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