u CO j . i _ . u o t 0 IQ u 3 ' 3 . . u N N N N N N 0 l / l Z Z Z X O Z X X Z X Z (Q o . m c J _ CM 0 - I CD L. .

a c H 3 0 . a* in o o n i * .a n u 0 . ^ n i - 4 n i m 4 - 0 . 0 . i/> 0 2 o n •-

0 0 . Surface ., 3*n poue wt pr sin fte oyih onr Frhrrpouto poiie ihu pr ission. perm without prohibited reproduction Further owner. copyright the of ission perm with eproduced R

Rim # Area Provenience Exterior Decoration Lip Decoration. Rim Appendage Temper Rim Lip to Motif Technique Hotlf Technique Profile Thickness N.A.S. O-J - vO cm W > v CD O O cm 3 x O lO £ /l l3lOl/)in«/>lOC/)lOincni/)«/>inL/)LO tO O L ) / L > / < n i > / « ) / i n c n i O l > / < ) / C O l > / « n i ) / l O l > / l » / < 3 l */>lO L. - * n c o o o s m y - m

* H MUm < U CM 4 o o o v fiC z < cm u - * 3 ' - u lO to w to to w to Z Z £ £ X £ £ Z Z X . u <0 4) ft) - 1 A i _ J J UJ UJ UJ O O O O O LO LO £ £ LO £ LO £ LO £ LO £ u u U U 4 - 1 - H U m CD j _ m S’ - r o v v r 4 m n i o v n i a v m n i n i n i 4 n i m ’ -S J U j . o j - i/> / in i/> H < 3 - u LO 3 u 4> ) 4 to CO n n — — — i in in m M » h H - h MCM CM o o aso£ z z / LO 1/1 z z u CO MPM fM U

CO T 4r -T CM / LO 1/1 s z u -U- U M-

H CD 3 u 3 Ju- «-CM - « - u UJ / t> L L LO LO LO t/> 1/1 Z Z £ Z £ LO 3 H 3 cm O / 10 1 1/1 LO in in - r U cm . 0 Bla 3*i2 poue ih emiso o h cprgtonr Frhrrpouto poiie ihu emission. perm without prohibited reproduction Further owner. copyright the of ission perm with eproduced R

Rim# Area Provenience Exterior Decoration Lip Decoration Rim Appendage Temper Rim Lip to Motif Technique Motif Technique Profile Thickness N.A.S. -- A \ f P C C *- CO Cl U"V Vfl Ps IA U\ -3- IA IT\ IA IA CA Lfl LA VO m ) > / v v (/> v> v) i/i v> V) X X X X X X X X X J - a. J _ a. 1 a. - a. > _ a. J _ / U u u o I/i u l/l (OtOIOlOlOLOtOlOtOtncO c n t O t O l O t O L O l O l O I O t O ( l / l u i / I o u u U 1/1 i / I i / l ) V ID D ' Cl T C m C o o o o o CD m CO IT) l C O'? J U J U i i l CD x u CC o cc - 1 m < J - / l/> 1/1 X l / l X i / I X X i / I X X © CC JO \ r i s f N - A “ . - - N N N N r- r- r. *“ PA *- u u u D IQID D 0 D ID ID 10 ID *. t* (A n o c x co to •- N U> H CM u wm X - M X 0 - * (0 ' v CO cc 3 3 3 I. O o v A I A I » h - u lO CO X o ' . L u DM ID " r- <> M M M n i CM CM CM - r U"V H tn X X X X - 4 CO CO X id CM U D - * ID v) o n ) i / l i / l i / l /) < X X X X X VO VO A C — 3 3 X > ) in V)v> c O h- ■ h v . s f l N L. D 3^3 o • 4-» V ) o.< i

Irtin 4> ill in Nnv 0 4, iAi04, j«fl is 4 - n 10 10 in m-ir tn n m xH

( /) « /> < /) ( /) < A V ) u o i / ) < / ) t / ) ( / ) ( 9 i A v) in tn m in

o>0) •o0) Vc Q. a. < ■

“a. s

^ § cr

0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 11. cl o o. o. o. a. a. o. a. a. a. a. a. oII u c V 4)

z z z Z cc £ £ £ O o o z z z z z z z z z z z in in in in o in m in x X X m in in in in in in m in in in

O 4) . •— 3 IQ • - l -j -J -J _i -J «j j tfloi j j _j - i _j _j - j _ i _ i _ j —J - j _ j . e a. a. a. a. cua. a. ulu cl a. a. cl o . cl cl a. a. a. a. a. a. o xu Q4) HV

CC h- \cc z z o cc cc as cc aeo Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z ZZZ 4) 4J in in z o u u o u ilx i n i n i n t n i n i n i n i n i n in in in in in S*

O41 4) h 4) H a) 4) 4) 4) 4) h* s CM U in U m in a CM U U U u N in _J _J IQ (Q _ j IQ -J 10 ID ro 10 -J m l u < tw IA Q IW CM vO l* . «L> u - u - y - \ o 5 ■ 3 3 CO U CO u 3 3 . L. 3 3 3 < 3 ' U CO U ' u l k. CO 3 > u H u 3 3 L. 3 L 3 3 3 3 u O HH in in 1 - in H in in in i n H H t— 1 -

_ M — CM t CM CM CM CM t CM

B . ia \o co « ps. co oo oo co oo co oo co co ^ o i o i o i t n ^ o i o i

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Jr- VjO VJ1 mm mm mm SM SM PL SM PL E HOR E Tl E S S 4 4 S 6 SM SM PL SM PL E SM D2 PL E G S 5 HOR PUNCT 6 S D2 4 S 5 SM SM SM PL PL SM E SM E PL PL E E S S it.5 3 S S 3 4 SM SM SM PL PL SM D2 E PL D2 S S 5.5 4 S 6 CR CR PL E S 5 Lip Decoration Rim Appendage- Temper Rim Lip to PERP PERP DS PERP 02 OS C S 7 S 10 PERP PERP PERP DS DS 02 3 E • S S 6.5 4.5 Hotif Technique Profile . Thickness N.A.S. DS DS PL PL TR TR TR TR TR TR PL TR TR LIN.ST. PUNCT PUNCT LIN.ST. THUMB IMP THUMB Decoration Technique HOR HOR HOR HOR TRI HOR HOR HOR TRI CR VERT HORHOR TR TR CR VERT VERT SMCR PL Motif E xterior UF VERT 03 Surface HORSurface TR Surface HOR TrA TrA L3 SM Surface HOR Surface Surface HOR Feat. 165a Trl U5 ST2 Provenience 1 2 U4 SM 1 2 • U1 2 2 Trl U6 ST2 1-2 Surface VERT CR • • 1 UF Area f 99 5 98 1 TrC L2 SM PL 110 2 Rim Rim 107 111 1 112a 114 115 102b 108 106 109 2 U4 102a 1-2 103 104105 2 U4 101 1 100102 1

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 346

4> b S sO SO sO sO lAtAtA sO lA sO lA sO -^sO sO sO sO IA co p* ' a * so

V)l/) (0 (/)t0 l/1 l/)t0 t/l(/) V1«/)(/)(/)l/Y 10 IA IA in lO IA (A

014) •a<0 c 4) a. a. < 0 E ~ *— u - N N N os o UJ UJ Ul CM CM CM

O 4)* *— 3 !•- uo .§u O0 HV

Q.— CC tC *— u o o x cc m r z z r s X X X S -‘2 x x to to VI l/l l/l l/l l/l in in tn in

O 4J •— 3 *j cr H* h- J— rg — U u c Z O x X u o Q u Q . Q - a. 4> Q) O V -

.2 *. as a: cc as as as as as as as as cc as L M X u o o o o o o o o o o o o to x x X x x x X X X X x x X 5

4) U CM 01 0 4) 4> 4 ) 41 4) 4) i n 4) 4) 4J § u u CM CM O U u U UU UO a CM IV to -J -J <0 n) (0 (0 _ j <0 10 s o m a ro fM -J e u - u - U-U- M - u - CO L . I t- t f - X i t - u - M- u L o> u u CO u u u (_> X U X L» ' u LL. 0 0 < > 3 3 u u 3 3 3 3 u 3 3 3 3 3 UL. l / l o in w K i n in i n in »- i n i n u t o i n t o 1 - W H

CM *- CM CM CA CM J IA

J as roromrorororororoO •— CM CO -a- IA sO N CO

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. a< - j z V)

t o t o t o t o t o t o t o t o t o t o t o to to to to to to to to

Ol4) ■o(0 ca) Q. a. <

4) J c « uo CL

O 4) —*J O*3 u —e o x 4)u a)u Q H

X to to to to t o t o t o

c —O 4)3 *-> O' H * o . u J O - J <_> . ' -j o o Sc : o. z Q . Z a. z ( a. z z O X i 3 z 3 u u O4) H 4)

cc oc oo CC cc cc ca oS ac x cs ec\cc cclcC eclac oc\cc cclcc cc a o o O o oo ooooooooooooo oo x X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

4) o CM c 4) 4) J— 4) o O t o <0 A3 _J o N rsi M rM c m m — u - IK v O 0) r*-. r-> 3 u U o o o r-. r-* h *. r**. 3 > 3 3 u L. ' i . u . u L. u o to t o HH h- H* H 1- H

NIAU>N N--N NN>-'- — «— _ U> CM *-

fl] X <0 o cm m m -T -O' tn tn tn

Rim f Area Provenience Exterior Decoration Lip Decoration Rim Appendage Temper Rim Lip to Motif Technique Motif Technique Profile Thickness N.A.S. o o a i - v inr**.in\0v0fa n in n i in £ > 3 M 3 - 3 . n i £ \ . a« f 0 v 0 \ n i . * * r n i vo -3 in -a* vo vo o o to to to X X o o cc O O O O O t O t n t n i O l > / I O t n i O t O l tO LO LO tO O t O i n t O t O t O t O l O L c c

* -O u- t*- to u <0 (0 o 0) 3 3 •C LO )4) u u 0) o O O O O LO LO LO LO LO X ; r £ £ a; £ u- OL LO LO LO u O ro U 3 «*- U ' U ID 3 0) u- OID CM CO O 0) 3 m < X O O sD vO vO (M N N N O L O L O L O t O L O L O L O L O L O L O t O L l / t CM N N £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ o o o .o' io I. -y- U- N N N LO c c C C C C u 0) .u U. 3 3 oLO to (0 u 0) U-

CM - x r-x M H t_ _J CM 1- CO L. Q . \Q . \Q u- . . a. a. a. to ID U L. 4) ca 3 a l X o c c in

Rim t Area Provenience Exterior Decoration Lip Decoration Rim Appendage Temper Rim Lip to Motif Technique Motif Technique Profile Thickness N.A.S. U J O O J J 3 J J J O O O CO CO CO CO UJ in co i/> UJ to to -J -J -J -J -Jt/i -J Q i/i ot/ii/ii/ii/ii/ii/ii/it/ii/i t/it/i t/it/ii/i O J J J Q J UJ J J O J J 63 . UJ a W _1_J _J _l _l -J J O O UJ O CO CO UJ LU i/i - in vo vo in in x x x x x r x z x x x x z x o c x s r x x x x . . l . . - a o a a c c c c q c q a. cl a. q- a. q. cl cl cl a. cl o. a. a. o. a. cl o- a. a. o /ii/ii/ii/ii/ti/ii/tis/ci/ii i/ii/i c/ii/ic/ii/ii/ii/ic/ii/it/it/ii/ii/ii/it/icsi/ic/ic/ii/i « C C C C C C C CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM «— - * *. *- r- r*- r-* r*. r-* * - r - * r - r -. r* - r p**. cm co x o - oo r-. vo n i s - m X O X ofO of cm in m r** x 3 r- o s i v s r. o o o i -s in m vo vo s m m co r>. s vo in -s* co r-- " o fM U CM X Of u U- O O l/l l/l l/l / / l/l l/i l/l X X CdOf 0C CO CO U <0 >4 4J 4) 4> 3 3 3 .M- u. X

NCOCOOOOOOOCOCO •—o> o cM m-s* \o m u L U U- U .ou. o U. X X +- CM CO _J u X l/l u l/l O U 3 3 ofO ro 4) ' L ' u- C/1 4) ■ H <• N (M N " N - -J L X X m n in in in L -3* X. H CM CO _J u 3bS poue wt pr sin fte oyih onr Frhrrpouto poiie ihu pr ission. perm without prohibited reproduction Further owner. copyright the of ission perm with eproduced R

Rim# Area Provenience Exterior Decoration Lip Decoration Rim Appendage Temper Rim Lip to Motif Technique Motif Technique Profile Thickness N.A.S. o o o o o o o o o o cc a: cr o cr o a: cr o cr cr o cr o cr o cr cr o a: cr o cr o cr cr a: o cr o cr o oc cc NNANiAN O O O O O O O O O O - * ONONCAONCitAONO H cm CO O O / li O O O O O O LO LO LO LO LO lO lO l/i l/i o LO LO 3 3 a j j Z XXXXX XXX XXXXXXX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X m t— CM I — - N N - r - ' - ' . r - ' N U - i A l - N U M ( ^ 0 O o U J O / U O X O U l/l UJ O X O UJ l/l J U O L J U O L O I O I O L O L O O LO UJ LU to LO J J to lO - J LO LO J J J J J IA J l/i _J l/l l/l Z - J LO _ l l _ LO J - Z l/l l/l _J l/i J IA J J J J J LO LO J - lO to J J C O X CO CC X X CM CM O U t O O C J U O CM D i f O - r C *— < O O / ll O O LO O L LO l/l I/) LOLO u 7 . N O A O N VO IA vO UN O v >

co 3 »— * h H H HH h*h* H H 0 2 .

U . -3* la » h - r 0 0 0 .. - . - c 0. oc 0- o. 0- . 0 . 0 0.0. 1 —» CMCMCMCMlMCMlMCM CMCMCMCMCMCMCM C M C M C M C M C M C M C M C M l M C M l M C M C M C M C »— r— o - o c o — vo r-» cn o oo

. l l O 3 2

IM . - r MCM CM _u t_ 2 .

3 3 3 3 Z Z 3 Z * 3 Z Z Z 3 Z Z Z Z 3 0 0 0 CDCOZZZZXoCZcr n i o ■ D.J . CD - H - J l f s CO O / L L ll O O LO CO LO l/l LO LO l/l O L O L O L O t O l LO O t O l . I . 3 ' f UNv N O A «X) N IA CO ON O C O v S O v N A l vO N U vfl 3 •3* -3* o 0 . h- h ■ cm J _ < 0 U . m ■ m - » H OCO CO m 0 u u u . - J - 0 CM J U O J _ U O O O O O U t_> O UJ CO IU O UJ t .

un 3 3 10 M M M CM CM CM CM CM 00.0 . O . 0 . 0 . 0 - j

so 0)10 _ 3

n ■ J _ - h l_) j

O O O O O O LO LO lO LO LO lO lO » _ _» 3 3 S O S T X IT OS O CO OS S 3 . oo - U 1/7 Z Z Z Z Z Z Z 0 <0 L. 0) u . n *— U . j 0 5 3 poue wt pr sin fte oyih onr Frhrrpouto poiie ihu pr ission. perm without prohibited reproduction Further owner. copyright the of ission perm with eproduced R

Rim t Area Provenience Exterior Decoration Lip Decoration Rim Appendage Temper Rim Lip to Motif Technique Hotlf Technique Profile Thickness N.A.S. i M C M C M C M C M C M C N M C M C M C M C M C M C M C M C M C •— LA cm O o t o t o to to to to to to H tO H1 * “h H - O C O t O t O t O i O t O t O t O t U>

l O O cm \D 0 ^ 0> O 0^ 00 O vO vO h- CD _J CM Z Z Z Z Z I Z Z Z Z Z X X oo C OCCC 8 o o .o <8 k. u- ot 0to 40 to to o oC u U h 3 3 3 3 0r oID a 0) a) a> 3 UJ J l UJ Ul UJ O t-t— — C N N N N N CM N •— — t - t — v - r .u Au- LA u. u. X X X o O X O cc o cCtctf f o vO vO .u k. “o o i u- ai VO u A IA IA n t ^ N X vO to H . a UJ oc 0> 0> r*» X X O O aceC VO u MU CM u a o c u. 3 u> vo vo u> H* r-* M O'! L. o

H < _l CA l_ -u- u- to n 3 L. 0co 10 o u )o 0) o m co to u 3 3 UJ 351 3 5 2

Q.< 2 z

V) (A ft) E -5 |S U>lAlAsfi (^^r ^rNU> M )NO«0OvONlAN^ IA si

*D a e ft) ft> a.a <

ft) CM CM U J U J U J O O CO UJ “ s CL

O ft) +* cr (Q — Si o u •a ft) ft) ft) >. o

a . - - «) •— 4J W m W

oe ft) H- H W <_> o o o o • • • o • X S z z z z z z z z z z z z z z H Z O X 3 3 3 3 3 —3 — — 3 3 . — 3 — 3 o u u. a. a. a. O. -I a. cl .J CL .J CL O4) h- ft)

ce x cc of XXX X X X X X H~ L •— o o O' o OOO o o o o o x ft) 4J X X X X XXX X X X X X LJ 3 2

CM CM ft) ft) )" ft) ■U ft) a) ft) ■o u U in u in u CM u u ft) ft) (0 _ i ft) -J id ft) JO \U — L- s o L- \0 U- u - L . ^ L . 3 k . < 3 L. o L t - r«» r-* r-. S 3 3 3 u 3 u 3 3 L ( / ) t/» i n H in in in S t_ U 1 - H

^ n ^ N in in m «s *"■ u> «-

(0 JO o »- cm m -3 vo r-* co cr\ o \ 3* «cr -3* *4* cm cm CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM s CM CM

Rim # Area Provenience Exterior Decoration Lip Decoration Rim Appendage Temper Rim Lip to Motif Technique Motif Technique Profile Thickness N.A.S. I ua. cu O h z H o in i i m n n n n n n in in in in in u in en m in in m X o ac K as X □a o O CD = 3 H => z H ac CC o in X o S c0 a: 0Cz ac z OS o o ac CL O h o h m «N n c C j _ l -XX X h- X cc cc ca ac ac —ac X H a. '

o nin N in m 14- n i o K 3 u (0 u 0) ** O v vO vO vO I*** :o a: 1- X X nin z in h 3 ' .3* • ~~CC > in NIN IN < K _i_ m . o ui cc u u a. — U J - Z L) UJ => x OC cc -s* -3* in in -3* -s* \0 CO J • s i - h~~

~~> h o X ac — N «N CN •— in r-. CN 14- in u 19 3 a ) a ■ o m oo in in in in . u n i n i Z £ l O O CD O O — . O Z H J - L h — — 3 L . — Q. h u u (0 U 4)~~

~~ctc cc tec cc n c - U . u n i 3 L ID sd 0)~~

~~co n i L 3~~

<0 OJ 3 5 3 O j \ vn k k k k k.5 k mm mm mm SM SM SM PL PL B1 E S G 6 SH SH PL D S 6 SM SM SM PL PL D2 02 S S 5 8 OB OB Tl C S 6 HOR HOR HOR PUNCT HOR PUNCT 02 PUNCT 02 02 G G 8 G 5 5 SM SM SM PL SM PL PL E SM E E PL S E S if S S,G HOR HOR SM PUNCT PL E E S S HOR HOR PUNCT E S 6 Lip Decoration Rim Appendage Temper Rim Lip to Hotif Technique Profile Thickness N.A.S. DS OS DS DS TR PUNCT PUNCT PUNCT PUNCT PUNCT PUNCT PUNCT PUNCT PUNCT PUNCT PUNCT PUNCT PUNCT PUNCT PUNCT PUNCT PUNCT PUNCT PUNCT PUNCT i OB OB VERT HOR HOR HOR HOR HOR HOR HOR HOR OB HOR PUNCT HOR HOR HOR HOR HOR HOR HOR HOR HOR HOR HOR Motif Technique VERT VERT UF UE U1 UE U1 Surface Surface HOR PUNCT TrA TrA L2 Tr7 22 Tr8 Z2 TRI TRI U5 ST2 1 TrA 1 1 1 1 TrC L2 2 Tri U6 ST2 2 270 271 273 5 269a 1 269 1 272 Surfacw 267 5 268 265 266 263 261 2 262a262b 2 2 U1 26k 262 Rim Rim # Area Provenience Exterior Decoration

~~Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 355~~

~~VO VO OO O) rn in tA to 00 IS ^ IA 00~~

~~in */>~~

~~4) (0o> 1 3 C 4) a .~~

~~e O 4) — 3 ■ « — O' u uto e . z 3 CL OU £O a4) h V~~

~~as UJ CL~~

~~O 4) ~ 3 h *J O’ U (J O CO uro — e z z z z z • Z 3 Z 3 H 3 3 Z Ou £u — CL — CL a . CL — O4) H 4)~~

~~z |z z |z z Iz z z z z z lz l z z z z o o o o o o o o o o ooo o o o xx xx xx X X~~

~~CM JJ 4) H *o 4) U to ro L U fQ - j ' X to -J M-VO z o <4- L 3 z 3 L o (_) 3 L . un 3 k. L. (/) H L to K K L H H~~

~~CM •“~~

~~-a* u\ r**. o> O *- ■JT U > VO r-% 0 0 r**. r-. r««. 00 CO OO OO OO co co cm CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM~~

Rim# Area Provenience Exterior Decoration Lip Decoration Rim Appendage Temper Rim Lip to Hotif Technique Hot If Technique Profile Thickness N.A.S. OO o o o v X o s a o O OO s a H s a S c x a. cu z x O z O h- / C (/ > 11 / ll / V I) 0 / (/)(/> / ( ) / ( (/) 10 I/) V) 1/1 > / < /> « /> ( C3 OS cm X . X .o u. n cn > X LU < X X cn s a s c - » UJ - 1 o o o r**- r**- o o o > J U UJ s a CM CM s a > LU H ro cn CM u u ■ sO u- O X S O U) MCM CM s o >4) a> o. .J co 3 OS > > LU ■h- oo trv o cn U' o X S a LU ec o lo H o o o o o o m > o o o u- V) s a s a CM u fO 3 u co I S a o X o s o :

> J U u- 1/1 o O m )4 4) 4) 0) U U o 3 X o s a l K s a o ■ J U > s a s a l i / i o|H s a l n c U X j X o > s a l H J U s a q|i- U- 1U1 U1 CM o m L. <0 3 3 UJ X o > H* s c o|h- asui U- CM O m u fO flj o . > s a > O U L a c l s a . o LU as m m — u — u ) ) 4 4) O ro I fO o g -3* flO j u Q. LU OS O m m fQ

Rim i Area Provenience Exterior Decoration Lip Decoration Rim Appendage Temper Rim Lip to Motif Technique Hotlf Technique Profile Thickness N.A.S. i £ / i / ci n n n <> n n n n n n n in cn in cn cn in cn in m in cn cn c/i «/) oo o m - r» n n « f* < v c r t* o t**- r- co vo ' o o m o cn m m H h h UJ o > 0 ec C>J J U CD ' J _ H > m . i - u > > ae UJ > m r>J in u <0 u 0) 4» 3 J U Of r v L flJ l . u ec n c s cr .> H H h K J U rM 1- h * - r oC u . JT tmm u ec N * h > ec iUJ ui m u (0 . V— cn * < > 02 > a: m vo . u a. j u ec a. m cn JUJ U UJ (0 u 0 u 3 » o co ■fc C>J ' J _ H < > > ' > o£ m m u • 00 - u - u . u h t UJ in u u a i a) u 3 UJ as 0*1 cn m <0 U 3 u ' .z z : a h o in cn o f0 3 357 4-i0 i/i • & <

~~VI in 4)~~

~~E Is |s 00 VO 00 00 C"* (A f*-* O fs fs i a 4 OO CO 4 i a 2.2~~

~~a0) 6 V) «/) I/) I/) O V) (/) V) (/) C3~~

~~OI4) •o(0 cu a < '~~

~~4) N N N N N N j E uuoaooooujuj CC o i. a.~~

*■> O’ S c a. uo X u oV H-4)

~~«-o 4)3 4J O* s-s 8 o 4) V~~

~~0Cb ' t OC b CSC f e esc las CSC fiC CSC aC CO UI UJ UJ UJ ON ui ui UJ UJ a : o > > > > X |> > > > >~~

~~4> — O CM «— mJ TO~~

~~N •“ r -~~

~~O NM41AVONNCO* — CS ro ro m fr\ ca (A ca fA fA m fACM cnc^-mcAror^cAramro~~

Rim # Area Provenience Exterior Decoration Lip Decoration Rim Appendage Temper Rim Lip to Motif Technique Motif Technique Profile Thickness N.A.S. cm m m m m n i o m 1- H MC U U U U CM CM > UJ > UJ ao ao m a w n i OC x CO CO J_J _J O ‘ n c — n c CO O a\ u *— o n - cn •- in co -33 3 u- .O UUJV IUJ ) . . a. a. . a CO 00 o. £ 00 . a

o t to to j - n c m m u* n i lO u <0 4) to . a •a* U> m to n c u U ID 4) to m -U- U- to UJ as > DID ID 4) 3 > r*— cn o co so cn oo oo co co oo oo cn so co o cn r*— . •a* o n olo o o to to in!o to to looto to > JUJ UJ as OS H H H in cn 4) 3 u / v) / ( () ) / « ) / ( (/) (A t/) ) v (/) > > o a o a o — i | o | a ■ H co «n « o c . s i JT o s X < MU _l CM a. ui oo o o CO n c n c n c m U -a* -T -T CO UJ JU JU UJ UJ as UJ as UJ as UJ as U- to H > u DI ID ID 4J ID 4) 4) 3 3 3 to > > h O u u U- to m n i m - r m o H h to o t o t o t . . a UJ as n c n c m n c a > 00 > Sas UJ aS h cm n c n i n i H > UJ H- o to too > UJ soas o as | h X as o t o to to to to . n M M CM CM CMCM CM H- M M M CM CM CM CM £ n i n i M3 m vO SO n i n i > > UJ n c n c n c n c o o vo vo vo UJ H h sa as as as JUJ UJ > >

Rtm t Area Provenience Exterior Decoration Lip Decoration Rim Appendage Temper Rim Lip to Motif Technique Motif Technique Profile Thickness N.A.S. o | a o |v - o|v> - |v o a | o tn|< in I aila: in vmm m PO uv h* ec a. 10 0 GO00 ) / « > / ( 0 o ea a ca a: celas co H 1- ’H UJ 1 > >1 CO m u — -J -J 0

~~UJ om to m cn c ec LU a. UJ ec a. 00 (/> a UJ O W 0 N D so (D N N 00 |x > ecioc M sO 0 0 03 sO 0 (9 ae u O 0 0 VO m m o. -4 O Q celcQ CQCO 0 0 0 0 in a SO m sO -a* m in (/I UJ~~

~~> in 0 so I m 0 2 h 0 a. (/> /■/ t (/) tn x x x x > > nIi c ce Itn in I in Ice li o | o oso so m m 0 GO ^ 0 S -O~~

~~tec 0 a ra z c o a : : a o c z ra a 0 *- O w ce~~

~~0 z O h a. SO 00 m~~

~~\ ITS U\ 0.0 ae j o o uj cclccia* q | o | h 0 6 3 w %/> a < 3 z in irt1) invAoctoiAtn^iniA^vo vo ae■I — x~~

~~V tn in tn in tn tn in in tn in tn in in tn h-!~~

~~cnV *0 a CL a a a a a a a a a a a a a T3 <0 to <0 ID 10 n (0 ro <8 ro ID ro (0 <8 C u u L. U u u u u u u u u u u m 0) jj 4-i U u *j 4J aj AJ 4J AJ AJ AJ Q. tn tn tn tn tn m tn in tn in m in m in Q. <~~

~~4) j E * 2 a .~~

~~O 4> «i cr — J -i -J «j EO X c . h a. a8 hr~~

~~a — a. •— 4J r a: tn ui tn in tn tn CL~~

~~1- h- tn UJ tn tZ h h- h h o a> tnlae ae «= _J _j -J _j -J in O U o o a | v - z 1— o V- -J < . j . j a a a < a o z Z z Z ' «j a* X X X =5 uw — e 3 a z u i t Z a z a a a uo x u o4) w V~~

~~4) *J ae — ae ae oe — ae ae ae oe oe z oe ae ae ae o ae o o o la c o o o o o in uj o o o S i x j-Jx x x |h |x |x X X > X X X~~

cs N cs h h 4) h 4) 4) 4) in tn m u in c n cs cn U u U _ j 18 -I .J -J. to CO ro vo o a UJ u. VO tA* a UJ H- - r a ■ X X CO X XX < u <. u u X l. X X u a u u i. a 3 3 H tn > - tn tn tn *u •j* H *- W w H

~~ro o m vo n co m o *- n w IA vo N B r*» Nr^r^r^t^oocooox 00 oo oo ae •nrotnmrommtnfA~~

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. on 1 1 8 8 8 7 ran 14 14 10 14 18 Lip N.A.! N.A.! 5 5 7 7 5 5 5 5 6 4 5 3 6 7 9 10 ran Rim Thickness S S S S S S S S S 4 s s s s'. s • s s Temper strap strap strap strap strap strap strap strap strap strap strap strap strap Appendage B1 D2 Bib B1 D2 D2 E B1 D E D2 01 E strap Bib Bib 02 Rlra Profile « PL PL PL PL PL PL PL PL PL PL PL PL OS PL PL PL Decoration Technique Lip SM SM SM SM SM SM SM SM SM SM SM SM SM SM SM Motif PERP TR OS TR PL OS PUNCT PUNCT PUNCT PUNCT FILLET PUNCT PUNCT N.A.S. PUNCT N.A.S. PUNCT N.A.S. N.A.S. N.A.S. PUNCT N.A.S N.A.S. N.A.S. N.A.S. Hotif Technique HOR HOR HOR HOR HOR HOR HOR OB HOR HOR HOR CR HOR HOR HOR HOR HOR HOR VERT VERT U3 Surface HOR Surface HOR Surface Surface Surface SurfaceSurface HOR Surface Surface TRB L3 TRB TrA TrA L3 TrC TrC L2 1 Surface HOR 1 1-2 1 1 2 UI 1 TrC LI 1 1-2 1 1-2 1 2 Area Provenience Exterior Decoration 8 388 389 391 392 1-2 390 1-2 392a 395 393 398 399 400 396 394 397 401 402 Rim Rim

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. poue wt pr sin fte oyih onr Frhrrpouto poiie ihu pr ission. perm without prohibited reproduction Further owner. copyright the of ission perm with eproduced R

Rim# Area Provenience Exterior Decoration Lip Decoration Rim Appendage Temper Rim Lip to Motif Technique Hotif Technique Profile Thickness N.A.S. a .*.* -a* .a* .a* •a* oooo o o o -a* o m ^ z z z z z - h < < < J _ < i - < I - X o < < < < < < < tn in m in in n n n n in in in in in 00 o o co m co ^ co ^ o N n n n n n n n o o n n n tn in r»*» in vo in r> ■ co to h* in n t in tn in -a- tn in in r-» oo r-» r-** m m o*» cn •- tn tn •- o*» cn m L u H O J3 a j 3 J JO H u <7 H H H L. tn • * _J l _ U o Cvl ooo o o o o XX XXX XX X X u • x H < tn z xlxlx -a* o r». — N > m o 03 CNl X \D L. oo n O h* X o z z XXX X X X X X in h ooo o o o X o X X o X X X 3 -T o •3* oo o o - f h- J - in < z L. • Z H x in H J . 3 . -3* N m O < in Z H u . h-h* - h ■ - * J - z in in h z XX o o X X u u u ’ < z - f < j - XX nin in H z I o o XX j < z 3 - 00 - 1 o m £ z x|x o o xlx 3 tn < z . ■ ■ . X J- CM in H* z in _ 3 u (0 o j in < z 363 poue wt pr sin fte oyih onr Frhrrpouto poiie ihu pr ission. perm without prohibited reproduction Further owner. copyright the of ission perm with eproduced R

Rim # Area Provenience Exterior Decoration Lip Decoration Rim Appendage Temper Rim Lip to Hotif Technique Hotif Technique Profile Thickness N.A.S. -3* u> vo r-» co cn o r- r- o cn co r-» vo u> •9 -3* •“ >lx UJ£L o a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. ■ ZD z o M M M - M M M M CM CM CM CM CM r- CM CM O CM o * -* n i n i o \ N O l f v 4 w n i -a* r** vo ) W «✓> W /) ( W ' * t - - -a- j- j- j- mt J J J o O O _l CO CO to -J _J -J z •- uj os ae > x liJ O O ■

~~o - f uj as toe > x *-*-CM«M CMCMCMCMCM C C C CO CM CM CM M C M C M C M C M C M « M C - * - * '~~

o H z z z z z z z ' z z z z z < < < < < < < < h < < < < < < < < < (/)(/>(/)(/)(/)(/) xxrrrrxr . a . o . a . a . a . a . a . a l i l I U J U O J U I U J U O O C / V I) / V) I/) I/) V) (/> ) / ( ) / < ) / < ) / < ) / ( ) / < > / < ) / < cn f- in - j ' j o e o c o c i f f l f v v s - ' x o as

~~n X X o o X OS r v r^ o n o on oo r*^ vo ur> m X o X r r o o x|x XX 0 a o o. o o a . o v o v . - - r . - r (/) J J J to UJ a. a. UJ a. UJ I U O O O~~

~~xjx o o XX 364 0\ vo vn 5 5 6 6 8 8 8 8 6 '19~~

~~12 It It 5 5 6 5 6 6 S S Thickness N.A.S. s 5 13~~

E E E S it S 5 E E S 5 E E S It E E B1 S S 02 E S l| 12 E E E S S 5 5 B1 B1 S 5 D2 D2 E S S 5 D2 D2 S 5 19 02 D2 D2 D2 S S 6 12 Profile PL PL Tl PL Tl Tl PL Tl PL PL PL PL PL PL PL PL PL SM SH OB SM SM OB SM SM SM SM SM SM SM SM SM PERP PERP DS TR TR PUNCT N.A.S. N.A.S. N.A.S. N.A.S. N.A.S. LIN.ST. PUNCT FILLET N.A.S. N.A.S. N.A.S. N.A.S. N.A.S. N.A.S. N.A.S. N.A.S. N.A.S. N.A.S. N.A.S. r HOR Motif Technique -Motif Technique HOR HOR HOR HOR VERT HOR HOR HOR HOR HOR HOR HOR HOR HOR HOR HOR HOR HOR HOR M lOR UF UF UD UE UD UF UE UF Surface Surface Surface Surface Surface Surface Surface Surface 1 1 1 1 1 1-2 1-2 1 1-2 # Area Provenience E xterior Decoration Lip Decoration Rim Appendage Temper Rim Lip to a 3 **31 *•33 2»32 *»33a *•35 *t3*t *•36 *•*•0 *•39 Rim *•37 *•38 kkl *•*•2 *•*•3 Itkk <•<•5 Surface HOR *i

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. J j O' O' V ITT 9 9 8 9 9 9 10 10 Lip N.A. 7 6 5 13 58 7 5 15 5 9 5 9 57 5 17 4 5 5 6 6 mm Rim Thickness s s s s s s s S S S S S S S Appendage Temper 2 2 2 2 D E E E E D D2 ES D 02 Rim Profile PL Bib PL D PL DS Tl Decoration Technique Lip SM SM PL SH PL D2 SH PL SM SH PL E SH SH PL H otif PERP PERP UN.ST. PUNCT UN.ST. N.A.S. N.A.S. PUNCT PUNCT N.A.S. N.A.S. PUNCT N.A.S. N.A.S. N.A.S. N.A.S. Decoration Technique H otif HOR HOR HOR N.A.S. HOR HOR HOR HOR HOR HOR Surface HOR Surface Surface HOR Surface Surface HOR Surface HOR Surface HOR Surface HOR N.A.S. OB DS B1 Surface SurfaceSurface HOR HOR N.A.S. N.A.S. SM SM PL PL Surface HOR N.A.S. SM PL TrB TrB L2 HOR N.A.S. Surface HOR N.A.S. SM PL Surface HOR 1-2 1 1-2 1 1 1 1-2 1-2 1-2 1 1 1 1-2 1-2 9 1 458 457 459 456a 456 455 *53 451 454 44 44 450 447 448 446 452 Rim Rim # Area Provenience Exterior

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 8 8 6 6 10 6 6 6 mm mm mm Thickness N.A.S. Profile Lip Decoration Rim Appendage Temper Rim Lip to SM SM SH PL PL 02 E S S 7 13 SM SM PL E S 5 SM SM PL E S SM SM PL E S 4 SM SM PL • SM E PL 02 S 4 S 12 SH SH PL E S 5 5 SH SH PL E S 5 7 SM SM PL 02 S 5 7 SM SM PL 02 S 7 11 Hotif Technique HOR HOR TR HOR HOR N.A.S. HOR HOR N.A.S. HOR HOR N.A.S. HOR N.A.S. HOR PUNCT Hotif Technique HOR HOR N.A.S. HOR N.A.S. HOR HOR HOR N.A.S. HOR N.A.S. N.A.S. HOR HOR N.A.S. 466 466 1-2 467 Surface 1-2 Surface HOR HOR LIN.ST. PUNCT 469 1-2 Surface 0B_ LIN.ST. 468 1-2 Surface HOR PUNCT 465 465 1-2 Surface HOR PUNCT 470 1-2 Surface HOR N.A.S. 462 1 Surface HOR PUNCT 461 461 1-2 Surface 463 1 HOR 464 1 PUNCT Surface Surface HOR HOR PUNCT PUNCT 460 1-2 Surface HOR LIN.ST. Rim Rim # Area Provenience Exterior Decoration

~~Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 3 6 8~~

~~n »~~

~~10 10 4) e5 _ s “ i r-s vo 4* m ia tn n ia ia ia tn ia vo~~

~~o> . a § VI I/I V) (A I/I V) I/)~~

~~4) m“ z g Q.~~

~~—§ 34) £ £* 2 c u0 -cu V 4)~~

~~a — •— u £ x x z x x J2 l/l (A l/l VI VI VI e *-0 3 4) 4J cr i/i to 2 = < < < < z u0 Xu 4> 4) Z —I~~

~~u •• 4) W ec\cc ec ec ec os \cc a: eclec oc\cc cc\oc eclec cclec olo o o o o o coo o o o o o o o o o o ,2; zix x x x x x o x x|x XX XX XX XX~~

4) 0 4) 4) 4) 4) 4) 4) 4J 4) 4) 4) 4) 4) a u U U 0 UO U UU U U UU A) a ro ro ro ro ro 10 <0 to ro ro ro ro it- «+. M- M- <4- it. tt- it. it. it. .t*. U- it. it. i_ u u L. u u u t. u u L. u u u 3 ' 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 ■ 3 3 3 3 . 3 ' 3 in 1/1 l/l 1/1 1/1 UI to to to to in to to to

~~p N CA -3* VO O •- CNl r*. Jfr^. 4- r-* r*.4 CO 00 •3-CO~~

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ON U) KO mn 7 4 8 8 9 9 6 6 18 10 17 14 20 Lip N.A 5 5 5 5 5 9 5 8 5 8 8 7 6 6 10 .4 mm Thickness S S S S 6 S 6 10 S S S Strap Appendage Temper Rim E E ESE E 02E S D2ES S ES Bla S B1 E D2 S Rim Profile PL PL PL PL PL PL PL PL PL Bib S PL PL PL PL PL Tl D2 Decoration Technique U p SH SH SH SH SH SH SH SH SH SH SH SH SH H otif TR TR PUNCT PUNCT PUNCT N.A.S. FILLET PUNCT N.A.S. N.A.S. LIN.ST. PUNCT N.A.S. N.A.S. N.A.S. N.A.S. N.A.S. N.A.S. Decoration Technique HOR HORHOR N.A.S. N.A.S. HOR HOR HOR HOR HOR HOR HOR HOR HOR H otif HOR HRO ST2 ST2 HOR 6 6 Z2 HOR U3 8 UI HOR N.A.S. OB U2U4 HOR HOR UI HOR N.A.S. U2 HOR N.A.S. SH UI Surface Surface Surface HOR N.A.S. PERP DS Tr7 21 Tr Tr4 HOR Tr7 Z1 Trl U Trl U Provenience Exterior ■ 2 2 5 5 2 5 2 2 5 2 2 2 2 Area t a

~~r-. co t CO UO 500 501 496 498a 499 50 494 493 492 495 497 498 489 •3* -O' ' ^91 Rim Rim~~

~~Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 370~~

~~&< a> ^ OO O N N N fs N VD O O (A~~

~~e *5 e oo in i a in vfi i a m vo vo i*^ vo r>» vo s z i~~

~~v> v) tn v) i/i u) v) (/> a/> cn w w ui~~

~~0) C7) ■o(0 cu aQ l <~~

~~x o~~

~~—o a)3 SiT 2 c uO J=o OV I- 4>~~

~~a * - a. tnX cao ui a: UIX CL~~

~~c —O 3 4) *-» a* ui tn ui cn u> h S c < o z O £ H* < < < < < U O X z z z z 4) « a w~~

~~x x x x x xlx XX XX X X X X X X XX XX o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o oo x x XXX x | x ------XX X X X X X X XX XX~~

~~4) U CM H N IA X > o~~

~~LA LA CM CM (M U>~~

~~CM m -r la vo h* oo CM -9 ' J o o o o o o o at in IA LA LA LA LA LA LA Ia~~

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. O j j V -■ 9 15 19 12 12 k k 5 10 mm mm mm S S 6 S S S 7 11 7 S S S S 7 S S • S S E E S 5 8 E E PL PL SI PL PL B1 PL PL E S 5 13 PL PL E PL PL PL PL B1 PL PL E PL B1 Lip Decoration Rim Appendage Temper Rim Lip to SH SH SH SM SM SM SM SM PL PL D2 S 6 12 SM SM SM SM SH SM SM SM SM Hotif Technique ■ Profile Thickness N.A.S. OB OB LIN.ST. OB OB HOR LIN.ST. TR HOR HOR N.A.S. HOR HOR TR HOR HOR N.A.S. HOR HOR PUNCT HOR HOR HOR N.A.S. TRI N.A.S. TR HOR HOR N.A.S. Motif Technique HOR HOR N.A.S. TiOR TiOR N.A.S. 52k 2 UI HOR N.A.S. 522 522 2 ' U2 HOR DS 523 523 2 Ui HOR N.A.S. 521 521 2 Uk HOR DS 520 2 Ul» HOR N.A.S. 518 518 5 Try Z2 HOR PUNCT 519 2 UI HOR LIN.ST. 516 516 2 Trl US ST2 HOR PUNCT 517 2 Ui HOR PUNCT 515 515 5 Tr7 Z1 HOR PUNCT Rim Rim # Area Provenience Exterior Decoration

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. poue wt pr sin fte oyih onr Frhrrpouto poiie ihu pr ission. perm without prohibited reproduction Further owner. copyright the of ission perm with eproduced R

Rim # Area Provenience Exterior Oecoration Lip Decoration Rim Appendage Temper Rim Lip to lO .C < Q. O C O’ u 0 O’ 3 tt) ft) 3 ft) x x x | x m x z i z i x | o x | x | o 3 H < z ao( (o aalo ST. IX z a. a. a_ o a- a_ a. j « a. i _ a. a. j _ . a j _ in : X X : u a: X X X X a: X X •a- h j - CQ z ) i i i i o i i i m n n i in in x in in m in in in o in in in in m v) nin in X x x z q o «c | z o

~~LU J U i u / () / V V w w w VI V) (/) (/) .a* (/) r*» h* in in C N N N mm - i m N O > 0 N CO N . IN CM O l ’ 3 - D \ l-J _l u UJ u. H n eg in m n m i i n in in in in m in m o~~

~~u. o~~

~~V zcx z z z z z zzxcnx z o in u o to L _ o j cn — —i n c i —~~

~~a CM .o. U. — — j _ fc N o h- J~~

~~' 0 0 •— o < m H o O(0 CO O L.~~

~~•JT - L a JL o 3 0 CM CL -J in u z 0 0 0 L CQ U 0) 3 i T - J U X X z X z u H X L. u <0 o X X~~

~~H CL u o~~

~~f f fo t o f f ■ H of _ of of of of It- of of UJ u z z z u a. H M M - * CM CM X X _ QCO CQ o j J -~~

~~J U X u . a _ u (_> h O u u o~~

H H .a Q. a. a. X X U j i x [x olo x o o z o of x o l o x [ o j o JT ( O . a . a -j H u m z CO x 0 CQ u | -z h- X uj x o u x w x ui o |x x / (/) (/) / ( ) / ( 1/1 n i ) V n n i r> in in in _ X u . X j z x o z H a. . a . a H* . a u- nin in CM CO — x 3 0 x u u t ft) ft) CO 3 3 3 u U- z QCO CQ u L u u. in o ft)

~~4BUC S u r f a c e 372 APPENDIX C~~

~~FAUNAL ANALYSIS~~

~~Source: Hamalainen 1977~~

~~373~~

~~Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 374~~

~~C-1~~

~~BREAKDOWN OF THE SUB-SURFACE MAMMALIAN SAMPLE FROM 33-Wt Pre-1979 Excavations~~

~~f % % idenl~~

W hite-tailed Deer " 447 10.78 44.30 Elk 32 0.77 3.17 Cervidae 10 0.24 0.99 Fox sp. 4 0.09 0.39 Wolf sp. 5 0.12 0.49 Dog 31 0.74 3.07 Can is sp. 11 0.26 1.09 Black Bear 23 0.56 2.27 Raccoon 198 4.77 19,62 Fisher 5 0.12 0.49 Mink 3 0.07 0.29 Mustelidae 1 0.02 0.09 Bobcat 5 0.12 0.49 Carnivora 6 0.14 0.59 Opossum 8 0.19 0.79 Beaver 84 2.02 8.32 Muskrat 8 0.19 0.79 Woodchuck ’ 8 0.19 0.79 GraySqui rrel 1 0.02 0.09 Squirrel sp. 85 2.05 8.42 Porcupine 24 0.57 2.37 Rodentia 4 0.09 0.39 Eastern Cottontail 1 0.02 0.09 Hare sp. 5 0.12 0.49 Mammal 3135 75.65 -

~~Total 4144 99.90 99.88~~

~~Human 113 Mole sp. 2 Skunk 4 Eastern Chipmunk~~

~~Grand Total 4266~~

~~Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. BREAKDOWN OF THE SUB-SURFACE AVIAN SAMPLE FROM 3 3 tWO-8~~

~~f % % identified~~

Falconiformes 1 0.58 1.78 Turkey 27 15.69 48.21 Swan sp. 3 1.74 5.35 Passenger Pigeon 1 0.58 1.78 Ruddy Duck 1 0.68 1.78 Blue-Winged Teal 2 1.16 3.57 Anatidae 2 1.16 3.57 Bufflehead 2 1.16 3.57 Oldsquaw 3 1.74 5.35 Canvasback 1 0.58 1.78 Aythyihae 3 1.74 5.35 Anat i dae/Aythy i nae 3 1.74 5.35 Hooded Merganser 1 0,58 1,78 Canada Goose 2 1.16 3.78 Goose sp. 3 1.74 5.35 Sparrow sp. 1 .58 1.78 Avian 116 67.44 Total 172 99.95 00.92

~~Chicken 3~~

~~Grand Total 175~~

~~Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. BREAKDOWN OF THE SUB-SURFACE REPTILIAN SAMPLE FROM 3 3 -W o-8~~

~~f %% identified~~

~~Painted Turtle 11 22.kk 40.74 Wood Turtle 1 2.0k 3.70 Map T urtle 3 6.12 11.11 Testudinidae 1 2.0k 3.70 Softshell Turtle 8 16.32 29.62 Musk T urtle 2 4.08 l.ko T urtle 22 44.89 -~~

~~Total 49 99.97 99.97~~

~~BREAKDOWN OF THE SUB-SURFACE FISH SAMPLE FROM 33-W)-8~~

Bowfin k 0.09 0.29 Lake Sturgeon* 7 0.16 0.51 Yellow Perch 5 0.11 0.36 Stizostedion sp. 637 15-01 46.53 Percidae 21 0.49 1.53 Bass sp. 92 2.-16 6.72 Perciformes 38 0.89 2.77 Freshwater Drum 421 9.92 '4.4 5 Sucker sp. 61 1.43 4.45 Sucker sp. L 50 1.17 3.65 Creek Chub 1 0.02 0.07 Channel Catfish 21 0.49 1.53 Catfish sp. 7 0.16 0.51 Pike k 0.09 0.29 Fish 2874+ 67.73 -

~~Total 4243 99-92 99.96~~

~~Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 3 7 7~~

~~C -2~~

~~MEAT ESTIMATE FOR 33-WO-8 pre 1979~~

~~No. of Pounds per Total % Individuals Individual Pounds % Class~~

Deer 11 85.00* 935.00 35.73 47.26 Elk 1 350.00** 350.00 13.37 17.69 Fox sp. 2 5.64 11.28 0.43 0.57 Wolf 1 30.00** 30.00 1.14 1-51 Dog 2 15.00* 30.00 1.14 1.51 Bear 1 210.00* 210.00 8.02 10.61 Raccoon 11 17.50** 192.50 7-35 9-73 Fisher 1 5.25 5.25 0.20 0.26 Mink 1 1.05* 1.05 .04 .05 Bobcat 1 25.00 25.00 0.95 1.26 Opossum 1 7.70 7.70 0.29 0.38 Beaver 4 31.50* 126.00 4.81 6.36 Muskrat 1 2.10* 2.10 0.08 0.10 Woodchuck 2 5-60** 11.20 0.42 0.56 Gray Squirrel 1 0.50** 0.50 0.01 0.02 Squirrel sp. 7 0.05** 3.50 0.13 0.17 Popcupine 5 7.00* 35.00 1.33 1.76 East. Cottontail 1 2.10* 2.10 0.08 0.10 Total Mammal 5k 1978.18 75.52 99.90 Fal coni formes sp . 1 ??? ? Turkey 4 9.60* 38.40 1.46 63.26 Swan sp. 1 9.60* 9.60 0.36 15.81 Pass. Pigeon 1 0.80* 0.80 0.03 1-31 Ruddy Duck 1 0.80 0.80 0.03 1.31 Buffiehead 1 0.80* 0.80 0.03 1.31 Tea 1 1 0.70* 0.70 0.02 1.15 Hood. Merganser 1 0.80 0.80 0.03 1.31 Oldsquaw 2 0.80 1.60 0.06 2.63 Canvasback 1 0.80 0.80 0.03 1.31 Canada Goose 1 6.40 6.40 0.24 10.54 Sparrow sp. 1 ? ? ? ? Total Avian 16 60.70 2.29 99-94

Painted Turtle 1 0.40* 0.40 0.01 1 .85 Wood Turtle 1 0.40 0.40 0.01 1.85 Map Turtle 1 0.40 0.40 0.01 1 .85 Softshell Turtle 1 10.00 10.00 0.38 46.29 Snapping T urtle 1 10.00* 10.00 0.38 46.29 Musk Turtle 1 0.40 0.40 0.01 1.85. Total Reptile 6 21.60 0.80 99-98

~~Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. No. o f Pounds per Total % Individuals Individual Pounds % Class~~

Bowfin 1 2.00 2.00 0.07 0.35 Sturgeon 1 36.00* 36.00 1.37 6.47 Yellow Perch 1 0.24* 0.24 Nil 0.04 Stizostedion sp. 68 5.60* 383.60 14.66 69.01 Bass sp. 36 1.60* 57-60 2.20 10.36 Freshwater Drum 29 1.60* 46.40 1.77 8.34 Sucker sp. 10 0.40 4.00 0.15 0.71 Sucker so. L. 8 1.00*** 8.00 0.30 1.43 Creek Chub 1 7 7 7 7 Channel Catfish 4 3.20* 12.80 0.48 2.30 C atfish sp. 1 0.40* 0.40 0.01 0.07 P ile sp. 2 2.40* 4.80 0.18 0.86 Total Fi sh 162 555.84 21.19 99.94

~~Grand Total 239 2616.32 99.80~~

* meat estimate a fte r Cleland, 1970. ** meat estimate a fte r White, 1956. *** meat estimate a fte r Smith, 1975

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

~~Baerreis, David A., and Joan E. Freeman 1958 Late Woodland Pottery in Wisconsin as Seen From Aztalan. Wisconsin Archaeologist 39(1):35“6l.~~

~~Baerreis, David A., and Reid A. Bryson 1965 Climate Episodes and the Dating of Mississippian Cultures The Wisconsin Archaeologist 46:203“220.~~

~~Baerreis, David A., Reid A. Bryson, and John E. Kutzbach 1976 Climate and Culture in the Western Great Lakes Region. • Mid-Continental Journalof Archaeology 1(1):39_58.~~

~~Barth, Frederik 1969 Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: The Social Organization of Cultural Difference. Boston: Little, Brown, and Company.~~

~~Beardsley, Richard K., ed. 1956 Functional and Evolutionary Implications of Community Patterning. Memoirs of the Society for American Archae ology, No. 11. American Antiguity 22(2):131-157•~~

~~Bell, Douglas 1953 The MacMurchy Site: A Petun S ite in Grey County, Ontario Unpublished Master1s thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Toronto.~~

~~B ettarel, Robert L., and Hale G. Smith 1973 The Moccasin Bluff Site and the Woodland Cultures of Southwestern Michigan. Anthropological Papers, Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, No. 49.~~

~~Bettinger, Robert L., and Martin A. Baumhoff 1982 The Numic Spread: Great Basin Bultures in Competition. American Antiquity 47(3):485“503.~~

~~Bettinger, Robert L., and Martin A. Baumhoff 1983 Return Rates and Intensity of Resource Use in Numic and Prenumic Adaptives Strategies. American Antiquity 48(4):830-834.~~

~~Binford, Lewis R. 1965 Archaeological Systematics and the Study of Cultural Process. American Antiquity 31(2): 203-210.~~

~~379~~

~~Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Binford, Lewis R. 1968 Post-~~~~Pleistocene Adaptations.' J_n New Perspectives in Archaeology. S. S. and L. R. Binford, eds. Pp. 313-3^1• Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company.~~

~~Binford, Lewis R., and Mark L. Papworth 1963 The Eastport Site, Antrim County, Michigan. Anthropolo gical Papers, Museum of Anthropology, University of Michi gan, No. 19« Pp. 71-123.~~

~~Binford, Lewis R., and George I, Quimby 1963 Indian Sites and Chipped Stone M aterials in the Northern Lake Michigan Area. Fieldiana Anthropology 36(12): 277-307.~~

~~Bluhm, Elaine A., and Gloria J. Fenner 1961 The Oak Forest Site. Jjt_ Chicago Area Archaeology. 111inois Archaeological Survey B ulletin 3:139-1 Urbana: University of Illinois Press.~~

~~Bluhm, Elaine A ., and A1len Liss 1961 The Anker S ite. Jhi Chicago Area Archaeology.. Illin o is Archaeological Survey, Bulletin No. 3:89-139. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.~~

~~Boserup, Esther 1978 The Conditions of Agricultural Growth. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company.~~

~~Bowen, Jonathan 1978 The Surface Survey of Pearson Village. Unpublished MS. on file, Archaeology Department, Ohio Historical Society, Columbus, Ohio.~~

Bowen, Jonathan 1979 The Excavation of Feature 1: Wolf-like Late Woodland Remains at Pearson Village. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Ohio Academy of Science, Heidelberg College, T iffin , Ohio, April 21, 1979-

~~Bowen, Jonathan 1980 The Sandusky Tradition: People of the Southwestern Lake Erie Drainage. Toledo Area Aboriginal Research Bulletin 9:39-59.~~

~~Brashler, Janet Gail 1978 Boundaries and Interaction in the Early Late Woodland of Southern Lower Michigan. Ph.D. d issertatio n , Michigan State University. Ann Arbor: University Microfilms.~~

~~Braun, David P. 1978 Woodland Ceramic Technology and Chronological Implications,~~

~~Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Western Illin o is. Paper presented at the Midwest Archaeological Conference. Bloomington.~~

~~Brose, David S. 1970 The Archaeology of Summer Island: Changing Settlement Systems in Northern Lake Michigan. Anthropological Papers, Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, No. 1*1.~~

~~Brose, David S. 1971 The Southeastern Ceremonial Complex in Northern Ohio. The Ohio Archaeologist 21(4):16-1~~

~~Brose, David S. 1973 A Preliminary Analysis of Recent Excavations at the South Park Site, Cuyahoga County, Ohio. Pennsylvania Archaeolo g is t 1*3(1) :25-l*2.~~

~~Brose, David S. 1976a The Hillside Road Site (33“LU-30): Ft. Ancient Influ ence in a Middle W hittlesey Component. The Ohio Archaeologist 26(1*) ; 25- 37.~~

Brose, David S. 1976b Locational Analysis in the Prehistory of Northeast Ohio. In Cultural Change and Continuity, Essays in Honor of James Bennett G riffin. Charles Cleland, ed. Pp. 3“1 8. New York: Academic Press. .

Brose, David S. 1978 The Lake Prehistory of the Upper Great Lakes. _[n Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 15, The Northeast. Brude G. Trigger, ed. Pp. 569-582. Washington, D.C. Smithso nian Institution Press.

~~Brose, David S. 1980 Late Prehistoric Occupations of the South Central Lake Erie Area. Paper presented at the 1 l*th Annual Meeting of the Ontario Archaeological Society. London, Ontario.~~

~~Brose, David S. n.d. Whittlesey Ceramic Typology. MS. on file, Laboratory of Archaeology, University of Toledo.~~

Brose, David S ., Gregory Wentzel, Helga Bluestone, and P atricia Essenpreis 1976 Conneaut Fort: A Prehistoric Whittlesey Focus Village in Ashtabula County, Ohio. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 1*6(1*): 29-77.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Brown, James A. 1982 On the Structure of Artifact Typologies. Jji Essays on Archaeological Typology. Robert Whallon and James A. Brown, eds. Pp. 176-190. Evanston: Center for Ameri can Archaeology Press.

~~Brown, James A., ed. 1961 The Zimmerman S ite. A Report on Excavations a t the Grand Village of the Kaskaskia, Lasalle County, Illinois. Springfield: Illinois State Museum.~~

~~Brown, James A., Roger W. W illis, Mary A. Barth, and George K. Neumann 1967 The Gentleman Farm S ite, LaSalle County, Illin o is. Report of Investigations, No. 12. Springfield: Illinois State Museum.~~

~~Buchman, Randall L., ed. 1972- Field Reports in Archaeology. Fort Meigs (WO 3). 1977 Defiance, Ohio: Defiance College, Department of History.~~

~~Busby, Melanie Ann 1979 The Pipeline Site: A Component of the Late Ontario Iroquoi Stage. Museum of Indian Archaeology at the University of Western Ontario, Research Report No. 10.~~

~~Caldwel1, Joseph R. 1958 Trend and Tradition in the Prehistory of the Eastern United States. American Anthropological Association, Memoir No. 88.~~

~~Carniero, Robert L. 1970 A Theory of the Origin of the State. Science 1 69: 733-738.~~

Carskadden, Jeff 1977 The Philo II and Richards Site Bone and Antler Industries. _l_n The Richards Site and the Philo Phase of the Fort Ancient Tradition. Occasional Papers in Muskingum Valley Archaeology. J e ff Carskadden and James Morton, eds. Pp. 39-71.

~~Clarke, David L. 1968 Analytical Archaeology. London: Methuen.~~

~~Clay, Berle R. 1976 Tactics, Strategy, and Operations: The Mississippian System Responds to its Environment. Mid-Continental Journal of Archaeology 1': 137-162.~~

~~Cleland, Charles E. 1966 Prehistoric Animal Ecology and Ethnozoology of the Upper Great Lakes. Anthropological Papers, Museum of Antropology University of Michigan, No. 26.~~

~~Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 383~~

~~Cl eland, Charles E. 1976 The Focal-Diffuse Model: An Evolutionary Perspective on the Prehistoric Cultural Adaptations of the Eastern United States. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 1(1):59-76.~~

~~Cohen, Mark N. 1977 The Food Crisis in Prehistory: Overpopulation and the Origins of Agriculture. New Haven: Yale University Press.~~

~~Converse, Robert N. 1971 Ohio F Iint Types. Columbus, Ohio: Archaeological Society of Ohio.~~

Cowgi11, George L. 1982 Clusters of Objects and Associations Between Variables: Two Approaches to Archaeological Classification. JUi Essays in Archaeological Typology. Robert Whallon and James A. Brown eds. Pp. 30-55. Evanston: Center for American Archaeology Press.

~~Crabtree, Don E. 1972 An Introduction to FIintworking. Occasional Papers of the Idaho State Museum, No. 28. Pocatello: Idaho State Museum.~~

Cremin, Wi 11 iam M. 1979 The Subsistence Ecology of the Schwerdt Site (20-AE-127), with Special Reference to Plant Food Utilization. Paper presented at Central States Anthropological Conference, North Bend, Indiana.

~~Cremin, Wi 11iam M. 1980 The Schwerdt Site: A Fifteenth Century Fishing Station on the Lower Kalamazoo River, Southwest Michigan. Wis consin Archaeologist 61 (2) :280—291 .~~

Cremin, William M. 1983 Late Prehistoric Adaptive Strategies on the Northern Periphery of the Carolinian Biotic Province: A Case Study from Michigan. Mid-Continental Journal of Archaeol ogy 8(1):91-108.

~~Deetz, James 1968 Cultural Patterning of Behavior as Reflected by Archaeolo gical Materials. In Settlement Archaeology. K. C. Chang, ed. Palo Alto: National Press Books.~~

Dickson, Bruce D. 1981 TheYanomano o f the Mississippi Valley? SomeReflections on Larson (1972), Gibson (197*0, and M ississippian Period Warfare in the Southeastern United S tates. American Anti quity 46(4):909-916.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Dorwin, John T. 1971 The Bowen Site: An Archaeological Study of Cultural Process in the Late Prehistory of Central Indiana. Prehistory Research Series, Vol. IV No. 1. Indianapolis: Indiana Historical Society.

~~Dunne!1, R. C. 1971 Sabloff and Smith's 'The Importance of Both Analytic and Taxonomic C lassificatio n in the Type-Variety System1. American Antiquity 3 6 ( l ) : 115_118.~~

~~Eggan, Fred 1963 Cultural D rift and Social Change. Papers in Honor of Melville J. Kerskovits. Current Anthropology 4(4): 347-355.~~

~~Ehlers, G. M., E. C. Stumm, and R. V. Kesling 1951 Devonian Rocks of Southeastern Michigan and Northwestern Ohio. Ann Arbor: Edwards Brothers.~~

Essenpreis, Patricia S. 1978 Fort Ancient Settlement: D ifferential Response a t a Mississippian-Late Woodland Interface. In Mississippian Settlement Patterns. Bruce D. Smith, ed. Pp. 141-168. New York: Academic Press.

Faulkner, Charles H. 1972 The Late Prehistoric Occupation of Northwestern Indiana: A Study of the Upper Mississippian Cultures of the Kankakee Valley. Prehistory Research Series, Vol. V No. 1. Indianapolis: Indiana Historical Society.

~~Fecteau, Rodolphe 1977 Archaeobotanical Remains from Eleven Sites in Ohio, U.S.A. MS. on File, Laboratory of Archaeology, University of Toledo, Toledo, Ohio.~~

~~Feldman, Rodney M., Alan HJ Coogan, and Richard Heimlich 1977 Field Guide Southern Great Lakes. K/H Geology Field Guide Series. Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall Hunt Publishing Company.~~

~~Fenner, Gloria J. 1961 The PI urn Island Site, LaSalle County, Illinois. Reports in 111 inois Prehistory: I, Bulletin No, 4 Urbana: 111inois Archaeological Survey.~~

~~Fitting, James E. 1964 Ceramic Relationships of Four Late Woodland Sites in Northern Ohio. The Wi scons in Archaeologist 45(4): 160-175.~~

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Fitting, James E. 1965 Late Woodland Cultures of Southeastern Michigan. Anthropological Papers, Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, No. 24.

~~Fitting, James E., ed. 1968 The Prehistory of the Burnt Bluff Area. Anthropological Papers, Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, No. 34.~~

Fitting, James E. 1969 Settlement Analysis in the Great Lakes Region. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 25:360-377*

~~Fitting, James E. 1975 The Archaeology of Michigan. Bloomfield Hills, Michigan The Cranbrook Institute of Science.~~

~~F itting, James E., and Charles E. Cleland 1969 Late Prehistoric Settlement Patterns in the Upper Great Lakes. Ethnohistory 16(4):289~302.~~

~~Fitting, James E., and Susan Sasse 1969 The Hodges Site (20-SA-13O), Saginaw County, Michigan. The Michigan Archaeologist 15(3):57~77•~~

Fitting, James E., and Richard E. Zurel 1976 The Detroit and St. Clair River Area. J_n The Late Prehistory of the Lake Erie Drainage Basin: A 1972 Symposium Revised. David S. Brose, ed. Pp. 214-150. Cleveland: Cleveland Museum of Natural History.

~~Fitzgerald, William R. 1982 Lest the Beaver Run Loose: The Early 17th Century Christianson Site and Trends in Historic Archaeology. Mercury Series No. 11. Ottawa, Canada: The National Museum of Man.~~

~~Flannery, Kent V. 1968 Archaeological Systems Theory and Early Mesoamerica. j£ Anthropological Archaeology in the Americas. B. J. Meggars, ed. Washington, D.C.: Anthropological Society of Washington.~~

~~Flannery, Kent V. 1973 Archaeology with a Capital "S". Jm Research and Theory in Current Archaeology. C. L. Redman, Ed. Pp. 47~53* New York: Academic Press.~~

~~Ford, James A. 1954a The Type Concept Revisited. American Anthropologist 56: 42-54.~~

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Ford, James A. 195^b Comment on A. C. Spaulding's Statistical Techniques for the Discovery of A rtifact Types. American Antiquity 19(^:390-391.

~~Forsyth, Jane 1968 A Study of Physical Features for the Toledo Regional Area. MS. on file, Laboratory of Archaeology, University of Toledo.~~

Fowler, Melvin L. 1977 The Cahokia S ite. _[£ Explorations into Cahokia Archaeology Illin o is Archaeological Survey, B ulletin No. 7. Melvin L. Fowler, ed. Pp..1-30. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

~~Fox, Wi11iam A. 1980 Of P ro jectile Points and P o litic s. Arch Notes (Newsletter of the Ontario Archaeological Society): 80 (2):5-13•~~

Gallagher, James P., and Katherine Stevenson' 1980 Preliminary Report on Excavations at the Valley View S ite (A7”LC"34), An Oneota Village near LaCrosse, Wis consin. The Wisconsin Archaeologist 61 (k):505-521.

Galinat, Walton C. 1970 Maize from the Blain S ite. In Blain Village and the Ft. Ancient Tradition in Ohio. Olaf H. Prufer and Orrin C. Chane, eds. Pp. 219-226. Kent, Ohio: Kent State University Press.

~~George, Richard C. 1978a Monogahela A rtifacts from the Ryan Site. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 48(3):20-36..~~

~~George, Richard C. 1978b The McJunkin Site, a Preliminary Report. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 48(4):33“47.~~

~~Gifford, James C. I960 The Type-Variety Method of Ceramic C lassification as an Indacator of Cultural Phenomena. American Antiquity 25(3):341-347.~~

~~Gibbon, Guy E. 1972 Cultural Dynamics and the Development of the Oneota Life-way in Wisconsin. American Antiquity 37(2): 166- 184.~~

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Gordon, Robert B. 1966 Natural Vegetation of Ohio at the Time of the Earliest Land Surveys (map). Columbus: Ohio Biological Survey.

~~Graves, James R. 1983a The Cup and Pin Game in a Sandusky Tradition Context. T.A.A.R.S. News and Notes 83(3):2-4.~~

~~Graves, James R. 1983b Parker Festooned: A Ceramic Type Redefined. Paper presented at the Ohio Academy of Science Meeting, Bowling Green, Ohio.~~

Graves, James R. 198*» The Indian Hills Site (33”W0-4): Archaeological Reflec tions of a Protohistoric Assistaeronon Town. Unpublished Master's thesis,. Department of Anthropology, University of Toledo.

~~Graybi11, Jeffrey R. 1980 M arietta Works, Ohio, and the Eastern Periphery of Fort Ancient. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 50(1-2):51-60.~~

~~Greenman, Emerson F. 1935a Excavation of the Reeve Village Site, Lake County, Ohio. The Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Quarterly M »(0:2-64.~~

Greenman, Emerson F. 1935b Seven P reh isto ric Sites in Northern Ohio. The Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Quarterly 4A(2):220-237*

~~Greenman, Emerson F. 1937 Two Prehistoric Villages Near Cleveland, Ohio. The Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Quarterly A 6(A): 305-366.~~

~~Greenman, Emerson F. 1939 The Wolf and Furton S ites, Macomb County, Michigan. Occasional Contributions, Museum of Anthropology, Univer sity of Michigan, No. 8.~~

G riffin, James B. 1943 The Fort Ancient Aspect: Its Cultural and Chronological Positions in the Mississippi Valley Archaeology. Anthro pological Papers, Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, No. 28.

~~G riffin, James B. I960 Climatic change: A Contributory Cause of the Growth and Decline of Northern Hopewellian Culture. The Wisconsin Archaeologist A-1 (3):21 -23.~~

~~with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 388~~

G riffin, James B. 1978 Late Prehistory of the Ohio Valley. In The Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 15, the Northeast. Bruce D. Trigger, ed. Pp. 5^7"559. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press.

~~Gui1 day, John E. 1963 Cup-and-Pin Game. The Pennsylvania Archaeologist 33(^): 159-163.~~

~~Hal 1, Robert L. 1962 The Archaeology of Carcajou Point. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.~~

~~Hamalainen, Peter 1977 Faunal Analysis of the Fort Meigs Site (33-WO-8). Unpublished MS. on f i 1e Laboratory of Archaeology, University of Toledo.~~

~~Hardesty, Donald L. 1980 H istoric Sites Archaeology on the Western American Fron tier: Theoretical Perspectives and Research Problems. North American Archaeologist 2(1 ): 67- 82.~~

Harold, Jeanne M. 1980 Analyses of the Human Skeletal Material Excavated from Under the Q uarterm aster's House a t Fort Meigs, Wood County, Ohio. MS. on file, Laboratory of Archaeology, University of Toledo.

~~Harpending, Henry, and Herbert Davis 1976 Some Implications for Hunter-Gatherer Ecology Derived from the Spatial Structure of Resources. World Archaeol ogy 8 (3 ):275~286~~

~~Herrick, Ruth 1958 A Report on the Ada Site, Kent County, Michigan. The Michigan Archaeologist M 1):1-27.~~

Higgins, Michael J . 1980 An Analysis of the Faunal Remains from the Schwerdt Site, A Late Prehistoric Encampment in Allegan County, Michigan. M aster's th esis, Western Michigan University. Ann Arbor: University Microfilms.

~~H ill, J. N., and R. K. Evans 1972 A Model for C lassification and Typology. _ljn Models in Archaeology. David L. Clarke, ed. Pp. 231-273. London: Methuen and Company, Ltd.~~

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Hodson, F. R. 1982 Some Aspects of Archaeological Classification. In Essays on Archaeological Typology. Robert Whallon and James A. Brown, eds. Pp. 1-20. Evanston: Center for American Archaeology Press.

~~Hooten, Earnest A., and Charles C. Willoughby 1926 Indian Vi 1lage and Cemetery near Hadisonvi1le, Ohio. Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 8 No. 1.~~

Hoxie, Robert David 1980 A Formal Analysis of the Prehistoric Ceramics from Draper Park (20-SC-^0): A Wayne Tradition Occupation on the St. Clair River in Southeastern Michigan. Master's thesis Western Michigan University. Ann Arbor: University Micro film s.

~~Janzen, Donald E. 1968 The Naomiking Point Site and the Dimensions of Laurel in the Lake Superior Region. Anthropological Papers, Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, No. 36.~~

~~Jesuit Relations (J.R.) 1896- The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents (73 volumes). 1901 Ruben C. Thwaites, ed. Cleveland: The Burrows Brothers Company.~~

~~Kaatz, Martin R. 1952 The Settlement of the Black Swamp of Northwestern Ohio. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan.~~

~~Kaatz, Martin R. 1953 The Settlement of the Black Swamp of Northwestern Ohio: Early Days. Northwest Ohio Quarterly 25:23-36.~~

~~Kaatz, Martin R. 1955 The Black Swamp: A Study in H istorical Geography. Annals of American Geographers XLV(1) : 1-35*.~~

Kaplan, Lawrence 1970 Plant Remains from the Blain Site. J_n Blain Vi 1 lage and the Fort Ancient Tradition in Ohio. Olaf H. Prufer and Orrin C. Shane, eds. Pp. 227-231. Kent, Ohio: Kent State University Press.

~~Keller, Gordon N. 19^9 F°rt Ancient Manifestations in the Starved Rock Area of Northern Illinois. Unpublished Master's thesis, Depart ment of Anthropology, University of Chicago.~~

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Kenyon, Ian T. 1979 The 1977 Excavations at the Liahn I Site (AcHo-1), East Dover Twp., Kent Co., Ontario. MS. on f i l e H istorical Planning and Research Branch, Ontario Ministry of Culture and Recreation. London.

~~Kinsey, Fred W. Ill, and Jay F. Custer 1982 Lancaster County Park S ite ( 36-LA-96) : Conestoga Phase. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 52(3-i0 :25“56.~~

~~Kneberg, Madeline 1959 Engraved Shell Gorgets and th eir Associations. Tennessee Archaeologist 15(1):1~~

~~Kraft, Herbert C. 1975 The Late Woodland Pottery of the Upper Delaware Valley: A Survey and Reevaluation. Archaeology of Eastern North America 3(1):101-l40.~~

~~Krieger, Alex D. 1 9 ^ The Typological Concept. American Antiquity 9:271-288.~~

~~Kroon, Leonard 1972 Notes on Ceramic Technology from the Weiser S ite, Kent County, Ontario. The Michigan Archaeologist 18(4):21 222.~~

~~Lee, Richard B., and I. Devore 1968 Man the Hunter. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company.~~

~~Lee, Thomas E. 1958 The Parker Earthwork, Corunna, Ontario. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 28(1):5-32.~~

~~Lennox, Paul Anthony 1981 The Hamilton Site: A Late Historic Neutral Town. Mercury Series, No. 103. Ottawa: National Museum of Man.~~

~~Lindley, Harlow, ed. 19^4 Captain Cushing in the War of 1812. Ohio H istorical Collections, Vol. II. Columbus: The Ohio State Archae ological and H istorical Society.~~

~~MacNeish, R. S. 1952 Iroquois Pottery Types. National Museum of Canada, Bulletin No. 12 k. Ottawa.~~

Mangold, Wi 11iam L. 1981 Middle Woodland Ceramics of Northwestern Indiana and Western Michigan. Master's thesis, Department of Anthro pology, Western Michigan University, Ann Arbor: Univer sity Microfilms.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Martin, Terrance J. 1976 A Faunal Analysis of Five Woodland Period Archaeological Sites in Southwestern Michigan. Master's thesis, Western Michigan University. Ann Arbor: University Microfilms.

~~Mason, Ronald 1981 Great Lakes Archaeology. New York: Academic Press.~~

~~Mayfield, Harold F. 1969 Changes in the Natural History of the Toledo Region since the Coming of the White Man. Toledo Area Aboriginal Research B ulletin 1(1): 11-31.~~

~~Mayfield, Harold F. 1972 Bird Bones Identified from Indian Sites at the Western End of Lake Erie. The Condor 7M3) :'3^"3**7.~~

McAllister, Paul W. 1980 The Schwerdt Site (20-AE-127) Ceramics: A Berrien Phase Ceramic Assemblage in Allegan County, Michigan. Master's thesis, Western Michigan University. Ann Arbor: Univer sity Microfi1ms.

~~McKern, W. C. 1939 The Midwestern Taxonomic Method as an Aid to Archaeological Cultural Study. American Antiquity 4:301-3~~

~~McPherron, Alan 1967 The Juntunen Site and the Late Woodland Prehistory of the Upper Great Lakes Area. Anthropological Papers, Museum of Anthropology. University of Michigan, No. 30.~~

~~Morgan, Richard G., and H. Holmes E llis 1943 The Fairport Harbor Village Site. The Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Quarterly 52(1):3_64.~~

Morse, Daniel F. 1977 The Penetration of Northeastern Arkansas by Mississippian Cultures. J_n For the Director: Research Essays in Honor of James B. G riffin. Charles E. Cleland, ed. Pp. 186— 211. Anthropological Papers, Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, No. 61.

~~Munson, Cheryl Ann, and-Patrick J. Munson 1969 Preliminary Report on an Early Historic site, Cook County, Illinois. Wisconsin Archaeologist 50(3):184-188.~~

~~Murphy, James L. 1971a The Lyman S ite (33- LA-2), Lake County, Ohio. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 41(3): 12-25.~~

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Murphy, James L. 1971b The Fairport Harbor Site (33-LA-5), Lake County, Ohio. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 1*1 (3):26-42.

~~Murphy, James L. 1971c W hittlesey Ceramic Types. The Ohio Archaeologist 21(1): 299-305.~~

~~Murphy, James L. 1972 A Note on the South Park Ceramics. The Ohio Archaeolo gist 22(2):31“35.~~

~~Murphy, James L. 1973 Faunal Remains from Four Late Prehistoric Sites in Northeastern Ohio. The Ohio Archaeologist 23(3):16-22.~~

~~Murphy, James L. 197^*a A Preliminary Report on the South Park Site: A State ment. The Pennsylvania Archaeologist 44(3):50-51•~~

~~Murphy, James L. 1974b A Radiocarbon Date from the Reeve S ite, Lake County, Ohio. The Ohio Archaeologist 24(1):6.~~

~~Murphy, James L. 1974c Bone A rtifacts from the Reeve Site, Lake County, Ohio. The Ohio Archaeologist 24(4):4—5.~~

Murphy, James L. 1977 Plant Remains from the Richards and Philo II Sites. In The Richards S ite and the Philo Phase of the Fort An cient T radition. Jeff Carskadden and James Morton, eds. Pp. 130-133. Muskingum Valley Archaeological Survey, Occasional Paper No. 8.

~~Nass, John 1980 A Q uantitative Analysis of A rtifacts from the F t. Meigs Site (1813- 1815), Wood County, Ohio. Master's th esis, Western Michigan University. Ann Arbor: University Microfilms.~~

O verstreet, David F. 1978 Oneota Settlement Patterns in Eastern Wisconsin: Some Considerations of Time and Space. _l_n Mississippian Settlement Patterns. Bruce D. Smith, ed. Pp. 21-52. New York: Academic Press.

~~Overstreet, David F. 1981 Investigations at the Pipe Site (47-FD-10)and some per spectives on Eastern Wisconsin Oneota Prehistory. Wisconsin Archaeologist 62(4):365_525.~~

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Parachini, Kathryn E. 1981 The Paleoethnobotany of the Upper Mississippian Component at the Elam S ite, A Seasonal Encampment on the Lower Kalamazoo River. Ann Arbor: University Microfilms.

Patterson, Richard 0, 1977 Preliminary Report on Fragmented Human Skeletal Remains from the Richards Site: Evidence of Cannibalism. The Richards Site and the Philo Phase of the Fort Ancient Tradition. J e ff Carskadden and James Morton, eds. Pp. Muskingum Valley Archaeological Survey report No. 9-

~~Prahl, Earl J. 1969 Report of Activities 1968. Toledo Area Aboriginal Research Society Bulletin 1(l):1 —10.~~

~~P ratt, G. Michael 1980 Ft. Ancient Influence at the Bloom Site. T.A.A.R.S. News and Notes 80(3):2.~~

P ratt, G. Michael 1981 The Western Basin Tradition: Changing Settlement-Subsis- tence Adaptation in the Western Lake Erie Basin Region. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Case Western Reserve University.

~~P ratt, G. Michael, and David S. Brose 1975 Test Excavations at 33-LA-2, the Andrews School Site, Lake County, Ohio. The Ohio Archaeologist 25(1) :20-2ll.~~

~~P ratt, G. Michael, and David S. Brose 1976 Test Excavations at the Seibert Site: A Late Prehistoric Village in the Cuyahoga Valley. The Ohio Archaeologist 26(1):7-10.~~

~~Prufer, Olaf H., and Orrin C. Shane, eds. 1970 Blain Village and the Fort Ancient Tradition in Ohio. Kent, Ohio: Kent State University Press.~~

~~Quimby, George Irving 1960 Indian Life in the Upper Great Lakes: 1000 B.C. to A.D. 1800. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.~~

Quimby, George Irving 1966 The Dumaw Creek Site: A Seventeenth Century Prehistoric Indian Village and Cemetery in Oceana County, Michigan. Fieldiana: Anthropology 56(1):3“91• Chicago: Field Museum of Natural History.

~~Rafferty, Janet E. 197^ The Development of the Ft. Ancient Tradition in Northern~~

~~Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 394~~

~~Kentucky. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Washington.~~

Read, Dwight W. 1982 Toward a Theory of Archaeological Classification. Jjt_ Essays on Archaeological Typology. Robert WhalIon and James A. Brown, eds. Pp. 56-92. Evanston: Center for American Archaeology Press.

~~Redmond, Brian G. 1981 The Orleans Park S ite: A Sandusky Tradition Hunting Camp in the Maumee Valley. Toledo Area Aboriginal Research Bulletin 10:1-26.~~

~~Redmond, Brian G. 198*1 The Doctor's Site (33-LU-11): Younge Phase Cultural Dynamics in the Western Lake Erie Basin. Unpublished Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Toledo.~~

Reid, Peter E. W. 1978 Investigations at theW eiser Site (Kent County, Ontario) in the Summer of 1977* A Report Submitted to the Ministry of Culture and Recreation in Fulfillment of the Requirements Incurred Under License No. 77C-0177. MS. on f ile , Labora tory of Archaeology, University of Toledo.

~~Ritchie, Wi11iam A. 1961 The Typology and Nomenclature of New York P ro jectile Points. New York Museum and Science Service Builetin No. 384.~~

~~Rogers, Margaret B. 1972 The 46th Street Site and the Occurrence of Allegan Ware in Southwestern Michigan. The Michigan Archaeologist 18 (2):47-108.~~

~~Rouse, Irving 1939 Prehistory in H aiti: A Study in Method. New Haven: Yale University Publications in Anthropology, No. 21.~~

~~Sabloff, Jeremy A., and Robert E. Smith 1969 The Importance of Both Analytic and Taxonomic C lassifica tion in the Type-Variety System. American Antiquity 34 (3):278—286.~~

~~Sackett, James R. 1977 Style in Archaeology: A General Model. American A nti quity 42(3):369-380.~~

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Sahlins, Marshal 1 D. 1961 The Segmentary Lineage: An Organization of Predatory Expansion. The American Anthropologist 63(3):322-3A5.

~~Sahlins, Marshall D., and Elman R. Service, eds. 1960 Evolution and Culture. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.~~

~~Sampson, Homer C. 1930 Succession in the Swamp Forest Formation in Northern Ohio. Ohio Journal of Science 30(5):3^0-357-~~

~~Scully, Edward G. 1951 Some Central Mississippi Valley Projectile Point Types. Ann Arbor: Museum of Anthropology, University of Michi gan.~~

~~Sears, Paul B. 1926a The Natural Vegetation of Ohio: II The Prairies. Ohio Journal of Science 26:128-1^6.~~

~~Sears, Paul B. 1926b The Natural Vegetation of Ohio: 111 Plant Succession. Ohio Journal of Science 26:213“231 -~~

~~Shepard, Anna G. 1965 Ceramics for the Archaeologist. Carnegie Institution Publication No. 609. Washington, D.C.~~

~~Sherman, C. E. 1925 Original Ohio Land Subdivisions, Volume 3 of the Final Report, Ohio Cooperative Topographic Survey. State of Ohio, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geological Survey.~~

Shane, Orrin C. I I I 1967 The Mixter Site: A Multi-Component Hunting Station in Erie County, Ohio. _[n Studies in Ohio Archaeology. Olaf H. Prufer and Douglas H. McKenzie, eds. Pp. 121- 186. Kent, Ohio: Kent State University Press.

~~S imons, Loui s A. 1979 Maumee River 1835, with the William C. Holgate Journal. Defiance: Defiance County Historical Society.~~

~~Snji th, Bruce D., ed. 1978 Mississippian Settlement Patterns. New York: Academic Press.~~

~~Smith, Bruce D. 1978 V ariation in Missi ssippian Settlement Patterns. _l_n Mississippian Settlement Patterns. Bruce D. Smith, ed. Pp- 479—50^t. New York: Academic Press.~~

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Spaulding, Albert C. 1953a Statistical Techniques for the Discovery of Artifact Types. American Antiquity 18(4):305~313-

~~Spaulding, Albert C. 1953b Review of Measurements of Some P rehistoric Design Developments in the Southeastern States. American Anthropologist 55:588-591.~~

Spaulding, Albert C. 1982 Structure in Archaeological Data: Nominal Variables. In Essays on Archaeological Typology. Robert Whallon and James A. Brown, eds. Pp. 1-20. Evanston: Center for American Archaeology Press.

Spero, George B. 1979 The Allegan Dam Site: An Upper Mississippian Occupation in the Lower Kalamazoo River Basin. M aster's thesis, Department of Anthropology Western Michigan University. Ar.n Arbor: University Microfilms.

~~Stidham, John 1980 Two Fascinating Rim Sherds. T.A.A.R.S. News and Notes 8 0(8):2 .~~

~~Stimmel, Carole 1978 A Preliminary Report on the Use of Salt in Shell Tempered Pottery in the Upper Mississippi Valley. Wisconsin Archaeologist 59(2):266-274.~~

~~Stothers, David M. 1973 Radiocarbon Dating the Cultural Chronology of the Western Lake Erie Basin (Part 1). Toledo Area Aboriginal Research Bulletin 2(3):26-42.~~

~~Stothers, David M. 1975 Radiocarbon Dating the Cultural Chronology of the Western Lake Erie Basin (Part 2). Toledo Area Aboriginal Research Bulletin 4(2):32-50.~~

~~Stothers, David M. 1977 The Princess Point Complex. Mercury Series, Archaeologi cal Series of Canada Paper No. 58, Ottawa, Canada: National Museum of Man.~~

~~Stothers, David M. 1979a Fort Ancient in Northwestern Ohio (Maumee Valley). The Ohio Archaeologist 29(1):20.~~

~~Stothers, David M. 1979b Cult of the Dead Thirty Centuries Ago: The Birthplace of~~

~~Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 397~~

~~the Adena-Hopewel1 Phenomena. Ohio Archaeologist 29(2): 14-17.~~

~~Stothers, David M. 1981a Excavations at the Gunn-Eberle §2 Site, 33-HY-77. T.A.A.R.S. News and Notes 8l(9):2.~~

~~Stothers, David M. 1981b Indian Hills (33-WO-4): A Protohistoric Assistaeronon Village in the Maumee River Valley of Northwestern Ohio. Ontario Archaeology 36:47-56.~~

~~Stothers, David M. 1983 The "Lost Huron" or "Lost Jesuit" Map Found? Ohio Archaeologist 33(4):36—37.~~

~~Stothers, David M. n.d. Radiocarbon Dating the Cultural Chronology of the Western Lake Erie Basin (Part 3). Toledo Area Aboriginal Research Bulletin: in press.~~

Stothers, David M., and James R. Graves 1982 The Prairie Peninsula Co-Tradition: A Hypothesis for Upper Mississippian/Hopewel1ian Continuity. Paper pre sented at the Midwest Archaeological Conference, October 2, 1982, Cleveland, Ohio.

~~Stothers, David M., and James R. Graves in The Prairie Peninsula Co-Tradition: A Hypothesis for press Upper Mississippian/Hopewel1ian Continuity. Archaeology of Eastern North America, Vol. 13-~~

Stothers, David M., James R. Graves, and Susan B. Conway 1984 The Weiser Site: A Sandusky Tradition V illage in Transi tion. The Michigan Archaeologist 29(4):59"89*

~~Stothers, David M., James R. Graves, and Brian G. Redmond 1981 Cannibalism in the Great Lakes: Evidence from the San dusky Tradition. Toledo Area Aboriginal Research Bulle tin 11:37-60.~~

Stothers, David M., James R. Graves, and Brian G. Redmond 1982 The Sandusky and Western Basin Traditions: A Compara tive Analysis of Settlement-Subsistence Systems. Paper presented at the Ohio Academy of Science Meeting, April 24, 1982.

~~Stothers, David M., and G. Michael Pract 1980 Cultural Continuity and Change in the Region of the Western Lake Erie Basin: The Sandusky Tradition. Toledo Area Aboriginal Research Builetin 9:1-38.~~

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Stothers, David M., and G. Michael Pratt 1981 New Perspectives on the Late Woodland Cultures of the Western Lake Erie Region. Mid-Continental Journal of Archaeology 6(1): 91—121.

~~Stothers, David M. and William E. Rutter 1978 The LaSalle Site (33-WO-42): An Upper M ississippian Manifestation in the Western Lake Erie Basin. T.A.A.R.S. Newsletter 78(5): 1 •~~

~~Stout, William, and R. A. Schoenlaub 1945 The Occurrence of F lint in Ohio. State of Ohio, Depart ment of Natural Resources, Division of Geological Survey, 4th Series, Bulletin No. 46.~~

~~Streuver, Stuart 1964 The Hopewel1 Interaction Sphere in Riverine-Western Great Lakes Culture History. Illinois State Museum Scientific Papers 12:85-106.~~

~~Taggart, David W. 1967 Seasonal Patterns in the Settlement, Subsistence, and Industries in the Saginaw Late Archaic. Michigan Archaeologist 13(4):153-170.~~

~~Trigger, Bruce D. 1969 The Huron: Farmers of the North. New York: Holt, Rinehart.and Winston, Publishers.~~

Tucker, Patrick M. 1980 A Stylistic Analysis of a Protohistoric Ceramic Assemblage from Indian Hills (33—W0-4), Rossford, Ohio. Unpublished Master's th e sis, Department of Anthropology, University of Toledo.

Tucker, Patrick M., and James R. Graves 1980 A Cultural Resource Assessment of the Late Woodland Study Unit of Northwest Ohio, A.D. 1250 to A.D. 1650. Paper prepared for the Ohio State Archaeological Preservation Plan. MS. on file at Laboratory of Archaeology, Univer sity of Toledo.

~~Turner, Frederick Jackson 1894 The Significance of the Frontier in American History. American H istorical Association, Annual Report for 1893- Pp. 199-227.~~

~~U.S. Government Publication 1966 Soil Survey of Wood County, Ohio. Washington, D.C.: Department of Agriculture.~~

~~Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 3 9 9~~

Vierra, Robert K. 1982 Typology, C lassificatio n , and Theory Building. J_n Essays on Archaeological Typology. Robert Whallon and James A. Brown, eds. Pp. 162-175. Evanston: Cen te r for American Archaeology Press.

~~Waring, Antonio J. Jr., and Preston Holder 19^5 A P rehistoric Ceremonial Complex in the Southeastern United States. American Anthropologist A7(1):1_3A.~~

~~Waselkov, Gregory A., and R. Eli Paul 1981 Frontiers and Archaeology. North American Archaeologist 2(A):309-330.~~

~~Webb, William S., and Raymond S. Baby 1957 The Adena People No. 2. Columbus: The Ohio Historical Society.~~

Weston, Donald E. 1978 Ethnography for Archaeology: A Functional Interpretation of an Upper Great Lakes P rehistoric Fishing A rtifa ct. M aster's th esis, Western Michigan University. Ann Arbor: University Microfilms.

~~Whallon, Robert 1972 A New Approach to Pottery Typology. American Antiquity 37(0:13-33.~~

Whalion, Robert 1980 On the Monothetic Nature of Traditional Types. _hi Proceedings of the 1979 Iroquois Pottery Conference. Charles F. Hayes III, ed. Pp. 9"20. Rochester: Roches ter Museum and Science Center.

Whallon, Robert 1982 Variables and Dimensions: The C ritical Step in Quantita tive Typology. J_n Essays on Archaeological Typology. Robert Whallon and James A. Brown, eds. Pp. 127-161. Evanston: Center for American Archaeology Press.

~~White, Leslie A. 1959 The Evolution of Culture. New York: McGraw Hill Book Company.~~

Wilkie, Duncan C. 1979 Spatial Analysis of Archaeological Sites Within the Middle Cuyahoga River Valley Between Early Woodland and Whittlesey Periods with Respect to Ecological Factors fo r Settlement Pattern. Ph.D. d issertatio n . Department of Anthropology Case Western Reserve University. Ann Arbor: University Microfilms.

~~Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 400~~

Wintemberg, W. J. 1939 Lawson Prehistoric Vi 1 lage S ite, Middlesex County, Ontario. Canadian Department of Mines and Resources. Mines and Geology Branch. National Museum of Canada, Anthropological Series 25, Bulletin 94.

~~W ittry, Warren L. 1363 The Bel 1 Site, WM-9, An Early Historic Fox Village. The Wisconsin Archaeologist 44(1):1~57.~~

Wright, James V. 1980 The Role of Attribute Analysis in the Study of Iroquoian Prehistory. Jhn Proceedings of the 1979 Iroquoian Pottery Conference. Charles F. Hayes III, ed. Pp. 21 —26. Rochester: Rochester Museum and Science Center.

~~Wright, Milton J. 1981 The Walker Site: A Late Prehistoric Neutral Town. M e r cury Series, Archaeological Survey of Canada Paper No. 203. Ottawa, Canada: The National Museum of Man.~~

~~Yarnel1, Richard A. 1964 Aboriginal Relationship Between Culture and Plant Life in the Upper Great Lakes Region. Anthropological Papers, Museum of Anthropology University of Michigan, No. 24.~~

~~Yarnel1, Richard A. 1974 Report on Archaeological Plant Remains from Ten Sites in Northwestern Ohio. Ms. on file, Laboratory of Archaeology, University of Toledo.~~

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