Northeastern Middle Woodland, from the Perspective of the Upper Allegheny Valley Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of the Ohio State University By Steven Paul Howard, M.A. Graduate Program in Anthropology The Ohio State University 2010 Dissertation Committee: William S. Dancey, Advisor Kristen J. Gremillion Paul L. Sciulli Copyright by Steven Paul Howard 2010 Abstract Culture history describes the Middle Woodland period in eastern North America as a time when Hopewell influence spread across the land from the Ohio and Illinois Valleys, to engage people from places as far removed as New York, Florida and Wisconsin (Griffin 1967). The current models explaining the presence of Middle Woodland mound-building populations in Pennsylvania, New York and Ontario, are based on the work of Ritchie (1994). One model maintains that local groups of the Point Peninsula culture were infused to varying degrees with Hopewellian ideology. Those who adopted the new ideology to a greater degree resulted in the brief Squawkie Hill phase of the Hopewellian horizon, in which local mound building and participation in the Hopewell Interaction Sphere occurred. Another model posits that Hopewell people moved up the Allegheny Valley to become the Squawkie Hill phase of the Hopewellian culture, which in turn influenced local groups around them. Using a compiled data set of over 200 Middle Woodland mound sites, a handful of non- mound sites, and new field surveys, I employ various qualitative and quantitative comparative methods to test the applicability of these models at different levels of social interaction in the Northeast. ii Recent trends in archaeology stress a local approach to understanding bigger issues. Carr and Case (2005a) call it a “thick prehistory” approach, in which personalized and locally contextualized research facilitates the generation of interregional comparisons. Drawing from this theoretical framework, I have approached this project as an inquiry into the cultural signature and behavior of a population within its local context, while presenting and analyzing aggregated data from two larger spatial-social scales for comparative purposes. Results indicate that the upper Allegheny Valley mound building population does not easily fit the general signatures of recognized Middle Woodland constructs like Squawkie Hill, Point Peninsula or Hopewell. Further research is needed to clarify relationships with populations of adjacent drainage systems, to discern the extent of the local Upper Allegheny Middle Woodland cultural incarnation. The various lines of evidence reveal that Middle Woodland populations in the Northeast varied in their acceptance of Hopewell material, even among those that participated in mound building activity. Rather than accepting new ideology from Hopewell, it seems that different populations were differentially adopting new ways to embrace shared ideologies that had been passed down from at least as far back as the Late Archaic period. Evidence does not support the model that Ohio Hopewell people migrated to the upper Allegheny Valley. iii Dedication Dedicated to Reggie, Mom, and the people of the Allegheny Valley who left us so much to learn iv Acknowledgements I would first like to thank my advisor, William S. Dancey, for providing constructive guidance throughout my graduate education, and for being a valuable mentor. I am grateful for the tutelage and general advice afforded by Kristen J. Gremillion, especially pertaining to paleoethnobotany (which I promise to put to good use in the near future). I would also like to thank Paul L. Sciulli, who opened my mind to new ways of thinking about data and the world in general. I would like to acknowledge Kelly Lounsberry for introducing me to archaeology many years ago, and I thank my undergraduate advisor Paul J. Pacheco, who encouraged the growth of my anthropological education. I am indebted to the various landowners in the upper Allegheny Valley who have graciously allowed me to conduct my sometimes lengthy investigations on their parcels. Jim and Sheila Bockmier, Alice Altenburg and Marcia Karl have been particularly amicable hosts. I am also grateful for the help I‟ve received from numerous volunteers in the field as well as in the lab. I am especially appreciative of the assistance and guidance of Robert L. Dean during this project and over the years. Finally, I must thank my partner, Reginald Byron, for being there for me throughout the whole process. v Vita October 1970…………………………Born, Olean, NY 1987 ………………………………….Olean High School 2001 ………………………………….B.A., Anthropology, SUNY Geneseo 2005 ………………………………….M.A., Anthropology, The Ohio State University 2001 to 2003………………………….Field Technician, University at Buffalo Archaeological Survey 2003………………………………….Archaeologist, Heritage Preservation and Interpretation 2004 to 2009 …………………………Graduate Teaching Associate, Department Anthropology, The Ohio State University Fields of Study Major Field: Anthropology Specialization: North American Archaeology vi Table of Contents Abstract..............................................................................................................ii Dedication.........................................................................................................iv Acknowledgements............................................................................................v Vita....................................................................................................................vi List of Tables....................................................................................................xi List of Figures.................................................................................................xii Chapter 1: An Introduction................................................................................1 The Problem...........................................................................................1 The Approach........................................................................................4 Chapter 2: Middle Woodland Period Archaeology...........................................8 Chapter Introduction.............................................................................8 Antiquarian Stage................................................................................10 Early Archaeology Stage.....................................................................13 Culture History Stage..........................................................................16 Point Peninsula........................................................................22 Processual Stage..................................................................................25 Hopewell Interaction Sphere...................................................26 Non-Mound Research.............................................................30 Evolutionary and Post-processual Approaches.......................33 Processual Stage Research in the Northeast............................38 Chapter 3: Northeastern Middle Woodland Mounds.....................................40 Chapter Introduction...........................................................................40 Mound Distributions and Regional Traits...........................................42 vii Southwestern Pennsylvania.....................................................45 Northwestern Pennsylvania.....................................................49 Upper Allegheny Valley..........................................................52 Conewango Drainage...............................................................56 Cattaraugus Creek....................................................................59 Genesee River..........................................................................62 Niagara River...........................................................................67 Rice Lake.................................................................................70 Seneca River............................................................................74 St. Lawrence River, Perch Lake and the Bay of Quinte..........76 Poorly Recorded Clusters........................................................82 Dispersed Mounds...................................................................84 Artifact, Burial and Mound Dimensions Analyses..............................85 Artifact Distribution Analysis..................................................85 Burial Treatment Distribution Analysis...................................99 Mound Dimensions Analysis.................................................103 Chapter Discussion................................................................105 Chapter 4: Upper Allegheny Valley Middle Woodland Sites.......................107 Chapter Introduction..........................................................................107 Environment......................................................................................107 Culture History..................................................................................109 Mound and Burial Research..............................................................117 Irvine Mound 1......................................................................119 Irvine Mound 2......................................................................121 Sugar Run Mound 1...............................................................123 Sugar Run Mound 2...............................................................124