Archaeological Settlement of Late Woodland and Late
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SETTLEMENT OF LATE WOODLAND AND LATE
PREHISTORIC TRIBAL COMMUNITIES IN THE HOCKING RIVER
WATERSHED, OHIO
A thesis presented to
the faculty of
the College of Arts and Sciences of Ohio University
In partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree
Master of Science
Joseph E. Wakeman
August 2003 This thesis entitled
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SETTLEMENT OF LATE WOODLAND AND LATE
PREHISTORIC TRIBAL COMMUNITIES IN THE HOCKING RIVER
WATERSHED, OHIO
BY
JOSEPH E. WAKEMAN
has been approved for
the Program of Environmental Studies
and the College of Arts and Sciences
Elliot Abrams
Professor of Sociology and Anthropology
Leslie A. Flemming
Dean, College of Arts and Sciences WAKEMAN, JOSEPH E. M.S. August 2003. Environmental Archaeology
Archaeological Settlement of Late Woodland and Late Prehistoric Tribal Communities in the Hocking River Watershed, Ohio ( 72 pp.)
Director of Thesis: Elliot Abrams
Abstract
The settlement patterns of prehistoric communities in the Hocking valley is poorly understood at best. Specifically, the Late Woodland (LW) (ca. A.D. 400 – A.D. 1000) and the Late Prehistoric (LP) (ca. A.D. 1000 – A.D. 1450) time periods present interesting questions regarding settlement. These two periods include significant changes in food subsistence, landscape utilization and population increases. Furthermore, it is unclear as to which established archaeological taxonomic units apply to these prehistoric tribal communities in the Hocking valley, if any. This study utilizes the extensive OAI electronic inventory to identify settlement patterns of these time periods in the Hocking
River Watershed. The results indicate that landform selection for habitation by these prehistoric communities does change over time. The data suggest that environmental constraint, population increases and subsistence changes dictate the selection of landforms. Finally, this paper will demonstrate that the LW and LP sites in the studied region should be viewed separately in terms of their settlement patterns.
Approved:
Elliot Abrams
Professor of Sociology and Anthropology Dedication
This paper is a dedication to Geoffery Smith (1939 – 2003), Professor of Geology at Ohio
University. Acknowledgements:
There are many individuals that I would like to acknowledge for their help, support and guidance throughout my graduate experience at Ohio University. First, I would like to thank my thesis committee including Dr. Elliot Abrams, Dr. AnnCorinne Freter-Abrams and Dr. Jim Lein. Completion of this thesis would not have been possible without their continuous mentoring, support and encouragement. The late Dr. Jeff Smith was also an integral part of my graduate education. He helped me envision the absolute need for multidisciplinary investigations between archaeology and geology. The support from
Environmental Studies Director Dr. Gene Mapes, especially in the admissions and graduation processes, was extremely appreciated. Ralph Moran, Professor of Geographics at Hocking College and Jon Walker, Geographics student at Hocking College, were instrumental in helping me with the countless hours spent analyzing and compiling GIS data. I especially want to thank Mr. Walker for giving me permission to use some of his outstanding GIS mapping layers. I would also like to recognize The Ohio Historic
Preservation Office for assembling the massive and highly useful Ohio Archaeological
Inventory dataset, which is a focal point of this research. Finally, I want to thank my wife
Michelle Wakeman for her constant support and love during my graduate education. 6
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ABSTRACT……………………………………………………………….. 3
DEDICATION…………………………………………………………….. 4
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS……………………………………………….. 5
LIST OF FIGURES……………………………………………………….. 8
LIST OF TABLES………………………………………………………….9
CHAPTER I – INTRODUCTION………………………………………….10
Hypotheses to be tested.…………………………………………... 10
CHAPTER II – CULTURAL SETTING………………………………….. 12
Introduction…………………………………………………………12
Late Woodland (LW)..…………………………………………….. 13
Late Prehistoric (LP)………………………………………………..16
CHAPTER III – ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING…………………………20
Introduction…………………………………………………………20
Geomorphology……………………………………………………. 20
Vegetation…………………………………………………………..23
Summary……………………………………………………………23
CHAPTER IV – METHODOLOGY……………………………………….25
Introduction…………………………………………………………25
OAI Dataset……………………………………………………….. 25
Querying Criteria………………………………………………….. 26 7 Summary……………………………………………………………30
CHAPTER V – ANALYSIS OF RESULTS……………………………….31
Introduction…………………………………………………………31
Late Woodland Patterns…………………………………………….31
Multicomponent Patterns………………………………………….. 33
Late Prehistoric Patterns……………………………………………37
Summary…………………………………………………………... 38
CHAPTER VI – CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE
RECOMMENDATIONS…………………………………40
Comparisons to Adjacent Watersheds……………………………...43
Hypotheses………………………………………………………….44
Usefulness of OAI Data…………………………………………….46
Recommendations for Future Study……………………………….. 47
REFERENCES CITED………………………………………………….. 49 8 LIST OF FIGURES
Page Figure 1 - Hocking River Watershed……………………………………….52
Figure 2 - Physiographic Regions of Ohio………………………………… 53
Figure 3 - Teays River Location……………………………………………54
Figure 4 - Geologic Map and Cross Section of Ohio……………………... 55
Figure 5 – Natural Vegetation of Ohio at the Time of the Earliest Land
Surveys…………………………………………………………………. 56
Figure 6 - Hocking River Watershed: All OAI Prehistoric Sites………….. 57
Figure 7 - Hocking River Watershed: Late Woodland……………………..58
Figure 8 - Hocking River Watershed: Late Prehistoric……………………. 59
Figure 9 - Hocking River Watershed: Multicomponent Sites……………... 60
Figure 10 - Hocking River Watershed: Minor Drainages with Late Woodland
and Late Prehistoric Single Component Sites………………….. 61
Figure 11 - Hocking River Watershed: Minor Drainages with Multicomponent
Sites…………………………………………………………….. 62
Figure 12 - Lancaster Area: All Known OAI Prehistoric Sites…………… 63
Figure 13 - Lancaster Area: Late Woodland………………………………. 64
Figure 14 - Lancaster Area: Late Prehistoric……………………………… 65
Figure 15 - Lancaster Area: Multicomponent Sites……………………….. 66
Figure 16 - Margaret Creek Area: All Known OAI Prehistoric Sites………67
Figure 17 - Margaret Creek Area: Late Woodland…………………………68
Figure 18 - Margaret Creek Area: Multicomponent Sites………………….69 9 List of Tables:
Page
Table 1 - Landform Criteria...... ……………………………… 70
Table 2 - Distribution of Fort Ancient Communities According to Landform and Stream
Order in the Central Ohio Valley………………………………………….. 70
Table 3 - Site Types………………………………………………………...71
Table 4 - Lancaster and Margaret Creek Site Distributions……………….. 71
Table 5 - Minor Drainage Preference..…………………………………….. 72 10 I. Introduction
The Hocking River Valley, located in Southeastern Ohio, is the most poorly understood watershed in terms of prehistoric archaeology in the state. This void in the archeological record is the result of a rural setting that has demanded few impact studies and has also been largely overlooked by academic interests. Therefore, the potential for new and significant discoveries in the region is great. The goal of this project is to create a model intended to increase the efficiency of archaeological survey methods in the
Hocking Valley, which could then be applied to other areas. The primary focus of the model is to examine land usage patterns by Late Woodland (LW) and Late Prehistoric
(LP) populations in the Hocking Watershed. Characterizing known archaeological sites in the specified study area with cultural affiliation will do this. The purpose is to determine whether evidence of habitation and food subsistence for past human cultures will be found on certain landforms more commonly than other landforms. Once this is established, the probability of recovering future archaeological data will greatly improve.
This project will be the first of its type for this time period in the Hocking Valley. Other studies similar to this one have been done in adjacent watersheds and consequentially will be involved in this study as comparative models.
Hypotheses to be tested:
1. If LW and LP tribal communities in the Hocking River Valley exhibit different
habitation patterns, then these differences may be influenced by carrying capacity,
social structure and resource needs. I think that these two time periods will
represent some similarities in their land use patterns but that they will also
demonstrate enough differences that they should be viewed in their own context. 11 2. If both groups demonstrate a regular interval of spacing of their habitation sites
within the watershed, then social buffers and resource boundaries can be inferred.
I think that regular spacing will be defined for these site types but only if it is
visible in the known data.
3. If the selection of specific landforms is an increasingly important factor
through time in the site location of both LW and LP populations, then the role of
subsistence change and habitation defensibility can be identified. I think that this
will definitely be a visible and significant variable that will demonstrate the
cultural evolution of the groups being studied.
4. Do settlement pattern models for the LW and LP from adjacent valleys apply to
the Hocking valley? If all of these models represent a common pattern throughout
the Ohio Valley, then a regional model of LW and LP culture patterns can be
identified. If each valley has specific differences then the individual valleys must
be viewed as their own entities in their own context. I believe that the Hocking
Valley could prove to have its own pattern of LW and LP habitation that should
be viewed separately from other watersheds.
In this study, I give descriptions for the archaeological time periods that are being investigated including; the environment in which they are situated, the archaeological dataset and involved methodologies and the results of the analysis in regards to the previously mentioned hypotheses. Finally, future recommendations for research within the Hocking Valley are proposed. 12 II. Cultural Setting
Introduction
The focus of this study is to examine the settlement patterns of the most recent
Prehistoric Native American habitation within the confines of the Hocking River
Watershed in the southeastern region of Ohio (Figure 1). This constitutes the investigation of two temporal periods, the Late Woodland (LW) (ca. A.D. 400 – A.D.
1000) and Late Prehistoric (LP) (ca. A.D. 1000 – A.D. 1650), as they represent the last archaeological time periods before the European conquest of North America.
The traditional dates affiliated with these comparative archaeological periods were established to create an organizational framework for archaeological investigation.
It is important to note that these periods, along with all of the other previous archaeological periods, typically embody specific characteristics that separate themselves on a large geographic and temporal scale. However, modern archaeological research continually indicates that each of these time periods and subsequent human cultures exhibit a wide degree of regional variability. Consequently, many of the specific attributes that divide or define time periods may not accurately describe a particular group of contemporary people from region to region in the Eastern Woodlands of North
America. Certain characteristics that may define a community in one region may or may not be present in an adjacent region and furthermore, those characteristics may continue as a tradition into the next archaeological time period. For example, the traditional division between the Late Archaic (ca. 3,000 B.C. – 1,000 B.C.) and the Early Woodland
(ca. 1,000 B.C. – 200 B.C.) periods in the Eastern Woodlands of North America, is marked by the emergence of ceramics and artificial mound and earthwork construction at ca. 13 1,000 B.C. These general distinctions often separate these time periods but there are exceptions. The prehistoric mound and earthwork centers at Poverty Point (Jennings
1989: 143) and Watson Brake (Walker 1998) in Louisiana both predate the 1,000 B.C. buffer zone between the expansive Archaic and Woodland periods. This example is by no means a justification to eliminate the foundation of archaeological time constructs, rather it is meant to be a reminder that human culture, whether it is modern or prehistoric, is not static. Human culture must be viewed and described within it is own temporal and geographical context.
This study will demonstrate that regional variability in the LW and LP periods within the Hocking River Watershed does exist when compared to adjacent watersheds.
Late Woodland (LW)
The LW (ca. A.D. 400 – A.D. 1000) occupation in Ohio was first described by J.
Griffin in 1952. He described a southwest Ohio archaeological complex that came after the Middle Woodland (200 B.C. – A.D. 400) occupation or Ohio Hopewell and before the agricultural Fort Ancient culture in the LP period. This assemblage was initially called
“Old Village” but was later redefined as “Newtown” due to the nearby town of Newtown,
Ohio (Griffin 1952; Kellar 1960; Seeman and Dancey 2000).
Historically, archaeologists have viewed the Late Woodland period simply as a transitional stage between the elaborate mortuary processes of the Hopewell culture in the
Middle Woodland period (200 B.C. – A.D. 400) and the complex nucleated settlements of the Mississippian and Fort Ancient cultures of the Late Prehistoric period. In “the good old days” of the early twentieth century archaeology, the Middle Woodland and Late 14 Prehistoric cultures were often viewed as cultural climaxes and thereby received a significant amount of research interest. The Ohio valley cultures in these two prehistoric periods erected massive earthworks that were, and in some cases still are, highly visible on the landscape. While their communities used earthworks for many functions, mortuary processes were most commonly associated with them. This meant that early investigations into these mounds and earthworks would usually result in the recovery of large amounts of exotic grave goods and therefore became a focus of early excavations.
Conversely, the Late Woodland period in Ohio was typically viewed as a period of decline after the “fall” of the Hopewell culture. The LW period exhibits many qualities that differ from the earlier Hopewell communities. These differences include a major decline in earthwork construction and size, a breakdown in regional trade networks, a decrease in mortuary complexity, population stabilization, a shift of landscape settlement from broad river terraces to higher elevation bluff tops and subsequent settlement nucleation. However, the LW peoples were still tribal in their social structure, just as were the Hopewell. The LW culture could be described as small gardening hamlets comprised of several nucleated families situated somewhat evenly on the landscape.
Leadership was temporary at best and most likely did not have command over a geographic space of any note. These traits, among others, categorized the Late Woodland period as an unattractive resource for most of the archaeologists in the early twentieth century.
However, the last few decades of archaeological research clearly demonstrate that the LW is an extremely important span of time for prehistoric North
America. This period can help us understand what caused a change to the earlier 15 Hopewell style of life at ca. A.D. 400 in the Ohio Valley. The LW period also embodies major technological advances in the Ohio Valley, most notably the introduction of maize agriculture ca. A.D. 700 and the contemporaneous introduction of the bow and arrow.
These advances were important factors in the increase of cultural complexity that emerges in the LP period.
These significant technological advances were received and implemented in differing ways within each region. This variability was dictated by many factors, most notably population size. This had a direct impact on subsistence needs in combination with available land that would be conducive to maize agriculture.
Church and Nass (2002) have proposed that the Late Woodland cultures in the
Scioto valley exhibit settlement patterns that are different enough to warrant separating the time period into yet two more divisions, the Early Late Woodland (ELW) (A.D. 400 –
A.D. 700) and the Late Late Woodland (LLW) (A.D. 700 – A.D.1000; they contend that sites in the ELW in the Central Ohio were nucleated, multihousehold settlements (1-3ha in size) located on bluffs of major rivers or streams, and frequently surrounded by an earthwork or ditch feature (Church and Nass 2002: 16). They proceed to describe the
LLW with three main distinctions, “First, site location shifted predominately to river and stream terraces or floodplains. Second, the area of a site occupied at any one time decreased in size. Third, site types varied considerably, as evidenced by structure and associated features” (Church and Nass 2002:16). Whether or not this pattern exists in the
Hocking valley is unclear primarily due to the near absence of well-documented Late
Woodland occupations in the region. However, the same basic pattern of LW and LP 16 community re-structuring and re-settlement may be visible in the Hocking River Valley.
This question is addressed in this study.
Classification of the Late Woodland tribal societies in the Hocking River
Watershed has been compared to the Cole Complex (Murphy 1989; Baby and Potter
1965). This distinction was made based on the absence of more suitable reference materials to the other Late Woodland complexes. The Cole complex is defined almost exclusively by ceramic attributes from the Cole site in Delaware County, Ohio (Baby and
Potter 1965). Cole ceramics are grit tempered cordmarked and typically have a slightly collared lip on the rim (Murphy 1989). It is also important to note that the Peters phase located in the adjacent Scioto River watershed exhibits ceramic attributes that, in many cases, are indistinguishable from the Cole varieties. These ceramic similarities along with a paucity of Late Woodland assemblages in the Hocking valley make it difficult to specifically identify a Late Woodland Hocking valley phase, if such a cultural construct even exists.
Late Prehistoric (LP)
The LP period (A.D. 1000 – A.D. 1450) involves the last evolutionary stages of pre-conquest prehistoric Native Americans in the Eastern Woodlands of North America.
These communities exhibit a wide degree of regional cultural variability. The most classic LP communities are those described as Mississippian. This title is related to their settlement patterning along the Mississippi River and its major tributaries. These sites are permanent settlements situated on expansive floodplains or low broad terraces of major river systems. They are highly dependent on maize, squash and bean agriculture as their 17 subsistence base. In terms of social structure, these communities represent the highest level of complexity in North America before the European invasion. Mississippian culture was viewed as a “ranked society” (Fried 1967) or more commonly as a
“chiefdom” (Service, 1971). Most simply, this means that there were social and economic divisions within the community and that leadership was permanent, unlike the previous
LW communities.
There are many other distinctive cultures in the LP period in the Eastern
Woodlands, but for the purpose of this paper the Fort Ancient of the Ohio Valley will be discussed in some depth. The concept of the Fort Ancient was first described by James
Griffin in the 1930’s, and then formally introduced to the archaeological community in his classic publication, The Fort Ancient Aspect in 1943 (Griffin, 1943; Essenpreis,
1978). Griffin described Fort Ancient as having four foci of regional diversity. Each focus is based on a particular site that embodies enough similar characteristics in its material assemblage to call them all Fort Ancient. However, there are also enough differences to infer a minor separation within the umbrella of the Fort Ancient. These foci were termed Baum, Feurt, Anderson, and Madisonville. “Griffin substantiated the existence of his foci primarily through ceramic analysis” (Essenpreis 1978:145).
Prufer and Shane expanded this baseline information established by Griffin for the Fort Ancient in 1970 in Blain Village and the Fort Ancient Tradition of Ohio. In this publication, they replaced the McKernian term “aspect” with “tradition” and also used the term “phase” instead of “focus”. They kept the four original phases proposed by
Griffin, but also added two more (Essenpreis 1978). This created a new perspective on the Fort Ancient Tradition with the six phases again being based primarily upon varying 18 ceramic attributes. The six phases were 1. Baum in the central Scioto Valley, 2. Feurt, which followed Baum chronologically in central Ohio, 3. Brush Creek in the Brush Creek drainage, 4. Anderson, which developed out of Brush Creek in the western part of the state, 5. Madisonville in the central Ohio valley was the only late phase, and finally, 6.
Baldwin in the Hocking Valley (Essenpreis 1978).
Prufer and Shane both felt that the Fort Ancient people must have migrated from outside of the region based on an abrupt change in the material culture at ca. A.D. 950. It was their interpretation that the change in material culture was so abrupt that it could not have emerged out of the well-established LW communities in the region. However,
Essenpreis (1978) aptly notes that the conclusions of Prufer and Shane were far too dependent on ceramic attributes. She proposes that we view the Fort Ancient as a system with different phases developing out of the LW communities in their own respective environments (Essenpreis, 1978). Furthermore, the phases should be classified by using the entire material assemblage as well as viewing them from an ecological perspective.
So, what is Fort Ancient and does it exist in the Hocking Valley? Murphy discusses the “Baldwin Phase” of the Hocking Valley as being similar to the Baum Phase of the adjacent Scioto Valley in terms of the ceramic attributes. They differ in that the continuity between the LW and Fort Ancient appears to be stronger in the Hocking than in the Scioto Valley. Also, the extensive farming seen in the Scioto Valley is simply not possible in most of the steep and narrow confines of the Hocking Valley (Murphy, 1989).
Interestingly, in one of his later publications, James B. Griffin states, “Fort Ancient is a construct of archaeologists conceived in error, perpetuated by conceptual rigidity, and misinterpreted by some serious and imaginative archaeologists” (Griffin 1992:53). The 19 Hocking Valley communities of the LP period may be better described without the baggage that the term Fort Ancient carries. These communities should be viewed as tribal, agriculturally based, nucleated, permanent settlements that demonstrate variability in their material culture (even the ceramics) within the boundaries of a watershed as small as the Hocking Valley.III. 20 Environmental Setting
Introduction
The theoretical approach of this investigation is based on ecological anthropology. Ecological Anthropology views human culture within the confines of the natural ecological system. In this approach, human culture is not seen as a separate entity in the system, rather, it is simply another set of criteria that is interdependent with all of the other aspects of the natural world (Moran, 2000). Therefore, the environment of the study area is of critical importance to the goals of this project. This section reviews the environmental aspects of the Hocking River Watershed that were significant factors in the settlement of the LW and LP people.
The study area for this investigation is confined to the Hocking River Watershed
(Figure 1). This region contains many diverse landscapes ranging from the flat glaciated upper portion of the watershed near Lancaster, to the unglaciated steep valleys in the central part of the area by Logan, Nelsonville and Athens. There are also several specific geologic anomalies that are discussed.
Geomorphology
The Hocking Valley is situated on three major physiographic divisions (Figure 2).
The upper reaches of the valley in Fairfield County entails the flat, glaciated Central
Lowland till plains. The southeastern portion of Fairfield County and a small section of northwestern Hocking County are located on the Glaciated Allegheny Plateau. Finally, the middle and lower portions of the valley in most of Hocking, Athens and a part of
Meigs counties are part of the Unglaciated Allegheny Plateau. This makes the Hocking 21 Valley unique as no other major drainage in the state traverses across such a diverse landscape.
The current topography of the Hocking Valley was sculpted over the last 1.8 million years in what is commonly known as the Pleistocene Epoch. In the early part of the Pleistocene the drainage patterns in southeast Ohio were quite different. One of the largest drainages in the Midwest was the Teays River (Figure 3). This massive stream system flowed northwest but was cut off by continental glacial ice near Lancaster in Pre-
Illinoian time. This created a huge glacial lake called Lake Tight (Murphy 1989).
Eventually the overflow of the drainage of the lake breached adjacent small ridges and reversed the flow of the system to a southeastern direction.
The Illinoian glaciation is significant, as several of the depositional outwash terraces are still visible today between Rockbridge and Logan and most visibly in The
Plains. These smooth - topped and elevated terraces are typically 60 – 90 feet above the modern floodplain (Kempton and Goldthwait 1959; Murphy 1989). These terraces are of great importance in any discussion of human settlement of the Hocking Valley, especially agriculturally based communities. It is not a coincidence that The Plains was chosen ca.
2000 years ago for the construction of one of the largest “Adena” earthwork complexes.
This site predates the periods discussed in this study by several centuries but nevertheless, it clearly demonstrates a preference for elevated and flat landscapes by communities that require space for plant domestication and the construction of permanent architecture.
The current flow of the Hocking River was created either just before or during the
Illinoian glaciation. The Logan River (Figure 3) used to flow northwest from the divide 22 near modern day Haydenville just north of the city of Nelsonville (Figure 1). As Lake
Tight drained, the divide near Haydenville was eventually overtaken and the current
Hocking River Valley began to be formed. At this point, the Teays system and most of its tributaries were either being abandoned or redirected as glacial outwash essentially flowed south and east (Merrill 1953).
The last glaciation episode in the Pleistocene is known as the Wisconsin. Glacial ice from this continental ice sheet covered most of Ohio and in the Hocking Valley the glacial boundary can still be found just south of the city of Lancaster in southeastern
Fairfield County (Figure 4). The effects of the glacial outwash of the Wisconsin episode helped to deepen and widen the channel of the Hocking River. Furthermore, the glacial sediment deposits created the lowest terraces that exist in the Hocking Valley today.
Many of these terraces blocked off small valleys holding tributaries to the newly forming
Hocking River. The tributaries then began to flood and eventually became small glacial lakes. These lake or lacustrine deposits can currently be found throughout the periphery of the Hocking Valley. The Margaret Creek watershed, which is located just south of the
City of Athens, is laden with these lacustrine deposits (Figure 10). This area is quite different than all of the other parts of the middle and lower Hocking Valley. The topography consists of smooth rolling hills rich in thick well-developed soils. The steep
V-shaped ravines visible in most of the Hocking watershed do not occur here. This area is currently considered to be the most productive farmland in the entire watershed. 23 Vegetation
The natural vegetation of the watershed is also quite diverse, as one would expect with complex geomorphology (Figure 5). This figure depicts the northern reaches of the watershed being covered in Elm-Ash swamp. Murphy notes that in this area the narrow riparian zone of the river would have been covered in a true prairie grassland while juxtaposed to the swampland (Murphy 1989). Some of the tributaries of the Hocking
River, especially in the northern part of the watershed, were and still are covered with a mixed mesophytic forest. These gorge-like ravines make up much of what is currently known as the “Hocking Hills Region”. The main stem of the middle and lower Hocking
River along with the major tributaries were covered in beech forest. Overlooking the river in the uplands, Oak, Pine and Hickory stands were most common (Murphy 1989).
Summary
The physiography, geomorphology and vegetation history of this watershed are all critical pieces of information when discussing the settlement of agriculturally based human occupations. There are only a few parts of the watershed that would be conducive for large agriculture whether on a small, medium or large level. The Lancaster area, situated essentially on top of thick deposits of ground moraine, would be capable of sustaining moderately sized permanent settlements dependant on agriculture. However, as the valley narrows to the southeast, suitable landscapes for these kinds of communities become scarce. They would have had to settle very near the river channel in the narrow strips of floodplain or claim the few highly prized Illinoian terrace remnants near water like The Plains. The last area suitable for these types of settlements would be the 24 Margaret Creek watershed south of the city of Athens. All of these areas will be analyzed for their settlement potential in the later part of this study. 25 IV. Methodology
Introduction
Using GIS data, of all of the documented LW and LP prehistoric archaeological sites in the study area tested the hypotheses listed in the introduction. The data are a compilation of Ohio Archaeological Inventory (OAI) forms from the Ohio Historic
Preservation Office located in Columbus, Ohio. Specific data for each OAI were queried to best address the research questions.
It is very important to note that the entire Hocking River watershed has not been systematically investigated with standardized archaeological field methods. This results in a set of data that is inherently biased and full of unsurveyed areas. At first glance, one may look at the dispersal of all of the known OAI locations in the watershed (Figure 6) and make some immediate conclusions. For example, the area around Lancaster, Logan, south of Athens and all along the main stem of the river was the only densely occupied locations. Furthermore, the areas without sites were totally uninhabited. Realistically, if the entire watershed were to be systematically investigated, the result would be a map so thick with site locations that it would be nearly impossible to see any contour lines on the background of the map. I fully acknowledge that there are flaws in this database but contend that the data are highly useful as is demonstrated in this study.
OAI Dataset
The Ohio Archaeological Inventory form is a twelve-page form used to record the basic and typically initial description of an archaeological site. This form was created by and stored at the Ohio Historic Preservation Office (OHPO) in Columbus, Ohio. Until 26 recently, all researchers who wanted to glean information from any of the OAI forms had to travel to Columbus and physically pull the files. Fortunately, this massive amount of information has been coded, digitized and put into a mapping database. The information was compiled county by county and then put into an overall map of Ohio using Arcview
GIS software. The result is a flexible database that can be queried by any of the attributes listed on the OAI form.
These forms are still filled out by hand on a hardcopy before they are submitted into the database. The individuals who fill out these forms vary greatly in their experience and ability. This constitutes yet another uncontrollable potential flaw in the database. For example, an inexperienced archaeologist may not be knowledgeable enough to correctly describe the site type, chronology, soils or the geomorphological setting. This could result in many sites listed with unknown site types and chronologies or erroneous physical setting criteria. There is no simple solution to this problem. The only way to deal with the potential problem is to be very selective on which criteria are being used and to carefully inspect every single entry. Nevertheless, the research potential for this database is immense and with continued adjustments, the results of future inquiries will be highly productive.
Querying Criteria
The OAI form is an extensive list of location information and criteria including
76 broad categories to be filled out for each individual site. There are also specific criteria within many of the broad categories. As previously mentioned, these categories have been coded for each individual site and entered into an expansive database. The software 27 for the database is the widely used Arcview GIS platform. This enables researchers to look at any portion of the map of Ohio and see the location of the OAI sites. Furthermore, each site can be queried by any of the data included in the coded OAI form.
The focus of this study is to look at two specific archaeological time periods, the
Late Woodland and the Late Prehistoric in the Hocking River Watershed. Therefore, sites with these temporal affiliations became the first set of data pulled from the entire database as exclusive GIS themes. There were 2562 sites listed at the time of this study for all time periods within the watershed (Figure 6).
It is of critical importance that the reader understands that many of these sites are officially documented as both LW and LP time periods. This is because many of these sites are simply surface artifact scatters made up of stone (lithic) tools and the waste from making stone tools (debitage). These scatters will also have some kind of diagnostic artifact that is typical for the LW and LP time periods. The diagnostics most commonly found in lithic scatters will be projectile points and occasionally small sherds or prehistoric ceramics. Each of these kinds of diagnostics can embody certain stylistic traits that indicate use by a particular group of people, at a particular time and in a particular geographical range. However, many of these traits are not static in time or culture. The most important example of this for the purpose of this study, are the projectile points contained within the Late Woodland/Mississippian Triangular Cluster. This cluster of morphologically related true arrowheads includes Madison, Fort Ancient, Levanna and
Hamilton Incurvate points. Each of these points are relatively small (ca. 4 x 3 cm), thin and trianguloid in nature. Unfortunately, they are found in both the LW and LP time periods (Justice, 1987). Therefore, when the Hocking watershed was initially queried for 28 each of these time periods the result was 96 LW sites and 77 LP sites. These numbers are misleading however as many of these sites are actually multicomponent, meaning that one site represents both time periods. To avoid certain confusion and erroneous results, I have separated the sites into three distinctive categories and/or GIS themes: LW single component sites (Figure 7), LP single component sites (Figure 8) and Multicomponent
LW and LP sites (Figure 9). This method resulted in a more clarified visualization of the site distribution on the landscape. As one would expect, the outcome of the number of sites also changed, there are 37 LW single component sites, 18 LP single component sites and 114 Multicomponent sites.
Two backgrounds were used to show environmental relationships of the site distributions. Figures 1, 6-9 and 12-18 have a green background showing 100 ft. contour intervals, an exterior black line showing the limits of the Hocking River watershed and a thick blue line showing the placement of the Hocking River. The 100 ft. contours were chosen as any lesser increment made the background essentially a solid color with no topographical distinction. Higher increments created a misleading view of the watershed as most of the low terraces disappeared creating the facade of an expansive floodplain more on the scale of the adjacent Scioto valley.
The other background used was the minor drainages and subsequent watersheds within the larger Hocking River watershed. These two figures, 10 and 11, were created to show the placement of archaeological sites and any possible preference to a particular watershed within the entire study.
The icons used for the archaeological sites were standardized to avoid confusion.
LW sites are denoted with small black circles, LP sites are small black triangles and 29 Multicomponent sites are indicated with small black squares. Black was used for the icons in all cases, with one exception, as it stands out the most from the backgrounds and will also reproduce on a black and white copier the best. The one exception is figure 10.
This figure depicts two site types on one map and color was the best way to maintain their separation.
The three types of sites were then queried by more specific attributes. The first of these was Landform preference. The OAI form lists an extensive list of Local
Environmental Settings, E14 on the form. I condensed several of these very specific landform settings into five basic categories (Table 1). This was done as the overall number of sites was not large enough to split into so many categories. The result would have been very watered down and constituted a plethora of additional figures. The five categories that I have used will still clearly demonstrate the notable patterns in this study.
Table 1 uses the categories of 1. Moraine, 2. Floodplain, 3. Terrace, 4.
Bluff/Ridgetop, and 5. Unknown. The OAI categories were condensed into these 5 new titles as follows: 1. Moraine was simply maintained as moraine. 2. Floodplain, Alluvium and Low Rise on Floodplain were reduced to Floodplain. 3. Terrace (unknown), Terrace-
1, Terrace-2, Terrace-3 and Terrace Remnant were combined into Terrace. 4. Bluff edge,
Saddle and Hill/Ridgetop were integrated into the category of Bluff/Ridgetop. 5.
Unrecorded and Other were called Unknown. There are many more potential local environmental settings listed in the OAI form but the ones listed above were the only criteria that the studied sites entailed.
Table 3 is also a compilation of many OAI specific categories showing the Site
Types for each time period. The OAI categories were combined as follows: 1. The OAI 30 category of Camp is maintained as Camp. 2. Unspecified Habitation and Village were called Habitation. 3. Mound and Burial were condensed to Mortuary. 4. Unknown and unrecorded were reduced to Unknown. Once again, these were the only site types listed for the data.
The third criteria used to analyze the settlement of these sites were their preference to specific Watersheds within the Hocking River watershed. This has already been discussed somewhat in reference to the background of figures 10 and 11. It is also embodied in Table 5. The watersheds listed in this table and depicted on the figures are only the ones that have archaeological sites within their boundaries.
Summary
The categories selected to query the data were chosen as they illuminated several subtle and sometimes distinctive settlement patterns for LW and LP sites. These categories were also chosen and condensed to minimize the potential bias and/or level of experience of the preparer of the individual OAI forms. The results of the chosen methodologies will be discussed next. 31 V. Analysis of Results
Introduction
The methods used to query the dataset were focused on addressing the settlement patterning of LW and LP sites in the study area and most notably assessing the four hypotheses. The landform preference, site type and minor drainage preference patterns for both periods and the multicomponent sites will be discussed both quantitatively and qualitatively. Once the patterns have been clarified, comparisons to adjacent watersheds will be explored to determine whether or not the Hocking Valley LW and LP peoples should be viewed in their own context or whether they can be discussed in more general terms at a larger scale.
Late Woodland Patterns
The LW sites exhibited a wider pattern of occupation than I had initially anticipated (Figure 7). The sites are spread out over many landforms and specific watersheds. The most notable geographic clustering occurs in the upper reaches of the valley near Lancaster and also south of Athens in the area of the Margaret Creek watershed. These two obvious clusters will be used as case studies and discussed in detail.
The landform selection for these sites is quite evenly dispersed over the landscape with the Bluff/Ridgetop being slightly the most common geomorphologic feature to show
LW activity (Figure 7) (Table 1). The number of unknown landforms for LW sites is on par with most of the other categories and therefore of major concern. I interpret this 32 overall pattern as an indication of LW peoples utilizing many aspects of the landscape rather than focusing on one specific setting.
The LW site types unfortunately do not help the analysis as much as anticipated.
As mentioned in the last section, some of the OAI forms are not filled out properly or completely. Even if they are finished appropriately, many of the artifact surface scatters do not lend enough information to discern what the function of the site was. Accordingly, of the 37 LW single component sites, only 7 or 18.9% of them had a defined site type
(Table 3). The listing of only 1 camp site is the most troubling as these sites should be amongst the most common found in the valley. It is very likely that many of the 30 unknown sites are actually camp sites of some kind. This can not be validated and therefore the site types for this period will be used in a very minimal sense for the final conclusions.
The minor drainage preference of LW sites does demonstrate several very useful patterns (Figure 10) (Table 5). These sites are scattered somewhat over the landscape but there is no question that there is a definite clustering of them in several small watersheds near the city of Lancaster and in the Margaret Creek watershed. However, are these clusters true patterns of LW site distribution or are they simply present because each of these areas have had large archaeological surveys conducted on them?
To address this question I have looked at each of these areas as separate case studies. The Lancaster area has recently been surveyed for the Route 33 bypass that will go around the city. The route for this project as well as a pipeline project that travels in a westerly direction, are both extremely visible when looking at all of the OAI sites (Figure
6). They are even more obvious when the area around Lancaster is looked at on a smaller 33 scale (Figure 12). The LW, LP and Multicomponent sites were separated on different figures for the Lancaster area in order to try to eliminate survey biases. A total of 1021 sites were listed for the all of the OAI sites in this area (Figure 12) (Table 4).
Furthermore, 14 sites or just over 1% of these sites are listed in this area as being single component LW sites (Figure 13).
The Margaret Creek watershed located south and west of the City of Athens also has very good site coverage in it. This is also due largely to a sizable survey conducted for the expansion of Route 50. A total of 232 OAI sites are listed in this area (Figure 16)
(Table 4). Of these sites, 8 or 3.4% are considered to be LW (Figure 17).
I interpret the distribution of LW sites in these two areas with good coverage as being nearly equal. If the percentages of LW sites were extremely different then I would question the bias of the size and quality of the surveys. Nonetheless, the fact that both of these areas have similar percentages of the LW sites with good systematic survey coverage is significant. This denotes that the number of LW sites in each of these areas is a fairly accurate account of LW activity and potential settlement for the entire watershed.
Multicomponent Patterns
The LW and LP Multicomponent sites represent prehistoric human activity in a specific area that began in LW time and then continued into LP time. Theoretically, these archaeological sites were areas of constant human occupation or minimally localities that ephemeral or temporary activity occurred with limited periods of abandonment separating them. This category of sites will prove to be significant as it will show a pattern that will more clearly define the settlement preferences of the two groups. 34 The landforms that these sites are located on represents an extremely balanced dispersal on the landscape (Figure 9) (Table 1). The total number of these multicomponent sites in the watershed is N=114 out of the 2562 total in the total assemblage of all OAI sites (Chart 1). This constitutes ca. 4.5% of the site assemblage, considerably larger than single component LW sites comprising 1.4% and even larger than the single component LP sites representing less than 1% of the total site assemblage.
Chart 1
Multi-component (N=114) LW (N=37)
LP (N=18)
All OAIs (N=2562)
Of these 114 sites, the floodplain and terrace settings slightly out-number the other two categories. However, if the 32 unknown Multicomponent sites are removed, the remainder (N=82) appear to illustrate (see chart 2 below) a significant preference for
Chart 2 Moraine (N=20)
Floodplain (N=22) Terrace (N=22)
Bluff/Ridge-top (N=18) 35 lower landforms. The combination of the moraine, terrace, and floodplain settings
constitute a 78% trend of settlement on low elevation settings versus upland settings.
Interestingly, this pattern parallels the LW landform patterns (Table 1) (Chart 3).
The total number of sites differs between the categories, but if they are broken into
percentages they are quite comparable. For instance, 13.5% of LW sites and 17.5% of
Multicomponent sites are found on Moraine settings. The Floodplain setting contains
21.6% of LW sites and also includes 19.2% of the Multicomponent sites. The Terraces
hold 18.9% of the LW sites and 19.2% of Multicomponent sites. Bluff/Ridgetops
accommodate 24.3% of LW sites and 15.8% of Multicomponent sites. Finally, the
percentages of unknown landform settings are also comparable with LW at 21.6% and
Multicomponent at 28%.
Chart 3
30
20 LW 10 Multicomponent
0 Moriane Floodplain Terrace Bluff/Ridgetop
I feel that the comparison of the Bluff/Ridgetop setting is the most interesting. To
me this represents a gradual shift from upland settings to the lower elevation terraces and
floodplains over time. This most likely occurred as larger scale agriculture became
increasingly important which created different values for landscape settings. 36 The site types for the Multicomponent category unfortunately are similar to the
LW sites in that the unknown category far exceeds the defined site types (Table 3). Of the
114 total sites only 30 or 26.3% of them had a defined site type. The most common type is without question the habitation sites. Even though the data are statistically weak, there does appear to be a slight trend of LW sites evolving over time into permanent settlements in the LP time period. If this trend is true, then it would support the idea that the settlements that were initially located on ideal agricultural areas would then be maintained over time as farming intensifies. Conversely, the LW sites on other landforms would gradually be abandoned or minimally have their function change over time.
The pattern of Multicomponent sites within the minor watersheds is also a compelling set of data (Figure 11). The dispersal of these sites demonstrates clustering at the upper reaches of the watershed, in the Margaret Creek area and along the main stem of the Hocking River. There are also several sites evenly spread out to some extent in the study area. This overall pattern suggests that sites showing activity at ca. A.D. 400 were maintained well beyond A.D. 1000 especially if they were situated in an environmental setting that was conducive to their growing subsistence needs. As these communities would reach their carrying capacity parts of the population would then appear to fission off to settle in new areas.
This pattern can be seen even better with a closer look at the two most heavily settled areas of the overall watershed, those being Lancaster and Margaret Creek. Of the
1021 total OAI sites in the Lancaster area, 51 or 5% of them represent both the LW and
LP periods (Table 4). Furthermore, of 114 Multicomponent sites in the Hocking River watershed, 51 or nearly 45% are contained within the Lancaster area. This shows a 37 definite preference for continued activity through both time periods in the upper reaches of the Hocking River (Figure 15) (Table 4). The Margaret Creek area contains 232 total
OAI sites (Figure 16), of which, 19 (Figure 18) or 8.2% are Multicomponent (Table 4).
These Margaret Creek Multicomponent sites constitute 16.6% or 19 of 114 for the entire
Hocking River Watershed. The existence of these two patterns in the well-surveyed areas helps to confirm my view that LW sites located on landforms well suited for agriculture are likely to be maintained well into the LP period.
Late Prehistoric Patterns
The patterns of long-term occupation LP sites differ from the LW sites. The single component LP sites in the Hocking River watershed are clustered exclusively in the upper portions of the area (Figure 8). Three of these sites could be considered in the middle part of the watershed but there is no mistake that there is an absolute absence of
LP sites anywhere in the lower reaches of the valley and the minor drainages (Figure 10)
(Table 4). Once again, a reasonable argument to explain this would be that the extensive survey around Lancaster has biased the data. To address this argument, there are12 LP sites listed in the Lancaster area or 1.2% of the 1021total sites (Figure 14) (Table 4). In contrast, there are no sites listed in the Margaret Creek area (Table 4). In terms of straight percentages, the difference between 1.2% and 0% is minimal. Be that as it may, I am convinced that the total absence of these sites in the lower valley is a definite trend of LP settlement preferences. 38 The site types for the LP period appear to be somewhat more useful than the LW sites. Of the 18 sites listed, 44% (8) have a site type listed (Table 3). This is a major difference from the LW sites that had only 19% listed with a site type. The 4 habitation and 4 mortuary sites along with to the absence of any camp sites does fit the role of a permanent settlement more accurately than the previous LW period. Once again though, I would contend that the 10 sites without a defined site type could very well be evidence of minor activity zones outside of the larger habitation zones. These unknown sites could be nearly any kind of site type but are most likely remnants of temporary camp sites or resource extraction camps.
The landforms that these sites are situated on do show a different pattern than the
LW sites, but the number of unknown categories make any definitive conclusions hard to recognize (Table 1). The slight preference of 3 floodplain and 1 moraine site locations over 0 terrace and bluff/ridgetop locations is interesting. Despite this, I seriously question the 14 sites with unknown landforms. I do not feel that the LP landform data is useful for this project with the current quality of data.
Summary
The data suggests that landform selection was an increasingly important factor for human occupation during these two time periods. The shift of human activity from higher elevation in the valley to a lower elevation setting does appear to occur. The most striking difference of landform selection for the three site categories is the presence of LW and
Multicomponent sites on Terraces and Bluff/Ridgetops. This is in contrast to the total absence of LP sites on the same parts of the landscape. 39 The analysis of the site types proved to be rather useless in an overall sense. This is due to the numerous sites that were listed as unknown. These sites lack this description most likely on grounds that they were recorded at the initial survey level and did not contain enough data at the time of the form preparation to delineate site function, and therefore site type. The only trend worth mentioning would be that the most common site type and site category was Multicomponent habitation sites (Table 3). This would suggest that prehistoric activity in a single location over a long period of time would eventually evolve into a permanent settlement.
Examination of the location for the three site categories in the minor drainages and subsequent watersheds was the most important part of the analysis. Specifically, the settlement patterns exhibited in the Lancaster and Margaret Creek areas showed that the three site categories behaved differently over time and in varying geographical settings.
These two areas also helped to minimize potential biases of the dataset. 40 VI. Conclusions and Future Recommendations
The land usage patterns of LW and LP populations in the Hocking Valley entail notable distinctions. These two time periods represent a span of time where the value of the landscape and its specific landforms goes through an important and visible change.
This change is most likely driven by the demands of increasing numbers of sites with slightly higher populations and subsequently, a stronger need for intensive agriculture.
The single component LW sites within the Hocking River watershed are located on many different landforms dispersed both vertically and horizontally in the region.
These archaeological sites most likely contain the remnants of many different human activities, but due to the current lack of data, the pattern of overall site typology is blurry at best. Nevertheless, it seems that many of the initial LW sites that were occupied in the terrace and floodplain settings proliferated into more complex and permanent LP habitation sites. Once these sites reached a critical mass that was most likely related to the carrying capacity of the local environment they would then split or fission off to create new settlements. In this sense, carrying capacity can be defined as the ability of a human population to live within a local environment and be supported for 100 years. The number of single component LW sites versus the significantly higher number of
Multicomponent sites clearly demonstrates this, especially in the Lancaster and Margaret
Creek areas.
The single component LP site distributions indicate a definitive pattern of settlement in this period. This occurs almost exclusively in the upper reaches of the watershed and could be construed in several ways. The concept put forth of an invasion by new populations into the valley is possible (Prufer and Shane, 1970). If this were true, 41 the new individuals would have most likely stayed in the upper part of the watershed where the best farmland is located. The existing people that had been there at least since the LW time period would have already occupied the more southern Margaret Creek area, which also contains excellent farmland. This area in the lower part of the watershed would have had to be taken by force or by some other social or economic means by the new populations if they wanted to settle in this area. This could have resulted in the new
LP populations pushing all of the existing LW communities into the lower part of the valley where they coexisted with the emerging Fort Ancient system (Prufer and Shane,
1970; Essenpreis, 1978). It should be restated that the idea of an invasion of new LP or
Fort Ancient populations has been poignantly criticized for flawed taxonomic unit classifications and for an over emphasis of ceramic attributes (Essenpreis, 1978).
If the invasion concept is not valid then is quite possible that the existing LW populations simply began to spread out over the landscape radiating from the most densely occupied areas. This radiation would have occurred and increased beginning at ca. A.D. 700 with the introduction of maize to the region. As these human populations began to exceed their carrying capacity for their specific environmental zones they would have been forced to relocate. The most suitable areas for maize-based agriculture would have been logically occupied first which would have automatically created a landscape value system. A landscape value system would have had a much different composition with earlier mobile hunter-gatherer societies as they would have been focused more on resource extraction areas rather than suitable land for farming. For agriculturally based communities however, landforms with inadequate flat surface area or well- developed soils would become less desirable for habitation and therefore have less value. 42 Furthermore, the expansive area in the glaciated Lancaster area would have become increasingly more valuable over time as the few suitable areas in the middle and lower portions of the watershed became inhabited and most likely defended. I see this model of landscape value becoming more significant over time as populations rise, agriculture intensifies and suitable farming land becomes harder to allocate especially in a geomorphically confined region like the Hocking valley. The sentiment of LW population movement is also echoed by Abrams (1992:20), “…the major focus of population appears to have shifted toward the floodplain of the larger Hocking River.
This same pattern of population movement toward greater riverine and floodplain resources has been recognized for another tributary of the Hocking, nearby Margaret
Creek (Black 1979), and the Big Sandy and Kanawha drainages in nearby West Virginia
(Maslowski 1985).”
The settlement patterns of the LW people emerging into LP settlements in the
Hocking Valley could be compared to an interesting model proposed by Ester Boserup.
In her 1965 publication, The Conditions of Agricultural Growth: The Economics of
Agrarian Change Under Population Pressure, she creates a classification system in which agriculturally based communities are ranked by their level of farming complexity.
The 5 classifications are 1. Forest-fallow, 2. Bush-fallow cultivation, 3. Short-fallow cultivation, 4. Annual cropping and 5. Multi-cropping. The main criteria that separate these classes are the size and duration of the fields that are left fallow. The initial class of
Forest-fallow could be a good model for the entire Woodland period (ca. 1000 B.C. –
A.D.1000) and most notably the LW in the densely wooded Hocking Valley. She describes Forest-fallow as the following: 43 Under the system of forest fallow, the cultivators can produce food for their own consumption with comparatively little toil and trouble. But they need a large area of land per family – including of course the land lying fallow at any given time – and they must therefore be thinly spread over the territory, grouped in relatively small communities. Within such small and widely-scattered groups, only a rudimental division of labour is possible, and therefore activities like the production of tools, weapons, household goods and clothing are time consuming and rarely develop to a high level of production (Boserup, 1965:70).
This description seems to accurately fit the dispersed settlement of LW populations in the
Hocking Valley. If and when these populations achieved the highest of Boserup’s classification of Multi-cropping is unclear, but the accession to this level would have had to involve the idea of a value-based landscape.
Comparisons to Adjacent Watersheds
The best comparison of the potential Hocking Valley settlement models is with the neighboring Central Ohio Valley including the Great Miami, Little Miami and Scioto
Rivers. The area has had much more intensive and systematic archaeological research conducted within it than the Hocking River Valley. John Nass, Jr. addressed the Fort
Ancient settlement of this region by looking at the “relationships of among site location, local environmental potential and caloric intake of maize,” (Nass, 1988:319. The distribution of LP sites on the landscape for Central Ohio Valleys vs. the Hocking Valley is an interesting comparison (Tables 1 and 2). Table 2 shows the settlement preference of
Fort Ancient sites by very similar landform categories ranked by stream order. The stream order is designed so that the higher the number the larger the stream. In the
Hocking Valley, this translates to an ephemeral stream (1) feeding into Sunday Creek (2) 44 feeding into the Hocking River (3) feeding into the Ohio River (4)… Therefore Stream orders of 2 and 3 on Table 2 should be viewed in comparison to Table 1.
The results of this comparison once again show a trend of LP people preferring lower and flatter landforms that are most conducive to intensive agriculture. The high frequency of 3rd order stream settlements on terraces denotes the vastly different geomorphological aspects of the Central Ohio Valleys in contrast to the Hocking Valley.
The terraces of both of the Miami drainages and especially the Scioto drainage are considerably larger than any terraces in the Hocking Valley. This would indicate that the value of a low Wisconsin terrace in the Scioto valley vs. the same terrace in the Hocking
Valley are extremely different for agriculturally communities.
Hypotheses
I will now address each of the hypotheses introduced at the beginning of this study for their validity, if discernable.
1. If LW and LP tribal communities in the Hocking River Valley exhibit different habitation patterns, then these differences may be based on changes in carrying capacity, social structure and resource needs. I think that these two time periods will represent some similarities in their land use patterns but that they will also demonstrate enough differences that they should be viewed in their own context.
Yes, I do think that each of these periods should be view in their own context. The queries of landform preferences by site category indicate this separation. This is not necessarily because they are two different groups of people, that remains to be confirmed or denied, but because they demonstrate different settlement patterns. These differences 45 include the growing resource needs of increasingly more complex farming which is being conducted to overcome the carrying capacity needs of larger populations. The lack of enough well documented sites makes addressing the role of social structure difficult at this point.
2. If both groups demonstrate a regular interval of spacing of their habitation sites within the watershed, then social buffers and resource boundaries can be inferred. I think that regular spacing will be defined for these site types but only if it is visible in the known data.
Unfortunately, this question was unable to be addressed. There were simply too many holes in the dataset to try to predict site intervals in areas of unknown data. Testing of this hypothesis would require a substantially higher number of well-dated and excavated sites, which unfortunately, the Hocking Valley is lacking. Any attempt to do this with the current data would not be conducted within the rigors of science.
3. If the selection of specific landforms is an increasingly important factor through time in the site location of both LW and LP populations, then the role of subsistence change and habitation defensibility can be identified. I think that this will definitely be a visible and significant variable that will demonstrate the cultural evolution of the groups being studied.
This hypothesis is definitely confirmed. I have discussed the evolution of landscape value to agriculturally based communities at length. The value of broad terraces and floodplains does become a more important factor through time as the dependence of LW and LP communities on maize agriculture increases . This is directly due to the populations subsistence needs and subsequent protection of those areas. 46 4. Do settlement pattern models for the LW and LP from adjacent valleys apply to the Hocking valley? If all of these models represent a common pattern throughout the Ohio Valley, then a regional model of LW and LP culture patterns can be identified. If each valley has specific differences then the individual valleys must be viewed as their own entities in their own context. I believe that the Hocking Valley could prove to have its own pattern of LW and LP habitation that should be viewed separately from other watersheds.
Settlements of patterns of adjacent valleys such as the Little and Great Miami
Valleys and the Scioto valley do compare to the Hocking Valley in terms of landform preferences. However, the outcome of this approach does differ from valley to valley because each valley is its own separate environment. It is unclear at this point whether or not the Hocking Valley should be viewed in its own context for LW and/or LP sites to the point of giving these groups the distinction of their own archaeological phase. Minimally, the Hocking prehistoric societies should be compared with other Valleys that are similar geomorphologically like the Kanawha River in West Virginia.
Usefulness of OAI Data
The dataset assembled by the OHPO is a massive compilation of archaeological data that has virtually unlimited potential. The quality of future research using this data is entirely dependent on the manner in which the potential biases are handled. I have discussed the many possible flaws with using OAI forms in this study and unfortunately there is no quick and easy solution to fix these problems. In a perfect archaeological world, all individuals who fill out the site forms would be knowledgeable with plotting 47 UTM coordinates, prehistoric and historic site type classification and especially geographical, geological and geomorphological settings.
The environmental setting information, in particular, is an extremely valuable piece of information on the OAI form. I am not alone in this opinion as Flora Church states, “ While lamenting the lack of robust archaeological information contained in the
OAIs and realizing that the quality and quantity of recorded information varies with the field personnel, it is important to note that the preponderance of geographic and environmental data recorded in the inventory is extremely useful for settlement pattern analysis,” (Church, 1988:56). Improvements on the form could be achieved to some extent if academic institutions would incorporate the OAI form guidelines into their curricula and if more archaeologists would attend the semiannual OAI workshops at the
OHPO. The form itself could also use some revisioning by standardizing some of the terminology so that there were no discrepancies with the criteria. I discovered this to be especially true with the Local Setting criteria. Terms like Bluff, Bluff Edge and Ridge
Top could be recorded differently by each individual.
Nevertheless, as the electronic inventory becomes more refined, it usefulness will increase dramatically. I would encourage any and all researchers to utilize this set of data as much as possible.
Recommendations for Future Study
This project was the first of its kind for the Hocking Valley but by no means, original in concept. Many other settlement patterns surveys have been conducted in the
Ohio Valley using massive site inventories, however few if any of them were completed 48 using the electronic inventory. The flexibility and speed with which a settlement analysis can be conducted is a great improvement methodologically.
There are several tangents that this study could develop into next. The most obvious future study would be to do a similar analysis on every other prehistoric time period for the Hocking Valley. This could result in a much richer view of the evolution of landscape utilization by humans over the ca. 12,000 years. If this was accomplished the causes and effects of LW and LP settlement would be clearer. Another outstanding project would be to try to establish demographic models for each time period in the
Hocking Valley. The current lack of well-documented sites makes such a search of that nature impossible. To accurately recreate population models the inventory would have to have many more sites with accurate chronologies, complete site excavation which could yield the total number of houses, which could yield individual site population in proportion to the level of social stratification, type of subsistence procurement and site size. Furthermore, the spatial interval of habitation sites throughout the watershed would have to be visible. Unrecorded areas in the inventory would need to be filled by settlement modeling. This could constitute a potentially exponentially increasing margin of error. Given all of the obstacles in doing a demographic profile of the valley, it would still be an invaluable piece of information if completed properly.
The final future recommendation for this study would be to take the patterns for
LW and LP sites and to implement them into a predictive model. The model would then be groundtruthed. The focal point of the modeling data would be the environmental setting patterns that could be targeted to hopefully provide a more efficient method of finding archaeological sites within these time periods. 49 References:
Abrams, Elliot M. 1992 Woodland Settlement Patterns in the Southern Hocking River Valley, Southeastern Ohio. In: Cultural Variability in Context. Ed. Mark F. Seamen. Kent State University Press.
Baby, R.S. and M.A. Potter 1965 The Cole Complex: a preliminary analysis of the Late Woodland ceramics in Ohio and their relationship to the Ohio Hopewell Phase. Ohio Hist. Soc. Papers in Archaeology, No. 2 Columbus.
Black, Deborah B. 1979 Adena and Hopewell Relations in the Lower Hocking Valley. In: Hopewell Archaeology: The Chillicothe Conference., edited by David S. Brose and N’omi Greber, pp. 19-26. Kent State University Press, Kent, Ohio.
Boserup, Ester 1965 The Conditions of Agricultural Growth: The Economics of Agrarian Change Under Population Pressure. Aldine Publishing Company, Chicago, Ill.
Church, Flora 1988 Using CRM Data: As Useless as Tennis Shoes on Armadillos? Examining Characteristics of Late Woodland and Late Prehistoric Sites in the Central Scioto Valley, Ohio. North American Archaeologist 9 (1): 53 – 67.
Church, Flora and John P. Nass, Jr. 2002 Central Ohio Valley During the Late Prehistoric Period: Subsistence- Settlement Systems Responses to Risk In: Northeast Subsistence-Settlement Change A.D.700-1300 Ed.: Hart, John P. and Christina B. Rieth. New York State Museum Bulletin 496.
Essenpreis, Patricia S. 1978 Fort Ancient Settlement: Different Response at a Mississippian – Late Woodland Interface. In: Mississippian Settlement Patterns. Ed.: Bruce D. Smith, Academic Press, New York, New York.
Fried, Morton H. 1967 The Evolution of Political Society. Random House, New York.
Griffin, James B. 1943 The Fort Ancient Aspect. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
1952 Archaeology of the Eastern United States. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago 37. 50
1992 Fort Ancient had no Class: The Absence of an Elite Group in Mississippian Societies in the Central Ohio Valley. In: Lords of the Southeast: Inequality and the Native Elites of Southeastern North America. Washington D.C. American Anthropological Association, 3: 53-59.
Jennings, Jesse D. 1989 Prehistory of North America 3rd ed. Mayfield Publishing Company, Mountain View, CA.
Justice, Noel D. 1987 Stone Age Spear and Arrow Points of the Midcontinental and Eastern United States. Indiana University Press, Bloomington, Indiana.
Kellar, James H. 1960 The C. L. Lewis Stone Mound and the Stone Mound Problem. Prehistory Research Series 3(4): 357 – 481. Indiana Historical Society, Indianapolis.
Kempton John P. and Richard P. Goldthwait 1959 Glacial Outwash Terraces of the Hocking and Scioto River Valleys, Ohio. The Ohio Journal of Science 59(3): 135 – 151.
Maslowski, Robert F. 1985 Woodland Settlement Patterns in the Mid and Upper Ohio Valley. West Virginia Archaeologist 37(2): 23 – 34.
Merrill, William M. 1953 Pleistocene History of a Part of the Hocking River Valley, Ohio. The Ohio Journal of Science 53(3): 143 – 158.
Moran, Emilio F. 2000 Human Adaptability. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado.
Murphy, James L. 1989 An Archaeological History of the Hocking Valley. Ohio University Press, Athens, Ohio.
Nass, John Jr. 1988 Fort Ancient Agricultural Systems and Settlement: A View from Southwestern Ohio. In: North American Archaeologist 9(4): 319 – 347.
Prufer. Olaf and Orrin C. Shane III 1970 Blain Village and the Fort Ancient Tradition in Ohio. Kent, Ohio: Kent State University Press. 51 Seeman, Mark F. and William S. Dancey 2000 The Late Woodland Period in Southern Ohio: Basic Issues and Prospects. In: Late Woodland Societies: Tradition and Transformation across the Midcontinent. Ed.: Emerson, Thomas E., Dale L. McElrath, and Andrew C. Fortier. University of Nebraska Press.
Service, Elman R. 1971 Primitive Social Organization. 2nd ed. Random House, New York.
Stout, Wilber and G.F. Lamb 1939 Geological Survey of Ohio Reprint Series No. 1: Physiographic Features of Southeastern Ohio. The Ohio Journal of Science 38(2): 1 – 35.
Walker, Amelie A. 1998 Earliest Mound Site. In: Archaeology 51(1): 26. 52
FIGURES
Figure 1. Hocking River Watershed 53
Figure 2. Physiographic Regions of Ohio 54
Figure 3. Teays River Location 55
Figure 4. Geologic Map and Cross Section of Ohio 56
Figure 5. Natural Vegetation of Ohio at the Time of the Earliest Land Surveys 57
Figure 6. Hocking River Watershed: All OAI Prehistoric Sites 58
Figure 7. Hocking River Watershed: Late Woodland 59
Figure 8. Hocking River Watershed: Late Prehistoric 60
Figure 9. Hocking River Watershed: Multicomponent Sites 61
Figure 10. Hocking River Watershed: Minor Drainages with Late Woodland and Late Prehistoric Single Component Sites 62
Figure 11. Hocking River Watershed: Minor Drainages with Multicomponent Sites 63
Figure 12. Lancaster Area: All Known OAI Prehistoric Sites 64
Figure 13. Lancaster Area: Late Woodland 65
Figure 14. Lancaster Area: Late Prehistoric 66
Figure 15. Lancaster Area: Multicomponent Sites 67
Figure 16. Margaret Creek Area: All Known OAI Prehistoric Sites 68
Figure 17. Margaret Creek Area: Late Woodland 69
Figure 18. Margaret Creek Area: Multicomponent Sites 70
TABLES
Table 1. Landform Criteria
Moraine Floodplain Terrace Bluff/Ridgetop
Unknown
LW (37) 5 8 7 9 8
LP (18) 1 3 0 0 14
Multicomponent (114) 20 22 22 18 32
Totals (169) 26 33 29 27 54
Table 2. Distribution of Fort Ancient Communities According to Landform and Stream Order in the Central Ohio Valley (Nass, 1988)
Landforms
Stream Order Floodplain Terrace Bluff Upland Total
1 0 1 1 0 2
2 0 1 3 1 5
3 8 14 6 0 28
4 1 6 0 0 7
Totals 9 22 10 1 42 71
Table 3. Site Types
Camp Habitation Mortuary Unknown
LW (37) 1 5 1 30
LP (18) 0 4 4 10
Multicomponent (114) 2 19 9 84
Totals (169) 3 28 14 124
Table 4. Lancaster and Margaret Creek Site Distributions
All OAI LW LP Multicomponent
Lancaster 1021 14 12 51
Margaret Creek 232 8 0 19 72
Table 5. Drainage Preference:
Minor Watershed LW LP Multicomponent Totals
Amney Run 1 0 2 3
Baldwin Run 1 1 3 5
Center Branch Creek 0 0 1 1
Clear Creek 3 1 4 8
Factory Creek 1 0 1 2
Four Mile Creek 1 0 1 2
Hocking River 13 5 40 58
Hunters Run 0 1 14 15
Hyde Fork 0 0 1 1
Lindscott Run 0 0 2 2
Little Monday Creek 1 0 2 3
Little Rush Creek 0 0 2 2
Margaret Creek 7 0 15 22
Monday Creek 3 0 4 7
Pleasant Run 4 9 13 26
Raccoon Run 0 0 3 3
Rush Creek 1 0 2 3
Scott Creek 0 1 2 3
Sunday Creek 1 0 1 2
Willow Creek 0 0 1 1
Totals - 37 18 114 169